eliastion

Not true. Mirror damage would give the BB 85% damage even at 1:1 rate. It reflects % damage, not absolute numbers. Also not true. When you go pink, you get reflected damage right away.

Ok, I'll let numbers speak as well: cruisers t6 (excluding premiums) ranked by their win% from last 2 weeks: 1. Leander 52,36% 2. La Galissonnière 52,23% 3. Cleveland 51,98% 4. Budyonny 51,42% 5. Aoba 50,85% 6. Nürnberg 48,91% Leander also has the most average kills per battle and the best survivability among non-premium cruisers at her tier. She is, literally, the best performing non-premium t6 cruiser. That's what the numbers say. So, really, if you wanted to make a case about WG hating the British and giving them underpowered ships... PERHAPS you should've dug for some example that doesn't DIRECTLY CONTRADICT your point?...

Well, to make things clearer: I personally don't use demo expert on any of my CVs. The fire chance increase is miniscule comparatively, not worth the heavy point investment - I'd expect any of the survivability skills to be more useful. However, the effect does apply and isn't redundant (as someone might think after hearing about "above 100% chance of causing fire" might think).

Pretty much this. Smoke meta is a problem in Ranked where smoke is extensively used because people actually work together in small 7-ship teams... On Randoms? Nah. It's pretty rare to see a DD smoking allied ships OR allied ships utilizing a smoke properly (be it smoke laid for them or accidentally in some useful place). In Randoms the ships sitting in smoke are usually the same ships that generate smoke and are balanced around the assumption that they do have it.

Well, there's nothing THAT confusing there. Bombs have really high %chance of setting a fire so their base fire% chance won't get improved significantly. But it will still be improved. Remember that chance of fire can be lowered by various means - and correct me if I'm wrong, don't ships have some inherent fire protection?

Oh, I didn't really read through the names... I hope it wasn't one of THESE matches, then EDIT: Oh, found it. Well, I seem to not have disgraced myself THAT badly, at least Well, at lleast not more than the team in general... Grtz on getting 1st place in winning team

And Akizuki She's a stealthy DPM machine. With cruiser speed and a turning circle of same-tier US BB (about halfway between North Carolina and Alabama, to be precise)

Well, this would really be the least of our problems - the whole difference between the original f*ck-up and the post-balancing f*ck-up would be that instead of team Fire "automatically" winning we'd have team Water doing so. And rather than people who wanted to join the winning side (rather than one they'd actually prefer if the chances were equal) the ones that win would be people literally forced to pick certain team Basically, one undesirable scenario replaced by another. It was obvious from the get-go that the team numbers are going to be a problem so if the problem was restricted to this - it wouldn't really faze me (even if it does end up putting me on the losing side).

As mostly DD player I still believe cruisers are... no, they're not fine, they are too fragile against BBs and never support me in caps That's why I became my own cruiser support and play Akizuki Only the little buggers smoke up now while their whole fleet keeps spotting me, I'm seriously considering reverting to stock fire control to amend that...

"Malice" isn't really the good word anyway. Malice assumes that WG would want to hurt someone this way - my personal belief is that while I give roughly 75-80% that they did tamper with results, I don't actually consider it malicious. Stupid and dishonest: yes, but the thought "well, blocking one team doesn't seem to work well enough, let's throw in some points to help the result directly" isn't exactly a malicious one - it's just a desperate attempt at saving the supposed competetivenes of the event, if only in appearance... Let's face it: nobody really cares much what team wins, for players it's just a differenc of... what 15 mediocre camos (when you can literally farm... was it 6 or 10 much better ones by yoloing a couple times in PTS in coop)? The outcome of this event doesn't matter much to either WG or the players, really, even though it's better to have camos than to not have them. In this context rigging the scores so they look better can be seen - and if they did that probably was seen - as a minor "white lie" that hurts nobody. Of course, the problem is that it invalidates some fair play principles that should be upheld not because the award is worth it but for the sake of the principles alone. And yes, WG kinda doesn't have good enough opinion for me to drop the concerns on "they would never do something like that" principle. If the event (and rewards) were more important, I might give WG a bit more credit here, but seeing how easy it is to come to the conclusion that fixing the scores doesn't really hurt anybody? Well. Considering that I hardly care for the team scores themselves - and I'm participating in the event, and it's my camos the whole contest is about ( )... yeah, I can definitely picture some WG event decisionmakers saying "hey, we can't have this so one-sided, go throw some points at the losing team so the margin doesn't look that bad" without giving the issue (and/or fair-play implications) much more thought.

Oh, yes, imagine if they re-made the existing voiceovers too... Only problem is, I presume, they generally have access to their original voice actors so if something changes (there's some talk about quick command changes, for example) they can pretty easily contact the actor and get the missing lines. So it would be difficult like that. HOWEVER there are also some community contributors that would probably be willing to do a recording session + agreement to record missing lines if needs arise - all that for little more than advertisement on official pages - I'm pretty sure I'd prefer Jingles to current British voice

The voiceovers were very delayed. First they included voiceovers that already existed (based on voiced client versions), that was actually available even earlier through mods. Only later they started to fill in the blanks: Polish voiceover, British one etc. - we had to wait for them all. The ARP ships initially all talked in Iona's voice too - by the end of collab they all received captain-based voices (although unfortunately they override also voices of other ships in battle). So, basically, be patient. Italians will certainly get their voiceover but - since it's just one ship for now - this doesn't have a very high priority.

Well, manipulating team numbers alone would be ok - after all, they explicitly stated that teams are supposed to be balanced (although the original 25% figure was ridiculous balance-wise). Problem is the "counting lag" that seems a bit... let's say suspicious. Note that I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible for such a problem to occur and appear exactly as we've seen that, but it requires very specific problems with pretty specific implementation of the counting system... And, well, there's no doping problem in Russian sport, right? Although one thing said here is sadly very true: we'll never know what really happened. If WG didn't meddle with results and it was all just a monstrous coincidence, they'll stick to that. But if they did meddle... well, they'll STILL stick to the previous One thing we can do is have hope that they'll learn something from this event and won't repeat the same mistakes in design. After all, imagine if, say, there was a third button: Join Team Fire: get 10 coins Join Team Water: get 10 coins Join the underdog: get 50 coins There would be no problem whatsoever - from the first minutes the losing team (or one with less players or however they weighted who the game considered to be the underdog at the moment of joining) would've been always getting more players because the truth is: most people didn't really care what team to pick, they chose the one expected to give better rewards, even if only just. But joining the underdog AND getting rewarded for that? I'm pretty sure more than half players would've been picking that because people generally like rooting for the underdog, the underdog wouldn't ever be far behind, making a comeback DOES feel good and, well, coins are coins... Sadly, the only idea WG had about balancing teams was to restrict access instead of rewarding the better (for the game) choice...

Joke's on you, seeing how this is actually pretty relevant to the topic - although that's more like what cruisers promise their DDs before sailing away with BBs

quoted post removed [edited]. I'm pretty sure WG is perfectly screwing up in hiding their screw-ups. Also, once again. If it were lag and we'd have seen both teams accumulating points, I'd just shrug and write it off as point accumulation/display delays. But that wasn't the case, now was it. That's the very point here, that's why people noticed the thing in the first place. And an attempt by a company to incompetently hide their incompetently designed event failing doesn't really seem less probably that a SUPER SPECIFIC bug in either the display or some deeper layer of the system responsible for point calculations. To put it in over-the-top criminal drama style... we have the dead body (points of losing team accumulating with servers down), the motive (to hide the extent of event failure) and, most definitely, we do have an opportunity (after all nobody but WG has the access to the system). And yet you seem to just outright dismiss the option that the victim didn't, in fact, slip so unfortunately that she got stabbed with her kitchen knife all by accident... Yes. It is possible that we got such a very specific bug in that very specific place... it just kinda doesn't sound as likely as incompetence in hiding own incompetence on WG's part. That's all. If it was possible to wager on that (and get the absolute truth), I'd actually go for 4-1 odds that it was, indeed, WG "improving" the scores. Of course, such a ager is impossible because they can't really admit to that - so they're either just extremely unlucky (and won't say they did it because they didn't) or they cheated to hide how poorly the event was going (and they won't admit to that because the last thing a cheat wants to do is admit he's cheating).

Damage control. They designed an event that was supposed to be about team rivalry... but it ended up completely skewed towards one team, showing how wrongly though-out the thing was. One team getting completely obliterated 3:0 by the other on ALL servers wouldn't look too good, now would it. It's not even about WHICH team it was - WG doesn't care if it's Water or Fire that wins, you're certainly are right there. But what they do care about is that no team completely dominates the other. They failed to ensure that at the stage of event planning - and it certainly seems that they resolved to cheating as a way to cover this [edited]... not very successfully because the thing became apparent due to server downtime. quoted post removed Yeah, sure, nice personal attack there. Also sooo accurate as all my posts in "MM is rigged", "WG wants me to stay at 50%" and other similar threads can attest. In this case, however, what happens is hardly ambiguous and the official explanation simply doesn't hold any water (pun intended): for an hour one team kept accumulating points at a steady rate while the other didn't accumulate any because no matches were taking place. IF it was really a delay, both teams would've been "counting" additional points as leftover matches were accounted for. One might've been accumulating points faster but they would come for both. They didn't. Well, before the artificial points issue I had an answer to that: bots. That would explain - why mostly team water (fire was often locked and someone signing up a bot farm for the event won't hunt for free place in the winning team) - why only wins and maybe XP (they are gained at slow rate even while botting - the kills, ribbons and damage require actual contribution rather than thousands of battles, however) Now I'm not so sure but I still do think bots are at least partially responsible.

Interesting? I don't know. If I was able to believe that's all there is to it and/or were they upfront about it (I mean, it would've been a terrible way to balance teams but I would've actually accepted it) - it might be interesting. But I just don't believe them. What I saw during downtime... let's just say I don't think I'm buying the explanation. So whatever the results are, I'm not going to really feel like they're the TRUE results. Which is a shame because while on EU things seemed to be going exactly as predicted, there actually was a server that surprised me and threw my expectations off - on NA initially it was Water that gained the advantage and it was actually Fire that caught up during/after the weekend and overtook the blues. Now THAT was actually interesting since I didn't expect it - and while I heard that "Red" just seems to draw attention more AND it was the "first" choice in how the access form was presented, I was sure that once a few hours pass and a winner emerges, the "I want the winning bonuses" mentality will prevail and keep the winning team winning. It was not the case though. Now, however, it all went out the window, at least for me: whatever happens will be WG's, not players' doing... On related note - who would've thought that the single most beneficial way to get coins would be to play a match or two in ships that don't count towards competition due to a bug 20 coins is like an extra stage in 4 categories, that's a good couple hours of grind

The other explanation is "bots" - they still win like 30% of their battles but don't really get damage, ribbons, kills or much XP. I still think it's a combination of the two.

Well, that actually doesn't have to be true - the event never cared for winrate, only for winCOUNT and that can be racked up with abysmal winrate, all you need is to play A LOT - a big botfarm could produce such effects without any WG input. Playing 1000 battles with 30% winrate gives you 300 victories.

I'm pretty sure the top100 is supposed to be for the whole event, not for one week... so no, no shortcut, it's just the extra hundred (or couple hundred) of coins for people who are already among the few that actually grinded 800+ coins anyway (i suppose there's enough players for more than 100 to finish all categories)...

And for a whole hour - with no matches going on - one team gets a constant stream of points while the other... just doesn't?

Well, the Event announcement post includes the line: Team progress is a sum of the progress of all players in the team. So I'd say that yes, that implicitly excludes any source of points other than progress of players playing for the team...

Took liberty to link your screenshots in a new thread I made - I do think this issue deserves its own thread... It's a bit too serious for the "WG sucks and their event sucks" kind of talk we have here.

Courtesy to p3rh4n4 who posted here : Do take a look at the clock in bottom right corner of each screenshot.

Gearing remains the most versatile tX DD. She's arguably the best torpboat at the tier and her guns are scary. Her damage is second only to Khaba. Also, since her shell arcs were so bad, she wasn't hit as hard by stealthfire nerf as IJN ships were... So no. Gearing might benefit from some change to spotting and gunrange mechanics so that it's less retarded than it is, but I really don't get the impression that Gearing needs a buff, regardless of the reasoning behind her previous nerf that brought her to her current spot.