AgarwaenME

Edited your post so it would always be applicable for anything he ever writes. Efficiency!

FTFY

Only if you make new threads asking him to stop. Have anyone done that?.. no, so your "argument" is entirely invalid.

Or, I can tell an annoying spammer to stop being an annoying spammer.

On what planet is 10 the same as 8?

and reported as the spam it is...

If you ask people if they're bots.. and they don't answer. It's not because they're bots, but because they couldn't care less to waste their time and effort answering you.

While I didn't write that specificly, that was indeed the point (I wasn't talking about booting the system). As it is, I bought a SSD more or less just to speed up win7 boot and WoWs loading and for some overall system speed improvements. That alone got me from "loading 30 secs into game" to "done loading 30 secs before start". The new patch now leaves me time for a fap and making coffee. Booting into win7 is also so quick there's not much left to be gotten from moving to win10. OP can talk until he gets blue about how he's been gaming for 20 years ("bloody noob, by then I was on my 4th pc"), If he gained performance increases like that, then something was artificially slowing him down with his prior setup.

In that case your setup before simply wasn't right. Possibly you were missing chipset drivers or running a 32bit version of windows before? There's just no way that just upgrading to win10 would increase loading times like that unless something was seriously wrong before.

If you're loading faster that's due to the latest WoWs patch (which fixed the ridiculous file "organization") and barely if at all linked to win10, unless it got rid of some background software you didn't realise you were running.

If WG were to "do" something to bad players (and why on earth would they?) that would affect both you and the OP... ever considered that?

This. Get a DD if you have (USN preferred) and go contest caps.

The guy doing 22-26k average damage at t8 thinks he's in a position to call others bad. This is a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger. And also a good example why the karma system is pointless. I'd say "stick to sealclubbing", but then it looks like you're mostly the one to get clubbed.

That's not what your post suggested. And again, them knowing when it's ok, is as good feedback as them knowing when it's bad.

On that note. Maybe you shouldn't? Actually consider if the match felt onesided due to a lack of ship abilities on either side, and not if you think it should be skewed from the player list for it.

You do get that if you don't answer it when the game was fine, then they get no data for when it worked the way you want it to?

OP needs to check his setup, and maybe reinstall the client, because his reasoning just doesn't make sense. The weather effect might impact his fps, but not his load times. Weather effects aren't an immense load of textures and geometry, but mostly shader effects. Ie, they're relatively few lines of code. Thus them making your game load slower? Incredibly unlikely to be the culprit. Also, the changes to the file structure to the client should have made for a far larger impact on load times, and far more than a bit of code would. tldr. correlation doesn't mean causation

That analogy doesn't work for ever so many reasons. First of all. A sniper is used to attack high value targets, it's not part of a large force, or expected to support a force under fire. Your defense as a sniper is stealth, not armour. As such a DD is MUCH better comparison in this game; highly capable of taking out lone vulnerable targets and slip away and far less useful against groups of targets. Does a sniper wear a full EOD protective suit, or atleast full body armour? No of course not. Why not? Because it would restrict mobility, reduce range (as in, his stamina wouldn't last long carrying that around) and do very little to help him if he got tracked and cornered. A BB however does, and that alone should tell you it's nothing like a sniper. You don't add on many times your starting weight in armour without being shot at being extremely likely, and so likely that you're better off taking the shots and surviving, than trying to run and shoot back at your maximum range. tldr. - You're asking "why would it have that range if it wasn't supposed to use all of it?" yet you forget/ignore the even more prudent "why would it have all this armour and HP if it wasn't supposed to use it?"

Anyone using the word "spam" for the weapon with lowest rate of fire (by a magnitude) than any other just shows their bias and how they're desperate to create some reputation for that weapon as less skilled. End of story.

What part of "detonates under the ship" didn't you read? I never said it was the "only" source, just that it's part of what makes underwater detonations effective. And certainly they didn't design the magnetic fuse on torpedoes to ignite a full length of the ship or farther away. Yes, force propagates very well in water. However it will also try to propagate against least resistance, which will be upwards, and not away from the hull as it is when it explodes against it. And that's why they on purpose designed torpedoes to work that way (or in the case of the US mk14, atleast tried to). As it is, your only example is that some old (all riveted) ships could take minor damage from very near hits? So what? Is that grounds to make torpedoes have massive splash damage just to spite those that played the best in that situation? No, it's both utterly unrealistic, and awards the poorer player.

You really have to bring those fallacies into this completely unrelated thread too?

But the point of those were to have them explode under the ships, which would be even more devastating as the gas bubble from the explosion would travel upward, literally lifting the ship up and doing amazing damage to bulkheads and general structure. For a similar example, check the pictures of the damage to the Tirpitz after the midget sub attack. And those explosives basicly did no damage to anything else (and the size of those explosive charges were many times larger than any torpedo).

But it's not realistic in any possible way. The reason for torpedoes being such effective weapons is because they explode under water and water pressure forces the explosion upwards. It more or less only even damages a smaller part of the ship you hit, so it would be completely unrealistic to have that explosion somehow travel back several hundred meters to have any effect at all on another ship. Hell, the way they work, a torp basicly does no damage to the ship you'd hit if it exploded only a few meters farther out from the hull.

It would be an amazingly far fetched idea.

Sarcasm doesn't work when it's actually true.