mtm78

Using sledgehammer is ok when it was DD's, WG knows those players are more capable at adapting anyway or they wouldn't play DD's. BB population consists of a different breed of players, they have to be gentle or these players would not be able to adapt and claim WG is making the game unplayable for them..

I am also at a disadvantage in that department compared with those NT's Not that I would trade it, I kind of like not finding humor in those things. edit: now back on topic plox Met ClydeThaMonky and his LEWD division. One of them had the pleasure of enjoying a fun and engaging game mechanic at the hands of a 180mm he shell from my Donskoi They played pretty good but my team was just a tad better. It's also one of the few times I got complimented I guess from the enemy team as I was quite salty towards some of the people in my own team. Which would be understandable if I posted the team results I guess

Yes there is. That's more then enough reason to find your comment appalling certainly from a 'weekend tester' which should know better.

My survival rate was in the 30% range.. I have it on all my gunboat DD's and most of my cruisers but I feel it doesn't promote static play at all, it facilitates playing more aggressive when possible as you know how many ships are targeting you.

Your launcher log is not important, it's only for the updating. It's your python.log which has the relevant info ( it's in your worldofwarships\profile folder ). But don't post that, it contains a hash of your password. You could post the last 20 lines or something which contains the crash related part. Do you have any mods installed? If so, start the launcher and start the client in safe mode ( use the dropdown on the button ). If the game starts normally then, delete the contents of your res_mods\0.6.1 folder. If no mods, or no difference with or without mods enabled -> start the launcher -> settings -> file integrity check. If that doesn't work, I think this is a complete list of runtimes which are used by the client ( not 100%, was a google result from NA forum and not from the support site ) NET Framework 4.0 Visual C++ 2008 Redistributable Package (x86) Visual C++ 2008 SP1 Redistributable Package (x86) Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x86) Visual C++ 2010 SP1 Redistributable Package (x86) Visual C++ Redistributable for Visual Studio 2012 Update 4 Visual C++ 2013 MSXML 4.0 Service Pack 3 If all that doesn't work, you have to wait until supports responds to your ticket.

Advice is hard to give based on profile alone, but your aggression is clearly visible. Yet you do above average damage and have a decent win rate. I am positive that if you play a bit more conservative of your hp you would become a bluenicum or higher. Best would btw be playing in division with someone who can actually try and contain some of that aggression in early game so you can shine more in mid and late game. If you're looking for people to play with you can always join the Forumites chat channel in game, or join the WG teamspeak server. The password for the Forumites channel is 'play4fun'.

Yeah, let's forget about his role in the game which is NOT sniping. Btw his average dmg sucks [edited], and he only got nice XP in comparison with the rest of team because he kept running from enemy and survived full 20m WITHOUT CONTRIBUTING TO THE TEAMS CHANCE OF WINNING. Ow wait....

Due to camping he got more XP in that game then me in Kiev ( had a bad game, did 70k dmg or so but still bad ), NCal even survived the game as only ship. Guess he still thinks he is playing the game as he should.... Also had a Scharnhorst using a spotter plane for most of the game. He was not only claiming he 'knew better' but also that I lose a lot of games compared to him ( he had an account wr of 50%, the Ncal ofc even less ) These are the people who just don't care about the team aspect of the game, and who only use team's as their meatshield for as long as possible.

I already finished IJN and GE cruisers, and yeah perhaps after next patch actually grinding past NO will be more attractive ( buffs to Balti and DM.. not that DM really needed DMP increase I think but still ).

But Balti should be able to citadel an angled Chappy at most ranges ( well it happened to me more then once, but not that many times since there aren't that many Balti's going around in randoms atm ). If the engagement is not long range ( 14km + perhaps ) the Balti should win any engagement. edit: well 12km perhaps.. point is: long range Chappy has a good chance to just dpm the Balti down right now, and dodge the incoming 'lazy' usn super heavy shells. But the closer the Balti get's, the more the Chappy is in for a world of hurt. Even more with the pt changes ( 8.8s reload with module sounds like finally a reason to grind through NO with a bit more haste ).

I advocate A + B because I don't care much about that ranking. Sure it's 'nice' but I rather try to have the best game possible then try to be the best in the team but playing in a way which imo is tactically far from optimal ( in most cases ). I've had people who followed me in, then died, and who blamed me. I had to tell them I didn't tell them go there because we would steamroll enemy and win without loosing a ship, and that their survival is not something I had a large influence on ( as my smoke ran out, I can't really protect them other then doing damage which I was already doing to the best of my extent ). But at least we won that game, because we had A and then helped with taking B, all the while the enemy at C were coming to B one at a time instead of grouping up for a push. Misplay on their end -> our victory. Their tactic was good ( initial caps + team split ) but the execution was bad.

Well I lost hope on a 'quick' split of the USN cruiser line, and I am not sure what is coming this year other then I think RN BB's and the VMF DD split, and I think it was Italian or French line but not sure which class. Thing is with the VMF CL's right up to Donskoi is how squishy they are. Baltimore can angle and retain most of her firepower, Donskoi can not. I been send to port by a Hindenburg at 14+ km because I was caught broadside, and I frequently get lolpen citadels from BB's no matter the angle. Roon was also 'squishy' but no where near Donskoi levels. That's the case with most of the ships in the line, thought the difference is probably not enough to balance out the added benefit from IFHE favoring that line in particular right now. Anyway, best way to remove accusation of RU BIAS is to introduce USS Buffalo with a rof of 10 rpm

https://eu.warships.today/player/517438364/p_q_12345 p_q_12345 Mostly plays destroyers, especially medium-tier and is very good in them Deals an above average amount of damage Extremely often uses torpedoes (when in ships that have them) Key vehicle - Benson Adding to that, you are overly aggressive ( imo ) since your survival ratio is low. I guess you got more cap then defense points as it would fit the aggressive playstyle I am attributing to you but stats sadly don't include these statistics. You play overly aggressive mostly in your German BB's, your damage and win ratio would probably improve by staying alive longer and pushing when it's more tactically advantageous. Your survival ratio in Omaha is horrendous ( 10% ), but tier 5 MM is pretty harsh and it totally fits your very aggressive playstyle. You also are a almost pure solo player, only few games in division. So my advice: try to get your survival ratio up, at least 40%, and if you see your damage and win ratio go up matching, keep concentrating on your survival. Being alive at the mid/end stages off a match, especially if you're a DD main, is key to having more influence on the outcome. I don't know how you die in your BB's, if you die to gun fire, you might have troubles with positioning or angling, if it is to torpedoes your positioning is at fault. Yes, if you die to torps you're playing to aggressive. We all want BB's to push and tank, but don't overextend. There is a fine balance between effective aggression and overextending, the key aspects are always map control / positioning. My wr was 55% or so when someone gave me this same advice: forget about win rate, try staying alive longer. And it works. It also made me pay a LOT more attention to minimap and to try and read the flow of battle, and eventually even try to predict it. Tactics is a large part of this game, it's not just having good aim or WASD skills. I

Can it be... ( I don't think it is, I think we are just lacking other CL lines right now. When US line will be split into CL / CA their CL's will have the same benefits, same goes for other CL lines we might get ).

No his profile is entirely relevant to this topic he made and in which he never replied since. He calls people cowards while he has +25% survival rate and mediocre other stats, how can you claim this info is irrelevant is beyond logic Profile offer indicators for playstyle, bias, and possible lack of understanding of game mechanics. Thinking that profiles are irrelevant in discussions about game balance or meta ( like this thread ) is just very much nonsensical.

He is green/blue iirc

Even better would be allowing progression but only when meeting certain limits, coupled with making PvE actually challenging. If they can make PvE challenging in a way which makes it harder to perform comparable with PvP, then crossover would never be an issue as people would have the same base experience as people who grinded through PvP ( with the possible only lacking aspect being 'player tactics' which differ from AI tactics ). That is why I added that I specifically mean people who don't care about improving. If someone is bad but tries his best and wants to improve ( eg listens to others giving advice ) then I have no problems with bad players. Heck I was a bad player, no I AM a bad player in some ships ( or in carriers... ). Being bad is not any problem which can't be overcome. Its the really bad players who also ignore advice, like the two sub 45^ Fletchers I had today which ignored B + C cap on a map where A cap is retarded to go for as it cuts you off completely from the other two caps. Those people just handed a victory to enemy team by doing something incredibly stupid even after they were told it's incredibly stupid, especially taking both the two top tier DD's there leaving me in a Kiev and some other lower tier DD's to contest the actually important caps. Those people are not only bad, they also shown they don't care about the rest of their team. Back in CBT I was a baddie, but I tried to do the right things for my team to win. That has made me a semi decent player now, not some 'god given talent' or 'twitch reflexes' or anything, just decent tactical decisions most of the time.

I would just wish people who choose to play bad would also choose to do so in PvE not PvP. Choosing to not try to improve is such a drag..

Seems that way, xp gain would mandate a LOT of games from tier 7 onwards. Up to tier 7 I think it is still quite possible to grind purely in PvE ( even while it takes a lot longer, as it should ). PvE is just not as challenging or demanding as PvP, it would be foolish to reward it equally at this time.

They could be higher ofc... if people could NEVER take their PvE unlocked content into PvP. We don't need more failures to unlock their tier X through PvE and then taking it into battle with human players.

Thing is, this only helps with people who are interested in 'playing as intended' and a large part of the players just isn't. They like to come home from work, eat their diner, fire up the game and play 2 or 3 matches in 'big ships which do BOOM' and that's it. I don't think you would lose any players if you would add some pve scenario missions to the game, especially since they would be pretty short and could be made so they give a reward in some kind to players who complete them as incentive ( would be even better if this reward scales with performance in said introductory campaign ). And these introductions don't need to be very long, and who says they couldn't be made fun as well? But then when they enter the regular game modes, they will suddenly be playing in PvP and neither them or the other players they play with are forced to keep playing ' as intended / shown in the intro campgain '. It's like what jingles said about online gaming: the worst aspect of it, is that you're playing with other people :trolface: Everyone who is truly interested in learning the game can already ask for advice on the forums, or do some searching on youtube / twitch for decent players and look at how it should be done. And the only way you could really 'force' people to play in a certain way is to reward playing that way, like really meaningfully reward it as now it rewards people with higher XP gains, credit gains and just winning more games, but that is seemingly not enough for the 40% tomato's who just don't want to learn anyway.

WG should just add some scenario's for classes of ships ( and differences in classes, eg gunboat DD vs torpedo oriented DD ), and add those to the tutorial missions. They could even make them into somekind of mini campaign in a PvE setting which new players have to complete. The thing however will never go away completely. Even if some players are told/shown how they SHOULD play, they will still play differently because they CAN.

IFHE is good on Donskoi, without I am getting many shattering shells on BB's and have to rely purely on fires, IFHE makes damage output much more dependable. So you can basically keep IFHE on all ships from buddy until you reach Moskva ( afaik ). edit: Kirov's 180 mm don't need it because of lower tiered opposition?!