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


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 11 results

  1. Elo_J_Fudpucker

    Z-46 - XP Machina

    ..just an average game... or was it?
  2. JdeMolay

    XP and tanking

    I just played a game in my Gnevny. (gunboat build) We lost a couple of ships very early. I proceeded to speed into enemy's back yard at their flank and start pew pewing them. I kept them all lit and trying to hit me for the rest of the game. I had 700K potential damage aimed at my little 15K Gnevny damage and by keeping them lit and shooting at me we caught them and beat them. I did 41K actual damage and lived. However I was disappointed in the xp awarded as I felt I had really contributed to the win in a big way. So it got me thinking... Should WG award more XP to all classes on potential damage..especially if you survive? We all complain about BB's camping and so forth. Would this not be a way to encourage tanking and action versus camping and sniping? Damage dealt does not tell the whole story in a battle IMO. Thoughts?
  3. _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:
  4. Laddie_McCabe

    FLAG CALCULATIONS

    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?
  5. Can anyone explain how this makes sense. Please remember this is not a full battle but ranked. So keep in mind that numbers all around will be lower. I had a pretty good match in ranked(I understand I am not unicum), I fully expected to get either top xp or maybe second, remote possibly of third. This I can understand and easily have lived with. but to have a game like that and get 5th is a real problem. Also notice I almost did 4X the damage as the hit point of my ship. I understand that alot of people might think I am just winning but I promise I am not. I have had 7 battles in ranked were I had awesome games and lost the top XP spot to Conquerors that sit in the back at the edge of the map and farm damage. Is that the game that Wargaming wants were skill means next to nothing? Destroyers are already hard enough to play given the direction of the game but now if you play one expect to get little or no XP for your effort. Something has to change.
  6. I have the new Cleveland and have enjoyed playing it so far. I generated enough ship points to unlock the Seattle, but have read less than stellar reviews on it. In many ways I'd prefer to skip the Seattle (not purchase it) and focus on putting all resources behind getting the Worchester. If I continue to play the Cleveland and accrue ship points can I then apply them toward unlocking the Worchester (understanding I've already unlocked the Seattle). Or, are the points I earn with the Cleveland only good for unlocking the Seattle--and could not be used to unlock the Worchester? Make sense? Thanks in advance!
  7. So just had a decent Fletch game for a win. There have been multiple threads about the lack of XP for DDs here recently doing what DDs do. Here is another. So if I hadn't had premium negative cash huh. I'm sorry, but in this rediculous radar heavy meta that is all DD players get for that? I think average damage for Fletch is about 40k.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 136k spotting damage. Nearly last place. 134k spotting. 87k damage. 1 Kill. Middle of the pack. 35k Spotting 1 solo cap (60 cap points) 23k Damage. 0 Kills. Second to last. Did WG disable rewards for capping and spotting or is this a bug? Seems like kills and damage are the only things that increase score.
  11. 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"
×