Aethervoxx

Are you really this paranoid? I do not nor would 'follow you around on the forum'.

As if this is the case. Nice try to lie, Sprockett. Posters who have to lie are nothing but 'sea scum'.

Awww, Bear Necessities .... you didn't carry hard enough .... maybe this post topic of 'carry harder' is, in fact, a blatant falsehood. Is this 'whine 9000'? Your WR isn't high enough? I guess Unicums are allowed to whine too. What kind of cheese do you want with your w(h)ine?

* AgarwaenMe, you realize (or don't you?) your 'Dunning-Kruger Effect' diagram has two Dunning Kruger spelling mistakes. Removed* Non-Dunning Krugers can easily spot them. Can you?

Fortunately, management at WG/WoWS 'cured' me of any gambling addiction I may have been prone to ..... Their CV rework (& so much they've done since then) have ensured I have no 'want' of anything that I might have been tempted to buy .... Why, you'd almost think WG/WoWS was in a 'missionary temperance society' ?

Quit bragging (& looking at your face in a mirror, Narcissus).

I played my Montecuccoli & got a compliment from a teammate. After the W what happened but WoWS bribed me with a rental Molotov & the offer of a coupon to buy it. As if I'd ever spend money after what WoWS has done to CVs (the rework disaster) & all the other subsequent disasters.

RTS CVs are & were good for WoWS. The reworked CVs wreaked WoWS. War Failing still hasn't returned any of the odd tier CVs. This fact, alone, tells you something - WF does half-assed alterations.

CVs are 'navigable'. In fact, this is one of the basic & easiest things to do with a CV. Haven't you, Pete, ever played a CV & navigated it to near the middle of a map? Nothing wrong with a CV being in the center of the map depending on the situation, ofc. Really good CV players will even cap, if safe to do so.

I don't get your point here AgarwaenMe. ... 'babies' ... Who might these be? I understand WoWS is for ages 7+. Do you even have a point, AgarwaenMe? One can jump out of the queue if you see an unfavourable spread of ship types & you exit before the automated queue system assigns you to battle

It's more like the Pete Ostrich putting it's head in a hole in the ground. We have to be polite. If it weren't for the EULA, you'd be called a lot of 'names'. It's like he lives here. ROFL. We are not discussing you, lol. We are disagreeing with your utter contrarianism Why are you looking in a mirror? There is no one behind you or following you. It's just you.

I 100% agree with you El2aZeR. I still rue the day that WG, in it's entirely debatable wisdom, removed RTS style CVs from play. I sold all my CVs (including the GZ). I quit playing CVs for over a year. Then I repurchased reworked T4 CVs simply to grief T4, etc players. Yes, that was a negative revenge sentiment. Today, I am proud to say I'm reworked CV free as I got rid of all those 'parasites'. Ofc, I'm still upset with WG for removing RTS CVs*. Look at all the complete failure 'so-called improvements' WoWS has made since they wreaked their own game. * note how the 'imcompetents' have still not re-introduced any odd tier CVs .... how long has the CV rework been live now?

You are INCORRECT, Pete, as (your words) "that would not be RNG." What is the abbreviation RNG, Pete? What does that stand for if not 'range'? ...."that would not be RNG." You mean to say that missing or hitting shots is not 'range' or 'RNG' (for short)? Are you just 'contrarian' by nature, Pete? Are you denying RNG is not 'range' (as in a distance for shells to hit)? Which is it, Pete or is it both? Since 'RNG' is an abbreviation this is not a 'word'. So, Pete, what 'word' are you referring to? Try harder , Pete, to make sense, because I can't see any 'sense' to your argument (your 'argument', imho, being extremely contrarian & obfuscatory).

Oh yes it is. Who else controls the RNG, Pete, if it isn't WG? Do tell us, one who knows it all. & the MM is 100% ruled by the game software so there's your 'rule', Pete.

I find it disgusting these posters here who say your WR is all on you - as 'you' are the only constant. What nonsense. #1) In randoms (or any other 12 player a side mode) there's 11 other players so it's never just you. #2) The MM builds the teams. There's various opinions as to what the MM actually does. Fact is, WoWS controls the MM 100%. #3) The RNG we all see (whether good or bad) is 100% controlled by WoWS. #4) All F2P massive multi-player online games rely on a number of Pay methods to enhance play or these games wouldn't even be here. If anyone thinks any of these games don't reward the P2P player in some manner, well, I have this Bridge in Brooklynn for sale. The spending player would never stay to pay unless they were getting something in return. Anyone who thinks otherwise has rocks for brains. Plus & here's the kicker. Barely any battles are even close (truly 'balanced') & WoWS intentionally wants battles to end as fast as possible. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. Case closed. Ofc, one can have their opinions & some are WG plants (in both senses of that, btw) so we will never have agreement on this issue.

Which is exactly what I saw & TY for being more succinct & to the point.

Isn't the Conneticut just another power creep ship? What else can WoWS offer these days but more insane powercrept fantasies?

What I see in these graphs is it's all pretty much the same (especially your last 'enhancement'). This appears to be a small mammal drowning in a liquid cesspit. I like LWM a whole lot but why is she wasting time on this? WG certainly won't care, imho, one iota.

You'd be more accurate, OP, if you called your topic title, "The Great Missouri Experiment (for Suckers)". Needless to say, my boxes/rolls = 0. I believe you need the '0' numeral data, as well.

Thank-you, Chiv, for all this Missouri 'scheme' info. Might it be more appropriate to use the word 'scam' instead of scheme? I'm not planning on buying into this 'scheme', myself.

This is exactly what I will be trying to do with Subs - sinking the reworked CVs

This is standard WoWS operating proceedure for any OP ship. Leave it alone for far longer than necessary, then, wake up to reality (after plenty of damage has been done) before nerf tweaking the OPness.

It's WoWS going down the road WoT took long ago.

Yes, a week has passed. It would appear to me many forumites here are still of the opinion that they will not financially support WoWS. We will have to see over a longer term (weeks & months) what the CC fallout & publicity, etc will do to WG income. Time will tell.

Making new maps doesn't generate any income, ergo, they don't want to make new maps. As if, ofc, WG doesn't have enough money in their coffers (or the owners coffers) to make some new maps.