TeaAndTorps

Tbh, everywhere I've ever worked has had an expectation that people will still be courteous in disagreement. And that expectation hasn't been considered thin-skinned, but part of behaving like a professional and a kind person ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Extending the workplace analogy, saying this kind of thing on the job would get you hauled up in front of a disciplinary board, and rightly so.

Good to know! I guess I was trying to establish whether the concerns people are expressing boil down to 1) the possibility of your PC being used as a seeder to torrent game data (which, if I've understood correctly, can be resolved with the 'no upload' option) 2) WGC using inappropriately high amounts of RAM and only being minimised when you 'close' it (which can be resolved by stopping it manually, as pointlessly cumbersome as this is), or whether there was something else of that order that I'd missed. I can live with it being unnecessary (as in, WOWS is the only WG title I play, and I'm not interested in any of the others) and with it pushing advertising (which can just be ignored, and is significantly less advertising than I see just on my walk into work every day), even though neither is ideal. It would certainly be nice to have some answers to these questions, though. +1

So, asking as someone who does not have as good a working knowledge of what's going on 'under the bonnet' of my PC as I would like to. If I: – Click the 'no upload' option – Manually (sigh) stop WGC from running in the background does that resolve the concerns that there might be about system integrity? Or have I (probably) missed something about the size of a chuffing house?

1) You assert this without evidence, so frankly it can be dismissed without evidence. 2) Define your terms. 'Tribal', 'American' and 'civilised' are all (in this case; in other contexts 'American' would be straightforward) so woolly and loaded that they simply cannot form the basis of a sensible discussion. Incidentally, the notion that certain behaviours are 'American' is a prime example of a category – a nationality – being socially and rhetorically constructed, in this case to exclude certain behaviours and certain (racial/ethnic) groups. Attempting to exclude certain racial groups from a nationality (and hence full citizenship), simply for being a members of that racial group, is indeed what we would call racist. As a matter of law, you are. Again, this is also an example of how categories like nationality are not a given, but determined and given meaning by institutions, and how people in society think and talk about them. I'm not sure this article says what you think it does, but it gave me a good laugh. And it goes some way to refuting the points I think you're trying to make with the first and third links (which have, I think, drifted some way from your original argument about the possibility of sub-species within H. sapiens sapiens). As to the second one, if you're trying to suggest that people with a certain skin colour are genetically predisposed towards behaviours like paedophilia, then how do you account for all of the people from other racial/ethnic groups who have committed similar acts? Do you have statistical evidence showing causation, or even correlation? If, on the other hand, your point is simply that paedophilia is utterly abhorrent and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law wherever it appears, I agree, but am a bit nonplussed as to how it's relevant to the topic.

Plenty of people will tell you race is socially constructed (as are gender, class, etc.), but that's not the same as saying it doesn't exist. It means that how those categories are defined, and the practical impact they have, vary between different societies separated by either space, time, or both; they're not absolute and unchanging. If something is socially constructed, it very much is real. I can't say I've ever heard anyone say any of those categories don't exist, and I'm both in the bottom-left quadrant of the political compass and an academic (PhD student in history) ;-) But, more on topic, yeah – report misbehaviour in chat, blacklist, screenshots to support.

This happened to me for the same reason. I didn't realise I'd won a 10-point commander until a few months later A very pleasant surprise! He went straight on my Clemson, and I can definitely recommend using these 10-pointers for DDs and avoiding the need to grind a 10-pointer in lower tiers... If that interests you anyway. (Although on reflection it would have been good if I'd waited a little longer before getting my Nicholas... But lesson learned. Said commander has been back on my Clemson for a while and I hope I'll feel happy about going back into T5 soon).

Quoted for truth.

1. Description: Ribbons obscure priority target/detection indicator 2. Reproduction steps: If I get more than two rows of ribbons, they start to obscure the detection indicator 3. Result I can't see how many ships are targeting me, or how I am spotted (although it's obvious in the screenshot below that I must be hard-spotted) 4. Expected Result Priority target/dectection indicator should remain unobscured. This might be because I'm playing on a laptop, so have a comparatively small monitor. I hope to be able to get myself a desktop rig soontm, when living situation and finances allow, but in the meantime it would be quite nice to continue to be able to use this information ;-) 5. Technical Details: See screenshot

As much as I might like to, I don't think I can legitimately comment on the specific points about radar, having no first-hand experience of PvP above T5. But I'll heartily endorse this general point. That said I'd also suggest that maybe the issue is not so much that it's necessarily easier to play BBs , but that it's easier to feel like you're playing them well when in fact you're not (farming damage in the back almost without tanking any damage at all, for example). Maybe I've called that wrong – as I said, not terribly experienced yet – but it's a distinction I find myself thinking about quite often when these questions come up.

I think you can only get one a day – all the information on the website has emphasised you can get a maximum of 5 loyalty points a day, and always talks about 'the invitation' in the singular. But I would be very interested to know what triggers the invitation too.

It's the onliest storefront anyone ever saw. No storefronts are more only than my storefronts. Everyone says so. Believe me.

Thanks for taking the time to pull out some of the most relevant bits. It was late and I was tired when I posted that link, and my energy didn't really stretch that far

Excellent and relevant thread from LittleWhiteMouse on the NA forums. I'm not claiming to be a good player myself, but have drawn useful lessons from it. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/75077-how-to-control-your-win-rate/

Eagles at first, principally because I like the (expendable) camo better and want to put the flag on my US ships. Also, eagles are just amazing creatures. (So are sharks, of course, but (golden) eagles remind me of holidays in the Scottish Highlands, and therefore win). And having a kestrel in my avatar, it would feel wrong to not pick the bird of prey option Might do more switching later to maximise coal, however.

Useful to know, thanks!

Mikawa's Medal Named after Guinichi Mikawa, commander of cruiser Chokai, who led his squadron at the Battle of Savo Island. His daring night attack on the allied forces stationed off Guadalcanal cost the Allies four heavy cruisers. Criteria: Earn a minimum of 150 base capture points. This can only be awarded once per battle. Glossop's Medal Named after Vice Admiral John Glossp who commanded HMAS Sydney at the Battle of Cocos in November of 1914. She responded to the attack of Direction Island which was being attacked by the German cruiser, SMS Emden, and sank the famous raider. Criteria: Earn a minimum of 100 base defense points. This can only be awarded once per battle. I really do think some version of both of these should be in the game. I'd maybe make the first one 180 capture points and class it as a heroic achievement – seems fair for solo capping the base in a standard battle, or for getting three solo caps in domination, right?

Excellent, thank you!

Maybe someone could confirm this though, @Crysantos @MrConway @Tuccy ?

The amount of tokens specified is actually paid out when you reach each threshold. E.g. when you reach 3 loyalty, you get 5 tokens, when you reach 10, you are given 15 more, and so on – so it's cumulative. That's how it worked on the PTS, at any rate. To get the permacamo you will therefore still need to reach 75 loyalty, which will net you 195 tokens in total (so 70 to spend on other stuff). So it is certainly doable without getting your wallet out, at least for more dedicated players than me

^ This. This is the big unknown. Tbh I think I'm going to play it safe and stick with one team until I've got my fairly modest goals – Eagles flag and expendable camos, mainly for novelty value tbh – and then work on getting as many containers as I can, for the coal (one of my long-term goals is completing the Vive la France collection). Might turn out to be sub-optimal if I do get invites every day, but hey ho, it's still free stuff.

Oops, I stand corrected. I totally missed that.

Fairly certain I had mixed teams in battles on the PTS. There won't be neutral players, though, as you have to select a team as soon as you log in.

Oh, I'm not sure. I'd just assumed they'd be sent by players, but no solid reason for having assumed that. Does anyone know for sure? Had meant to try it out on the PTS to check but forgot.

Yep, nice strategy! Because I don't play every day by any stretch, I'm going to see how long it takes me to get to the 25-loyalty threshold for Eagles (enough tokens for the flag and some expendable camps), and see whether I still have a realistic prospect of getting to the 50 threshold. If not, I'll switch to maximising containers. I guess more players on your team, the more likely you are to win that day? Also, if everyone on average sends out more invites, everyone on average gets more stuff. If everyone sends as many invites as feasible, we're all likely to benefit.