Pandafaust

Just as a minor note of caution, if you buy the doubloon packages you don't actually get double the number of doubloons as the packages have a small inbuilt discount - for example if using the coupon on the 50,000 package you mentioned you'll get 99,248 doubloons in total.

It should be noted though that the number of competent CVs out there really is quite low. The unfortunate problem you have is that you're basically too good to appreciate the effects things can have for and against bang average players. It's like having Lionel Messi turning up at school 5 a side matches and explaining that it doesn't matter if the jumper goalposts are moved a bit closer together as any competent player is still going to nutmeg the keeper.

Yes, we can clearly see how you dominated the opposition in the twenty odd matches you've spent in a rework CV in order to form that opinion. Personally, I rarely bring CVs out into random anymore as I find it to be more effort than it's worth to get good results.

^^ Pretty much this. It's the wows equivalent of a warm and comfy pair of slippers; it does exactly what you want it to do whilst you glide around the place feeling wonderfully relaxed.

This is clearly bollocks, and is easy to disprove by the existence of well known cheat programs which display the shell landing positions once fired.

What seems obvious to me is how spotting damage is calculated. It's simply a case that you need to be sporting a target for a ship to shoot at, when that ship cannot see the target itself for whatever reason (outside target concealment range, obscured by island/smoke cover etc). The spotting damage number itself is simply the direct amount of damage that the allied ship(s) do to the target whilst you're spotting it. I cannot see how this concept is obscure. The 485k requirement makes this one of the faster missions in this set, even in a fairly poor mission you're likely to be getting around 50k spotting damage in a dd. I'm not sure how my feelings on "the grind" are relevant to the topic, but I've always felt that if you treat the game as something to be ground through rather than as something to enjoy, then you're missing the point of what gaming is for.

It all seems pretty obvious to me (and the mission's an easy one to complete), but realistically how would you change it to make it less obscure to you?

To think that some people claim @ColonelPete is pedantic...

Double post as forum is terrible.

No idea - I can narrow it down to probably being some German dude given the UI.

It's from quite a long time ago (2017), and is only a low-res screenshot so you can't see anything about it showing unspotted ships (the linked twitch clips are long dead so can't check those either). It does show cheating though, but only using the usual stuff that no-one argues doesn't exist (torpedo/shell indicators from spotted armaments, aim predictor for ships moving at existing speed/angle).

Don't suppose you've got a link to any information about this "famous cheater", because it's not obviously showing up through google searches (though I can find dozens of the classic "I was shot by this guy at 15km when turning, he must be hacking/I fired torps and the ship turned straight away" posts). Very few posts about "I launched torps and the target kept straightlining and ate a couple" or "someone fired at me and missed" - it's just a massive exercise in confirmation bias.

Aye, that was a somewhat frustrating one - you did nicely on your flank and nearly gunned down that myoko in the end before he escaped behind an island so I remember chucking you a +1. I think it was telling that despite keeping the eastern flank spotted for an age before giving up and recapping the middle I only ended the match with a total of 8000 spotting damage!

In fairness, the main culprits just sit in co-op anyway and don't have AI anywhere near the level of the regular AI "press w and shoot" technique so I doubt WG as an organisation are creating them. They just don't care about removing them either.

Aye it pops up every now and again (the CLAWS one).

For reasons best known to themselves, WG takes no apparent action against obvious botting in-game, even when it's done on a clan-wide scale.

For most preferred engagements with the Marceau you're going to be outside torp range anyway, gunning things down and relying on speed (and changes of it) to avoid incoming fire. You can obviously spec it however you like, but preventative maintenance and last stand are better skills to take than liquidator and fill the tubes.

Skipping over the whole "activating heal/dcp after 1 fire tick" thing, there are 4 DDs in the battle. For the two enemy DDs, neither died so there's no possible issue there with launching torps after death. For the friendly DDs, you have a yamagiri which launches torps just as it's dying (on 400hp), and the halland who dies with no torp launches near the same time. How is there an issue at all here?

How many times are you planning on recreating this thread? You already have the answers on how best to play the ship.

Thanks for organising this again guys - I'd like to participate please.

From my freebie certificate crates: 1 x small gift - Frosty Fir Tree x4 6 x mega gifts - 30 each of Scylla/Wyvern/Leviathan, 3 coal crates (so 37.5K total)

Doesn't seem that weird a concept to me...

I'm not too fussed about what comes out of the freebie crates, as it's all just bonus stuff anyway. I've a slightly better chance of getting a ship than not getting one, in a vaguely plausible scenario I'd get a ship or two and ideal result would be a worthwhile quantity of premium time; I've not bought any in a couple of years so have nearly run out.

Siegfried?

The subgroup chances are literally highlighted in the quoted picture. Every ship within the subgroup has the same chance of dropping.