Aotearas

Would be naming and shaming. Just open a ticket with the replay, a screenshot or two and the timestamp.

If it's that obvious, then yeah.

Yep, send it to support. Not definitive evidence, but suspicious enough that WG might look into it some more.

I wouldn't think so. You could transfer players from one clan to the other if you have enough free slots to accomodate them, but that just leaves one big and one deserted clan. Haven't heard anything about clan-fusions so far.

Personally I've only gotten hit by an Asashio when sailing a BB once ... @CLyDeThaMonKeY was the culprit. The DWT aren't that much more of a threat to BBs than other torps, the fact you spot them late makes little difference since normal torps you didn't anticipate are only marginally less surprising. At least that's my current perspective as a player who engages his WASD.exe every now and then. On the other hand of the spectrum, today I did see how an Asashio tried to torpedo a rushing Baltimore ... with obvious (lack of) results. And with that I'm arriving at the other part of my opinion: Speaking for the lower-skilled part of the playerbase, the Asashio is nothing short of desastrous. Potato DD players are going to get steamrolled by any halfway competent DD player, cruiser players with the presence of mind to know that Asashio can't torp them have more freedom of movement they can use to leverage their strengths with little fear of surprise torpedoes and even despite the nasty nature of high speed, high damage, short spotting distance DWT, competent BB players are still not going to get nuked unless they simply didn't reckon with the Asashio (in that regard I consider the TRB consumable the greater evil, being able to spew out 16 torpedoes to saturate an area is arguable more of a problem than their stealthy qualities, the old Shiratsuyu had proven that rather comprehensively). But the poor BB players will see just another reason to stay as far away from the battle as possible. In short: Bad DD players will be at an even greater disadvantage against other DDs and cruisers. Bad BB players just got another readily available excuse ("But there's an Asashio") to hide. Only the former is actually a problem directly related to the ship itself though, which is ironic considering the outspoken purpose was to allow people to punish camping BBs (at which point it doubly failed, since it's by virtue of proximity much easier to drop on BBs that aren't camping, meaning more aggressive BB players are exposed disproportionally more often to the Asashio), which only ADDS to the problem the Asashio was allegedly supposed to counter. tl;dr version: Potatoes gonna potate, WG can't into balance, Asashio is bad for the meta.

Not sure where this topic would belong into, so I'm just going to put it here: I very much prefer the dark theme for the forum. Easier on the eyes than the default white theme, plus it just looks better imo. Problem is the websites defaults to the white theme, forcing me to manually switch the theme basically every new session ... and I'm kinda getting annoyed at that unnecessary extra scrolling and click I have to do every time that happens. So my question would be, is there a way to change the default setting permamently? Using Google Chrome, latest build.

Naw, I have plenty doubloons. I'm just waiting for something to spend those on, so unless I get a discount on tier X perma-camouflages, I'll wait and see what the next tech-tree premium ship rotation washes up the shore and spend my doubloons there.

What's the difference between this: And this: ???

Why is a blushing pony flashing me?

With all due respect, but it really isn't hard to see how outlandish those requirements are. And for a non-heroic battle achievement, why not err on the lower side and then tweak the number up if you see them given away too easily?

I wouldn't dismiss that point that easily. Even without a full AA spec with every skill and upgrade, the Worchester (and I will refuse to pronounce that Wooshter, War-Chester sounds so much better!) still has roughly the same if not better AA than the Des Moines. And I coubt I'll have to tell anyone what a Des Moines does to aircraft even without being fully AA specced.

Well, I guess that's that then. Hoping for a swift change, because it really is rather annoying. From my end-user perspective I can't see any improvement over the old version so I have to wonder why it was changed in the first place, is what I'd ask.

I'm not saying OP was AFK. I'm just brainstorming if the detection system falsely equated a 0 damage game as the same as being inactive. Because as you said, OP was quite evidently not AFK at all. And according to the rules as they stand regarding the new system, you would only get penalized for leaving the battle early if you quit before sinking, so (assuming OP isn't spinning a load of bullocks), something with the detection system isn't working as it should and I'm throwing around wild guesses as to what it could be.

Yeah, we'll just make our own robot clan: [BENDR]

Oh look, the good old "make games realistic, battleships should stomp everything" argument. Double standards at its best. Okay, let's introduce torpedo duds. Let's also reduce battleship accuracy to the realistical ~3% rather than ~30% and put Longlance torpedoes into the game that will wreck ships with a single hit. Also remove the aircraft carrier limit and allow them to launch every single aircraft in their hanger at the same time to overwhelm surface ships with a combined massive airstrike of a couple hundred bumbers. Oh, almost forgot, we'd need duds for main battery shells too. I wonder how people would like it when their big bad battleships only lands two or three hits for every 100 shots and it then turns out to be a dud due to a faulty fuze ... It does make a difference of how well you understand the subject however. Who'd you believe more, someone who's competent in the matter that's being discussed, or someone who's not?

Yeah, same guess here. The broad meaning of that rule is probably just a legal safety net so people who want to create a [C0CK] - The DlCKBUTTS clan can't argue that it wasn't specifically prohibited. Pretty sure that no one would bat an eye if some [NOSE] or [CHEW] clans are out there as long as it's not blatantly offensive.

Good catch, might be that the automatic system equals "You have not proven yourself in battle" kinda performances as being AFK. Then again as long as you weren't afk, moved around a bit and spotted a ship or two players get some XP as opposed to the 0 XP results for AFKers, hmm.

Shame, I would've forked over some of my doubloons to get a handful tier X camouflages if they were discounted.

I did and it quite clearly says "Warning received 1" ...

Two things ... First, I absolutely get your frustration. I really do. For the longest time (specifically ever since patch 0.6.1) I had massive client stability issues. The game would CTD multiple times per gaming session, typically after two or three games I'd get a CTD. Anything in port could crash the client, just selecting ships, captains, researching modules/ships, etc. pp. would result in a CTD. Entering the battle queue would cause a CTD. Transitioning from the queue into the map loading screen would cause a CTD. Transitioning from the game to the match results and back to port could cause a CTD. It was infuriating. I knew it wasn't my PC, my PC worked flawlessly up until patch 0.6.1 when it suddenly started going from nearly flawless stability to a trainwreck of CTDs. On particularily bad days, I would've slapped the developers for every CTD I got and believe me getting even would've taken time ... I went to WG Support with basically no expectations and at the start I wasn't particularily impressed with the usual "try reinstalling" nonsense. I had reinstalled the game afresh half a dozen times up to that point already. "Here they go, treating me like some inept idiot with no idea on how to do the most basic troubleshooting or even knowing how to correctly install a game" is what I thought about the first couple generic responses. But I persevered. I told them matter of factly that I did indeed try everything, that I'm absolutey certain that the issue isn't caused from my end. That I want this ticket escalated to the specialist and that I want them to come back at me and ask for data. Not just WGChecks, I asked them to tell me exactly what kind of data they'd need to find the issue and how I could provide it. They came back at me and did that. Gave me a link to a memory monitoring tool and the instructions on how to have it scan for the particular processes that could be the culprit. They expected the resulting dump file to be ~300MB large so I'd had to use a filesharing service to give them the data ... turned out the dump file that tool created was 2GB large. Surprised the support agent a good bit. Well, they stewed on that data for a while, continually asking if any any game update had helped (which it didn't). I kept providing WGChecks with every patch the problem persisted. They stewed some more, passed the data to the development team, weeks upon weeks with no progress other than "we need more time". But as it went, they returned to me with saying they have a good idea what the issue was and that the developers were working on a fix to get implemented in a patch. And lo and behold with patch 0.7.3 (meaning only quite recently), just as abruptly as the problem started it was gone. The patch worked. My problem was solved. I am crash free again. So, if you're tired of generic support responses ask them to escalate your problem to the specialists. First level support is little more than a FAQ and will basically never solve any problem that aren't user-related. It's second level support that you need for the juicy bits. Tell them exactly that upfront. But you're also going to have to do as they say (and that will include the usual covering of basics again, i.e.: clean reinstall to make sure no corrupted files are interfering). Don't expect a fix to come quick, mine took several months! Secondly, and this one goes out to @Crysantos, no one with some troubleshooting knowledge likes to hear the usual "it could be anything, it could be you" phrase or derivatives thereof. It feels especially contentious when you have a serious issue and are tech-savvy enough to be able to tell that for example issues that suddenly arose with a software update are in fact quite usually caused by poor software optimization which has little to nothing to do with the end user other than the fact that it runs on his/her machine. At best it's a generic "it wasn't me, I swear" excuse, at worst it comes off as insulting another person's intellect, implying they couldn't tell what the problem were despite what may be quite obvious giveaways to someone with a bit of knowledge on the matter. I know some people in this topic overreacted, but a response as the one you provided really, REALLY isn't helping in calming people down, especially if they're already boiling over and venting in frustration, that's like trying to quench a boilover with water ... never ends well. I know you wanted to de-escalate, but the wording was chosen poorly.

Oh my ... who would've thought Such impeccable timing!

Yep

I have friends in low places!

Kek, and just in the game I had right now, our division got randomly cancelled. I was division commander and most certainly didn't kick any of my mates or leave the division (as I was in middle of playing a game, duh). So yeah, game just randomly cancelled our division. Then when the game ended, a whole lot of nothing, waiting until I got kicked back to the log-in screen and couldn't log back in anymore. Coincidence? I think not! You can't silence me by kicking me from the game!

Still won't show the player nicknames in full though.