mtm78

I been using it since it was brought to live again, granted not many battles ( last 3 days I didn't play at all ) but I have not seen a single other person who is using it ( we get a nice icon showing other XVM users ).

And did you correlate that with the nominal performance of the people playing them?

The problem with this is simple: if I see someone on enemy team with XVM and hidden stats I will ask entire team to focus on you if possible, you must be very dangerous I do the same with people with known stats and no XVM but who's name I recognize from the forums Yes I know the last one is really mean, but it's what enemy teams quite often do to me so

Nicolai AND Gremlin, those are kind of obvious since Gremlin > Gnevny in every way. The time Murmansk had longer range then C hull Omaha I would also consider her better in every way because personally I enjoy having more range. But that has been rectified already. Also, Nicolai is perhaps a bit overrated, I win more in AB then Nicolai, it's just easier/more fun to play Nicolai because of the triple forward facing turrets making it easier to keep a good amount of firepower on target. Trust me, some people did, because '203mm on tier 5 would not be balanced'. I was in your camp btw, the 'meh it will suck' one. You did say that, and reading this back you're right: I should look at WR stats. But only if I were able to correlate those to overall player stats. Maybe 'good/better' players play RU ships, and more 'average/worse' players play USN line? I actually think this is part of the reason some lines underperform and some overperform, without the ships themselves being a good enough reason to show such big differences ( big being relative ofc ). And it, to me atleast, means we as players can not just use global wr as indicative of balancing issues. I mean, it's better then nothing and since we don't have access to the correlated statistics, the wr is probably as good as it gets, but it's still not conclusive on it's own. Sorry Von_Boeg that I did not go into this in my prior post, I should have.

Ow and yeah, it's not really a myth either.

Having 'observer' slots for TB's would be kind of nice, so people could comment on them without having to be in the battle

So first you claim they are overpowered, and not you went down to "not having the lowest win rate on the server". Well at least you seem to actually start listening now

There is no free speech, just EULA No really, there isn't. Btw, you might think you're speaking the truth but mostly you're just showing how you don't get the client-server model of WG games.

Look it's simple, some people buy Pz II J's ... like you said, putting a good captain in these ships won't be a big deal to those people

Ow I agree, Alaska would be imo impossible to balance. Project O even more so. 220mm != 305mm main guns. Maybe when/if we get even bigger maps where these large cruisers could perhaps be operated strategically and choose the engagements they are designed to have, only then it seem plausible in game. But as I said above, any of these really large cruisers would end up being BB food. Their prey, enemy cruisers, will always spot them before getting spotted and will be able to avoid engagement. While the large cruisers can not avoid being engaged by the long range enemy battleships, and they have armor designed to deal with enemy cruisers not battleships.

XVM is back yes..

58 people are playing World of Warships, 12 might be playing World of Battleships

<tinfoilhat>No no, obviously hax and p2w.</tinfoilhat> <serious>Sierra Mike</serious> edit: Also: replay or it didn't happen

RU Q&A's = Question and Answers held on RU forum, together with Dev blogs and the likes. On EU forum there is one really good thread which keeps track of most of them -> http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31444-some-interesting-info-from-ru/

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying WG shouldn't look into them, it's just.. well what I already said.. Cruisers this size have the concealment of a battleship ( or close to ), their 'prey' can just no engage and stay stealthed while BB's on the enemy team see a big XP pinata because the CC's don't have the armor to contest same caliber guns. edit: And, yet, still I want to play with Alaska myself.. or O class.. but I just don't see it working right now. Maybe is maps were a lot bigger and ships could choose their engagements more, than these ships would be able to operate more close to their intended role -> stay clear of battleships and engage other cruisers.

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/46869-meet-a-dream-team-and-win-results/page__fromsearch__1

Just because teamwork or 'capable team members' don't always give act de présence doesn't mean you can say there is no team. Also it's not really relevant to my post now did it? My only mention of team was in relation to XP distribution, and how I seriously dislike people who done nothing all match and then go and cap to leech some XP from an already winning team denying them the last XP from killing the last (few) ship(s). I am quite sure this was explained in one of the RU Q&A's, I am not entirely certain but judging from my screenshots of battle results it seems like it is quite similar to WoT. A proportion of the XP awarded for damage (and kills?) is distributed between all team members, this is clearly evident in matches where a cap victory is reached without killing a significant part of the enemy team. In those matches even if you did single handedly kill the only 3 ships the enemy team lost, you might end up with xyz xp, where if the entire enemy team would die and you did the same amount of damage you would get considerably more. However, if it's just a single or a few ships left with perhaps really low hp, the amount of XP distributed between the team probably outweigh the XP you gain from capping ( certainly not solo capping which gives a ton of xp ).

Well, no enemy DD can be charging a CV in the first 2 minutes for one But yeah, tracking it through an automated system will always leave some holes.

If there are many ships still alive, you will not get massive XP not even in a domination mode game where you singlehandedly capped all 3 bases. If there are few ships left alive, and you're solo capping -> more xp to the capper but less to everyone else ( since the entire team gets more xp if more hp from enemy team has been depleted ). If you are not in position to deal more damage, capping solo would give you more xp. It would also likely piss everyone else off as they gain nothing by you capping they will even lose out on some xp because not all HP from enemy team will have been depleted. You, on the other hand will gain by not capping and sharing in the extra xp the entire team gets when more enemies have been killed, but not as much as solo capping. This is a team game, I don't mind someone solo capping if he actually did a lot during the match as well. But I absolutely HATE people who done nothing the whole game, and then go cap the base while the people who actually did the work went after the last remaining enemies. Capping at that time is nothing more than leeching XP from the people who actually won the game for the capper.

I see a CV killing himself as more harmful than 'regular' friendly fire because how influential CV's are to gameplay. Loose any other ship and you can often make up for the loss, if you lose a carrier it's a lot harder.

Live testing doesn't mean the ships will go public with these stats.. feedback from live testing is taken into consideration, this is how it's always been I just found it noteworthy because I can't imagine this eluding anyone paying attention anyway so putting it out there should generate only more valuable feedback.

This is why strangers123 founded SGWA -> http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/46526-specialists-global-warships-academy/ Specialist Global Warships academy is an offshoot from STGA which has been doing this for World of Tanks for a long time. Players who want to learn about the game and have a friendly positive community can sign up. We're also looking for instructors, guide writers you name it. I am not an angel I however strive to be positive or at least neutral in all situations. Positive everywhere, neutral when people call me out on things I do in game or things I ask from others, when those people don't have the performance needed to be telling me such things. With neutral I mean I will tell them that statistics don't agree with them, and that I myself would rather listen/learn from people who perform better than me, then adhering to the whims of some underperforming player who 'just knows better'. This usually makes the other side toxic, like they don't want to admit that statistically it's more beneficial to listen to the other guy instead of themselves and that makes them feel inferior, something they feel they need to correct by having a bigger mouth. Nope. I know some Shimakaze players who have lower average damage then my tier II Umikaze. I think bad players are capable of getting to top tiers, it will take them double or more of the games compared with average players but nothing is stopping them. And if by trolling you mean an allied top tier BB saying : this team sucks, and then goes to hide behind an island all game doing nothing but curse at his team.. or [censored] [censored] [censored] [edited] who still shoot torps at enemies out of their range and moving away from them, with allies in front of them, nope sorry that still happens on high tiers as well. But, yeah, praise Lord Hamsterius as it does indeed is a little better than at the lower tiers. As to the bolded part; it's not an coincidence that this request/suggestion keeps coming up, I for one would like to see it implemented. I feel these people should be punished harshly. Also, I am not even sure this behavior is currently tracked by the automated system. And what report option would one use to give WG the head's up about this guy? Ticket to support? Wouldn't support take it seriously, look into it ( they surely have ways to check if the player has indeed committed suicide in a large amount of recent games )? I am convinced that WG if they knew for sure such a person was doing it on purpose and frequently, this person would then be sanctioned quite harshly. But how to reach the right people, that seems to be the missing link in many forum threads about unwanted behavior. You angling for free flags based on your karma right Meh, go right ahead.. I think you did really earn most of it. ( and the other you got from just being you, so maybe also earned but by reputation. Just need to make sure you don't think I think you got it in any kind of other way! ). Sadly, I also know some people get their karma up at low server population time going into battle at the same time as a lot friends and then spending their karma points on each other. System is to open for abuse to actually really hand out rewards like flags based on it, in my humble opinion

Thought so. There is still a problem though. Moskva is NOT armed like a BB. 305mm ( from Alaska ) if a lot different then Moskva's main armament. Alaska will be a CC ( cruiser capital / large cruiser ) with BB guns, BC speed, and CA armor. Balancing that for WoWs is a nightmare compared to Moskva. O class would be even worse. It might work, idk, but I don't have much faith in it. It will end up being BB food but a terror to other normal cruisers, problem is those cruisers can choose not to engage, while these capital cruisers won't have much choice when facing BB's on the enemy team. The whole concept of large cruisers was that they are capable of defeating enemy cruisers but are weaker than fully fledged BC/BB's. The upside was cost. And you can't give one team 4 extra ships just because they have some inferior ship design.

He said cruiser line and you compare them with battleships? Like Moskva, they are not designed to be battleships, but 'large cruisers'. Large cruisers like Alaska. I wanted Alaska for a long time already, seeing Moskva gives new hope she might eventually come