MrConway

Correct, that could indeed be a possible, if highly unlikely scenario. Those camouflages have a very high value due to the big bonuses they give, which is why only a single one can drop here. There will be a portal article tomorrow with in-depth information about the Lunar New Year offers and missions, that should clarify things!

That's the spirit!

I'll just go ahead and say "Yes, of course - I will do that right away", then I can claim credit in case it happens. And if it doesn't, I'll just blame @Crysantos (he's on vacation and won't know)!

I like your suggestion and I'll see if this is something we can move to - no promises though :)

I guess this is where we just have to own up to having screwed up a bit on the community management side of things. Had we been aware how universally liked this unintended change was we might very well have gone with a different route and implemented it as a proper feature. Internally this was always just a bug to be fixed to return to the mechanics that were already working and had been in place for quite a time. But we can't feasibly ask for community feedback on every bug fix. This is again where I want to encourage you to come and give us your feedback following an update so we can have an accurate picture of what you think of changes like this!

I doubt that I'll be able to tell you how the code exactly works and I also doubt that you, or I for that matter, would understand it if you are not a software developer yourself. The detection mechanics are very complex and by leaving the bug in we risk causing more bugs whenever we change anything that interacts with these mechanics. The code needs to be properly documented and work according to its own internal logic to ensure that all other components of the game and all the other developers can work with it as initially intended. When we re-implement these mechanics, we will be using different code that will be custom-written and intended specifically to produce the desired result. Lets use a metaphor: You want to cross the road, you can either run across or you can wait for the traffic light to turn green and cross as intended. Both solutions get you to the other side of the road, but one risks getting you run over by a truck.

Damn, why didn't we think of this!? You should totally check out our careers section, we're always looking for talented programmers!

As @The_Reichtangle pointed out, please read the statement in full. Update 0.8.0 is deploying as we speak and is already live on two clusters. Even if we wanted to risk breaking things and would have wanted to re-implement the broken bit of code that cause the current detection mechanics, we could not do it in time. We have commited to properly re-implementing it ASAP, this is the best we can possibly do. The CV rework has been in development for over a year and was certainly not implemented in double-quick time.

What we have given you here is a look at our intended goal for Russian BB gameplay, how we will get there in the end remains to be seen following our tests. There is a good chance we will have to nerf or change some aspects of them, but we have zero intention of releasing a broken line of ships, even if they may be Russian And honestly, if we would really make balancing decisions based on our audience demographics, we would have to make German ships more OP balanced.

It seems it is connected to the fact that I pre-scheduled the BB thread for the correct time and this post was made directly. We'll see if we can teach the notification feature to also mention scheduled posts!

I am not sure how this is ambiguous: Indeed. Our patch-deployment and development process is very complex and "quickly implementing" something in a project as large as World of Warships can quickly have game-breaking consequences. If the devs say that this bug needed to be fixed to ensure the stability of the code going forward ,we should take their word for it. :)

I don't see how this is bad news, but let me crosspost here so we can discuss it.

Digesting feedback is indeed tough and I for one always pay great attention to the difference between quality and quantity feedback. There are often individual posts that I highlight directly to devs if they are done well and provide good arguments to support said feedback. In many other cases I do however rely on getting some quantity to gauge the import of a particular piece of feedback. For example 5 people saying Ship X is op and 5 people saying it is UP doesn't tell me anything useful, but if 50 people agree on the same thing it is a clear sign of a potential issue. Yes, that was however in large parts our fault by not highlighting the fix as a discrete change in the PTS update notes and just filing it as a bug-fix (because that is essentially what it was) - but more on that later. In addition we were all pre-occupied by CVs. As mentioned above, this is something we should have highlighted with more clarity. The tricky thing with PTS is that there will always be something happening on the live-server. We try to offset this by providing some rewards as incentive to participate in PTS, but if we make those too large we can expect people to just come for the rewards and leave - which also doesn't help us that much.

Hah! I'll schedule it now, good idea!

The unfortunate thing is that there was very little feedback about this topic during the weeks of public test. Everyone, including us, was very much focused on the CV aspect of the update.

I am happy to post more responses there if it helps, but you can rest assured that feedback reports are created based in large part on the feedback given there - by me :) And you should be aware that we simply cannot and don't want to act on all of the feedback given there. The topic you mention is one I see you post about a lot and to a degree I agree with it, but you have to realize that we have players that do want and consume all of the content we put out - in that respect we simply cannot cater to everyone at once.

The frustrating thing is that I always ask, there is a dedicated forum section for exactly this purpose and the number of posts there is really not amazing. I would be super happy if more of you would get in the habit of giving us feedback both during public test and then following the update - because we really do read it!

Due to a small technical issue with update 0.8.0 our ModStation will not immediately work following the update. We already know the exact reason and right now are looking for the best and quickest way to deliver the fix. We will notify you about any further news on the subject here. Please accept our apologies for the trouble.

Commanders, Last weekend, we had major server outages which prevented a lot of you from playing World of Warships. At the moment we have a temporary fix in place, but to make sure everything works as it should we will have to conduct additional maintenance later this week. To make up for the disruption and inconvenience caused we are offering the following: 1. Those of you who played at least one battle since January 5 up to January 20 (when the issue was solved) will be able to claim 2 days of WoWS Premium Account and 2x Belle Époque containers. 2. Each EU clan will receive 2,000 oil. We will update you with instructions on how to claim your compensation once the issue is fully resolved. We sincerely apologize and appreciate your patience. Action Stations!

Sorry, I stepped out of the thread on page 4 - is that actually a thing now?

Wow, this thread really went places I want to thank you all for coming here and letting us know your opinion and feedback on the upcoming change, it shows what an awesome and passionate community we have! Rest assured that we will discuss and consider your feedback, you can expect a follow-up on our devblog tomorrow.

There will be a more detailed descriptions of the offers when they go live, you'll find what you need there. We're working on making this part clearer, my apologies.

I would totally be up for Friday evening drinks if that is not a troll offer :P

Agreed, lets concentrate on the other thread. closed

Also: Closed for duplicate thread. :)