Kartoffelmos

As far as I know, Yamato, Zao/Moskva and Khabarovsk (possibly Gearing if it suits your playing style). Edit: If you plan to participate in organised battles/clan war, Moskva is probably a smarter pick than Zao. For random games only, Zao should be better.

Not necessarily. On the test server, I believe every shell/torpedo which is aimed at you and misses is logged as well. I think I managed to "divert" 500k damage when I played a game in the Atlanta, so it depends on how they plan to distribute the XP rewards. After all, cruisers and destroyers dodge far more shells than battleships.

Yay, now we even have "first"-spammers on the forum. Great job at being wrong as well, increasing the annoyance factor!

Blizzard did something similar with Overwatch. It didn't go particularly well since people started to report good players in order to avoid meeting them in future matches. Needless to say, the function was scrapped. My guess is that it would be abused in the same way here.

Can someone please enlighten me as to why the word "turd" and an image of a rusting fishing boat (?) were moderated? Is "turd" really such an offensive word? And did the rust bucket insult someone by being too salty? As for the ship, 250k damage shouldn't be that hard to pull off in a tier 9 battleship no matter how bad it is... but then again, it IS Jingles we're talking about here .

To be "fair", Jangles complained about not being able to penetrate the Omaha's hull when his shells obviously flew too high, hit the deck/superstructure and, well... The ship also have the advantage that cruisers cannot abuse your reload (bow towards you and turn after you have fired, etc.) as well as decent HE towards ships you cannot normally penetrate, so the guns should not be as situational as he thinks.

[edited] As for the floating [edited], I would guess that it's one of the lower tiers since he mentioned that he had to play a lot. In higher tiers, even bad battleships can dish out a decent amount of damage so I do not think it's above tier 7 at least. The tier 3 seems to be a possibility, due to it's low speed and limited range (both are comparable to the specifications of the St. Louis) as well as the quite probable standard low-tier BB accuracy.

Errrr, yes? It would not make much sense to compare the numbers to anything else as that is not relevant to the player base as a whole. Of course they have more players than 13k, but it's more useful (in my opinion anyway) to display how the number of banned players affect the daily population (aka the ones who at any given moment play the game). Edit: Of course, I could have used the prime time number, but it is somewhat unreasonable to assume that all top 1000 players are online at that period.

It doesn't seem like it: 508 players were banned of which 39 were top players. If we assume that these players play regularly, we can compare that number to that of the average number of daily players. Nowadays on the RU cluster, it seems like this value is around 13k (13035 as averaged by the latest 8 peaks/valleys ("by day") at vbaddict). Now, by using the assumption, we get that (509 - 39 = ) 469 players were banned outside the top 1000, thus 469/(13000 - 1000) = 3,9 % of the average daily WoWs players were banned. Even if we say that all of the top 1000 players are not playing daily, the percentage would still be at roughly the same level: (469/13000 = ) 3,6 %. So yeah, cheaters are everywhere! Trust no one!

Yes, blame the matchmaker for the fail-division; that makes perfect sense... I like how you have conveniently excluded that information from your screenshot by the way.

Screw that! Buff Montana's accuracy even further! It's not like that will punish cruisers more than it will punish Yamato or anything! Though, I'm a bit worried regarding (IJN) high-tier cruisers since they now are talking about both balancing them and monitoring HE+fires.

The image shows free XP which I have accumulated by just playing the game, not unconverted XP... But I haven't researched it yet! D: Will I ever be able to enjoy the Zao before WG/Lesta nerfs it into oblivion and buffs the Moskva? I have enough free XP to stop playing the Ibuki, but I actually enjoy the experience. Guess I'll just have to hope that they are still as slow as ever...

It's not immersion-breaking! Don't you remember the global irradiated spider storms of the 1930s? Also, real ships did not have hit points (in real life, you wouldn't know if a ship was only one shot away from sinking), so I guess you're fine with that because "reasons"? For that, I have a suggestion: make the UI invisible until you obtain the level 4 skill "Advanced Combat Interface". Now everyone can enjoy a realistic game!

So there was a blind destroyer in smoke and you didn't rush him (from an unexpected angle)? Or even shoot after the tracers? Next time you're in the same situation, do one of the above. Alternatively, sail around the smoke cloud and cut off his means of escape.

Granted, they recently added more ships to the tech-trees, but there still is no consistency. In WoT, as long as the vehicle isn't an event/special tank, the tank is added to the tech tree in the following patch. In WoWs, the timing seems to be purely random, meaning that it's usually better just to buy the damn ship without the usage of doubloons.

Why am I not surprised? So those of us that play both WoT and WoWs can go fork ourselves? I am currently not buying doubloons (only "pocket change" needed for captain training) since I still do not know what will happen in the future. Will there be added more ships to the in-game tech trees? Will we get anything besides port slots and retraining to spend our doubloons on (I do not feel that premium camouflages and converting XP are worth it at the moment)? With unified gold, at least you know that you are going to spend your currency on something or at the very least you know that there eventually will be added vehicles to the tech-tree. With doubloons? Not so much. Since we also do not get any reassurances that they will be valid in other games either, I fail to see why I should invest in them. Even more so when they suggest that I merely can transfer them to another game (which partially implies that the unification process is not as technically challenging as first stated). If I were to guess, I'd say that the EU numbers are very low in comparison or that they do not want Coop to be too successful (splitting the player base and all the issues that comes with it). On the other hand, the player base in EU is almost as large as the one in RU, so your guess is as good as mine.

Can someone confirm that this is working as intended? I'm asking because I just retrained a captain for my Ognevoi (man, that ship stinks socks stock) and had one point to spare (the 11th one) before the retraining started. After retraining with silver, I had to grind ~18k XP which I did with my Murmansk. However, when I was done, I noticed that I only had 2k captain XP in addition to the free point when I should have had around 20k XP. So, either I remember incorrectly (plausible, but I recall that I earlier was wondering if I should put that extra point into BoS or wait to get EM) or there is something not quite right with the system. EDIT: Might have been another captain with an extra point and my brain might have gotten confused with all the skill-dropping lately, but it would be nice to know for sure.

It was either tested on the RU server (although I have not heard anything about it) or it was performed by the guinea pigs/owl people supertesters. My guess is the latter. Can't wait to hear the new excuse regarding the gold/doubloon unification or alternatively that they are *gasp* going to implemented it before 2017. EDIT: Heh, guess that shows that "no one" cares about Co-Op .

Maybe somewhat combative, but then again I started it with the boat-floating-shenanigans, so there's that. On paper, it really does look like a lame Atlanta (which many people complained about when the ship was first announced), but I suspect they underestimate how much of a difference smoke does to the overall performance. Atlanta always was situational since she cannot tank shells and constantly needs cover close to the enemies, and the consumable negates that weakness perfectly. Also, I would love to have a Flint, even if it gets nerfed (as long as she still retains a version of the smoke consumable) so I guess I have a reason to play ranked for the next seasons. If it wasn't for a certain real life issue coming in the way, I would probably have played more during this season as well.

I don't think that would be a good idea regarding battleships... Well, not any of the premium ships for that matter, but especially battleships (though, would be fun on the Mikasa, huehue).

Well, the Mahan has a firing range of 11,669 km while the Flint has a range of 11,120 km. Even with AFT, Flint will not be able to get 2,7 km longer range... You do have a point regarding lobbing shells over islands tough. As for the torps, the Flint has 4 x 16633 damage/broadside while Mahan has 3 x 11600 damage/broadside + 3 x 11600 damage. Depends if you prefer to have more chances at hitting or if you want alpha I suppose. If you hit with the entire broadside, it doesn't really matter in any case. My point regarding close quarter combat (aka against unspotted enemies that charge your location) was that against cruisers, you want to kill them as fast as possible thus making torpedoes a better choice. Against destroyers, well, hydro + guns will take care of that. So in that regard, Flint definitely wins. As for your last remark, feel free to read my post again and locate where I wrote that Flint was/is OP/UP/balanced. I merely reacted to the sensationalism surrounding the statement that one Flint in smoke equals two Gearings in smoke. Does it matter that I have the Flint or not when I point out factual flaws? In any case, if you wonder what I think of the ship, you only need to Imagine an Atlanta (with one less turret/side and better torps) that can create an artificial island anywhere it pleases (optimal firing conditions although not immune to torps). The result is quite strong, to say the least. Somehow I expect the global stats (which ultimately are the only thing that matters) to reflect my "observation" but then again, the ship is mostly played by competent players.

More like two (2) Mahans or 1,2 Gearings but whatever floats your boat, I suppose (the smoke is identical to the ones used by Mahan as well). Besides that, how is it any less difficult to deal with destroyers in smoke? Contrary to destroyers, the Flint does not have the luxury of a good stealth rating (relatively speaking), so it cannot escape as easily when the smoke dissipates. Mahan also has the advantage of more torpedoes/broadside with a 10 second shorter reload, giving it better close quarters defence. In any case, I'd rather wait for server stats before I brand it OP, but even when they get published, one better consider that the majority of Flint captains are competent players.

Takeda pls. Don't you remember how fast they "fixed" the Kirov?

Oh? And where did I "bash" you? And further, how is pointing out statistical performance any different from pointing out personal flaws/attacks/behaviour? And the provocative statements I'm talking about are not against game mechanics, but rather stuff like "BBs are UP", "My WR has dropped 5% when playing BBs lately" and the usual "my team let me down!". These are provocative because they are untrue while the personal remarks are provocative because they are insulting/offensive, but that was hardly the point. The point was that the replies to both, as described in this thread, can be considered toxic.

You do realise that you were doing the exact thing that you were complaining about, yes? He made a provocative statement (as did I, to some degree) and you bashed him for it. That was my point. The same goes for the usage of stats; player A makes a provocative statements and player B shows how his stats don't correlate with his claim. Is that any different to what you wrote (except that it relies more on facts than feelings/opinions)? In any case, I see we disagree on the basic notion of how knowledge of the game mechanics correlate to greater performance in the game (and vice versa, since you cannot be a good player without knowing how the game works), so there seems to be nothing more for me to discuss.