daki

When ingame, click on the profile and you will see it in service record besides your nickname

I have 40ish ping and of course no problems. Used to play a few games on NA server some months ago and the ping was between 250 and 350ms. Did not notice any negative effects. Maybe I had to just slightly increase the lead, but that is just an assumption as I did not really notice any difference. Of course I am not a "pro" player so my ageing amateur brain is not sensitive enough to really feel any noticeable difference (e.g. when I used to play WoT I failed to feel the difference between EU1 with 30ms and EU2 where I usually had 65-70ms ping). That being said, what is very noticeable are stutters in case the ping jumps up and down a lot even if it say +-20-30ms.

After playing about 50 games on PT, I have to say that the introduction of weather is a great one. It adds quite nicely to the immersion, and I hope that the cyclone will be available on more maps as it adds additional tactical depth. I wish of course that the waves would be more prominent during bad weather though I understand that too big waves would make the aiming more difficult and possibly make the water animation look less natural. An additional "unexpected" benefit from introduction of weather could be felt during summer months. Few days ago during the first PT, there was quite a bit of heat wave in my city with the temperature around 28 degrees. After previous rather cold weather, it was not a very pleasant situation. However, seeing on screen the bad weather, with rain, wind..., made the heat feel much less oppressive that it usually does Of course, it was a psychological effect, but a welcome one nonetheless

I do not as such believe it is that much the issue of skill on PT. Taking into account the population of about 2-3k players, I would expect that they tend to be more dedicated players so on average I would expect that PT players have higher skill than players in average randoms on the live server. Yes, you can do more damage, but that is mainly due to more aggressive (but not less skilled) gameplay. I have to admit I love the PT server as the high tier gameplay is so much more fun as the people camp much less. Speaking of PT, long time ago when the Ranked battles were tested, the teamplay was several orders of magnitude better than what we have seen subsequently after live launch.

The topic (and my post) was about Concealment Expert skill and not Situational Awareness. Speaking of SA, I personally use it on all ships . Unlike a 5 point skill for which you need 15 skill points to unlock, SA can be afforded by basically anyone due to 1 point cost.

TBH nothing is really mandatory, but it does make sense to build upon strengths of a specific class/nation, and there is nothing bad as such with that, otherwise the skills would be pointless. Lets be honest, in top tiers IJN DDs the concealment expert grants only like 600m. It is of course a noticeable improvement, however not so much as to "make or break" the match on average - i.e. smart play can most of the time compensate for this. I would say that having or not certain modules and upgrades has a much more significant impact than that skill. In case of VMF DDs for example it can even be considered as bad choice (due to very low base cammo) and it is much better to have say Survivability expert + BFT than it.

I have the same impression. It lends credibility to the data which was provided from the RU devs in one of the Q&As that only about 10% of WoWs population are minors (if I remember correctly). The only thing I disagree with is that we need to have a huge influx of new players. I would suspect that due to the above demographics, the percentage of paying customers is much higher compared to WoT so the playerbase can be much smaller and yet remain able to finance the development of the game. Based on impressions from various PTs, I believe that MM can be sufficiently decent even with 1000 or less concurrent players so in all honesty I would rather have 5k players online with limited number of idiots/trolls than 50k players online full of kids and frustrated adults. Speaking of WoT, while I haven't played it for almost a year, my son occasionally plays on my account. I watched him a few days ago (wanted to check how the game looks like after all the patches) and I was quite shocked by the level of abuse thrown at him. Sure, he is not a good player due to having limited experience, but still... The community looked to me even more toxic than a year ago. I am very happy that in WoWs community even bad / inexperienced players can enjoy the game most of the time with very little abuse in ingame chat, and I hope it will remain so. I am a bit afraid of what will happen during the summer months and school holidays, but I hope we will not have a big influx of kids since I doubt that they can enjoy the pace of WoWs.

The game is crashing while loading the port. Trying now the full reinstall.

I think the following: - You are a poor troll - You have 0 ability to present your thoughts in any coherent or understandable manner - if you are so eager to post in the English section please make at least the effort to find someone who will help you with that.

Quite sad and pathetic that this thread descended quickly after the event into personal insults, trolling... Though I guess it was to be expected, as it is a tradition here to bash everything, anything and anyone, especially if it is related to a WG event. On topic: Contrary to many here, I did enjoy the stream and matches. While far from being perfect, it does show a lot of promise. I hope that as the time goes by there will be better commentators and camera operators as it would have made a sea of difference tonight if WG invested a bit more in setting that up. With a little bit of effort it will be much more enjoyable to watch compared to WoT.

Good luck to both teams, I hope we will see more of competitive WOWs in the future

I guess you can try to edit the preferences.xml file in the main folder. There is a line: <aspectRatio> 1.333333 </aspectRatio> in case of 21:9 the value should be changed to 2.33333

Good luck, I hope they will recognize how valuable you are

But you missed my point Let me state it clearly: While the Impregnator is an OP ship no doubt, there are other rather equally OP ships WR wise. Furthermore, my point was that stats without proper context (going beyond the simple indicators) can be quite misleading - example of Tirpitz whose average stats do not reflect the potential that ship has.

I would guess only a small fraction compared to the overhyped Tirpitz.

Seems like a good comparison. Type59 is the only tank I regret not getting when I was playing WoT as I was in the "hating mediums" phase when it was available That is why I did not hesitate for a second in getting the Imp

That is a bit of an overstatement. Let me play a bit of the devil's advocate Looking at top ships in the last 2 weeks, there is a number of ships with WR close to the Imp: Of course, I am not trying to argue that the ship is not OP, rather just noticing that the gap with some other ships is not as great as it seems Regarding the number of players with WR >70%, it is not a strong proof of a ship being OP either. Good example is another premium ship - Tirpitz. Just look at the top 25 players by WR - much better than Imp's: Just looking at the above figures one could say that now Tirpitz is way more OP than the Impregnator. Hence theoretically one could conclude that Tirpitz could have shared the same faith as the Imp if it was not for the hordes of rather bad players buying the ship and depressing the overall stats.

Yeah, its all about the turret placement. Otherwise, the Imp does not have anything special as such. Nominal dispersion is generally in line with T4 BBs: Imp: 201m @ 14.1km Myogi: 184m @ 13.9km Wyoming: 181m @ 12.1km which roughly would translate to 200m @ 14km (if they could reach that far ) However, the turret placements, or better say 9 shells per forward batteries is what "artificially" increases the accuracy and damage potential as there is much less distance between the turrets compared to the situation where both front and rear turrets are taken into account. A good "negative" example is Mikasa. While it has decent nominal dispersion of 142m @ 9,5km the fact that it has one twin gun turret in front and one in the back with the length of hull between the turrets adding to the inaccuracy, makes it a very frustrating ship when you want to actually hit the target. Based on the Imp example, it would be a much better ship and not so UP if it had 2 front facing turrets. Armor wise, Imp does have very good citadel and deck armor compared to say Myogi, however a much weaker hull armor (75mm vs 152mm for Myogi) so it more or less balances out. Hence the reason why the Imp is OP is simply because its front facing turrets allow for aggressive playstyle unlike any other ship in the game. It is a paradise ship for all yolo rush players (like me for example ), and it can make the difference even in the usual situation of lack of support from teammates.

Unfortunately the "gamers" these days tend to be spoiled brats beyond belief, full of sense of entitlement with a huge urge to troll anyone and anything (devs, fellow players, games...). I do not want to sound "old" but I cannot help but to remember how it was in the 80s and 90s where there were plenty of "bad" games according to today's standards, yet most players tried to focus and enjoy good aspects of a game. Furthermore, the forum culture is not helping either. The more is a thread toxic and critical, the more popular does it get... I guess its pretty much the copy of today's media where only violence, scandals and blatant propaganda "sell" with very little room for actual news (or balanced opinions). I guess its "monkey see monkey do" approach

6.700 players in my "range" atm T5 ARP Kongo btw Edit: now 7k

To add what I just noticed a few days ago, they can be useful for "locking" enemy carrier fighter squadrons. I sailed in my Pensa the other day and my fighter plane locked in one place the enemy fighter squadron which allowed me to close in to it to less than 2km and obliterate it with the AA.

Well said Sonic. Many thanks for the effort to you Carnotzet, and also to Takeda and all those from the community here who are active and post some great info from the devs and otherwise. No matter the forum titles you are the true Community Contributors and your effort is highly appreciated and welcome. WGEU could definitely learn from you and get more involved in the feedback to players. That being said, I have to say that at least WGRU seems to have improved significantly since November last year as I believe there are much more Q&As and interaction compared to before. I can only hope that other WG offices will catch up. Until then, you will remain one of the few bright lights helping us navigate through the rough seas of WoWs o7!

Having negative emotions about a ship is by far the main reason for poor performance (of course there are others as well) especially WR wise. I personally have quite a bit of ships that I hate (or dislike) and entering into the battle with them means that I start with a significant negative bias and tension which clearly affects my play and results in them. Every loss brings more tension and loathing so it is a vicious circle. What is the solution? Not sure that I have any ready to offer . What I am trying lately is to get into the match with the lowest possible expectations, and to try to avoid playing that ship again after a loss. Way too many times did I have those 5-6 games loosing streaks where the harder I try to get that double for example the worse I play and more mistakes do I make. All in all, when I grind ships I dislike, I just try to take the double in the first game and usually if I fail, I do not try again if at least I have not played 5-6 battles in other ships. If I do take the double, I usually do not play it again until the next double. At least the grinding is a bit easier that way, though it takes much longer time wise.

Too few carriers indeed. I am not a CV player, but having CVs in a match adds a whole new dimension (and complexity) for all players. With no CVs in a match, this is lost - I find them much more boring and repetitive. To be honest, in order to have them more frequently in matches, I would not mind if we would have back those situations from beta where one team had a CV and the other not. Those were for me the most exciting games as one team had more guns and the other had planes but less guns. Of course, I understand comments about match balance, but in case of such matches your chances are equal to be in a team with or without a carrier so sufficient number of battles balance it up .