Figment

It does actually stop the capture timer in standard battle. That was one of the changes around 0.3.1 or so.

Do you know what a tantrum actually is? :| It's an emotional outbreak and a total loss of control. I've seen some small tantrums in this thread, but they wern't mine. I've not even ranted... Which I'm quite good at. I have posted some mini-essays denouncing your points. But apparently you haven't read them properly. Because you're being dishonest indeed: I have gone through every single point and argument brought up. When you post lies like you are now, I will call you dishonest. And no, I don't just call everyone who disagrees dishonest. That's a lie you made up. I've called TWO people dishonest: one who changed the meaning of the poll results to suit the own need, while ignoring the rest of the results (deliberately I might add) and the other you, for making up lies. Do tell me which points I've not countered or addressed, since I'll quote myself countering it pages ago. The problem I've stated is not "me losing matches". That's one of the strawmen you've made of it in your head. If you have had trouble identifying the problem, it is: - Players skipping the entire learning curve to join matches containing mostly experienced players (does not go for all individuals, indeed) - Inexperienced new players getting in way over their head (then heading to the forums to complain) and potentially being detered by it, next to spreading false information about the quality of premium ships, I might add. - Bad game performance diminishing the enjoyment of other players. And yes, that includes them being a target. What's fun about a target that goes down without a fight? (And then whines that I cheat... Oh I do enjoy those accusations from bad players buying their way into a game at a difficulty level they cannot handle. Not). - The above followed by toxicity in chat and abuse spewed towards premium players (which reduces the fun of everyone) The goal is to create a less hostile environment and a higher quality of gameplay experience for all involved. That the premium users have to take a step back and wait a very short time (I can't stress that enough) is something I don't consider anywhere near problematic. You do. Fair enough. But you exagerate your response with extreme bitter over-defensive and hostile attitude which is far closer to throwing a tantrum than anything I've said in this thread. I've also stated it's not even a huge priority to me in response to a question of need. I'm simply wondering if others agree it should be revised a bit and be a little bit more stringent. The abuse you and others spew at me in return is entirely unwarranted. Even now I'm remaining entirely civil and calm, despite your constant misinterpretation, spite and accusations, even your apologetic attitude towards people sending direct derogatory terms my way.

Heard they brought in the cloaked (Sundy)-AMS? And they're adding an ANT (which is more like the manual field deployables, than energy supply unit).

Knew it! Silly dirty red scum, you're still after our pies! >:[ Hug? <3

Playing Zuiho. Don't really notice a difference.

The carriers we used to see was 1-4. These are now spread over less matches (with either 2 or 4 per match), as they are to play each other first and foremost. If the number of CV players doesn't increase over night, then you'll see more carrier-free matches.

From what I notice is that a lot of players only start dodging at 3km distance to target (if at all). :/ If they do turn in time, a BB player can reduce the amount of hits to 0-1 torp on the first attack, if they came out planning for the second wave to hit, against 0-1. Though often times people are so preoccupied with gunning they don't notice the first wave, let alone prepare for the second wave. I consider this a situational awareness issue more so than an unfair mechanism. The problem with auto drop is that there are a lot of bugs that can cause really strange spreads upon the turning of the ship and incoming aircraft angle (sometimes all torps fire in a line, etc). PS: TycBrum, you a PlanetSide Werner TR by any chance?

It's not a personal attack, it's a general TEMPORARY restriction which you get rid of as soon as you've done some basic training. You'd barely notice it. This is what I mean by exagerating the effects and doom scenarios and not being openminded. You simply go in over defensive mode right away. Have some respect for someone else. I'm not attacking your gameplay, I'd merely be stalling access to a high tier unit. Which you don't have any intrinsic rights to, just because you have access to them now through purchasing to bypass the grind everyone else goes through.

I never called someone a selfish camper (in fact, the only people I've called campers are those BBs that have no idea how to play BBs, but defensive play isn't per definition camping as some claim either, so you won't see me use the word camper much at all). I do call people selfish and ego-centric a lot, because a lot of people are and don't want to realise it. Yes part of this is my "selfish" want for improved competition at higher tiers, but without joking there's more to it than that. It's dishonest to suggest it's just my elitism or some sort of fascism. The funny thing is my supposed ego-centrism is countered with personal wants and needs and entitlements comments (which are also if not more ego-centric, since earning a right and being granted a right are two different things - the difference between working your way up and buying your way up). Do I call people bad players? A lot, yes. But how is it an insult if someone is a bad player, just doesn't want to realise it? :/ I get it, people don't LIKE being called a bad player, but that doesn't make it an insult, nor false.

It's a fair question. Your response with vitriol sarcasm is rather childish. If you disagree, you can disagree without the personal attack. Your fix is wrong, it does impact my fun, but also that of other players. MANY other players. I'm not sure why you think you're more important than I am. You spend some money to risk ruining someone else's fun and you think that's actualy ethical? So your argument is your ego-centrism >> other people's egocentrism AND potentially their fun. Nice. Actually I prefer a challenge. :/ Have you ever heard me complain about matchmaking before? No. Am I allowed to recognise a policy as being off? Yes. Are you allowed to disagree? Yes. Are you allowed to harass me over it? No.

You're doing it again. You interpret "don't care" as "don't care about your (my) problem", while ignoring it also means they don't care about YOUR problem. Hence their preference doesn't matter as they stated they have no preference. You still re-interpret it. Conveniently ignoring other questions isn't working either. New and ecperienced aren't vague enough to simply ignore it. And clearly you're not interested in finding out, since you havn't even bothered to ask yourself. If you think yourself a fair person, then try and find out rather than just dismissing what other people want because it doesn't suit you. For the record, I'm not slinging mud at anyone but people who have thrown mud. I critiqued your approach and interpretation quite fairly and civil. However, you have an interest and you use statistics conveniently and ignore results entirely. Which I find dishonest, yes. Anything wrong with that assessment? Feel free to correct me. But don't feel free to try to shut me up as some have. I havn't done that to anyone. I've only pointed out some people are overreacting a lot. If you think that is bullying, you should try being called "little sissies", etc.

Alright, if you are so self absorbed that quoting you means I'm also talking about you with every follow up sentence and reference to behaviour by some people, then please be my guest. But I'm going to ignore you from now on to avoid confusing your ego. You're not the only person in here debating. If I was talking about you I would be specific as I have been on several occasions. I'm far too direct and straightforward to try subtle insults or strawmen. If I'm talking to you specifically, I make it known to all. Not sure where you're from, but here we speak our minds openly. I'm being completely honest with you here, whether or not you choose to believe it. Clip your toenails if it is so easy for someone to stand on your toes and agitate you. I've frequently stated people are free to disagree, that is why I made the poll with all options represented. You don't often see complete and fair polls like the above. Mostly because people try to avoid having different views represented. I could have easily simplified the poll and left the option for tier 10 premiums out since I think they are awful ideas. But I leave them in as others may disagree. That you and some others are used to people being biased etc to the point they misrepresent information (as some actually have in this thread by declaring neutrals to be on their side) is simply dishonest and attempts at falsifying the vote by re-interpreting someone else's vote in their own prefered way. I don't hear you be fair about that either, probably because it suits you and you're not going to argue with someone who agrees with you in broad lines. You're trying to protect your interests and that is fair enough. But you should be capable of accepting there are people who valur your arguments differently. You though outright ignored what I said about need in response to you and accused me of fanatical behaviour, where I'm simply stating my case in a very civil manner. Something I cannot say about some of the people trying to protect premium ship access. If you were a fair person, you would have called that behaviour out instead of incentizing more such behaviour in your agitation that someone dared bring up the matter for discussion. Accusations of elitism etc are rather simplistic when arguments also include easing someone into the game who likely isn't ready. Your quotation about guilty and innocent would be great if it actually wasn't rather sad one couldn't even wait for a week. A reasonable person could instead of lashing out like you have set conditions under which it is acceptable. For instance, that ships once put on offer aren't removed from offer, so you won't risk never being able to get it. Instead, you and others felt the need to lash out and created a doom scenario in which you maybe possibly might not get access to something and some even talk about sudden bankrupt of the company if purchases are delayed (not cancelled, DELAYED) by HALF A WEEK OR MONTH and started with personal accusations and whining about your freedoms being infringed upon. I don't find that particularly reasonable or openminded.

Cuddly_Spider, on 04 September 2015 - 06:15 AM, said: I am not noticing such things personally, but then again I'm generally not annoyed by losses. If you're a good player then stastically you'll be on a better team more often, so overall this should help you actually win more matches if that's your gripe. If you're after quality of play rather than wins then simply wait for ranked battles to arrive on the 17th and have at it. My opinion is that I'd much rather WG be well financed with plenty of premium buyers to keep these updates coming as fast and frequently as they do, rather than arbitrarily limit peoples ability to play higher tier game because some elitists feel it is "their" territory and potentially get a weaker game as a result. So anyone who disagrees with your opinion is dishonest? No, I only said you were for one very specific reason regarding expressing need. Talk about twisting words. This is what is dishonest about you, you're doing it again. Cuddly_Spider, on 04 September 2015 - 06:15 AM, said: Sorry but the one "foaming at the mouth" and trying to bully people here is yourself. A few posters have now offered what they see as logical reasons why they disagree with your proposal. They've gone through to the trouble of explaining their position rather than simply saying "nah" - that isn't bullying. Comparing such people with the NRA while accusing them of dishonesty is the bullying tactic. Lovely twisting of words again. I was talking about SOME PEOPLE such as those who called me a "pocket fascist", or start ranting with insults, including "little sissies" and "get a life". Something which I havn't done at all. Quite dishonest of you to try and paint me calling a lot of people that. Yeah cuddly, you're being extremely dishonest here. As I said before, it is your every right to disagree. I disagree with your reasoning because you bring up things that are either your choice or aren't really impacting. Restrictions that last just long enough to go through a tutorial phase aren't massive restrictions, yet some people like yourself act as if the world is ending because you might potentialy miss out on a deal at the beginning of a player's carreer. Come on, most new players will have missed chances on units that were preorder only or beta rewards etc. Nobody is going to lose sleep over it. UPSF_Soyokaze, on 04 September 2015 - 05:50 AM, said: Yes, conveniently structured questions that fragment the votes quite nicely. From the first 2 questions alone, 50% of voters either think that anyone of any tier should be able to buy a ship of any tier from any class, or just don't care. While 67.66% of voters are either against having a min. number of battles restriction or just don't care. Not caring means being neutral on the matter. The questions are very fair and provide everyone with a chance to be very specific about their opinion. You can't interpret I don't care as being in favour of no restrictions over the other, because that option is explicitly provided. If people don't want to take a stance they should have that option. You are deliberately misinterpreting statistics in your personal favour. The don't care side wouldn't mind restrictions, because they simply don't care whether they would be there or not. I didn't add them to my part of the numbers, but I could just as easily as you do that, neutral votes are simply neutral. You're being dishonest. Fracturing votes conveniently? Seriously? No. People have had every opportunity to express their personal insight and this poll isn't biased at all, it is nuanciated even, because you can tell what exactly people would like to see. That question you're on about is about the amount of battles one would need in a specific class. There's a lot of support for restricting by tier and base restrictions on the tier reached (with some leniance to unlocking slightly higher tier units). That's quite clear from the difference between the first and second question as well. A fixed number of battles in a class has far less support, in part because people think reaching a tier is enough restriction by itself. Which is entirely fair. But you try to twist the answers to that question. Either you don't understand why the questions have been stated in the way they were stated (to find out what people actually think), or you're just trying to apply your personal bias. This is what I mean by being dishonest. I'm not the one twisting the meaning behind the votes, I use the votes on the other questions to come to an understanding of what is acceptable and prefered. You ignore people's preferences altogether. It's quite clear that there's a big difference in what people want to allow for experienced players vs what people want to allow for new players. Ignore that all you want, but the results are quite clear: for acces to higher tier premiums (7-10) for beginners, you have 17 + 37 = 54 votes. Only 35 neutral. For access to higher tiers for experienced players, you have 4 + 57 + 4 + 62 = 127 votes and 44 neutral. You want to pretend that's not a huge difference? Be my guest. Be in denial. If these results would have showed nobody cared differently between the two and it would just express the maximum tier people want to allow, then everyone would have just voted the same in both instance, for the highest tier they think a player should be able to buy. Voting "don't care" means you don't mind restrictions being there or not. It's simply neutrality. If these people wanted explicitly no special restrictions, they would have voted tier 8 or 10 max. They didn't.

Well for starters, Wargaming dictates everything you can and cannot purchase, at what price and when. If they decide to remove the game server and close the game, you LOSE your property. If they decide to pull the unit, they will do so without asking you and simply give you something back which you have no control over but have to accept. Don't pretend it's your property, it's at most a license to use the ship for as long as Wargaming allows it. Don't believe me? Kitakame. And I would suggest you to take a look at the amount of vehicles in WoT that have been one off gifts, rewards etc. You're not in control. Your choice to not play that which you have bought is rather irrelevant to the debate on whether or not you should have been able to, so let's focus to the important bits shall we? Whether or not they cancel out has nothing to do with whether they should be there to cancel each other out in the first place. Your argument is "status quo exists and the consequence cancels out other consequence of status quo in the long term, even if they affect status quo regardless in the short term". It's an entirely irrelevant point to a changed situation. If you would have missed out on the Tirpitz, so what? You honestly think a ship with that high a profile is never going to return to the premium market? And you were making arguments about Wargaming losing out on money? Sorry man, you're falling for a false scarcity trick. Don't blame me! And yes, it's entirely acceptable to not have bought it. Many people don't get access to all sorts of "exclusive" ships for various reasons, like not buying a new Nvidia product. Acceptable? You're not in charge of Wargaming's product placement, yet you kinda pretend you are, or rather, you pretend you're forced to buy now "or else" ("you may never get a chance again"). Which sounds more like creating desperation and is a form of coercion by WG to me. Similarly, why is it "unacceptable" that you'd miss out on other things (or as you phrased it, it's almost as if it's unacceptable that it'll take a while to get to tier 8, some people grind one tree to tier 8 in half a week thanks to premium and focusing on a line). Your post contains a lot of entitlement claims, based on wants, but very little actual argumentation to why it's a good thing or a bad thing. Wanting something is never a good reason for me. We can agree to disagree on that, but wanting something and then feeling you should have it, is not per definition reasonable. Mind, whether WG should change its policy to scarcity to milk and convince players to buy or do something is an entirely different, though related topic.

There are always bad players who never learn. Free exp'ing to tier X still requires a lot of playing and even on low tiers, they'd get the gist over time without having as big an impact on the outcome of a match. However, there's a difference in grinding your way up with little experience and buying your way up without any experience. The amount of 400 WN E-100s pale by the amount of 400 WN Lowe's. At tier 5, you've slowly eased into dodging CV bombers instead of encountering multiple crosshatches immediately. You've also learned to deal with torpedoes a little bit and you've learned how cover is used a little bit. The low tiers provide relatively a lot of time to learn about map logistics, movement and positioning and are rather forgiving in terms of the amount of time you have to react and observe what's going on. In contrast, coming into the game at tier 8 may have you face 8 tight spread high damage long range torps at once (instead of 4-6 from units that were likely visible because the captain in question is also still learning or simply has to get close). For the player, it's better to start low tier. For the co-players, it's better to have as few as possible bad players in their matches. At low tiers, everyone is still learning, so it's not a big deal, but at higher tiers, the consequences are a bit more decisive. Unified free exp is a really bad concept btw from a gameplay health point of view. From a monetary point of view, I'm sure marketing sees golden mountains. But then marketing tends to make game ruining mistakes all the time by making stupid assumptions about players and wants, with no hands on experience time and time again... If too many free exp'ing new players enter a game, it will upset the existing playerbase to a degree. I don't know why you would chose to upset even a part of the playerbase unless you don't respect them anyway. And luckily Wargaming decided to not do that. For the record. Aside from being entirely entitled to disagree, I don't think you have actually looked at the results if you say that. Or you're so arrogant you simply dismiss virtually half the respondents... I suggest you tally the score and see how many are in favour of restrictions and compare it with those who are against. Look at the restrictions suggested for new players: At 156 votes 48 votes in favour of tier 8 & 10 accessible (less than a third). 31 don't care (neutral, about a fifth) That leaves 77 people (virtually half!) voting in favour of restrictions for new players, most people even suggesting tier 5 OR LESS the highest accessible. In contrast, experienced players are fully accepted at buying higher tier units (only four people, that's 73 people less!) in favour of restriction premiums to lower tiers. That means they're not against high tier premiums, just against high tier premiums driven by new players. It seems significantly fewer people care for the current situation than for a revised situation... Sorry, but you're statistically wrong.

He gathered a few hundred thousand exp on top of a few thousand exp to convert to free exp. The other doesn't need ANY gameplay experience at all but bribes his or her way to high tier. HUGE difference.

Care to back up this string of claims? - How are the numbers "negligible"? The longer players play, the more people reach higher tiers. Actually keeping some unit in reserve may alternatively incentice players to make more "in between" unit purchases at different tiers and keep some good stuff to work towards, incentizing premium accounts and free exp conversion amongst other expenses. The number of players active at any time in WoT at higher tiers run in the many, many thousands. It also only takes a couple weeks to get in these higher tiers, so to presume you suddenly starve WG from players is making the assumption players only play for a few weeks and quit before they reach higher levels en mass. Given the amount of tier VII - X units in any WG game, I very much doubt that. - How can you be sure it would be enough to shut the game down? Premium account, gold purchases including experience conversion, crew upgrades and slots purchases income exist as well, you claim that the four of these, one of which is a monthly recurring income for a lot more players than there are premium vehicles sold don't form enough income to cover the cost of development and maintenance. I'd like to see you make that claim stick with numbers. - Have you ever seen an ice cream parlor even open up in the North Pole and why do you think people on the north pole don't like flavoured ice cream? Just curious on this one.

The way people get access to it generally does hurt the gameplay of others. It's a significant annoyance to many players to the point it results in a lot of toxicity and abuse in chat. It results in people throwing matches due to making rookie mistakes and a lot more TK'ing than needed, which can be quite costly in-in game currency for both paying and non-paying players at higher tier matches due to the reward system being based on winning or losing, your repair bill, damage dealt, etc. At higher tiers, costs are relatively high for most players, so every loss based on incompetence can result in frustration of those players and they tend to take it out on the person responsible or others (at a later date). That can never be seen as a good thing. And it's pretty easy to nip in the butt by requiring at least a little bit of game experience. I agree there's no pressing need, but I have shown there's plenty of non-pressing reasons. That you chose to ignore that is not my concern, but rather you being dishonest. The reactions of some people are close to "My second amendment freedoms! Don't you dare touch them!" in response to a registration procedure, without any sense of being open to even the smallest of changes. Just look at Reynold's overreaction and some others (like the one comparing it to EU rules everywhere, seriously? Talk about exageration). So yes, in that sense some people react just like gun fanatics would and they should take a step back and realise the suggested changes have a very small impact and their rights and freedoms aren't being affected in a significant way at all. The subject and consequences don't matter when it's the type of reaction that is the same. Some people are seriously overreacting to rather small changes. You are overreacting quite a bit too. If you disagree, you can do that without foaming at the mouth and bullying tactics. You can simply say "Nah, don't think it's needed". Done. No, some people go haywire. Sorry if I don't respect that attitude much. Hi to you too. I suggest some water to clean that foam from your mouth.

Well, out of 128 voters, only 36 feel a new player should have a tier 8 or 10 and 27 don't care. That's 64 total. Exactly half. The rest prefers restrictions to tier 6 or lower. 42% and a little feel premiums negatively effect matches. If the sampling is representative of the playerbase, that would be a rather significant group. In fact, it's a bigger group than the people that do not think premium players negatively influence the match (35%). That means there's a rather big group who feel their gameplay is negatively influenced and a large part that didn't really make up their mind about that. As said, IF representative for the entire playerbase, that's not an insignificant group to simply ignore off-hand. Now, I keep being the direct target of some of the protesters against any change in policy (easy scoring, I'll gladly be the target for some more annoyed cheap shots, but it doesn't actually build a case, so you might as well focus on building a case). Cause it sounds like some actual debate is needed to convince the rest of the playerbase that the current policy is good for the players and the game. And really, the changes proposed are minor and fit with the overal business model very well. And please don't bring up the monetization aspect again, because you can't argue it's going to impact WG income negatively at all if there's a few weeks wait for people to buy the big guns. Come on. The treshold is really low.

I think some of you need to read the poll options better, there are a lot of choices given. I'm simply asking what other people think. And yes, some of these options require a grind to same tier, some say "get a little bit of experience in the lower tiers first". Some of you don't accept anything with fear scenario's arguments, thinking up doomsday scenario's and whining about freedom being restricted in a way that reminds me of NRA enthusiasts. :/ Seriously? None of those arguments make sense. They are very temporary restrictions and some people here treat them as permanent barriers. Which is just ludicrous.

I would like to take this time to have people look at the poll and realise that some restrictions are supported by the majority of voters so far, just over 50% at the point of writing. Small sample size obviously, but still, both sides could be overrepresented if anyone wants to point out sample size. Those replying are overwhelmingly negative about the idea though. And some behave quite bullying, I suspect due to feeling personally limited. The argumentation against seems to be about just a few things: 1. freedom of choice. Choice is still there, just given a bit later. In line with all other grinded ships. 2. suggesting the clientelle would diminish when faced with a minor grind, a scenario which is thrown out of the window for non-premium ships, btw. I don't see evidence of this. 3. That it would hurt WG's income. Why? It just generates more reason to purchase premium accounts and convert free exp to grind to a tier players would reach at some point anyway. If these people want to buy them because they really want these ships they would buy them later anyway - how exactly is a ship you can only sell once to a player being sold a week later income loss for WG? 4. Which brings us to four, they grind their anyway. Doesn't that counter the other argument about income loss and people supposedly not getting into the game already? I would really like to see some evidence of people leaving by a change of business model that gradually opens up opportunities to buy ships. Gaijinn also has some restrictions regarding premium units and even bigger restrictions in relation to tier grinding, they seem to do very well financially. 5. That you would learn in tier 8. I doubt you get the opportunity to learn as fast in tier 8 given the opponents are less forgiving. In fact, those in favour pointed out themselves they didn't feel ready for it yet. Not a strong argument either.

Sake78, on 03 September 2015 - 09:34 AM, said: Don`t twist my words. The context was clear: People can spend the same amount of time, but grinding more lines, without the "prequisite" of a tier 8, so, equally skilled players, but lesser "focused" cannot buy a ship they are perfectly capable of sailing and shooting in. If anything, buying a ship will be limited to how much time a player has, rather than anything - THAT was the meaning of that phrasing, not what you twisted it to be. Please don`t do it again, or read twice. As for the orange text - maybe you didn`t see it the first time - you are somewhat pretentious to tell me what to do with my own property. Read post #20 - at the end of the day, all you`re buying is time. And it`s not even that great, so it is very convoluted to stop sales for one to three months, so the great Figment won`t feel bad. Would you stop with the personal attacks? It isn't about me feeling bad. You misunderstood the orange part: you made it a choice to not play it, what I'm talking about is WG having made that choice for you. If you aren't allowed to use it, I don't think you should get the option to buy it, just because you don't know what you're buying and if / when you get acces to it. That is a risk you could leave up to the players though. Regarding the first bit, didn't twist your words at all. I just pointed out you don't realise some of us don't want to buy the premium ships but that other tier 8 and have no choice to spend money to get there instantly due to the grind setup. Yet you have no problem with that. Your argument went with the assumption only premium ships are interesting to buy instantly. I don't think you even realised that though, because I understand where you're coming from. However, it is fairly hypocritical. If I want an Amagi, I have to grind. I don't see how that is fundamentally different from wanting the Tirpitz. zen_monk_, on 03 September 2015 - 09:50 AM, said: Figment man, forget it for your own sake. You will have much, much more reasons to be angry just a month or two from now, when the I-Died-My-Way-To-Tier10 arrive. Not defending the total noobs here, I'm average (49,2 - 7,5 - 43,3) and won't hurt my team. Won't excel in battles, but at least will contribute. So what's the big deal with newbies in Premium Ships? They will be distributed to both sides, will make an easy meat, end of story. I'm not angry. Just because I suggest a slight alteration to the business model I'm angry?

Had 60-65% winrates on all tier 8s during CBT. Surprisingly including the Benson. I'm asking players if Wargaming should. I doubt they even read this. Having the discussion doesn't hurt though does it? Clearly a lot of people disagree with the policy.

I did think about it. And I don't think it matters. Time limited "exclusives" tend to turn up later in Wargaming again and again. Because "that makes sense financially". I've seen Wargaming change the availability of units time and again, trying to use scarcity to milk players a bit for something generally not worth the money. Yes, value is subjective. You could also allow people to purchase it, but not use it until they reached a certain level. That would be worse than not allowing a purchase IMO though, as it would sit in your port as a pretty desk weight. Is purchasing on grind level really stupid? So you are saying we are all stupid for accepting a grind model before we can reach 90% of available ships? Is WG stupid for making you go through a few hundred thousand exp points before you can get to a ship you want? Is that what you're saying? Because that would make your argument look really stupid, accepting it without critique on one end and then whining over the same system on the other hand.

Reynolds, watch your tone. I've started this discussion and made a more than fair poll, so calling someone a fascist of any kind is extremely insulting. Besides, it is nonsense, since you are more than fine with grind gameplay to unlock units that can cost months to years for some players. Do you call Wargaming fascists for not letting you buy the Yamato without a really heavy grind that incentizes you to purchase premium accounts or limits you for weeks if not months to lower tiers? That same argument goes for all the others. If you want to play a Yamato, you can't simply buy it without playing a lot. Premium ships are short cuts at this time, but there is very little reason to assume WG would lose money over this if people spend their money a little bit later in the game. Please realise that any restrictions suggested are extremely temporary, if someone grinds a line, it would take less than a week to get there. I'm not really impressed with the Wargaming income arguments, because if someone wants something the grind currently doesn't stop them either. It is interesting to see there are a lot of people who also wish to see restrictions, but hardly any of which have replied. Yet the people who state they don't care have in numbers. I wonder if that had anything to do with potentialy being accused of keeping other players down, but clearly there are a lot of players discontent with the current policy. Do bad players make it to tier X even with a grind? Yes, of course. But at least in WoWS they tend to have learned a thing or two (like keep moving), by then. I don't think high tiers are a good place to start learning the game. Someone mentioned the Sims and that was an example of a ship that could do very well, IF you had a lot of experience playing the US DDs (and then mainly if the smoke was used properly). Sims players tended to die first for obvious reasons at long ranges for beginner DDs, before they could learn how to ambush, compensate torp paths for likely turns etc. which requires a low detection range and at least having some experience with mêlee ranges is better if you want to move to long range torps too. I'm sure beginning DD players are best of at tier 2-4. Similar for BB players learning to deal with CVs is not ideal at higher tiers where most CV have many bombers. Will they learn in time? Maybe. They might also be thrown in such deep waters they drown and quit the game or stop playing these units thinking they bought something not worth it. Regarding the quality of Tirpitz players, the amount of players playing is currently limited. The majority of those who bought one were already playing. Not so in WoT. But in WoT you see a lot of hatred fumed at tier 8 bad players, which further diminishes the enjoyment of these players. I have already seen the same negativity towards high tier premiums in WoWS and I think it is better to at least try to shield new players from that and protect them a bit. If that makes me a "pocket fascist", looking out for new players and their wallet to not rush into things and optimize their game experience a bit more, meanwhile trying to reduce toxicity and negative impacts for other players, then so be it. Personally I think it is in everyone's interest and that the impact on Wargaming's moneyflow would be utterly negligible. Like I don't think it would hurt Wargaming if people first had to use a destroyer before trying a BB, just because it would teach them some basics about torp dodging.