Nechrom

"Gatekeeping" 11 is more than 1. You've made my forum experience more unpleasant, so I guess we're even. I'm thinking of myself and by virtue of my position also all the players on OP's team. If that justification works for you to be able to with a clear conscience go at people online, how nice for you.

That's you projecting. I'm posting an opinion on an online forum. Someone is behaving in a way I disagree with, so I interject. Sounds familiar?

Last I checked your job wasn't forum moderation either.

I would be on your side if either of these were true: OP didn't exclusively use tier 8 ships to learn the game. OP had a legitimately good game. I'll happily "gatekeep" (another meaningless word) people from being bad in tier 8, new player or not.

When I flashback to when I started I was playing the tier 1 Katori, not exclusively Alabama and Kii while doing less average damage than I did in my tier 1. ...f***!

I don't really know what to say. I think I'll just shut up. It's better that way.

"Let's say 22mm fuse" That's DD AP fuse threshold. It's not what this fix is targeting. Let's take Akizuki as an example. She has 19mm hull and 13mm bulkheads. So unless the shell manages to pass through the entire ship lengthwise to penetrate two internal bulkheads, even CA AP won't fuse from 19+13=32mm of armor. Never mind BB AP. So this change would absolutely fix the issue with full pen damage on DDs from BB AP. What the change might also do though is make the least armored cruisers (RN CLs) get overpenned more since they have similar lengthwise armor values as DDs. The Edinburgh for example has 16mm bow/stern armor and 19mm fore and aft bulkheads, adding up to only 35mm. But that doesn't mean you'll only get overpens, since the ships are dotted with things like barbette armor and thicker bulkheads in different places.

I really wanted to play this evening, but RNG said nope. Outplaying an enemy DD. Gun him down and do a 180 and when I'm going in the opposite direction of when I was fighting him, of course a random torp spread from his dead DD at exactly the second in time when I can't avoid them. Dead 4 min into the battle. Or Graf Spee, getting citadelled from a 20km unspotted Kongo and then getting chased by two DDs for the rest of the battle because my CV wanted to get torped instead of spotting the enemy DDs. The entire evening the same crap. Single torps coming in exactly where my 10m wide stern is pointing while sitting in smoke. This game would be so much more reliably fun if you wouldn't just get randomly crapped on by dice rolls.

The mission is configured in quite a unique way. Maybe by mistake, but still. You need to survive for your results to count, but none of it needs to be done in the same battle. So you can tally up the damage from several battles as long as you survive. Same with "win one battle". Lose 3 battles where you do a combined total of >40k damage and then win a battle where you do almost no damage. As long as you survive in each battle it counts.

Turning off chat? Nope. People can mute individual players or hide chat for a battle if it gets too bad. Bad players being able to shut out critique completely seems like a bad idea. Slightly OT: Generally, isolating yourself from criticism is one of the biggest issues in today's society. Echo chambers and subjecting yourself exclusively to input confirming your beliefs is why we have President Trump and Brexit today. Cultivating ignorance.

Made my own micro-mod to change him out. (free to use for anyone that wants, just put in: "...\World of Warships\res_mods\0.7.3.0\gui\crew_commander\base\USA")

Looking at the replays: 1st one (Sleeping Giant) was just a non-starter from the beginning. Your DDs didn't want to play the game. Game Over. 2nd one (North) could have ended differently if your DDs had gotten support. Despite you specifically commenting on them all going C, not a single ship on your team supported them (including you). So their push for that cap was completely wasted and you lost 2 DDs pretty much at the start because of that. It was just downhill from there with almost everyone just sitting on the starting cap. 3rd one (Okinawa) was the biggest misplay from you. You only had 2 DDs and both went B, yet you stayed pretty far back on the C side of the map for whatever reason even though you knew that the enemy had just a DD which capped C uncontested. C was lost almost immediately but you still stayed there (at max range). Don't get me started on your division mate... holy hell. What I noticed throughout was that you tend to keep firing your guns pretty much all the time. You never tried to seek out better positions, just damage farming. At least early in the battle you should use your concealment to get into positions where you can support cap pushes. You also didn't seem to care where your team were going. Plinking away at BBs with HE is all well and good, but it's not going to mean anything if you're the only one shooting them. If you are alone on one flank shooting a BB on your side of the enemy pack and your team shooting ships closer to them at the other side, not much is going to get done. Lemming trains aren't the best strategy, but being the only one pelting a BB is also not very productive. If your team all go A, then nothing is going to change by you alone covering the other two caps at long range. Better add your firepower to the blob and hope you reach critical mass to be able to push B eventually.

Yes. No problems. The ability to disable auto-updates on a game by game basis.

Even though I have perma camo on all my tier X ships, I still prefer sailing my premiums. Tier 10 battles are pretty samey and encourages longer range engagements which gives room for more RNG and less room for interesting plays.

No? 1. CV players already find enough reasons not to counter the other CV's strike planes. We don't need another use for fighters. Shoot down enemy strike planes, protect own strike planes and scout the enemy. Plenty to do. 2. Nope. Tier 3-5 ships have rubbish AA. While learning manual attacks would be nice, it's not worth the negative impact it has on every other player in the battle. 3. CV rework is coming. No need to polish the old turd.

Being a weeb, I'm used to suspending my disbelief when it comes to young-looking girls. But when you literally put them in a pre-school uniform I can't just hand-wave that away as simply "young-looking". Who makes these character design decisions for a mobile game?

Isn't an account wipe required if your account gets permanently banned and you want to have it reinstated? Everything is wiped except for premium ships. I could be wrong though.

And it's getting more and more absurd. (this exchange that is)

It doesn't really matter who deserves a chat ban more. If you don't want to get chat banned, don't antagonize anyone in chat, even if they are the worse offender. Do what you're supposed to do: just report and move along. Obviously there is some satisfaction to be had by being passive aggressive and trolling easily angered players, but you need to be ready to take the punishment. Just because it's reactionary doesn't make it something WG wants in the chat. It takes two to tango. Personally I can derive a bit of fun from engaging with ragers in chat. I even do some raging myself from time to time, although seldom directed at any specific player. If I get chat banned I would understand. But so far in my years playing this game, that has yet to happen. This leads me to believe the threshold isn't as low as some would like to think. If you're getting chat banned you're either overly toxic, or you're having just a little bit too much "fun" in chat.

Apparently I'm one of the few who think that this is a good change. Even against a Haku (as a non-CV player) it's almost impossible to start depleting reserves until past 15min into the battle, even if the CV just suicides into tight AA formations as fast as possible. Midway is even more stupid due to larger reserves and longer service times. Lowering the reserves is exactly what is needed, so that players making bad decisions are actually getting punished within the max 20min of a battle. This already works at lower tiers, but at high tiers it seems that WG just forgot that aspect of CV play.

People can't make 9.6km torps work for them.

Shima concealment buff together with the nerf to aerial torpedo spotting should make a noticeable difference. I'm pretty exited. As for Pudding...

That's really unfortunate, because I think you are specifically alienating most of your potential buyers by not offering something like that. Those who are most likely to pay a substantial amount of money for a permanent camo are of course those who have already done so. Now you are left with those who for whatever reason don't have a tier X perma camo but at the same time would pay 30€ for one if it made their ship look like a spaceship. And those who have so much money that they'll gladly pay 30€ for a purely cosmetic camo despite it not offering any additional bonuses for them.

My biggest issue with the camos isn't the base price, but what it means for those who have already bought 5k camos for their tier X ships. The best solution would be if the game cut 4-5k from the price of the space camos if you already own the regular perma camo.