Doolio

You are really good in reinforcing the stereotype you are trying to criticize, though.

Why is this -1'd ? It seems reasonable enough?

Why "sadly" though? The arcade game does what it suppose to be - I call that perfect zen harmony Even if you didn't like icecream, you would surely expect an icecream stand to sell icecream? It would be rather confusing otherwise. I take off my "simulator shoes" if I am starting quake or something. Or if I can't take them off (when I have bouts of pathological clinging to reproducing mechanics in an interactive digital environment), I don't play quake

But that's interconnected. At the same time you have people who refuse to acknowledge what stats show in any amount, shape or form, while at the same time (for example), they create "nerf smoke" threads. It's a two-way street. Feel free to judge me because of my stats because those stats are created by me. They are bad, but I am a new player. I can only get better if people point out something I'm doing wrong, if they do it in a rude way, then they are a-holes, but if they are right, then they are a-holes who are right and I can still learn something in that exchange, no matter how unpleasant it could be. If I don't progress that means I might be a liability to other, potentially more skilled players on my team, which I would find selfish and I will try to avoid that. While I HATE to see a griever, I don't think any activity where there is a win condition/opposing sides should have "everybody wins" philosophy.

I find the part about randomly firing tirpitz more interesting. I mean, what does it mean? I would assume observational bias, but I don't want to annoy tilted players That aside, four lousy matches, ONE lousy rng duel... Jesus, it takes so little to put some of you on tilt How do you go and buy groceries without getting arrested or deciding it's not worth it?

Ah, that. I rarely fire any torpedos in aoba (thus far, at least), unless some half-sense area fire and forget stuff. Last time it was like this, and sorry for a long description, but I kinda remembered it now and I have to share it So, me and a DD fighting an enemy BB (empty spaces all around, it wasn't "ocean", but the map area was all sea). if I am the center "of the universe", enemy BB is north and our DD is also north, between me and the BB. He launches torpedoes, making a counter-clockwise circle, so he ends up going west after launching torpedos. So we have this setup: BB north, DD between me and the BB, facing west, speeding west. BB is going east. I fire my 0.2 knots per hour torpedoes at the indicator for the BB (so, their trajectory goes from my hull towards north-east). I TYPE IN CHAT "hey, I fired torpedoes at the BB, watch for them" or something... I have NEVER EVER seen someone changing directions and catching up to something that quickly. I mean, it's like he hacked the game and somehow catapulted his ship to catch my torpedoes. I mean he was west from me, going west, I was firing torpedoes at the BB which was going east, typed it in chat, he was in a DD. I still don't know if I could do it if I tried. But he ate like two of them. FIVE of the dead people, including him, called me an idiot for the rest of the game (even though I ended up first on xp after the battle). And I mean for the rest of the game. Like, I was sailing along a warspite and they were like "watch out, he'll tk you" and stuff. I mean, I know it sounds ambiguous, but it really, really wasn't. The situation was as clear as the summer sky whether you were in my ship, in that DD's ship or in enemy BB's ship. I can draw it for you, bit I can't be bothered For some reason, that got me really down. I mean, I have the "internet skin" and everything, but sometimes the mere reminder of what the majority of players are capable of (because the majority of players accused me because "he was in front of you" - which he was, but also he was billion killometers to the left also). So, yeah

Or he went berserk in that one game

Well, all your questions are purely preference-based But, ok, for me personally, I went down the japanese BB line because of the "oh, I chose the empty flank, ok, might as well go afk" syndrome of US BB's. Both speed and range of japanese BB's make sure that you rarely look at your ship floating in the middle of the nowhere, while hearing cries for help coming from your teammates but there's nothing you can do. So, that's that for me. As for the CV's, do you want to play them? If so, then play them I mean, they are a specific class, you have already played through one of them fully, you should have a grasp on whether you would want more of that. If you like the machinegun HE style of US cruisers, then I guess that even the high tier japanese ones won't make you happy, as they are more about being glass cannons with alpha damage. I simply highly dislike the US cruiser style of play, so I play furutakas and aobas, even though I suck at them I enjoy them more, I like to double-click and chuckle if I hit, if your thing is more like having a constant stream of fire arrows, then don't go japanese cruisers, even at high tiers. I am not very experienced, so much of stuff about high tiers isn't from personal experience, but from the general gist of game trees.

I agree, but let's try and be realistic in the analysis - so, bundles are the new black as people buy them, hq dudes are like "moar bundles", community managers go and tell them "there's bunch of complaints on forums", dudes tell them to f-k off as the numbers are rising/going steady regardless of forum talk and what does the community manager do? Go on forums and say "you know, they don't give a sh-t"? Of course not. And it's not WG, I would like for people to point out one big company that's transparent and isn't going down the political talk route a la "I told the devs, they said they'll take a look at it", "our customer service is working hard" or "we are taking everything in consideration". This was a rhetorical question, as I am sure there are transparent companies out there, but you know what I mean, you won't see that kind of bilateral exchange from blizzard, from ea, from riot, from ubisoft, from bethesda and so on and so forth. For example (I am sure I am mentioning blizzard too much in these forums, but they are a good example - not because I hate them lol, but purely as a mechanical example - I actually enjoy their games): in order for a blizzard comm. manager or any employee or even something like a moderator or whatever, to get "prodded" enough to provoke a reaction, EVEN along the lines of "we will look into it" vagueness-wise, you need to make like a billion pages long thread which is clearly out of control with posts in caps lock, torches, and generally, forum users going completely crazy to the point where posts don't resemble something that was written by a human being. And when you make that, you'll get "heeh guys, we can't say lol". Anything short of some kind of armageddon uproar and you won't even get a response - as in, any response. Literally. Go and see, just browse, you don't have to engage, just glance over (in case you haven't already). This here (or WoT forums, for what's it worth, if we could make an argumentation based on game's popularity) doesn't come even close. Now, I am not defending this, please don't get me wrong (as I see the atmosphere is very emotional in these forums, I choose to be preemptive about this ) - I am pointing it out. In fact, I dislike it as much as the other guy. I am pointing it out because I am not sure this will ever EVER work. Not because I think we should all stop trying, but because I think it's good to have that perspective too. Let's say EVERYBODY who plays WoWs suddenly stops. Everybody, not even a one guy in a training room or whatever. Well, in that highly unimaginable case, I say WG will simply decide the game flopped and move on. I am actually extremely irritated by the transnational companies and their power and practices. But that doesn't change the fact that I still think people need to try and make reality checks, not because reality is splendid, but because that's a constructive thing to do. For example, freedom of choice/expression/speech etc. is guaranteed under the law except under xyz circumstances. Ok. With that knowledge, I still wouldn't go to a screwed up neighbourhood, agitate people and expect not to get stabbed. If I had to go there, I would make myself as "invisible and regular" as possible. That is common sense versus the law/morals/state rules/xyz. Am I being defeatist for not running in there shouting FUUUU? Well, that's up for the debate, but I simply think that would be downright stupid and non-constructive, to say the least. Maybe the example is a bit hyperbolic, but it's in the same line. If community managers were told to do xyz, they will do that. Or they can quit their jobs. I mean, I still think pressuring them (as the only instance we can "harass") is a valid option/tactic/strategy, I just want to remind that I wouldn't expect much from it. Because pressuring them would make them go to the WG and tell them about it - they can't do anything proactive or outside their limits. Which means if WG shuts the door in their faces, we are doing nothing but poking someone who can't exactly do anything except to well, be poked or quit. If you, on the other hand, expect some kind of "revolutionary" and/or "under the table" kinda leak from them, that's not going to happen. It's a job and even though they might sympathize with the players or maybe they are players themselves or maybe they have a dart target of WG logo at home, they won't go ideologue over something as their company transparency or lack of communication exchange with players. EVERY COMPANY will push those limits. And, the bigger the game is, those limits are more "pushable". I'll take (guess which company) as an example - I was playing WoW not that long ago, maybe ~5 years ago, so it's not in nineties or something like that when the structure was vastly different and all that jazz. There were bunch of mods, bunch of community managers, I got my ticked resolved in MINUTES (like in real minutes. And I don't mean in-game tickets, I mean "send a ticket and wait" kinda thing), managers were replying even to the wackiest of topics, like "what's your favorite color" and things like that and they were engaged and people knew them. blizzard was pushing out ptr dates, video clips with conversations with developers, made stickies on forums and much, much, MUCH more. Go see HotS forums. Nothing. What do I mean by "nothing"? Well, nothing - not even a negativity-based activity. For example, if you post an all-caps thread here, it will get moderated. There? Maybe after five days when one of the moderators decides they could go and see what's happening. They had like three pages (real three pages, like first three pages - forum pages, not thread pages) of chinese gold scammer spam topics. Now you are certainly saying "well, ok, that happens quickly, several spammers can make dozens of topics in like three minutes). Well, the point was that the forum stayed like that for three days (THREE DAYS). I am not pulling numbers here, I logged every day to see when will someone react. There weren't new topics (so you can say that they are keeping with their three pages because someone is constantly making new threads/accounts so it's a real-time battle), they were the same topics ("thread started 2d14h ago" kinda stuff). This is a painful wall of text I guess, but I just want to add the additional element to the equation, which people forget or they don't have experience with (maybe they always had experiences with phone companies with good services or something, so this is new to them - I assume this because of the fact that I saw many post which target the fact that WG isn't "western" or that WG is somehow special). I mean, when we see how many there are active forum users compared to the nunmber of players, WG practically doesn't even need to have a website with news, let alone forums and community managers. Their profit would probably be similar (or maybe even bigger, as they wouldn't have those people on payroll ).

But that's what I'm saying - it's not a "side note", it's the "main note", as it WILL happen regardless, so why connect the notion to a RN or any other "legendary" or "pop culture-milked" nation/tree, if we are going to be flooded with such topics no matter what, when, where, how and in what amount is added to the game? An italian navy will cause as much of those topics as any other, I am perfectly sure about it. Let the floods come in, or don't add any ships at all

I guess I could barge in without actually hijacking the topic What do you think, considering the fact that I also have a premium account, how's fuso regarding making money? I mean, I know that's a moneymaking tier and a good ship, so it's obviously very viable, but if we go a bit more into specifics? For example, I am at the fuso now, would it be better to keep the fuso when I progress to nagato, or to sell fuso and buy kongo? Considering a same player is going to play fuso/kongo with the same consistency etc. and with the premium account, which of the two should earn more? I find both ships relatively equally attractive and fun to play. And, one question about cruisers I happen to like furutaka/aoba, but I am not exactly a god of their gameplay. That said, is t4 viable as a credit earner or it's absolutely out of question compared to t5/t6? Basically in WoT, any t5 would be the consistent great money maker, selected company of t6 (preferably with a premium acc) would do the same and t4/t7 would see a relatively steep drop. Is the same principle with WoWs? thanks

You answered your own question, it seems That aside, in order to understand why something is appealing to someone else, you have to broaden the look on things. For example, I find benson very unappealing, it's kinda front heavy, not harmonious and it's shape is interrupted in the middle - BUT, I can see how and why you find the benson attractive, I can sit in that place and see what you mean and why you like the ship. So, one man's "flat plank with giant warts", another man's

Damn it, dude, your every post has the opposite effect on me!

Nation-wise - japan, very slick ships. I simply dislike the "fat" or robust designs (wyoming for example). That said, almost every japanese ship, regardless of class and built has that "leanness" to it, even the big slow ones. I even like pagoda masts, I don't know why, as they look like vertical favelas or something But japanese cruisers in particular are top tier regarding looks. Everything is in its place and aesthetically pleasing. With the possibility of only one choice, I went for the Atago. Majority of japanese cruisers would go after the atago as they are similarly appealing. But if I disregard them, I would maybe put fusou or kongou next, because those masts don't give a f_ck Clearly I appreciate the "michael keaton's batmobile" ships, but at the same time, I have a place in my heart for the "christian bale's batmobile" ships. In that category, I would select Montana, as, even though quite "fat", it has that "f-117 modern charm" - much like the new batmobile, which can't exactly be called "pretty", but it could be appealing in a different sense. Yamato, although I like the ship per se more, loses in this comparison for me. And lastly, I differentiate the third category of "steamboat willie" type of old boats, where I would vote for st.louis or diana or something like that. Least appealing for me are the US cruisers.

I play about 1~5 games a day, so if I am not remembering days and linking them into streaks, I can't exactly have a big win/loss streak It's mostly 2-3. But I think that even if I would connect the days into one big "session", I wouldn't find more then 4-5. Same for the wins. Though I think I had a 10 win streak once, maybe even took a screenshot.

Sadly, yes. Still, I hope they will address that, but I'll guess we'll see. But you know what I meant by that post - that the notion of a high tier premium is about them being a credit tool primarily.

No, I agree with you in general, but specifically, this model is for people to make credits first and foremost, that's the staple role of t8 premiums, that's what I wanted to say. That aspect is important and it sheds a light on the notion of t8 premiums in the first place - without that they seem nonsensical and an easy way to a new player to jump in the high tier fray. For example, I have the atago - but I don't play it. I bought it in front and I'll play it when I get to t8 with in-game ships and when I'll need credits. Because I knew the notion of a t8 premium ship, I am not playing with it now. In that sense, I said that maybe your conclusions are based on not enough info. I wasn't arguing with you or anything, i was simply providing the aspect I assumed you have missed about the whole t8 premiums shebang.

In that case, I would rather advise you to get used to it, instead of being sensitized more and more Because it ain't going away What I meant to say is that it's not tied to RN or a "legendary vehicle" per se, those threads and whines will show up regardless of what's in question. Expect the "nerf stal0n boatz" or whatever threads to rise. If they were to introduce a navy that is perfectly neutral, not famous, not infamous, you will still get those same threads - "why nation x before nation y?", "why ship x at t8 instead of y", "too many paper ships", "immersion-breaking unimportant navy tree", "country x had bad bb's, why introduce them" etc. My point wasn't that you aren't aware of how it went in WoT, but rather that it will happen regardless of whether you put famous ships in the game or unknown ones.

t8 premiums have a very important specific role, there is a reason for them and there is a reason for existing demand for them. They didn't put amagi in the shop, but tirpitzes and atagos. While it might be true that it's not advisable to play a t8 premium if you are an inexperienced player, that's another discussion. It seems to me that you don't grasp the notion of high tier premiums, but are perceiving them as "regular t8 ships".

Because their interest in the game is below the threshold of informing themselves about things that confuse them. You STILL (I am not shi-ting you) see threads about invisible tanks in WoT - even with REPLAYS! which, when viewed, present a (very simple to grasp IF you read about it) clear case of intended game mechanics.

That is inevitable and it's already here ("anti-us bias" posts). Whatever you introduce, people will whine and not only that, but people will whine about the same things differently (in WoT, there were legendary whines about russian bias and at the same time, on the RU server the exact same topics and posts were popular, just replace "russian bias" with "german bias"). But what was the truth? Well, simple, majority of EU players player german tanks (because tiger and stuff) and majority of RU players played russian tanks. So when WG released the stats, win rates were actually lower on german vehicles on EU, which further fueled the "aha! see?" crowd - while on the RU servers, russian vehicles underperformed, naturally and of course, the same reaction happened. And the explanation of this simple occurence wasn't enough, so the whining continued and continued and continued, until the power creep made sure that everything US stomped everything non-US at one period of the game. What happened then? Did the players went "oh, it's probably due to the large numbers of asymmetric vehicles facing each other and the constant need for ongoing balance which can't be achieved in any game of this type, so the tanks rotate in order to achieve a general balance, like it was from the dawn of time, like it was in WoW or in any other asymmetrical game that has pvp"? No! Believe it or not, bunch of "US bias!" threads popped up - I am not kidding. Explanation for them was that US players probably make the most money for WG, so they eventually "trumper their slavic loyalty" or whatever, so the new kid in town is US bias. So, we can have the RN or we can have the martian navy, it would be the same.

But in order to club seals you would have to be at least a low-mid skilled player? The WG's notion is about pure beginners as I've understood. How can you sealclub in a game about you know practically nothing? That said, a guy in a st.louis will hit a lot of stuff because of probability, while a guy in myogi might even not score a hit through the whole match. Just one example. Hey, I personally find cruiser a lot harder to play than battleships, but I see myself as a new player with a reasonable knowledge and feel for the game and at that point, I really think it comes down to preferences and individual stronger sides (are you better at chess, quake, thief or starcraft ). But if I put my mother in front of wows, i think she would do better in a low tier cruiser than a low tier battleship (by better I mean do 500 dmg and die versus do 0 dmg and die a bit later). Sealclubbing is not applicable to the notion, you are talking about regular players here.

All hail the resurection masta! That said, I just can't play with high rof miniguns. I stopped at omaha and got her half-researched and switched completely to ijn cruiser line. Currently I am at aoba and I like it. I wouldn't know how it compares mathematically, but I much more prefer the playstyle of japanese cruisers. If you apply the same philosophy that we have in the usn cruiser line to the ijn cruiser line (higher rof, smaller caliber etc), you will lose the asymmetrical approach, that is, well, the spine of the game practically.

Hi, I just need a quick explanation - A whole thread might be an overkill, but I thought it wouldn't do any harm so, here we are I was just in the battle in a fuso and it was basically a race with time to kill the enemy CV. My approach is to load HE and maaaybe switch to AP later, maybe even not to switch at all. From my experience (at least in tiers I've played), in a Fuso I often citadel carriers with HE, and with AP it's a decent damage but I think there is a chance of overpens and also with HE you can set fires. But two players in the battle told me to switch to AP. So now I am confused a bit Even in that battle, with a HE salvo, I citadeled that carrier, started a fire and also did solid amounts of damage (as we were pretty close, so I landed a lot of them). I listened to them, switched to AP and even though I aimed good, did less damage than with HE. So, it kinda confirmed what I thought and experienced before, but still, those two guys were pretty sure about AP. So, what would be the correct approach? Maybe it varies with tiers? This was a bogue, I think. And I even told them that I often get citadels with HE - and then I go a citadel and a bunch of damage with HE, but they remained adamant, even though they were dead and following me, thus they saw the result. Also, one of them told me not to shoot a full salvo at once but to shoot it sequentially (I don't know why as I feel much more secure with double click, I thought it was a preference, rather than some mechanic-based approach)? I don't shy away from it, especially in a machinegun US cruisers (which I don't happen to like lol), but I see no benefits for it in a fuso? edit: ok, I contacted one of them in game. Basically, he told me he agrees with the HE approach, but since the clock was ticking, he thought that, if the CV wasn't stupid, he wouldn't show me his side, so HE would do less than usual and I might hope for a good AP damage instead. But the cv did show me his side for that HE salvo, so I guess everybody got a bit confused lol