Allied_Winter

Fair enough, I've interpreted as is: Halloween theme ends, shipments continue. So? I have no problem with that. Would be nice, but only for the purpose of having a SC ship drop blocker.

Wrong. Femennenly read it wrong to. The Halloween theme runs until the 8th. But the shipments go on. At least, according to the patch notes Fem tried to quote. And failed.

Wegen mir gerne. Solange die Option erhalten bleibt sich die Schiffe zu erspielen. Wie heißt es so schön: A fool and his money can be parted quickly and easily!

@Sehales hier auch mal bitte! Kurzum, ja es gibt da ein Problem, WG weiß davon und ist dabei es zu fixen.

From Fememennly (WG NA employee):

Sowas gabs doch hier auch schon. Die ganzen Beta Packs (Sims, Yubari und Gremy). Hier hatte WG jedoch von Anfang an gesagt: Exklusiv BIS 1 Jahr nach erstmaligem erscheinen dieser Pakete. Und trotzdem ging das Forum vor Schaum über als diese Pakete dann exakt ein Jahr später (Ausnahme die Gremy) in den Shop kamen. Aber gut, ich gebe auch zu ich bin da anders. Auf den Gedanken mir Dinge zu kaufen NUR weil die sonst keiner hat bin ich noch nie gekommen, deswegen kann ich diese Mentalität auch nur bedingt nachvollziehen. Und was die Ankündigung angeht: WG wortwörtlich nehmen. Habe ich selbst zwar schon öfter gepredigt aber gestern (bzw. bei der Missouriankündigung damals) auch vergessen.

Maybe because it may not increase? It's a bit like when asked if you have infortmation about something the public doesn't need to know: They prices may increase (probably) or not (probably less so, but still possible). Sure he could've said they will increase, and if WG wouldn't increased the prices everybody would be happy for another 'broken WG promise' (but in a case where players benefit from it, it rarely gets called out).

How is it vauge if he says (and even gives JB as an example) that the prices may increse? Or did you expect him to list by HOW MUCH the prices would rise?

@Martin989Thank Stell dir die Geschichte mit dem Super Container wie einen Würfel vor. Du willst ne 4 Würfeln aber es kommt: 3, 3, 1, 5, 3, 6, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 1 ... usw. Bei einem Würfel hat man natürlich eine höhere Chance 1/6 eine 4 zu Würfeln als einen SC zu ziehen, aber das Prinzip bleibt das gleiche. Edit: Erst jetzt gesehen, dass ein Necromancer am Werk war.... kek

Since not everybody is reading on reddit, here's Sub_Octavian's answer on the Q:

Maybe. But on the other hand: How many players would've gone for Ranked or CBs (though these less so) if there weren't any rewards out there. And since WG doesn't want to hand out 720 days of premium for reaching Rank 1. That still after they cut down the Ranked rewards after season 7 (???) or so. Yeah. Two ressources (even timed ones) per event ... Maybe. Maybe not. I don't judge them on trying to make money. I'd do too.

YES! Something like USS Johnston. And @Leo_Apollo11 asking the important questions!

Naja ... kommt drauf an: Willkür oder Faktenbasiert. Wenn ich heute der Meinung A bin und Fakten präsentiert bekomme die mich diese Meinung ändern lassen, dann habe ich kein Problem morgen zu sagen Meinung A war Mist, jetzt bin ich Meinung B. Ich muss nur das 'Warum' erklären.

Ahh ok. Now I got you. Fair enough. Don't share that sentiment though, but I can understand why you're fearing for everything be obtainable by cash.

Sounds reasonable enough AND is able to be measured. Will keep it in mind for my next games. And then try to compile it into a spreadsheet. Btw: I also recognized that mxstats is sometimes off with regards to 'Battle duration' and 'Time spent in battle' (e.g. Time spent in battle is larger than the battle duration). Need to countercheck that as well. Too early to draw conclusions, yes. It just remineded me of the similarities in WoT and my own observations (though never been that thorough with regards to the actual landslide aspects/reasons). So: More thorough observation!

Isn't that the same argumentation like we had with the 'Marketing Gag' of giving free stuff to absent player where veterans have payed for? Just to understand you here.

Wenn du mir den Post zeigst wo WG tatsächlich gesagt (oder sogar versprochen hat) etwas NIE zu machen bin ich bei dir. Tatsächlich haben sie nur gesagt sie verkaufen kein Premiumschiff oberhalb von T8. Klar wäre es schön wenn sie noch ein 'aktuell' oder 'jetzt' eingefügt hätten. Aber die Aussage so hat noch nicht wirklich Bestand für die Zukunft. Bei der Ankünding von Sub_Octavian hat WG ja schon 'gelernt'. Sie haben jetzt aktuell keine Pläne ein kaufbares T10 Schiff zu entwickeln. Aber diese Aussage wurde gestern getätigt und kann somit also heute schon wieder nicht mehr gültig sein.

While that is true, it's bad habit to force players out of your game to check up stuff that's ingame. Armour viewer and specs are in the game and can be made visible via a mod, so it'd be quite easy (read: CHEAP) for WG to implement that. Ofc you could add a large 'THIS SHIP IS CURRENTLY NOT BUYABLE' over the ship. But you still should be able to see all the relevant stats.

Probably. But this discussion at least made me aware that there will be no easy way of determining what constitutes as a stomp and what not. Just from 'feeling' (my observations will follow as soon as I get to record some output data): Landslide vitctories are the bread and butter. As said having one team with an 8 ship advantage over the other is pretty common. Nothing new here with regards to any change in how often landslide games do occur. As of the why? Logically (would have to be (dis-)proven with data): The longer a game drags on, the less time players have to act (either to prevent a loss or to farm DMG for their own good). Thus, panic sets in and leads to actions you wouldn't do if you had more time. Thus increasing the speed with witch the landslide is happening. Much like a keg of water. If you boil it it becomes 'unstable'. But just to get your theorey right, it's: If one team camps, landslide victories for the non camping team will occur?

On the page before that I quoted Sub_Octavian. In one word: Inflation. Coal/Oil/Steel/FXP is easier and easier to get the longer the game lives. Thus the prices need to be adjusted. I'd like to refer of one of @Leo_Apollo11 s threads about how long it took him to a) gain the FXP for his first FXP ship and b) the FXP for subsequent FXP premiums. The pattern was quite obvious.... and I assume the same is happening with coal.

I never said time should be the only factor. The main one maybe but not the only one. I've had games where I rushed the enemy cap (Standard) and capped while the enemy was busy camping the 1/10 line. That was over quickly too but wouldn't qualify as a stomp in my buck. The thing is judging by your game impressions (and my observation so far) most games (!) will end with a large enough team to enemy loss ratio. To me that would then mean that everything is a stomp. And when everything is a stomp, nothing is. So we need to move the goal post a bit. So that ofc needs to take into account how quickly the battle was over coupled with how many enemies die in what time. That leads to about ... three times the number (so 12) i mentioned above regarding stomps. From my imagination only that's 12 games I'd call a stomp because: - The battle was over in short time - One team got (almost) completely wiped out - The other team lost (almost) no ships of their own So cases where two/three runaways (intentionally or not) manage to drag out the game longer... well those games are annoying but don't qualify as stomp imho because the afformentioned "Click battle, crap happens, back in port" factor isn't there. Theoretically you could afk in that time since most players of the winning team won't get out anymore meaningfull damage. But everybody KNOWS it'll be over once the buggers are found. Maybe it's that what I'm missing in your definition. The sensation of shooting an enemy, the enemy pops and the battle is over and you wonder yourself, 'wait, how did that happen'. If a loss is visible from minute 3 on, but takes 12 minutes to process ... everybody's in for a onesided battle sure. But a stomp?

Could be. I'm not sure. True. And all we can do is voice our concern and hope for the best.

Sure ... the last polls showed that. Polls can (and in fact often are) heavily skewed by the type of person you poll. E.g asking about economic growth only in the city will lead to differnt results for the country side and so on. In the case of Warships I'd debate that the less than 5% of the playerbase that are active in the forums are NOT representative for the whole player base. Simply because of the fact that most forumites have a battle count way way higher than the average player. Then there's always the option to leave if all else fails. All we can do is point that out to WG and vote with our wallet. If WG doesn't want to listen it's up to oneself to make piece with it or leave (imho).

Many people = those who are active on the forums?? In that case many is a tiny minority. In the end, there's always two roads a business can take. And as long as Warships can get away with appealing short term goals ... I've made my peace with that and stop expecting too much. If it appearst to be good value, I buy it. If not. I don't. Regarding the statements. Yes, true. On the other hand it wouldn't be the first time WG is very very very nitpicky about what the say and how they say it. As said: As long as new "first time" customers come in a business can ignore the old timers. And it's then upon the old timers to decide what they want to do with their money.

What I don't get is: Why is it so ... off to assume that all WG does is to make money at the end of the day?