NothingButTheRain

Silver: North Carolina Gold: Texas Even if Mo would have been available now, I would still recommend getting Georgia instead of Missouri. I didn't like Iowa or Montana tbh. Perhaps I should try playing Montana more, but I certainly never really clicked with Iowa. Of course this is also a matter of personal opinion, but Iowa/Missouri are veeeery sluggish. Colorado was too slow, though the guns seem good now. I did kinda like NM, but it's also quite slow and I barely play lower tiers anymore anyway. North Carolina and Alabama are both good ships and are much alike. Of course Alabama will make more credits and doesn't need its own captain.

I did find it 'remarkable' that twice the match locked up right at the start of the match. This way you get to see things like the team lineup etc and can change tactics accordingly. Personally I think that if there is a serverside crash bug which can be initiated clientside, it is important to investigate this

You mean that cheating and deceiving is a common thing nowadays in Chinese culture? I dunno, I'm just trying to understand what's being said here.

Thanks for the explanation Personally I wouldn't go as far (or at least not right away). Even if every single one of them cheated yesterday, next KotS tournament WG may accidentally nuke an entire clan with only some members having cheated in any way. I do think that revoking their individual gains is just, as even members who would have not cheated, had teammates who did and thus still gained an unfair advantage. But even this is a slippery slope. What if some next clan some members get caught cheating and I happen to have been participating totally legally? Or perhaps you or your best friend who also happens to play WoWS or something. Imo an accusation should always be supplemented with proof, how unjust this may seem. Of course there should always be some room for exceptions. Btw, to keep the servers really clean, they should actually be banned from all other gamemodes. Except for maybe coop

Maybe I missed something, but is there any actual proof of them having used cheats?

Well, cheats technically are mods. It's just that not all mods are cheats

How are they known for cheating? You mean the clan or some of its specific members?

So they were sore loosers. Serves them right for getting a permaban for such honorless conduct.

Wait, what happened today? I did see the match against TWA, but missed on what happened after that? They are sore losers then or something?

Double strike on my Musashi Perhaps not great by itself, but it kinda was the greatest gaming achievement I got 'yesterday'

I'm not ingame right now, but you happen to know how much 10 of those signals sell for? Btw, I don't think I got a supercontainer recently? If so, it was just 1. I did get 2 supercrates on the last PTS, literally collected 2 daily crates and both were supercrates. Still waiting on getting a ship on PTS

I'd go with a full tank build for Alaska. Just throw your best BB captain on there with a typical tank build. Regarding upgrades, I also went full tank build but I have had some good experiences using the acceleration upgrade. I'm not ingame right now, but I think I went with the quicker reload upgrade?

At tier 3

SAP rockets, I hadn't even thought of that!

This is what I meant indeed. Playing Graf Spee in randoms is different from playing the ship in coop is different from playing the ship in ops. So basically there's 3 ways to play an exact same ship, increasing the fun element of this ship (which I simply used as an example btw). Gamemodes in this game are probably not even that hard to balance with different ships, since all the ships have broadly similar capabilities with the exception of carriers (and later perhaps subs), but this is easy to fix by simply omitting these classes from entering any particular ops. But this does significantly decrease the "getting bord of having played this one ship over and over again"-factor as there are now more and different ways to enjoy any particular ship. Some ships I tend to play only in coop and some I basically only play in ops or in randoms. Heck, I basically never even use the wooster anymore except for cb And in the end, getting bored with a game is one kind of bad, but getting frustrated is another level of bad for a game.

What is this? Why is one of my recruits now a re-engaged recruit and what does it mean? Why is this even a thing if it should not even matter anyway? This particular recruit hasn't been inactive for 3 months in a row iirc? Or at least not more recently he wasn't? Is there any webpage explaining this new feature? WIll I miss out on rewards from re-engaged recruits? Anyone else have this?

Well, I can see him having done this by accident, but I assume he would have been removed from my list, right? And even though this is within the realm of possible, I don't find this likely at all.

He did not come back due to corona virus. It's as if he was put on that list completely randomly. Also this feature appeared out of nowhere with no explanation and the WG employee I asked about it has ignored my questions about it, aswell as having ignored a similar question from another forumite.

Like I said, this particular player has not really change anything and didn't press the "invite player" whatever button after 3 months inactivity.

Of course, but a second line of 12km railgun icebreakerbowed battlecruisers is not really adding anything new to the game which the game doesn't already have, while it is hampering the gameplay. They are kinda duplicating existing things here. I think a better thing to duplicate would be a low conceilment cap-contester DD instead of another line of,say, borderliner minicruisers. Or another example being a line of battleships with short-range limited use hydro or even a shortrange shortduration radar making them less teamdependent and made to push in instead of adding a line of 12km radared battlecruisers. Or how about a line of cruisers with even slightly better conceilment so they can act as some sort of emergency cappers or something instead of a new line of carriers. (I am leaving the rest of the conceptual emergency cappers blanc on purpose, to stick with the point). You know, something that actually benefits the meta instead of making it more .... toxic or something. Heck, they haven't even explored all of the potential gameplay concepts yet. And I don't mean just the ships, but also different gamemodes which would favor ships differently. Instead, they seem to prefer to remove this diversity instead of adding it by making these new lines with the concepts that they are adding the lines with. More variety should benefit the game and add to how pleasurable the gaming experience is. But just like the borderlining DD that ends up in top position in a match which his team lost, WG won't think it is making a mistake as long as player numbers keep going up. EDIT: Oh, and did I also mention that this new russian BC line also gets super heavy shells (so improved pen angles) along with improved pen (so more pen for a smaller caliber) along with short fuse causing fewer overpens? But I am pretty sure that this is all completely balanced, obviously.

Usually the mission fails because raptor outruns her escorts and the escorts can't catch up in time to tank. And especially the south exit spawn is bad.

I do like Weser and Baron von Richthofen as names for their carriers and Otto Lilienthal would also be a fitting name imo. I myself was expecting Peter Strasser btw Yes, definitely would like to see the IJN/DE/RN BB-BC splits (all 3 can create full lines btw, with some creativity so to say). USN BB split seems more logical from a historical perspective, but imo makes less sense from a gameplay perspective.

Well, when looking at both these new lines (german carriers and the new russian battlecruiser line), I can see how these do add to the game, moreso then having for instance a somewhat duplicate line of USN BBs which all function the same and a duplicate line of USN carriers which all kinda function the same. Sure, the new russian BC line is very similar to the existing line, but it does make some fixes to the old line, which had a bit of an unnatural flow to it (esepcially Kirov and Moskva). But the timing of both of these is kinda poor with regards to current meta. I'm especially not looking forward to seeing how the new russian ships will develop, seeing how(semi-)lackluster and niche the more recently added non-russian tech tree ships. Italian ships? Remove hydro and HE and compensate this by giving it the rolling smoke (and they barely added in the effective anti-DD SAP which imo was really needed for the game). British CAs, just make them more fragile while increasing their heal and somehow make them stronger due to them not having smoke. Russian CBs, give them the best radar in the game, give them best AP pen angles and make them immune to bow-on overmatch with the icebreaker bow. Give them longest range AA in the game (which may not be a big issue today but this will start to get more pronounced once WG starts adding back AA effectiveness) and the largest health pool. And to compensate for this give them poor mobility and easier to hit citadel like the Kremlin has an easier to hit citadel for the russian BBs. It's just like Chapayev: Make a mediocre ship and try to give it OP 12km radar which does actually not help the ship itself much because the radar doesn't fit the ship. But they gave Chapayev a crummy hull as if this would balance it. Sure, it makes Chapayev a lot less effective but in the mean time DDs have to somehow work around a ship that can radar 2 caps at the same time while having railguns. Even Wooster is mch more balanced and is much more easy to play around due to its floaty slow shells and its limited 9km radar. Yesterday I got caught with my pants down by a wooster while playing my Daring (which I just started playing for real a few days ago) and I deserved to get deleted for that. Same match I managed to delete a DM using my torps (which frankly was much a matter of skill from my side) but a Moskva? Sure, give it slow reload while making it virtually completely immune to counterplay, that should balance it. The problem gets more pronounced when there 2 or more ships in team red with the 12km radar, because all I can basically do is sail and try to spot the dug-in ticks, far far away from any cap and act as a gilded torp spotter till the HE spam can get rid of them And don't get me wrong, I love playing radar cruisers and I don't think radar is OP on any of the other ships (which includes basically all radar ships with a radar range of 10km or less, yes this includes Mo and Black). But the 12km one is just a bit too much imo and the game certainly doesn't need more of this. And about the carriers? Well they see them flying I guess.

Imo the French are just as 'deserving' of 3 lines as the Italians are. You also seem to be a bit ill-informed about which Italian ships fought in WW2 and are also in the game.

Even though I don't agree with everything that you said, I do agree with your notion that a lack of counterplay is bad for gameplay purposses. Just take tier 4 as an example of how to not balance a game around carriers. I don't mind WG adding new ships to the game at all though. In fact, I like being able to pick more tech trees. I am however not a big fan of the more recent DD trees released as the new DDs are not very well suited for seeking cap control.