typhaon

Also ich habe bis auf ein Spiel, wo ich sofort zu Beginn explodiert bin in meinen T2-Kreuzern (sowohl KJM als auch USN) nie weniger als 700 XP bekommen...

Up until June 24th you could by a preorder package to get access, but that period has ended now. The only thing left is to wait for the OBT to start, which is going to be anywhere soon.

Just be patient, it takes some time until they have everything delivered. After a couple of rounds my preorder package popped up in my harbour.

Afaik is extends the detection range.

I guess they'll activate the bought content once the servers run stable... if they had activated premium time before, it would have been run already during patch.

"Never play on a patch day!" Ach ja... und erwarte niemals, dass die Zeitplan stimmt. Vielleicht gehts heute mittag wieder.

Funny how people thought they might really get a T5 premium ship for just 1$... I guess the same players would also buy a brand new IPhone for 50$ on the street and then complain to the police when they tell them that it was stolen. And if I have had the chance to get access to the beta for just 1$, I'd gladly taken it without the ship... only bought the Grem because it was the cheapest way to get into the CBT (apart from a great deal of luck, which usually is not on my side though).

Every ship will do in the hands of a skilled captain. And you cannot prevent seal clubbing once the open beta starts... it's even impossible to avoid it, as there will be masses of seals joining the game... and I don't think that I'll spare them just for being nice... nobody spared me when I joined the game.

Just increasing the grind by increasing the amount of XP needed for research is a bad way imo. It would be better to implement more different modules and upgrades... the duration of the grind would be the same, but the steps between some kind of reward would not be longer, so that players don't lose their patience... furthermore more modules could lead to more diversity in battles.

WoT and WoWS will share the same premium account time and probably currency, but not slots.

Naja, die Mogami mit den 155mm-Geschützen ist doch eh am besten zum Abfackeln von dem ganzen Kleinzeug geeignet... und ist ja nicht so, als hättest du nicht auch gute Torpedos dabei

U-Boote waren schon in Navyfield damals für'n [edited] auf gut Deutsch gesagt. Klar hatten U-Boote in der Realität eine nicht zu unterschätzende Bedeutung, aber meistens eher zwischen den großen Seeschlachten, und nicht während dessen.

The AA rating is irrelevant... DPM is what matters... Benson has 46 DPM at close range while the Kitakami boasts 84 DPM at close quarter. That should explain why you could not get a singe kill on planes with your Benson while your Kita shot down some planes.

Das Ausbrechen kommt, wenn du die Option zum automatischen Ausweichen bei Kollisionskurs mit Inseln anschaltest. Kannst du in den Optionen abschalten. Mit höheren Schiffen wirst du sehr gut spielen müssen, um Credits zu machen. Das ist schon in WoT und WoWP so... und ich schätze sogar, dass die Credit-Rate in der Closed Beta sogar noch erhöht wurde.

Ich denke es ist vornehmlich eine Spieldesign-Entscheidung, dass der Countdown immer und auch erst nachdem das alte Flugzeug weg ist gestartet wird. Sonst wäre es ja kaum ein Problem die ganze Zeit ohne Pause eine Luftüberwachung zu haben.

Well a victory gives you a percentage bonus in your XP... furthermore it matters who you shoot. Killing higher tier enemies gives better XP than lower tiers. Don't know about the ribbons and achievements.

Well many players are currently unsatisfied with the AA defense system. Right now it's rather abstract, basically with DPM vs. squad health at certain ranges. The problems are: Next to no chance of shooting down planes when you have low AA-values or someone else with better values is present. No consideration of AA gun angles No reward for damaging planes without killing them. DP-batteries will perform both purposes at the same time. Squadron HPs are reset once gone out of firing range. So I thought the system needs some improvements, but over and over again I though that the basic simplicity of the current system is the major flaw. So instead I suggest a totally different system. First of all it should matter if a gun can shoot at a target. So gun angles should be taken into consideration... an attack from the side would draw much more fire at a squad than a frontal attack. So the approach would matter for a CV captain. Just using auto attack might put your planes into heavy fire. Secondly TBs would think twice about how long they wait for their torps to drop. Secondly, each DP gun could only fulfill one duty at a time, either sea or air targets. If not set to a specific target, they will shoot at what they think is more dangerous at the moment. So it would be important to set up targets manually, no effective auto fire... So you should be able to chose if your main or secondary batteries should prefer air or sea targets. So now to the defense basics: Each gun is defined by several values: - Damage: self explanatory I think, if a plane is hit, the gun does the listed damage. Machine guns will inflict less damage, HEF shells from DP-batteries might oneshot a plane. - RoF: well you know what I mean, I think... - max. range and min. range: no explanation needed, weapons won't attack if they go min. range and the enemy is beyond that. - max. Accuracy @ range X: So now that's more complicated: On ships there were different AA guns for different ranges. First DP and large caliber AA guns would open fire with HEF shells... but those were too slow to track enemies that were really close. Machines guns however would have a hard time hitting anything far away but could defend effectively at close range. The max. accuracy would define the chance to hit an enemy plane in percentage. The chance has a drop off if the target is either too close or too far away (depending on the weapon type), which is linear to both sides with 50% of the max. accuracy at the max. and min range. Fast firing weapons (like machine guns) only have a max. range, no min. range, so basically they always have the best accuracy below a certain distance. Planes have basically two values: - hitpoints: if a plane has lost all hitpoints, it's destroyed - avoidance: this value basically describes how hard it is to hit. It's an abstact value based on the manouverability and speed of a plane. So the faster and more manouverable a plane is, the better is the avoidance value. It's listed as percentage. Now to the basics that I have though about: Well it's rather easy I think. Let's take an abstract example, the numbers are totally made up and just for understanting. You drive around in your Fletcher destroyer and suddenly a squad of enemy fighters approach your ship. You've set your main guns to anti air fire. The main guns have the following characteristics: Damage: 1500 (vs. planes) RoF: Lets say 5 RPM Range: 1,5-5km max. Accuracy: 20% @ 3,5km distance No additional bonus from modules or captain The enemy fighters consist of a squad of 5 planes: Hitpoints: 1300 HP Avoidance: 20% Now the main battery opens fire on the enemy at 5 km distance. Each shell now has the following chance to hit the target: - 50% of 20% for the distance drop off = 10% - 20 % avoidance = 8% So each shell would have 8% hit chance... if they hit, they would cause 1500 dmg, which would make a sure kill for a plane with 1300 hitpoints. The next shot would be at 3,5km distance: 20% accuracy - 20% avoidance = 16 % So of course these numbers are totally made up, so don't argue about balance or something like that, it's just to show you, how I imagine the basic formula to work... Basically it's ((base accuracy) - (distance drop off)) - avoidance. Accuracy upgrades and captain skills would influence the base accuracy only. Distance upgrades would affect both, max. distance and point of max. accuracy. Targets would be picked at random under all available targets for a gun, unless you focus fire on a single squad which would make all guns fire at one of the planes of the selected squads (still not the same single plane), if possible. So chosing a primary target would be essential if you want an effective AA defense, especially, if their are several squads inbound. If there is only one squad in firing range, the chances for guns picking the first two planes is doubled. So what would that mean for the gameplay in general: 1. AA defense would actually require some management to be effective. 2. CV drivers would need more skill to make an effective approach since a damaged plane would not regenerate its' hitpoints if it leaves the AA zone. 3. The player with the best AA doesn't always win the kills... since you can cause non lethal damage to planes, you could also get rewards for plane damage, even if another player gets a kill... no all-or-nothing results. 4. CV tactics and teamplay would get more important. You might think: hey, look at your numbers, you will shoot down planes like easy... true, but since each gun picks a target, there is a major difference. Right now the AA values affect all planes within the AA range at the same time. If you can stop one squad, you can stop 10 as well. Now if the AA focuses on one squad, all other will be unharmed. So going in with several squads will greatly increase the survival rate of your planes. Well... that's a long textwall and I hope that a) someone has read it at all b) someone understood the basics of what I meant... hard to describe those things since English is not my native language. There's room for improvements for sure, but I think my approach would be much more realistic and fair, especially regarding AA effectiveness and rewards for damaging planes (which should be increased anyways). The major drawback would be, that it would be much more difficult to calculate, so it might be quite performance demanding, especially with dozens of guns in a ship... But what do you think about the general approach? Better or worse than the current system?

Basically the current system tries to simulate the chance to shoot down a plane (or better said any plane of a squad) within a certain time... or in other words: The longer a squad is unter fire, the more likely one plane will be shot down. The AA value only roughly resembles the "thickness" of the AA fire. Like I said: It's an all-or-nothing thing... you either shoot down a plane or you could have done nothing as well. That's why ships with less AA capability like DDs for example, won't make a significant difference now.

Wollte ich auch grade sagen. Außerdem kann man den Schaden von AP nur schlecht pauschal sagen, denn es kommt im Gegensatz zu HE nicht so sehr darauf an, dass man überhaupt trifft, sondern vor allem wo und wie. Merkt man halt besonders bei Schlachtschiffen, wo der Schaden von AP zwischen 500 und 15.000 schwanken kann.

Animations for AA guns are completely random at the moment. It doesn't take the rof or gun angles into consideration. It's just abstract DPM at different ranges with random AA animations. DP-Guns can even fire at sea and air targets at the same time I think.

I think CV gameplay is neither easier nor more difficult than the "normal" ships' gameplay... it's just different and requires different skills. It's more like a strategy game, so focus in on tactics and multitasking. Some players are better at action games, others at strategy or tactic games... and I'm glad that WoWS features both types.

Well, you just have to use your magic compass, otherwise you cannot unlock her... only when you have the compass, you have access to the map "Isla de Muerta" where she's anchored. Beware though, that you first have to bring back all cursed coins to get rid of that pesky zombie crew.

Naja im Grunde genommen sind die anderen Spiele von WG ähnlich primitiv, es geht nur darum, auf welche Funktionen mehr oder weniger Wert gelegt wurde. Das Sichtsystem in WoT ist komplizierter, dafür ist das Schadensmodell wesentlich einfacher. Man muss irgendwo halt abspecken, zum einen aus Gameplay-Gründen zum anderen auch, um die Engine und die Server nicht zu überlasten. Wichtig ist eigentlich nur, dass man weiß, wie's funktioniert... und was meinst du, wie viele Beschwerde-Threads auftauchen würden, wenn man das Sichtsystem erweitern würde... ein Blick in die WoT-Foren reicht, um das zu erahnen.

Finde den Vorschlag völlig blödsinnig. Im Coop-Modus kann man eigentlich nur das grundlegende Steuern und Schießen lernen... und dafür braucht ein geübter PC-Spieler sicher keine 100 Kämpfe. Darüber hinaus hat der Coop-Modus so gar nichts mit richtigen Gefechten zu tun. Denn das was man eigentlich lernen muss um gut zu sein, ist das Manövrieren und grundlegende Taktik im Kampfverlauf... und das kann man nicht mit dämlichen Bots lernen, sondern das geht nur im richtigen Gefecht gegen andere Spieler.

Hier man ein Beispiel aus der Realität: Glaubst du wirklich, dass du hinter so einer Wand aus Rauch noch ein Schlachtschiff sehen könntest? Im Spiel ist halt alles etwas vereinfacht. Ich finde die einfache Sichtmechanik eigentlich sehr einprägsam und leicht verständlich. Und Rauch ist hier nun einmal undurchsichtig, so einfach ist das. Alles was drin oder dahinter ist, ist unsichtbar für andere Schiffe. Ausgenommen natürlich der Proximity-Spot.