HMS_Kilinowski

Yeah, why can't more people have a lot of money? It's so boring to talk to all the plebs in the world.

The regular free respecs were a key corrective to unanticipated shifts in the meta. As such it is an unhealthy decision to remove them. One can argue that changing builds is a players concern and done so on the players initiative. So the player should pay a price for this unnecessary step. The respecs we talk about however are imposed on the player by external changes to the game, i.e. changes initiated by the developer. One might go one step further and claim Wargaming can force players to respec by releasing/changing content that alters the meta. One example was the IFHE-rework and yes, rightly so did WG grant a free respec. But certain changes need time to sink into the game. For example the release of the Smolensk created another peak in HE-spam, driving many players to changing their BB-builds towards a more survival-oriented build. The impact of Smolensk on the HE-spam wasn't obvious, but came gradual with the gradual increase in the number of players unlocking the ship. Was that the players fault/responsability? No, he did not bring himself into the situation necessitating a respec. The BB was good one month and on 4 fires the next month. Was it necessary to respec BBs? The HE-spam was a key issue leading to the IFHE-rework. The issue was that massive. Also Wargaming did not initiate the IFHE rework immediately as the issue arose, it took them almost a year. Players had to react quickly. So yes, it was absolutely necessary to respec your BBs. It was not the players fault. Players could adapt to that using the respec of the CB-season, as they adapted their captains to many such shifts in the meta over the years. They did not make a big fuzz about it, argue in the forum over hundreds of pages to argue for a respec. That is why the regular free respecs make absolute sense. They remove bureaucracy from the game. We do not need to argue with WG-staff and they do not need to have internal discussions about the vailidity of the arguments. The free respec solves many minor frictions and misfits on a very subtle level. Players benefit from it, as they can try out different builds and not be commited to them. Nobody pays 180k CXP to try a meme-build for a dozen battles. The free respec is a workaround. And Wargaming benefits from it, too. The free respecs are an incentive to at least try out Clan Battles. Some people join clans because of that. Some clans do a couple of Clan Battles to ensure their members get the respec. Many good things come from that. The clans who just sampled Clan Battles start getting the taste of it and their players do. They become more dedicated to the game. That again results in them likely spending money on the game. So a small favor granted generates revenue. And there are no discussions about what is not fitting anymore, support staff is relieved. As I said, free respecs are an automatism, a corrective. Do not abandon it, Wargaming.

Unfortunately the article does not explain how the Odin is supposed to ever be more than an utter disappointment, having 16500 HP less than a Tirpitz. Even a Bismarck with stock-hull has 11700 HP more. Show of hands: Who thought A-hull Bismarck was fun to play? Well, imagine how much fun it's gonna be sitting in this "cruiser", taking up a BB spot, bouncing off AP on cruiser belts. At least this ship was discussed before Wargamings gag order on CCs, so now we're all aware of what a bad ship the Odin is going to be in it's current iteration. She is not just bad, she seems to be designed bad on purpose. No ship-designer can honestly think a ship with a health pool closest to T6-Bayern will compete in T8. This thing will be kekt on by CVs even if top tier and be an utter punishment if bottom tier. Should we really commit to a reasonable but lengthy grind and pay doubloons worth 12€ for a ship that frustrates us and ruins our stats? Please explain, el presidente.

That would imply that the players providing feedback in the survey share a similar opinion. I always complain about the "keep your star" rule. I however am sure that most bad players love it. Ranked only makes sense for them, if they can progress and they can only progress thanks to being selfish. So for every good player criticising the rule there are 2 players advocating it and WG logically keeps it. Or the duell mode we had in Sprint 10. The fairest, least toxic Ranked ever. The best teams ever. I loved it. The guys doing 100 duells probably hated it. It's not about what is best for the game, it is about the roar from the gutter.

Starting at a certain tier every DD should / is expected to have a detonation flag. They regenerate over the time and there is little excuse for not having it in high tier games. Personally I think about other situations. A couple of days ago I was on the weak flank in a Yamato. Three other purple players even were on the same flank. Turned out, we got a pretty aggressive lemming train against us. We did, what we could to stall them, but at the end I got focussed and was dead before I even did half my ships HP on damage. The players on the other flank slowly chewing on a handful of enemies and then still alive in the late game ofc came top. Sometimes you gotta take one for the team. You cannot play for your personal benefit and leave a critical position. Sometimes you will come pretty low in your team, although or even because you took the safest route to victory. I once saved my team, when both teams lemminged to the same side and I conquered the enemy base, being the only ship on an abandoned flank. Zero damage, i was bottom of the team and my muppets would have lost without me capping the base. What irritates me - keeping in mind my previous paragraph - is that fixation on being top of the team. Yes, being high in the team score shows you did a lot that the reward system counts as a positive contribution. But everyone can be high in score by just hanging back in a BB and spamming shots without putting his neck out to tank. Ofc, then you are not attractive to be shot at, stay alive and keep claiming more damage, while the team mates are punished. The reward system is flawed. It is based on contributions that can be defined mathematically and logically in program code. How could you possibly reward a player not yoloing, when his team is about to win on points? How can you reward a player just intuitively finding the one low HP ship that he must one-shot to secure the win, before he then runs again? There (a) is no obvious way of programming that and (b) even if the team mates could appreciate such a behavior, they are too selfish and narrow-sighted to be aware of that. Hell, the guys who programmed what you get XP for, were too narrow-sighted to reward some of the most altruistic actions you can take. What do you get for sitting in the enemy base, making sure that your team wins, while your team mate gambles chasing needlessly after the last remaining enemy? You are his insurance and if he succeeds, he gets the spoils. Punishing players for bad play is a risky thing. We all play for entertainment. If one game would punish me, I would move on to a game that doesn't. Since 2/3 of the players of WoWs play in a way that would get punished regularly, the player base would shrink. I know players who stop playing at night, when there is less than 10k or 5k people online, cause you run into the same people over and over again, which defies the idea of "randoms". So one could do skill-based MM, as @TheBrut3mentioned. But that would also alter the pace of the game. You can see it if you go below rank 5 early in Ranked Battles. Suddenly mounting certain flags is not optional anymore. You gotta pull all the stops, play alert and to the best of your ability. Another example is Clan Battles. While that is an exciting experience and I love how I can count on my clan mates, it's also a bit stressful. I could not play thousands of such battles a year. Especially at night I am tired of the day. I want to have some phun, play good but not like lifes are at stake and chill into the night. The thing about skill-based MM is, if you do it, you need to account for the higher intensity of battles and for people playing less battles because of that. You then need to increase the rewards for higher leagues and achievements (try getting a Kraken in an all-purple battle) and lower the requirements for certain missions.

Spar dir die Suche. Aber ernsthaft. Die amerikanischen BBs stammen aus einer Phase des Spiels, wo Wargaming wahrscheinlich selbst nicht wusste, wie umfangreich die Nationen noch werden würden und wie sehr man die einzelnen Bäume diversifizieren würde müssen, um neue Linien interessant und abwechslungsreich zu gestalten. Dem entsprechend fehlt den USN-BBs das Besondere. Sie sind halt solide und mittelmäßig im besten Sinne. Ursprünglich waren die USN-BBs ja das einzige Gegenstück zu den japanischen BBs. Die IJN-BBs waren auf Reichweite optimiert, und die USN-BBs eher fürs Grobe gedacht. Mit den deutschen und russischen BBs sind eben mittlerweile Nahkämpfer im Spiel, die das besser können. Die USN-BBs sind erst mal ziemlich langsam und fahren dem Geschehen hinterher. Die Geschütze hauen aber Kreuzer souverän weg und haben auf jeder Stufe gutes Kaliber und gute Pen-Werte. Ab und insbesondere in der North Carolina kann man Spaß haben. Da werden dann auch die USN-BBs deutlich schneller und haben gute AA.

Stahl bekommt man hauptsächlich durch Spielen von Ranked (Gewerteten) Gefechten und Clan Battles. Für Letzteres sollte man einem aktiven Clan beitreten. Die Ressource Stahl ist als Anreiz gedacht, an den kompetitiveren Spielmodi teilzunehmen. Man sollte also nicht blind nur das Schiff sehen, sondern auch überlegen, ob man wirklich so tief ins Spiel eintauchen will. Allerdings hat WG auch zu völlig unkompetitiven Anlässen bereits der Spielerschaft Stahl nachgeschmissen (z.B. bei den Weihnachtsschneeflocken, bei einer käuflichen Kampagne (nochmal Daumen hoch an der Stelle ... kappa) und demnächst auch fürs tägliche Spielen. Die aktiveren Spieler können i.d.R. etwa ein Stahlschiff pro Jahr freischalten. Die Stahlschiffe sind durchaus ihren Preis wert und die Ressource Stahl war bislang auch halbwegs stabil im Preis. Mit anderen Worten: Stahl hat kein "Verfallsdatum". Es wurde gesagt, dass Stahlschiffe irgendwann sowieso für Kohle erscheinen, aber das ist eine rein spekulative Aussage. Tatsächlich werden in ein paar Monaten drei Schiffe für Kohle erscheinen, die zuvor für Stahl erhältlich waren. Das liegt aber daran, dass sie kaum gekauft wurden. Etwas überzogen könnte man diese Schiffe als Ladenhüter bezeichnen. Die allseits geschätzten Stahlschiffe werden sicher sehr lange Zeit nicht für Kohle angeboten werden. Falls dies doch jemals geschehen sollte, ist relativ wahrscheinlich, dass sie dann veraltet sind, also mit aktuelleren Schiffen qualitativ nicht mehr mithalten können. Dafür wäre mir dann auch Kohle zu schade. Bei WoWs sollte man generell keine Ressource gegen eine andere Ressource eintauschen. Die Tauschkurse sind sehr zu deinen Ungunsten festgelegt. Als Beispiel: Wenn du eine Linie fertig gespielt hast, also T1-T10, kannst du die Linie zurücksetzen und nochmal spielen. Im Fall der japanischen Kanonenboote kostet dich das ca 670k Freie Erfahrungspunkte. Dafür bekommst du im besten Fall 20k Forschungspunkte als Ressource. Forschungspunkte kannst du wiederum gegen Freie Erfahrungspunkte eintauschen im einem Verhältnis von 1:20, du bekommst also 400k Freie Erfahrungspunkte für das Zurücksetzen. Man kann schnell sehen: 670k ist ein kleines Bisschen mehr als 400k. Man kann sich also regelrecht arm tauschen. Jede Ressource behält den höchsten Wert, wenn man - ohne Tausch - direkt die Dinge kauft, die für die Ressource käuflich sind. Am besten kauft man also für Stahl auch Stahlschiffe, für Freie Erfahrungspunkte Freemiumschiffe, für Kohle Kohleschiffe oder Container oder Kapitänen und was nicht alles, und für Forschungspunkte Schiffe ausm NTC.

I wouldn't put too much thought into it. Every player should try and be critical to his own play and that is independent of any reports. Reports are irrelevant in every possible way. Think of it in a conditional way: - If you are reporting a bad player, he has zero karma anyway. He regularly gets reported, his karma will never rise. It will stay around zero for most of the time and not bother him at all, even less so since there is no benefit to it. Even if he is aware of being reported, he will ignore it for that reason and because it insults his vanity. He will reject your criticism, which is what got him into being a bad player in the first place. So you won't change him. Even if you did, chances are 50% you meet him on the opposite team next time. What is your incentive to improve his play? None. - If you are reporting a good player, he might realize the drop in karma and see the criticism. But then again he usually is aware of his mistakes. Does he need the varying expertise of a random player to improve his play? The random player with a probability of 80-95% is playing worse than the reported player, with a probability of 2/3 he is so much worse, he doesn't even know what he is talking about. So considering his criticism, implementing it into ones play, is likely going to make a good player a worse player. It's only consequential that he ignores the report. It also again is irrelevant, as the good players get way more compliments than reports. So in the long run that number is going up anyway, confirming the player in his approach to the game. Your single report is not going to change that perception in any way. And again, your chance is 50% to meet him on the opposite team in the future. What is your incentive trying to improve your possible opponent? So how ever you put it, it's irrelevant, it's not going to have any consequences apart from you having released a bit of frustration. That again you can do much more effective utterly cursing about your less gifted team mates in voice chat with your division mates, as a moderator, who shall remain nameless, has demonstrated in one of my favorite videos. Or let's put it another way: I know for a fact that some of the most notorious players of this community, regularly showing unsportive conduct, have been around for many years, largely unchallenged by WG-support. These people must have gotten thousands of reports and - I imagine - dozens of tickets over the years. The sheer number of reports and tickets gives a comprehensive picture of their inability or unwillingness to comply and yet they are not banned or sanctioned to an extend that would force them into compliance. So, to put it bluntly, the report system as well as their big brother, the ticket, have failed.

I also don't have Conqueror, but I think Thunderer and Conqueror are similar. Conqueror gets the good heal, so it can tank better, but still you wouldn't push in a Conqueror. You want to heal HE-spam, not citadel hits and Thunderer has very vulnerable cheeks. The difference is that Conqueror sticks to HE, while Thunderer uses AP as much as any BB. The 8 shells vs 12 shells is irrelevant, since the guns are accurate and hit. The 8 guns on Thunderer are bigger caliber, do comparable dpm and have similar fire chance per salvo. I am slightly sceptical, when you say you don't like Jean Bart, cause the playstyle of Georgia is similar, using speed to surprise the enemy. The difference is ofc the 457mm guns, which love to crack cruisers, while Jean Bart with its 380mm guns can be pretty frustrating since the IFHE-rework. Thunderer and Conqueror have the same caliber. It's important to correct your impression that 457mm is on par with Yamato 460mm. Yamato can pernetrate 32mm of armor, while 457mm is just slightly below the threshold and cannot pen 32mm. When it comes to the regular overmatch mechanic, both calibers are comparable. My impression is: Thunderer is a ship for lazy moments, where you want to spam at long range without spending too much thought on what's happening on the map. I don't move to the front line, unless my team messed up and I am now the tankiest ship on my flank. If I hit the right ships, I may win. But my team is missing my presence in the front line. Thunderer cannot tank, so cruisers might get focussed. Thunderer cannot afford to be focussed. Good players understand the downside here. if you want to win, you must protect weaker ships by attracting attention and tanking damage. We could see that in the last Ranked season, where many "keep my star"-low-skill-players played Thunderer from A-/J-line. A Thunderer so far back is no threat to the enemy team, preventing them from bullying your DDs out of the cap area and claim 2/3 of the map. The Georgia takes more attention. It's an interesting mix, cause Georgia has the accuracy to hit at long range early-game, but can move closer in mid-game. It's similar to Jean Bart in that it has lots of tools to get the job done. It has an answer to every situation. If things get hot, it hits speed boost and retreats. If a DD harrasses it, it can even use speed boost to charge a smoke or trap a DD in the border. I mean 38kts speed catches many ships off guard and helps avoid torpedos. Georgia is never out of the battle. It has the secondaries to prevent torp rushes. It's not super tanky, but it claims a part of the map. A DD must stay away or risk getting plane-spotted/radared/detected and get spammed by secondaries It's definitely not a boring ship. It's just not a ship for my last battle before going to sleep. That is a subjective impression. The Georgia - to my knowledge - has the same secondaries as the Massachussetts and the Ohio, making them the most accurate of the game, even useful at mid range. In fact Little White Mouse in her review on Massa stated, that manual secondaries are even too accurate, making them shatter on the center belt. Also IFHE is not worth it anymore. So I would only invest slightly into secondaries.

I don't have the Georgia. I have the Thunderer. I am not sure, which ship is more fun. Both ships are very different. So you need to define for yourself, what brings you joy. Georgia has a lot of potential for initiative. It can reposition quickly. It has very precise main guns and the secondaries to dominate its mid range environment. Thunderer is rather a ship for the back line. It can tank a bit, if the late game calls for a push. The main guns are about as accurate as the ones on the Georgia. So the Thunderer rather snipes at longer range. I hope you get the picture. Thunderer can be a beast, has really hard hitting AP-salvos, awesome HE-shells for anything angled and the range to get them across the map. That said, as any long range ship, Thunderer is a bit more squishy than most BBs. That limits her impact on the battle mostly to doing massive damage. The Georgia likely is a flanker. She has extreme speed. She is designed to be where the action is or flank that position to surprise and overwhelm. She can do, what the Thunderer can't, go in fast and hard and bully certain ships. I would say Thunderer is a ship where even mediocre players can do quite well, since you even get decent damage numbers, when you stick mostly to HE. It however lacks the ability to react to what is happening on the map, the ability to shape the battle. That is what Georgia does. A Georgia player can look on the map, find the spot where he can dislodge the enemy team and apply pressure immediately. Georgia is not for players who can't read the map. A good player however imo can have a tremendous impact on the outcome of a battle.

So what? I know someone who spent ~70k doubloons on Hayate and that's for FXP. And you know how WG recently sees things: "You had early access to PR. You had your fun and won a lot of ressources. You are not losing anything, if we put it in the armory now." You think it will be 1M FXP? That would be a fair and reasonable price. So, knowing WG, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Verstehe ich gut. Es geht einfach darum, solch eine Spielweise nicht mit einem schlechten Schiff zu sabotieren. Wenn ich mir so als Gegenentwurf die Colorado ansehe und was dann in diesem Stil später kommt, die West Virginia oder California. Das ist, man möge mir verzeihen, ein stinklangweiliger Spielstil. Da wippe ich in meinem Stuhl hin und her, in der unterbewussten Hoffnung, das Schiff würde damit einen halben Knoten schneller. Die deutschen Schlachtkreuzer dagegen rocken einfach. Flott, guter Schutz, mittlerweile - dank der besseren Kreuzer-Panzerung - nicht mehr ganz so gut zum Kreuzer knacken. Das ist für sich schon ein natürlicher Nerf. Wenn ich dann sehe, dass die Odin schlechtere Seitenpanzerung und weniger HP als die Scharnhorst eine Stufe darunter hat, wie soll sie da mithalten? Es gibt eben nur eine Chance es hier richtig zu machen. Mit der Odin war's das erst mal für eine lange Zeit. Wir werden keine weiteren Schiffe im Stile der Scharnhorst sehen, vielleicht irgendwann in zwei Jahren mal eine T9-Scharnhorst, aber wen wird's noch kümmern, wenn die Odin erst mal verkorkst ist?

Gib einfach bitte weiter, dass sie die Odin bitte noch ein bisschen aufwerten sollen. Die aktuellen Werte lassen nichts Gutes vermuten. Die CCs waren derart ernüchtert, dass viele Spieler, die ihr zuvor entgegen gefiebert haben, völlig das Interesse verloren haben. Es geht mir nicht um, mich. Meinetwegen landet die Odin im Premium-Shop für 45€ und ich hab sie nicht, aber andere sind glücklich. Und in der Werft wäre eben ein anderes Schiff, das jedem dann egal ist. Der entscheidende Punkt ist: Die Kombination von Schlachtkreuzer-Kaliber und BB-Panzerung ist für viele Spieler eines der Lieblings-Designs. Ich hab schon von so vielen Scharnhorst-Besitzern gehört, dass die Scharnhorst ihr Lieblingsschiff oder eines ihrer liebsten Schiffe ist. Wenn man sich die Statistiken der Scharnhorst ansieht, erkennt man, dass es nicht daran liegt, dass sie etwa OP wäre. Die Leute lieben sie, weil sie einen intelligenten Spielstil ermöglicht. Die Odin soll diesen Spielstil auf T8 ermöglichen. Es wäre quasi eine Sünde, ein spielerisch so erfolgreiches Konzept zu verhunzen, indem man es in Grund und Boden nerft. Das gäbe viele enttäuschte Gesichter, wenn die Odin keine Lust auf Spielen macht.

That would likely be, because Tallinn is bundle no 3. You have to buy the bundle no 2 first, the perma camo for the Tallinn for 400 tokens.

I remember that battle. You spawned on the south side of Sleeping Giants, going towards C-cap. You asked something like if we would run into each other and I - likely in a Lightning - replied "I hope not", obviously since 8km torps vs. a radar BB are not perfect. I however went to A anyway, spotting for a slightly demanding BB. Unfortunately, your team on C was painfully unwilling to play the objectives, retreating faster than we could follow and so the steamroll ended before I could even do any damage or find my way towards you on A.

Nur damit hier keine Missverständnisse entstehen: Ich habe @Sergeant_Hulkanicht kritisiert und ich hoffe, dass dies auch nachvollziehbar ist, vor allem für ihn selber. Ich sehe klar, dass er mit seiner Analyse seit Jahr und Tag vielen Spielern das Hin- und Herwälzen von Angeboten erspart, auf der Suche nach dem, was mittlerweile die Nadel im Hauhaufen ist, einem guten Angebot. In diesem Thread wurde null komma nix falsch gemacht. Mir scheint nur, dass es dem armen Hulka mittlerweile recht schwer gemacht wird. Wenn man sich mal ein eigenes Thema aufgebaut hat, dann macht es doch Spaß, wenn man seine Leser überraschen kann. Wenn ich mich da hinein versetze, würde es mir Freude machen, wenn ich ab und zu schreiben kann "Super Angebot. Wer es sich entgehen lässt ist selbst schuld." Hulka ist ja auch stets wertneutral und schreibt niemandem vor, was er zu tun oder lassen hat. Gegenüber Wargaming verhält er sich lobenswert diplomatisch und vermeidet all zu deutliche Kritik. Umgekehrt wird die selbstaufgebürdete Aufgabe dadurch nicht leichter, weil die Angebote eben zunehmend einseitig sind. Es ist auf jeden Fall nach wie vor eine sehr gute Idee und wir alle finden es super, dass du unser Hirnschmalz schonst und wir nun umso mehr neuronale Verbindungen für Panzerungs-Schemata übrig haben. Es tut mir nur aus empathischer Sicht Leid, dass Wargaming dir ungewollt Knüppel in die Beine wirft, weil ihre Sonderangebote diese Bezeichnung kaum noch verdienen.

I have dedicated lines for resets. Retraining captains is a huge dump of CXP. To avoid that, the goal should be to have a captain for each ship from T5 on. The captains on your T8-10 ships are okay, though in the long run T8 should have a 13 pt captain for a second 3pt skill, e.g. DE to counter the poor fire chance. You should use the 10pt commander from the reserve on the Yorck. Lütjens is heavily overpriced, but If you can spend doubloons, you might get the second Jütland-captain to use on the Hipper and take the one from the Hipper on the Yorck instead, while then having an extra 10 pt commander for the Nürnberg. I find that many players have at least a 10 pt commander on T6 and T7, while having 12-14pt commanders on T8. None of that is an absolute must, but you will find that even on T5 the missing CE hurts your ability to disengage.

Ja, bei den Runden geht es i.d.R. nicht um den Unterhaltungswert oder etwaige Lehrstücke, sondern da arbeiten stupide Filter und die gehen scheinbar auf ganz objektive Kriterien.

Dann hast du Möglichkeit 3 ja schon entdeckt. Ich lade immer mal wieder Replays bei Replayswows.com hoch. Gute Gefechte werden zumeist automatsch zu Youtube-Videos konvertiert. Ob dies passiert, hängt aber scheinbar von einigen Erfolgskriterien ab, die sich nicht eindeutig definieren lassen. Nach meiner Erfahrung sind ab 150k Schaden, mehrere Kills, sowie High-Caliber/Confederate nötig. Ich hatte aber auch schon Replays, die deutlich besser als andere waren und nicht konvertiert wurden. Wichtig ist, dass das Replay nicht kurz vor einem Update hochgeladen wird, da alte Replays nicht konvertiert werden, sobald eine neuerer Client aktuell ist. Der Vorteil bei dieser Methode ist, dass du keinen alten Client oder eigene Festplattenkapazität brauchst.

I get that the envy bit is not a nice thing to say and some players might take offense feeling labelled negatively. What you need to understand is, that the wish to have certain ressources is based on wanting to have certain ships that have become important to have. But that is just another misconception. If rewards that you can get for a certain habit become essential to be competitive, that generates upset. So Wargaming sees, e.g. that Legendary Modules must be available to everyone, if the game is intended to follow a principle of equality rather than pay2win. Then Research Points can no longer be restricted to veterans. If a certain Legendary Module is a must have under a meta, you cannot make it exclusive. Same goes for ships defining a meta, like e.g. the Stalingrad, which has been a key unit in the CB meta for over a year. Subsequently Wargaming thinks they need to soften up the requirements to get these ressources. That is just an inherited error. From a rational perspective, Wargaming should never have made key items available for rare ressources. That would have enabled them to maintain the exclusivity of special ingame currencies and uphold the precision control. As I elaborated in the linked post earlier, rewards for veterans need to be exclusive, beautiful looking, but irrelevant for the meta, rewards for pros need to be interesting, tasking and fun to play, and the reards for everyday ressources can be part of the meta.

Dear Wargaming, unfortunately my analysis on ressources has gone unnoticed or was not understood. I don'T blame you, you are too busy making bad decisions to have time to reflect on them. So, if that is alright with you, I will move to 2nd stage criticism: Why don't you just melt all the different ressources into one single ressource that everybody can get for doing everyday stuff? Wasn't the initial idea of different ressources to have separate incentives to be able to attract players to different playing habits? That is the only rational purpose that different ressources have. Like a plane controlled around three axes, it doesn't make sense to have three controls for one axis and none for the other two. At least it limits your control and the directions you can go. You want players to play evenly, so your server traffic is used as homogenous as possible and thus you reduce excess cost for peaks. So you have Coal for that. You want players to stay with the game, so you have long term rewards, that is why you have FXP. You also want to reward playing stock ships instead of skipping unpopular parts of the grind. Again, FXP. Then you introduced competitive modes. They are noticed by outsiders and create a positive reputation for a game. So to incentivize people to play those modes, you early on had reward ships and now you have steel and tokens. And finally you wanted veterans with tens of thousands of battles and whales not to get bored by the game and abandon it, by rewarding a replay option - the line-reset. You rewarded that with RP to be used for rare ships. But then you start hearing the whining voices of childish players: "No, I don't want the red toy car. If my brother plays with the blue toy car, it must be better, so I want that. Ofc now my brother plays with the red car, so maybe it was better in the first place and now I want it back. I just can't decide, I want both, just to be save." So Wargaming abandons a logic principle of precision control over players to route them into desireable behavior in favor of catering to envy. That is done to comply with players inability or refusal to comprehend they can get the same rewards, if they just play the same way as the ones who got the rewards before them. You want the rewards for playing competitive modes, play competitive modes. You want the reward that players got after grinding all lines and starting to reset and regrind, regrind the lines. If you give up that precision control managing players within different dimensions of play (play much, play regularly, play well), the need for different ressources is not there anymore. So you might as well give it up, instead of coming up with ever new ressources, only to make them generic in purpose after a short time period. In case possible irony is not understood, I want to stress I am not recommending anything, just analysing the current state of the game economy.

Findest du es nicht frustrierend, bei quasi jeder Serie von Angeboten das Gleiche schreiben zu müssen? Lässt sich die Frage "Ist es das günstig oder kann das weg?" mittlerweile nicht pauschal mit "Kommt drauf an, wie locker das Geld bei dir sitzt." beantworten? Und ist das nicht ein Euphemismus für "Das kann weg."? Gute Angebote scheinen mir seltener als ein "Solo Warrior".

Hör auf @Sergeant_Hulka. Wenn's jemand gibt, der schon im Schlaf von den WoWs-Rabatten spricht, dann er. Nö, tatsächlich ist die Kombination von Rabatt-Gutschein und dem Coupon im Arsenal für Dublonen-Schiffe, keine schlechte Idee. Die Schiffe für Dublonen sind nur schon etwas länger im Spiel. Dafür kann man die Statistiken der Schiffe aber auch über hunderttausende Gefechte anschauen und bekommt so einen guten Eindruck, welche Schiffe was taugen und was Schrott ist.

Ich seh gerade, Clanwerbung IST erlaubt. Sorry für die Fehlinfo. Die grundsätzliche Analyse halte ich aber aufrecht.

Nach meinem Verständnis fällt Clan-Werbung unter das allgemeine Werbungsverbot im Spiel. Ich verstehe auch den Sinn dahinter nicht. Sollen Spieler von einem Werbeaufruf beeindruckt sein? Was sagt das schon groß über einen Clan aus, außer dass der Clan verzweifelt genug ist, um schon im Spiel Werbung zu machen und quasi jeden zu nehmen? Im Spiel sollte man sich auf das Spiel konzentrieren und den Chat konstruktiv nutzen, um relevante Informationen zu verbreiten, also taktisch relevant und nicht relevant für einen selber. Das hat den Werbeeffekt, dass man selber als Spieler positiv wahrgenommen wird. Ein Mitspieler, der einen Clan sucht, wird also die gute Spielweise eines anderen Spielers wahrnehmen und nach dem Gefecht mal den Spieler und/oder dessen Clan checken. Ist ja auch logisch. Wenn ich einen guten Spieler sehe, beeindruckt mich das und ich will wissen in welchem konstruktiven Umfeld er das Spielen gelernt hat. Das erzeugt eine positive Außenwirkung des Clans. Wenn dagegen - als unpersönliches Gegenbeispiel - ein Spieler erst mal den Chat mit seiner Clanwerbung spamt und evtl. die relevante Kommunikation anderer stört, indem etwa wichtige Informationen in den Hintergrund rücken, dann erzeugt das eine negative Wahrnehmung des beworbenen Clans. Das sagt mir persönlich doch: Diesem Spieler ist sein Clan wichtiger als ob wir jetzt diese Runde gewinnen. Also wird für Ihn gutes und zielgerichtetes Spiel eine untergeordnete Rolle spielen. Kommt dann noch eine taktisch unbeholfene Spielweise hinzu, wenn der Werbende also nix reißt oder sogar regelrecht schlecht spielt, dann überlegen sich doch die Spieler dreimal, ob sie so einem Clan beitreten wollen. Schlechte Clans gibt's ja wie Sand am Meer. Warum also gerade dieser? Mit Werbung im Chat hat man den Clan nun wirklich nicht herausgehoben oder irgendein Alleinstellungsmerkmal demonstriert. Ich persönlich bin bei meiner Clansuche Kriterien gefolgt, die ich als Erfolg versprechend empfunden habe. Ich wurde aufmerksam auf Spieler, die im Spiel oder im Forum ein vernünftiges taktisches Verständnis des Spiels gezeigt haben. Und wenn diese Spieler - aufs Forum bezogen - nicht als rechthaberische "Schullehrer" aufgetreten sind, dann hab ich mir eben deren Clans angesehen und mir überlegt, ob das evtl. ein Clan für mich sein könnte. Kurz und knapp: Gute Spieler achten auf Substanz und nicht darauf, welcher Marktschreier am lautesten ist. Kommt natürlich immer drauf an, was der Clan sucht und was die Spieler suchen. Wenn es nur darum geht, irgendjemand zu finden und der Spieler nur irgendeinen beliebig austauschbaren Clan sucht, dann mag belanglose Werbung zielführend sein. Meine Empfehlung wäre tatsächlich die Clan-Sektion im Forum zu nutzen. Man darf dort eine eigene Topic für Clanwerbung erstellen und diese einmal pro 24 Stunden aktualisieren, um so den Clan unter den vorderen "Themen" zu halten. Wenn man den Clan dort nett vorstellt und klar und deutlich präsentiert, welche Ziele und Anforderungen man als Clan hat und welche Art von Spieler man sucht, dann kann damit jeder Leser was anfangen und identifiziert sich damit entweder besser oder eben gewollt auch nicht. In jedem Fall gibt's keine falschen Erwartungen und das Risiko, sich komische Leute einzufangen dürfte niedriger sein.