eliastion

You're making the same mistake that is done by people who say "rate of fire is already good, no need for BFT" - you're too focused on rate of fire. What counts is the DPM and how important it is for the ship (and player, since a lot depends on playstyle too) in question - and we're talking about the importance of DPM (rather than raw values) for a reason: the numbers can be misleading due to hull and ballistic differences - Khaba is a much more dangerous gunboat than the DPM calculation alone might imply. To put it simply: If you find yourself often trying to melt down targets by firing continuously to get what you can out of your DPM - BFT is going to help you by providing a nice +11% DPM. If you rarely use your guns and/or rarely keep them blazing for long - then you probably won't see much benefit.

An offer is meant to present the contents clearly enough that people don't end up having false impression of the contents. If people end up having false impression of the contents then the offer is not doing its job and does NOT convey the message clearly enough. Now, as for your analogy - it's a complete failure. The quality of a ship is only loosely connected with the impression of power it gives to the player and opponents. Ship's power influences how powerful it looks to people but that perception is not a measure of its power. An offer is different. An offer isn't meant to sail around and shoot things - it's meant to convey a message. The impression it leaves the recipient with (that is: whether the message is conveyed successfully or not) is the direct measure of how successful/effective/well designed it was. To put it simply - whether people understand the offer or not is precisely the stats the offer turns out to have on live server And frankly these "stats" of this particular offer turned out to be pretty abysmal. In fact, I don't think I remember WG ever f*cking up this badly. They've had plenty problems with communication here and there, sure, but when it comes to premium shop offers, I don't think there was ever mess-up nearly as bad.

FTFY You see, it's a bit like with, say, building a staircase. If you open a new staircase and somebody trips and falls down the stairs - it's just a clumsy and/or careless person out of luck. Even if two people end up having accident - well, sh*t happens and people are known to walk carelessly. But when the local hospital runs out of beds because so many people come with broken legs after falling down that particular flight of stairs then it's clear that something's wrong with the stairs instead. It's the same here. When one person misunderstands, then that person messed up and that's all there is to it. When two people misunderstand, well, you just have two people who messed up, can't help it. But when you get to the point where forum-goers are getting tired of all the threads started by people who misunderstood, then it's pretty damn clear that the offer is not clear enough on some crucial aspects.

The fact of giving lots of people wrong impressions of the contents makes an offer misleading, however. And I think it's pretty clear at this point that a lot of people got that wrong impression.

no it is not The very fact that we're reading dozens of these threads proves you wrong. The offer created a false impression of its contents. It doesn't mean that it lied or that the information was impossible to access - it just wasn't clear enough about its contest and people got misled by it. If an offer misleads people then its misleading. Arguing in N-th thread started by another misled person that it's not misleading is pretty ridiculous.

Oh, yes, the offer states everything clearly and is not misleading at all! ...and yet we have 50 threads about people finding out after the purchase that they got something different than they thought there were buying. It almost sounds like the offer wasn't as clear about its contents as you say - and actually got a lot of people to spend their money while believing they were buying something else than they ended up receiving. An offer doesn't need to outright lie to be misleading - all it needs to do is create a false impression of the contents. And this one clearly does create such an impression. If the offer wasn't misleading, you wouldn't end up with armies of annoying people creating repetitive threads about having been misled by it.

You're technically right. However, selling the Black version of the ship with a mission that's for another version of the ship is misleading - it's obvious that many, MANY people will automatically assume that the ship and the mission in such a case are (supposed to be) compatible. I would agree with you if there was an explicit addition there, something like "BEWARE: this mission is for the standard version of the ship, you won't be able to complete it with Massachusetts Black sold in this package". But there's nothing like this. It's like selling a WoWs bundle that contains a ship or two and "2 000 gold" - and when you buy it you get 2k WoT/WoWp gold because OBVIOUSLY WoWs use doublons and not gold. Technically you get what the offer promises but it doesn't change the fact that lots of people are going to end up purchasing something else than they were led to believe by faulty (or dishonest) offer description that doesn't bring enough attention to the unexpected aspects of the offer. Oh, and btw - actual contracts (of course it's about more serious issues and bigger money) can be legally invalidated by court exactly for things like these. The contract doesn't have to outright lie to be invalidated as misleading.

These are rookie numbers! More seriously - 8 is quite a lot in a cruiser but if you played a DD, especially if you played one aggressively? I've seen 11 a couple times. Never 12, but one of these matches with 11 suitors was a CV match, so while I failed to ever be targeted by 12 enemies, I can brag that on one occasion I was targeted by literally every single enemy that had main guns at all.

No, no, that's still unfair! We should remove the videos altogether and have people vote blindly on black rectangles. Wouldn't want to let people pick what they prefer, that's unfair for the rest! I mean, seriously, wtf mate. Why do you want to prevent voters from seeing what they vote for? I might agree with the idea that people should be voting for "anonymous" videos posted on special channel rather than put videos up on CC's own channels (so that they don't get an auto-boost from people who are subscribed to their channels and just like whatever pops up there) but castrating the content itself? And - on top of that - you want to castrate said content by removing THE part of CC's skillset that's actually relevant to "being" the future special commander (the way he sounds). Of course not everyone prefers Jingles. There are people who prefer other CCs and those who outright dislike TMJ. The point isn't that he's universally liked by everyone but rather that he's comparatively more liked than the others. Errrm. I'm pretty sure that actual commanders have better things to do than to record voiceovers for a video game AND most of them probably wouldn't even be able to do that competently - voice acting isn't exactly part of the default navy officer skillset. And, of course, they wouldn't even be "relevant" commanders anyway - those that fought in WW2 tend to be dead or VERY old by now. Although, in fact, if we're talking about people with some actual experience with the navy that would be willing to contribute (and with reasonable probability able to deliver voiceover of decent quality)... I actually do seem to know of a person that fits the bill. You might know him as The Mighty Jingles

Yes, it would. In fact, it would likely be more one-sided. All this meddling with voting and - ultimately - making it a CC club's internal afair was done for the sole reason of giving people other than TMJ a slight fighting chance. Jingles is just extremely popular because he's just entertaining. He relies on replays sent to him (so he gets more interesting replays than "own play" CCs) and adds commentary that makes it all entertaining for everyone, from people just starting with the game to seasoned veterans. He's most definitely not a CC that you can learn to play the game from. When I want some ship's review to find out if it's worth it and/or what to expect from enemies sailing the thing, I'm going to look elsewhere. But Jingles is a CC whose content can be (and is) watched just for fun. Making it interesting for a much wider audience than the content produced by the "more serious" CCs. And what's more - this was explicitly a contest to make a CC a commander in-game. And Jingles both looks and sounds the part* - a detail, perhaps, but still another field where Jingles wins. Even if I had no idea who Jingles was, I'd happily see a commander looking like him, with his voiceover, just for his looks and voice alone. *He even has his own cap.

You do want it in Randoms - for divisions. As for other people... ...well. It would be really nice to have it in many situations but we all know why it's not a good idea All in all, that would be a nice addition for divisions, whether they are CB divs, organized scenario attempts or just friends going to fight together in Randoms. ...who wants to install third party additions to the game. People who don't and just play the game as provided by the developers are at a disadvantage for the single reason of not installing third party content. It's basically the grey area where the only difference between "cheating" and "not cheating" is the arbitrary decision by WG whether the shade of grey is light enough to let it pass.

If you prefer Fletcher to Kitakaze, you're probably going to prefer Gearing to Harugumo - although it's hard to say for sure when we don't know what you like and dislike about each of the t9s. Harugumo has a concealment that makes it hard to call her a DD and things only getworse when you look at her handling. Kitakaze still qualifies as an all-rounder DD (though heavily on the gun side) while Harugumo is all about her guns - she has hardly any other redeeming factors. If you prefer Fletcher to Kitakaze, then you probably prefer the more torp-oriented play, better concealment and superior handling (the main advantages of Fletcher). If so, then picking Harugumo brings you further away from the things you like. Long story short: if you prefer Fletcher rather than Kita, then Gearing is probably the better t10 for you. What's more - Harugumo seems to differ from Kitakaze more than Gearing from Fletcher (at least since Fletcher's torps are available) so while it's safe to assume that you'll like Gearing if you liked Fletcher (not necessarily ,like more than F. but still like), the same can't be said about Kitakaze->Harugumo progression. So... 1. Gearing is likely to be more fun for you than Harugumo 2. Assuming that you like both Fletcher and Kitakaze, the risk of you disliking Gearing is lower than the risk of disliking Harugumo since Flether and Gearing differ less than Kitakaze and Harugumo. In light of these two points - Gearing is probably the safer recommendation for you.

Seriously, mate. I neither participated nor even voted, but you should take this condescending tone of yours and shove it up your stern so deep that the engine gets lubricated with it But more seriously: Błyskawica comes by default with a very neat camo. It's one of the best permanent camos, really - it doesn't look forced, it's neat to look at, it's pretty realistic: it's a perfect camo for "WW2 immersion". To put it bluntly: people who like their ships with realistic paintjob already have one of the best camos in the game for this ship - what would be the point of making a second camo of exactly the same kind? It would just be redundant. Almost everyone who would appreciate a realistic camo is satisfied already with what they have - it's the "fancy camo lovers" that had to put up with the realistic option (as there was no alternative). I won't say that there would be nobody who'd appreciate a slightly different than the default realistic option - but mostly it would just be catering to audience that's already satisfied. It's bound to make less people happy than giving something to those that so far lacked (for this ship) something suiting their tastes.

Predicting with high probability an outbreak of an all-out war a couple days before the forces actually cross the border? Yeah, I'm sure that's completely impossible. As we all know, neighboring countries with bad relations never engage in spying on each other, that would be in bad taste. As for "leaving their compatriots on land"... well, I guess they decided that evacuating 35 million of people was a bit too ambitious of a project More seriously, regardless of what some heroic stories seem to imply, losing people and equipment to overwhelming enemy advantage without some equally worthy (and potentially attainable) goal in mind tends to not be a sound tactical decision. In fact, let me ask you a question: imagine that you're playing Domination match in World of Warships and you see a single allied cruiser near the cap circle on the other side of the map. Friendly carrier spots two red BBs and a cruiser of the same color closing in. Assuming that you could advise the allied cruiser, would you rather see the guy: - heroically defending the cap and (of course) promptly sinking in the process after dealing negligible damage or - running the f*ck away while there's still time to re-group with other allies and remain a factor in the remaining part of the battle I don't know about you, but I personally believe the "cowardly" option #2 to be the correct one. Having come to this personal conclusion, I feel like I have some basic insight into why these "Poles in ships", rather than being expected to stop the Kriegsmarine then and there, might have been instead given the order to get the hell out of Baltic Sea and head for the British Isles.

You're mistaken. The API doesn't actually give you information on ships in port so wows-numbers has no way of acquiring this data. The date for "new ship" is, therefore, not what it claims to be - it's the date for the first match rather than actual acquisition.

Oh yes, yes you can wipe a misplaying DD in 1-2 salvoes, just like a misplaying cruiser - only the way they misplay is different. Also, specifically in high tiers, all cruisers can heal so barely-surviving lets them recuperate while DDs remain an easy kill for the rest of the match. But that's not what I really wanted to say. The problem is - cruisers are powerful. They are vulnerable, yes, but still powerful. If you take away their main weakness, they would become insanely overpowered. They have concealment to disappear, maneuverability and speed to disengage and dodge torps, good DPM and - on top of all that - assortment of consumables to serve as support ships. Cruisers suffer from overpopulation of BBs but that doesn't change the fact that removing citadels from cruisers would make BBs completely obsolete.

1. Because most BBs have torpedo bulges while only certain lines of cruisers have any to speak of. 2. Because the insanity of damage saturation against torps was the most noticeable on DDs. Being safe from torpedoes due to saturation actually happens to BBs more often than DDs (taking a couple torps on the nose for much less damage than expected) but the effects when it happens to a DD are much more absurd. I've been both on receiving and dealing side of this more than enough to consider it broken. I remember one match where an enemy Gearing ate three of my Shimakaze's torps and lived to tell the tale. Sorry, but if you get yourself torped in smoke three separate times with the biggest (or ones of the biggest at least) torps in the game, your DD really should go down. Also, this isn't a "nerf to DDs" because the DDs are the class that actually does the most torping as well. Cruisers torp much less and BBs - very rarely. So this change isn't a "nerf to DDs" as much as "buff to torpedo boats". Basically: DDs vs DDs - torpedo boats (especially IJN ones that have torps that deal huge damage but are easier to dodge/force to land on preferred section of target DD) are buffed. DDs vs cruisers - DDs use torps to fight cruisers, cruisers almost never do that against DDs, the exception being torping suspicious smokes; hence: torps being more effective against saturated sections (like, say, a bow of a cruiser that tries to rush a DD) are a DD buff in this match-up DDs vs BBs - DDs use torps against BBs a lot; BBs torp DDs very rarely. Again, the change benefits DDs DDs aren't nerfed by this change. They are buffed. And in DD vs DD fights the ones relatively benefiting are those that need it the most - the IJN torpboats that will now see more consistent results on the off chance that one of the desperate torps actually scores a hit - no more of that "lol, silly Shima, sure I ate your torp while on 10% hp but too bad, I already had my bow saturated, 0 damage for your trouble" situations. There's only one match-up in which this change is disadvantageous to DDs - and that's a DDvsCV scenario. Then again. CVs were already super-deadly against DDs and didn't even need to drop any ordinance on them for that to be the case AND they aren't played that much. Plus there's a rework coming anyway. So... whatever.

You miss a couple facts, though. 1. Akizuki entering t10 was in a position of t8 ship in a t10 match. This means lower expectations while her firepower was still t10. If Akizuki managed to trade 1:1 against an enemy t10 DD, she was generating advantage for the allied team since it was a lower tier ship traded for higher tier one. 2. While Akizuki suffered from handling issues (especially speed), her concealment was actually competitive when meeting t10s. She didn't fall behind Gearing, Grozovoi and pre-buff Shima, she had advantage over Z-52. Shimakaze post-buff did have an advantage but the advantage was small enough that an aggressive Akizuki could actually hope to engage a careless Shima - and then the latter was in a world of hurt. Now let's look at Harugumo. Concealment is horrendous. Forget about engaging Shimas that pay even modicum of attention. As for all other t10 DDs (save for Khaba that hardly qualifies as a DD) - they all have advantage over you. Yes, Harugumo has more DPM than Akizuki but the concealment coupled with even worse handling (torp susceptibility!) makes her much less effective at hunting DDs than the old Akizuki. On top of that, Harugumo is a t10 DD so just trading evenly with other t10s isn't advantageous anymore. Overall it means that Harugumo can't fit into the old Akizuki's shoes, play like her and be useful. Current Harugumo makes up for that by having much more firepower than the old Akizuki when she points her guns against things that are NOT destroyers. The old Akizuki didn't do all that much HE damage to higher tier BBs and cruisers - but she didn't have to do that to be viable. This is not the case for Harugumo. There is a ship in Akizuki line that could be viable even without the improved HE penetration but that ship is not Harugumo - it's Kitakaze. Kitakaze is basically the old Akizuki on steroids - much superior speed and firepower increased by t9 module mean that, in my opinion, the ship would be viable at t9 even without super HE (although RN DDs might be worrying due to similar but more pronounced strengths - although I'll hold my judgement on that until I get the chance to play WoWs more post-patch since I didn't really get the chance to play these ships or even face them after full release). Anyway, for Kitakaze, yes, she could probably manage. Akizuki (after rolling back the nerfs too, of course) would remain a solid ship after 100mm HE pen rollback. But Harugumo is different. She really, REALLY needs that cruiser penetration because the price she pays for her firepower is much too steep to allow said firepower to be as unreliable as it would've been with normal (or even 1/5) penetration. Right now Harugumo is a very meh ship with one extreme advantage. She NEEDS that advantage to remain extreme - since that's what keeps the ship in question viable.

A t10 ship that only becomes playable with a legendary upgrade locked behind a long grind? How about no.

Was there some announcement of selling a t10 Premium, or are you trying to hand out pitchforks (20 EUR or less apiece!) on account of existence of things like Salem and Stalingrad, purchasable for steel or coal?

The interesting thing I got from this is that the mechanics that forced 10% damage on hitting a damage-saturated sections were literally the same mechanics that caused bulge damage, to the point where they didn't have a way to keep the former (which worked as intended and is actually desired by the playerbase) without also keeping the latter (that nobody wanted - at least after seeing how it worked in practice). I kinda get a feeling that (regardless of what initial announcements implied) the bulge damage was never really the intended change but rather "ok, we have this solution to non-damaging penetrations on modules and saturated parts of ships but it also leads to bulges being susceptible to damage; let's implement it and see if it works out". I start thinking that torpedo bulges are actually implemented not as "empty armor" but rather have a lot in common with ship sections (like bow and stern) that start the battle already fully saturated. Torpedo interaction would then be a "special case" with the torpedo bulge not actually mitigating the damage but rather completely nullifying it first based on standard mechanics (a saturated section "eats" torpedo damage in its entirety) and then re-creating a pseudo-torpedo to hit the section behind the bulge

I'm glad to see 10% penetrations on fully saturated sections - it's only right that a penetration is at least as good as overpen. I'm glad to see the big AP vs DDs change (I still don't know why the special treatment for Harugumo here, tohugh, that ship doesn't have Khaba's armor to mitigate incoming damage, only the health pool - if it's too big then nerf it rather than pushing that exception on her). But torpedo bulges... really? The point of having a torpedo bulge is to have additional protection. I mean, it's a borderline "but in real life..." argument that I normally fight against with passion, but it's just so sad to see the additional protection becoming a vulnerability - seemingly for no reason as neither logic nor balance seems to require this particular change (usually just the opposite in fact).

No it wouldn't. Imagine a battle where you have no other bonuses and you would receive 100 free XP. With the bonus you receive 125 free XP 125 free XP is 100 free XP with +25% bonus. It's also consistent with other freeXP bonuses. Papa Papa gives you +300% modifier to your free XP, for example - and kicks in in exactly the same way (affecting the way final freeXP is calculated based on base the freeXP determined based on earned ship XP). The only confusing thing is that in a few places the % increase to something is actually a percent point increase. This is the case for fire chance and flooding modifiers - if anything, it should be these that need rephrasing to not be confusing (a signal that is described as giving your HE shells a +0.5% fire chance actually gives +0.5 percent point chance).

I strongly disagree with you. The are good reasons for capping certain things and caps are actually a valid tool of balancing. If you remove this tool, you put additional strain on other balancing tools, reducing your options. Whether it's used well in WoWs is another matter, but the base idea of restricting the number of certain things allowed is a perfectly reasonable approach. The reason why number caps are a viable - even necessary - tool is that they let you introduce mechanics that otherwise wouldn't be possible. The latter is because certain things scale differently with their number. Some things get redundant the more of them you have. In this case it is somewhat self-regulating (if there's too much of them then there's less incentive to play them) but even then a cap can be a good idea to prevent having too many of these things. But then there are things that actually synergize with themselves - and here a cap is necessary. It won't self-regulate because the more of the thing there is, the stronger the incentive to play this very thing - once the balance tips over, there's no way for things to naturally return to the desirable equilibrium. So you need to either scrap the whole thing or... you can introduce a cap that keeps the numbers at the level where "the thing" is a wholseome addition that makes the game better rather than a locust plague.

On the scale of war winning "basically without fighting" tends to mean that one side just folds without what we call war really happening. However, had the war started - what do you think would happen if the defending army was too scared to put up the fight and decided to instead give up on all major cities and industrial centers and retreated? I can assure you that the attacker would promptly achieve a, well, victory by capping. Armies in real life don't tend to behave like player-controlled ships in WoWs, however. Now, as you switch to smaller scale - battles and smaller parts of the grand campaign rather than the entirety of war - you'd notice that situations where one side basically retreats without putting up much of a fight are quite commonplace, really - sometimes the people in charge just deem it unfeasible or at least not worthy the cost to defend something - and the forces that could do it simply retreat, letting the enemy win with little to no fighting. Similarly the would-be attackers can just abort the attack - leading the defense to be successful by default. That wuldn't be called a battle, of course, but then again - a Domination match in WoWs where one side never even tries to contest the caps also hardly qualifies. The reason why it's usually hard to find the direct equivalents between a game like WoWs and real battles isn't that the former are less focused on killing (as I mentioned, it's the opposite, if anything) but rather the fact that battles in game are supposed to be somewhat fair and relatively symmetrical... which is, obviously, not the case in real world. Battles in real life are rarely symmetrical in any sense - be it the relative power of the opposing sides or their respective objectives. In the context of naval warfare we could take, for example, a naval blockade. One side wants to deliver a convoy of transport ships somewhere specific while the other tries to keep any convoys from reaching that destination. In this case, notice how the objectives of both sides are: SIDE A: Deliver the convoy. not sink the enemy ships - sure, it's always better if an enemy ship is sunk or captured rather than not but the objective of the operation is to safely get the ships to their destination. Slipping through a gap in the blockade is a perfectly acceptable (even preferred) way of handling the task. These kinds of victories - accomplishing a strategically crucial objective - are present in games like WoWs in the form of "instant death" victory conditions like capping the enemy base. SIDE B: Stop any convoys. not sink them and certainly not sink the escorts - sure, it's always better if enemy ships sink but that's not what it's all about. If your blockade just seems strong enough that the enemy gives up on sending more ships your way - your objective is accomplished through pretty much just looking scary enough. These kinds of victories - preventing the enemy from changing the (favorable to you) status quo are present in games like WoWs in the form of point accumulation victory. Anyway, as you can see, both sides in this hypothetical naval blockade scenario can win with little to no fighting, especially if the other side messes up (leaving a path open to the location they were supposed to isolate) or gets scared and abandons their objective (never really making a serious attempt to slip/break through). And this is how victories with no fight happen in WoWs too - it requires the opposing side to either mess up REALLY badly or to not even try in the first place. Unfortunately, it does happen from time to time, I've had matches like these too.