Syrchalis

Yeah it usually is really unfair. I was in my Taiho (T9) against a Hiryu (T7) and Ranger (T7), 1vs2. Though, it wasn't unfair for me, but for them. My fighters can easily wreck two squads of theirs. My bomber squads need just one run to destroy one of them, because their AA can't touch my planes that have like 1.5x the HP of theirs. Needless to say, they both died with little chance to do anything against my 7 squads. Wether it's unfair for the 1 CV or the 2 depends on the exact CVs. E.g. a Ryujo against 2 Bogues can easily win too. There are even some fair matchups 1vs2. It depends on the exact CV and layout too though, so it would really be better if the there was always an even number of CVs in games.

The XP penalty for losing or the reward for winning is way too high. I am so sick of capping half the points, dealing 150k dmg every game and then getting just 1k XP instead of the 3k I would be getting if we were winning. Right now this game is all about winning the battle. Contribution is largely irrelevant. If you lose, you are fucked. People would be a lot less mad and raging if losing wouldn't cost them so much. I'm not saying you should get the same reward for losing, but see it this way - if you're losing you are already perform worse than when winning (on average) otherwise you wouldn't be losing. So on average the reward is already less. Right now it gets reduced by like 66% ontop of that. So if you tried your best you get nothing. If you failed like an idiot, you get nothing. Only if you performed well AND won you get something worthwhile. If this was a game like soccer or basketball where you play with the same people over and over, I would say - you win together, you lose together, that's fine. But you always have a ton of random people on your team. So you should not be punished so much for their failure, especially not if you did your very best to make up for them.

Good points Loeffelmaster. That made me remember - shooting down planes with AA should give large amounts of extra reward for cruisers. Other classes can do this too, but they shouldn't get a special reward for it. Carriers can easily kill 50-100 planes in a match (in high tier), DDs lack AA and rather want to be invisible anyway, BBs have AA mainly for self-defence. Things like this can easily make the reward system a lot better. A plane shot down isn't simply a plane shot down. Simple conditions like "player is cruiser" are the easiest of things for a programmers to do, so all it takes is a good designer to think of all relevant parameters. In the end the reward system would be immensely complex, but it would be dynamic and actually reward teamplay. Since noone other than the designers actually need to fully understand the system to this degree of depth, complexity wouldn't be an issue.

No that wouldn't help at all. The problem is you can't aim outside the border with bombers, making you only able to basically auto-drop them.

I'm not angry at all, I just throw punches towards those who throw them at me first. If some guy that has barely played any games thinks he has the right to come here and insult me, based on nothing at all, he has to face the fallout of his actions, simple as that. Beta is no excuse for anything. I can tell you as a developer - closed alpha is where major changes happen. Closed beta can see major changes, but VERY rarely. Open beta is basically a test-run to see if there is SOMETHING super hidden that is broken and needs to be fixed before it goes full release. Something that only 1 in 10.000 player will find. The one thing betas can have is bugs. Flagging someone afk and excluding him from the reward is barely an hour work for a programmer and maybe two or three for a designer (setting parameters for when to flag someone). The problem in the way you are thinking is that the current methods actually PUNISHES the player who does his role and dies early. It's a multiplier. You hold off the advance, died early, got low score and nothing times two is still NOTHING. Believe me I died defending the base early sometimes and you get horseshit for it, even if you win. A flat bonus would actually help those get something for their service. What needs to be reworked along with the reward for win/loss is the weight of certain things. E.g. capturing a base should be worth A LOT, so that taking the risk is worth it for, especially for DDs, but also other ships. It's really easy to get players to do what they are supposed to if you offer them a good reward for it. Why does noone defend a base? Reward is tiny. Make defending a base give XP equal to the capture points removed from the enemy. Bam, one shot at the right enemy and you get 500 or more XP and saved the game too.

The impact on gun and torpedo firing ships is low, the impact on carriers is insane. You can fire shells and torpedos outside the map and at the border without any issue, but any command given to aircraft that is too close to the border will result in an error. So can we agree that this issue is real, but the impact for carriers is the real problem here, as they basically can't do anything about it, while other ships can adjust their aim.

I don't think it's really bad - on a scale from 1 to 10 somewhere around maybe 5? But it could be better and easily so. There is nothing complicated or tricky required to make it better, that's what bothers me. It's not breaking the game for me, but it's always a hit to the gut when you have high caliber and confederate and get what? 1000xp? Also I said "or" - basically if you win your normal XP gets multiplied by 2 or 3. You could look at it the other way around, meaning if you lose it gets divided by 2 or 3 - the result is the same.

Aiming at it with guns is fine. It just needs some practice. There is no advantage to border sliding aside from being able to go full speed once you turned. What is the real issue here is that as carrier you cannot target ships on the border properly. So they are often abused to avoid bombers. It's like having a mobile island for yourself that you can shoot through and always hide behind.

If it was for me, winning would give a flat bonus based on game length. Not a multiplier that basically says: "Since you won your contribution is worth 200% more" or "Since you lost your contribution is worth 66% less" like it is right now. Something like Game length*25=Winning XP. Every other source of XP is your contribution. That would mean that winning is still worth something (that matters), but really good players on the losing side would at least get something for their effort. If you have a bad game or just are very unlucky you do still get some XP if winning.

I'm a game developer myself and trust me when I say - if noone would complain, games would be crap. Feedback is something that is insanely important for players, meaning that they get a response for an action (e.g. a sound and animation when pressing a button) but this also goes for developers. They need a response on their work or they can't improve it properly. You say 1k xp in a loss is a lot, but in that you already considered in the loss. If I did that on a win I had done NOTHING MORE so I should get NOTHING MORE. But I would get 3x that. Here a win with about the same of what I did on that loss.

So even you say that high caliber = winner XP. That's my point. I get that achievement really often. Then end up with 1k XP at most because we lost due to morons.

Alle DDs sind relativ ok, aber Minekaze is broken OP. Viel zu schnell, viel zu kurze Nachladezeit, viel zu flexibel mit 3x Werfern, Torpedos sind nichtmal für DD ausweichbar. Das Schiff hat einfach absolut keine Schwachstelle wenn man nicht dumm in Sichtweite fährt. Als ich die Minekaze gefahren bin waren das auch 3k XP jedes Game, kein Problem.

I know where you are coming from, but I highly believe that the game would be a lot better if you got properly rewarded for your efforts. I mean, losing or not losing, if you did 5 (15 times if you are DD) times the damage your ship can take you deserve a goddamn medal, no matter wether you win or not. Right now the game is like - hey look, that guy basically won the game by himself, but due to bad luck he had morons as teammates that somehow managed to perform so badly you lost anyway and because of that he doesn't deserve any amount of XP or credits that could be considered worthwhile.

Maybe you should do that, sir 41% winrate.

The Minekaze is beyond broken OP and here is why: You cant spot it at all. So you can't dodge before you see the torps. When you see the torps they have 1km distance and you can't turn. The BBs at that level have VERY bad turning rates. Even cruisers cant deal with the Minekaze because of how invisible it is. Even if you know its there and you drive curves it will just spread out it's 3x2 torps. Then you can't dodge because you will see the torps too late. Since it has 3 small throwers it can spread the torps so no way you go you wont encounter torps. Then it also is MUCH too fast, outrunning everything. It can stay out of vision and kite every other ship in the game with ease, permanently staying out of vision and shooting torpedos. No other DD can do that. Minekaze should be slowed down 10kts, or lose a torpedo launcher, or the torpedos should have twice the spotting range or at least 80sec reload. There are many ways to nerf it. But right now it is basically a T9 DD.

Very weak argument there. What I propose is that your personal effort is worth more, so the bellow average players will progress even slower and the good players will not be held back so bad by the terrible players. And here - no. Winning should not be worth so insanely much. You can easily make people do things like cap bases and such if you make capping a base or assisting in it worth as much as 50.000 damage. Bam, everyone will try to cap. Thats how it should be. Right now you get the WORST of both worlds. You get nothing no matter how good you play when losing. You get a crapload even if you played terrible when winning. The objectives (e.g. caps in domination) are worth northing in xp/credits, so everyone ignores them and DDs go off and deal as much damage as they can. I just capped B, C and D with my DD, sank 3 ships and we lost because enemy stole B and C back while my team decided not to stop them and never even try to get them back. They simply failed around in our starting point and died slowly. Meanwhile I capped 3 points, did over 100k damage and got what? 700 xp. What you say is that because we lost, everything I did was worth nothing and I should just afk if things look grim, because there is no point even trying to do anything when losing, because your XP will be crap anyway.

Maybe you should compare our stats before you accuse me of anything. I am in fact angry about the low XP you get when losing because I work my [edited]off and have one of the biggest impacts on the game of all the ships in both teams - just so my team can watch them cap the base unhindered or they let them take all caps. I end up getting a crappy unrespectful amount of XP for my efforts, despite me having done more than anyone on the winning side. This game isn't made for one person doing all the things at the same time. So I can't single-handedly win the game. And that's okay. It's a team game. But I think individual effort doesn't get rewarded enough. WG surely thinks if winning is so important people will teamplay better. But all it does is that people go brainafk and don't care, because they get their XP anyway. In organized play (like I said before with my sports example) this wouldn't be an issue, but since teams are entirely random (even if everyone is in a division, the divisions still don't know each other) rewards shouldn't be tied so closely to what the team does. Again, it's alright that winning matters. It just shouldn't make or break your reward if you do well.

Exactly but thats how it is now. If you win, because your teammates do well, you can be as bad as you want, you will get some relevant XP. Meanwhile, if you outperform ANYONE in the game by far and lose, you will get about the same as the bad player on the winning side.

Look at how insanely competitive LoL is, there the difference between win/loss is like 25%. And I'm not talking about ranked games. I doubt it would hurt the game, I seriously think it would make people want to do well a lot more. Right now your XP is 66% dependant on win/loss and 33% on how you perform. It should be the other way around.

I can just promise you, it's worth it, even dying in the Furutaka. The Aoba is decent and everything after that really amazing, (except T9). Winrate of T7/8 Cruiser is much higher on IJN side than US.

I skipped the Furutaka entirely with free XP, because I needed to save credits (you dont need to buy the ship and its upgrades and then sell it for less) and time (obviously). And despite never having to play it, I like the Aoba a lot. I like it more than the Cleveland, simply because the guns are so much better. It's made of paper, but aside from that it's really solid. The AA isn't really good, but with AA consumable, which you should have anyway it can do some stuff. So, whatever you do, just get to the Aoba.

Adding any chance of fire to AP would cause HE to not be used anymore at all. Reducing the chance of fire does the same basically. If you want to nerf HE fire chance, you need to nerf AP citadel damage along with it.

I agree. Actual credits earned is much more important than what you would have gotten if you had no repair cost. So obviously the important information should be displayed directly and the not-so-relevant information can be hidden behind two clicks. I for one don't find it acceptable to click through two submenus every time I want to check what I have actually gotten.

Ichs sags mal so - wer mit der Hiryu Probleme hat sollte die Klasse wechseln. Die Shokaku ist GENAU wie die Hiryu, nur mit etwas mehr HP und besseren Flugzeugen, aber gleiche Layouts, gleiche Reserve etc.. Und selbst die Taiho bietet jetzt nicht den gewaltigen Unterschied. Das Gameplay der Hiryu zieht sich bis zu T10. Außerdem versteh ich eure Probleme nicht. Die Hiryu war mit eines der bequemsten und spaßigsten Schiffe für mich. Eure Fighter können endlich mal Bomberstaffeln zeitig vom Himmel holen. Zwei Torpedo und zwei Divebomber erlauben es zwei Schlachtschiffe extrem unter Druck zu setzen. Was mit 2/2/2 Setup natürlich nicht geht ist das gegnerische CV zerstören, das geht nur mit Hilfe von einem weiteren CV. Ihr könnt es natürlich tun, aber ihr werdet 2 Anläufe brauchen, mindestens, und das ist es meistens einfach von der Zeit nicht wert. Ihr habt ja schon 2 Fighter Staffeln um die Flugzeuge vom gegnerischen CV abzuschießen. Wenn ihr es versenkt macht ihr genau diese 2 Staffeln nutzlos.

Obvious logic. If an attack has such a long cooldown it should be really weak and have close to no impact on the battle. It also should be able to be countered without any foresight and just reaction when it should be too late already. Also teamwork should play no role in countering such an attack, as in a 20 minute game (max duration) there can be a whopping 7 of those attacks. Just trying to sarcastically state how ridiculous the whine threads about CVs are. Yes their attacks are crippling and not insanely hard to hit, if you aren't protected by a cruiser, but why should they? A BB can ONESHOT any cruiser on his tier with a well aimed shot. A shot that has 30 SECONDS cooldown. A Cruiser can oneshot a DD easily with a well aimed shot and cripple a BB with multiple fires. They have even less cooldown on their guns. A DD can obliterate any ship with a well aimed torpedo salvo. They can use those without even being visible! Now tell me how an attack that has over 3 minutes cooldown (planes starting, dropping bombs, returning, readying and starting again) should not deal some damage at least. A CV that is completely focused on bombers can not usually oneshot a BB of same tier, but only severly cripple it. Hitting DDs is more luck than anything else and Cruisers counter you hard. Let's not forget that unlike all other ships CVs actually have limited ammo in form of planes, noone else has this handicap. I don't want to say - buff CVs - I can safely say that they are strong enough. I even support nerfs for CVs in low tiers. But overall nerfing them for the reasons I read here all the time would be a grave mistake, as mostly those topics are very onesided due to the authors never having played CVs themselves or just experiencing the frustrating of the low tiers, where BBs are really slow, can't turn fast and have no AA, and cruisers have no way to protect BBs. I do hope this sarcastic statement allows at least some people to reflect on their opinion and rethink. There will always be people crying about a class, noone can change that, especially not in a rock, paper, scissors game, in which you must face that a class counters you and has an outstanding innherent advantage against you.