Mesrith

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content count

    669
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mesrith

  • Rank
    Always On The Losing Team

Profile Information

  • Server
    NA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,209 profile views
  1. Um, I don't know. Good luck with that. They're making tier 4-5 carriers an absolute clickfest and removing all aspects of player skill, what little existed at those tiers. Get to the Ryujo as soon as you can.
  2. I've kept them all, but rarely play anything below tier 7. The low tier stuff just isn't fun at all.
  3. ...did you play Ranked? Pensacola is garbage for that.
  4. It needs to have much better turret traverse if it's going to utilize the mobility that it should have. I'd hope it also fires a little faster to account for the fact that it will be competing against Nagato and Colorado, which also have 8 guns but are larger. If it ends up playing like a tier 7 Kongo or Amagi and the guns are respectable, I'll pick it up.
  5. Yeah you're right, I just glanced at it and thought it reflected all R1 finishes. You're correct, 46.35% is the lowest. It's still astonishing that there's a "ranked" system where you can be that far into the red and still advance.
  6. Maybe play some tiers 9 and 10, where more ships get the 5.88km hydro and radar range continues to scale up.
  7. Someone hit rank 1 with a 43.18% win rate?
  8. We can't confirm any specific values, but there's plenty of circumstantial evidence. We know for a fact that Wargaming uses per-ship XP and credit modifiers, since they used varying percentages for different ships when they reworked the economy awhile back. It's also just easier (anecdotally) to hit high XP numbers in certain ships, Sims being one of them. You can also get huge XP in things like Des Moines and Baltimore, because of WG's expected stats for them. Just pull up my tier 7 destroyer stats on Warships.Today and see if my Sims' average XP makes sense when compared to my other destroyers.
  9. Premium ships have always been susceptible to game-wide mechanics adjustments. See; Murmansk. USN DDs can invisi-fire right now. That should rarely ever be a primary feature for them, unless playing pseudo-Khabarovsk and spam high-altitude HE against battleships at max range.
  10. Pretty even across the board. Carriers are my least-played class with just under 400 games, and only up to the Taiho and Essex. I own all the other tier 10s but Grozovoi. My breakdowns are: Winrate: Destroyer (71) > Cruiser (70) > Carrier (70) > Battleship (67) WTR: Destroyer (1768) > Cruiser (1740) > Battleship (1603) > Carrier (1408). Carrier is my weakest class. I've gotten decent at killing destroyers, I can bomb big ships with the best of them, but my fighter management needs improvement and I don't kill as many planes as I should. I think destroyers and battleships are my best ships. I do well enough in cruisers, but I often get impatient in them and have stupid derp moments more often. When I'm divisioned up, which is most of the time now unless I'm grinding something low tier, I tend to just fill whatever role is left open.
  11. I didn't play carriers at initial launch, but yes, under the CV mechanics that have existed for over a year now, having more fighter squadrons is preferable to having fewer, bigger squadrons. IJN dive bombers are only good for the fires they can start. USN dive bombers are, IMO, very good from the Lexington up, but dive bombers will always be frustrating when there's an RNG element, and Defensive Fire or fighter panic is much harder on them than it is on torp bombers. I think any real, long-term solution to carrier play is going to require nerfing AA or increasing plane survivability, reducing RNG, but lowering overall alpha damage output. Make them more consistent, bring the floor and the ceiling closer to the middle, and reduce the difference between having a 35% potato CV on your team vs having a top-50 CV player that eliminates the first person to stray from the friendly AA bubble.
  12. They need to stop this nonsense. The entire problem with IJN vs USN carrier imbalance is the bullshit "national flavor" plane loadout differences. Having more squadrons (especially of fighters) will always be an advantage, so plane and squadron numbers should be moving closer to uniform, not further apart. Tweak hit points and damage as needed to make them feel different, but not actual plane numbers. Saipan's unique arrangement just exasperated the problem, and Kaga will do the same. I hope they don't release this ship before they've executed whatever "fix" they're supposed to be working up for carrier mechanics.
  13. Preventative Maintenance applies only to things that can be "incapacitated", or temporarily disabled. Secondaries and AA don't have incapacitation; they're either alive and functional, or they're destroyed and nonfunctional. Modules that can be incapacitated are engine, steering, torpedoes, and main battery. IMO it should be the default choice for every destroyer, because they benefit from protecting every one of those modules.
  14. Hydro should suffice for torpedo protection. If you're moving the commander further up the line, you're going to want AFT/BFT for Neptune and Minotaur. Manual AA is arguably worth it for Neptune, but it's not for Minotaur, so I've gone AFT the whole line.
  15. Probably. Gearing is my go-to destroyer for tier 10 divisions, as it lays the best smoke, has great concealment and can screen for torpedoes while killing or driving away enemy destroyers. It also brings Defensive Fire to the table. The torpedoes are adequate for forcing a target to either eat the spread or turn broadside to your Yamato.