Unintentional_submarine

Come now... objective based XP isn't binary. It isn't as if the choice is cap XP as it is now or none at all. Of course I, and I assume pretty much everyone if not all, actually want cap XP and tanking and spotting XP. And I too would prefer a DD that goes for the caps when possible. But it has been blatantly obvious that capping XP has been too great, since the DDs totally dominated Ranked and the challenge to get the most XP. A well played ship of all four classes should pretty much get the same'ish rewards for the same effort. That isn't the case right now. That's the entire point. Why is it then an issue that Destroyers that are well played can get more XP? It is an issue since base XP is used for competitions of various kinds. Like getting first in a losing team in Ranked (something I supported and still do), the challenge as we saw, and like in the GNB base XP mission. We weren't likely to see a stop to that. Add to that the fact that we are hard ranked after battles using base XP. So the entire game is based around your performance in base XP. Arguably nobody should let his position on the team rank influence his feelings of the game if he feels he did well (and in fact did do well but wasn't rewarded), but that's just not how humans work. We want recognition for our efforts, and preferably we want recognition in equal measure for equal opportunity and work. How many months haven't it been a running joke among the community how much carriers have to work to top a DD that has capped two caps? He practically has to sink half the enemy team on his own. Regardless of feelings towards carriers, that's a rather unfair situation for them.

Of course it not smart what he did. First he rants about the NDA on NA, which doesn't seem to be that lightly taken (apparently people have had their accounts deleted from breaches of the NDA in the past there, and at least one charged with a 100k$ lawsuit), then he basically pushes the NDA he is himself under to the extreme limit (the fact that some think he broke it and others not...), provoking not only the NA people but also WGEU. Honestly it all comes off a bit petulant and not a small bit childish. I have used the video for it's information, I don't see why not since it is out (and I actually want information on the ships). But that doesn't make the message in it any less foolish.

From what I have seen both turrets are limited to 45 degrees off the centerline. And the gun barrels of both turrets get rather close to the offending ship sections. If you happen to have a screenshot or picture or something lying around where you can point it out, it would be splendid. The more insight we have into the problems, the more likely we are in getting something done (it is incredibly doubtful we will get GK's turret arrangement changed, as it would require an entire model restructuring and we know how long models take to create, but possibly something else).

I know. Hence the /s for sarcasm. While I can't possibly be the only person thinking it up, I was possibly the first person to voice that very concern/accusation you present after the turret arcs were 'revealed'. It has been something of a pet peeve honestly. Hence why I got optimistic when the Jingles video appeared to show better arcs (which they weren't).

Ran into _FTD_, TinCupYuri and ezymodo twice in a row with my buddy in our Izumos. They were in Atago, Tirpitz and Benson. It wasn't pretty. At all. Coming back from a vacation my skills had deteriorated badly. Aiming badly, bad situational awareness etc. The whole package. Running into those guys wasn't what I needed to get back on track. Of course we couldn't lose both battles on our own. As they say, this is a team game, and as a team we lost. Some of us just contributed more than others...

Apparently the Germans didn't know jack about turret placement then... /s

Well, the rebuilds of Kongo and Fuso was certainly not in line with their orginal lines... and in the case of Fuso it hardly made her better looking. Warspite certainly changed a lot as well, and Hood would too (along with the other QEs if they had ever been fully refitted). The American battleships didn't nearly as much of course, but still the differences in the superstructures are pronounced. It is more likely that a refit of Bayern and Baden would have seen a significant restructuring, than not. The question is what it should have been. And WG took the approach of what did the Germans build at the time one could expect such a refit... And the Deutschland class comes up. Is it fitting or not? At least it is based on something real.

But at this time they would only have their internal testing to prove that with... And internal testing isn't enough for something as big as the economy itself. You need a very large sample size to be certain it is fact better. It would work with smaller segments of the game, but not something of this magnitude. As again, can be seen with how they managed to not balance it properly when they introduced capping XP. It gave capping DDs way too much benefit and damage only ships (essentially; carriers do cap now and then in a blue moon, and Saipan remains an outlier) a way too large reduction. And that came even after PT testing... and well, months of playing since. The economy of rewards for actions is incredibly sensitive, any small change can throw it into disarray. Adding more sources of income will not be small, it will be huge. So better to balance now, so that it is easier to pinpoint where the issue with income lies when the expansion does come.

Should also account for the other discrepancies, considering they all (the ships with the inexplicably weirdly low armour values) had tapering armour, both length and height. The way I see the line as it is. Nassau: A glorious T3. Having met a few and watched them, they look like they are borderline OP until they meet torps. Kaiser: Sort of meh, but should be an interesting play. König: A risky ship with the relatively low gunpower and no other stats that really shine other than thick belt armour. She is most certainly going to be a ship to play before anything firm can be said. Though she can and will overmatch a lot of armour if she meets her own tier. It is when she is mid or low tier that she will struggle a lot I would expect. Bayern: Looks like she will be awesome. She has so many great stats, and they are stats that reinforce a fun playstyle. Gneisenau: Like König it is hard to predict, but having played Tirpitz with a lost rear turret on surprisingly many occations, I doubt the lack of a turret will result in 'Myogi at T7'. I look forward to her. Bissie: From Tirpitz the answer is that she will be fun, and then a little more fun. 10.5km secondaries in a T8 max match will be a sight to behold. Maybe not the most powerful, but it is bound to be hilarious. FdG: Nothing speaks up for her, not comments, not stats and not anything I have seen yet. She scares me a little. GK: Haven't seen anything that really makes her stand out as fun to play or good. Though the Jingles video looked like the rear turrets have better arcs now? Anyway, another sceptical ship. Overall, a very good line. Which is a bit of a surprise, as usually new lines are met with insane amounts of 'it's all bad' sort of commentary.

No, you fix a problem first before you pile new thing on top of it. The new stuff might just fix the old issue, but they might as well just complicate the solution even more. And the problem is presently that a properly played DD gets more XP than a properly played ship of other classes, as evidenced in the challenge. Now why is it important to fix first? Well, until you get a proper balance between damage (includes planekills) and capping you will have a supremely hard time figuring out how much XP you have to divert from either to give to tanking and spotting. And since we go from essentially three sources of XP (damage, planekill and capping/decapping) to five, the complexity is increased heavily. What you want to do is defeat each issue in detail. And they are not doing that. I want spotting and tanking XP. It is bound to make people play a little more sensible, rather than farming decaps or trading caps as can be seen at times. But I want the base XP distribution fixed first. Nope. It is just potential damage (sorry for the quality, it's just a cuttung tool screengrab) Obviously avoidance tanking will be a thing. Soviet DDs (sorry, not you Trashcan) rejoice.

The battleship Endor...

Very much so. But I actually find it less important than the overmatch mechanic which is a set modifier and so quite transparent once you know it. Looking at the values we know already, the penetration tables, while decidedly helpful, would not really affect how we play as it is. It would perhaps explain certain ships' abilities or inabilities, but overall, while I want the tables a lot, I find them easier to deal with, probably because penetration mostly follow a logical progression, bigger gun = better penetration. Power bleed is an impossible stat to know in advance. For instance, who knew that Nagato bleeds enough power in a turn that she is barely faster than Colorado in the same turn? I know because I specifically tested it. Also, and I haven't tested this, but it seems that Mogami bleeds a lot more power than Atago. How can you infer this in advance? The Natago/Colorado case could be down to length/size of hull, Nagato being bigger, faster and longer would naturally tread more water sideways in a turn, bleeding more power, but so much that she is barely faster than Colorado? One of the reasons Tirpitz feels quite maneuverable despite having a relatively poor turning circle is probably down to her power bleed. Well, I didn't intend to argue as such, as I didn't feel a disagreement was made, I just wanted to clarify my own priority.

I'm just going to avoid what follow this post and restart from the beginning. I don't think people are against the principle of it. But we saw not only in Ranked that DDs topped out in XP. Remember that Warspite/Arizona contest? Yeah that one was dominated by DDs, to a disgusting degree actually (8 of 10 and 38 of 50). That's not a coincidence and has nothing to do with Ranked and it's focus on capping. It has something to do with capping being too well rewarded. Add spotting XP and credits on top and there will never be any other ships but DDs on top. Sure, cruisers might spot a DD now and then, and a CV can probably get a fair chunk of spotting XP, but only the DDs can really cap on top of spotting. When other classes cap it is usually because the cap is entirely uncontested (meaning no enemies close enough to affect it) or because it is a major rush by one team so it is impossible to decap fast enough (or even hit the right targets). There are naturally cases where a BB manages to steal a cap under the guns of the enemies, but those case are so rare compared to a DD running into a cap and taking it with the enemies just outside it. So, if spotting XP was to be added, it would obviously have to be taken from somewhere. Just like it was when capping XP was introduced (yes you got XP for Standard Battle caps before, but you know what I mean), which incidentally wrecked CV XP gains (which were probably a bit too high at the time, but is obviously too low now, except for Saipan).

Jingles just posted up a preview of the ships with some gameplay (without the UI so to affect an over-the-shoulder aspect). Most of it was sort of known already, but he did post up something interesting about FdG... She bleeds power out of her nose apparently. His words were "... and turning cuts your speed in half". Now I'm not convinced she actually goes down to 15kn in a hard turn, but Jingles is just about the only Content Creator that actually takes note of this aspect of the ships (in fact it was his comments about the Imperator Nikolai's tremendous power bleed that made me take notice of this). And if he notices that she bleeds a lot of power, I'm inclined to believe that it is more than usual. Personally I find power bleed to be just as important as sigma among the invisible stats. If a ship bleeds a lot of power it can become a real pain to sail with, despite otherwise good maneuverability stats, because she will need to spend more time in the actual turn, and more time to accelerate after a finished turn, lowering her overall speed. A significant power bleed can also severely affect a ship's ability to wiggle or avoid incoming fire as constant maneuvering will slow her down so much that she can't run away or moves too little to actually be able to avoid the shots. Conversely, a significant power bleed can also be helpful in helping slamming on the brakes, for torpedoes or emergency maneuvers. This is why I think that stat is hugely important, and wished there was a stat saying something like 'max speed in continual turn: xx knots'

Guys, Vogel isn't some starry-eyed greenhorn. He just takes the answer to it's logical conclusion, and presents it's absurdity. Because what he writes is exactly the conclusion one has to take from that comment. Since it is obviously not what will happen, the stupidity of the answer is exposed. In other words, he just shows that the answer is a truckload of BS.

Aside from the relatively small hitbox that is the superstructure, Mogami has a universal 25mm plate. Lo Yang HE can't pen that. You need 155mm HE or higher for that. With the shells falling onto the deck there is actually preciously little chance of hitting the vulnerable areas, as compared to a regular flat trajectory, where the superstructure takes up a relatively larger target area. I free cam'ed the hits and none of the visible hits were to the superstructure. All of them hit the hull. There were of course the non-visible hits, but based on the location of the explosions, they fit well with hull hits too. So to me at least there is nothing particularly strange about it. Regarding the Yamato hit. Well, it is soaked up by your rear gun and rudder, leaving little damage for the ship itself. In this case it is indeed a module soaking the damage.

Yes, 14.3 is the magic number, the number that lets Scharnie overmatch New York and Texas from the bow and stern (Kongo get's off with much less trouble due to her bow armour). Those two ships should never ever sail towards a Scharnhorst if they can avoid it. That's just begging for a slapdown of epic proportions (that RoF and overmatch is a horrendous combo). As I said, there is nothing that points to Scharnhorst not having her bow armour. Myogi and Ishizuchi have theirs, to say nothing of OPerator. Jingles has just learned about the overmatch mechanic and the general plating thickness. Seeing 25mm is the least thick plates on Scharnhorst obviously indicates she has 25mm structural plates, and there isn't any obvious indications of the bow armour, unless you have looked at the few pictures of the armour scheme. Which I'm pretty confident Jingles hasn't. So he is naturally going ot assume the 25mm plating applies, just like on Warspite, New Mexico, Colorado and Nagato (Fuso also has bow armour). That she has bow armour doesn't mean she can't get citadelled from the front though, just that it is highly unlikely. Also regular pens above the bow armour will still hurt a lot, so sometimes it might look like a citadel.

I know it is a few days old, but I want to re-raise this. Scharnhorst should have bow armour similar to Tirpitz. Since they have modeled bow armour for every other ship that had it and is in the game, there is nothing that points to no bow armour for Scharnhorst. 70mm fits in between 25mm and 90mm, so it is no wonder there aren't any obvious indications that she has bow armour. The question really is, where are the 90mm? I'm assuming at this time that it is the rudder gear protection (something many ships have, yes even Tirpitz).

Exactly. Too many people just look at the minimum requirement for the design (21kn) and apply that to the class itself, because when they ran trials they did in fact not run much faster. However since they were wartime ships, and German to boot, the trials were somewhat different from the norm. Instead of running in very light loads, at emergency engine power and open sea, both Bayern and Baden were run at heavy warload, in shallow waters (due to Germany's strategic condition precluded deep water trials) and at less than maximum engine power. Yet they still exceeded the requirement of speed and engine power both. And then there are the notable points you bring up too (outrunning the previous ships and running with the battlecruisers for a while). I feared that Lesta would overlook these matters and make the Bayern into a 21-21.5kn ship. But I was pleasantly surprised that they had in fact not missed it. But as noted, 25 knots is fairly optimistic for the newly built Bayerns. It is doubtful the hull itself could press more than academic increases out past 25 knots. However if we look at Bayern with the top hull, the single funnel is prominent. A single funnel for a coal-burner is not feasible for a ship of this size, unless there are advances made in the 30s I'm unaware of. So my interpretation is that Bayern stock represents the older oil-infused coal burner (with the stock engine), and the top hull represents a conversion to oil burning (with upgraded engine). Which fits with the datamined engine power (stock engine matches the, already 50% increased over requirement, engines of WWI). Regarding the fecal ship? My initial thoughts fell on Kaiser, but 250k damage in her is a tad much for most people. Unless the intention was somewhere around 8ish battles in each ship on average. I mean for myself it would not be that hard, but we have to assume there wouldn't be spent more time on these than on an actual grind. Though one must consider that the higher tiers would probably be considerably faster than regular XP grind, while the lower tiers are probably slower. That said, Jingles' choice of words indicated he had experience with more than just Nassau, Scharnhorst and Kaiser, while also indicating that he had in fact not progressed past the fecal ship, or at least had been burned out on it. So it is probably higher than this. But one should not forget that just because Jingles might have issues with a ship does not necessarily mean it is actually bad. He is a temperamental player and prefers light ships, so a ship that is sluggish would grate him greatly. And that to me indicates FdG at T9, as the other candidates are among the fastest/most maneuverable of their tier, but FdG is not.

Well, I remember the response to the December 2015 chart... it was essentially "just because the RU cluster is a n00b-haven where they run BBs broadside on, doesn't mean we do it elsewhere". Essentially, discounting the stats based on Russians being inherently really bad at the game. By the way, this is still a common and often used excuse on the NA server. The RU players are by virtue of being Russians (and all the other nations going for that server) just potatoes. It's pathetic to read honestly.

Good lord... You can't be serious... Look at the bloody clip. If it was a visual desync like with torpedos there would have been a hit ribbon. There is none.

It is even worse than that. Hitting a Fletcher that is, presumably (yes I presume that our illustrious OP would be doing that), maneuvering, with dive bombers is a fair bit harder than hitting a Yamato with Udaloi guns. One is either extreme RNG or very nicely done auto vs manual) and the other is practically impossible to mess up. Even the greatest potato can hit a somewhat broadside Yamato with Udaloi HE.

This is why it is a total BS mechanic. I have accepted that it is part of the game, but I will never accept that it adds anything useful for gameplay. We have citadel areas around the magazines, hitting those gives us citadel hits for a lot of damage. In other words we can hit the magazines and the game rewards us with a lot of damage, but the target doesn't blow up. Why doesn't it blow every time the magazine is hit? Because that would result in Detonations increasing many fold. Even WG can see that it is a bad thing. Amusingly there is in fact a critical hit for when the magazine is hit. It is that rather rare situation where you can still control your turret but it won't reload for something like 10 seconds. The critical hit text says something like "Magazine hit/damaged, reload hampered/impossible", you get the idea. And this can happen without citadels mind you. I have had it happen a fair few times in the Nürnberg. Citadels are the approximation of magazine hits. I mean hitting a ship in it's boilers or engines wasn't going to sink it (it would probably lead to it's sinking later on, but since knocked out engines are fixed with a button-press that doesn't work), but in the game it can. Similarly hitting the magazine doesn't sink it, because the incoming and outgoing damage needs to be predictable to a certain extent. And this is why Detonations are not useful at all. So ships blew up from getting hit in the magazine or otherwise suffered propellant flash fires. Ships also suffered engines knocked out for longer than the games are going for in the middle of battles. But engines are only out for a short while even if not fixed with 'R', in fact recently engines and rudders got buffed in their knocked out period (much shorter now). Heck you can even spec a captain to practically avoid it. That's how destructive it is seen. Yet even with a permanently knocked out engine you would still have your weapons and be of more use to the team than someone who died. But thankfully it was rightfully seen to be a chore to the people suffering form this. But engines are knocked out much easier than Detonations... And? If the argument is that Detonations happened and we should accept it, then it should also apply to engines and rudders. Engines and rudders weren't fixed within any period of time that would make sense tactically in the game. So perma destruction if we were to take that route. Citadels are plenty enough for Detonations. No need for random HE shells to flagpoles ect. After all, Carriers can't get Detonated. Why not? Well, the argument is that they suffer more from fires. But really the reason is probably something else, as that is one weaksauce reason. I'm sure most people can figure what I'm suggesting here. But if CVs can't get Detonated, despite probably being the ship at the greatest risk with explosives and fuel in open spaces just below the flightdeck (and the cause of multiple CV losses in the war), then really no other ship should either. [EDIT] Forgot to mention destroyers. They don't have citadels, so obviously it can't be of use in regards to them. And giving magazine hits more damage would just just be the entire DD citadel probelm again, if at a relatively smaller scale. Personally I think it would be fine to just accept that they would be free from that problem, and not have citadels. And I say this as a relative non-DD player. If that is price to pay for removing it, then I'm perfectly fine with it.

Hmm... Those flags are honestly not that bad. I especially like the Polish flag. Warhorse with a Hussaria wing in it's mane. I half expected psychedelic flowers and geometric shapes. Though Japan is pretty crap. A chrysanthemum would have been perfect.

it is up to 12 minutes, which is way too long considering few games outside of Standard, actually reach that time.