xxNihilanxx

I thought I recognised your name. That was the game in my Zao when I followed you towards the cap, you spotted the Gearing, I fired and hit him for about 6k, you smoked up and blinded the rest of your team and then sat still in your smoke and ate torps from the Gearing. You do know I have quite a long reload in the Zao and I can't shoot what I can't see? Maybe today you learned not to sit still in smoke in a DD? Although such an "excellent Shima player" (45%WR/467 battles with an average damage of 40K) as yourself will have learned that a long time ago, no? Fortunately for the team, with my crappy Zao play I managed to go on to get really lucky and take out three of the remaining four enemy ships who were pushing A to help secure the win. Thanks for turning up though, mate, your "excellent" contribution was greatly appreciated. Don't know what we'd have done without you.

Illuminati-NWO-Stealth-Nerf confirmed!!!

It was overpen city on everything I fired at that game, I guess we all get games like that. Was good to see you in battle though, mate, even if it was quite a disappointing match.

Oh come on, OP, don't be so naive! You are in port and your commanders are nowhere to be seen.... the solution is obvious. Check the brothels, man! I am guessing there will be some rather affluent ladies of dubious affection come the morning tide.

I recently played on a new account and the one thing that I noticed is that the lack of captain skills make life a nightmare for new players. DDs without CE attempting to compete with DDs that have CE is just crazy, for example. The solution to this, however, is not to prevent more experienced players from playing at lower tiers but rather WG should find some mechanism to award new accounts with 10pt captains in each line. Not in any way that could be abused, of course, but possibly as a one-time reward for hitting a particular account level or some such. This would improve the experience for new players and might go some way towards helping WG with their player retention. Another obvious (at least to me) change that WG could make to improve the game experience for both newer players and veterans alike would be to add some form of "difficulty" indicator to each class. For example have BBs marked in green as "Easy", CL/CAs marked in amber as "Moderate" and DDs marked in red as "Difficult". CVs could maybe be marked with nuclear and biological hazard symbols as "Do not touch - EVER!". (I'm joking, cool your boots, guys). This difficulty level idea could help to steer new players away from the ships that are initially hard to master as well as helping to dissuade them from taking out classes that are too important for novices to attempt. I think this would improve the overall game experience for all players.

It's essentially a Richelieu with a Main Gun Reload Booster placed at tier 9 as a result. If you like the Richelieu then you should enjoy the JB. I got mine the day it was released and, while I haven't enough games in it yet for my WR to sort itself out, I have enjoyed every game.

I know this is a joke but, in all seriousness, don't even think it let alone speak it aloud. We all know that WG's "balancing" department will treat it as a serious suggestion and use your post to claim "positive feedback" for the idea.

From the in-game tooltip: "If you are waiting too long in the queue try choosing a different tier or ship type" Your response - "I want to play my CV so phuq everyone else". At the quiet times WG cannot fix the fact that there are only a small number of players online, at that point it is up to us, the players, to change our behaviour to ensure the game runs smoothly. This often means choosing something other than our preferred ship type or tier. As I said, this is just basic consideration, something that seems sorely lacking in many. I appreciate that you feel you are being "cool and edgy" by demonstrating publicly what a selfish a-hole you are but that will change with maturity.

This post made no sense, if he does not have the Stalingrad how can he be jealous? In this context jealousy would be owning the Stalingrad and not wanting anyone else to play with it. I believe the word you were looking for is envy. English, do you speak it?

This happens when a CV waits too long in the queue at server quiet times, everyone who plays in the small hours knows this. The issue here is not Icey's complaint but rather the CV player's selfish behaviour. Whatever happened to consideration for others? Judging by your response I see it has all but disappeared as you are advocating this lack of consideration.

In my opinon you should never use free XP to skip ships and there are two reasons for this. Firstly, by playing bad ships you get the chance to improve your game. Playing good ships is easy, the ship does most of the work for you, butplaying bad ships gives you more opportunity to learn to play around weaknesses and, as such, gets you into the habit of actually thinking about what you do and this is a good habit to get into. At it's heart WoWS is a "thinking man's game" if you want to be successful at it. Secondly, (and possibly more importantly) by using free XP to skip ships, particularly if you are buying gold to convert XP from elsewhere, you are encouraging WG to put in more and more "stinkers" as it becomes a profitable revenue stream for them. Ulitimately you end up making a rod for yours and everyone else's back as we will all then have to deal with the inclusion of more and more ships that have been specifically dedsigned to be bad. WG have a habit of making the T9 in many lines absolutely terrible in the hope of making people buy gold to skip them - be smart, don't fall into their trap.

Oh dear god - you have no idea what's coming, do you? If you think CVs are broken in their current state and that the rework makes them somehow more balanced then you have such a shock coming.

They have already acknowledge that RTS CVs hand far too much impact to far too few players for this to ever be an option.

Why roll it back, though, as, from what I can tell, the current situation is much preferred to the old one? I know people give you guys a hard time and I guess, being employees of a video game company, that is pretty much par for the course but when all is said and done can you really blame us when the only change that has been made in as long as I can remember that has been universally well received turned out to be a bug? (WG aren't a laughing stock in the community over this, honest!) You are making some pretty radical changes at the moment with the CV rework and, as I am sure you are aware, this has turned out to be about as popular among your customers as a curry-fart in a lift so please at least give us this one and keep the gun bloom mechanics as they currently are. It isn't really hurting anyone and it surely isn't affecting your bottom line. There really can't be any justification for reverting what has turned out to be a very popular change even if it was unintended. Just pretend you intended it all along and we will pretend to believe you and maybe, just maybe, you will be able to claw back a tiny bit of credibility as semi-competent game designers. I know - a man can dream!

Ten pages of people unanimously telling the OP he is wrong and still he persists with the notion that he isn't. This is why we can't have nice things.

That was one of those awful games where the enemy just put up absolutely no resistance whatsover. Not the most fun experience but a win is a win, I guess. Good to see you, though, mate.

As a general rule I tend to use far more of my daliy compliments than I do my reports. Reporting people is generally pointless (Zero karma minus one is still zero) whereas complimenting someone for playing well in game is generally a more rewarding experience.

I checked the Leander thinking that he may have done exactly that but it has a 12km base range increasing to 13.2km with the GFCS. 11.2km is the concealment range of the Fiji without CE. I guess he is looking at the wrong circle.

Did you buy yours off some scouser in a pub? Just checked mine in game and base range is 14km and 15.4km with the GFCS. Can you post screenshots?

You, sir, are a terrible man. Now go sit on the naughty step and think about what you've done!

Oh man, I should really not be laughing as much at this as I am. Recognising that co-op is the easiest way to get rid of your snowflakes, taking steps to maximise the efficiency with which that happens and then being sentenced to 80 games in co-op as a result. That's some sick irony right there. I feel for you man, I really do. I think I would rather listen to Nicki Minaj on permanent repeat for ten hours than face 80 games in co-op.* With the way the system is set up that is one hefty sentence with no chance of parole. *Actually, who am I trying to kid? - I couldn't put up with Nicki Minaj for ten minutes let alone ten hours - I'll do my time in co-op.

WG repeatedly ignoring the feedback from the playerbase is not the fault of the players. It's WG to blame here, not us. As has been acknowledged by all bar the most ardent CV enthusiasts, CVs put too much control over the battle result in the hands of one person at the expense of the other 11, particularly with regard to spotting. Come on, ffs, this has long been an established fact within the whole of the community. You can persist with the notion that it is because potatoes can't deal with CVs, but this is just sloganism. There are a lot of good players in this game who can deal with CVs very easily but still realise they are bad for the game. What does this even mean? Battleships didn't render cruisers obsolete. Cruisers didn't render destroyers obsolete. Destroyers didn't render battleships obsolete. CVs rendered the entire style of naval-gunnery warfare obsolete. They rendered EVERY OTHER CLASS obsolete in it's existing form. If anyone is using the "Muh history" arguments it is the CV enthusiasts who assert that CVs existed at the time so they must be in game. This is a game foremost and a historical representation second and as such gameplay must come first. If one class cannot be balanced properly it does not need to be included. CVs represent an entirely different style of warfare to the other classes who all share the same style of warfare. Did nobody ever watch Sesame Street? "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is not the same."

Er, no they didn't. Most of the comments I have seen over the years from the 96% of players who didn't play CVs were asking for their removal. Not one single person, as far as I have seen, asked for a WoWP style CV gameplay. I get that people are upset about losing their favaourite toy but that toy was toxic when combined with other toys. Nobody asked for one kind of toxicity to be replaced with another. CVs will never be properly balanced because they cannot be. If people truly have the good of the game at heart then they will know that CVs have no place in this game UNLESS they get their own game mode where the only active players are in CVs. Let them battle each other. Hell give them the old RTS controls, if that is what people want, but keep them separate from the players engaging in a style of warfare that the CVs rendered obsolete. WG could even make it a full RTS experience and give them control of a fleet of surface vessels to move around the map alongside their aircraft. Whatever, just leave the rest of us out of it.

It's more likely to be 12 CVs per side as nobody in their right mind will play a surface ship if the current iteration hits the live server.

I suppose you could also add Total War Arena to that list. It seem that these days WG have the reverse midas touch - everything they touch turns to $hit. I have to wonder if the Russians have a word for hubris or if they even understand the concept at all. They seem to be convinced that they are infallible and that every decision they make is the right one. That sort of pride always comes before a massive fall.