mtm78

If it doesn't have a 'stock' hull this is for balance reasons, I see no point in continuing to argue against balance over historically accurate ship representations. Since this obviously isn't in line with the intent of this thread, consider this my last post on the subject.

It depends, peak times I seen as much as ten people which isn't much I admit. TS is a bit busier but I have to admit myself I'm still often on the WG TS ( I try to log into STGA ts as well and I'm usually in the 'poke me' afk room there then ). Thing is, we should do more courses/classes. I'll discuss it with strangers123, he was planning another carrier lesson if I remember correctly for somewhere in the near future, I am thinking of doing a CA/CL session where I would like to focus on positioning and situational awareness, but as I said before you can also indicate requests on the forum there is a whole section for that.

No, the shells afaik should always detonate on impact, the effect of armor on the damage thereafter is proportional to the AoE and initial damage values of the HE shell. Smaller calibre shells have less 'alpha' and smaller AoE, which makes armor negate much more of it's effects. It is not penetrating the armor with the shell, it's the 'penetration' effect of the high explosive in the shell exploding on the outside armor.

Blahblahblah..... Ridge racer a simulation... don't make me laugh any harder I might cause an earthquake. And can you make ONE single post where you're not whining about bias, or bashing WG in any shape or form?

Well according to WG own wiki HE is supposed to detonate on impact ( even on water ), hence 'penetrating' any amount of material is contradictory to this ( even HE has a fuse though.. ). Now you seem so surprised I'm actually not 100% sure anymore, I've read both ( it's a bug, and 'it's working as intended' ).

That is just a fallacy, not all 'historical war games' are simulators, it all depends on the ruleset used in the game.

So, now 16.x km for Warspite ( for instance ) is 'historically' accurate? Developers have said this is not a simulation, as GAME BALANCE if more important then 'history'. Sorry but 'simulation' is laughable. This isn't a simulation it's not even close. It's ARCADE. In a simulation settings, the hit ratio of BB's is in the low single digits. Tell me again how much this game is a 'simulation' please edit: For those who want this game to be an simulation -> This is then an Artillery simulation game, you have to take into account win, ammo choices, elevation and the amount of gunpowder used, how this isn't a simulation I got no clue

I think we should expand the rule for RN for GEBB's as well, so each whine and complaint about them will postpone them for two weeks?

I still can't believe I managed to dodge all those shells for so long

Saw Yoshi_EU in his Yamato.. he was being modest, he said it wasn't 'his ship' so to say. Then he got 2405 base XP and 3 kills. I managed 1427 in a Hipster coming in 5th, I felt bad as I wasn't the best tier 8

I too sometimes have trouble, but I am colorblind so for me the contrast is just not always enough ( depending on background ). I guess this is what you mean?

Why would we not want people to learn and play like they should in tier III to V? Not talking about 'lack of knowledge/situational awareness' off course, that can be remedied by listening to the other players in your team. Ofc, would be nice if we had an in game indication of which players we can/should ignore, and those who's advice is actually worth listening to. Tier I and II are training ships, they don't count. But tier IV already has all the different classes, why would someone be excused for not playing as good as they could ( which at times includes listening to other players with more experience ( and skill... some 4k battles player who is still performing bad is off course not the one one should turn to for advice ) ). If you're in my game, doesn't matter which tier ( though ofc, low tiers are better suited because there are newbies there who when they are about to do something ill advised, have the excuse of lack of knowledge/experience, while on higher tiers giving advice is rather moot since people should have learned before getting there and are highly unlikely to learn from advice on higher tiers ). and you're about to do something which might lose us the game, I will point that out in an as constructive manner possible. You catch more flies with honey then vinegar they say right ;) edit: Also coop is NOT a tutorial. the AI is not good enough for that. You can better call it a shooting range, you can learn to lead ( aim.. ) in COOP. But a tutorial would imply there is a tactical gain to be had from playing PVE and there is none.

The only things I can really think of in terms of losing would be threefold; time. faith and enthusiasm. Even preparing for a proper league takes time, now there is the fact that most competitive WoWs groups are already organized and doing training stuff, so that might be a moot point. Then, faith. With so much uncertainty, it's taking a leap of faith. I am talking mostly about clear rules, like the NA where that final game didn't go as planned or something and it 'ended' in a 2-2 stalemate due to regulations not being prepared for what went wrong. I think it's probably important to prevent something like that from happening, but I don't have any experience with those rulesets so I can't estimate really how hard it would be to make a ruleset which would be considered 'complete' enough. Enthusiasm then.. if you would jump into this head first right now, and it doesn't work out, I fear some people might just 'burn out' because of it. Maintaining coherency and keeping up attendance rates for training might be an issue if you would start something based on faith and halfway through get confronted with something unexpected. I'm just guessing here btw, I don't know how for sure how some of the other people feel about the league proposal/thread as I'm not even in a group who is competing in them

There are many topics on this subject already, you could have searched for them as it would save you and us some time answering your concerns. 1. This is fair, you're in division you need to make sure you're all ready in ships with the same battle tiers. If not, you should accept the highest battle tier for the division is used by the MM. In your 'examples' the problem isn't MM, but divisioning of tier I and III ships ( we call those FAIL divisions for a reason ). The reason this is fair, is that if you change this, divisions become exploitable, ensuring top tier matchups for certain ship combinations. 2. The MM will generally balance out, you will be bottom tier as much as top tier, given ideal server conditions. But, certain tiers just have it harder. There is a big jump in power from tier VIII to IX because even the CA's gain the heal ability. So it it is more noticable when you get into a +2 matchup when you're in tier 7 ships. On the other hand, tier 6 - 8 is a gap but not nearly as big a jump. Mismatched teams, multiple lower tiered ships against less amount of higher tier ships, was actually part of the game. It was removed due to complaints ;) MM chart -> http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Battle_Mechanics_(WoWS) Also, a lot of premium ships on the lower tier have a limited MM compared to regular tech tree counterparts ( for example Yubari, a tier 4 cruiser which can see tier 5 max instead of tier 6 like normal tier 4 cruisers ).

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56738-the-situational-awareness-is-gone/page__fromsearch__1 Search is your friend.

Isn't there a big issue with uncertain rules and sponsorship or something, which was the reason there was so little response.

Only technically?

The argument has always been, afaik, that the rewards are in line with the difficulty levels. So yes, you got a good point, if the new mode is going to be much more challenging you will/should get a higher reward. But, even without that, since there are more enemies, you should even with the same multipliers be able to get more base xp.

3. Server data/surveys ( combination? ) on RU cluster showed a significant(?) % of players who at least sometimes play PVE. Also, look at other ( tank ) games where coop missions is basically the mainstay of the game ( and people like it a lot ). I am looking forward to having mission oriented coop battles, I think there is a good chance of them being a really nice addition to the game which will both satisfy the people already playing PVE as perhaps getting some players like me who only incidentally have touched PVE to venture further in that regard. Also, there is absolutely NOTHING which stops proper balancing of PvP mode in relation to extending the PVE mode. Ships balanced in PVP will not need adjusting in PVE, WG can just tweak the AI. 4. So, if a ship is 'ready' for release, they should hold off on it because you feel there are enough VMF premiums? I agree btw, there are enough, I also won't be buying her as I got Murmansk and Molotov already. But: this game doesn't 'NEED RN NOAW OR GEAM DEADED' or any of that bs QQ'ing. To much developer bashing here for me...

You can also look at it differently: in RB's you only negatively affect six other players on your team, in randoms this is way worse. I don't really play to grind, though ofc it's a part of the game, I play to have fun. If I were 100% serious on grinding I would have more tier X's by now. Since fun in randoms is what I play for, and winning games is more fun then losing games, I don't agree that you can excuse behavior based on 'it's random battle so it's ok'. Low tiers have more new players, you can't exactly expect the same competence or situational awareness. The frustrating thing is that we don't have XVM, I mean if the newbs would see I actually know my stuff ( slightly ) maybe they would next time listen to advice I Yolo only in Imperator Nicolai I, and in lesser extent I did it with Umikaze. Teaching the newer players that sailing broadside to a BB is a bad thing, and sailing in a straight line is also a bad thing. I don't mind that, educating them through some devastating strikes is not a particularly nasty choir to do for the betterment of the playerbase. And while there is far less pressure on performing well there, considering the level of competence, I still get very salty if I see people who are about to do something which makes me go.. .. and you use chat to inform them of what will happen, and propose a valid alternative only to be ignored or to get called a noob ( by someone sporting a grand total of 50 battles and 40% wr most likely ). Seems community in general just doesn't care, or doesn't want to 'admit in public' they might be 'baddies'. Hell let me take this opportunity right here and now: I myself am a BADDIE! My performance at tier X is sub par, I am told it is and I ADMIT it is. Why? Because I have a grand total of maybe 50 battles at tier X. I enjoy tier IV to VIII and after that it goes down, so I don't play high tier enough to increase my competence! So, newbies, please, in the next game, just listen please, don't worry about admitting you're maybe not Rambo incarnated and you won't solo 8 enemies in your CL, that works the same for everyone regardless of skill. Anyway, this might have gone slightly off topic, sorry

Enjoy your vacation! Have you ever considered doing the modpack with a partner? Most modpacks are done by a 'community' or group of people, you got a lively forum I would be surprised if you don't have people around who would be capable and willing to help you out? Not having you around will certainly be a loss, even if there are people here who will probably update the mods and be willing to help others make combinations ( looking at Euan_Huzarny for instance ).

Might have been the case, it even looked like he was going to do it for a short time before he feered off and went to B alone with another BB without CA and DD support. They died pretty quickly

Nooooo!! I absolutely detest players approaching any game mode like it's 'casual' unless they are in PVE. There are OTHER players on your team, playing against OTHER PEOPLE. By definition this is competitive. Ranked is not more competitive, it's 7 randoms vs 7 randoms. There is a 'ranking' system based on luck ( which team has more potato's/SBF in strike ranger ) and then a system in place which favours certain ship classes over others ( not that I would complain, I would just be crazy to not play in a DD ). There is not more 'skill' or teamwork in ranked, not in the brackets I played at least. Again, I 100% detest anyone who comes into MMO's without the intent to do his utmost to try and help his team and win the battle. I don't even care if it's 'low tier stuff' or not. edit: Yesterday a friendly Nagato said: there is no carrier, let's push the middle! I lol'd. Then I facepalmed. Hard. edit: as most would have guessed, I was being quite salty when I wrote this. Everyone is free to play for fun, just don't expect everyone else to be happy about it if your idea of having fun is not something which helps the others win the game

It's actually not that bad, besides the shell contrails I can play this vanilla without being at a disadvantage. Try playing WT GF's in realistic mode if you're colorblind ( I stopped after one or two battles, they left out the tank outlines I couldn't see any enemy tank on some maps

It is a step in the right direction but the AP shells don't have enough contracts and are almost impossible to track properly for people who are colorblind. Therefore I still need to rely on mods for this, to not be at a disadvantage vs vanilla players who are not colorblind