Deckeru_Maiku

Shouldn't be problematic to use the same mechanic that keeps me from most of the utterly ugly "camos" that infect the game - just let them be seen by people who "opt in" or to be sure that no problems occur just make them visible on the users' screen who uses them. Solved problem, WG. Send me a cheque.. (so yeah, even though I think I had them turned off because "meh, colours" I see that explanation as another sh*tty excuse for sh*tty programming by WG)

Still it'S possible to check his stats and 532 battles in CVs and 46.43% winrate with mediocre average damage is even worse my quite potato-ish performance in CV. So, nope, that opinion is about as much as that screenshot.

I'm not a decent CV player and I only took my Furious against the overmighty bots of CoOp and needed two attempt to hit a - bot controlled - DD with rockets. After I stuck two torpedoes into it I finally finished it with a carpet bombing attempt... Okay.. a bot DD as the target. But I'm far away from being a "decent CV player". So if any CV players now would start whining that they can't ger rockets to work anymore, there's several options for what to do: 1. choose other targets than DD. 2. git gud. 3. go back playing BBs... So, Sun, you're absolutely right with Your post..

Thanks... I noticed that the Gallant is now available for coal, and if I wouldn't have it in my harbour already for when she was available from a mission she would be a candidate to spend my coal on

Would there be a chance for me to too get a ship to enjoy? As I don't like T9/T10 meta and gameplay right now I'm left with Flint, Marblehead and Lazy... sorry.. Lazo left to buy for coal. Would be fab if there would be some interesting ships ~T3 to T6 available for coal.

But in games like Silent Hunter etc. there's only player that has to have fun. What people think about a class of ships that is only fun to the one controlling it has been shown by CVs already - no need to implement another.

Testing new ways to earn money...

I really don't want to see what that WG HQ building would do to this dutch female reproduction organ building...

Would be interesting to hear about all the complains about russian players gaming PCs melting due the amount of graphic data they would have to work with...

Still it is important to state one's opinion. I already stopped paying WG quite a while ago. So voicing my opinion is the next best option. WWII Subs didn't make BBs obsolete. They managed to sink a couple capital ships, usually when those were on transfer routes, but their job was hurting supply transfers. So the whole concept of putting subs into a naval battle surrounding stinks worse than a month old herring in the fridge. And still, with following their concept WG will probably reach the non-existent goal of BBs becoming even more obsolete, as it will be just another nail in the "non passive border/island humping meta" All the people that think that subs will make gameplay "more active" will be in for some interesting experiences. While I go playing CoOp...

Marked the important - although utterly stupid and false - thing said re-read what he wrote.. it's not DD players, but frustrated CV players, whose only fun in the game to make DD players life a bit more miserable by sicking their rocket planes upon them... probably a bunch of ~40% CV players, who, when attacking anything but DDs, only manage to play "Flak Pokemon Go"

Will never hit the game, as playing with it would way too complicated for the clientele that WG targets (= potatoes with more money than braincells..)

Implement as T11 give them -1 MM so they meet only T10 ships, no lower tiers limit to one SuperBaBBy per team give double exp for damage done against it.... ??? winrar...

There's no need for an aimbot when playing CVs.. But I agree with all the rest.

Unlike against CVs there are ample options to defend against DDs. Of course it takes a little bit of brains... which might be the biggest problem with DDs, considering the average skill level and - probably - IQ of WoWs players..

Yeah, a horrible thought that CVs suddenly are helpeless victims of the circumstances and have utterly no targets left, now that they can't rocketspam DDs any longer... Oh.. wait... Nah.. BaBBies are surely not worth it going after them, right?

And I play a shipload of DDs and learned the hard way that spotting enemy DDs and even marking them with the "shoot at this ugly f*cker pls" does exactly nothing. BaBBies and Cruisers happily blast away at all enemy Cruisers or even better BaBBies that aren't even close to the competed cap, but ignore the visible enemy DD because... well.. too hard to hit? Or a case of "not my problem, I'm here to farm damage" or just outright stupidity... So sorry that I don't pity You for Your bad experiences with bad DDs... but it's not only a DD problem.

While of course all the other heroic ships (BaBBies, SuperBaBBies and Cruisers), humping islands like if they are paid for it, start shooting immediately at each spotted enemy DD...

A mode with T11 ships? What could not be great with it... it will be like T10 battles, only more so... Of course it's great that it keeps many people busy that would infest the Tiers that I prefer to play

...or just dodge oh.. wait...

Of those three only the second option - put them subs into a operation and have them attack convoys - is the only feasible one, but of course will never ever be implemented, because WG only listens to the spreadshiet and hopes to get new paying customers by putting subs into randoms, no matter how bad they end up for the gameplay. Like the CV reeework, too much money has been invested in cooking up sub gameplay to have not a splendid success with them... And larger teams? Really? Usually now there's only two to five good players in any given team. You can't hope to get the game working with subs when you push even more potatoes in the teams. To get better gameplay it would be a lot better to have smaller teams - nine players - on the existing maps, as this would make camping less of an option. Of course without subs in random... You can write that and mean it serious after the CV-reeework and the Captain skill reeeework which are both overwhelmingly judged "utterly effed up and bad for the game"?

THAT I do believe. But there's a difference between "gathering" and "taking account of" feedback. Gathering it just to drop it into the shredder isn't really helpful. Sorry, but I don't judge WG by "this version of submarine test" but by the BS they did over the last couple years, where there were lots of occasions when they acted fully opposite than they were advised by players who knew what they were talking about. WG has an idea and will force-feed it to all players, if they want it or not. CV-reework, Captain skill reework, submarines, planes flooding World of Warplanes (with ships) and whatsnot... No, WG has a great history of utterly ignoring feedback.

And of course then an german airstrike will happen and a Fritz X (or more..) will launched at that italian ship... so it can do a really nice Roma imitation

None. I'm not grinding for any ships. I just play those that I like to play.

I think it stopped being about CV and/or RU CV quite a while ago... Yay, party!!!!