Ubertron_X

As long as you get the captain everything should be fine. That having said, cry havoc and let slip the Welthund of war...

25 Basilisk flags

While looking at this please keep in mind the soft limits for 3 of the 4 classes, which are BB 41,66%, DD 33,33%, CV 8,33%. Assuming that the Data provided by ColonelPete includes May until up to date we currently have the following major events/changes in effect which could potentially influence the distribution of class percentages: BB: Full release of the Italian tech tree BBs. Changes to the Deadeye captain skill. CA: Nothing of note (correct me if I am wrong). DD: Pre-release of the 2nd German DD line. Changes to the Fearless brawler captain skill. CV: Nothing of note (correct me if I am wrong). Without further analysis (e.g. number of battles containing Italian BBs per individual week) any explanation attemps would be speculation rather, so I will stop here.

This is not a bug, it is a feature of the new captain system. In the old system some of your skills where at least 50% operable until the captain retraining was complete. In the new system *no* skill is operable until the retraining is complete. This was 100% planned by WG, no bug.

As others have already mentioned. 1) Captain retraining to another tech tree ship costs 300k ECXP every time you hop from ship to ship with a 21pt captain. 2) Because of 1) you don't hop from ship to ship anymore as you did before the captain rework when some of the skills were at least operable at 50% efficiency. 3) you now use multiple captains, one for each ship, problem solved. For example, for the IJN torpedo boat line, my captain setup looks like this. All the while Yamamoto is looking from the sidelines because I am not willing to pay 300k ECXP every time I reset the lines.

Funny enough I stopped playing ranked with the new system exactly for the same reasons that many of you seem to like it, i.e. faster battles and the new rewards. In my case however I simply dislike the fact that I can burn ressources much faster in a competitive game mode now without ever getting appropriate ressources back (mainly talking about flags here).

Middle High German "Lintwurm" (lint = snake, wurm = also snake) is the traditional German dragon. Usually has 2 (sometimes 4 or more) legs, no or only small wings, a long tail and is more often than not able to breath fire. Usually lives in caves. The english equivalent would be a Wyvern I guess.

Some quick google-fu later I found that those names and associated creatures are indeed some obscure mythical creatures of German origin, many of which I assume are only regionally known. So I stand somewhat corrected.

Considering that probably only one of four teams in a German themed event has a proper German name (Lindwurm) and that the German playerbase is significantly large I expect team Lindwurm being ahead rather often.

Yes. And numbers will probably prove that WG is handing out more flags in total than ever before, considering that coop players are a significant portion of the playerbase, even if the mode itself does not warrant mounting even a single flag. But lessions learned I will forgo the mostly useless Z-31 perma camo (something that I would have never ever considered before) and get me some flags instead.

Though I do not fully agree with the title the high cycle rate sure has a couple of negative effects that I equally dislike with the most important one being loss of progress if you fail to complete in time.

Domination > Epicenter > Standard Battle The "problem" with Epicenter is that this mode as it is now does not invalidate the general rules of engagement. And as per the general rules of engagement crossfire is and will always be deadly and the very reason why most of the time it is a lot better to just block middle and win the flanks.

The information however that you will not get out of this survey is why and how people are using the RB. For example for a guy like me, playing since Beta and having every single line researched to T10 (except carriers), there simply isn't much more to do. So when I do reset a line once every x2 is available this is more like "For the sake of old times lets try American BB again and see how they fare in the current meta, one of very first lines I ever played!" or "Is the Donskoi really as bad as I remember her and my old stats do say?" and there also is a huge difference if you mainly use free XP to buy your way up again or if you actually play said ships spending credits (and potentially elite captain XP) instead. Which means that I am often not resetting lines in order to aquire the RB ships and equipment in the first place but those prizes do come as an added benefit while simply re-playing some of the lines. As such I am an entirely different beast to any player who is immediately sinking his free XP into newly available RB ships, like he would likely sink free XP into a Smaland or Hayate.

These auctions are just a part of "fixing" the broken (for WG) game economy, aka the continuing monitarisation of the game. 1) Problem: Not making (enough) money out of flags and/or credits. 2) Solution: Reduce flag output by removing them from ranked rewards and achievments. 3) Problem: People can still buy flags for credits and many players have probably hoarded a lot of them. 4) Solution: Introduce a credit / ressource drain (aka auctions). WG created their own set of problems by allowing the game economy to be a little bit too player friendly (at least for the better players), leading to a lot of secondary problems like devaluation of currencies, which they are now trying to fix by making ressources more scarce and introducing much needed sinks. The thing is that at a rudimentary level the majority of the player base is usually not entirely stupid and will easily notice what is going on, no matter how WG will be trying to sugarcoat it. Its the same when a food company labels their old products "new recipe", which usually translates into: Product is now more beneficial (cheaper) for us, not necessarily more beneficial (healthier) for you. Note that I am not condoning the necessary evils of capitalism (aka a company being required to earn money) but rather the attempts at sugercoating said changes. At the end of the day the customer will pay the bill, one way or the other.

25m Though I could easily use the coal (e.g. Lütjens) and despite sitting on a huge pile of credits I will not play any games and therefore only place an opportunistic minimum bid.

I'd rather call it an attempt to confer basic patch information in colloquial form while specifically not going into the details, in the same way as you probably would discuss some of the topics with a friend. "Did you see the patch notes for 0.10.5? The accuracy of the main guns of the Italian battleships will be increased." "Well, this is great news as I am currently struggling to hit the broadside of a barn in my Carraciolo and Veneto!" For some people this kind of information will be enough without having to go into the details of dispersion and sigma. However the "tries-to-be-but-ultimatively-fails-to-be-funny" tone of the article seems off by a large margin.

To be honest and despite being quite fond of memes or similar informal ways of sharing thoughts and information I find this style of presentation of "official information" and especially the wording used rather cringeworthy. However I freely admit that I am probably not a good representative of your target audience, coming from an occupation used to read and comprehend many pages of technical or legal writing without tiring. And while using bullet points to confer information quickly is not bad per se, the problem often is the correct selection of bullet points according to importance, which in many cases may easily differ from reader to reader. For example in the section for the captain skills, the changes to Fearless Brawler are missing entirely, which however would be one of the most important points for any dedicated DD player. For example in the armory section there is no mentioning of ships being phased out with 0.10.5. That having said I found it an equally amusing and irritating read and will rather ignore it for the full patch notes (aka I did rather not like it). Edited because the original statement was not correct.

TL:DR patch notes, nice...

Debatable. I have yet to find a single special flag to help me in battle, whereas many of the regular flags for achievments do. Special flags are the literal icing on the cake, and while the new cake may look prettier now it also did become a lot smaller.

Didn't try too hard because, 1) I already have Kirov 2) Credit compensation is not much of an incentive if you already have > 1 billion credits 3) Camo doesn't provide any different bonus to the standard one The cost/benefit ratio was simply too bad on this one, especially as many missions were restricted to random/ranked. Made it to step 4 while playing normally, i.e. I got the patch.

Usually I count at least 4 instances of friendly fire. 1) Grieving. Deliberately damaging or TK'ing your team. 2) Cluelessness (including bots). Damaging your team by bad play, e.g. launching 6km torpedoes from 2nd line at targets 12km away. 3) Unintentional risk. Damaging your team by failing to notice a teammate and/or his movement capabilities, for example launching torps at an enemy that is clearly in range but those fish are intercepted by a friendly Le Terrible steaming up from the other side of the map. 4) Calculated risk. Damaging your team while making a rather desperate move, for example launching torps in front of a currently stationary friendly BB that is about to get rammed by an enemy BB while being aware that your own BB might very easily decide to move forward. So how will these changes affect those scenarios? Ad 1) Very good. More penalties for deliberate team killers while the team is not weakened more than it already is. Ad 2) Good'ish. Bots will be punished as unfortuately will be new or generally bad players. Perhaps the later two will eventually learn to cope. Ad 3) Bad'ish. While the friendly will not get damaged, why continue the fight yourself if win or lose does not matter anymore if your XP and credit gain is set to zero anyway. Just yolo into the enemy team and start a new battle. Also opens the door for intentional counter-grieving. Ad 4) Bad. As it is now you can sometimes take a risk in order to win and if you fail you will get a deserved penalty on top of probably losing the battle. However in future the penalty may be so big (no credits or xp) that you might as well not even try to go for the win in the first place. As a decent player I am in favor of the changes for 1) and 2) but I see some risks for scenarios 3) and 4). But of course this is also dependent on how fast you penalty register is cleared.

The problems here is general game mechanics like spotting, passive defenses, range and initial map placement. Many CA sport good to very good concealment at the cost of other defenses (smoke, armour plating), which however can be instantly rendered obsolete the moment the enemy CV decides to operate in your sector of the map or you lost your DD screen. A DDs efforts are usually twarted by other DDs *and/or* easily twarted by CV planes (often even if the CV does 0 damage to said DD). A CAs efforts are usually twarted by other CAs *and/or* easily twarted by DDs or CV planes. A BBs offensive efforts can be twarted by all those classes, however a BBs defensive efforts often do not care much about spotting, at least for a very long time.

3/5 - 1.1m of 1.5m

Me when my BB salvo just produced 2 overpens on that broadside enemy cruiser on 8 to 10km while the rest of my shells went elsewhere:

I dont see any difference in SAP shell performance on paper, perhaps it is the enemies that change? Or overall gun performance including number of guns and sigma?