Admiral_noodle

I'm still undecided. In mid tier games it seems quite fun. I'm not sure about high tier.

You know tirpitz is a tier higher than Colorado right? Tirpitz isn't "better" than the other tier 8s. So your whole argument is daft.

New Mexico is better than Bayern. 12 guns vs 8. More versatile 14" rather than overpenning 15" guns. Yes Bayern is good. But I find New Mexico better. In fact I find the German BBs a bit "all round good" and not brilliant at anything. Would rather have the strengths of the others and have to manage their weaknesses. Except Bismarck of course

1/10 would not recommend. But seriously just no. If you get into this situation and no one is there to help out. Leave.

I could add the Iowa with my pathetic 46k average damage but I know that's not a curse but it's me not knowing how to drive it.

Of course it helps if you define "play for fun" up front. I play for fun. If people aren't playing for fun then why the hell are you playing. The problem with "I play for fun" is that it's been equated with "I don't play to win". And if you don't play to win... Same question. Go play planet coaster or cities skylines (I play those it's not a criticism, I bought a new PC processor so coaster would run better!) which don't have "winning" as part of the game. The real issue is whether people take the game "seriously" or not, and to what extent. And that's a spectrum. Some people are hyper competitive and some don't care at all about winning. Most are somewhere in the middle. Which makes online random team games very interesting. Part of my "fun" is identifying in game what type of players I have on my team - and the enemy team - so I can manipulate that knowledge to my (and my teams) advantage to secure a) a win and b) an acceptably good outcome for me. Most of my "rage" moments occur when I misjudge players during a game (usually because they do something illogical/unexpected versus my snap judgement of them - like a player whose been pretty good for ten minutes suddenly doing something inane) and I lose out because of it. My other rage moments occur when I've played hard to get the team into a good position and then players "wilfully" throw it away. I don't rage at people who try but fail. It's those players who clearly aren't trying - even when I give them sensible advice. Today for example all two players had to do was step on the enemy cap to stop the tick for us to win. But they "wilfully" avoided it. It wouldn't even have been difficult or a risk for them. Maybe they are the people we say are "playing for fun".

No. It's just that the DEBBs have "upset" the previous numbers and the effect we saw previously has weakened.

I'm on 51 apparently. It's not really important, but if you get karma it's because someone appreciated something you did. Which is always nice.

For me fun is playing well, contributing to a team effort and playing for the win wherever I can. In fact I'll even go do "boring stuff" like capping the open point or hiding to not die if we are in the lead. I'll always play like that. So I do play to win. Always. However if we lose and I did all I could and played well I'll still have fun. Not fun to me: - being in a team who aren't trying to win* - being useless and not contributing. - making "silly" mistakes (trying something that makes sense and it not coming off is ok. Sailing into torps I should have expected isn't.) *does not mean playing with people who are less skilled. If a player tries and fails that's fine.

Me too. My Bayern is cursed. 69k average damage. Better even than my glorious New Mexico. But 40% WR. Something about that ship. Can't seem to carry the team to victory.

Leo you pretty much broke even, without premium and had a decent game. Scaling wise that's about spot on with the the current economy mechanics. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the game mechanics, but from a psychology point of view... Stop taking the credits as a judgement on your gameplay

Again to reiterate. Credits and XP scale around % damage done. I've had a game in a tier X (Grosser Kurfürst) where I sank and made a profit with only 58k damage. Mostly because I sank two DDs and somehow capped... So doing 190k damage is irrelevant without knowing what that relates to in terms of % HP.

A silver ship so bad it makes you spend real money to convert XP to free XP so you can skip it.

I think PvE could do with a bit of a rework. Ideally with easy/medium/hard mode - with the possibility of earning things in hard mode. Question obviously is whether that makes sense for WG. They don't want everyone to go off playing coop and leave randoms empty. However investment in good coop scenarios might actually attract a new player base who don't like randoms. Maybe one for "later" after more content is added to the base game.

I think the economy could be eased a bit at tier X because I don't think it would lead to people spamming tier X games all the time... But my point was I would like all the ships unlocked quicker but I'm not going to get that. I'd like to keep all the ships without paying for port slots but I'm not getting that either. There are plenty of things you just can't do without paying money. You can play the game for free up to a point, but you can't have *everything* you want for free and that's the game design for obvious reasons.

It comes down to this. If you have Hipper in port and planned to keep her, and want a tier 8 premium cruiser to play for fun and make money, buy PE instead of keeping Hipper. If you are a collector and love the history of her, buy PE If neither of the above is true, don't buy the PE.

Although true, his latest videos on penetration and shell mechanics are very good.

While testing I was introduced to the tier X economy and I was initially horrified. Then I realised the in game economy is a made up mechanic to ensure everyone doesn't just spam tier X games. I also realised I was never planning to do that anyway as I have loads of ships I like to play across the tiers. It also encourages people to pay for premium. But if you don't want to you can still play tier X, just not all the time, you need to play lower tiers to earn credits to pay for the tier X games. That's how the game is designed. I've broken the link in my head between credits and "game reward" above tier 7 and not in premiums. If I contribute to a win or play well that's good enough for me. If I lose money so what? That's what my tier 5-7s are for and I'm still going to play those lots ---> I can afford to play some tier IX and X. If you make money in a tier X game you can congratulate yourself. But if you lose money don't stress, plan to pay for your tier X games by playing other ships. If you only want to play tier X, then tough. Either get brilliant or pay. I'd like not to have to grind ships and have them all unlocked at the start. That's "tough" too. Why would you want to only play tier X anyway and limit yourself to 10% of the game?

Another +1 XP and credits are scaled on %HP done not total HP. So I've had a game (testing GK) where I did only 53k damage but made a profit. The damage was from DDs, plus I capped

Now this is doable for me once I get to tier 8 and unlock the tier 9. I'll need to be storing credits and free XP to buy and upgrade the tier 9 anyway so this is a great plan when I get there.

Much as he sometime annoys me. This is good work from iChase. Just one video missing from that and that's all about "damage numbers" and how you can get damage out of line with what you expect from the ribbons (0 damage pens, massive overpens and salvoes that don't "add up")

There is a mission to play DDs this weekend so expected.

The thing about "gross stats" even for a given week is that they will remain misleading while we have a large population of experienced players. The lower tiers are still populated by good players in german BBs rather than new players. every time a new line comes out their stats should be higher than older lines. Now is a good time to review the Russian cruisers. Although even then we have to factor in that most new players will likely not grind Russian cruisers first because of national and historical bias (in theory) I predict when RNCL come out they will look OP at first but then drop off massively a few months later as all the new players will go "Oooh must play as Royal Navy" and such in an unforgiving class. We shall see

This. I never used to but now I get the mechanics I use my premiums with as many captain training bonuses to level up my captains. Only my silver ships have permanent captains. And now I have a 15 point captain at last! When I want to move that captain the big question is how long will I need on a premium to retrain him? Or should I just fork over 500 doubloons.

The damage model isn't broken I don't think, but if you have a look at iChases new video it does explain the WTF why is that broadside cruiser still alive moments. The shell penetration and damage model is a lot more complex than I think people realise, and it's modelled on shell physics - broadly. There is no need for "damage rolls" in this game because of that complexity. I quite like the complexity and as I understand more I'm less frustrated by the overpen issues. I now know that a perfectly broadside cruiser is not always a great target, and to wait until I will get 20-ish degrees on it. That way I'll be able to citadel without overpens. Also I know now to fire below the waterline at close up "thin" cruisers to lower my penetration and increase the chance of citadels. And it's working (RNG permitting of course). The only annoying thing is the lack of information. Sadly a lot of it is still NDA for commercial reasons. In that WG don't want their hard work stolen by a knock off game. 0 damage pens *are* to do with superstructure modules and hull sections take less pen damage from AP when saturated. This has been shown in tests. The best bet is to "think" like an engineer. If you have shells with great penetration you have to think "how can I wedge these shells in to a meaty part of the ship so they won't just come out the other side?" - and with practice and experience it starts getting results.