Takru

First off , this is not a thread dedicated to complaints about information or pricing policy. If you’re looking for something like that, you’ll not find it here. I’d ask those who might want to voice their opinions on such things to do that somewhere else, please. Secondly…. Wall of text incoming. I’ve recently read this article: http://www.iflscience.com/technology/what-your-gaming-name-reveals-about-your-personality I found it rather interesting as it does deal with the one thing developers can hardly calculate beforehand, the one thing that messes up most of their ideas: the players. We’ve had discussions and examples of anti-social behavior on these forums and probably on the other WG forums as well. There already are rules which forbid some nicknames, but creativity and an evil mind find their ways around this. Since I doubt that anti-social people could possibly be excluded from any game, virtual or real, I wonder how less hostile behaviour could possibly be encouraged. In the end, a positive player environment, even when people have relatively little to do with each other currently, for lack of clans, is in the interest of the publishing company as well since it does contribute to the interest in the game in general. Sadly, I do not have the educational background to give good answers to this problem. Since people are meant to fight each other in a virtual environment, it might be practically impossible to get rid of anti-social behaviour like insulting the other team. Still, it might be possible to give incentives for trying to be positive in the game. The Karma system might be a test here and I wonder if or what Wargaming plans to further positive social behaviour in the game. Personally, what I find more irritating than the people from the enemy team going out of their way to flame me or my team are people from my own team starting to insult each other. Granted, I don’t see this happen too often, but I really wonder why it does happen. Of course, there are such things like having a streak of losses, real world issues carrying over into the game or whatever not. But insulting people never helps to make them do what you want, quite the opposite. It’s still happening regardless. To avoid this in the first place, it might help to give people incentives to do what helps the team most instead of trying to do as much raw damage as possible. Award people who try to protect their carriers, award ships that stay hidden and scout enemy ships so the rest of the team can possibly shoot at them, award the ships that turn around and try to help out the other flank / def the base, award the lone ship that by being there deters the enemy from advancing too quickly. Most of the time, supportive roles will be filled when people are encouraged to do so and rewarding them with XP and credits is probably the most obvious way to go. We can also look at the statistics of players and easily see that there are lots of different levels of what people call skill in games. Now, this is not meant as statbashing, it’s just an observation. There’s a lot of people who are arguably a lot better at playing this game than me and there’s a lot of people who, judging by their stats, are doing worse. Now, add anti-social tendencies into a game where player aptitude varies widely. It’s easy to imagine that this mixture tends to intensify anti-social behaviour. Thus it seems to my naive mind that one way of improving the player environment is to lend a hand to people who, judging only by their stats, could use a bit of advise here and there. Question being, how to do that? Tips are situational, experience builds on lots of different encounters and I fail to come up with a some sort of reliable path to tread on. Basic training is one step in that direction but it really is just that, basic training. It only accounts for the most essential things in the game, nevermind that it might be neccessary to include more training missions for each ship class. However, if someone accepts a helping hand, he is probably not much anti-social to begin with. What about those who are, again purely judging by their stats, sub-par players and are also showing anti-social behaviour? How can those people be motivated to be less toxic in the game? Actually, can they be motivated to do so? Well, we’ve got limitations for anti-social behaviour in the form of punishments for extensive teamkilling. Personally, I doubt that these are sufficient to deter people from deliberate teamkilling, but the other issue is that anti-social behaviour can manifest itself in different ways, i.e. in blocking other ships, pushing them somewhere or outright flaming in chat. Are these people inherently anti-social and if yes, does Wargaming want to keep them around? Wouldn’t it be preferrable to lose these few to make the environment as such more enjoyable? Wouldn’t that potentially attract more players? Can’t answer these questions, I don’t even know if such people could possibly be excluded from the game for any length of time. May be others can?

I still think that a combination of harsher punishments for the worst offenders, more advise for those under a certain rating threshold and more incentives to work as a team in the first place would, in the end, improve the community as a whole.

Expert Loader currently reduces the loading time by 50% when switching ammo while fully loaded. For a 1 point talent, this is very good, I use it heavily on my battleships. Sunk a couple of careless DDs that way.

Personally, I am quite surprised about the cash you can earn with the Michael Kutuzov. Still, I am considering the Marblehead since I'm a ship-messy of sorts....

Whut? Where? Can't log into the game right now :-(

Have had one rather "special" encounter this night. A player in a Ranger, who had been attacked by an enemy carrier, complained that he had not been covered by friendly cruisers. I don't know what had been doing up to that point but I can tell what he hadn't done: 1) He hadn't noticed the enemy attack planes when they were spotted halfway across the westernmost edge of the map while moving towards him, still hugging the map border. (Which was about 30-45 seconds before he was attacked) 2) He did not notice me trying to catch up with him in my Mikael Kutuzov. I started south east of him and he ran westwards, so it did take a while until I managed to reach him. (I've made it a habbit to stick to CVs early in games when I'm out with the MK) 3) He only started evasive actions literally seconds before the first DB hit them. 4) He did not notice that the TBs, which were the second wave, did not hit him as much as they should have, since I had managed to catch up with him and popped defensive fire. 5) He kinda forgot that he could've chosen to bring fighters of his own to defend himself instead of relying fully on his team. When he limped away with some 6k HP remaining, he continued to complain how bad the team was and how much pay to win the Kutuzow was. Not sure if he was referring to the one on the enemy team or me. In situations like these, I don't know if that guy is just "special" or plain out anti-social. Either way, a lesson or two in situational awareness could potentially help him out.

I wouldn't know that. You could start out by having popups in the game, suggesting to redo basic training mission or whatever new missions of this kind pop up in the future. This you would have happen to all those players with X number of games and under a certain threshold of average XP or average damage. Just throwing in ideas here. You could also have much stricter punishments for teamkilling and the such and the profanity filter could by itself hand out chatbans (although I see that this is kinda hard to implement with that many languages around). In the end, the company Wargaming has lots of creative people, surely they have ideas floating in their heads. Much better ideas than wrote I suggested there and hopefully much more effective ones, too. The company strives to improve all aspects of the game, this is one of them.

Which is thankfully true, at least from my point of view. Still, there's a few of those who log in to the game just to spoil the fun for others or those who just can't keep their agressions to themselves. I'm merely trying to lay down a description of a complex problem, or rather two where is reinforcing the other. If either of them can be adressed, it will affect the other issue as well and make the game that much more enjoyable for all those involved.

Karma is not a fully fleshed out system. May be Wargaming plans to change it to make a worthwhile thing in the game, may be not. Something along those lines might actually help improve the community as a hole, though.

Repair on all, other skills depending on the ship. Heal more often than not, rarely AA, never planes or hydro. Only the cheaper camo for 8000 credits and then often not even that.

Would love to participate, sadly I'm broke and can't afford even the Izumo, never mind the Yamato :-(

Well, he is one of the more skilled players. Considering that the AAA team fought in the mid-rating area, you'd hope that they'd not pick half a team of people who essentially live inside the game. Either than, or create a team and have it's rating icreased instantly so that it does fight against teams which are more appropriate for their actual combined skill levels.

When I see stuff like that I can't help but wonder if there's someone in WG who's following the speculations which result from every tiny information given (or imagined) and is rolling on the floor laughing his lungs out over the ensuing discussions. Yes Ev1n, I'm looking at you

If you're in "danger" of not losing any games, you should swap people around to make things more interesting. Have someone less skilled than Flamu on the carrier might have had some effect for example.

No date, but they said it'll come and also asked to please stop asking that particular question.

But he isn't? He is in a division with T4 cruisers. Granted, those can be matched against T6 ships, but I wasn't aware of a special MM for T4 CVs. ?

Don't see anything unusual with the MM? You can end up being low tier in any of these battles, division or not. Been in T10 matches with Lexington, too. Not too much you can do about it (or in the match even), but that's MM for you. I find myself about as often top tier as I find myself low tier...

I'm using premium consumables quite a lot. I do understand that I have to pay for them even if I don't use them. However, there is one thing I am upset with. Premium AA consumable. I can't bring myself to use this one much. I just feel cheated when I have it on my ship and don't have a carrier in the game to really make use of it. If I wasn't charged when I don't use a consumable or was charged for every time I actually use it, things would be different. But as it is now, there just isn't much point. I do believe that changing this would make people burn credits more, which is something Wargaming is interested in, as it would help creating a shortage of credits on the player side.

I have to disagree here. You are basically punished and sunk if your team does not help you. That is very unsatisfactory in a game mode where you can consider yourself lucky if you're not spammed or flamed. If you're sunk because you've made errors, that's fine with me. But being sunk because my team decides not to help me out and I am helpless against a half-decend carrier player on the other team? That's not what I would call enjoyable, even if I'm the one doing the sinking. Worse still, it makes the game for the team a lot worse if they lose their only air support in the beginning of the game, which makes the game less enjoyable for even more people. Keeping in mind that enojoying a game is _the_ core requirement for a game to be played in the first place, this doesn't seem to be the way to go.

@Ph3lan: Any plans to make the Type 6 Camo available for Credits, like all other consumables? If I take premium consumables as an example, we'd still be around 90.000 credits per use. Quite pricey and would mean that it'd "help" burn credits in the game if it was available. Permanent Camo is just... off the mark. 3000 Dubloons for a permanent Camo on Tier 8, that translates into about 12 €. Just for the Camo.... (https://eu.wargaming.net/shop/wows/gold/2968/). I understand that it almost turns a regular ship into a premium, but... come on? You still have to pay the full repair bills for those ships. Now, if you'd also get much lowered repair bills with the Camo, it might be worth it, but as it is... Try as I might, it does not appeal to me.

Some interface requests: 1) Can you please include a filter in the friendslist that let's you see only those who are online? I've got about 30 people in there and it would really help me seeing who is online a lot quicker. Please make this so that it also affects custom groups I have created. 2) Can you please add an option where people can choose not to be available as mercs? I got ninjainvited several times (which I take as a compliment) but I really am very rarely interested in merc'ing. 3) Chat windows still are buggy. I regularily see that something was written in a chat but when I open the window, it's empty. Closing and reopening only shows the last 20-ish lines. 4) When choose modules, I'd like to see what effect they will have on my ship, similar to regular upgrades where I can see how they change the various stats on my ship on the right-hand panel in port. That'd really help I think. These days, I still have to use my calculator for calculations like increased firing range, detection range etc pp. Oh, it'd be great if the same could be realized for Captain perks as well. 5) Battle reports. I tend to use premium consumables, but the cost of these are not taken into account in the battle reports. So while I may come out with a plus in the battle report, I could in fact still lose credits simply because of the premium consumables. Can you please take the cost of those into account in the battle reports? Make that calculation screen scrollable if you have to, but I really want to know what those credits are spent on. 6) Battle reports. Please, for what it's worth, show the net income in the battle reports. This has been on request since CBT at least and we still have to dig through the battle reports to find the actual numbers...

The channel has been more lively recently, which is a good thing. But it also means you got a lot of nicknames in there and just can't remember all of them in all the battles. :-/

Something else regarding Carriers... It seems to me that there're more carriers around these days, which is good. But carriers seem to have a tendency of being thrown into games with 4 carriers in total, which is a two edged sword. First of all, I've never seen two carriers on the same tier above Tier 5. Tier difference still is something which makes carriers less viable when you have to fight a higher tier carrier, which effectively shuts you down and forces you to go out trying to help in supportive roles. Secondly, it means that for every match with two carriers per team, there's a match with no carriers at all. I don't know if that's desirable when carriers are already the least populated class. Carriersniping... as said above, I think it's a bad thing. Divebombers... They either are the Angels or the Trolls of RNGesus*. Sometimes they annihalate the enemy, sometimes they'd not hit the wide side of a barn from the inside. I understand that randomness is an integral part of the game but it'd be good if the damage spread was less... erratic. *If I ever start a Team Battles team, that'd be it's name

Hi T_h_o_r, been playing around with the Lex a few more games now. I've made her an AA heavy build (BFT, AFT, Module with +20% AA range). With an AA rating of 100, she now starts firing at enemy planes from 7,2 km away. So far, I've not been carriesniped by CVs of similar or lower Tier. At the same time, I was able to go out with a strike loadout without worrying for the safety of my ship. As far as I can tell, the only real drawback of this ship is her detectability. From the top of my head: Games played 17 (13 won / 0 draw / 4 lost) Survived battles 16 (a DD snuck around and got me in one game) Average damage in those 17 battles: 133.000 (can't remember any of these battles with less than 100k) Mind you that I am not a very good CV captain either. From my very subjective perspective, I'd rate the Lex as very viable on her Tier. Obviously, as with other ship classes, it depends on what you plan to do with your ship. The US line these days is a specialised into either Strike or Air Superiority, at least until T9 when their stock setups become viable again. The IJN line is obviously less specialised, but at the same time has more utility, which in itself is more profitable for the team, I guess. That said, I really dislike the whole carriersniping thing. It tends to make the games a lot less enjoyable for the team that lost the carrier early in the game (early being within the first 5 Minutes), which I think is inherently bad for the game as such, as it sometimes gives a decisive advantage to the team which still has a CV.