Camperdown

My goal is not really to get as much stuff at the snowflake event as possible, but I have resources which were intended for ships anyway, so it makes sense to get some ships before the snowflake event ends. I have little interest in average mid tier ships.

I thought that might spook you guys

So, it's a con trick. And WarGambling is a trickster company hiding behind what could be a good game.

Not in their current form, no.

I will get a 12 pt captain for my Vampire II for 1750 pts. Done!

Uhm, yeah, 2x2 CVs per game is much better

Part of it could be MM. With T10 ships you have guaranteed T10 MM, with T9 you get lower tier ships more often. I think Shima is better than Yugo. Fletch is close to Gearing, but Gearing is still decent at T10. Rest I can't judge. Edit: I had the same feeling with Lightning and Jutland. But then in T8-9 ranked I tried both, and Jutland was clearly stronger than Lightning, in which I struggled. So my conclusion was: Lightning is stronger for its tier, but Jutland is definitely stronger with equal MM.

If they want it sub vs sub, why do they not limit the ping mechanism with homing torps to subs only?

You understand that taking a year to publish drop rates for loot boxes creates the impression that you still care more about maximising profits from dubious pricing practices at the cost of your customers than about showing even modest restraint in your behaviour because it is the decent thing to do? This has the result that: - all good intentions expressed in the original statement sound hollow and are met with scepticism - any potential goodwill you might have earned from these intentions is squandered - WGs admonitions to stay polite and respectful sound very hypocritical because the companies own culture and behaviour are amoral and predatory

This is why it is hard to believe that the last conciliatory statement was sincere. They have no conviction to act morally, they will only do so if they are forced to. And then with dragging feet. So either WG believes we will fall for their shenanigans yet again, or they are bs-ing us believing they can get away with it. Either way they are unconvincing that they truly want to mend their ways.

Imo there are two key issues with this statement. But let me start with some positives: this is the most improved communication we have seen from WG so far. Also, it does promise to address some of the key issues that have been raised by players and other stakeholders. So, turning to the issues: - we have no way to determine whether this is sincere. After 2 or 3 years of increasingly obnoxious behaviour, WG has been hit by a shitstorm they cannot ignore. So after a couple of weeks they have finally pulled together a response that is not rediculous. Any corporation would do that, and usually a lot quicker. So has anything changed, or is this just damage control? There is no way we can tell. And their track record over the past years should make even the most gullible weary. - in their response there are tell tale signs WG has not really changed. On monetisation they say they have always complied with the law. Oh dear goody..... The law is the absolute minimum requirement for behaviour, a backstop to prevent stuff going too badly wrong. If your moral compass consists of just complying with the law, you are in deep, deep doodoo. What WG needs to do is hold themselves to an ethical standard which goes beyond the legal minimum. Crucially, that is what I am missing in their statement. 'We as a company that relies on our customers goodwill recognise that we must hold ourselves to a higher standard of behaviour than the minimum requirements of the law'. As a result we shall refrain from practices that boost our short term financial gain at the cost of the long term trust of our customers. @MrConway, perhaps you can see to it that this crucial insight is transmitted to your masters.

Amen to OP.

I will wait and see for a while. See how far their new resolve carries them. Colour me sceptical for the moment. Looking at it from the bright side: it is at least a welcome change from before. Let's see.

It is not yet sincere. On monetisation they will comply with the law. Yeah, right, we know how that works.

As a business we always follow laws and comply with regulations as they appear. Aaannnndd I stopped reading right there. Translation: we have no scruples and will screw our customers in any way not prohibited by the law. We have no ethical constraints except those that are imposed on us forcefully. Just so you know. No change, as expected.

To be fair, it's 4 games on the EU server. On the RU server he has 4K.

Don't disappoint me again, Sub-O

Fascinating how sub-O admonishes us players not to be negative. How would he qualify WGs attitude towards the player base for the last, say, 2 years? He can dish it out but not take it

I am extremely sceptical about WGs ability and willingness to change. However, IF they would really want to make the effort, I will listen. Only if they show they are for real in actions and communication, I may adjust my judgement of them. That's a lot of ifs, and I don't expect them to meet them. It is their move.

You asked the question, I just informed you. I never said it was easy or what. For daily rewards it simply requires you to log in some 25 days per month. In ranked battles you get 200 gold every 2 weeks if you do the 12 wins in bronze, 400 if you rank out in bronze. That's a potential 5 to 10K gold per year.

You obviously don't know me.

In ranked battles, daily rewards once a month and supercontainers.

Intransparant pricing through gambling boxes maximises price differentiation and thus exploits price sensitivity to the max. So, in the blissfully innocent eyes of WG, this is just good business.

Yes and who is great with 7 year old kids

WG is just obfuscating the issue. They purposely choose to take some feedback for fact and ignore other. It is kind of pathetic really. A completely incredible con trick. As long as this is the standard of communication, it is obvious there is no willingness to change on their part.