Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

149 Valued poster

About Baskerville77

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

806 profile views
  1. Aside from those being as common as oxygen, you can buy those for credits in game, at 22,500 per camo. The exact same as a premium consumable, in fact. In addition, all premium camouflage is the exact same as the standard version in terms of effect on the game. So, no, still not pay to win.
  2. Baskerville77


    In every game there that wasn't tier 10, you made money. As everyone keeps telling you, tier 10 is very expensive to run. It is completely possible to lose credits with a premium account if you do badly, even in randoms. Co-op pays significantly worse, to the point it's hard to make credits at all in the higher tiers. You can either play randoms more, play lower tier co-op more, or buy more service cost reducing flags or camo. In any case, support will not be able to help you, because everything is working as intended.
  3. Baskerville77


    How about you listen to what people are telling you in the other thread you made? Your question was answered there.
  4. Baskerville77


    Service fees are fixed now. You get charged the same no matter if you never take a hit or if you get sunk. Nothing about the economy changed in the last patch. Playing T10 co-op is a recipe for going broke, unless you have a premium acount and load up on cost reducing flags and camo. It has always been that way, nothing about that has changed.
  5. I cannot believe we have to keep explaining this. THOSE ARE NOT PAY TO WIN, BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE YOU ANY MORE LIKELY TO WIN! A ship running all economic flags with an experience boosting camouflage on a premium account is not any different in battle than the same ship without flags using the type 5 camo available for credits on a regular account. If you have a problem with people being able to pay to speed up grinding, that's fine. You won't have any luck convincing people of your point of view, considering that pretty much the best way to monetize a F2P game, but at least you would actually be complaining about a real thing. People hate pay-to-win because it allows you to substitute money for in game skill. In the worst cases, you can't win with skill, only money. Now, explain to me how increased credit and EXP gain devalue in-game skill.
  6. I guess pigs are flying, because none of what you listed are pay to win. In a game like WoWs, where ships are (supposed to be) matched against ships of roughly equivalent strength, lessening the time it takes to move up does not make you more likely to win. In fact, you can make an argument that a ship loaded with economic flags is less likely to win than a ship that isnt, because the other ship can mount more battle flags. (Battle flags are not up for sale with real money, BTW, because WoWs is generally good about not being pay to win.) You don't seem to know what pay to win is. Please tell me how any of the things you listed make you actually more likely to win in an actual match. Only thing I can think of is boosting past stock configurations, but you can do that without spending a dime.
  7. Baskerville77

    WOWS Destroyers are OBNOXIOUSLY overpowered

    Didn't you just get a thread locked for this? In any case, a "realistic" fleet combat game would be a terrible multiplayer game, considering how long most battles lasted and how few shots actually connected. So stop trying to use realism as a crutch to try to get a ship type you don't play nerfed. Edit: In addition, there can be multiples of ships that never even existed from opposing nations fighting on the same side. Hanging a flag from a ship makes it go faster or have better AA. Decompressed citadels are a disadvantage, despite compact citadels being vulnerable to chain reactions. And yet, you don't care about realism in those cases. Could it be because those benifit the ships you play? I wonder.
  8. Baskerville77

    High tier cruisers...Useless?

    I think the biggest problem for them is the lack of heal. If they take a big hit early on, they have to play super cautious because they can't rely on stealth or armor to help them. (Also, I'm pretty sure any BB is much more leathal than a criuser. Did you mean Des Moines instead of Montana?) But, no, cruisers from tier 7 and up are most definitely not useless. They might be a bit harder to play, but we wouldn't have nearly as many threads crying about radar if they were useless.
  9. I've seen it done with the Cleveland, but any light criuser with shorter range and slow shells can do it. The NDJ/Bosie is good at it, thanks to the short range, number of guns, and shell flight time.
  10. I'm not sure if any site has an out and out list of that, but if you use this site: https://wowsft.com/shipStatComparison You can see if any given ship can stealth torp with a given build. It's very usefull.
  11. Khaba and Harugamo are the only two DDs that still can take regular pens from battleships, at least according to patch notes. I haven't tested it myself.
  12. Baskerville77


    I play it for the excellent smoke and deep-water torps. It doesn't hurt that the higher tiers are excellent gunboats as well. Most people care more about the gameplay than how or where the ships were built, and of those that do, at least some of them must be interested in one or more of the nations represented by the line.
  13. Baskerville77

    Torpedo Speed

    This. The distances are compressed, so you need to factor that in. Here: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Torpedoes#Reaction_Time That page should give you a more accurate formula to use.
  14. Baskerville77

    Rant Time

    Most of what I was going to say has been said already, so I'm just gonna gonna give my two cents on two points. Eh, for the most part I think the national flavors are fine. Personally, the biggest issue hear is how bland the origanal two line, USN and IJN, are. Then again, I don't really play either, so take my view there with a grain of salt. But I disagree with you on the citadels and secondarys of German BBs not being unique. The German turtleback armor scheme is the best at preventing citadels at close range, to the point that I'm genuinely shocked whenever I score one one them at ranges over 11-12 KM. Even the underwater citadels of other nations can be beaten if you know where to aim. As for the secondarys, the German line is really the only one that can make use of them. It all comes down to the increased penetration of the secondarys, even more than the range. French BBs might have better range, but because they NEED IFHE to damage most ships, (even destroyers for the smaller guns), generally they are worthless except for starting fires, and not worth the deep skill point investment. Plus, their vulnerability to HE spam means ships without fire prevention are gonna die quick. I gotta disagree here as well. Unless you're in the Yamato, shooting AP at a bow tanking BB is pretty much a waste of time. Just fire your AP at his turrets, hopefully disabling at least one, and make your next shot HE. Heck, you could shoot that AP at a different, juicier target before switching. After that, unload HE into their snout. It's more consistent, even discounting the chance to set fires. But I really do like you point about putting penatration data in game. I hate it when games hide crucial data away on third party sites, if they even release it at all. Plus one for that.
  15. Baskerville77

    Random Battle Anomalies

    I thought you were talking about secret bots, not the obvious ones that are clearly marked as such that are put in for the protection of new players. Everyone knows about those. In addition, there are an equivalent amount of bots on both teams in all of those pictures, so how is this supposed to be rigging the battle? Heck, if you want to prove your theory, not only would you have to somehow find out what flags every player is flying, and find out what "players" are actually bots with a more fool proof method than "they didn't respond to me in chat," you would need to do this over several hundred games to prove that these weren't just statistical flukes. You would also need to post your data for everyone to see, and that would probably take more space than the forum allows. I suggest Reddit. But seeing as how you seem to still be on the "say things and show pictures that don't make any sense," might we expect that post soon? Or at least a link? Please hurry, I can't stand the suspense.