Jump to content


Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About Kranodor

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I don't think there has been an official answer to this. I seem to remember some statement about "considering a feature like Accelerate Crew Training" but that was long ago and really just a sidenote. Of course, you could always convert ship XP to free XP. While I don't have any OCD, I do have a similar problem: I have limited time, I always tend towards efficiency, and when I spend money, I desire a sense of ownership (so I'll rather buy something for keeps, where I can have a sense of an increasing ROI over time, than a pay-per-use (flags, consumables) or pay-per-time (premium account) service, where ROI is much more limited). There's a two resource reward and progression system in the game, and one of those resources basically accumulates in a wasteful fashion, unless I'm doing pay-per-use (XP conversion) or limiting myself to a specific subset of ships (non-elite ships). I can't get myself to play my premium ships, or a kept elite ship, over a non-elited ship. I'm probably going to have similar fun in both, credit earnings are something on the side, always free, always useful, but the non-premium will accumulate USEFUL ship xp, while the premium / elite will accumulate USELESS ship XP, so it feels wasteful to play the latter over the former. The result? I'm not buying port slots, and while I have some premiums (that I bought really early - Sims during CBT, Warspite when it was sold for dubloons shortly after Open started, and the free giveaways Albany and Arkansas Beta), and have been interested in some others (Atlanta, which I got to test in CBT, and Tirpitz, because German BB), I'm not buying any more, because I wouldn't play them anyhow. I'm also not really keeping non-premium elite ships I have (notable exception: Wyoming, but I'll probably sell her to make room for Hosho when I get there, instead of buying a new port slot, since I haven't played the Wyoming more than once since elite), which means I'm in a permanent transition (basically, I always have 100% non-elite ships in my port, and only play a fully upgraded ship while saving up XP for the next tier), and don't have a goal in game, because I can't see myself keeping any ship, really. But there is a progression system, and I'm a bit of a diversification person (I don't like doing the same over and over again and want variety in my gaming experience) and a completionist, so I'll probably try to go through all trees at some point, and would normally be playing favorites (kept elited ships and premiums) to get some additional credits or to fill pauses while I wait for port returns, or just because I'm already in game, want to play another and, ah, might as well play that one for a change. So, yeah. Compared to the OP, I'd like to have a reward / compensation for ship XP after elite (not necessarily crew training, just something to make it as worthwhile to play an elite or premium ship compared to a non-elite), but I'm actually seeing this minor missing feature (ship XP accumulating and only being removable by spending premium) as something that reduces the likelihood of me playing, and even more so, me spending money. Which is sad, because I'd really like to spend some money - but I don't spend money on something I don't want, something I don't need, or something I find wasteful. And currently, port slots and premium ships feel wasteful and unnecessary to me, compared to garage slots and premium tanks in World of Tanks. Sounds odd? Well, sense of ownership, sense of reward and sense of wastefulness are fickle things, but then again, a business model relying on selling people virtual pieces of military equipment should probably take this bit of psychology into account. ;)
  2. Es gibt Konsequenzen. Ab einem gewissen Maß an Teamschaden (über eine Anzahl Schlachten) wird der Spieler als Teamkiller markiert und pink. Ab diesem Zeitpunkt greift dann wohl auch ein Spiegelschaden-System, d.h. der Spieler nimmt Schaden, den er seinen Teammitgliedern zufügt, auch selbst. Abgesehen davon - ich bin da nicht sicher, aber vermute mal, dass das Entschädigungssystem so läuft wie in World of Tanks, d.h. der Verursacher des Teamschadens zahlt einen weit höheren Betrag, als das Opfer erhält (in WoT ist es glaube ich das Vierfache). Warum nicht gleich Spiegelschaden? Das würde bedeuten, dass ein versehentlicher Teamkill immer sofort zwei Spieler mehr oder weniger vollständig aus dem Spiel nimmt, d.h. für einen Fehler (egal ob es ein Fehler desjenigen war, der ausgeteilt hat, oder desjenigen, der eingesteckt hat) von einem Spieler wäre das Team gleich mit einem erheblichen Nachteil belastet. Daher greift das nur für Wiederholungstäter. (Zumindest habe ich das so verstanden...) Warum die geringe Entschädigung? So wie ich das sehe soll man eben auch aufpassen, dass man nicht zu oft versehentlich in den Beschuss von Verbündeten fährt, oder absichtlich mit dem eigenen Schiff einen Mitspieler blockiert (so dass dieser nur untätig sein kann, oder gezwungen ist, gegen einen Verbündeten zu schießen).
  3. Kranodor

    WG has been listening to who?

    This is one of the core problems I see so far (for US DD as well, and more in general, for tactical team play beyond "form blob" / follow or suicide) - not enough rewards for "support", be it spotting, assists or - although that is really hard to do systematically, which is why most games reward only quantifiable damage/kill-related numbers - tactical movement (including area denial by torps for DDs, as well as any kind of slowing down enemy progress by threat / presence).
  4. Kranodor

    Konigsberg and Ognevoi

    You can have both, technically, but you need to qualify for it. Read here, event description: http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/common/sea-trials-event/ The ships are only temporarily in your port either way, and get wiped after the linked event ends.
  5. Kranodor

    Ship Physics wrong

    Just a quick comment (that may apply to some more people in this thread): So, you found something you're knowledgeable about and that you feel is misrepresented in the game. You want it to be corrected, because more sim-like would ALWAYS be better. Are you really sure about that? What about all the areas of mechanics, technology, physics, chemistry, psychology, social psychology, history and culture that you don't know about? Do you really think this is the only thing that's simplified for the purpose of appealing to a large audience and providing a somewhat fair playground for 15 vs 15 moba matches? Where would YOU end the pursuit of simulative realism in favour of an actually playable game with more-or-less fair matches that appeals to an audience greater than four digits world wide? How many people would argue against your choice of what's simplified for the sake of gameplay over what's to be pictured in a realistic fashion? Well, true. The problem is that the engine acceleration (the speed at which the engine itself starts up and shifts speeds, not sure about how much of an issue this presents) and engine power (the actual output of the engine at any point) are basically ignored in favor of a more linear ship acceleration with the speed dial not being engine power (like it should be) but rather a target cruise speed for a very linearly accelerating ship (which makes the rather strong consideration of inertia when turning at high speeds seem somewhat off - if acceleration isn't constant engine power pushing against inertia, but rather simply an increase in ship speed over time, up to a set maximum, why is inertia suddenly considered that much when on the move?). For more realism, you'd basically need two speed dials (one for current engine output and one for current ship movement) to really convey that idea to players who don't have a natural "feel" for or experience with this. I could see how this would be interesting, I don't think it's necessary, and I don't know if it wouldn't drive more players away than it would keep interested.
  6. So, I read on a pinned thread on the Announcements forum that it's considered obsolete. http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/30601-this-forum-is-currently-obsolete/ That's rather sad, because the comment section doesn't really lend itself to discussion, as it is not meant for it, obvious by a variety of reasons: Character limitation - Yes, walls of text are unpopular, but any reasonable discussion around facts or opinions will have more than a few posts of a certain length, because sometimes an explanation is helpful. The threading structure - Only two layers, no possibility to draw together two existing threads into a conclusion, loss of chronological order, and thus sometimes logical structure. Lack of quote function - pretty self-explanatory, especially considering the shortcomings of the threading structure. The list could probably be continued. For example, on the current offers news post (http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/premshop/premshop-offers-october/) I wanted to post this: Granted, it's a bit of text, but since the error message (for which I had to scroll all the way down through all comments to even see it on Firefox - which I only did to check if the comment had, per chance, been posted, after nothing noticeable had happened when I clicked submit) doesn't show how much it exceeds the allowed amount, I wouldn't know how to separate it.
  7. Kranodor

    Please bring back the old 2 point domination

    I see the new Domination 2-point mode as a replacement of Standard mode without draws (or at least VERY unlikely, even though it is technically possible), and with the ability to halt the cap by presence (i.e. driving into your own cap circle). I prefer it over Standard and am quite happy about this change. They should rename it to Standard Battle, though, to differentiate against Domination with more than two points and no insta-win condition - they might also consider granting fewer points for the cap, to allow a chance for return... but then again, in a standard battle, a successful cap is a successful cap, and thus should award victory. And as said, there's even more that can be done against capping. So, as replacement for Standard Battles (alongside Encounter and old style Domination battles) I love the mode, and that is the premise of the mode, as far as I understood.
  8. Kranodor


    Hab heute Abend gesagt bekommen, ich hätte mich ja gut die ganze Schlacht über versteckt. Klar, war nicht mein bester Kampf, New York, war am Anfang in eine Richtung gedreht, wollte dann ausweichen hinter eine Insel, habe dann festgestellt, dass kein Teammitglied (außer dem Träger) auf der anderen Flanke ist und bin da hin gefahren, weil jemand dort noch kurz zwei Omahas gespottet hatte (vermutlich der Zerstörer, der aber schon wieder auf die Mitte zu fuhr - zumindest war da keine Markierung eines zerstörten Schiffes unsererseits, und der Träger war eigentlich noch zu weit weg). Auf die bin ich dann los. Immerhin, trotz viel rumgefahre (sofern man bei einem US-BB von "fahren" sprechen kann) 1100 Grund-XP, Platz vier im Team damit, wir haben gewonnen, Dreadnought-Auszeichnung, weil ich meine Reparaturen aufgebraucht hatte und trotzdem nur noch 7100 Leben hatte. Niedrigststand war 196 Leben (in einer New York ... wie gesagt, war nicht mein bester Kampf), da hat mich ein Zerstörer aus meinem Team wie aus dem Nichts gerettet, hat dafür auch ein Kompliment bekommen. Aber ja... den ganzen Kampf über versteckt. Klar. (Das war aber nicht der Zerstörer, sondern ein anderer.)
  9. Kranodor

    W4RGAMER meldet sich ab

    Ich kann die Entscheidung verstehen, und hey - Ziel erreicht, oder? Dir, W4RGAMER, wünsche ich alles Gute und viel Erfolg für den neuen Job (und dass es dann mit dem Vergnügen auch passt), und wenn Du mal wieder die Schlachtfelder besuchst, viel Spass dabei. Es ist ein Verlust für Wargaming, so schnell einen so großen Teil des Deutschen Community-Teams zu verlieren, und ich möchte nicht wissen, wie viele ungeeignete Bewerbungen eingehen, bei dem Versuch, die Lücken zu füllen. Aber Paris ist schwierig, da kann ich sowohl W4RGAMER verstehen, als auch diejenigen, die sagen, dass sie sich nicht dafür bewerben würden...
  10. Kranodor

    Of RNG & "skill"

    What argument? Everyone is pretty much agreeing, there's just different layers of evaluation, and different terminology. If we argue about general, long-term effects, then the thread starter is right and - here's the kicker - the fact that RNG is there means that more skill is required to hit, because the margin of error is lower. However, he argues from a standpoint of ship length versus dispersion (that is: a target to be hit that is smaller or similar in size as the dispersion) - it doesn't hold if the target area is much smaller. While then, it still holds true that the person who aims better (accounting for dispersion) has a higher likelihood to hit, especially if the distribution of hit chances is weighed towards the centre (like in World of Tanks), the effect is greatly diminished and RNG (and thus random results) may have a greater impact. (Clarification: Higher likelihood to hit, especially if weighed. Effect is greatly diminished in either case, but less so if weighed.) This leads to the other side of the equation: If we argue about singular events, of course, RNG may have adverse effects. A perfectly aimed shot might miss, and a poor shot might critically hit. Sadly, it's these events that we remember better in the long run (bread, butter, price of carpet, you know) which makes "feeling" go the other way. What do you pay attention to when you shoot the same way? Which ship you're on, which ship you're shooting at, and most importantly: How far away it is? I know that my daily performance (and perception thereof) may vary greatly, based on what a kind of day I had at work, how awake or tired I am, if I played something else beforehand, how my previous battles went, which ships I have been driving and am driving, and what kinds of players are online (the latter, usually comparable by day and time, actually plays a HUGE role in my performance, as I've seen in WoT thanks to vbaddicts great stat trackers). In my case, it's usually myself doing stuff wrong. A common problem is switching ammo type too far away (too early) or too close (too late), which can and will make a huge difference, especially if I don't consider distance, what ship I'm in and what ship I'm shooting at properly, which can happen if I play on tilt, because a few rounds have not been going too well. Another thing is shooting at targets too small while they're away too far.
  11. Kranodor

    Of RNG & "skill"

    Okay, got it. And yeah, it's true: RNG, in a simplified model, reduces the margin of error, and thus increases the requirement to aiming skill. Two points, though: 1. A bit of an oversimplification: The dispersion isn't horizontal only, but also vertical (or rather: distance). In short shots, neither dispersion matters as much (but vertical even less so, since any shell that would hit water behind the enemy will probably still hit the hull on a flat trajectory shot) but in long shots, it makes a world of difference. I don't mind it as much, it's part of what makes WoWs (all WG games, really) feel more like an RPG-based MOBA than a twitch-based shooter. But the vertical dispersion can make shots land in front of or behind an enemy ship, because ships are usually far longer than wide. It's most obvious in those shots where your shells hit water along the whole length of the enemy hull - but some shots of the salvo behind it, and other shots of the same salvo in front of it. In this case, the skilled player, who aimed true - speed, distance and so on - does exactly as many hits as someone whose aim was completely off: Zero. (While this feels like RNG negates skill in a singular case, it doesn't matter as much in the grander picture: The skilled player will probably hit with second and/or third salvo, the player whose aim is off will probably still miss most of them.) 2. The whole margin of error thing only works if your goal is to just hit the ship in any way possible. The moment you want to aim at a specific spot (say, citadel), dispersion can be so wide in relation to the target area that even with perfect aim, the shot will miss it (and only hit the ship somewhere else), while another player may score a lucky hit even if his aim was off. (Of course, RNG might make his shot land even further away from the desired spot, but in the singular occurrence, again, this feels like being cheated by RNG.) But apart from that, I agree. It's another factor to be aware of, even if it sometimes feels like it's stacked against you. And it's a good way to prevent combat resolutions that might be too quick (as said above: more RPG-esque than twitch-shooting, including abundance of one-shot kills)
  12. Also, ich weiß zwar nicht, ob das die Antwort gebracht hätte, aber die tatsächliche Credits-Aufstellung (wenn Du in dem Fenster, von dem der zweite Screenshot ist, unten auf das "Kreditpunkte und EP" klickst) wäre vielleicht noch etwas erhellender gewesen, was die Zusammensetzung des Creditgewinns angeht. Eventuell hätte man sich da aber auch die anderen Schlachten anschauen müssen. Da werden zumindest nochmal ein paar Sachen getrennt aufgelistet, z.B. Credit-Missionen. Ansonsten bin ich mir gerade nicht sicher. In WoT wäre die relative Stufe (Pensacola -1 Tier zu Dir, die anderen +/- 0, in anderen Schlachten war das vielleicht +1 oder +2) ein Faktor, in WoWs habe ich mal was gelesen von wegen "Schaden relativ zu den maximalen Hitpoints des Gegners" (das wurde mal als Grund angeführt, warum Zerstörer beliebte Primärziele sind, weil man mit weniger Schaden relativ betrachtet mehr Belohnung bekommt, wegen der geringeren Gesamthitpoints.)
  13. Kranodor

    OK, seriously now WG.

    Even if it's an intangible collection of pixels, it's still a plaything, people have fun with it, it's as intangible, as virtual, as any MP3 song download, any streaming video access, any digital distribution bought game and so on, plus it still had to be developed, there had to be research done, and graphics artists had to do their job to develop this thing. Of course, development is a one-off cost (or an ongoing one, if we calculate it as salaries and so on, but independent of how many pieces are sold) - there's no per-piece production cost, apart from, maybe, overhead for the financial transaction - and thus more sales at a lower price would probably net more money. Still, I've learned over the years that there's a great amount of players who will never, under any circumstance, pay money on a free-2-play game. Oh, the discussions I saw on another game when I suggested to add in a small, permanent, one-time bonus for everyone who had spent 10 € (total, over any number of purchases, in any time frame) in the shop. A. Paying 10 € every month to get +50% income bonus: Totally agreeable. B. Getting a +10% income bonus (permanent, but one-time / non-stacking) after having spent 10 € on anything in the shop: Totally pay2win. A is a service that is quite costly in the long run and only appeals to people who are willing and able to spend an amount of money in the game. It offers a relatively large benefit to a thus rather small group of people, whereas B would be obtainable by a large majority of people, quite possibly, and put them at a slight advantage over people who are unable or unwilling to pay at all. Still, B is considered bad, A is considered good. Because people are envious, and reluctant to spend. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around this idea, but in this model, having a higher price certainly makes more sense.
  14. Kranodor

    OK, seriously now WG.

    Depends on cost per piece (production) and independent cost I have (such as development cost for the item, or regular (e.g. monthly) cost I have either way, regardless of the amount of drinks I sell) But on topic: I'm not buying the Tirpitz. I'd do, more likely at least, if it was a 100 € package with the Tirpitz (incl. Port) and an amount of Dubloons roughly equivalent to what'd be left in a 100 € charge. Then, I'd at least be more inclined to buy it than this 60 € pack. Simply because I've lost so much WoT/WoWp Premium time because I started playing WoWs (got half a year in December, then got admitted to CBT in March) that I re-evaluated and re-considered why I normally was so reluctant in buying premium time in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining - it's a risk I took, I got some good out of my premium during the last year, and due to buying large packages my per-day price of premium was rather low. Still, this rekindled my general scepticism towards buying premium time. As for the consumables - I hate those with a fiery passion. I wouldn't want to use them, as to me, they're as bad as premium ammo in WoT - if not worse. But even if it was "only" the Tirpitz (incl. Port) or a 50 € / 100 € pure Dubloon/Tirpitz/Port pack, I'd be on the fence. Because currently, I'm reluctant to play my premiums (Warspite and Sims). There's two main currencies to be gained from playing a battle: Credits and Experience. Premium ships make okay credits, but their experience is by default only usable if I spend more money, and that's a drag for me. Don't get me wrong, I still have some thousand leftover Dubloons, and I know the benefits of captain training, but... it feels like a waste to play them over my non-premium ships most of the time. And paying money to get a ship that I'm rarely going to play because it feels wasteful to play it, unless I'm paying more money? Unlikely.
  15. Sure, in return all other ships can only fire full salvos, scope tracking goes completely and planes return to hangar instantly after delivering their payload. Just like other ships don't have to wait for their shells to return before they begin reloading (they don't even have to wait for them to hit! - I left in the travel time to the target to account for the CV ability to strike anywhere on the map, even though target switching and the situation between ship and target are very different matters for CVs vs. other ships. We can go on and on with such examples, and it's only going to get silly, isn't it? I already said a lot of other stuff in my post regarding OPness of CVs (especially multi-TB) and how 4.1 might change it more than some people seem to think. CVs come with their own set of challenges. A lot of people (mostly those that never cared to even try a CV) discount those. They only see the moment they got hit. They don't care about how much time is spent on an attack or how many "Hold ALT for 100% accuracy" attacks fail to connect in part or completely because of the target taking countermeasures (loved most of the torp dodging in my Wyoming). If there's a + and a - to each class, they see their own + and - and the other guys +, and they either want the other guys + (without his -) for themselves, or want him to have their - (without getting their +). Then again, an attack animation (and longer commitment range to go with it, possibly in exchange for an actual display on where the things are armed) could be a good idea as well.