Noob_McDerpington

Small, cramped maps. Quite at odds with the entire point of Naval Warfare. A bunch of individuals (who probably don't even speak the same language) thrown together, like gladiators in an arena, and expected to work together as a "team". A "paper-scissors-stone" relationship between the various multitude of vessels available all supposedly balanced against each other (balance is an anachronism ...most Naval engagements hinged on a lack of balance to determine the result. Now, the most talked about premium is a ship from a class that was designed to sink merchant ships and to avoid fighting anything that could hurt her. A class of which the sister ship was sunk on her first and only mission. A ship that herself spent almost her entire career moored up in harbour, hidden from the enemy. All hail the "mighty" Tirpitz.

So what's the secret? People play this game, right, I get that. People enjoy it too and I daresay there are people who are really good at it. But... After thousands of games on Tanks I thought I'd give Warships a go, I even bought the premium Aurora. Yet the game is just another rehash of an arcade shoot-em-up with "balancing" features and lot's of details to make it interesting. I know it's not a simulator and it doesn't pretend to be one, but why: Do the relative Tiers pit totally mis-matched vessels against each other? Right from the start you get pre WWI ships fighting late WWII ships when anyone with even a basic knowledge of Naval history knows that achieving any sensible "balance" from that is ridiculous. Almost 50 years of technological differences are ignored under the notion of "balance". Wouldn't a design period parameter have been an easily implemented part of the game system? Why are the teams, again, going to be a mix of vessels from all the various nationalities? The whole idea of the different nations maritime thinking was that they designed and produced Navies of ships that complemented each other at least to a degree. NOT the ridiculous mixed bag of vessels that you get in a typical game. What chance is there of effective teamwork when the only ship with the same top speed, handling characteristics and armament in the game is on the enemy team. Wouldn't nation based teams of vessels all from one Navy have been a good idea for a Naval warfare game?

As usual, any criticism that someone may raise is met with ridiculous personal insults that have no bearing whatsoever on any of the points I raised. That's the theme with the "World of" forums, it's unfortunate but indicates the maturity of the members. You can actually sense a "hunger for attention" from my short post(s)?! Ridiculous. It's a free to play game. I understand that. It hasn't cost me a thing to setup. I spent the money on a premium ship and I have no problem doing so. In World of Warships I suggest that a mismatch of vessels from DIFFERENT time periods AND different Navies is a problem that could, at least to an extent, have been avoided. I think the game experience would benefit from some implementation of that kind of balancing. I'm either right or I'm wrong ...but suggesting it's whining and motivated by a hunger fro attention is truly pathetic.

No. It's not whining. I'll either play the game or I won't bother and it doesn't really matter. It's still "fun" if you don't take it seriously. I'm just saying that the game system seems to throw all sorts of ridiculously mismatched factors together and then has to sort it all out through "balance". Seems a bit odd to me to put a random mix of ships from different nations and time periods that have wildly different capabilities into an arena together and expect the result to be much more than luck. When the only other ship of your class is from another nation and was built 30 years after yours and is totally different from your own in terms of design and handling then it seems odd to think that's OK in a game. Sorry, but that's just an arcade game.