benlisquare

Super Tester
  • Content count

    1,103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3902

6 Followers

About benlisquare

  • Rank
    Ghost of Gensokyo
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile benlisquare

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

1,286 profile views
  1. The primary concern, according to developer Sub_Octavian, was that if clan battles were available 24/7, some clans might attempt to rig matches during low activity hours in an attempt to climb the leaderboard. My suggestion is that they increase the clan battles window to 5 hours on Asia and NA servers, 7 hours on the RU server, and allow clan battles for every day of the week (rather than an arbitrary selection of days like Thursday). This would make the timezone difference between Thailand (UTC+7) and New Zealand (UTC+13:45) less painful on Asia server, the difference between California (UTC-7) and Florida (UTC-5) less painful on NA server, and the difference between Moscow (UTC+3) and Vladivostok (UTC+10) less painful on RU server. EU can stay as it is for battle hour windows, however likewise have clan battles available for all days of the week.
  2. All you need to do is change a few words, and I'm sure you'll realise how ridiculous and silly you sound. Do you get it now? Do you see how much of a dumb statement that is? There is no reason why UTC+8 customers should be considered more important than Australian and New Zealand customers. Your armpits don't magically become fragrant just because you live in a UTC+8 timezone.
  3. I don't see myself playing WoWP on the NA server, because my premium time isn't unified with my WoT/WoWS account on Asia server. If they brought WoWP to this server, I wouldn't mind giving it a try.
  4. Not all clans have to be competitive clans, and not all clans have to be social clans. If people want a social clan among good friends, they can tailor their clan that way. They can play the clan modes casually together, have fun, and don't have to worry about minmaxing. If people want a competitive clan that does things like you've described (kicking bottom players to make way for new players), they have the freedom to do so, however this wouldn't affect the non-competitive, non-tryhard clans.
  5. That's not how you use the word whitewash. So, how does this relate to larger clans equating to more activity, then? Conglomerates divided up into smaller clans can still likewise form 7-man teams, they'll just be contributing to different point pools, which is fair. You're not getting the point here. Restricting the player numbers and forcing larger conglomerates to form smaller sub-clans would mean that these sub-clans would have to compete against one another if MM decided to put them against one another, and it means that these sub-clans don't contribute to the same pool of ladder progress, and they don't contribute to the same oil pool. This gives larger conglomerates of 90 players a level playing field against smaller clans of 30 players. Hence, my statement that those asking for larger clans are doing it out of selfishness, as they do not want their large clans to have an equal playing field with smaller clans, and want dominance by sheer numbers. This won't be a problem then, since sub-clans won't be able to collaborate with one another on the leaderboard progression. That's not how things work. The winner outplays the loser by skill and tactics, and not by sheer numbers. Otherwise, China would have won the Korean War in 1953. This isn't a competition of population, and shouldn't be a competition of population. This sentence is a pure non sequitur. Lowering clan threshold clearly changes a lot of things, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about it. Lowering the clan threshold forces your players to be good at playing, and to be active, rather than letting the larger population do the dirty work. Firstly, it would be counter-productive for WG to tailor this new game mode for the Asia server, at the expense of other servers. Any server-specific arguments aren't going to convince WG to change anything, since they're not going to change a game mechanic specifically for one server. Furthermore, you've essentially debunked your own argument. You claim that on Asia server, we won't have enough participants to fill up the matchmaker. With smaller clans, and more clans, doesn't that mean that there are more teams competing against one another at any given moment? With larger clans, fewer in number, doesn't that mean that there are fewer teams competing against one another? Or did you really think that WG would let you fight against your own clan? That instead of having a [FOO] versus [BAR] battle, that you could have a [FOO] versus [FOO] battle? If you are having problems finding seven players with tier 10 ships who are online during the play hours agreed upon amongst members of your clan, from a pool of thirty players, then the problem is your clan's ability to vet applicants, and not the game restrictions being the issue. Maybe you should be looking at the freeloaders instead? Those who do not work, do not eat.
  6. Why are people concerned about large conglomerate groups which span multiple clans beating down smaller clans? For starters, based on the preview information released by WG, clan battles will be ladder-based and not CW map based like in WoT, so you won't have the issue of big conglomerates like [BLAH1], [BLAH2], [BLAH3], [BLAH4] and [BLAH5] ganging up on [SMOL], [TINY] and [MINI] on the world map with strategic territorial positioning. Hence, the argument that "large clans will just form sub-clans anyway" is largely invalid. Second of all, the ladder will be tiered, so you won't be seeing "pro" clans trashing up beginner clans, which then makes this argument invalid as well. The current player limits in clans is a conscious decision made by WG to allow smaller clans with fewer players to remain capable of participating in 7v7s. Those asking for larger clans are, quite unsurprisingly, coming from larger groups and are doing so out of self-interest only. Having larger clans would unfairly choke out smaller beginner clans from participating, since larger clans can field more players at any given time during the day, earn points more quickly, and climb the ladder more quickly (a clan of 82 players can earn points at a much faster rate than a clan of 27 players). Limiting the size of clans allows for a more even playing field. Most normal players have normal lives, and can't always make it to play. In a clan of 82 players, you're rarely going to find any shortage of clan members to play with, so you have more chances to climb the ladder, compared with a clan of 27. Keep in mind that while large conglomerates exist, the majority of WoWS clans are smaller in size compared to WoT clans. TL;DR: Those asking for larger clans are more likely to be able to field larger clans, and are making these requests out of selfish desires. A clan of 82 players can easily dominate over a clan of 27 players on the ladderboard when it comes to point gain, but a clan of 29 players is less likely to dominate over a clan of 19 players.
  7. It could just be related to the recent undersea cable breakage shenanigans. Last night I was disconnected from the server mid-game, and it took me over 3 minutes to finally get back in; by then, my ship was already dead. Of the folks I know, quite a few people from Australia, Thailand and the Philippines have had disconnections recently.
  8. Recently I definitely have been getting huge ping increases when directly connecting to WoWS from Canberra, usually around 300-500ms, but sometimes even up to 600ms: I figured it was a problem with my ISP's routing to the WoWS Asia servers, so I tested out my anonymous VPN to see if it would decrease the ping: ...and while it did reduce the ping significantly, the game is still unplayable as there is a lot of frequent packet loss every 25 seconds or so. Using a paid VPN subscription is definitely not a solution to the problem (I just wanted to try it out since I already had it lying around). Meanwhile, I am not getting any ping or packet loss issues connecting to the WoWS NA server. These days, whenever someone from Australia asks me about WoWS, I always recommend that they create their account on the NA server, and to ignore the popup message that claims that they're better off playing on the Asia server. You're more likely to run into connectivity issues playing on the Asia server, as an Australian.
  9. It clearly lists the requirements in the image you posted. "Hit the citadels of ships 3 times." Notice how there is no progress bar displayed, which means you haven't started this task yet.
  10. If you install the English locale version of the Asia game client, you can only display Roman letters, Cyrillic letters, and Thai. Everything else will be boxes. If you install the Japanese locale version of the Asia game client, you can display Roman letters, Cyrillic letters, Japanese Kanji/Hiragana/Katakana, and Korean Hangul. Simplified Chinese and Thai will appear as boxes. If you install the Traditional Chinese locale version of the Asia game client, you can display Roman letters, Cyrillic letters, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, and Japanese Kanji/Hiragana/Katakana. Thai and Korean Hangul will display as boxes. I'm not sure about the Thai and Korean versions of the game, because I have not tried those yet.
  11. subs

    1. Gameplay would be incredibly boring if the fastest you could move was 12 knots when surfaced (and even slower when submerged). Submarines are not fast. 2. Gameplay would be frustrating for ships with no ASW armaments at end-match when there are only a small handful of ships still alive, and submarines remain submerged to allow the capture points to continue ticking without any chance of being attacked. 3. Submarine gameplay involving stealth torping is already largely covered by IJN DDs, and there really isn't much new to add with their introduction. 4. The WoWS game engine is incapable of having vessels operating below the water. 5. Submarines never operated in fleet action, and more often took place in separate attacks against merchant vessels independently from allied surface ships. 6. The United States Navy, Royal Navy, Soviet Navy and the Kriegsmarine considered submarines boats, and not warships, which would place them outside of the scope for World of Warships. The German word Unterseeboot (U-boot) literally means "under sea boat", the Russian word подводная лодка means "underwater boat", and the Chinese word 潛水艇 means "water submerging boat". Only in the Japanese language are submarines referred to as ships (潜水艦, lit. "water submerging ship"), however this is the exception and not the rule.
  12. With Wargaming experimenting with multi-country tech trees, starting with the Pan-Asia destroyer line (which spans Taiwan, Thailand, China, Indonesia and South Korea), would it be possible for other multi-country tech trees to be eventually implemented, should the Pan-Asia tree become a success? The Austro-Hungarian Empire built many famous warships, however a full tech tree (to tier 10) cannot be created since obviously the A-H Empire ceased to exist after 1918; combining these ships with other miscellaneous European nations (such as Holland, etc.) in a European tree may potentially allow for full tech tree branches. The same applies for many South American nations (such as Brazil, Chile, Peru and Argentina) who also built many warships during the first half of the 20th Century, however don't have enough ships for a country tech tree on their own. Also, I know of many players who are willing to pay good money (US$80+) to be able to play on multiple regional WoWS servers (e.g. Asia + NA) using the same account, without having to restart progress from scratch (i.e. shared account progress across servers). There are many Australian and New Zealand players who have close friends on both Asia and NA servers, and it's quite a shame that they aren't able to play with their friends quite easily. Is WG willing to explore this option for multi-server account linking, as a potential service that can be sold to these players? Not only will it allow players to be able to play with friends on different servers, it can also enable official and unofficial cross-region competitive tournaments more easily.
  13. Actually, the EULA permits account sharing, however strongly recommends against it, and states that players have full responsibility and WG cannot protect the sharer against malicious damage to their account (for example, a troll selling all their ships or teamkilling other players). The EULA prohibits the sale of accounts in exchange for money. However, the WoWS forum rules do not allow players to advertise giveaway offers, and I'd recommend that the OP delete their post content in good faith, to avoid forum sanctions.
  14. It's a genuine and legitimate concern though. People should not have to jump through additional hoops just to figure out if a date is July 6 or June 7, when a properly formatted date format specifically catered to the region would alleviate the confusion. One would expect to know the date just by looking at the date, rather than looking at the date and then scrolling through earlier articles to compare the dates. Asking Asian (YYYY-MM-DD) and Commonwealth (DD-MM-YYYY) players to just "deal with it" and get used to the American dating system, is kind of like saying "just deal with it" with having Fahrenheit temperatures, gallon volumes, stone weights and inch lengths outside of America. This isn't America.
  15. CVs have an overwhelming influence over the outcome of a battle. One good CV up against one bad CV has a much greater chance of causing a winning match compared to one good BB against one bad BB.