eliastion

Period. That's what pretty much all your posts in this thread boil down to. You just refuse to take responsibility for your [edited]-up. You're the cancer of this game and one of the players who should be made pink for life so that every time they don't look where they are torping they'll get sent to port themselves instead of their teammates. Alas, the pink status expires after a couple matches even for the likes of you...

Sounds like tinfoil theory, doesn't it? Thing is, however, that WG apparently failed so hard with making balanced teams, that te only way they found to make it look less disastrous was... to cheat. The cheating became apparent due to maintenance downtime - the servers went down for update but the COTE counters... didn't. And - behold the miracle - team Water apparently has their own backup server because while team fire's, say, aggregated damage remained the same steady 37 626 620 784 for the whole time I've been writing this post - the same can't be said about team water. Despite servers being down these guys somehow managed to score quite a few thousand damage in the meantime! Wanted to give a comparison of the exact values but, unfortunately, right as I was done writing the rest and started writing down the number, they both ticked for the first time in a while, meaning (probably) that matches resumed and the artificial points once again drowned in the flood of real ones. However, I've heard that some people did manage to take screenshots of the counters - would much appreciate if they link them here to show this miracle of point creation. I'm pretty sure WG owes us an explanation of WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE. I could understand many questionable ways to balance the event like, say, denial of ability to join winning team if it's also more numerous. This would, in essence, be a way to create as even teams as possible. What they did, however, wasn't an attempt at having Water team be less disadvantaged - it was outright rigging where the points accumulated no longer represent the reality because WG added some points of their own. Frankly, I probably wouldn't have believed if I haven't seen it with my on two eyes how only one counter was updating... It was cheating, plain and simple. Not even WG-sanctioned cheating. Not WG-allowed cheating. It's an event where supposedly the players accumulate points... only they don't because WG can add their own points, or - why not - subtract the points from one team or even just set whatever point values they want. We wouldn't even notice if all numbers were just updating according to some slightly randomized algorithm without player contribution counting at all! Fortunately for us, the update happened and WGs approach to cheating was so primitive that it became apparent as the servers went down. So, I have a question, what WG has to say about this. And, since I'm no expert on the matter, I have a further question, namely: is such a thing even legal? I don't think it is, seeing how WG created an event, described the rules and then broke them.

This. So much this. Torping an ally happens. Not only to new players, unfortunately. I've done it too. I in fact planted a torp into an ally (not sinking him, fortunately) as recently as at the beginning of this week. Sh*t happens and everybody makes mistakes from time to time - and sometimes you're not the one who suffers from these mistakes the most. But the least you can do is have the decency of not trying to blame your victim for your screw-up.

Element-like events would be nice IF the winning team wouldn't get additional rewards, it would change something for the whole server based on who wins! Imagine fire&water, where the results would be along these lines: - the Kamikaze R camo from the event isn't universal, it's either water or fire and whoever gets it, gets it with camo appropriate to the element that won - the camo of the winning element can be bought after the event (preferably for silver, it could even just provide normal camo bonuses and be more expensive than standard camo) - every participant gets commemorative flag of the winning element What would it mean? Well, it would mean that it doesn't matter if you're on the winning team - what matters for you is that the team you prefer wins! And if you really need to make it like the current event? Well, at the very least imagine a completely different way of balancing teams: no "you can't join this team now" thingy - instead of that, give people a reward (more coins for example) if they - rather than picking one team - pick the "join the underdog" option! The game just needs to determine the team at a disadvantage (expected to lose at given moment) and the player is assigned to that team with extra reward for his sacrifice: the chances of getting victory rewards are supposedly smaller for him BUT he agrees to that of his own will to receive a bunch of extra coins - so he won't get frustrated because it was his choice to join the weaker team. If he then loses, he accepted that at the very start. If he wins: yay, his valiant efforts contributed to turning the tables on the other team! Unfortunately, the current event was... poorly designed in more ways than one. To the point that any twists in the results just seem like WG tampering with scores (even if they didn't directly touch them, which is debatable based on some strange behavior of counters during patch-related downtime). Frankly, I hope we might see some team-based event in the future, but certainly not one designed like what we have here - especially since what I mentioned isn't all the obvious problems (for example the lack of worthwhile-yet-affordable for average player rewards comes to mind). So no. I don't really want more events exactly like this one. I certainly prefer Ranked. Especially since they add the much-needed idea of play-for-the-win-REALLY that is rarely seen in Randoms.

They're not "top 1" though - the names are in alphabetical order. So it's hard to say who the top top scorers are.

YES Know how many times I died or lost a good chunk of my hp because I had to avoid some retard teammates torps and couldn't break away from engagement or ended up running into an island BECAUE OTHERWISE I'D EAT THE IDIOT'S TORPS!?

Times where this would really help - few Possible problems with juggling multiple turrets and controlling them individually - many Also, you don't fire all aimed turrets when clicking fire - only when you double click for a full salvo that is, well, a full salvo... The one thing that would be really nice to be changed is the ammo switching when firing so that you don't "waste" barrels that are partially loaded or not aimed at target when you want to fire and switch ammo while firing. You can always double-choose selected ammo to force reload, after all. By default it shouldn't be dropping currently loaded/half-loaded shells...

This reasoning means that you deserve your teamkiller status and should have it permanently enabled. If you torp and an ally sails into your torps, IT'S STILL YOUR FAULT. You shouldn't torp in a way that gives your ally the choice of not performing a maneuver he deems necessary or doing so and getting torped. What's more, people are occupied by many things: firing at enemies, avoiding enemy fire, being careful of enemy torps and/or not getting themselves into a situation they can't retreat from. They can't remain conscious if their ally isn't sending torps their way from behind AND if your torps hit them, it means that had they taken them into account, they'd be forced to make/abandon maneuvers that would've benefited them. So, your torps - even in best case scenario when they don't get hit by them - put them at a disadvantage against enemies. And helping enemies against your allies seems like a good reason for being marked as teamkiller, doesn't it? Also, you mention torping allies on purpose - and that it would be ok for the system to mark you then. No. The system gives very lenient punishments because it's NOT designed to fight people attacking allies on purpose. Its primary role is to discourage people who don't watch where they torp and end up hurting allies accidentally. You torping irresponsibly and getting pink because of that is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Enjoy. Btw, as to your specific question - no, no chance of anyone removing the status. But you can remove it yourself, just play some matches (coop is fine too) without damaging allies and the pinkness will magically disappear in time.

Lol, no. BBs oerpen A LOT and citadel things only rarely. The best players in most accurate BBs (which isn't much, mind you) get citadels on perfect targets pretty reliably. Where "pretty reliably" means "shoot and with a small measure of luck get more than 0 citadel hits on whole broadside salvo". Also 1. HE can't overpen 2. Emerald doesn't even have HE to begin with 3. British silver cruisers have the kind of AP ammo that makes it very rare to get overpens even if you want to (there's some trick with french cruisers where their spaced ammo gives you pseudo-overpens when shooting british ammo into their citadels, though)

They're not, they're just the only ones you're surprised to see in their own spawn after 5 minutes of game

Well, for me it doesn't, just can't create an account, no error message, nothing, just the page refreshes... Oh, well.

No, according to the data above it's 6 1x150 and 2 1x150 with a different name (that apparently tends to refer to double turrets - but here doesn't, as the stat remains 2 1x150, not the other way around).

Too much of the game is balanced around how repair works now. Completely changing it (by giving a meaningful limit) would require the whole game balance to be re-worked completely...

Well, this certainly seems like the worst bug I've seen in WoWs so far...

It's a bit of an offtop, but you know you CAN get premium consumables for credits (22k apiece, if I'm not mistaken)?

If not screens then maybe replays enabled?

And now I imagine the torp drive-bys where only my target could see me And don't get me started on what gunboats with short range would do to enemy DDs...

That is false, though. You see, the battles don't directly depend on each other but they certainly are linked to common factors, most notable of which is a player that goes through the streak. If you just play badly (due to being tired, drunk or distracted for whatever reason), you're much more likely to get a losing streak, right? Also, when you get frustrated about a losing streak, that often makes you play badly.

My sarcasm is a natural reaction to tinfoil theories about MM actively trying to break your winning streaks by putting you against super-players while the same can be explained just as well by it simply not caring for player skill whatsoever. Which is, incidentally, what MM does according to WG. In fact, what you believe to be "fairer" (that is, if I understood you correctly: if MM tried to put unicum players on opposing teams) - now THAT would be an attempt to keep people's winrate at 50%. If anything, teams being often highly unbalanced in terms of skill strongly suggests that the MM is ultimately fair without any hidden algorithms to make sure that good players get good opponents and crappy teammates - which is what you seem to believe to be "fairer" (unless I misunderstood what you meant).

Wait. So MM "tries to balance your WR" is your conclusion because, after a streak of victories, you happened to draw the short stick in the end? Now that's pretty funny... I take it you did also meticulously check all these "many wins in a row" to make sure if the MM wasn't actually conspiring in at least a couple of them to make you win, right?

Ok, I'll try it your way: your name means "deluded fool". This is a bit of an informal translation, of course, but well, it somebody disagrees then CLEARLY he's someone translating everything as black-and-white and incapable of seeing hidden (well, in case of your posts: not so hidden) messages.

Well. Let's face it: if a ship performs well then it might be partially attributed to enthusiasts but enthusiasm can only take you so far. If ship's results are among the best on her tier, it's hard to argue that she's "a joke" without making a joke of yourself. No. Be it a family motto or anything else, you are NOT allowed to offer BS sentences with no relation to the actual meaning and claim it to be a translation - formal or not.

Well, let me ask one more question on the side: Currently the game provides the information about damage dealt ONLY in absolute numbers. Problem is, this information is mostly irrelevant for any sort of comparisons other than the same ship being played the same way... Is the crucial information - the % damage (damage in relation to full hp of targets damaged) - withheld for a reason or did it kinda just happen? Basically: is it a conscious design choice (and if so, what is the reasoning behind it) or is it something that potentially could be introduced in the future? This damage-related data would be much more informative about both the actual performance of ships AND ones own performance in various ships (after all, when I see that I did 100k damage in my Taiho through a couple drops on oblivious BBs that's much less of a contribution than when I get ~50k damage in a gunboat while shooting mostly at DDs).

Well, I'm no expert on the mechanics but I can speak from experience - I managed to get pink a couple times through one stupid mistake or another and, well, team collisions hurt so much more than normally when this happens.

As a DD player that likes his Akizuki and Błyskawica (read: DD hunters), I don't suffer much from overabundance of DDs - nor does lack of cruisers affect these ships negatively, for obvious reasons: no cruisers lead to little support for either team's DDs and then my superior firepower can shine, dominating weaker DD enemies. But, well, that's how it looks for very specific ships - it's like Shima and BBs, for all Shima cares the perfect match-up is her + 23 BBs in the match - doesn't mean that 11+ BBs per team is a good idea The general fact remains that, yes, 5+ DDs - while not as destructive to the game as 5+ BBs - are a problem. Both classes should be hard capped at 4 per team, for the good of the game.