Karasu_Browarszky

Seriously, I'd welcome more of the real ships into this game.

You are actually on page 3, while he is on page 2. Hope this helps.

The idea behind the ice breaker bow, AFAIK, is that the bow will rise on top of the ice and break it under its weight.

Cheers for both codes!

Some sort of a plotting room might be useful.

If they dare lie, they won't get any presents.

Cap never told me that.... But that isn't where I aim, actually. I aim at the point on the crosshair scale positioned where I estimate to hit the target ship. May come down to the exact same thing. However, I now see it might be difficult implement it any differently, but what I was actually trying to suggest was placing the indicator at the spot where the shells are going to hit on the water unless a target is present. I'm not sure if I'm formulating this poorly, or if it's just a little bit daft... Yes, but... at least for me the torpedo indicator has not taught me anything. If it were switched off in the randoms, analogous to what you were suggesting for the guns, I wouldn't be able to hit a bleeding thing with my torps. At the very least I'd need the sort of indicators and tools that actual submarine games offer. And, actually, I'd like to have those tools for my guns as well.

The Daily login this month.

I am still not quite convinced if this is a workable idea, or how you differentiate between ship speed and distance and player action. What I could see being useful as a learning/tutorial tool is an indicator where your shells are going to hit. Seeing that in practice would allow you to focus on getting a sense of that and leaving you only to figure out target ship movement relative to that. Of course, you'd still have to learn to adapt to the fact this is likely going to vary a lot between different ships you plan to play.

But... who would help the bots then? The problem is it would do the opposite, because bot behavior is so different from player behavior in PvP.

If you make the aiming easier, you need to compensate it by making dispersion worse. Would not be popular in certain quarters...

I see, thank you for the clarification. The concern is, it might 'dumb down' the game too much. Currently, there's huge variation in how well the players can aim, and while you can argue that adding a visual aiming aid would help to relieve the issue, what you might see in battle as a result could be 'catastrophic' in want of an apter expression. I agree, it is difficult to consistently aim well in the game, if you are on the sort of skill level than I myself am. Those on higher skill levels than I am, experience no such issues with aiming as I do. To date, I'm not entirely sure what it is they do differently. I know it is paradoxical that I say adding a visual aid would be bad while also stating that I suffer from bad aim personally. Instead of making it too easy to aim, what I wish instead they'd change is making the aiming more, shall we say, more consistent with visual observations, and/or combination of target lock on mechanics.

The problem is, at least I dont' have that much computing power that I could do those calculations off hand for every shot or salvo I fire. Add to that the 'wonky' perspective you have in visual terms, that the target ship angle seems different from what it really is, even to the point of making it sometimes look as it is turning away from you when it isn't. Furthermore, the change of course and speed happens too quickly in WoWS to keep up with any calculations. Add the lag to all of the above. (This from someone who originally learned to shoot using digital settings not an effing mouse pointer...)

Ee....

People really are too obsessed with their stats... must be some people thing.

I was a little surprised to see it myself, but as it's been pointed out, nothing's really changed except it is now stated more clearly. It's a good decision, incidentally, by WG to add it in the description.

I see OP is a of the modernist school of poetry.

Looking at the list, I find it hard to recommend this approach to anyone. If somebody wants to 'relive' the experience of grinding this game, a much more friendly way of doing that is to reset the lines using Research Center. Depends, of course, what they are trying to achieve.

The Longest Post Like ever.. seriously... I may need to book a two week vacation if I plan to read it properly, but I can say that agree with a lot of what OP is saying. There definitely should be changes, because I feel the game is currently lacking in variety of game play. We don't need heaps of new premium ships released every five weeks or so. I don't even think we need a whole lot of new maps, we need better maps. I, personally, need to see the Ocean a lot more often... but apart from that, the idea behind having different maps should be that they provide variety of gameplay. What happens instead is we are seeing pretty much the exact same things happen no matter the map, just in different parts of the map. As for the modes, the biggest issues I see is having now up to five different classes in the randoms, each of the five compounding any of the existing issues exponentially. The detrimental effects of the meta being limited only by ship numbers and player skill gaps. While this is 'variety', it is not the sort of fun and engaging.. and challenging variety that I'm talking about. From a game design point of view, there is the problem that they need to have a sort of general mode which the randoms are in order to maintain game integrity. There's no getting around that, but what I think they could do is make the MM more.. challenging, in terms of how random it is. Then we could have more of that challenging variety, if we could not guess beforehand what sort of team composition we are getting. That happens sometimes even now, and those battles seem.. well, harder, but also more interesting. The easy way would be to 'enforce' a single one of the five classes for the battle, meaning it would change the nature of the engagement radically, depending on what the resulting composition and map are. Undoubtedly, a very unpopular idea, but I feel nonetheless that it would serve well to spark things up in the game. There's just one but... there would have to be effective counterplay options present for all the five classes. We could indeed have room for 'rotational content'. We have some even now, though much less than in the previous years. 'Rotational battles' could feature 'PvP operations' that feature a single particular class enhanced gameplay such as carrier battles. Then, we could really have a better selection of well designed, historically inspired PvE Operations (Scenario battles). The game did better in the past when it came to this game element. IMO, they've had enough time to rectify this issue, and patience (at least mine) is wearing thinner than the seat of my pants. Given that there is the need for a random mode, and coop, clan battles, scenario battles etc. are well established (though poorly implemented in their current state) means there's not really room for much more permanent modes, so the emphasis would have to be on introducing well planned rotational/seasonal modes, better maps, and better interclass balancing.

Is that why it's called 'economy pack'?....

We have more than one?

The best way to hide a fire is to light up an even bigger fire.

About Richelieu? The surprising agility, guns also work well, and have a very wide firing angle. (I'm not a bow tanker). It allows for dynamic play which is something I appreciate in my ships.

Battleships are an integral part of this game. World of Warships is, after all, 'an ocean-going warship simulator for 50 year-olds of all ages'.