BillGrey7

For me, the biggest issue isn't the submarines themselves (I actually like that they're limiting them to 2 per battle, though I'm still trying to understand the reasoning behind doubling that limit to 4 if you stay in the waiting queue for more than 4 minutes), or even their reasoning behind some changes or lack thereof (I actually agree with most of them). For me, the biggest issue is how they keep saying some variant of "according to the feedback we received from you, our players" to justify any and all changes. On the one hand, the wording seems to imply a closer relationship between the developers and the players. It seems to imply that us, the players, have an almost symbiotic relationship with the developers, who take the time and make the effort to listen closely to our feedback, which directly informs the direction of the game. This is OBVIOUSLY not true, as pretty much any CC (and former CC) can attest, and has attested. On the other hand, let's pretend that said feedback does exist. Not only the questions in the feedback form can be rather loaded; furthermore, we don't even see the actual results of said feedback. The dev blog just says "based on your feedback", but does not mention any actual data, so it makes many of us, already disenchanted with their lack of transparency, think they're just making it up. Just as an example, let's take a look at the dev blog about the current CB season. That one actually had data to justify their decisions, and it felt refreshing after all that had happened lately. Sadly, it seems it really was just the one breath of fresh air. If we HAD data backing their claims, we might accept them more readily. I know I would, even if I happen to disagree with the changes, because at least it would show that a majority of the player base does support them. But, as things stand at the moment, NOT showing the data in the current context just helps to further aggraviate the distrust the player base has towards WG.

First things first: ASYMMETRIC BATTLES: I did like it, but I agree with this comment. A normal game using T8 or T10 ships usually features both tiers, so it's nothing out of the ordinary. While I DID play a couple games where the smaller team won, most of the time they'd get easily annihilated. Yamato or Grosser Kurfürst are terrifying enemies, but a larger team of T8 ships can easily deal with them through numerical superiority alone. It also doesn't help that, in almost every game I played, half of the smaller team were bots, while the larger team was almost always entirely human. In that respect, I would like to subscribe to the suggestion @CoffeeandChaos makes: a wider tier spread. Especifically, three tiers between each team (T7 vs T10, T6 vs T9, T5 vs T8, etc.), to ensure that the smaller team has more of a fighting chance against the larger team, and to ensure that the skill and coordination between the players has more of an effect on the result than the amount of bots on the smaller side, as it is at the moment. (Also, a Zombies/Infection mode sounds... quite interesting). OPERATIONS: I enjoyed both of them a lot. I agree that Saving Transylvania feels a bit like a regular operation (it reminds me a lot of the new Convoy mode), but it's still very enjoyable. Sunray in the Darkness is hell on Earth, and I love it. I never earned five stars because it's too hard, even on the "normal" difficulty, but DAMN if I didn't have a lot of fun playing it. I do believe some design choices for the playable ships are weird (e.g. how sluggish the T8 cruiser is, or the T8 BB's astonishingly short main battery range [shorter than even Mikasa!]), but then again, it's all probably intentional. If anything, it makes those unique ships feel more... well, unique. And they all have their own unique gimmicks to "make up" for these disadvantages. TWILIGHT HUNT: I wasn't the biggest fan of Big Hunt (I did have some fun once I finally understood how to play it), but I had the time of my freaking life playing Twilight Hunt. It does share a lot of similarities with BH, but there are some pretty big differences that, to me, make it more enjoyable: facing ships instead of monsters, the appearence of Rasputin and the ludicrously fast Mutantovsks, and the ability to play as the monsters. I did play mostly as the Avenger (T10 BB) because I found her more suited to my own playstyle, but a couple games as the monsters reveal them to be rather unique in their handling and ballistics (or whatever the equivalent of "ballistics" for acid spits and the like is called). UI CHANGES: I'm utterly, madly, desperately in love with the new interface changes. The H menu is beautiful, and I found myself using it way more frequently than I do in the Live Server. However, I do partly agree with @nelliott, some of the stats can be a bit difficult to locate. I will probably get used to it easily, but then again, I started playing earlier this year (17 March); long-time players may have a harder time. On the other hand, the on-screen notifications for commander conditional skills are just... I don't even know the words to convey how much I LOVE them. I can't play a SINGLE game in the Live Server without thinking some variant of "I wished the new update would go live already so I can finally have notifications for conditional skills" at least once. Overall, I feel pretty satisfied with the Public Test (my first one ever, too!). Other than Asymmetric Battles, I didn't have any major issues, and very few minor ones. I did not run into any bugs, and I never had to wait more than two or three minutes (when advertised) to enter a game. I do wished the rewards for participating in the test were a little more substantial: some more community tokens, coal, credits, even some doubloons... something more than just the current ammount of Community Tokens, I mean. Just a very minor grip, though, nothing really important or that would put me off from participating in the next one. Thank you!!!

I went for Chile; being from there, it was kind of a no-brainer for me. But having lived for a few years in Mexico some time ago, getting both would've been awesome. Oh well, guess we'll have to wait for next year, then

While I am VERY happy that I can get Chile's flag (since I'm Chilean), I am pretty bummed that we can't get both.

As promised, more screenshots of my defeats (and like a couple victories which were absolutely NOT thanks to me): Admiral Graf Spee. Defeat. Again. Leander. Victory (at last!). Devonshire. Defeat. La Galissonnière. Defeat. Dunkerque. Victory. Trento. Victory. Kijkduin. Defeat. New Mexico. Yet another defeat. And those are all the T6 ships I've got.

Dallas (US Light Cruiser), defeat. Pensacola (US Heavy Cruiser), also defeat. I'll be uploading a few more defeats results in a while.

Hi Mouse, happy to help! I'll be sharing a few screenshots of my awful performance in a while! :D

Very maneuverable, great smoke. At worst, decent AA defenses. Insane rate of fire; Mahan to Fletcher's main battery reload speed is of only 3.3 [REDACTED] seconds (3 seconds for Gearing). Hold the fire button, watch fire literally rain upon your enemy from above. Watch your "Main battery hits" and "Set on fire" ribbons skyrocket (especially the first). If the enemy gets close enough, torp them to oblivion; Mahan has 12 torps total (3x4; one quadruple-tube launcher per side, plus one quad-tube launcher on the center) (Benson, Fletcher and Gearing all have 10, 2x5, in two centerline-mounted quintuple-tube launchers), so even though the torpedoes themselves aren't as strong, or fast, as the Japanese ones, even high-HP Battleships will still have a hard time trying to survive a full salvo. Plus, starting from Mahan, torpedo range increases significantly, so they can fire from beyond their detectability range, which favours a stealthy approach. On the other hand, they have weak armor (even for DDs), very high shell arcs so good luck hitting anything other than a BB or an afk Cruiser at range, and lower speed when compared to other same-tier DDs. They also have short main battery range, but considering how high the arcs of their shells are, perhaps it's not such a bad thing. TL;DR: Maneuver a lot, fire from behind island cover, rain fire upon your enemies with a rate of fire USS Atlanta might even be proud of, and torp them to oblivion if they get close.

Easily one of the most painfully-yet-hilariously inaccurate BBs I've ever played with (and that's including Dunkerque or pretty much any mid-tier US Navy BB)... But daaaaaamn, it's probably one of the most fun out there. You just charge head-in towards the enemy fleet at full speed (which isn't much, but still), and watch your secondaries rip everything and everyone to pieces while your main battery misses every single shot. I love her.

I just played a Random game with her. I got exactly ten main battery hits (all of them fired from at least 3 km, because otherwise you're not hitting anything), 78 secondary battery hits, and I sank 3 ships... ALL OF THEM with my secondaries (well, one with a direct hit and the other two by fires started by my secondaries). This thing is so freaking inaccurate it's actually hilarious. I agree with your review, ma'am; it is sooo NOT a good ship to play competitively. HOWEVER, it IS a fun one. You fire a few shots with your main guns, miss every last one of them, say "screw it", crawl into the enemy fleet at full speed while shouting "WHEEEEEEEEEEEE" at the top of your lungs, and just watch your secondaries wreck half of the enemy ship :D