Figment

True, but if the current situation is anything like CBT at higher tiers (talking about CA 6+), you can actually do both at the same time by screening a few miles away in the path of the bombers, rather than babysitting the ship once you have the appropriate modules and captain skills, while engaging the enemy BBs at range.

Critique of the OP is warranted, not because "I think I'm being clever". Unlike most people, I already admitted I interpreted his wishes slightly wrong at first (since the lead indicator isn't dynamic, but static and semi-self-imposed). I don't quite see how "thinking I'm clever" would either lead to an attack on the OP, or how this correlates to acknowledging one can be wrong about something (in this case, only about half though, as there is an aim assist mod involved). Maybe you could enlighten me though once you're done confusing argumentative with arrogance? However, he still wants an Aim Assist that provides better accuracy than others have at angles and stated his motivation being he misses shots he feels he shouldn't be missing, ie. he argues he should have a different "handicap" than he has. When someone states their reasons as an argument to why he should get something, they become susceptible for critique. Hence I'm attacking his motivation for being less pure and acceptable than he thinks it is. That's not about "being clever", that's having a strong principle dislike of "skill enhancing"-modifications and debating someone who holds the opposite viewpoint on whether or not that person's request should be granted. That the OP doesn't want his request debated and just get what he wants is not my problem. My problem is keeping the playing field fair and leveled, without having to "get back on par" by downloading mods other people made to give themselves and those who got it an advantage over others. THAT is why I'm critiqueing the OP.

Hey. Stop the self-pity. Nobody called you a noob. Anyone who told you to improve yourself said you should simply learn to aim better by yourself, using the same scope everyone else uses. Nobody is bashing you. You tried to bash ME. Remember? Instead, I've only proclaimed your argument of "everyone can download something, so it's fair" to be childish, pathetic and unsympathetic. That's bashing your argument, not you. I did point out your feeling of entitlement, but then you indicated you have it by commenting about your accuracy ambitions and your frustration of not having reached that ambition, thus looking for a crutch to fix that. A crutch which some of us do not sympathise with because we deem it unfair, at which point you decided to proclaim yourself the representative of 99% of the people playing this game. Somehow.

Just turn the in the correct way. ;) That DD should have kept the torp bombers in front or behind him. Instead, it showed a steady turn and continued to turn when the torp planes flew by and changed the approach angle, making itself once more an easy target.

Tell them they get exp boost if they ensure you and your allies stay alive and help them win the game...

Just to clarify my view on why I value judged your argument so poorly: First off, you're starting an arms race, by arming yourself better than other players. Now, you do this, while not informing everyone PRIOR TO PLAYING AGAINST THEM, nor even WHILE PLAYING AGAINST THEM (unless they ask at which point you MIGHT devulge the information), that there's an arms race going on. So basically, nobody but a few know how to "arm themselves" to get back on par. Because you did shift the balance in your favour, however slight. You moved "on par". Of course you do not "intend" to have an advantage and you deem it unfortunate, but "not your responsibility" to make sure the playing field is even, not even because you would be so selfish that such information would take away your advantage, no. I'm not suggesting that. Of course, if it wouldn't cause you any effort (which it actually would beyond your capacity), you "would inform everyone", because you're such a people's caring person that you feel everyone should have access to it (if they want to). No, we all realise that without the assistance of Wargaming, it is simply impossible to warn all, let alone all new players about mods existing. So you simply say "it's not my responsibility" and don't give it a second thought. Instead, you expect other people (including those who simply want to play the game as is and don't visit forums etc) to "magically" acquire that information about mods and then to download it. We all know that you're always going to play games against people who do not have any mods active. Instead of apologising to them and disabling your mod to make it fair, you pretty much call them losers for not having the insight to improve their own performance as you did. You do not realise that not everyone would trust the arms dealer (mod maker) and instead say to everyone who didn't arm themselves for whatever reason, be it ignorance or wilfull refusal: "you brought my self-acquired advantage upon yourself by not arming yourself as I did". Because in theory, you argued that everyone could download it. That argument goes for ANYTHING people COULD theoretically download to improve their performance, including speed hacks, pull hacks, rate of fire hacks, invulnerability cheats, aimbots, etc. The argument of "well they didn't install it, so it's their fault, not mine" is simply childish and pathetic and used by pretty much every cheater out there to excuse themselves to themselves, because no victim of any mod will see it as the person using the mod to improve their performance. You are victim blaming, while justifying your own want-to-have advantage. Worse, it is based on an inflated ego too, since you think you should have better aim than you have, considering your comment that you're missing shots you don't think you should be missing: if you didn't aim right, you miss, simple as that. You feel entitled to hitting shots you didn't properly aim and instead of blaming yourself, you blame the crosshair.

Reported for insulting. Well, so far the "rest of us on this page" pretty much seem to agree that what you're looking for is an unfair advantage over the rest of us. Your argument is still nothing more than self-justification and forcing everyone to be as lame as you is a really pathetic argument. EDIT: you still don't seem to understand that an aiming crosshair IS an aim-assist.

"Well hey everyone can download these cheats, so it's fair, cause if they haven't downloaded the cheats, they choose to be at a disadvantage". No. You're turning the situation upside down (people with cheats are the norm for you), justifying your own greed for cheating by argueing that everyone should use the slippery slope to get back to par. That's an extremely pathetic and dishonourable unsympathetic line of argument in my book.

Fair enough, I interpreted it wrong since I was sure it spoke of a lead indicator. Maybe next time you should make this clear with an image from the start? It's still an aim assist mod though: it helps your aim at angles, where others do not have such an aid (without installing a third party mod). As such, I still do not find it acceptable. Mods that provide an edge over players without a mod are cheats in my book. Whether you can get cheats elsewhere for free or not is irrelevant to the principle of getting an advantage btw. (Same with the mod in WoT that provided last known positions where people without the mod did not have access to such indicators, same for people using hitbox skins, those I consider cheats as well).

Kawachi has nothing to do Ocean, but outside of Ocean, it's quite capable in tier 5-6 matches. Killed quite a few Kongos and cruisers in those games already. Quite lethal AP.

I think you should more carefully read exactly what he is asking for in terms of what the reticule would relate to: - "where to fire to hit most of his shots" (lead indicator based on center of ship prediction) - "what line to shoot at if the enemy ship doesn't change course" (lead indicator with angle-depth perception indicator)

That's an aim assist. So you don't just want to cheat, you're not smart enough to realise you want to cheat since you have no idea that what you're asking for is considered an AIM ASSIST MOD, because... TADADADADAAAA... It HELPS you AIM. It ASSISTS you, in AIMING. And not just that. Not only is that yet again the definition of AIM ASSIST cheating, that is EXACTLY the type of AIM ASSIST MOD THAT WAS BANNED (note that at the time of the vid below, it was still considered legal):

The type of mod you search for was available during beta and caused a massive outcry of cheating. It's really unfair to have such a mod and the mere thought that you'd be entitled to such a mod should be enough for you to rethink your self-entitlement level. You actively seek to get a 1up over other players that would allow you to play better than you actually are.

Please make premium ships that are(n't) for sale visible in the tech tree, so we can compare statistics and evaluate strengths and weaknesses of these ships in as much detail as any other opposing vessel. Just look at the amount of premium ships that are currently sailing in game, but can't be easily compared with by players. Strangely, some of these invisible ships are still for sale in premium bundles even. Currently visible premium ships include: Atago Atlanta Aurora Murmansk Currently invisible premium ships include: Albany (event code ALBANY - II) Arkansas Beta (Beta Reward - IV) Bismarck (Gamescon - VIII) Gremyashchiy (Pre-order Bundle - V) Ischizuchi (Purchaseable - IV) Iwaki Alpha (Alpha Reward - IV) Sims (Pre-order Bundle VII) Tirpitz (Gamescon - VIII) Warspite (Out of Shop - VI) Yubari (Pre-order Bundle - IV)

It's not really hard to make a TAB with just premium ships... So no, that's a bad excuse I at least don't accept.

Does either of you know what brackets are? In other words, my sentence stated that wikis aren't an excuse, whether or not they're third party or official source. Reading comprehension, it's a skill.

(Third party) wikis are no excuse for not having information readily accesible in game.

Honestly, I would keep having them reported as bots, since it would give a clear signal to Wargaming that these accounts cause frustration with players. Once support starts complaining to marketing, rather than to the people rightfully complaining these players are bots due to meddling by Wargaming. These reports in that sense aren't about the players using them, but about the policy of wargaming to wittingly have AFK players enter top tier battles, where they have a massive impact on the outcome of the match. Wargaming (ab)uses other players to promote their game at the cost of the fun of those other players. That's a grave issue and support should not come to the mods and community managers, but to the people making stupid marketing policies that negatively affect the fun of actual consumers. Btw, just let them play in PvE.

Marketing department vs logic. In Jurassic World, the Marketing People were ALMOST like real humans. Almost. Then it soon became clear they were just marketing people that make stupid decisions based on assumptions about profits and "what people want ideally without verification" instead of listening to the experts and realising that safety is #1.

What you do NOT hear him about, is that you have a very high accuracy on it in comparison. The shots land really close to one another: Maximum dispersion is 63m, compared to 91m on the Chester and 85m on the Chikuma. May have to do with the range, but I find I have a hitrate that's a quarter higher than the other two ships, which means you can actually snipe for citadels and hit 3-4 citadels in one salvo.

Three matches so far: top score (win, 3 kills, 2 almost kills), second score (loss, 2 St. Louis killed (finished off from 6K)), top score (win, 2 kills).

Just give me a Grandus aircraft carrier and I'm happy.

And you were all "Oh It's Not Our Job To Sail Near The Cap Circle For They Might Torp Us", right? Well done DDs. Bad game cruisers(, CV(s)) and BBs.

I'm having some issues with the exp per battle thing. I'm not sure if it's taking premium accounts into account for that, or has it more to do with tiering? :/ It seems to be one of the least telling statistics anyway (also quite difficult to tell how exp is tallied). Anyway, click my sig for my stats. I consider myself in the "above average" to "good" category, but with the occasional experimental mess ups. New Orleans and Pensacola was pretty good in CBT, had 63-67% winrates with both thanks to carrying matches (played as AA-escort with up to 39 air shot down a match at times and did long range baiting and kiting). They are NOT good at brawling as they have big citadels. Anywhere below 12km range, you're probably going to die fast. But their rate of fire and AP damage on other cruisers was very worthwhile.