_HomTanks_

Yes, exactly. If we can come up with better ideas we can note them here and address to devs. Tasks can be also somewhat unusual, like DDs to sink CVs, cruisers to spot X amount of ships, etc.

That's true the devs only would have access to such information but it doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss about it and come up with better ideas that we can ask from them to implement. I think players should be given the chance to do such difficult tasks that give away SCs as a prize. Ones who could succeed it would get the SC, others can repeat the tasks and level up the missions as it is now.

As far as i understand, now we are at the point of making the tasks more difficult and dynamic for better task rewards.

Right, but logically when you ask for better rewards, the difficulty of the specific task should be proportionally increased. Then, my previous question takes place; how could the difficulty be set? Our first criterion for the new task is to be dynamic yet it should be difficult at the same time. For example, a DD-only task to sink a CV five times? And the reward will be 1 SC instead of 5 Zulu flags? You mean something like this?

Ok then i got you now. --> Campaign completion depends on; --> Mission completions which depends on; -->Task completions. You meant the task rewards should be rearranged according to the task completion difficulties, preferably more dynamic tasks with better rewards?

about you wanting to link the rewards to mission difficulties.

The way it's been was never difficult. You said you want to link the difficulty to mission rewards or vice versa. So what you want is more dynamic missions in exchange for better rewards or what?

and what you wrote is totally irrelevant with what we were talking about.

How exactly? And this is what i have been asking or trying to understand. Besides, if you link the mission rewards to some difficulty standard, it will automatically link the overall campaign reward to the same difficulty.

It's not that i want to see the campaigns competitive or not as I already explained in posts #4 and #6 i don't care if we get a new campaign in time limited mode or permanent mode. I just explained in post #9 the current version of campaigns are not difficult at all, as a matter fact they rather seem like they are designed for having kids and old players in consideration, because you wrote you'd link the rewards to mission difficulty. And also explained in post #9, if you want to link the task rewards to mission difficulties then you either need time stamped campaigns or other solutions.

Yes but who cares extra 10 flags or camos or consumables to get the extra stars. The real prize here is not the individual TASK rewards but the mission and campaign completion rewards. That's where you get the SCs or dubs, ships etc. And in a permanent mode it is accessible to anyone without any constraint. You don't like a task? Just repeat the old one or an easy one and there you go, you finished the mission and got THE mission prize. You finished all missions like this? There you go, you got the MAIN prize. How is this difficult? It is not. They cannot set difficulty like this. If they will link the rewards according to the mission difficulties, then they should either put a time-stamp on it or set the difficulty according to the skill. But other than time gating it, what mission could require skill to finish? Like one shot a BB? 5 detonations (which is rng not skill)?

But how do you set the campaign difficulty? I mean, what can be difficult in a permanent/non-time limited campaign? Anyone who farms enough without any time constraint will get the prize regardless of the player skill which makes missions not difficult but time consuming. I think it was the reason why they have implemented time limited campaigns, for more skilled players to play comfortably and finish the campaign on time or less skilled players dedicate all their time to finish it barely. I don't care if they introduce new time limited campaigns or not. I still say the game needs new campaigns, enough with the ones that were introduced before christ.

They can remove the old ones or leave them where they are but new ones should be added regardless. Also, if you embed a permanent campaign its rewards should be lesser or lower amount/quality compared to a time gated campaign. Otherwise, what is the point of having a time limited campaign? That is, if we will have time gated campaigns.

Yes, both.

IMO, we definitely need new campaigns. Some of the campaigns are already 4-5 years old or maybe more. Either the old campaigns should be replaced with newer ones or there should be new ones without the replacement. Rewards could be super containers with upgraded gift items, unique ship upgrades, good amount of coal, steel, doubloons. Not free XP, or special signals.

Which ones, i have them all? Yes but writing again, for the ones who don't bother with research bureau, or the ones who have most/all (or even for the ones who don't have all T10s but don't like spending FXP while grinding) T10s, the FXP as a mechanic is totally useless atm. WG is forcefully trying to push players to RB. I could care less as i'm only missing Gibraltar from there, which I'm about to get it. But many players may care and dislike this WG RB move. I know from the forum only (let alone other social media tools), many players detest the RB.

That's what i wrote as well. If you have all the FXP ships and not using the FXP for regrinds, all the stored FXP along with FXP camos and signals simply become meaningless (nowhere to use) due to not adding new FXP ships anymore. For example, i have almost 600 papa papa flags, hundreds (if not thousand) of FXP camos, now what to do with them? Maybe can be used for grinding new lines if there is any left.

Did you try AP? Players praise its AP highly and reviews are like "you will find yourself relying on the AP a lot more but thankfully, that AP doesn’t disappoint with fast shells and pretty good penetration (slightly superior to Alaska at all ranges)", Yeah, @Trench4nt mentioned that unfortunately. That means there is no point of farming FXP anymore and all FXP camos along with signals will only serve beginners which they can rarely find for free and it may also serve some research bureau players that are impatient. For the rest, FXP becomes meaningless. Also did you guys notice that Carnot, Tulsa and Rochester are not included in the Santa Packs? I don't know the reason but guessing probably because they are fairly new.

@MrWasteeI know both serve to different tastes and we all have different tastes and i know myself i will end up having both the ships at one point but, which do you feel like playing more. Assume you played a game with Carnot, do you want to play another with her or switch to other ships? Same goes for Tulsa.

Some of us say it is not op because we base our opinion on first hand experience instead of hearsay. Saying no other dd can do what it can do is like saying any ship with different gimmick is op which is false. Plus,even if it would be op, it still wouldn't be op for everyone, in this case, good players who use any ship to its max. They would do similar damage with Z46 or Yugumo (or whichever) for that matter which was my point. But i have smaland too. Why would i make assumptions about ships i already played? That's what i'm saying, one needs to have played the ship instead of creating assumptions.

25sec reload makes me think twice.

Then don't spend money. You already have good amount of doubloons and many premium ships. I didn't use my anniversary coupon either.

or maybe Sevastopol?

I mean don't spend money just to use the coupon but if you already planned buying a ship, then i'd pick something else. Because Tirpitz and Brandenburg are similar enough. A different ship would be a different experience imo.

I'd say, don't spend money for something which you can get for free by using in-game resources. I have Brandenburg and it is really a fun ship to play. I like it more than Tirpitz.