Admiral_H_Nelson

Agreed. Great job! @Pecztery1337 Done 19/20 missions and (Fate Willing) will get the camo. Blys is a very nice ship. I bought it when it first came out, but don't play it much due to lack of time (Along with many other nice ships, sadly) The perils of having a life, Eh? However.....if we get a Pan-Europe DD line then I'll play Blys again as a basic captain trainer. There must be enough European DDs for a line at least up to tier 8, surely?

Why I don't cut Wargaming any slack on this. Because the world and his brother knew that there were OP ships, but WG used them as bait for the Christmas lootboxes. If they were so bad for the game why did they do this? Simple, they knew that they were scheduled for the nerf sledgehammer some time after the sale.

So both cruisers were half dead. What percentage of your own ships HP was remaining? 100%? English not your first language? Where I am from, 100k damage and a kill can not be described as "can't even touch the enemy team" in any way shape or form. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you have matches like that and at the same time complain about CVs being weak. Look. I get it that you are enjoying the CV rework, and you have made this point repeatedly in many threads. That's good. I am glad for anyone who enjoys it. Really. I WAS planning on trying CVs properly, but I'll be buggered if I fly planes around a map. So I am not a fan - but it's OK. Wargaming cannot please everyone. If it is for the greater good then neither you or I count at all. The crucial question is: Will Wargaming achieve the objectives that they set themselves with the rework. Make CV's more accessible, more popular and reduce the skill gap between best and average players. And if they don't then what is their "Plan B"? Just brazen it out and claim that it is a success regardless? Back out the rework to RTS? Make a new Rework 2.0? Remove CVs altogether?

An interesting article, but.... How many times do we have to remind you, Wargaming, what happens in real life is secondary to balanced gameplay.

Thanks for drawing the attention of the forum to this Leo! I can accept nerfs to OP ships with good grace. It all depends HOW they are nerfed. I'll carry on stating this until I'm blue in the face though: NO UPTIERING! Sub_Octavian seems to suggest that the uptiering approach being tried for GC will be a precedent. Making Belfast into a tier 8 ship is not just a matter of adding a few changes to the capabilities of the ship - you expose it to a whole new world of matchmaking. A pretty $hitty one at that in the case of Tier 8. (And of course the same is true of tier 6 to an extent - but tiers 4,5 &7 not so much)

But for directives - Wednesday

The average player can complete each of the 4 weekly directives in about 10-15 games in co-op battles. My personal best for the fewest games needed to complete a single directive is about 25 games.

Possibly something like this

Precisely!

That's a very important point, IMHO.

Is anyone prepared to bet their mortgage that the rework will be considered a success or conversly a failure by, say May 1st? (Buy failure here, I mean few games being played per week - which implies a reduction in WG revenue stream) And (heaven forbid) if it should be considerd a failure, do Wargaming have a "Plan B"? ------------------------------------------------- My own position here is very awkward. I had plans for certain projects in this game. By now I should have been learning CVs in PvE games. However it ain't gonna happen. I was happy to try the RTS carriers, but I've tried several airplane games in the past - and I'm just not interested. So for selfish reasons (I admit) I want WG to rollback the rework - which had nothing to do with console gaming, honest Guv!

YOU did ...but the original poster did not. Which is the point that I was making. And I am not having a go at @Aotearas. I don't know how many "likes" i've given to his posts over the years, but I do know how many "dislikes"....a big fat zero. Again mate, chill out about this. I'm not having a go at you. It's just a forum misunderstanding and I'm pointing it out. Right....now off to smash some bots in my beloved Tirpitz!

No need to jump down the posters throat. That was not immediately obvious from the post. It would be better if people could use the common convention of tagging sarcastic posts. (e.g. [/sarcasm] The poster may be from some part of Europe which has no tradition of the Carnival that has its originis in a religious observance - and therefore would find the post believable. #chilloutmate

Absolutely! Plenty of time for further buffs before release!

Indeed. It will feel like Tier 8 matchmaking (a much discussed subject on this forum)

Of course. Why, the Balancing Team have probably not even had a go at it with their sledgehammers yet!"

The Halsey Campaign was a good one IMHO. If you were determined you could do it whether PvP or PvE is your thing. The Exeter one is a killer because you have to do EVERY one. Stage 4, Part 1 "earn 7 achievements" simply cannot be done in PvE. Now, it's OK to make something PvP only (such as the Yamamoto campaign) - but it IS a backward step from recent missions. It also goes against the principle of inclusivity as demonstrated by one of the aims of the CV emasculation rework.

+1

Great music attachment!

Thank You for the quick response! All the ships that I would like to get from the Arsenal require some payment OTHER than gold (Which I don't have ). Hopefully there will be something amongst those 50 that attract my attention that I have not already got in port.

This is the Games Centre that Wargaming want to force us all to use eventually.

Just a friendly question: Have Wargaming stated this explicitly in any announcement? It would be just like them to give us a body swerve on this.

Excellent. This is the key point about the CV rework. Forget all the guff from WG about "making CVs accessible to more players", or "Narrowing the skill gap between CV unicums and average players". The real bottom line is: Does this make people play the game more, or does it make them play less. Only time will tell, but WG are taking a big risk.

If you uptier any ship from tier 7 to tier 8 then any buffs should take into account that it moves from generally favourable matchmaking into generally unfavourable matchmaking.

Just been watching an interesting video by Flamu on the Soviet Tier VII BB "Sinop" QUOTE The T7 Soviet Battleship Sinop is certainly no pushover, great armor, great health, good concealment, great guns, great speed. Downsides are only really weak AA, the torpedo belt and a large turning circle. Doesn't really feel like a fair trade. END-QUOTE Full video here: Imaginary conversation at Wargaming offices between two high ranking officials on the Russian BB Project: #1: The plans for the new Soviet Battleships indicate that they have NO weaknesses whatsoever! #2: OK then, nerf the AA. #1: Great idea - then we nerf Carriers out of existence so the weakness is not a problem. #2: Also, Premium Soviet battleships will sell like hot cakes - more money! #1: Yes, with more money we can increase developer's vodka ration to three bottles per day, and buy only best quality sledgehammers for the balancing team. THE END.