Kantai Collection ~Kancolle~ (Browser Game)

[Scarletknive]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Advantage in your case: i don't know the odd, but I think they said with 2 CV and 1 CVL (rather than 3 CVL) , the compass will be much harsher on you. But if the compass screw you up rather than boss then you just need to refresh = require less bucket each try.

Refreshing may get you banned, so it's not recommended.

[Academus]

Originally Posted by RapidPotential

Two debuff nodes done, that I know at least.

Spoiler:

Switch out Italia for Fusou, FCF on Maya and one extra fighter on Akitsumaru.

First off, make sure you've done all 4 debuff nodes. Clearing all four gives the maximum buff to aerial damage.

Second, equip your boss support fleet's CVs with 3 dive bombers and 1 fighters at the smallest slot.

Third, with the aerial combat mechanism in mind, you should strive for AS+ at every node up to and including the boss. I'm pretty sure what you have there isn't going to cut it.

Fourth, CAV with WG42 and type 3 shell will perform better than CA with type 3 shell only. If you have extra WG42, equip it on CAV and replace Haguro.

Fifth, Ooi isn't going to help you in E6, nor is Yuudachi without WG42. If you have T89 tank or the Kami craft, field DDs who can equip them. Otherwise, equip high-firepower DDs with WG42.

You need to understand that the fundamental goal here is to maximise the opening airstrike damage, which hinges on the number of bombers that survive to said stage. You should do everything you can to maximise the number of bombers in your main fleet without losing AS+ at any node.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

It is more like you are exposing elements that aren't factual whatsoever that is really problematic. You keep abusing the whole "RNG hell" and "you can't prove with numbers!", thus saying some options are "false sense of security" without even analyzing properly that those options are there to increase your odds. Your conception is flawed simply because you rely on more runs instead of actually considering the success rate instead.

And no, it isn't about being pissed not being able to prove yours wrong, because that's not the point here. The point is to correct the assumption that "paying more for an uncertain result is wrong" as the concept is totally not what you think.
You can prove easily by doing lengthy simulation with the numbers I've giving thus far. It would be a PITA to do, but the simple comparison between Nagato and Yamato survivability and damage output is pretty clear on both aspects.
Hell, the fact you have results that are possible with one (staying in day cap state even in chuuha or hankousen/red T) while impossible for the other one is self explanatory.

You are bound to the very restrictive implication that "as long there is no guaranteed result, it isn't worth it" which is contradictory with your own actions as you did use boss support. And for all we know, this is exactly the same as node support: you have no guarantee it will hit properly the expected targets nor the magnitude of the damage dealt. Hell, if you don't reach the boss, your boss support was wasted as you said with the map support.

I don't even know what you are arguing against now.

Definition of "False sense of security" means it will give you sense that everything will be fine, but there is a danger of failure regardless. In this context, you think Yamato sisters and support fleet will help you to avoid being knocked to red previous to boss node or deal more damage, but there is a danger of that fail. There "false sense of security".

And then now you are up in arm over how "Oh, no you don't acknowledge the increase in odd that Yamato sisters will help you". What? Are you inventing out imaginary opponent to debate with you or something?

My point is simple. The reducing of resource consumption is numerical. The chance that using Yamato sisters will increase your E-7 chance is not. I recommend pick the former, because like you , I don't have the odd for later. Stop being sensational with the whole a lvl1 ship can also clear E-7. It's only valid argument if a) a lvl 1 ship reduce fuel consumption, which it does not, and b) there is a near majority of people use lvl 1 fleet to clear E-7, which there aren't.

Because if there is, I sure as heck people will try to run lvl 1 ship to clear E-7 too

Originally Posted by Scarletknive

Refreshing may get you banned, so it's not recommended.

Wait, was it a new thing? i thought you need to do it repetitive and constantly for it to be ban-able offense?

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Definition of "False sense of security" means it will give you sense that everything will be fine, but there is a danger of failure regardless. In this context, you think Yamato sisters and support fleet will help you to avoid being knocked to red during boss node or deal more damage, but there is a danger of that fail. There "false sense of security".

Of course not it will not give you a sense of security, that's not the point. It gives you more chances to succeed. You are not supposed to think you will be able to beat the map just because you use both yamato and a support fleet. If you feel secure about that setup, that means you are playing it wrong hence why I keep repeating the false sense of security is a bad argument as it shouldn't be there to begin with.

That's also the whole concept of equipment modding: it won't give you a notable edge because of the way damage calculation is done in KC. But at least, increasing your odds in a general fashion will have an impact.
And if you are that obsessed with "stats", then observe what kind of frontliner succeed and those who don't: the vast majority who can clear events of that caliber use every single options in their arsenal to increase their success rate.

Hell, players like Academus are applying such doctrine in a delayed fashion to maximize their chances of success. Half assed way doesn't work under the pretense of "more runs = the better".

And then now you are up in arm over how "Oh, no you don't acknowledge the increase in odd that Yamato sisters will help you". What? Are you inventing out imaginary opponent to debate with you or something?

That because you keep repeating we cannot prove with numerical values despite stats alone is worthless.
That's why I likened that subject with drop rate: on poistatistics, there were a lot of instances where droprates were higher in 丙 than in 甲 except the context was bad since most were farming in the former, not the latter. Stats by itself doesn't mean much when a trend may not even come close to reality, which can be calculated with actual data, not sampling.

My point is simple. The reducing of resource consumption is numerical. The chance that using Yamato sisters will increase your E-7 chance is not.

And you keep ignoring again my whole analysis between Yamato and Nagato, stop claiming that chance is "not numerical". Having flat out more chance to survive the route and dealing more damage to the boss is what it takes to prove that point.

If you still consider that having better chances in surviving and dealing damage is not numerical, then multiplying runs due to resources saving isn't numerical either, because saving more material doesn't mean anything if you can't clear it. Because both statements are on even footings: You have more chances at dealing with E7 with a sturdier fleet, while you have potentially more attempts on the boss with more resources by saving them. Both points use the exact same principle, except one rely on success rate while the other rely on number of instances. One cannot be "more numerical than the other", it is nonsense in maths.

Stop being sensational with the whole a lvl1 ship can also clear E-7.
Sure it's only valid if a) a lvl 1 ship reduce fuel consumption, which it does not, and b) there is a near majority of people use lvl 1 fleet to clear the boss, which there aren't.

Because if there is, I sure as heck people will try to run lvl 1 ship to clear E-7 too

1) It actually decrease fuel consumption and some people abused that for E6 and E7 chipping session as you don't even need to refuel the sacrice pawns. Why do you think people use that tactic back in IBS E4?
2) It is in line with my point: no one (or rather, not the vast majority) do that because, while the chance is there, it is extremely beyond unlikely. However, there are instances where the LBA did the work alone (and if you think I have the burden of proof, those 2 instances are enough: you could have the very same result with just an entire fleet of lvl1. Hell that exemple is quite telling too.).

Again, I used exaggerated examples (but still feasible) to illustrate my point: using all the means to reduce costs and still clearing an event is nice and dandy, but again, what matters a lot in a difficult event is the success rate. This is the very reason why players prepare their fleets in order to meet a minimum of success rate instead of using reckless and countless attempts hoping for a winning lottery ticket.

And you are again ignoring the fact that under your logic, you shouldn't even use a boss support at all.

Wait, was it a new thing? i thought you need to do it repetitive and constantly for it to be ban-able offense?

It doesn't have to be repetitive, although being repetitive with refresh increases the likelihood you would be banned.

Refreshing your game is no supposed to be an option to retreat because of a bad decision, otherwise the "continue? go back to base" would't be issued right after a battle, but before a node instead.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

Of course not it will not give you a sense of security, that's not the point. It gives you more chances to succeed. You are not supposed to think you will be able to beat the map just because you use both yamato and a support fleet. If you feel secure about that setup, that means you are playing it wrong hence why I keep repeating the false sense of security is a bad argument as it shouldn't be there to begin with.
That because you keep repeating we cannot prove with numerical values despite stats alone is worthless.
That's why I likened that subject with drop rate: on poistatistics, there were a lot of instances where droprates were higher in 丙 than in 甲 except the context was bad since most were farming in the former, not the latter. Stats by itself doesn't mean much when a trend may not even come close to reality, which can be calculated with actual data, not sampling.

And you keep ignoring again my whole analysis between Yamato and Nagato, stop claiming that chance is "not numerical". Having flat out more chance to survive the route and dealing more damage to the boss is what it takes to prove that point.

If you still consider that having better chances in surviving and dealing damage is not numerical, then multiplying runs due to resources saving isn't numerical either, because saving more material doesn't mean anything if you can't clear it. Because both statements are on even footings: You have more chances at dealing with E7 with a sturdier fleet, while you have potentially more attempts on the boss with more resources by saving them. Both points use the exact same principle, except one rely on success rate while the other rely on number of instances. One cannot be "more numerical than the other", it is nonsense in maths.
1) It actually decrease fuel consumption and some people abused that for E6 and E7 chipping session as you don't even need to refuel the sacrice pawns. Why do you think people use that tactic back in IBS E4?
2) It is in line with my point: no one do that because, while the chance is there, it is extremely beyond unlikely. However, there are instances where the LBA did the work alone (and if you think I have the burden of proof, those 2 instances are enough: you could have the very same result with just an entire fleet of lvl1. Hell that exemple is quite telling too.).

Again, I used exaggerated examples (but still feasible) to illustrate my point: using all the means to reduce costs and still clearing an event is nice and dandy, but again, what matters a lot in a difficult event is the success rate. This is the very reason why players prepare their fleets in order to meet a minimum of success rate instead of using reckless and countless attempts hoping for a winning lottery ticket.

And you are again ignoring the fact that under your logic, you shouldn't even use a boss support at all.
It doesn't have to be repetitive, although being repetitive with refresh increases the likelihood you would be banned.

Refreshing your game is no supposed to be an option to retreat because of a bad decision, otherwise the "continue? go back to base" would't be issued right after a battle, but before a node instead.

I'm sorry Klashikari, I think you are wasting your time to argue against someone else, not me

I don't think what you said is wrong. Most are correct in fact. I just don't see that it has anything to do with what I said

[Klashikari]

*sigh* Then don't bring out "numerical" argument when it just fall flat. Having numbers don't mean anything on their own in the said objective which is beating a damn map.

[KanbeKotori]

Things work very simply for me. I observe those who run supports and how they fare when the supports doesn't appear. Then I gauge the odds of success. If it's high, I won't bring my supports if I'm low on resources and want to maximise the chance of RNG rolling that X% of success. If the odds of making to the boss is high despite the support fail showing up, I'll take that risk. It's a trade-off I have to take when I have limited resources. I'd rather have more chance of letting RNG roll that X%, but that only applies if the odds of success of reaching the boss is high enough for me to do the trade-off.

What I say may not contain a lot of facts and stats but I guess this is what happens when something is MAJORLY reliant on such stupid RNG like this event is(the LBA damage).

If the odds of success are lowered significantly without supports and it outweighs the trade-off, then it's another matter altogether. Ultimately in this game of RNG, you decide if the trade-offs are worth it or not.

[Lantern]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

*snip*

Ye know... I think it's more to do with your wording of 'false sense of security' that sparked the whole mess. You see... when the fact is that throwing in extra resource does increase your chances by a significant X%, albeit not guaranteed, then your claiming of it being 'false sense' appears to be an outright and irrational dismissal... 10 + 1 security is still > 10 security no matter how you argue it. The math is all there. Those marginal resource you 'saved' isn't really gonna make it that much better (it's not like you're saving 30% per run). Plus there's also another hidden resource for this game: Time.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

*sigh* Then don't bring out "numerical" argument when it just fall flat. Having numbers don't mean anything on their own in the said objective which is beating a damn map.

Chance to beat E7 = (% chance of success E7 in one run) X (times you run) =(% chance of success E7 in one run) X (total resources + regen) / (resources consumption each run)

^ This is correct, right?

Call % chance of success E7 in one run with Yamato is X1 and without Yamato is X2 . The total resources you have plus expedition is R. And your resources consumption with Yamato is F1, and without Yamato is F2. Assume F2 = 0.75 F1

• Chance to beat E7 without Yamato = X2*R/F2 = X2*r/(0.75*F1)
• Chance to beat E7 with Yamato = X1*R/F1

So unless X1>4/3*X2. Otherwise the use of Yamato won't improve your chance to finish E7.

If you believe that your assumption based on proper number. Please prove that X1>4/3*X2.

Originally Posted by Lantern

Ye know... I think it's more to do with your wording of 'false sense of security' that sparked the whole mess. You see... when the fact is that throwing in extra resource does increase your chances by a significant X%, albeit not guaranteed, then your claiming of it being 'false sense' appears to be an outright and irrational dismissal... 10 + 1 security is still > 10 security no matter how you argue it. The math is all there. Those marginal resource you 'saved' isn't really gonna make it that much better (it's not like you're saving 30% per run). Plus there's also another hidden resource for this game: Time.

I acknowledge that. But the word "false sense of security" has its own meaning. You can't just dissect the word "false" out and then claim that I said running with hotels give you false chance of finishing boss

What gives you a false sense of security? The most common (ridiculed) example is: life insurance in case of eating by a shark. I means yes, you has the chance to meet a shark. Yes, there is a chance that that shark can eat you. There is also a chance that later they found your half eaten body, your family will get paid. There is a chance that the insurance company won't go bankrupt by then. There is a chance of all that. But by how much?

Well quick google can find that number out. But it make you feel that much more secured going to a shark active region, don't you?

[Lantern]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I acknowledge that. But the word "false sense of security" has its own meaning. You can't just dissect the word "false" out and then claim that I said running with hotels give you false chance of finishing boss

What gives you a false sense of security? The most common (ridiculed) example is: life insurance in case of eating by a shark. I means yes, you has the chance to meet a shark. Yes, there is a chance that that shark can eat you. There is also a chance that later they found your half eaten body, your family will get paid. There is a chance that the insurance company won't go bankrupt by then. There is a chance of all that. But by how much?

Well quick google can find that number out. But it make you feel that much more secured going to a shark active region, don't you?

Not a very good example though. Since life insurance isn't about increasing your odds of getting paid or not getting eaten by a shark (which can pretty much be eliminated by simply not going to a shark infested region at all especially since I have absolutely zero reason to do so. ) It only happens when you DO get eaten by a shark. The argument doesn't really compare to your whole 'throwing more resource in is pointless because RNG" point. Like an apple to an orange.

Now back to your claim, no. Your "false sense of security" means exactly that. There's no arguing it no matter how you play the word. In fact, the whole 'sense of security' is wrong to begin with because it's statistical fact.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Chance to beat E7 = (% chance of success E7 in one run) X (times you run) =(% chance of success E7 in one run) X (total resources + regen) / (resources consumption each run)

^ This is correct, right?

Calle % chance of success E7 in one run with Yamato is X1 and without Yamato is X2 . The total resources you have and expedition is R. And your resources consumption with Yamato is F1, and without Yamato is F2. Assume F2 = 0.75 F1

• Chance to beat E7 without Yamato = X2*R/F2 = X2*r/(0.75*F2)
• Chance to beat E7 with Yamato = X1*R/F2

So unless X1>4/3*X2. Otherwise the use of Yamato won't improve your chance to finish E7.

If you believe that your assumption based on proper number. Please prove that X1>4/3*X2.

I find it quite funny you ask me to prove the relative chance of X1 and X2, even though you arbitrarily decided that F2 is 0.75 F1, while the said consumption is dependant of the success rate. Why is that? Because you are oversimplifying the issue by ignoring the forced retreat due to the BB in question and the subsequent repair that will de facto affect the whole calculation.

This would require a complete simulator for both sides of the argument to prove, hence why I said your numbers don't mean anything on their own because both situations rely on the -present success chance- which fluctate or decrease as your run goes because of the status of your fleet.

Example: On node A in Kidou, a wo kai reaches the day cap. Let's ignore all the possible formation, possible targets and so forth and stick with the actual % I've presented before:
27.86% chance for Yamato to be in Chuuha
63.91% chance for Nagato to be in Chuuha

Let's assume for a second both are in Chuuha. What do you think the % will look like in the subsequent nodes?
Assuming Yamato is already in Chuuha (48HP then), that means she has to take 24 damage to be set on Taiha. As I said, after the initial damage mitigation, she has 67.4 damage to mitigate. As she has to take 24 damage to be in taiha, her armor roll can only negate 43.4 damage at most, which is 73 => 62.39%.

As for Nagato, she has 45HP, so 22HP is her Taiha limit. As such, she has to take at least 23 damage to be in taiha among the 81.4 damage she will take after the first damage mitigation.
That means 58.4 damage at most. That armor roll is... 97.33333. This means that Nagato must do a perfect armor roll to avoid being in Taiha.
99% chance of being put in taiha.

If we consider a median in that equation with an average roll of 50 while both are starting from full health, that means Yamato will never be put in Chuuha while Nagato will never progress to even the third node if we assume some normalization which doesn't make sense.

See the problem? The moment 1 incident occur during your progress to your boss node, the probability to reach that boss is significantly altered, and that's only counting their survival rate. What would happen if I were to calculate chances for them to critically damage the wo kai before it attacks? I will leave you that to your imagination, because at this point you should realize by now that this whole mess is a bunch of variables, and there isn't any single constant.

That's why your attempt to rationalize your chance of success with saved resources is non sensical in term of numerical perspective because the said "numerical" perspective is flawed due to how dependant it is on the survival rates of your whole fleet at large.
Yeah, Yamato consume more fuel than Nagato, and? Can you prove your 0.75 consumption ratio when you have no data that back up your claim as Yamato running five times the map with merely 1 chuuha at most will cost you less than the same attempts with Nagato being Taiha-ed four times a row? What about everyone else? Do you have any evidence that your "numerical point" with the consumption is true based on how many trash is taken out by your fleet, which could alter your repair bill at the end of the day?

That's the very reason I insist on your chance of success on a given instance, and not on the long run.
At best, you can determine that lighter fleet is more beneficial if your chances of success are high to begin with, but when they start to plummet, it isn't just a mere binomial distribution at all.

I repeat again: the most important factor here is your chance to beat the boss, and this means your chance of success for each iteration.
Claiming that saving resources is a numerical evidence while the other isn't is nonsense in this context because your "numerical evidence" is a variable. If it was a constant, I would have no rebuttal, but it isn't the case.

That's why I never disagreed the value of running lighter fleet (I never contested Kanbekotori's opinion who is practically the same as yours), but rather contested the so called "false sense of security" and "numerical evidence" where it is basically going nowhere. That's why I insist heavily on the success rate on a given instance, and not just mere stats, because stats are just bogus when things count.
Remember your attempts with 1 hp left etc? Statistically speaking, the chances of missing several kill runs in a row with the boss left alone during night battle is as close as killing her with just the LBA. But it -does- happen, because stats do not have anything to do with your chances of success whatsoever. Therefore, having more runs available to you doesn't mean much. If you have more runs with decent winning chance, yeah sure. Otherwise? though luck.

[Wiic]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Chance to beat E7 = (% chance of success E7 in one run) X (times you run) =(% chance of success E7 in one run) X (total resources + regen) / (resources consumption each run)

^ This is correct, right?

It's not tho. Say you'd have a 0.01 chance in one run, 101 runs would give you a 1.01 chance to clear. Protip, when you make a probability go over 1, you did something wrong.

Chance C of clearing after N runs given a P chance of clearing for a run is :

C = 1-(1-P)^N

(it's actually the chance of [not failing to clear after N runs], which is much more easier to compute. It's exactly the chance [to clear at least once after N runs]. But it's muuuuch harder to compute for exactly one clear, and won't yield significantly different results for a low P, which is the case here).

Thing is, if you want to argue precisely using math and all, better do it right and thoroughly. Or you can just say, "I prefer using Nagatos because I don't like paying too much for a sortie" and leave it at that. Nobody will mind that.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

You can say anything you want. As long as you don't dismiss other people opinion (or suggestion in this case). And I also start with I don't want to argue it with you. Because I can't/don't believe that your approach is wrong. But you and Klashikari will want to argue mine is.

And I know if continue, you will be pissed because you won't be able to prove mine wrong. And will call me an asshole for not accepting your argument as fact. So why are you doing this to yourself?

It is you who are dismissing other people's logical arguments by saying "you can't numerically prove it!" - while not doing so yourself while claiming that your method works better. You are asking us to provide mathematical proof while you demand us to accept your take that you have a higher chance to clear with Nagato-class and lower consumption as fact without providing any proof yourself.

And you can take your condescending attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine. I won't fall for such an utterly pathetic attempt, sorry mate.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Wiic

It's not tho. Say you'd have a 0.01 chance in one run, 101 runs would give you a 1.01 chance to clear. Protip, when you make a probability go over 1, you did something wrong.

Chance C of clearing after N runs given a P chance of clearing for a run is :

C = 1-(1-P)^N

(it's actually the chance of [not failing to clear after N runs], which is much more easier to compute. It's exactly the chance [to clear at least once after N runs]. But it's muuuuch harder to compute for exactly one clear, and won't yield significantly different results for a low P, which is the case here).

Thing is, if you want to argue precisely using math and all, better do it right and thoroughly. Or you can just say, "I prefer using Nagatos because I don't like paying too much for a sortie" and leave it at that. Nobody will mind that.

But that C is not we want is it? What we want (if I'm not wrong, have a feeling that it is wrong) is:

C = 1 - (1-P)^1 - (1-P)^2..... - (1-P)^N

Where N is the number of time we try.

It does not change anything through, just make the equation to be even harder to prove. You can't do anything without P, and that is the issue

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

It is you who are dismissing other people's logical arguments by saying "you can't numerically prove it!" - while not doing so yourself while claiming that your method works better. You are asking us to provide mathematical proof while you demand us to accept your take that you have a higher chance to clear with Nagato-class and lower consumption as fact without providing any proof yourself.

And you can take your condescending attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine. I won't fall for such an utterly pathetic attempt, sorry mate.

Yes, I said you can't numerically prove it. But I don't claim that my method objectively work better, and don't intend to prove it because I know it can't be proven.

In summary. You are arguing with my opinion, say my opinion is wrong, because it is different with your opinion. Which you claim it as fact.

[Wiic]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

But that C is not we want is it? What we want (if I'm not wrong, have a feeling that it is wrong) is:

C = 1 - (1-P)^1 - (1-P)^2..... - (1-P)^N

I'm sorry, I have to idea how you got there. Care to elaborate ?

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Wiic

I'm sorry, I have to idea how you got there. Care to elaborate ?

How I got there? By watching football while trying to invent a mathematical equation?

[Wiic]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

How I got there? By watching football while trying to invent a mathematical equation?

And here I was being respectful and all. Complete waste of time.

I'll write this just in case, but math isn't much of something you invent, rather that something you prove.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Yes, I said you can't numerically prove it. But I don't claim that my method objectively work better, and don't intend to prove it because I know it can't be proven.

In summary. You are arguing with my opinion, say my opinion is wrong, because it is different with your opinion. Which you claim it as fact.

Oh no, all your posts just heavily reek of a claim that your method works better. Unless you want to tell me that you are a completely irrational person who did something while having no feeling of whether it actually works better or not. You went for a lower consumption fleet because you are convinced that "resources consumption per run = more time you can run = more chance RNG Goddess can help you" while going out of your way to emphasis that using Yamato-class and map support isn't worth sparkling time and resources. You also ridiculed me and Klashikari's and others replies. And now you hide behind the imaginary wall of opinion while ignoring the numerical examples Klashikari provided that show a definite benefit of using the Yamato-class all the while opening up side theatres with your condescension. Well, but that as always is the reaction of somebody who knows he has no logical arguments on his side. And now that you've admitted that you have idea at all we have reached a good point to put a closure on it.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Wiic

And here I was being respectful and all. Complete waste of time.

I'll write this just in case, but math isn't much of something you invent, rather that something you prove.

If you didn't realise it, that's what I just said the last page:

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I'm not gonna argue with you. Frankly because i know there is no ground for our argument. It gonna waste both of our time.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

Oh no, all your posts just heavily reek of a claim that your method works better. Unless you want to tell me that you are a completely irrational person who did something while having no feeling of whether it actually works better or not. You went for a lower consumption fleet because you are convinced that "resources consumption per run = more time you can run = more chance RNG Goddess can help you" while going out of your way to emphasis that using Yamato-class and map support isn't worth sparkling time and resources. You also ridiculed me and Klashikari's and others replies. And now you hide behind the imaginary wall of opinion while ignoring the numerical examples Klashikari provided that show a definite benefit of using the Yamato-class all the while opening up side theatres with your condescension. Well, but that as always is the reaction of somebody who knows he has no logical arguments on his side. And now that you've admitted that you have idea at all we have reached a good point to put a closure on it.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

This could be stupid coming off a game. But I just feel really peaceful right now. Someone probably can stab me right now and I will still forgive him.

After 3 near kills (down to 27hp, 1hp, 27hp), it took the 4th time to be the charm. Let's see. My lessons I learnt from E-7 that I will highly recommend to others are:

• I know many don't like the Landing Type 2 (aka Tank). But give it to Kasumi and she can deal ~200 hp with it. I haven't seen any DD set up that could deal close to that amount
• Yamato sisters actually may gave you a false sense of security with high cost. I ended up going to boss node with 2chuha Nagato sisters. Come off a LBA sequence that is far from decent. But as seen it's all RNG in fire exchange and night battle. So less resources consumption per run = more time you can run = more chance RNG Goddess can help you
• Node support is also a sense of false security most of the time. Maybe pre-boss aside. As 3 biggest threat for your fleet pre-boss are: sub (node support won't help), Dyson (node support unlikely will help), and pre-boss elite CA (node support helps). Won't worth sparkling time and resources for only that
• if you run low of fuel, run a Maruyu at E-5A to rank up your planes. Can help you to calm down too

Around 90k fuel (+ 48 hours regen) spent for E-7 last dance. And I finally can sleep properly now

If you don't realise all of these are my opinions then what else can I do. Make a proclaim "This is my opinion that may or may work on you. use it with precaution" before every post in here?

And yes you win the argument. it's totally very logical on your part. Please can we just stop it?