Ubertron_X

Enlighten me, how EXACTLY "free premium consumables" will offset NTC'd ship, as it will have access to them anyway? Well I guess WG reconning goes something like this: Standard ship + standard consumables <<< Standard ship + premium comsumables wheras Standard ship + premium consumables < NTC ship + premium comsumables If you rate the influence of the free premium consumables higher than the influence of any or all levels of NTC performance enhancements THEN AND ONLY THEN WG 's line of reasoning makes any sense. If this were truely the case then 50% of the player base would indeed have "improved" by much more than the few that have actually grinded their NTC ship boni. Note that I do not at all agree with that line of reasoning, however this is what I think their idea of how things work looks like.

I also very much dislike the current suggestion of increasing performance through the Navel Training Center as it will increase the disparity between players and will make ships very hard to balance. If you want to reward your loyal players and/or give them something to do, why not go for lesser or just cosmetic upgrades? Examples: You want to have the option to play the Gneisenau in its original configuration (3x3 280mm)? Just grind it again and you have the option to play either configuration. You want the Queen Elisabeth to look like she fought during WWI? Just grid it again and you have the option to mount the stock hull but still use the bonuses of the WWII retrofit hull. This way a new player could look at a veteran player (or better his ship) in awe and set some own goals for himself. You have created beautiful models, so why don't you use them?

I have two points to add to this request: 1) A discussion is a discussion. Feedback is feedback. And a discussion <> useful feedback, which is something WG needs to understand to avoid similar forum related disasters in future. So I petition that we receive at least one thread like the CV thread in this section of the forum. 2) With a topic having such a level of controversy one thread might not even be enough. For starters see the 240 page CV thread that is just one thing, terrible, and nothing meaningful will ever come out of it. In such cases it might even be worthwhile to consider opening a subforum where multiple threads can be opened and discussed.

Yeah, nice move when you renamed "General discussion" into "Gameplay" some years ago...

I second this @Excavatus. We all know that you are just doing your job, but people need a place to rant, else you will never get civilized answers in the devblog.

I like the concept of a flagship, however not by creating personalized ships, but for e.g. standard battles. One (random) ship gets designated as the flag ship and every kill by the ship yields extra points, if it is killed your team will receive an extra penalty while the enemy team gets an extra boost or you will receive an XP & credits boost if fighting within 5km of the flagship. Something like this...

Well then I wonder why in my port I have exactly 3 (!) US ship which are matching the contest criteria vs 13 Japanese (if the ARP ships count).

in my humble opinion it is not, however it might be somewhat complicated to do so and/or require additional steps like plane tier balancing. Just adjust either plane tier and/or AA tier to the min and max battle tiers of the current battle and voila. E.g. if the min battle tier is 6 Kaga's planes will be nerfed for that battle. If the max battle tier is 10 Kaga's planes will receive a significant buff for that battle etc.

True dat, but mostly because Prinz Eugen's engines are extremely prone to failure once the stern flagpole is hit...

The real question is not "what makes a ship OP" but "by what measure can a ship be considered OP"? Is a ship already OP when a unicum outperforms in it (even by unicum standards) or is a ship only considered OP when an average or even subpar player outperforms in it? So which ship is more OP? The ship with a very high skill ceiling that however brings 10 unicums from 65% to 85% win rate while tomatoes still struggle with it or the ship with a low skill ceiling that brings 10000 average players from 49% to 54% win rate?

There is a module that reduces motor damage chance and shortens repair time: Propulsion Modification 1 Perhaps try if it makes any difference. Edit: I use it on most DDs and also on Prinz Eugen.

Well, I mean... it is in the name already.... ;) Did you consider using the motor module and last stand? Using speed boost and last stand should get you a decent top speed even with a broken motor if you already were near top speed. Don't expect a lot of acceleration or deceleration though.

... (wrong thread)

As the 420's seem to have near identical handling to the 406's (some more versed forumites may have the graphs ready) and you will not pass a threshold there is few benefit (slightly higher AP and HE damage) but a huge 2.7 seconds reload drawback. So yes, go for the smaller guns.

In case of same reload: More barrels > less barrels. Unless your gun/shell characteristics tremendously increase or you pass a critical threshold (HE penetration or AP overmatching) you basically never use bigger guns.

Short answer: No. Long answer: Also no. Reload > Caliber.

Being at 201 pages and with the mods re-routing every single new and somehow CV-related thread to here, can't we just agree that all our input is plain useless? Why else would you need to dump all discussions into one thread? Don't get me wrong, this is not about closing the 716th CV hate thread, but as the rework appears to be a much discussed topic it should be given due credit, i.e. it's own forum section with pinned subthreads like AA, fighter plane, drop bomber, torpedo bomber related topics etc.

No. Even if they do eventually aggro I have seen enough fighters despawn because they are "too late" and have been pulled "out of range" without having killed a single enemy plane, which is also wrong. When on maximum range they should simply return to patrol duty for the remainder of their duration.

Like AA focus before the rework or secondaries focus still in the game: shift + click on the squad you want to intercept.

And in my opinion that is wrong / counter-intuitive. Players should not be bothered to know if their fighters start port or starboard or where they currently are if already deployed or need to be lucky. They simply need to be able to control them actively. If for any reason they currently are on the wrong side of the ship and need some flight/manouvering time to actually engage thats ok. But never picking up aggro = not ok.

Quoted for truth. Fighters need to be able to be directed like we did with AA before the patch. And once their airborne target is set they need to engage as quickly as possible. Else you will never get consistent results.

I am 99% sure as I play mixed divsions almost every evening for a couple of years now. Almost the only occurance when we are not placed somewhere in the "middle" is when there are 2 or more divisions in each team.

Afaik single divisions always spawn middle and are free to choose their side. Only if more than one division is present per team the divisions starting position might be switched to the sides.

Even if I do consider it more of an annoyance than actually game breaking I have seen my share of clan "teamplay" too. For example I very often find opposing clan divisions on separate flanks, e.g. on Two Brothers, where they club everyone else before they eventually have to fight each other. Note that I do not have detailled statistics on this, so ending up on different flanks may still be totally random however I very much doubt it.