FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

All of this has been brought up before. At their usual rate, WG will get around to implementing some of this in another two, three years or so. With slight changes to make it all less effective and generally worse than the player suggestions.

Yeah so that happened. Two Asashio torps hitting a Conquerer for some 55,400 damage when the max. damage listed in Port is just some 20,700 damage. This has probably been discussed at some point but in the Wiki as well as this forum, all I found was mechanisms that make sure you deal less than the listed max. damage value. So colour me a bit surprised?!

Well then it should say so in the detailed report! Not just fold it all into the torpedo damage! It's WG's fault! As per usual!1 But yes, watching the replay there was the Detonation message in chat. Somehow I had actually been under the vague impression that both the Detonator and the Detonee receive the Detonation achievement...

Also don't expect the change to make anything better. https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/141390-yes-wg-will-change-ranked-yess/?do=findComment&comment=3645242

I hate it so much that they don't even know the word "quality assurance" and just keep getting away with this kind of thing.

The answer to such questions is always "Because it would cost them money" or "It would reduce their profits" or both.

A few ideas look like a change for the better. Most look like needless, pointless complications. Nothing I have seen in there will truly level the playing field and turn Ranked into an actual competitive mode or even just a precursor format to prepare and develop future competitive players. That means all the ranks are "irrevocable", in that inimittable, much- too-literal direct-Russian-translation-style wording of theirs. IOW players with lots of time on their hands can still just grind their way in, no matter how low their skills and talent. And they will stay in, no matter what. The exact opposite of a level playing field, making matters actually worse for no good reason. Aaaah the actual reason for the changes... it seems that as per usual, they need another couple of years before they finally see the light and implement what I told them last year on the subject already.

Alaska is so good it is sometimes referred to as "Tier 9.5". Also Tier IX gets the fewest aicraft carriers. And plus you still have the chance to be uptiered, which is good because hurting higher tier ships increases your XP/credits earnings (don't know for sure if it increases both but it does help with at least one of them at any rate.) For the second one (actually my most played one in Randoms these days) I'd have to go with Benham cause torps torps torps torps torps. PLUS Tier IX matchmaking, although it has been sadly carrier-polluted too often of late. And of course Stalingrad, the Be-All and End-All, the Holy Russian Bias Cow.

Smaland. The end.

And once again, the rewards for this... "event" do not show up in the "rewards collected" box in port. Insert the usual interns joke.

You have barely 1,000 battles, a full four of them above Tier VI, and less than 44% win rate. You may not have issues (or think that, for some reason) but you sure as heck are an issue, for the rest of your team, to whom you are a complete liability. Not to disparage you or anyting, but your statement is sadly meaningless.

Even then, buying Santa lootboxes in the Christmas season will get you a lot more bang for the buck if you buy enough of them.

No, otherwise they would be XP and credit boosters. Seriusly, all you have to do to see what exactly any given signal or camo does is hover your mouse over it. When it doesn't have the line "Credits per Battle - + n %" then it will not yield any extra credits.

Poor design and usability, though easily avoided, have been plaguing the game for as long as I have known it, and many a patch has brought steps backward in usability. Case in point: the "new" Combat Mission menu. Another change that nobody asked for and which, through lazy or inexperienced execution, is just worse than the old one. What I hate most about the new layout is that nowhere on the Combat Mission page does it even state the frickin' name of the Combat Mission whose requirements / Progress the player is perusing. Example: Shown in the screenshot is the KotS-mission chain, but you wouldn't know that from reading any of the text, captions etc. Nowhere does it say "King of the Seas". Not even in any of the mouse hover help boxes. If this trend continues, soon the layout will be as poor as in World Of Tanks.

That's a fairly old issue. It doesn't really matter for you though I think, or did you notice the automatically detected aspect ratio to be off? I only noticed it when changing to a 21:9 monitor where it is very definitely off at times, some days I need to reset it every other game. That's when it gets annoying. You notice not just by the slightly stretched-out appearance of ships but also by the damage number on the top right hand side being cut off in the middle by the edge of the display. I've reported it several times, both here on the forum and to customer service, withouit getting anything but the standard automated boilerplate text blocks ("It's all the mods you use, just remove those!1") so it will probably be fixed by the time Ivanka gets inaugurated or so.

I've been having similar misgivings about the matchmaking, suspecting WG to futz with it in order to protect CVs from the ships with somewhat better AA as best they can. The fact I've been getting a lot more carrier games again the past two weeks in Benham than Friesland has reinforced those suspicions once again. That said though, I have been trying to keep statistics across maybe half a dozen patches now and although the numbers are too low for most ships, they don't really bear out the hypothesis. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11G0IGENL2SOSoJx8yP6Sz_RhVIk0hovHasSaWKiw1KM/edit#gid=1867916425 (If anyone has e better method of keeping those stats, like automate some or all aspects of it, as opposed to manually increment the appropriate number by one every game, please do let me know. It is a bit cumbersome and error prone.)

There are no ships you can buy that are anything but carrier fodder. With the possible exception of the <spits> premium carriers. Buying any of these means paying to be griefed, with the exception of the Tier II ones which don't meet any carriers in their matchmaking spread, as long as you don't fail-division. Buying anything at all WoWs-related from Wargaming is to confirm they are on the right course and encourage them top continue in the same direction things are going.

High, currently there is a Twitch/Prime Gaming mission available, the best part of the reward are five Royal Navy Destroyers containers. This is interesting for everyone who would like a free perma camo for HMS Lightning. The containers will drop items that start the Royal Navy DD collection, which can then be "switched on" so the rest of the items will eventually drop from the daily containers. Otherwise, you'd need to buy at least one container from the armory, so this will save you at least 1,000 coal and/or a some playing time.

Ooooh so you're part of the problem. No matter. Just disregard, blow your money and enjoy.

It is not a cashback. You will not get any cash back. I have no clue why they keep using that word; it is fraud and eventually somebody is bound to sue them over it. Do not give WG any money until they fix CVs. No ships you can buy for it will be anything but carrier fodder, just to varying degrees depending on the tier. It's like paying to be griefed.

Let me correct the historioghraphy here: The only reason Venezia became the meta was the combination of multiple Stalingrads and a CV. Venezia was the only ship that could cope with that, so it became the meta and promptly got nerfed. Before that, Klebér was the meta. Remember? It was the only ship able to cope with the combination of multiple Stalins and a CV, so it became the meta and got promptly nerfed. And the same thing will happen to any ship remotely able to cope with WG's holy cows, which are 1) Russian Bias and 2) CVs. WG will not allow anything to touch those, at least not for long.

My clan failed to progress beyond the second league, but it was certainly everything but boring until then. Also as of the third day or so, there were hardly any CVs any more. Do you notice the inherent contradiction here? Any form of protest that offers a credible threat to what they care about, has a chance to succeed. I will say that creating such a threat is never easy. Still, when I brought the concept up the first time, maybe half a year into the CV rework or so, nobody even thought it would ever be possible to even just unite the clans and have any sort of organized protest at all. Lo and behold, that was already proven wrong. People tend to call most of my ideas impossible but they have a way of coming to pass, if a few years later. Another "impossible" idea of mine is crowdfunding/crowdsourcing an alternative ship game. Just to have some more competition. Possibly even competition controlled democratically by the player community themselves. To a degree. That game wouldn't need to look nearly as good as WoWs to pose a very credible threat to their business model, as long as it provided the basic functionality.

Oh sorry, forgot the link. https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/general-news/prime-gaming-cossack/ You need to connect your Twitch with your WoWs-account, apparently. That should be this link here: https://eu.wargaming.net/personal/

Yeah they were super naive, not too well organized, but the main thing is they played much too nice and took every remoteley effective form of protest right off the table from the start. So all WG had to do for an easy PR win was open the taps on the rewards a little and they got predictably squashed like bugs. I take it there were lots of clans taking the opportunity last season. Here's to hoping they learn from the experience. The only chance to incentivise WG to correct course is effective protest, which is to say it needs to aim at their profits.

Yeah that's another suggestion I made ages ago: Clan Battles with a narrative and strategic component, combine the ego shooter / MMO with turn-based elements and thus create campaigns. At the rate they are implementing my past suggestions, this will be coming in about one or two years, I reckon. Although it will most probably be delayed a bit by the upcoming US civil war.