Meneleus

Do you honestly think that, with the title you have chosen for your topic, anyone will pay any attention to what you have to say in a positive way? Wow. That rhymed. I am a poet. On a serious note, why not encourage players to effectively communicate? Why not start a constructive conversation where people could pinch in in a worthwhile manner? Cheers, M

Oh dear, I actually had that happen to me a few times while playing US battleships Cheers, M

I think it is not needed to give extra rewards to players on a losing team who seem to be a cut above average. They lost after all. If you fight well this will usually be reflected in the XP and credits you earned. And sometimes good play is not rewarded at all. I think this is the very reason no rewards should be given on the basis of XP earned, I explained my views in more detail in an earlier topic. Winning and losing a match are very good indicators which was the better team. Rewarding victory motivates players to try their best to win. There have been evenings most matches were lost before they really began because of team members whose actions I could not control, that is just the luck of the draw. I see nobody complaining when all the clowns are on the opposing team. Cheers, M

The main purpose for "catapult fighters" is to panic enemy bombers, not to kill them. I think managing to disrupt an enemy bombing or torpedo attack in that way is extremely advantageous and makes the fighter worthwhile. CHeers, M

Regarding your perception you look like you would fit right in. Cheers, M

You mean granting a player XP gains as if he had won when gaining a heroic medal in random battles? Might be interesting, though I think they would have to tweak it a little. Dreadnought is a heroic medal too and generally beholden to battleships. Would not mind seeing it tested. If a player makes Confederate and/or High Calibre they are generally doing pretty well already regarding XP though. Win rate is a decent indicator, though this is skewed too. Having skilled friends to division with for example can improve your winrate out of proportion with your skill. I think there are also players who have participated in Alpha and Closed Beta testing who have enjoyed a period of "sealclubbing" when Open Beta started, improving their stats. Playing different tiers may also have an impact on someone's win rate, though I have little information to go on. I'd say let WG experiment a bit with ranked play and let's see where they take it. When they introduce clans/guilds in the game they will pave the way for team gameplay. I think that is a format more suited to competative play. Cheers, M

There are actions which result in skewed XP rewards, some conscious, some not. Conscious actions generally actions resulting in assured XP gain for the player, such as investing time trying to sink an enemy who is no threat or capping a base while your time and presence is sorely needed elsewhere. Other situations might include players taking a scenic tour, preventing them to take part in a fight resulting in the sinking of their allies while remaining alive long enough to gather more XP then the people they failed to help. I think the situations I have given are general circumstances which will be familiar to all players who have played the game for any length of time. It gets worse though. If you decide that the top losing player stands to gain you in essence turn your allies into potential competitors, who might consciously work against their own team when finding themselves in a scenario where it is in their best interest to do so, interest being advancing in ranked play. You also voice concern over undeserving players advancing and deserving players not advancing. I do not think AFK players and Teamkillers are a wide a problem as some players claim them to be. I would certainly like to see statistics on them if they are to be had and honestly, I do not think these players have a lot of chance of advancing while doing what they do. Cheers, M

I am sorry, but this is just a pointless rant. What do you hope to accomplish with this collection of assumptions lacking eny evidence whatsoever? Cheers, M

That is not what I said, that is your interpretation of what I said. I mean to point out two things: - While XP gained is the best measurement we currently have I think it is not representative enough of quality play to award players on the losing team. - I do not have any practical idea to implement changes to reward good gameplay that would meet the criteria I think it ought to meet, which is to actually promote and reward good gameplay. A few concrete examples of good gameplay that are not rewarded with XP are projected threat by manoeuvre, forcing manoeuvre by torpedo salvos, misdirection, reconnaisance and exposing yourself to draw enemy fire from vulnerable allies. Some actions might warrant more XP, such as providing AA cover at expense of your own freedom of movement or ability to engage for example. If you want to implement rewards based on XP then several of the examples of good play mentioned above would actually hurt your personal XP gains, making it less likely to be rewarded when if team fails to win. I understand the sentiment that good play should be rewarded even when faced with poor performance from the rest of the team. The point I try to make is that, in my view, the proposed changes based on XP gained only lead to other problems like players going out of their way to garner XP through actions that are not good gameplay and avoiding actions that would benefit the team at the expense of their own XP gain. This would merely replace one problem with another. Cheers, M

Well, apparently you think it is bad. I can only recommend doing some research on the ship to find out about it's strengths and weaknesses in order to develop a style of play that is effective with her. Since the Colorado has a certain reputation I did the same for her and I have been able to garner some success using the tips people gave. Less then 60k to go for the North Carolina, really looking forward to unlocking her! Cheers, M

Very nice photographs and artwork in this thread. Some of the camouflage schemes look really funky. I certainly hope WG takes notice, there are some nice ideas presented here. Cheers, M

I certainly agree the amount of XP gained in a match is often a decent indicator of someone's performance in a match, my point is that it is certainly not always the case and therefore I don't think awarding the top player of the losing team is a good idea. I understand the sentiment yet I fear it encourages egoistic play to the detriment of team performance. The best way to judge would be to evaluate the match. For obvious reasons this is impossible to implement, so that leaves me without a viable alternative. Some actions that can sway the course of a game cannot be expressed by an XP reward. I can imagine this can be frustrating, it is just one of those things that come with online gaming though. Cheers, M

Games like this sometimes bring out the worst in me, I think this is the case for many people. Most of the times I lean back and let out a sigh, or try to give some constructive feedback. When I do use harsh language I at least try to be artistic about it. Or I log out and do something else, like painting. That said I think I might also have crossed the line once or twice, does not make me proud. You are an individual who is conscious about his actions and reflects on them. I think that is a virtue in itself. Cheers, M

It's the challenges I am especially curious about and waiting for. The missions are a mixed bag. The first mission had an awesome reward. The three missions after that were ok, better to have some extra missions than none. Regarding the new missions I am always happy to see more. It is unfortunate though that I play solo 99% of the time... Ah well, better next time I guess. Cheers, M

Please speak for yourself. I can make up my own mind about whom to trust thank you very much. Cheers, M

You do realise that earning a lot of experience points does not neccessarily mean quality play? I have seen people abandon their comrades plenty of times and allowing them to die, ending as "top player" by virtue of being the last man standing and having had more time to deal damage. Cheers, M

Agreed, gameplay is given precedence above historical accuracy. I do think however WG does their best to maintain this accuracy as well as possible. I think it provides a level of immersion important to the game. Got detonated in my Farragut this time, advancing my detonation counter to 36. Oh dear Cheers, M

You don't have to be sorry for me, it is the vision of WG, not mine, tough I understand why they desire to implement it. As for the nerfing of carriers I am not a proponent of that practice per se. The apparent reduction in money gained per match seems legitimate though and does not directly affect gameplay. Profts need to be consistent with the rest of the field would you not agree? And truly, do you think all critique comes from new players using T8 premium ships they do not understand how to use? I restate my question: I think it is a fair thing to ask. I don't think the MM is a lot of fun either for carriers. I sold mine and am not playing them because of that. Cheers, M

Mind you, they exist! Recently heard one of them making his case the earth was flat. It was amazing, I really had to pick up my jaw from the floor a few minutes in... Even so, the solution presented in the picture would be amazing. Provided suitable graphics and sound effects were implemented of course. Cheers, M

I think Strike Witches was really fun considering they were fighting an alternative WW2 with female anime versions of WW2 aces Of course if they had to fudge a bit, if they had only taken the top aces all of them would have been german ^_^ Really had to get into Kancolle, took me a few episodes to appreciate it. Had watched SW not to long before that, guess the transition from WW2-styled aircraft leggings together with animal tails and ears made me think the naval gear looked a bit odd. Reading that back makes it look really rediculous though >.< Cheers, M

I can't help it... Mang ;)

Did WG not state that playing T10 ships should be cost ineffective? Judging from your reactions it seems you did not experience this problem, meaning something was not working as intended. Make no mistake, a T10 ship is a trophy ship and I can understand people would like to use it regularly. Would you not agree however that the playing field should be as fair as possible? It just appears you totally disregard other T10 players who suffered at the hands, or rather torpedoes, of your aircraft. Where is your concern for their repair bills and consequently their entertainment? I think that, with games like this, the developer is continuously looking for equilibrium. I just have the impression they have not found it yet with carriers and that they are still working on it. Cheers, M

Ahhh, now that explains a lot. if there is barely any flash protection in the Königsberg's turrets no wonder she detonates so frequently. I am actually quite surprised, you might even say impressed, that this feature actually has a realistic precedent. I guess WG's research department did a thurough job. I think it might actually be worthwhile to read up on featured ships more extensively in order to find particular weaknesses and see if they can be exploited in-game. Cheers, M

I believe that flick is over two decades old now, I suspect plenty of the younger folks have not... Cheers, M

I suspect you folks also like anime like Girls und Panzer and Strike Witches? Cheers, M