Procrastes

So... more carriers, and even more planes? I'll say this of Wargaming; populists they are not...! And what the heck is a "support carrier" anyway? Is it meant to support the other ships in the team, or is it just going to support other carriers? What will be the next thing, I wonder? Flying submarines?

My guess is that Jingles is by far the most popular CC that is currently affiliated with Wargaming, yes. And while I'm no authority on the subject, my impression is that the discontinuation of Flamu's association with WG was mutually appreciated change. When that sort of relation turns sour, it's really best for everyone to part ways with dignity.

Jingles has no stream that I know of. He said he tried it at least once, but for some reason - I forget why - he didn't find it entirely to his liking.

With respect, no. YOU can single-handedly smash through multiple enemy DD:s on your own. The Småland is just your weapon of choice. What a wall of trophies...!

It's a good thing you ended your post by declaring that you were "mostly joking". With regards to the non-joking part, and for the record: Any kind of hierarchical player-based punishment mechanism, whether based on win rate or some other factor*, would swiftly make the game toxic beyond belief. It would become totally unbearable for everyone, with the possible exception of those former schoolyard bullies who peaked at sixteen and have spent the majority of their ensuing years leaking bitterness and confused self-pity from their dank incel-basements. That said, I can see the funny part of your suggestion. I think we've all shared the experience you describe, trying our level best to make the most out of an inauspicious situation and getting nothing but spite (and the occasional friendly torpedo) from our intrepid team mates. I take comfort from the fact that any trolls I encounter online have to spend the rest of their days in their own company, while I can just thank everyone for the game and log in to another battle. Cheers! * Such as, say, an in-game naval rank that could be purchased with doubloons. That would be historically accurate, if nothing else.

As far as I know, the Smolensk has been changed only indirectly, through more general changes such as the skill reshuffle which means that cruiser captains no longer have access to the skill that gives +20% range to the main guns. Such indirect changes to premium ships, which represent the very reasonable principle that premiums should not be immune to the effects of changes to general game mechanics, have always been accepted. A striking example of this is the removal of open water stealth fire, which was good for the game in general but struck the good old Blyskawica fairly hard - she was sold explicitly as an open water stealth fire ship. So getting anything back from the Smolensk purchase was never really on the table, no matter what changes were made to the skill system. And she still does very well for herself despite no longer having access to the extra range option. I kind of miss it, but I am probably making a bigger contribution to victory when I'm compelled to get closer to the action.

You're correct in that there is a difference between nerfing ships that have been bought for money, and nerfing those that have been acquired for in-game resources accumulated by playing the game. But I suspect that for a lot of players, the hours that have been put down in order to accumulate, say, 240 000 units of coal, represent a larger investment than the money spent to acquire one top-tier premium. This is how I feel now at any rate, though I figure I might have seen things differently way back in the 20th century when I was a student with no money but heaps of free time. And you have a fair point about tech tree ships also representing a time investment. The difference compared to coal ships is mainly one of scale, but with regards to steel ships it is also one of ability. Both, as I see it, are relevant - you can grind up to all but the highest tiers in a fraction of the time it would take you to get enough coal for a top tier special ship, whereas top tier steel ships are locked behind steel walls of such dizzying heights that many us - me included - probably need to plan ahead in time spans of years rather than months. Considering that special ships are removed from sale every so often, I at least have to make my choices carefully - I know full well that I will not be able to gather enough steel to acquire them all. If I were to spend two to three years worth of saved-up steel on a special ship, and if I were then to be told that said ship was in for a trip to the nerf dock and would end up not quite so special anymore, well... that would toss kind of a wet blanket over the rest of the afternoon. That said, πλοίο morghulis. All ships die. We do not own our ships, after all - we are just renting them from Wargaming!

This is exactly the problem. During the first couple of years when World of Warships was in business, Wargaming made quite a habit of introducing one over-strong premium ship after another, heedless of any warnings given by community contributors, supertesters or others with pre-release access to the ships. I imagine that they must have made a ton of money out of such ships as the Belfast or the Giulio Cesare, to name but two. Then a few years later, Wargaming announced that in the interests of game balance they were going to do a few adjustments to select ships, starting with the Giulio Cesare. Predictably enough this caused an uproar, with a large number of players - me among them - protesting against any tampering in the form of nerfs to existing premium ships. Not because we don't believe in game balance - we do! - but (and to use the wise words of Captain Verblonde) because we cannot trust Wargaming not to drop into a lucrative cycle of releasing OP premiums to rake in the cash, followed by nerfing them, and then repeating the process. Or to put it in other words: The anti-nerfers made it clear that they were not going to pay money for premiums ships that were only ever going to be the flavour of the season, holding the line for, say, six months or so before being nerfed and/or eclipsed by the next batch of premium ships. For whatever reason, Wargaming backed down then, and existing premiums have so far remained untouched. I'd like to think that they actually listened to the player base, but more likely they were (justifiably) concerned that any nerfs to existing premiums would result in a sharp decline of future purchases. I think it's also safe to say that they have since then been far more careful to avoid introducing blatantly overpowered ships into the game (not counting the odd alpha duck such as the Smolensk, obviously). So now, assuming I've got this correctly, Wargaming intends to nerf a couple of "special" ships. Not actual "premium" ships that have been sold for money, but two (admittedly over-strong) tier X ships that have been available for in-game resources. Personally I don't make much difference between the two - special or premium - and I can't help but to feel deeply suspicious of where this road will take us. You want to improve the balance of the game, Wargaming? Great idea - I'm all for it! Just don't think small! Start with rebalancing or removing the carriers, and then go on to scrap the submarine project! But leave our premiums and special ships alone - we have paid for those, with money or with long hours of gameplay!

You can say that again. This is me, after having unwisely picked a fight with a Fubuki that kept kiting away and hitting me for 2000+ damage every seven seconds...

Nice one, Wargaming! A sense of self-irony is always a good thing to have!

You sail in IJN torpedo boats, and actually use your guns...? You, Sir, are exactly the kind of player that gives torpedo boats a good name! Keep up the good work!

Interesting. For my part, I have prioritized Survivability Expert on those DD:s just because they have the heal consumable, since having extra hit points also boosts the heal. It just goes to show how many build varieties there actually are!

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have ourselves a convoy...

I have read once or twice on this forum that one reason why Wargaming has chosen to de-prioritize Operations, is the relatively small number of players who are regularly play this game mode. It would be interesting to see some figures. While I do appreciate that Random Battles are the core of the game, there are certain times when I find the odd scenario battle to be a relaxing experience.

So they did. I remember logging back into WoT a year or two ago, and finding that the all-chat option was no longer there. I wasn't angry or even surprised; just sad, really. This more than anything else is what made me more or less give up abot WoT - and it is one reason why I always try to actively work towards maintaining the nice and friendly atmosphere we still have in the WoWs community.

The point you make is interesting, Captain @EnacheV, because I have experienced the exact opposite. For me, battles in World of Tanks are generally far more stressful than battles in World of Warships. World of Warships has often been named "a thinking man's action game" - most recently by Captain FixCVs above, in fact - and I would say this is a title it deserves. In most situations in WoWs, you know where you are going and where you are likely to end up at least a minute or two before you get there. You can see a situation develop and plan accordingly. A little planning and forethought can often give you the edge to take on - and take out - even an opponent with much quicker reflexes than your own. In World of Tanks, on the other hand, battles will more often be decided by whichever player has the best hand-to-eye coordination. Planning and forethought are by no means irrelevant, but the sheer pace of engagements is much faster. Pushing fifty, I believe I can safely say that compared to World Warships, World of Tanks is much more of a young man's game. After having played WoT more or less regularly for several years, I had come to the point where I felt that I was at least adequately capable of handling myself up to about tier VII or VIII. But in order to keep even that modicum of skill, I had to play at least a a few battles every week. Any kind of downtime would entail a sharp skill drop followed by a rather painful uphill struggle to get back to where I left off. As it is, I haven't played World Tanks regularly for more than two years, and the likelihood of me ever returning grows slimmer by the day. After having extolled the virtues of a measured pace, it might come across as a bit contrary when I say that my favourite ship class in WoWs is the destroyer. I like to have a go at the enemy, test the waters, spot, fire and retreat, and generally try to react to and create opportunities. But even as I do this, my best games are those where I find myself forced to play smart - to play the thinking man's game, as it were. Reflexes and hand-to-eye coordination are certainly an asset, but typically less decisive than choosing one's battles wisely and playing for the objectives. My only objection to the description of WoWs as "a thinking man's game", is that the wording fails to account for the women players. Please let me assure you all, ladies and gentlemen, that I do not intend to exclude anyone. It's just that the phrase "a thinking person's game" lacks a little something in artistic delivery. Cheers!

Shrugging it off and moving on is probably the best way of dealing with this kind of abuse, yes. But that does not make abusive behaviour any less reprehensible. One of the best things about World of Warships is the pleasant attitude one can expect from the community, on this forum and in the battle chat. People are generally nice and polite to each other. If we are going to keep it this way, we must all be prepared to react and take a stand against abusive behaviour or other other forms of personal attacks. As for giving polite replies, I'm totally with you on this. Mainly because doing otherwise would be outright hypocritical, but also because many trolls have a hard time dealing with simple good manners. I think it's called "low-affective response" with a fancy word these days - and it works.

Don't give them any ideas, they might just go for it...

I hear you, mate.

That, and their frequently gorgeous visual designs. The Germans are easily the best looking ship line in the game. It's probably no coincidence that the Nazi uniforms were designed largely by Hugo Boss... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Boss

By God, Sir, I would not dream of it. The right to whine is an unalienable right of man. About one minute into this clip...

Oh yeah, this takes me back. There was this battle setup where you could play Tigers on the one side and Shermans on the other. The queuing time for the Axis was such that some players are probably still staring vacantly at the loading screen five years later... totally did not see that coming, no sireee!

Daring today, Vampire tomorrow...? I'll get my coat.

Kudos for new ideas, Captain @ZilentNoise - brainstorming is always welcome! Giving players the option to acquire in-game stat bonuses would be a bad idea, in my opinion. It would upset the balance between ships and ship classes, which is the last thing this game needs. Giving players the opportunity to get some new camos with no special buffs attached, or any other purely cosmetic content for that matter, would be fine, though - as long as any such content could be turned off by other players with the proper filters.

I second this suggestion! Why not both?