Viridem

That is a fantastic argument in favour of keeping friendly fire disabled. I agree that removing it was a good thing, too.

Happened to me once recently. It resolved once I alt tabbed out and back to the game.

It feels that some are just interested in complaining. There are three threads about this bug: the two biggest are basically dedicated to complaining, and this one that explains how to work around it. I could probably count on one hand the number of posts trying to explain what's happening. I think that even if it's not up to the player to figure out and fix the problem, trying to understand it would be pretty important for us. But even leaving that aside, do people have no curiosity about how things work? Have the nerds actually disappeared from the internet?

The exact same thing has been happening with torpedoes for years... For Ise, your guns keep pointing where you left your crosshair before launching your planes. Flying around doesn't change where your guns are pointing.

I think I have found some clues as to why this bug is happening: More research would be needed.

I think I have found some clues as to why this bug is happening: More research would be needed.

I did some tests with Tachibana (for her 22 seconds reload) and here's what I found: (note that Tachibana has 2 launcher separated by quite some distance): I shot topedoes towards the rear end, front end and center of launch arc for each launcher, on both side of the ship. My first conclusion was that torpedoes weren't actually aiming towards the end of the aiming cone, but towards the reticle. This can be observed if you aim very close to your ship and fire all torps in quick succession or while locking your armaments. The first set will go where you want to (if you exclude the current bug), the other set will cross its path and go the opposite direction. They work exactly like the guns: if you fire all of your gun while aiming as close as possible to your ships, they will cross path where you aimed, but actually land in the water further and in a semi-circle. So far I discovered nothing, as I think it was already working like that. Keeping that in mind, I actually remarked something: I mentally traced lines going from various points of the ship (center, torps, guns, bow and stern) and going through the reticle, and saw that the torpedoes were actually going from the torpedo launcher but where the GUNS were pointing. A drawing will explain better: So here's the reason why torps are currently broken: torpedoes launcher are each tied to a gun on your ship, torpedoes will go where one of your gun is aiming at (or rather, where it should be aiming once fully turned) not where your launcher is aiming. On Tachibana, the rear launcher is tied to gun n°5, the front launcher is tied to guns n°2 and 3 (depending on which side your aiming). It means that, depending on your ship, torpedoes could go beyound their maximum angle, or fall miserably short. I will try with Yahagi and her notorious bad angles :p. Edit: Tested with Yuubari and Yahagi, and the results are inconsistent, although I might still be on something... On Yahagi, it seems that it is tied to the direction of your back launcher when firing towards the front, and vice versa. On Yuubari, I have no idea. Still, the results were extremely consistent on Tachibana!

First explanation. Coming up with a new system, that would be legal everywhere (especially in China), would please most of the playerbase, and still maintain good profits takes time. They have no incentive to hurry this for the end of the year. Currently only a small reddit mob (lol) and a handful of forum users care. The average player doesn't care, and probably doesn't even know of this. Some game journos picked on this for their rags, but I doubt anyone care about their crap articles. Since they apparently decide well in advance what they're gonna spend time on during the year, they probably don't really have the time to deal with that in the next coming months either. In short: current system is possibly very predatorious, but not necesseraly illegal, and disclosing the drop rates would lead to a decrease in sales, with bad press and possibly legal actions (which they'd probably win). They have no incentive nor time to disclose them quickly. They're probably coming with a new system that would be roughly acceptable by the players, but mostly legal in China (HUGE market). They'd need to come up with a system and description so well designed that even the most disingenuous player (the likes of Flamu, or your average redditor), coudln't even remolty complain about, thus avoiding another backlash and potential legal action (they'd probably win as well). I'm not saying that WG is not doing something illegal with these crates and bundles. It's possible, but I don't see how you can interpret this post as a confession. But would people be truly happy with the drop rates disclosed? If anything, it would be telling WG "Yes want to be screwed over with gambling, but tell me how screwed I'll be beforehand!". The only good answer is "No, we don't want your gambling."

Not selling in China. And yes I was talking about the summer crates. The one that had the correct info in Russian.

They want to have the exact same information disclosed to the players everywhere in the world, but considering not every country has the same laws, they have to come with a new system and descriptions that would be consistent and legal everywhere. This, while still maximising their profits (as any sane company should). It also tells that they might want to take the opportunity to sell these things again in China. Any interepretation beyound that sounds like nothing but speculation. If you're searching for a clue indicating that WG is currently doing something illegal with their bundles or crates (which is possible) it's not there. Remember how people took their pitchforks because a mistranslation stayed for 4 hours at the footnote of an otherwise extremely clear crate description? I don't think they want to repeat that, especially if there are possible legal consequences... Edit: ultimately, rather than asking for drop rates, you should ask for the removing of gambling altogether. You might potentially lower the impact of gambling, a tiny bit, but the problem will still be there. Worse, in a way, you'd approve of it. "We want gambling but only if we can calculte our odds of wining." Ban gambling. Nothing short of that. Simple as.

So far, after 66 ranked battles (47 of them at tier 8), subs have barely affected me. I see them less and less, too. I have been actively targeted only a few times, and got hit by torps only once or twice. I have however damaged them quite a few times. Every time they got in my way, I managed to either sail away, kill them, or force them to max depth. Being outspotted has never really been an issue. Playing Harekaze II, packing a 5km sonar on a ship with 5.4km concealment, makes for quite a nice counter to them though. I was told that they were going to ruin ranked, but frankly they had little to no impact. Carriers however still have a huge potential of ruining your game. However, I find the inability of some ships to damage them very frustrating (like having one at 40m depth, 2km away from you, while in a heavy cruiser). The spotting mechanics might be too complex as well. We already have to remember tons of radar and sonar duration and range, now they add ships with variable detectability and spotting capacity depending on their depth (which you can't guess until you spot them). I think they should at the very least add an indicator when you are spotted by a submarine at periscope/operating depth, just like when you are spotted by a plane etc. Not a fan of removing the ping with DCP, either. For the surface ship that burns its DCP, that is. I haven't played them, as there are no Japanese ones, and I only sail in Nippon steel. So I can't comment on that part. I'll patiently wait for them to be added in the game, like that I-58 they showed two years ago. ゴーヤ、潜りまーっす！

8 of them, so 11,4% chance of getting a ship. That's not too bad, but considering I'm only interested in Kamikaze and Musashi, the odds dramatically drop near 0. I'd take anything from them, except camos and premium time, as I'm loaded with both (I might get bored before I run out of either of them).

So far I have only played 5 games, in Mutsu, Aoba and Hatsuharu, and it was enjoyable. Obviously, playing Hatsuharu, I didn't meet any submarine. Mutsu's ASW hit quite hard the submarines I attacked, for most of their hp. I got only one salvo from Aoba to a submarine, and promprtly removed a third of its hp. I don't mind facing less ships, on the contrary. I quite enjoy the smaller number of players in ranked. Not interested in playing submarines. Quite interested to see where this goes.

Sounds like a reasonable course of action. The best ways to answer to a mob is to either tell them to get bent, or ignore them. Said mob represents a small minority of the players, too. It's the most cost-effective thing for them to do.

Ahah yes I realised quite some time ago, and forgot to tell you. By chance I just found an old copy of res_mod on my external hard drive, and sure enough I found the correct markings for both Kagerou and Yukikaze. I added a .rar fil with both camos in it. I have no idea where I got them, though, so I don't know who should take credit for them. Sorry :/

Hello! The markings on the Kagerou hull reads "Gagerofu", instead of "Kagerofu". Yukikaze also have the same markings as Kagerou, with the typo included. The katakana for "Ka" should look like this (Kazagumo, here) I haven't found any photo of the Kagerou, but all drawings of it uses the katakana for "Ka". Would it be possible to change it? Unless I'm mistaken and it's actually historically accurate. Could Yukikzae be added, too? (it's weird because I swear that at some point I managed to find an accurate mod for Kagerou and Yukikaze...) Thanks!

Hello! The downlad links for the two options for Kuma's B hull are broken. I appreciate your work (and the flags too), it makes the game look much better!

Hello! I'm using the simply grey paint mod which I modified by adding some ships from Wyvern's historical mod (Tenryuu, Furutaka and Tachibana), and I'm working on adding historically accurate IJN DDs camo mod's colours (and its version of the Kagerou and Yukikaze camo, as simply grey's has a typo, as it read "Gagerou", I'll notify him later about that...). To my understanding for all camos to be truly hidden with this mod, you have to hide them in port (gears in bottom right corner). My issue is that I want the Japanese Lacquer camo for Hyuuga and Hayate to appear as intended, while hiding camos like Kong vs Godzilla or New Year 2021 (which seem to be in the same category as Lacquer, "Decorative"). I also left the ARP, HSF and AL camos in their original versions. I kind of like them :) Is there a way to do this without manually hiding all decorative camos one by one via modding? If I have to do so, what would be the simplest way to proceed? Another issue I have, is that on Hyuuga and Hayate, secondaries, catapult, AA guns, searchlights etc appear grey with the mod, instead of black. I don't understand why exactly: I can't find these permacamos in the camouflage.xml file, and the mod modifies none of the specific files related to them. What exactly set the colour of these parts of these ships with this camo? Weirdly enough, the ARP, HSF and AL camos display just fine. Notably, ARP Kongou uses the same secondary 127mm gun as Hyuuga... I looked up the tutorials on modding, but I couldn't find a way to get these answers. I couldn't find Hyuuga in the ModsSDK file either... In the ModsSDK for Hayate, I can see that the files related related to the parts that appear grey aren't modified by the mod (for example, Hayate uses JD092_Director_Type_94 files for her fire director, yet the mod only modifies JD045_Director_Type_94_14_a.dds). Can someone make some sense out of all of this? Thank you! Edit: just after posting this, I figured that Black Lacquer used "colorScheme_Black_friday_01" to set the colour of secondaries, AA guns etc. And sure enough, after restoring the initial values, the camo is back to normal. Now the question is: how will the Black camos appear, and as I don't have any of these ships...

Thanks for the answers ! I'll try to find some more info on the specific colours of the ship, maybe try to change them a little in game. I'll get back to you if I find something interesting ! Edit: after doing some research: -from looking at colour photos of real ships, ship models and looking directly at the RGB values of the paints, the different paints looked fairly similar to each other, and to what's already in your mod. There might be a way to makes things a bit more accurate, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. -In game Musashi has her initial armament (with the four 155mm triple turrets). She got refitted in april 44, and got her paint and deck changed only later in september 44. Giving her a darker gray and black deck would make things inaccurate. Besides, I only found an aerial photo of the ship with these colours, where we can only see the wooden parts of the deck black... I have found no exploitable photo of Yamato either. -I looked at many photos of other japanese ships, and overall I'd say your mod is rather complete for Japanese ships!

I just downloaded the mod today and so far I love it! I installed it more for aesthetic reasons than historical ones, and while I have been using TheKingOfUm's (excellent) camo mod for a couple of years, I feel like it's yet another improvement! I only play japanese ships, and what you did with the Japanese destroyers is just great. Thank you for that! Now there's just a few things I have been wondering: -the japanese ships had a different shade of grey depending and where and when they were built (as described here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4702151 ) Yet it looks like most ships have the same two or three shades of grey, with notably the blue paint from Sasebo arsenal being absent. Would it be possible to add these variations? (Unless my eyes are deceiving me, and they are already there.) -could you add a camo to Tachibana and Tachibana Lima as well? I haven't found any picture of the ship, but there's one or two of her sister ship Sakura. TheKingOfUm has one in his mod. -Musashi had her hull painted a darker shade and her deck blackened with soot (Yamato apprently received the same treatment at least for her deck) before operation Sho-Go. Could this be added too? I don't have the Musashi so I'm totally ok if it's not in the mod, but I think it would be pretty neat! ( https://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=3 ) Thank you again for your efforts on this mod! It's a shame WG spent so much effort on making inaccurate and ugly camos when they could have just copied the real ones, like Tama's, Kiso's or Mutsuki's. I'm sure they could have easily made some money with accurate paint and tactical numbers for destroyers, rather than... whatever they came up with. I also love what you did with Kongou. (Well, Haruna!) She looks gorgeous.