Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
I_HATE_CVs

A tier 6 dd in a tier 7 to 9 match SMH

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,882
[WTFS]
Members
9,337 posts
13,771 battles

I point out that it sank a ship and its team is winning. DD's fail div-ing up isn't really an issue, DD's uptier easier than the other classes do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,247
[SCCC]
Members
1,137 posts
9,687 battles

I usually don't mind fail divs, unless it's a BB, like a New York against a Bismarck, good luck with that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NAV]
[NAV]
Members
175 posts
8,524 battles

Just thinking out loud but is it time to consider rules where diva have to be same tier? Or does this just add spice to the MMaking?

 

seems like a whole team shouldn't have to deal with a shortfall that comes of two or three

people's ability or desire to come up with a div in a common tier.  Not that I care that much.  I've never been in a div.  :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NAV]
[NAV]
Members
175 posts
8,524 battles

Admins can delete the previous post, sorry...

 

Just thinking out loud but is it time to consider rules where div mates have to be same tier? Or does this just add spice to the MMaking?

 

seems like a whole team shouldn't have to deal with a shortfall that comes of two or three

people's ability or desire to come up with a div in a common tier.  Not that I care that much.  I've never been in a div.  :Smile_hiding:

Edited by JohnnyThund3rs
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229
[-_W_-]
Members
1,089 posts
2,418 battles
1 hour ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

I point out that it sank a ship and its team is winning. DD's fail div-ing up isn't really an issue, DD's uptier easier than the other classes do.

 

Remember when people could take Umikaze into T10 matches?

 

Remember how a sufficiently good player could actually make Umikaze work in T10 matches?

 

Now imagine if you tried that with a Mikasa. Yeah...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,882
[WTFS]
Members
9,337 posts
13,771 battles
10 minutes ago, Izolyn said:

 

Remember when people could take Umikaze into T10 matches?

 

Remember how a sufficiently good player could actually make Umikaze work in T10 matches?

 

Now imagine if you tried that with a Mikasa. Yeah...

Ayup. I recall hearing about the guy who took a friend in an Umi and it took on a Yammy.

 

Now, take that Mikasa and go see a Yammy. I LOL'd just typing that. I mean, one hit would be a DS and down it goes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
5,281 posts
12,191 battles
1 hour ago, FayFay731 said:

I usually don't mind fail divs, unless it's a BB, like a New York against a Bismarck, good luck with that.

 

I saw this actually, NY took out 2 ships before being destroyed and was not bottom of the team.

 

That said were seriously still calling -1 fail divisions and complaining about it. With how much salt I've seen over this I almost want them to bring back REAL fail div's, the tier 9 and the tier 2 kind, actually give people who didn't experience it, or don't remember it, a reason to balk about "fail Divs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[FAE]
Members
2,626 posts
4,053 battles
1 hour ago, WanderingGhost said:

 

I saw this actually, NY took out 2 ships before being destroyed and was not bottom of the team.

 

That said were seriously still calling -1 fail divisions and complaining about it. With how much salt I've seen over this I almost want them to bring back REAL fail div's, the tier 9 and the tier 2 kind, actually give people who didn't experience it, or don't remember it, a reason to balk about "fail Divs".

I support this.  

 

Bring back Umikami vs Yamato.  Heck Yamato is a push over nowadays. 

 

Umikaze vs GKs and Conquerors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×