Karkong_the_Impaler

This is why you should angle and keep moving in smoke.

Due to the less amount of cash ranked gives, I can't afford (as in "I'm not stupid enough to buy them with real money") the full set of signals. That makes some ships harder than others to play in ranked, for example you want the speed, smoke and consumable reload speed flag on the yolo emilio. So I play mushi which works without flags, too. I still run deto flag on DDs, though. And I also leveled Edinburgh and Neptune. I am now a "gold member", so I didn't do too bad.

The freemium ships usually have the legendary module already included in the stats, just look at thunderer rudder shift time compared to conq or the sigma of the Shikishima. Is that also true for Salem, does it come with legs? Also, remember that the moskva was a tech tree ship at some point - can you get the legendary module for the moskva still? That's another 20k research points on top if you want that - not really necessary, but not useless, either.

Yeah, stoving in the face of tier 7 ships makes you feel dirty, but that happens rarely. It's not as OP as people make it out to be, usually you're in tier 10 anyway and curse yourself why you didn't pick yamato for a bit better experience. Or shikishima for a much better experience. Or probably Satsuma, as well.

Well, yeah, getting pinged as a BB who just used DCP and is standing broadside to the sneaky sub is a promise of pain. But didn't the 'submersible scumbag' do well then and deserves the strike? (let's assume WG manages to reasonably balance these things, don't kid yourself, they're here to stay) How is that different to any other BB? Just because you can repair/wash of the ping (how'd that work, don't ask me) a bit faster than others, doesn't mean you have to - you can also use your superior torpedo belt to reduce damage like anyone else caught in this situation. It's even worse for others, the sub can keep pinging everyone in range, some are afraid and repair and then their buddy can burn them down, because they don't have that fast DCP reload while the sub simply aims for the one who didn't/couldn't repair. Maybe players of ships with fast DCP need to adjust their playstyle accordingly and try and stay away from subs? Just the way they learned that they can push firestarters with impunity? Yes, suddenly having a counter is annoying, but did anyone really think they'd carve a niche for the submarine without stepping on some toes? Just look at DDs, they "shouldn't be overburdend with yet another task", but in reality they get shafted, because the subs have no healthy respect for DDs and shotgun them in the face with superior alpha damage. Or do you simply want the standard DCP, with the long reload? That I could agree with, but I guess the tears we'd had then would fill oceans. I agree that DCP is a bit overused, but that's a submarine issue, not one of fast reloading DCP or not. It's like adding a class that can set fires the way the sub pings.

But they don't want to. Same with carriers. At the same time they can't forbid the discussion of these topics, as this would result in an outrage in the playerbase. So they move everything into a trash heap 12 000 post thread they can safely ignore.

8 Kills & 280k damage in Shikishima. By far the most frustrating. But this wasn't bad, either.

So.. you propose to buff russian BBs by removing the limited charges?

And then you find out that the RB ships playstyle just isn't yours...

This is the issue right at hand, by not burdening the DDs with additional ASW duties, they also omitted giving DDs useful weapons to deal with subs and thus [edited]us over. Instead of having an additional duty, DDs now have ANOTHER COUNTER, as if there weren't enough radar cruisers (or radar BBs or the new meta: hilarious Radar DDs), sky cancer and hydro floating around. My proposal: All DDs have a permanent 4 or 5km spotting range (maybe depending on nation) to detect subs on the minimap, just like that submarine hydrophone consumable, if they are at 1/4 speed or <10kts or whatever, making them basically a no go zone for subs because they'd be permanently spammed by BBs. With the speed limit, the DD would always need to slow down, to get his bearing again which the sub could use to change course and escape.

:D Not subtle, you might want to black out the "provide cover for...." AND the player name on the lower edge, otherwise someone will take offense. Not me though. This is also one of the reasons I put potatos on ignore, these discussions melt my brain. Edit: Isn't it a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

Bronze - not fun, to many random acts of stupidity Silver - meh, less stupidity Gold - very good players. Low count of potatos, usually from the qualification limbo. A lot of punishments for mistakes that at other ranks weren't even noticed. Manners vary from extremely toxic to acceptable human interaction. I did not notice relevant amounts of toxic players in gold and silver, probably because I put potatos on ignore right away and they're usually the worst offenders.

Actually we don't. Cancer does not care about your feelings one bit. Neither do I. Seriously, where do you get these ideas? If I need to guess - you heard this from your yoga teacher who is an art and humanities student and drives taxis for a living. So, one last attempt: Potato Alert tells you that the enemy Carrier has an account win rate of 35% and 24 games with it at a whopping 21% win rate. Your carrier has 306 games at 80% win rate. (No, I'm not making these numbers up). According to your... let's politely call it "unfounded hypothesis", are you really unable to expect an outcome? If you really can't make an educated guess, you need to go align your chakras or something...there is nothing I can do to help you. Take a look at this example, you can see the influence of the carrier rework perfectly: Even to the untrained eye it's visible how the carrier became about 10% less influential in winning or losing the battle. And a carrier player who literally just rolls his face on the keyboard gives you about a 30% chance to win. While I agree, the collection of this data is akin to human experiments at a war crime level, one cannot deny their existence and value. Edit: Did you read the thread I posted for your pleasure by now?

I see. I tell you how it works and you tell me... how you feel about it?

I believe it's a "git gud" kind of problem. Yes, if you're a bad player, every ship, even the best and most overpowered ones feel lackluster. While you are a bit funny regurgiating the same 'ideas' again and again, you need to learn that it's not the hammer but the one who wields it. Yes, there are a bit better and a bit worse hammers around, some that simply "click" as they suit your playstyle and some that don't, no matter how much you wish they would, but I'd rather have a good player in a bad ship around than vice versa. I also approve your whaling, that keeps weegees grubby hands out of my pockets a bit longer. Concerning fire prevention, the only BBs where you can get away not getting the skill are Incomparable and probably the british BB tech tree ships, as their heal is so powerful against HE. I remember the skill tree rework and the tears of Stalingrad players as they couldn't have that anymore. Yes, fire prevention is more important.

Uh... use stacked 2x bonus and free XP like any sane person? Before you ask, the Harugumo tree is the cheapest, I think it's about 750k free exp

For all intents and purposes, the difference between a poll and an election is a) it's sampling rate is much higher b) the sampling pool is much smaller and therefore a bit inaccurate c) people in the cabin sometimes vote for someone who they don't dare to say they do (i.E. Trump). In wows we don't have the "a" problem as every game counts, "b" isn't applicable and neither is "c". The only issue that persists is that we take the "polls" over the last 100 years to predict the next outcome while we maybe should only take the last three months into account. MOVING AVERAGE again. Edit: Just to make this clear, I'm also not a fan of these dystopic minority report ideas - it's just to show you that numbering people works. That's why we have school grades. And there we use the moving average, because we don't look at your primary school grades when you apply for a job, but rather your diploma and/or your work experience. Your recent performance. Also, I do not take reality as a joke, it's not fun anymore with these appalling antivaxxers and 'alternative facts' people. It's been a pain talking to you as you are quite resistant to explanations. Please do not assume you "have never lost an argument in your life" when I don't answer anymore, it's just not worth it to me to try and educate you when you so obviously don't want to. Edit2: I think I grasp your issue now. You think one should not grade people that way and therefore try to reason that one can't grade people. But that is plain wrong - while one can argue that one should not, there is no valid argument that one can't.

But that is [edited]! That is why public votes are usually not so far away from the election forecast. So even the behaviour can be predicted. This is extrapolation, with all it's own issues. My favourite is the one with the street that's straight for a hunded kilometers, THAT is not extrapolatable because the street behind has nothing to do with the street in front of you (not entirely true, but for the sake of the argument true enough). But human behaviour? There is already talk about extrapolating your potential criminal career! "minority report" style! You apparently don't want this to be true, I assume this because you keep repeating it like a certain former US president his alternative facts. Reality disagrees. Also, it's not behaviour what we're talking about, it's skills. Sorry, I'll look at your replay, just not now.

So you complain that there is no moving average filter after I said that there is no moving average filter. I rest my case. Also... I hope you've read and understood the thread, that can actually lead to an increase in performance. Not one instantly visible in the stats, but gradually you will rise from the red 45% at tier 10.

I actually like arms race and epicenter both, because it makes it harder for the camping/sniping meta. I just feel that arms race with it's bloated dmg numbers shouldn't have been included in randoms in the first place. Also I wonder with the recent server tick issue, do fast firing guns get the correct bonus out of the "faster reload" buff? Putting game modes that are unloved by the greater community into a special "battle of the week" is a fine idea, one could even bring back disused maps...

What if I told you, that when he doesn't use frontal torps at all, he's already on the run with ~50 kts when the poor sod notices he's being engaged...

Because submarines are such a success... Ah, well, nobody is complaining about supercarriers anymore, suksess comrade!

I appreciate the sentiment that DDs get a bit of relief from their workload, it's already hectic enough. And it's also nice that BBs have a chance to do something themselves whereas they would need to rely on someone else. But the DDs low chance to murder subs only leads to subs not having a healthy respect for DDs, shotgunning them in the face and all this "getting spotted from otherwise impossible positions". I personally feel that any DD, no matter with or without hydro should spot submarines in a 4km or 5km, continuously on the minimap like that submarine consumable. To make this more interesting, make it only work at 1/4 throttle or less. This would essentially make DDs a no-go area for submarines, because they would instantly get derp charged by the BBs, running them down would require slowing down to check their direction, so the sub captain can use the high speed bursts to evade his pursuer. At the moment I play a certain british DD, so I usually bring the highest derp charge damage and a long duration hydro to the table (If I can pass over one, he's usually dead) so I have it rather easy. I can't even imagine the joys of trying to derp charge a sub without having a real idea where he is exactly. PS: Thanks for finding that quote.

Indeed.