allufewig

Sehr nice, danke. Für mich zwar nix Neues, aber sehr schön aufbereitet. Drei Schiffe sind eine Frechheit: Die Murmansk auf der einen (OP) und die Atlanta und Sims auf der anderen (UP) Seite. Die anderen kann man imho als einigermaßen balanced bezeichnen.

Die Atlanta ist Dreck. Das muss man so hart sagen, weil die Wahrheit so hart ist. Auch die guten Spieler performen damit deutlich schlechter als in ihren regulären T7s, meist sogar T6 und T5s. Die Flak ist mit aktiviertem Defensivfeuer T10-stark, der Rest passt eher auf T4-5. Und da man Spiele nun mal in der Regel eher mit der Artillerie als mit der Flak gewinnt....

Nö. Eventuell ist da einfach die Wahrnehmung durch den zusätzlichen Explosionsschaden durch die Bomben und Torpedos etwas verzerrt. Oder es brennt zusätzlich zur Flutung noch ein Feuer. Tatsächlich sind alle Feuer gleich. Flutung gibt's nur einmal zu jeder Zeit, auch wenn dem verursachenden Spieler bei mehreren Treffern das Symbol mit einem Multiplikator angezeigt wird. Sowohl Feuer als auch Flutung frischen sich durch erneute Treffer nicht auf. Bei Feuer ist, wie schon im Thread erläutert, allerdings die Möglichkeit eines zweiten, dritten oder vierten Brandherdes gegeben.

Same feeling about the armor, it just doesnt stop much incoming damage. The 1k-hits are definitively overpens and I hate them especially on cruisers. If you shoot a cruiser broadside (flat angle), everything that doesnt connect with the citadel is overpen. I found that it is best to shoot at cruisers when theyre angled so their effective armor is higher and you dont overpen, but then it is harder to hit them in the first place. My main target of choice on long range have become other BBs if I am honest. Both chance to hit and not to overpenetrate are higher on them. Except for when you managed a citadel-hit the artillery is everything but satisfying all in all.

Das bezweifle ich auch gerade irgendwie. Ich dachte schon dass man mehrere Symbole für mehrere Brände hat, die unabhängig von einander runterzählen, aber nicht bei einem weiteren Brandtreffer auf eine bereits brennende Sektion aufgefrischt werden. Sicher ist für Feuer: - Feuer ist Feuer, es gibt keine Unterschiede wo man brennt. - Feuer zerstört keine Module, auch keine leichte Flak etc. - Feuerschaden ist vom Typus "leicht" und kann von BBs repariert werden. - Maximale Stapelgröße ist 4 ( ein Brand je für Bug, Mittelsektion, Heck und Aufbauten). - Jedes Feuer tickt mit 0,3% der maximalen HP des brennenden Schiffes pro Sekunde, Flugzeugträger mit 0,4%/s. Wasser gibt tatsächlich immer nur ein Symbol, weil Flutungen nicht stapelbar sind. Flutungsschaden ist Tier-abhängig zwischen 0,5% und 0,125% HP/s, dauert länger an (1 Min, 30s?, nicht sicher, jedenfalls recht lange) und macht das Schiff zusätzlich träge in der Bewegung. Flutungsschaden ist reparierbar, beim Detonationsschaden des Torpedos bin ich mir aber nicht sicher.

I have come to dislike it more and more. It is not exactly bad in anything but feels like a mixture of lots of "meh"-features. It is a downgrade to just 8 barrels of RNG coupled with higher reload than Fuso. They can hit harder in theory, but most times they overpenetrate instead. Speed is okay, but armor didnt work for me. Maybe this is bad luck, but to me it feels softer than any other BB I have played so far. Even Kongo felt much more sturdy. If you dont take citadels straight away, you get penned for normal x0,33 AP-damage. In a way this is like on the Tirpitz, with the difference that Tirpitz doesnt get citadelled. Secondaries are great on paper, but the occasions when they can really get to work are rare as well. Had one game with 16k sec-damage, but even the second highest was just 9k or so - negligible. Flak is mediocre at best, turning ship is mediocre, turret-turning is okay for a BB but still not quick enough to make it a distinguishable feature. It is a totally bland ship for me. I loved Fuso, but I rarely play more than the double with Nagato. And the moments when your 8 shells just spray around the enemy from fore to aft, sparing exactly the area on which the enemy is located... no just no. This is T7, you rely on at least 1 or 2 hits here.

Es gibt auch kein Gesetz dass dir verbietet anderen Leuten ins Gesicht zu rülpsen. Man tut es i.d.R. trotzdem nicht, auch wenn sie es verdienen würden.

Bist du irgendwie mit Trinityx90 aus dem WoT-Forum verbandelt oder gar derselbe? Hinweis: Kalle hat tatsächlich keine Ahnung wovon er redet, aber man mag es nicht, wenn man Stats zieht um das zu belegen. Sind die guten Sitten hier.

Well, I guess it is possible when buying basically exerything there is for gold since years. Plus donating to streamers. I play WoT since mid 2011 and spent~ 250€. Warships already cost me 150€ for barely half a year. So if I am any indication, this game is masterfully good at making people pull their wallets. Much better than WoT. No wonder however that you see so much people complaining about its price policy.

Youre not serious about this. You cant even spend that much money on WG games even if you tried your hardest. Or does he have something like 500.000.000 credits lying around in each game (WoWs, WoWp, WoT) which he all converted from Gold?

A lot of the russian DDs were light cruiser or flotilla leaders in the real world which makes their ingame characteristics consequent. Of course they have to be balanced though. As some other people, I do not see any more reason to play US DDs. There wasnt much reason even before, now theres none left.

Für die Mehrheit ist alles was einen einen Buchstaben im Namen trägt der weit hinten im Alphabet steht, der Teufel, auch wenn diese Sachen entwicklungsgeschichtlich nicht mal in direktem Zusammenhang stehen (WN-x, Efficiency, XVM...) Das gilt meistens für die Leute, die dauernd vom Teamplay reden, aber bei 98% aus dem Cap fahren, vom Rand snipen oder in Schiffen ohne AA und mit 350+mm Guns die Träger auf A1 verteidigen. Ich kenne euch schon ihr nur vom RNG geplagten, von WG manipulierten, echten Teamplayer.... Ich bin für Stats im Spiel, aber bitte mit Privacy-Option gegen Carrier-Focus. Also optionale Stats. Für XVM bin ich sowieso, nettes Tool mit vielen Visualisierungsoptionen.

Lol seriously. Were mocking people that are mixing up two not-so-different game modes and then someone comes up with crap like this. @ General audience: The quoted stuff is why WG needs to make stuff as clear as humanly possible. Otherwise you end up having such people in your team, throwing away sure wins.

Yeah I know. I wanted emphasize the point that TX should not be cheap though. Cheaper than now, maybe, but not cheap. .)

The high maintenance costs are WGs way of getting credits out of the system once players reached TX. Before that point, the grind does this. It is absolutely necessary to make playing TX costly. It is important both for the players (low/midtier-population) as well as WG (monetization of the game). I do like the idea of a no-repair-TX-environment where the costs are not dependant on the amount of HP lost -> less campy game. But instead of the repairs and ammo, youd have to pay a not too low "entrance-fee", and accept that there are no credits to be earned.

That is a bit too less imho. But well, better the new standard mode/domination mixup than all the shitty draws. (The old system was stupid as hell, yet people ironically defended it with fervor, blaming every draw on the players alone. The arguments were completely retarded, yet funny).

Truth lies in between I guess. Im not a fan of blaming everything on the user though. It is also WGs responsibility to make the game as easy accessible and understandable as possible. Some more Information/warning on the hud,map or loading-screens is no magic. Even a slightly different color for the cap zones in one of the modes could help.

That however, is correct. Ive seen instances too in which people did not know that losing the cap doesnt just increase the enemy counter faster, but leads to immediate defeat. I love the rules we have now (it is so much better than all the damn draws we had before) but I think this mechanic should be made more clear somehow. Classic domination mode and "new" standard mode need to be easier to distinguish. I refuse to call a succesfull cap "instawin" though. It is not more instawin than it was before. It is just a regular way of winning the game.

Pure L2p issue. Also OP gets more XP with his battleships than in his cruisers or destroyers which makes his claims somewhat moot. Carriers, well. Carriers are the games main damage dealers and will most likely always be ahead in Terms of XP.

You know this is exactly how the game has always been. You cap enemy base, you win. Enemy caps your base, you lose. The points counter is just there to prevent the formerly gazillion of draws from happening. In its core it is still a standard battle.

Done that. See above. Also I think you take that too personally. It isnt really about you. He just used you as an example to show how perceived fun and actual impact on the game differ quite a bit with this ship. Im pretty sure he had server-stats in mind when writing. You (and me and almost everyone I see) just happen to confirm the global stats. We all underperform with Atlanta compared to our other T7s and most times even T6s and T5s. I just think for a T7 premium which wasnt exactly cheap, we could expect a bit more than one of the worst cruisers in the whole game.

You can also check leaderboards on warshipstats.com or full EU serverstats for top 10% here: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20151010ea/average_ship.html Conclusion: The best players on Atlanta do not come close to those on Myoko or even Pensacola. It is a bad ship even for knowledgeable users. Simple thing. Again, this doesnt mean you cant have fun with it, but no matter how you look at it, purely by numbers it is a grossly underperforming ship.

Hes super right. Because no matter how much fun you have with it, on average as well as for the top players Atlanta performs more like a T4-ship. This means you dont win much with it, you dont do much damage with it and consequently you dont earn that much credits with it. For the cost of a premium T7 it is the crappiest of crappy deals. Edit: Valerius: Atlanta is the worst performing T7 cruiser by far. It barely does more damage (cca 600) than a Mahan. A bloody Mahan! Also it wins much less than Mahan which is considered the worst ship in a class that is underpowered in general... The only ship I have played that I deemed comparably buffworthy was the pre-4.1 Furutaka. It is so bad.

Finde ich grundsätzlich total okay, solange es im Einzelfall gebalanced bleibt. Das Prinzip praktiziere ich schon auf meiner Nicholas, ists OP? Ne. Die paar Geschützchen mit ihrer Bogenbahn und den lachhaften 5% Brandchance erschrecken niemanden wirklich. Das Video von der Khabarovsk finde ich da schon etwas... beunruhigender. Hier muss ggf. einzeln Hand an die jeweiligen Schiffe gelegt werden.

Probably not only citadel-damage but juicy standard-penetrations aswell because Baltimore has enough armor to deny them most overpenetrations. In other words, the Baltimores armor is buffing enemy BBs damage-output. It can work against other cruiser though. In any way, the Balti is horrendously bad. And be warned: The Des Moines is exactly the same thing, with damage-output doubled. Still it is extremely uncomfortable to play.