300ConfirmedKills

[quote name= While still free-to-play (and free-to-win), World of Warships gives players the possibility to access extra features by purchasing Premium Account, Doubloons or Premium ships. Wargaming made a big publicity drive about adopting the free-to-win model in June of 2013.

The difference is that real life is not necessarily fair and this game is supposed to be. Let's try another example: you enter a boxing match supposedly conducted according to the (fair) rules of the sanctioning body, yet your opponent is allowed to use knuckledusters because he bought the referee a drink beforehand. That's not consistent with the idea of a fair competition.

Bug report template 1. DescriptionBelfast smoke deploys second puff inconsistently 2. Reproduction steps 1. Enter battle with Belfast 2. Travel between 25 kn and max speed. In my tests I was stopping from high speed and deploying smoke at ~28 kn 3. Result Only one puff of smoke is deployed and the ship stops a long way beyond the smoke screen it has deployed. 4. Expected result Two puffs of smoke are deployed and the ship stops within or near the smoke screen. 5. Technical details Personally tested with Belfast in the training room; Flamu reports that this affects tech-tree RN cruisers too. Deploying the smoke at 25 kn or below produces the expected result. Screenshot included.

So, I took Belfast into the training room to try and figure out the earliest point during a full stop you can deploy smoke and still remain within it. Deploying at 20 kn there was a comfortable margin between the bow and the smoke border. Deploying at 25 kn gave a similar result. At 28 kn, however, I found myself entirely outside the smoke because only one puff of smoke was deployed. Has anyone else encountered anything like this? Moving at full speed, two puffs deploy as expected.

If you're looking at the 'When: all' stats from Warships.Today you can't draw any useful conclusions from that. A week from now the '1 week' duration filter should throw some light on the subject.

Bug report template 1. DescriptionShip carousel 'specials' filter does not update after returning to port from a victory or after the daily bonus reset. 2. Reproduction steps 1. Filter ships using the 'suitable for the specials' criterion. 2. Select a ship which made it through the filter 3. Win a battle with it 3. Result Despite the daily bonus being expended and the ship's tile in the carousel being updated, the ship is not excluded by the filter when you return to port. Likewise, if you are in port when the daily bonus reset occurs, the ship's position in the carousel is not updated. 4. Expected result After the daily bonus is expended, the ship is excluded by the 'suitable for the specials' filter. After the daily bonus reset occurs, the ship is no longer excluded by the 'suitable for the specials' filter. 5. Technical details Screenshot included. First encountered 2016-10-21T20:15 Edit: documented daily special reset occurence

Try that again in a week's time with 'When:' set to '1 week'. All of those stats are residual from the test period.

My solution for that problem would be that anyone who receives 'Plays poorly' reports from at least three team mates is not eligible to keep their star. It would be nice to see those reports start to mean something.

I'd prefer better rewards for carrying a winning team. If you lose, it should cost you.

It's formerly the flag of Northern Ireland. It doesn't have a unique one any more. The in-game description lies somewhere between ambiguous and misleading and bothers me more than the presence of the flag itself.

Urrrgh, the description of the flag… The name of that flag is the Ulster Banner and is more often used to represent Northern Ireland rather than Ulster as a whole. The red hand itself is indeed the traditional heraldic symbol for Ulster, but the flag for representing Ulster is the following:

Would those who say "they were cruiser topics so they were moved to the 'Cruisers' board" care to explain why the pinned thread at the top of the 'Gameplay' board is there and not on the Cruisers board instead? The Cruisers board is nested within the 'Game guides' board, so it's a mystery to me why the user-created, non-guide threads were moved there, while the WG-created 'Guide: RN cruisers' thread is pinned on the general Gameplay board.

I don't believe she ever had the heal.

Why is this Guide to RN cruisers pinned to the top of the general 'Gameplay' board instead of the 'Game guides' > 'Ships' > 'Cruisers' board? There are more than enough pinned threads on this board already. Why was the user-created thread on RN cruisers generally (i.e.: not a guide) moved from the 'Gameplay' board to the 'Game guides' > 'Ships' > 'Cruisers' board?

Hmmm, I could buy Belfast for €30.80, or I could get Indianapolis for €28.48. What a tough decision!

This whole debacle defies rational understanding. It looks like WG decided RN cruisers were coming out in 0.5.13, no matter what, and are blindly hoping that tacking on the repair party to the lower tiers would make them viable. This sort of approach might have been understandable if the release date was the focus of some marketing master plan which had been building hype over an extended period, but it was only announced two days in advance. I guess now we know the reason why IWM insisted upon the big 'IWM does not support or endorse the aims and ambitions of Wargaming.net' disclaimer which prefaces the video on the Belfast

Warspite and Campbeltown have HE, don't they?

There is no reduction in the XP requirements. Those are the same as on the PT.

I don't understand why this is suggested so often. Are the people who are in favour of this not aware that they are just as likely to encounter sub-standard players on the opposing team as on their own team? If there are to be any restrictions on participation in Ranked, the first one must be players with the teamkiller status. I would also suggest enforcing a break for players who receive many 'Plays poorly' reports in Ranked. Overall random stats are a very narrow lens to view a player through.

The containers are interesting, but I prefer having objectives which require me to play in a certain way rather than stuff you achieve as a matter of normal play. It's nice to have a secondary objective to prevent the core gameplay from becoming stale. Call of Duty and Battlefield (for all of their respective faults) are good examples of this. It would be cool to have rewards for objectives like "Nagato: score 100 citadels" or "Fletcher: do 1 000 000 points of flooding damage", for example.

The PT client routinely crashes on exit on my Win10 machine. I don't like this change.

It's nice that now you can see long IGNs in full when you hover over the scoreboard in-game, but really the scoreboard should be reconfigured so this is not necessary. You could for example, make each entry on the scoreboard two lines high, allowing the IGN to take up a full line if necessary. There's plenty of vertical room that could be used for this.

1. Description Can not assign captains from another ship to an uncaptained ship from the Commander Skills screen if the reserve is full 2. Reproduction steps 1. Fill up the reserve with captains 2. Acquire a ship with no captain 3. Try to assign a captain from the menu of captains in other ships on the Commander Skills screen 3. Result A warning is shown that the reserve is full and the captain is not assigned to the ship 4. Expected result Chosen captain is assigned to the ship 5. Technical details Confirmed workarounds are using the 'Assign to…' menus on either the 'Personal file' [sic] (shouldn't it be 'Personnel file'?) or the source ship.

I think this camo is what you'll get from the new loot crates.

I'm enjoying this Ranked season (for the moment ) but I think a few tweaks here and there would improve it. Firstly (I think this should arrive in a hotfix) the spawns on Trident and Neighbours should be moved further apart to give BBs a moment to get moving before they are detected. I mentioned this after the 0.5.12 PT Ranked and I am disappointed that the problem made it to the live servers. The new XP system seems to be a bit fairer on BBs, but it sometimes results in the last surviving BB in an unwinnable situation earning a lot of XP due to dealing damage and tanking potential damage. Often the player in this situation did not contribute to the team earlier on. To prevent unworthy players from retaining their star by playing in an unhelpful way, I suggest that players who receive 'Plays poorly' reports from three or more team mates in a single match should not be eligible to keep their star as the top XP earner on the losing team (no one on the losing team should keep their star in this situation, so as not to incentivise unjustified reports). Likewise, allowing a player on the losing team to keep their star where they otherwise wouldn't if they receive three or more 'Plays well' compliments would be a nice way to let players encourage team play. I didn't play the lower ranks this season, but the number of irrevocable ranks down there looks excessive. I think a reduction in their density between ranks 23 and 17 would give players new to Ranked a better idea of what to expect in the higher ranks. Also, it would be nice if players could nominate one or two personal safe ranks. In this way, they could make achieving their own personal goals a bit easier, without the undesirable effects of a global high safe rank.