Karasu_Browarszky

Ops, what are they?

It's the World of Extreme Random, not Warships we are talking here. Assuming you pretty much aim the same way on some particular ships, and your results range from triple citadel to near complete miss with one hit per salvo and even that a ricochet...

Yeah, someone here mentioned earlier something about a stationery cruiser not being hit. That kind of left me wondering... so is something messing up data basically so that things are at slightly different coordinates than where they appear to be... which means the problem isn't lag related at all. Overlapping object instances?

Me and the other BB's always aim to please.

Ha! Not really. I know the other Yamato must be a fake one!

If you realize these things when in battle against 'your ship', it will feel a bit like landing in the Twilight Zone...

Too well armoured!

Stock answers won't do much in extraordinary situations. This is one reason, BTW, why we need faster reaction to problems form WG here, because otherwise a lot of people will start to go through a set of unnecessary and useless re-installs and other procedures to no effect. Edited: Costumer Ticket screenshot in the quote removed.

Spotted @powerverdein his Smolensk, on the opposite team. After that I got his undivided attention in my GK.... I'm back to port, they have to finish the battle without my contribution...

This is in jest, surely?

I think I had some DNS related probs earlier today just to add to the general confusion. Earlier times I've had that pink 'award' because of some kind of connection problem too. This happens if you get the problem right at the start (in the past days I seen ships D/C before the battle starts) and cannot reconnect fast enough to take part.

That's funny, cause normally my team is crippled with me...

I got kicked in battle, re-connected, saw my ship sinking and we lost the battle right then.

I'm having high hopes for that fuzzy logic think I've heard about.

At least they should be better equipped to detect and verify the problem as regular players, as we also don't know exactly how WG staff monitor potential gameplay problems apart from when something still being tested.

A bad enemy CV is always preferable, yes. Partly for the same reasons, partly for other reasons IMO. It's not as crucial if you ships has good AA, for you personally, for the team it makes a bigger difference, of course.

Wouldn't this be one of those situations where the CC's play a role?

That is not what I meant, though, although anecdotal evidence does point to the fact that playing an AA build is the best way to make sure there is no CV on the enemy team. What I meant was that if I have a ship which lacks AA but is strong otherwise, I rather face a weak CV who maybe completely clueless or at least fairly ineffective, rather than a good CV who instantly knows which ships to target. If I have a weak AA/good gun ships, that IMO makes me a priority target for a top notch CV player intending to maximise their own effectiveness on the outcome of the battle.

Yes it does.

Well, if it comes down to a bad CV vs a good CV on the enemy team, the bad one is the one I'd prefer to see there.

Hey, that exact torp thing happened to me yesterday! It was one of those RN cruisers which I had sunk, but its torpedo spread should have hit me but I just saw at least one of the torps go right under my keel which, obviously, is just not possible.

At least they get paid for playing the game. That's a difference, you know. Sure makes it much more fun!

If nothing else convinces people, watching from 6:15 onward is pretty conclusive.

Plus we are allowed to use legal mods.

I just realized.. this could mean WG can add non-existent fantasy versions of non-existent Soviet ships in the game... mind blowing.