mtm78

Ahhh and that wouldn't influence the amount of draws, or make DD's less useful as capping is one of their strong points?

The plebs won't understand how to use it, just like individual turret control and other 'advanced' stuff. True story, heard developers want to cater to the lowest denominator which could very well be not a member of the sapiens family.

Yes, let's have more draws because capping is slower, not a nerf to DD's at all if you do that.

Actually no, you want a squadron of planes dropping a single torpedo?

If you look at the score screen there is a column for assisted kills, that's most likely the same as in WoT so it should represent assisted damage. I do hope we get an actual number in the result screen

I know of people who been banned after tickets with toxic language, or received chat bans. They do work, give them some slack they are not allowed to tell us who they punish and how but they do police the game more then in WoT ;)

Uhm each plane drops one torpedo ;) The icon on the map is a squadron not a single plane.

Yup, you clearly provoked him into doing intentional team damage, you said something he did not agree with. Hope you send a ticket to support

And this post helps in what way?

Basically, 203's need people who can hit citadel shots reliably, if you're not that good of a shot HE spam will still give you more dmg on average it looks like.

The first thing you should know is this: torpedoes don't make a distinction between an allied vessel or an enemy, don't launch them when you can hit friendlies. When playing something armed with torpedoes, before pressing battle make sure you know their range so you don't spam them with no chance of hitting an enemy. Now, Sharana's guides are very informative, iChase's video's are very informative, I recommend both. Most of all, I recommend you to have fun and don't worry if it's a learning curve as the rewards will be equal to the difficulty of getting the hang of things ;) edit: Yes.

You're the troll as you result to personal insults. Non the less, I always said I don't play CV's and I also said you don't need to BUFF something to match something else if you can also NERF the thing the Essex can't keep up with ;) Now if you want to take my dislike of cv's being main damage dealers as the main reason I rather see the Essex left as is and the IJN one's nerved, you might not be wrong. But that does not make me the troll here. That avg on Essex was already pretty high, well it would be good for a way above average player but not for you average. And 300k avg on Shimakaze? Where? Who? Server average or single top performer? Links? Proof? You're the one making claims, back them up don't expect me to go look for your proof.

Should be clear from a simple comparison with a stock one but I'm so lazy... and I would expect the only part which is commented being the 'mod' Sorry it's sunday, I'll do the comparison tomorrow if there would be no answer in sight edit: You where quite correct

___Y___, on 07 June 2015 - 04:23 PM, said: Well, another guys who doesnt play cvs who whine on them lol, but i agree with that, just nerf ijn cv 9 and 10, they have to many TBS, they are too powerfull, they dont need figthers because they gonna blow up the enemy cv 3 mn after the game start, they even dont need dbs because they can lauch 20 torps with 10k damage each every 5 mn, this will be impossible to balance if they dont reduce the number of the tbs inboard, overnerf them please, ijn cv T10 set up must be 3 fgths, 3 tbs and 2 dbs, not more, only one set up, ijn cv T 9 3 fgths, 2 tbs ans 2 dbs, buff fgths, buff dbs dmgs, nerf tbs dmgs, it will be fine, and bring back the last spread I will always admit I don't like CV's as implemented now, which is why I don't play them. Maybe with two full trees and matched teams they will begin to attract me more. But the Essex imo is really fine, I would indeed bring down the performance of the IJN top tiers as they are absolutely wrecking stuff. On the other hand, they are forcing more team play and I like that, might be the only way to get people to actually support BB's with AA and perhaps even cover a CV at the start of a match. azell, on 07 June 2015 - 04:31 PM, said: yes more nerfs. good player doing 120-150k per battle so regular guy will do less than 80k. Next nerf and good player will do same amount of dmg per battle coz regulars will stop playeing. U should try working for WG they useing same logic Ow please I seen some 400k dmg matches, I been in them even. Stop being delusional, if those things life throughout the match they will do > 200k on average I recon. Which is to much imo. edit: if you got number showing their average is around 150k I will eat my words and ask for USN CV's be buffed

it's fine really, just need to nerf IJN cv's hard enough to match.

Nooooooo, nerf the other one, Essex fine as it is might even need some nerving imo

Is this thread still going

In all those threads people should post their system info and loading times, that's the way WG can see where the problem lies ( and since they are not asking for it, I assume they already know... if not they should look around the forums more and notice the issue and be more proactive about it imo ).

The point is that if you live throughout the match the damage potential of off the charts. I don't want CV's being the main damage dealer in this game, it's not what I had in mind with World of Battleships ( but it might be me ).

I have 8gb of ram, and I'm now usually in battle right at the start ( while I was into it before the countdown started pre 3.0 and late in 3.1 ). If other people could also post their info it might show consistency.

come join channel we got spot free in pletun ( me and brainfear1 ). All Dutch pletun even, must be OP

Ow please he just decimated my team with 5 kills and I guess close to 400k damage

You just left forumites channel without even saying hi to me, I'm not speaking with you untill you pletun up with me ( noaw! )

so either extracting models or loading into vram is taking so much time, like I said it sounds like optimizations for gpu drivers ( would be nice to know for sure if gpu/driver combo influences loading times ). Thanks for being a bit more technical ;)

I'm unable to make much sense of this collection of phrases making up sentences. a> IO not the problem b> actual disc activity c> irq d> not a factor e> overall loading time .. initially IO = Input Output = anything which communicates with anything ( for instance processing unit - volatile storage / processing unit - nonvolatile storage ) Disk activity = IO So that part is confusing me already irq = Interupt request, signals the OS to yield to a specific interrupt handler Not sure, irq's are used for driver level communication with peripherals so again Not a factor -> So the kind of storage system one has shouldn't be a factor in the issue? Do you have enough data for that, can you post loading times for different systems on specific maps and show there is absolutely no correlation between storage throughput and loading times? overall loading time .. initially -> uhm so initially the above isn't a factor, but it becomes one later on due to caching? How can caching have influence is IO isn't involved? The engine is loading the data from the HDD in to memory very slowly due to it all not being optimised yet and still slightly buggy. So you're saying again that nvm-cpu-vm isn't IO? That's why almost everyone, regardless of drive type is getting it in some fashion or another. So are you saying, it happens to everyone but the degree some get it varies, yet it's not related to IO? To me that sounds highly improbable, if it's patch dependent and varies so much it does almost have to do with optimizations being left out or put back in. And if it is not directly tied to disk io, memory speed / latency might be the determining factor, or even gpu / drivers. Or something like it, I am not a game developer off course edit: Actually I think they are working on it, the big changes between patches indicate as much. It just seems they can't actually get it right