The idea to write this has been developing over my entire way through WoWs, from potato to unicum. Thanks to World of Tanks experience I was able to start at least with a 50% winrate, but it took a long time to get it into the super-unicum range and play for the top 10 in clan battles. However, keep in mind that not every player plays just to get the best results. Playing for fun is perfectly fine, in fact it may be strange to take WoWs so seriously, especially the random battles. But many players do have the ambition to do as well as they can, so this is for them. The most fundamental difference I've observed in good vs bad players, including myself as a beginner vs now, is this difference in mentality: Bad players think about opportunities. Good players think about dangers. So if you're not performing as well as you want to, let's have a look at how to get better by approaching the game from the right mindset. Where bad players fall short Bad players always imagine ways how they can succeed. That leads to all sorts of suicidal plays. From the very start they believe things like: "I will rush straight into this cap, win the fight there, conquer the cap, and that's how we will win this game!" This usually just gets them killed and puts their team at a disadvantage. For the same reasons, bad players love torpedo rushes, try to ambush enemy ships from behind islands, and always push forwards. Whatever they do, they're certain its going to work. Until it doesn't and they're dead. And then they blame their team instead of themselves, thinking "it just failed because my team didn't support me properly". Most people seem to believe that bad players are bad for the opposite reason: That they always camp in the back and never do anything. But surprisingly, those are much less bad to have. Far and away most games are decided by which team loses more players early. If a team merely takes the caps without getting a kill lead, they will often get impatient and push into the camping enemy, throwing their safe win away, because they have too many noobs who keep imagining how their rush is totally going to work. Make no mistake, camping in the back is still far from an actually good strategy, but its better than being dead. You can observe the truth of this even in high skill matches. Very early in a T10 ranked season at rank 2-5, when there are virtually no players below about 58% global winrate, matchmake monitors will let you observe a very persistent trend: The players with the worst winrates are always the first to die, even when you would generally think they're safe and competent players with their 58%+ winrates. In true top tier clan battles it is a bit different, but even getting into hurricane league takes little more than just knowing how not to [edited]up. How good players succeed So what do good players think about if they don't think about what great play to make? They think about what plays *not* to make. They arrive at the best possible play by eliminating all the dangerous ones first. This is the priority list of what dangers to avoid: The danger to take too much damage. The most important counters to this are angling and using your concealment range. Good players rarely get closer to the enemy than the distance at which they can get undetected again once they stop shooting. Even if you are a BB, you want the opportunity to turn away in stealth, or to repair fires and wait out your damage control cooldown. Getting into a position that you cant escape from needs to be *very* well planned out. Your main tool to avoid this problem is to position properly relative to your team. In a DD you need allied cruisers and BBs to scare away enemy DDs or radars from rushing you. In a cruiser or a BB you need something in front of you to screen away enemy DDs from permaspotting you. The danger to get locked down in a position. If you aren't absolutely certain that the enemy is weaker on your flank, you want to have the opportunity to turn away savely and run before they get too close to you. This is why good players don't commit their ships early until they know more about the enemy positioning. The danger of torpedoes and airplanes. Overall fairly similar to the risks above - as long as you can turn freely, you're usually going to be fine. Torpedoes are easy to stay safe from since you can use allies to spot for you. With planes... well better pray you have some good AA cruisers on your team. The danger to deal no damage. Obviously just being safe doesn't win you the game, but a dead ship does not deal any damage either. If you followed the checklist to this point you are sure not to be dead, so you can actually do something. In order to deal damage you need to stay in a position that (1) is close enough to the enemy, (2) where your guns are not stuck behind an island, and (3) from where you can quickly move on to the next battle once your current one is decided. Going around all the way at the flanks has a high risk of leaving you useless, which is why good players tend to play to more central positions. The danger to lose by score. Yes this is pretty damn far down. Ultimately the cap belongs to the last ship still afloat. It is better to get the cap a little later than to die for it, which by itself can be a 100 point swing to the enemy's favour. Most importantly this danger means not to let the enemy get any free caps. If they take the cap, at least get an HP lead in return, so that you can bully the enemy away and retake the cap later. This is also where specialties like radars become important to deny the enemy from capping safely. In summary, you need to position around caps in a way that lets you defend them. Because good players primarily think about dangers and possible mistakes, they rarely talk about great plays, but very often about mistakes. In their view games are decided by mistakes, not by heroic actions. Any successful push is only possible because the other team allowed it. Why does such a passive approach work? Because every game starts evenly. The enemy has to struggle as hard to get a lead as you do. If you do nothing and the enemy does nothing, you at least get a draw. Playing aggressive is generally a disadvantage. It means that you run into crossfires while the enemy can always angle against you. It means your shells need to lead further than theirs. It means that you run into enemy torps while your torps won't reach. Therefore your first priority should be to play defensively and punish any enemies who overextend. This happens in nearly every random battle, but even in clan battles up to high typhoon league. Only think about more aggressive action if the enemy does not give you such free kills. But there is no need to be more aggressive than your enemy if you are evenly matched. Having a standoff at 15-20 km is nothing unusual and should not worry you. Why should you make a risky move if the enemy doesn't? Instead, just trade as effectively as you can and gain a lead that way, or look for another position where you can be more effective. This way you will soon open up spaces to take caps. Caps are primarily a tool to force the enemy to push into you. You don't want to let the enemy take any caps, because having fewer caps means that you are forced to push. Your goal is to put the enemy into a spot where they are the ones who need to push. Proper openings for aggressive plays are rare, unless the game is already decided one way or the other. The decision to make such a play should only be the result after you have evaluated all dangers. This is how you learn to see the highest % plays, the plays that are most likely to give you an advantage in the game. If you learn how to play save first, you will progressively see more and more openings where you can push for more damage and be a bigger frontline presence without taking real risks. A rundown of how this works in reality Let's say you stick to the whole checklist of dangers. How does a game pan out if the enemy fails at it? If the enemy fails at the first step, they overextend into your team's firepower giving you a lead in HP or ships. Then you can slowly push the enemy away from the caps win from there. If the enemy gets into a position where they can no longer retreat against a superior force, for example because they hugged an island too far up, you can slowly move up and pick them apart without having to take much of a risk. If they lose ships to torps or air strikes... well, easy win. and 5. if they aren't in a position to threaten you at the caps, take the caps and wait it out. If they do not make any of these mistakes, you now have an even game. The caps are presumably covered by radar and/or nearby DDs. Some cruisers may hug islands to provide radar or AA, most of them are in the open water wth the BBs however and are free to pick their fights. Now its about coordinating the threat to take a cap, vision, and firepower support to get better trades on the enemy. You have a real game on your hands. The screw-up hierarchy of clan battles This concept came to my mind towards the end of Season 1 of clan battles, when the meta had settled and changes became more gardual. It is a pattern how most high-tier metas develop. In each stage of development, a different type of ship is the weak point that will likely get punished and lose the game. In the beginning games were decided by DD mistakes. Nobody knew yet how to secure caps, so the ability of DDs to decide how aggressive they could threaten caps was absolute key. Most games were decided because a team either lost their DD, or gave up a cap uncontested. When the DDs learned how to play solidly, the next point of weakness were the radar cruisers who were supposed to secure caps. Because they didn't know how to position properly and how to time their radar, they would either let the enemy get a free cap or die. These were the things they had to fix - whether they dealt any damage almost didn't matter. Once all of this had settled, the final step was about the open-water cruisers on the flanks. With everyone playing nice and safe at the caps and neither side getting a lead that way, it was up to the ships which could threaten to reach around the enemy's flanks to decide the game, by threatening the positions that enemy DDs and radar crusers used for cover. In Season 1 this was all about Zao, which was able to fight in open waters and had the concealment advantage to drive away bigger cruisers like Hindenburg and Moskva. When we began with clan battles in season 1, I played all of these roles in exactly this order since I was our shotcaller and dictated our setups. Whenever something didn't work and I didn't understand why, I tried it out myself until it worked. I've developed a bit of a Zao fetish since then and played little else, although in season 3 that role was partially overtaken by Worcester. The meta has gotten a whole lot more varied since that time, as ships like Worcester, Minotaur, and Stalingrad have shaken it up a fair bit, but I still believe there is some truth in this model. If you're not in Hurricane yet, this may be helpful to you. Evaluating how active or risky you should play There is a simple way to tell whether your team is currently in a good or bad spot, and how badly you need to act if you are currently not fighting yourself: count how many ships of each team is currently effectively involved in battle. If your team has more active ships, they are supposed to gain an advantage. In that case you have time to improve your position and only pick the best engagements. Its the enemy who now has to bring more ships to engage in battle. If both teams are fighting evenly, play as normal. If your team has fewer ships in battle, you likely need to make something happen. However, instead of pushing into the enemy you might want to consider to turn around and support your losing flank, since the enemy may push through there soon and make themselves vulnerable. Keep this in mind to avoid making mistakes especially in clan battles. During our first clan battles we had a lot of cases of players dying and putting us into a difficult spot because they "felt like they were too useless in their position", even though we were already winning and they didn't need to do anything at all. And then there is of course the factor of score. If a score loss approaches, there is obviously no point to prioritising one's own safety. At some point the danger list reverses its priorities, since your death is meaningless now. Don't assume this too quickly though. If your team is already behind, the enemy overextending into poor engagements is often your only chance of a comeback. Similarly, if you are on the winning side you can of course afford a little more aggression, but be cautious not to through it, it happens all too frequently. Other notes on getting good * In most games your team has a flank where they are stronger, and a flank where they are weaker. Don't hesitate to surrender the cap if you are on the weaker side. If you are on the stronger side, drive the enemy away from the cap until you can take it, and then think about your next move. Moving into the enemy half of the map is usually a mistake. Either you overextend into focus fire, or you don't deal enough damage because the enemy is kiting you, or it leads you away from the caps. After winning the battle for a cap, the right choice is almost always to stay on your half of the map and move towards the next cap. * To get through the list of dangers, you need 1) map awareness, 2) the ability to predict map movements, and 3) decent knowledge of all ships in the game to evaluate when exactly you are in danger. You need to know what type of DPS to expect, torp and radar ranges, have a decent awareness of cooldowns, and so on. * Never underestimate how long it may take you to kill an enemy. So many people die because they make this mistake and end up eating more damage or being spotted for longer than they thought. So do not overextend in order to chase a kill. Simply getting an HP advantage and forcing them to escape is usually all you need. Really being able to force a kill is not the norm. * The best position to be is almost always where the enemy is going to push next, i.e. a defensive movement. But its easily possible to overextend in a defense, keep the right distance and stick with allies. * Going solo can be an option if there is no CV, but it usually limits you to very careful play. You will likely have to wait until the enemy engages on your allies to open up fire savely. If an enemy group is pushing through your half of the map, going wide towards the map borders to threaten their flank tends to be very powerful, making it very dangerous for them to advance. Even if they chase you down, if you just survive long enough your team will have a numbers advantage on the rest of the map and probably win. * Your choices almost always rely on positioning relative to your teammates. But unless your allies respond to you in chat, do not assume that they will cooperate with you. Instead, arrange yourself so that they fit into your plans. Use them as meat shields if you have to. * Not relying on your team includes to not get into any position from which your team has to bail you out again. Being able to escape when crap hits the fan is your responsibility alone - do not put your team into a position where they have to take a bad engagement to save you. Lastly, keep in mind that your own gameplay is the only thing you can influence. WoWs is a random team game, so other players may make mistakes and lose you games, but flaming them doesn't help you either, so let's try to stay civil. You yourself are the only variable you can change. I hope this helps anyone who wishes to improve. This post was originally written for Reddit here.
I know that this has been obvious to many of you for years now, but there appear to be some individuals who still do not understand why this is true, and so I will try to show why it is. WR is almost useless for determining skill if only a small sample size is available. To demonstrate why, let's take flipping a coin as an example. For an unbiased coin, the chances of landing heads is 50% (obviously). This is called the theoretical probability. However, if we flip a coin, it will either land heads, or it won't, placing the outcome at either 100% or 0% of flips resulting in a head, compared to what it "should" be. This is called the actual probability. Note that this is caused by a tiny sample size. As the coin continues to be flipped, the odds even out, and actual and theoretical probability become closer together. What at did we take from this? 1: In small sample sizes, actual probability is useless for determining theoretical probability, as luck can have a huge impact. 2: Actual probability becomes more and more accurate as the sample size increases, as luck's impact is diluted. Now, let's apply this to WR. The skill of the player is the actual probability. It tells us how often they would win if every match they played was evenly matched. A player's WR is the theoretical probability, caused by RNG and varying team quality. Therefore: In a small sample size, luck can cause actual and theoretical probability to deviate from one another, making WR over a small number of matches almost irrelevant. Over a larger number of matches however, luck is diluted more and more, and WR reflects a player's skill more and more accurately. Note that this is based on solo play. Divisions amplify the skill (or lack of) of their members, as they stack each match played either for or against their members depending on whether or not their members are above or below average. To put it another way, bad divisions lose far more than they do alone, and good divisions win more than they do alone. @Beastofwar Please read this. CAREFULLY.
There is an age old question in WG games, does individual skill affects individual WR...? some say yes, some say with complete random system of WG MM, NO. I am on the YES side and a couple years ago, I spent some time to run a small simulation to put a little light on the subject. It was a thread on WOT forums, I am gonna post it here with the results... Have fun discussing it... PS: its in the spoiler! WARNING: IT IS LOOOOOOONG So after the general explanation, Lets go into the results! These are the results for total of 1000 random matches with some additions and graphics, Ok... If you are still with me! Now it is the final part I finally ran the numbers for 3 men platoons (divisions) I respect every critisim with some intelligence and knowledge in it and it has to be in a civil manner.. Lets discuss... Thank you for enduring this wall!
Hallo, wir alle kennen es, wir fahren eine neue Line und testen die Captainskills durch. Oder WG ändert die Meta und man muss eh neu skillen (gut hier gibts von WG meist einen kostenfreien Umspecc aber darum gehts ja nicht). Wenn wir nu ein anderes Talent nehmen wollen um es zu testen, ob es besser zu unserem Spielstil passt, müssen wir den kompletten Baum zurücksetzen. Das geht auf Dauer natürlich auf die Captains EP bzw. auf die Dublonen. Daher dachte ich mir gerade, wär es nicht besser wenn WG uns die Möglichkeit bietet, Talentpunkte einzeln zu ändern? Ich spiele zB gerade die Aki und habe mit jap. DD an sich keine weiteren Erfahrungen und an DD spiel ich bisher nur die Russen. Daher bin ich zZ am testen welche Talentpunkte gut zu meinem Stil passen bzw. einen Stil zu finden der mit den Talenten gut funktioniert. Abgesehen von den Standartpunkten beim DD variiert man ja doch. Ich bin gerade am überlegen ob ich BFT mitnehme oder doch lieber DE. Genau so überlege ich ob AR sinnvoll ist oder nicht. Und ja, Einheitsbrei, sprich Skillungen die für andere Spieler top funktionieren mag ich an sich nicht. Denn nur weil ein Stil für einen oder auch viele Spieler gut läuft heißt das ja nicht, dass dieser Stil auch für mich funktioniert. Daher fände ich es gut, wenn ich halt nur das Talent umändern könnte um das es mir gerade geht und nicht den gesamten Baum resetten muss. Ist, wie eingangs erwähnt auch eine Kostenfrage. Preislich gesehen können wir uns ja am bestehenden orientieren, 10k CaptainsEP oder 50 Dublonen, meinetwegen auch gern etwas höher, meinetwegen 12.500 CaptainsEP und 60 Dublonen. Und nu bleibt sachlich (ja bin ich selbst selten, ich weiß) und sagt eure Meinung. @Sehales leite die Idee mal weiter büdde.
So, ich bin ja nun auch schon einige Zeit dabei. Und würde mit euch gerne mal über etwas grundsätzliches diskutieren. Eure Meinung, das pro und kontra dazu hören. Also, "früher" war ich ausnahmslos in allen Schlachtschiffen mit dem Skill Tarnung unterwegs. Macht Sinn, man kommt damit näher ungesehen an den Gegner heran. Aber über die letzte Zeit gab es eine regelrechte HE-Schwemme, auch bedingt durch die neuen Amerikanischen Kreuzer (oder Noobs mit Battleships), welche extensiv HE benutzen. Das hat natürlich, richtig, viele Feuer zur Folge. Ein Feuer ist in der Regel kein Problem, aber schnell werden das 2-3 Brände. Kann man gut finden, muss man aber nicht. Heilungen sind letzten Endes auch nur endlich, weswegen ich mich mal am Brandschutz versuchte. Mittlerweile rüste ich immer mehr Schlachtschiffe auf diesen Spaß um. Und gemäß der Logik müssten möglichst viele teure 4er Skills mit am "besten" sein. Ein "typisches" MA-Schlachtschiff (Tirpitz, Bismarck, Musashi (da aber statt dem Reload-Skill das zweite Flugzeug!), Kurfürst, etc.) schaut bei mir so aus: http://shipcomrade.com/captcalc/0110000000100000000001001100100019 Ein "typisches" AA-Schlachtschiff (Missouri, Montana, etc.) schaut bei mir so aus: http://shipcomrade.com/captcalc/0110000000100000000001000100110019 Ein "typisches" Hybrid-Schiff (keine superstarke Langstrecken-Flak - aber trotzdem sehr gute und eine vorzügliche Tarnung wie die Vanguard oder Conquerer) schaut bei mir so aus: http://shipcomrade.com/captcalc/0110000000100000000001000100100119 Bei den MA-Schlachtern hab ich alle drei MA-Verbesserungen verbaut, bei den AA-Schlachtern zwei AA-Verbesserungen - aber im 6. Slot dann halt die 11% höhere Genauigkeit. Und ich kann wirklich keine Verschlechterung des Gameplays feststellen. Eher kann man viel eher seinen wirklich Stärken ausspielen. Und das ist Schaden zu kassieren und natürlich auch auszuteilen. Vor einigen Wochen wollte ich mal einen Thread über die nutzlosesten Skills eröffnen, wozu der Brandschutz gehörte. Mittlerweile denke ich da anders drüber. Bedenken muss man ja auch, dass wenn man ballert, für eine halbe Stunde erst mal offen ist. Wenn nicht irgendwelche Secret Ninjas in ihren DDs euch eh dauer-spotten. Deshalb, was bringt dann die Tarnung? Die Tarnung ist situativ und hilft nicht mehr wenn man offen gehalten wird oder geschossen hat. Der Brandschutz hilft euch bei jeder einschlagenden HE-Granate der gegnerischen HA oder MA. Weniger Brandchance UND weniger Feuerquellen. Wer von euch ist auch am wechseln, denkt drüber nach oder sieht das total anders? Und bedenkt, bald wird der "Vorteil" des Tarnung-Skills für BBs auf 10% reduziert... Umgekehrt gilt die Diskussion natürlich auch für Modulschäden. Ich sehe kaum einen Schlachter, wie er im ersten Slot das Modul für 100% mehr HP der MA/AA verbaut hat. Und alle beschweren sich darüber, wie ihnen die MA/AA weggeblasen wird. Vielleicht mal als Schlachterfahrer umdenken und das MA/AA-Modul nehmen? Die Ausfälle der HA kann man mit dem Skill Präventive Maßnahmen gut kompensieren. Mit dem CV-Rework werden sicherlich einige ins Schwitzen kommen.
Hi there, Since there have been a lot of threads about bad players and teams. Is there something we can think of and what WG could do to increase the overall skill level of the playerbase? It took me a quite a while to get a grip of the basics. And frankly if I never registered here on the forum I would probably still be at 40% w/r and not improving. I think it could be good for WoWs to guide players better so they don't drop out. Or worse, long time players dropping out because because they get fed up with a part of the player base. It also could increase the competitive scene which is good for WoWs overall. Could lead to more competition > streams > more viewers > publicity > new players. But thats is just a wild assumption. To get this started let me throw some ideas up. And please give your feedback or post your own ideas. But please keep it civil. - Tutorials, most games have them and seems pretty straight forward but WoWs seems to miss them. - Incentives for overall stats (dammage, w/r etc.). Like you are able to compete in some game modes if you hit a certain criteria, you will get a container/signals/flag if you hit [x]. - Incentive for watching the "how it works" serie on the YT page of WG. - Force players to watch or do a tutorial when moving up a tier, introduce them to new game mechanics. For example; how does radar work at entering T7/8. @Crysantos and @MrConway do you guys read along or might even want to throw some ideas in here as well?
Wann wieder kostenlos Kapitänspunkte neu verteilen?
Kann jemand von euch sagen, wann es das nächste Mal möglich sein wird, die Kapitänspunkte kostenlos neu zu verteilen? Ich dachte irgendwo gelesen zu haben, dass das nicht mehr weit hin ist. Danke.
T9 Jean Bart with only t5 tech tree ships??????
Hi there fellow captains. Over the last few month's you guys and girls gave me great feedback on how I could improve my game, I'm really grateful for that and because of it I went from a bad player to now below average and working towards average. I will be content with average but my goals is to be a "good" player and get everything in the green. As of late in the last couple of weeks my performance has been staggering. From going "great" and sometimes even "unicum" scores per evening I went back to "below average" and "bad". Whilst my average tier is still around 6/7. I read alot about this feature "replays". And I think it can help me to evaluate my game. Where does one find this? Also idk if my understanding of the game gets better and thus I see more idiotic mistakes made by my team or even the reds. But teammates have been surprising me to say the least on their decisions. Now the last time I blamed everything else except me, you here on the forum proved me wrong, and I hope this is the case yet again! I must be missing something but I don't know what. There were plenty of games in hindsight where in I could be more of an asset to the team and so lost because of it. Or at least I hope that is the reason since I can work on that. There were also games no matter how well I preformed (to my knowledge) but it was a lost cause from the start I think. Some questions on games that seem hopeless. So sometimes you have these games. No matter how hard you try to communicate they will be stuck, for in this example, at the D line. Really they did not got of that square for like 10 minutes. I and a Z-46 tried to cap A but to no avail. (Me in a Hipper I recently unlocked) At this point I feel hopeless, getting salty and what not. How do you capitalize on these kind of games? I really don't want to blame my team here, even tho they could have done better positioning. I did not do great that game either. Here in my T6 Normandie I did rather well score wise. But we still lost. I would not post this if it was an exception. To my experience it is a a big chunk of my games that end like this. Is there something I can do to motivate my team better? How do I read the games a such, even when they go in my examples I can get the most % out of it to win it?
I think WG should do a complete overhaul of the tool tips for upgrades and captain's skills (at least in the english version of the game). The way tool tips are currently formulated, they are not intuitive at all and some are very easily misunderstood, in my view. Take the usage of the words "time" and "speed", for example. In the game, these two words are very common in describing upgrades and skills. Combined with the use of "+" and "-" in the percentages, this can get confusing. If a hypothetical upgrade's tool tip reads "-10% loading time" and "-10% aiming speed", we see the "-" is used in both, but this prefix doesn't tell us anything, as both of the words "time" and "speed" are used. Each of those words define whether a "+" or "-" is good or bad, so it is the combination of the "+" or "-" AND the "time" or "speed" which tells us whether the effect of an upgrade or skill is good or bad (I hope I'm not making this too complicated. I'm a grammar nazi!). Why wouldn't WG stick to ONE of these words ("time" or "speed") in all the tool tips to make them easier to understand? If only one of these words were used throughout ALL the tool tips, we could easily see where the positive and negative effects of an upgrade/skill were just by looking at the "+" or "-" in front. In my hypothetical example above, this could change the tool tip into "+10% loading speed" and "-10% aiming speed". If "speed", for example, was the only word used in tool tips, we would all (hopefully) quickly learn that any "+" was a positive effect and any "-" was negative. That way, we wouldn't have to "compute" both the +/- and "time" / "speed" to figure it out. I made another post about this next issue, but it's also about the tool tips, so I'll put it here as well. Currently, the "India Delta" signal flag (awarded by the "Dreadnought" achievement) tool tip reads: "+20% to combat capability recovery time when the Repair Party consumable is used.". After a while, I figured out that this has to mean that when a Battleship is using it's combat capability recovery and it's repair party AT THE SAME TIME, the combat capability (a.k.a. health) recovery is 20% faster while the BOTH of them are active. Correct me if I'm wrong! Please tell me that I wasn't the only one who was puzzled by that tool tip! I haven't bothered to think of a better description to that tool tip, but surely there must be an easier way to explain the effect of that signal flag!
Bonjour à tous les marins, j'avais une question à propos de l'isokaze, et plus généralement des dds jap' bas tiers: je ne sais pas quel skills mettre en 4 ligne pour le commandant. des suggestions ?
Wirkt der Skill "Air Supremacy" / "Luftüberlegenheit" auch auf Katapultflugzeuge und falls ja, wie wirkt er in Kombination mit "Direction Center for Catapult Aircraft" ? Ist es also möglich vier Katapultjäger in die Luft zu bringen? Sind es dann eine, zwei oder vier Rotten? Wie reagieren diese auf das manuelle Markieren eines Prioritätsziels für die Luftabwehr, werden also eine, zwei oder gar vier gegnerische Staffeln angegriffen?
Well, since we are now getting the awesome legendary commanders with 2 special skills and I hear a lot of moaning about them being OP (which I do not agree with BTW), why not introduce the possibility of each player being able to give / buy each of their own ELITE (19 points) commanders just 1 improved skill from the standard skill tree. For example a +25%-50% extra buff to expert loader or Marksman skill or some such which could be selected by the player himself. Of course, skills such as priority target, air superiority, radio locator and incoming fire should be excluded from this, as there would be no particular benefit for buffing them (unless WG can think of one), but it would work just fine for the others. Personally I enjoy developing my commanders and it gives a nice persona touch to gameplay, so to further be able to enhance them in some way might keep it interesting. Initially, this could be made hugely expensive (as it should be), like say 500.000 elite commander points (so this cannot be bought by doubloons, you'd have to earn it). It could be either re-skillable (at horrific cost, of course) or not, I have not thought about that too much. But this would be a nice personal touch, as many of us have at least one elite commander already and once you're there then what? Would be nice to have some project to develop them a bit more.
I think that Survivability Expert skill need buff/Improvement now it give 400HP/tier which make it almost no useful for grab especially for 4 XP points. So I suggest some improvement like this: that skill give 550 or 750HP/tier + 5% armor bonus for BB, 10% for CL and 15% for DD/CV or 10% flat bonus for everyone What you think?
Notice how nobody says "Let's play toss-a-coin"? The tedium and irritation caused by randomness in this game detract from enjoyment. Randomness makes air superiority Brogues dull to play and battleship vs cruiser engagements irritating. Fighter RNG The fighter engagement mechanism removes skill and thus deprives the carrier player of meaningful engagement. Fighter engagement whereby fighters literally cannot move the battle in any direction is unrealistic and often ends up eg 5-1 in planes shot down. This unbalances the whole battle on a coin toss. Faster fighters in particular should be able to disengage at a penalty to their attack strength but slower fighters too should be able to move the battle towards an allied ship with AA. Whilst strafing is the more skillful approach, it is very risky and still forces your planes to engage. Solution: remove the fighter engaging mechanism. Players will still be able to focus enemy squadrons but it will be more like fighter vs bomber engagements. Fire RNG Cruiser/gunboat success vs battleships is almost entirely dependent on luck with starting fires. Even angling doesn't make much of a difference any more due to reducing overpenetration. Solution: make fire chance cumulative. Start at 0% chance per shell (for US). Each shell that hits increases the chance by 0.5%. By the time you've landed 8 HE shells, you're up to 20% chance of fire per shell. Cap it at 30% (10 shells) and have it halve every 20s. Fire extinguish could half the chance too but you'd still likely be prone to another fire if you're getting hit a lot. This makes dying to a couple of cruisers who can't shoot but are lucky with fires incredibly unlikely. If they can shoot then chances are you'll be set on fire three times at least. Fire duration could also be part of this equation. Accuracy RNG Accuracy/dispersion has been discussed a lot I'm sure. The Myogi drives me nuts but I think it's a ship-specific problem at short range. Feel free to discuss. Teammate skill RNG Lastly, players are over-rewarded for being lucky with good teammates. Winning should be reward enough without getting double the XP of the losing team. If there's any XP bonus for winning, it should be 20% at most. Boost XP overall to compensate.
My Commander get no more XP ?!