Ghesthar

Hi, I'm a decidedly 'okay' player who would like to play a pile of clan battles. I would prefer to be somewhere that takes the games relatively seriously, at least thinks about tactics beforehand, and maybe even reviews or debriefs afterward. I don't want everyone to be screaming and complaining all the damn time, or even tryharding every second, just seriously trying to improve and perform without looking for shortcuts. Alongside playing, I like data and data analytics, and can do quite a bit of CB data scraping, visualisation, and analytics. I don't necessarily need to be a clan member to do this, so if your clan is decidedly too good for me but this part sounds interesting, please send me a message, and I'll talk about what I can and can't do. Happy to join, happy to merc, happy to look at data, whatever works. Apart from the previous season, every CB season I've played has been to Typhoon. I have or work to get most/all meta ships, and will put the work in to meet whatever level you are trying to achieve. Feel free to send me a message on here or on Discord (Ghesthar#0878), I probably won't check this thread much. Thanks, Ghesthar Hi Graeme.

Not as good as permanent Arms Race. 6/10

Since this patch, my game does not load into battles promptly. The 'loading' completes, and it displays 'awaiting players' until the counter ticks all the way down, often putting me into the actual battle a few seconds after the game actually starts. Previously, I would be loaded in with 30s+ to spare, and the 'loading' completes in a similar time. I have removed all mods, repaired the game using wgcheck, and cleared the game cache. The issue persists across all game modes.

Where did arms race go? Why are we not allowed to have nice things?

No. I genuinely adore it as is. It doesn't have the balance issues that previous arms race iterations did (e.g the healing buff making planes invincible) and it is simply fun. If you REALLY wanted to, you could rotate the tiers every month or two just to give different groups or ships a chance, but I would love it to be just left exactly as is.

Literally the most fun I've had in this game for months. The constant mini-objective spawns and then the 'do or die' objective at the end makes for a really good experience. Please just leave Arms Race in - 'as is' is fine.

In the future if you guys do repeated temporary rentals, could you please provide the ships without commanders? I've just had to go through and dismiss 32 1 point submarine captains, and I'm fairly certain I dismissed some as I went as well. If there are going to be limited reserve spaces, please don't spam us with absolute garbage to fill that space unless you also make a nice interface to mass clean the garbage you provide.

But what does this mean? Everyone should be able to do and get everything no matter what? It should not, obviously, have released in the 'only gambleboxes' state, but I'm not really sure I buy into 'having a trivial mission requirement is terrible, too' line of thinking. I mean, if I'm working and can't do ranked enough to get all the 'free' stuff, is this a huge problem, or do I just have to manage my own life, and sometimes that means I can't do everything that I want to in relatively low priority activities? As I said, there is a balance. I don't think the balance is currently correct. You might. I'm not sure there is a 'right' answer. If there were lots of events lots of events like PR or the missouri thing, I would probably agree more, but I'm not sure that there are - if they come back in another development cycle with another unique ship that they want to be lootbox-only at absurd cost, then I'm obviously wrong. However, I'll keep pointing at things like dockyards, devblogs, this post, and the missouri event changes: it isn't perfect, by any means, but it is all movement in the right direction. To some extent, of course they will try to come up with new ways to monetize things: that is literally their job. That is why the game exists. It only exists to amuse people like you or I insofar as it gets us to pay them occasionally. They have, without a doubt, overstepped a few times in rapid succession, which has led to this. I'm just not sure I can get behind 'please don't murder me' as a metaphor, when the real complaint is 'that is way too [edited]expensive' - WGs missteps haven't caused harm to anyone who just opts to not engage with them, unlike someone plotting to murder you. Isn't this how free to play games operate, though? An utter lack of player 'need' is, sadly, a bad business model? It really sounds like the majority of what you would want to see HAS been promised? They do seem to be moving in a 'no gamble exclusive' ships direction... though maybe with some time preference issue - if all the information were know 'up front,' would Agincourt in lootboxes, and then in shop for direct purchase a few months later be an issue? Ditto Missouri (ignoring the horrible pricing) - if they put out lootboxes and direct purchase in two weeks, with this being the intent, would this be an issue? The lootboxes are, obviously, a trap for those with very 'immediate' time preferences, but assuming everything were 'above board' and communicated, is variable pricing based on other preferences a problem, or tolerable? I think the only part of what your list they haven't touched on at all is the sequential bundling, which I can see the objection to, but I'm not sure I agree with, entirely - bundling (which is what it effectively is) is 'par for course' across industries, not even just in f2p games. It isn't 'nice,' but it is 'normal'. There is a bit of a question around 'less content,' though? I suppose for someone like you or I, who judging by this try to do 'everything' to at least some extent, there is just too much. What about people who actively do not participate in some piece of content? Like, if I didn't touch ranked ever, or CBs, would I then 'miss' the lack of other events ticking over quickly? Going back to your earlier thing about everyone being in the same community, are there players who play operations or coop or randoms exclusively, for whom the quantity of content (ignoring value/monetization entirely) is about right, or even too low? Again, I don't know the answer, but coops are always instant queues, and there are people who seem to play ops to the exclusion of other content... Fair enough, that was in the gap when I wasn't playing at all for a year and a half. I know there were some ships (Benham, Cossack, I think?) that were offered in dockyard/campaign things that I never saw, but I was unaware of the formats.

I think there is a balance here, and I just don't think 'the community' or 'ccs' are getting it right. If we push back and see a change, we should probably say 'thank you'. If we then see the same mistake/bad act repeated, maybe we burn crap down. I know that there is a current narative of "wg does the same thing over and over," but I'm not sure how warranted it is: the dockyard is an example I keep going back to, the christmas crates haven't (yet?) repeated, they are trying to improve communication, etc. It feels to me like there is a passive-aggressive wronged spouse thing going on, where people reach as far back as they can remember for every slight, even those that have been resolved in their favour, and use the original wrong as a club to win an argument two years later, PR being the real key example to me. Being concerned about the fact that they were going to do it in the first place is completely reasonable. If you say "don't do that," and they don't do that, acting like they did that isn't really reasonable. I suppose if they replaced the boxes with the missions/direct purchase this would alleviate the complaint more than leaving the boxes in place, but if there is a direct purchase option and someone still opts for the 3-4x price gambling-adjacent option, I kind of don't know what to say. This could, obviously, go either way. Another question I don't have the answer to, though: have dub prices ever changed? The price of most things increases with inflation, has the real money:dub rate changed alongside that, or has the dub cost of objects increased to make up that gap instead? Back to your question, it is reasonable to say it is a bit of both. However, for ingame purchases, I'll go back to the availability of resources: 750,000 fxp just isn't a big deal to an ever-increasing number of players, there are bucks of even the 'special' economic signals floating around that mean 25000 fxp off a single game is doable, etc. So, I think the original price by today's standard IS simply too low. That doesn't make today's price reasonable, but I can't really imagine any chase ship coming in at 750,000 fxp now - even the 1m ones are starting to feel kind of sad and power crept or very niche just because of game evolution, and there don't seem to be a lot of new things being released at that price point. I can see the argument, and yet again, I agree with the overload aspect. I still find the 'aggressive monetization' aspect very tenuous. What I'm trying to get at with this isn't a list or being convinced that the monetization is aggressive, or something. What I am trying to tease out is: what would need to change to make monetization NOT feel aggressive? Basically, I think 'aggressive monetization' as a stated problem implies far more... well.. monetization.. than there looks to be in the way you've enumerated the complaint, and especially when high cost/low value (but not grindy) offerings are thrown into the mix. So, what would need to change to make it NOT feel like aggressive monetization? Would reducing the event overload without changing any models just make the game feel more relaxed and okay? Would leaving the number of events as-is, but reducing or removing the number of monetization streams feel better (eg. early-access events where there is only a mission chain without a lootbox mechanic/economy tied in)? I think trying to eliminate or reduce most monetization streams will result in them coming back in some other form (pushing back too hard on lootboxes may end up with more 'pay to progress' mechanics, eg) but if we could reduce or eliminate on relatively narrow area 'cost free,' which would it be, and how far would that go to fixing the 'aggressive monetization' perception? I don't remember these? I know this is a monetization method used in some games, but I really don't recall this ever appearing in wows? Was there some precursor dockyard event that I missed that used this model?

I agree with this - we've already talked about event simultaneity - but I'm not sure about the link to aggressive monetization. Like, of your list, 4/6 (plus all the 'normal' grind stuff) are entirely free - CB, Ranked, Subs, and Dutch Cruisers 2 (I think this one is just the little mission chain?). CBs and Ranked definitely have the 'can only do one' issue, alongside normal randoms/grinds, but subs are part of ranked (with no? monetization aspect), but Subs are literally just part of ranked right now - they aren't separate or exclusive in and of themselves, though they also don't count for anything, so I suppose that is the part that matters. So, for monetization, there is the dockyard, and Missouri. I really do see the dockyards as the best 'value' monetization offerings WG has put out, at least recently. Maybe the grinds that exist really are too much for some people, and the 'pay to finish' aspect (beyond the required spend) looms large for them. I'd be somewhat interested to know about that, but mostly in a 'proportion of players' kind of way, which I don't think I'm likely to get. The Missouri web event itself costs nothing, again, but you're clearly complaining about the boxes/points/acquisition aspect, moreso than the mission chain here. I don't really find it defensible - the value is atrocious, both with the points and the Missouri cost - but I also don't find it especially reprehensible once placed alongside the ability to straight-up buy Missouri. So, again, there is a bit of a conflation here between 'too many events' and 'too much monetization' - there aren't even many monetization OPTIONS in your list, but there are a lot of time constraints. I suppose this could influence whether or not you want to buy premium, or spend on other 'grind faster' elements, but these accelerants would then be applied to the side of the game where there is little to no time pressure - tech tree ships don't vanish, and when they do, the lead times are fairly generous. So, I agree with the event overloading aspect - I don't like it either. I'm just still not sure how (or even if) it contributes to monetization aggression. As I've said, I agree entirely with the terrible value of the missouri event, but once alongside the 'pay directly' thing it kind of loses out. The 'original 750k fxp' thing is kind of a weird argument - more recent FXP ships have been more XP, and less 'value' (no insane earnings, only the somewhat unique/different ship) propositions, and even those have been rotating. By today's standards, the original is obviously massively undercosted. Now, arguing that is just WG inflation is kind of correct, but at the same time, the ingame economy lacks sinks - a ship costing 1m fxp isn't a large hurdle for a decent chunk of the playerbase, while still being difficult or unobtainable for other segments. This is obviously a rod WG created for their own back, but I'm not sure how reasonable bringing up the original cost is. The Missouri monetization model is/was awful. It deserved to be pushed back against. It is now up for direct sale at the same price as other t9s. I do find the 'points' alongside in the boxes to be a terrible value proposition, just like the points and similar in most of the techtree release event boxes. However, that is a subjective value argument, isn't it? Like, I do not think getting a ship a few weeks early or getting a 'unique' t10 permacamo is worth the asking price, so I don't buy it. I know, in this way, I'm a broken record, but those are the offerings - an overpriced permacamo and a tech tree ship a few weeks early - and if someone feels like they 'must' have them, I don't think the argument that they 'must' have them at a lower price is especially compelling. The rest of the release events, while the add to the event overload aspect, are free offerings, and the missions tend to 'just happen.' If someone misses out a bit and needs to buy a box to complete the last 'free' tick of these, is someone having the option of spending 1000 dubs to get a pre-release tier 7 tech tree ship bad value, or aggressive? I think I agree with this as a conclusion: Aggression isn't the presence, but the monetization plus the overload. However, could you just go back over your list of current events and pick apart 'event overload' vs 'monetization aggression' for me, since I can agree with the first, but there are so few monetization tie-ins with the current events that I'm not sure I really see the second. Like, Missouri and similar shouldn't be in this particular argument, right? Poor value, overpriced, gamble only - valid reasonable complaints, but they don't fit the rest of the argument at all? edit: I kind of see missouri, after a moment, as there is a little bit of 'grind' to do the mission chain to make it normal premium cost. In the absence of the lootbox option, would it still feel as bad? Like, if they had released the mission chain exactly as is, and it allows you to buy missouri directly, with no option for nonsensically bad value lootboxes at any point -is this event now basically such an 'avatar' of 'wg bad' that its mere presence fills the game with negative feelings, while the implementation would actually be much less objectionable if it just released in its current (or a tweaked version of current) state?

I guess so. At the same time, they've made the decision to not heavily nerf 'op' or excessively popular ships, and instead restrict access to them. I don't think this is NECESSARILY wrong, though maybe the state of tier 6 and 7-limited CBs, Brawls, and Ranked should call that into question a bit. I guess there is a balancing act here between nerfing something someone spent time/money on and risking that backlash (which seems to be quite severe as well) or remove it from sale. I think this is a place where there is no single 'correct' answer. Could be. The 'monetisation WILL exist somewhere' point is part of why I object strenuously to 'ban lootboxes outright' arguments - the monetisation will come back somewhere, and I'm not sure I'd like it to be 'made up' through making normal grinds or the game economy more painful. I'm not sure I agree with terming it aggressive - in their defence, a lot of missions and things CAN be done simultaneously, and most things do 'just happen' in the background. I do have some issues with the class or nation-specific substantial grinds, but it is entirely possible that other people have no problem with those missions and some problem with others. I guess I just don't feel very 'milked' - I participate in every event to a greater or lesser degree (I get most of the 'free stuff' from most of the release events, mostly depending on the ships) and the places where I participate less than I would like are places where time is the only factor - CBs, Ranked, and Dailies when I can't really be bothered. The events that require payment seem, to me, like a dockyard every few months, which I either participate in or not depending on my enthusiasm at the time and the ship. So, maybe this is an engagement style thing, and if you really want to 'collect everything' you'll feel milked. It almost seems to me like the complaint is that there are too many monetization streams/options rather than 'multiple continuous grinds and buy something too' - like, it feels like some people are somehow 'stressed' due to weird tie-in monetizations (Kong/Godzilla, ARP stuff, whatever) which are.. I don't know. Crap? But they exist, so do people want to 'collect' those too, simply because they exist, and then feel pressured? I know that this is somewhat personal, but it just goes back to my feeling of 'just don't buy it, then' and the lack of compulsion - I see the argument that there is a lack of value, and I agree with it, but the solution to that is not buying it, isn't it? I can understand the DESIRE to buy it, but I can't help but default back to 'just don't do it' So, last part and this come down to monetization 'aggression' as the problem. But, as above, what is aggression? So, I don't THINK the mere existence of premium ships is aggression? Like, the only way you can get them is through paying, but that is more or less okay as long as they aren't power creep objects, right? I don't think the weird overpriced tie-in events (as above, Kong, ARP, etc) are aggressive - they are comically overpriced niche cosmetics, and I can see the 'they are comically overpriced' complaint from someone who might want them, but I don't think price-point complaints really constitute aggression, at least not without some measurable gameplay benefit? I can see the compulsion/aggression feeling in time-restricted or gamble-only ships, but there aren't a lot of these, and they are receiving enough pushback that they hopefully won't be too common. I have a hard time with the regular 'event' containers, because the tangible benefit is so low? I guess the 'collecting' element comes up with camos? The most 'aggressive' events SHOULD be dockyard - they are a confluence of needing to pay, time restrictions, and grind requirement - and yet these seem like the best value proposition, and don't feel bad to me at all.. Is it the number of simultaneous options? There is a lot of choice if one wants to pay, but with the exception of individuals who want ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, I'm not really sure why anyone would feel excessively monetized? I'm clearly missing 'something', but what?

Yes. This is what everyone wants. However, what constitutes that varies widely. Just like in cooking, in fact: you might think something is delicious, I don't care for it. Everyone wants a delicious meal, but what you think constitutes a delicious meal and what someone else does do not necessarily match. And yes, of course there are trade-offs. There are trade-offs in everything. But again, this comes down to issue preference and prioritization. These do not match person to person or group to group, so the question is, really, 'how do you achieve a 'good enough' balance' not 'how do you construct a perfect filter'

Is there a good way to construct that filter? Your list of people who are 'impartial' are, functionally, people you like and agree with. Mine, if I could come up with a list, would probably be conceptually identical. They may or may not intersect. Most players in most games (so, probably this one too) do not interact with content creators, streamers, forums, or subreddits. Picking prominent figures from these give a snapshot of the mood of the dominant element of that subgroup, not a snapshot of the player base as a whole. You might be happy with the set of biases created with that snapshot. Others, like myself, would not be. WG probably has better data on how many people are in which 'segment' and may be able to choose or filter a bit based on that, but otherwise this sort of 'council' of players seems kind of sketchy do me. If an actually objective sample could be obtained, this would be great. However, I have no idea how one would go about doing so.

I understand that people who want to collect or be completionists exists, even if I don't understand the mindset. I guess where it falls down for me is that I don't really understand how to make things 'better' for that end without the solution becoming 'more stuff for cheaper.' I mean, if the level of 'cheaper' desired is 'not in indefinite lootboxes or at 2-4x the price of a normal premium the same tier or packaged with 9999 commanders nobody cares about,' I can get behind that. Is some of the problem here the time exclusivity on top of the random exclusivity? Like, for the same of argument, if WG were to decide that random crate exclusivity was absolutely core to their monetization model and not going anywhere no matter what, would making those crates indefinitely available (or, at least, over a substantially prolonged period - a year or something) somewhat cut down on the churn/affordability/fomo feeling for someone aiming to collect or complete? How much of this 'problem' is solved by the randomness/gambling gate, and how much by the confluence of that with time pressure? I definitely think some of the specific sorts of grind (kills, torp hits, floods, fires, whatever) are so much less frustratingly done in coop that they should be reconsidered. I appreciate some of higher effort (from a design point of view) missions where they are a low effort buy long grind condition, or a high effort 'good game or few games' condition. Some of this, again, comes down to time preference - if you play normally, most of the dockyard missions will simply complete over a relatively small number of random games. With some of the later missions this time around (multiple million damage per ship class, pick two, eg) I definitely start to feel there is a bit of a 'grind it in coop or pay to get around it' pressure that I am not fond of. However, I also kind of understand why that is there - 'pay to get around it' is tried and true f2p monetization. I can say that some of the 'harder' missions are basically why I quit play WoT - the first iteration of their 'campaigns' included such specific, random, difficult confluences of requirements that trying to complete them felt like playing against the matchmaker and RNG - a specific count of fires on tanks a tier or two tiers higher than yours, or tanking such an absurdly high amount of damage that you needed both an utterly incompetent enemy AND an utterly incompetent team who didn't simply kill off that enemy. While there was no time pressure to complete these, the lack of ability to 'progress' killed my motivation - and I was playing at the kind of 1800 pr equivalent in that game, so probably more able to complete a 'skill' task than most. That isn't to brag, it is to emphasise: I was reasonably competent, and the requirements were so 'hard' that they frustrated me into quitting. So, to some extent, I can see the 'appeal' (from wg's point of view) of grind rather than skill/random gated tasks. But this is where the complaint, to me, needs to be really.. careful? specific? something: 'Pay to do faster' or 'pay to skip' are not unreasonable. If the grinds resembled the PR dockyard, or War Thunder, I would find 'pay to skip' quite grating. However, the grinds REALLY aren't bad. The majority of the 'skipping new tech tree' lines, at least to the point where tiers are regular and playable, is accomplished through the free part of launch events. As it is, though, deciding what the 'win' condition is for all monetization complaints (boxes, skipping, etc) has to be a balance: there will be monetization somewhere, and different people have different preferences. If the complaint appears to boil down to 'cease monetizing' it will be simply ignored - it kind of has to be. Some of this also may need to be internal: it frustrates me, but I accept that I can't get every 'free' resource going. I can't help but feel that as frustrating as it may be for them, someone with a different preference (completion, collection, whatever) may need to accept that they can't meet all their goals in line with their spending or time goals. I'm not sure that fully resolving this is possible. The idea that the event overload is by design in that way (that there is so much to do you can't do it all so you pay to finish some of it) is interesting - I hadn't thought of that. It makes sense, though, and really is consistent with one of my primary complaints with dockyard/missions/etc: there are all these ways of playing, but if I want to actually 'make progress' on these missions, I'm limited to random or coops a lot of the time. The dockyard stuff is available in ranked, which is a nice change to me, but the grinds don't really 'align' with the format. Almost nothing is doable in clan battles, brawls, or any other events that come up. Out of order, but as I think I've mentioned before (maybe to someone else) I think this may actually be backward. I think the 'loud' element of the player base constantly pushing back in not necessarily reasonable ways, threatening to spend no money if design change x goes through, etc. has pushed WG to target the non-forum/reddit/CC-engaging (majority, frankly) population of big spenders: the wide base of low to moderate spenders doesn't really exist, and in this way, dockyards are probably a huge win - some monetization from a much broader base. This is, as I've said before, a bit chicken/egg - if there are products at a low to moderate price that a wider base of players sees as 'good value' they will become paying players. If there aren't, they won't. However, if the wider base refuses to engage with low-cost 'value' offerings, we'll just get more £100 anime tie in ships instead. The non-whales are the product that WG sells to the whales - every ad references player numbers, if people want to know if something is 'dead' or not they look at steam charts. People who are loudly refusing to spend any money ever because WG is greedy force the behaviour they complain about, it doesn't mitigate it - they have already removed themselves from the pool of customers, and placed themselves in the pool of product. Their complaints, unless the complaints translate into not playing, have no value at all from a product perspective.

I think I fundamentally don't understand the 'collector' mindset. If someone NEEDS to have something and will buy any number of boxes to get it, they are kind of accepting the 'any number' part. I can understand the frustration at 'any number' being higher than they wanted, but they had to know this was a possibility going in. Strangely, they may be the primary beneficiaries of the 'fixed number' boxes. That being said, I do not especially like ships being unique to lootboxes, and strangely, I object more strongly to something being unique to a lootbox, but coming back at a later date (without prior disclosure) for direct purchase. If part of the sales pitch is the exclusivity, removing that later on bothers me. The fear of missing out, again, seems to me to be a 'collector' mindset thing. Like, there is a weird confluence of complaints: there is a fear of missing out, wanting to obtain ships, but there are too many ships coming out. It isn't about ships, it is about THAT ship, or EVERY ship, and this seems like a self-imposed need or limitation that I just don't get. If I ask the question: "why do you want Agincourt?" what is the answer? If there are so many ships coming out that it is hard to experience that one, what is wrong with the free ones? And, I mean, you're right: I don't get it because I can't see myself in it. I can understand the frustration, but I have a hard time as seeing it in any way other than 'well, don't do that, then' - the problem is kind of internal, as is the solution. The first part is kind of what I'm getting it. I think I don't understand the 'experience EVERYTHING the game has to offer' mindset. I think I agree with that, I just don't see the connection to monetization or 'bad practices,' I guess - I think it is a 'problem' but it is mostly disconnected? I suppose the argument could be that it is keeping people playing, but I'm not sure how related that is. It could also be similar to the premiums: it is just different ways to collect resources, and nobody 'needs' to do it all, but I definitely get the 'fomo' here if I'm skipping free dubs/steel. I think I would definitely prefer fewer, 'better' (I'm not sure what that means in context, though) events over the constant event spam, but I'm not sure how this feeling compares to 'the community' at large - maybe people like lots of options, and all get the ship-fomo that i don't get, but not the steel-fomo that I do.

It was confirmed by WG previously, and again in this thread. I guess that doesn't "prove it," but come on. Maybe I just got really lucky the first year I bought any - which was also when I bought the most - and ended up with over a year banked between that and CB rewards. Probably confirmation bias. The medium size (large?) was traditionally the best return for ships, at least according to reddit/etc data collection. Honestly, I hope there is something resembling odds published this christmas. I find their 'sometime next year' timeline to be ridiculous, even though I accept that they can't just instantly publish them. I can understand the reaction, but even without odds the contents are published. As I said, maybe the floor needs to be raised, but my sympathy here is kinda limited. I mean, I see what you mean, but so many of the events are such poor value that I don't really understand why people would feel the need to do so. There are lots of opportunities to spend money, but vanishingly few things that look like decent value (at least, to me.) So, I don't really understand the 'requirement' aspect here. Most of the best ships are still quite old, there really isn't that much in the way of power creep, etc. While there is the psychological 'keeping up' aspect, taking a step back, there is no REASON to do so at pace. I do think the volume of events and overlap is a bit overwhelming even for free to play resources - constant brawls, cbs, ranked, and then some mission sets that can randomly only be done in one of them, or in randoms, or some other contrived limitation. There is, for me, some degree of 'event burnout,' but I react to that by just skipping them and doing something else for a month, until CBs or whatever catches my attention again.

I agree that this CAN be the case, but recently it doesn't seem to be: Dockyards have certainly moved in the right direction since PR - very much so. The 'limited batch' containers as well, though the 'step in a right direction' is still atrocious. To me, the limited batch things are a move in the right direction, at the very least because they are (confirmed to be) effectively published odds - the boxes are equally weighted. The offerings have been awful, value wise, but I don't despise the model, in comparison to 'traditional' loot boxes. Wasn't the dutch cruiser box in the same format 72? It was some larger number, at least (I think) and I don't think the rewards were more or less generous - less, probably, as it is fundamentally a techtree ship. I can agree that the dockyard 'trickle in' rewards have gotten less generous, as have the seasonal event (anniversary, for instance) rewards. I suspect the dockyard, at least, is due to the popularity of them - it is still a very 'budget' premium ship, and the rest is free stuff. They are probably trying to find the 'sweet spot' before people start to complain about the trickle rewards, as you say. I mean, assuming the black friday ships are available directly as normal, I agree. What I was trying for was: the event is of the same model, but instead of just 'black friday box' that may have a ship or other stuff in it of an indefinite run, a limited run with guaranteed outcomes. I suppose this would mostly come down to what was in the 'filler' crates and how well or badly they stacked up against just buying the ships directly, so if they were to go with this the ships would be unlikely to be available directly, making the whole thing rather moot. I find this a strange sort of inverted gambler's fallacy - it is random, and they aren't thinking they've been unlucky so it is 'their turn' to be lucky, but that they were lucky and will continue to be? The reason why I have a hard time sympathising here is that, as I started with, there is no compulsion: players who have spent a lot on events and 'burnt themselves out' on it have just.. done so. It isn't morally good or bad that they have, it just is the state of affairs. Whenever there is a lootbox, I say the same thing, and do the same 'math' for myself: if I buy some and get the 'bad' results only, how will I feel? Sometimes, fine - the christmas crates, traditionally, for all their weird shortlisting mechanics (which would pretty much be fine if disclosed accurately, imo) have quite good 'bad results' - loads of premium time and similar. Some others, especially the recent event ones, seem to be a small handful of signals for a disproportionate cost. I do think the 'floor' value of the crates is in order - an internal reevaluation of WG's 'doubloon valuation' for free xp, signals, etc - which would probably shift my internal math somewhat, and maybe the feelings of others. However, this whole thing is back to a 'more stuff for less money' argument, to some extent. With regard to the event containers, I think 'more stuff for less money' is desperately in order to make them even remotely approach reasonable, but this is a matter of opinion.

Fantastic, thank you. Are there any ideas or timelines you can share, or is this quite early on?

"VII Щорс" listed instead of (presumably) VII Shchors in the English language article linked.

@Crysantos @MrConway Would WG be open to considering some sort of gambling addiction safeguarding measures? For instance, the ability for users to opt-in to blocking themselves from making purchases, or specifically 'lootbox' type purchases without adding some friction (e.g contacting support to have the block removed), having an automated but monitored system that messages users making a high volume of lootbox purchases to see if they are alright and possibly blocking their payments and signposting gambling addiction helplines and similar if needed? I recognise that you wouldn't be able to commit to anything being done, and that lootboxes are very much part of WG's profit model and therefore probably here to stay, but given the concerns regarding gambling addiction in the community, would WG be willing to at least investigate some steps like these, or with this intent? Further, some people seem concerned about the age of people accessing lootboxes and similar. I see that the EULA states 18+ or with a parent, and that most if not all of the payment methods SHOULD limit purchasers to being at least 16 (with a debit card) or 18 with other methods. Do you think WG might be open to investigating some other form of age verification to allow either all purchases, or certain sorts of purchases?

I think I agree with you here, too (and I think on most things I've skipped over): I would prefer the monetization to be less random/lootbox-oriented. However, I think we disagree on how much weight individual choice should play. I am a horrible person, I like playing carriers. I would like an Enterprise. The only source of those has, traditionally, been christmas crates. Because I am reasonable, I think: the odds of me getting that are catastrophically small, so I will not try to get it. I may buy a few crates if I have money to spare and will derive enjoyment from them regardless of the outcome, but it will be measured. I am not trying to 'collect them all.' Despite the ship being exclusive, I can exercise reason and restraint and not throw money at something hoping for the incredibly improbable outcome that I want. This is why, to me, clearly stated fair odds are important: people can more easily make this sort of decision. While I agree that the exclusivity increases the appeal, that isn't really unique: the same is said for luxury cars, brands, phones, whatever. Some people run up debt buying that crap. We don't look at banning brands, we look at financial education and personal restraint. I would prefer things to not be exclusive to lootboxes. However, I'm not sure I care about the 'testing the waters' methods - things like the dutch cruiser boxes are nothing but time preference, for instance. I think the initial pushback on Missouri is probably reasonable - getting a direct purchase option IS better, and IS a win. I do not appreciate the petulance about 'well, we want it in the shop NOW, we don't want to do trivial missions' or claims that WG is lying about it because at some point in some stream someone said that if they brought it back it would be in the armoury for dubs... because it is - I can click on the armoury and buy it for doubloons right now if my time and cost preferences match the horrible deal awaiting me. At the end of the day, though, people work and earn their money, and it is just that: their money. If spending a ridiculous amount on a pixel boat makes them happy, or buying some stupidly expensive new phone, or putting it in a giant swimming pool and playing around scrooge mcduck style, that is their business, as long as they can reasonably afford what they are doing. I feel like some of WG's practices have been driven by the community. Repeated calls for people to spend nothing, refund everything, wg is pure evil, etc. probably mean the 'average' player spends less, so WG has to chase the whales. If more people were willing to spend something, maybe reasonably priced offerings would be common. This is pure speculation, and obviously a bit of a chicken/egg situation, but there you go. I'm not sure. In my mind, frankly, someone committing to buy 41 boxes probably values their money a lot less than I value mine, so I doubt their participation would vary whether they got it on box 2 or box 41. Box 20 is better than the mean, but still 1.5x the price of Missouri in armoury. I would say that, with the knowledge of it being available for direct purchase, it would dissuade. Without it, probably about neutral. I guess I just think these 'time preference trap' sets should only appeal to whales - players without the willingness to buy the whole set have no reason to buy any, apart from the outlier where it is in the first box, and the player sees a cheap win. Missouri is, though, less aggressive than the previous iteration of the same: down from 72? lootboxes, for something that is at least only available through a 'purchase' method rather than rapid free to play accumulation. It is clearly a test, and whether it is 'good' or not kind of depends: what if instead of pure random, the black friday containers were a 20-box set with 4 seasonal premiums? Is that better or worse than an indefinite lot?

Okay. So, you have no safeguarding suggestions.

So other vendors selling things inappropriately to under 18s that should flag them as over18 is the fault of WG? How many people have to breach laws, regulations, restrictions, and terms of service before enough intervening bad acts have piled up for WG to be off the hook? Frankly, this sounds like a good reason for a regulator to ban paysafecard. What safeguarding measures would you propose?

https://www.paysafecard.com/fileadmin/content/website_statisch/footer/agb/paysafecard/TC_UK-paysafecard-_10_2013.pdf 3.2 You must be 18 years old or older to purchase a classic paysafecard.

I've said at other points in this thread that I would actively support measures to intervene with problem gambling: opt-in account restrictions on spending or on 'lootbox' spending, automated or semi-automated check-in emails/messages in an 'are you okay' tone with gambling addiction signposting, or even automated spending restrictions on those buying large numbers of boxes. I would also be very supportive of increased identity checks, though I think 18+ requirements for all (i think? nobody has claimed or pointed out otherwise) payment methods kind of starts down that road - children CANNOT make purchases without parental involvement. However, the guy who started this 'children' argument started off with: children will steal their parents credit cards and PINs. To me, if a child is stealing and committing fraud to buy lootboxes, there are bigger problems than the lootbox. Also, it calls into question whether any other ID checks are useful: gambling sites need pictures of some photo ID. If a kid is already stealing the credit card from dad's wallet, taking a picture of the driving license doesn't seem like much of a barrier. I'm very up for safeguarding. If the conversation you want to have is one about safeguarding options that leave freedom for the responsible adults in the room while mitigating harms, I'm all ears. As for gambling gateways, I'm unsold. Are all dice games gateway gambling? Card games? Poker with chips? Penny-ante poker? Ingame-funds casinos/slot machines/etc in games? The little reward fruit machines at the end of lots of otherwise f2p games without 'lootboxes'? Is it the dopamine 'hit' from the win that is the problem, or the activity? Is gambling in and of itself a harm? Societally, we say no - it is legal throughout most of the west. We have chosen to not ban it, overall, despite the harm to a few. I can accept the view that it SHOULD be banned and IS a societal harm, even if I don't agree with it. I think this area of discussion is far more complicated than it is being presented, and gets into the 'banning things that do harm to SOMEONE even if they do not do harm to most people' area. edit: I think I agree with you about the random bundles - they are TERRIBLE value, and I would advise anyone to not buy them. The extent to which they are gambling or not is kind of strange - if I just straight up buy 41 bundles, I have a fixed cost and outcome - fairly clearly not gambling, even if the deal sucks. If I intend to buy boxes until I hit missouri and accept the probably cost of 41 boxes, is this gambling, as it may cost less? If I buy five bundles as a punt, it is obviously gambling. I do not agree with the word 'necessity' - there is no compulsion or even pay to win element here. Reddit and these forums have gone out of their way to tell us all how mediocre Missouri is as a ship.