Dutchy_2019

Yeah, I think WG can win a lot of credit back among the players of the game. It is an absolute disgrace that a player who has been repeatedly been reported for griefing, has been exposed in IIRC a Jingles video FOR griefing (team killing, etc. etc.) was still in the game MONTHS later. There IS no valid explanation for that kind of consistently griefing behaviour. The same with players who "play" ranked by running to the edge of the map, doing nothing and hope to be carried, game after game after game. It is embarrassing for the company - IMHO - that exposing such players in the forum by name seems to be cracked down upon harder by the mods than that kind of griefing, game destroying behaviour by players in game.

Only watching during finals weekend - on Saturday AND Sunday - will get you the final two containers (assuming you have completed the KOTS missions and grabbed the gift KOTS container beforehand). That is the way I have understood things.

All ribbons you earn are counted.

If I am firespamming in a rapid fire DD in my smoke - say a Friesland - and some [edited] feels he needs to come in, ram me out of the way knowing he will almost certainly get hit by my shots in doing so so he can get his kills off, I pretty much consider someone a griefer, pretty much the same as someone deliberately running into your torps to get you pink or ramming you out of your smoke.

In this case that goes both ways. The guy running in to get his torps off should have known that he could not. I see this a lot, "friendly" ships coming in to block your line of fire, or even ram you out of your smoke so they can get their shots off. And those tend to be the first to wine about kill stealing as well.

I think WG have released quite a few ships that suit a certain (rather specific) playing style rather than the more generic-fits-everyone-and-does-good ships, and that few is any purely bad ships have been released this year (arguably the most notable example being Kutovsky). A ship suited to a specific play style or minimum level/ability of play does not necessarily make it a bad ship. If you take - for instance - the opinion of two very good players and CC's in Flambass and Flamu, they tend to have quite a different opinion about the exact same ship (most notable example being Alaska). You see the exact same thing when asking players (including CC's) about what ships to take into ranked.

On NA unlock phase 5 of the Anchorage build, and in the process unlock Georgia:

Today I got to collect the rewards for playing PTS and the PTS Summer Campaign missions: Mutsu on NA (really happy with that one!) and De Grasse on EU (very useful, since it is my first French Premium cruiser).

NOTE: In the originap PTS article, it was actually stated that they would award the Summer Campaign awards only after the release of 0.9.9. For the Spring Awards, it was the same thing; not everybody was credited them at the same time. I got mine today.

A news article mentioned that it would drop with 0.9.9 That said, I saw a streamer today who receivd his with today's drops. I also received the badges.

Unlocking stage 4 Final mission in the Jirsi Swierski campaign. Unlocking this ship on NA with 1 Million Free XP:

You do know that early on you do get a number of Super Containers that can drop ships like the Massachussetts? My first or second SC drop after I started playing last fall was a Missouri. Jean Bart dropped in a free container as well.

Probably because people wanted to ban you for other behaviour that you exhibited in game (in chat and the shooting of a team mate), and that Iron Duke said to get you reported for being AFK/passive play. So they picked that one.

Yup, that is the way I see it as well. IMHO this game could have gotten three players reported, of which OP is one.

IMHO deliberately shooting team mates like this (other than perhaps shooting div mates in Co-op when fooling around) is worthy of something more severe than just turning pink. I see you lost your cool there (and I can understand), however I cannot agree with how you responded. That Cruiser was playing extremely badly, and deserved to be reported for that (maybe not even for targeting the wrong ship, but for the way he turned away from chasing the DD. I can agree with you getting angry because of it, and also the behaviour of that Iron Duke. Personally I see three players worthy of a report: - You (unsporting, shooting your team mate)'. - Montecuccoli (for bad play) - Iron Duke (probably misbehaviour in chat or unsporting conduct).

Guys, the facts based on the replay and the stats: Summary 1. This was an asymmetric game mode game. 2. The OP was definitely NOT passive in this game. 3. The player who demanded he would be reported for passive play - the Iron Duke - was more passive this game (and for much of the time stationed BEHIND the OP). 4. At the end of the game OP exhibits behaviour that IMHO warrants punishment. I have taken the liberty to also look at the stats of OP. Of course the assumption is that the posted game is the reason for the ban. - Stats: Nothing to suggest chronic passive play (the only indicator being a somewhat higher than average survival rate). I looked at his stats because some posters automatically assumed the player would be a passive player in other games as well. ISSUES SHOWN IN THE REPLAY 1. You being reported for passivity and camping is BS. The one claiming you are a camper was way more passive and a camper himself (the Iron Duke). 2. You deserve to be punished for deliberately shooting your team mate in the the Italian cruiser, no matter how frustrating his play was (and IMHO he deserved to be reported for bad play). So yeah, you deserved to be reported, though not for the issue of being AFK, but for unsporting conduct. You being punished for being a Free To Play Player is nonsense.

Personally I am completely on your side; I really look forward to being able to play that campaign. Currently focussed on potato-ing to Jersi Swierski, then Science of victory, and then I will start the new campaign.

As soon as that is happening, you see people posting on these boards that they: - Cannot do the missions because they do not have the appropriate ships. - Will not do the missions because they do not want to play those ships. - Will not do it because they only want to play a single game mode, because other game modes are "stupid". - Will not do it because the other tiers are "stupid" and full of idiotic noobs. You see posts like that popping up EVERY SINGLE campaign/event. Note BTW the addition of a new permanent campaign that does exactly what you suggest - at least as far as ships and tiers go.

Personally I would vote for ships (and that is the approach I am taking), also for the simple reason that ships seem to be more likely to be taken out of the armory (and Premium Shop), and ships more than commanders are what make this game fun. Also, getting the coal ships might increase the chance of getting special ships (those taken out of the game) or Permium Store - only - ships.

Personally, I would think long and hard which one suits your play style and what you consider fun best. It seems to me that many of the recent releases of WG (with perhaps some of the Russian heavy cruisers being the exception) are more ships that must suit your play style, and might have a higher skill floor to get decent to good results in. And with all respects to the opinion of CC's (many of them (very) good players), again, part of it is that it is biased opinion about ships based on what suits their play style and they consider fun. For instance, Flamu and Flambass have a number of ships that they have diametrically opposed opinions about, I have seen Mr Gibbins call ships trash that other streamers fairly consistently have good results in, and in there are numerous examples of this issue.

2 Super Containers (max I can get) - 100 Sierra Mike speed flags - 50 000 Free XP

I know - but that is how it is, at least for me.

True - but personally I will do that at the end. Under normal circumstances I should be able to complete the missions in time, but if something unforseen happens. I will probably get three stages anyway (see if I can get the Research Burea unlocked early). But yeah, you are correct.

1. Well, you have to spend doubloons anyway to complete the ship (3500 doubloons (roughly 12 euros)). 2. The equivalent cost of a T8 cruiser (which the Anchorage is) 37 or 38 euros depending on the ship you choose. No idea what your level of play is; my level of play is not good (at least not in randoms), currently at roughly 46,75% on EU; I think I am a decent Co-op player. I have no idea of how much time you have to spend on the game. Just above your post, you see the progress I made in 11 games in Co-op, less than 2 hours of play using low tier ships (this low rewards in Base XP). You have 52 or 53 days to complete the 6 directives. Personally, I think these directives are far from too hard for what you can get as a reward. And smartly choosing the ships and modes to play, they are IMHO very doable - and not really worse than many other grinds we had for ships (and of course it is nothing compared to the PR idiocy).

Where I am at with Directive 1 (all games played in Co-op), just simply knocking off BirthDay Epaullettes of ships one by one. - Games played: 11 (one loss, messed up an only human rest bots game in Hill), won 10. - Ships played: IJN T5 Minekaze, Mutsuki, Furutaka, Kongo; US T5 Hill (2x), Omaha, T6 Monaghan, Pensacola, Dallas, West Virgina (so done with IJN and US ships I currently have in port). Results in the directives: Completed missions: 2 Mission 1: Get 5 defended ribbons Mission 2: Get 10 destroyed ribbons Incomplete: Mission 3: 4081 out 0f 12 000 Base XP Mission 4: 687 326 HP out of 1 100 000 HP damage Mission 5: 34 / 1500 Main battery hits and 0 / 700 Main battery hits Mission 6: 22 / 100 Spotted / Citadel / Set fire ribbons and 22 /210 Spotted / Citadel / Set fire ribbons Mission 7: 240 138 out of 400 000 HP damage and 240 138 out of 850 000 HP damage Mission 8: 0 out of 700 000 HP damage through aerial torpedoes or by flooding This might give you some idea of the difficulty level for the completion of these directives.