HMS_Kilinowski

Agreed, but that is not what I meant. I didn't mean you are limited in the amount of battles. But you are also limited in the portion of battles where you can mount signals to an extent that gives significant ressources. Of the top ressource earning battles, where I mount all special signals plus special camo, I can maybe play 30-50 per year. I cannot mount Spring Sky Camo plus all signals for 100 battles straight and get me the 2m FXP I need. Or if I can do so it is due to me having saved those camos for 2 years and afterwards needing to save for another 2 years to regenerate. That I can punctually combine bonusses, does not change the inflow of these signals. They are limited just as coal is. Also the signals and camos are gained from mission rewards (e.g special camos from the Hall of Fame). That you use them in random battles does not alter the fact they are strictly-limited.

A torpedo warning would be nice, but it might nurture the expectation of the torped ship to react, shifting the blame from the torper to the torped. But then again, when I get torped it's usually the torpers fault, while it's the fault of the torped when he hits my torps. Also the following messages would be helpful and save a lot of time: "Stay on your flank, you lemming-noob." "Stop pinging, I got a mini map, too." "Angle your ship, potato." "This ship is already dead, Stop kill-stealing and shoot more important targets." "Feel free to participate in the battle." "Write a post card when you've arrived at the next map." and of course "You do what your mother had better done nine months before your birth."

... the most honest part being WG-staff shooting wide-spread. There is a small but sigificant flaw in your reasoning - not criticizing, just complementing: FreeXP is actually timegated, too. Yes, you get a small portion of FXP with every game. But that small amount will take tens of thousands of battles to reach Hayate/Smaland levels. You can move up the next step in the ladder and use a typical consumable camo with +100% XP and +100% FXP, plus the normal economic flags (+50% XP, +300% FXP). Then you get FXP close to the amount of baseXP. For average players that should be around 1200 FXP per battle. So it would take you more than 1600 battles. Do you get 1600 camos and 1600 XP- and FXP-signals back while you do 1600 battles? Personally I get less economic signals than I do battles. They do not fully regenerate. Even less so do special signals, i.e. the dragon signals. When certain players or Wargaming make the argument that FXP can easily be attained in a short time period, they think about these special signals. And yes, one can make 30k FXP in one battle, given one combines the best camos and signals and has a decent game (i.e. >2000 baseXP). But that is highly timegated. It is restricted by being drip-fed with these signals. I get maybe around 50 high value camos (Spring Sky and Mosaic) per year and maybe 200 of each special signals per year. As such, I can make a short "sprint" to attain a lot of FXP within days. I cannot endure that for a prolonged period. And there is no real difference between doing 20 battles with max bonusses within a week or over months. In the end you get the same amount of ressources over time. And that is limited by the amount of signals and camo the player gets over time. That is why imo 1. the whole argument about inflation doesn't apply and 2. FXP cannot be attained at will. I can give you an unofficial answer. Mind, it does by no means represent Wargaming other than by comedic means of freedom of expression. It is not issued by Wargaming, but I am positive I can get pretty close. *clears his throat* "We at Wargaming think the price for Hayate is justified. After all, we gave you more signals just to overcompensate that by higher prices. Our data shows that many players have the 2M FXP, because ships like Friesland were mediocre at best and players did not spend their FXP on them. We hope they will buy Hayate or Smaland. If they don't, they may well soon have 3M FXP lying around and we will have to charge 3M for our next mediocre ship. So please spend your FXP. Please convert your EliteXP for the usual exchange rate of 1:25. Doing so, you will get the Hayate for a reasonable 80k doubloons, which is only ~240€. We at Wargaming also need to make a living and life is expensive. The brake disks on a Ferrari cost 1000 € a piece, compard to which a Hayate is basically for free. Many of you guys earning 10€ net income per hour need to spend more on our game. We'd highly appreaciate it, after all, we are a community. Also think about spending another 30€ on the special camo. Peace!!!"

We all were speculating how this ship would be included into some event, maybe some girly-anime thing. And now here it is. Out of thin air: Hayate. Makes me wonder: What took you so long, Wargaming? I don't remember any ST talking about last minute changes. Did WG change anything? It must be the concealment: The last known version had 6.1km concealment, which is a lot (500m) worse than Shima. So if it's now "slightly worse", it must be ~5.8km. Am I right or am I once more the victim of deceitful marketing? The reviews were not overly enthusiastic about this ship. I think Flamu explicitly stated it would not be worth 2M FXP. So now it is 2M FXP. What changed in the meantime that might make this ship worth it? Ofc it had to be 2M FXP. Otherwise the owners of Smaland would feel cheated. But Smaland seems to fit into the current meta with AA, long range torps and radar. Hayate has no gimmicks. How is it supposed to be competitive?

Das stell ich mir schwierig vor. WG wird vielleicht irgendwo eine Rechnungsadresse gespeichert haben. Das ist dann die vom Stiefvater. Gerade bei jungen Spielern wird häufig Papa bezahlen und Sohnemann spielen. Und die übrigen Daten lassen sich keiner Person eindeutig zuordnen, wenn nicht gerade die email thomas.müller@gmail.com o.ä. lautet. Das klingt ja fast wie Franz Josef Strauß in der Spiegel-Affäre. Ich bewerbe das doch nicht. Im Gegenteil. Du hast die Möglichkeit hier genutzt, die Konsequenzen eines Verstoßes klar und nachvollziehbar zu erläutern. Das sollte eher abschrecken. Nicht über eine Phänomen zu reden, hat die Entstehung und Ausbreitung nicht verhindert. Da ist es doch optimistisch zu glauben, darüber nicht zu reden, würde etwas ändern. Ist wie mit dem ollen Modpack, dessen Nutzung gegen das EULA verstößt. Das ist auch über Jahre wohlgenährt gewesen, obwohl niemand darüber geredet hat. Das Schweigen hat es nicht verschwinden lassen. Vielleicht ist also drüber reden der bessere Weg. Die Leute nehmen eben die Abkürzung. Was du hier nicht nachvollziehen kannst und als Faulheit empfindest, ist andererseits bei WoWs das Geschäftsmodell. Soll ich Kohle oder FreeXP erspielen? Lass mal, zück das Portemonnaie und kauf dir Jean Bart, Alaska oder auch Puerto Rico für Bares. Der Unterschied ist nur, dass das eine EULA-konform ist und das andere nicht. Sportlich sehe ich keinen Unterschied. Wenn sich jemand eine Winrate kauft ist was anderes, aber das wäre wiederum sehr verdächtig, wenn ein Account erst Super-Unicum war und auf einmal unter 50% rumgurkt.

Warum hast du das nicht gleich gepostet? Das liest sich ja schon ganz anders als Punkt 5.6. Also, dann ist die Übertragung von Accounts definitiv laut EULA unzulässig. Nachprüfen kann man das aber nur schwer, wenn der neue Halter nicht völlig naiv ist.

Da würde ich erstmal argumentieren, dass ich zwar meine Account-Daten nicht weitergeben darf, diese aber nicht mehr meine sind, in dem Moment wo ich meine Schenkung abgeschlossen habe. Ich würde weiterhin argumentieren, dass 5.6 so zu verstehen ist, dass keine Datenschutzverletzung und kein Supportaufwand ensteht. Eine Schenkung ist nicht explizit ausgeschlossen. Das alles ist auch rein technisch und wird für den tatsächlichen kommerziellen Verkauf keine Rolle spielen. Wenn jemand morgen einen Job im Ausland annimmt und sich dort einen neuen Rechner kauft, oder dies zumindest behauptet, werden sowohl MAC-Adresse als auch IP-Adresse sich ändern, und Wargaming wird dem Verkäufer kaum gegenteiliges nachweisen können.

Ganz genau. Das Teilen eines Accounts oder die Schenkung verstoßen nicht gegen das EULA. Der Original-Inhaber haftet für jedwedes Fehlverhalten auf seinem Account. Das klingt aber dramatischer als es ist. Im Extremfall kann der Account permanent gebannt werden, wenn etwa jemand unerlaubte Mods benutzt. Auch Fehlverhalten im Chat betrifft den gesamten Account. Es wird keinen Chatbann für einzelne Nutzer geben. Der Begriff "Haftung" bezieht sich aber auch nur aufs EULA. Wenn dein volljähriger Sohn auf deinem Account eine Bombendrohung verbreitet, dann bist nicht du als Accounthalter haftbar im Sinne des Strafrechts, sondern natürlich dein Sohn. Das SEK macht aber erst mal deine Türe kaputt, fürchte ich. Was ich im Wesentlichen sagen will, ist, dass das Teilen eines Accounts, bei ordnungsgemäßem Betragen aller Beteiligten, nach meinem Wissensstand, keine Probleme bringen sollte. Die Schenkung eines Accounts sollte ebenso kein Problem sein, da im Extremfall von Fehlverhalten eben der Account dauerhaft gesperrt wird, das aber nicht mehr der Schaden des ehemaligen Halters ist. Kann man mit einem WoWs-Account dritten gegenüber schadenersatzpflichtig werden? Ich bezweifel es. Dafür ist das EULA zu schwammig formuliert, was i.d.R. nicht dem Nutzer angelastet wird.

Vielleicht kannst du mir auch die Passage aus dem EULA zitieren. Drei kurze Worte sind wenig aussagekräftig.

To a certain extent I can understand WG changing the insights of CC. It really was confusing at times. CCs are competing over who has the first review out for a certain ship, much like newspapers compete over who has a story first. But CCs also have limited time to invest in their different activities. So they don't have the time and energy to test the same ship over and over again at their different stages of development. So ships are reviewed early, then the stats are changed, but the CC is already showing footage on a newer WIP-ship, again competing with the other CCs of that bit. Just today I looked for reviews on the freshly released Orkan. I couldn't find a decent review on the final iteration of the ship. How are people supposed to make an educated guess if they should buy a ship? This is a double-edged sword. Ships that get nerfed will appear great in reviews and people buy them who wouldn't have done so, if the final version was reviewed as prominently as the early stages. The change will harm sales and the players will benefit from that increase in transparency. It also means that players are no longer put off by a bad early review on a ship that gets buffed and might be way more interesting to players after the buff. In that situation sales will benefit and players will also, since they will make their decision based on the attributes of the current version of a newly sold ship. But there is also a downside to the decision. CCs often drew early attention to bad designs. Wargaming is not very good at absorbing criticism on concepts that might be harmful to the game and are consequently rejected by the player base. Limiting the exposure of a project to the final stage, where usually major changes are not supposed to happen, also limits the influence of the community to discuss the direction of projects with the developers. The community is now cut off from the development process and presented with "take it or leave it" final versions. That is not what CCs should see as their work, as their "contribution". A CC review is not supposed to be a free advertisement for WG. CCs will lose their credibility if they sell out. Their tests are supposed to make the community aware of things to come, good or bad, so they can give feedback, so that hopefully ill-designed concepts like the Smolensk will never make it into the game again. No spreadsheet in the world can tell you how a ship will change the meta. That takes the experience and wary eye of a good CC.

It's a Lightning in terms of work that went into the ship. A torp launcher was changed to one secondary multi purpose gun, for a bit of AA. Doesn't make the AA scary. The slightly worse AA on Lightning combined with the short-term immunity of RN-smoke imo made for a better AA concept. The speed is one knot faster than Lightning with speed boost, but 2 knots slower without. The Lightning concept was the great concealment combined with smoke and defensive hydro, perfect for cap contesting. The Orkan has none of these merits, 300m more detectability. The concept of the Orkan is based on radaring enemy DDs, shooting it out within 20s, hopefully kill the other DD, disengage and heal up to 40% of your hp pool back over time. The heal can mitigate some of the damage, it will not save you from massive spam once you fired your guns and cannot go dark. That will work pretty well in divisions, when a second destroyer donates his smoke to your cause and you have two div mates to make sure the enemy DD gets massive focus fire. Like with Smaland and pan-asian radar-DDs, you are on your own, when you don't have dedicated div mates. That might work against bad players who immediately smoke up, not knowing they are only blocking their own sight. Good DD-players will stay with their team and make sure they either keep you spotted or run out of your radar range, depending on the situation. Open water gunboating is imo not working since the Orkan is too slow. That takes away some of the purpose of the torps, to trigger DCP and follow up with fires. All in all I think the Orkan is a disappointing concept. It is yet another DD designed to be mostly harmless to BBs and specialized in suppressing other DDs. A dog to kill wolves, only to get shot himself when his work is done. Somebody at WG just wants to make torpboats ever more unattractive, so their spot in the food chain can be assigned to submarines.

Oh yea, I have conducted very unsportingly the previous days, ramming DDs in spectator mode out of their hideouts into the open. Suddenly, after 5 min of inactivity, smoke rises from their exhausts. It's striking how they come to life just as they are confronted with a bit of team damage, after they ignore the requests for support over minutes. If WoWs would allow mild electro shocks I think the results would be even better.

Verlinken darf man solche Angebote von Bots nicht. Das kann ich verstehen, aber die Existenz sollten wir schon diskutieren können. Da finde ich schon einige Angebote, die für 40 Euro mal eben eine Linie auf T10 spielen. Wenn ich mir da sowas wie die Moskva vorstelle, da kann das schon verlockend sein, sich die Linie von einem "China-Farmer" hochspielen zu lassen und dann mal eben ein Spezial-Schiff abzugreifen. Nur damit wir uns recht verstehen. Ich bewerbe solches Verhalten nicht, ich stelle nur fest, dass es rational durchaus sinnvoll sein kann, umso mehr für die Wale. Dabei stoß ich natürlich auch auf die Angebote, in denen Leute ihre Accounts verkaufen. Gemessen daran, was Wargaming für seine Premiumschiffe verlangt und was Spieler an Geld in Weihnachts-Container investieren müssen, um nicht mehr erhältliche Schiffe zu bekommen, sind diese Angebote verhältnismäßig günstig. Für mich als Spieler ist die Sache klar: Ich hab meinen eigenen Account, der mir ans Herz gewachsen ist, und bin viel zu knickrig, um bis über tausend Euro für einen neuen Account auszugeben. Ich würde meinen Account auch nicht aus der Hand geben. Was nützt es mir, wenn jemand für mich levelt, wenn der meinen Account weiterverkauft. Mein Account ist viel mehr wert als irgendein Bot mir bringen könnte. Für Wargaming stellt sich die Sache aber anders dar. Mit den teils gesalzenen Preisen bedient Wargaming diesen "Schwarzmarkt" und macht ihn teils überhaupt erst rentabel. Eine Missouri war eigentlich mal 750k FreeXP wert. Dadurch, dass sie aus dem Spiel genommen, bzw. in die sündhaft teuere Weihnachts-Lotterie gewandert sind, ist es überhaupt erst möglich geworden, dass solche Accounts für vierstellige Beträge bei ebay verkauft werden können. Das Problem ist sozusagen hausgemacht und wird über Verbote in den EULA notdürftig gekittet. Wäre man etwas bescheidener geblieben, würden Spieler die Schiffe nicht bei ebay kaufen, sondern im Premiumladen, und würden damit das Spiel unterstützen, statt irgendwelche Botprogramme zu fördern. Und natürlich ist die traurigste Einsicht für Wargaming: Die meisten Accounts, die verkauft werden, scheinen nicht gezielt zum Verkauf hochgezüchtet worden zu sein. Sie sind die unter Einsatz von viel Zeit und Geld gepflegten, langjährigen Accounts enttäuschter ehemaliger Kunden, die sich vom Spiel abgewandt haben. Die zahlreichen, von Übermaß getriebenen, Fehlentscheidungen der letzten Monate, haben diese Spieler dazu bewegt, den Wert ihrer Accounts zu verkaufen. Da sie nun nicht weiter ins Spiel einzahlen und ihre Käufer keine neuen Accounts hochspielen, ist Wargaming doppelter Schaden entstanden. Und dies absolut vermeidbar. Aber das passiert eben, wenn man nicht über den Tellerrand schaut und verschiedene Phänomene nicht in Relation zueinander setzen kann. Der Verkauf des Accounts ist nicht gestattet. Die freiwillige unentgeltliche Weitergabe eines Accounts oder das sequenzielle Spielen mehrerer Personen (Freunde, Familie) auf einem Account - also Sharing - ist dagegen erlaubt. Zumindest kann ich keine gegenteilige Bestimmung im EULA finden.

Shima outspots a Kleber by more than 3km. The Shimas can take the caps while Kleber and Khabe will struggle to do that. Naturally that means they must be good at something else to compensate that weakness. But as I said a good DD-player uses multiple ways to have an impact on the game. I never had issues with Shima against Kleber or Khaba. You just don't fight them on their terms, easy as that.

Beleidigungen in WoWs sollte man sportlich nehmen. Ich kann mich gut erinnern wie das früher beim Fußball spielen war. Wenn da einer gepennt hat, dann hat der sich Sachen anhören müssen, dagegen ist, was man im Spiel hört, Blümchenkaffee. Selbst wo es um nix ging, also beim Spielen im Sportunterricht, waren die Gemüter manchmal bis zur körperlichen Auseinandersetzung aufgeheizt. Bei physischem Sport scheint das nachvollziehbarer. Ich meine, wenn ein Spieler mit 170 Puls läuft und ein anderer auf dem Spielfeld auf seinem Smartphone rumtippt, während gerade ein Stürmer an ihm vorbei aufs Tor zu läuft, dann verstehen wir doch, dass dieses Argument "ist doch nur ein Spiel" seine Grenzen hat. Ab einem bestimmten Grad an Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber dem Spiel, fängt man sich massiv Beleidigungen ein. Die Lösung ist denkbar einfach: Man sollte Anfängerfehler vermeiden. Man wird selten für Unvermeidliches kritisiert und auch selten auf niedrigen Stufen, wo Leichtsinnsfehler noch üblich sind. Es ist die Kombination aus Leichtsinn ("is eh nur ein Spiel") und Selbstüberschätzung ("ich bin reif für T8+"), die einem verbale Tiefschäge einbringt. Also, wenn man es leicht nehmen will, sollte man es eben auch ein paar Stufen leichter angehen. Weniger problematisch sind die gelegentlichen blöden Sprüche, wenn eine Einzalaktion einem anderen Spieler gerade nicht passt. Kommt beispielsweise vor, wenn man in seinem EU-DD einem Kreuzer keinen Smoke legt. Da sollte man einfach drüber stehen. Was anderes ist, wenn man aus dem Gegnerteam beleidigt wird, weil man zu gut gespielt hat. Ist ein Kompliment, keine Beleidigung. So sollte man es sehen. Alles in allem: Versuchen gut zu spielen und nicht jede Beleidigung ernst nehmen. Ausnahme sind rassistische Sprüche. Die gehen über Frustration hinaus und bringen ein grob unsportliches Element ins Spiel. Das muss nicht sein.

As a DD-main one shouldn't worry. Everything is relative. Playing a DD you will get mirrored a DD into the match. So, much like unicum CV players owe their high winrates partially to the fact they have a CV guaranteed on the other side, that in relation to their skills, is probably much less skilled, a good DD player doesn't necessarily have to fight off CVs and submarines, but just have more impact than his mirror. I had a bit of an epiphany when I was bored a couple of months back and started a second account: In the beginning, new players get this special matchmaking, with only newbs in it. There are so few new players, that the teams are filled up with bots on both sides. So I regularly fought battles with 11 bots against 11 bots and one human. At first I made it my mission to identify the human and duel him. But with early ships, gunning each other down at close to mid range, doesn't require much skill, so I lost a couple of battles or came close to losing. Then I changed my perspective, I also thought the other player deserved to get some XP. So I started staying away from the one human player and spam the enemy bots. Now I got myself in a frenzy and chewed up 5 - 8 bots per battle. And the epiphany: I didn't even need to shoot it out with my human opponent, at some point there were so many of my own bots left and his bots were all gone and I could just watch as my bots massacred those players. Did I stretch your attention? Sorry. But the point is, you don't need to counter your mirror, you just need to do better than your mirror and the team will (hopefully) do the rest. More and more tasks to fulfil for a DD are a threat but also an opportunity. Each new task may be the one that overstrains your abilities. A DD player who was superior at cap control and fighting DDs, compared to his peers, might have lost some quality, if he failed at protecting against CVs or radars or ever better DD-hunters. Now with the prospect of submarines coming to the game, there is yet another task to fulfil, that you can excel at or not. There is also a chance, that you will do very well, much better than other DD-players and that this evolution in DD-play makes you even better, even more effective and successful. After all you are not the only DD-player who has to overcome this new challenge. Maybe fulfilling multiple tasks each with less focus can even be less of a burden than focussing on one task but having to attribute your whole attention to excel. If you think about this game. If it was the simplest shooter, with no builds and armor and whatnot, it would boil down to who has the better reflexes. The players with the fastest reflexes would be the unicums and other players, no matter how thoughtful, would be inferior. It is the mix of your knowledge of mechanisms and reflexes and tactical understanding that makes you perform in WoWs. If you are good at these multiple dimensions of quality, you become a good player. DDs are specifically that attractive to play, because they demand so much awareness, so much understanding of all the levels of what is going on in this game. So one more challenge likely is not what will stretch your performance, it will rather further punish the bad DD-players. Is that a good thing? For good players, yes. For the game? Not so much. As we see with CVs, classes with a high skill variance promote one-sided battles, which many players complain about, since they are not satisfying for both teams. The last thing the game needs is another CV-like class that has the impact on the game to allow for winrates between 20% and 80%. The task for Wargaming is to make submarines such, that DDs do not get even more impact on the game, but also that DDs do not become obsolete. That will require a DD-rework to accompany the introduction of submarines. If DDs now are at even greater risk of getting a bloody nose, maybe DDs should get heals, and I am not talking about those "second chance" Daring heals, but real heals like on the Neustrashimy, heals that reflect the everyday situation of a DD of getting into an unforeseeable trap and barely make it out alive, sentenced to play for the rest of the battle stealthtorping with 10% hp. Really, I think the big picture is not if submarines will stretch DD-players abilities. I think nobody can dispute that they will, and that a lot of less skilled DD-players will struggle and stop playing DDs altogether, introducing the same harmful development we have seen with CVs for years. The big question mark is how WG will change the other classes to keep the balance and impact of each class reasonable. edit: And btw, I don't think it is appropriate to react negative to the OP. Way I see it, this is a very necessary discussion. There is no right or wrong answer, unless driven by the spite of not playing a certain class and disregarding other players right to have a reasonably enjoyable game experience.

Ich würde nicht so weit gehen, die mid-tier CLs durch die Bank als Verlierer zu sehen. Die 27mm-Deckpanzerung rettet nun doch einige Kreuzer vor den in mid-tier noch weit verbreiteten Kalibern bis 380mm. Ich hab während des Reworks gerade Shchors und Chapayev gegrindet. Auffällig ist der etwas geringere Schaden. Ansonsten war es eher ein psycologischer Effekt. Die Shchors mit IFHE konnte sich noch einigen BBs in den Weg stellen und deren Push zum Erliegen bringen. Wenn BBs direkten Schaden nehmen, drehen sie schnell ab. Gerade unerfahrene BB-Spieler, die nicht wissen, dass bald die Aufbauten gestättigt sein werden und der Schaden nicht so massiv weitergeht, wie er anfangs wirkt, sind früher erschrocken, in Panik verfallen, und haben den Push aufgegeben. Dann kam der Rework und ich hab auf der Chapayev umgeskillt auf Feuer, und IFHE aufgegeben. Es ist seither spürbar, dass die Feuer nicht die gleiche abschreckende Wirkung haben, die zuvor die Kombi aus Feuer und anfänglich hohem Alphaschaden hatte. Als CL werde ich von BBs beiseite geschoben. Ich erinnere mich an ein Gefecht auf der Karte Haven, wo ich quasi von A9 bis A1 und dann runter bis D1 von einem Push aus drei BBs zurückweichen musste, weil den Feuern sozusagen die "Mannstoppwirkung" fehlt. Das liegt auch stark an der veränderten Spielweise. Mit IFHE machte es durchaus Sinn, einzelne Schiffe zu fokussieren. Nach dem Rework muss man die Feuer auf verschiedene Ziele verteilen, öfter sogar Kreuzer priorisieren, da die noch direkten Schaden nehmen. Da kommt zwar einiges an Schaden zusammen, aber der wird (a) leichter geheilt und hat (b) weniger Einfluss auf den Ausgang des Gefechts, da beschädigte Schiffe länger im Spiel bleiben und weiter Schaden am eigenen Team machen bzw. mangels direktem Schaden nun eine gefährliche Flankenposition erreichen können, wo sie früher mit IFHE vorher versenkt worden wären. Die großen Verlierer sind imo Schiffe, die auf IFHE angewiesen waren, um halbwegs erträglich zu sein. Das war für mich auf jeden Fall die Huanghe. Zu wenig dpm und nun noch weniger. Aber auch CLs wie Dallas, die also Inseln brauchen und zudem wenig Reichweite haben. Für die war es schon immer problematisch geeignete Inseln zu finden. Meist haben sie ein Fenster von wenigen Kilometern, wo Gegner in Reichweite sind, aber noch nicht so nah, dass die Geschossbahn nicht mehr über die Insel reicht. IFHE hat wenigstens innerhalb dieses engen Aktionsradius für soliden Schaden gesorgt. Jetzt, ohne IFHE scheint mir das ziemlich witzlos.

Anyway, maybe Wargaming has botched up their PR* and not met our expectations, when they talked about amazing items. So let's reverse the discussion and let me ask: Given that you are promised "amazing ingame-items", what would you have expected to get? *(funny how I never can use "PR" in a negative connotation anymore, without people thinking about Puerto Rico. That is bad PR.)

So if they added one consumable camo to that day, justifying the plural, would your expectations have been met? I would ike to see WG employees dancing through IKEA due to their amazement of getting a free 4 inch pencil.

You are simply ungrateful. Look beyond the one day of premium and see the deeper truth. 1. They force all of us to use the WGC, supposedly against the will of those who are still using the old game launcher. Still although they can just do it and don't need to persuade you to adapt, they still give you one day of premium. To grant something although you have the power to deny that, that is the definition of mercy ... and despotism. 2. You get even way more. You get the insight that 1 day of premium is "amazing" from their perspective. That itself is amazing, since you now know how to interpret any announcement in the future. Say Wargaming announces they are selling a surprise gift box with amazing content some time in the future. Will it be worth the price tag? Might there be a Missouri in it? Given the current definition of "amazing" unlikely. Might it be a bunch of economic signals that will be used to justify taking 3M FreeXP for some T10-ship in about a year? Don't want to rob you of the opportunity to answer that for yourself.

WG, have this guy send his résumé to you. He fits in your team perfectly.

Don't bother, Wargaming is sacrificing its reputation and doesn't care about criticism anymore. This is alarming since the importance of reputation in the field of Game Theory depends on the duration of a business relationship. In short: Each party of a mutual relationship will try to establish a favorable reputation, as long as they need the cooperation of the other party to get the best outcome for themselves. As soon as the end of that relation is known, the party will sacrifice that reputation and cease to cooperate in order to get an even higher revenue in the last period of that business relationship. In terms of this game: Wargaming tries to be fair and generous as long as they want to establish the game and attract new players. A shift towards abusing the willingness to pay, while accepting the decay of its player base is a sign that the shutdown of this game is planned for some point in time unknown to us, but known to them. We see the beginning of an exit strategy. Time to put your money elsewhere.

What do you mean by "unfairly stereotype"? I stereotype them and they deliver. There is only so much a player can and will do to cover the fact he is clueless. Personally I get a bad feeling when I see triple derpitz divisions. The only possible stereotype I can identify is my scepticism towards ITA-clans. I love this list: It already has almost everything in it that is commonly used to judge a players skill. What immediately strikes me is how broad these observations touch all the relevant dimensions of performance. Take a look at 1.: I use the MMM. It regularly happens that i see a ship weakening its flank, where he would be utterly needed. Be it the only DD on that side abandoning a well supported cap, a radar cruiser or a BB refusing to tank. Then, after I see that I wonder "who is that?". I look at the MMM oinly to see deeply red stats. One might add it's also the way the player reacts to criticism that tells a story. Newbs are rather insecure. So, when asked to stay on their side, if they read chat, they tend to turn back around, while solid 45ers with 20k battles rather act selfish and not at all insecure. They tell you to go and have intercourse with yourself. But that is an early observation of tactics. We see other points telling how players make use of the possibilities of their ship. They put themselves at a disadvantage by not using camouflages or flags. Oh, right let me add 16. Players who detonate in DDs above T7. And since 5. was given, we can't ignore 17. DDs which are not long range spammers, played without CE are mostly trash An interesting observation I made when uploading replays on replayswows is that you can see the skill-builds of all ships in the replay when hovering over the ship icon. Unsurprisingly, players with less than 10-pt captains above T7 are usually sub standard. And we see the dimension of not caring at all. Like 14., not caring the battle has begun cause the outcome is irrelevant. All in all we see a lot of early signs of players using all means to fail, be it weak knowledge, weak preparation, bad builds, selfish play, up to being drunk or not caring. You cannot have this attitude and not ooze it into the game at every moment, which is, why I say it is not a stereotype. Observation and outcome are linked unseperable You cannot have played bad for 20k battles and suddenly you switch to the carry pants and you cannot ignore all the good rules and still be successful in the long run. Funny you would notice that. We had a laugh about that in our clan a couple of days ago, trying to find good players with their username including "sniper". I then challenged our members to find good clans with the clan name including the word "elite".

I can turn a profit with any other camo, too. Who is to decide that turning a profit was the reason to get a camo? If that is your motive that is untouched for you, not me. And who defines how much profit a player is entitled to make for a camo to have fulfilled its purpose to be worth its money? Cause i was under the impression the consumer can make a decision based on knowing the properties of the product he is interested in and not have to gamble. But that is the whole point. Nobody wants a perma camo for a ship he doesn't play. And he won't play a ship that has been nerfed to a point, where it is no longer competitive. And one key property of a ship being competitive is whether it is suitable for competitive game modes, like CB. So Wargaming is baiting players to buy camos for ships they present as useful. After the ship has been bought and players spent money on perma camos, on what they think is a ship with a future, Wargaming can arbitrarily take that future away with any future patch. That is quite a business model. Other people might disagree, but I myself am not buying a camo or a ship based on its absolute value. I pay money for a usefulness within the framework of this game. If the ship loses its position, it loses its value, not partially, but altogether. Now I need to make an educated guess what ship will be useful for a sufficiently long period to justify spending money on the ship or a perma camo. But with that kind of business model, with that amount of uncertainty as displayed once again in this line split, I cannot do that. I have no reliable information to base my decision on. So subsequently I cannot buy any camo, which is a huge part of the reasons why I did not spend money on WoWs for more than a year now. Every time I think about maybe spending some money again, some decision is made on behalf of Wargaming that confirms the arbitrariness with which any value can be given or taken at a moments notice. And that resets the cycle of me being alienated and refrain from spending money. I would like to support the game, I like the game, but I just can't cause I feel deceived. Then obviously you have a different valuation, which is abolutely fine. I cannot judge if you will get out of this ship what you expect. Likewise you cannot judge if all the other players got what they expected.

What kind of an argument is that? So when a person buys chips in a casino and loses those chips while gambling he hasn't lost money, cause he obviously only lost chips. What a lucky chap. That is your subjective point of view. For any other person the choice to buy that camo was based on their individual valuation of that camo. Nobody can claim to know how they calculated cost and benefit and if that restriction is now fulfilled. If that was the case then Wargaming would make the perma-camos expire after a certain time or amount of battles. As a player, I usually look at what I plan to do with a ship. I bought T-10 perma-camos in the past for ships that I knew I would be needed to play in Clan Battles, Hindenburg and Zao. So I knew I would be playing thousands of battles with these ships over the years. It made sense to me to not use thousands of consumable camos for an undetermined amount of clan battles. Now these ships have been powercrept into oblivion. The purpose of them being used in CB is gone for the foreseeable future. Maybe WG is planning a line split for the german line some time in the future, making the Hindenburg a powercrept special ship, for which I will have a perma camo, while not having what I paid for, a perma camo to be used in Clan Battles. The whole point is not only the Moskva-camo, it is the signal given by Wargaming. Do I really want to buy a perma camo for any other ship now? Is that line at risk of being split? Might that ship be moved to be a special ship? Even before that you had to ask yourself whether a ship was at risk of being nerfed or powercrept. Take e.g. Henri IV, a ship that was deemed to be part of the CB meta for all eternity. I am glad I didn't buy the perma camo for that. A ship that has moved from being great to being bull manure. Whoever spent 20€ on a perma camo for that ship has been cheated out of his value. Or take Khabarovsk or Kleber. I even still have my free T10 "Rogue-Wave" camo lying around unassigned to any ship for 5 months now, cause I cannot decide which ship has a future and which doesn't.