Deckeru_Maiku

Yes, that Sims was definately sealclubbing.

Only proves that being a unicorn has nothing to do with computer hardware skillz Nonetheless should 8mb stream cache be quite good for most applications, as it is four times the number used by the standard config.xml. Assigning 8 GB would be rather close to overkill though, as I don't think that the in game effects memory needs are in the gigabyte department...

I hope You did not have to go beyond your credit card limit to finance the Mikasa... Oh... wait... Prince Albert, Dunkerque, Itchy Suzi, Arizona, Texas, Warspite, Sch'norst, Tripitz, Mumblehead, Diana, Graf Spee, De Grasse, Aurora, Murmansk, Motolov, Spamlanta, Atergo, Leningrad, Anshan, Blitzkrawicka and Yen Lo Wang in your port... yeah, makes a lot of sense to play the "but I spent real money for Mikasa" card...

Can't say I'd give a flying eff if he has or hasn't. Probably in 50% of the cases I meet a Forumista in a battle I forget to Karma them. Karma is overrated anyway

At least for that problem there is an easy solution: Don't play the T9 / T10 potato level... Every Potato wants to hve a T10 ship. None of them get better during the journey to the top. So of course sooner or later all potatoes end up at T9 / T10 playing like potatoes do... And at the same time, many better players have fun at T5 to 7 - that's where the fun in WoWs is!

Well, maybe because the lack of programming skill needed to pull something like this off? They don't even THINK about allowing to let the main guns lock two (or more) seperate targets at the same time with different turrets. My guess is, their engine doesn't allow it. And they lack any idea how to make the engine allow it. For that reason I don't expect them to be able to allow assignment of more than one target to AA and/or secondaries either. Instead of having to assign targets for AA I'd rather see the "bubble principle" worked out better, with bubbles for different sections of the ship which resemble the original firing arcs of AA guns in that section. By this bubbles would only be allowed to add up when the planes are at a position they could really be fired at. But considering the position CVs have in WGs money making strategy, I don't expect any change of AA of any kind to happen ever. Edit: or if there will be a change, it will somehow "surprisingly" arrive at the same time as russian CVs, as there is absolutely no russian bias in this game at all.

People rarely whine about ONE player being an utter potato in ONE battle. Things might be a wee bit different, if You end up with a potato percentage above 50 in more than 50% of your battles. Especially when it seems one team is nearly fully made up of potatos while the other seems to feature only Unicorns. I'm not calling for the elitist's choice of a purely skill related MM - because it would be utter crap, as sooner or later everybody would end up with a 50% winrate, Unicorns and Potatoes alike - but making the MM to set up teams by different factors INCLUDING winrate (as measurement of skill) as a kind of balancing factor seems quite okayish to me. Like... When setting up the MM right now, it seems that it tries to balance sides at least a bit by assigning about the same number of ships per type and tier to each side. And if possible also the same nations... Now let's think it further... how about the groups of ship types would also be measured by an addition of it's players winrates? Like... 5 BBs per team. Team one has BB players with 45, 50, 52, 53 and 55% winrates. Total = 255 "points". Now the other side should have about the same number of winrate "points" in their BB group. Maybe it ends as 75, 75, 25, 25 and 55, maybe more close to what the other team looks like... But at least it might result in one team having a bunch of average BB players, while the other gets two unicorns, but also has to compensate for two obvious potatoes in BBs. Wouldn't work for CVs though, unless not only the number, but also about the same skill level would be enforced when setting up teams. I don't expect something like this (all of the above) is ever to happen... bit one can dream, right?

I support this.

Meaning: if You don't manage to use Gneisenau as it is supposed to, don't play Bismarck, as You probably wouldn't play it as it is supposed to. In New Mexico You have 22% main gun hit rate, but 59k average damage and a survival rate of nearly 60%. Long range sniping much? In Kongo you have 18% main gun hit rate and 36k average damage. And again survival rate of about 70%?!? More long range sniping? You have great winrates in both of them, but your stats show you do not carry, but get carried a lot. In Gneisenau You suddenly have a 28% main gun hit rate - way better - and 51k average damage. Survival rate is at ~55% or so. So again lots of shooting from long range, right? And the "incredibly random" guns seem to work better than those on New Mex and Kongo. Gneisenau can stand against most T8 BBs when used wisely. It has great guns and can take a beating. It even has torps to give it an edge in close combat. So sniping from long range isn't the way to play her... Now try to check what that would mean when You go into a Bismarck: Bismarck is great at tanking and doing close combat with it's secondaries. So sticking at max range with her is rather meh... You might get good damage over the battle, but that doesn't count for much unless You use the Bismarck for tanking. So, when You're not going to tank in the Gneisenau You probably won't do that in the Bismarck either. And if this really is the case, then I'd rather see You in another ship. Or on the opposing team. Whatever.

I think anybody who fails at Gneisenauing should not Bismarck.

One reason why I usually fire my MoO's guns like this... Aim at BB, shoot one gun... if Fire achieved wait If fire gets drenched fire all other guns else shoot next gun goto 3 else goto 2. watch enemy BB burn down like a candle if enemy BB is still alive go to 2 else look for next BB restart procedure from 1. Of course you can add a bit of sugarcoating to it if the burning enemy BB still offers you broadside and use a bit of AP to add to all the fire damage...

Is it sealclubbing when you torp a DD with a Langley autodrop torpedo squad?

WG doesn't even get it done to allow main guns to select different targets at the same time. How could you expect them to do something like that for the secondaries? Right now the "automatic" secondaries fire at the nearest trget in their fire arc, unless you designate one main target for a broadside. And how many targets should we be able to designate? Two? Three? Depending on position of the AA guns / secondary guns? Or on caliber? Secondaries and AA are okay as they are. Don't touch them.

Warspite has lousy AA, a deck drenched in fuel and a mediocre main gun range. The only thing that makes her special and valuable for people enjoying going into knife fight range is her secondaries, which deal death all around her to everything getting close enough. If that would be castrated by making secondaries only fire on a single target at a time the only thing keeping the Warspite from being utterly meh would be taken away.

NO! Just effing NO! Warspite is already effed enough, so castrating her secondaries by such a dumb move would make quite a few people storm WG's offices with torches and pitchforks! Me among them!

If I would get that ugly Mother Russia camo, would I be able to SELL it for dubloons?

Opinions about the looks of the "Mother Russia" camo might differ, though... for me it even beats the utterly ugly "Star & Stripes" camo... And the Red October... well, I only played it for the containers in PvE battles... and faced it in PvP battles. Can't say that it impressed me much, but that might come from the fact, that by giving the ship away "for free" there are quite a few potatoes driving around in it.

afaik You could even play it with a 7 player division... Nonetheless I got 4 stars in a win with a 3 man division I wasn't even part of. So it IS possible to get at least 4 stars with a random team

sounds like the typical weekend BaBBies found their way into the Halloween event.

too bad that isn't true... very often the biggest morons survive until the end of the battle, without doing anything good all game long though.

I got 168 battles in the Mikasa and a winrate of 57% in it. I use the captain of my Fuso in it, who is specialised in secondaries. I stick the secondary flags on the Mikasa when I play her. I have lots of fun in this nice little ship. I don't see any need for a MM change, although I am not against getting the Yubari/Katori targetting system for the Mikasa. Would mean even more fun...

Soooo... all OMNI players are supposed to be Unicorns, or what?

It all depends on the team you get. I played it only three times now and got one loss, one two star and one four star victory. For the loss the team was horrible. Two star win came with a full random team and the four star victory was done by 4 randoms and a 3 man division. So good team (best: 7 man division of Unicorns) means better chance for a 5 star win.

Met @P2Win in battle today - too bad he was on the opposing team. My team lost... Gave some Karma and had a small chat before the battle ended.

I can assure you, when you use the proper launch angle, you can hit a BB with 2 to 3 torpedoes from the Langley. I don't play CVs that often anymore, but often enough when I want to club some seals or a mission asks for planes shot down or something, and I still manage to keep my winrate with the Langley at 68% with 41k average damage, even though I regularly go after cruisers and DDs too. Of course it is way easier to sealclub with the Hosho and it's two TB squads. Even with autodrop the Hammer & Anvil drop works great. So removing manual drop from T4/5 did imho nothing to stop sealclubbing. @OP I never encountered a drop like the one You describe in game ever...