Figment

You're falling in the Battleships-Must-Be-Best-So-Let's-Go-Straight-For-Them trap. Experience the game from other perspectives, try destroyers and carriers especially. Why? Because you'll learn how other players will be dodging you and when they're easy targets, one of the most important things is about learning the timing. You can then apply this to your own tactics. Some other things: your hitrate is normal, but your damage output is low. I'm thinking you're staying at long range for too long or don't know when to switch to AP for citadel hits. Try closer range, use HE when a ship is sailing towards or away from you and use AP when you see its side.

There is an optimal crossing distance where the shots converge horizontally to the same region, below they cross, above they go more parallel 1. But then you don't always deal 1-2K damage, which are likely AP shells. The average goes up a lot with every citadel hit and typically you get 3-5K damage if you use HE. Please note that if all those shells would hit, the other class' hitpoint pool would become a joke in comparison. 2. Note the word "I" in your sentence. My results are pretty consistent for one. 3. You can't dodge shells in the same way, they go way too fast, especially at shorter ranges (below 8km it is virtually impossible to dodge if your ship is big). The spread of fire is like hail from a shotgun, it'll likely hit, you just don't know exactly where and how many times, but you can be guaranteed you're going to hit if you aim properly (also very dependent on how high you aim at a target btw, might want to experiment with waterline shots: remember if you aim too high: fewer citadel hits, a lot of the ship's citadel is underwater!). 4. Yes you can, by looking at DPS, average damage per hit, average damage over time and per match, etc. A lot of low caliber hits deal only 300-400 damage a shot. the only reason they deal more damage per salvo is accuracy and volume of fire. And chance of fire of course increases with volume of fire + hits. 5. Yeah, pointless increase. No. Small incriments or decriments work best if you're going to test. But if you have no idea what the goal is... 6. It should when the power wielded is too great to be fair.

Do you honestly think that's a good idea? :/ From some other games (particularly history centric games) I've noticed there's some lingering sentiments and a lot of moderation needed if the wrong history subject pops up. Subjects less likely to pop up if you're in a more international environment. Plus it separates communities more, creates far more topics on the same things (and doesn't create others) discussed elsewhere, etc. making it generally harder to find the information you're looking for. Plus, how many would actually post there? There's also no Italian, Dutch, nor any Scandinavian forum and each of those outnumbers the population of former Yugoslavia iirc. Around 10 million in the Balkan republics total vs about 61 million Italians, 24 million dutch speaking people, 9 million swedes, 6 million Danes, 5 million Norwegians. We're all using the English forum and think mostly everyone's happier for it due to it being easier to make new acquaintances, gain support for critique on WG policies, etc. Not saying you don't have a right to ask for or get it, just wondering if it's all that practical and needed. Isn't there a secondary trade language your countrymen might make use of and feel comfortable enough with, while getting in touch with other people from further away in Europe? English, German, Russian, Italian? When I was in Croatia last, German (read: Austrian) seemed to be the main secondary language anyway.

I would be willing to discuss this civily in PM, rather than hijack this thread to satisfy your grudge, your dissatisfaction with the outcome of the previous debate and your personal dislike of me due to me not respecting people who use augments to gain in-game combat advantages. And whatsmore, I already took a lot of time to answer you before: that site currently holds LESS information than the site Wargaming has as it tracks fewer players (!) AND it simply displays the same statistics in a different layout, apart from an over-time archive to see fluctuations in performance. It doesn't really add anything new in that respect and thus is as much "cheating" as someone looking at the official site. My critique also concerns the Wargaming stat site, since it provides a very incomplete picture for the purpose of both sites, namely post-/out-of-battle performance analysis. That results frequently in misjudgments and people judging others on whatever incomplete information they do have available. However, neither site can be used in game without applying some third party mod, which I've been clear about is not something I support. Studying someone else before or during the game is not practical. Certainly not in comparison to a mod that provides such info in-game and even then, the information this might provide is rather worthless as it does not apply to current situation. I've already made my case in my first response to you. You denying I did doesn't change this fact. So if you would kindly refrain from further abuse and trolling and if you must put me on ignore as I'm doing right now with you considering you don't let it go, then we're done. For the record: someone who admits to using artificial third party augmentations in game while other players in the same match do not have it and therefore are directly disadvantaged, are cheating and thus a cheat. This is a simple, technical fact you can deny all you want. In fact, it's their own admissal, not mine. I don't make any random accusations, I'm not witch hunting, I simply point out the meaning of their own confession with a very clear definition of cheating. Whether Wargaming has a toleration policy or a policy that asks players to police themselves doesn't change the fact that technically they'd be cheating by using artificial combat performance augments. And no, self-reflection by looking at out-of game stats does not equal cheating. That is called learning to play.

Easyduck, same applies to you. Let it go and use the ignore function if you so must. Otherwise, come to PM and I'll explain to you why you're wrong on every statement you've made in that post. if either of you continues to post on this issue publically though, I'll be adding you to MY ignore list.

Yeah. Such coincidence eh? Zen, whatever fued you think we have, whatever score you're trying to settle, I'm not interested. There is an ignore function. Just a friendly reminder that forum rules also apply to you and continueing an argument (especially a heated argument) from another discussion and derailing to settle a personal score or provoke a negative response is quite probably against the rules. And no, you wern't being subtle. Let it go Zen. There is nothing to gain from this for either of us.

If you want to play this game, you do realise I have a report button too, right? Zen, this isn't an in game modifications and it is incapable of providing an edge over others that doesn't require your brain to learn to play, analyse, etc. It is also provided by Wargaming, outside of the game. So it doesn't change a thing by adding knowledge Wargaming doesn't provide. Speaking of trying to call hypocrisy... Didn't you get upset earlier because of thread hijacking and derailing? What are you doing now exactly? And uhm, did you just call all xvm players cheats? Should I report you for slander? I mean, that is what you would do? Isn't it?

You mean stat mods like XVM? Not a fan. It can change the prioritisation a player makes by focusing on the best enemy players and I would say that could be considered cheating. Ultimately that can backfire in many ways though. Don't and wouldn't use it myself, rather not risk underestimating a "tomato", don't like how people call others names and don't like the negative attitude when they are dealt a bad team by the MM. I wouldn't call it an advantage per se, because that excellent player may just have a lousy drunk hour while that bad player has the time of his life, but seeing someone's stats in game doesn't strike me as an improvement to the gameplay experience in many ways, hence no, I don't support that type of mods. On forums using external sites? Different, you can check bias when people post about balance, mostly if they post from frustration, etc. External sites are not capable of providing the same information as fast - certainly not over all players - and the match time limit and action pace doesn't really allow for quick stat comparison, analysis, etc. And even if you would, chances are you aren't going to be able to make use of it efficiently. Observation always beats statistical knowledge. As far as training is concerned, by self-analysis, if everyone did that maybe the game would be more of a challenge, honestly. Training and self-awareness, learning from other people's mistakes and examples isn't cheating. That, is learning to play. You're not seriously trying to compare an external statistics site with a mod that provides a better view of the battlefield, artificially improves your aim or some such? That enough of an answer, or you want to troll, test and attempt to rile me up some more? ;)

You'd be forced to lower the damage. OP doesn't seem to want lowered damage though. The alternative would be to decrease refire rates. So less shots a minute. The point is DPS has to be around the same as it already is (as many players can get up to 150K damage as is).

Raz0r, some questions: 1. What makes you think they're not balanced right now? Your answer was: RNG 2. How do you explain people getting higher stats with the same RNG if the RNG makes it according to you impossible to have balance as is. 3. IF accuracy is increased, without reducing the amount of damage you deal with a citadel hit, do you understand that chances of obliterating enemy ships in single volleys increase significantly? 4. Do you realise that currently the accuracy of ships is roughly: 40-55% for DDs, 30-45% for cruisers, 20-35% for BBs, for a very good reason? Namely damage potential per volley? 5. What would happen if you bring the accuracy up by 20% with respect to now? You'd get 28-42% accuracy. You're already suggested to DOUBLE the accuracy (+100%). That would mean that from every shell fired, 40-70% would hit. With the amount of 10K potential hits being doubled at equal shots fired, what do you think will happen to the opposition that has units in the order of 30-50K hitpoints? What do you think would happen to the units that have 10-16K hitpoints? What do you think would happen to units with 40-97K hitpoints? 6. Who would benefit the most from an increase in accuracy? The ones who already hit more shots, or the ones who already hit fewer shots? Hint: 20-100% of MORE is A LOT MORE.

Usualy the first matches I play load slow, had the few minutes thing where after 10 matches or so I would finally load on time. This happened untill I installed an SSD. Afterwards, I have it the first few matches, but only the first three or four and only half a minute to a minute now. Think it has to do with textures being loaded far too slowly.

How come only a few hundred players are being tracked?

Though I see similar things from his service file, I'm looking at different aspects than experience (as havaduck points, out, that's a rather bad indicator due to the responsible WG developer not being smart enough to use base exp only and perhaps add a compensator per tier...). 1.5x/3x exp, premium, tiering etc. are all reflected in the average experience gain as is.

Or you have to make sure the CV is in the right position that it is screened by coaching the CV to not isolate itself as the escorts move...

They want people to buy more slots to get silver earning ships. Or premium ships.

Seen Tier X DDs (Shimakaze) lose a couple hundred thousand in a win with 5 kills (many finishing off kills, so not actually much damage). :x With a hitrate of 4-11%, it's costly.

From the looks of it you were playing a domination match. Kills and damage are secondary in those matches. It's all about control of points, kills do help in that respect, but if you wait too long with being aggressive, the enemy team gets too much control over the zones and you can easily lose the match even if you deal a lot of damage.

Not just the BBs. Have you seen the ammo cost for torpedoes tier 8 and above?

Why do I get the feeling your definition of escorting a CV is sailing within 1.5km from a ship that's sailing 20km away from the battle?

Of course I'm not the only player in this game. Yet for some reason you think you are as you're complaining about YOUR results, because you think your RNG isn't good enough, despite other people doing a lot better under the same RNG circumstances. You do not balance around mediocre or bad players, you balance around players much better than me. My performance is very consistent, with exceptional and extremely poor being the exceptions, rather than the standard. Maybe your question should be. Are you scared of a challenge that you want better default accuracy? PS: How exactly would I be SCARED of BBs if I'm performing best of all my units (save Omaha) on them as is? Kawachi 8/16 (50%) - acc 27% - 33K average Myogi 19/38 (50%) - acc 25% - 38K average Kongo 4/6 (still stock and capt skills not active: 67%) - acc 22% - 22K average (much lower than it should be due to a couple games being phoned in the middle of IJN TB dodging -__-') South Carolina 12/18 (67%) - 30% - 40K average Arkansas Beta 8/12 (67%) - acc 23% - 37K average Wyoming 24/32 (75%) - acc 25% - 46K average And I kinda suck.

I don't think everything has to be directly rewarded with exp. You get it indirectly by making your teammembers more effective, thus increasing the chance of a win and getting a 1.5x multiplier.

Yeah, but you're not performing super on your BBs right now, which isn't just down to RNG seeing as other people perform a lot better than the both of us on them. And I get winrates of over 70% on them as is. Don't see the need for higher accuracy, it'd be extremely OP.

I deal about 40K on average with my BBs at tier IV as is. If you up the accuracy to be double what I got now, you also double the damage output. It would allow a lot more AP citadel hits from good shots as well, resulting in huge amounts of casualties and quicker deaths than today. And those will be bad BB players who suffer the most.

Well, if you want realism, Midway used a lot of footage from the actual battle.

Honestly carrying IS a bit harder, but a lot of it has to do with experience. For instance, a lot of BBs don't realise they should stay relatively central, or when they start on a side, at least take a course that will lead to the center, in order to cut down on movement and repositioning time. For a lot of CV players, they don't realise they can carry by getting closer to the battle. Etc. etc.