Pandafaust

I don't recall being part of that survey, where was it hosted?

Yes, but realistically in the case of the OP DDs aren't an option, and neither are any of the squishy cruisers like Colbert. Ohio is too easy to overextend with in the hands of an inexperienced player, and whilst I considered Slava to possibly be effective (assuming aim is good) it's very vulnerable when broadside. Of the available options, I think Siegried is the least worst.

It really doesn't matter which one of them you choose, if you're desperately keen to play at that level. Siegfried is probably the most forgiving of the lot.

It's not other people's fault that you've contributed an utterly meaningless post in response to a specific question about tier 4 ships' ability to meet tier 6 CVs. It's the same as if someone had started a topic asking whether Asashio torpedoes can hit cruisers, and you've popped up with the response that FDR torps hurt battleships. It may be a true statement but it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, it's not "expanding the discussion" but instead just going off on its own unrelated tangent.

I'm sure we'd all be delighted to see a video of you playing a round with the monitor turned off...

If it's any consolation, what skill and experience you lack in the game is more than made up for in your impressive skills with ms paint.

Yes

I can't remember exactly, but it was a few months ago at least (and included an option to reset all commanders).

I'll be honest, keeping superships in their own 1v1 mode away from the rest of us would be absolutely ideal from my perspective. It's not at all that they're OP, it's just that they're so often crewed by the crimson of all the tomatoes.

Because there was a commander skills update and you didn't reset your commanders?

Replay please...It's dead simple to provide and saved automatically.

Realistically, there would need to be an incentive to do so, and as WG don't want to add even more economy bonuses to the game it would most likely take the place of a negative economy modifier on people selecting the "No divs" option.

I've found superships to be a bit of a weird one. I've no interest in playing them, but I've barely noticed them even in the games they were in. In the right hands they can clearly be very strong, but they've not had the disruptive effect I was concerned about.

@Klopirat has the answer there, you need to apply the coupon when you choose purchase, at the stage you're choosing the payment method (it's a slider just above the payment types, from memory there's another slider just above it also but I forget what that one's for). Support should be able to help if you contact them and explain the situation (or worst case just ask them to refund the purchase then buy it again but selecting the coupon this time).

Obviously that kind of ranting is completely uncalled for. If it's recent (and you've manually submitted a ticket) it may be worth tagging one of the community guys here to get them to look at the ticket also, as it's quite a bad one.

It's either a detonation which you missed seeing, or something entirely else hitting you and a UI bug. There's no way the secondary shell hit you for 11k, they don't have 36k alpha damage.

The support team won't release the logs to you, but the community management team will if you pm them ( so mrconway, crysantos etc). That said, if they send the logs to you and notice in doing so that the chatban was too lenient initially, they're likely to extend it. So far, in all instances I've seen over the past 5 years or so of people requesting the logs, the bans have always been justified. In the interests of transparency, I've been chatbanned precisely once since starting playing, and it was a fully justified ban. I'd got frustrated with a more than particularly pathetic team in a ranked match so went off on one a bit. I've casually joked around with or teased plenty of other players over the years with no issues, it's just about knowing how far to push it.

The lack of transparency is intentional, to stop the traditional barracks room lawyers from contesting every chatban with a variation of "but calling someone a retard isn't an insult". As @ColonelPetepointed out earlier, all printing a list of banned word does is make people change a letter here and there to bypass the filters. For the quoted section, I really can't be bothered to dig through the forums for the original posts from WG staff, but it's a combination of the two. Use enough words on the naughty list and it'll trigger an automated ban (24h, from memory). Anything longer is from a manual review, which normally follows a group of "misbehaviour in chat" reports. A log of the offending chat can be requested from WG staff. Oh, and you can't be chat banned if you don't use the in-game chat, although I believe that map-spamming can still legitimately trigger it.

It's a game, and battleships already vastly outnumber all other ship types in the queue. If you remove the ability for smaller ships to deal with them any further, what nerfs would you propose introducing to counterbalance it? Introduction of realistic accuracies of around 3%? Purchase and maintenance costs around 15-20 times higher than destroyers thus making it nearly impossible for new players to earn them? Maximum of 1 BB per game, with the rest sitting around for several hours waiting to get a match?

Never?

I agree on the initial part of the message, but haggis is delicious. As are scotch pies...

It's probably worth waiting to see the effects of the current spotting changes which are being testing first.

I was thinking that too! Was wondering how he planned to play it a month before release

Why's it interesting?

In fairness the bots are so bad that even after they're improved a little bit they're still going to be dire. WG did experiment a while back with putting the improved Ops AI on them, and then had to undo it as people found them too challenging to play against. In other news, over 40,000 battles in co-op!? Sweet Jesus you're dedicated to that cause!