MAD_3R_Marauder

Where's this guy when you need him? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzKlmNLTkXM Edit: After thinking about this whole thing and WG in general for a bit, I finally decided to make a (minor, personal) stand and uninstalled. Bye, WG.

We have to keep in mind, that for a new player, a lot of the stuff is kinda overwhelming. Take myself as an example. I played during closed and open beta and stopped playing shortly after release. Back then, I knew most stats of the ships in the game, with only the USN and IJN in. When I came back some 2 months or so ago, there is a _ton_ of ships I have no clue about and a metric f***-ton of special rules (RN-CL AP, German AP, IFHE, SAP, and the list goes on and on). Now, I obviously am not talking about the bare basics, like "don't show broadside to a BB" or "don't sit broadside on in smoke". Yes, this is stuff every new player can learn easily. But the thing is, if you overwhelm a new player with a ton of stuff, he might throw up his hands in frustration and give up on learning even the basics - "I will never get all of this in my head, so why even try?" But the thing to keep in mind, IMO, is this: WG has expanded the game considerably, no, MASSIVELY from what it was a couple of years ago. Those of the player-base who were along for the ride learned new stuff bit by bit, as it was introduced. A new player might feel like looking at a gigantic wall of text and go "f*** this, I'll just shoot my guns" Those are the ones WG could do something about with in-game tutorials and stuff. Feeding them stuff bit by bit. New players start at rank (is it rank?) 1 and are only able to play Co-Op. Link achieving rank 2 (unlocking research and upgrades) to completing a tutorial about, say, ammo types (sink 2 ships using different ammo or something). Then, in order to get to rank 3 (change this to unlocking upgrades), you have to complete a tutorial about angling, rank 4 (changed to containers) is achieved after completing a tutorial about the use of torps and rank 5 (changed to ship commanders) is unlocked after a tutorial about smoke/spotting. And then, after completing a tutorial about AA (yeah, that'll be a fun one) you finally achieve rank-6 and unlock random battles. And then there are those who just don't _want_ to learn. They come here to play a fast game, have fun and couldn't care less about winning or losing, team-play or stats. You can still get them to realize the basics from the above tutorials (hopefully) but trying to force them to "git-gud" will only achieve one thing, drive them away. So, serious question to those who complain about bad players (a quite legitimate complain, I might add): How much of your teams, on average, are made up of those bad players? A quarter? Half of it? And do you realize that if WG tried to force them to "learn the game", you'd lose (at a guess) the vast majority of them? Wow, that got a lot longer than I intended, sorry bout that.

Throughout the duration of Update 0.8.9, a weekly combat mission will be unlocked directly in your Port when watching streams. There are a total of four combat missions: The Return of Rasputin | 17 October – 12 November The Curse of the Great Gorgon | 24 October – 12 November End of the Rainbow | 31 October – 12 November Singles' Day | 7 November – 21 November Each mission will be activated on a weekly basis for all stream viewers. You probably got one of the missions, that will unlock later on.

Looks like you're actually agreeing with me then - higher tier = better players (mostly at least) :)

During the NTC debacle, there was talk about you (WG) wanting more activity in low/low-mid tiers. Then I look at the current events. 1. Everything is from tier-5 up. 2. Most of the time, the conditions majorly favor high-tier ships. 350 base-xp in Co-Op is a piece of cake in a T9/10, for example, in a T5? Not so much (still doable, of course, just not as easy by far). So how about 1. Opening up events for lower tiers 2. Linking values like needed damage/base-xp/free-xp/whathaveyou to the tier of your ship, like 50 base-xp per tier of the ship you're driving?

I haven't played in a loooooong time, but back when I did, I definitely felt the difference between being in tier-4 to being in tier-3 (that's why I was constantly switching between the two). The idea of a common scrub like me facing the like of Kanijashi (Y-Tuber) is, quite frankly, stupid. In tier-4, I had lengthy, nailbaitingly close fights. In tier-3, I was mostly fodder. So in that regard, it sure improved my gaming-experience there. There was talk about old-hands creating new accounts to seal-club newbees, but since a really good performer would rank up pretty fast, I don't think that was a real problem.

There are 5 tiers (in WoWs terms, more like ranks) a player can have. A new account starts at tier 5. Your personal performance in battles grants or loses you points (or something similar) If you have accumulated enough points, you "rank up". Since bad performance leads you to _lose_ points, you can also lose ranks (back when I was still playing, I was constantly changing between rank 4 and 3 - yeah, I was a potatoe over there too) The closest thing for WoWs would probably be rating people according to base-xp gained. If you perform above average for your tier/rank, you gain points, if you perform below average, you lose points (perhaps with no points gained/lost if withing, I don't know, 10 or 20% of the tier-average?) Tier-5 will only meet other Tier-5s and Tier-4s Tier-4s will only meet Tier-3s and 5s and so on. Basically: If you over-perform for the tier you're in, you climb in rank and meet better players. If you under-perform for the tier you're in, you drop in rank and meet, um, less good players.

Would MW:O count? F2P? Check Team based? Check Arcade-ish? Check Slow-ish compared to FPS? Check Units with multiple weapon-systems? Check Units with different play-styles/missions/tasks? Check (long-range or brawler, light or heavy,...) Skill-Based match-making? Kinda Check Granted, it's system isn't _perfect_ but, IMO, works well enough.

How will the "mercy-rule" be handled? Will it be done away with? Will both teams start with more points? Will both teams start with one cap in possession on those 3-cap maps? Will losing ships impose a smaller points-penalty? Because if none of the above, this will lead to many games ending with 2 or 3 bots still alive instead of like now, with 1 or 2 bots still alive.

How about doing away with those f**ing loot-boxes (in the store) entirely? You want the Burgeon? Play the game and you'll get a chance to win it or you go to the store, pay 50 bucks and you have it.

Pretty sure it's a chance to win a ship, kinda like you have a chance to get a super-container instead of a normal resource container. If you _do_ win a ship, which one of the three you get will be randomly determined.

Since you said yourself that loot-boxes are gambling, you obviously agree with the Belgian law-makers. Because they in no way outlawed loot-boxes. All they did (afaik), is declaring games that include gambling not suitable for minors and class them as 18+. And that's all _any_ law-maker wherever in the world, who is looking into the issue will do, rate those games 18+ Of course, since being rated 18+ puts a real dampener on a developer's/publisher's means to sell their game/loot-boxes (not to mention that many of those games are targeting minors), they are fighting those decisions tooth and nail.

(snip) So advancing (in a large, slow-ish ship) and then getting caught from the side when passing by a sub is punished and advancing bow-in towards a sub is punished. That doesn't sound like incentivizing anyone to advance at all (in a large, slow-ish ship), but rather encourage "camping waaaay back and sniping from 20km", to be honest.

Hoped for something German, got the De Grasse. Well, it's a free Premium, so can't really complain :)

Can anyone tell me what's going on? And no, those ships are not in battle, haven't used them today at all.

Could be, could be (fumble-finger is my second name, lol)

That's was it! Thanks a ton. Of course, the new question is, since I never, ever used that thing, how did it de-select anything below T5?

Just trying to save load-time :)

Nope. Just left a CoOp battle with the Fusilier, so they aren't locked out of combat at all, just shown as if they were. Edit: None of my T5 ships are similarly "marked" anyway, though now that you mentioned it, everything _below_ 5 is.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltair (attributed) "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me." (saying) Funny how we got from that to: "What you just said offends me, call the Inquisition!"

Don't forget to remove the mercy-rule while you're at it, or you will see matches end with 5+ bots still alive ;)

Thanks all. So I'm just stupid - well, that's nothing new :) Again, thanks to all who answered.

Not exactly a new guy, but up until now, I never noticed this. I switched the commanders from my König and Bayern, and payed the 200k for half-retraining them. The König's commander has 7 skill points, so the CXP needed for retraining is reduced from 20 to 10k. Then I put all the commander xp flags I have on the König and entered a battle. After the battle (which went horribly, as can be expected, when I put a lot of flags on a ship, lol), I get the screen below. Now, according to the battle-end screen, the commander of that König earned a total of 4659 commander-xp - but also says that he still needs to earn 9659 CXP to finish re-training So what is going on here? I mean, the _base_ CXP in the game was 682, so even without any flag or premium, it should have at least gone down to 9318.

Again you are talking about what a team is, I, on the other hand, am talking about what a team-GAME is. Designing an online-game and then, in the end, telling everyone "oh, btw, this is supposed to be a team-game" isn't designing a team-game, it is _telling_ everyone that this is a team-game. As I said, we probably have to agree to disagree on what what is and isn't a team-game.

Remember what started this? I said that WoWs is a team-game in name only. You said it yourself, "who work together on a same goal" In order to be able to do that, an actual team-game would offer the necessary tools - and, in randoms at least, WoWs doesn't provide those tools. Your approach seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that if there are two (or more) "teams" playing against each other, it's a team game. My approach is, that if you want to create a team-game, the first, second and third thing to think about is, how to enable and promote team-play. Of _course_ the 12 players on each side in a random battle are "a team" (and I don't think I ever said they are not a team), but that doesn't make WoWs a team-GAME, because it lacks a whole bunch of features a game that is supposed to be a team-game _requires_