300ConfirmedKills

I agree with the OP. Being pink is supposed to be a punishment, so it is fitting in my eyes that such players are excluded from the most competitive arenas. Yes, of course honest players will subject to the penalty for one reason or another from time to time, but it's really not so hard to get rid of that it should affect a once-off offender too badly. Personally, I have encountered a player (wish I could name him - I disagree with the 'name and shame' rule) in this Ranked season who took issue with my playstyle and team-damaged me down to 47 hp. He told me that he will teamkill me if he encounters me in future. It's clear to me that the current penalties are not sufficient.

I don't understand why it is apparently so much more onerous to post the calendar on the portal rather than in the deepest recesses of the fora. I expect regular updates on the portal, so I check it regularly. The third non-pinned topic in the Announcements forum is notice of an employee departure from four months ago - I don't feel any compulsive need to keep up with news like that, so I don't check said forum regularly. Apparently, it was decided to cease posting the calendar on the portal because of low view numbers. Instead of just giving up on it, why not try to improve it? Post it at least a week before the upcoming month and provide some details on upcoming events. You don't need the full details a month in advance, but something like "German fleet: discounts on silver and doubloon ship costs and a mission to help you on your way" would be appreciated. You have a whole month to publish this basic information so I'm really struggling to understand why it seems to be so difficult.

Asinine comment. You may as well offer 'do not get shot' as a solution for detonations. It's pretty childish to dismiss anyone criticising sub-par game mechanics as 'whining'. Yes, players should be punished when they mess up, but the punishment should fit the crime.

OP is right: ramming needs to be toned down a little. Of course one BB hitting another midships at high speed should result in catastrophic damage, but when two ships collide after at a low closing speed, seeing the two go 'pop' is really silly. You say that there is a lot of energy contained in the two objects, even when they are moving at low speed because they are are so massive? Well likewise, it takes a lot of energy to destroy them, because they are so massive.

Bug report template 1. Description'Continue mission' button does not respect the chosen battle mode 2. Reproduction steps 1. Select any battle mode other than Random. 2. Go to the Missions screen. 3. Hover over the 'Continue mission' button. 3. Result The pop-up which results from hovering over the button offers a Random Battle regardless of which battle mode is selected in port. 4. Expected result The pop-up should respect the battle mode selected in the port interface, i.e.: it should offer a Co-op Battle or Ranked Battle respectively when either are chosen. 5. Technical details Bug found on the 'American Fleet' mission. The 'Battle on!' button on the results screen and the 'Continue mission' button on the Daily Missions screen function according to the 'Expected result' behaviour.

Well, it has the headlines of articles from WorldOfWarships.eu, which includes the announcements for new patches, but there's no dedicated changelog.

Sometimes the divisions are dissolved mid-match. I've had it happen when a div-mate rejoined the game after losing connection.

If he's any good, he'll be adjusting his speed too. The other side of the rudder mod coin is that you can take it in combination with the propulsion mod. The combination of these two modules lets him change his course so drastically that only ships with the fortune telling module () will be able to hit him reliably at 13 km.

How can you say he did poor job when he's top 3 on the winning team?

Not only that, but Khaba gets the new rudder shift module, which makes the rudder shift almost as quick as Gearing's (for whom concealment is mandatory). This patch removes Khaba's manoeuvrability disadvantage - enjoy the buff!

HE has to penetrate to do damage - you were probably hitting armour.

Why is it a problem that Khaba can't survive without the rudder module? Gearing and Shima are similarly useless without the concealment module. Frustrating Hindenburgs at 13 km is trivial - I speak from specific experience here. Not only that, but I'm well aware of just how 'big' Khaba is: it's as big as a Gearing with a slightly longer fantail. Again, why is it a problem that a cruiser has an advantage over Khabarovsk? Cruisers are supposed to counter DDs. Khaba's standard detection radius is pretty much irrelevant anyway, as its guns are always firing.

Really disappointed that they're giving DDs the new rudder shift upgrade. Khabarovsk is just as hard to hit at 13 km with the upgrade as it was at 15 km without.

Hedgehog1963, on 24 September 2016 - 01:31 PM, said: Oh I'm sorry, I mistook: "...not enough players use carriers, and IMO each game should have AT LEAST ONE PER TEAM" ...to be a demand... All that shouting and so on. Well, if you take what he said in context, you can see that what he is really interested in is a proper class distribution - which naturally entails a healthy CV population. Applying your initial solution to that problem gives us "if you want a balanced class distribution in every match, play all of the classes in every match," which isn't very helpful.

You sunk and it didn't cost as much as it currently does. Why does that make you want to stop playing? If you ran the credits and repair cost flags along with camo and three premium consumables you would have made a small profit without a Premium account. Perhaps this is not a big enough improvement for you, but you can't deny that it is an improvement.

The new steering mod goes in the concealment/target systems slot. It's a very viable choice for Khaba.

How about comparing like with like? Put both rudder mods on Khaba and it gets 3.0 s rudder shift. Oh yeah, how about comparing the size of Zao's citadel to Khaba's? If we're going to justify Khaba's performance 'logically', you'll have to tell me if it makes sense for a destroyer to have a greater fire-starting potential than a cruiser. Does it make sense that the harder to hit ship not only has a higher theoretical maximum capability, but also has gun characteristics which allow players to more easily achieve a greater proportion of that potential? Destroyers are not necessarily able to turn quickly. Here's a particular real-life example which is similar to Khabarovsk in many respects.

I already made a similar post in the 'General Feedback' thread, but now that we have I specific thread for Ranked and I've ranked out (gib Flint pls WG )I'm going to repeat my comment. I'm ambivalent on the single-tier brackets. The wide variety of ships allowed for some interesting tactics last season. Mutsukis in particular became a persistent pest at high ranks with their great spotting capability. The removal of the concession to the 'leading loser' which allowed him to keep his star will lead to a very harsh 'star economy'. Perhaps it is the wrong tool for rewarding players who out-perform their team, but it shouldn't be removed without replacement. There must be some mechanism which adequately discriminates between those who carry and those who are carried if Ranked is to have any meaning as a measure of individual skill. My suggested star rewards are as follows: 2 stars earned for the best-performing winner, none earned or lost for the best-performing loser or the worst-performing winner (if they fall below a certain XP threshold), 2 stars lost for the worst-performing loser (if they fall below a certain XP threshold), all other winners earn one star and all other losers lose one star. The proposed increase in 'safe' ranks does is not adequate compensation, as it does not have any relation to in-game performance. The cap zones on Trident are nice, but the spawns need to be pushed back slightly - maybe 500 m. A Fuso without CE (which will be most of them, I expect) is spotted literally immediately at spawn. It's a very punishing situation to be in and it allows the opposing team to read the Fuso's team's tactics quite easily.

The new steering gear upgrade is available for DDs now? Who would take that over concealment? Only DD players who are spotted all the time, I suppose… Now, which DDs does that apply to? Hmm… I guess it's VMF DDs like Udaloi and Khabarovsk. Is this what was meant when balance changes were announced for them? They weren't hard enough to hit, so they needed to be buffed so they can manoeuvre on par with Gearing, was that what was intended? Is their survivability so poor that they need the ability to angle their armour (!) at a moment's notice? I don't see the fact that cruiser rudder can be reduced so drastically as a huge issue, as combining propulsion mod 2 with steering mod 3 is probably the way to go for a manoeuvre build. It's not even unhistorical for 'heavy' DDs to have horribly long rudder shifts: the French Mogador class apparently had a rudder shift of 25-30 s (if Wikipedia is to be believed). I'm glad that WG finally stopped pretending that VMF DDs are not OP, but don't muck it up now. What they really need is to have their fire chance nerfed and their armour removed and/or speed reduced. Their current live range is not a huge problem if they can't HE spam with impunity more effectively than Zao. The economy changes are very welcome. I can't wait to see them in action.

I would counter with "if you turn off your AA in a Minekaze without AFT you're doing it wrong," considering that the air detect range is the same as her AA range, and the AA firing debuff disappears instantly.

There's no such thing as premium matchmaking any more. All T2-T4 ships get +1 MM.

Khabarovsk has many strengths. Alone, they would serve as interesting differentiators amongst destroyers, or even a line of destroyers. The problem is that they're all in one ship. Having easy-to-use guns with a quick rate of fire is fine. Having a high fire chance per shell is fine. Combining them so you can instantly start landing hits and quickly set any number of targets aflame is not fine. Khabarovsk is within 1% of Zao's expected fires/min when both have DE and no reload buffs, and Khab always has reload buffs. A DD with some armour is fine. A DD with high speed is fine. A DD with such armour and speed that it will easily dodge the vast majority of what is shot at it and then negate the damage of half or more of the hits unless its assailant can juggle shell types with prescient proficiency is not fine. It is often argued that the above is acceptable because Khab is intended to play like a cruiser. If we're meant to take that seriously, she's easily the most overpowered cruiser in the game: she is so good at killing DDs and she gets 'special' matchmaking which guarantees that she'll play against more DDs than other cruisers. The nerfs that Khabarovsk has received don't really address what was broken about her to begin with. Take a look at on the ship and you'll notice that he deals almost all of his damage within the nerfed range. If it were up to me, I would not nerf her range quite as much, but instead bring her stock reload to 5 s and her fire chance per shell to 6%. That puts her slightly behind Gearing for raw fire output, but the good shell velocity will allow Khab to hit her targets with more ease. I'd also remove the armour, so she can't just take any engagement with Gearing, but has to pick her fights.

I don't understand why this is considered an adequate solution for OP ships by by those within WG and others. If something is OP, it should be nerfed, not allowed to be the special tool of a select few.

I've seen a recent screenshot of Kamikaze R being made available as a Personal Offer on the NA server. Say a prayer to RNGesus and who knows what he might drop down your smoke stack.

If the best players all chose to use the same ship, doesn't that tell you something about the ship?