Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
paradat

5.12 video from Dasha

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6,394
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
17,120 posts
25,118 battles

I am sure this will show up on the portal... but meh not there yet so here you go.

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Hmm no mention of Brit CL's or IJN DD's

Edited by paradat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,046 posts
2,264 battles

*inhales*

 

Do you smell that? That's the smell of the ocean of tears the BBs will be crying when this update hits. It is wonderful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,064 posts
1,925 battles

I am sure this will show up on the portal... but meh not there yet so here you go.

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Hmm no mention of Brit CL's or IJN DD's

 

Oh, dear. WG buffed a premium ship.(that I have! :trollface:)

 

"Arizona: gained additional thickness to upper part of citadel's transverse armor protection, from 203mm to 330mm according to historical armor layout"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,183
[SYN]
[SYN]
Beta Testers
2,565 posts
15,411 battles

Did they change the voice over talent? It sounds somewhat forced.

 

To lead a flank attack on a battleship?

 

 

That will be new.

Edited by chewonit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,465 posts
4,344 battles

No mention of Montana's deck armor?

 

Also YESSSS REWARD ME FOR MURDERING FACE AT CLOSE RANGES

Edited by Mavairo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,067 posts
2,554 battles

 

Hmm no mention of Brit CL's or IJN DD's

In the notes: HMS Perth and IJN DDs with Branch change up will be tested. So we *may* see them in matches, but they are not live yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,465 posts
4,344 battles

They stated last week they dropped the idea of changing BB Armour. the test showed no difference in play.:look:

 

Montana: Armor thickness of armored deck increased to a thickness of 38mm compared to the previous 28mm. This will slightly increase the ship's survivability and make in-game model closer to the data on design used by the developers

 

just found it. they posted up on the site now. Sweet.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
560
[SFBBW]
Beta Testers
1,325 posts
10,907 battles

Economy changes for carriers - IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME!!!! I've never played carriers, but I've said since CBT that carrier players needed to be more equitably rewarded for aircraft kills, spotting, etc, and that they were getting shafted with some of the highest repair bills in the game. Glad to see the CV jockeys finally getting a little love.

As far as the overall economy changes for in-game activity as far as spotting, recon, damage done, etc - I'm going to reserve judgement until I see how it plays out live - but my gut feeling from the way it's worded is that this is more stick than carrot - as if WG is saying "play the game the way WE want you to play it, and you'll get the same old-same old level of credits and xp - if not, you'll just end up getting the shaft".

Buffing a premium ship, the Arizona? Ummm, even though I own one, I'm not sure this is such a good idea. It could open up a whole can of worms. Go watch the latest "Mingles with Jingles", and pay note to what is said about the KV-5 in WoT - they did a major buff to it's armor earlier in the year, it's created something of a controversy, and WG is saying they don't know what to do about it, as it's a premium and they don't want to nerf it - even though they buffed it from what it originally was when they first offered it for sale years ago - the whole issue of people who bought it between the buff and now. I'd rather not see a similar controversy with the Arizona, or with any other ship in this game for that matter. At least in this case, they do have the "historical configuration" card to play.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,394
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
17,120 posts
25,118 battles

In the notes: HMS Perth and IJN DDs with Branch change up will be tested. So we *may* see them in matches, but they are not live yet.

 

Yeah I saw that. Bit disappointing, but I guess It is good. I would rather have them correct than fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
501 posts
2,429 battles

*inhales*

 

Do you smell that? That's the smell of the ocean of tears the BBs will be crying when this update hits. It is wonderful.

 

Why will BBs be crying about this update, as far as I can see scraped the armor nerf and German BBs get better accuracy up close. Hell, Nagato, Montana, and Arizona got buffed too.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
560
[SFBBW]
Beta Testers
1,325 posts
10,907 battles

 

Why will BBs be crying about this update, as far as I can see scraped the armor nerf and German BBs get better accuracy up close. Hell, Nagato and Arizona got buffed too.

 

I think he's referencing the economy changes - supposedly only doing long range sniping will result in a credit and xp nerf as far as game results you'll see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[_TWP_]
Members
611 posts
6,858 battles

Why will BBs be crying about this update, as far as I can see scraped the armor nerf and German BBs get better accuracy up close. Hell, Nagato, Montana, and Arizona got buffed too.

 

I was wondering the same thing. What are battleship players supposed to be upset about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,455
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
3,985 posts
2,373 battles

Why will BBs be crying about this update, as far as I can see scraped the armor nerf and German BBs get better accuracy up close. Hell, Nagato, Montana, and Arizona got buffed too.

I think he's referencing the economy changes - supposedly only doing long range sniping will result in a credit and xp nerf as far as game results you'll see.

I was wondering the same thing. What are battleship players supposed to be upset about?

 

Most of that individual's posts are better off ignored.

 

In fact, this one reeks of nothing more than:

rQZCZiG.jpg

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
501 posts
2,429 battles

 

I think he's referencing the economy changes - supposedly only doing long range sniping will result in a credit and xp nerf as far as game results you'll see.

 

 

In that case I hope it forces BBs into the breach it will improve BB fun for me not the opposite.

 

 

I was wondering the same thing. What are battleship players supposed to be upset about?

 

As a BB player I really look forward to it. And as a DD player that new module looks fun for dodging torps and main battery fire lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,455
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
3,985 posts
2,373 battles

In that case your game name is my favorite I have seen so far lol. Have you gotten to Blood in the Water?

 

Lol, thanks!

 

As for Blood in the Water, just recently started it, so no spoilers please.

 

(Sorry about getting off-topic.  For those wondering what the hell we're talking about, check out the Destroyermen series.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
437
[ANKER]
Members
1,196 posts
6,289 battles

*inhales*

 

Do you smell that? That's the smell of the ocean of tears the BBs will be crying when this update hits. It is wonderful.

 

44585889.jpg

 

Why will BBs be crying about this update, as far as I can see scraped the armor nerf and German BBs get better accuracy up close. Hell, Nagato, Montana, and Arizona got buffed too.

58293588.jpg

 

I was wondering the same thing. What are battleship players supposed to be upset about?

1c83e1c0388b35d43f2401543c9e214fb31892ce

 

Most of that individual's posts are better off ignored.

 

In fact, this one reeks of nothing more than:

rQZCZiG.jpg

f7FdEdG.jpg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×