BlackLancer2014

I figured as much. Which is why I suggested in another topic to create smaller teams in rank but with more teams per game. With 4 teams of 3 players each, individual skill matters so much more, camping less rewarding and stars earned/lost will be fairer because the second place team will keep their stars instead of just the highest scoring player on the losing team.

If carrier planes can replenish over time, then AA modules should repair over time as well. Its only fair.

Why does Weihnachtsmann's voice over starts with a distinctly new one in German then the rest of the voice overs are in the standard English commander's? Shouldn't they at least be also the standard German commander's ?

Why didn't I get complimentary detonation flags when I got detonated by a bot ship in coop? What's up with that? Why is even detonation allowed in coop? Why is detonation even in the game when only players without the flag get affected by it instead of everyone???!!! 20210115_121125_PFSD210-Marceau_44_Path_warrior.wowsreplay

Why are match-ups like these allowed? There were 3 silver league players in our team and none in the other team. So our odds of winning were already very low from the start. Maybe things would've been a lot more even if we had one more gold league player and they had one more silver league player. What's the point of putting players in a league if it doesn't affect the matchmaking especially in Gold league?

Obviously, it would not be exactly like Key Battles since teams are still going to be randomly assigned in the beginning and no divisions allowed just like normal Ranked Battles. The only similarity to Key Battles is that there will be more than 2 teams. Camping in my opinion is caused by the design of the ships more than anything else. Having battles with smaller but more than two teams might actually disincentivize camping since players will be more unsure of their flanks.

How about 4-team Rank battles of 3-player teams so individual skill/tactics is more significant in earning/keeping stars? The top scoring team gets stars while the runner-up keeps their stars. This removes the unfair punishment of skilled players losing stars while less skilled ones in the team keep theirs simply because they did more damage.

Just had an awful day at rank. I'm in the silver league qualifying for the gold league. Some matches were almost guaranteed losses from the start especially when a friendly ship is afk at the beginning and never comes back. Could you tweak it so that the losing team with at least one afk member (zero base xp earned) from the start of the game doesn't lose a star except for the one who went afk? That would ease some of the pain.

I think its high time Standard Battles were revamped or replaced altogether. Seeing that blowout matches occur frequently these days, they become almost intolerable in standard battle. A battle that was already so lopsided (9 vs 3) before the 10 minute mark would often continue to rage on until the last ship standing dies or time runs out. A domination match in the same situation wouldn't last as long because the losing team's score wouldn't be incremented over time thus reaching zero quicker. May I suggest then that points no longer get incremented over time in a standard battle or slow down the points gain to every 10 seconds instead of 3. Or how about return asymmetric battles as permanent mode to include tier 10 ships or maybe even asymmetric coop.

I see. Thanks for the tip.

Hey Devs! I'm in a rather new and small clan with friends and we can't seem to get our schedules in synch to be able to participate in Clan Battles. Its great that now players like myself can still join as a mercenary but Clan Battles came and went and I was unable to get hired. I know there are times more active clans are just one or two players short of a full roster and miss out on playing Clan Battle altogether because of it. If only there was a better way to connect players like myself and clans like those then everybody wins! Right now my only option is to stop playing while changing my status message in the game while waiting for an division invitation. That's not really good since I'd be idle for very long periods of time when I could be grinding tech tree ships or just having fun while waiting to be invited. Perhaps there could be an in-game Marketplace for wannabe mercenaries like me where clans in need of mercenaries can post openings and/or time schedules so the chances of getting connected is improved and possible even while I'm playing. I'd even go as far as sending a notification while in-battle so I have the option to quit my current battle or at least remember to go to port after it ends instead of going straight to a new battle.

Hi Devs, You guys should really look into the detonation requirement that ship is below 75% HP. It is quite meaningless if a ship gets multiple hits from just one salvo. I give you my painful example in the Daring replay attached here. Jump to 10:30 and see me at full HP get detonated by an ARP Yamato. The person who responded to my ticket says I got hit by just two shells. The first shell reduced my HP to below 75% and the second shell detonated me. That's just TWO hits in a time span of nanoseconds!!!! Might as well as remove this 75% HP requirement because it gives one a false hope. And can you really expect to be hit only once when you get caught by a salvo? At the very least put a grace period of a few seconds after getting your HP lowered below 75% before allowing detonations or do not allow it at all if you start off at above 75% and get multiple hits from the same salvo. Geez WG. 20201128_174905_PBSD110-Daring_25_sea_hope.wowsreplay

Hi Devs. Just by looking at the screenshot below, you can already see how by just swapping a few players from one team to the other could've made this match more interesting than the blow-out that just happened. Is it really that hard to tweak your algorithm to consider the current player rank when making matches in random battles?

Hey Devs, It annoys me that there isn't a way to tell the autopilot to move the way I want it to. Many times I get sunk just because I need to go forward/reverse in a tight situation and the autopilot just does the opposite of what I want it to do. How hard can it be to make a manual toggle to go forward/reverse to the point where I want my ship to go instead of relying on the autopilot to figure out what it should do? I mean your autopilot cant even figure out that setting a nav point that is angled thirty degrees or less from the ship's stern would obviously require a reverse maneuver whether your ship is in open water or close to islands.

Dear Devs, Please make dead ships sink faster when they're colliding with a live ship. This should've been a no-brainer when a slowly sinking destroyer carcass is able to completely stop a battleship at full speed. Ideally, a live ship collides with a dead ship should be able to continue on with minimal speed loss if it is significantly larger. The smaller ship's carcass should break up in two immediately which makes for a cool animation. I'd go as far as to say that even torpedoes should make a carcass go away faster when they collide. I know they don't happen that often, but some battles have been won/lost because of the current unrealistic collision mechanics.