Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

636 Excellent

About Litigo_1970

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,258 profile views
  1. Groningen > Marco Polo Salem > Max Immelmann
  2. Spend all the coal/doubloons you can on any ship on the Xmas list that you don't already have, excluding only the last 3/4 tier 9 ships as you approach completion, so you can drive the selection mechanic on Xmas containers to those few remaining T9 ships to maximize value on your Xmas box return. Save Steel and RB points for ships you actually desire. Ohio, Bourgogne and Stalingrad are the best. Pas son Colbert and Slava: Hard pass on FDR. Only spend steel on ships when you have a 25% off coupon active. Reset at least one ship line each research bureau cycle. Do a split line if you want to do 2 or more resets per cycle. Stack resets without purchasing ships if want to do more than 3 per cycle.
  3. Litigo_1970

    Coal Ships 2022?

    I didn't appreciate the magnitude of the rocket nerf until I took Big E out to shake off a snowflake. I have every CV in the game, so I have a pretty good frame of reference, I just don't play CV's often. The rocket nerf basically destroyed the utility of the plane class. WG would have been better to just remove them. I understand that WG wanted to increase sales of soviet CVs with their skip bombers, and nerfing rocket planes accomplished that, but did they have to functionally destroy an entire plane type to do it?
  4. This raises an interesting question. There are ships in this game that you can generally only score a citadel hit on when you catch them healed over in a turn. GK Springs to mind. When the ship heals over significantly while in a hard turn, it can raise a submerged citadel out of the water enough that you can hit it, when under normal circumstances you could not. If the new water effects have replaced or altered the healing over effect, that may have significantly changed the vulnerability, or lack thereof, of a not insignificant number of ships.
  5. Litigo_1970

    Welcome our new Community Manager, Ahskance

    Excellent choice by Wargaming. Ahskance is knowledgeable, experienced, and has demonstrated an ability to tolerate criticism, without permitting toxicity, on his Twitch stream and Discord channel. This is a strong step in the right direction for Wargaming and they would do well to hire more community managers like Ahskance. Wargaming needs representatives with people management skills, strong game knowledge, and extensive personal play experience in actual battles. Ahskance delivers all three. Well done Wargaming. Welcome Ahskance.
  6. Litigo_1970

    Black Friday drop rates from the Asia server

    So if I am reading that correctly, the chances of getting a ship in one of the Black Friday containers earned through missions (non premium) is: 1/3 of one percent? Basically 1 in 300 (thank you forumites) Is that right?
  7. Litigo_1970

    Idea to improve american subs

    Someone burn this post with fire before WGing sees it.
  8. Litigo_1970

    Glorious Wargaming Matchmaking

    Were you running dragon flags or type 59 camo? It makes more of a difference than you would expect. My bona fides: 470+ ships in port. 15,000+ games played. I have reground the Japanese DD lines enough times to own all the RB ships except Seigfreid. I know the IJN DD lines well. I noticed that when I loaded up full dragon flags and type 59 camo to grind exp, my win rate dropped dramatically. As an experiment, I continued tracking my win rate over the last few months between games with full dragon flags and type 59 camo, vs with no flags. Sample size is 312 games. (played far more games that 312, but only 312 that were either FULL flags, or NO flags) Same ships, same captains, same game mode. Generally same time of day. With no flags, my win rate was just under 80% With full dragon flags and type 59 camo, my win rate was 11% Most of the losses when running full dragon flags and type 59 camo were complete blow outs. Frequently the entire team would earn less than 600 bxp each. My average experience across all losses was less than 700 base. These were tier 7-10 random matches. Try it yourself.
  9. Litigo_1970

    WG, I approve of the new anti-torp consumable

    Best. Torp. Beat. EVER
  10. Litigo_1970

    Is Aiming Messed up in 1.10.10?

    It occurs to me that this bug might be occuring only in games that include submarines. That might explain why we players are reporting not experienceing the bug in the training soom with only surface ships. If WGing has messed with the aiming assist, to enable shots aimed at submarines to drop into the water to strike the sub at periscope depth, this may be causing all manner of aiming problems. Players, when you observe the aiming bug, check and see if there is a sub in game.
  11. Litigo_1970

    Is Aiming Messed up in 1.10.10?

    Me too. Well aimed salvos were landing every shot short in the water. Now I just aim mid ship and hope for the best. It's basically a lottery at this point. SO either WG really screwed up something related to aiming in this latest patch, or WGing is doing a much poorer job of deluding us into thinking our individual efforts have an effect on which team wins. At this point, I suspect a little of both. I can tell with almost 100% accuracy which team will win a tier ten match just by watching how my first 3-4 salvos land. The difference is huge.
  12. Think of it from a financing perspective. You go to a bank for a loan against future income. You explain that your game has 5 million players, who play 500 million tier ten games games a month. If you tell the bank that you "expect" those players to buy a certain number of doubloons, the bank says, ok, I accept 500 million games played per month, but how many doubloons do those players have to buy to play those games? the answer"none". The bank then ask, well, how much premium time do those players have to buy to play those 500 million games? the answer "none". But you tell the bank that each player MUST pay 180,000 credits in service costs for EACH tier ten game they play, (or they cannot play at all) AND that you currently sell those credits for $99.99 for 62,000,000, and the bank can do some basic math and will likely loan you ALOT more money.
  13. Wargaming's ever increasing greed is backfiring, as usual. When they removed signal flag rewards for acheivements, I didn't start to buy more flags for credits; rather, I stopped regularly using flags on every game, and stop buying flags for credits entirely. I suspect many other long term players did the same. It is yet another example of Wargaming's short term thinking backfiring and decreasing revenue, rather than increasing revenue. The large signal bundle is the same. By removing one flag, but leaving the price the same, and INTENTIONALLY not mentioning the change in the description, many repeat purchasers who didn't pay close enough attention got short changed by WGing, yet again. So besides further alienating the long term player base, yet again, WGing has signifigantly reduced the value of the bundle, and fewer players will buy them now.
  14. Litigo_1970


    I would have purchased Tulsa, but the last minute nerf to her ROF was just too much. It took her from an average ship, to well below average. Pass.