Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'op'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Outdated Mods
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Found 60 results

  1. My Standpoint on a couple of things.

    Hi, i kinda felt the need to at least write up some sort of short view on current topics of discussion so I sat down for a bit and came up with a few things on the following 5 topics. 1.) Stalingrad 2.) Harugumo 3.) Worcester 4.) Role of the DD 5.) CBs/ranked/competitive. Its about 3 pages so for those who are interested feel free to take a look and share your opinion too. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W74nNODMFxw0R-BwObUshyPKOnpXgn96d4bUgL2iipo/edit?usp=sharing Mr_Dced P.s: By the way i dont have a clue what if im doing stuff on here correctly so if im not... sorry in advance i probably didnt know better.
  2. 2 new japanese DDs

    Wargaming, what have you done. The 2 new Japanese DD's are way overpowered. How come they can destroy an Atago with just guns when the Atago is bow on in less than 1 minute? What a joke. People will just get them now as they are to OP. Even your early testers said they was OP. Sort it out and stop making ships OP.
  3. OP AP Bombs

    I was in a random battle when a Midway bombed me from full health to 0 health with AP bombs in a Tirptiz. I know it wasn't my magazine since I had the flag that made that impossible. Is this just the game being stupid or what? When I asked on Chat the player said he had AP bombs. If its normal than the game mechanics needs to be looked at as its way OP. No aircraft should be able to bomb a BB in 1 shot from 100% health to 0%
  4. Soviet Cruiser Stalingrad Tier X

    So it has apparently happened guys. The strongest ship so far will end up in the best players hands. (I will 100% get this myself) Stalingrad is apparently in her final form now. And looks basically better than ever. Enjoy the read. And to those who get it on release: Enjoy. You can now sealclubb at T10. "ST. Soviet Cruiser Stalingrad Tier X Basic visibility changed from 18.72 to 18.12 km. Visibility during firing in a smoke from Main Battery has been reduced from 15.58 to 14.87 km. “Defensive AA Fire” consumable has been added to the extra slot: Number of charges: 2 (Defensive AA Fire l) and 3 (Defensive AA Fire ll). Reload time: 240 (Defensive AA Fire l) and 180 (Defensive AA Fire ll). Duration: 60 seconds. AA damage increase: +100%. These are final changes and soon this ship will be added to the Arsenal for steel exchange. We would like to sum up and anounnce the cruisers final statistics. Stalingrad is a heavy cruiser with an impressive 305 mm caliber and significant combat capacity – 72 450. The ship has two types of ammunition: High-explosive (HE) and Armor-piercing (AP). HE characteristics: Initial velocity – 950 m/sec; maximum damage – 4500; chance of fire – 33%. AP characteristics: Initial velocity – 950 m/sec; maximum damage – 9200; Reduced shell arming threshold – 34 mm; improved ricochet angle settings: automatic ricochet happens at 65 degrees and possible ricochet may happen at 55 degrees. Reload time – 20 seconds, Sigma value of 2.65. The ship has the same dispersion ellipse as Graf Spee. It’s more than an average cruiser has, but less in comparison to a typical battleship. Maximum firing range - 20 350 meters. Armour – 25 mm. It’s worth mentioning that armour of casemate and the forward armour belt is 50 mm and with good citadel armour. This gives good potential to avoid damage from cruisers high-explosive shells and even ricochet the biggest shell in the game (460 mm) at acute angles. Number of charges of “Damage Control Party” is infinite. “Repair Party” restores 33% of citadel’s damage. Fire duration – 45 seconds. Detectability radius of Stalingrad is comparable to that of battleships at tier X. The large citadel is the same as that found on the cruiser 'Moskva'. All of which makes Stalingrad players carefully pick his battles and choose his maneuvers wisely. The Cruisers ballistics allow effective fire at any distance with a high chance of penetration. The unique dispersion ellipse gives this ship pretty high accuracy but at the same time is less efficient than that of any other tier X cruiser. The main goal for Stalingrad is to fire against heavily armored targets with armor-piercing shells which deal a lot of damage. Due to reduced shell arming threshold and high-explosive shells this cruiser may battle with other ships as well. It’s worth noting that reduced shell arming threshold has been reduced from 51 to 34 mm and that allows shells to arm at light and medium armored targets and deal more consistent damage. It looks like Stalingrads guns have everything needed to make this cruiser a versatile ship, however, its reload time is 20 seconds. To reach maximum efficiency, having a relatively low damage per minute and requirements to its commander, this cruisers owner should chose targets wisely and keep their distance. “Defense AA Fire” gives Stalingrad protection from aircraft attacks for a long period of time. It also increases bomb dropping zone and torpedoes of the enemys aircraft for a minute, though does not give a boost of AA efficiency like other ships with similar consumables. After using this consumable cruiser will be vulnerable to aircraft because of the cooldown of 3-4 minutes. In summary, this cruiser could be effective against any ship class: the amount of HP allows it to fight against battleships, its armor-piercing shells will frighten any cruiser, and destroyers and aircraft carriers can be countered with consumables like “Surveillance Radar” and “Defense AA Fire”. However, players should be attentive to the battle situation. In unfavorable circumstances Stalingrad won’t be able to change position quickly because of weak maneuverability characteristics and the large dimensions of her hull. It will also important to pay attention to close combat situations where Stalingrad is especially vulnerable because of her large citadel and poor agility."
  5. Burn it all

    So after watching this: how can Wg still think that fire aint OP as f**k, it makes the intire game stall. (It motivates camping) Mang
  6. Ici vous pouvez parler du Worcester, poster vos meilleurs résultats , faire vos retours , donner votre ressenti , vous insultez sur les différents builds ou éléments à mettre en place dessus... Je referais un truc propre un peu dans l'esprit de cet excellent sujet: En attendant voici déjà l'excellent guide fait par @OhMyDoge sur son nouveau bébé adoré ^^ J'invites ceux qui sont intéressés par ce navire à consulter la présentation/tuto avant de partir faire n''importe quoi avec (pensez à vos compagnons d'armes) Je mettrais de nouveau en place un classement un peu débile si çà vous intéresse en attendant voilà déjà quelques éléments pour se faire une idée de la bête: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAY3FZb_d-ZGVJmviCia5mw Le classement !!!! Notice_Me_Senpoi [UTW] - The first - 266K, Kraken -11 citas
  7. How to nerf Worcester (?)

    Don't get me wrong, I love this ship, but you have to admit it is slightly OP. Some of you might not have this ship yet to answer the question, and I love the fact you have the ability to abuse this ship in clanwars before it gets nerfed to oblivion. And I would love if WG keeps this ship as it is (like they did with Conqueror in the end), but if they should nerf it I would like it to be nerfed the right way. My suggestion is, nerf the turret traverse first/only. To seattles gun traverse. Or alternativly let it have back the 25mm deck armor. Make it as squishy as a chapaev. My reasoning: My goal is to have a ship balance. Since we are talking about clanwars/randoms/ranked the very least is a balance in between a ship class (Cruisers). Before Worcester came out the T10 cruisers had the best Balance in the whole game. Worcester just shits on it. I would not mind if Worcester would just be an HE focussed Des Moines. So the tradeoff would be no AP power, but you get a lot of HE DMP for that. Then every ship would still have its nieche and balance would be still there. But, Worcester right now has no reason to sit behind islands. And that is the big 'problem'. -Worcester can freelance. Noone can spot it. Except a dd. But then the dd will get radared. At any position on the map. No dd is safe. A worcester can even activly hunt dds and it requires skill and patience to bait a radar and get out, even if you know what is coming for you. -Worcester can tank. Compared to a radar mino, it is not easy to kill a worcester. It is not impossible to citadel it, but even at broadside the chances are high you will just ovepen it. The only thing that does reliably citadel it are only Des Moines AP shells so far. And that is also the only matchup a worcester might lose 1v1. Every other cruiser it simply poops on. -Worcester can kite. It can doge, it has almost a troll armor (actually no armor, but serves same). It will not get spotted until you want to. Sure, the shell arcs are bad, but if you can hit something in Henry, so can you in Worcester. Big ships, stationary ships and mid range are enough. And the amazing turret traverse makes changing directions easy. -It has the best DPM in the game. No cruiser can push it in open waters. I would even claim it wins 1v2 pushing Hindenburgs. It just simply replaces a zao. If you consider Zao should go to cap, assist dd and run. Worcester can do the same. It even spots the dd himself. At 10-12km you have no troubles hitting, at 14-16km you are still more effective than a zao. Zao has only torps, arcs for sniping at max range and AP potential speaking for it. And that is the reason I consider Worcester to be OP. It can do both: sitting in cover spamming HE, aswell as kiting like a zao hunting dds and flanking. Even worse it can combine that, like you sit in the first cover (like you would in DM), you lose position, and while you would pay dearly with DM you can simply kite away. (thx to concealment and turret traverse, and shooting angles). Then chose next island where to stop. Or differnetly, play it as a zao until you are down to 10k HP and then you switch to hiding only. It has just too much flexibility. And to call it balanced you should take away from worcester what it took away from zao. If you think Worcester needs no nerfing, I would not mind. It is my favourite ship right now and I would gladly keep it that way. But should you agree with me and time for nerfing come, then let us agree that the ship should continue clevelands dynasty of a pure HE spamming island hugger, instead of turning it into something else. *Notice that I was not talking about divisions (smoke+Worcester), his AA, or its many consumables. The cries out there are that this ship is OP because of these reasons (->alone meh, divisions great), but I claim that it will remain unbalanced for even without these gimmicks; but mainly for the reasons/flixibility I mentioned above.
  8. Defence of naval station

    Had forgotten that if you defend the circle until the timer runs out you get a friendly cv instead of an unfriendly enemy one spawning. Since I was playing cv im not sure I appreciate having less planes to shoot down (wiped every plane that launched before fighters had to reload, then that was it). Maybe enemy should get a zuiho or something ;)
  9. Scenarios are a little broken for the stars

    Well I have read the patch notes and I knew it was coming, however I believe scenarios have been broken to high heaven. The T7 scenario this week for instance is near-impossible, even with communication and clan members filling in the rest. The so called AI fix seems to have turned them in to Skynet, i'm a little concerned that WG would release a 'patch' to fix something and completely near-break it (no surprise there though). Something tells me they haven't been doing their tests or at least listening to the community... What a surprise If they have done testing on the new 'buffed' AI then I sure want to see some replays of them completing the whole 5 stars. P.S. I've got 5 stars in this and the other scenarios plenty of times before the patch, this is feedback to tell them it's broken.
  10. There was a time where other classes pervaded the games in numbers that were simply too large to manage. Carriers and destroyers both have had their day of dominance. There are things that pervade the class, the developers, and the community at large that makes it so that battleships are such a problem where carriers and destroyers never were. The Battleship Class The problem with battleships has escalated to the point where event the most virulent defendants of the status quo can't even pretend that there isn't a problem anymore. Admittedly this was like waiting until we have to start rowing to work before we start cutting down on coal power plants, but progress is progress. Wargaming's slow and iterative changes to the class could most charitably be seen as a way to not cause the class collapse formerly seen in the carrier class and uncharitably seen as the development team having some perverse sexual attraction to battleships (glass houses, I know) but the change is welcome regardless. Carriers and battleships both can be played without employing different tactical considerations depending on targets and both essentially exist outside of the hard counter system that means that most cruisers are incredibly weak towards battleships and that destroyers are incredibly weak towards cruisers but that battleships aren't particularly weak towards destroyers. Even in the context of 'anti-battleship' cruiser lines like the French or Russians, the damage that the cruiser does to the battleship could be returned with interest with just a few lucky shots should the circumstances conspire towards it and the same could be said about carriers if the matchmaker was particularly vindictive that day. Many similar issues exists as, depending on the game circumstance, explicitly AA based cruisers could be ripped to pieces by carriers. There is a battleship plague problem however and not a carrier plague. Whilst this could simply be traced back to the fact that battleships are easy to play whilst carriers aren't, the problem is often more difficult than that and solving the issue by introducing artificial difficulty to the battleship class as an equivalent to the lags and UI errors of the CV class will fail to address the core of the issue. By making the interclass interaction more similar to that between carriers, destroyers and the other classes, battleships would be able to be brought in line. Whether or not this is desirable however is another matter. Currently, Wargaming's approach to re-balancing battleships is very much focused on how battleships interact with the other classes. The spotter plane nerf meant that they did not have the 5 minute resistance to torpedoes that the twin catapult fighters once offered. The changes to smoke mechanics meant that they would not be able to ambush cruisers and destroyers as easily. Among the changes closest to the top of the priority list was the ability of battleships to cause catastrophic damage to destroyers and their ability to use just one ammunition type for close to any circumstance. War Gaming has also stated that they objected to the excessive survivability of battleships. The issue has been raised multiple times and the changes that are being made are slow but there. This might be controversial but I do not see the ability for battleships to one-shot destroyers, never have to switch ammunition type, or even survive better than the other classes as the primary cause of the problem we see. I think the remaining issue with battleships can't be solved by changing the ways that battleships interact with other classes as much as it would likely need to come down to the options that other ships have in dealing with battleships. Whilst this may sound pedantic, it very much is and I don't know why you thought it was possible to read something written by me that doesn't collapse into pedantic arguments over terms that ultimately just ends with me declaring victory over whoever I was arguing with despite the fact that everyone who gets stuck in an internet argument has already lost. Anyways, on to the main topic. Carriers, destroyers & the Problem of Choice Wargaming largely depends on the classes to balance each other and this has led to endless grief for everyone involved. Apart from battleships. Obviously. Destroyers, battleships, and carriers all depart from the general template and have benefits that are essentially technically exclusive to them. At their worst, the game degraded into cheese tactics beyond comparison. The Shimakaze's wall of death is remembered to this day, the wall that dooms even the most agile of destroyers and covered the maps from border to border. Then of course there was the Hakuryuu with her quintuple Kamikaze attack, the name not coming from the fact that you could use her planes to commit suicide against enemy ships as much as from the fact that her torpedo bombers carried the payload of five Kamikaze class destroyers. There were various eventual nerfs to those ships, but even whilst it lasted they were not nearly as ubiquitous as battleships are as a class in the present day and that is largely due to the fact that conditional population control mechanics are built into the game to manage the numbers of carriers and destroyers in such a way that battleships simply aren't. The Lesson No One Learned Battleship players, more so than players of any other ship class, are fundamentally selfish and are encouraged to be selfish thanks to the game mechanics. This might not be a revelation to most, but the selfishness of the battleship and the way that game mechanics works makes it so that it promotes battleships. For those unfamiliar with game theory, it could be best simplified as a way to predict the actions of selfish and perfectly rational agents. Humans aren't perfectly rational, but over a large amount of time and with the smallest level of self awareness the actions of even an online game like World of Warships could be approximated as rational. Players can observe their own results and apply what they've learn, and so players will slowly move towards the state of maximum profit for minimum effort. Players without the imagination to do this could always just copy the tactic of players that do. When discussing the balance between battleships and other classes, the topic does often steer towards the things that other classes outdo battleship in. Destroyers are far stealthier than battleships, could go the entire game without being spotted, and could carry games on literally 1 point of HP. Cruisers have significantly better DPM, tools like radar, defensive fire, hydroacoustics, smoke screens, and a plethora of other things that could be employed for the team's benefit. Carriers have unparalleled reconnaissance abilities and the ability to herd the entire enemy fleet. Next to all of that, it may superficially seem like better armor and more health would be a small thing. This however is just an obfuscation of the issue. I would like to make one last note. When I look at battleships, I can't help but see the very worst parts of carrier gameplay back when full strike carriers were still a thing. Facing another full strike carrier is rare, but when it happens it was quite memorable. I grinded through the Lexington in full strike configuration back when she still had that. I faced another strike Lexington on Northern Lights one battle. We all but ignored each other, flying our bombers past each other to bomb the enemy into oblivion. It was a constant damage race and that game I won by a sliver. If I had lost that match, I would likely have blamed the team for their failings and posted a screenshot online so I could have a laugh about it. I managed 170k that match in a tier X game but I did essentially nothing to protect the team from the enemy. I didn't scout in order to maximize my cycle time and I didn't communicate with the allied team whatsoever. When writing this, I couldn't help but think back to what I did back then and how much it reminded me of the things I wrote here. Battleships reaped the benefits of cruisers, destroyers, and carriers. I reaped the benefit of my team staying in between the enemy and myself and used them as an expendable shield to farm damage. The game is ultimately selfish and comes down to how much players can personally get from the game and changing a few values on a few ships will not change that.
  11. Was ist OP? Sicher greift der eine oder andere voreilig in die Tasten, um seine Meinung mitzuteilen. In der Gaming-Sprache ist OP ein Soft-Kriterium, ohne wirklich definierte Grenzen, ab wann ein Gegenstand unter diese Bezeichnung fällt und wann nicht. Mathematische Grenzwerte, die eine Bestimmung erheblich vereinfachen würde, ab wann ein Gegenstand so einzustufen ist, fehlt. Stattdessen muss erstmals eine Weich-Definierung zu, wie: „Als OP gilt ein Gegenstand, der mehr Stärken als Schwächen aufweist und dessen Bekämpfung nur in bestimmten Situationen und Szenarien möglich ist.“ Das sträuben sich bei mir schon die Haare, die ich nicht mehr habe, da das schon ziemlich schwabbelig definiert ist. Um eine Diskussion möglichst sachlich zu halten, verzichte ich auf Namen von Gegenständen. Um Schiffe miteinander zu vergleichen, habe ich mir vor allem auch die rohen Schiffwerte, wie HealthPool, Schaden pro Minute, Topspeed und die anderen Werte durch gegangen. Das Interessante dabei ist, dass die vergleichenden Schiffe gar nicht so weit in den Werten auseinander klafften. Dennoch erzeugen die sehr ähnliche Statswerte absolut abweichende Spieleergebnisse. Welches sind die Faktoren, die ein Fahrzeug besser als das andere auszeichnen und die Spieler bessere Ergebnisse „erfahren lassen“ – die rohen Stats des Schiffes sind es nicht?
  12. operation Hermes needs rebalance

    This operation needs some rebalance asap. Please remove all non essential bots on the green team, leave only the bb. that operation with those bots it's like rush hour. too many ships on the green team 7 plus 1 is more than sufficient.
  13. Französische BB's zu stark?!

    So erstmal guten Abend zusammen, normalerweise mach ich mir nicht die Mühe mich über Dinge aufzuregen oder gar in Foren mich zu beschweren, aber mit dem update und der Einführung der Franz. Schlachter möchte ich mich doch endlich mal beschweren. Ich hab mal so grob überflogen so die verschiedenen Werte der Schlachtschiffe Kreuzer und der Zerstörer verglichen. Dabei ist mir mal so aufgefallen jede Nation kann irgendwas tolles entweder haben die Schiffe gute Tarnung, hohe Artillerie/Torpedo Reichweite, gute sekundär, hohe Brand Wahrscheinlichkeit, über heftige Panzerung oder überpowerte Nachladezeiten ihr wisst worauf ich hinaus will... Jedenfalls was mir aufgefallen ist sämtliche Schiffe verschiedener Nationen können eines oder mehrere Sachen der oben aufgeführten werte aufweisen ausser natürlich die deutschen Schiffe an denen ist wirklich nichts besonderes dran! Da guck ich mir heute die Werte des G. Kurfürsten an vergleiche das mit der "Répubique" und falle aus allen Wolken... Dieses Schiff ist überheftig gepanzert -590mm!!!, hat ein Kaliber von 431mm ein Reload von 24 Sekunden insgesamt einen Artillerie wert von 100 (kein Schiff kommt da annähernd dran)!!! bei 8 Granaten, 89 Flak wert!, Reichweite von 26.1km!!! Fährt normale 30kn hat dafür aber sogar nen Motorboost... Jetzt mal im ernst erst die Briten mit Panzerung, hoher Tarnung, hoher Brand ws und Reichweite und jetzt die Franzosen legen nochmal einen drauf das muss nicht sein die deutschen Kreuzer haben auch nix besonderes ausser ne hohe sterberate die deutschen DD's sind auch im gesamten betrachtet genauso ein Witz wie die russischen also ich finde das balancing gerät immer mehr ausser Kontrolle, vielleicht stelle ich mich ja an oder sehe das als schlimmer als wie es tatsächlich ist keine Ahnung aber seht ihr das auch so oder übertreibe ich grade?
  14. Midway and his AP bombs

    Here i will show you how midway do with AP bombs against his opponents at t9 and t10. I'm not familiar with them since i never had an option to play Enterprise. Since no one bother to make any list how this works against each ship i compile this list. I will show if this is a valid option to choose if you play mostly t10. Tl;dr t10 BB can get about 15-20k for one tb squad. The worst affected by that change are t10 cruisers, especially De moine. Worth mentioning is Fletcher, Udaloi and Shimakaze. They can get hit for ~8k. On the flip side t9 excluding Neptune are completely immune to AP bombs (bring HE if you grind Essex). Table of Content 1. T10 BB 2. T10 CA/CL 3. T9 BB 4. T9 CA/CL 5. T9/10 DD 6. Aiming 7. Summary
  15. Midway i jego bomby AP

    Poniżej przedstawie wam jak to wygląda obecnie z midwayem który lata na bombach AP. Jestem osobą która nie miała możliwości grać enterprise, przy okazji nie znalazłem nigdzie pełnego wykazu za ile mniej więcej wchodzi. Mam nadzieję że pomoże to też innym osobom zdecydować czy chcą się w to bawić czy nie. Skrócona wersja brzmi: Jak trafi się celnie i przeciwnik nie ma def aa to krazki wyparowują. Moskwa wygrała nagrodę zbierania najwiekszych buł od nowego midwaya. Niszczarki są kompletną stratą czasu za wyjątkiem fletchera który może ładnie zebrać, shima jest kolejnym celem wartym uwagi tak jak udałoj. Warto wspomnieć o wielkości celownika, nagradza on bardzo za celne ręczne rzucanie, jednak nagradza też za automat. W szczególności automat jest dużo lepszą opcją podczas ataku przy włączonym deff aa gdzie jest on lekko dwa razy mniejszy od ręcznego. Jak to dziadostwo uniknąć? Tak samo jak torpedy, ostry skręt w dowolną stronę, szczególnie gdy mamy ciasny promień skrętu/moduł na przestawienie steru. Zawsze trzeba pamiętać by ustawiać się do nich prostopadle to dostanie się max ze dwie bomby, naprawi i popłynie dalej pałować przeciwnika. Później trafi to na EU i reddita, ale jak ktoś chce darmowe punkty internetu to może to sam przetłumaczyć i wrzucić. Spis treści: 1. Pancki t10 2. Krążki t10 3. Pancki t9 4. Krążki t9 5. Niszczary t9-10 6. Celownik
  16. GZ test I

    Drodzy panowie z WG, ja rozumiem, że pierwotna wersja Grafa była czymś, co się nie nadawało do użytku, ale kto był taki mądry i wypuścił coś takiego do testów?! W przeciwnym teamie spotkany Graf, gdzie kapitanem był stereotypowy ten_którego_skilla_nie_wolno_oceniać, nie umiejący używać nawet ALT-a. Co z tego, skoro jego pojedyncza eskadra fighterów mająca 10-11 samolotów (nie byłem w stanie policzyć) za głupim związaniem fighterów powodowała natychmiastowe wyparowanie połowy mojej. Bez fałszywej skromności, graczem na CV kiepskim nie jestem, ale kiedy wykończyłem zapas jego fighterów (łącznie wypuścił około 30) ostały mi się jedynie 4. I koleś nie użył ani razu alta! Do tego bez użycia alta za pomocą DB zdewastował trzy nasze BB w trzech atakach, a mi przy rozbiciu i połową eskadr (atak altem dwoma pozostałymi myśliwcami) wbił 20k, a potem wykończył z pomocniczej -_- Podsumujmy, wyszedł okręt, który mając za sterami tego_którego_skilla_nie_wolno_oceniać, może: - Zestrzelić gigantyczną ilość samolotów, a przynajmniej wrogie myśliwce zwyczajnie na nie klikając. Z altem po prostu by skasował moje eskadry. - Kompletnie niszczyć BB i CV autodropem. Wyobrażam sobie, co to robi na manualu. - Obronić się przed atakiem z powietrza oraz deskami. Pierwszy raz to napiszę, ale #nerfCV! Garść screenów jako materiał dowodowy:
  17. NERF this STUPID BROKEN SHIP "FLINT"!!!

    WG nerf this broken ship FLINT! Its stupid and you *Edited know it! Just nerf it already!
  18. Ze Conquerer

    Hey WG, wie lange dauert's noch, bis ihr genug Daten zusammen habt?
  19. Zitas einfach nur OP !!!!!!!

    hallo zusammen, alle reden über die briten die he die tripitz usw. wie op die doch wären. ist meiner meinung nach alles quatsch denn die wahren op's sind doch die zitas. da fährt mann breitseite um das volle potential der guns zu nutzen und bekommt so hammer zitas gedrückt die nicht mehr spaß machen. als wenn die zielhilfen benutzen. selber schafft mann das nicht weil auf 20kmh mann nix trifft. ich finde die zita-treffer gehören generft!!!! wie seht ihr das? (p.s. wenn wg da nix macht spiel ich nicht mehr und es gibt auch kein geld)
  20. Okay, da jetzt sogar einige sagen, "DBs sind OP!!!111elf", man aber TBs locker ausweichen kann, obwohl die doch allgemein als Inkarnation des Antichristen gelten... Daneben immer mal abwechselnd Smoke, HE, Radar, CVs oder sonst was als OP gelten... Verstopfen immer mehr Threads von Kevin, Mandy und Co. den Gameplay Bereich! Da es doch sehr mühselig wird, hätte ich die Frage, ob sich das Forum endlich, ENDLICH mal einigen könnte, was denn OP ist! Muss man den Leuten denn in Trölf Milliarden verschiedenen Threads immer folgendes schreiben: "Eigentlich alles in WoWs lässt sich folgendermaßen erklären: Idealzustand - funktionierendes Teamplay Istzustand - mangelndes Teamplay" So long, der Aliph.
  21. So you are a, let's say, the now largely obsolete Montana and you meet a Conqueror in a situation that is mostly 1-on-1. You have your standard choice of AP loaded. You know you can't citadel this guy because the citadel is so low it might not even exist, the HE isn't going to be that great because Conqueror's super heal makes short work of any damage (especially fire) and she will out-HE you easily AND she has a better concealment to make things even more difficult and aiming AP at superstructure isn't going to be good enough either. Actually, scratch Montana. Let's take the same scenario with Yamato. What do you do? Can your AP keep up? Maybe you don't even have a chance against an equally skilled Conqueror player, but at least what is the best course of action here? HE? Or keep AP? Conqueror SUPPOSEDLY has the weakness of low overall armor making her "vulnerable" to increased HE direct damage, but I am not convinced it's a strong enough weakness when the fire DoT damage (that is supposed to be an integral part of dealing damage with HE) is so strongly mitigated by the super heal. (you can heal 100% of the fire damage and boy does Conqueror heal a lot)
  22. Englische Schlachtschiffe sind zu OP

    Hallo Seebären, ich möchte nur meinen Unmut preisgeben, ich habe mich auch gefreut, dass WoW die englischen Schlachtschiffe zu Verfügung gestellt hat und möchte gleich dabei sagen, dass ich ein reiner Freizeit-Spieler bin und nicht so professionell engagiert bin wie andere Spieler. Nun ist mir aber aufgefallen, dass wenn ich mit anderen Schiffen spiele, dass die englischen Schlachtschiffe "überpowered" sind. Ist egal welches Level, sie stehen hinter den Bergen und schießen und treffen mit einer der Maßen Genauigkeit, das nicht genug, dass ich auch bei jedem Treffer am brennen bin, egal welches Schiff ich benutze, selbst die Premium Schiffe kann ich mir jetzt dahin schicken wo die Sonne nicht mehr scheint -.- Ob Scharnhorst, Tirpiz oder Gneisenau, ich werde grundsätzlich 100% getroffen und abgefackelt wie Holzkohle. Das ist in meinen Augen keine ausgeglichene Balance. Wenn ihr jetzt sagt, ich müsste meine Spielweise ändern, ich spiele jetzt schon 1 1/2 Jahre und kam bis dahin mit dem Spiel wunderbar zurecht, aber seit dem wir die englischen Schlachtschiffe als Gegner haben, komme ich mir vor als würden meine Schiffe mit Knallerbsen schießen und die englischen Schiffe mit übergroßen Kanonenschlägen. Was mir aufgefallen ist, selbst wenn ich mit der NC schieße richte ich an den englischen Schiffen kaum Schaden an, aber die englischen T5, T6, T7 hauen mir so einen Schaden rein, dass ich die letzte Zeit nur noch zwischen 2 und 10 Minuten am spielen bin. Ich muss sagen im Moment habe ich den Spaß am spielen verloren. Jetzt können mich die anderen Mitspieler wieder zerfetzen und ab lästern, aber ich habe auch das Recht dazu, denn ich investiere auch genug Geld darin. MfG Gonzo.
  23. Zdravím, (osobní názor) chtěl bych upozornit na jeden z největších problémů jinak skvělé hry, a to jsou Torpéda. Proč má proboha 1 torpédo tak šíleně velké DMG? A neřešme prosím realitu, tohle je hra, která by měla mít vyvážené všechny stránky tak, aby se hrálo pohodlně všem v jakékoliv lodi. Necítím se ve férové pozici, když se dokážu vyhnout 4 torpédům z 5 a to jedno jediné, co mě trefí, mi sebere +- 60% HP a okamžitý flooding. Netuším, jestli se to týká všech torpéd ze všech lodí, ale mám pocit, že je to vždy stejné. (pro mě) Ideální by bylo snížit torpédům DMG minimálně na polovinu, protože hlavní třída lodí, která je používá, jsou Torpédoborce, a ty mají všechna esa v rukávu (rychlost, kamufláž, kouřová clona). Řeším lodě po tier 5, netuším, jak to vypadá na vyšších tierech, ale zde pro mě hra byla dnes těžce nehratelná. Myšlenka torpéd mi nevadí, pokud by to nevypadalo, jako arty ve WoT před nerfem. Tam už to WG po několika letech nadávání hráčů došlo, a nemám s tím, jak to teď vypadá, problém, kdy se to vyřeší zde? Hru beru jako více odpočinkovou a méně akční, oproti WoT, což je super, ale tahle stránka věci to hrozně moc kazí. Jinak je to OK počin a se hrou jsem spokojený.
  24. Invincible Saipan fighters

    Hi guys so recently i have been struggling with my CV battles against saipan,they get the extra fighter extra bomber perk (so its 4 fighters not 3)and keep running from my fighters in battle (the ALT+ click ) and they dont lose an aircraft due to the rule that applies to it (doesn't lose a fighter because its base fighter squadron is 3 planes only) , they are invicible ! so is this intended because they are premium CV's or what ?
  25. It's all about the aim!

    Guys, best luckshot ever! Unfortunately I don't have a replay
×