Doolio

Why tanks, though? A t8 premium tank pays for itself many times over a course of a few months even if you play with your feet, let alone if you play the game for years.

Don't go near blizzard forums, especially for multiplayer games HotS forums: -this map has spiders, I am arachnophobic, change the spiders into something else, what were you thinking -tyrande skins are too revealing -black people are underrepresented among the characters -arthas's skillset is not on par with the lore, he should be stronger (pvp game, just to be clear) -mm is rigged, when i get a good streak it pushes me towards 50% by giving me noobs and pros to the other team -eu prices are in euros and na prices are the same, but in dollars, eu is being ripped off (this was explained over and over and over again by blizzard's community posters) -more expensive bundles are relatively cheaper compared to low-cost small number of items ones, why -my 3 year old daughter bought xyz hero while I was in the bathroom, I want a refund -i hit max level with xyz character, I have no incentive to play (nothing changes with levels basically, the game is a one-shot pvp experience) -nerf [the weakest character in the game] already -the game is too expensive, I've added all the cost to make a full package and it's like 2000e, I can buy 50 AAA games for that -you don't pay real money for characters in [mentions some b2p pvp game, cod or something] -this [COSMETIC item] is too expensive -you aren't listening to the community -you are never on forums -where are the patch notes -when will the warcraft bias stop (yes, that's a thing too, as the game is not eligible for "national bias", being fantasy-oriented, there has to be some other bias) -game represents patriarchy -[random female character] is designed for male gaze, it's uncomfortable for me to play with her -women are objectified in the game Just a random small list I am not defending WG (I really am not, in fact, I was really really surprised by that phone thing by the US community manager and I too would like "naked ships" without bundles and plethora of other things - have I mentioned that I play with inverted mouse, and to this day it hasn't been implemented, nor there was any kind of acknowledgment or even dismissal about it?). But when it comes to whining community, tinfoilery, entitlement etc. what I've seen on WoT forums through years and in this WoWs forums, simply doesn't come close to the horrors and unimaginable things (I really mean unimaginable) I've seen there

We saw in WoT that the power creep is fair to all nations

While draws and full duration matches in general are a bit more prominent than in, for example, WoT, they are still extremely rare. And, I don't get what's wrong with a draw? It's a legitimate outcome of a match. Neither team won. Victory condition wasn't met. Also, there's a valid tactical element to it (I personally don't go by that philosophy, but that doesn't make it any less valid) - denying the victory for the other team. If you pull a draw out of 1v4, you denied the other team victory, made them work for it and fail to capitalize on what they've built, and didn't go "ok, I am the only one left, kill me and let's get this over with, a draw's multiplier is the same as with a loss".

Well, I am in my thirties, not exactly old either lol, but then again, I wasn't put off by the presence of slang and fillers, but by their "vibe", if that makes sense I actually value a good imaginative slang, street talk, lingo, quality curses etc. a lot I mean, "don't argue with plebs", come on, "plebs"? I was expecting him to yell "git rekt boiiiii" in a completely serious manner next I mean, I am being extremely subjective and childish, I know, but hey, no one's getting hurt

It's not "my logic", it's logic. And maths. Other players were probably noobs, solid players, average players, some probably were afk, others had lag, some maybe ten of them were really, really awesome etc. There was 250+ of them. Same goes for the other team. Only constant was you. How's that "my logic"? Is that not true? What does the "I'm only one out of 12 players" mean? I mean, sure, we know it's not 1v1. Let's see what competition has similar number of players - football? 11v11, close enough. And what happens when one player is extremely bad or tired or is just trolling around? You want to say that the enemy team does not benefit from that? That they aren't at an advantage? Just because he is "one of 11"? It's not 1 000 000 vs 1 000 000. It's just 12 vs 12. One player is enough. Especially if playing with an important ship or a top tier and such. I am not saying ALL matches were lost because of you, of course. But I'd take a wild guess and assume that in some breaking situations were you would have pushed the match in your team's favor by doing A, you did B and thus contributed majorly to the loss. Which is nothing to be embarrassed about, I am first to say that I am bad at the game and I am still learning. But going the "la la la" way instead of trying to improve and assess the situation, that's not the right thing to do. Nobody will benefit from that, neither you, nor your future teammates. And while I don't expect you to back off here in forums, try to think about it - and don't tell anyone you thought about it if ego games are important to you. But nothing good comes from non-constructive observation bias, based on feelings and frustration, instead of reason. Regardless of your answer or lack of it, I do hope you come to a reasonable conclusion with yourself. And while such losing streak CAN happen even if you aren't the one constantly pushing the battle towards the loss, the chances are slim. Your own argument works against you, it's baffling you don't see that.

I was just about to post something along these lines Then I thought to myself "maybe I'm just being a mad grandpa for no reason"... and then I see your post Ok, maybe there's some merit in my sentiment after all As I loaded the stream the guy used "plebs" in a sentence in a completely regular, non-satire manner poor hipper though

There's only one constant in those 24 battles. Guess what is it.

I can't understand these people. I mean, it's perfectly fine to not know something, but that should be the exact reason for you to - ask. And if something sounds odd, not to jump to conclusions, especially as silly as this one in particular (there is no chance in hell a "hidden" mechanics like this would remain unnoticed, thus even attempted). I played some games (let's take WoT for example, as it's a related title) for years. And even after three years of WoT, when I can safely say that I not only know many things and mechanics, but also know many of those things by heart by simple passing of time and passive learning, when I saw something unusual, peculiar, seemingly buggy or exploitative, I would go "hm, maybe I could google it" or "maybe I can reflect on it a bit, maybe it makes sense" or something. For me, something like the OP is completely nonsensical. I mean, how they fare in human relationships? "YOU CHEATED ON ME, I SAW THE MESSAGES, WHO IS 'JOHN' " -but... that's my fath... "NO! I SAW THE MESSAGES GTFO!" -but... it was about inviting you to lunch, that's why messages talk about you... it's really my f... "MORE LIES! NO!"

But in general, average player is like that. It has nothing to do with russians per se. Where is a taliban campaign in CoD games (or an axis one, or whatever period the particular title is set in)? CoD is mainly played in US, as far as I've gathered. Where is russian campaign? I mean, surely they should be neck to neck with the US considering modern warfare? Why always marines and m16's (or UK forces)? And not only that, but with cringe-worthy sentiments and storyline to boot Don't you think it would be awesome if you had a german campaign in the ww2-based CoD titles, going around seeing fellow soldiers in german uniforms, having a campaign from the eyes of a low-mid tier grunt or officer? Or some specnaz dude. Or some middle eastern guerilla guy - I honestly think that campaign would trump all the other alternatives, I mean, it's exotic from our point of view, the whole approach with the guerilla loose organisation, borrowed myriad of weapons, makeshift dirty platforms (riding in those pickup thingies with a machinegun - was it "technicals"?) etc. But no, here's a humvee which you saw in every movie and you see its suv version on the streets every day. I guess it's natural. Sure, history buffs (WoWs) or modern warfare enthusiasts (CoD) might be disappointed, but these games are aimed at the most numerous demographics. I mean, look at it this way: is a reality show in which we have (they are dead, but bear with me for the sake of an example ) bach, nietzsche, plato, dostoyevski and shakespeare smoking weed and discussing things inherently and objectively better than a reality show which features anonymous exhibitionists with iq70? I'd guess yes, but I'd also guess that all twelve watchers of the show with plato and friends wouldn't exactly cover the expenses, let alone make a profit

Why call it nationalistic? Ok, WoWs is less developed, but let's take WoT as an example. If there was a tank from my country in the game, I would insta-buy it, even though I am as far from nationalist as one can be. There are many small, but cumulative reasons: -the "look mom, I'm on tv" effect, which doesn't necessarily have to be translated as something nationalistic (it's simply attractive and appealing because you have something directly relatable (by whatever conept) to your place of birth/residence etc) -It would have emblems and flags which I might see on a parliament building while I am talking a stroll, it's kinda cool and funny. And they might be done wrong, in which case I would find it even funnier -It would have sticker written in my language, which would be immensely fun to have and really, just to read. Again, the same from above applies - they might be interesting, or they might be silly and fantasy-ridden or erratic grammar-wise or whatever. -I would set the crew voices on "national" and rofl at my crew or relate to them or repeat their phrases in applicable situations (for example, if we lose a basketball match I'd say the equivalent of "we're done for!" or whatever the english voiced crew says and see if anyone gets the reference) -My crewmen would have names probably similar to my next door neighbours, so it would add to the whole thing. Who knows, maybe the RNG would grant me with a crew member who bares a name of someone I actually know. So it would be quite interesting if my driver died and his name is the same as my math teacher from elementary school or something -and yes, occasionally, I would do a bit of a nationalistic role play and immerse in my stronk tank (which would probably be sh-tty, but hey, like it matters in that regard) and so on and so forth. I mean, "umbrelling" the general notion of a country/nation-based demographic being attracted to "domestic stuff" under "nationalistic tendencies" or something like that is really tendentious.

But a lot of that is apples and oranges. We don't really have a good analogy, except maybe war thunder variants or something like that (tiered pay-not-to-grind system). Riot has a completely different structure, how could we compare a character (champion, was it?) in LoL to a ship, we don't have a clear line. I mean, with that approach, we could hang everybody at blizzard for WoW, as you don't even have the don't-pay-and-grind option and you even buy games/expansions ALONG with a montly subscription, which is 13e and not 10e. But, all in all, what entity/instance/notion from WoW, LoL, HotS, WT, AW etc. could be used as a good comparison to, for example, premium ship at tier such and such with such and such characteristics or the tier progression requirements and so on and so forth? While a restaurant is certainly not a video game, comparing a moba game to a completely different concept might be as far from being a good comparison as the restaurant one. What we can do, however, is compare it to WoT, for example, or, as I've said earlier, games with the same principle, such as WT or AW. In that regard, I can't say anything yet as I'm quite inexperienced WoWs-wise (my top tiers are fuso, aoba, omaha, wyoming, hosho and isokaze, so I am pretty much in a credit earning HEAVEN at this moment of my journey). That said, I have heard horror stories about latter game maintenance and how it fails when compared to WoT. Now, I've seen people say that WoT t8 premiums are expensive. I think that's not true and that those people compare apples to oranges (for example, buying a full AAA game that's fully b2p). The reason for that is, I believe, in them not analyzing and comparing the concepts, but blunt sums. Let's take a lowe or type-59 or t34. They cost roughly 40-50 euros. That said, I bought type and superpershing and used them for the next three years or so. When we calculate how much have I "earned" by playing them, in terms of crew training, credit grinding etc. I think I would be in the positive even if they costed ten times as much as they did. My point is (talking about WoT, as I'll experience WoWs model enough to talk about it probably in about a year or so), the blunt hit on the wallet is kinda big, but in the long run, a t8 premium for 40-50 euros is probably the best buy in WoT and in terms of comfortability, grind and all those things, it's more than worth it and it pays for itself tenfold (not if you play for two weeks and decide to uninstall, of course). But "not uninstalling" is kinda the point. For example, For a full HotS roster (current roster, you would still have to purchase a hero every month or so), you would probably have to pay something like 250-300 euros. And, add to that another ~10 each month for every subsequent hero and an option of premium time (another 10 euros per month). If you want to dabble with cosmetics as well, we would probably talk thousands of euros. Which, compared to something like a new AAA title is ridiculous. But the concept isn't the same. These kinds of games are being played for years and years and players slowly acquire things over those months and years. It's an ongoing thing (as opposed to, for example, Monkey Island or something, which would cost ~50e and be a one-shot buy). Also, it's a kind of a playground when you enter and then go around, grind selectively, buy selectively etc. The question "how much does WoT cost?" or something like that is nonsensical, as, all combined, it probably costs thousands if not tens of thousands. But it's understood you don't actually buy everything. It's like a huge playground complex and not "exactly" a game. In that sense, it's hard to gauge what's something's worth, there are too many variables. What is the worth of Type-59? It's not only complex, but very relative. A Type-59 for 40ish euros is worth every cent and more, even though it's one of like 300 tanks in one video game. And some other, also high profiled video game costs as much as that Type-59. But, that's far from being an analogy and a valid comparison. It's too blunt. If we go by that, if you played something like WoW from its inception, it would mean that you spent MANDATORY 2000e, just so you could access the game at all times and being up to date. But saying "WoW costs 2000e and Assassin's creed costs 50e, it's insane lol" isn't quite the comparable sentiment. As for WoWs economy in general, I personally don't know still, but I was addressing the general notion.

It is both ways. You don't see through the smoke, yours or enemy's. When you do, it's because someone else in your team is in a position to not have the smoke between his ship and the enemy ship. If two ships are alive and one of them releases smoke and the smoke is between them, they don't see each other, regardless of whose smoke it is. At least it's how I understand it, though I'm still a ridiculously awful noob.

Maybe simply what you saw and what happened (calc/server-wise) differed? Just a thought.

omg Not exactly a nick, but it stuck with me once I saw it being typed, so now I occasionally type it as well: come on, bogue, let your body move to the music hey hey hey

I wouldn't generalize, though. A t8 prem tank/ship could be 30-60e (for example, I bought a couple of tanks back in the day and I forgot how much they actually were), so yeah, you could buy fallout 4 for that cost. But a blunt comparison isn't exactly suitable. A high tiered premium vehicle in wg games (and in other similar games, I would assume) is something you would want to buy as a long-term investment. If you do that, the more you play/own the item, the more it pays for itself. Even though I don't play WoT for like two years and even though I never played like 50 battles a day, my Type-59 or Superpeshing paid for themselves several times. Now, in WoWs, being a newcomer, I am not exactly sure about the multipliers, repair costs and so on, so I wouldn't know, but IN GENERAL, a high tier premium that cost as much as an AAA title is worth it in the long run (and that long run might not be that long, if you play it often enough relative to other vehicles).

If you were playing a basketball game which isn't a part of some larger tournament and you weren't invested in basketball as a whole and observed it as a hobby or a pastime activity - you would still play it competitively in that one instance, even if the outcome doesn't matter in the "hard" sense of the word. At least, I'd guess so. You would still learn the rules, learn to dribble at least to a point of walking around with a ball, you would learn to guard people at least to some reasonable level, you would try and shoot with the wish that the ball goes through the hoop. Granted, you wouldn't burn yourself out and leave blood, sweat and tears on the court as if you were playing nba finals or world championship, but you would behave NORMALLY - whatever "normally" means. You wouldn't simply "not care" and sit at the three point line and look at the skies because you don't have the ranking system and the game is just your weekend afternoon laid back basketball match. You would still play it as basketball and you would, well, play it with the notion of winning in your mind. Or not?

The fallacious "I play for fun" argument that represents a perfect strawman and is unrelated to the issue of playing the game needs not debunking, but sadly, people don't give a f-ck about silly things such as argumentation, logic or discussion. The problem lies in the entitlement factor, combined with anonymity/safety. If you would go to a neighborhood basketball court - and let's say that you went to the most relaxed basketball court ever, famous for its laid back games and loose atmosphere - and pulled sh-t like: -sitting at the center on the court mid-game -kicking the ball up the air -passing the ball to opponents deliberately -not playing defense at all -taunting other players -staying in one place, looking at the horizon -let the ball bounce off of your chest when receiving a pass and not react and so on... You would be asked if you are okay in the first five seconds, in the next twenty seconds you would probably be promptly removde physically from the court by the unanimous decision by the rest of the people there and if you somehow succeeded in remaining in game still, after a minute or two, you would probably get beaten by several frustrated persons. And rightfully so. Because if you went to a basketball court, you went there to play basketball, and even though you CAN lie on the ground or take your pants off and literally sh-t on the ball before trying to pass it to a teammate, it's a silent agreement that you in fact won't do that and not only that, but that you would play towards the goal of winning a particular match you're participating in. That said, what if you are a bad player? I see nothing wrong with that. Then again, while some may disagree, there is a threshold. Threshold being - you simply have to know the rules, for example. I would never EVER go to play a game of basketball with OTHER PEOPLE without knowing how's it played. If you are a bad player - I see nothing wrong with that. People have different capabilities, they have different aspirations and they also have different amounts of time available. And in the case of "everybody is invited" policy (as is the policy of a WG title), there's nothing wrong with having bad players and good players in matches across the board. Now, if a player doesn't bother to get himself interested in gaining the absolute minimum knowledge about the game, that is maybe allowed, but surely it's quite unfair, immoral and a douchy thing to do. What would the "minimum knowledge" be? Well, I don't exactly know - but I believe that the context matters - if player isn't an a-hole and is trying to contribute, even a little bit above the "woohoo I don't care lol" level, that's ok in my book. MM isn't skill-based, so we can't expect to not have great gaps in player skill in a single match instance. However, the answer of "I play for fun", no matter the context, is a fallacious one. EVERY SINGLE ONE player in WoWs plays for fun. I can guarantee that. Now, there are different understandings as to what "fun" constitutes for someone - and that's perfectly fine - UNLESS you are doing what the dude from the basketball example was doing. So, of course, there are some highly competitive people who are harsh on themselves and push themselves and train and invest etc, there are laid back players who are not playing to the fullest of their capabilities (as they probably don't read minuscule things such as armor values and similar) - and that all is perfectly fine. But the second you start belittling ANY amount of investment and effort, you are probably better off not participating in that activity, be that WoWs, cricket, poker, football or cooking. Because, while online games aren't "set in rl", they are as "rl" as any other social activity that INVOLVES OTHERS. And frankly, "rl" is a buzz-term, I am very much in "rl" while I am sitting at my computer and clicking on ships and I am still a real person and a participant in a social activity, no different than playing a "rl" game of football with random people. And I would expect if I scored three own goals FOR FUN - that I would be criticized even condemned, or possibly physically punished by teammates

Well, that too, but his general approach is too "real" for this kind of game. I mean, health points are unrealistic, size and speed of every ship/projectile/item in the game are unrealistic (you travel 100km in a kongou in one battle, also two of those kongous lined up are like two kilometers long), control system is simpler than mentioned quake3, and let's not even go into consumables, especially the healing potion one Even if the smoke was clearly overpowered (which is not, but regardless), the argument against that would be "it's overpowered, the ships who apply smoke are in unfair advantage due to xyz blahblah" and not "well if you stand in a cloud of smoke as big as xyz, you would be able to do xyz and see abc...". The whole notion is flawed. It's like balancing some moba character by decreasing his running speed because he is too overweight and he wouldn't be able to run around like that. I mean, I understand the ships are named after real ones and teh atmosphere is "realistic" and there are even some "shout outs" to realism here and there, but some people really approach this game from the wrong angle - I mean objectively, I am not talking about clash of opinions. If I make an arcade shooter and you complain about rocket launchers, not from a standpoint of their in-game performance, appeal, usage etc. but from the standpoint of "rl", you are objectively wrong.

Well, the only thing that should affect a mechanical gameplay tool in an arcade shooter is balance and appeal, in that order. Go try quake 3, I think you would faint from the "wrong physics" overload. I would say - wrong game to analyze through the glasses you are using. This isn't a ship simulator and it was never meant to be, from the day it was announced.

But I didn't make the split, another poster did I followed up on his post, saying that I am essentially both Thus, my point is that you "meta" in port, and "battle" in battle, as the most "true" (yes, vague term, but I hope you know what I mean) approach. The split doesn't work on me, as I grind and economize and enjoy even if I lost if the match was "good", whatever that means etc. But I also see a win as a primary objective in a single entity called "battle". Just as I would see a single basketball game as something I need to win, while I would approach the whole tournament, training, planning, economizing and even my basketball career as well - BUT NOT during a match. I even think that's a bit silly (guarding a dude and going "hm, if I run too much, my shoes might last shorter so I would have to spend money on new ones... but I want that sunglasses so bad..."). That said, I don't disagree with you in terms of actions you propose. That is separate from my opinion on who to point the finger at. I think the solution of offering a plethora of ways to get xp/creds so the various approaches will be rewarded effectively is a good one. Which raises some problems as well, as people, being like they are, will try to min-max and play with rewards in mind. Which leads to people having an out-of-gameplay agenda which they try to pus in-game, which turns from the game itself towards something else and is always proven to be bad for the game as a whole (for example, footballers who constantly fake fouls - which they wouldn't do if they were playing football instead of playing the game of playing football). I think that for that system to be effective enough, something else needs to support it. Some "incentive" (god I hate that word, gameplay should be incentive for gameplay) which would calm the meta players down and to which they would react with playing the game per se and not thinking about those shoes and sunglasses instead.

Thanks, I was assuming it would be something like that. As murmansk is indeed half the price, it would be a better choice for someone who doesn't have any sentiment towards the warspite per se. And I guess I'll wait for some mega giga t8 moneymaker later.

Ah, and the bb notion isn't exactly set in stone, it's just that I don't like des moines kind of ships - so, maybe the atago would be a good pick for me (as it sits available for "normal money"/doubloons) and, from what I've seen, it has low rof (which I like) and stuff like that. I don't enjoy the machinegun style of play, so if atago is more "furutaka-ish", I could go for that instead. Granted, if something is bound to show up soon, I can wait maybe a month (I would suspect I'll start to have problems with money on the one side and enough gaming experience on the other to justify a t8).

Ok, business practices aside, a somewhat "mechanical" question from me? As a new player, I have like 600 doubloons on my account and also, my premium has expired yesterday. So, basically, I am going to purchase SOMETHING today (I am looking at the 3500 doubloons + 30 days prem bundle, as it adds a 500 doubloons to the standard 5500 doubloons price, which I would also use to buy premium and demount/retrain/blabla). That said, for me personally, additional doubloons and prem time isn't ruining the deal on warspite. My question is - is it a good MAIN moneymaker? I like battleships and I will certainly buy a high tier premium battleship sometime into the future (t8, tirpitz or whatever is available when I get to high tiers, not to be a liability if I get it now and play like a noob). I am looking at it mainly from a moneymaking bb perspective - so, no "history", no playstyle etc. High tier bb moneymaker is what I'm after. So, is the warspite it? I am certain it's not, as it's t6 and there's already the tirpitz to fulfill the main bb prem role, but just to be sure? tl;dr - IF my main goal is to get a moneymaker high tier premium (as in, t8 premiums in WoT kind of philosophy) and I don't mind the bundled stuff as I will buy doubloons/prem time anyway - is the warspite good regarding that role? I am 99% certain it isn't, but just to hear some opinions.

I agree on the notion that the evened out rewards for the either/or win conditions would surely fix it - and that it's a good solution - I still think it's players' "fault" for getting their meta thinking leak into the gameplay part. For me it's the same as if you were playing in a match at a chess tournament and instead of going "ok, let's try to pin his queen here...hm, might develop pawns more blablabla", you go "hm... if I win, I'll have a match tomorrow. That means that I should get a good night sleep tonight. Ok, I'll get a good hotel room. And a nice dinner would be cool. And ah, if I win this match, I'll go against Peterson. He's good. But he's passive. Also, regardless of whether I win or lose, I should be making it in time to see xyz on cable...". Dude, you are "in chess" now, you aren't a guy who is staying at hotel and has a show on tv he likes to watch etc, finish the game and then think/do all that, enjoy the win, lament the loss or whatever.