mtm78

wut? Concentrating on two caps wins games..... because of bad players Really? Any source? Might be true, I mean gameplay/teamwork has gotten less with influx off new people. Since when is new ships a bad thing? On some aspects yes, see point 4 'To provide statistics' ... not that I agree, I mean WG couldn't actually implement RDF after all the negative feedback they been given right..... right? Proof or GTFO. This is said by baddies and/or trolls. edit: crapthere goes my previous statement... Either way, I do not think aim assist is a thing right now. I haven't seen anyone posting links to ' paid for cheats ' in a long time ( and this was generally done to ensure more people knew about them.. or in some cases to scam people as the ' payed versions ' were nothing but a hoax ), and in game I only met ONE person which I found very suspicious in his aiming ( 75% wr + BB only + 35-40% hit ratio.. and that's including German BB's which he was shooting me with from 19km and landing shots when evading/kiting, in multiple games ). And if there were any free aim assists they would be known on this forum, as we/community despises this and would demand WG to ' fix it ' .

I downloaded it after seeing the Jiblegs video, it's pretty entertaining but it's a very long game. Campaign... well I played 6 hours straight yesterday I think ( was really early in the morning before I went to bed ) and I'm still in 1940.. As to using a crapton of subs, I guess if you' re Axis this makes sense but if not you have to prevent allied shipping being sunk and for that you need a lot of destroyers. Not having any destroyers in a sector means that any Axis submarine will damage or sink even your warships without you being able to do anything against it. Destroyers are the only class with ASW capability ( though any ship with torpedoes can sink an enemy sub at periscope depth ). Also, the AI is pretty bad if you ask me, I managed to win Battle of the River Plate, Action of Lofoten, Christmas Convoy and Convoy HX106 all in a row without a single loss ( playing German's ). I hope the battles for Bismarck will be more challenging ( the last one sounds pretty impossible to beat ).

Gneisenau doesn't have hydro, why would it be better vs DD's then a Colorado? Colorado turns good and has a heavier broadside, it's not really worse then Gneisenau at close range...

I don't think IJN would benefit that much, you don't have a distance indicator so contesting caps would stay risky even if only IJN had something like IJN, So no don't think that's a good idea. I' d rather they balance the high tier USN DD's to have less utility from their torpedoes, the range dispersion with IJN coupled with the better concealment on their torpedoes make them just as viable as torpedo boats as gun boats. Shouldn't we already have mirrored nation MM when possible, thought that was already introduced? Btw I keep complaining about USN being to good vs IJN but on PTS I got my Fletcher in a gunfight with a kiting Shima and lost ( and tbh it wasn't even a contest, I lost 3/4 of my hp to him and maybe did 1/4 of damage back )

The thing is, at least for me, XVM in wot has proven to be more reliable then statistics in WoWs. In WoT when I see division of purple T54's I know they a> shoot full heat and b> they have sufficient map knowledge to be in positions where their ships are the strongest ( hull down ). With WoWs map position doesn't make ships invulnerable, you can always damage anyone. While this might not be as true in competive play where flanks are usually secured and if threatened whole team rotes, in randoms you can flank bow tanking / ' side scraping ' BB's or spray them with HE, you can always shoot at smoke clouds and there is no ship which is shear untouchable in certain map locations. Correct me if I'm wrong When XVM for WoWs was working and I had it installed, I noticed my own results going down instead of up, because I was making to many assumptions based on players statistical performance. Purple divisions getting killed by a bunch of red's were not really an exception, it takes just one wrong turn from a cruiser to get a one way ticket to the ocean floor, or a DD can be caught sitting at a bad angle in a smoke cloud and eat torps and so on. The same guy who told me yesterday that stats tool of which I posted the screenshot above still works, also told me it only is really useful in deciding which targets to engage given equal opportunity. But there isn't much benefit from this imho as most good players are good players because they don't give this equal opportunity.

We have the exact same join date I actually think it fits in the WG ways of doing things. Spotting calculations and dispersion ect are also all server side, just as with WoT's damage / pen rolls. BigWord's big pro imho is this server side handling of things which could lead to client side cheats. Even if one would mod the client so you can share the server side provided yaw with your division members and triangulate multiple bearings, you would never be 100% sure you're both tracking the same enemy target ( though if you' re really close to each other it is more likely, but then triangulation would be more imprecise as a result as well. Depending on how much of an error margin is in the yaw/bearing it might not be possible to use it in any meaningful way outside of the ' intended manner of usage '. Which, don't get me wrong, is still broken in the first place

Buff MM!

Zao is broken, it can start fires and invisi fire on my precious battleship, this is unhistorical and should be changed asap. Any cruiser which are hit by my shells should detonate, because that's a fun and engaging game mechanic, unlike he+fire spam from invisible DD's/CA's/CL's ( mhm.. even Yamato can invisi fire with range upgrade and spotter plane iirc.. so remove that to! ). edit: just for more multi kek -> ( was reminded yesterday that this thing still works and I reinstalled it just to post the screenshot )

So should CA's complain that BB's do more damage per game then them? Should DD's complain CA's do more damage per game then them? If no, why should BB's complain that CV's do more damage?

The python game engine provides the yaw ( angle ) to the target, and failing to decompile the py files since Lesta started packing them I will believe Tuccy when he says the developers have made it so that this angle is provided server side ( including the ' error margin from using map sectors ' ). What the actionscript does is rotate the pointer around it's pivot point and it does some smoothing there, so you could take out the smoothing I guess and you will get more jumpy behavior when a sector boundary is crossed, but if the exact angle isn't provided to the client you would need to ' hack the server ' to get more precise data.

Unless it was discussed earlier and they want to show those who held on the CV gameplay that they do in fact 'care' for them. Afterall 2016 was the year of the carrier, and WG likes to spoil us

It's has always been variable. I know people who are always agressive in whatever they play, battleships are not an exception for them. You might have been lucky with MM. Personally, it's been terrible some games, and better in others. But since I started checking stats of the campers a pattern emerges. All the long range passive sniper baddies are for the most part really really terrible players. I'm talking 40% - 45% ranges, sometimes up to 48% but never above 55%. They are for the most part, with some notable exceptions, also new players, with <1k games played. I think the newest part of the playerbase is also the part which never visits forums, never reads guides, never watches good streamers/youtubers, but instead get their ' info ' from other bad players. Who off course all whine about ' torpedo soup ' , ' smoke is bad ', ' HE spam is bad ', ' CV op ' and so on. That's why they are so bad are such passive sniper BBabies, because they listen to the other bad players which then in turn emphasizes the points of the bad players and makes them come true. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Battleships are only more powerful because there are way to many of them in some matches ( and because they are battleships and the bb players would cry if they weren't, but this isn't as big a gap gameplay wise ). I don't want any nerfs to BB's, what I would like is a MM restriction so I don't have to face 6-8 BB's on the enemy team in my cruisers ( in some matches... again... before the BB mafia beings to whine about it not being so bad at all, and start claiming it's actually the DD's which are the problem. Even when we have server stats disproving that ). Cruisers are in a good spot power wise, their durability depends on their distance to BB's though and that's fine ( as long as there aren't so many of them... ). DD's ( well most.. excluding IJN ) are in a good spot, there are few CV's and few CA/CL's comparatively. CV's, well economy is harsh and WG buffed AAA to the point where people who don't go rambo and wander off on their own are generally very high cost targets ( planes lost -> same as ships losing fighting capability ), though that's being said from the perspective of one who doesn't play them so I might be a bit of the mark there. However I don't get deleted by CV's that often and if I do there is always a cause ( team running off leaving my Yamato to deal with a full Haku strike on my own... ). You can't have a class which is easy to play but also weak, you need all classes to be competitive ( because people play to win, not to have a weak class which puts them at a disadvantage ). edit: and ofc if you hard cap BB's to 3-4 you also should cap DD's, and since CV's are already capped this automatically means CA/CL's are also less variable. But everyone and their dog should know by now WG doesn't believe in class caps so they claim at least, after capping CV's And if they don't want to cap classes to ensure an enjoyable gameplay environment for everyone, they should make sure the classes which are to prolific are less attractive to play.

Already done on PT ( credits for Masukundra as I had issues with alpha channel when replacing the png with jpexs ).

Not according to some people who keep saying we should never expect teamwork and this is a 1vs23 game. But heck yes I fully agree with you

Link or screenshot? It might be possible but it would mean Tuccy lied to us ( or the developers lied to him ).

Kostis_Larson for instance transfered gold from WoT to WoWs that way... I'm just relaying stuff being told

Nope people I know have done it themselves just do it through support ( open a ticket ).

Wheaton's lawyer ^^ it's a compliment

2 ways - > triple super unicum divisions statpadding on low tiers in unicum+ divisions Third way but unobtainable / unsustainable for all but a few -> playing solo and just being really good AND lucky.

You should share the same forum tittle as Admiral_Noodle

ftfy