mtm78

IDS_XXX is an identifier for localisation packages, they point to a a string there but if localisation package isn't complete it will display the identifier itself ( I told the same in the bugs thread earlier ). Localisation packages on PT sessions often aren't complete.

Produce the replay, since that video is not conclusive.

Yes, ofc that would work Just, don't remove FF in the sense that friendly torps would just pass through allies like their phase torpedo's from Star Trek

The server top wr people all tend to play in divisions with carriers already. That is why other classes top wr are close to that off carriers. The change would be that instead of getting +-80% wins in their divisions, they will get close to a 100%. The unfairness would be there, now it's random which two carriers you might get. I might get a strangers or reyte or Ishiro on the enemy team, but the chance of getting a strangers and a reyte on the enemy team is almost non existent. If you would allow them to both play in a carrier, that chance suddenly becomes statistically relevant. And as I said, it just wont be fun for the other carriers or any of the other people in the game. Basically they are all reduced to either 'food' for the top CV division, or 'sidekicks' when in the top CV division's team where their impact on the game is basically nullified ( they only have to provide the CV's with enough time to work, which means a certain amount of map control but no requirement for doing actually a lot of damage or sinking ships: the CV division will take care off all of that. edit: SBF is a 'forumite' which is quite well known for his strike Ranger plays in ranked battles. Not in a overwhelmingly positive way I might add, his views on carrier utility are not shared by the 'better' players, and his performance in ranked battles isn't exemplary ( or in line with his forum posts ). I could have used myself, I absolutely suck in carriers, I can't get into them enough to actually properly learn how to play them and if I would be in your team in a carrier you're going to be at a severe disadvantage when meeting a competent CV player on the enemy team.

Your replies are being read. And you're getting replies based on them. A couple of players thinking something would be 'fair and balanced' doesn't outweigh actual knowledge on how broken it would be. Trust me, after you meet reyte and strangers together in CV's once you'll never argue again that 2 cv divisions should be possible. It doesn't matter you want mirror CV division MM, and it was already explained why but I will do it again. 2 average CV players against two good CV players in division on voicecoms with loadouts to match each other's capabilities would make the game unplayable. The team with the two good CV players will win, the ships don't need to do much but stay alive long enough for the CV's to work. While the team with the average ( or imagine worse then average.. ) players will loose, their CV's won't be able to keep up with the division on the other team. It simply can not be allowed to happen, if you want to play in division only one of you people can take a CV. And even then, most top win rate players are already always in a division with a carrier. For a good reason, it means they will win much more then without a carrier, the CV brings that much to the table. So no, you simply can not allow two of those players to join in both in carriers and have a chance of meeting SBF with one of his buddies ( also in a strike Ranger ofc ) on the other team. It's not fun for anyone.

That shell penetrated the citadel under the front turret, to see it in more detail we would need to look at the replay from a better angle. What I think might not be what is actually happening, it's just the impression I get from both the replay and what I also notice in game. Also, the possibility of a server desync has been there from the start ( shells passing through ships, or torpedoes passing through a ship, because the client wasn't rendering the ships in the correct place in accordance with the server ). But that the client now 'registers' the hit and renders the impact regardless of server actually confirming it, that would be new behavior so I might be totally wrong. All I know for sure, is that the issue looks pretty confusing at the moment

Bow citadels are normal, please give a time index if you want people to judge the actual event.

First shell, when looked at from different angle. The shell is being rendered on the right of the ship -> should be a miss according to what is being rendered. But.. As you can see, the client think it hits as it renders the shell impact. here the angle of the shell and trajectory does seem to fully intersect with the ship, it impacted on top of the hull right to the turret if I saw it correctly. For me, this is only more confusing. The first shell 'impact' I would say is a mistake by the client, it shouldn't have registered as a hit. The second impact is most definitely a hit, and I can't see it hit the actual gun/turret so I don't think that's it either.

Can I have your replay. The picture and video are not conclusive at all since your angle you're observing the impact is wrong. Either way, I am leaning towards As is a little bit to random. Also, as said, I can't observe the exact impact location and angle due to the camera angle in the video.

How about insta banning anyone for a day who can't control his trigger finger? Removing FF is like catering to [dumb people]. People need to learn to not torp from second line like [self censorship applied in hindsight] cowards, removing FF would just dumb this game down like no tomorrow. So no, no way in hell WG should remove FF.

I am sorry I don't know how the MAC wrapper works, if you have wowslauncher.cfg you can edit <locale>en</locale> to <locale>ge</locale> and see if it works.

My shima hasn't left port in a long time... the captain is back in Fubuki.. thought about Kagero but I already had a semi decent captain there ( no CE though.. but it was cheaper to re-train one captain then two ).

Frankly I don't really care what the QQ is about, he says he goes AFK for whatever reason. Fine, let him continue to rack up reports and end up banned, don't waste oxygen on this..

I hope you continue to go AFK in 'imbalanced' matches, will mean you will gain lots of reports quickly and will eventually not have to bother again with 'imbalanced teams' at all

Lol.. go make a training room and put 10 cv's on the enemy team. Good luck with your FPS ( and if not yours because you got the couple k rig. then the other 99% of the playerbase ). And while that technically should be solvable, if you want that kind of game I would recommend you to look elsewhere.

That is why I use German, it's one of the few languages which make some sense to me other then Dutch and English

I highly doubt the fix was mentioned on Reddit before this forum, it was probably just easier to find ;)

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56814-bugs/page__st__40__pid__1173038#entry1173038 The EN localisation is missing from the update server, switch to another language in the launcher to finish the update. German is verified to work by me and others. God no they can't do that ;) I already have to buy back Kuma

Next time just say so, I'll gladly pick up the slack

Switching localisation doesn't have any effect on progress, that part is server side and localisation is client side.

Switch your launcher language into German ( GE I know works, afaik all others then EN should work but I only verified German ). http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56814-bugs/page__st__40__pid__1173085#entry1173085 Then you should be able to finish the update and launch the game ( in German but it will work ).

Put it in a spoiler please. And the log says update is complete My German is also Wunderbar don't worry

Strange as I and everyone else I know can log in just fine now when using GE language setting. Can you post your wowslauncher.log in a spoiler, or attach it to a new post?

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56814-bugs/page__st__40__pid__1173038#entry1173038