Verblonde

Firstly, as others have alluded to, the key driver of rewards is damage (and, more importantly, relative damage i.e. knocking, say, 10K off a DD will reward you better than knocking the same damage off a BB). So, I would suggest the first thing to do is analyse your performance in the various ship types you have and look at where you can already do lots of damage consistently, and perhaps focus there. Which tiers, which classes and so on. Don't focus entirely on pure silver generation though: a key plus of premium ships is their ability as captain trainers; this does actually impact silver earning indirectly, as a better captain usually results in better battle performance, all things being equal. Finally, although you seem to understand this already, you ideally need premium ships that you actively want to play. A lot. A premium that you aren't playing regularly isn't doing you any good at all.

Two cammos, do you mean? If so, I believe the existing 'standard' permaflage just transfers over; there isn't a second 'new' permaflage, as far as I know. (Folk with 'space' cammo etc. will have more to choose from, as they get their existing cammo transferred over, plus the 'standard' one as a result of the Moskva changing to semi-premium).

I *bought* (or rather, I didn't, but you know what I mean) a permaflage for a *silver* T10 Moskva; I'm losing that, and getting instead a permaflage for a *semi-premium* T10 Moskva. Since every premium/semi-premium ship obtained *always* has at least one permaflage baked in, the net effect of the transaction for 'me' in this case is the loss of a single permaflage for a *silver* T10. It's worth noting: if WOWS followed the same pattern as WOT and didn't include cammo with premiums/semi-premiums then none of this would be an issue...

If you'll forgive me, that would be because you didn't lose anything, but rather everyone else gained something (which is a cause for hurrahs). In the case of Moskva, owners of the permaflage are having the number of silver T10 permaflages they own reduced by one; I think that's the distinction that is annoying people.

Nope: I bought a permaflage for my Gearing, for example, that was advertised as permaflage (a contraction of 'permanent camouflage', the first word being important) for my *silver* Gearing; it would be unreasonable for me to expect that cammo to work on anything other than the Gearing (unless it had been advertised as such). However, it would be reasonable to expect my tally of *silver* ship-specific permaflages to remain at the level I paid for, regardless of the fact they are ship-specific. This for me is about things being, and staying, as advertised. (Edited for clarity)

You obviously haven't been reading my posts that you've been replying to (or at least not properly): I've said repeatedly that I don't have the Moskva permaflage myself - I'm objecting because a) I have some basic empathy and b) I'm concerned at the precedent this sets.

It would have been the latter - based on the permaflages that I do have myself - but WG have changed the fundamental nature of the product purchased; I think people being angry is entirely justified in this case.

You are being deliberately obtuse.

Me also, multiple times now; the distinction is that I didn't lose anything and other people got something, which is fine. Meanwhile, a permaflage for a silver T10 (the distinction between silver ships and premiums/semi-premiums does matter, for in-game economic reasons) will be removed from those who paid for it, and replaced with a permaflage for a T10 semi-premium. This isn't about pettiness ("waaah - he got something I didn't" <throws tantrum>), but rather about losing something that was paid for. (For clarity: if I were a psychopath, I wouldn't care about this, because I don't have Moskva permaflage myself.)

Try and apply the camo to a silver Moskva, and see how you get on with that...

I would disagree with that: they are losing a silver ship's permaflage (which does very different things to that on a semi-premium), that they paid for, and getting - as part of a package that they would have got anyway - a semi-premium's permaflage instead. If permaflages were actively marketed as rentals or some kind of early access (or similar) then this would be entirely acceptable, because people would have been fully informed when spending their doubloons; as it is, they weren't, so you get the current furore.

Hmmm, I would have expected better from you than this. Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Permit me to explain: People bought a permaflage (effectively for real money in the case of a doubloons one) for a T10 *silver* ship; as I'm certain you actually understand perfectly, this is a very different animal to permaflage for a semi-premium. The general perception of permaflages, of any tier, is that they are not rentals or any kind of early access (I'm sure you have something buried in the EULA that attempts to cover WG in this situation, but this isn't about legal precision, but rather about customer perception/satisfaction). With the mechanics as they currently stand, people (*customers*) bought something for 5,000 doubloons and WG are going to change it to an entirely different product, without compensation (again, as I'm certain you know, what T10 silver permaflage does for a player and what the permaflage that automatically comes with a semi-premium does for the same player are entirely different => two *different* products). To suggest that people are whinging from some misplaced petty "he got something that I didn't" motivation is a wonderful way to insult your *customers* (I keep emphasising the word deliberately - these are people who ultimately contribute to WG's financial success); besides that, it is very foolish - you haven't changed anyone's minds, I suspect, and you've just made people angrier than they already were. So, lose-lose for WG (not to mention damage to your personal stock, as usually you're pretty good at negotiating whatever WG's latest stupid is). As is so often the case with WG's muck-ups, this is really easy to fix: you simply say that stuff in the Dev Blog is WiP, and you're actually going to compensate existing permaflage owners after all (doubloons or permaflage for another silver T10); sure, there will still be moaning - there always is - but it won't be the full-blown PR disaster that you're currently trying to deal with. Full disclosure: I don't have Moskva's permaflage (I only bought her a few days ago because of the split, and I only lose silver, which is merely an irritation), but I do care about fairness, and all the bluster/gaslighting in the world isn't going to improve the fundamentals of what WG are currently doing. My professional self is also offended: WG are doing themselves significant reputational damage to avoid something with a tiny cost attached (how many people really have a Moskva permaflage?); this is incompetence and your bosses should absolutely know better (at least in the context of the NA/EU marketplace). Thinking in the medium term, will the hit taken by compensating Moskva permaflage owners really be worse than the potential damage to T10 permaflage sales in general, once the customers (that word again) realise that they have now effectively become very expensive rentals rather than a purchase (for the duration of the game's lifespan)...? The risk of nerfs (YY, anyone) was already a concern, but now?

Not correct: something worth (arguably) 5K doubloons has been removed from your account without any compensation i.e. a T10 permaflage for a silver ship. After the switch, there will be a permaflage for a semi-premium ship (which all such ships include as part of the price), which is not the same thing. Your lottery analogy is faulty: you pay your lottery fee (or should) in the full and certain knowledge that it is a one-off gamble; permaflage is an entirely different beast - quite apart from anything else it is advertised as permanent, and not a rental (insofar as something like WOWS can be considered permanent). Ultimately, this all impacts me to relatively minor degree: I have Moskva, but I bought her very recently, and deliberately didn't buy permaflage as I suspected something like this might happen (albeit not something as stupid as what WG have decided to do); the reason I care is a) I'm not a psychopath, so I have empathy with others and b) if WG get away with this, it emboldens them to do worse things in future.

I'm certain the WG people on the sharp end fully understand that - it's them that have to endeavour to put out the dumpster fire that this idiocy has generated. I'll be interested to see what they (WG) do next; presumably, news that this has all been another major b0llock drop has filtered up the chain of command to head office, so do they: Say words to the effect of "oops, sorry - we messed up; thank you for drawing it to our attention; what we're actually going to do is give people with Moskva researched (but not in port for whatever reason) the new ship only, people with the ship in port a credit refund and the new ship, and anyone with the permaflage will get an equivalent permaflage for any T10 that they choose", which would probably sort things out, apart from the reputational damage they've already done. Do nothing, and hope that the fire burns out after a few days, which it probably won't. Send their sharp-end folk out to try and justify/explain all this with the usual tact and finesse, and make things even worse than they are already. Whilst I don't have access to WG's numbers (obviously) this all strikes me as inordinately foolish of WG; from what I gather, relatively few people have more than a few T10s, and a smaller subset of them will have Moskva. What would it really have cost WG to take the measures the forum is generally asking for (see option one above), versus the latest round of entirely avoidable reputational damage and generated ill will...?

Not strictly true: if you spent money on the permaflage, that money is effectively wasted/stolen (choose depending on how vehemently you feel about all this). Yes, it is a First World Problem, and not of even remotely the same order of magnitude as some issues in the world; that doesn't mean people have no right to be angry that WG have essentially swindled them.

The cynic in me wonders if they're doing it to avoid situations like the current Moskva one: with the existing set-up, when WG announce that they've done something stupid, they get multiple pages of people pointing out why. This makes more people aware when they mess up. By doing it this way, perhaps they get to hide the complaints from more casual players in the forum/Reddit, which are populated by a smaller subset of their customers.

I'm rather wondering if WG have thought this through: there are plenty of folk whose standard advice is already "don't buy T10 permaflage because the ship may get nerfed"; do they really want people adding to that advice "also don't buy it because you may well effectively lose your money if/when WG mess with the tech tree"....?

Step this way, sir: and

In general terms, you're right; the fact that I got hold of enough for both Black and Flint suggests that potatoes are able to get hold of reasonable amounts over time (including the paid for thing a couple of Xmases ago) though...

I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that the logic is along the following lines: If you've already got the Moskva, then you've paid in xp/silver to have her; for anyone who doesn't have her researched yet, they're going to have to denude their coal reserves significantly to get her. If we got both of Moskva and the replacement T10, then we'd effectively be getting two for one (and one of those two has an improved economy). I'm not sure whether I buy into that logic myself, but it doesn't offend me (although that may be in part because I don't particularly care about getting the new ship any time soon). Whilst I don't think you're wrong, it amazes me that any company (that doesn't want to go bust) still thinks like that; within limits, past behaviour provides a pointer to future behaviour, and it's easier/cheaper to get more money out of an existing customer than generate a new one. If you - effectively - rob a customer, you make it less likely that they'll spend to the same degree in future and you then have to go to the trouble/expense of capturing a new customer to replace them. Does anyone think that WG have some sort of 'Producers' thing going on...?

I may be mistaken, but the problem is less to do with the deal - as such - and more to do with the fact that it's (unless something has been missed/lost in translation) unfair, and also the unfair is stupid unfair - the more you've spent on the game in the past (in the specific case of Moskva, and especially her permaflages), the less good the deal becomes, to the extent that people with permaflage already have effectively lost 5,000 doubloons (I *think* that's what a T10 permaflage costs) - that's 13.86 UKP at time of writing. I personally am 'middle case' in that I'll get premium T5 and semi-premium T10, plus permaflage for both, but I will lose the silver spent on getting Moskva in port before the change-over...

I would suggest that the only way that the special Moskva cammo would be acceptable to nearly everyone would be if it came with boosted bonuses; I can't see this as being very likely as T10's economies are already pretty solid, and WG will want to avoid adding another MO to the game (economy-wise).

Pretty much this, although I would suggest that an extra cammo for Moskva should be an option rather than a solution on its own; whilst some players do spend money for more than one permaflage on a ship (I've done it once or twice), it is an extravagance. From my professional perspective, on the matter of the permaflage only, either of the following would be acceptable: Doubloon refund (which won't happen, given WG's history). Free permaflage for one or other of the new T10 Russian cruisers - player's choice which (or, better, see my remarks elsewhere about 'tokens').

Wouldn't it be simpler to just credit those who have Moskva in port with the cost of the ship in silver? I presume you won't because a) you wouldn't get any doubloon spend for de-mounting equipment and b) this way, people lose half the silver through selling the ship. You also haven't addressed the issue of the poor saps who have effectively spent gold for nothing on permaflage...

In my professional capacity, I would be fascinated to be a fly on the wall at the meetings where this sort of stuff is decided; *how* could anyone think that effectively penalising players in proportion to how much they've played/supported the game could be a good thing?! Surely a sensible company would be trying to modify customers' behaviour such that they were encouraged to play/spend more, not less, in the future...? There really aren't enough facepalms...