Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[Spellfire40]

18 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

WG are listening to us and have decided to fix the BB overpopulation problem by making every ship a BB.

The real question is if Khaba is a DD and Stalingrad is a cruiser what will tehy bring if they release real( vodka inspired bluprint based) high tir RU BBs? 

[Kartoffelmos]

Battleships with carrier decks and smoke screen consumables .

 

I do like the new US CLs, but I do wonder why I should use them instead of the regular line or the UK ones. IFHE will be mandatory which means that AA (or other combat capabilities) will suffer and the lack of smoke screen will mean that they are less versatile in their positioning. The increase in stealth will make them more convenient when moving outside of island cover though . Hopefully they will be balanced without WG adding more consumables.

[Capra76]

23 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

I do like the new US CLs, but I do wonder why I should use them instead of the regular line or the UK ones.

 

I'm not sure how those 152/47 guns with their freedom ballistics are going to work on the higher tier maps, being 14km from a T10 BB could result in very short games for these ships.

[Boris_MNE]

Be afraid of soviet CVs... I am just sayin in advance.

[Reniwn]

5 hours ago, Comodoro_Allande said:

 

The entire gun stats. I don't know if the missing HE is just a typo or will be a feature 

Russian BBs wont need HE. Their AP will start fires.

[Zen71_sniper]

1 hour ago, Spellfire40 said:

The real question is if Khaba is a DD and Stalingrad is a cruiser what will tehy bring if they release real( vodka inspired bluprint based) high tir RU BBs? 

Or a CV? 20 km torps and 305mm secondaries? 

[Panocek]

39 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

Be afraid of soviet CVs... I am just sayin in advance.

 

So you're suggesting T10 RU CV will get carrier borne MiGs 15?

[principat121]

I would buy a tier7 BOISE as an american premium ship without hesitation (in the current state). But an argentinian one? No. I do not like single nation ships, where you can be almost certain that there will be no following ship line somewhen.

[Aotearas]

39 minutes ago, Panocek said:

 

So you're suggesting T10 RU CV will get carrier borne MiGs 15?

 

 

Silly capitalist.

 

Soviet Navy no get aircraft carriers. Soviet Navy gets ballistic submarines, da. Red Banner Northern Fleet no use MiG 15, R-39 Rif more effective and submarine better stealth, tovarish.

[El2aZeR]

There is no battleship overpopulation if everything is a battleship.

 

[Affeks]

OH MY GOD, they put 32mm plating on Stalingrad... I guess they'll reduce it to a bootleg BB, give it super shitty dispersion and make it a gimmickboat at best. Not hyped atm

 

Remember Stalingrad has 50mm weather deck and upper plating, so basically its better armored than the latest french BBs.... Id rather say they keep the 25mm bow and stern, but hey... WG sure loves BBs

[ppraet]

Concerning 40 planes shot down as a requirement for "Air Defense Expert", I still think that's a bit much if the idea is to make those achievements more accessible. Shooting down 40 planes kinda requires a potato CV and little AA competition from your own team, otherwise AA kills will be more evenly distributed. Yes I've had maybe 2 or 3 of these games in my 3700 battles so far (Minotaur and Missouri I think), but that's not that many more than I currently have Clear Skies (exactly 1).
Considering you only get 10 flags from it and the campaign missions requirements basically treat Clear Sky like your everyday High Caliber or Dreadnought achievement, it will still be off.

[Sander93]

I think a percentage of total planes killed was the correct way to hand out the award, it just needed a lower requirement. Like 30-40% or just getting the most plane kills of your team with a minimum of like 25% of total enemy hanger capacity. They could even lower the reward to 5 flags if needed. 

 

An absolute number requirement just seems weird as only tier 9 and 10 CVs have anywhere near as much hanger capacity needed for an enemy to get 40 plane kills. 

[pra3y]

27 minutes ago, Sander93 said:

An absolute number requirement just seems weird as only tier 9 and 10 CVs have anywhere near as much hanger capacity needed for an enemy to get 40 plane kills. 

 

Ryujo has a 48 plane hanger capacity. At tier 5 onward ships start getting floatplanes. So why would it be wierd? Tier 10 CVs like the Midway have  slightly more than a 100 planes. That just mean 2 ppl can get the new "clear sky" award if they try.

[Nechrom]

4 hours ago, pra3y said:

That just mean 2 ppl can get the new "clear sky" award if they try.

Try to make the CV repeatedly suicide their squads into you? How do you "try" to do that?

Just because there is enough planes available doesn't mean they will be fed to you and especially not you alone.

 

Meanwhile achievements like Confederate and High Caliber are fairly easy to get all things considered, and scale with health/tier.

I don't understand why the only "shoot down planes"-achievement has to be tied to high tiers and be so exclusive. Can't we have a normal one on the level of the previously mentioned damage achievements?

[Sander93]

7 hours ago, pra3y said:

Ryujo has a 48 plane hanger capacity. [...]  Tier 10 CVs like the Midway have slightly more than a 100 planes. 

 

Exactly. You don't find it weird you'd need to kill 83% of the total hanger capacity at tier 6 while only 40% will suffice at tier 10?

The scaling of this achievement just doesn't make sense, especially compared to other achievements like High Caliber and Confederate. 

[Allied_Winter]

Personally I'd think it should be:

 

50% of all CV only planes (not counting catapult launched planes) OR 55 planes overall. Whichever condition is met first. This would scale well with the lower tiers (and give you actually a chance to get Clear Skies against a Saipan) while at the same time taking into account that high tier CVs have quite a high number of reserves.

 

 

 

Greetings

[Aotearas]

8 hours ago, Sander93 said:

I think a percentage of total planes killed was the correct way to hand out the award, it just needed a lower requirement.

 

Also, not counting catapult aircraft from non-CV ships. Between the usual five BBs and the couple cruisers with their catapult spotter/fighter aircraft, the amount of catapult aircraft in a game can be positively absurd.

 

The game might also want to consider any enemy aircraft reserves a ship had at the time of being sunk by you as aircraft kills for the tally (not give XP and credits for it, but put them up as a hidden bonus towards the aircraft killcount).

[Gojuadorai]

6 minutes ago, JaiFoh said:

 

ST. Anti-abuse system update.
Players who display "unsportsmanlike" behavior in battle (being AFK, damaging teammates, leaving the battle too early) will now be warned and punished by battle type limitation (co-op only), until they improve their behavior. 
Localization is underway.

 

correct me if im wrong but isnt friendly fire in coop turned of?

[JaiFoh]

Just now, Gojuadorai said:

 

correct me if im wrong but isnt friendly fire in coop turned of?

For Scenario's yes

Co-Op i cannot remember as shooting at my allies is not something i do on purpose

[ImperialAdmiral]

Just now, Gojuadorai said:

 

correct me if im wrong but isnt friendly fire in coop turned of?

I got teamkilled on Saturday in co-op battle so no.

 

It is turned off in scenarios.

[Allied_Winter]

@MrConway or @Crysantos I assume the new Anti Abuse mechanic is an automated system (given the reasons listed in the dev blog post), so no player reports necessary. Can you confirm that?

 

 

Greetings

[principat121]

ah... can't wait to see the "king of potatoes" limited only to Co-Op!

[Jethro_Grey]

Just now, Gojuadorai said:

 

correct me if im wrong but isnt friendly fire in coop turned of?

It means you‘ll be restricted to play coop as punishment. 

 

 

Thx WG, another stupid feature that‘ll get abused by UBIs. 

 

Get ready to get reported for all kinds of reasons, as until now plebs could get you chat banned, soon they‘ll be able to ban you from randoms/Clan wars.

 

 

no smart man would give power to the stupids, so what does this tell us about WG?

[fumtu]

4 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

@MrConway or @Crysantos I assume the new Anti Abuse mechanic is an automated system (given the reasons listed in the dev blog post), so no player reports necessary. Can you confirm that?

 

 

Greetings

 

Well if it's based on reports than what would happen if somebody report you as AFK while you are not? There will be a high chance for system abuse if it's not automated.