Vaderan

Usually i would agree, since 2-3 average players still can carry a bad team in a regular Coop match. With the CoOp missions, player- HP turns into a ressource which needs to be handeled very carefully. The combination of (many) poor players, cheating bots, +3 tiers enemies and the always present, highly frustrating RNG system will guarantee situations of frustrations, for poor players and good players aswell. In regular CoOp, the situation doesn´t change depending on players behaviour. If your team decides to commit suicide, you still just face the remaining bots. Failure in the mission is something different. It´s not just failing a secondary target. No, in addition, instead of receiving AI support for your team, as it happens when accomplishing a secondary goal, the AI team will receive further reinforcements. In short: a team that allready failed against the regular odds, will face even harder challanges than a team, which considered the odds a piece of cake. My suggestion would be, to manage this issue through different difficulties. What we have now as "regular" could be considered "Medium" or "standard" difficulty. In addition, we should get "hard" (tougher opponents, better rewards) and "easy"/"beginner", with reduced max tier enemies, less punishing "secondary mission fails" and lower rewards. Further more, i would demand some kind of unlock mechanincs to unlock higher difficulties. Something like a minimum of base XP that has to be achieved with a victory. Just something to make players qualify for the harder missions and not just klicking "battle" in hope for a team, strong enough to carry them. But more than anything else, i highly recommend to WG to overlook their (sorry: stupid) RNG dynamics. As i said before, these PvE missions have high demands on player skills. Nothing is more frustrating than trying to protect any allied cruiser with your battleship, lining up your guns, aiming perfectly at the broadside on Bot, pressing "fire" and watch your shells go anywhere, but not closely to the spot where you aimed at. Being rewarded with a 30 seconds reload for 1 overpenetration, 4 short and 3 long can seriously ruin the game, when the Bot, supposed to be taken out by the perfectly aimed salvo, just finishes your player teammate, because the Bot just scores devastating strikes more reliable. Those missions are already a fight against the odds (and weak teammates), so players don´t need to suffer from stupid mechanics aswell. Luck is a factor, no player in a "skill based" game wants to rely on... I can see the need for RNG in PvP matches (which doesn´t mean i agree or support them), but in the PvE missions, there is no space for such a feature. PvE is player skill against programmed AI. AI has no emotions, no skill, it usually does, as programmed. No need, to artificially "balance" player skills towards AI. Player ships should receive something like Yubari accuracy for those missions. Then, we can talk about higher difficulties and good players carrying a complete team through a mission. I would gladly accept that challange...

Something i would agree. To be honest, i would recommend a +1/-1 mm for all classes and tiers, but WG already made clear, they won´t do that.

If you adjust any classes AAA, so -2 tier CVs stand a real chance to penetrate that AAA cover, what do you expect +2 tier CVs do with those ships? CVs, by all means, are the one last class in this game where skill>RNG. If you got no skill (like me at this time) you will horribly suck at CVs. If you got skill, you simply farm damage, easier and more reliable, than any other class could do. Just because probably 90% of players fail in CVs, doesn´t mean, the class is bad. It´s the players. At least, if RNG isn´t the deciding factor...

Arizona kann ich nicht beurteilen. Die Warspite, gerade mit dem Buff auf Turmdrehrate, spielt sich eigentlich sehr angenehm. Sie ist für ein BB relativ präzise und auf mittlere bis kurze Distanz hält die Panzerund auch was aus. Langstreckenfeuer mag die Warspite allerdings garnicht. Gerade japanische BBs, die die Warspite bereits außerhalb ihrer eigenen Reichweite unter Beschuss nehmen können, scheinen extrem gefährlich, da gibts gerne auch mal Mehrfachzitadellen. Campen mit der Warspite ist also der komplett falsche Ansatz. Die Texas ist eine verbesserte New York. Ich habe meine komplett auf Flak gespecct, wodurch sie eine Flakwertung irgendwo in den 80ern hat. Gegen tier 5 Träger ist das monströs. Ansonsten leidet sie aber unter den üblichen Schwächen der amerikanischen BBs bzw BBs generell. Sehr langsam, relativ ungenaue Geschütze. Definitiv auch eher ein Brawler, der aber seine Zeit braucht, um im Zielgebiet anzukommen. Die Mutsu ist eine A-Nagato. Mein Divisionskollege hat sich kürzlich eine zugelegt, und feiert das Teil eigentlich ziemlich ab. Die Flak ist zwar schwach, die 41er mit 1.Weltkrieg Munition aber wohl gut gebalanced und sehr stark. Sie ist schneller als Nagato, hat ne stärkere Sekundärbewaffnung, Torpedos mit schnellem Reload, und eine deutlich zuverlässigere Panzerung, als Nagato, wenn man meinem Kollegen glauben darf. Er führt das darauf zurück, dass der Mutsu die äußere 25mm (?) Hülle + Torpedogürtel der Nagato fehlt. Dadurch liegt der Panzergürtel außen, weshalb eintreffende AP und HE (vor allem in angewinkeltem Zustand) einfach abprallen bzw. kaputtgehen, als die 25mm zu overmatchen und dann Overpen bzw. regulären Penetrationsschaden zu verursachen....

Ein für seine direkte Art bekannter CC hat seinen Unmut über einen neuen Premiumpanzer mit sehr drastischen Worten kund getan. Seiner Analyse nach ist der Panzer frontal ohne Premium Munition quasi nicht zu knacken (also premium Konsum beim Gegner erforderlich, oder das Flankieren riskieren). Dadurch erhält der Panzer eine Schlachtfeldüberlegenheit, die die regulären Panzer gleichen Tiers nicht besitzen, da alle irgendwo nen frontalen Weakspot haben. Der Premiumpanzer ist natürlich nur käuflich zu erwerben. Allerdings wird seine Kanone auch als so unterdurchschnittlich betrachtet, dass er selbst konsequent oder zumindest oft premium Munition verwenden muss. Daher der P2W Vorwurf. WG hat dieses Video des besagten CC nicht gefallen. Die Zusammenarbeit mit dem CC wurde beendet. Der CC gehört(e) zur EU Community. Anschließend hat sich WG NA eingeschaltet, und dem CC mit Konsequenzen gedroht, wenn er das Video nicht auch lösche (was quasi einer Zensur gleichkommt). Damit schießt WG NA konsequent gegen die Aussage von WG EU, nach der WG Inhalte zu kommerziellen Zwecken bei Youtube verwendet werden dürfen. Da WG NA nun dieser Aussage zuwider handelt, sind CCs und Youtuber mit WG Inhalten schwer verunsichert, da die WG Richtlinien für sie nicht einheitlich geregelt sind. Sie sehen sich jetzt einer potenziellen Willkür ausgesetzt, und ziehen die Notbremse, indem sie davon Abstand nehmen, WG Inhalte zu veröffentlichen... So habe ich es zumindest verstanden...

Schließe mich Schorch62 weitestgehend an. Das RNG Verhältnis zwischen Spielern und Bots scheint mir in diesem Modus besonders unausgeglichen. Der Modus stellt deutlich höhere Ansprüche an Spielerskills, als reguläres CoOp, und auch als beim regulären PvP, da die Teams ausgeglichen sind und "Spielerskill" auf "Spielerskill" trifft, nicht wie in den Missionen, wo es sich stellenweise anfühlt wie "RNG vs. Guided Missles". Weiterhin betrachte ich zumindest die derzeit getestete Missionsvariante (Verteidigung) als wenig geeignet, Teamspiel zu fördern. Wenn dieser Modus eines wirklich belohnt, dann ist es das verhasste Campen. Je länger man hinten bleibt und die NPC-Batterien machen lässt, desto höher die Überlebenschancen. Da die Gegnerwellen mit zunehmender Stärke auf in der Stärke abnehmende Spielerteams treffen, würde ich mir auch eine Art Reperaturbasis wünschen. Das gezielte und gnadenlose Fokusfeuer der Bots setzt insbesondere den Kreuzern und Zerstörern stark zu, so dass diese in der Regel kaum Überlebensmöglichkeiten haben. Wenns dumm läuft, ist ein Kreuzer oder DD bereits mit der zweiten Welle raus, was insbesondere für einen im Grind befindlichen Spieler mit der anschließenden Blockade des Schiffes für 30 Minuten zu ausgeprägten Frustmomenten führen kann. Hier sollte WG nachbessern...

So far, this mode feels like a mixed bag. Rewards on a win feel okay, considering the fact it´s a PvE game. The mode itsself (so far) looks promising, although it also displays clearly the lacks and drawbacks in game mechanics. In addition, defeats provide rewards not even closly worth the time spent. Blocking the ship used in the mode for 30 minutes after it´s return to the base appears to be somewhat acceptable on a testserver, for collecting information, but would be a PLAIN STUPID move at the live servers. In terms of balancing, this mode requires a lot of tweaking. The challange itsself might be a pretty simple task to a 7 player division, which works together and comes up with a coordinated teamwork and setup. Those divisions should find their challange in hard mode. Since the technichal test wasn´t announced ingame and on the website, i would assume that we find the more dedicated players at the testservers right now. Those players usually come at least with a basic understanding, of what they are doing. Despite rather competent players in the teams, i had several games today, where the human players team got more or less deleted. Analyzing the one mission, we were allowed to play today, some things come out rather obvious: - a player team without a (competent) CV has an incredible hard time in comparison. This appears to be THE game mode for CVs to carry hard. - if any of the rushing bots manages to penetrate the defense perimeter, the game is basically lost. Why? Well, if a bot manages to break through, the player team obviously had a problem before. Either a lack of coordination, or skill, or RNG luck, or already too many casualties. Something, which prevented them to stop one of the more easier waves. This breakthough usually triggers the main attack immediatly, and even worse, usually prevents the (more or less urgently) required reeinforcements, especially the spawn of the tier 8 bot carrier. In short: a team already struggeling doesn´t just loose a secondary target, it receives aswell a punishment in terms of an immediatly spawning, higher tiered fleet. I witnessed dedicated players failing at this tast, so i dare to assume, that "Joe-average" players in random teams at the live servers will have even more troubles, with even more sources for frustration. - the game mechanics are not fitting for this mode. In every aspect. The game mechanics are designed to provide a balanced game for 7vs7 or 12vs12 encounters. They are designed to provide a balanced gameplay, with a more or less balanced number of guns targetting a more or less balanced number of targets within a more or less balanced pool of hitpoints. The same goes for captains perks and modules/upgrades. This ain´t the case at the this mode. This mode is basically a 7 vs ~ 20+ mode, with the "support" of CPU/AI forts or ships. With every new wave, the players face increasing opposition, while themselves constantly loosing HP and ships. This means, that a successfull teamplay is required for a full (or partial) success. One afk player is already a real issue. Every lost player is an even bigger issue. To survive and succeed, players need to coordinate and time the use of their consumables. Divisions will do this more or less easily. Dedicated random players might achieve this. Random players with the skill of our most common BB Kevins will simply fail. The combination of cooldowns for consumables, combined with the constant loss of player HP and ships, the dead accurate gunnery of the bots against the hard RNG impact on player vessels (especially BBs), the merciless focus fire of the bots against players, ignoring AI fortresses or ships more or less consequently, just cannot be balanced out by player skills. There is just so much a skilled player can do, when focused by 5 bots, spammed with HE, AP and torpedoes. Especially when considering the fact, that damaged tier 5/6 cruisers, DDs and BBs suddenly have to face tier 8 and 9 ships, which are designed to overmatch their armor and outgun them in every aspect. There are limits to what even the best players can to, especially when RNG is allowed to have such huge impact, as it is with this game. Remember, this gamemode is supposed to bring fun to everyone, not just the skilled players and those in coordinated divisions. It is supposed to deliver fun to those, who still manage to fail against bots in regular Co-Op. Or, at least, it should be supposed to allow skilled players to compensate for those who have no clue what they are doing. Yes, we got bots and AI fortress support, but this is actually one of the "rage" factors. Usually, the bot fortresses open fire before targets for players are rendered. In addition, they are rather effective, which is basically nice. On the other hand, as a player, i feel cheated, when my 10 shells BB broadside fails to score more than just 2 overpens at 5 km, while those double barrell fortresses score hits dead accurate at 20 km. Saved by AI, exactly, what any player wants to witness-not. The most reliable and strongest class in this mode appears to be the CV. Why? Because, if in skilled hands, RNG has much less influence, that it has on other classes. Something to think about, i´d say. All in all, this game mode requires adjustments. Either a (limited) respawn for players (maybe depending on class, like 1 for BBs/CV, 2 for CLs/CAs and DDs) or at least repairs docks. Or a reduction on player RNG or increase on Bot RNG, or a reworked AI for the bots. Maybe reworked lvl design or reworked bots. I still don´t see the point, why a tier 9 BB, tier 7 and 8 cruisers and 2 tier 7 BBs have to spawn, when 3 out of 5 player teams have suffered major casualties and are already low on health. In 4 out of 7 matches, i witnessed the complete annihilation of all players despite the carrier, shortly after the approach of that finale wave, so it was just the question, wether the CV could handle this, or not. Not quiet the idea i have of a "challanging final wave". Probably the best way to "balance" this, would be mission development, depending on the player teams status. With a full strenght team alive, the full tier 7-9 wave strikes and full rewards are provided. With just three teammembers left, only 1-2 tier 7 BBs and some escorts appear, but rewards are reduced. This way, reduced player team will still have a chance to succeed, and the skills of the last players would be valued and rewarded, for successfully making a last stand. Just saying...

Erster Eindruck: interessanter Spielmodus mit viel Potential. Die NPC-Festungen sind extrem effektiv, müssen sie aber leider auch sein. Meine Erfahrung bislang: hat man einen Träger im Team, der seinen Job beherrscht, schafft man die Mission. Hat man einen schlechten oder keinen Träger dabei, verliert man recht schnell. Mein Hauptproblem: ohne Reperaturmöglichkeiten oder Respawn für die kleinen Einheiten, wirkt das Konzept unausgewogen. Der Spielmodus basiert darauf, dass mehrere Spieler kooperativ mehrere Wellen zahlenmäßig unterlegener Gegner im Teamwork ausschalten. Hier steht dem Spiel ganz klar das RNG, besonders der Schlachtschiffe, im Weg. Wenn das Schlachtschiff selbst auf 5 km seine Breitseiten nicht effektiv anbringen kann, weil RNG wieder mal am Rad dreht, dann kann sich das Gefecht schnell gegen die Spieler wenden, weil leichte Einheiten schnell krepieren und Wellen nicht schnell genug vernichtet werden. Hier muss meiner Ansicht nach dringend nachgebessert werden...

Do it, or leave it. Don´t go for a foul compromise. If you go full secondary, go with manual secondaries aswell (which is the bread and butter for a secondary build at tier 7+), or don´t go for secondaries at all and focus on a different style, like AAA fortress or stealth build. A hybrid build would be just the worse of both worlds, with secondaries not hitting enough to be worht the upgrades/modules, and maybe not worth the spread of captain skills aswell. At least, that would be my recommendation...

Considering the fact i witness BBs turning around at the start to move into a more distant camping position, i cannot imagine how that repositioning at the start would help. It would just cause more confusion at the game start, causing more collisions with other ships. Especially DDs, which might try to catch a specific position or even a capping point, might be at a disavantage if they have to maneuver around turning BBs right at the start... In addition, changing the stating position of BBs won´t change anything in regards of BB-players mindset or BBs still being ruled by rng...

It´s difficult to say, where exactly on the deck ths shell hits, regarding your pictures. From what we know, hit´s are not visualised as the are calculated, otherwise your hit would have counted as plunging fire. In addition, we have something ingame, called "shell normalisation". As we also know, Yamatos deck isn´t completly flat, but curved. My guess is: the shell made contact to the top deck, shell normalisation redirected the shell ab it, but left it penetrating in a diagonal angle, due to the curved deck surface. What many don´t know: Yamatos citadell isn´t a flat plate at the front, but angled, which allows for weired citadell penetrations even with 15" guns, when shooting at a ~40 degree angle at Yamatos bow, below the turrets. Due to shell normalisation, your shell might be redirected towards this angled citadell plate, and got again redirected via shell normalisation, allowing for the very unpredictable penetration of the citadel protection...

We know each other from this forum since alpha, and as soon as we come to the point "BB vs all other classes", we usually disagree. Your signature appears to make no mistake what your prefered class(es) are, and which is...well, which has to have it´s place in this game, but, yeah, should please remain as unreliable at it is right now. When your done with "lmao", please tell me, where BBs are superior to other classes, besides the obvious "survivability" (although i would always prefer the "not being seen" of a DD towards the "being seen and targeted by everything, but i got a large hhealthpool and repairs" of a BB, so superiority is questionable) and the obvious, but largely irrelevant, because completly rng depending burst damage potential. Don´t get me wrong, i would love to see a meta, that would make my cruisers more... enjoyable. But part of the issues we got these days, is this stupid RNG from BBs, WG came up with during closed beta. Because it makes BBs and their salvos so horrendously unpredictable. For the BB and it´s target. Their shotgun attitude makes even the biggest tomatoe score lucky hits, while skilled players with great aiming skills aren´t even capable of defending themselves in brawling situations, because rng scatters the best aimed, life-saving shots all accross the target, leaving it unharmed, slightly damaged or whatever (but alive, despite broadside tanking with it´s citadell exposed to your guns), so it can hit back (or even instantly torpedo-kill your BB), since the BB was dumb enough to engage into brawling distance. With the HfB event, i dared to take a look again at PvP. I went trhough all the three classes i dare to play (DD, CL/CA and BB) ending up focusing on my missions, and for that, playing the majority of the games with BBs. As a BB captain, i take my responsibility for my team very serious. My engagement distance is usually 10km and even below, supporting cruisers and DDs. I didn´t survive a single game. I lost 60% of the games, mainly because of bad teams (BB campers), but for own mistakes aswell. However, my BB defeats easily resulted in my shots being screwed by rng. Tier 5, Texas (me), Kongo (division mate), german t5 DD and french tier 5 cruiser vs. Texas, Wyoming, Omaha and Isokaze. Me in Texas vs. 500 HP Omaha: first salvo with (HE): 2 hits for 2 destroyed AA guns, but no damage, 8 misses. 2nd salvo (AP): 5 short, 4 long, one bounce. Omaha survives and keeps spamming HE on my Kongo mate, causing the one fire needed to sink him. One OP or damaging hit of my prior salvoes would have saved him from at least one minute constant HE spam and fires. Isokaze, 4km distance. Dodging his torps, not a single shell, despite several salvos fired, manage to hit, though all land infront or behind him. Broadside Wyoming, 8km distance, reversing. The easiest target you could imagine. 2 10k salvoes, no citadells. Our DD ran away, camping behind us and watching us fight back all of the enemies (and getting sunk), the french cruiser wasted himself by trying to run away, showing his broadside to all the opponents. Defeat. I could go on with this for the rest of my battles, but it wouldn´t make a difference. The point is: BB rng sucks. If we would have camped back, let the german DD do the spotting and leave the contested cap to the enemy, we would have endured longer, with all the same hilarious results in terms of firing and scoring hits. This is exactly, what the current gameplay shows: BBs staying back, camping, wasting their team as spotters for their rng dominated long range fire support. Yes, 1/100 times they will score those CA deleting salvos, and they will be happy with it. the other 99/100, they will fail and they will ruin the game for their team. Working as intended... And regarding those IJN torpedoes: i neither cry about them, nor fear them. I don´t care, since they usually don´t hit me, and if they do so, it was my fault beforhand. Their impact on enemy ships healthpools is marginal, with the exception for stupid BB players. Their psychological impact is immense, however. Players, especially BB Kevins, still tend to stay out of any possible engagement range of any invisible DD, and the more IJN DDs are on the map, the bigger the "no-go-areas" for those players = static gameplay. Thats all i complain about, in regards of torpedo/DD meta.

Pretty much because BBs were hit hard by the nerfbat at the end of the Alpha. I mean, really hard, not that "somebody just parked an aircraft carrier up your a**" style (which could already be considered "hard"). Accuracy of the mainguns dropped to the level we got now, even without an "accuracy buff at 3km and below", and secondaries got reduced to the noisy fireworks without effect, we now experience without upgrades and perks. Alpha veterans simply adapted, since their complains were silenced by other "fangroups". Beta players got used to the BBs, since they never knew the BB-world before. Alpha and Beta testers, as something like members of an "inner circle", learned quickly about the strenghts and weeknesses of the different classes, which prove CAs and DD as superior to the BB class. This was, when gameplay value of the classes was more worth than a ship being a symbol of power or just iconic. But then came the open beta, and, after all, the release. With it came the hordes of players, attracted by the BBs and the big guns. They soon found out, that BBs, despite their iconic status, are just rubbish in terms of gunhandling, and that they most of the time will end up with the short stick, when in a knife fight with a cruiser or DD. Because torps. So playstyle shifted, from close to medium, then to long range engagements. With the BBs leaving the midrange areas, they left that space for the cruisers. These, left alone by their bigger brothers, now found themselves in the crossfire of all other classes: DDs, other cruisers, and of course, BBs. This made cruisers successively more challanging and less fun to play, leading all but the hardcore (and unaware) players to desert the cruiser line. Some switched to DDs, but even more switched to BBs. The more BBs showed up, the worse became the situation for the CAs. Their numbers decreased even more, which opened space for DDs. Now, we got the border areas, overpopulated by camping BBs, the inner areas, dominated by invisible DDs with area denial warheads, and a remaining flock of players, a mix of daring (or just unaware) BB brawlers, a minority of CAs/CLs and the mass of invisible assassins. Of course, from time to time, there will be CVs...but they have their own story...

My Co-Op crew and i will gladly support this. However, WG, a word of warning: much hope lies on this, so don´t screw it! This is a feature, many non dedicated PvP players are waiting for! This new feature may represent a point of decision for many! Is it good, will they stay?! Do you screw this up and is all hope lost, this game will have anything more fun to offer, than the current Co-Op mode? We will see, and we hope for the best...

Instead of blaming the overpopulation of a class and the behaviour of a majority their captains, ask for the reasons! Why are there so many BBs? Why do they play like "chickens"? Find the answer, come up with a solution, enlighten WG how to make it better. In a meta, where players fear ships they cannot see, using warheads coming out of nowhere, the majority of the (subaverage) players chose a class, that can 1.) survive several hits of those warheads, and b.) can engage with its weapons at a range, where they might be able to stay out of those warheads range. In Addition, thanks to another WG logic, those players aren´t even "lured" into a more "active" position within the game, since RNG screws up the shots of their main batteries, no matter if they remain at 20km, 10km or 5km range to the target. The ammount of "more reliability" in short range engagements, compared to the incredible increase of the risk "being sunk" doesn´t scale at all, so these "chicken" players rather stay at max range with a 10% hitchance/ratio, than moving into brawling range, with a ~20-30% hitchance (including overpens and stuff), by simultaniously increasing the chance of being hit by shorter range weapons and warheads by 100%. In addition, when a BB is introduced, which is capable of staying for it´s own, when all supporters long ran away, the DD and CA lobby, complaining about BBs missing in brawls, suddenly show up and demand nerfs for said BB (yes, i am looking at you, Bismarck), because it is "overperfoming" in their opinion. In other words: BB overpopulation is bad, because they cannot be hit at range, which is their prefered method for selfdefense. BB overpopulation is also bad, when BBs show up at close range, but are able to defend themselves. So, either make a BB overpopulation, that simply works as cashcows for the other classes, or limit their numbers, so there are either less camping or less effective brawlers in game... aye?

This game is about experience and skill, not having the biggest ship or the thickest wallet. Get experience, develope skills, and you will see that you might have more success in a tier 4 cruiser than in a tier 7 battleship. "Power means nothing, without controll!" The demands on player skills and experience raise drastically with the tiers, and players who skipped the grind, ignoring the fact of required experience for higher tiered games are the plague of this game, ruining the game for themselves and all the team that depends on them and their role in the battle. "With great power comes great responsibility!" Leave behind your urge for buying bigger and "better" ships. Even a 20perks captain on a Yamato wouldn´t do you any favour, since you, by all respect, lack the skill and experience to use it´s potential. Winrate doesn´t mean anything, if your wins are achieved by others, who need to carry you through their match, since you are of no use for your team. The Scharnhorst in particular, is a very powerfull, but very specialised ship. Making use of it´s potential, requires a lot of experience, knowledge and skills, something you might yet lack at this point of your WoWs career, no offense intended...

An dieser Stelle zwar off topic, aber ich frag jetzt mal blöd: Kann ich bei der "Jagd auf die Bismarck" Aufgaben zum Verdienen der Belohnung wiederholen? Sprich, Abschnitt 1, Aufgabe 1 (2x überleben und gewinnen) immer und immer wieder abschließen, um a) Sterne für den Fortschritt und b) Kisten für die Sammeltoken zu verdienen? Oder habe ich Dich falsch verstanden? ;) Greetz, Vader

The use of a class often depends on the skill of the player. Different classes require different skills. I suck hard at CVs. Others can dominate complete games with them. Cruisers are very potent ships, but very fragile aswell. To be successfull in a cruiser requires a lot of situational awarness and a great overview of battle developement and enemy positions. In my opinion, the success of a cruiser depends on the first minutes of the match. If the cruiser can stay undetected and BBs push together with the rest of the team, drawing attention and fire, cruisers can support and look out for opportunities. Do the BBs go for borderhugging and camping, leaving the brawling business to the fragile units, defeat is almost a given. Too many players just don´t have a clue about the responsibilities that lie in their chosen class. The more players ignore those responsibilities, the more frustrating a match developes...

Expect an Stalinium improved variant of the Nürnberg, just as we know it from Omaha vs. Murmansk. My guess is: better gun handling (hidden stats, maybe better sigma or something), improved AAA and 8km torpedoes.

You always have to take into account several game mechanics: - HE always has less alpha damage than AP. As a result, it does inflict less alpha damage per hit. - HE does not need to penetrate to do damage. This so called splash damage however is even less than regular penetration damage. - Take WG logics for shell hits into account: a bounce (AP) or shatter (HE) does no damage. An overpenetration will cause ~1/10 of a shells damage potential. A regular penetration does ~ 1/3 of the shells damage potential. A mid-section on a DD might cause ~50% of a shells damage potential. A citadell hit will cause 100% of a shells damage potential, given the ship still has enough HP and the citadell does not get overpenetrated. - Take WG´s damage saturation mechanics into account: in WoWs, ships are seperated into 4-5 different sections: bow, midship, stern, superstructure and citadell, with DDs as an exception: they don´t have a citadell. Each of this sections has it´s own healthpool. The Healthpool of each section (with exception for the citadell) has less HP than the ship in total. All sections together (even without the citadell!) have more HP than the ships full HP. When a section gets hit, the damage-HP the shell caused gets substracted from the ships HP pool and the sections HP pool aswell. When a section has taken a specific ammount of damage (like ~30% of it´s specific HP pool?), a damage modificator kicks in. This modificator reduces any further damage to this section by shells or torpedoes by, i think, 50%. As a result, hitting this section on and on will cause less damage then hitting a different section of the ship. If a damaged section keeps receiving damage, despite the damage reduction modificator, sooner or later that section´s specific HP pool might become depleted. This will be dispalyed in strange results: despite the ship itsself still having HP left and swimming, further hits on that section won´t cause any damage at all any more, making the ship invulnerable to a further loss of ship-hp when hit in that specific, depleted (destroyed) section. Usually, players won´t even recognize the effect. However, there have been situations, where ships stayed alive despite taking deadly ammount of potential damage. Just consider these (wered) mechanics in future, and adjust your aim. You might achieve better results...

Wurde auch langsam mal Zeit! Egal was draus wird, der eingeschlagene Weg stimmt schonmal! Mehr Abwechslung wird dem Spiel sehr gut tun!

Since the Hood comes out during the "Hunt for Bismarck" event, i doubt it will become a focus target. First of all, many missions are around either spotting or even killing german ships. Second, at many stages you will find missions about scoring hundred(s) of hits with secondary guns, which will bring plenty of german BBs to the matches, due to their numbers of secondaries. Last but not least, there has been around a lot of propaganda, what kind of tanky ship the Hood will be, rendering her rather unattractive as an easy target. Now adding the usual ammount of border-hugging and camping casual BB players, Hood won´t be anything else but another BB on the map...

What makes the Atlanta "OP", is her annoyance factor. People don´t hate her for her "burst damage" (since there is none), but for the constant hail of HE, the target has to sustain. Annoying, stressing, like a moscito around your ear, when you try to sleep. Something everybody just wants to get rid of asap, when encountered. Well, and deadly, if you are dumb enough to go in on close range with an unarmored ship...but this, on the other hand, is not the "opness" of the Atlanta, but the fail of the unarmored ship´s captain...

It´s a mix of factors. - bad map design. Maps at high tiers are too huge. Considering the decreasing speed with increasing shipsize, the decision for a side often is a decision for the whole match. Switching sides, especially in big units like BBs and some cruisers is almost impossible, since the attempt to cross the map will mist likely end up in a shooting galey for the enemy. - flawed ship/class design. BBs got the range for long distance engagements, and since their rng-guns are at 20km as "reliabl" as they are at 5km, but 20km range offer a higher chance for survival, players stay at range. DDs still act as area denial weapons. They controll corridors with their torpedoes and are more of a psychological, than a real thread. Cruisers are everybodies fool. They lack the range to engage BBs without risking an instant kill on dectetion and they lack the ability to counter DDs in a way that would BB-snipers feel more comfortable. They are basically the punchingball for all other classes. The first in, first spotted, first dead. In other words: 2 classes stay out of range (CVs, BBs), one remains invisible (DDs) and only one can be shot at by all others (cruisers). - flawed reward system: the longer you stay in game, the higher your chance for a good reward. Movement, engaging bears the risk of detection. First move, first die. Nobody wants to be the first back in port. Since we have no teamplay, tarets often pop up occasionally and one by one, allowing for focus fire for whoever moved second. A first step would be the decrease of map sizes, maybe in colaboration of overall engagement ranges (nerfs to the range of all weapons equally) to prevent ships with extremly long ranges to reach across the whole map, no matter the position. The reason why we enjoy midtier and lowtier battles as the more engaging ones is the reduced map size. Players can react quicker to new situations, and it takes less time to join an engagement. The second step would be a complete overhaul of several mechanics, like we just witnessed in WoT. Then, maybe, we will see a change for the better...

Bei WoT war der Schritt vernünftig, allerdings nicht wirklich notwendig. In WoWs jedoch halte ich eine entsprechende Anpassung für zwingend. Ich würde sogar soweit gehen, dass für WoWs eigentlich ein +1/-1 MM für alle Klassen notwendig wäre, nicht nur für besondere Fälle im Lowtier Bereich. Dadurch, das WG bei WoWs sehr viele "Papierschiffe" eingebracht hat (und einbringt) und viele historische Werte (insbesondere in Hinblick auf Pazerungsdicken) zu "Gunsten" das Balancings willkürlich verändert, nur um den eigenen Spielmechanike gerecht zu werden, haben wir teilweise enorme Leistungsunterschiede innerhalb der +2/-2 Tier Spreizung. Besonder schmerzlich trifft es den Mid-tier Bereich durch den "Ballpool" für Lowtiers, aber auch der Top-Tier Bereich ist nicht sehr ausgewogen. Hinzu kommt ein weiterer, ganz entscheidender Unterschied zu WoT: der Nutzen der Panzerung und Geschwindigkeit. In WoT kann ein guter Spieler auch alleine noch seinen "Mann" stehen und ein verlorengeglaubtes Spiel drehen. Entweder sein Fahrzeug ist so schnell, dass er sich permanent neu positionieren kann, oder seine Panzerung ist so stark, dass er diese nutzen kann, um Feindfeuer effektiv abzuwehren. (Tarnungs und Sichtmechaniken lasse ich jetzt mal außen vor). In WoWs stellt es sich anders dar. Feuer und Flutung sind ein effektiver Workarround gegen Panzerung, Geschwindigkeit hat auch nur bedingt den Effekt, den sie in WoT bringt. Ein einzelner Spieler kann also deutlich weniger Effizient alleine seinen "Last Stand" durchziehen. Das vermurkste RNG System kommt dann noch oben drauf. Dadurch ist die Summe der Frustfaktoren in WoWs noch höher, als bei WoT. Ein angepasstes MM wäre ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung, eine bessere Regelung des Tagessiegbonus ersetzt es allerdings nicht...