Pseudoscope

Hi, Could you please consider buffing the damage on the Tashkent's torpedos? With the torpedo damage reduction, damage saturation and all that the torps don't nearly hit hard enough for the situations where you get to use them. When you get to point blank range and land 9 on a Musashi from a 1km barrage, Musashi should die, instantly. Buffing them up to the Khabarovsk's damage would be nice. Tashkent cannot stealth torp, dd's see it from kms away, the main playstyle is gunboat, but when you get close it should destroy everything. I think landing all your torps, even 7 or 8 of them really on a bb broadside should net you a kill. I kinda get that the fast reload is supposed to make up for the reduced damage however the Tashkent really doesn't have the durability to survive close range encounters where torps come into the equation. With all the power-creep, radar, hydro and ships with multiple consumables the Tashkent doesn't really have all that much going for it and I feel that a %25 buff to it would not make it overly powerful, but just reward the player when making those epic high risk plays. Regards, Pseudo

Hi all, Just wanted to know how you play/ed your balitmore and if it is indeed a sh*t ship or if I need to do something different. Most games I ave ~30k damage if I'm lucky. Great games ~50k (very rare) Let me know what you think/how you play Cheers Pseudo

Hi Devs, I really feel the Baltimore needs a buff. The spotting range means you're always spotted and battleship fodder, the firing range means you can't return fire to any ships that aren't over extended, meaning you must over extend. The HE damage sucks, ROF sucks, and seriously the AA isn't all that great. I really feel the Ibuki is a better ship all round. My suggestions for the Baltimore is to buff the firing range so that it can compete in long range exchanges and also buff the AA range and damage a bit. It feels like I'm forever spotted by aircraft that I cannot spot or shoot down with AA. When compared to the New Orleans, it isn't all that bad, but when you look at the other nation ships I feel the Balti has nothing going for it.

Right well the logic for receiving a experience/credit would go something like this: 1 - Ship must take ~20% damage or sustain 40 hits/deflects every 5 minutes throughout 3/4 of the game. The idea behind these numbers is that BB's can be slow, and it is unlikely that in the first 5 minutes it is even possible to be in range of enemy. Secondly requiring them to maintain this damage throughout the game means that BB's that only take damage because their team mates (meatsheild) dies, do not benefit (ie, 60% damage in the last 5minutes should not be rewarded). I've not put too much thought into the 20%/40 hits/deflects and this would need to be adjusted. However I do feel that maintaining a solid incoming damage throughout the match be a requirement. If the BB gets carrier sniped or DD sniped or citadel'd to the bottom of the ocean I feel the captain is either inexperience or ended up in a bad situation. No reward should be given.

Hi, Just had a game in the Kongo (30kts of beautiful speed) and once again I was the BB to push up with the cruisers tanking damage, whilst the numerous Kirishima's sat back 'sniping'. At one point I got down to 3k health, whilst the friendly battleships maybe dipped to 40k if they were lucky. At the ending screen I was ahead by ~100 experience, when I'm certain without me the cruiser pack I was shepherding would have died and we may have lost. Now I know there is the dreadnought medal for tanking and doing your job. However I do not feel this is enough of a reward for those of us who understand the reason bb's are given heals. Every now and then I end up in a match with a BB that knows how to play, I tank, I back-off, he tanks and we have a blast! Ships should be rewarded for playing their role. Can we look at rewarding BB's for taking consistent damage throughout the round?

Hi Devs (once again) Just played match where a dd and I (dd) capped the enemy's base in the first ~6 minutes and won the round. All i got for the match was a measly 300 points and he and I were in the middle of the scoreboard, even though we 'won it' for the team. Given the current setup of the game, there appears to be no consequence of leaving a gaping hole in your teams defenses and pretty much no reward for taking advantage of this. 2 cruisers came back and then skirted the objective, not wanting to risk taking torps to delay the cap. It would be great to see strategic gameplay rewarded rather than the current, 'he who hits most wins' when it comes to experience. Thoughts? Regards Pseudo

This is the problem right here, you don't care. Ranked play is for those of us who want to compete and dedicate ourselves to the game. If you've got other commitments, ranked battle isn't for you.

You don't say? Have you ever done coding before? have you seen the formula they use? Yeah I know, if you read the post it says I know about the fancy formula, which means I know about the inputs and variables. I never said the stats are wrong. I said they are misleading. And seems you've got soo much spare time on your hands, please do go and do a statistical analysis on all the possible encounters and come back to me with some hard evidence. I'd love to see it.

I understand how the fire mechanic works, the places fires can be set, I've even seen the formula that takes into consideration the ship resistance and the 'fire suppression' perk. I also have a solid knowledge on statistics, as such probability and chance (or RNG) is something I understand fully. Statistics is the science of data. 8% means approximately 2 out of every 25 shells should start a fire. Now I understand that some shells may have hit the belt armor and that 'they might have been on fire' (they weren't). But giving the high shell arcs of the fletcher it is unlikely that they landed anywhere but the deck. I have no problem with the fire% being so low, my problem is the misleading stats. It is very unlikely if I had an 8% fire chance I would only set 2% worth of fires, especially over a sample of 143 hits, this sample size should have netted me ~11 fires. The fact I only got 2 isn't because of RNG or 'unlucky rolls'. It's because the quoted stats are wrong or at least, misleading.

hi Devs, Just had a round in my Fletcher firing he. 143 hits and 3 fires. The stats say I have an 8% chance of setting a fire, why is it I only get a 2% chance? And yes I realise you have a stupid damage formula that takes into account a lot of factors other than just that. But what is the point of stating there is an 8% chance of a fire? This number means nothing and is miss leading. Also I realise that they might be running fire surpression but still these numbers are way off. Can we please get some meaningful stats? / reworks the %fire Regards Pseudo

Apologies for the 'naming and shaming' wasn't aiming to hurt that player, he may have dropped out or something, wasn't posting to hurt him, I just want to help ranked play and show that it does happen.

Hi Devs Something needs to be done with ranked battles to ensure the players in the game are committed. I don't mind losing, but losing a star because your CV or a BB or even a DD did nothing all game or only started playing 5 mins into the game is not on. My suggestion is to implement a 'spawn in' check, just because they were in the queue does not mean they are still ready to play. Ie check that the players are ready somehow. Failing this, is it possible to make it that if you lose a game because of 1 of these non-players, you do not lose a star? Furthermore, these people should be banned from ranked, i'd even go as far as to say random as well. If they want to play casually, let them play co-op. [content removed] Naming and shaming. Post edited, user warned. ~amade

This is not fair at all. It should be ALL or NONE. The grind in this game is already unreal and this amount of exp is equivalent to gifting someone the exp for 7+ tier 10 ships! NOT FAIR ALL!!!

To me the Kiev should be a dd killer, which it was when it first came out. I never played the Russian DD's when they had the high damage, but now that I'm at the Kiev It feel significantly weaker that I feel it should. The high speed and 2 front turrents means it was built to chase, the problem with the current build is all enemy DD's have ~3km to turn around and high tail it to cover or friendlies. Thus I suggest that 9km spotting distance be reduced, this ship currently does not have an strength to stand on.

,. Thats the thing though, why should higher tier ships cost more to buy repair and upgrade? we don't see any increase in the credits for the round, why should it get harder to play this game? I understand the grind, but the grind has to be fun. I'm currently at t8, the benson, the fletcher is 158,000 experience. Now given I average about 1000 a game thats 158 games, at 20mins a piece ~52hrs that I need to grind the benson, for the experience alone. Now assuming I'm a somewhat dedicated gamer and give the game 5hrs a week, that's around 10 weeks, simply to get the next ship. When you throw in the fact that I'm currently losing money, even in 10 weeks. I won't have enough credits to buy the ship. Ever. I understand that it is free to play, but when you look at the paid model, It's got no value compared to a triple A title. I'd gladly throw $50 at this game if they made it fun. Probably throw $80 to get all the premium ships and more port slots and ease of customisation. I enjoy playing low tiers, but I want to try everything. The only reason to make it such a grind is for those people who need that content for years to come to keep their interests. Those of us who have nothing better to do. I found out about WOWs through youtube, watching people play. The game looked fun and interesting and the guys liked it. What I didn't know was the WG had given them press accounts, which basically gave them everything. This game isn't as fun as it could be. Whoever is on the business side needs to see this, and understand there is an opportunity to make a title that is both fun and profitable.