praetor_jax

No they dont represent only one ship. Most ships in the tech tree have configuration mix ups that were not uniform to their class. Look at the Wyoming f.e. - she was never modernized like that. Kongo is another - i forgot which configuration she has, but it was one of the other Kongo-class ships, not Kongo herself.

There should be two separate keys for disabling AA and disabling secondaries.

Hab auch eine entsprechende Mail bekommen und es hat auch funktioniert. Danke WG! Mir erschließt sich allerdings nicht warum ich die Mail bekommen habe - war nicht abwesend, also kann es kein "Willkommen zurück!" sein. Und ein neuer Account bin ich wohl auch nicht Wahrscheinlich ein Fehler im Verteiler?

Abgesehen von der Warspite braucht kein non-US Schlachtschiff mehr Reichweite für die Hauptbatterie. Edit: Kreuzer können das auch nichtmehr haben? Ok, das wusste ich nicht.

You care about ranks although they are completely pointless since WG decides who wins ? You are funny guy.

Press p to turn them off when a teammate crosses between you and the enemy. I would really like two separate keys though - one to turn off secondary guns and one to turn off AA guns.

This.

Thats not a good way to ensure balancing though First: we make sure all game mechanics work in the way they re supposed to. Second: We nerf whatever class/ship is out of line accordingly. If they could do it in only one patch that would be great. There are many ways in which WG could/should nerf BBs (or buff cruisers), but keeping game mechanics bogged in a way so they conflict with the general idea how they game should work out is not the right way. At least in my opinion. Reduced citadel damage to cruisers might be a way (or a hardcap on citadel damage, in contrast to a percental damage reduction maybe?).

Newsflash, the fact that they are criminals has nothing to do with them being russians or "eastern europeans" - they would also do the aforementioned things if they were "westerners". Apart from that i will sign your whole post.

Its not that bad an excuse - just think further: if they take a step back from "only deck mounted launchers" and implement submerged tubes for a few ships, they can no longer justify holding submerged tubes back for every ship that acutally should have them withuout an even worse excuse At the same time i dont think we really need to give every BB torpedotubes. We could give every single ship smokescreens then as well.

The worst part about this is that people wont be able to dodge torps or shells without immediatly getting accused as hackers. Great.

They dont become indestructable - they are just twice as hard to destroy. At least thats what +100% survivability should mean. Are you absolutely sure?

One thing though - there is no mention of the end date (or the actual duration) on the event page itself.

It is still "only" a news article - nowhere on the actual event page is a clear statement about the duration of the event. If anyone can tell me why it should not be mentioned on the very webpage dedicated to the respective event - please tell me. I can not think of any possible reason.

I am not going to dig through blogs again to find the Q&A that explained it - people (you) would instantly say that "WG employees lie anyway". Your point has nothing to do with rigging. You might as well say that water is wet - because thats the result. What would i be trying to win anyway? We got to the point that no certainty can be achieved anyway a long time ago. Also this. WG can rigg the game all they want, but if they do the existence of camouflage that influences dispersion/accuracy in any way is no proof for it. Edit Wait, let me rephrase that: The very existence of a game mechanic of course makes it possible to be influenced (by whatever source), but its sole existence (and the existence of possible tampering with said game mechanic) does not indicate or proof that such influence is being done.

Thats all nice and shiny, but why is it not on the event page itself? That is the one location every user who participates in the event will repeatedly visit through out the event. You have a dedicated page for the event and it lacks all basic information. There is no reason not to include it there. And dont go back to "we invite you to... the GNB event through the whole month of may" - that is simply, objectively wrong - the event did not start on the first of May and it did not end on the 31st of May.

An aspect that is open to all players has nothing to do with rigging. The camo is a part of the game that is open to all players. atomskytten you do know what happens when you lock a target right? you dispersion is reduced. Thats a normal part of the game. You have much greater dispersion when you shoot at anything without being locked onto a target. The camo is simply a penalty the acts against that - as it is only in effect when you re locked on to a ship that has such camo. This mechanic was in the game long before the camo was introduced. Rigging is if something beyond the normal mechanics of the game interferes with its normal functions. If somebody has greater than normal dispersion because the enemy is using camo it is not rigging. If somebody has greater than normal disperion because WG "says so" - that is rigging. And it does not prove that WG can manipulate the dispersion, because WG can do that anyway, they run the game. Of course they can - anybody who denies that is pretty naive. The question was never if they can - of course they can - the question if they do and why. You can not use a basic game mechanic as a "proof", not even as an indicator. (well its an indicator that the code allows for it, but thinking that it would not allow for it anyway is pretty dumb) "RNG-rigging"? I dont think it means what you think it means - the RNG is the ultimate diceroll. The camo alters the field of possible results, not the diceroll itself. It does not "make you miss", it will make the probability of missing more likely. That is not the same thing. Dont treat it as if it were. While you re absolutely right that WG can rigg the game all they want and that there is hardly any possible proof for or against that - your arguement based on dispersion modfiers is a complete fail.

Ask yourself - what sense would it make for the game to prevent both sides from getting citadels? Go back to dicegames - are there always crits fails or successes in every event? Are they always or never evenly distributed? Both? Is it random perhaps? Bye, have fun with this pointless game.

We are pointing out that "real-world RNG" as you call it seems to behave the same way as (non rigged)-RNG. You see the results in a dicegame but its obvious that its not rigged, but you see the same results here and it has to be rigged for the sole reason that its a computer game and could be rigged if they wanted to? Why would they rigg the game even? All the randomness in the game already produces this sort of "balance" that lowers the influence of a single player - which leads to what you call "makign the game more enjoyable". - there is simply no need for them to tinker with this any further. Going to take mtms adivce here, i really need to stop answering to these threads.

Na, verwechseln wir wieder Arcade mit Simulation?

You really need to play a dicegame. At least once. Maybe it will dawn on you.

Apparently "one of the best clans in the world". Maybe it had a different name when you were there, but its the only clan in your profile that would make sense.

Ok... although its fair this way i really think it should not happen. A hit should at least penetrate... hm although that would obviously give an advantage to armoured ships. Tough question.

Ok thats new, i did not know that. Does that work on all ships though?

Well, it does make a difference if a ship has armour around its magazine or not - if the hit does not go in it cant blow up the ship.