loppantorkel

I've played some Lexington games, uograded to the Tiny Tim rockets or whatever they're named, and I'd rather use bombs and torps on dds than rockets. At tier 8 I don't see any need to nerf rockets.

Sure, they could change the the achievements for the missions, but there's always a priority where they put their time and effort. For me personally, I'd rather see them work on other things ahead of a temporary change to achievements for missions to work. I agree that they need to look at the achievements, but it's reasonable to give them time to balance the flooding mechanic properly before changing the achievement for it. If they easily can lower the bar for it, sure, but I can't care enough about it. I'm sure they have lots of stuff they 'need' to do. Edit: just to clarify - I don't disagree to your argument, but I think there are things that probably are prioritized ahead of this and I can't say what kind of work goes into changes like this. What about all those people who just bought loads of these flags just the day before WG nerfed the requirements for them !!!

Some achievements will be tough to achieve, some missions will be difficult during a rebalancing process. Is the situation acute? You really need this achievement now? Too much drama...

I expect they will increase the numbers to nine ships per team, at least, if cvs make it into CBs.

Not super fond on the space theme, but I will try the fast torp mode. Looks like it could be fun.

I met @El_Pollo_Locooo tonight in my first Lexington game . El_pollo in his gadjah. I don't think he was too happy about ending up in a cv game. He nearly got me with a torp, but I managed to survive till the end and our team pulled through for a hard earned victory. Super game El_pollo

Auto-pilot for cvs need some improvement....

Yes, probably. Maybe WG is going to differentiate dd (and upcoming sub-) torps a bit more. High alpha or high flood chance and DoT. Flooding was too all or nothing before the change. Now, with some tweaks, it may become something more akin to the fire damage. The annoyingly difficult to avoid deep water torps would be more DoT focused, while normal IJN torps would rely on even higher alpha damage, but lower flood chance.

Liquidator was pretty tough before, so I think your suggestion of changing it and lowering the threshold is valid, but I suspect WG doesn't want flood damage to lower much from before, just make unlucky floods be less game ending. It's about lowering the frustration, just like they removed full health detonations. Maybe they need to change the achievement to cover more ships, but less damage, similar to the High Calibre and ...the other one.. Confederate...(?) My guess is that WG will look at these achievements when they have more data and after some balancing of the actual flood mechanic - the chance/frequency/damage. It seems too early to change the liquidator achievement. As for right now, I agree that the achievement is too tough to get.

I think they need to address the effectiveness of flooding before changing factors surrounding the flooding mechanic, such as reward flags. Increasing the flood chance might be a start. Edit: The opening post does highlight that the flooding mechanic might need some tweaks though. It seems a bit on the weak side. Maybe less serious/game-ending floods, but make it more frequent and less serious. On the whole I don't think the overall flood damage needed a nerf.

..but do you know how to pronounce Göta Lejon?

Your torps aren't guided

Because it's like watching paint dry, but opposite Narrated version:

I'm not sure. I kind of envision submarine gameplay to be a bit slower. No planes to worry about. Maybe having fairly good vision of where enemy ships are but not being able to share this spotting, just to plan a smart route to get in range of the capital ships. Dds and cruisers would be counters but I hope it doesn't get too frantic, popping up and down like in the Halloween event. It was decent fun, but for action I'd rather play dds.

I remember Harpoon getting great reviews, but I think it seemed a bit too 'demanding' at the time without manual, I never sought it out. USS John Young and Silent Service on the other hand, I did play. We'll see if they can introduce them in PvP. Tough to tell at the moment. I don't really care that much about the actual history of the battles. I enjoyed the earlier games without the history. If the subs are fun and aren't a detriment to the other classes or overall meta, I'd be happy to see them in.

Naval 'sims' have always intrigued me to some extent. This has been deep but not overly complicated. MP keeps it competitive and fresh enough. There are some current challenges to the game, but I agree that the negativity around these changes are out of proportion. I'm fairly certain that of all I know about warships and naval history, I've learnt more than 99% over the last few years. I'm looking forward to the eventual implementation of submarines. Provided they seem to add something positive to the overall game.

Yes, I lost my gun sound in Cleveland using the freedom eagle camo. Came to report odd sound issues, but it seems this one was more specific. I've had some odd sound bugs lately. All sounds lost one game, but that was a weird one time thing I hope.

I haven't noticed any change yet. Flooding is still very situational and rarely what sinks the ships. Maybe an increased the flood chance is needed. Especially for cvs.

Seems like a decent mechanic. Makes dd life a bit easier and reduces the blapping potential of radar. It makes the risk-reward of the radar cruiser a bit more obvious - sit behind the island and the radar is less effective or push out for some valuable but risky damage, or use the smoke of a friendly when pushing. Also reduces the effectiveness of divisions, which is a nice side-effect. Maybe some tweaks are needed, but overall it seems like an improvement in terms of gameplay.

Shima players seem to never be affected by any meta changes. I can only assume they have the special competence to overcome obstacles any normal players would quit the game for. edit: On topic... There are hardly any cvs to meet atm, and when there are, dds are still very viable and powerful. The game is changing by the week, but currently - if you think dds have a tough time, you probably need to learn a few things.

Well, I tend to opt for games without bbs when I play New Orleans. It generally makes for a more convenient and more citadel friendly experience. Goes without saying that being high tier is a given too

The arcs on the heavy cruisers aren't that high, so I generally just try go unspotted toward the cap and only shoot on good targets - cruisers with decent broadside and dd, while kiting away. Rinse and repeat, searching for good spots of ambush..

Meh, I'd take those close games over my Atlanta game in a tier 9 Standard battle, Ridge, and the enemy team starts dying like flies on the other side of the map. We lose one ship, the enemy team reaches 0 and the game is won before the 10' mark. Most of their team was in the 400xp while most of us in the winning team failed to break 1000xp

Which is an issue imo. You can move up to Seattle and all you get are overpens if close and Seattle keeps its broadside toward you. Easily abusable. No real reason for it to be this way. It's counterintuitive to most since it's one of the early lessons you learn to not do in the game. If played right heavy cruisers should be able to counter light cruisers. This is not the case if the light cruiser captain knows about this flawed mechanic. Very nice Pensacola and New Orleans stats you've got there