Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[Exocet6951]

Does it take into account people who aren't technically AFK, but might as well be?

 

I ran into someone with 20k battles, 8k average damage and 40% WR recently, he wasn't actually AFK as he was very slowly moving to another rock to hide behind without firing or even getting in range of enemies for 18 entire minutes, but I want these kinds for players banned.

 

[13Ninjas]

3 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

he wasn't actually AFK as he was very slowly moving to another rock to hide behind without firing or even getting in range of enemies for 18 entire minutes

The amount of games this happens (nearly every)

 

In reality, if he was AFK he would probably get a better end result score, and being closer to base cap, could have at least been some good to the team.

[RAHJAILARI]

23 minutes ago, principat121 said:

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

OH NOES! That's inhumane - I hate Coop.

 

Tried Coop again just recently for a few matches, when I was trying to test secondary build for Musashi and by Gods. After a couple of games, I was praying hard that no human players would be found so I could get a  decent bot team instead. Just because EGADS some or perhaps most of the players found there are there for a good reason - And I do hope they will stay too. It was truly a horrible thing.

22 minutes ago, Jethro_Grey said:

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.

Yeeah, that could indeed go horribly wrong. I already get reported quite a lot and mystifyingly enough it seems that every time I have a GOOD game (lotsa damage-win-top4-thought I did real good), my karma just goes down by heaps and bounds. That is quite baffling actually. I used to get more positive feedback back in the day, when I just plain sucked all the time. Strange that.

 

Oh well, let's wait and see, perhaps it won't be all that bad.

[MrConway]

3 hours 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

 

We'll have a news article on the feature coming out soon - all will be revealed then! :)

 

[Bellegar]

7 minutes ago, MrConway said:

 

We'll have a news article on the feature coming out soon - all will be revealed then! :)

 

The same 'soon' as the flag mod statement?

 

I certainly hope it's more informative than that "statement" was, since that didn't really reveal anything

[IsamuKondera]

4 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

The same 'soon' as the flag mod statement?

 

I certainly hope it's more informative than that "statement" was, since that didn't really reveal anything

Did they actually released it yet?

[Bellegar]

Just now, IsamuKondera said:

Did they actually released it yet?

The statement? Yes, sort of.... they edited some announcement about mods in the mods section:

Apparently that's the all revealing 'statement'

 

But of course after linking that, they decided they've solved averything and closed the thread:

 

[pra3y]

9 hours ago, Nechrom said:

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?

 

 

Like you said, achievements like Confederate and High Caliber are easy to get and scale well. On the other hand, it was/is actually easier to get clear sky at lower tiers, especially when manual strafe was available. On the other hand it's extremely difficult for tier 8 and above CVs or other ship classes in general to get a clear sky achievement. Your tier 10 CVs would have to shoot down at least 90+  planes to get Clear Sky. For other ship classes ie BBs, CAs or DDs, base on the current requirement its darn near impossible for them to get clear sky at all in the first place unless the enemy CV suicide into you now. With the new requirement, at least its feasible and better then the current requirement.

 

You talk about scaling but how would you scale it though? Damage is kinda universal in the sense that there is enough HP to go around that a few people per game can get confederate or high caliber but there are only so many planes in a game. So what? Lower it to say shooting down 20% of total planes in a game? I rather something that is easier to calculate. In fact perhaps lower the amount of planes for Air Defense Expert to say 30. At least its easier to motivate people to help defend allies that need AA since they know exactly how many planes they have to shoot down instead of giving a vague percentage of total planes in a game you have to shoot down. Like wtf, how many planes do I have to shoot down to reach that 20%. I mean look at that Midway game below. Without thinking about it in detail you would think 90 is more that enough. But nooooooooo, its not even 50%. So what? I have to shoot down 95? 97? 104? How many planes exactly? That is what irks people. A percentage system makes it too exclusive already, whereas a fixed amount is much better, like a set goal. You know what you have to do to achieve it. I think a Cleveland has a better chance shooting down 40 planes to get a Air Defense Expert award then shoot down 50% of the total planes in a game and at least 30 planes to get a Clear sky now.

 

Case in point: Midway, 90 planes shot down, no Clear Sky

Spoiler

 

Case in point 2

Spoiler

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Sander93 said:

 

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. 

 

Nope, see above. At least in my perspective its harder to scale it as compared to HC or C. It'll either be too easy or too hard. A fix number at least puts it at a middle ground that is achievable by everyone in the game.

 

 

 

[Sander93]

1 hour ago, pra3y said:

 I think a Cleveland has a better chance shooting down 40 planes to get a Air Defense Expert award then shoot down 50% of the total planes in a game and at least 30 planes to get a Clear sky now.

 

No it doesn't, which is exactly the problem. 40 plane kills is still an extreme amount for anything that isn't a tier 9/10 AA CA or CV. 

 

Do you even realise that in 3442 cruiser battles and 2185 battleship battles, you have only one ship with a max plane kill amount that is over 40? 

So you think a 1 in 5500 chance to get an achievement is a reasonable requirement?

 

 

The problem of the Clear Sky achievement is that it is incredibly hard to get even though it is based on a very basic and ever present aspect of the game.

Meanwhile the similar achievements High Caliber and Confederate scale for every tier and ship and so should an achievement about shooting down planes. 

These new requirements will only affect a small number of ships (T9/10 AA CA and CV and maybe US BB) and will still be extremely rare to get for the majority of ships, especially at lower tiers. 

 

[pra3y]

10 minutes ago, Sander93 said:

The problem of the Clear Sky achievement is that it is incredibly hard to get even though it is based on a very basic and ever present aspect of the game.

Meanwhile the similar achievements High Caliber and Confederate scale for every tier and ship and so should an achievement about shooting down planes. 

These new requirements will only affect a small number of ships (T9/10 AA CA and CV and maybe US BB) and will still be extremely rare to get for the majority of ships, especially at lower tiers. 

 

 

They can always lessen the amount of planes needed to be shot down. Either way it is less vague. The fact that it allows other classes apart from CVs to reasonably achieve the achivement is at least a step in the right direction as compared to a percentage system. 

 

How would you scale it then 

 

Ps: It i you or me? Cause im pretty sure I have more than 1 CA that got clear sky, although I maybe wrong. How do you check?

[NoirLotus]

A better way to make the medals work at all tiers could be to say thag you need to kill x timed the tier of your ship ...

[Humorpalanta]

6 hours ago, Bellegar said:

The same 'soon' as the flag mod statement?

 

I certainly hope it's more informative than that "statement" was, since that didn't really reveal anything

The same soon as we will be able to buy things to inventory soon?

[Bellegar]

15 minutes ago, Humorpalanta said:

The same soon as we will be able to buy things to inventory soon?

Did they actually ever state that as 'soon'?

[Major_Damage225]

For the clear skies achivement i would just remove the cruiser or BB planes, i think it would make it a bit easyer to achive. 

[Verdius]

3 hours ago, principat121 said:

ST. New unique commander.

A unique Soviet commander is added to the game. Andrey Pobedov will have the following improved skills:

Preventive Maintenance:

-45% (instead of -30) to the risk of incapacitation of modules.

Expert Marksman:

+3 deg/s (instead of 2.5) to the traverse speed of guns with a caliber of up to 139 mm.
+1 deg/s (instead of 0.7) to the traverse speed of guns with a caliber above 139 mm.

High Alert:

-20% (instead of -10) to reload time of the Damage Control Party consumable.

 

 

The better high alert makes me wonder if they are thinking of it with a Soviet BB line in mind. Considering that Gangut has some DCP gimmick as well (as does Stalingrad).

[principat121]

1 minute ago, Verdius said:

The better high alert makes me wonder if they are thinking of it with a Soviet BB line in mind. Considering that Gangut has some DCP gimmick as well (as does Stalingrad).

These were my thoughts too. This commander is designed with a future BB line in mind. Or for "cruiser" like Kronstadt or Stalingrad...

[Bellegar]

1 hour ago, SeeteufeI said:

Source: devblog

 

 

ST. New port "Kronshtadt".

 

"Kronshtadt" port is added to the game. The sights are: several historic forts, as well as the city and the Naval cathedral outlines.

Port's features will include fireworks and and periodic air squadron flyovers.

 

Hmm that's either not the best screenshot, or not the best port. From that lone picture I'm not too impressed tbh. But we'll see what they can pump out

 

And is that supposed to be 'cruiser' Kronshtadt as well?

[WeGreedy]

11 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

Hmm that's either not the best screenshot, or not the best port. From that lone picture I'm not too impressed tbh. But we'll see what they can pump out

 

And is that supposed to be 'cruiser' Kronshtadt as well?

Wow, you even quoted the discussion link in my post! 

[Bellegar]

2 minutes ago, SeeteufeI said:

You even quoted the discussion link in my post! 

Huh I don't understand what's so facepalm about that. I just quoted your post to transfer the picture into this thread.... I can remove that sentence if you want though

[WeGreedy]

10 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

Huh I don't understand what's so facepalm about that. I just quoted your post to transfer the picture into this thread.... I can remove that sentence if you want though

Holy f*ck, I must be the first who mixed those two threads up... but the other way around! 

Excuse me, that's probably the most embarrassing thing that ever happend to me in this forum.

 

I will see myself out! 

[Humorpalanta]

19 hours ago, Bellegar said:

Did they actually ever state that as 'soon'?

They said "Yes, we are working on it and want to do it soon" when they introduced it.

[Bellegar]

2 hours ago, SeeteufeI said:

Holy f*ck, I must be the first who mixed those two threads up... but the other way around! 

Excuse me, that's probably the most embarrassing thing that ever happend to me in this forum.

 

I will see myself out! 

Hahaha now that explains it

Don't worry about it though, the laugh you gave me with this post more than makes up for it

[fumtu]

So according the sea-group Boise will be a Pan-American premium ship in the for of Argentinian cruiser Nueve de Julio but will be under US tree until introduction of PA branch. Don't know what would that mean captain wise.  Also seems like she will have same radar as Indianapolis which is a BS. Like we need another long range radar at T7. Also that would mean that Nueve de Julio detention range, with CE, and her radar range will be very close, 10.1km concealment to 9.9km radar.

 

Personally I would prefer he as a US ship, now not sure sure will I bough her, everything depend how good she will be balanced. 

[Darth_Glorious]

https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/prsc510

Stalingrad doesn't have HE, use semi AP like British CLs.

Has 45s of fire duration compared to 30s of normal CAs.

Needs to turn 35s to shot full broadside.

Bow and stern 25mm, mid-deck 50 mm 

Turret : front armour 240 mm, rear armour 617 mm

Belt 180 mm, barbette 185-220 mm

[Gojuadorai]

27 minutes ago, Darth_Glorious said:

https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/prsc510

Stalingrad doesn't have HE, use semi AP like British CLs.

Has 45s of fire duration compared to 30s of normal CAs.

Needs to turn 35s to shot full broadside.

Bow and stern 25mm, mid-deck 50 mm 

Turret : front armour 240 mm, rear armour 617 mm <= also i hope those are other way arround

Belt 180 mm, barbette 185-220 mm

 

oh please god no more of this AP only short fuse bullcrap

 

make a ship for verry good player  better not give them teactical choices they might not be able to select the right type of ammo.....