eliastion

One more thing that has not been mentioned here - when it comes to floatplane fighters (the ones launched from BBs) they can be often circumvented completely by being decisive. From my experience, people often don't launch it until they feel threatened (or want something spotted behind an island ;) ) so if you go in fast, from good angle, you can drop your torps before the floatplane is able to engage. If there is a floatplane in the air, it circles its mothership in a pretty big circle - once again, if you time the attack right (floatplane behind the ship) and move swiftly, you can drop unharassed. The same - to a point - can be said about enemy CV fighters (that have a much more dangerous weapon than panicking your planes against concentrated drops - the dreaded barrage). If you know where they are and that place is out of position, you can drop quickly and watch his frustration as he tries to avenge the drop by catching your (now, without load, much faster than before) strike planes retreating. Often he'll even chase them into AA range of allied ships... Oh, one more piece of advice in CV vs CV. If you can't intercept enemy drop (no fighetrs or whatever fighters you have - grossly out of position) you can kinda use the moment for some daring drops yourself (or, if enemy fighters are idling somewhere - to strafe them). It's not a long time so it's no use to specifically aim for that moment, generally speaking, but a CV player tends to focus all attention on his strike groups when conducting a strike - it's easy to catch his fighters off guard when this happens, to safely hit your targets right under enemy fighters noses - or to inflict devastating attack on fighter groups themselves.

The idea that a teamkiller (pink) is not a "free kill" for anyone most likely came to be because of WoT fails concerning blue tanks. Basically, in WoT people sometimes shoot each other like crazy. Someone starts shooting and then others start retaliating (even if the offender till is green). Or sometimes people just start by killing the blue tank for no reason other than him having teamkiller status at the match start. So any accidental teamkiller (or someone who - as described before - retaliated prematurely or something like that) can be killed for that in the next battles... I assume WG decided that that system was a failure. So they went with one where retaliation isn't acceptable. You don't shoot at green ships - and neither do you shoot at pink ones. Their damage to allies is reduced, on the other hand, and they suffer reflected damage if damaging a teammate. So, basically, a teamkiller - if he wants to - can contribute to the match normally. Punishment for accidental teamkillers is thus very limited and intentional ones have a harder time doing damage to allies even when these ignore their attempts completely. It's not without flaws but I must admit I prefer this system over what WoT has. There is one big problem I see: it should be impossible to set fires/inflict flooding on allies. The flooding/fire damage is not reduced (it can't be because fire/flooding protects the ship from these conditions that could be inflicted by enemy at a later time) not to mention that - especially in case of fires - it takes very little mistake to deal huge damage if you set someone on fire with unlucky shell. I don't even know whether they fixed the problem with that happening because automatically firing secondaries (with their accuracy) were capable of setting allies on fire... I don't know if that has been changed.

You can also notice a negative winratio from last week. As in - more defeats than games played, apparently

Depends on the ship. Some have slight modifications - not necessarily buffs, though, I've recently looked up stats of a DD that actually lost some of her nonexistent armor with upgraded hull (at least that's what the numbers in client suggested, I have better things to do with my time than to track where exactly does some DD lose a couple mm armor ).

I once detonated a BB with airdropped torp too! Once. Was pretty hilarious, I must say. Not necessarily for the BB, though... Fun and engaging etc.

Well, Andgar1 was sad about "no pay off" when someone finishes off "your" enemy. While in fact kill gives... I think it was 10 or 15% of the rewards granted for the "whole kill". So, assuming we're talking a ship without heal, the maximum rewards for killing him are 110 or 115% of his "worth". And while that kill bonus is nice, dealing 99% damage pays much, MUCH better.

Actually, if he had indeed turned pink already, he would've sunk himself first. I mean, he would still deal damage to you (10% if I'm mistaken) so it would've hurt but he would've received significantly more damage automatically reflected to him.

Online petitions (and most non-online ones too) just have a different purpose than you think. They are there to mobilize people and make them committed to whatever case. After all, they signed a petition. They are no longer bystanders. That's what a petition is all about. Not to change objective reality but to influence the ones that sign it

Hey. You got a torp hit. It's not like you got detonated by first shell that hit you

If you toss a coin 10 times, do you know what is the chance of getting 10 heads? 1/1024. Now, how many players does this game have? If the game was random to the point of coin toss, the Number/1024 would be expected number of them losing next 10 battles from this point on. What's more. Do you know what is the chance of getting (with 10 coin tosses) a H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T series? If you guessed 1/1024 (the same as for all heads) - congratulations!

Zuiho (1/2/1): 21 Kongo: 22+1 = 23 I just like her, she's like a cruiser for people who still want big guns, good hp pool and some armor. Or like battleship for people who hate being slooooow. The best of both worlds. Although she's also one of the BBs where you need to quickly learn the difference between max. firing range and appropriate engagement range. Minekaze: 7 -3 =4 Well, we probably should be talking about pre-patch when the list started but... it's hard to look at her that way. Either way - while I'd defend her still being viable on t 5, she's most definitely worse than any other ship that remained. Fujin/Kamikaze: 25 Gremy: 30 König: 27 Königsberg: 20

I love it how there are more "no" answers to question 3 than to the first two combined

Ok, I'll say it this way. It's undeniable that WG has absolutely no legal obligation to... pretty much do anything. If they, say, just dropped the old ships to their new tiers and added surplus experience from now cheaper modules as ship XP that's incidentally completely useless unless you pay doublons for conversion? That would be their right. Legally. Obviously, they didn't do that. Because that would actually be enough to make a noticeable chunk of playerbase angry enough to actually leave. Also, OP didn't say "I will sue them/you" - he seems well aware that it's not a matter of their legal obligation. The problem is - how to make it so that players don't feel cheated? Not because it's legally a fraud - but because players (like OP) do feel cheated. I personally feel a bit cheated about some captain skills related things about which WG basically told me to suck it up, my problem if I don't like it. But, well, my issue is about a couple hundred doublons I'll have to spend on re-spec, that's certainly a lesser thing. Now, do I believe WG should refund the camos. Frankly, I'm not sure about it. As it was said here - perma camos were bought, they were used, they worked as advertised... for a time. But I don't really like the approach taken either. I do see a much better way but, unfortunately - it would require additional development time... But imagine - if the game had various things covered by in-game vouchers. So you wouldn't get a, say "X doublons" as a perma camo and wouldn't even purchase camo for doublons - you'd purchase a "t8 permanent premium camo voucher" that could then be exchanged for any permanent camo up to t8. That way you could handle this kind of "refunds" easily: just giving back the voucher. The player would then be able to get the perma camo removed from ship he liked and apply it to another ship he likes more now. Or to the same changed/downtiered ship ig he so wishes... But I digress. The thing is - the company doesn't only need to stick to what is legal. It's very important to keep customers satisfied AND make them feel that they're being treated fairly. That's where all the rage at absurdly divergent requirement for some missions (compared to other servers) stems from: people feeling that they are being treated unfairly. It's not illegal, by any stretch of imagination. But it leaves a bad taste in many players' mouths. And such bad taste is something a company should avoid. I know I personally would be spending more money if WG EU politic seemed more fair. A couple times I played with the thought of buying something... and didn't precisely because of the "I don't really feel like giving them my money" sentiment. And I'm hardly one of the really angry ones, I won't say "I'm not spending a penny more" or something like that. But I do get more stingy as I feel zero (or even negative...) loyalty to WG as the company providing me with this game. I wonder if WG really is ahead money-wise through the way they approach their players...

Gunboats ended up in heaven

You don't know that we already have subs in WoWs?

Generic is still much superior to the results of a vomit party that we get as regular IJN camos

That was a tough read. I get that not everyone speaks good English but PLEASE mind the formatting at least. Why does every sentence need to be in new line? It doesn't add emphasis to your points. All it does is making the text harder to read. And seeing how you post on the Forum, you probably want people to read it. Right? More to the point. The idea that balance between ships should be achieved by making them all the same is ridiculous. Unquestionably, WG does some poor balancing job here and there but balancing but giving all ships the same things is not the way. As for player distribution not taking ranks into account... Well, for starters: not everyone plays Ranked and not everyone who does has enough time to reach the Rank his skill would allow - if only because advancing in Ranked requires skill and LOTS of time. Only the really, REALLY amazing players get to Rank 1 anywhere near "fast" - but with enough time just being above average can be enough if you play hard. Of course, there might by other ways to determine player's skill (mostly based on winrate) - but what then? What you ask for is basically an attempt to make every player have a 50% winrate. If he's doing good, the MM should put him in weaker teams or against stronger opponents. If he's weak - he'll end up with good teammates to carry him. Can you imagine how frustrating it would be in the long run to see no progress whatsoever (since the better you get - the better the opponents and worse teammates)? Even now, with MM that disregards player skill completely, there are periodically whinethreads about fixed MM that gives good players noobteams. Can you imagine the backlash if WG actually introduced a system like that? Not to mention that existence of this system would quickly erode the very basis for it - if you design a system that handicaps good players with bad teams/good teammates, you end up with good players having drastically lower and bad players: drastically better stats than they "deserve". Oh, and then there would be lots and lots of exploiters who would just get a bot or sth to lose as much as possible and (when actually playing) be ensured good teammates and bad opponents for nice and easy battles...

Whoa, this is thread necromancy on another level ...wasn't it originally created during closed beta when you, you know, needed an invite code (or buy-in package) to play the game?

Yes, the players who go into scope view instead of looking around and using map - you're perfectly right here. Then these cretins hit the trigger to torp, not realizing that the situation has changed, ships move around and they don't have a clean shot anymore.

Well, you certainly are a blind player since you managed to ram full spread of torps right into an allied ship.

Ok, I admit I understood - to some very, very limited degree - that guy ranting about his torps traveling 10+km through enemy-infested zone to the other side where some ally blundered in them. His idea that it was solely the torped ally fault was inane but the frustration itself - understandable. Your case is much worse, mate. You torped an ally at point-blank range. If your description is accurate, it was a perfect torping run, you gave him literally no chance to avoid the threat. And yet you f*cking dare to blame him!? Call him blind!? THE MOMENT YOU LAUNCHED THE TORPS THERE WAS LITERALLY ONLY ONE TARGET THEY COULD'VE HIT - THE ALLY. How deranged one must be to put the blame on the victim in such case!?

Gotta love WoWs EU community Then again, with how WG treats them...

1 day of Premium account as compensation?

15km torps in their unaltered state indeed weren't too appealing - not once have I really needed such range. A torp acceleration skill, however, made them significantly better: faster, with 12km range, incidentally the range at which your guns could engage too (and stealthfire). Consistent max range of engagement for all armament was a big plus and 12km range allowed more flexibility. That said, I'd be ok with 10km torps too. The problem is - for my Kagero VIII captain they have a range of f*cking 8 km rather than 10, because WG forgot that different ships might require different captain builds (shocking as it might sound) and they failed to provide a skill respec.

Yeah, I imagine if I were jumping from one CV with to another without, I would go mad. Especially because afaik the arming distance for air drops is actually arming TIME, so in really close drops the "really close" needs to be a bit further away unless one wishes to experience the most frustrating non-RNG generated (so you can't even blame the game ) fail in WoWs: an ALMOST perfect drop where most torps connect... 10 meters before arming