Exocet6951

lmao We're about 3 patches away from a Blizzard-esque "Don't you guy have phones?" PR meltdown.

*cough* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Naval_Treaty Parties United States British Empire French Third Republic Kingdom of Italy Empire of Japan IE: The 5 major naval powers post WWI. And guess what? Because Germany still followed the Treaty of Versailles limitations on naval capacity, and more specifically the number of heavy and light cruisers they were allowed to have, Germany de facto followed the classification conventions specified in both the Washington and London treaties. So no, Mainz isn't a heavy cruiser just because you think it is.

With my all my years frequenting forums relating to WWII-era games, I can safely say that no one hates German vehicles more than Germans and German mains. Every vehicle manages to be either just passable, or garbage. Every strength is at best mediocre or useless, and at worst turned into a weakness (looking at you, massive 20k salvoes on full broadside Bismarck meme) Every weakness overblown into oblivion. Seek help.

Yes well done, you took an economic skyrocket, made rampant consumerism into the norm, destroying ecology in the process while refusing to reform the retirement system you're currently demolishing, and blame one generation for everything wrong in the world. But hey, you managed to ride in the back of a stationwagon. Well done. It was all worth it. Basically, ok boomer.

Ok boomer

Because there already is. It's : Germany, UK, France and Italy in their respective trees, and the rest of Europe will be in their own tree. There, simple as that.

Great idea! We can also put all the Asian countries together. I'm sure having WWII Japanese ships flying under the same flag as ships from South East Asia won't be a problem at all !

I was in the weekend test, played a large amount of battles but never got my Iwaki

Good choice. It's the second year in a row where I take a 6 month break from early December to whenever I feel the need to Atlanta-dakka a bit more. The good news is that if WoT and to a lesser degree WoWP's development can be applied to WoWS, a slight change in management and direction should be expected within the next 2 years. All it takes is the EU server slowly decaying as it currently is doing, the RU server crashing down like it's doing right now, and business practice will change.

Richelieu with the Maid of Orleans camo. Gold trim makes an elegant ship look drop dead gorgeous. Even more so than those sexy Italian stripes.

Incoming gaslighting about how it's just the community being anti-russian !

It would not be that unreasonable if signal flags were given out very generously. For veterans which have a thousand of the lower value flags it's not an issue, but what about newer player? Defending that switch when Narai was removed because of "bugs" is completely side stepping the fact that WG feels perfectly OK telling us that something is "bugged", removing it, then slashing hidden stats. Clearly very trustworthy behavior, and we should be all very civil about their decision making. I'll just add this on top of the "self made problems" that WG will complain about us complaining. From a software dev perspective, a developer's only response to a request to change a thing real quick on production environment should be "No and go **** yourself"

I'll do you one better: what's the point of test servers if you disallow testing for common users on most things, and ignore testers' valid concerns on major changes, ie: CV rework, then complain that players are complaining. And then there's the mindboggling disregard of common communication practice. If your community is on edge about new content being overpowered, national bias and power creep and all that, you don't release preliminary stats for ships of that nation with wildly powerful attributes and 0 context for the line's overall purpose, on top of 3 additional premium ships for good measure. 90% of WG's problems are entirely self made, and I refuse to feel bad for them when the community gets pissy about it. Like watching a group of people throw banana peels on the ground , slipping on them several times while proclaiming that they're collecting data on banana peel related injuries to see if they have to stop throwing banana peels on the ground or not, coming to the conclusion that they're only going to throw unripe banana peels on the ground, and getting pissy when others point and laugh. I have a better idiom for you that seems to fit WG a whole lot better: "If everyone you come across is a jerk, then they're not the issue"

WG lost the right to complain about that when they released blatantly broken content onto live server and using its playerbase as playtesters, despite being warned months ahead of time. And this several times.

If the community doesn't see it 1 week before its release, it doesn't have time to point out phenomenally bad ideas, such as: CV rework NTC AP rockets Original AP bombs Slava Etc.... No balancing can be done in a week, so no balancing will be done. Thus, akin to WoT: Release broken stuff Get money Claim to collect data for months Nerf tank a bit before announcing a new, broken tank It's just the kind of cycle that cut down WoT's playerbase drastically for years no big deal.

Oh I see, WoWS is going to mimic's WoT's "release dumb broken stuff, then collect data for 6 months before the new premium comes along" phase. Very cool Very legal I'm rather sure Apple was just sued into oblivion very recently for something like that recently, but I'm sure some kind of internet lawyer will explain the 8 billion different ways I'm wrong, literally arguing away consumer rights in the process.

If 3 morons manage to smack themselves in the nose with a very visible rake within eyesight of each other, and within less than a minute, I'm not blaming the rake.

"Dear valued player who isn't able to play the game currently, We completely changed some skills, and you have 72 hours to change your skills for free. If you don't, you'll have to pay roughly 1.5€ per captain to fix the issue. Remember, you are a valued customer. Please give constructive feedback. Best regards, Wargaming" Well don't mind if I just don't come back then. Your lose.

Did WG somehow forget that the goal isn't to drive away players and start losing money? If it's the case, let me help: Spreadsheet says losing money bad ! Spreadsheet says happy players good !

The addendum to "read correctly" is "write correctly" Penetration values of the shells is exactly what I said you should be using, because that's the parameter that changes, not the actual armor itself. What you talked about earlier was taking the problem exactly at the reverse: stacking all the variables onto the static target. It's feasible, but man, you're just over-complicating everything for the players and for yourself. It's better to say: "I have these shells, and they have 100mm effective penetration at that distance and angle" than it is to say "I have these shells, I don't know their penetration but the piece of armor I'm looking at is the equivalent of 200mm at that range and angle". That's because calculating a shell's penetration is not something you can do in your head, whereas you can relatively quickly do a mental calculation to figure out what the effective armor is. It's always going to be the nominal thickness with a cosinus element applied to it. 100mm of armor at 60 degrees will always be 200mm LOS from your original view point (despite that value evolving to take into account shell trajectory, key point the shell is the variable, not the armor), whereas some shells will do better than over dealing with angles than others, such as very heavy, high caliber rounds compared to much quicker, much lighter, lower caliber shells. Your logic is better for 3D armor viewers, where you have a fixed piece of armor and want to see what it can stop. But if you want to give quick, on the fly information to the player as to what he can penetrate without resorting to a colored crosshair that tells you if you can penetrate or not, you want to give him the effective penetration of his shells.

...but that's not how any of this works... In fact, you're taking this from the completely wrong end of the proverbial stick. LOS armor is LOS armor 100mm of armor at 60 degrees is going to be 200mm LOS armor. Not 220 to 350mm, because that's not how trigonometry works. That number will never change. It is a measurable constant. It doesn't change thickness because you're throwing more or less big metal things at it. What you mean is that shells have wildly different effect at different striking angles, with some types of shells having vastly worse performances against,for example, angled armor. What you're looking for is the effective penetration of a given shell, striking armor of a given thickness, at a given angle, NOT the thickness of an armor plate depending on what's thrown at it.

Go to the total war subreddit, and look at the praise the games get in terms of compromising the dev team's plans and what the player wants. Turns out that if you do a good job, people are happy. If you constantly churn out things the community most certainly doesn't want, which to no one's surprise ends up completely broken (CVs, RN HE, AP bombs), stand by it and call your players bad (GZ debacle) , people will be upset.

It takes real talent and dedication to have a game that would be objectively better if the dev team did literally nothing than if they tried changing or adding the slightest of things. I mean, even sound changes are worse. Art. This whole thing is a true work of art.

What are you talking about, this operation is perfect.....

Bourgogne for coal or free xp. In fact, I'd axe steel exclusives, and make ships available for different resources, with a comprehensive exchange rate. You could buy a ship for 20k steel, or dump 300k coal to buy it.