Ubertron_X

Because it is the key allocated to that specific consumable? However I do understand that there are a couple of solutions. The solution that I propose is to have exactly one key allocated to each consumable so it does not matter which slot the consumable is in. E.g. if your ship has heal, press L to use it. And it does not matter if it is a DD, CA or BB and in which slot the actual consumable rests. If consumables have fixed keys, slots are irrelevant, even when facing combination of consumables. You can muscle memory train yourself on that as much as on slots. And I can not think of any hard reason to not being able to implement this, regardless what WG may be stating. Of course as others mentioned the better solution would be to key bind the slots and to allow players to assign consumables to each slot. This way you would need less keys to achieve the same result, i.e. one key for the same consumable.

t9 CA has Def AA and Heal t8 BB has heal t8 CA has Def AA Which of those 2 gets their 1st consumable on Y instead of T? Then add in stuff like radars and hydros... There's going to be that 1 ship who has its only consumable on the O key. That would be 10/10 design I don't understand the problem. Why is it difficult to bind a consumable to a single key, no matter what slot it is in? DCP is bound to R on all ships, why can't e.g the RP be bound to T on all ships that have (possible) access to RP? We have DCP, RP, catapult fighter, spotting aircraft, smoke generator, engine boost, torpedo reload booster, hydroacoustic search, defensive fire and surveilance radar. That's a maximum of 10 letters in my book, so entirely not difficult to achieve if consumables are bound to keys, not slots.

Yes, simply because I can (read: my monthly "subscription" creates an overabundance of free XP; I have all 3 available fXP ships and 1,1m fXP still).

In order to answer your question I used a combination of old memes and my mad MS Paint skillz:

Somebody really stepped up their seal game...

The thing is that it is only a mystery bag as long as you don't open it. Once you have opened the bag => mystery no more! Just blame Schrödinger.

Asashio can do that too by *accident* ...

How about an alarm that goes off when a BB hasn't used WSAD for 30 seconds?

The thing is, that PMM was introduced for tanks that for one or another reason could not compete in a ±2 tier environment. It was NOT AT ALL introduced to grant players more top tier matches. So all the rambling of Kellerman about matchmaking is more or less in vain. PMM is to protect your tank from tanks it can not beat, not to highten your chances of being top tier. Of course over time people like Kellerman "abused" the available PMM tanks as "granted top tier tanks" as WG seems to be unable to program a decent matchmaker for quite some years (and not only in tanks), which also is a large part of the reason for this recent disturbance.

Being a KV-5 veteran with almost 1400 battles in that tank alone I am somewhat torn about the upcomming changes (even when not playing much for some years already). Rebalancing of old premiums is a must as long as powercreep is real and should happen in ships too. However I am not quite convinced the way Wargaming did it. With PMM (preferential matchmaking) gone I fear even the upgraded gun and front armor will not be enough to mess with the big guys and due to the side and back armor nerfs you even lose your ability to bully mutiple smaller ones (you can bully single(d) smaller enemies even better though). Also even when I am not a friend of the pay 2k gold to upgrade/exchange your premium option please be aware that a KV-5 is and was the cheapest tier VIII premium and by a large margin. So the upgrade option is more fair then many might think (7500 gold KV-5 +2000 gold upgrade <<< 11500 gold for a brand new Löwe).

The thing is, it is hard to argue against upgrades that work 100% of the time because you decide if/how they work and comparing them to upgrades that only do work on special occasions. And yes, while you can use the Moskva upgrade to spam more HE from even farther away I do not consider it an improvment to general gameplay. Same thing goes for benefits that only come into play a very small percentage of your active time, like flooding or main turret repair time reduction on Hindenburg.

Looks like the perfect I-potato-I-kemp-border-bow-on upgrade. Well played WG, well played...

General rule of thumb: For slot 5 just skip any new upgrades unless your ship name is Khabarovsk. The slot 6 upgrades can at least be considered though.

How about we get a decent division window again instead of bickering over port pop-ups? I still get mad every time I division with some buddies because the new division window and ready options are so much worse than the original ones...

169 free of 180

Same over here, for me the FdG is just an upscaled Bismarck/Tirpitz with better armor, HP and guns (406 and reload module recommended). To my friends I often called it the last true KM BB because the GK is just a floating abomination that happens to be featuring a 12 gun salute. Regarding Izumo I don't think it is a bad ship however it is a little hampered by the rearwards facing turret and trollish armor (sometimes you get ridiculous bounces, sometimes you get hit like a hot knife cutting butter). The problem with this ship is, that due to the brutal visibility it has a hard time switching in between tasks. As long as you only do bow-on tanking OR fighting retreats the ship usually performs fine. If however to need to switch from one play-style to enother, e.g. you need to turn (!) and run because your flank is getting overwhelmed, you will be in for a hard time.

You are right of course, however even if the game lasts 20min and 23 of 24 ships are sunk I still prefer to lose a bad game instead of winning it. At least when still doing doubles. Especially when stacking multipliers (camo, flags, +daily %) the difference in between a bad win and a good win can be like 3k to 12k+ XP (or even higher), so in case I have performed badly (personaI blunder, missing teamwork, lucky enemy salvo etc.) I often find myself whishing for my team to lose.

What if I flame after I die because I want my team to lose? Once dead my in-game rewards are already fixed and there is no respawn and carry-on like in LoL. The literally worst thing for many players is your team winning a game in which you performed bad (for whatever reason) and thus "ruining" you daily doubles. And while I agree that your team winning will net your more rewards for that specific game I think many players would simply prefer to accept the loss and to start a fresh game instead of being happy with a meager win.

An interesting read, however some input specifically for this point: Some players (me included) simply love small scale engagements. Why? Because it reduces variables thus allowing for a more "controlled" style of play. And if you are a good player it allows you to outplay your enemy much easier. For example it is simpler to execute a successful push in a German secondaries BB in a 3 vs 3 than in a 9 vs 9 situation. Therefore the first question any map and mode needs to answer is if it is aiming to achieve small or large scale engagements (e.g. old 4 cap domination vs. Epicentre). If large scale engagements are the way to go than scattered spawn might indeed mislead some players. If however small scale engagements are key to victory then scattered spawn is not that bad at all.

Don't worry, this Thursday will change everything and we will get perfect matchmaking with the new patch... /sarkasm

Finally asking the important questions...

And I want the option to disable it while playing Atago...

Maybe they can still hear the sirens?