AndyHill

Permacamos (T2-T9) used to be on 50% sale semi-regularly a few years back, just not recently - just like most of the other really good deals. They even had a 50% off sale just before the carrier rework when we already knew we could get a full price refund afterwards, which was a pretty good deal for anyone with spare doubloons.

This is kind of how I see development in ships and how majestic they looked throughout the recent centuries: Off to a great start! What the actual duck went wrong here... It's ok boys, magnificent sea monsters are back! Ehh....

So this is the kind of fine tuning WG do to a class between the last test and release: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/188 All the testing in the world won't help if there's no way to turn back when the results are negative. I think it's time for the classic diagram that never seems to stop being relevant with WG:

@YabbaCoe & al., if you absolutely have to have the same ship with the same name instead of for example selling New Jerseys and Wisconsins to people who already have Missouri, at least give the current owners a new permacamo with stupid economy bonuses instead of a weird eternal mission cluttering the already cluttered enough UI. Extra bonus if it's pure shiny gold, a bit like the ranked camo but shinier.

To be honest this whole debacle is just baffling. Usually when WG do scummy ship you can at least understand their motivations for doing so, but this time the mind boggles on so many levels. If you just name the new ship "Missouri 2", "Missouri '45", "New Jersey" or/and "Wisconsin" 1) WG save on costs and efforts of trying to make some stupid eternal mission, that's +€€€ 2) Players don't have to deal with confusing ship like weird permanent special missions for one ship 3) Collectors and other whales who already have the MO will buy the new ship(s), that's +€€€ 4) Whales will whale shiploads of loot boxes to get the original Missouri, that's +€€€ 5) Whales who whaled the Missouri won't be pissed off, that's at least not -€€€ The only thing this convoluted system as proposed has is the ability to nerf the income of existing Missouris for people who already have them. I'm one of them. Funny thing is that in addition to a Missouri, I basically have everything else - twice. Something like 4-5M freeXP, can't remember. Closer to 700M credits even though I just spent 200M on 200k coal. I have every single tech tree T10 in the game and most special ships. I don't need a Missouri for anything. I don't care - in fact I don't really know - how much profit ships make, I play what I want. It seems that most of my favorite ships are profitable enough since that credit count seems to be climbing and climbing all the time. I don't care very much what happens to the MO's money making ability, I'm just completely baffled by just how bass ackwards approach WG have chosen. I mean I can't complain if WG decide to make their Satan boxes less enticing, but I can wonder why. edit: Now imagine WG doing this on a moment's notice at a time when there are no last-chance original Missouri loot boxes for sale. What?

Name it "Missouri BB-63" or "Mighty Mo" and you're done. No need for all the complexity. Unless reducing the amount of credits the few remaining Missouri owners get is considered a big deal - and I can't see that being a very important consideration even to WG.

Place your bets, gentlemen. On average, after the changes and with the mission income applied, Missouri will make... 1) less credits than before. 2) much less credits than before. 3) a loss.

It's nothing new or unexpected really. Basically what happened was the community people got a message in the style of Hi dudes and dudettes In the next patch we will be removing flag rewards for achievements to reduce the amount of credits and coal in circulation. Do NOT disclose this reason. Instead, when confronted try to pull focus on following points: 1) You now get flags from containers every week even if you don't get achievements! If people count the amounts tell them that they also get special flags and make it sound like a good deal. 2) Claim that there was massive detonation flag farming ruining everyone's games and that we just had to act. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES admit to making the economy intentionally harsher. The first person to complain about how stupid this makes them look in the eyes of any reasonably competent player gets to participate in the release stream for Russian carriers.

There is a very simple solution to this problem.

Interesting if true, but so far I haven't seen any kind of real sources for this.

But how can there be camping in a carrier game?

You get 100 communist tokens for playing one battle, this used to be 3 x every kind of a flag. Now, instead of around 40 signal flags, the 100 tokens you get instead buy you a whopping one (1) restless fire camo. How is that not a gigantic nerf to rewards?

I think the point was that there was a person who knows nothing about how to win battles telling someone who does that he gets his awesome winrate by not trying to win.

What ever you do, do NOT protest by not playing CVs anymore, that would be so unbearable.

It's true that in some matches there's a carrier farming damage at the end. However - and more importantly - in approximately 100% of all matches there are two CVs throwing the very first punches and engaging effectively several minutes before most of the gun ships even get a chance to shoot at something, let alone effectively. And that early damage and the information are game changing. Also if you consider late game trash time damage meaningless, think about damage done to carriers. They already have absurd survival ratios but imagine what that number becomes if we remove all the cases where a CV is being hunted down at the end of battles decided a long time ago.

It's not like most of our people tried to get the games in before footballs start. I also assume this affects our Asian opponents equally, right?

That's kind of an interesting thought. If you could build a ship into an "AA fort" so that a CV couldn't strike it that would just mean that the CV couldn't hurt the ship and the ship couldn't hurt the CV. How is that unfair for the CV?

None of this makes any sense as far as WoWS is concerned, please elaborate.

Perhaps because as you (and many other CV proponents before) basically just admitted, they take skill out of the game and dumb it down for everyone.

Talking about contradictions; in one message you are trying to teach purples the most basic carrier mitigation and in the next you claim they are actually masters of it. Which is it?

Just dodge, it's pretty easy. And don't push forward in a 899 game, you need to learn new tactics, stay behind and wait to see if your team manages to gain an advantage for you.

Picking and choosing one specific situation says nothing about balancing. How about for example when your CV fails and you are in a situation where your DDs are dead and the reds have CV spotting and damage on top of your dead DDs? Much balance. They lose their meaning because it's so much harder to get close to the reds without overextending. If you look at high tier clan wars it's probably going to be quite focused on open water shooting again.

The game is balanced pretty fine when only ships of all classes are present. When planes appear, most stuff such as concealment, dpm, torps, gimmicks and such lose their meaning and the game is dominated by long range spam-ability and to an extent AA. The only variety planes bring is the opportunity to get crabbed on by planes and everyone on the enemy team who outranges you.

WoWS is one of the biggest and most profitable games for WG. The plane game kind of survives, tanks and ships make money and afaik the rest of the games pretty much come and go without much fanfare. As for balancing; the game is far more balanced without than with carriers and there are zero balancing reasons to have them around.

That's because in actual reality all other classes get to shoot at the invisible and cowardly and OP and immortal DDs so much that they are in fact the least survivable class. That's a pretty effective way of venting anger.