eliastion

I even managed to get manual chat-ban (a week long "for insults and provocations" or something like this) but still never managed to get reported enough for auto-chatban to kick in. The trick is to jus not rage ALL the time... ...although it might be that things get harder once you start getting the chatbans already. Which probably is a flaw in the system (redemption should be possible).

Erm... if it's +50% doublons then it's 33% discount.

Believe it or not, server crashes tend to mean that something went wrong rather than being purposefully invoked by some code where you could easily insert your anti-undeserved-pinkness line. Since I like cats, I'm very glad to hear that it's so smart - perhaps you should ask it to explain to you why contingency measures against your issue aren't as easy as you believe. And while at it, the clever animal could also explain to you why the issue is also of quite low priority (hint: it has a lot to do with the fact that people mistakenly getting pink due to server problems are relatively rare AND the consequences are almost non-existent since the only people that actually suffer from this are the ones that for some reason were on the verge of being orange for previous transgressions or extreme accumulation of bad luck - being pink is just inconsequential and goes away quickly enough: in your case you're clear in literally three battles of any kind). PS: Say hi to your cat from a fellow programmer I'd love to meet it, most IT people I know are human. Or lizards.

The general idea of putting divisions together has some merit, but there is a problem with single-class divisions in general, most notably for BBs and DDs, especially if the match happens to be low on the class in question (like in your example - 3 DD div that makes for all the DDs of your team). With bad players this is disastrous (but what bad triple division isn't) but it's a problem even for decent players because suddenly you all spawn on one flank and sometimes it's just not viable to push for control of the flank you started on. Usually the best option is to go for middle+your cap but you're naturally late for the middle cap and the side cap you can go for is decided for you. What makes it worse is the random team that so often doesn't realize that they need to properly support the only flank they have DDs on - so often do I see even BBs going for "empty" caps with no DD to spot for them, screen them and chase away the enemy DDs, so they end up perma-spotted, focused or - worst case - obliterated by the enemy DD that happens to be present on the flank in question and has a field trip with torps when the BB has no DD escort and only limited ability to maneuver because there's no option to go unspotted and turn around without exposing broadside.

If people realize what gets them the greatest gain and strive for that - there's no meaning in your change because all it would do is punish people who got unlucky. If people don't realize what gets them the best rewards - then your change would change nothing or make them camp even harder. Your change might be economically beneficial to the decent players (who, btw, don't really struggle in the current economy anyway) but it wouldn't positively influence the game environment because the only people who would get incentivized to perform well are the very same people that already try to do just that.

Thought #1: Wow, planes get an astromech for emergency in-flight repairs! Waiting for Star-Wars themed plane mods Thought #2: Ok, they don't want players to be occupied by commanding many things at once anymore but seriously - is two so much? Emergency switch to CV perspective should always be available, it's hard to believe that the brainfart of taking away the control of your actual ship is still around. The fact that most of the time autopilot will be enough doesn't make it ok to just outright lock you out of switching to command your ship when in danger.

Setting aside the fact that I wouldn't like to engage in cheating of this kind (there are 5 other people on my team that I'd be screwing over) - it's a matter of agreement. Imagine clans sync-dropping into the queue to maximize the chances of being in one match, all that with a simple rules of "cooperation": 1. If the enemy team has no clanmates or no more of them than your team, play normally. 2. If the enemy team has more clanmates than your team, try to lose. Everyone struggles so that in every match the clan gets as many stars as possible. Divisions (there is one here) might complicate things but aside from that, every member of the clan playing Ranked should come out ahead. And then there's the option of literally buying matches - the winner(s) can reward loser(s) in one way or another. Say, one Euro for throwing a match - I would be surprised if there were no people who would gladly "buy" stars this way and I wouldn't be surprised to see ones willing to sell either. There are many possibilities, all boiling down to an agreement based on which one player tries to help the enemy team win. The exact reasons aren't very important here, though - what matters is that they're cheating at the expense of other players whose match ends up purposefully thrown - they're not part of any deal but they still pay the price of defeat.

You seem to be severely lacking in departments of imagination and understanding of human nature. If someone can quit a match yolo-suicide out of spite or force-close the client (all of these happen) - why couldn't such a person just temporarily unplug the router? Not to mention that just manually turning off WiFi or pulling the cable from your computer would also work (since not everyone has their router within arm's reach like me). But not necessarily within the control of the Support team that you are speaking to, right? These guys have a pretty limited power, they're not the core developers responsible for implementation of the automatic warning/penalty algorithms. Also, there's no reason to modify the system. If you happen to disconnect and can't quickly reconnect, you get pink (not necessarily even, it might take more than one disconnect in a short timespan). And being pink isn't really a penalty yet. And it disappears within a few matches. If you get to the point of being orange (the real penalty kicks in and you need to play coop to lift it) then it means that you disconnected repeatedly within a very short span (before your pink status expired). What it means is that whether it's your fault or you connection being wonky, you're poisoning the game by repeatedly being AFK. People whose activity (or rather lack of activity) is poisonous are rightfully eliminated from PvP. It's your responsibility to make sure you don't ruin the fun of other people. Stop rage-quitting or make sure your connection is stable and then play team PvP games, it's as simple as that. The system is pretty lenient. Your Internet having a stroke every once a few days won't get you actually punished for AFK - and if you can't play, say, five games without losing connection AGAIN after the disconnect that got you pink... then you have no place in a team PvP environment, sorry. Or, in fact, you don't meet the basic technical requirements to play the game: OS: Windows XP 32-bit or better. Processor (CPU): Intel Core i3 mobile, Intel Core2Quad or AMD FX 4100+ RAM: 2 GB. GPU: Nvidia GeForce GT8800 , Intel HD 4000 or AMD 4650+ Sound card: compatible with DirectX 9.0c. Free HDD space: 30 GB. Internet connection: 1024 Kb/s or better. Sorry, it's a game for people who have the Internet connection and you apparently end up not having it at crucial moments on regular basis. In your case, if it's just getting pink - just keep playing without dropping out of the game and you'll be green again before you know it.

If you and your friends are in a game, in opposite teams and you sabotage your team so that your friends can get an easy victory - that most definitely constitutes cheating (match rigging, if you want to be more precise about the kind of cheating).

"OMG if I die too early, I'll lose money. Better go camp even harder, that will help me break even."

Secondaries are "safe", but since the secondaries were firing, I assume the range was close. What probably happened was: 1. Your ally is behind you and has a lot of big guns on both ends of the ship. 2. Your ally sees an enemy close by and fires a salvo. 3. Some (most) of the shells land on target or within proximity, some "disappear" but he doesn't care, doesn't count - he's shooting the enemy after all. 4. You sit in your Baltimore eating into your superstructure every single one of these "disappearing" shells since your superstructure is right between the enemy and one or two of your ally's turrets. The sad part is that he kept shooting, but then again - I didn't see the situation, I don't know how panicked he had reasons to be and, unfortunately, the game does a very poor job at letting you fire specific turrets and not the others. I probably shouldn't admit to this but setting aside some accidental friendly fire (usually when I'm a DD in smoke and an ally enters the smoke and blocks me while I'm tunnel-visioning) I've even had a couple situations (among my thousands of battles, but then again, I rarely play ships where this can really happen) where I still double-clicked while fully aware of the possibility that a shell or a couple will likely clip an ally in front of me - I just deemed the salvo too important to pass up on. Of course if the NEXT salvo (in a BB) is in the same situation then probably the BB is doing something very wrong.

Seems like - along with CV-centered skill changes - we might see effectively a nerf of stealth for everything bigger than a DD (and the bigger the thing, the harder the nerf) with new uniform 10% concealment bonus from CE. Might be a more significant nerf to some cruisers (mostly these that enjoy Radar comparable to detection radius plus the precious few that can stealth-torp) but it shouldn't wreck in-class balance and overall this might be a welcome change, emphasizing the expected stealth differences between classes (I'm looking at you, stealthy BBs).

Well, you suggested throwing torps blindly... somewhere. Into the general area of enemy operation. And I just pointed out that it doesn't really work, save for some very specific circumstances. When you do that it Sims it might not hurt that much because the torps are less relevant anyway and any lucky torp hit is basically a bonus.

Where have I ever mentioned Sims? I explicitly referred to torp-focused DDs - so the first person to tell you that Sims gets player around her torps would be yourself if you think I referred to her

This doesn't really work for torp-focused ships, though. The torpedo indicator is a very useful tool but it's no oracle. "If they do nothing, they'll be there. Now, what are the chances that they WILL do something and what might it be (and where will it put them)" - that's the kind of reasoning you usually need and the torpedo indicator is a good place to start. Also, it's not uncommon for people (especially people who weren't torped yet this match) to be very predictable, including "steaming in a straight line full ahead" predictable, especially if they find themselves out of position and it's clear where they are going. An unaccounted for presence of a DD on their flank can give them a VERY rude awakening...

To answer "why" - it's most likely because of the RIDICULOUS amount of lead needed for torps on middle to long ranges, coupled with lack of "vertical" aiming (you aim torps in a strip on the water, not at a point in the sea). Automatic detection of your target requires the game to guess what ship you are thinking about - and for guns it's just much easier. When you aim your guns, the game can help you and make your life easier. Trying to give you similar solution for torps, with comparable sensitivity etc. (there actually is a system, I think, it's just MUCH less sensitive) would probably have the opposite effect - the game would misjudge your intentions on regular basis, making the thing frustrating rather than helpful.

Remember kids what Nile_Prince said, sharing his infinite wisdom - if your ship doesn't have good armor, playing it requires no skill On another note, however - I'm surprised about the inclusion of "aiming at far moving targets" - I never realized that hiding in smoke disables engines of all enemy ships and makes them immobile. How do I unlock that effect? Or maybe you just showed your, errrm, level of knowledge of game mechanics by assuming that DD shells at, say, 12km have shell travel time comparable to a BB shooting at 12km? Because, let me tell you, that's... not exactly the case. PS: Damn, CVs must be even more of a no-skill class. Forget angling and such - they can't even relate to the struggle of aiming your main battery

1. The class that actually suffers from lots of DDs is... DDs. The reality is that 5 DDs in each team limit DD effectiveness a lot - you wouldn't be getting torped less with 3v3 DDs. 2. Encountering a well coordinated division of 3 clan members of decent skill at low tiers and with your experience is painful regardless of the class the enemy plays. They would wreck you in cruisers and boy, would it hurt you if they were 3 BBs. But if they happened to go with a full BB+cruiser+DD division to actually give themselves maximum possible versatility? THEN you'd be REALLY screwed. 3. You only playing BBs is one of the main reasons why you have problems against DDs - and frankly... this won't really change as you progress through tiers. You probalby will learn to not sail in a straight line at constant speed but to really consciously react to DDs that you can't see - that would require some understanding of how playing the class feels. In the end, I have some good news and some bad news for you. Good news: there will soon be a new 4 DD limit imposed (instead of the current 5). Bad news: you won't really feel a difference for the better. The DD-focused sealclubbers might, though

It's false that IJN gunboats don't fear US CLs. IJN gunboats can bite back but that's just a way to go down swinging. Worcester still has significantly more DPM, much more survivability, heal and Radar. Kitakaze and Harugumo have LOTS of reasons to fear an opponent like this. As for IFHE... the special thing about IJN DDs is that they effectively have the base HE pen of 150mm guns. This gives them the HE pen seen normally on light cruisers and lets them cross important armor thresholds with IFHE. Gearing and YY don't have such advantage, making IFHE much less valuable.

1. It's no use knowing how many uses the enemy has. You won't get to count them and even if you could, they will have enough (especially with premium consumable and superintendent). So don't bother about the number of uses and always assume the enemy has another charge... and that it's ready unless it literally just went on CD - it's deceptive how fast the time flies and how fast the consumable reloads. Baiting a Radar works only short-term and the window for operating freely will likely prove shorter than you feel it would - unless you put a lot of effort into keeping track of enemy cooldowns. I never got to being anywhere near as through. 2. The specifics you NEED to know are as follows: - a very rough estimate of how long the Radar will last. This is important for soviet Radars especially - US Radars basically last until you are dead or out of range, the only way to survive is to either be behind solid cover where nobody can shoot you or to leave the range - as good as you can manage estimate of Radar ranges. It would've been best to learn the ranges as you reach deeper into high tiers and can meet them (so learn t7 ranges at t5, t8 ranges at t6 etc.) but since you're already at t9 (and assuming you want to keep playing high tiers), you really should learn 10 and t8 US Radar range - you meet them a lot and their Range is crucial because you CAN still play while keeping out of that range (or only skimming it a bit) while when getting caught by it you really need to know if you can try to run out of it or the only chance is to try and find cover. These two ranges are the most important. As for soviet Radars, you can start by just remembereing that it's REALLY long range - if soviet Radar-equipped cruiser is in first line then you are probably either within the range or too far to really count as participating in the battle. The nice thing about soviet Radars is that they don't last long - unless you get caught in a really bad spot, you can usually outlast them by dodging whatever gets to turn guns in your direction fast enough. It will hurt but it's less lethal, generally speaking (although if you're close and there are 5+ ships pointing guns in more or less the right direction from the start - you're dead. 3. Terrain. While islands don't block the Radar, they make it much harder for the enemies to shoot at you. When knowing that the enemy has Radars, it's good to always keep track of islands and enemy ships so that you can put the former between yourself and the latter. It's not foolproof but can sometimes help. 4. Terrain again. When Radared, you often need to trurn away and run to either leave the range (when playing against US Radars) or to dodge incoming fire for the duration (when caught by soviet Radar). If there's an island limiting your ability to perform these actions, consider yourself dead - so while islands can help you by sheltering from the enemy shells, they can also be absolutely lethal if you let them block your retreat. 5. Setting smoke and - to even bigger extent - capping are basically how you announce your presence (and intention to be killed) to enemy Radar ships. Radar cruisers like to approach caps (if hey can do so safely) because enemy trying to cap lets them Radar without the fear of wasting the consumable on poorly guessed position of enemy DDs. There are ways to actually use this against them and bait the Radar - but it's a high-risk advanced tactics that you probably shouldn't employ while struggling with the basics of anti-Radar play. 6. General situational awareness. In fact, this could perhaps be the only point on this list (others for most part are contained within). Basically, keep track of enemy Radar ships, friendly ships that might punish the Radar ship or at least scare them a little, be mindful to always have some escape routes. It's not easy but with some experience and dedication you'll find it easier to handle them... However - the dedication part is important. Just spamming matches won't really give you meaningful experience. You need to try to win and you need to remember - Radars aren't fun to play against, you are free to considered them overpowered but if you die to a Radar, it usually means that you made a mistake that could be avoided. Staying humble and focusing on your own shortcomings will help you improve your chances. Calling the thing a "win button" actually hurts you because by stating it like this, you more or less consciously allow yourself to just give up and takes the responsibility off your shoulders. While the current number of Radars sailing around coupled with the current Radar implementation might not be a problem of the game, it doesn't mean that getting rekt on regular basis isn't an l2p kind of problem too. Then again, you created a Forum thread where you are a bit salty but ask for advice more than you whine, so it's not that bad in your case

And yet people pull off very good (and very bad) winrates and the stat difference between a great player and a very bad one is like heaven and earth. And that's despite the fact that other than RNG you have other equalizing factors like random MM... So no. It's 90% skill and 10% RNG at best (or, well, worst). It's true that WoWs has quite a lot of RNG, mind you (while the truly competitive games basically aim to have none at all) but it's unavoidable - RNG is a big part of balancing. Can you even imagine balancing BBs that have literally no dispersion, every shell landing exactly where you aimed? The one part of RNG that WG should really get rid of is detonations - because this is just an instant death mechanic not dependent on the ability of any of the parties involved. But the devstrikes and I-got-screwed-out-of-my-devstrike salvoes are good or even necessary - because you need RNG to balance these big guns and if you do things randomly, you get extremely good and extremely bad "rolls" - it's just an unavoidable part of "rolling dice".

Pan Asia destroyers have deep water torpedoes. They can't hit DDs. When you try to target a DD, the torpedo aiming indicator looks differently and even a text appears on the screen, saying that you can't hit this target. Long story short: everyone has this "problem" because it's not a problem at all, but rather the defining design feature of this weapon - extremely stealthy compared to counterpart from other navies but unable to hit enemy destroyers.

Well, not punishing them hard for any attempt at capping would help a lot. In matches with few (and located) or no Radars (contrary to popular opinion, they still happen, though rarely) there's actually quite a lot of capping going on. As for teamplay, that's a bit more complicated. Or, should I say: what do you consider teamplay from DDs? Their most powerful teamplay ability (smoking of friendly ships) got removed with smoke changes. It wasn't necessarily that bad of a change (the smoke meta in Ranked was painful) but smoke being as broken as it was was precisely why it was worth it to go out of your way to smoke allies. Now? Not really worth it. Spotting? On occasion can be precious but it also very often means exactly the borderlining - a DD needs to flank the enemy (to get spotting angles around islands the enemy is attempting to use) and stay out of Radar range. The exception would be the spotting of enemy DDs - but that's extremely risky. When trying to spo enemy DDs you're naturally close to the enemy ships, including Radars and - of course - the enemy DDs you're trying to spot. Depending on the actual support your teammates can give you (based on their ships, positioning and ability to aim) trying to spot enemy DDs can be a bad idea. I must admit I love my Kitakaze and I love playing her aggressively (I prefer her over Harugumo due to the concealment difference) but I actually end up trying to play it safe more often than not - I just can't afford to put myself as forward as I'd like because if there happens to be a competent Worcester or something like that on the enemy team, I'm just dead or so crippled that I can't safely trade with IJN torpboats anymore - not a good start of a match.

The announcement isn't false - it's badly worded. The last sentence is just ambiguous. You can only accumulate the experience necessary to research the next ship and unlock it once Update 0.7.10 is released. There are two ways to read it. Version A: You can only (do things) once Update 0.7.10 is released. Version B: You can only accumulate experience to (do things once Update 0.7.10 is released). The "only" isn't there to denote that "you can do these things only once 0.7.10 goes live", it tells you that in 0.7.9 you can only accumulate experience that you will be able to use to research and unlock the ship later. This is quite obvious the intended meaning - unfortunately the way it was written could be read either way if there was no context.

Actually, I don't think your analysis is correct. Well, for starters I personally don't think +/- 2 is bad at all, but if I were to pick the most affected (aside from CVs and the fun of facing +2t AA) class, it would be battleships. - cruisers are squishy and often need to play hide-and-seek behind islands even at the best of times. Being lower tier just makes it even more pronounced but doesn't change that much. What's more, if a cruiser has some particular strength when top tier (say, a Radar), that strength usually remains viable even when bottom tier. - DDs generally don't like to expose themselves. With the exception of stealth module addition of t8 (but 1v1 wouldn't change anything since yo'd still get t7 DDs in t8 matches) the lower tier DDs tend to actually be stealthier rather than less stealthy and overall DDs - especially the torp-oriented ones - don't care much about being bottom tier (getting stronger with tiers doesn't fundamentally change how they play in a match of certain tier). It's a bit iffier with gunboats, though (plus many of the low tier gunboats are incapable of stealth torping which makes a lot of difference). - BBs tend to be more exposed and worse at picking their fight (due to general clumsiness) so being at a disadvantage against their higher tier cousins affects them a bit more than is usually the case for cruisers and DDs