Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'xp'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Programs Corner
  • Feedback and Support
    • Support
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan and Divisions Hub
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 14 results

  1. The ship XP no longer shows up in the module section, is very inconvenient to keep switching back and forth to see how much XP you have and how much more you need. Would like this to come back!
  2. A total of 60 hits if you count overpens and such. She took first place though with a great team. Every one survived and all were complimented on a great battle. The Mutsu in Aegis is great fun, the torps are even usable a lot of times. 20190905_205926_PJSB506-Mutsu_37_Ridge.wowsreplay
  3. Does anyone know if the xp I get on early access ships stays on them after the line is released or goes to the T1 or something? I got an Izmail and I'm wondering if I should keep grinding out the Xp to get to the T7 or play something else.
  4. leadslinger67

    no game rewards or partial

    I have played and not recieved rewards after completeing game. I also notice i am not receiving full credits when game is completed as well. example . shows i recieved 136,000 credits but my total only went up 32,000. Anyone else experiencing this.
  5. nastydamnanimal

    MM rework POLL !!

    OK how many of you want the MM to be as follows.... Random MM mechanics = same tier and same average xp average xp can be found in your service record btw. Low xp Premium and Armory ship buyers will also have to climb the xp ladder. There is a bunch of them so they will just have to play against eachother and bot fillers until their average xp improves opening up more full pvp no bot filler random games. this is a poll so dont flame me just vote maybe WG will listen? thanks
  6. SteelShadow105


    Ok, I understand that in order to get a good amount of xp you have to get an array of ribbons and deal a good amount of damage. What I don't understand is that I do those very things and yet I still get crapxp. I've played matches before where I did far less, yet still got better rewards. I've never minded having to grind to get through the tech tree, but I've gotten so close to just stop trying because I have matches like this that makes it take Forever to climb up. I still remember how many matches I had to play just to reach Kongo and Myoko. Not to mention the even slower crawl to New Mexico. I've always tried so hard to get as much xp as I can that I don't even play the game anymore, I just play to get damage just so I can get decent progress on a battleship or cruiser that I don't even like playing. I know part of it is just my capabilities as a player, but it isn't always just me. In that match I was the one who had received the most xp for my team, so everyone else on my team, whether the did damage or not, practically received no rewards. That's not even the first match I've seen like that. I've noticed that many matches I've played the most a team would get is around 9-800 xp. How does anyone make progress with that? Even when I do get above 1500 base xp I still feel like I never really got much further. Sure it wouldnt take too long to reach a 100k xp or so to get to your next ship (especially when you have premium), but thats not even including the hulls you have to research, or the other modules just so you can play the ship where it can actually be effective. All I'm trying to get at is that the xp system never seems consistent, and in the end gives so little progress, especially when it comes to new comers trying to get to their ideal ships. If there is any advice on this I am happy to listen.
  7. In recent weeks I've noticed something odd about my commanders. I have a commander on the Nassau working on 41,000 with 10 points. I have a commander on the Konig also working on 41,000 but only has 8 points. The Konig commander is also farther along in XP than the Nassau commander, so I'm stumped by this.
  8. I've never played a CV match. My preferred ship type is DD but I'm not enjoying the new way I'm forced to play them. So I was wondering if the CV players grinding through the lines can tell me about the experience. I dont need to hear from people that had them all previously and have them all again. I want to know how the grind is now and especially what your impressions are on the low tiers post hotfix .8.0.1 My assumption: - XP seems to be extremely low for CVs per match. This would mean that it would be a long and tedious grind. Since most of XP is based off damage dealt coupled with the fact that WG is doing everything possible to take alpha away from planes post rework (which I disagree with) I would think having high XP games is going to get more difficult...even more so after hotfix. Thoughts on all that? I really dont want to quit this game and the British CV line looks interesting so if you can't beat them join them right?!? In regard to the hotfix I personally think they went too far. It was correct to make AA more continous DOT and less flak bursts but now they need to buff plane HP or give speed/aim time a buff to balance that out to give planes less time over target or more "armor" to absorb the damage. Certainly a step in the right direction overall though and a lot of the hotfix implementation was right on the money.
  9. Elo_J_Fudpucker

    Z-46 - XP Machina

    ..just an average game... or was it?
  10. _RC1138

    Submarine Trees

    So with most people seemingly embracing subs as fun, and, while of course tweaks would be needed (I mean in general, do any of the ships in the Halloween Ops work 1:1 the way normal ships in normal modes work?) I think it can be safe to say that Wargaming has proven that, within the established mechanics, subs can work. The rest, aka the most difficult part, is balancing between each other/other classes/broader rebalancing around them. But let's pretend, for a moment, such a thing is 'easy' and rectified; what do you see the tech trees looking like? When you stop and consider it, there are actually an abnormally high amount of sub classes and members of those classes, to say nothing of famous outliers like the Surcouf. And yes, there are MORE than enough subs for a few nations (US and RN especially) to have more than 1 line (how they would differentiate them, perhaps with different torp types or things of that nature, is anyones' guess). The beautiful thing about subs is, baring a few cases, almost NO paper ships are required, more than can be said of almost ANY surface ship line. Now the trees I propose, obviously take with a grain of salt, are predicated on one common idea: that *historical* submarine speeds will not be adhered to and instead artificial speeds will be chosen on the basis of balance; so for example a Gato couldn't go at 27 knots on the surface, but for balance purposes, if it's at T8/9, it probably should. My justification for this change? If DD's can get unlimited torps (as would subs), and DD's get stealth field generators, and BB's get (mostly) the unique ability to heal, and (soon) CV's will have unlimited planes, and it's HE, not AP, that starts fires, and the million or so OTHER things ignored for balance purposes, I feel giving subs a little kick in the [edited]for surface speeds is NOT a huge ask. So to start, because I know this is where WGing would, my proposed RU Sub tree is as follows: Tier III: Osetr Class; a good semi-mini Sub with 3 tubes, 2 fore, 1 aft, typical of what I assume a TIII sub would have to be (much like how TIII DD's are). Tier IV: My gut says the Akula, but they may want that for a Premium, so failing that the Kaiman class could fit at T4, although it's still more of a mini-sub than a full patrol sub. Tier V: Bars Class; about as big of a WWI sub as you'd expect to see and slow diving will make her interesting at T5 Tier VI: Dekabrist Class; very likely the T6 (in fact the one I am most sure of) as this is kinda exactly what a Post WWI RU Sub would be expected to be like; for reference, it's very close to an S-Boat in capability, and was fairly modern in design for the time. Tier VII: Shchuka Class; solid Tier VII; very much a pre-War boat, not flashy, but fairly modern layout for the year of launch Tier VIII: S-Class; basically a German Type IX. This isn't supposition either; these boats were developed alongside Germany and really were basically a Soviet made Type IX. Likely a solid T8 based on the size of the torp armament and the assumed jump in underwater ability/range Tier IX: K-Class; honestly this is a tough one; they were great boats, but at TIX might be a bit too far for them. It's not hard to expect Russian subs to get some fantasy upgrades beyond that of their peers, but the K-Class is tough to place; either a strong T8 or a weak T9. The Whiskey, although much newer, could fit here with the Zulu after but that might require some downgrading. Tier X: Zulu Class; I imagine most of the Tier X's would be soon-ish post war designs, and most, if not all, of them will CLOSELY resemble the Type XXI's, because of how influential these were, and the Zulu's are basically the Soviet version of the Type XXI. If the Zulu's are too large/too many tubes, then a Whiskey Class can fit in snugly for largely the same reasons. Royal Navy Tier III: D-Class; heavier than most Tier 3's but it can be balanced with so-so torps Tier IV: E-Class; stereotypical WWI era RN Boat Tier V: L-Class; On par with other Tier V's, especially by having the RN Mk II 21" Torp Tier VI: S-Class; one of the most work-horse like subs in the world Tier VII: T-Class; a hard to maneuver but hard hitting Alpha strike capable sub Tier VIII: V-Class; what else would be the RN T8? Tier IX: Amphion Class; about as heavy of a WWII sub as you're going to find outside an Axis Nation Tier X: Again, as usual, it's a Type XXI derivative, the Porpoise Class KM Tier III: Has to be U1. A bit underpowered for Tier III? Yep, but the first German boat HAS to be the U1. Tier IV: Type 19; ironically a bit more powerful perhaps than the other Tier 4's (and more flexiable with equal aft and fore tubes) Tier V: Type UBIII; heavy for a Tier V with a big old deck gun, but this is the stereotypical WWI era U-Boat. Tier VI: Type IA; although newer than most T6 boats, she was basically a rebuild of WWI era boats Tier VII: This is the tough spot. Do you make it the Type VIIC? Is a Type VIIC op for Tier 7? It might be, but here it goes Tier VIII: If the Type VIIC is too strong for T7, then it goes here (with the Type IID at T7); otherwise, this might be the only Paper sub needed; either a Type VIII or Type IX with some kind of downgrade for balance Tier IX: Type IXC; similar to, but far more flexible than, the Gato class. Tier X: Obviously, the Type XXI; it keeps coming up for a reason USN Tier III: C-Class; oh how I want the Holland to be in the game, but the sad fact is she would struggle at T2, much less T3; the C-Class is the earliest USN Sub class that resembles a WWI era sub Tier IV: L-Class; rare Tier IV with a deck gun (which I think will be the US 'thing') Tier V: S-Class; these were great boats, serving all the way into WWII. Could be OP for T5 depending on how they are implemented (otherwise it would be an R at T5 and the S at T6). Tier VI: Salmon Class: This is when the US started designing boats as 'Fleet Boats' and were comparatively heavier armed than most other nations. Tier VII: Tambor Class; very heavy torp armament for a T6 and super long ranged, probably one of the most successful interwar Subs Tier VIII: Gato; yeah this one's tough too, as a Gato can be tuned to be very powerful at T8 or T9, but I think of T8 as when the 'real' ships show up and future USN Subs followed the Gato (with a Guppy upgrade) example for many decades to follow Tier IX: Balao w/ Guppy IIA upgrade; while technically post war, compared to other T9's this sub will be trading any chance of AA/surface fighting ability for longer undersea time w/ the USN standard of very heavy armaments Tier X: Part of me really thinks it should be the Nautilus, although balancing an SSN at even TX would be hard due to 'unlimited' dive time (but for fairness, light for T10 torp armaments to say nothing of being oversized and an easier target). There might be a way to do it but that's up to WGing, the Tang-Class is the most appropriate probably because, you guessed it, it's basically an americanized Type XXI. IJN Tier III: You *maybe* could do a Type I, with some futzing with torps/spotting to make it fair, otherwise it's a bit underpowered at T3; it's basically a Holland (spoiler alert: until ~WWII, almost all IJN subs are basically 1:1 copies of foreign made subs) Tier IV: Ha-3 Class; a C-Class (Royal Navy) sub. Very much what I would expect a Tier 4 Tier V: Ha-7 Class; Basically a home-made Ha-3; give it better torps Tier VI: S7 Type; kinda small, but it gets Type 93's so it's hard to complain Tier VII: Kaidai Type II, very heavy deck gun and torp armament, as the IJN Subs start to transfer into being oversized Tier VIII: J1; the IJN would never look back from basically building undersea cruisers Tier IX: I-400; oversized? Yes. TX material? Maybe. Should it be a Tier 9 though? Yep Tier X: I-201, although not STRICTLY a Type XXI it was basically developed on a parallel course and might as well just be a Type XXI; a speed demon in her own right, this is a *solid* TX boat, even compared to post war entries. French Tier III: Tier IV: Tier V: Tier VI: Tier VII: Tier VIII: Tier IX: Tier X:
  11. Quick question - multiple flags provide different credit value for additional XP based on the flag. If two flags are mounted that provide additional XP for a Commander, example: The Hydra Flag provides +150% of the battle experience and Leviathan Flag gives +100% from the battle. If the Commander XP was 2,300 for a battle - is that 150% x 2,300 = 3,450 then + 100% of 2,300 or 3,450 / or is it calculated as 250% of 2,300 which equals 5,750?
  12. fruitcake2014

    XP gain

    Hello everyone recently i played a game of random i had 4 kills and a devastating strike when the match ended and we won i only got 900 EXP. Why is that? I am confused because i also had flags on can someone explain why i did not get more?
  13. People claim there's an XP bonus when a lower tier ship damages an upper tier one. The simple fact of the matter is that a bonus doesn't exist unless it's clearly apparent to the players. There is no reason being undertiered in a match should be something people beshrew. It could easily be changed to seem like an opportunity rather than a curse. In the battle results screen, add an XP and credits bonus for ships that are 1 or 2 tiers down in a battle. Maybe +10% for 1 tier, +20% for 2. (modified, of course, by premium) This would definitely help damper a bit of the MM complaints we see so much and it's trivial to do. If there's an economy concern, just take the "hidden" xp bonus and make it unhidden so people can see it.
  14. Do bottom tier players get an XP bonus? I have heard essentially folklore about this ... no confirmation. In the spirit of being open and encouraging players to not exit out of a game; a definitive statement from WG would be nice. Even better would be if WoWS told a player : "Tier V in a Tier VII match you get +x% XP bonus"