Xevious_Red

Aslains ship icons apparantly

Trident can be brown trousers time for a pensacola since you get spotted almost immediately, but generally I like the smaller maps. Enjoying neighbors, shatter, trident and that waterfall+rocks one

It's the mods you have installed - my division mate had the same thing, he'd finish top but it would tell him he'd not proved himself. After he removed the conflicting mods then everything worked fine

Yeah the credits are essentially: Tier 5: best tier for credits earn vs repairs Tier 6: pretty good Tier 7. Earn money on a good game. Break even on a bad game. Lose money on a terrible game Tier 8: Earn money on a good game (but not as much). Break even on an average game. Lose money otherwise. Etc. For my amagi (tier 8) It usually breaks even. When I did 171K damage (and didn't sink) it earnt me 100k on a loss. Which I'd get from an average tier 5 game

Best advice: Play lots of different ships, and save your money for a while. Going straight to tier 8 when you don't know above tier 4 will get you dead very fast and you'll hate it. It's also worth finding out what you like. If it turns out you hate cruisers for example then the atago is pointless. Same with tirpitz if you hate battleship dispersion. Main question though, is why do you want the premium ship? -If it's to earn lots of silver, then the atago and tirpitz are your best bets. Low tier premiums don't earn particularly more than anything else. -If it's to retrain captains then consider what nation it is - the blysk is nice for example but since there are no other polish ships it can't be used for retraining. By contrast, although the Atlanta is pretty derpy and disliked by most I find it useful for retraining US destroyer and cruiser captains. -Unique abilities. Some of the premium ships have unique abilities. Tirpitz for example is the only battleship with torps. -Collectors reasons. Up to you if this is important. For some people the warspite is a must have because of its history.

For me I haven't poured loads of extra time into it, and thus I haven't felt burnt out. I just adjusted what I was playing week to week. So week 1 I needed CV, so I played a bit of the ryujo. Week 2 I needed the battleship missions so I did a bit on the colorado etc. This week I'm unlocking modules for the amagi, which is completing off the battleship/tier 8 missions. Now I won't get 1000 diamonds, but I knew because of work and family life that these would never be a reality anyway. So I'll finish on about 600, which means I won't get some of the top unlocks, but what's the point in getting 100x camos for a game you now don't want to play?

Something that carrier players seem to overlook is that a ships AA gets reduced when it takes damage from HE. So a ship that has very good AA on full health might well have virtually no AA by the end of it. Whereas a ship has the same armour against shells regardless of what health it's on. I've seen destroyers ask for cruiser support for claiming a cap. I've seen them ask for BB support to clear out enemy cruisers. I've seen BB ask for scouts, or AA coverage, and I've seen cruisers ask for support. At no point have I ever seen a carrier player ask anyone to shoot a ship a bit to break it's AA. I'll usually sling some HE at attleships/cruisers to help out our CV, but I've never seen it requested

Agreed. Even if it was announced as "fixed a bug that caused CE to affect firing detection. Now working as intended"

The penalty for rubbing against another ship is miniscule at best it's like 13 credits and 1 xp. Regarding hitting people with torps, don't shoot them so close to friendlies. If he's got time to stop, put in reverse, and sail backwards into them then you're either shooting them very close to him, or you're shooting from a long way away when he's significantly closer to the enemy.

Fire torps Press button for consumable. Watch as reload swaps from being 60+ seconds to 30. If that's still "impossible and makes no sense at all" then I'd skip using it. Especially as it's pretty rubbish, and replaces the smoke which is a lot more useful

Acquisition range of torps is SPOTTING torps. So vigilance lets you see enemy torps 25% sooner. It has no impact on the range of your own torps. Edit: Disagree that it's pointless though, it doesn't really benefit yourself a huge amount, but it's rather useful for your team if you're in front of them

The kawachii can be a pain even if you aim perfectly. The dispersion is hilariously bad. To use a WoT example it's like trying to hit a weak spot using the KV2

let's use a real world example: If you were having a discussion about a car's performance, who's opinion would you find the most valuable; - A world class rally driver -Someone who's never driven a car and knows nothing about them but claims to be an expert -Someone who drives on a regular basis but stalls it 20 times a day and can never put it in gear. Then if the car manufacturer were to lower the horse power by 5 (a "nerf" to the car), and the rally driver said it makes no noticeable difference, but the other two said it makes the car undriveable, which would you believe the most? The argument isn't is it a nerf (as obviously worse torps are a nerf), it's how much of a nerf is it, and is that nerf compensated by other factors (like the new faster torps). For the record, I haven't driven any of them - so I'm not going to make a claim either way. I am however grinding that line so I'm very interested in the consensus, especially as it appears to be polar opposites (either best thing ever or utterly unuseable)

Stats (personal ones) are a way of validating your claims. Before they could be hidden, there were lots of people who made claims like "destroyers are op, they're so easy to play, I regularly do 5 kills with them". These claims were then rubbished by looking at what they'd played and seeing they'd not ever played a destroyer, and were in fact completely and utterly lying. Then you had the people who just liked to repeat what others had said. So you got claims about how battleships ruled tier X. Stated by someone who had never played higher than tier 4. Having someone's word that they've played something and knew what they were doing isn't worth much on the Internet where on any given day, someone will claim to be a high powered lawyer/software developer/maths expert/top ranked LoL player/6'6" ex marine that knows where you live etc etc. Remaining tactful, there are also those who believe a ship is UP, or that the ships killing them are OP, where the problem exists between the chair and keyboard. Because they don't know how to play/what they're supposed to do then they're not much use in a balance discussion. If you constantly drive your CV to the middle of the map to fire your secondaries at someone (and then die quickly) then you'll probably think CV'S need tons of buffs. If you've done this 200 times and think this is how cv's are played then your opinion is so far from common sense as to render it useless. For this reason, a lot of people will check something like WR. While there's no "my WR is a bit better, thus I'm right", if I see a player with 70% stating something is UP I'm more likely to pay attention because I know they understand the game (probably in greater detail than I do). If it's from someone with a 38% WR then they probably don't understand the game at all, so while their statement may actually be true (the ship might be UP), they would also feel the same way about an OP ship since they'd be unable to perform well with it. Therefore while the deepest tomato may well have an argument that is factually sound, it would be incredibly unusual to encounter a player that has an intrinsic knowledge of the game mechanics, meta and how the different classes interact, as well as tactics, and self evaluation but at the same time be utterly terrible at the game.

Weak spots in Wows is actually the opposite of tanks. With HE ammo you want to hit the weakest armoured places (usually the superstructure) as the HE damage is reduced by armour value. HE however doesn't do a huge amount of damage. With AP if you hit a weak armoured area your shells punch through doing virtually no damage (over pen). If they hit an area too armoured they bounce off (no damage). If they hit an area with enough armour that they penetrate AND don't just punch though they do a much larger amount of damage. If this area is a citadel (under funnels, under turrets) then it does maximum damage. Depending on your range to target, your shell hits at different angles - up close it goes straight, far away it comes down through the deck. Some ships have their citadel below the waterline, which means you either have to shoot them as they're turning (as this makes the ship tilt and exposes it), land shells through the deck so it can punch downwards into the citadel, or shoot below the waterline slightly so the shell goes through the water first.

What's the limit for going pink? Because if it's 1 plane then that's pretty dumb, and will cause the problems listed above. If it's something like 50% of allied planes then it's OK, because you'd only kill this many if you were deliberately griefing

What's interesting is that at the beginning of the year the road map video that was released stated it would be "a good year for carrier players". Now we obviously haven't had any new carrier lines, so unless they meant the saipan then there hasn't been anything I'd call "a good year".

I thought they were supposed to be this morning, it usually refreshed wed morning but they haven't refreshed yet

I presume it's to stop griefing as currently if you really fancied being an arse you could go in a Langley and in about 4 strafes completely kill all your allies planes (currently for no penalty). Perhaps you should only get it if you kill a certain percentage of their planes. So at higher tiers where your team has more reserves it doesn't matter so much

I play a bit of everything, usually patient with people in chat, but usually aggressive in play style. I usually find my ship is at the front of the pack, regardless of what I'm sailing. I frequently make hilariously bad mistakes and chew myself out for them - "one last salvo and I'll turn...... oh I've hit an island again". Pleasantly suprised that I appear to be better at this than I am at WoT (as I'm a 49% scrub for tanks)

looks like you can get to rank 1, but anyone that does can then continue to play at rank 1 with tier X only ships. Personally tier 8 is my highest, since I keep trying to grind all lines at once instead of just sticking to one or two

The ranked that is on the test server is quite different to the previous ones. Only 7 ranks, needing only 1 or 2 stars to advance, and with ranks 7,6,5,4 and 1 irrevocable Tiers go 5/6 then 7/8 then X for rank 1. Seems like the idea is casual players can play through it quite quickly to get the rewards, "bad" players can complete it instead of permanently clogging up rank 10, and good players can whiz through it in an evening and be rewarded with 7v7 (so you can carry more, because of smaller numbers) tier X only games guaranteed to not have newbies that bought a tier 8 premium or bots in them (since no one uses bots to grind tier X)

I like having the available info. That said: Please make the numbers an on/off option. Having the range of everything written on the minimap clutters it up and makes viewing difficult. The preferences should be saved for each different ship - on a CV I'm interested in my AA range. On a destroyer I'm not. Similarly I'm in treated in spotted by air range on cv/destroyer while I'm not that interested on a battleship

My guess would be reroll account that hasn't gone as well as expected

My first game with the smith produced a kraken unleashed. So I found it quite a fun and useful ship. Oh and the Furutaka isn't a bad ship. It's actually really rather good. Just there are a lot of bad players that think it plays like the kuma and can't adjust; if you can reliably aim for citadels, and can lead destroyers without needing a ton of shots to get your aim right it's devastating