fnord_disc

I have never played in a division in my entire time in World of Warships. My stats are 100% solo. Also you get an extremely huge amount of XP for successful capping... I don't have time to prove to you that my opinion has merit. You can either trust me and look at guides or... I don't know. It's up to you. This sentence doesn't even make sense to me... why should there be bonus XP? Because you killed him alone? How does that matter? We're not in a western movie.

Everyone has to deal with bad teams and most people get higher average experience than you. Your stats suggest to me that you don't understand the ships you have, but I won't press the point. If you think your skills are fine, so be it. But having a bad team happens. It's part of the game. You have to look at the map and see how you can make the best of it, where you can support teammates who are doing okay or protect areas you don't want threatened. Having a bad team is not really a reason you get low XP. It's a reason nobody has 90% win rate. But even in a terrible team you can do you best, get your 50k damage done and get 800-ish base XP on a loss. Sure, some games are not winnable. It's not possible. But it's possible to get decent XP in every game.

It still means the script is either buggy or only looks through a part of the userbase - the bottom line, in both cases, is that whatever it calculates is completely meaningless.

I have twice as much average damage in my Königsberg as you. I think I'll stick to what I think.

High speed means flat arc. High weight means the arc is similar short & long range. High speed & low weight means arc it's flat short range and high long range. Battleships are all basically the same except Tirpitz which is very flat. USN DDs all have high arc. SN DDs flat arc. Reposted with thanks from here.

That's irrelevant due to the sheer number of games played, and it would assume exactly 0 draws. An average winrate of over 50% is literally impossible and means whichever script calculated it is bugged.

That only works with Kberg against some battleships. It doesn't work with all German cruisers against all targets. Sometimes you have to use HE against BBs and it stinks.

This. If you angle just a little, enemy cruisers basically can't citadel you and you still have high-velocity guns with great penetration and DPM. You can wriggle all day and still keep the guns on target. They do well against destroyers too due to the amazing sonar and flat arcs. German cruisers are the best cruiser hunters in the game, but they suck against battleships. When the battle starts, find a place with few battleships and a lot of enemy cruisers and go to town.

Show me statistics then. Show me it's not a bell curve. Proof or go home.

No bonusses... game #2...

I played this literally after the post I wrote. No flags, no premium, no daily bonus. With all those bonuses I would have gotten 8761 experience... just think about that for a second. Silver is a different question, but you get such massive amounts of XP...

You have the weirdest profile I have ever seen. You have 163 games in St. Louis, but no games in the T1 and T2 cruisers, or the T4 cruiser. The only other cruiser which you have played is your Atago, 82 games. You also have 4 games in the T4 Clemson, but nothing in T2-3 destroyers. 4 games in Isokaze and 40 games in Mutsuki, but no games in any other destroyer (T2, 3, 5). Your battleship line also indicates a large amount of free XP usage, but you didn't skip ships here. Your stats are shored up because you get decent games in St. Louis, so your 50% win rate looks fine at first glance. However, in 40 Mutsuki games you've only done an average of 12k damage. Isokaze 9k average damage... not even one torpedo hit on average. What I'm going to say is not going to help you much, but this is simply an L2P issue. Please don't take it personally. Skipping ships is a bad idea if you want to learn how to play this game. I recommend looking up guides on YouTube.

They can if you look at the mined stats... the coefficients for speed loss and such are fixed. And if you pay 5$ (LOL!!) you can even check out the hitboxes and armor zones.

Aslain's let's you check out the visuals too.

You can drop from the side like a torpedo bomber and it doesn't matter if they wriggle. The circle is so incredibly small you don't have to hit from behind.

Applying camouflage is much cheaper than building a new ship if the old one got sunk. They had nothing to lose by trying. To my knowledge there isn't a single scientifically validated study or test that proves naval camo has any usefulness whatsoever. Besides, why should I believe it was useful without evidence? I leave that to religion. I don't really understand why you're getting upset at me. I want the camo in the game too, because it just looks great. I just said that it's useless IRL.

Manual drop circle for IJN is much smaller now.

I can't, but it doesn't matter because it's a picture and it doesn't move, there are no waves to give context to its movement and the smoke from the funnel isn't visible. A picture proves nothing. It just advertisement for a dude who wanted to sell his stripey paint. I know what naval camouflage is supposed to do. Supposed to do! Please point me to scientific tests regarding dazzle paint or comparable camo to convince me that is has actual, real-world usefulness. Now, do I think that we should have camo in WoWs? Yes, of course, it looks much better with customizable camo.

No Polish tree for sure. Two destroyer classes maximum (Wicher + Grom). There is no Polish navy to fill the tree in any way. Minor navies is certainly possible. TONS of destroyers and light cruisers from all kinds of countries, enough for 2-3 lines for sure. Heavy cruisers more difficult. Battleships difficult. T3 Espana (Spain) T4 Rivadavia (Argentina) T5 Salamis (Greece) / Almirante Latorre (Chile) T6 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) / Riachuelo if they do Agincourt / Ersatz Monarch (Austr.-Hun.) T7 BC39 (Netherlands, some kind of buff) Nothing after that, but there are even more options than that for lower tiers.

That doesn't mean it actually worked. Reprinting a flattering image where the dazzle confuses the outline without any motion or context is not evidence. To my experience there were no scientific tests that verified beyond reasonable doubt that naval camouflage works. If you know of any, I will be happy to change my views.

Japanese naval camouflage was mostly up to the commanders in charge of the vessel or their squadron commander. There was no fleet doctrine that covered such things, and most of the camouflage they used was based on whatever those people designed themselves, leading to wildly different camouflage patterns. Many ships sailed without any camouflage for their entire service career, just because the captain didn't feel like having it painted on. edit: Bear in mind that the efficacy of naval camouflage is inconclusive. There are no scientific trials that suggest it has any effect whatsoever... nor any tests that prove it is worthless.

It was pointed out a bunch of times already that all the camo patterns are really poor and just [edited] color variations. There was some translated RU info that basically said really nice camo (historical + customizable) is going to come at some point... next week, next year, next century, your guess is as good as mine.

Holy Gods, be quiet. Carrier players can't drop torpedoes close the border because the drop mechanic is buggy. They have to either drop the torpedoes a long way away from you or trick the planes to go outside the map border. You want planes to not go outside? Fine! But then also fix the center of aiming circle so the torpedoes can be dropped closer to your ship.

Downvoted for CV-whining border-hugger.

Your router must be absolute garbage. But to give a more helpful answer... The sheer traffic isn't the problem, it's the number of simultaneous connections or requests. Look in your WoWSLauncher.cfg what it says for max_concurrency and try a lower number. This might crash your launcher so no promises... If you can't force lower concurrent connections, you need a new router. Frankly, from your description, I would recommend that anyway...