Jump to content


About crew skills


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

Gnaal #1 Posted 04 October 2019 - 11:07 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11555 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    01-27-2018

So today I wanted to check if BIA gave its bonus if the crew wasn't at 100% main skill (but with 100% BIA of course), and it does. However while fiddeling around I noticed something weird.

 

I below have screenshots from two tanks, both have <100% training, but >100% effective skill on commander .

T28 Conc: 91+15 (vents + cola)

SAu 40: 98 + 10 (vents + bia)

(the rest are all +-1% on both tanks)

 

T28C shows penalties for all stats for having crew skills below 100, SAu 40 does not. I would have assumed that this would be the same for both tanks, since they're both the same with regards to being below 100% in training, but over 100% in effective skill.

 

My guess is that BIA is taken into account for this penalty (maybe because it's a modifier on the crew itself), but Cola is not. Vents is still unknown since I have no tanks where I can compare with this alone pushing sub 100 above 100 (it only pushes it to ~96 on T28).

 

What is even weirder is that BIA is not only removing the small penalty which should be there, but it also gives its own bonus on top of that. Anyone knows what is up with this?

 

 

Also a side question, I had always assumed that e.g. 5% extra crew skill would give a 5% boost to the primary skills, but I also read today that this is only 2.3%, which seems to be correct. Is there any explanation for this? I mean it might make sense to say that anything above 100% is halved, but it's not, why 2.3%?

 

 

 



Homer_J #2 Posted 04 October 2019 - 11:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 32930 battles
  • 36,128
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostGnaal, on 04 October 2019 - 11:07 PM, said:

 

Also a side question, I had always assumed that e.g. 5% extra crew skill would give a 5% boost to the primary skills, but I also read today that this is only 2.3%, which seems to be correct. Is there any explanation for this? I mean it might make sense to say that anything above 100% is halved, but it's not, why 2.3%?

 

It isn't that it's halved at over 100% it's not linear the whole way up.  The higher %age you go the less each %age point gives you.

 

It was done this way so you get the most improvement out of the lower percentages.  Why, because that's what they came up with back in 2009 or whenever.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users