• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

131 Valued poster


About UltimateNewbie

  1. I shall implement your sage wisdom immediately!
  2. Kevik, what is the best way to avoid torpedoes? I've tried waiting until they're just about to hit me before giving them a full broadside with my guns, but despite the water splashes it appears to have no effect. Is there a way to increase the pen of my shells under water?
  3. Good question. I like Leander, Scharnhorst and Fiji. When I get really annoyed and lose in all three of the above, only then I bust out my Clemson for seal clubbing (also because the Clemson is fun!) - though the above three are more fun to play. When I lose in the Clemson, I log off. Clearly I'm not with it today.
  4. Hahhahaha, wow that looks hilarious! Great idea!
  5. Very nice. I earnt mine all the way - got to it about two days ago. :)
  6. I dont think its a real problem, even new players burn past player level 11 pretty fast.
  7. This patch appears to have b0rked the post-battle display of names... the team on the right is mostly unreadable. I realise you're trying to improve it, but grateful for the team to take another pass at it? I think the key thing is mainly to just make the name area wider, on both sides. Thanks,
  8. Ouch. Very stern. I suppose that's why they moved away from open air AA mounts on the more modern ships... Good thing BBs were all scrapped and carriers became a Thing, eh?
  9. I think the ratings system assumes that these things are turned on, and rates the games accordiingly. So it would still have the same negative marketing impact. Still, I agree it would be a nice change to have. All those little helmets looking up at the sky as the AA guns are blazing...
  10. I agree it would be nice, but I think I read someting along the lines of it affecting the ratings that WoWS gets if it involves "people" getting killed/blown up/drowned/hurt etc (ie, move it up from PG to M or whatever) which impacts on their ability to market the game more broadly. On that basis, they probably wont do it anytime soon.
  11. Fair point 25 per cent extra credits is substantial, but is it not easier to do more damage/take caps in a Tirpitz than a Kii thus generating higher income? And if memory serves, that special Kii camo only came with the US$100 Kii bundle; you could almost buy the Tirp AND the Scharn for that and be running them in parallel (ie, die - return to port, grab other ship) for more overall credits and fun! Edit: Still, I fixed my post above.
  12. I understand the dilemma. I have both ships, and in terms of gameplay the Scharnhorst is simply much more fun than the Tirpitz. For quite a while, I had purchase regret with the Tirpitz, though since the Missions have been introduced, the extra free XP camo, and the (not really necessary) buff to secondaries range, it does have its uses. Ultimately, you wont really waste money getting both, tbh. They do play quite differently from eachother - the Scharnhorst is an armoured cruiser and needs to be actively driven to get the best out of her, and the Tirpitz is more of a conventional battleship whose guns are a bit on the weak/wonky side. I'd summarise them like this: Scharnhorst More fun to play, and you find yourself needing to actively drive the ship - switching between AP and HE (for bow on BBs etc) and getting in closer to caps, working as a team. Higher direct impact on the game, as your faster reloading and strong secondaries means you can really hurt DDs, even with AP. Your enemies are generally significantly weaker than you - the enjoyment of chasing down a Colorado late battle and torping her is just great. Your main guns are wonky and sometimes you'll miss shots that you really shouldnt, which is partially offset by having more guns (than the Gniesenau). But your AA isnt strong, and you dont uptier as well as you need to fire HE at everything and you catch fire a lot. You earn solid credits Tirpitz Less active to play, but you can bow-in charge enemy battleships (ideally late battle) as they cant overmatch your bow. You mainly fire AP at cruisers or BBs though. Your secondaries are much better, and you are more dangerous in a brawl (due to secondary range and an extra torpedo per side) Your enemies are generally stronger than you - fires set by your secondaries will contribute a material amount of your overal damage, but most battles you'll die even though the enemy cant really citadel you. The question is how much damage you do first. Your main guns are wonky and about once per match you'll simply want to execute your gunnery officers. Sometimes three times a match. You AA is weak; you are a magnet for enemy carriers (particularly those with AP bombs). You earn very good credits; only outmatched by the T9 Missouri (and the T8 Kii if you have the expensive camo). Importantly, your ship can be used to grind the Yamamoto missions, which involve a LOT of grinding. Both ships are great German battleship captain trainers - no special quirks required. So: fun, effectiveness at tier (Scharnhorst), credits and mission grinding (Tirpitz). Ultimately, get both. Good luck.
  13. I admit, it has been quite a while since I played the New York; however it is not immediately clear to me how the Texas and the NY do not play the same, at least in surface combat that translates to damage dealt recorded by those stat websites. And perhaps I should have used "essentially" the same, instead of "functionally" the same. But that still doesn't overcome the key issue: the key difference in performance is the players and not the ship, though I do acknowledge the stock grind (which typically matters less in WoWS than in WoT).
  14. Obviously. It has a slightly better traverse on its middle turret too. But those differences are why I didn't say they were identical; instead opting for functionally identical. AA guns don't directly add to the damage totals, other than perhaps keeping you alive a touch longer against tier 4/5 carriers. Tier 7 carriers will still spank you in a Texas. Again, obviously. But new players could, if they wanted to waste money on it, get those things. The issue here is that people were arguing that the New York is rubbish and needed a buff and that it's not OK if you played it right. That argument is incorrect. Just as it is incorrect to argue that the Kongo should be buffed to ARP Kongo levels cos of the large difference in win rate and damage. Again, the ships are identical. The ships don't need a buff; the players do.
  15. On this occasion you are not correct. The Texas is a functionally identical ship other than being played by a bunch of new players. Texas: 53% WR, 39.8k damage. NY: 47.8% WR, 28k damage. If NY players used their ship like Texas players, they'd also do well and be borderline OP for the tier and class.