xxNihilanxx

As I suspected, you have no answer so continue with your facetious replies. Consequently I will work on the assumption that you have no source for your outlandish claims and are, in fact, just pulling your comments from where the sun doesn't shine (and no, I don't mean Barnsley). Of course, if you are having to make false claims to support your argument then it could be surmised that it is time to change your argument. [Insert pointless, facetious reply]

Source please. I am willing to bet that I have spent at least ten times as much on this game as you have, for example. I would also argue that it is the people who are invested in the game to the point of wanting to get good at it are the ones who are regularly spending money on it and would also speculate that the vast majority of the play for fun crowd are also the play for free crowd. Where do you get the idea that it is the terrible players such as yourself that are funding the game? As I stated earlier, players of your calibre are seriously in the minority. Your results represent a significant outlier.

One key point in all of this, and consequently a probable cause of a lot of frustration amongst many players, is the fact that this game really isn't that hard to be at least vaguely competent at. It really isn't as difficult as so many players' performance seems to indicate.

Unless, of course, the skill-based MM just put equal numbers of similarly skilled players on each team rather than separating the poor players from the good ones. Also you are completely wrong about the actual number of competent players in this game, we are far more common than you believe. Assuming the average player has a 50% WR then about half the playerbase (approximately) would be above average. Players that sit at around the 43% are actually more of an outlier than, say a 49% WR or 51% WR player. As such it is players like you that would have long wait times under the scheme you refer to. There really aren't as many players that are as bad as you as you think. You are a pretty extreme case. You behave as if you speak for the average player but you have a long way to go before you can even aspire to being average.

So where do you get the idea that clan wars "has long waiting times because it turns out not enough elitists want to play each other"? Clan wars is only available every now and then and, up to now, only at certain times of day when it is running. WG alternate between clan wars and ranked. Also there are never long waiting times in clan wars - except maybe in the top league at the start when hardly any clans have made it that far yet. Seriously, fella, your lack of knowledge regarding this game is astounding at times.

That can't be the case as he stated "WG gave such a playmode" and yet there has never been a skill-based MM. Personally I think he is talking about clan wars but, as is usually the case with him, he has no idea at all what he is talking about.

What mode are you talking about here? As far as I know no such mode exists.

No, you haven't.

What you say is true but to answer your question it helps the OP about as much as buying any mid-tier radar cruiser would, i.e. not at all because he has much bigger problems than meeting radar ships. @GudmundurG Save your money and spend time learning to play better instead. If you buy a premium radar cruiser you will be farmed long before you can kill a single DD, all the mid-tier radar cruisers require a level of skill to play that you, unfortunately, fall well short of and yes, that includes the Belfast.

While intuitively this seems like an accurate summary with the maths making perfect sense it is actually completely wrong. It's one of the common fallacies associated with this game. For a start the "for every 55% WR player there has to be a 45% WR player" statement is ONLY true in a closed system, i.e if there were only ever the same 1000 (or whatever number) people playing every day. WOWS isn't a closed system - players come and go, some players play some days, some players play others and some players play far more games than others. In order to illustrate the flaw in this logic let us assume that at a given moment we have a playerbase who all have at least 100 games under their belt with a range of win rates from 35% to say 70%. At this moment we now introduce ONE new player to the system who loses his first game. So now we have one player with a 0% WR so, by your maths, there should be a player in the system with 100% WR but we already know the playerbase has a max of 70% WR. Your statistics only work in a closed system. As to your second point - if everybody was a good player then everyone would have a 50% WR. This too is false as it assumes that everybody has a fixed skill level and that nobody improves or, if they do, they all improve at the same rate. This is not the case. Some people will get better quicker than others for various reasons, be it inherent ability to learn quicker than others or more time to play than others, and so we would still see a range of win rates appear as they do now. the edges of the bell curve would possibly not be as far apart as they are now but the bell curve would still exist. To make things worse this is also assuming a closed system. What of the new player - does he automatically play all his games at the same skill level as all the other "good" players? Is there no learning curve? These fallacies have been thrown about for years but they are just not accurate.

Dude, you can barely hit enemy ships with a target lock, I sincerely doubt you'd be able to follow through with this threat. Interesting to see that, despite claims that you were trying to improve, you are still spouting the same garbage a year on from our last encounter. If you put as much effort into learning the game as you put into attempting to justify your appallingly incompetent play you may even have hit the lofty heights of a 45% WR by now. Personally, I think you are *edit who just deliberately sabotages your team's chance of victory and I say that from first hand experience, remember I've seen you in action.

Those of us who read the thread and NOT JUST THE TITLE know what the thread is about. Think what you like, sweet-cheeks, we all know how wrong you are.

And you have still got it wrong. None of those responses are even remotely pertinent. You may as well have just responded with... "My cat's breath smells like cat food."

Once more for the hard-of-thinking. We know you gave your thoughts. We got that. You just gave your thoughts on points he wasn't making rather than the point he was making. You didn't understand what he was saying so responded to what you thought he was saying and got it totally wrong. Your reading comprehension was sub-par.

Exactly, he was asking for people's thoughts on the point he was making not on the points he wasn't. It's called reading comprehension and it is taught at a Primary School level, I guess so many must have been ill that day. Your stock answer is that the problem always lies with everyone else but you. If you find yourself at odds with EVERYONE ELSE maybe it isn't EVERYONE ELSE that has the problem.

With regard to one particular piece of recurring feedback I am going to buck the trend here. I had no problem whatsoever with the inability to control my ship whilst having a squadron in the air. For a start, through regular use of the minimap, careful use of waypoints (which can still be set whilst in flight) and the AA sector reinforcement I had no problems with carrier sniping at all. As a CV I enjoy near-total invulnerability for pretty much the entire match. If, very occasionally, an enemy gets into a position to actually apply some damage to my vessel then I feel that giving up the damage potential of ONE of my INFINITE squads of planes in order to protect my ship is such a tiny price to pay that it is almost too insignificant to mention, particularly given the practical invulnerability that I enjoy for the rest of the match. If people are truly so concerned with CV sniping then may I suggest a piece of advice that I was given by several of the better CV mains on this forum - just stick with your AA cruisers. It is, after all, the solution to everything CV-based. If you are off by yourself then you are doing things wrong.

You are still totally missing his point. The ease, or otherwise, of the mission is not what he is talking about. He is questioning WG's decision to make a Potential Damage based mission for a DD in the first place. People have complained for ages about WG refusing to include any kind of tutorial so players are not taught to play each class correctly. The missions could have been a good way around this. E.G. Potential Damage missions are a good way to encourage players to put themselves in danger. Given that BBs are supposed to be the tanks for the team it would make more sense to encourage BBs to put themselves in harm's way so it is they that should have potential damage missions. Yes, it is easy to get potential damage in a DD but is it teaching players how best to play their ship? I know the RN DDs are pretty good gunboats but they should still do their thing with care rather than recklessly and so expecting them to get lots of potential damage is not a good way to educate the player-base.

I was prompted when I logged into the game to click through to the survey. I didn't get any e-mail just one of those in-game messages.

Have you tried cutting your engine speed to zero on your CV and then retrying auto-pilot? I noticed a bug similar to the one you describe in a couple of matches but realised that taking manual control had set my engine speed and the CV was cruising on its own. Killed the engine and tried auto again and it worked.

How are you trying it? I tried it first time using the LogIn button on the launcher and it didn't work so I just clicked the Play button. The game loaded and asked me for Log In details so I entered them there and it worked.

Oh how it must feel to have so much faith in WG.

Good job, really, as that sounds like it would get quite uncomfortable quite quickly.

183 I get comped a lot for being a team-player but I also don't suffer fools gladly and find it hard not to let the fools know just how foolish they are being. They don't seem to like that so it fluctuates quite a lot.

It was quite a fun battle, mate. Spotted very early on that the enemy were pulling the famous Lemming Train Manoeuvre across to the opposite flank so your div mates and I were able to just roll over them from behind like a tsunami. I didn't mind being a spotting biotch at all, not when I had such awesome support at my back. I nearly bit the bullet at the end, though, when I was trying to keep spot on their CV and messed up my torpedo beats against his bombers but I survived with a tiny chunk of health. Yay me! Didn't see much of @Egoleter though as he was on the opposite flank. Good to meet you guys.

Oh god, don't ask.... I hardly ever have any free XP as I usually spend it on making sure I never play stock ships. Having said that I am currently sitting on the (for me) lofty heights of around 180K because I have finally decided to try to save it and get the Nelson. Of course this means I now have to play a stock Lion all the while resisting the urge to free XP the modules on it. It hasn't been helped by the fact that, as I realised recently, I never use Papa Papa signals so have accumulated about 850 of them.