Shaka_D

I'm going to rock the boat and say I actually really like what they've done with the subs. They're a lot of fun to play. Might need to iron out a few issues, but I think they've almost got it bang on for now. Well done WG.

I just don't like WG's increasingly assumptive attitude and the cheek of them thinking that people must do all this recruitment for them for a 'chance' at winning. I think most people know the odds are incredibly low, so WG get all the value from this arrangement and most recruiters get none in return. I've said for a long long time WG have a really backward way of valuing things. Recruitment will flow almost naturally should they, in general, treat their playbase with the respect it deserves instead of as spoilt children. @WG: Create a rolling veterans reward programme and recruits will follow...your vets keep this game going. Give your existing players milestones and rewards as premium players / long term active players / etc etc and people will keep playing and recruiting for you. This recruitment programme of yours should not be the mainstay of your recruitment, it's secondary to other very very obvious player-driven alternatives available to you right now. You're not being creative enough in your thinking. It's time to employ people who know the real value of the existing long term playerbase, because your current 'management' don't appear to think beyond their current seemingly limited skillset.

So if I read this all correctly, WG wants players to promote recruitment for the 'chance of winning' a ship? Why not just reward recruiters with a tier 9 ship when they reach a specific milestone rather than the cheap 'chance' at winning. You want money and work on your behalf for very little in return again WG. Stop this BS

No problem with subs being in the game if they're fairly well balanced....not sure why so many are complaining here without giving them a chance in the specified separate game mode as a start. I don't plan on giving definitive feedback until I've played them quite a bit otherwise whatever feedback I give is bound to be tainted with personal feelings instead of objectivity. I suggest others do the same before committing to likes and dislikes.

As you say, it's all down to who places a value on what. WG value these types of things highly for some strange reason. Quite a few I've chatted to in my travels, don't. I know I don't because I'm a premium player and have enough signals to last forever, so the last thing I would want is more and so I place no value on them at all. Some players may though, who knows. Special signals, camo's, premium time, coal, steel, ships - these are the items I value in an SC...never signals. But with all that said the last time I had a SC was forever ago.

It was asked for ages and ages ago. Cannot give them any credit for this to be fair, although they added it, it was all our idea.

Ignore him mate, you're arguing with a bonifide sock puppet. Someone who's job it is to ensure that any negative sentiment toward WG is countered in some obvious way.

True if you're simply looking to tick a box that relates to oneway information feeds, they don't really fully engage with the forum community do they?

@Blixies Bye mate, sorry to see you go. You're not alone in your disillusionment. It's hard to let go of the whole naval battles thing, but I feel WG are regressing and simply not doing enough to hold on to existing lifers in this game, many of which could potentially help financially support it for some time to come.

Constant matching of my visby in games with 2 cv's per side. No smoke, poor detection, very unfun gameplay.

It's not a bad deal, but it's a boring deal for seasoned vets who are a little more spoilt for ships. Maybe it's just a bad time to feel excited about too much, and maybe that's why it all feels rather uninspiring. They're putting in the work, and that's great, but it feels they can only cater for one type of demographic at a time. Wonder if they're missing the mark here. The same early release stuff, random bundles stuff, weak rewards versus rather large effort / time, not much incentive. Have they become a little lazy and unimaginative you think?

Didn't work for me, but thanks for sharing OP. +1

My best credit earners, the main reason for playing them - not as much anymore and my benham game count will now grow, but I presume this kind of selectiveness gave you your much needed quid pro quo? Well done, lol. But even so, a man can change his preferences too, surely? Hard to see you freefall from that pulpit, sad days.

New BB's? Another BB main? You must be new here, let me show you to the door and walk you to the edge of that cliff to see the beautiful view.....I'll take a picture of you, stand closer to the edge....a little further back.....little bit more.........ooops, where'd he go. Oh well, problem solved.

Just don't pour money on it folks, you don't really need any of it. The best way to fight this type of rampant greed and desperation is by simply closing your wallet. The more of you doing this, the more WG will be forced to listen (or do something spiteful, haha).

No worries, I was typing while a tedious colleague was talking and got sideracked half-listening. So far I've only got one snarky comment about wallet warrior from a guy I killed and another from a DD I killed who said the smaland was OP. Other than that most have been quite ok and asked a few questions about it. Seems like it all worked out well for you though, lol.

I went 1v1 versus a gearing and wiped it out, then in another game a 1v1 encounter with a gearing wiped me out. Hard to tell where the smaland lies but I've got mine rigged for fast torps and I still really enjoy playing it. Radar is cool, she's a sluggish turner if you want the concealment, but overall I enjoy playing it a lot. It feels versatile, which the friesland wasnt for me (which I didnot buy because no torps). It was fun watching a smolly take 7 almost 80kt torps and die, and then GK take 8 torps and die. Damage is low, but as an alrounder I think it's a good buy. Just a pity no smoke, but that would change her up too much maybe.

Don't entirely agree with you there, irrespective of the poopstorm supposedly created over the PR fiasco much of it was very well justified. I get why wargaming may want to temper the information out there, but most of it was not the fault of overeager cc's, it was WG's own doing with the really cr4ppy decisions they've been making lately. There is fault on both sides for sure, but my personal view is WG set the standard for all this. They'd be quite happy for noone to ever challenge their decisions and those dumpster fires were only lit by cc's, the conditions themselves were set up by WG. Criticism toward WG can be harsh, but if some of their actions are not met with harsh challenges, they'll simply run away with ridiculous things constantly, as we've seen. But yes, maybe the changes are good and will force cc's to rethink their strategies...a stream is ever only an opinion of the guy streaming, but they can be informative so maybe WG are trying to re-establish a few ground rules by cleaning the slate a little.

So basically what warpgaming are saying in a nutshell is that they don't like the negative publicity generated by cc's about ships that are in testing before release because it ultimately affects sales and this is their way of preventing that, by limiting the amount of information available to players before they potentially spend their money only to find out the ships are questionable afterwards. Am I wrong?

Sure, but the risk of it happening is less.

The solution is this: When you see cv's in the mm lineup, quit and try again, if they're still there pick another ship with lots of AA. Shouldn't be this way, but WG still refuse to acknowledge the screw up with cv's and dd's. Turning off AA is basically like applying a plaster to a wound that needs suturing, only partially works for a small amount of the time and is certainly not the remedy to the bigger problem which many folks still refuse to see.

The problem currently is that they appear to have lost the art of balancing the need to make profit versus the creation of an environment that takes into account player feedback / complaints / etc. They act completely unilaterally at present and while they say they acknowledge player feedback, they appear to really be implying the exact opposite. This we can see in almost all of their decisions lately. When companies are that reluctant to share their motivations or so dismissive of feedback, then you can only conclude they're motivated solely by inhouse agendas. Business vs ethics / equality....ethics and equality almost always lose.

Yes, though it does seem their approach is self-defeating in that it's likely to chase people away rather that make them stay. The marketing department is not innovative enough.

In that case mate, buy it. It's as good a reason as any, lol.

Deemed by who and according to what criteria that justifies that as being reasonable? You folks seem to be the only ones denying a fires burning when there's a flame right in front of your face, lol. Let's make decisions that exclude most other stakeholders inputs and only consider ourselves? This what you doing?