Allied_Winter

Doh' I already started a dedicated feedback thread for all weekly missions. Might as well take that into your report as well. Greetings

Yeah, missions that require a player to play against the "team objective" of winning the game in favour of a "personal objective" are a problem. Especially if the mission targets are quite off (ram in a BB and survive the battle). Making them easier (as in less ridiculous or luck dependent) would be a step in the right direction methinks. Thanks. I know that luck is involved in many parts of ones life, I'd like to see though (and from what I've seen some others here in the forum as well) that these missions would be a little less dependend on luck (because hoping that the enemy team behaves properly to get the 2500 base XP or you need to have a T10 ship to even come close to finish one mission --> like cro_pwr in his Yamato) Greetings

It's been a while since I was on NA, so could you be so kind to list or even elaborate on one or two recent missions NA got? This way it's better to form an educated suggestion on how a proper mission and proper rewards should look like. Greetings

Fair enough. But if it was/is WGs plan with those missions to better the player by giving out some ultra challenging missions, than why don't WG announce them as "Train yourself" missions? Shouldn't such weekly missions with sometimes pretty mediocre rewards not be tuned more to the casual player? And you say it yourself: Stage 5 needs more luck than skill? Do you think that's a problem overall? Or is it within (your) range of skill vs. luck? Nontheless, we can at least suggest something. We all know, especially WG EU, can be a bit slow sometimes to react. While we're on the topic of motivation: What improvements would you like to see to make missions more interesting for you? Or has that ship sailed forever? @ShakaD: The difference between free and consumable-rich-players is quite an interesting point. But I get your point. Thanks for the input! Greetings

Interesting point. Now that you mention it, it allways bothered me, that for a e.g. 2500 base XP mission, I may have had a good game during such missions, but not when the required stage was needed. Adding to the randomness. Thanks for your intput. In regards of your dropping motivation, what need to happen that you consider looking back on the mission table? More predictable outcome? Better rewards? Greetings

Who thought this would ever happen, but in this case I have to defend WG EU. The delay between NA and all other servers (keep in mind RU and SEA get their update also tomorrow) has been in the game since I play (so roughly 1 and a half years. This has nothing to do with EU being late (not in this case). NA being the first server to introduce every pacht (also minor ones) has saved quite some hassle since, the occasional patch has been off. So like thePurpleSmurf said: NA is betatester for the rest. Greetings

Take a look in this thread: I created a feedback and suggestions thread to gather ideas concearning the missions Greetings

There you go. Patch notes from NA. Let's see if EU brings up different ones.... For those behind a firewall: Greetings

Thanks for this response. You mind if I open a thread, dedicated purely to gather feedback over time for the missions? Or do you set up a special part in the forums where such feedback should take place? Greetings

And if (in this case or one of the other cases out there) the player sending in the replay file or WG after reviewing said replay file, find evidence of a clan rigging battles, than the punishment follows instantly. As long as OP didn't provide this evidence, all we can do is discuss about this point: Is it bad for the game if we allow clans (well technically everybody, but clans seem to be the most likely candidates) to "multi queue" in the hope of a) ending up in the same team and roflstomp everybody or b) ending up on different teams and the weaker divsion of clan members hands the others the victory? We may even split the points a) and b). As in, a) can be allowed / should not be allowed and b) can be allowed / should not be allowed. I for one don't think this is a problem, at all. This is because only the minority of players is organized in clans, thus it won't happen that often that a clan decides to "multi queue". And even if it happens, without any proper reward for it (unlike in WoT with the T22), there is very few intent to do it in a malicious way (as in harm the non clan players battle experience). So most clan matchups you'll see (like the one posted by OP), will end up in a proper battle. And this is pretty much confirmed by MrConway's (=WG) stance. Sure one could ask if WG should act in advance and tune the MM to deny any match ups with more than three clan members in one battle. But even that is highly questionable, because why limit the gaming experience for 95%+ of clan members that join a battle with their best intentions just to prevent "mutly queue" for the remaining 5%, that do so with malicious intent? May I ask what you think about my question? I have an assumption that you don't like it if a clan "multi queues". And even if he does, where's the problem. It might be morally wrong from your point of view but it's not against the ToS (assuming that mtm78 - if he "multi queues" - does so with the best intention of winning a battle no matter of whom the enemy team is composed of). Greetings

Maybe badly worded on my side... Yeah I know it's standard policy for ages, but it can't harm to give a heads up to players, that they have to send in a replay for every thing they think went wrong in a battle. And sometimes you have to tell a player that for every thing he mentiones. Greetings

It is a rule violation, if the replay you send shows clearly that one div of clanmembers did something in the course of the battle to let the "enemy" clan members win. The problem with this "if" is, how do you proove that? MrConway confirmed also, that WG has no problem clans hitting the battle button and ending in the same battle (though on opposite sides), and playing for the objective. Now: How do you sort out that clan divs that lost simply because the enemy team was better and those clan divs that sabotaged their team? Without proper analysis of a) the replay send in and b) the clan involved there is little room for one player to determine if the battle was "rigged" or not. Greetings

Problem is though: A player that has never played in clans (and has no intention in doing so), will not know about the internal clan banter that's going on if a div of three wins against a "div" of six. All such players see is the outcome of a battle with lots of clantags, and very often this occurs in a setup presented by OP. The fast conclusion, that the match was rigged is quickly at hand. In most cases however you only "feel" or "think" a battle has been rigged via clan tags. And thanks to MrConway players are now fully entitled to send a possible rigged match to support for further analysis. Shame though a feature is needed, that isn't fully implemented yet (@devs: official replay when?) Greetings

Short (slightly sarcastic) answer: Proper Teamwork will mostly guarantee a win Longer answer: - DDs use their smoke to cover up allies and do a bit less pew pew pew and more capping/ cap supporting. Those DDs that survive the longest usually secure their team a win - BBs need to play aggressively but on the same time mustn't overextend. In Domination, a concentrated push by your teams BBs towards one cap is a big support to any capping DD/cruiser. In the longer run: A BB sitting inside a US smoke is terrifying. But also smoke = torpedo magnet, so be carefull while sitting in smoke. - Cruisers: I haven't played that many cruisers so far in ranked, thus I can say little about their tactics. - CVs: Mainly spotting and finishing off low HP targets that no one else can finish I'd say Greetings

Thanks MrConway for clearing up WGs stance on this one. Also: Community Coordinator checking forum stuff and talking to us plebs? What kind of sorcery is this Greetings

Looks at his Baltimor, looks at the patch tomorrow, now back at his Baltimore, ... YES indeed satisfying. Greetings

I just shamelessly quote myself from a reddit post a few days ago: Greetings

Well, given the current development with Bastion, let's see how many patches are needed to gather enough statistics to see that the Upgrades are .... well bottom end of a lamp post in a red light district. Greetings

Maybe WG really want's to shift the containers more towards TYL (in total) and that if you want guarenteed rewards you go for Campaigns (and weekly missions ). Greetings

Currently equipped on my Shima, Baltimore. I plan to drop it on the Baltimore though (thanks to the RoF buff I probably wont feel the need to turn my guns pre-radar use). I'm still debating if I should go RPF on my Sims for Ranked.... Greetings

I wouldn't say nerfed. Altered maybe. I saw quite some posts (reddit, here) where players complained that they chose credits and only got 50k credits and some signals/consumables out of it.... Unfortunately this means also that my guaranted daily dose of 500 Free XP is gone.... On the other hand we can start now to sell unused signals Greetings

Im Prinzip genau das. Nimm ein Schiff welches selbst gut getanrt ist (z.B. IJN Zerstörer) und fahre deinem Team voraus. Jedes Schiff welches Du dann als erstes spottest, wird für die o.g. Aufgabe als "Entdeckt" markiert. Edit: Walter war schneller. Greetings

Hmmmm... the more Belfasts I'll see (besides my own Belfast), the more fun the two German BBs will be. Just rush the Belfasts in their smoke and delete them. Greetings

Played her as a hybrid with the F3s and quite some gun action. With premium time and some 100% XP camos it took me only 57 battles to get through her .... Greetings

Even though I'm not a CV player (and the few battles in a Langley count more towards clubbing seals, than towards learning to play CVs properly), I welcome every change that improves CV gameplay experience! Cheers to that! Greetings