eliastion

One minute from the coundown end is plenty enough time to load unless you're REALLY playing on a toaster. What's more - I sometimes have problems loading myself. Yes, even "the client decided he's going to load for 5 minutes" problems, not only with client crash/freeze (although these happen too). I'd be VERY happy to see a mechanic that would dissolve the Ranked match after 60 seconds of MY initial inactivity. Yes, I've seen matches I managed to salvage after logging in very late but - more often than not - the initial lack of that one ship makes a pretty hard to overcome difference. Me playing a DD doesn't help that either. So, while it would certainly drop me once in a while, it would also save me a bunch of stars lost through no fault of my own - as a player. Also, you mention that such a system would make the game very frustrating for your friend and everyone playing with him. Let me point out a few things: 1. The proposal was specifically about Rankeds, where there are few ships and the result (victory/defeat) is more important. 2. I don't see why anyone would want to play Ranked if he CONSISTENTLY gets loaded in the middle of the battle - dragging both himself and team down on regular basis before he even sees the water. 3. If he only gets such a delayed loading occasionally, wouldn't NOT losing games due to bad loading somewhat alleviate the pain of being dropped from queue from time to time? 4. I'm pretty sure that people would find having to start matches again less frustrating than losing games (and stars) because a teammate never loaded.

Another safe rank might have its place BUT definitely NOT at Rank 5. Especially since every additional safe rank puts more emphasis on persistence and less on performance. The last safe Rank in single digits? Ok. But these "single digits" should most definitely not be lower than 7-8. As for the lower Ranks, they're there to introduce the basic concepts of Ranked without frustrating people. Going from every-rank-irrevocable straight to 5-rank gaps is not a good idea. Basically, current system might be tweaked a bit but OPs proposal is worse than current system.

No, it's you who doesn't get it. If every report was legit and deserved, consequences could very well be drawn starting from the 1st report. They're not, however. There are people who overreact or those that might even report someone out of spite - that's why the system has a buffer. If you don't gather reports quickly enough for the buffer to overflow, you're not punished. You say you were reported? That's the right of people you play with, to report you. No actual consequences followed? Well, guess what: that's how the system works, you get the reports but as long as the amount you receive is acceptable, the system just assumes that a couple people got pissed, possibly for no reason whatsoever, and you don't actually deserve any actions to be taken against you. That's, incidentally, what happens to almost everyone else too. Now, there are select few who do get chat banned. And then get chat banned again. And again. I have a secret for you: it's not a coincidence. It's just that some people don't just get a couple stray reports once in a while - they get sh*tload of them on regular basis. And while they might develop a persecution complex, that doesn't mean that they're really persecuted. It means that their behavior REALLY pisses people off. ALL THE TIME.

Oooor you might deserve it for, you know, calling everyone a potato when the game isn't going your way... Everyone plays wiith potatoes but somehow (repeating) chat bans are a problem only for select few. PERHAPS it's them who do something wrong, after all?

Well, it certainly didn't look like that. I don't say it wasn't, of course, but it didn't look so... And if this chat was in the first 30 min of the battle, before anyone even really managed to f*ck up... yeah. If I were there, I'd see three candidates for a chat misuse report. Not sure if I'd really report anyone, but I'd most definitely at least entertain the thought.

You almost literally asked for it. "Won't bother me much" - what do you expect after ranting about potato team to people in bad mood because they're in the process of losing a Ranked match... And then - when they call you out on being a dlck in chat - you encourage them to go ahead and report you? If you wanted to get reported without mentioning sleeping with anyone's mother, that's exactly how you should've went about that. I'm only unsure why you're surprised at the ban after putting so much effort into acquiring it.

Well... because it is? I mean, for a carrier that TB attack is equivalent to a couple minutes of continuous fire (not even counting the "hp" lost in the form of planes - since no planes = being dead for all purposes other than point counting). So, you take these 5 hits that a carrier could normally land on you if you had worse AA. And instead you take only 60% of that. Sorry, but if that's not a big improvement, what else it is? Oh, and from CV perspective - even 5 torp hits at a BB at Amagi's tier is basically a bare minimum for the strike to not be considered a completely failed attack. A 2-torp hit from a strike is the equivalent of BB firing at another BB and getting only a bunch of overpens every single salvo. Only CV gets all these overpens equivalent delivered in one strike, making it seem like the damage dealt was decent... while it really wasn't.

It's not really BB bashing. It's bashing of players who play nothing but BBs (and fail in these too, of course) complaining about OP no-skill torps.

Frankly, I have yet to see a topic closed for naming and shaming where I had doubts whether it was actually the case. So I wouldn't say that the mods are overeager here. Common sense is important. I don't think we need very precise rules when common sense seems to be working well enough.

As for Nagato, it might be the other way around - defeats "grant" you more damage. Nagato isn't a brawler so when you play her, you probably survive quite a lot. In lost games this can mean "surviving until defeat is assured and enemies take unnecessary risk to end things quickly and score some extra DMG". I've seen Belfasts chasing that last BB, no smoke or anything, because they felt confident about vistory and just wanted to land these extra couple HE shells even if it meant getting sunk in the process.

Met cro_pwr in Ranked game. Would've missed him, in fact (I don't really pay that much attention to names on loading screen and clan tags make it even harder to spot familiar names) but he called out to me. Either way - neither of us did much (well, I spotted him until he died but that's about it) but I don't complain, a win's a win I guess his feeling about that match might be different

The solution is easy - get rid of ANY sort of reward that's not victory-based. Yes, it's frustrating to get a great game, lose narrowly while carrying the whole team and still lose a star. That's why I liked this anti-frustration mechanic when it first appeared. But it soon became apparent that this hurts the game a lot. People are conscious of their XP, they don't take the risks they should, they're unwilling to spot when it means not being able to score hits... we don't need that. Sure, it's sad to have a good match and end up screwed out of victory by really bad teammates. But the overal atmosphere and teamwork was actually much better before this feature got implemented. And the LAST thing we need is - as OP suggests - to let people advance by outplaying not their enemy but their allies. Stars gained on defeat are a big no-no. Want to be rewarded for defeats and for using your teammates as meat shields? Go play Randoms.

I, personally, want to just wake up one day and learn that for my participation in threads like this I just got awarded Rank 1 without the need to grind it For now I'll probably focus on winning games, though...

It wouldn't work, though. I mean, it could but the system REQUIRES there to be a source of stars. Leaving aside people starting with some stars left over from last season, the system works like this: 1. People play and losing team lose their stars while winning team gains them. Basically, stars get transferred from losers to winners 2. Stars are generated out of thin air when someone advances a Rank in low ranks 3. Additional stars appear when winners gain a star but losers don't. This happens - every match for best XP loser - always when someone loses while being at 0 stars 4. This creates a constant influx of stars across the ladder (much more at the bottom where there are stars for advancement and many irrevocable ranks) 5. This influx propels winners up the ladder until they give up or leave it by reaching Rank 1. Every Rank1 player takes away from the ladder a number of stars equal the total cost of all the ranks. The system doesn't work without solid influx of stars. If the influx is there but is too slow, we'd end up with a very frustrating system where it takes FOREVER to find a match in top ranks - because there are just not enough stars to propel enough people high enough for top ranks to be populated.

I feel you, OP, but... well, I made a bit more... in-depth poll about new upgrades not so long ago: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/74205-your-opinion-on-the-new-upgrades-as-well-as-current-ways-of-obtaining-them/#topmost I don't really think this poll you've created now is going to bring much new info on what people think about new upgrades in supercontainers (or anywhere else, really...).

But they shouldn't. There's relatively little reason to fear the open (unless the "open" is encircled by enemies, of course) and many to fear enclosed space - and while for good players the difference isn't that big and, perhaps, up to personal taste... for average or below average ones the difference becomes all the more emphasized. So the bad BB players especially certainly SHOULD fear closed waters. And since not being a BB main matters so much for you (well, sorry for not having over half of my games in BBs like some of us) - let me add a DD perspective, if my BB one doesn't seem convincing enough. So, as a DD main, let me tell you: it's not the open waters where bad BB players just die from full health. Not even those with tendency to sail in straight lines are as vulnerable as the clueless noobs that get ambushed from 3 km because islands.

This, so much this. I was a fan of this change initially but the reality made me change my mind. The best part of Ranked was originally that people had to win. There was nothing to gain from playing for your own score - you just had to win or you were punished. When you died, you still rooted for your team no matter how bad the situation - you always hoped that the last remaining ally makes some miracle happen... Now? Now if I die with decent score and the situation looks bad, I find myself rooting for the enemy so that my other allies don't get too much XP, lowering my chances of not losing a start. That alone annoys me but I can't help it - it's just that unless victory seems possible, good performance of my teammates is gonna punish me. What's more, playing for the team without caring for your own score is sub-optimal. Not every match can be won, after all, and the lost ones? Well, you better rack up that XP! That's why we so rarely see stealthy DDs actually going for initial spotting duty, for example - instead they all race to the chosen cap to not be too far behind in XP compared to capping teammates... The very inclusion of personal XP reward to the rank progression system ended up poisoning the game mode. It's absolutely unacceptable to take it further and let people actually advance by losing. As a final note - the system still is fairer than the previous one (where you could gain 2 stars by advancing a Rank or 1 if within a rank, leading to situation where the same win-lose-lose-win-lose-lose-win-lose-lose-win-lose-lose streak could for one player mean -4 stars (going from 3 to "-1") while for the other - where the first victory was taking him to next Rank - the same combination of victories and defeats would mean a net 0 change because each victory followed by two defeats was bringing him back to where he started. Such a system is not fair and it's good that we got rid of it in favor of another way of star generation... but that doesn't change my opinion on "1st in losing team" approach. They should probably just make it so that every, say, 5th defeat is "pardoned" by not losing a star with limit of one "pardon" every 24-hour period (to not give too much advantage to people who just play a lot instead of playing well. That way stars would still be generated but the harmful incentive to play for yourself rather than for team would disappear.

Errrm... so which one is it? I mean, I might be going math nazi here, but it can't be both 100% luck based AND skill-dependent. If your skill changes the outcome then, by definition, it's no longer 100% luck.

On the other hand, if you really get 0 points often, the first one to take the hit to stars/ranks is the person this happens to. So, basically, save for the first bunch of Ranks where it takes 2 stars to advance and every or every second rank is irrevocable... you basically can't meet idlers/bots. Since they are unable to progress anywhere near ranks 10 and better - too many stars to be gained from the last irrevocable (that too can't be reached if you just, as you stated "try to idle their way through the game". So if you meet someone who stays AFK through the Ranked match in a Rank10 and better game, you can be as sure as it gets that you didn't meet a bot/idler but a decent player who had either connection failure or game client problem that just f*cked him up. Basically, the problem you perceive (armies of professional AFKers) simply doesn't exist in the Ranks where it starts really counting.

First of all I really don't get why can't we change the national flag of a ship. Historical flags (wherever they're not alternate/fantasy flags to not hurt delicate russian sensibilities) should be the default but frankly, I think quite some people would be willing to pay a handful of doublons for the option to hoist their national colors, or some special flag, perhaps (the Jolly Roger flags, for example, just ask to be a national flag equivalent rather than some addition like the rest of commemoratives).

Not really. BBs don't really fear other BBs. They are wary of them, of course, they know the punch these can pack but that's a known threat they know how to react to. And they're not big on turning anyway What they fear is DDs. And with bare minimum of skill (something touching your rudder) you're pretty hard to torp in open waters and a DD that gets too close and is spotted can be wrecked with your guns, your secondaries and/or by your teammates. Small islands change this. A DD can appear well within his normal detectability, while covered by islands from most of your teammates and with your movements restricted (you don't want to run aground, possibly making evasive actions and/or bringing guns to bear so much harder. A DD (or even torp-equipped cruiser since spotting range is less important!) can ambush a BB among islands and delete him. There are tools to counter this, of course (planes, hydro, common sense and map awareness) but in open waters that's simply not really an option, unless you're REALLY alone and suddenly something appears right before you steaming towards you at engine-boosted 40+ knots. So yeah, BB players are often scared of small islands and it's not like the fear is unfounded. Yes, they can be used too, but generally speaking it's debatable whether this potential utility really outweighs the problems even for experienced players. Bad players can't really exploit utility while being similarly if not more exposed to additional risks.

They were ever only present for TYL afaik (and on acquisition, not opening), are you using TYL?

No. Just the more containers you get, the better chance that at least one of them will be a supercontainer. Also, actual opening of containers doesn't matter, you learn your supercontainer's identity when you receive it, not when you open it. Although currently a big portion of SC rewards are the useless upgrades (ok, there's one actually useful if you play DDs, or at least some of them) co to learn whether or not you got an actual supercontainer rather than a cheap substitute you do need to open it after all...

We got to see the addition of new upgrades. What are your thoughts about them? What are your ideas as far as their inclusion as Ranked rewards and Supercontainer loot is concerned? I've seen some topics and comments that give me some feeling of what the Forum users think (not to mention that I have my own opinions) but they seem so chaotic... So, I decided to make a poll to, maybe, show community's stance a bit more clearly. The poll is, of course, very simplified since we're talking a bunch of different upgrades going to different slots and having different effects... So any more in-depth comments explaining the opinion or expanding on it are appreciated, of course

There's talk about Akizuki overperforming... that's one of the reasons why I'm a bit sad we didn't get t8 Randoms this time - they would verify the actual power of Akizuki. I must say it's immensely fun to play but it very often meets enemies who simply don't understand her at all. I can't count the times where a USN DD or a cruiser (bonus points if it's a RN one) managed to get me in a very unfavorable position (Akizukis speed and maneuverability don't exactly let her avoid these as well as I'd like to) and then... they turn broadside to bring all their guns to bear. I mean, yes, they can shoot at me with more guns but unless there's a really good reason for them why they HAVE to kill me very quickly, that's just making me from non-threat into something that can cut them to shreds (USN DDs) or at least deal heavy damage before going down. And then, every once in a while, there's someone who knows what to do and can actually apply that. And boom. The damage I take is lowered but I cna't escape (he's bow-on) and the damage I'm capable of inflicting is pitiful in not outright non-existent... The real strengths of Akizuki right now are two things: 1. It's a rare ship and people don't know how to counter her. 2. It's a gunboat in IJN DD tree AND she doesn't lead to any t9 atm, so the only people who play hare are the ones who appreciate her. This can't be said about ANY other t8 because they're either silver stepping stones on the way to something (so some people just want to grind through them) or they're t8 premiums commonly used as money makers and crew trainers even by people who don't really like them and/or don't want to train captains specifically for them. Akizuki is special. She's not played for anything but herself because she just doesn't offer anything else - she's a final ship of a line despite being only t8 with no premium bonuses. She's the second least played t8 ship (excluding premiums) - only z-23 are played less. CARRIERS see more action. And even throwing in premiums (not counting supertest ones) doesn't change this much - this pushes Akizuki no further than 4th least played t8... I really hope WG is capable of understanding that while Akizuki is certainly strong and massively fun to play, her performance comes from a dedicated circle of fans - something that can't be said about any other t8. And that most certainly has an impact on her results.