250swb

Isn't there a console version of WoWs where suggestions like this would be more appropriate? Besides which you'd just be funding WG's coffers what with naming ships for gold, then renaming them when the girlfriend chucks you because of your spots, renaming them when the budgie dies, renaming them because people are making fun of the name, and all the ship names beginning and ending with xxXx......xXxx will get very confusing.

Treated as a general question to the player base don't you think it would be a very touchy subject? A lot of a good/experienced players income and WR comes from playing less experienced players. Change that and you change their status for the worse. Only playing against experienced players both income and WR will fall, you won't win as many battles, the league you are in is always going to be tougher no matter how good you are. Even unicums will see their WR fall, and while not everybody would be a unicum in your 'Veterans' battles WR is an ego issue for many players. Bragging rights are one thing, but players have spent time getting to where they are, time is what would make them a veteran in your version of the game. So being 'encouraged' to enter harder battles just isn't going to work, they'll walk, as will all those who can't take their stats falling. It will be a very thin game left at the end, most would be better quitting as soon as your Veterans Mode is implemented, at least their stats would live on in history.

WG can't sort out the mess they created unless they get the stats from real people and not bots playing the game on a test server. If nobody plays nothing happens, you CV players, and the rest of us, are guinea pigs, we spend out credits and gold and all so WG can tweak their game.

WG inflict the CV's on the game of real players so they can come up with a 'hotfix' (in the meantime you are paying for being the testbed), they put the GC into the game so they can later 're-balance' it after discovering it's OP, and there are many other instances of poor testing and not planing ahead,...... or so it seems. I don't think this is poor testing and inability to predict ahead, WG are treating Premium Ships and new content as temporary boosters in much the same way you buy a premium speed booster, an extra fighter, etc., you buy them and you use them and then there're gone. It's the same with WoT, new content is always the must have with a whiff of OP'ness, players pay for it, and then it's gone in a nerf. You'd have to question after all this time what have WG been doing with their stats and graphs if they can't predict ahead the impact of the new content they introduce, unless we now accept it's not incompetence but intent. So that's how we need to think of buying anything Premium in the game, it's on temporary loan, useful for a short time, then puff!

I got my GC in a medium sized container over the hols and have hardly played it yet, so But it strikes me that just as with WoT there always needs to be a bit of spice in the game, something just a bit naughty to play, something to dream of or rage at, and not just everything levelled into oblivion where individuality in ships is nerfed to heck.

What would you bet the Hotfix comes at the same time the Commander resets end?

The last poll question caught my attention, yes they are squadrons of aircraft and not CV's, they are played like a mobile island on the red line and not a CV. CV's should only be able to go into battle in a division of three ships, the CV and two DD's who are restricted in the distance they can move from the carrier. So a) it means the CV can maneuver because they have normal CV protection, and b) it gives the redundant DD's something to do,

As a further update concerning my scepticism regarding WG's motives, and your enthusiasm that resets are free for just a week, well it turns out WG now also acknowledge a week isn't long enough, so they are going to have another week of free Commander resets....... in two months time. So my point stands, WG are still aiming to benefit from player confusion and experimentation by selling resets for gold during the next two months (at least) as players struggle to experiment and discover the best build for ships and Commanders among multiple ships in their harbour.

They did/do all carry HMS before their names.

A Greek ship, where are the oars? Yes, a good looking ship, I'm glad she still survives.

No of course not, for whatever reason you are misunderstanding. I 'spent' 26,664 gold on three containers, got 20,000 gold back (which included gold for a tier VI ship I already had), two more ships one of which was the tier VIII Loyang and also the tier VIII Irian, three Captains (including the special one for the Irian). So after deductions I spent about 6400 gold (£20 in the Premium Shop) and got two tier VIII ships, plus the rest including free XP, Premium time, camo, etc..

I thought them good value, I posted my tally in the current 'Irian' thread, but as I recall the ships (or doubloons if you have them) came in the second container, and the Irian in the third. With doubloons income from the containers I ended up spending 6381 doubloons (about £20) and got three ships, three Captains, lots of Prem time, XP, and all the other stuff. I kind of think this is why WG say you need to buy them 1, 2, and 3, the 'rewards' ramp up, you won't get the Irian in the first container no matter how much you huff and puff. .

Well I had some gold left over from Christmas so got all the loot boxes and it seems like WG are at it again, you get more than you pay for. I started with 38,000 doubloons, spent 26,664 on the boxes, and with the gold I got back the end tally was 31,619 doubloons still in my account. In that was lump sum 5400 doubloons credit for the Huanghe which I already had. But, I also got the Loyang (worth 8000 doubloons), and the Irian (price unknown?), two 10 pt Captains, the Irian special Captain, plus all the other stuff including lots of camo and free XP. So in total the three containers cost me 6381 doubloons, or about £20 in real money.

Oh a week, I'll have to severely reconsider my skepticism regarding the lovely charitable company called Wargaming, there you see, I'm thinking differently already.

I imagine they'll reap a profit by players buying gold to change the skills of the Captain and buying extra credits to change the build of their ships. Both these things can be worked at over time, but I think there'll be a lot of 'instant fixes' attempted that in the players mind that require throwing some cash at the problem. This is how WoT both causes and fixes problems, they create a problem, say an OP tank or tech tree, then to balance it they create another problem in releasing an opposing OP tank that players also need. WoT fixed a problem where arty could kill you reliably too easily, so they invented the stun mechanic, and reaped the rewards when players realised they now ideally needed large repair kits at greater cost.

Just a guess but he may be left handed and using the number pad on the keyboard?

Maybe mine is a newbie answer, but for the long respawn when a spotter plane comes back to ship it needs to be hauled out of the water, placed back on its gantry, then refuelled. Perhaps WG is modelling some sort of realism, even if in real life it is an unrealistically short time?

I don't think level related, I've just started playing WoWs and it was a daily bonus I got, not a level bonus as some days I went up more than one level. I think the clue is in the words of the info screen saying 'daily shipments' and 'log in every day'.

Collections such as the Vive la France can be good value if bought for coal in the Arsenal. In the Arsenal a 10pt French Captain is 35,000 coal if I remember correctly, but you get a 10pt French Captain for 20,000 to maximum 30,000 coal if you buy the Vive le France crates and complete the collection, plus the other stuff you get such as camo and signal flags.

In reality warships were used much more conservatively than tanks. If you think camping at the back isn't 'warship like' explain the history of the Tirpitz, or the fact the Yamato spent more time avoiding the enemy than engaging with it. Or that the German High Seas Fleet was deployed once in WW1 then consigned to port. The people who camp at the back are playing the game more realistically than those that yolo forward thinking a battleship is the equivalent of an expendable tank. But the game isn't realistic, players use the tools they've got to do the best job they can within the rules, but your complaining that things aren't 'realistic' in WoWs is a total misunderstanding of what realism really is or was.

At the weekend I saw an enemy division in a tier 2 battle that had a tier 1 ship in it. It's irresponsible, it should incur a penalty, and WG should ensure failed MM like that can't ever work. The OP should be ashamed not understanding the MM when forming a division and what different tier ships are meant to meet in battle and stop ruining the game for other players in the team.

Of course the arguments are the same, which is why I've previously mentioned in this thread the WoT debate on this same issue, but does that mean those arguments aren't just as relevant here? Exactly the same things apply, wait times, declining WR for good players, increasing WR for bad players, I'm not sure the ego of some players will cope if they get the skilled based MM they dream of. It's like giving a free card to all your worst nightmares for red players to equal up to you in the MM. Not to mention the boredom that would drive players away at the very moment they are needed. You know you'll win about 50% give or take, so why bother playing, it's become a rigged game in favour of the average player.

Well OK for the sake of the discussion if you had a player based skill match making it wouldn't actually work that everybody would ended up at 50%, but the bad players would creep up to 50% then bounce off it again, and the good players would be bouncing off it from the other direction. The difficulty comes when you realise the majority of players will end up fighting somewhere in the middle the very same players they considered as being bad now. So back to square one in a system where nobody is encouraged to get better. That is how the argument goes for player based skill. For ship based skilled MM the ship can't exist outside the team, so the team would need to have it's skill level assessed as a component of the ships MM. So if a player is good with a ship they play in harder teams, they then lose more battles, their ship stats come down and the player goes nowwhere. Do that for every ship and it's the same result, all their ships bounce off the 50% stop, a little bit forward, then nerfed back again by the MM. Bad players on the other hand will love it, they get from 46% (or whatever) to bouncing off the 50% stop just by playing other bad players, they'll earn more credits, do missions easier, etc. Skilled players the other side of 50% will earn less and find missions harder.

I don't think the people wanting skill based MM would like being a 50%'er, but it would happen over time, it can't not happen because it's built into the theory. And from what I've briefly observed 'skill' , or lack of it, isn't necessarily the problem anyway in all one sided battles. It feels more like peer pressure, the 'go spot' that leads to the DD going to spot, prematurely dying, and the snowball effect takes over, all stemming from an experienced player demanding his 'intelligence data'. So skill is a two edged sword. Wait times also come up in WoT when skill based MM is discussed (flamed), and the player base is much bigger there but the considerations very similar. If you consider the majority of the player base in WoWs are bellow 50% WR, that creates a large pool of poor players that will easily get a game. But leaves a very small pool of skilled players to form teams, in the ships they want to play, at the tier they want to play, and then hang around until they are matched by skill. I suppose WG could use bots to fill the gaps at high skill caps?

Maybe Wargaming could offset what you lost by reminding you of what they've handed out over the years?