Sybeck

Really? Miles behind? I think you have a 3km range at most on your torps? Takeaway from that the arming range/run to the target then I'd say that Kirov was a damn lot closer than miles away. Furthermore, if I had a Fuso that close to me I'm not going to wait for your planes to return or for him to flood out; so no kill steal there in my book, that was a fire now or die by Fuso situation.

Wow there is a lot of negative blow back in this thread for what was essentially a tip for staying alive longer. If I posted a tip in a bit of preachy manner (admittedly) saying "BBs don't travel in straight lines!" would so many pitch in saying, "Don't tell me how to play the game you elitist WG fanboi!"? My suspicion is no, it's just good advice, it keeps you alive longer and therefore assuming that you are not the kind of player who couldn't hit a barn door from 10ms you will earn more credits and XP and maybe win a match too. I've watched the video twice now and it's no more disparaging of other players than many threads and comments in this forum where people berate the skills and knowledge of other players in battle because said players don't know the fundamentals and tactics of the game and die too early doing nothing to help. It's simply saying, if you want to stay alive longer here is a way without spending doubloons, which he knows you players don't like spending, by using credits. If you do so then it is his estimate that in the long run it will pay for itself and you will last longer in battles. The latter point I think nobody has argued against...? So the only point of debate as I see it is whether he is correct in that it pays for itself and so far I've only seen 2 maybe 3 posts that attempt to analyse that proposition. Personally I don't think there is a definitive answer because so much depends upon tier and especially the player. My own guess would be that anyone with Premium, playing Tiers 8,9 and 10 and with a WR of 50%+ would probably benefit other than that then as I said I think it's player and tier dependent. However, just bear in mind that the OP (whatever you think of him personally) posted a very reasonable proposition and highlighted information that probably many people didn't know; as has already been shown by some posts. It is up to people whether they take his advice or not. Personally I use specific premium consumables from T7 onwards on different ships and I will vouch that they have saved my [edited]in many end game situations when for example the other side's last BB doesn't have a consumable left and I do or there is 30 secs left on a std battle cap and 2 cruisers show up to deny it and I still have a smoke left in my DD. And finally there is the plain and simple fact that the longer you are alive the more damage you will do and the more damage you do the more XP and credits you will earn and who knows, maybe it will be enough to help your side win. If your main concern though is whether you will have more or less credits after say a 100 battles then your views may differ from the Op's whose contention is that the topic is about survival while yours is about economic profitability; either way it was a useful post and useful advice to consider.

You weren't by chance captaining a ship that had torpedoes on it were you...? Failing that, you weren't just like the Pensacola in my last battle who collided and ran alongside me, but still decided that it was a good idea to let off a full broadside at the enemy regardless of whether I was in the way or not?

Can't access any of the Mission screens, daily, diamonds etc. Haven't pinned it down to one particular mod or modset yet. [EDIT] Turned off section 1 as advised and can now access missions screens.

Well their team retreating to safety I wouldn't blame on the cyclone, it was just a bad collective choice or plan on their part. Your team held fast and because of that you won and I do understand what you mean that if there is no visual contact then there will be no fighting and no excitement for some. However, I was in a cyclone match where it was 2 caps each when the cyclone started. It was obvious on our side's minimaps that we were badly out of position to defend one of our caps and in no position to take and hold the opposition's 2 caps so somebody piped up in chat with a plan to reorganise ourselves and reposition ourselves in order to defend 2 caps and launch an attack on one of theirs when the cyclone cleared. TBH I do not recall how the match ended up, but what i was struck by was that while the cyclone lasted we were able to reposition ourselves within the time, BBs to heal up and that we were able to do all this without interference or harassing fire from the enemy. Yes it was boring if you want non-stop fighting, but it was also very satisfying to take advantage of a cyclone and use it to turn a bad map position into a far much better one and to do it without being noticed by the enemy or even have them suspect and disrupt our plan.

I agree somewhat, not because of the last line of your post either. Problem I find with domination is that the caps are always in the middle, which then allows BBs to take up a camping position attacking or defending two caps at least without having to move much at all, the initial cap battle is basically decided by who comes off best in the DD rush, which as you pointed out favours the team with most DDs especially if one team has only 2 or less DDs or have a late joiner or afker. Domination battles I tend to think become skirmish battles all along the cap line while a standard battle usually involves a mass brawl on one or both sides and requires some aforethought at the start of how you will split up or manage a push down one side. I prefer the latter, but if I'm in a DD then obviously I feel more involved and important in a domination battle. I can only repeat what has been asked for many times here and that is a drop down choice of the kind of battle you would like to enter, which would end these kinds of debates.

Agreed! What were they expecting to see as vanilla started with clear...ish weather and maximum visibility? Different coloured clouds and rain, rain and fog but still maximum visibility. I think though that the ones complaining weren't the ones who were saying "gimme gimme", but ones who saw similar posts and didn't consider the consequences of what might happen if those other people got their wish. Agreed again. It can really be a game changer when it kicks in and the team that adapts best and quickest will usually come out of it with some advantage. It's not RNG as it affects both sides equally and the team who communicates best will most probably prevail.

Rather than having permanent numbers, range rings or names on the minimap I'd rather have a toggle button to switch it on/off. I've used the mods which overlay this information on the minimap and the final result imho is a complete visual cluster[edit]. Just allow me the facility to hotkey a toggle button for ranges and one for names then I'll be happy. Also, I'm not sure whether the Terrain Indicator is a good thing. It is after all the equivalent of me giving too much lead on a target and the game saying, "I wouldn't fire if I were you because you'll miss." Apart from an Atlanta and a few others, which can't hit a mountain from 10 metres away, then judging whether the trajectory or fall of your shell will clear a hill has always been part of the skill of the game and this indicator if I'm not wrong removes that skill/judgement. It also removes the hilarity of two ships on opposite sides of a peninsula edging out to make contact with each other and the trigger happy one in binocular view lets go a whole salvo into the island as soon as he sees a bow poking out. Moreover, that has led me to wonder whether the terrain indicator disappears when all turrets have a clear path or just one turret...?

Not sure that's a valid strategy in WoWs, many times I've been in battles where we don't cap and go chase/farm the corner squatters "if" the win is in the bag.

Because they want to give you something to jerk off to each night?

Well WG have a financial strategy that tempts you to buy doubloons by the bucketful and game mechanics designed to take those doubloons away from you as quickly as possible afterwards. Commander Retraining is part of their doubloon sink so don't hold your breath waiting for them to give up the chance of taking your doubloons/money and if not your money then the money of people who must regularly spend doubloons retraining commanders.

There is the report bot function ingame, which I would probably given all of them if they didn't respond to a question in chat. Saying that, would it be too hard for WG to put in some Captcha box on the battle load screen to filter bots out. If it's not filled then that ship/bot is disconnected from the server and the MM redone. If the ship does can't answer this three times, assuming it auto-relogs, then that account is suspended. Might be annoying for the rest of us for about a month, but it would certainly cull a lot of bot accounts I think.

This is not quite accurate (no pun intended) on two points. A shell can travel quite a distance underwater and the laws of physics means that it will travel roughly in proportion to its size compared to a bullet. During the battle with The Bismark one of Prince of Wales' shells fell short and was estimated to have traveled some 30 metres underwater severely penetrating the Bismark's hull and taking out two of her boilers. Secondly, although it is most likely a shell's fuze would be set off by impact with water you have to remember that AP shells had time delayed fuzes allowing for travel through water and penetration to occur before ignition. This is why overpen happens so much on DDs, the shell has penetrated, gone through the ship and out the other side before the fuze has ticked down and metal armour has a higher resistance than water. The very fact that water is not as resistant as metal, coupled with the fact that most naval vessels had less armour below the waterline, led many countries, but especially the Japanese, to develop shells with flat snub noses that when hitting the water created a cavity in the water in front of the shell to allow it to travel even further underwater, though from what I have read these weren't very practical as it was just as hard to aim a shot to fall just short of a target in those days as it was to plant one straight on a citadel area.

QFT - Some people will always attribute their bad play or bad luck to everybody else because to do otherwise would shatter their self-delusions of grandeur and there is nothing you can do to address their behaviour bar providing them with meds and/or psychotherapy.

Yay another premium ship for an already existing national fleet! You know where I want to take this post already don't you?

Well you DON'T have to report do you? You just feel the need to and can't stop yourself doing it from what you say. And btw you have only played 4 games at T9 and none at T10 so I don't think you're experience in those tiers qualifies you to comment upon general play in those two tiers.

Out of interest was there somebody there blaming it all on his n00b team?

It is also a possibility that an additional Tier 8 CV could be added in to each side during MM, which would totally screw the 2 Tier 6 CVs' day. So there is a downside, but as I see it the only advantage here is for the T6 CV getting extra XP for damage against higher tiers. T8 BBs are commonly taken out by lesser tier DDs or concentrated fire from another grouping of ships who of course will all get bonus damage XP against T8 BBs. So it's pros and cons all round for this type of scenario/rigging so I find it hard to call it an exploit. I just wish WG would make it rule that all division members must be of the same tier, is it that hard to enforce?

Well I was going to say "Yes, keep it", but I went and checked my stats - 1530 battles of which 22 were ended by me being detonated so that's about 1.5%. Number of times I've been responsible for detonating someone else according to the "Naval Warfare - Lucky Shot" achievement? ZERO! I realise this achievement was added in to the game during the time I was absent and IIRC no similar thing recorded it in the past (?) so I may have a few historical ones unrecorded, but it still seems sucky. Nevertheless, I still like the idea of it as a wildcard game changer and voted to keep it.

I assume that you've switched the router off for a few minutes then switched on and tried again? If you have then try a ping test, you might be running into a bottleneck somewhere on the electric interwebz slowing the traffic down.

Gladly no. 5 minutes at most, maybe post your ISP and PC specs. And they certainly don't roll out (on average) patches every 2-3 days either.

You know, I think this kinda sums up a whole bunch of problems within WoWs re l337$ and casuals, there is no competitive split off that the elitists would run to so that they could get away from scrubs. OFC if there were they would be bitching about lesser elites, there can after all be only ONE elite.

Well, it's not falsely accused is it? By your lack of awareness of a potential friendly fire incident you killed one of your team mates thus ruining his match and lessening your side's chance of winning. It will soon pass if you do some more battles without hitting anymore team mates, but just bear in mind that if there is any chance of hitting an ally then don't fire.

You may want to specify the time to your particular timezone to avoid confusion. Like +1 or -1 GMT or ECT