Kartoffelmos

That would fall under the aforementioned: The issue seems that the option applies to both doubloon and silver (as in, there is no distinction) when you resupply consumables/flags/camouflages which means that the user have to pay attention. A separate warning/option for using doubloons would be optimal, but that would effectively result in zero income for WG in this regard, thus making doubloon-spending on these items a superfluous feature. If you ask me, WG shouldn't have made flags/camouflages/consumables purchasable for doubloons in the client, but I guess some users find it more convenient to buy such things in-game. Or rather, that would be the case if they could buy it in bulks instead of having it charged automatically... I agree. Experienced players don't (or shouldn't) have any issues with the current setup, but it is far from ideal for new player since there is no information in-game that explains the resupply system.

Because until recently, only "premium" consumables and some camouflages charged doubloons if you had that option selected (and were silly enough to not change the cost to silver). However, with the introduction of purchasable flags, which only can be bought with doubloons, the option applies to both currencies, depending on the item. Honestly, when you set up your ship, just pay attention to the items you add and then activate the auto-resupply accordingly. Indeed, but who in their right mind would use doubloons if that were the case?

Halsey's bonuses/perks have been revealed. He seems like a good cruiser captain to be honest: Source. (Yes, I stole the image from a secondary source )

Well, the MM is forked in WoT though, so that's not entirely false... As for the comparison between arty and torpedoes, the difference in reaction time makes the argument silly at best. Not to mention that if you follow your own destroyers, you won't be a torpedo target until late-game/mid-game and even that hinges on your (in)ability to help your own destroyers during the early engagements.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. You still don't know which ship it is that's spotting you and as such, you don't really learn anything. The end result is the same: stay away from common hydro/radar traps. If you on the other hand already know the location of the hydro/radar ship, the course of action should be clear. Additionally, I'm not convinced that different symbols will help at all, since we still have DDs which rush into radar range and for some reason don't know why they are spotted. Sure, they will know the method (how), but not by whom or the reason why (too close to the island, too close to a common radar spot, etc.). So what will the lesson be? Stay away from common radar/hydro spots (which is the same as before). It is, but contrary to radar/hydro, it is information which you cannot obtain otherwise, nor can you play around it (camping at max range excluded). Same goes for RL/RPF, but I would rather see that skill removed due to it's binary nature (though that is another discussion entirely). Indeed. It should be rather easy to implement as well: the primary reason of detection could be as it is now, but the secondary reason could be added as a miniature icon next to the regular icon. If you do not know if you are being spotted by hydro or radar, it is not deliberate though: it should always be accidental. If you push so deep into the enemy's side that you have no idea which ship is detecting you, the problem is not the lack of visual feedback. Sure, you will know how to handle the situation better, but not ending up in that situation to begin with is a much better alternative. That was also my point with the cruiser example: an improved SA will tell you how to handle the situation (better), but being prepared in advance is much more advantageous.

That's pretty much the only time the extra information would be useful though. Even then, you have no guarantee that you won't be deleted once you back off from the island cover. This, on the other hand, I support 100 %. The game should tell you when you are being spotted by multiple methods, since this is useful information that you cannot find otherwise. It won't help if you are brawling with a German destroyer, but it will at least prevent ineffective panic smokes. I could make the same argument with the situational awareness skill: why does it not tell you which ship is spotting you? Why should a cruiser not be allowed to know whether it is a destroyer or an enemy cruiser that is spotting it? I'd rather have the game reward game knowledge (detection ranges, hydro/radar ships, radar, spots, etc.) then just give everything "for free". But this won't help with that though. The destroyers that rush into hydro/radar range without information are not "yolo'ing"; they are being suicidal. The same goes for destroyer players who smoke up inside capture zones without vision. Yes, they may get away with it, but the game does not give them an extra warning regarding incoming torpedoes. Welp, now it seems that I am overly against this feature, but I figured that I should explain my point. As I wrote earlier, the extra information can be added for all I care, but it won't change much: players who find themselves in a relevant situation will not benefit much from it, as the issue is not that they cannot differentiate between the two consumables. The issue is that they ended up in that situation to begin with (well, hard cover excluded but I assume that the player chose said hard cover to negate the hydro/radar threat).

That's an understatement if I ever saw one. This "feature" has been introduced and re-introduced at least three times and every time it has been removed/reworked after negative feedback from the players. One would think that WG (@Sub_Octavian and @Crysantos, huehue) were capable of listening to such feedback, but I guess this is another incentive to get more players to use anything other than a battleship. You know, since both destroyers and cruisers are less prone to heavy damage...

Sure, but if you find yourself in a position where you don't know what's detecting you, being able to judge the method of detection won't help. You'll either be safe or you won't, depending on the cover available. That's also why I like it as it currently is, as it serves as a nice way to teach destroyer captains that they shouldn't use smoke/push caps if they do not have enough information/vision. I mean, destroyers are supposed to spot (CV-games excluded) for their team so if they are being suprise-"hydroed", they already misplayed heavily. Alternatively, they hugged an island somewhere on the map and should be in perfect cover. If not, that's another misplay. Having said that though, my opinion on the matter is hardly (or is it? ) objectively correct, nor does it matter all that much to me, so it is up to WG to decide how they want to handle things. Judging by the amount of times this has been requested, it should be added to WG's implementation list at least.

I didn't know that you could buy outfits for body pillows...

It doesn't matter though: the game does differentiate between them (despite WG's multiple errors when introducing/patching the symbols): Added a separate indicator showing that the player's ship is detected by the enemy using the Hydroacoustic Search consumable. In the future, a similar indicator will be added showing that the player's ship is detected by the enemy using the Surveillance Radar consumable. [UPDATED] Source. As for the topic, I don't mind the identical warnings as you are, in most cases, extremely out of position if you don't know if you are being spotted by hydro or radar.

I know! Shimakaze before the big torpedo nerf! I also know that some of the most popular battleships never existed or are downright unknown (well, relatively speaking) on "this side of the pond", so your argument makes little sense. Sure, some of the popularity stems from the historical aspect, but the majority of players gravitate towards the most forgiving and/or OP class/ship since this yields the most player satisfaction and entertainment (aka fun value). In the case of battleships, the ability to heal and withstand lots of damage, as well as the ability to cripple the opposition with a single salvo are most likely the major contributing factors. The alternative is that every single player is well versed in the naval history of World War II and, well...

In addition, try to pay attention to the mini-map: there are some very common radar cruiser spots on nearly every map (often centralised positions near capture points) and if the cruisers/Missouri are spotted somewhere else, you can play more aggressively. Try to memorise radar ranges as well. This will help you greatly when avoiding or baiting radar usages.

Battleships with carrier decks and smoke screen consumables . I do like the new US CLs, but I do wonder why I should use them instead of the regular line or the UK ones. IFHE will be mandatory which means that AA (or other combat capabilities) will suffer and the lack of smoke screen will mean that they are less versatile in their positioning. The increase in stealth will make them more convenient when moving outside of island cover though . Hopefully they will be balanced without WG adding more consumables.

Someone clearly forgot that you gain XP from capture points in nonstandard games...

Yesterday, I met @OVanBruce and his clan mate @Prinzessin_Eugen in a fair and balanced () division while I was using my Benson. The game started alright, but then an enemy Alsace (top tier BB) figured that it was a good idea to rush my smoke and throw away all of his hit points, resulting in the loss of most of my health. Additionally, I got trolled by a Maas who used hydro at a really unfortunate moment but at least we won! I also ran into @T0byJug today in his Khabarovsk though I never actually saw him: my Zao as well as @Vogel's Z-52 (Bagel pls, git gut) went to another cap and tried to hold it against the inevitable enemy push. I also had the "pleasure" of having the most toxic player I've ever seen on my team: despite us playing correctly, he spammed the mini-map and reported me for being a "useless 47% bot Zao" (as well as throwing other insults) when I was forced to flee from the centre cap. For some reason, his flank, having superior numbers and lemming-training into a silly position, was mostly spared from criticism. I like how I received "Dreadnought" to commemorate my uselessness (sadly, the team collapsed too quickly to farm damage).

I gave Amazon all my money to get this fine loot...

@Vogel confirms the opposite!

Met @Boris_MNE in his Gearing while I, in my Fletcher, was divisioning (is that even a proper term?) with Bagel in his Z-43. Sadly, we never met Boris, but his team mates completely abandoned the A cap on Atlantic, enabling us to spam torpedoes and harass them from "their side" of the map. I'm not sure what happened on the other side of the map, but I fear Boris received worse team mates than we did .

Why are you even arguing? Additionally, why are you arguing semantics? It doesn't matter if I call it plunging fire, or "vertical penetration at 8 km", as the end result is the same: that parameter yields little penetration (as such, there is indeed next to none "plunging fire" at 8 km) and is irrelevant to this discussion. Why? Because it doesn't adhere to the game's mechanics when overmatch is involved. As for your last sentence: that's your words and not mine. Feel free to read my earlier post a couple of times more. As for the actual topic, of course it is an issue when this bug affects destroyers the most: "it happens to every class" is hardly a valid argument when destroyers lose roughly 15 % of their HP because of it while cruisers lose only 7,5 % (and this is very roughly calculated, as I just couldn't be bothered to pick an exact example). Don't even get me started on battleships, since this won't really affect them at all due to the healing and HP pool. If this bug is also tied to the compartments of ships, it just also might be a "DD-mostly" feature due to their small sizes. That's enough from me on this discussion, I think...

81,53 =/= 90 degrees. Your formula shows the plunging fire penetration (aka vertical), but that doesn't mean anything when overmatch is involved: the mechanic is used to simulate that the shell is diving into the deck and merely demolishing the armour due to the large difference between kinetic energy and structural resistance. Or to put it another way: the shell is hitting an extremely angled horisontal plate but isn't bouncing due to the overmatch mechanic. As such, the horisontal penetration will be used. Similarly, the vertical penetration will be used when a shell of a large enough calibre hit a thin vertical plate during plunging fire. Now, how this would pan out in a real-life scenario is another matter, but this is World of Warships, not a physics simulation/dynamic FEA.

Since overmatch disables ricochets, you only have to compare the horisontal penetration value from the graph to the calculated effective deck thickness (128,9957 mm at 81,53 degrees). As such, the Amagi would only fail to penetrate if the impact angle was 88,311 degrees (from the surface's normal vector) or greater. But as @Aotearas wrote, this will not happen due to the angle adjustments of normalisation. The formula you use does not take overmatch into account and is invalid for all cases where overmatch is a deciding factor.

I'm sorry, but clearly you missed the entire non-constructiveness of the "game sucks" header along with the "I am doing everything right so there must be something wrong with the game" mentality. Additionally, the Arkansas is not a weak ship and implying that RNG should favour her more is just asking for an unnecessary buff. Alpha testers are also not bound to a stricter moral code or additional rules than your average poster so I fail to see how that is even relevant. Lastly, if the OP meant that there is too much RNG in the game, a battleship should be the last thing to be used as a discussion-starter, as gun RNG is the only thing that keeps the class somewhat balanced.

Wait, everyone? Because the requirements were bugged WG'd so that even if you fulfilled the criteria, the discount would be removed if you logged out of the game.