NothingButTheRain

This bolded part is indeed my point. It's just a waste of time for me. Considering the rest, as long as you can't bother to accurately and correctly state/reiterate what I said, this dialogue will remain pointless. Example: "I didn't misinterpret what you were saying." along with stuff like "You keep overstating the amount of DDs relevant to the discussion. It makes it seem like you're arguing against someone that wants a game that's number wise completely dominated by DDs." Because 1) I never stated so and 2) this isn't my opinion anyway. But you want it to make it so or something and this makes arguing with you extra tiresome and less fruitful. Fix this and then maybe we can talk. But as long as you keep up with this BS I can't be bothered with trying to understand your opinion, sorry!

I get reported quite a lot, even for the most trivial things. I know because I often lose karma without getting a chat ban. Arguing with these people will never work, so just ignore them. If they are getting obnoxious, block them so their chatrage won't litter your GUI anymore and be done with it

It's too bad that most people are not going to oblige, partially because people never learned to deal with icky situations. Instead of dealing with them, many people tend to avoid them as this is what they learned worked for them (perhaps due to the internet being more anonymous, so one could always escape from a sticky situation and not have to actually deal with the situation via communicating and selfreflection, etc).

I'd still like to see Hawaii...with a pineapple permacamo

One of the facts that I used, was the soft-limit WG implemented to limit the number of DDs. It's really hard to argue that this isn't a fact my dude. You can read about it here Here it is. The fact that I used to found my opinion with. This is really a fact that I used, my dude. But of course according to you wargaming is completely incompetent or something. Obviously this webpage with this specific update cannot be true Now the interesting question is why you are tryharding in the way that you are. Because obviously you want this to be true. While in fact it is not. You can cut out with the retard mode now my dude. Don't be stupid. I was referencing you wanting the bad players to be in a place where they have the least influence. And DDs have the most influence (provided there isn't a carrier in the match). Same thing with giving the gun (which is an anology for influence in this example) to someone who knows how to responsibly handle the influence (the professional instead of the drunk kid) Could you please clarify with what you mean with . Then don't cut up what I said after which you (deliberately or not) misinterpret what I say. Because that is stupid, whether you like it or not. I'm not sure what you mean with this, but I have stated at the very least some facts. So where is your facts anyway? Or are you just trying to verbally assault me, try to attack the messenger and not the message? Because you are getting sloppy in your writing. Cut that out, it only makes stuff harder to read anyway. inaccuate words? I suppose you meant 'inaccurate words', right? So which words of mine would these be my friend? And could you please elaborate on what you mean with me making my opinion seem stronger and then me complaining that you called me out on such behavior? Could you show me an example of this? You did and I already explained where and why. I also explained it again in this post. I'm not gonna keep explaining again just because you are apparently having such a hard time acknowledging it. I know you read it, it wasn't hard to understand. So you are saying that it doesn't matter how potato the DDs in your team are? Too bad my dude but it does. Now I'm not gonna lecture you about how random battles are supposed to be team-oriented games etc etc. You should already know that. It does matter. It's how this game is basically set up. Nobody wants to have a shitty match just because some of their teammates turn out to be ddegenerates. Sure, potato players have the right to play the game provided they stay within the rules wargaming gives us, but this is not something that I ever denied So where did I write that these games were in fact the norm? Or that these games were representative as you called it? You got 1 thing right, nobody was arguing that these games were the norm, but then why did you bring this up in the way that you did anyway? And it's not like we're going to agree on this subject anyway, so I'm probably gonna be leaving it at that since this dialogue seems to me kinda like a waste of time.

WG started doing this after the problems they got when they tried to open up a way to nerf the OP premiums (which iirc ran aground due to people wanting their money back but WG offering only back the doubloons, though it was a bit more complicated then that). The special ships are basically tech tree ships, but with the ability to switch commanders and come with the same permacamos and service cost reduction as a proper premium ship would. But WG can also decide to nerf these ships, if they would want to. Unlike premium ships which they are more unlikely to nerf.

There is probably some scientific explanation that can explain people having had these kinda of observations

With superior conceilment you can get away with a lot of things. Just a couple days ago I was playing daring and got completely outplayed by a shima who knew how to use his lower conceilment value to his best advantage

Or perhaps it's just another case of reading-potatoism

I will simply reply to this that I respect you for having a different opinion about this, even though you (contrary to me) did not even try to found your opinion with facts. Would you hand over the gun to the trained professional soldier or to a drunk kid? Now don't go start being dumb. I said this: but wargaming does want this game to be successful and this cannot be the case if half of all people playing wows, play DD. I didn't say this: Half of all players playing DDs? Are you saying that WG doesn't know how to balance? The fact that in some situations WG chooses not to balance some element of the game optimally, doesn't mean that they are incapable to. You're starting to make kinda dumb assessments. Obviously wargaming is capable of balancing. If you think that a multimilion gaming company like wargaming is not capable of this, you really are starting to show you are reaching your cognitive maximum here. At least try to state facts instead of trying to mimic me or something I never said there are many of them period. I said this: Significantly dumbing down the game will cause an increase in DD players, which will be bad for the game. Wows simply cannot handle that many DDs. And lets be real, most of those returning DDs will be players disgrunted with how hard it is to play DD these days...because the players who are able to manage playing DDs are probably the better DD players overall. Better DD players equals higher quality games. If you can't handle the task overlaod of DD, then you are simply not fit to play DD. Most kids who wanted to become a jet fighter pilot or an astronaut will also be unfit for the task. Now obviously this is a game and things are different, but wargaming does want this game to be successful and this cannot be the case if half of all people playing wows, play DD. Another reason why we know WG thinks DDs are fine as is, is because of what they say about interclass balancing: When a class in its entirety becomes too unpopular, they are probably gonna buff the entire class. WG has the numbers and apaprently they believe that a global DD buff is not in order because DDs are popular enough in current meta. And lets face it, WG creating a soft cap for the max amounts of DDs is not a clear sign that WG believes there are too few DDs sailing around. Now the problem with DDs these days is that there's so many of them and that there are so few of them when the timer hits the 1st 5 minutes played. You are trying to chop down what I said into very little pieces, dragging them outside of their context and changing the meaning of what I said. You even break down sentences in half and then proceed to respond to only the first half of it Are you really trying to convince people with such cheap tactics? Perhaps the ddegenerates will keep believing you, just keep hoping and spamming more intellectual dung right! People will believe you for sure! You may not like it (and you have said something similar earlier to which I have already replied), but wargaming is competent They often choose not to do so though, but they know fairly well what they are doing (though could still be a bit better). I already explained this here. Hint: that game of mine in which there were more DDs than all the other classes combined. And btw, if you want me to clarify things for you, you're gonna have to put some more effort in trying to understand what I say without breaking down what I say in so small peaces that they loose their meaning, because that won't help you understand in the long run. Not just wargaming. Perhaps we should ask wargaming them what the purpose of battleships are. Or perhaps some other more informed people here could fill us in? If you had thought a little bit more, you could have spotted that error by yourself. Now you saw something you perceived as an opening to attack my opinion. Feel free to keep doing that, but I can tell you that I am quite experienced dealing with textual rushernoobs (and of course you aren't one). Choose your words more wisely. Or don't, whatever

I think it's hard to know how many of what WG sells the most. I think it's better that most newb players buy premium battleships. Wouldn't want them buying premium destroyers right? I don't see WG selling this game as world of mighty battleships, but it does make sense to market a game about ships with the ships that people know the best. But having said all of this, all of this is no valid reason as to why WG put the soft limit of 4 DDs there. These points may be valid by themselves but don't appear to have anything to do with this max DD limit. It could be partially true, but you'd have to ask wargaming about this. Personally I don't see it this way as it sounds a bit ridiculous.

Nice game, but Forlorn is right. We have a thread about greatest gaming achievements. Still, well played

Yes, the case is closed. Was a case of readingpotatoism on my side And same thing here, since I have the Mo already and don't feel inclined to gamble (even if it's just little bits) to see what will be the next one.

So I bought the next 250k credit rental. This was the DoY but I had to go through it in order to get to the remaining ships that I wanted (I already have the proper version of DoY). No biggy, I wanted to see which camos I could buy for her. But apparently, I did receive the captain of the rental, but it was put on my proper DoY and the rental version was never received. This is mentioned nowhere and imo is kinda lame. What if I wanted to try out one of the doubloon ships but I had to pay the 250 doubloons for that missouri first which I already got? Is this a bug? Because imo this should have been mentioned, especially since I could have paid 250 doubloons for a 6p commander I really don't need. Anyone else have this problem? Is this a bug or is this intended? Because I think this is kinda lame as I would have probably done something different if I had known about this in advance. EDIT: Fixed, apparently I had a case of readingpotatoing

Yes I saw. I have no idea why I didn't notice this yesterday

You are right. Well that solves it at least. I potatoed on the reading department Cheers

Significantly dumbing down the game will cause an increase in DD players, which will be bad for the game. Wows simply cannot handle that many DDs. And lets be real, most of those returning DDs will be players disgrunted with how hard it is to play DD these days...because the players who are able to manage playing DDs are probably the better DD players overall. Better DD players equals higher quality games. If you can't handle the task overlaod of DD, then you are simply not fit to play DD. Most kids who wanted to become a jet fighter pilot or an astronaut will also be unfit for the task. Now obviously this is a game and things are different, but wargaming does want this game to be successful and this cannot be the case if half of all people playing wows, play DD. Another reason why we know WG thinks DDs are fine as is, is because of what they say about interclass balancing: When a class in its entirety becomes too unpopular, they are probably gonna buff the entire class. WG has the numbers and apaprently they believe that a global DD buff is not in order because DDs are popular enough in current meta. And lets face it, WG creating a soft cap for the max amounts of DDs is not a clear sign that WG believes there are too few DDs sailing around. Now the problem with DDs these days is that there's so many of them and that there are so few of them when the timer hits the 1st 5 minutes played. Wargaming thinks it's unfun. Why else do you think WG put that max there? To you it sounds that way I suppose. The soft capof max 4 DDs each team was put in palce because often there would be way too many DDs. 4 is indeed considered the absolute max and above that things will just start to turn ugly. Then I am curious to learn what you think the objective for BBs are Because in my opinion, battleships should help by using their armor to help tank for the team so the more squishy targets don't have to. And this does relate to capping. Your interpretation shows nothing of this sort and it's because you're misinterpreting me again. I imagine you do this because you want to disagree with me. Yes it does. But if you wanna keep thinking that removing all of the radars from wows is actually a good idea, then I guess we are indeed gonna have to agree to disagree here I'd suggest you do some more thinking here. Now, 1st is that you notice there is something odd with this sentence. I can tell you right now it is because of a typo on my end. "not" should have been "now". My bad, typos can happen. Now read the sentence again, it suddenly makes a lot more sense

Ohh ok. Because personally I didn't find it hard to work around the longer flooding duration. Just heal the fires and save the DCP for a flood, worked virtually always. So I had no issue with that

So why am I posting THIS pic here, in a thread about greatest gaming achievements? Well, you guessed it, it's because me and my divmate managed to help carry a match in which we were behind more than 750 points (and behind in ships)...into a victory! Replay attached 20200411_133942_PBSD109-Jutland_42_Neighbors.wowsreplay

Just to clarify, what are you referring to when you mention the flooding bit here? And I specifically mean the bolded part. Where did I mention this?

So you basically want to dumb down the game. For DD players that is And suggesting that fewer BBs and more DDs is good for the game is really a wrong turn here. There's a reason why there is a softcap for DDs and this is because games with mostly DDs are inherently unfun. I play cruiser a lot and I have to disagree with your take on too many BBs being a problem for cruisers. It's not nearly as pronounced because BBs don't carry the influence. DDs and CVs do (and CV to a larger extend than DDs in current meta). Having lots of DDs in a match will give the few BBs and few CCs in the game very few targets to shoot at. Wows needs a lot of BBs as we need fat big slow XP pinatas to farm. The crummy DD players should be playing BBs instead, so to say. And suggesting that the removal of radar in its entirety is a good idea, not that's a bad idea. Wows needs radar to help keep the DDs in check.

BBs with smoke would serve virtually no purpose whatsoever due to their poor smokefiring conceilment. Like I said, I am not against adding radar to BBs in itself, but the 12km one, those are a little bit too much if you ask me. At least the tier 8 and 9 cruisers we have now (Chapa and Donskoi) are very squishy. Perhaps you won't like me saying it, but I am kinda glad WG is considering adding radar to BBs in some form...but maybe this implementation is not the best.

Obviously such a BB would need to be balanced (heh). But having played ships like Missouri and DoY (which has hydro, which game-mechanically speaking is basically a radar with less range, longer duration and can spot torps as well), I think this can be done, especially if it's a short range radar of, say, 7km or 8km or so. Or at the very most something like Missouri has. Hunting DDs with Missouri is something that is not really that much of a broken mechanic anyway. Partially because Mo is as agile as a brick dropped from an airplane.

Do you have a source of this btw?

Look, I can't really be bothered with arguing with someone who is really tryharding to get his own point across with false logics and incorrect interpretations, mixed in with cherrypicking exact statements and taking those out of context. It east a lot of time and usually this is a troll who argues for..whatever he or she wants to argue for. But I don't share this agenda. Welcome to my ignore list, bye.