eliastion

100 useless +50% captain XP flags.

There were some mention that So it would seem that we are, indeed, supposed to - at least - keep any ship we had. So... my guess is that yes, owners of Kiev will actually receive the new up-tiered version and screw the consequences.

I'll just say it like this: Can strike loadout on USN CVs be negated by strike IJN CV? No. That's impossible (well, assuming some minimal skill level from IJN side) and for a very good reason - Random Battles are big. Two fighter groups certainly can make enemy CV life harder but it's just too little to really protect the whole fleet that usually splits AT LEAST into two groups. And often likes to just disperse like headless chickens. My own experience as IJN CV captain is as follows: 1. Try to position your planes strategically 2. Find out that they're a bit out of position when enemy strike planes appear 3. Get to the place too late to stop the strike Sure, it doesn't ALWAYS work like that, sometimes I manage to deal heavy blow to enemy strike force, sometimes (if the enemy really screws up) I even manage to intercept and cripple the strike before it even gets close to dropping. But the reality of it is that my fighters more often than not serve as a deterrent - enemy sees them, retreats under the cover of friendly AA before I can get to them, and needs to look for another opportunity. It takes him time, it reduces the number of strikes performed over the course of the match but it doesn't really shut him down as long as he knows what he's doing. Two squadrons are simply too little - and while I do rack up plane kills, these are, more often than not, a "revenge" kills scored right after the actual drop occured. Feels good if I manage a good strafe and see 10+ planes melt just like that - but the damage is done. Now, here's the important thing. My strike loadout's 2 fighter groups can't really shut down enemy strike CV whether it's USN or IJN (that has the extra option of "locking" my fighters with his own). The same, however, applies to enemy AS loadouts. I might be wrong here but I have a feeling that part of USN bad stats is the fact that they often play AS. And there's a big problem with that because, as I mentioned... Randoms are big. Just today I had a Taiho match that illustrates well what I mean. I faced an AS USN equivalent on two brothers (or what was the name of the match with suicide channel between two big islands). He had so many fighters, the sky was full of them, I cursed him in my head and spent half the game doing nothing. But the "doing nothing" part still allowed me to outplay him. And a couple times I did just manage to sneak past his air cover. My drops took a lot of time to set up around his fighter cover. Sometimes they were rushed (no time for corrections with enemy fighters approaching). I did lose all my fighters (mostly to his fighters while trying to save my other air groups) and most dive bombers - he alone managed to shoot down... don't remember exactly but it was well over 50 of my planes. The problem is: he didn't manage to stop me. Almost all his efforts were focused on stopping me and I still managed to sneak in a couple drops, dealing over 100k hp damage. Oh, and in the end game I killed their last DD trying to cap one of the points - far from the remnants of the fleet and carrier's air cover. He got rewarded for these plane kills he did. His score wasn't bad. Actually, had he won, his XP would've been more than mine. But he lost. He lost because he had little strike potential to outweigh even these couple drops I managed. He gave up his strike potential for the potential to block mine... but it was Random - and it was just not possible for him to block me completely (assuming roughly comparable skill on both sides) - all he managed was making my life harder and more frustrating. That's the problem with US carriers. Many people go AS. And they do score well - they get lots of plane kills and they feel useful - but the problem is that they are rarely able to completely shut down the opponent OR to counterbalance his effectiveness with their bunch of DB. They need to outplay strike-deck opponent really big time to contribute comparatively or more. So, basically, both their set-ups are overspecialized in a way that raises the difficulty significantly - AS has no striking power and Strike has nothing to protect itself (although it's also much harder to counter - torps drop so close that it's much harder to slip through and DB don't suffer nearly as much from dispersion when attacked by floatplanes/fighters/AA consummable). It's much harder to position the planes - and if you position poorly? Well, as AS you won't really make up for even one perfect drop from enemy CV. And as strike - you are likely to lose most of your strike accomplishing nothing if you happen to get properly intercepted by enemy fighters.

I can tell you that - in my personal opinion - tier 9 carriers actually are more satisfying than t8. Or, well, at least that's the case for Taiho. BBs at that tier seem to have forgotten to react to carriers. You don't face +2 tier AA (since there's no +2 tier ;) ) AND some insanely strong t8 AA ships now happen to be a tier below you, making the AA much more manageable. AND you have 3 torpedo bomber squadrons - that's huge since even losing one on approach still means that you're left with 2/3 of your strike force to deal heavy damage. And a single floatplane can disperse only one squadron at a time too. So. The earnings are bad since you pay full service cost AND planes are super-expensive (for some reason every other class pays for expended ammo and you pay extra for what's really your "true" hp rather than for torps/bombs dropped) but it's actually more satisfying. On good games I'm usually around 4-5 place in the team by XP (ok, lately I carried really hard, got Kraken and High Caliber and finished 2nd). On bad games I'm usually 7-8 (even if I really screw up, coming in last 3 places in a carrier seems about as difficult as getting to one of the top 3 positions unless you WANT to fail). So, all in all... XP flow in. credits... even if they do flow out, it's not at an alarming rate. But if I didn't actually like carriers... I don't think I'd be playing any beyond what's required for carrier-specific or X-amount-of-damage-with-torps missions (I do play mostly DDs otherwise but when I rarely see a game in a CV where I don't get 50k torp damage - in DDs there's no similar guarantee).

Anybody who has played Akizuki - whether he liked the ship or not - will likely agree with me on one thing: you must be truly desperate to turn to her HE. It shatters on enemy DDs and BB superstructures and you just can't count on any direct damage. It does start fires on the "throw enough <something> at the wall and some is gonna stick" basis but with the amount you need to throw, you're usually better off just racking up direct damage with AP, unless the enemy is well angled. Then comes the new skill. And in its current PT server incarnation the characteristics became much more inviting than they were. It has a -3% fire chance, leaving poor Akizuki at 2% base fire chance. With DE and flags it can be brought back to 5%. But, here comes the question: Is it worth it? Is the option to hurt angled enemy DDs a game-changer? How often does it set fires compared to normal Akizuki HE - to what extent does landing penetrating shots offset the penalty - is it now viable to get Akizuki for some firesetting? It's a big investment point-wise (especially if you want DE to mitigate the penalty), so I'd be interested in some other people's feelings about the issue. I'm going to try some limited testing but I don't really have the patience to spend much time on PT server AND I can't get training room working there so no "dry" tests for me.

Let me throw in my own two cents. I personally don't like the skill too much - for reasons repeated here ad nauseam. HOWEVER - I don't believe it will be nearly as disruptive to the game as some people prophesize. Basically... it's expensive. Very. Most people will look at it and then think... "well, yeah, I'd like to have it, but I hate being burned to death more than being attacked by unseen enemies I can't guess where are hiding" and go with fire prevention. Or something along these lines. So - while the effects of the skill seem detrimental to the gameplay, especially DD gameplay, I don't believe I'll see people using this skill all that often. Manual AA, manual secondaries, fire prevention, BFT and AFT - there are plenty pretty expensive skills to take AND even fully leveled captain has just 19 skillpoints. And even at high tiers 19 skillpoint captains will hardly be the norm. I believe the skill will see some use but really? it will even be used by anyone every other game or so - and then the situations where it actually becomes important will be rarer still since it requires a DD that would otherwise try to do something (had the skill not been in place. The skill might be very bad for Rankeds and absolutely catastrophic for Team battles but as far as Randoms are concerned, I do believe that the effects of the skill will be severely limited by its obscurity. The extra piece of information just doesn't seem all that appealing when instead you can just grab direct bonuses to things you use all the time. The one ship class that would be taking this universally while hitting 14 points (second t4 skill) would've been carriers. And yes, it would've been pretty broken for them even in Randoms. But they did put in the restriction that the skill just isn't CV-compatible at all. So... yeah. I don't really fear for Randoms. Facing a competent CV player might prove to be both more common and more frustrating for my DDs than facing someone with RDF who will foil my plans with it. PS: The name of the skill is pretty strange, really, seeing how Radio Direction Finding much better describes what the skill does in-game: you learn the direction, not the position of the enemy.

Seeing how they mentioned "compensations" I'd guess the following rules: - If captain's current XP would mean the same number or more points than he had - you keep XP (with overflow going to elite captain XP) - if captain's current XP would mean less points - you get enough XP to keep the number of points you had Easy to understand, easy to implement, even WG is unlikely to screw this one up. There would've been some captain XP gains for low and mid-XP captains but I'm pretty sure that's how WG is gonna roll to avoid sh*tstorms about "WG took my captain skill points away".

I'm very sorry that you suffer so much from people pointing out your below-average winrate (both solo and in divisions). I hope you manage to cope with it in some other way than by attempting to ruin the game for others. Alternatively, if you're sincere and oblivious rather than malicious... I do hope at some point you manage to notice the difference between people playing together and, yes, potentially working together better and the same players f*cking up matchmaking balance in their favor through some loophole you wish to see implemented. Also, as you might notice, divisions actually are not allowed in game modes that are supposed to better reflect skill of participants, be it as solo players (Ranked) or in more competitive team-oriented mode (team battles where there are no divisions since the team is supposed to be one entity to begin with).

Well, I'm doing Santas Convoys mostly with DDs (Akizuki for "hit X times" missions <3 ) but am still faaaaaar from accumulating 50k flooding damage even.

Well, I'm sir Ram-a-lot as I've apparently killed 30 ships by ramming (8 times without dying myself). Still don't really see myself trying to complete that mission. Even if I somehow accumulate the flooding damage for previous tier - I tend to get below 1k despite playing mostly IJN DDs.

No, sorry, you're spouting nonsense. There are some ships that scale really well if undertiered and some ships that are absolute beasts when high tier but suffer from facing +2 tier enemies. A system that lets you ensure that you will NEVER be bottom tier (and with +/- 2 tiers: ensure that you would be top tier) is completely broken and should never, ever be even considered. Sorry, but MM rigging via mixed tier divisions is NOT acceptable.

I don't know what's wrong with your screen but stage 5 is for BBs of tier 6+ only. And stage 4 is for any ship class t 6+. https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/special/weekly-missions-january-2/

The stages you see as problematic aren't for DDs. Stage 4 is for any ship class (but tier 6+, not 4+). Stage 5 is for battleships (t6+) only. That being said, missions are mind-boggingly stupid (ramming damage, sure) and this time there is no worthwhile reward to even try.

I'm pretty sure there is a link between the two in that you only get your listed fire% when penetrating - but you still can set fires as my Akizuki can attest (despite low base fire% and inability to pen BB superstructures I do, occasionally, switch to HE when I'm desperate for a fire on something that has loads of HP and has just recently burned repair - fires do happen).

They likely just don't look at other classes AT ALL. Because, you see, the fact that you get some pretty important skill shifted deeper into the tree is a nerf. The problem is that if one class gets a hit somewhere but other classes get hit harder, guess what: the class A (or rather, you know, B in this case) emerges effectively buffed, since they're all balanced against each other. And if the classes that get hit the hardest happen to be the ones that are supposed to more-or-less counter the class in question? Well, then it's even more of a buff.

Ok, this one is a bit older, but in a thread like this... I remember this game so well The result might be significantly better than my play in that match, but still

A thing that COULD be useful but will never happen is an XP/credits penalty for sealclubbing. Basically, a simple mechanism: 1. Is the player in a t5 or lower ship with over 100 battles on the counter? 2. Does the player have over 1500 battles in WoWs? If both are true, the player receives only - if tier 4 or less: 50% XP, freeXP and credits, achievements don't count (no easy Krakens and High Calibers for you) - if tier 5: 75% XP and freeXP and credits, achievements count but only grant half the usual number of flags I wouldn't hit captainXP (it should be adjusted to give full value despite the other nerfs) because low tier premiums are already bad enough at captain training. But if flag and achievement farming was nerfed, perhaps it would remove some of the incentive for certain people to make their [edited]bigger by means of sealclubbing?

Ok, as for free XP... why should they be discriminated against like that? Someone who has enough freeXP to skip whole ships should know his thing well enough that it's stupid to hinder him like that (not to mention that he's most likely a dedicated CV player if he even wants to do that and just decided to try the other line). The real problem might be the ability to buy Saipan without knowing the first thing about CVs - but your peoposition does nothing to help that. Also, CV modules are one of the most important ones - in no line have I spent so much freeXP as in CVs to instantly get my preferred plane configuration and upgraded fighters. In fact, the very reason why I don't move past my Taiho right now is because I don't want to spend freeXP on making Hakuryu playable. Now, as for dumbing CVs down... you're doing new players a disservice. You want to show them that auto-drop works - but the thing is, it usually doesn't, on higher tiers it's highly situational, especially for torp bombers. What we need are good CV tutorials, not changes to the game that would cultivate bad habits. And if you think sealclubbers are bad at tier 4 (yes, they are really bad), imagine what would happen if they're chased away to t6 (or wherever manual drop becomes accessible) and meet with players who have bad habits (due to dumbed down low-tier play) AND happen to meet serious AA for the first time...

The mission is stupid but why would the rammer need to be BB? If anything, this mission might be easiest in a DD - you can get a good game in a DD while remaining full hp and then at the end of the battle - full speed ahead, speedboost and ram into some remaining ship... you have the speed for that. BBs can survive longer (and deal so much more ramming damage) but they usually lack speed and nimbleness to ram someone who doesn't want to get rammed.

What he describes doesn't sound like that at all. Even in a carrier after sitting glued to the border for some time (sometimes happens when one messes up a ship order and focuses on planes too much) the thing still moves and turns. Like a brick, sure, but it does. Bismarck is a fast and nimble (for a BB at least) ship. She shouldn't come anywhere near being stuck as the OP describes it.

Impossible to balance. So... nope.

Wait, you get flags by GETTING detonated, not for detonating someone?

Your husband is mostly wrong. Basically, if you win with one ship, then with another, then the next - it's a winning streak, right? I've had days where I 1st-winned, say, 7 ships in a row without a single defeat. Sounds like win streak Now, there are two aspects that actually may hurt your winrate by playing like that: 1. You play more with ships you're bad with. If you have a ship you're absolutely awful with, you'll keep playing it until you get a victory. So, you play more with ships you underperform with than with ones you perform well (this only hurts global winrate, not ship-specific winrates) 2. Frustration. If you focus too much on the need to get that first victory, you might find yourself tired and angry but still playing to get that f*cking victory. This can further hurt your performance and, by extension: winrate.

A single BB doing that is stupid - but there is method to this madness. Basically, imagine if the whole Southern spawn (save for a couple ships, likely DDs, playing delaying tactics and making cap harder) does that. What situation do we end with? A bunch of pretty confused red DDs are at capture point B. And at tiers this map comes up they have relatively short effective range (even if can shoot further) and are pretty slow. In the meantime green BBs have just circled the mountain. What happens now? - ships originally spawned at A-spawn are engaged with ships from enemy North spawn - ships originally spawned at B-spawn are behind them and closing in with support This maneuver does mean that the B-spawn effectively enters battle with significant delay BUT it potentially allows the team to regroup, dispatch North-spawned enemies and proceed South from secured capture point A, with significant ship advantage. In the end this might work or not and the more complicated the tactic, the bigger the chance that people will mess it up. Also, it really works better from East spawn since you can go North and emerge from between the islands to contest middle cap and enter combat quicker. I definitely wouldn't recommend trying anything like that if spawned on the West side of the map, even with fast ships like Kongo. But, well, there you have the theory behind the sightseeing vertical course some people seem to like to take.