NewHorizons_1

Ah ha! He is truly fortunate, for he has finally found the promised seas that is the Ocean map.

Kinda feel sorry for the OP. This thread deffo needs a health warning on it. "If you value your IQ, be somewhere else"

Existential crisis yet?

Truth Social?

Probably something along the lines of

A 10 year old Trump?

Nor did he grasp my plainly worded statement and tried to claim it meant something it didn't just because it offered an alternative explanation to his conclusion

I never said that. I said that in the case of co-op it is certain that many sub players are not very good. Hence

Certainly in co-op, not sure about Randoms, a lot of sub players are just plain bad I'm afraid to say. Access to subs, especially the high tier ones, has been far, far too easy. I've seen players with accounts that are only two or three weeks old who have been in T10 subs. Their highest tier surface ships are premiums, and their tech tree ships are still low/mid tier. They must basically use these premiums to get the T6 sub, and then use that (and the premiums) to get to the T8. Rinse & repeat for the T10 subs. Many have Random WRs around 45% (or worse) and their co-op stats aren't great either. OK, a good player may initially score poorly as they familiarize themselves with submarines, but most sub players just aren't very good. I suspect some of these players do privately recognize they're not great (in surface ships) and use the sub's stealth in an attempt to survive longer.

A bit late for "Happy Pi Day"

Unlocking Kléber with just 11hours of Premium remaining. Gotta say though that the grind through Mogador was fun.

A high-tier sub's underwater mobility is one of many issues that contribute to DDs being of the least capable surface ships to counter subs. However, I don't think the playerbase wants, or needs, to get into a "lack of common sense" contest with WG - we'll loose (I hope).

Even though I loathe the implementation of subs I'm kinda inclined to vote no as there's no logical reason it should. RPF at the moment detects subs on the surface or at periscope depth and that's fine for me. However, the RADAR detection of subs at periscope depth should deffo be restored back to what it used to be, as that happened IRL. I'd also get rid of that ridiculous initial cooldown for a sub's hydrophone so that they can hunt for each other ASAP.

WG introduced a delay in the rocket plane attack. You'll notice they now strafe their attack point with machine guns. You can then use that info to dodge in the couple of seconds before the rocket salvo hits.

Agreed. WG: Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.

What springs into my mind when I hear sentences which contain WG and "insurance"

You mean we don't???

Yup, hardly touched Kansas since early access despite having the garish perma camo on. Oddly enough, this weekend might be one of the few times I play it :- 200% of not a lot will hopefully be something. Unlocked Haarlem a month or two ago and that is underwhelming. HE feels like your firing flour bombs, AP hits as hard as a shuttlecock. Reload is bad, accuracy isn't great either. Airstrike can do something useful, occasionally, bit seems to be highly RNG dependant. Albermarle seemed great in comparison. Harbin seems OK, but I have a preference for CLs, so there could be a bit of personal bias there.

There was a suspicion that the [CLAWS] bots were abusing the recruitment drive to get Amazon vouchers. But thankfully WG appeared to clamp down on that some time ago. As for the Pommern potatoes, probably FreeXP, credits, commander XP and daily crates I guess. Co-op has 25% lower running costs and premium ships have camos that reduce the expense too, so I guess even Mr. 1% can (slowly) make a profit. Heck, it's not like those guys are shelling out on main gun ammo (pun intended) - they're appear to be derping around with secondaries, ramming and the occasional torp.

It is. I'm almost tempted to get Pommern myself and see how badly I can potato in it.

Botting exists, but I don't think it is rife - the examples I gave above stand out because they are rare, statistical outliers. If it was rife, there would be bots in every match, though a while ago co-op was infested by the [CLAWS] clan of bots - thankfully no more. My gut feeling about how widespread hack/cheat mods are is that they're also quite uncommon. I think most accusations of hacks/cheats are due to players not fully understanding game mechanics or lack of knowledge of certain ships. For example a team mate, in co-op, got salty that I stole a kill by burning down a bot Montana in my AP-only Plymouth. He probably ignored that fact its secondaries fire HE shells. Someone else got accused of cheating in Vampire II (IIRC) because they didn't realize it has a creeping smoke generator & hydro.

There are some well-known potatoes sailing Pommerns/FdG/Bismarck/Agir in co-op that are suspected of being bots. They have predictable behaviour, Eg abandoning a flank to sail across the back of the map to then face the centre cap zone. Main battery guns rarely point anywhere vaguely useful and just derp into secondary/torp range of the bots. WG could probably run down the stats database and flag up suspicious accounts which could be monitored more closely, eg do they actually aim their main guns? Here are 3 off the top of my head. Also, given that CV players get an AFK warning if they don't drop aircraft ordnance, maybe BBs should get a warning if the main guns are never fired or aimed to get a lock.

Be VERY careful with statements like that. WG: You want more of them?

Me too.