300ConfirmedKills

What changes to cyclones? Why don't you follow Ph3lan's lead and post the relevant changes to be discussed in the OP of each thread? I enjoy cyclones as currently implemented on the live server.

I expected to see a thread dedicated to Ranked as implemented on the current PT. Below is my feedback on the changes since the last season. I'm ambivalent on the single-tier brackets, but I'm opposed to the mirror MM. Queue times were long enough last season with the more relaxed rules. 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 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.

Considering that there are effectively no economic limitations on the PT server, I'm at a loss as to why anyone might ascribe the behaviour of the players there to the profitability of the economic regime in place. The mechanics of the spotting rewards are quite opaque at the moment. The UI makes it very easy to see how well you're doing with damage dealt or points captured. Not so for spotting. Before spotting ships becomes part of the economy, it needs to be represented in the UI. I suggest a ribbon which tracks ship-seconds spotted. Finally, I don't understand why the announcement of the PT said the econ changes were, in part, intended to punish destroyers who capture empty flags. Games are decided by points so often that it is clearly a very important part of a destroyer's job to capture flags, and the XP gains in place currently reflect this. The announced rationale sends out a very mixed message.

The wording of the poll could be better: do 'worse' and 'improved' apply from a balance perspective or a ship performance perspective? I welcome the changes to Udaloi and Khabarovsk (and I can't believe how many posters are in denial of how OP they are).

This argument is completely bogus. Take a quick look at the stats of the top players for TX DDs on Warships.today (I took the last 2 weeks and a minimum of 25 battles) and you'll see that the top Khabarovsk handily outperforms the other two in both damage and win rate.

Didn't read the thread? Many previous posters expressed their dissatisfaction with sinking opponents via detonation. I agree with them - if that was the way I hoped to achieve victory I'd play a slot machine. Personally, I think detonations do have a place in the game, but not in their current form. I don't subscribe to the "it's a game, so historical accuracy is irrelevant" mindset, but I think we can diverge a little from 'the authentic HMS Invincible experience' to improve the gameplay. 'The authentic HMS Lion/SMS Seydlitz experience' would satisfy me: lets give ships above a certain HP threshold (30% or somewhere on that order) that would otherwise detonate an opportunity to use Damage Control Party to flood their magazines and avert disaster. I think 5 s or so would be an appropriate window. Along with these changes, Juliet Charlie should be changed to either double the reaction window or allow DCP to be used regardless of whether it was on cooldown or not. It goes without saying that only ships subject to hits penetrating their magazines should be at risk of detonation.

Yes, this is normal, because typically less than half of a matchup are top tier.

If you're struggling with the basics I suggest looking up some videos on Youtube on how to play carriers. Here's a good one from Flamu:

Was it capable of this historically?

I don't like the changes to Shatter. The current live version is very unique and rewarding to play - the new version has none of the former's character.

A simple toggle would be nice. Having to double-click every 3 s on USN DDs is pretty irritating.

The new effect when entering shell-cam is a bit weird. I preferred when it was absent.

The notification is a welcome addition. I haven't had a chance to play with the increased visibility range yet. I can see it helping DDs and slower ships a bit, not really sure if it will improve gameplay generally.

I noticed an inconsistency in how the area around the foremost main turrets on IJN BBs is modelled. On Kawachi, there is a gap in the coverage of 'casemate' armour where the barbettes of the fore and aftmost turrets are (i.e.: there's no gap in the armour protection, simply that armour of one type ends, and armour of another type begins). On Yamato however, the 'casemate' armour forms a contiguous perimeter, even running through the main battery barbettes. Is this intentional? The conning towers are confusing to me as well. Historically, they were significantly armoured all the way down to the citadel, yet on all of the models I've looked at, apparently only a single deck of the tower is armoured properly. Nagato's C-hull is a particular mystery: its bridge with its expansive glazing apparently sports 356 mm of armour.

Very much appreciated feature. It does need some improvements to really reach it's full potential though. Firstly, we need more control over the camera - particularly to inspect areas below the waterline - and a minimal UI when viewing the model. Currently, the various UI elements get in the way of hovering over some awkwardly positioned amour faces. Secondly, we really should be able to view the armour models of upgraded ships we don't own. We can already see the numbers in the stats panel, so why not the model? Finally, a bug that I noticed: when moving the cursor from hovering over one armoured face to hovering over another, the face that was hovered over initially flickers briefly.

Are we getting an updated chart for 0.5.10?

There's a discrepancy between the name of the modules shown for Erie and the details shown in the stats pane. According to the name of the module, she is fitted with 127 mm/51 Mk7 guns, which is what appears to be fitted to the model. The 'Artillery' section of the stats pane describes them as 152 mm/47 Mk 17.

Apparently, the rewards were delayed due to Gamescom. It surprises me that they weren't automated to be delivered regardless.

How to fix detonations: if you have more than 50% of your health left, you get 5 s to flood the magazines with DCP.

1. DescriptionWhen focused on König in spectator mode, zooming in moves the camera far away from the ship model. 2. Reproduction steps 1. Enter a battle with an allied König. 2. Enter spectator mode. 3. Focus camera on allied König. 4. Zoom in from default. 3. Result Upon zooming in, the camera lowers to sea level, but the camera's rotation point moves to a point away from the König (fixed in relation to it). Zooming back out restores the camera to normal. This applies to all Königs in the match and is not present on other ships. 4. Expected result Zooming in moves the camera lower and closer to the ship model. 5. Technical details Encountered in multiple matches on the evening of 2016-08-18 (UTC+1). UPDATE (2016-08-22): Bug is still present. I checked it out again today and the camera seems to behave as intended when aligned end-on with the ship. Once you start rotating the camera however, it follows an elliptical path which takes it far away from the ship.

I too am waiting for my rewards to arrive.

Current matchmaking logic assumes that all ships in a div are the same tier as the highest-tiered ship in the div. If they are matched as bottom tier then the lower tiered ships in the div will be -4. E.g.: a div of one T7 and two T5s could be put in a T9 match. That's really unfair on the team with a div like that. The obvious alternative to this would be for MM to take into account the tiers of the div-mates, but that would allow for divs to manipulate MM to ensure that the higher tier ships are always top-tier in a match, i.e.: if that rule was in effect, the T7s in our previous example would always be top-tier.

I don't like the idea of cyclones arriving at a pre-determined time. Increased variability adds to the game in my opinion - it helps to prevent the game from becoming predictable and stale. An earlier warning for cyclones might be a good alternative. I tried out T1 in a Co-op and I feel that removing AP is a terrible mistake. For every ship in the game that relies on guns - not just T1s - there's just one switch that changes how the ship dishes out damage. To someone not familiar with the game, it might look quite simplistic. To a proficient player, knowing which ammo type to pick is an important skill based on knowledge of how the damage model works. If you confine the ammo choice to HE it removes any hint of that skill requirement. T1 and T2 cruisers are far from the most compelling gameplay that WoWs offers and dumbing them down even further is selling the game short. New players should be encouraged to try out both ammo types and find out how they work. What's really needed is an improved 'Introductory Mission' which demonstrates when to choose the different ammo types.

You can quite easily compare the stats of Russian cruisers to their counterparts by setting the time period on Warships.today to 2 weeks. Lets take T6 as an example. No drawn out grind is required to reach that level, nor is there any risk of losing credits along the way. Russian cruisers have been available for five months now, so a player of any skill level has had just as good an opportunity to make it this far on that line as on the others. As you suggest, we'll take a look at the top players for these ships. Lets start with Nürnberg. Oh dear, it looks like the very best Nürnberg players are having a hard time dealing more damage than average players of Russian cruisers at this tier. You can compare how the top players do in those ships yourself, I'd rather not kick these poor, presumably very unskilled , Nürnberg players when they're down. Of course, damage is not the sole criterion around which ships are balanced. Russian cruisers in particular have poor armour, large turn radii and high detection distances which counteract their high damage output by reducing their survivability. This is reflected in the statistics by the Russian cruisers surviving more often than their counterparts at this tier.

It's plain to see that more spectacular results are possible with that ship - that's not the point at all. This match caught my attention because it was relatively close to an average match in terms of damage and XP, according to Warships.today. An average Fubuki player (and I expect players of other T8s) will be dealing with these economics as they attempt to move up the line. I don't accept that I'm being unreasonable to expect to be able to run the two-effect camo and a single premium consumable when I pay for a Premium account, but I'll put that aside and take a look at some numbers that would apply if I was being more frugal. Let's take a Fubuki player who is content to play with the reasonably-priced concealment camo and no premium consumables. Premium Standard Spendy Gross profit 40,520 2,018 Discretionary costs 45,000 45,000 Net profit (4,480) (42,982) Frugal Gross profit 40,520 2,018 Discretionary costs 8,000 8,000 Net profit 32,520 (5,982) XP required 170,500 170,500 XP earned 1,520 1,013 Matches required 112 168 Total earnings 3,647,803 (1,006,842) The next ship in the line, Kagero, costs 13,200,000. The Premium player still has a lot of games to play before he can afford her, to say nothing of the standard player. In practical terms, most likely both will have to play many mid-tier matches to finance Kagero. Those of you who feel like they get their money's worth with Premium time are welcome to maintain their subscription - far be it from me to tell you what to do with your money - but in my opinion, Premium does very little to ameliorate the harshness of the high-tier economy and therefore I won't be spending any money on it until something changes in this regard.