daki

Maybe you are the one being impolite and non-courteous when you basically accuse non-english speaking fellow captains of bad manners, laziness...? I would say that there is no difference depending on known language - the large majority of all players are lazy, can't be bothered to help the team... not to mention bad manners.

Maybe it's because of the "confusing" topic title compared to contents? After seeing the title, the first impression is: Is this yet another fire/flood whine topic? Is this a clickbait? When you start reading the opening post, you start asking yourself: Is this a RNG whine topic? Is this a serious proposal? Or is this just poking some fun with some great drawings? Only after reading it twice did I conclude that imho you are trying to put forward a serious proposal on how to improve fire/flooding mechanics. While I find your proposal a solid concept, I have the issue with your following statement: "Randomness benefits no one" It is exactly randomness which makes the game more "lifelike" and exciting as you can rarely be certain of the final outcome. Randomness (and unforeseeable events) play a crucial role in warfare and even more in WWI/II naval warfare (HMS Hood anyone? ). That is why Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke famously said: "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy". All in all, while the levels of RNG is something which can be debated, I am strongly against its removal as it would make the game much less exciting.

Not confused, you are getting "fooled" by WG

TBH I would not be surprised if there is no special game mode for it. Unlike in previous years, they have not announced any special mode. Lets admit it, indeed it would be the ultimate troll April's fool joke on us if WG actually gives us a submarine which cannot be played Never forget that their sense of humor tends to be...

You explained it quite well, the OP was a teamkiller "serving his sentence" and any team damage results in such post battle messages. No other explanation.

Imho there are various shades of down-tier MM which are rarely discussed. It seems to me that a lot of people here on forums (and in the game), as soon as they see even one ship 2 tiers above them, already start melting mentally and throwing away the match. Then of course follows the forum whine phase with countless useless OMG MM threads. So lets assume you play a T6. MM will put you in quite various matches: 1. T6 and T5 ships: The " super easy" MM 2. T5+T6+T7 ships: Still decent MM. Can consist of various "sub-shades": Majority of T5 + very few T6+T7 (the easy MM). Even if you are the only T6 in a T7 match, you are still quite capable to perform. 3. T6+T7+T8 ships: The "moderately easy" variants are when you have say 2-3 T7 and/or 2-3 T8 since there is still more than half the team in T6. Hence the only "tough" MM variants are when there is a large majority of ships in T8 It rather rarely happens to me that I am say T6 and there are like 8 or more T8s. In such cases, in order to contribute, you have to adjust a bit your playstyle and you will be rewarded by XP&credit gains quite above what you would otherwise get with a more favorable MM. So there is a clear positive risk&reward relationship when you have those "tough" MM matches. Not to mention that if MM was always the same tier or +-1 tiers, matches would definitely be less diverse hence more boring after some time (being the main reason why I stopped playing low tiers). Of course I fully understand that it is much easier and popular here to spew all those rather witless posts of "OMG MM" and "WTF WG", than to actually pay attention to the entire tier composition in a match, and see how many matches actually have an "unfavorable" MM for a player. Finally, even for average or below average players, the above applies (i.e. rather rare "tough" MM matches as per my above definition), and the main issue is that often seen "looser mentality" as evidenced by all those "OMG bottom tier its lost..." or "OMG again in T8 match I quit..." comments we all see so much at the start of the match. All in all, most of MM problems are imho in the heads of players and have very little to do with the actual MM. Reminds me a lot about all those "discussions" on how and why BBs cannot tank/push...

Hahaha this is what I call high quality trolling Big +1 mate, I really laughed hard Appreciate the great effort you must have put in it

OK if I understand you correctly, you basically believe that having a smoke timer somehow takes out the "skill" element and hence should be randomized to make it less reliable and harder to use? So, lets then talk about what does "smoke skill" mean. In order to avoid a wall of text (and believe me I am trying to resist the urge to make one ), the following points are imho what essentially the smoke skill is about: 1. Knowing how and when to use it for the tactical benefit of the team (covering specific teammates or flotilla movements) 2. Knowing how and when to use it for your own protection or aggression 3. Knowing how and when to use it as a decoy to mislead the enemy 4. Knowing how to position yourself and how to move within the smoke As you can see, I do not find the smoke timer availability to be an important component of smoke skill. The data about deployment time and duration is anyways available both before and during the match (if you pass the cursor over smoke consumable). Having the ability to subtract 2 numbers in order to know when the smoke dissipates, is not really a skill as I assume that on average we are all past the elementary school. That is what I did before the timers existed - performed one elementary arithmetical operation. Whoever calls that a "skill", is greatly mistaken imho. So I would suggest to you to try to master the above 4 components of smoke skill, and then to come back here if you still think that introducing smoke timer is reducing the level of required skill. All in all, I have no problems with changes which make the gameplay more comfortable while not affecting in any significant manner the skill component.

The difference is not related to "content" since they are obviously the same. But the "meta" on PT and live server is quite different. If for no other reason then because there is a major difference in population composition and even the playstyle. Average population on PT has nothing to do with the average population on EU live server for example. I remember the PT when ranked battles were tested for the first rime. To me it was epic fun on PT so I got quite "hyped" about live introduction. People worked together despite being from all the different servers and language backgrounds, were not afraid to push, understood quite well what needs to be done... Yet on live server the experience turned out to be quite the opposite for me. So for me, PT is there to test if mechanics work as advertised, if they create any major bugs, how they work in some specific situations... Live introduction on the other hand is the "ultimate test" on how it will change the "player experience", i.e. will it actually make some ships/classes UP/OP, how will it affect the class popularity in MM, will it lead to more camping or more aggressive play on average... Changes might look great on PT and fail miserably on live, and vice versa (with various shades of grey in between ). At least, that is the idea behind SyntheticApathy comment - as I understood it.

That long awaited day has arrived. We finally have some interesting info from EU forums http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/76614-063-public-test-update/page__st__40__pid__1717468#entry1717468

You might get an occasional hit that you would have otherwise dodged, however in the long run you will get less hit nonetheless. "Bloom time" reduction is actually a good suggestion. Though I would say 10s is way too much. I would be glad if it would be reduced from 20s to 15s in case of DDs only - I do not have major issued dodging the first 15s but the last 5s tend to be the toughest and longest ones

First time I see so many people reading a PT thread (over 80) And first time I see WG actually nerfing BB long range accuracy - even though it is an indirect nerf Edit: now already at 115

At least you managed to farm not only a like from SO, but a reply as well I know this is off-topic, but its great to finally see you here on EU forums. Thanks mate, much appreciated Its great to see that we here on EU forums might not be completely invisible and forgotten after all

With so few CVs, investing points into AA build is rather pointless imho. The base AA rating of 94 is quite enough (118@6km, 315@5km, 61@2km). Though, if you don't mind foregoing more important skills in order to troll the occasional CV, who am I to ruin the fun? I have chosen the following set of skills for my 19pts Minotaur captain: Level 1: Priority target + Preventive maintenance - PT is rather obvious choice and PM is quite great if you like to slug it out with opponents. Level 2: Jack of all trades + Adrenaline Rush - Jack combines quite well with November Foxtrot signal flag so you can lower DCP2 reload to 54s, RP2 to 72s, Hydro to 162s and smoke to 144s. Adrenaline rush is maybe the best 2 points skill. Every time you lose HP you at least get a small reward in fire rate, so you don't feel as bad when you lose HP . Joking aside, if you are a close quarters fighter, very often the increased ROF will be the difference between success and failure. Level 3: Survivability expert + Superintendent + Vigilance - SE + SI are quite obvious, and Vigilance is good if you want to specialize as DD hunter Level 4: Concealment Expert - Imho no point in taking any other level 4 skill. They are all way to expensive for the small and situational advantage On PT I plan to test a build without Vigilance and without one level 1 skill, in order to have 4x level 2 skills. The idea is to have Jack + Adrenaline rush + Last stand + Smoke screen expert. Last stand will help save some of the DCP and SSE might allow for >20kts smoke deployment (and more room to maneuver in the smoke, as sitting still in it is very often the death sentence). Though I expect it to be inferior to my existing build.

RN cruisers then sound like a good choice. Though you have to have some masochistic tendencies to play them

I at least do not see from his posts that he ever claimed that... My interpretation of xxNihilanxx comments are: If you want to make serious comments and suggestions, do not troll. In other words, there are times for trolling&fun and there are times for serious posts, but its never really constructive to troll while trying to be serious as you will derail the discussion from the serious points.

Having the same issue with SPACE. Please fix it WG. Edit: You can change it manually to SPACE by editing the preferences.xml file However there is no point in forcing players to have to manually change such minor things such as key bindings

In my post was referring to devs / WG as in "head office guys responsible for game development". I fully agree with both of you that it should be WGEU's job to aggregate and pass feedback. Somehow, based on previous experiences, I have no trust in WGEU's ability to handle properly the feedback For sure there are a few good people in WGEU office, but any good work done there is drowned in the sea of ineptitude that plagues that office. If devs can be active on NA forums, RU forums and Reddit, I would like to see at least some engagement on EU forums as well. Unfortunately fat chance of that if we need WGEU as "middleman"... Hence my suggestions would mainly apply for people posting on Reddit or other forums visited by devs.

My thought is that it is not a good idea to start with "exaggerations" if you care to even consider being listened to by WG. Imho one of the reasons why EU feedback is poorly received by devs and WG is because on how it is written. Even for small things usually you have descriptions such as: gamebraking; will completely ruin WoWs; make xyz ship/class disappear completely; xyz ship unplayable... (not to mention very frequent expletives) People fail to understand the cultural differences with Russia (and of course vice-versa). When you say something like above to a Russian, he/she takes it very literally. To put it simply, when you say that xyz is "unplayable" their first thought is that you claim a ship cannot even be sailed in the game. Hence their immediate reaction is that it is a completely wrong statement and that xxx thousands of players played that ship (or whatever evidence), and that the person stating that has no clue what he/she is talking about. They have a difficult time understanding that you did not mean it literally, and that you just used the description to convey your level of displeasure. A personal anecdote from real life might be a good way to describe the above: 6 years ago, I was working on a project for a large multinational Russian company. During my business trip to Moscow, I was asked during a meeting with their top executives to tell them how to implement something in xxx county. I told them (almost a direct quote): Unfortunately, it cannot be done since article xx of Law yz prohibits such implementation. Their reaction: Daki (not my real name ofc ), are you opposing our wishes? Are you trying to obstruct the implementation of our project&strategy in xxx country? Me: Of course not, I am just pointing out that there are clear legal issues with your request which prevent the implementation. Them: No, Daki you are clearly opposing us. This is not how we expect people to behave... Me: Please, this must be a big misunderstanding, nothing could be further from the truth. I am not opposing anyone or anything, just explaining the legal status. Let me send you tomorrow a written answer which will I hope clarify the situation. As you can imagine I was quite pissed and getting ready to bombard them with a ton of legal opinions proving my point (because I knew I was 100% right). The next morning, still being majorly pissed, I decided to avoid sending legal opinions and just to write a sarcastic response, even at risk of being heavily grilled - if not outright fired from my job. What I wrote them was (in short): Dear Sirs, to clarify our previous discussion please be advised that your request can be implemented in country xxx if you: 1. Exert political pressures on the Government to create a working group for a xyz change of Law which are tasked to write the necessary legal texts 2. Via official and unofficial means make sure that all members that will be appointed in that group by the Prime Minister are sympathetic to your request, i.e. to the change of applicable Law and revoking of existing limitations. 3. Ensure enough media influence during the so called "public discussion" phase, in order to present any opposing views in the general public as "voices of a minority" 4. Do the political bargaining & deals with both governing parties as well as selected opposition parties to influence their vote, since the requested change of law requires a 66% majority vote by the Parliament After the change is approved by the Parliament, I can already commit to you that your project&strategy will be implemented within 6 months. ...... What I thought is likely my ticket out of the job due to using sarcasm to point out why their request is a big joke and cannot be done, I discovered rather the opposite, i.e. that they understood my letter literally. What they wrote in their response to me was: Dear Mr. Daki, thank you very much for your quality feedback. We are pleased to have received a concise and precise list of steps which are to be undertaken in order to implement our initiative. We will consider the requirements you listed and will revert back to you once we decide on how to proceed further. .... Of course, nothing happened and the project was never implemented. What shocked me a year later is what those same top executives told me when we met again: Daki, very nice to see you again in Moscow... We remember what you wrote last year and we were impressed. In some other countries we continuously received feedback that the project cannot be implemented because of this or that law. In the end we had to make sure that some of those people were replaced, since we do not appreciate when people oppose us. We do not care to listen or waste time on why things cannot be done, we are just interested to hear what requirements must be met in order to do what we requested. Well done once again, and thank you Daki. ... I hope that my above experience sheds at least some light on the cultural differences Sorry for the wall of text

To be honest, you can always find certain rare situations to argue against a general statement. How often do the situations you mentioned really occur? So in essence while he is not 100% right about the patch effect on island stealth fire, he is basically 99% right. Imho there are much bigger issues to be upset about (e.g. continuous direct or indirect BB buffs), especially since WG has the following stance: Q: Lastly, I believe Wargaming have stated that the battleship overpopulation (40% and rising) is a problem. Yet, why does seemingly every recent change, barring two minor ones (reduction of catapult fighter uptime, Bismarck hydro nerf - but only specifically Bismarck) seem to run counter to this goal? AA buffs, the new skill tree in general, Radio Location specifically, and now the removal of stealth fire... the dev team's actions seem to run counter to their stated goal, and that may be why many people are upset. A: Have you seen many BBs with RPF? Because we don't see them at all. Why have you excluded flooding damage buff, which now causes BBs to melt with unrepaired leak? Sorry, but I don't see any objective approach here, so the question itself is not correct. Thus, I am not sure I can answer it. So basically he picks up the 2nd ever done nerf to BBs since game introduction (unless I forgot something), which is a minor one tbh (even smaller nerf than the catapult fighter), and uses it to dismiss a very valid issue. This type of stuff imho really deserves the "gg WG" and being upset about...

It already works like that even now. Please use the existing 0.6.3 feedback topics (already numerous), no need for a new one.

First of all let me point out that unlike BB players (and WG now) I never found the stealth firing mechanic to be "gamebraking" or "OP" or making the matches "dull". If for no other reason than because I always found it to be very situational (for CAs and DDs) due to: - Inaccuracy when fighting close to max range - If you are fighting at max range it usually means that you are not doing your job (excluding maybe 2 or 3 ships out of the total) Having an aggressive playstyle, I rarely use max range stealth fire (even in ships capable of it). When I use it, it's rather because of the circumstances (i.e. ship just entered my firing range and I want to shoot it) and not because of my intention to use this mechanic. Of course, please feel free to call me a "noob" since I do not base my playstyle on stealth fire Hence personally this decision will not affect me much (if any at all). Of course, I fully understand that this will heavily affect the max range camping DDs and CAs - but honestly I have no problems with that since in most cases those tend to be useless teammates/players (occasional exceptions exist) However, my complaint is one out of principles and not because of this specific mechanic removal: WG why do you continue the trend of direct or indirect buffs to BBs despite openly admitting and having clear evidence that BBs as a class are already too numerous on average? When will we see any nerfs to BBs? I guess we do not have enough "BBs are OP" type of whine threads since people mostly like to whine ad nauseam about those very few "OP" CAs or DDs which seems to translate in Russian to: BBs are fine, all other classes are OP...

How about Zugzwang in chess?

In the patchnotes from WoWs Asia that LilJumpa published in the other thread, there will be a rework: Aircraft Carrier Controls With the release of Update 0.6.3, we added an alternative control mode for aircraft carriers. Now, it only takes two mouse buttons to operate a carrier. However, if you've already mastered the art of controlling your carriers with the 'standard' controls, don't fret. The new controls will be a selectable option. The new control mode will be disabled by default. The alternative mode can be enabled via the Controls tab in the Settings screen. The alternative control mode differs from the standard one in that commands for movement and target acquisition for squadrons are given using the right mouse button only. Besides that, the two-button controls are more responsive, allowing the game to respond faster to commands given by the player. The new update will bring other changes related to aircraft carriers as well. The manual squadron attack feature (ALT + Left Click) will be disabled for Tier IV and V carriers. This change is aimed at bringing more balance to carriers at lower tiers where the majority of warships come with weak AA defenses. Information on the availability of the manual squadron attack feature (ALT + Left Click) for a particular aircraft carrier is displayed in the Flight Control module. Fighters may now be taken out of an encounter with enemy aircraft via an ALT + Left Click. When a squadron is withdrawn from action this way, it will always lose one aircraft. This rule will apply to all carriers except Saipan. Once a carrier is destroyed, their squadrons will maintain their position after fulfilling a particular order rather than head for the carrier's final (sinking) location. Fixed bugs related to the differentiation between a single and double mouse clicks. This change will prevent situations when an "Attention to Sector" order given using the Minimap resulted in a selected squadron to head to that way. Fighters with a speed higher than the speed of their targets will slow down as necessary and will not discontinue their attack. By doing so, they will be able to constantly keep their target under attack and avoid situations when the attacked strike aircraft could drop bombs or torpedoes with no increase in dispersion. Added a contour line encircling key areas instead of buoys in the aircraft camera view. Not being a CV player I have no clue if this will help or not, so I leave it to experienced carrier captains to discuss

Well said. There were indeed the great times of gaming when a "win" was a much fought for, rare and long remembered accomplishment. You were in fact eating so many sticks that once you achieved the carrot it felt like the sweetest fruit. Now being fed all these carrots with little stick, they all tend to taste quite bland...