Nechrom

Hosho Length: 168,1 m Omaha Length: 169,3 m One has a superstructure, 4 smokestacks and two tall masts. The other has a single small mast and none of the rest.

Time for more frustration in screenshot form.

After getting the Bretagne and Normandie missions pretty early on from free containers, I just finished the French missions yesterday and didn't get any more ship missions from those containers. But today when I opened my daily Aigle container... *dun-dun-duuun* Richelieu mission! My Aigle purchase suddenly got a lot more value added to it.

The next step is probably to reinstall, but you can try to "Check & Repair" in the launcher if you haven't already. I assume you haven't made any changes to your computer since it last worked, like updating drivers or something like that?

I think CVs would also benefit from having AP bombs be normalized to work equally against all BBs. Removing them isn't really an option unless we want to once against be forced to come up with new load-outs for all the USN CVs. Unfortunately German BBs will still be the bigger targets and with comparatively bad AA. So they would get targeted first anyway, especially if they are closer to the action.

Tried launching in safe-mode?

Magnetic strips in 2018

I ended up losing something like 10 battles with only one win last night, so I took a short break and when I got back I lost one battle then had a 6 battle win streak. Even ended with three battles where I complimented a couple of DDs and a CV who played really well. One was a fail division Minekaze while I was in my Roma. He ended up top on the scoreboard with me 2nd. So I got to finish the French mission and stop playing in a good mood. At some point it's just best to leave it for a while and come back later.

Then I'm sorry but I've completely lost where this general idea of excellence intersects with this game. "Better game design" is just too broad of a category. Would the game be better if it was better? Probably. I think you are talking in such broad terms that it's almost impossible to have a discussion about it. That's just my feeling.

Atago is definitely the wisest choice for most players because of her survivability advantage in the current cruiser hostile environment, but the Mogami can dish out way more damage with her 155mm guns and IFHE.

From the 0.7.2 patch-notes: Please note that once Update 0.7.2 is rolled out, the IX Missouri will be unavailable for purchase for Free XP in the game client.

Tirpitz was sold long before the Bismarck existed and without the rest of the KM BB branch as reference she was unique in so many ways. It was also back when every other tier 8 BB had easy to hit and penetrate citadels.

You are still working under the assumption that a better game is being held from you by the F2P monetization. I don't agree. That's not even getting into how hard the player numbers would suffer in a theoretical switch to Pay2Play. I can see that you appreciate things like scarcity, but I'm not sure that is reflected in very many players in the grand scheme of things. I also like to feel that I might have some rare artifact signifying some past accomplishment or milestone, but it's not really that important to me, I just want to play with some fun and interesting ships. If I have to sacrifice exclusivity to gain access to more ships, I'll do that.

Silly me, there I go regurgitating again. Sorry. I'm basically connected to the WG Matrix at this point. Feed me your lies oh corporate Wargaming overlords so that I may give you my money.

And I'm equally astonished by how rarely people apply even a tiny bit of pragmatism to their analysis. It's never about the actual practical implications to these people, but all about the theoretical categorization and subsequent condemnation of things. Let's all just over-analyze every stat available to us so we can shift blame and feel better about ourselves.

I think you mistook "straight up better" for "better at something". There are indeed some ships in that list which I would say is straight up better of course: Leningrad Saipan Kutuzov (questionable since she has a completely different playstyle) Nikolai Gremyachy (don't know for certain since I haven't played the "new" RU tier 5 DD) Murmansk Kamikaze De Grasse (possibly, but compared to everything else she's average-to-meh)

The perception of premium ships "overshadowing" regular ships is also what is used to generate interest in them so that players will buy them. This interest is something which can be created without actually making the ships OP. It is not hurting the game because players still have a balanced game experience and they will hopefully at some point get a premium ship that they have had their eye on. F2P is a revenue model specifically for online games with centralized servers where a publisher has to pay for upkeep and support of the game continuously. I feel like you are comparing apples and oranges here with what you call excellent games and developers. F2P isn't a crutch or something which intrinsically will hobble a game. It is true that some people don't prefer that payment model due to how modular the content is, in that you can't easily get access to everything. But that's more down to personal preference and doesn't speak to the quality of the game. I'm guessing you are also confusing F2P with the basic concept of micro-transactions and in-game purchases. F2P tend to contain those two features but they are not the same thing. If the game is fun and the paid-for content isn't having a negative effect on gameplay, then I don't really care how the game is monetized. And lastly, if that wasn't obvious already, I don't think that it is a problem if players are slowly pushed towards paying. Just like I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone to pay €60 if they want to play Assassin's Creed (disclaimer: I haven't played AC, so I don't actually know if it's worth €60 )

A pair of emergency oars the crew assemble and operate if the ship loses power.

I don't know your history with MMOs and online gaming in general, but these "premium servers" were the default at the inception of the MMO genre. World of Warcraft still uses them exclusively. The reason why F2P rose from the ashes of the MMO wars is simply because games needed as small barrier of entry as possible. People weren't up for buying a new game they hadn't tried and paying up front. Only a couple of Pay2Play games could survive and maintain a healthy playerbase. Having the base game be free but offering extra value purchases was a much safer option and turned out to be the making of many developing studios such as WG. I honestly don't know what you are even trying to say with this. To me it reads as if you don't want the game to be F2P at all, because everything you list as problems are core features of a F2P model. If you think that getting reminded that there are premium items and services available for purchase is a problem, then I don't really know what to say. For me the important issue is whether or not you can play the game up to a certain point without feeling like you need to pay. At the end of the day, if simply playing the game isn't fun, then that's reason enough to stop playing. But I'm not buying your implication that the revenue model of the game impacts actual in-battle experience. Maybe you want to go into more detail regarding how you feel the way the game handles premium content impacts the actual level of fun when playing.

Most F2P games feature this kind of single purchase items. It's not something new and it's also far from the only thing which constitutes the game's revenue stream. I don't think we are in the "other-way-around" state. Most examples of people "hitting the paywall" so to say are those who play he game regularly for enough time that they eventually reach high tiers. At that point I honestly think they should invest if they have enjoyed themselves and they think that they will continue playing. I've yet to see anyone complain about the free economy prior to the point where they by design should consider investing actual money into the game they are playing. It's true that some players do swap it around and start investing right off the bat, but I don't think it's even encouraged. Nothing at the start of someone's experience with the game makes me think of real money investment.

The most valid of your points is the one about how impression/perception matters, and I agree it really does. I don't think that you have to necessarily give people more stuff or make it more smooth of an experience, but a lot of the issues with perception is about information. When people write rants and complain about things, 90% of the time it's a non-issue, but it has manifested in their mind due to a lack of information and feedback from the game. A good example is how games like AW and WT visualize progress. How after each battle you can see the progress you've made and not just get a face-full of numbers. Players have asked for more transparency regarding rewards in battle. But I also think we could benefit from it in other areas, like loot containers. There are numerous ways to do it. From the more manipulative "loot wheel" of CS:GO to just basic information regarding general chances of getting certain items. Maybe alleviate the hunt for supercontainers by having a counter for each regular container collected which ensures that you will get a supercontainer at a set interval if not by chance before that point. As you say, there are many ways to tackle this. Some good some bad.

There are no implications with having more premium ships in the game. Unless you count variety, which is a positive aspect. The only way there would be any implications is if you attribute something exclusively to premium ships which scales with how many there are. Premium ships are a part of the revenue stream of the game. As the game continues to run and needs to be funded, there needs to be a maintained revenue stream. Old premium ships don't sell as well and obviously can only generate revenue one time per player. So new premium ships are added and need to be desirable enough for a certain number of players to invest in them. That is the basic idea and so far I think there isn't any new trends which deviates from this which could become problematic. On the contrary, just recently we've started seeing longer test periods for premium ships to ensure that there are as few outliers as possible when it comes to level of desirability and balance. Which is important because as we all know once players get their hands on premium ships, WG is very reluctant to tone down their stats.

I don't. When was this and is this statement still available?

I'm not sure what to say to this. Not sure if this is even something to make a discussion about. If you would like input, then pose some questions or something. Right now it just looks like an open letter to WG.

Go to Reddit/NA and post about this instead. There the circle-jerk is alive and strong. You will get all the karma you need and be sure that anyone with other opinions are downvoted to oblivion. Remind me to never use Reddit as anything but a news source.