250swb

Sounds like a cheat to me, WG tutor to look at the enemy smoke to decide if a ship is under full power, not to install a cheat mod that tells you.

After playing the Montecucccoli a couple of times I think it could make a good ship, unlike it's tier V sister the Genova. But the other ships available all feel awkward and pointless, especially the Amalfi which could be worse than any other tier VIII cruiser that I've got.

Probably at the end of this month when it actually starts, the Operation mode is only a foretaste, not the whole event.

Running the game in windowed mode works and stops the the exit screen crashing.

You aren't using camo on a cruiser?

What do you think 'average' means? If a ship is average it will be hovering somewhere in the 50% region. So where is the Smolensk, yes it's just over 50%, that's kind of average given the Stalingrad and the Colbert far exceed that figure. When more of the player base (who are statistically below 50% WR) own it that statistic won't go up, it will come down especially as more players both own it and learn how to play against it. Starting out at 50% (350,000 battles) is a low figure in the history of new ships claimed to be 'OP', and after a year (or another million battles) it will be out of the novelty category and statistically settling right in there with the Des Moines and Minotaurs of this world. For example look at the first page of 'top players' for the Zao, the stats are pretty much all purple and reflect the reliability of this well understood ship for unicums. Not so the Smolensk where statistical anomalies abound, some with +80% WR in less than 100 battles, but look down it's first page and it's not long before the stats start to turn very green and not so good. For the top 100 Zao players the stats are all purple (give or take a couple), but the stats are only purple across the board for the top 50 Smolensk players, amongst which exist the high value statistical anomalies thrown up by a new ship. Edit- You could also look at it another way, the stats for Flambass playing the Smolensk is a 68% WR, and his stats for playing the Des Moines.....69%. So don't get excited about how the Smolensk is going to turn out long term among potato players.

And what about all those people who don't come to the forum?

Who or what is 'OneDrive' and why should I go through this third party? This all too flakey for me, not everybody is a computer techie and why should anybody be, we download the game from Wargaming, that should be enough!

I'm getting an error downloading this file, total SNAFU from WG. You need to pull your finger out and release it as a proper Patch.

Screen locks up exiting full-screen mode, happened many times today. Just tried again but this time in 'Windowed' mode and exiting the game was instant, this isn't good, I want full-screen to work.

I've just tried straight 'Windowed' mode and you get out of the game like lightning, not a lock up in sight. So what has changed WG and how do we get a workable full-screen back?

From this afternoon I'm finding the screen locks up when leaving the game, I'm left stuck on the 'Yes - No' option as soon as I press 'Yes'. Has there been a micro patch since yesterday? The only thing that's changed at my end is that I got the Italian cruisers in port.

I've just looked up the Smolensk's overall stats and so far it's proving to be a very average cruiser even when as with any new ship it's mostly played in the early stages by experienced players. The ship has been over-hyped by the Twitch and You Tube contributors who at the time were playing it against players who didn't know what it was and spent their time sailing into danger. Now players do know what it is they've either gone back to sitting behind islands in their fragile cruisers or can afford to ignore it almost completely in their tier X battleships. Take me out of the equation of 'experienced players playing it in the early stages' and I'm having trouble doing any significant damage with it at all, however I can do more in a tier VIII Bayard in a tier X battle almost guaranteed. Yes it's fun to see shots raining down, but it has to be on a squishy ship sailing in the open for anything to mount up in damage. The best that could be said for the Smolensk is that it's an area denial ship. Those first 200,000 to 300,000 damage games from Flamu and Flambass are pure anomalies as you might expect, but reality isn't even halfway towards those figures. I urge anybody who wants it nerfed to at least play it or look very closely at the evolving stats because it would be a travesty to nerf the Smolensk based on hearsay and paranoia.

The situation is the same with me, been a Twitch Prime member for ages, had the port before, nothing has changed except it now says it's a new port and it is only for Twitch prime members, which I am.

I think the idea of nerfing it is at the moment just a knee-jerk reaction to a few unicums and experienced people playing it along with some exceptional battles posted on YouTube. Just wait until I have a few more battles on it, that will rebalance it's stats.

Well I've tried bouncing up and down on my chair to hurry the reload up but it doesn't seem to work. It is the most unbearable twenty seconds you are ever likely to spend in a game, especially if your last salvo got the enemy mad. The SAP shells do a lot of damage when they hit, but I'd rather it was the other way around, less damage and more speed. I feel this is one to park up and allow to go rusty, the whole ship feels clumsy especially as bottom tier.

Perfectly described, except there is the undercurrent on the forum that players should be punished for playing badly rather than encouraged to play well. If all anybody gets is punishment when learning a new ship or class of ships they are going to default into the mindset that 'ok this is how DD's are played, I get shat on for doing my best'. It's about time the 'theoreticians' on this forum woke up and realised that stats exist in a void if other players are oblivious of how to play well and look at their own performance critically. The 'experts' may know everything but not everybody in the game knows everything, teach those that don't, have incentives, don't punish them. How freaking simple could it be? Just quit with the idea you are better so everybody else should also be better, it's never ever going to happen that everybody meets your standards so deal with it.

The revelation about the true meaning of Karma was from the 'Rouge Wave' event of three players in each team (or was it four?). Anyway, a few players playing without any stat worries and knowing they'd get something out of the battle win or lose and positive Karma flowed. Obviously endorphins contribute to this from a fast paced battle, but refining it to basic emotions I think it's clear happy players feeling a bond over a good battle appreciate each other. Never once did I have Karma go down in that event. Which then brings us to Random battles where negative Karma is used as a weapon by unhappy disgruntled players and only very occasionally for justified reasons. I think the problem between the 'good fellows well met' in special events and the trigger happy grouch in Random battles could be a sorted by simply having a two minute hold after the battle before anybody can leave negative Karma (but positive Karma can be immediate). Two minutes for some of these grouchy players is long enough for them to forget what the problem was, or they've gone to another battle where by the time they are back in port the normal time limit for feedback is finished. Karma would then become a more positive system and only the die hard grouch would wait around for two minutes to get 'revenge'. I also think a delay or hold on negative Karma would transmit the idea it is a serious issue and not to be taken lightly.

Here we go again, you have a bar over which they jump to decide if you think they 'play properly'. Have you ever heard of the donkey and the carrot? Sometimes I wonder if people know which end the stick the carrot should be on. In this thread the only thing that has been demonstrated is how to punish players, not incentivise them, if it was a company management strategy the company would be bust in short order.

The game already has a training mode implemented as soon as the new player signs in, so use it. Two things could be done (just for discussion), nobody with more than 'x' amount of games can take part in tier 1 or 2 games (unless resetting), so removing seal clubbers, and also removing the main reason new players want to rush out of those tiers because of the seal club ambush. The second thing is a genuine incentive to survive rather than a sanction for dying as per the opening in this thread. This could be done in many ways, but an advantage if you survive is better than a sanction if dead. The point being what is this instinct to take things away from people but not reward then? Human nature I guess, but it's not looking good.

Don't worry too much about Karma, it's a function in the game that represents players sucking up to unicums, or clan and divisions players slapping each other on their backs. But for most players it's something that is given in exceptional circumstances, but taken away far more easily in mundane circumstances.

The idea you have 'too many ships' isn't a delusion, if you enjoy playing them all you can't be perfect in them all ( and they won't all be good ships anyway) just as somebody with a competitive spirit isn't good at all sports. There is an element of devilment in playing any ships in WoWs, either national loyalty, class loyalty, tier loyalty, or 'you want it all' loyalty. Stats are influenced directly by this, and the age old forum advice of 'go steadily up the tiers' and 'learn the game' are still true, but WG always try to wrench players away from that.

Absolutely, battle spamming is a bad thing. But so is a rule that says the first to die loses everything, any XP and credits they've already made and contributed to the team in lost enemy HP, plus the use of their consumables whether it's equipment or camo and flags. Seriously, how is it going to be decided if battle spamming is battle spamming as opposed to just being unlucky? Who takes responsibility for orders like 'go cap A' which the DD does cheerfully for the team only to find the entire enemy fleet arriving there? But one thing you (or the opening post) aren't doing here is realistically discussing battle spamming. If so the obvious downsides of the first part of battles being taken up by players avoiding contact, or that BB's would have a massive and undeserved advantage over a DD would I'm sure have come into mind as being unworkable alongside many other similar considerations. So the only viable alternative intention is that you are indeed trying to work out ways to blame players and penalise them both fiscally through the game economy and also shaming them in public. I return to my original words, it's vindictive and spiteful.

Speaking here for other people but your real name is 'Saltface'? Makes sense I suppose, especially if it only takes disagreeing with you, it, 'the idea', that makes a person a 'troll'. But this suggestion of almost criminalising dying first is just another version of 'skill' based MM. It's the 'I only want to play with me, and people like me'. It sucks donkey bollocks. A lot of people with thousands of game will have played when the game was 'simpler' than it is today, maybe even benefited with their stats by the simpler game. But that's not good enough, we now need mechanics in the game so the game remains simpler and more profitable for experienced players by penalising inexperienced players. Yes, a great society you're developing here, your 'posterior' motif is ample evidence.

Statistically I'm not likely to be in a game with DFens_666 enough times to notice if he's handing out orders. But if I was the first thing I'd do is sail as far away from the enemy as possible until the team wrecker died, so avoiding his watchful eye. And given it's unlikely anyway that a BB will die first, or a CV, then it would be safer for me if they were the only ships I played. Somebody has to die first, but it won't be me, I'm not going to cause him to come to the forum hoping to whip up a lynch mob against those that do. That's a bit of sarcasm, but it sums up where the game will go. There are players who wait for opportunities, and those who hope to make opportunities, and clearly the later is the most risky, but bludgeoning players with sanctions will only train them to play the most boring game they can, but hey, they won't get hung for it.