Widar_Thule

Well at least you seemed to have calmed down a bit and gone into rational mode. That is good. I did not start any hostilities nor am I your enemy. You might have gotten into that mindset, but if that is the case then that mindset was not pertinent. If others were badgering you on the forum you might have thought that I was joining in, but rest assured I as a rule of thumb do not engage in that type of behaviour. What I did do was challenge you, tongue in cheek one might add. Because a challenge is a challenge after all. I had hoped you would rise to the occasion, as you could read in my previous post for the reasons described there. The GZ challenge you can find in my two lasts posts to you, just read the last few lines in the previous post. I still hope you will rise to the occasion and take up the challenge. As to the division you seem to have misread or misunderstood. It happens. The division remark is part of the GZ challenge. To keep the challenge "pure" you need to complete it without help from a division. To not contaminate the GZ challenge results by playing some matches in division and some not. When you play WOWS by all means play in a division if you want... but for the GZ challenge that I have challenged you to, in that case part of the challenge is not to play in a division. I do not know where you got the impression that I would sell ENTERPRISE. I do not own that ship in WOWS and if I did I would never sell a premium ship, not even a gifted one. Neither did I write that I would sell ENTERPRISE or think that she is unplayable. A case of mistaken identity apparently. The same applies to the fixed MM remark. I was not involved in that discussion in any shape or form. Another case of mistaken identity. As to relaxing and chilling out... I fully agree and I am as relaxed as chilled out as it gets... even though it is a beautiful summer day here. As to being med (sic)... nope not mad at you either. Unless with mad you mean crazy... that might apply to everybody who plays WOWS and posts on this forum... (tongue in cheek again...)

The weather is beautiful so that means even less interest in WOWS for me, I have not even played a single match in 8.5 and reading through the forum responses on the NA and EU forum is not exactly motivating to play either. I have played a lot of matches in 8.4 though and have to say that 8.4 already brought me to the point where my interest in WOWS dwindling. And that is not just related to carriers, but also the dwindling quality of the players base as well as that WOWS is turning into some sort of science fiction freak show game with ships whose designs were not even finished, and their construction never started. Looking at the ships being introduced lately I would not be surprised if in 2020 we will get the starship ENTERPRISE as a Tier 10. The real world ships are fast disappearing from Tier 8-10 and with that one has to wonder, what is the target audience for WOWS now. It certainly does not seem to be people interested in real world warships. It is a pity really. WW2 had thousands of real life warships, and instead of those we keep getting new fake warships in WOWS that never existed in any shape or form.

Hmm... strong in the "right" hands but weak in the "wrong" hands. That sounds pre version 8.0 to me. Was it not exactly that what WOWS management wanted: carriers as a class played by more then 2% of the player base regardless of the "quality" of their hands... If things keep going this way the vaunted "carrier rework" is going to end up with a carrier player base that is equal to or less than the number of pre version 8.0 carrier players (RTS carriers). Are you back to playing carriers Redcap? What sort of ships do you play nowadays?

There you go... getting all negative, defensive, hostile and jumping to conclusions about things of which you know nothing, like me for example. For what reason exactly? What nerve did I hit with my comment for you to get all defensive and try to lash out? Such negativity and hostility... a pity really... but unfortunately all too common a reaction on this forum from many regular posters. That others do that does not mean you should behave like that too. It is not good for you personally and not good for the forum discussions which turn into a collection of the sort of response you just gave above. Now, take a step back, take a deep breath and calm down. Now try and get into a positive mindset. What I presented you with is a CHALLENGE, and I meant and mean that in a good, positive way. You have your comfort zone, for example playing the ENTERPRISE in a division with good players and being top tier against weak opponents. I saw several of your "after action" screenshots but not all of them, just some of them in several topics and the ones I saw all were along those lines. In those topics you post mostly your successes, exclusively even from what I have seen. Which I appreciate and find interesting, truly. To be fair, you are not the only one to do that. You see two kinds of screenshots really on this forum, one the first kind is all about bragging and to "prove" a something with anecdotal pseudo "evidence" with a few cherry picked screenshots. The second kind is to complain and "prove" the complaint. I made a remark about Clausewitz. In a very short Chapter in his last book, required reading for anybody in the military really, he details quite to the point when and how examples are useful and when they prove something and when they do not. That chapter in his book is insightful really for anyone that tries to "prove" something when using examples. One to ten examples under a set of conditions objectively speaking mean nothing unless you take the other factors into account in detail that contributed to the result. Ten cherry picked examples "proving" a point "prove" nothing objectively speaking unless the factors influencing the result are taken into account, likewise ten cherry picked examples chosen to "disprove" something in fact "disprove" nothing either. In other words, ten examples "pro" can easily be countered by ten example "contra". If an example is to be useful for "proving" something, then all factors involved in an example must be described in detail and taken into account when looking at an example and those factors which influenced the result in a significant manner need to be factored in the "point" that the example tries to "prove". Otherwise it is just anecdotal mumbo jumbo, which - granted - is interesting in itself but not practically useful for "reworking" something in WOWS. Now I challenged you to get out of your comfort zone and take the GRAF ZEPPELIN and post three domination type matches where you were playing solo in a carrier, bottom tier and part of a fleet which did not capture any zone and show how you "won" that match in a carrier (so that means also screen shots of the map situation). I furthermore challenge you to play 30 random battle matches (in a row) in GRAF ZEPPELIN, not in a division, but solo. And post all those 30 GZ "after action" report match results here on the forum, especially the Tier 10 ones. Especially post Tier 10 matches when you are in GRAF ZEPPELIN and where the opposition had a division with "purple" stat players and your fleet had none. Preferably ones with 1-2 MINOTAURs and/or WORCESTERs commanded by good stat players. The matches need to have been played in the current version 8.5 before any new version is released. You see THAT is more interesting and DIFFERENT from what the vast majority of forum members posts on this forum and THAT would actually be MORE interesting to both the WOWS Developers and the player. Because THAT is the sort of data that is normally NOT presented. Why is that? Because people do not like to report their FAILURES, but as Nietzsche wrote: we learn more from our negative experiences than our positive ones. When I notice someone that on the surface seems to be a GOOD player, and by that I mean you, perform so badly in the GRAF ZEPPELIN, a ship costing 50 Euros then that is serious cause for concern on many levels for the GAME. I would preferably ask @El2aZeR to do that challenge but he does not have a GRAF ZEPPELIN. If you take up the GRAF ZEPPELIN challenge you help the WOWS developers and the player base. Much more than when you post ENTERPRISE results like the one above because they are "more of the same". Get it? You are challenged, in a positive manner. Not because I think that you cannot do it. But because I would like to see you do that, for both the GZ and the player base. Why the GZ? Why is she important? First of all she costs 50 Euros, like the ENTERPRISE, and most players do really, really bad with her compared to the other Tier 8 carriers. Second, she is the one carrier which has received the most nerfs of all, again why is that when most players do so badly with her? Interestingly someone has presented a challenge on the NA forum concerning Tier 10 carriers: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/194649-open-challenge-cvs/ My proposed challenge concerns the GZ with no remunerative component. As for me: I started playing WOWS around December 2015, playing through one cruiser line to see if I liked the game and then switched to battleships, losing interest in both and switched to destroyers thereafter and lost interest in WOWS in general around 2017. Then 2017 when I read that the GZ would be released I started working through a carrier line to see if I liked carrier game play in WOWS. I then found carriers to be by far the most interesting class to play compared to the other classes. On 23 August 2017 the GZ was released and I have played that ship through all her down and ups and downs again in WOWS. I have played 1538 random battle matches in GRAF ZEPPELIN from 23 August 2017 up till 31 January 2019. Of those 1538 matches a total of 343 random battle matches were with the "GAMESCOM 2017" version of the GZ that was released on 23 August 2017 and which was replaced by a new GZ version on 24 March 2108. The "GAMESCOM 2017" version could only use the HE bombs (the AP bombs had a six second delay making them always miss a moving target) and on average they would do from 36,000 to 65,000 damage per match depending on the tier of the match and the enemy ships involved. The HE bombs were generally only really useful for focusing on enemy destroyers and light cruisers. Needless to say that the "GAMESCOM 2017" version of the GZ was no OP match winner. The fighters of that "GAMESCOM 2017" version were "broken" in the sense that they would often times shoot down 0-2 enemy aircraft even when strafing enemy aircraft down from a perfect six o clock position and they could effectively make one strafing run after which they were practically speaking out of ammunition, they would generally also lose click fighter combat or run out of ammo doing so. I did not mind playing those 343 random battles matches in the UP "GAMESCOM 2017" version of the GZ, it helped me to learn and improve my carrier game play, but more importantly I like the rather unique for her time real world GZ ship design. Not the GZ in WOWS, but the real world ship. That is generally why I play some ships: when I like its real world counterpart from mostly a technical point of view. If the Battlestar Galactica would be introduced in WOWS as the go-to ship to win matches, then I would not play her because I am here for the real world ships that I like, whether there are OP or not. That still means however that as a paying customer I expect a 50 Euro product to be AT LEAST equal in performance potential to other ships of the same tier and class. During the six months of GZ "re-design" that took place in 2017-2018 I participated in all test phases and tested all GZ test variants in detail, which translates into about another 400 random battle matches that I played with ALL the various GZ test ships that were made available during that six month period. That includes one version of the GZ that had no fighters at all. I tested all the various GZ versions, no matter how good or bad their setup looked on paper and put every version through dozens of matches... even the one with no fighters at all. From 31 January 2019 up till today I have used the GZ in another 686 random battle matches in all game versions of WOWS from 8.0 till 8.4. I have also used GZ in two ranked battle seasons, which translates in about 70+ more matches in GZ. One of those ranked seasons was with the "GAMESCOM 2017" GZ version, the utterly UP one. ---------------------------- Now take a look at one of the (to use an understatement) better (carrier) players in this game: @Farazelleth: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/community/accounts/500494658-Farazelleth/!/pvp/ships/?bestShip=sh_14Dkaku_20_28_3C_2023_2E01_2E2019_29 Take a look at his GRAF ZEPPELIN data since version 8.0. Now why are they like this for a player of his skill level? ---------------------------- Then take a look at Notser his data, the NA CC: https://worldofwarships.com/en/community/accounts/1005803644-Notser/!/pvp/ships/?bestShip=gearing It is simple to misrepresent something, as Notser makes clear in his videos. His GZ videos are quite noteworthy in this respect. He shows videos where the enemy carrier commander does nothing to block him. This is especially important pre version 8.0 since any halfway decent carrier commander would use his fighter squadrons to block the enemy carrier commander from doing any kind of meaningful damage. Notser is cherry picking examples to more or less try and "prove" a point in most of his videos. But on closer inspection generally what he presents is anecdotal at best and dishonest at worst. Still it is presented as some sort of "evidence", and the gullible no doubt fall for it. Remarkably Notser has played 28 random battle matches in the GZ since version 8.0. and 8 random battle matches with the GZ before version 8.0. That number of matches is too insignificant to represent anything truthfully from any scientific point of view. Take a look at all his GZ videos that he has made since 25 August 2017: In this GZ DEEPWATER TORPEDO video he was top tier (so a Tier 8 match) and the enemy opposition was generally weak, the enemy carrier player did not block Notser's actions with his fighters. In this GZ HILARIOUS STREAM MOMENTS video he was top tier (so a Tier 8 match) and the enemy opposition was generally weak, the enemy carrier player did not block Notser's actions with his fighters. In this GZ REVISIT video he was top tier (so in a Tier 8 match) and the enemy opposition was generally weak, the enemy carrier player did not block Notser's actions with his fighters. In this RTS CARRIER SEND OFF video he was mid tier (so in a Tier 9 match) and the enemy opposition was generally weak, the enemy carrier player did not block Notser's actions with his fighters. In this UPDATED AA IMPRESSION video he was mid tier (so in a Tier 9 match) and the enemy opposition was generally weak, the enemy carrier player did not block Notser's actions and was very, very weak. For example at match start the enemy carrier could easily have called protective fighters by just pressing one key to cover his destroyer in the center but he did not. To make matters worse the enemy Carrier simply sailed straight into the middle of the map, for everyone to see and shoot up and as a result he was sunk fast and easily, the enemy carrier made a suicide run basically. That suicide made sure that Notser would be able to "win" the damage race between him and the enemy carrier, and this was in no way influenced by Notser's actions but it certainly benefited Notser's fleet. The match was generally utterly boring to watch, Notser's contribution to victory for his side and his impact on the match were negligible. All he did in the match was do some damage, but from a game play point of view he had no meaningful influence on the match result. Basically the surface ships in Notser's fleet won the match and the enemy carrier player deprived his own fleet of both doing carrier damage (by sailing into the center of the map and getting shot to pieces more or less at match start) and by not using his fighters at the start of the match to protect the friendly destroyer, to name two of the more important mistakes of the enemy carrier commander. This video in fact "proves" nothing that Notser is claiming and again is a cherry picked anecdote at best and a dishonest misrepresentation at worst. Most of the other CCs, but not all of them, do the same: cherry picking anecdotes in which all conditions favour their "point". More often than not they end up applauding whatever new change has been implemented by WOWS. It is entertaining, but hardly useful. Now in all fairness this is not about Notser, he has to make a living and is tied to make propaganda for WOWS as a CC and I do not blame him for it. Everybody needs to make a living, well most of us do anyway. I could have picked any another CC than Notser, most of them make the same sort of videos, but I took Notser as an example in this case. He was open about it too in this video at 08:30 which is commendable. In that video that was made after iChase was fired by a WOWS manager for making a truthful video about the state of the GZ as she was released on 23 August 2017, Notser more or less explains that he too is afraid of being fired as well and would like to prevent his income from being linked to just one company (WOWS). To this day he has not succeeded in that and so Notser, and most of the other CCs, are dependant on WOWS. Generally after iChase was fired it became noticeable in most (but not all) CC videos made after that point that they are usually applauding whatever changes are made by WOWS, this is especially the case with most NA CCs. Most CCs, but not all CCs, faithfully applaud the "company line", and that includes the changes made to the GZ no matter how severe and how many: I played a match against a EU CC on the EU server in 2018, he was in a US carrier and I was using the GZ pre-version 8.0. I blocked his attacks with my fighter squadrons and effectively prevented him from having a decisive impact on the match. But those videos generally will not get posted by CCs. ------------------------- Interestingly the GZ was for sale on two moments: - August 2017 for a duration of four days and again in 2019 after version 8.0 of WOWS was released. The GZ together with the ENTERPRISE for the longest time were the two most expensive ships in the game, both selling for around 50 Euro. So these ships hold special significance for WOWS. WOWS has released no official data on the sales and refund numbers of the GZ on the EU server. So all we are left with is sites with dubious data none of which we can confirm to be true or real, in other words it is not verifiable. Having said that, according to the data from wows-numbers, in August 2017 about +/- 700 people bought the GZ on the EU server, 648 players are listed there (not all August 2017 GZ owners are listed there, only the ones with public stats): https://wows-numbers.com/de/ship/3762272048,Graf-Zeppelin-30-01-2019-/?p=7 After version 8.0 was released up until the GZ became available for sale again in 2019 of those 648 only 65 owners remained before the time ran out to sell the GZ to doubloons. I made a screenshot of the remaining GZ owners before the GZ went for sale again in 2019 so I know that only 65 remained based on the (unverifiable) data presented on that website. If true, that means that 9 out of 10 GZ owners, meaning people that kept the broken "GAMESCOM 2017" ship on release and stuck to her through all her downs and ups and downs again had SOLD the ship. That is remarkable... And it remains to be explained. The players that bought her in August 2017 did not buy an OP ship, they bought an UP ship. Currently there are about 869 open stat owners of the GZ, that includes the 65 that kept the ship. Of course there are also new GZ owners that did not actually buy the ship in 2019 but "won" it in a container: https://wows-numbers.com/de/ship/3751786288,Graf-Zeppelin/?p=9 It does not exactly inspire confidence in WOWS development that 89% of their 50 Euro GZ carrier owners sold their ship in 2019 after version 8.0+. That is about 9 out of 10. When 9 out of 10 people tell you that you are drunk... you better lie down. Imagine a car company that loses 89% of their customer base driving a specific car after they take their car to the company garage for a "rework"... ------------------------- So.... what do you say... are you up for the GZ CHALLENGE to help the community? This one: take the GRAF ZEPPELIN and post three domination type matches where you were playing solo in a carrier, bottom tier and part of a fleet which did not capture any zone and show how you "won" that match in a carrier (so that means also screen shots of the map situation). I furthermore challenge you to play 30 random battle matches (in a row) in GRAF ZEPPELIN, not in a division, but solo. And post all those 30 GZ "after action" report match results here on the forum, especially the Tier 10 ones. Especially post Tier 10 matches when you are in GRAF ZEPPELIN and where the opposition had a division with "purple" stat players and your fleet had none. Preferably ones with 1-2 MINOTAURs and/or WORCESTERs commanded by good stat players. The matches need to have been played in the current version 8.5 before any new version is released. You are challenged, in a positive manner. Not because I think that you cannot do it. But because I would like to see you do that, for both the GZ and the player base. I mean what do you have to lose really?

I get it. You like the ENTERPRISE and like to post your finest moments in ENTERPRISE or in other Carriers when you are top tier or where the opposition is weak. I compliment you for it. Now just for fun.... post three carrier matches where you were playing solo, bottom tier and part of a fleet which did not capture any zone and show how you "won" that match in a carrier. Just for laughs it would be nice to read up on what Carl von Clausewitz wrote about examples and their value, meaning and interpretation. On that note: Just for fun.... how about you play 30 matches in GRAF ZEPPELIN, not in a division, but solo. And post all your those 30 match results, especially the Tier 10 ones. Especially post Tier 10 matches when you are in GRAF ZEPPELIN and where the opposition had a division with "purple" stat players and your fleet had none.

Granted. Having said that: One can (maybe even should) always try to get someone to step out of their "comfort zone" and out of their "them versus us" mindset and to get them to actually go to "the other side of the hill" and get a first hand personal impression of whether or not the grass really is greener on the other side or not. A few weeks ago I was in a tier 8 match with a player who was very active in complaining in match chat about Carriers being so overpowered. After the match I invited him into a Tier 8 division and asked him to play a Tier 8 Carrier. Needless to say the game experience he had changed his opinion, in the sense that handling Carriers was not so easy as he had thought and that Carriers were not as OP as he had thought and did not have infinite aircraft as he had thought. It is rare however that players dare to make that step, which is a pity on many levels. On that note, I hope that @Battleship_X will take up the challenge and play about 100-200 matches with his Tier 8 IMPLACABLE and then come back to the forum to share his opinion and experience concerning the IMPLACABLE in particular and carriers in general.

Why is that a fact? Where do you base that on?

StuntMan9630 doing some Flak math:

@Sunleader I would appreciate it if you could elaborate what exactly your MOTIVATION is for posting in this topic, to break that MOTIVATION down into smaller parts: 1.) What is your OPINION on the current state of carriers in WOWS (for example too strong, too weak, etc.) 2.) What is the GOAL that you want to ACHIEVE by posting in this topic? (for example want to convince the forum members to think X or Y) You should be able to get that CORE message across in one sentence of about three lines, if you need more lines than that you either have no CORE message or have trouble getting that point across. I look forward to your response.

Looking at your profile you have played over 3,000 random battle matches in Cruisers and Battleships, over 600 matches in Destroyers and 81 in Carriers of which.... 3 in a Tier 8 Carrier.... and in that Tier 8 Carrier your win-rate was 0% and the average damage 14,000.... Looking at your Tier 8 Carrier experience... I mean the three matches... would you say that you were in an OP ship in the IMPLACABLE? If that was so... then why was your win-rate 0% and your average damage +/- 14,000 per match in IMPLACABLE? https://worldofwarships.eu/en/community/accounts/531506755-Battleship_X/!/pvp/ships/?bestShip=scharnhorst The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.... as the saying goes. I advise you this: play the ship you think is so superior in WOWS, whatever ship that may be. Just give it about about 100-200 matches. If you still really think that for example IMPLACABLE in version 8.5 is OP, or any other carrier that you play in 100-200 matches in version 8.5+, then by all means elaborate on the forum why you think that is. Just for fun take a look at this. Courtesy of the NA forum: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/194731-cvs-seem-perfect-now-d/

Just for fun... Courtesy of the NA Forum https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/194731-cvs-seem-perfect-now-d/

The Flak changes in 8.5 do not affect the ENTERPRISE aircraft? Care to elaborate on that?

Here is an interesting "challenge" for the player base. It is on the North American WOWS Forum.... A challenge by a player to win 12,000 Golden Doubloons... in a Tier 10 Carrier in version 8.5 inflict more than 250,000 damage in a random battle match... only matches on the NA server count though. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/194649-open-challenge-cvs/ That might be interesting to organize for WOWS EU in an official manner. We could do it the other way round too: A competition where the player that shoots down the most aircraft in version 8.5 gets a free month premium. Or maybe 12,000 golden doubloons too.

You think the "pendulum" will swing "back"? Take a look at the video above regarding what is planned for version 8.6.

Hmm... so according to Stuntman9630 this is what WOWS Devs. gave the player base in version 8.5: And "fun" more is yet to come in version 8.6 according to Stuntman 9630:

After testing the current version 8.0 (Premium) Carrier setup in the training room, co-op and random matches I was close to instantly selling my Carriers as well but decided to keep them at least till update 8.4 no matter how bad things are going to get. I strongly advise you to at least hold on to your Carriers (especially the Premium Carriers) till version 8.4 is rolled out (so late May 2019) because whoever is responsible for WOWS Carriers might see the light in the coming months and implement some meaningful improvements which might make Carriers worthwhile again in version 8.4. And if even version 8.4 brings the same sort of disappointment that version 8.0 has brought, then you can still keep your (Premium) Carriers for other things like for example taking screen shots to be used as desktop wall paper or for a screen saver sort of slide show. You know taking the "always look on the bright side of life" approach like the saying/song goes. Besides you will never get the real world money back for any of your Carriers in WOWS even if you "sell" them in game so you might as well keep them.

I bought the PRINZ EITEL FRIEDRICH (PEF for short) for about 26 Euro on the day the ship came out. What little there was in the form of up to date reviews was rather limited and for 26 Euros a paying customer should reasonably expect a decent competitive and fun to play ship no matter what is said in any user (community contributor) made review 1+ weeks after release of a ship. All half-way intelligent people that can still think for themselves know: We the players have NO WAY of checking the REAL STATISTICS of WOWS, we the players have NO half-way reliable let alone indisputably reliable access to WOWS statistics and thus WOWS representatives can claim just anything about WOWS that they want based on "WOWS statistics" since we the players have no reliable way of checking any statement based on "WOWS statistics". As such bringing "WOWS statistics" as a justification into an argument is a bit like bringing "god" into an argument. There is no reliable way of checking anything about either "god" or "WOWS statistics", instead one has to accept them on "blind faith" and we all have seen were "blind faith" has led to the past few thousand years, have we not. I regret to have to point this out: the above statement that "PEF is doing very well statistically" is a baseless, ridiculous non-argument that is constantly brought forward by WOWS representatives year-in-year-out to consistently justify basically anything which is seriously wrong in the WOWS game and/or ignore repeated serious and obvious correct player and community contributor feedback about WOWS game related topics. Since that "WOWS statistics" non-argument is constantly brought forward year-in-year-out it led me to make this my signature on this forum a year or so ago: WOWS Developers seem to place full confidence in their "statistics" approach to ship design and "balancing". Which reminds me of… "A statistician waded fully confident through a river that was on average one meter deep. He drowned." - Godfried Bomans and there is more where that came from: “I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself.” - Winston Churchill and there is more like that: Statistics is the art of never having to say you're wrong. Numbers are like people; torture them enough and they'll tell you anything Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. Like I wrote earlier about the PRINZ EITEL FRIEDRICH (PEF)and DUKE OF YORK (DOY) on this forum: - the PEF and DOY are really mediocre ships at best to really bad ships at worst, they are not fun to play and a disgrace for the 26 respectively 36 Euro which they cost. There can be NO justification whatsoever for keeping both PEF and DOY in their current state especially since they cost real world money and players paid real world money for them. I do not care about "free to earn", "steel" or whatever other excuse is offered for the current state in which PEF and DOY are: for real world EUROs I want a competitive and fun to play ship not the unmitigated mediocre disasters that the current PEF and DOY are! When I use PEF and DOY in WOWS they are about as much fun as getting a root canal treatment and when I face them as opponents in a match I cannot help but laugh at their consistent poor performance in-game in the hands of the vast majority of players that I have seen using them. Like the saying goes: "when ten people tell you that you are drunk, you better lie down". And concerning the PEF and DOY it is not ten people telling you at WOWS how mediocre and basically bad the PEF and DOY are, it is dozens of paying customers and even your own community contributors telling you! Now mind you, this post and many others like it concerning the PEF and DOY are written by your fans, by your paying customers, by people that want to enjoy your game and expect ships like the DOY and PEF to be fun and competitive and value for their (real world) money. Of course the PEF consensus player and community contributor feedback can continue to be ignored by those responsible for the PEF at WOWS, like was done with the DOY consensus player and community contributor feedback in 2018. But like I wrote earlier: that attitude is penny wise but pound foolish. The result of the state in which DOY was kept in 2018 led me for example to wait for reviews and study the in-game performance in the hands of the majority of players of new premium ships in 2018 and as a result I did not buy HOOD, VANGUARD and ROMA (ships that I would certainly have otherwise bought) to name but three examples. So that leaves me with this ostrich-with-head-in-the-sand image to sum up the attitude that "statistically everything is fine" WOWS representative statements invoke when they are given as a response to the majority consensus player-feedback concerning the mediocre-to-bad DOY and PEF:

Several commanders have been announced for WOWS Legends, the Xbox One and PS4 version of WOWS, as can be seen at 0:09 minutes in this video: Based on that link the WOWS artwork for these Commanders has already been completed: USA William Sims Norman Scott William Halsey (already included in WOWS PC) JAPAN Togo Heihachiro Raizo Tanaka Isoroku Yamamoto (already included in WOWS PC) POLAND Jerzy Swirski GERMANY Maximillian von Spee The above mentioned eight WOWS Legends (Xbox One, PS4) commanders are all based on real world naval officers, six of them are not currently available in WOWS PC. In WOWS PC the current two Legendary Commanders Yamamoto and Halsey are also based on real world naval officers and the WOWS PC Unique Commanders (of which there are currently ten) are not. Generally speaking the WOWS PC Legendary Commanders offer more interesting special/bonus features than the WOWS PC Unique Commanders. It would be nice if we could get some more information from the side of WOWS representatives when WOWS PC will also get the above mentioned six new Legendary Commanders, hopefully that will be in early 2019. Since WOWS Legends (Xbox One, PS4) will go live in 2019 with these eight Legendary Commanders it would make sense to also add the above mentioned six new Legendary Commanders to WOWS PC in 2019 to keep things fair. Especially if we take the statement given at 1:32 minutes in this video at face value: "WOWS PC along with you guys, our players, is the most valuable thing, for many of us and for the studio in general." - Philip "SUB_OCTAVIAN" Molodkovets

When ten people tell you that you are drunk, you better lie down. The consensus of opinion of players that bought the PEF and DOY and those that face them in game is that the ships are mediocre to say the least. If WOWS is paying you to write this stuff on their behalf then they are paying you too much for too obvious, and if they are not you are wasting your time convincing no one that owns these mediocre ships or faces them in game.

A problem might be that the family of these naval officers will have to give permission to WOWS for using the name and image of their ancestor. There currently already is a real world British naval officer in WOWS: William Tennant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tennant_(Royal_Navy_officer) His nickname was "Dunkirk Joe". It is safe to assume that his family did not give permission for him to be used in WOWS so instead only his image made it into the game and the fake name of "Jack Dunkirk" was given to him since he relegated to the status of Unique Commander in WOWS instead of Legendary Commander.

You missed the point completely. First of all WOWS PC and WOWS Xbox/PS both make use of the same resources as you can hear from SUB OCTAVIAN in the second video I linked, but more importantly the resources (the artwork for the commanders) already exists. The commanders in WOWS are simply put images with a name and some characteristics. It is not rocket science to add them in WOWS PC since the artwork is already complete and adding a commander is as easy for WOWS development as adding the 1500 doubloon unique commanders.. Since the six new commanders are already made I would like to see them also added to WOWS PC as well since adding them really is as minor as adding the 1500 doubloon unique commanders that you can currently buy in the arsenal. Adding the six new commanders at the current rate of 1x Legendary Commander per year would take six years, which is rather absurd for something that already exists. I assume WOWS PC might have a campaign for "Maximillian von Spee" like was done for Yamamoto and Halsey but if we have to wait for six (!) such campaigns at the going rate of 1x per year then things are getting more than a little ridiculous, especially since WOWS Legends will have all eight of these Legendary Commanders available at launch.

I bought the PRINZ EITEL FRIEDRICH (PEF for short) for about 26 Euro when the ship came out. What little there was in the form of up to date reviews was rather limited and for 26 Euros a paying customer can expect a decent competitive and fun to play ship no matter what is said in a user made review. After many matches in the ship and studying the performance of others in the PEF in matches I can only agree with what many players that also bought the PEF have written about the PEF in this forum topic. 1. The PEF is both generally bad/weak and unremarkable across the board. 2. The PEF is not fun to play at all. 3. The PEF in WOWS is rated as a battleship but in that category the ship is significantly weaker than other battleships. 4. The PEF has no remarkable redeeming characteristic to make up for its mediocrity. 5. The PEF can barely make a decent consistent performance in Tier 6 matches and even less so at Tier 7+. I do not care if people can "win" the PEF for free in WOWS. I paid 26 Euro for it and for that price a paying customer reasonably can expect to get at least a decent product. The PEF is not only NOT worth the money it is simply speaking a disgracefully weak product whose only redeeming quality is that the ship 3-D model is nice and well made. The in-game performance of the PEF however is bad to say the least compared to other Tier 6 battleships and especially so when the PEF is involved in Tier 7+ matches. I did not buy the DUKE OF YORK (DOY) for 36 Euro but I know people that did. The DOY was another weak product for even more money. I do not care if the DOY and PEF can be won by playing matches in addition to being bought for real world money. When you offer a ship for real world money it has to be made to be worth the money. When WOWS sells a ship for real world money the ship should be fun to play, competitive and most of all not weaker than other ships in the same category and tier. Whoever takes notes of the customer remarks/feedback in this topic for WOWS might consider this feedback irrelevant because whoever bought DOY or PEF already were "foolish" enough to spend their money on the ships so it is "too late" for them to do anything about it. That however is penny wise but pound foolish because the end result of buying a product like the PEF is that I am very unlikely to make any further purchases of ships due to this experience. I bought the PEF on good faith in your flagship December 2018 product, for other products that I wanted to buy I took a longer time till reviews and my own in-game experience versus some ships were clear. The result of that attitude was that I did not buy for example the following ships which I otherwise would have bought: ROMA, HOOD, DUKE OF YORK, VANGUARD. So if you want to keep sales of Premium ship sales low then by all means keep PEF and DOY like they are now. If you want to sell more premium ships however than improve both PEF and DOY to make the ships both competitive and remarkable and WORTH THE MONEY!

Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION

Apparently that indeed seems to be the case even though this "no compromise in terms of authenticity regarding the armour protection of the ship" is still the "official" line as communicated by various WOWS representatives.

Yes indeed. Just for fun: In percentages those 18x Bombers were 37.5% of the total offensive air power of my Carrier and the 12x Fighters were 50% of the total defensive air power of my Carrier. I can just image the endless complaint topics on this forum if any other ship class in WOWS (Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships) would PERMANENTLY lose 37.5% of their offensive power in a mere +/- 4 seconds without having ANY way to recover from that for the whole duration of a +/- 20-minute match. Making up till 3x such attacks against an AA setup high Tier Battleship or a "Defensive AA Fire" Cruiser (the AA setup only becomes apparent in a match when Aircraft actually attack the ship, so when it is already too late to disengage for most Carrier players) will let most Carriers in WOWS lose 100% of their offensive power in a match, effectively turning them into match spectators. That plays a key role in new players quitting Carriers for sure. Fully Passive AI-controlled AA that can fully negate and even eliminate the offensive power of a human player is apparently part of WOWS being "fun and engaging". A week or so ago in an EPICENTER type random match I watched some poor sod in a SHOKAKU make 3x Air Attacks on what appeared to be a solitary Tier 8 Battleship. He did not realize that near that Battleship there was a MINOTAUR hiding in a smoke screen near some islands since he certainly could not spot the MINOTAUR. His first Air attack cost him all his Bombers to that hidden MINOTAUR for no positive result whatsoever. Then he came in for a second Air Attack which again cost him all his Bombers to that hidden MINOTAUR for no positive result. So when he was making his second Air Attack I decided to warn him in chat by asking him how flying inside the AA range of a hidden enemy MINOTAUR was working out for him. Apparently the SHOKAKU Commander did not take the hint (or had the text chat turned off) and he sent in his third and last Air Attack which again cost him all his Bombers to the hidden MINOTAUR for no positive result. I doubt the MINOTAUR Commander even noticed the SHOKAKU Air attacks, he was too busy sinking enemy ships while his passive AI-controlled AA was slaughtering the poor human controlled SHOKAKU Bombers. When I checked the SHOKAKU Commander his stats I found that he was a fairly new Carrier player in WOWS that had no doubt invested a lot of time - and maybe even money - to get his Tier 8 Carrier. I certainly cannot blame him for not knowing about the existence of invisible super AA ships such as the MINOTAUR. Examples such as these no doubt play a large role in new players quitting to play Carriers. And that is solely a result of how WOWS decision makers have implemented and expanded AA, especially at high Tiers, and even more importantly of not "learning/teaching" new Carrier players what they have to know and master at each key Tier (Tier 4, 6, 8, 10). The SHOKAKU Commander in the example is just another case that highlights that WOWS has never introduced a mechanism to "educate" and "teach" new Carrier players the key Carrier play concepts which highly influence and even dominate Carrier play at each respective Tier. If new Carrier players are not "taught" and "learned" Carrier game play concepts via the usual (pavlovian) "action-reward" mechanism that is used in WOWS for basically everything EXCEPT Carriers, then they cannot blame the new Carrier players for not "learning" and thus not "staying" in the game. A old Roman saying sums it up best: "Eventus stultorum magister est" (Experience is the teacher of fools) And since many Carrier players do not want to repeatedly be made a fool of when using a Carrier, like that SHOKAKU Commander I mentioned in the above example, they just quit WOWS and move on to other games. With the exception of the hardcore Carrier Commanders that have learned through experience. It will be interesting to see if the hardcore Carrier Commanders will stick around to play Carriers when the "long term" dumbed down XBOX/PS4 Controller "Carrier rework" play is finally introduced in WOWS.