LargerNeptune3

thanks for the work @S4pp3R Hey Wargaming, it would be nice to have more Commonwealth ships in the line 🙂

@S4pp3R u r a wordsmith 🙂

Go @sherpington 🙂

I cry in a very manly way mate 🙂 but you are right, we prefer small personalities and larger 'neptunes' 😉

Ta @S4pp3R ... mate just come and play CBs with one of us, you know you want to! @Arturia_Pendragon come here if you want to check out 1AN :https://discord.gg/JXKCVKh - we are always happy to have more players, even weebs! 🙂

@KingNeptunes nice one mate, cheers for the support - let us know if you need some sometime dude so we can all return the favour

This seems like a poor response - there should be automatic compensation to all affected players - a cheap "sorry for inconvenience" is not very welcome when you have stayed up with people in order to use the Mode that WG says is ready to be used. Unprofessional at best.

We got it working - play Narai then you can switch to Clan Brawls and get 9 in the Div ... ridiculous ... but thanks to @Korrupt_Penguin for the suggestion - it worked 🙂

And for those not in the Div is shows 10/9 or other nonsense, though only 8 in the Div ...

Very frustrating ... we get the people together but we can't play ... come on WG you can do better than this

Yup Kym/ @Charlie_26_1 can confirm plenty of Aussies are playing WOWS mate ... check out some of the ANZ clans in the King of the Tasman Discord server (invite: https://discord.gg/AarU4fu) ... one is my own clan, 1AN (Discord invite: https://discord.gg/5d2k2W2) 🙂

Nice game @S4pp3R

That a lot of effort thanks @S4pper - would creeping smoke like the Perth has work as a unique flavour/consumable?

I like the idea of letting teams participate in any CB session that they can attend; up to a maximum number per "game week". Three might be a little too low - quite a few clans play the current maximum of four CB session per weekand that would be a step backwards for those clans. I actually like the idea of increasing the number to five. The issue that is always raised to this type of suggestion - ensuring sufficient numbers for matchmaking - has never made sense to me; and with cross-server matchmaking now implemented it makes even less sense now

We organised to play CB on NA prime time this morning (my time) ... The ingame client showed the wrong times for me. The session started an hour later than my game client told me, and there was another hour to the session after my game client told me the session had ended. Because my client said the session had ended, I could not launch our division into battle. When I appointed a clanmate (whose client said there was an hour to go for the session), he was able to launch the division with me in it. Ironically, the clan we were first matched with in that hour, was HMAS from this server - ingame chat they told us they had the exact same problem that I had had, and they also solved it by appointing someone else as division commander The actual games were great, no ping issues, no lag problems - all games played like any other game on the SEA server - except that there were a few games were some players games crashed, and that seemed to be more than a usual CB game. And it was fun to play against clans from NA, EU and even from our own Asia server (who had like us opted for NA prime time) But the bug with local time zones is VERY annoying - several of us were very badly inconvenienced by it Wargaming, you know exactly where we are, and you know what the time zone differences are - including any applicable daylight savings in all time zones - there have been free online resources for this kind of thing available for many years. To have this problem happen still, after some days of this test, and after the problems with the first cross-server matchmaking test, shows a regretable lack of planning and/or testing in this second round of cross-server matchmaker testing. All the people who were affected by this bug deserve a heartfelt apology from the devs who approved this for release to us for testing.