El2aZeR

Uh, no. You are practically required to take BFT and AFT which along with infinite charges of DFAA is enough to utterly demolish any CV in your tier spread. Not taking these means you've severely misskilled. And don't come up with the possibility of taking hydro. T7 is low enough to still frequently see CVs.

....Helena is T7 and carries sufficient AA to make same or lower tier CVs cry. Nowadays low tier CVs are worthless anyway in terms of game impact as they can't hit anything with some minor application of WASD and engagements are fought at shorter ranges, meaning spotting is less powerful too.

That reason being WG porting the game to consoles. As such this has no value with the discussion at hand. Just sayin'.

Which is clearly why she was used in competitive as a no fly zone.

Astoria and Quincy don't look very treaty compliant to me. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Can't say I share the same experience. Then again I've been pretty much only playing short range rapid firing cruisers lately so I probably wouldn't even notice.

Honestly I rarely have to wait for more than 1 minute to get into a battle in a CV even past peak times. You have to play at ungodly hours to get queue times like this.

And yet we tolerate the presence of IJN ships in this game. To clarify I'm not making light of the crimes committed, but it all seems hypocritical to demand one ship to be removed due to her service when others are not only fine but are presented as one of the premier tech trees of this game. I'm of Chinese descent, my grandparents lived through the Japanese occupation and just remembering the few things they were willing to talk about chills me to the bone. Yet I'm not offended at all that WG included IJN ships. And really, no one should be. If you want to blame something, blame the people who made the decisions, not the means with which they accomplished them. One has the power to choose, the other does not. You could also view it as an educational opportunity. People who buy her may get interested in her history and learn of what happened, while those that don't will never learn of it anyway. Keeping history alive is an important venture, especially now when actual memories become increasingly sparse and lessons learned have begun to fade.

Quite frankly I believe that has nothing to do with radar. I consider it a bad day nowadays when I don't get a cap in my one of my CVs.

"I didn't murder him, Officer! He just died of blood loss from my bullet, therefore I didn't kill him and am innocent!"

I distinctively remember that an official Q&A or sth of the sort did state that RU BBs were planned towards the end of the year if they can make their schedule. Can't be bothered to look for it now tho. Maybe someone else has it on hand?

Why anyone is excited for another pseudo-BB is beyond me. It's as if 10 BBs per match wasn't enough already.

...so you're playing a BB that has an even higher chance to overpen at close range than the Alsace? Let me guess, you didn't aim for the waterline either? USS Helena once ignited herself because an expended shell casing of hers was too hot. Warships were and probably still are literally as susceptible to fire as dry wood. If this game were realistic you would burn on pretty much every hit.

Actually considering they already have a playable prototype that has been in testing for quite a while I'd say a September release doesn't strike me as too unrealistic.

Don't think they're wrong. She just has ridiculous high heels that make her legs appear way out of proportion.

Look at the date I wrote that. Now back to me. Now back to the date. Now back to me. Sadly, you didn't do it before submitting your response.

If you'd spend as much time learning to play as you do on writing these whine posts and insulting anyone who disagrees with your hilariously flawed opinions, maybe you can actually improve at the game.

You don't want to know the answer to questions like these. Down that path lies nothing but madness and severe depression.

"Usually" is the operative word in that sentence. Yes, but that is extremely unlikely to happen. Just as unlikely as someone getting a high WR by sheer luck. What it requires however is a large sample of games. The more you have, the more accurate your stats represent you.

I've been saying that the entire time. We've been arguing over nothing. :D Yes ofc. Which is why WR being luck based is utter bollocks.

As long as you have played a sufficient sample of games, no. WR in combination with other stats is a clear indicator of how well you're doing in the game. To put things into perspective, if WR truly was completely random you'd have a FAR better chance of picking up a grain of sand in a desert, throwing it away in a random direction and then finding and picking it up again than getting a high WR. In fact Whoops, miscalculated that. My bad. Still very much worthwhile the investment. Again, I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't use camo is automatically a potato. It's just that potatoes tend to sail around without camo more often than skilled players, making it a fairly reliable tell. Just like how potato BBs tend to camp at the map border.

"We're looking into solutions for BB overpopulation." - WG 2016

Great. Still got more experience than you. Though if you want to I can start a table of how well people without camo are doing in high tiers, which I can already fill with a dozen or so players I've encountered in the past few weeks. None of them had a WR above 45%. Even if you want to save money, throwing away camo will have a minuscule impact on that. In fact it may cause you to lose money as it makes you perform worse. And quite frankly if you think a whole 600m advantage for a QE isn't worth the minuscule credit investment then I've got nothing more to say.

Great for you. Since I however have a larger sample of games, thus more experience, it stands to reason that what you've seen is much more rare in comparison.