Figment

Exploits are unintended uses of game features. Like map border hugging/drifting was abused to become harder to hit than intended. Subs and ping are a feature working as intended and used as intended. It's cheap perhaps in certain situations and IMO poorly designed, but that makes it neither cheating or exploiting, when simply using it as intended. I know it is appealing to demonise the opposition by pretending they cheat, exploit or do all sorts of 'dishonest' things, but truth is they don't and you're acting childish in doing so. Making you far less likely to be heard by devs because you act so immature by using degrading words towards others. Now, that doesn't mean you can't deem it an unfair advantage and/or a poorly/ridiculous designed feature/mechanic because it leads to a situation that you or someone else doesn't enjoy to the slightest as fair competition. But that gets subjective quickly, as it gets in the range of arguments used by BB players who hate stealth torping and dismiss this as unfair (while absolutely demanding instant kills on DDs "because respect my firepower authority" of course). With the announced changes, I don't mind the larger cone of fire per se, but then retaining the ping feature IMO makes it a too powerful combination. I'd rather they could fire one torp at a time on manual aim and get a better indicator for depth of torps at the projected interception range.

Coop and interesting is incompatible regardless of what you bring. EVERY ship you bring to coop is boring. Plenty wrong with subs, but bringing up coop is just... Yeah. It's a completely irrelevant mode to look at for fun balancing.

More like Ranked with added win conditions.

No ships yet: 50 camo 50 scylla 1.500 steel 15.000 coal 50.000 exp Eh, would have settled for a CV or two.

WG: “Good, gooooooood, now you can get them again next b’day event!”

What, you lot don’t go out to buy submarine commanders today? 😛

7 days…

Try /del *.*

Honestly those pricings will probably end up only a little higher per played hour for a sub that you can "pause" (by only having it in effect when you're logged in). Basically what you're talking about here is a pre-paid telephone card, so a pre-paid amount of hours with slightly higher hourly rates than would be the case for a long term subscription. Where with a long term subscription you'd have the advantage of a variable amount of hours for a fixed price (costly for consumers who barely use it, but cheap for consumers that are frequent users and the other way around for pre-paid cards). If they can do it with telephones, I can't see why it's not possible with a game.

The proposal to pay per logged in time, whether per hour or per minute, is not incompatible with long term subscriptions as they are today. It's simply tailoring to the cost/benefits of different players with a different time plan. It may not be interesting for you personally, but then this game, or any game, isn't designed just for you. Subscriptions and time-spend payments can exist side by side to serve different consumer needs without damaging WG's income potential (quite the contrary probably) and without increasing cost for existing long term subscription purchasers.

Wargaming already scales prices per period: the shorter the period, the more expensive per hour (see my calculations above). This would not affect longer term subs at all. It would likely raise the amount of people spending on premium time compared to now, because the entrypoint is much lower and it's much easier to oversee the cost/benefit relation in advance of the purchase. You use projection, speculation / assumption, slippery slope and baseless fearmongering fallacies in one argument. Your argument is therefore completely worthless. Say you purchased a half year subscription some time prior to a patch that makes the game unplayable for you, or causes such frustration you stop playing and take a break. Alternatively, you could have an accident that lands you in hospital, face severe family issues that keep you off-line, even go to jail or otherwise lose access to playing the game, at which point you might want to have a (recurring) subscription end as you're not playing. Knowing what you purchased and getting your money's worth for it and being able to predict your usage accurately are different things. You can't see this being an issue? Maybe you consider yourself to be the next Nostradamus, but for most players having such foresight is unlikely and reputations are also subjective to each individual (WG and antics may be valued or known differently for each player). A long term subscription is always guesswork.

Then please explain how a two hour session costing €0,30 is more expensive than €1,09 for the whole day (most time of which you didn't use).

Please learn maths.

There are lots of things both in the digital and real life world where you pay in other ways than per whole days. Most the time in real life you pay either a subscription for a lengthy period (day, weekend, month, quarterly, half year, year), or per hour or even per game/instance of use. There are even more variations on this than you might think off. Think of Arcade games where you pay [INSERT COIN] even for lives in games and purchase "continues" (where you continue playing where you left off, with a score reset), rather than per game from the start. In the online world, gaming has had similar session based payment schemes. And they've been doing so since the '90s. https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/pay-play To pretend there's no other payment systems is naive and ignorant. Besides, there's no effective difference between paying with a parking app for parking your car somewhere and a game in terms of subscriptions or pay-per-minute, only in entertainment value.

That depends on the cost per minute and gametime. There's a breakeven point somewhere, where it becomes more lucrative to get a monthly subscription. The more you play, the more expensive hourly cost would be, but the less you play the more costly a subscription is. Currently WG has the following premium time cost (per full day time): 1 day: €1,09 (€0,0454/h) 3 days: €2,85 (€0,0396/h) 7 days: €5,25 (€0,03125/h) 14 days: €7,35 (€0,0219/h) 30 days: €9,95 (€0,0138/h) 90 days: €27,45 (€0.0127/h) 180 days: €47,25 (€0.0109/h) 360 days: €80,39 (€0.009/h) Of course, one won't play as many hours a day on average as there are in a day, so average cost per hour is greater. One also doesn't play as much on average per day as one does per week or month due to weekends and off-days skewing those numbers. Say you play on a recurring subscription for 2 hours per day on average per weekday, including weekends, then your expenditure for a 21 day period would be either 1,5x€7,35=€11,025 (€0,2625/h played) or 3x€5,25/42=€15,75 (€0,375/h played). With 3 day or 1 day recurring this would be a lot higher of course, so unlikely you'd want to use either of those. Of course, the more you play on average, the closer you'd get to the ideal cost/h as calculated above. The less casual the player, the more interest in longer term periods one might be. However, if in the same period you only played say 8 hours total, then the hourly rate would have been €1,378/h and €1,969/h for a biweekly or weekly subscription. If you spend those 8 hours over the course of 4 days, then you would have at least have had to purchase a 1 day and 3 day pass, but if they were spread out, 4 1 day passes. So either €2,85+€1,09=€3,93 or for the more likelier spread out days 4x€1,09=€4,36. Which would have come down to €0,491/h played and €0,545/h played respectively. So sure, it'd be cheaper on the whole to buy those 1 day and 3 day subs, but per hour you'll be paying a lot more than the more invested player. Say you'd play all those 8 hours in one day, you'd only have spend €1,09/8=€0,13625/h. So on the basis of 8 days spend over a multitude of days, there's definitely a case to be made for a cost of say €0,15 to even €0,35 per hour for very casual players, as that'd been a lot cheaper. Of course, for invested players who play more than say 2-4 hours a day every week, that'd not be the most efficient spending. Just think of it as if you could only buy one or multi-day parking tickets, rather than the time you're actually parked somewhere. If you come there often or leave the car parked for a long duration (while on holiday at the airport or so), sure, it'll get cheaper at some point, but do you really not want the option to tailor it to your needs?

Does compensation include any added time to complete missions and event chains that might be jeopardised? I would argue giving players a little bit extra time to complete missions, especially for say the dockyard event, would be very reasonable.

Van Kinsbergen: First match after a 5 mins. queue. Decent range for a tier 1 at 11.2km, good accuracy for the mortar shell angle thanks to speedy shell, high enough rof, but very poor HE only damage per shot and fires barely start. If they do start they are out immediately, so hard to keep fires going. Reasonably nimble for kiting. Gelderland: First matches started after 4-5min queues as well. This ship continues the trend, with good range for the tier (12.5km), high accuracy where you aim, but poor HE damage and a worse mortar arc for leading. Feels very sluggish. Has AP, though even at short distances HE feels more reliable with double to triple the damage per salvo. Not good against BB unless you can get fires to stick. Main issue: lack of players. Java: Soon™️ EDIT: So first match with stock Java turned out a decent 67K damage. Good fire starter in comparison to Gelderland, very accurate despite arc and travel time. Leading is therefore pretty easy. Agile, stock range is sufficient and if you find a low-medium sized island you can spam BBs till they burn like a crisp. Due to narrowish spread you can somewhat easily select parts of a BB to set on fire at about 11km, so that's good. Does tend to overshoot as all arced mortars, but much easier to aim than Bogatyr IMO. Would recommend.

So it turns out the latest addition to WoWs is comedy gold. :) Q: What do you call it when a u-boat loses all hp in the arctics? A: Sub-Zero Q: What do you call it when a sub rises up quickly to ram an enemy ship? A: A Depth-Charge Q: What do you call a helpful U-boat? A: Sub-servant Q: What do you call it when an u-boat captain is trying to direct players in battle and people react to it? A: Sub-ordinance Q: What do you call it when an u-boat captain is trying to direct players in battle and people don't react to it? A: in-Sub-missive Q: What do you call it when you force an enemy u-boat to the surface by chasing after it till it has no choice but to come up? A1: Sub-poena A2: I guess it was... out of its depth. Share your own!

I'd prefer early access to start at 1 as well.

It just got the best flak, highest base AA range and above average continuous damage for its tier wrt other cruisers. Only the US cruisers are better at AA. Haarlem Range: 6.0km Continuous damage: 215/260 Flak damage: 1540/1540 AA rating: 63/73 Defensive AA option: yes (cont. 50% / flak 300%) next to hydro AA fighter: no Charles Martel Range: 5.8km Continuous damage: 150/196 Flak damage: 1190/1190 AA rating: 55/62 Defensive AA option: yes (cont. 50% / flak 300%) or hydro AA Fighter: yes Amalfi Range: 4.6km Continuous damage: 259/263 Flak damage: 1190/1190 AA rating: 64/64 Defensive AA option: no AA fighter or spotter (spotter likelier choice) Edinburgh Range: 5.8km Continuous damage: 161/221 Flak damage: 1260/1330 AA rating: 57/66 Defensive AA option: no AA fighter: no Albemarle Range: 5.8km Continuous damage: 233/272 Flak damage: 1430/1430 AA rating: 63/73 Defensive AA option: yes (cont. 50% / flak 300%) or hydro AA fighter: no Hipper Range: 5.2km Continuous damage: 212/291 Flak damage: 1400/1400 AA rating: 63/72 Defensive AA option: yes (cont. 50% / flak 300%) (unlikely: good hydro) AA fighter: yes Tallinn Range: 5.8km Continuous damage: 222/288 Flak damage: 1400/1400 AA rating: 67/75 Defensive AA option: yes (cont. 50% / flak 300%) or hydro AA fighter: no Chapayev Range: 5.8km Continuous damage: 141/216 Flak damage: 1260/1400 AA rating: 53/66 Defensive AA option: yes (cont. 50% / flak 300%) or hydro AA fighter: no Cleveland Range: 5.8km Continuous damage: 258/307 Flak damage: 1540/1540 AA rating: 71/77 Defensive AA option: yes (cont. 50% / flak 300%) and hydro AA fighter: no Baltimore Range: 5.8km Continuous damage: 275/324 Flak damage: 1540/1540 AA rating: 74/79 Defensive AA option: yes (cont. 50% / flak 300%) or hydro AA fighter or radar (radar ofc) Mogami Range: 5.8km Continuous damage: 93/109 Flak damage: 1470/1470 AA rating: 44/48 Defensive AA option: yes (cont. 50% / flak 300%) or hydro AA fighter: yes

For national reasons I plan to keep each ship and a captain dedicated to each ship just for fun. But the whole early access thing kinda undermines introducing a new line. I know it's meant to tempt people to buy the T8+ ships, but as you say, if you get to the T7, why would you grind the rest with everything in the game pushing you to higher tiers?

Okay so what the hell was the Kaga thinking going after you? Did he come after you early or late game?

Yes, your job is to stay out of jail by doing your job flawlessly. Clearly no need for skepticism here. See, if you can't understand a reaction to a boldened and underlined statement of yours and instead relate it to the stuff NOT underlined... Why would I trust any word you say as your capacity to analyse is probably compromised? And exactly how would a mistake like this be tested? I don't think you get it. It's a minor damage change in a RNG environment. You're not going to notice it with testing, you almost have to notice this in the statistics by coincedence. As I said, people like yourself conflate individual human error with the company as a whole and you're doing it again. Quality Assurance can't catch everything. This is not a CE test. It's a single value in a sea of data. You could have requested it changed back without all the dramatics suggesting that people making so many mistakes should go to jail by conflating all of WG's employees stand-alone mistakes. Please understand that your ridiculus hyperboling was the target of my spite.

Golden oldie.

Can't learn without erring or not knowing something in the first place. No shame in ignorance, only in wilfull ignorance.