Tungstonid

Sorry, but if you can't handle some bots with "aimbot" (Seriously, why is this even a point. This isn't more helpful than all the oh so unfair aim mods out there) you are doing it wrong. Broadside sailing cruiser are easy targets, DDs always get spotted before they launch their torpedoes and CAs show perfect broadside for this, Bots always take the same routes besides trying to avoid torpedoes... Hell, you can wreck everything the games throws at you if you don't play like a buffoon. Besides maybe the Izumo but that's what you have a team for. Btw: Why don't you complain about first waves of this mode, too? Fighting Tier III and IV with a tier VI is definitvely unfair/beneath you, too, isn't it? Yes, it is hard to save the CV but once you see the pattern in which it spawns you can adapt beforehand, e.g. taking appropriate ships and sail to the spawnpoint before the CV actually spawns. But if you stop playing the operations after the second try because mimimi, you just don't deserve any better rewards, or any rewards at all if you couldn't at least fulfill main objective. To see a global win/lose statistic, maybe even for every single task, would be interesting, though.

If they receive enough reports for "misbehaviour in chat" (or whatever it is called now) they will get a chat ban. If you think it is something big you can take screenshots and send them to the customer support. They will tell you to use the ingame report function, though. Edit: But please don't post any names or screenshots with names here. You will only get a warning for naming and shaming.

Looks like I missed the second "not" in one of the sentences. It was late, I apologize. I came to a similar conclusion, though. Handling server-side problems differently by invalidating the match so no one gains or loses stars.

Which ultimately could be abused if the teams cooperate and agree on a draw, e.g. that no one kills any enemy or takes a cap etc. but wait for the points to fill up. Although I agree that serverside problems should be handled differently, e.g. by invalidating the game which was influenced by a server crash. It still sucks if one of the team was a sure winner but I think we can agree that it is better to keep the stars for a sure win than losing stars for a sure win because the server showed you the middle finger. Also, I don't play ranked games, but are you sure that a ram of the last two ships is the only possibility to reach a draw? The last two ships shooting each other simultaniously should lead to a draw. What about equal points after the time ran out?

Well, they did a short History Special about Dunkirk and they are promoting the movie which will be released in about two weeks. But I can't find anything about ingame events. Anyway, I am not sure if you can compare these two events. One was "just" an operation during WWII while the October Revolution was a bigger (i.e. more influential on Russia and world politics) thing.

If they handle it like ... was it carnival? Then no, because it is not an EU-specific event or a global event.

If by weekly mission you mean the Operation of the Week, yes, this is possible. Just form a division of up to three people and you can join. You can also join alone. But only for ther Operation of the Week. This is way more convenient than a connection sync.

If you want to play with three people or less then you are restricted to the Operation of the Week. And as far as I understand the rules, even if you had four people it still would be incredibly hard to win an non-operation-of-the-week-operation because you lack significant firepower and the operations are not balanced according to the number of participants. There are no random players who fill up the teams as far as I know. So unless you get at least six people in your division who know what they are doing (i.e. are (really) good depending on the operation) I wouldn't try it. Sidenote: Forming a clan is not a requirement to join operations with a group of more than 4 people.

Is TTT even a clan one has to know? Don't mean to offend but haven't heard of them before.

Basically this. Additionally I'd include low HP targets since damage on a DD is always nice but when I have the chance to finish a low HP BB or CA that could hurt me in the near future, I'd prefer to shoot it instead of the maybe full HP DD. You can't give a definite answer which ships you prefer to shoot because, as mentioned above, it is very situational.

Have you installed the v2.6.6.1.1 patch for your eye.exe? Haven't experienced anything like this.

The more competitive a game/game mode and the higher the possible prices, the more toxic players will become. Usually it is a mixture of finding a scapegoat for one's own inability or failures and sub-par abilities of the team that leads to frustration and toxicity.

This is already implemented. Some (but not all due to balance I think) ships who were fitted with dual purpose guns IRL can use them as AA guns in the game. They are even listed in the AA tab in the port. You can't control them manually though (as in shoot them with the left mouse button). The main purpose of DDs in this game is not to give AA support. DDs usually even deactivate their AA to not get spotted by planes. CA usually have better things to do than loading AA shells. So I'd say you'd see them used rarely if at all. Again, for some people you feel like they are steering their ship AND firing their main guns. I, personally don't really see any use in this but as a "nice to have" at best. Steel Ocean implemented the manual control over every armament (main guns, AA, secondaries, torpedoes). I don't say I didn't like it but.... as I said, not really necessary. Feel free to have a look into the numerous CV rework suggestion threads. They range from "nerf all AA" to "reduce CV MM" and what not. Despite this there is no real sign so far that WG will change anything significant in the future reagrding CVs. This, too, was proposed several times and while it would add a nice touch (especially for the port), WG won't do it for the same reason they don't implement visible tank crews for open-top vehicles in WoT. They don't want to risk to have a (higher) age restriction for their products which potentially prevents younger players to play. Not to mention that it is something completely different to animate a short 2D cartoon compared to sailors that should look at least a bit realistic and you can look at in 3D. Actually there is a ship where you can see a sailor onboard. Get the Missouri and put Steven Seagal on it.

Shouldn't that be the approach in every CA (or ship) for that matter? If you are spotted be prepared to get fired upon and take appropriate actions. OP admitted that this happens to him because he lacks situational awareness (not the skill) anyway. So you complain about BBs hitting their targets at >20 km and so the dispersion should be tripled? Sorry but no. I already mentioned in another thread that if you increase the dispersion to prevent that from happening, two things will happen: 1) The forum will be flooded by BB-only players whining that WG nerfed their favourite ship class because they can't hit anything at all. Nobody wants that because from a certain point on it is not even funny anymore but gets old. 2) The forum will be flooded with CA players because now the kill zone of a BB salvo is not 1 km² but 9 km² at 20 km and RNG tends to give you the middlefinger anyway. So there are still citadel hits at longer ranges although the increased dispersion should prevent it and knowing this the CA players will be even more frustrated. One more thing: If the increase of the dispersion should ever lead to a change of mind of the camping BBs and they really start rolling in on the caps so they hit something, doesn't that drive away CAs because, as others mentioned, a BB has a kill zone of supposedly (I personally see it differently) 15 km? So in the end you still have the lucky and rare 20 km citadels but on top of that more BBs will support the caps giving CAs the choice to either retreat with their tails between their legs or get insta deleted (again, not my opinion but apparently others see it that way). Instead of increasing the detectability for all BBs I'd rather make the CE skill less attractive for BBs because it is the core of every stealth build, i.e. reducing the bonus to somwhere around 3-5% (just to throw out a number) instead of the current 14% I don't see the point in punishing the whole class because some players use builds that are considered unfair by others.

Depends on what you shoot at. I'd happily "waste" a BB salvo on a DD with 100 HP just to make sure he is dead and doesn't go stealth in the next second. I'd happily "waste" a torpedoe bomber drop on a BB just to make sure he dies in time and doesn't kill another team mate before he blows up. As long as a ship is not dead it poses a threat. Be it because guns and torpedoes are still operational or because it can flank my team and cap while we are busy with the main force.

Well, they also state that according to their dataTM income on average for all classes but DDs won't change. But unless they balance the missing reward for tanking for BBs in some other department I can't see how. Which in turn would contradict their note that BBs are supposed to tank. Also, it is funny how the patchnotes on WGNA say something different: And according to Dashas video BBs will be rewarded for tanking which contradicts both WGEU and WGNA.

Why 3 per team and not 4 (or 3 + CV) and which class should be represented more than the others? In theory (altough it should be tested) the present pseudo rock-paper-scissor system should work best if every class is represented with (in?) equal numbers. CVs obviously fall out of this and an extra rule should be applied (--> count them as BBs in terms of MM OR always count the first CV as BB and if there is a second one let it take the place of a CA or DD) So without CVs we would get 4 BBs, 4 CAs and 4 DDs, whereas with CV it is 3 BBs, 1 CV, 4 CAs and 4 DDs or one of the other possibilities. In case the number of ships of a class doesn't allow 4/4/4 matches, WG could implement the 7 vs 7 battles of ships of the same class. Not only for BBs, but also for CAs and DD, should they be overrepresented somewhen in the future.

No, same here. Sometimes for being not active for a certain time (I guess), sometimes just for reloading the page. And I have automatic login/"stay logged in" activated...

So, do you agree or did I falsely remember it? Not sure what you want to say with a single emoticon of a suspiciously looking fish.

I think it said we will be able to buy the HMS ships when the DvD is released.

Bach in school I learned to start with positive comments when evaluating something. So... I like the new emoticons they added. Compared to before it looks weird. I have a harder time seeing what threads I have commented before. Before you had this nice green whatever-it-was showing up in the thread symbol. Now we have a small red star? Same for new/unread topics. Well, one can get used to it but it is not really convinient compared to before. I don't like the huge section above the forum overview, the language subforum AND each thread either.

Well, Coop battles don't really count for anything here. You can get away more easily when making mistakes against bots and you don't need - let's call it - "advanced strategies" and knowledge about the game mechanics to do good. If you need help or have questions, ask. There are several people here who are willing to help.

Come on, give him a break. At least he is asking for tipps. He is still at the beginning of his career, so maybe it is a bit early to speak of a BBaby. It is always a good idea to gather some information about the matter. Use the wiki (if you are more of a reading guy) or search for tutorials about the spotting mechanics on YouTube.

Can you make screenshot of that and where it says "hide"? Sounds more like a button to hide parts of the interface. There is no "hide" button for ships a player can use. Neither as consumable or module, nor as captain skill. If you think you have seen something weird which can not be explained with the game mechanics you know, you should add a replay. No one can help you with what your problem is and all you will earn are things like in post #2.

I think the compensation stopped with the rework of the economical system. The compensation used to give you back a part of your ship's repair costs. But since the rework you always pay the ship servicing cost, no matter how much damage you have taken. And with no negative impact on your repair costs due to team killing plus that WG can't predict anyway how many credits you could have made if you havn't been killed, they canceled the compensation.