conductiv

you could very well be right there, with damage location bit. about the reducers...well I just assumed everyone uses the damage control equipment (-5%) but I'm also assuming the frequency of occurrence of the fire prevention skill (-7%) is extremely low.

yes the ammo choice should be target dependent, and I'm not complaining about that... However, the ammo does have a listed "fire chance stat" in the garage/port..and I am trying to figure out if the numbers I'm getting correlate with the "given" stats and...if not...what the given numbers would be...this includes suboptimal targets like battleships and cruisers. from the games I have played, the numbers are significantly lower and I want to see if this is the same for other people. this would be a lot easier if I had a training room where I could wail on a pal for a bit to get more data without screwing my team over on top of that I would know all the skills and equipment effects in detail as I could simply ask about them, but this is currently not the case. as such..I thought it would be easier to get the data from the community..I just have to eliminate the odd parameter..as carriers seem to be excessively flammable compared to...everything else lower numbers then stated also limit the capability of the suggested strategy...if you need 20-30 203mm HE shell hits to get a single fire on a battleship (in 1 test it took 25 and in the other it took 33 to get the first fire on the target BB using the new orleans 203mm HE shells with the pyromania perk)..or knock out a single turret for a few seconds the results are not worth the time investment, not to mention the vast drop in actual damage output because you are using sub-optimal ammo (I'm all for trading damage for negative status effects or even minor DoT pressure...but at a certain investment in time the ammo's possible effects become moot) about the reality aspect, I tend to be one of the guys that is more then willing to sacrifice real life parameters to balance out aspects of the game.... do keep in mind though that I am willing to sacrifice damage per shot..as long as the debuffs occur frequently and are potent enough to counteract the time investment. in this case I have the feeling that..while fire is most certainly potent enough, the frequency is a lot lower then it should be to make the ammo even remotely viable (apart for lighting CVs on fire) but keep the input coming, its greatly appriciated

on another note, keep in mind this is a game..if 1 class of ships becomes exceedingly powerful against everything else (basically what you are asking, you want torpedo protection, better and longer range secondairy guns and the ability to arbitrarily maul any class but a BB) people will flock to that class as playing anything else would just be a waste of time. taking a quick look around shows me that BB's are doing very well..they generally have the highest win rates for the player in question and highest damage totals. so there is no reason at this time to buff them

dunno about IJN cruisers, but USN cruisers are very powerfull tier 6 and below, tier 7 & 8 seems somewhat lackluster at the moment (mainly deu to the low RoF of the 203mm ). tier 9 doesn't look much better. and the tier 10 suddenly gets like 2,5 times the offensive power in its guns. the 203mm does have a lot higher shell velocity though, and is quite accurate. so while you lose a lot of DPM the shot accuracy should increase. and the ships get a steady increase in survivability (smaller citadels, better armor and more HP) in tier 6,7 and 8 I mostly act like a AA panic button for the BB's, they don't really need the AA boost (it helps them, but they can shred planes with the best), but the cruiser panic ability helps them a lot. and you'll support their firepower by helping them kill...well anything they want to kill. priority targets are anything that can kill your BB ally quick, meaning anything that has access to torpedo's. (most of who'm you can completely wreck..as IJN cruisers have huge citadels, DD's have no HP and aircraft can hardly hit you with the panic ability) this can be fun...or boring, depending on the BB you are supporting...if he takes the scenic route you might not get a whole lot of action.

everyone starts out a nublet...nothing to be ashamed about.

I dunno, but to continue on the XP debate I have a feeling I get much more XP on DD's for much lower damage then I do get XP on BBs with much higher damage. might just be me, but there seem to be other factors involved then just damage + kills for the XP calculation

you will quickly enough get used to it, torpedo's are very powerful..but generally easily dodged defense against torpedo bombers -stick together in groups, preferably with a T6+ CA (cruiser for the AA panic ability that severely reduces TB accuracy), you can also invest equipment/secondairy armament captain skills/equipment to make yourself a more potent AA platform..generally by increasing AA range. dead bombers don't drop torps -if you see the bombers moving towards you..or getting within 8 KM, sail into their direction..this will reduce the number of torps that hit...and possibly allow you to avoid all -save the repair crew ability to counter the flooding damage, flooding is extremely powerful and halves the ships top speed. if you fear damaged guns etc. you might want to counter that with captain skills or equipment to speed up repairs/ lower the odds of losing them -use the self repair ability to counteract fire from other sources if needed, the BB self repair generally heals more then the fire inflicts damage. multi-level or multiple fires on the ship can be just as devastating though..so using equipment (when available) to counteract fire duration or chance might be wise. *note don't be shy about using the self repair ability on a BB, there is no need to worry about countering fire or flooding damage if you won't survive the initial torp hits. high HP= less likely to get 1-volly-sunk.

I did see the number of high tier CV's plummet, but this might mean nothing as numbers are currently skewed with the premium ships about like SPG's CVs use a different mechanic, because of that they are difficult to balance so I agree with your assumption that they will require a lot, if not the most balance work. but..unlike SPG's the CV has 2 possible mechanics to work with...the planes and the AA on ships (as AA is only really used to counter CVs...that is until another source of attack planes is introduced)

They are fun, and I love playing the US ones..might get back to the IJN eventually. but they are also intense...when I see an opportunity in a DD I'm almost tunnel visioned on getting it..and I have blown up allies because of that.

I accidentally TK'd today...tried to squeeze a torp spread into a typical enemy pass just in front of a allied DD...allied DD got hit. its stupid I know I should have patiently waited for him to pass...problem is then the opportunity would have passed as well.

yeah I think thats the one, I don't know the name from the top of my head...but its the one that adds + target acquisition range or something like that

the checkmarks are indeed skills, but the skills here are what I see as passive skills. I also see you piont of view with "active skill" = "activated skill" passive meaning you don't have to do anything to get their benefit, they might tag on a active skill by for instance reducing the cooldown but the captains skills are generally not "used" they help you do something you already could..so you do it better. active skills can be ingame even without you spending a skill piont, the smoke screen, BB self repair and cruiser flak burst are examples of typical active skills. they have a little icon, and have to be tagged in order to get their benifit. now shells, planes and torps do have a active icon, so they could be seen as a skill...though I tend to be more inclined to say that the active skills are the repair crew and the class active ability...possibly the scout plane as well. can someone verify azekows or my vision on "active skills" ?

where there tier 8's in that battle that might have the +20% detect ability equipment on them?

wait, dropping torps and launching planes are "active skills"?

Overall it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with me, WG decides future actions mainly on demographics and what their own people can come up with. I'm just 1 tester of many, and if my opinion is different so be it.... its a futile effort to change opinions so its better to leave at "agreeing to disagree". I named what I felt where the biggest flaws of this game...in a single sentence I'd say "its the lack of actual choice" about your HE snipe, actually yes...shooting HE in WoT with anything but arty or a derp is like trying to shoot a tank with a BB gun. terribly ineffective...HE as a tank ammo became plain useless in that game, apart from the occasional niche use that is. and I did actually hope this game would correct that mistake, because it did look like that for a bit. As I see it...and I might be wrong here...is that if you have 2 types of ammo, those shells should be useful in the game, hollow points for the HP bag with no armor, armor piercing for the guy wearing a kitchen stove over his chest kinda thing, and the guy in between should be screwed by both. Ammo wise WoT is AP or whatever gold/premium/expensive ammo you can or want to afford to stuff in the gun, seems this game is going the same way..1 good ammo...1 that could just as well be removed, and possibly later added third that blows both out of the water

-I don't see those mobile play-styles, haven't seen a streamer or instruction vid regarding them, they must be rather rare -you can blow a DD out of the water with 1 AP volly of everything but a DD, the only reason to use HE to break the engine on DD's when you are a DD..see Ichase vids for that..why switch ammo on anything else?...oh yes a CV so he can't launch planes....the sole exception where HE might actually be adequate... future is first see then comment on it...I'm commenting on how the armor is now, not in the future. -again the survivability problems is how it is now..I'm not commenting on the unborn problems of tomorrow -I shot down plenty of planes as well, doesn't mean I won the game or it made any significant contribution. but I am fairly sure I won most games where I did sink a lot of ships. the point that you did it in non-AA ships only indicates the low value of AA specialized ships -shooting down "plenty" of planes doesn't mean you auto win or even make a significant contribution. and while you have heard some player whine about a clevelands AA (and not its guns...because there is plenty of whining about that)...I haven't..I did hear a LOT of whining about higher tier enemy CV's and a modicum about BB's having to much AA. (you can probably find some forum threads on the first page about it right now.) -upgrading main and secondary armament seems to be the way to go, ignoring any skills or setups that focus on other things (unless main and sec armament cannot be upgraded in that slot naturally, or you are playing a DD) this is also advised in most instruction vids that deal with captain skills (see Ichase again) if you are trying to tell me that the current flaws are only temporary or don't exist because they don't apply in a few specific situations I'm afraid you are missing the point. yes HE works against a DD and the fire does cripple a CV...but I won't be fighting just them and AP works almost just as well if not better, yes AA can win the game occasionally...if the enemy CV acts like a bot...

-ships in this game are actually very fast, but it doesn't feel that way and hence you cannot formulate any playstyle that relies on mobility. the destroyers are and feel fast and agile...but they lack on other critical area's to make the mobile playstyle a possibility. -about HE, well I have been running the numbers and even for a ammo that would solely depend on its ability to inflict fires and criticals..it just doesn't work...fire is too weak or the real fire chance is too low. keep in mind that the listed fire chance only applies on CV's all other classes are only lit on fire for a fraction of those odds, you will need about 15-20 shots that hit to get a >50% chance to light a BB on fire even with 12% chance of causing a fire. (maths would indicate roughly half that number..however in the game every non CV ship seems to take far more shots before being lit on fire) the fire damage is "% of max HP" so its effective on high HP targets, but its something like 0.5 or 0.4% every 2 seconds and the highest HP targets has a extra in-build heal that simply out-heals it (basically forcing you to inflict 4 fires to get ANY effect of it, 1 for the repair, and 2 to counter the healing caused by the self repair ability, the 4th will actually start inflicting damage..but by that time the self repair ability will likely be back up) HE ammo rarely knocks out main guns for more then a few seconds (the most common damage is on AA guns), AP on the other hand outright destroys main guns beyond repair on penetration you can use fire to force the repair and set up for much stronger sinking DoT caused by torps, but the fire chance from flimsy DD guns is so low that that's simply not worth the effort or risk the odds of fire are quite good on BB's, but they are more likely to 3-4 shot volly a enemy BB using AP..causing so much spike damage that can drill straight through the repairs and heal. meaning that it just wouldn't be a wise idea to use HE on anything but a carrier...and even that is questionable as it can be killed insanely fast with standard AP. this doesn't mean you can't get the occasional good game with HE...but it would be 2-3 times better if you used AP -armor is moot means that flimsy ships have a hard time not getting hit in the zones where they get 3 shot...the weaker the ship in HP seems to go hand in hand with the likelihood that it gets hit for high damage. low HP + taking high damage vs high HP ships that are less likely to get citadeled..aka the double defense dilemma even with a topped out AA range its still so small that the enemy can simply fly around it, the weaker guns on the edge are so weak that a T6+ carrier can fly in, bait defensive fire (this one panics by default, the upgrade only increases the AA damage by 20% during the skill effect and reduces the cooldown)...fly out and then bomb whatever ship you are escorting.. and even if you get someone that starts a dogfight right above your ship, he loses some planes that earns me practically nothing..and if its early in the game he will simply replace them with the other 12-18 waiting on his ship. I have never seen a CV player cry about a CA, only about the opposing CV if its a higher tier with upgraded fighters. so AA feels useless and the reward feels insignificant. AP kongo focused on secondairies works, much like AP (any ship with decent guns) and secondairies (provided it has any)...the problem for me is that its the only style that seems to work and pay off

my biggest problem is its high focus on gunnery...it has a ton of mechanics..but since nothing is as easy and effective as "aim AP at the enemy citadel" its basically all I do. and it bored me quickly... -ships are not mobile enough to make any effective use of mobility strategies (even with the scale differences that basically make them as fast as F1 cars) -while stealth gameplay with a DD is fun, doing torpedo-runs is either suicidal or a lottery. -you can play the CV "manual torpedo drop" minigame, though the idea didn't appeal to me so I never did it personally. -AA support focus doesn't feel rewarding or fun -HE the alternative ammo is next to useless, relying on its 45 second!! DoT that can instantly be removed to make up for AP's insane spike damage. -armor mechanics seem moot, especially on flimsier ships.

WoT is different, so different that aiming assistance hardly helps a new player, its a game more about cover and positioning. and while it does have modules that allow for a variation of crippling effects when damaged, the save model and the fact that the most commonly used shells have a set damage on penetration renders the game less about hitting a specific spot on the enemy vehicle but more about not getting into a position where the enemy can effectively shoot you. hitting tanks isn't really the problem. while in WoWs it is the major part of the game. -tanks can effectively use cover, showing only the strong armor that other tanks cannot penetrate reliably, while ships can hide behind an island showing only turrets, he's going to get chewed up as ships penetrate and inflict damage from all angles. -if effective use of cover is impossible, tanks can still play peek-a-boom style..either using periods of distraction to engage and retreat before the enemy can engage, or otherwise out-trade the enemy. in ships playing peek-a-boom is impossible. the majority of WoWs fights are open engagements, basically shot trades with both sides trying to get more and/or bigger guns on the enemy target, the ships have also been given a "bingo" hit-zone that will when hit cause the AP shell to inflict near maximum damage. having a aim assist will allow you to hit that zone quite reliably or at least more often...because even if the enemy dodges..the shells have a 6-12 second flight time at 10-20KM...in that time most cruisers cannot effectively change course enough to get out of the shell spread range of a perfectly aimed shot. and the only ship agile enough to dodge has to get closer to become a worthwhile threat. personally I don't think the gunnery system is too simple...the more you add the more would be solved my mods telling you what dial to turn and where to aim anyway. the main problem is that the game is currently so heavily focused on gunnery and has very little alternatives to the "use guns and shoot AP" style. (as all other styles seem to equal suicide with aim assistance active on the opponent...HE would take way too long and you would have to get too close to make torpedo's count) this makes the game..in my opinion...rather bland. edit: some grammar

second survey...its the first I have seen so far, and from what I had to "judge" they still have a lot to improve on...I crammed pretty much any area where I could place critique with loads of tekst. also a lot of low scoring numbers....lets be honest the game has potential but at the moment I can't get myself to play it anymore. it doesn't grab me like WoT did this doesn't mean it doesn't have a few good points over its brother.

little side note here, citadel hits and hits are counted seperatly that means he had 27 hits total, with 23 being normal hits and 4 being citadel hits. on another note, we don't know at what range and on what ships these hits have been placed, citadel hits on cruisers and normal hits on DDs sink them pretty quickly but deal 1/8th-1/3th the damage one would deal against a battleship (as the ships simply don't have that much HP) and the odds of hitting citadel hits on close range are higher then long range citadel hits...aka too many variables to decide whether or not his score tells us BBs are OP.

as this game relies on dodging rather then a cover system any aim-bot or "enhanced sight" that would tell you where to aim to get citadel hits would instantly break the game. the slow maneuvering of ships prevents them from dodging shells in full, so aim bots remain effective (changing course or slowing down significantly takes about 20 seconds for battleships) this game is in beta so its a good thing that the "auto-aim" mods pop up now, mostly to ensure WG's modding policies and anti-cheat systems will be up to date prior to release..otherwise this game is going to be deserted by players at a insane rate. (you cannot rely on players to act civil and not use them because you tell them not to, you will have players using them and messing up the game..so they will have to be actively blocked)

thats a good answer or at least it fits until we find a better one, the ingame KM's arn't actually KMs... but was there any hint as to how many m/knots a ingame KM actually is? its a bit of a tricky situation, because lets be honest...CV is a BB counter with special circumstances, being only partially avoidable because you are a counter and manage the strike properly is a bit weird, simply because every other class that counters another does have a very real risk of death on the attempt...the CV has a very real risk of losing its planes, but generally has 1 or more squadron reserves. but on the other hand, CVs are not exactly super powers at the moment. Its not uncommon to see them completely drained of planes on the battlefield and they don't seem to be extremely powerfull in the hands of current beta testers. removing this guaranteed damage in some way would be a nerf..and a nerf would only make the class worse I can get the whole "if I am easily countered I'm useless claim", but still...ah well..the class is different and hence would always cause these kinds of dilemmas

that's actually a pretty good question, does having a 4 minute recharge time mean that you can point a death laser on an ideal target and just nuke it out of the water...provided you aim it right (exaggeration obviously)...should safe and near fatal damage always be guaranteed when a certain amount of time has been invested? or should there always be a "skilled counter" that does not rely on allies or the aiming skills of the person shooting at you?

to be honest...not really. my love for CA's has dropped quite a bit over the past week...but I can't say its because of their module fragility.