Vanhal

Let's hope. Although i must say that i would much, much more preferred generous economy, no matter if it would be good or bad, than good, but stingy one.

Very interesting. Could you provide complete list of new service fees? Or at least few examples of various classes? This also needs some more clarification. 50000 from what state? Fully destroyed plus battle tax? This would not help much tbh. That i can only applaud, but as above, how it will influence the normal gaming? Because, for example, non premium player would sometimes manage to get positive income on higher tiers, even if only by playing extremely passive. If right now the income will ALWAYS be negative, this will only drastically reduce the number of players at those tiers. Oh, and of course thanks for removing the dumb armor changes.

Serio powinien być jakiś punkt w regulaminie, że posty komentujące stockowe japońskie pancerniki są z miejsca kasowane.

There could be also third way - decrease rewards for 'bad" player, while increasing for "good" ones, so it will keep the global rewards gain mostly the same. But it's not the option for WG apparently, in their mindset there is only one possibility - nerf, because if it is just like you (and their site) described, the global rewards will drop drastically, considering apparently not many players will play like the WG want it to play. Moreover, the criteria for rewards are not revealed, so even if someone want to educate himself, what WG thinks is a good play (and therefore rewarded, because most players tend to gravitate towards most optimal scheme, hence the camping on all classes), he's out of luck and need to try, which is not easy because single player practically can't get much reliable data from just his battles considering the number of variables. Oh, and one more thing, apparently, there is huge economy buff for carriers incoming, as described here: Anyone have some more reliable info about this?

Yeah, but notice his XP. How many ships get this low rewards with this, not bad, xp. Amagi have probably the lowest tier-by-tier credits gain of all ships in game and this is known issue.

They usually get basic idea that the torps don't have unlimited range when they normally reach tier 4. Although i saw this kind of players even at regular 7+ ships. Wait a minute... So THAT's why Shima nerf hurt some player that much... they just haven't check their torps range at all during the 1-10 grind

Hmm, it's kinda hard to close being broadside, and you will get the citadels too. Wait, stern armor isn't nerfed, right? Here you go, anyone wanting to attack must now do it reversing. Problem solved.

Penalising is only a good option when the rewarding is at least of the equal magnitude.

Zagrałem i co stwierdziłem: 1. Moduł do krążowników sprawdziłem na ruskich - praktycznie żadnych zmian, ster reaguje co prawda błyskawicznie, ale promień skrętu jest tak olbrzymi, że w praktyce nie ma różnicy. Co do innych się nie wypowiem, bo nie sprawdzałem. 2. Udałoj - jeśli tak działa po nerfie, to nie dziwię się, że teraz ma opinię OP. 3. Pancerniki - jednak zbierają więcej w dziób. Nie aż tak dużo, jak się obawiałem, ale miałem raczej szybkie walki. Przy przedłużonej grze, a takich jest większość na normalnym serwerze, będzie boleć. Nie tędy droga panowie WG. Jeśli koniecznie chcecie utrzymać tę zmianę, obniżcie koszty eksploatacji o dobre 50%, żeby gracz nie był tak bardzo karany, gdy robi to, co chcecie żeby robił, a za co go właśnie ukaraliście dodatkowym zmniejszeniem przeżywalności.

"Degree of Similarity:Clone / Sister-Ship" What? That's one the most cloniest clones of regular ship available as premium right now. Yeah. It should be proper Reichsadler, and instead we got GDI symbol. I haven't noticed any Command & Conquer collaboration. In that case i want Kane captain and voiceover and a proper Kirov to report!

WG don't want to fix economy, period.

So, that would be as different from the HE spam as not having a DoT, just spam superstructure from the front? Yet again: damn tanks on water...

Ok, but answer me this: How the BB would then counter its supposed natural prey - cruisers, when said cruisers use their 17+km range and superior speed to rain HE? How to differentiate between engaging at long range without possibility to catch enemy and "useless camping"? I mean, in the game engine terms and possibility of WG to do something. Beacuse i think the blanket nerf to dispersion would be just exact same as nerfing range overall - cruisers would suddenly start to hard counter BB's, unless they too would have BB-like dispersion at max ranges. Glad you have noticed this, because most posters here do not. The drive to nerf the big bad BB is so strong that any reason and even basic gameplay experience are going down the drain. What;s even worse, WG also don't notice it or dont give a damn, as incoming economy change is more and more grim looking with every day.

Problem is, that literally everything that will counter (not punish, every dumbass can play a punishment game and it sucks hard, especially in WG edition, where they forget about the rewards) the campers, like the torps or CV's or whatnot, will counter the brawlers much, much harder, because in this game everything is based on distance... With perhaps the only exception being a dispersion, but WG already showed they can't work with that.

Then... why we got threads like this: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/62360-economy-feedback/page__fromsearch__1 OFFICIAL THREADS ABOUT SOMETHING THAT APPARENTLY ISN'T EVEN THERE? Asking for feedback that can't even be given? That really qualify for immediate psychiatric intervention...

I had Warspite at day 1 on CBT and that was more like the other way. Warspite rudder wan nothing out of the ordinary, but it wasn't nerfed when all other ships were nerfhammered in this aspect. It's true strenght was the survivability, which was then smashed by armor changes and also its ability to repair citadels was removed.

Not really. They have that opinion because they are least likely to get instagibbed and the huge RNG will occasionally hand some damage to even worst noobs. But they also don't forgive mistakes, just that those mistakes are somewhat different than on the other classes and the punishment rarily is instant (BB do everything slow), so some brains can't connect the moment when they failed to the moment they are getting punished for it, so that given birth to a strange tale that BB are very forgiving. Also, the slow doing everything and the randomness of RNG means that they are not easy to play good. Hence we have the snipers - those are the same players that can't play other classes too - die in the 2 minutes in DD's, lose all planes in every attack in CV and sail in the straight lines 10km from an enemy in cruisers. What IS different is that BB noobs are immediately obvious after single glance on the minimap, while the other classes noobs are harder to identify. This has given birth to another strange tale that somehow there is way more noobs in BB's than other classes. Well, they may be a bit more, as snipers are not killed fast enough and that alone can bring more of them, but mostly it's just that they are way more noticeable and obvious.

Like, seriously? [edited]. That's the core of a problem. Notser hit bullsye in his comment about this. Profitability needs serious buff and a better management, which only second will be (or not) provided. Also, how the hell this can be true, when they flatly stated on the gamesite that the change will be purely negative for those not adhering to the new rules and not positive for those that do?

That is not true. Do notice that the CV population are much less than 25% and considering they can be at most 1/6 of every battle, which they are not even reaching and apparently this is what WG desire, it's much less than the 10%. Also, as i feel compelled to say every time i heard such heresies, BB will be ALWAYS much more popular than CA and DD, just because they gather most interest as a ship class irl. For a comparison, look at the speculative part of forum, such as the "what we know about ships" threadnought - most of talk there is about the battleships. They are just this much more interesting. Also, we are just after releasing of first new BB line since over a year, not to mention its a popular, highly anticipated line by itself. That have the severe implications - to reduce the BB's to 25%, like you say, you would need one of the two things: 1. MM adjustment, which WG refuse to do any more 2. Either nerf BB or buff other classes (in case they indeed are so much out of balance, which isn't the case actually). But to balance the numbers with it, you must also balance the abovementioned popularity. Which means you must make them grossly UP. So no thanks. If you want less BB, go pester the WG to play with MM. Don't make them destroy the most iconic class and make another Knights of the Sea trash from a good game.

Yay, first they make a mockery of treating ships like a tanks and invent ridiculous mechanics like 4mm deciding of life and death and now they just say they don't want what was carefully counted to have just this precise effect. What next, maybe the ships will actually fight in battle line and crossing the T will have intended effect? Oh, the travesty of mere thought. Also, When they say: "We do not want heavy AP shells to easily bounce off the unarmored plating at very acute angles" - should i understand this as a impending huge buff to all "heavy AP shells"?

No, it's a therapeutic thread to allow even more occasion to dogpile.

Ma. Pelotki i pomocnicza strzelają, samoloty wykonują ostatnio wydany rozkaz. Nie wiem tylko, czy okręt płynie dalej jak ma wyznaczoną trasę na autopilocie i wypadnie z gry, bo jak nie ma to nawet mimo ustawionej szybkości zatrzymuje się.

Advice to all new players:

Hmm. To by podpadało pod nieuczciwą grę, więc może coś tam dostać, tylko że to jest kompletnie nie do wykrycia przez algorytm, chyba ze tym ocieraniem się Ci zada tyle uszkodzeń, ze wystarczy. Musiałbyś to zgłosić do supportu, ale oni będą chcieli dowodu w postaci powtórki.

Not really. Point was not to reduce DD's in battle, just to reduce the torp spam. It worked in this, there is not that much shimas out there, but 5 DD per side is still very common. And answer is and was the same. MM change.