jss78

A lot of the higher tier ships become a bit trickier to play, with new, decisively important gameplay element. USN CL are similar to Emden in also being these HE fire hoses. But to shine in them you also need to do radar duty, which can be a perilous, high-risk high-reward job. I might argue the French cruiser line are kind of similar in offering a relatively straightforward play style. They're minimally reliant on their consumables, have torps but don't revolve their play style around them, but above all have nice guns with enjoyable ballistics.

Unpopular opinion, but I mainly look at my Random win rate. The key here is, although many other factors affect the outcome of a game apart from you, they are randomized factors. It does come with huge caveats. - large samples needed to stabilize the effect of other factors - playing with good players in a division inflates your win rate - the tier you tend play at also heavily affects your carry potential Skill-based MM. My longtime #1 f2p title has this (Mechwarrior Online). The take-home is it's mainly able to reduce seal clubbing of novice players. It has a surprisingly small effect in reducing lopsided stomps.

I had the same thing happen. I was engaged in a BB vs BB melee, and this"friendly" bot DD charges from behind an island. Two torps into my side, and I really didn't steer into them. WG, please note: this is how you get Skynet.

A thought about those win rates: - I'm trying to wrap my head around this -- but isn't it possible for the win rate distribution to be quite heavily skewed? We have 10000-game unicorns with 70% win rate. Balanced by a larger number of players with smaller number of games and <50% WR. I'd expect this because on average people learn stuff with experience, and the really long-term players tend to be better than average. So a small number of people do lots of winning, and a large number of people do a little bit of losing. (Uncomfortable flashbacks of university statistics classes.)

^^ You could invade England by parking that sideways in the Channel, and just march in.

Maybe this is something we can all agree on. It's a case of "whatever you do son, don't repeat my mistake".

I believe it's the meta choice for IJN CV's, since they have AA focused in large calibers and for CV's, there's actually nothing THAT important to take after 11 points. I'd always go for AFT before ManAA, unless it's some weird ship you always play away from your team mates. Otherwise big bubble = good.

NoZoup did a video about the problem, showing how the "keep a star" becomes a case of the so-called Prisoner's Dilemma. IIRC the system was popular at the time. I guess mainly because it's so aggravating to drop in rank when you legitimately did well for your team. I recall feeling the same way -- maybe it was ill-advised. Might be best to remove it. If you're genuinely playing well, in the long term you'll win at >50%.

The problem with the "But it's a competitive video game!" is that it's really not. Or, it might be, but the Random queue explicitly is not. There're endless competitive avenues for playing World of Warships, but you choose to go Random. In the grand scheme of things, you're about medium-sized fish in a really tiny pond -- and feeling really, really great about it, here on this forum. Or to draw a parallel from another sport, Division 1 players going to a Division 4 game, and then stroking each other about how great you did. Happen to know the guy (division mate), so I'll answer for him. No, he's not a millennial, and he's responsible for a lot bigger things than the outcome of a video game.

Maybe put in the sister ship Ilmarinen, night-and-day difference in the ease of pronunciation. Isn't the premium normally something other than the lead ship of the class anyway? They'd be weird ships to balance, maybe impossible. Maybe you could cheat a few knots on the speed side, and still give them a very tight turning circle, so you'd be very good at maintaining angles, while having strong guns for the tier. Their AA would be very strong at the low tier they'd inevitable have to be placed in -- I think the CV meta after rework might determine whether they have any place. I'd like to see them for sentimental reasons, as Finland was a fairly prominent WW2 combatant and it's the only ship you could even half-feasibly include (unless WoWS some day goes for subs). And you MUST include the "I'm a floating bush" camo.

The way I approach the Random queue is I listen to people ... within reason. You're technically within your rights to play however you want (as long you participate in the game in some way). But I think it's nice of anyone to consider what the team mates hope to get from the game. Lots of people are semi-serious about winning, while some go full try-hard. If it's possible for you to play in a way that doesn't frustrate these people terribly, it's a nice thing to do. So I'd try to be receptive to basic advice (especially if lots of people seem to be telling the same thing). It's a balancing act. Personally, I'm not above running "fun builds" and doing occasional harebrained things. But I try to not be so bad that I need to be carried. The flip-side of the coin is some of the tryhards should also take a step back, and remember others might have a different perspective to theirs.

Well I like it, and I'd play the hell out of it. Maybe it's time for a Tier 11, full of hare-brained napkin drawings.

A couple times in a CV, I've happened to receive what I'd call an over-enthusiastic escort. A DD would spend the entire game like 100 m from my ship, attached to me like a remora to a shark. So close that he couldn't even spot anything before I can do it myself. Maybe he thought that 7.62 mm MG would be a life-saving help in case of air attack. (Really, it's not necessary to "escort" a CV. They have an engine and are generally as fast as the rest of the fleet -- they can maintain a safe position relative to friendly and enemy ship positions.)

Need more information. What is this Spawn of Cthulhu? Edit: Is that the rear of a Yamato class?

Agreed, it's by far the best looking CV in the game. Some of the upcoming RN ones might offer competition. The USN and IJN carriers are cool in a utilitarian way.

Richeliu isn't a bad call, though I can't claim to be neutral with this avatar. Some of the real lookers are from the WW1 era, not some of the more popular ships. Emden, Oleg, K. Albert, also the upcoming Prinz Eitel Friedrich. In general French and Italian ships look great. Giulio Cesare looks amazing. Warspite as noted looks like a fortress. Most awe-inspiring superstructure in the game. Among WW2 era BB's also the original "showboat", North Carolina.

I've toyed with the idea of making the CV an off-the-map asset. But I dislike the thought for three reasons. First is psychological -- it takes the CV away from his team. No-one likes that guy who's way out in back, out of harms way. Second, when I look at the CV rework, I feel like the CV player desperately needs more things to do. Only having that single plane wave ad infinitum would get old, real fast. Third, WASD'ing of CV's is currently one of those non-problematic, skill-based things anyone can do. It doesn't require great micro/multitasking skills, it's easily achievable using same situational awareness skills you apply to any ship. It's a skill-based thing which doesn't break the CV balance -- keep it! I agree it's frustrating to look at CV's who refuse to take a couple seconds to set autopilot route points for their ship. I've always held that it should be very rare that you die in a CV. You're generally quite fast, you have low concealment. Carrier sniping is actually not easy if you're on the move. And even DD's should rarely reach you, if you constantly reposition so that your team shields you. Sole exceptions are Langley and Bogue, which are so slow it sometimes kills you no matter what you do. I'm currently sitting on a K/D of 18.2 on the Zuiho -- mainly through dying less than 1 game in 20.

You should division up with an Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya sporting the hammer-and-sickle CCCP camo. Then sail gloriously side-by-side the entire game. It'd confuse the hell out of people.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think those stats necessarily go to the start. For me they cover a long period, about 18 months, but not the whole thing. But I'm willing to believe someone has >50% at least essentially from the start. The best I recall this happened to me. It really depends on your habits. I was never quick to rush down tiers -- I first played for a good long while with the Dresden and St. Louis, until I felt quite comfortable with those ships. Then moved on. Also some people just learn quickly -- you're humble and analytical, instead of slinging hackusations in the chat (it's largely <50% guys who do this; they are unlikely to ever get good). Some innate neurological things probably play a role. I look at why people fail in the game, and I think a lot of it comes down to the way they process spatial information (=situational awareness). Some people just end up in bad spots (too close, too far) more often than others.

"Bad" CV players are really a symptom of the current CV implementation. It's deceptively easy to end up with a 35% win rate in a CV. If you struggle really badly in your BB, you'll have like 45% win rate -- others in your team will fill in, a lot of the time. But if you struggle just a bit with fighter micro, the multitasking as such, it's REALLY hard to win in a CV. The somewhat better enemy CV will gain an upper hand in spotting and striking, while being able to deny you both spotting and striking with fighter micro. It's very, very difficult to win like this. A small skill gap becomes a game changer. Good CV players have completely ludicrous stats, 85+% win rates over thousands of games. This by necessity means some CV players out there are struggling HARD. Chances are, if you tried out CV's yourself, you'd be one of them.

Of the those on sale now: Smith and Tachibana -- kinda similar derpy T2 DD's. If you have a suitable captain and enjoy low tiers occasionally, for 0.89 EUR sure they're worth it. Marblehead -- great ship if you have decent cruiser skills and a high-skill captain with DE+IFHE+CE. Unusual for USN in having quite long-range torps (very low damage but you can sometimes get a flooding to force another Damage Control Party). I love it. Texas -- Standout AA in T5, I'd argue the long-term usefulness depends on the meta after CV rework. Yubari -- Kinda same as above, standout AA for T4. Note you can get this from Arsenal for coal.

Smith is also 0.89 EUR for me -- I didn't have that one. Marblehead I feel is a bit of a sleeper, if you happen to have a high-tier US captain with IFHE. It does really, really good damage those mid-tier games.

Do people really keep so few that you could feasibly list them? I fundamentally prefer Tier 5-8 gameplay over T10, so I have many. Lots of captains end their grind at around T7-8, I'm fairly selective on which lines I can bother going to T10. I don't have a single silver ship below T4 though, if I div. mates insist on T2 or T3 I'll take some premium. Starting T4 I kept V170, Hosho, Svietlana (houses my 19-pt Okhotnik captain ).

As far as I'm concerned, a doubloon refund suffices. This should extend to permacamos. One of my major concerns about the rework is how they'll provide distinctive gameplay with parallel CV lines. At present the gameplay drastically changes with squadron setups and the capabilities of bombers AND fighters compared to the opposition. In the future, you only have a single attack wave you can play with. Do I still want my Saipan when I have a Hiryu? I really feel for the guys who've been in this for the RTS gameplay and spent a lot of money on it. They'll have no use for whatever amount of doubloons you give. You can argue that "you got to play it for a while, so it's fair" -- but it's not fair really, is it, when the rest of us are free to keep playing for 3, 5, 10, ... years.

Having slept over it, I really like the rework in concept. With the single attack wave, but with multiple strikes, the carrier is much more like any other ship. The CV, in effect, is something like a BB with an infinite reach on the map, but with the strikes vulnerable to AA. So they're distinct from other classes, but not a "game within game" and can be balanced with simple parameterizations, like any other ship. CV skill difference is no longer a factor, because the responsibility to oppose enemy CV falls on the entire team. I have three major concerns: 1. Is the gameplay interesting enough? The strike itself looks cool and fun, but there isn't much else to do. It's not much compared to a regular ship who needs to juggle positioning, angling, AA, guns, torpedoes, consumables... let alone the multitasking challenges of the current CV gameplay. I acknowledge that it's an early prototype, and other facets might come in. 2. What will distinguish different carriers? In the current CV gameplay, the experience completely changes with plane loadout and plane capabilities vs. the opposition. In the future, regardless of carrier played, I'll be looking at a single plane wave. There are no manually controlled enemy fighters I need to tackle. I've spent money on 2 premium carriers and 3 perma-camos, and I'm genuinely worried that the investment might be pointless in the future implementation 3. A hypothetical multi-carrier division, if working together, can make the game of a targeted ship completely miserable. This is exacerbated by the lack of manually controlled enemy fighters, which in the present implementation discourages putting all your aerial assets "in a single basket".