250swb

CV's and submarines, WG can f-off.

Simply, the 1.9 release of WoT has made big changes to tier I to tier VI tanks by increasing the HP of tanks, so low tier games last longer and players get to have a proper battle rather than being annihilated in the first few shots. So given the ongoing criticisms of new players not learning anything at low tiers in WoWs, like not caring or developing a winning mindset because battles are over quickly for them, WoT has endeavoured to make low tiers balanced and fun for experienced and inexperienced players alike by making survivability more important. And if experienced players could have fun again in the lower tiers it may counter the current disdain for low tier gameplay among experienced players that drives new players to rush up to tier X. Of course the length of a game in WoWs can already be long, even if the new or inexperienced player is still culled early on, so how would low tier games lasting even longer affect WoWs? It's just a thought, but I think the principle that WoT has adopted could develop their player base considerably.

This is why I haven't played for a month or so, well that and CV's. Impatient players who have no regard for trying to win and are presumably playing for only for giggles because nothing else explains the stats in this case. OP, instead of playing as if it's a simple game of chance think more in terms of playing chess, WoWs is a cerebral game when it's played well, with strategy and forward planning and remember the fun comes when the enemy explode, not you.

After playing WoWs for over a year I recently had an enforced layoff for a month because British Telecom couldn't work out which wire went where and I was well and truly offline. The first few days were frustrating, but when I realised this could be a long haul it's amazing how many things you can find to do that are actually more fun than playing WoWs. Quiting or an enforced absence isn't the end of the world, a but over a year playing WoWs every day inures the person to the everyday niggles in playing WoWs, the mardy players, WG's antics, and so on etc. So if you want to make a comparison with famous Generals and Admirals you should know the good ones picked their own battles, they avoided battles forced on them and battles where they didn't feel they had an advantage. Most quit more often than they said 'Charge!'. So I don't buy this gung-ho 'no quit' attitude, it's just an excuse for having nothing better to do.

Very funny, it punctures a few bubbles, but don't do any more.

WoWs reminds me of somebody carrying a very heavy load on their shoulders (the load of creating ever harder and more and more pointless 'events'), and they stumble, keeping momentum but gradually sinking closer to the ground with each step forward. They haven't quite grazed their knees badly yet, but their eyes are closed fearing the bloody impact. Forward momentum can't keep them going forever, the players can't keep up to catch them before they fall. It's not the outright difficulty of the events, it's not the time spent, it's how many events are now being started but which can never be finished that count to the players, exhaustion will kill the game (unless CV's and submarines do it first).

It hardly matters how to pronounce his 'name', he could be a number, unless of course it's a case of you talking to him, I mean, you do know, that becomes a whole other problem.

The problem you've got with player base polls in WoWs is the small player base. In WoT there are so many more players, and consequently WG get scared of pissing them off, so rolling back proposed changes isn't unheard of. But in WoWs WG are instead looking for new players who want to play an additional but integrated CV game, or play an additional but intergrated submarine game. So in WoWs you will have three games going on, in WoTs you have one. WG are always going to be tempted to use WoWs as a big experiment because the kickback is still minimal, we are the mice being fed a toxic diet to see how we react. I mean, can you imagine how the WoT players would react if bombers where introduced into the game? For the the record I voted no CV at all, ever.

WoWs is infested with petty minded and spiteful people, even on this forum and not just in the game. But hey, that's life, just in real life they would't dare do or say the same thing. So much for 'a gaming society', it doesn't exist there is always somebody who wants to prove something petty and make it a big deal, because sometimes it's the limit of all they know.

What do I know, nothing really, but I'm finding the Cheshire a much more comfortable ship than the Albemarle. OK same tendency to suck shells in, but at the same time I'm happier seeing the enemy damage indicators going down in chunks and not in little iddy biddy bits. The extra three guns of the Albemarle shower confetti in comparison, so less is more.

Not sure why you can't see the breakdowns in 'Exterior' between permanent camo and those you can win or buy so this seems like a dumb question. But permanent camo is rarely, if ever, as 'profitable' as a bonus/bought camo (unless tier X) even if it comes as standard on a Premium ship. And of course it doesn't make the ship 'Premium' to use a permanent camo because you don't get any other other multipliers attached to a Premium ship such as improved Captain XP in being able to switch him between his main ship and the Premium ship.

Bictorian or Victorian who cares, the barbarians at Wargaming could have checked that Queen Victoria died in 1901, well before any of the ships had been built, but we know historical facts are sketchy at best for WG.

Do it, and often, and you will get WG's reward directed straight at you. (I mean if you have to ask wtf is the game coming to?)

Isn't the problem with the Albemarle's citadel the higher vertical face 1/4 of the way in from the bow, and a similar face 1/4 from the stern, and with nothing much above it?

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the WoT forum and wait for an MOE topic to come up, and then without biasing with your own bias just check on the WR of the player compared with the three marks they are bragging about. It's amazing how winning isn't a prerequisite. Not to mention the times you check on an awful player to find they've got something like a permanent 36% WR (so not an eBay account), but play a few tanks excessively, and have an MOE on each. The last point shows that not only don't they need a good personal game carrying WR but that just playing one tank often enough will eventually lead to the circumstances where the teams carry them to 100%.