mtm78

How do you know? Do you have an account you think is cheating, and is it so much different then what you would deem a regular account? Mods are included in ' the way it is meant to be played ' or WG wouldn't release their own modpack. Also, you know those smoke cloud boundary indicators in game? That was a mod before it became part of the game. There is a mod which shows ship names on minimap, next patch Sub_Octavian said it will be in vanilla client. Mods add to the game, they don't take away from it

Too bad warships.today only has a yesterday/last week/last two weeks/all time filter. That is I guess why most people use 2 week stats in ship comparisons.

It totally depends, if you're in a good position I would support / smoke you if possible, if you're not i won't risk my hp for a stranger. If you want to be sure of support, play in a division ( use the WG ts, or come to the Forumites chat channel in game ). Sorry, but random battle with random players, teamwork is indeed not always going to happen and in that sense I do support the notion that BB's aren't the only one's to blame Also, the issue isn't to many DD's, it a lenient MM which sometimes makes matches with an abundance off DD's and the other time with to many BB's. Sadly, and I mean this, WG does not want to implement class restrictions for anything but carriers This is meant as constructive criticism, but the above goes for you as well. You have a statistics signature so I hope you don't mind me using it. You are in all regards an average player, and might be going into situations where support isn't given for valid reasons ( outside of the overall lack of teamwork in random battles ). So do the same as I advised above and play in some divisions. Not only because you should get more support, but also because the other people in your division might indicate to you when/how they are unable to support you in some situations.

Ow boy, best ship to work on your aim is Yubari / Katori because they got the 40% accuracy increase module. Ofc this also means it kind of tricks you into taking a lot of long range 'risky' shots it is the ultimate gun setup to test your aiming skills

Well only because off ->> ^^^ this was very good and highly appreciated. Though also, I seemingly was the first to post I got an entirely different view of the Q&A then those who posted before me ( which was overwhelmingly negative ). Sadly you did not quote that part of my post Could I ask you if my interpretation of the two Q&A points I mentioned was indeed correct? edit: this part of my first post -> ( and the reason I really would like a confirmation is some of the other posts following which question the clarify of communication ). I wouldn't want to be the ' bringer of good news ' just to later find out I misinterpreted the Q&A session. Also, I know it's a lot of work to do it for all Q&A but it would be absolutely wonderful ( and this time I mean that ;) ) if you could write a short summary from the session.

Doesn't this tell you the problem might be that you need to aim better?

https://wowreplays.com/Replay/28078 Did that warrant a chat ban? Really? For not insulting anyone, just for disagreeing with a Chappy which refused to display the ' teamwork ' he advocated himself and supporting our DD's? Without any personal remark or anything other then just not agreeing with him and complimenting our DD's on helping us win the match? Wonderful WG, ffin wonderful

I had chat bans which I would NEVER argue about, even though I am fully ware that even in those matches the ' history ' probably had an equal or even greater effect than the ' insults ' I threw out at some 40% bob who was sniping with his German spotter plane equipped battleship ( ' insults ' = you're useless ) But it's this ' history ' which accumulates even when being reported out off spite or because they are certain fanbois or don't like how I didn't accept their opinions being posted as facts on this forum ( since they lacked the arguments to support it as being a 'fact' ) or when their friends opinions weren't accepted as fact. Funny thing is, WG removed +- from forums because they didn't think community could self moderate, but they introduced it in game in a way where you can only downvote others ( chat reports ) and community isn't able to correct those downvotes made out off spite. German spotter plane equipped battleships, yes those do tick me off the wrong way, especially when I see they are generally performing in the 40-45% ranges. And yes, reports pile in even when just pointing out German BB's are not snipers, if you want to snipe get an Amagi not a Bismarck. But these 'reports' all fill up that 'history'. And in the end, someone who just doesn't like not being agreed with can just get you chat banned. Working as intended, perhaps. Working as it should, no way.

You don't have 11k posts on this forum, there are lots of people who don't like me because they have an opinion on something which differs from mine and they fail to present any arguments supporting said opinions. Seems people don't like it when they meet someone who can be both opinionated and capable of supplying actual arguments on that opinion. Like I posted above -> This is a normal occurance for me recently, even more so after I been accused of supporting a certain RU 'thing' over a certain EU 'thing'.

In that match? None. I just disagreed with the second best player in the team on what was the tactical best approach to the game and I told him that. No insults, no swearing nothing. And this is not a stand alone occurrence either, the system is just broken and as soon as you get ' famous ' and the reports pile up ( I can name various reasons for which certain fanbois report me every match they see me, but it wouldn't really aid in the discussion would it ) you can get banned by a single report for a game like what I posted above. He said it better then I did

I didn't want to mention it myself since this is a place of power for him, but thanks edit: This is a fallacy. If ONE unwarranted report can cause a ban due to ' history ' how does it differentiate between unwarranted reports in that history?

If I said anything actually insulting then yes, ofc it should. Hower, most of my reports are based on interactions like there ( ofc you ' checked ' and will say it's not ). Things like these is what people write to me all the time -> And I get reported for anything I write back even if it's just ' LOL ' But hey... working as intended I can live without in game chat, doesn't mean the system works as it should.

Lol so because I was toxic before it's ok to get a chat ban because someone didn't agree with me? Thanks for leaving it up, it's a better showcase of how broken it is then I could have ever hoped for Also taking into account my description? Really? You think the description which is made AFTER receiving the chat ban is a warrant for it? Cause and effect seem to be a concept you haven't mastered yet edit: thank god they only last 24h hour though edit2: btw discussing an automated system != discussing moderator (human person) actions .....

[edited]

Losing IFHE means being unable to damage higher tier DD's unless they are showing an angle you can pen with your AP though, new tech tree is pretty awesome imo as it forces choices ( even with a 19p captain you will always lose out on something ). I got both AFT + CE + IFHE but I still mainly play as second line as the rudder and turning circle mean getting close to enemy DD's is a risk not worth taking imo.

So, everyone better then you is obviously cheating right

There is a reason you're on my ignore list, and you've just proven yourself worthy of being on there. Now shush. Or at leas try and come up with something insulting I said in the replay itself since that's the discussion, not how I see the competence of the people who came up with the report system as we have now

That doesn't mean the system is good now does it, it just explains as to why it's broken. And yeah, we all know it's broken, well everyone but WG it seems as it's been brought up time and time again but nothing is done about it.

So this pathetic figure comes to insult me in game chat now he can't actually bait me on forums into calling him what he actually is Pathetic, but not unexpected ofc. But don't worry, I won't name and shame this pathetic figure here as it's against the rules, instead I will submit the screenshots to support and let them deal with this pathetic figure.

AP on broadside targets ( BB superstructure or anything else ) is excellent, it's like a RN CL if people show broadside you punish them hard. I think the ship only really shines if you have AFT + CE, CE isn't to hunt DD's but to be able to fade away quicker when focused. Akizuki is a support DD, not a spearhead DD hunter, that would get you close to enemy DD's and it will get you killed by torpedoes you can't avoid. Use the excellent shell speed and arcs, and stay behind a friendly spotter if possible.

If running mods, start with launcher -> right side drop down menu of ' play ' -> start in safe mode. This will temporary suspend loading of content in res_mods. If that doesn't help follow the steps here -> https://eu.wargaming.net/support/kb/articles/596 including the option to do a network check. Submit results to support here -> https://eu.wargaming.net/support/tickets

Why are people excited about yet another Myoko? The only thing which I would find nice is the free 10 point captain, I got enough Myoko's already thank you WG

Sure, buff BB's more we really need this..... ow wow what a surprise ->