HMS_Kilinowski

Stimmt, aber auch @_Keiban_ hat bedingt recht. Die meisten Spieler mit Winraten über 52-53% bauen über die Zeit Karma auf. Es ist aber ein starkes auf und ab. Auf 5 Komplimente kommen 4 Reports. Und das bei guten Spielern. Man muss sich hlat klar machen, dass diese Spieler eine Minderheit sind. Ich kenne nur die Zahlen vom ASIA-Server, aber nur 15% der Spieler kommen über 52%. Man kann also sagen, dass nur 15% der Spieler überhaupt positiv bewertet werden, während bei 85% der Spieler die Kritik überwiegt. Das zeigt doch, wie unfreundlich und selbstbezogen die Spielerschaft ist. Ranked ist wieder eine andere Geschichte. Während jeder Ranked-Saison verlieren auch viele gute Spieler Karma. Da sollte Wargaming sich fragen, ob ein Spielmodus, der so viel Frustration, Unzufriedenheit und andere negative Emotionen bedient, tatsächlich gerne gespielt wird? Oder spielen die Leute nur gegen ihren Willen, weil sie unbedingt Stahl verdienen wollen. Und wenn das so ist, das die Spieler nicht aus intrinsischen Motiven spielen, dann kann's das doch nicht sein. Dann sollte WG Ranked zugunsten eines besseren Modus aufgeben. Tradition ist da kein Argument, ist ja kein Jahrhunderte altes Brauchtum.

Thank you, Wargaming. A nice gesture.

Das ist eine sehr einseitige Sichtweise. Das Karma-System bringt nicht nur Aufreger. Ich nehme es durchaus positiv wahr, wenn ich mal Komplimente bekomme. Die werden nur eben viel seltener vergeben als Reports. Das zeugt von der allgemein negativen Sicht der Spieler und du bist da leider keine vorbildliche Ausnahme. Es wäre sehr wünschenswert, wenn die Spielerschaft verstünde, dass es nicht nur zufällig die gleiche Anzahl Komplimente zu verteilen gibt, wie Reports. Darin drückt sich der Wunsch des Erfinders aus, dass die Spieler positive Beiträge ebenso würdigen sollen wie sie dies mit negativen machen. Wenn natürlich bereits Kleinigkeiten negative Reaktionen provozieren, gutes Spiel aber als selbstverständlich angesehen wird, wird Karma nie eine Bedeutung bekommen. Karma kann nicht belohnt oder bestraft werden, weil es schlicht nicht ehrlich ist. Die Spielerschaft wertet oft gutes Spiel ab oder bewertet es egoistisch oder versteht Verhalten gar nicht. Ich nutze meist den MM-Monitor und ich sehe dort auch Karma meiner Mitspieler. Grob kann man sagen, dass zwischen Winrate und Karma eine stark positive Korrelation besteht. Diese Erkenntnis alleine macht Karma schon weitgehend überflüssig. Wer gut spielt, also versucht, das Spielziel möglichst uneigennützig zu erreichen, wird überwiegend von seinen Mitspielern positiv bewertet. Wer das nicht tut, der wird über die Zeit hinweg schlecht bewertet. Da es kein negatives Karma gibt, haben 2/3 der Spieler ein Karma von null. Es gibt Abweichungen. Gute Spieler, die häufig Mitspieler kritisieren, verlieren viel von dem Karma, dass sie durch gutes Spiel bekommen. Auf die Sachlichkeit dieser Kritik kommt es dabei nicht an, es ist vielmehr so, dass gerade Spieler, die einen tatsächlichen Fehler kritisieren eher das Selbstwertgefühl ihrer Mitspieler verletzen, als solche die allgemeine oder ordinäre Kritik üben. Auf der anderen Seite sehe ich gelegentlich schlechte Spieler mit unerwartet hohem Karma. Diese synchronisieren wahrscheinlich ihre Gefechte mit anderen Spielern ihres Clans und bewerten sich positiv. Warum? Der einzige Grund, der mir einfällt ist, dass sie sich absichern wollen, falls Karma doch irgendwann belohnt werden sollte. Karma ist allerdings so stark mit der Winrate korreliert, dass man darauf verzichten und fast pauschal konstatieren kann: Wer viele Gefechte gewinnt, leistet einen positiven Beitrag und wird überwiegend positiv wahrgenommen. Es ist also ziemlich sinnlos, vor allem Reports zu vergeben. Die meisten Spieler, über deren Spielweise man sich aufregt, haben zuvor schon viele andere Menschen aufgeregt und kaum Spieler begeistert. Sie haben kein Karma und werden deshalb auch einen Report nicht mal wahrnehmen. Um ihr Verhalten zu verbessern, müssten sie eine Kritik aber (a) wahrnehmen und (b) beeindruckt sein. Sind sie aber offensichtlich nicht. Die einzigen Spieler, die Reports überhaupt zur Kenntnis nehmen, sind solche die derart positiv agieren, dass sie stetig Karma aufbauen, also bereits relativ hohes Karma haben. Dann muss man sich doch fragen, was man mit einem Report erreichen will. Steht einem guten Spieler nicht zu, auch mal Fehler zu machen? Ist nicht gerade der gute Spieler eben geistesgegenwärtig genug, dass er seine eigenen Fehler erkennt und sich selber mehr darüber ärgert als sein Team? Hat er wirklich verdient, dass man seine Karmapunkte, die er durch Komplimente bekommen hat, abwertet, weil er sich mal einen Patzer geleistet hat, was schlechte Spieler zig mal pro Gefecht machen, wenn sie überhaupt so lange leben? Kurz: Reports sind bei guten Spielern unfair und gehen bei schlechten Spielern ins Leere. Also kann man sie sich am besten sparen. Komplimente sind dagegen sehr gut, weil der Spieler darüber sofort informiert wird, er also gedanklich nachvollziehen kann, für welches Verhalten er komplimentiert wird. Das bringt ihm zwar nix, aber es verbessert doch die Stimmung in der Spielerschaft.

That would depend on the specific difficulty of the missions, wouldn't it? For a campaign containing missions similar to the PR-insanity even 6 months is restrictive. I don't get this new mentality. The old campaigns are great. Why would anybody want to exclude new players joining the game later from this? Whoever starts this game now already is facing several unique captains, reward ships for coal. At the pace the game moves ahead, he will never get all the ressources to catch up on us, who we did all the stuff earlier. Aren't campaigns as this an argument for a player to buy premium time, to be able to queue 3 missions instead of just 2? As Wargaming went to the trouble of designing the campaign and was wise enough not to make it another shop item, wouldn't it be even wiser to make it as widely available as possible, so future players see the additional value and it encourages them to support the game? If I compare such a principle to other games where I can get every bit of content ever available in the game, I usually ignore games that exclude me since it feels like "the ship has sailed", like the game is nearing its expiration date, whereas in games where I can still get everything, new players make an effort to catch up, which makes them more dedicated to the game. It should be obvious that I am not making a case here for myself, since I will easily get this campaign done. I am rather expressing this in what I see as in the best interest of Wargaming. Call it free-of charge consulting. You see Wargaming, you're getting something for free, too. No need to buy premium content from me. You're welcome.

Suggestion concerning the Training Room: I would highly appreciate, if ALL ships were available as bots in the Training Room. Currently one can only choose silver ships. Training Room for many players is a lab environment, where they test strengths and weaknesses of their ships against certain opponents. A player needs to be able to test every ship against every possible opponent to create an even fight. If a player e.g. wants to test, from which angles his newly acquired Atlanta can be penetrated by certain calibers, he needs to be able to put a stationary bot-Atlanta on the map that he can shoot at. Certain ships thus are at an advantage, cause players can not familiarize with their weaknesses the way they can with silver ships. This currently is only possible if one can find a human player willing to bring his own premiumship into training room and sitting still for the entire session, which is a bit excessive. One could argue that the mere sight of these ships in Training Room constitutes a value the general community did not pay for, that the buyers of premium ships pay for the right to not just play but also see these ships, but that would be a quite strict view. I think being able to put these ships as opponents into training room, even playing against bots in premium ships does not constitute any value, as (a) you don't get ressources and (b) you still don't get to play these ships yourself, enjoying their playstyle. The cost of this change should be very minor as Wargaming likely only needs to change a parameter setting "true/false", allowing a ship or category of ship into training room. Also it should be possible to enable presets of fully equipped bot ships. Currently bots seem to be stock ships without any modules and captain skills. To test ships against other ships, a realistic environment is important. That includes fully funcional enemies. @TheCinCIs this topic still active/"maintained"?

I think nobody right now can give you an absolute and final answer whether to spec into IFHE on 152mm guns. Little White Mouse recommends using IFHE on 152mm guns. Unfortunately she doesn't argue why. I did some math and testing and still I cannot give an answer. The IFHE-rework came with stick and carrot. The stick is cutting fire chance in half with IFHE. The carrot is the improved penetration without IFHE. Wargaming wants to incentivize the community to skip IFHE. Effectively WG has released a nerf on the so widely cursed on HE-spam. It turns the decision mostly into a zero sum game. Without doubt you will now perform better against all ships without 32-37mm of armor without IFHE, while IFHE still gives you more dpm on targets with 32-37mm. I can finish a BB with 32mm armor roughly 30 seconds faster with IFHE. However, I will take roughly 30 seconds longer to finish a ship with 38mm of armor or more. But how prevalent are these ships? How frequently will your prospective opponents be in this range 32-37mm? Mind you, this is not an absolute value, it's a relative one. It's not enough to know you will encounter two BBs with 32-37mm in every battle, cause at the same time you will encounter 10 enemy ships with either less armor that you will pen anyway or more armor that you won't pen anyway. Against these 10 opponents you are better off without IFHE. One can weaken that argument stating that these 2 BBs comprise ~30% of the enemy teams hitpoint pool. In other words, probability-wise you will spend 30% of your shots on bringing ships down that would fall into the 32-37mm category. So the choice gets a bit harder. Previously we could easily say 2 out of 12 ships (1/6) is not enough to justify speccing into IFHE. Now we are close to 1/3 of the hitpoint pool. Ofc, like with e.g. Asashio, a player could commit to fighting specific opponents. Let's say you were to do so. You spec into IFHE and in every battle you try to find where the 32-37mm BBs are and reposition to that part of the map. That's imo a bad idea. In many battles you would weaken the flank where you spawned, become part of a lemming train or have to move to a part that does not support your ship. Especially USN-CLs need medium height islands. You go to specific locations, also considering your duty to radar caps. If your 32-37mm BBs are not heading that way, are you abandoning your post? Do you want to open-water-kite? In a russian or japanes CL that works, but not in a Worcester. If you dedicate your ship to fighting specific ship-types you need to be very fast and effective. Otherwise you sabotage your team by putting too much weight on one flank and this will result in more losses. A point in favor of IFHE: Will you be able to light additional fires with the higher fire chance? A section already set on fire by you or a team mate cannot be set on fire. In that situation with IFHE and on a 32-37mm section, you could still inflict direct damage. Same goes partially for angled targets. You will likely get a fire on the center and front section of a BB moving in on you. You will struggle hitting the rear section as it is blocked by the superstructure. So two fires are reasonably easy to get. From there on, you either do firect damage, in the special case of IFHE and 32-37mm, or you have to continue doing a thousand stitches into the saturated superstructure. On the other hand, one BB seldom pushes alone, so most of the time you will switch target to light fires on other ships. There is a lot of ifs attached to IFHE. Personally, I don't think it is worth it anymore on most ships. IFHE has now become more like a hybrid thing of SAP and HE. Instead of no fires and high pen threshold, you now get a higher threshold but a significantly lower fire chance. It is a sidegrade and 4 cpt points is imo too much for a sidegrade. Captain skills are supposed to improve the performance of your ships, not give it variation in play style.

As of version 0.9.2, that is now, the IFHE-rework is live. On Großer Kurfürst, IFHE is no longer recommended. Changes in the HE-penetration formula now improve regular HE, so it already penetrates the important threshold of 32mm-armor. A further increase in penetration using IFHE will only increae effectiveness against very few ships (e.g. Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Vladivostok). That is not enough to justify spending 4 cpt-point on it instead of CE or FP. For a summary of the changes I recommend watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA-KBXw3un0 .

Then I hope the WG feedback culture is more sophisticated than it was at one of my former employers. There we collected feedback in a log-file, which was printed out and handed to our superiors to then be in the trash bin about 10m later. I am saying this because I started feeling like a firewall shielding off the people making bad choices and i can imagine some of you guys might feel the same. I wrote an extensive analysis on your ressource ships in @kfa's nice topic on "Why the insane resource ship price inflation?". It somewhat applies to your comparison of FreeXP to RP. If you don't have time to read it, the take home message was: four different ressources must have four different purposes, rewarding different strata of your player base. Research Bureau ships are intended for whales who finish all lines in no time and are bored with the usual pace of the game. For them you introduce extremely expensive, very nice and extremely exclusive rewards. Free XP on the other hand is a ressource rewarding regular but less frequent play at a player's individual pace. It's an everyday ressource. If prices make FreeXP ships exclusive again, WArgaming hijacks the purpose of FreeXP rewards to make it another whale reward. Also consider the really bad signal you give the community. You made a poll for the community to choose what ressource soon to come Hayate should be. That whole "democratic" approach is cynical, if Wargaming then decides to make the price of that ship so high, that the choice of ressource is becoming irrelevant. It's like giving me a choice of watching ballet or go swimming. So I choose swimming and you take me on a cruise to the Arctic Ocean and throw me over board. You get the irony of that action? Had Wargaming asked us "you want Hayate for 2M FreeXP or 250k Coal or 25k Steel?" I for one would have chosen coal. i have chosen FreeXP cause I was assuming a reasonable price.

I think we all understand you are in a stressful situation, being the "interface" between the community and your employer, which is where most of the sympathy we feel for you guys comes from. Nobody can and will expect that you reply to every ping, quote and statement made in the forum and elsewhere. Still I need to point out that @Egoleterimo has a point when he feels ignored. He posted a comprehensive and quite well-written bit about price inflation. The reply picked out one tiny element of his post, that was his remark about a misleading picture and wrapped it around his neck. The core of his post was going in a totally different direction and imo more worth commenting on, but ignored by you. Personally I can understand his sentiments. There are some forumites who don't just post short and empty statements like "that's crap" or "I'll uninstall" but give quite smart and detailed feedback. They also don't just argue from their point of view ("Gib, gib, gib!!!") but really make an effort to consider Wargamings business interests and try to bring both worlds together. They are, no hard feelings, more authentic than the replies we get from WG-staff, since they are not paid to do that and can speak their mind. Nevertheless such smart posts are often ignored, maybe not deliberately, maybe they are just overlooked in the mass of posts being "tl;dr". But each of these long and comprehensive posts captures in his words the sentiments of many voices that don't take the time to write their opinion in such detail. And that is why they should not be ignored or given the feeling they are overlooked. Again a brilliant post that I couldn't have written any better. The whole bit about advertising increased rewards while rather quietly raising prices is precisely to the point of this discussion. Thx @FidelisRaven.

Also don't forget the price of 1M FXP was mostly due to players earning a lot of FXP in that time. That however was due to players being able to spam the Dunkirk-operation in the Sims. In that operation you were almost guaranteed 2000-2500 base XP, so 30-40k FXP per mission if you used a Spring Sky camo and 8 special signals. So players invested their signals heavily into that operation and as a result there was a one-time flood of FXP. That loophole was closed with the up to now permanent removal of that operation. The excess FXP was reclaimed by Wargaming through increasing prices for freemium ships. Now there is no game mode that can guarantee high baseXP. Even modes like Clan Battles only get you 2500 baseXP with a probability of 50%-55%. Also even these Dunkirk operations were not for free. They cost you 8 special signals plus the most valuable camo in the game on each try. You still would need to spend about 65 sets of these signals and camos and invest 2-3 days of life time to get a Smalland today, given you could guarantee 2500 baseXP, which hardly any player can. Calculate with a more realistic 1250 baseXP and 130 sets of camos and signals. Now consider the price of these camos and signals as far as they are sold in bundles. Then FreeXP is not as free as the name suggests. Wargaming is not more generous with special signals and camos than it was a year ago. If half a year ago a price of 1M FXP for a T9 ship was appropriate, what radical change in our ressource income has happened since then, that would justify charging 2M for a T10 ship? Color me puzzled.

I guess the reason, why this topic was ignored for 2 weeks, despite multiple pings of other forumites, is that there was no nice way of saying it and nobody wanted to be the killed messenger. From the feedback-topic: We understand if you feel this way but we also provide significantly more ways to accumulate money compared to the first introduction of WoWs. At the end of the day it's up to you whether you feel our money is worth establishing a reputation that will guarantee revenue from this and WGs future titles, it's a long-term goal either way.

Seconded. Please explain @MrConway @Sehales @Crysantos . Bear in mind, we generally like you guys. We know your job of communicating in bad situations is not easily done. Just make it a bit easier to continue liking you. I personally saved for 5 months now and have 2.2M FXP (500k I had back then), which I had planned to spend on Hayate and a second ship (Smalland, Siegfried or maybe still Friesland). I was under the impression that saving such amounts of FXP, torturing myself through stock-silver-ships, was enough to get whatever FXP ships Wargaming was releasing next. This strange price policy cannot be upheld by even the most active players. Many of them will have spent the bulk of their economic signals on the Puerto Rico grind. 2M FXP simply doesn't correspond to the value of a T10-ship, unless you plan to make special signals part of some daily achievement or something in the near future. 1M FXP already is a price that takes into account the higher XP-earning of last year. For example: It's not the players fault that they choose a WOWS-premium account instead of a WG-premium. Then Wargaming looks at their data and find people got 15% more XP and thinks they can raise prices. So at the end of the day their higher earnings are neutralized by higher prices, then WOWS premium is just what WG-premium was, with a penalty of not getting premium on other WG-games. We, the players, did not beg to get more ressources. It was WGs decision to offer a special WOWS-premium account that by definition should give a bonus of XP, not just a bonus that is offset by arbitrary depreciation. All that we expect is, that the value of our investments into the game is guaranteed. If a player converted FXP in the past, he did so based on the assumption that for a certain amount he would get a certain value, i.e. a ship. How am I supposed to invest any money into a game, where I don't know if I get anything for it in the future?

Dear Wargaming, let me just say this: We really kept that backdoor open for you for a good two weeks. We knew that saving faces was important. We were very careful to leave you a way out of this, so you wouldn't have to endure another "have they lost it?" discussion. This now is on you. Just what the flying intercourse are you thinking? How is a T10-ship worth twice the FXP of a T9-ship? It is only slightly better. It's a worse credit earner. What is the unique selling point? Also, when are exchange rates on FXP and prices for any bundles containing economic signals getting cheaper permanently? They are worth less now, since you get less in return. At the given exchange rate, the Smalland would cost 2M / 25 = 80000 doubloons. In your premium shop you charge 263€ for that amount of doubloons. So why does a T9 ship in the premium shop cost 60€ and a T10-ship cost 263€? And how come I can buy a T10-Thunderer for 252k coal, which is about 10% more than you charge for the Georgia that came out around the same time but a Smalland is worth 200% of a Friesland? I already cropped this one, since I suspected I would need it soon:

I don't know when WG changed that, but I remember a time when torpedos were an equidistant spread. Now torpedos seem to be placed randomly within the spread indicator. I find this change pretty annoying. It's hard to aim a spread, if you cannot at least count on a center-line torpedo. Shoot a bow-tanking BB or radar cruiser on the nose and see all torps go left and right. I remember games in Clan Battles, where 8 Somers-torps fired at a stationary nose-in Kremlin to create a tight spread all missed, since there was not a single torp near the center. You can't even use the outer torpedos to aim at a specific point, since even they will go somewhere within a random dispersion. Also odd numbered torpedo spreads got the center line torpedo not perfectly centered anymore. On the other hand RN-single launched torps seem to go right where they were aimed at. That is incosistent. It widens the gap between guided torpedos on the upcoming submarines and torp-boats, if subs get perfectly tracking weapons, while DD-torps are unpredictable shotguns, how does that justify all the sacrifices made playing torpboats (no dakka-dakka, avoiding confrontations, the RNG of maybe doing huge dmg every 2 min)? Last but not least, multiple spreads fired in clusters are hard to dodge for their targets, since players have difficulties identifying the gaps, now that torps are missing a pattern. So I wonder if it wasn't fairer for both parties, when torps were predictable. Should a spread aimed perfectly on the nose really look like this: Should I really continue shooting single launchers and pray the torps hit, even when my target is not WASDing? Are DDs supposed to spam all launchers now hoping for a hit? How does one adapt to this and was this change a good idea in the first place? I personally think the old equally spread torps were better. Feel free to share your experiences and opinion.

They must be "balanced" for at least 15v15. The Hosho-Horror should have been enough of a field study on why more than one CV per 11 ships is over the top. Apearantly it didn't dawn upon WG, that having DDs cap a very tiny buff circle is a bit of a positional give-away. I remember the Arms Race mode in Season 13 without CVs was more tactical. You had a real incentive going for the center buffs. Now this is like a carrot baiting you to overextend. The buffs are pretty secondary compared to the advantage of an early kill. In Season 13, buffs were the key to dominance. One may argue about the usefulness of certain buffs. The heal is rather pointless for BBs, while maneuverability and faster consumable cooldown are not that important to DDs. That introduces an element of selfishness. As a DD I rather go a longer distance for a heal that helps me survive than for a buff on maneuverability, that will help my BBs dodge torps and brawl.

You mean Kleber, right?

I will stop playing DDs now. It appears the XP you get for grabbing bonusses for your team, is far too low. It even backfires. I see BB sitting in the back farming damage thanks to the reload buffs I provide while remaining stealthy for most of the time. So whenever my team loses, some BB is top of the team, cause they farm more damage while reversing towards the border, allowing the enemy team to bully the DDs out of the center and cap it. If I win 60% of my battles in a DD, while never keeping my star I progress as fast as a BB-player winning only 50% of his battles but keeping his star in only 20% of his losses. The only good thing about the Arms Race mode is that center cap taht denies BBs to farm a lost battle for even longer. Why should I continue to play to win in DDs, when I can play for my own selfish cause in BBs and be better off overall?

I wouldn't make such a big fuzz about it. Most of all it's a bit over the top to ping the entire WG-staff here because of one team killer. What do you expect? That they start booking a conference room and order employees back from vacation? Maybe we should also ping @Donald_Trump, @the_little_chubby_boy_from_north_korea, @the_pope ... ah what the hell, let's ping @god. See he even got a WoWs-account. Dear @god, please remove TKs from the game. And btw, thx for creating hooters. Great design. No, seriously, there is a system in place against TKs and it works quite efficiently. If it didn't, we would see intentional TKs more frequently. Wargaming should imo think about removing team damage to avoid all such topics and the fuzz about it in the future. It is appearently a piece of realism that only creates grief.

I don't see how it could improve the game. It removes an element of player skill, aiming at a point where you predict the enemy to be. Given the player makes a prediction about the position of a ship 30-60s later, there is already a lot of imprecision in the process so that further fuzziness is imo not needed. Let me show you the following shots taken in training room These are two spreads of torps from Icarus (sry, in the middle of regrinding the line). If you look at the torp predictor (the yellow area) you can see it is limited by the 8-mark on the dynamic crosshair to both sides. So a simple theory would suggest the area, over which each of the torps is dispersed, is 4 markers wide. The 6-mark and the 2-mark then define the middle value of each torpedo dispersion. So I aimed at the Kremlin at the 2-mark to the left and to the right. You can see the result. The dispersion is such, that only the second torpedo of the first launcher hits the target, although he nearly misses. The third torpedo of the second launcher passes the Kremlin on the left side by half a ship width. That is quite some dispersion. This torpedo that was aimed directly on the nose misses by almost 2 marks. Now compare that to the torpedos of 8 consecutive single-launches: Not only do they all hit, 8 out of 8. They are also dispersed over an area of one mark. So, dear readers, maybe Wargaming, riddle me this: Why is it realistic, that a single torp is underlying different physical factors making it hit the target rather precisely, while a spread of torps has a much higher dispersion?

Maybe I remember it incorrectly or maybe you didn't realize it was equidistant back then. I am pretty sure my center torps in CB-season 3 "Sleeping Giant" always hit right in the center, cause I repeatedly hit bow-in radar cruisers with 16.5km-Gearing torps right in the middle at ranges beyond 10km. Ofc one can always argue with realism. Guns have dispersion, but that is mostly because of the rather short reaction time for the target, which makes dodging difficult. Torps travel for a minute, which gives their target enough time to adjust their course. The challenge of correctly predicting where a target might be 30-60s after launching torps eliminates the need for RNG. It's not a question of being lazy. If you torp at max distance, you usually do it for a good reason, e.g. a radar cruiser zoning you out. Also this kind of torp spread is rather aimed at concealed ships repositioning at broadside position. Three torp hits on three different ships, triggering their repair party is often the beginning of an HE-fiesta. You know we all are puzzled how a lemming-train blob on the other side of the map got decimated to nothing in a couple of minutes. Again, not necessarily your choice. Typical example from CB: That Stalingrad on Land of Fire sitting left of the island in B-cap. It would take me minutes to go around it in a circle to torp on the sides, only to miss it, cause it goes back and forth. With a Daring you can get a line of torps perfectly on the nose. We practically had dev strikes in the Clan Brawl with Darings torping on Kremlins nose. This is ridiculous, if the Daring can hit 10 out of 10 torps on a nose-in target from 9km away and any other DD can miss all his spreads. Either there is no realism in RN-torps or there is an abundance of realism on other nations torps.

You see, @MrWastee, taking one for the team. So here for our map specialists a new brain teaser: I left a couple of clues in and the solution is deliberately clear-cut. Small hint: There is an educational purpose in the choice of this screenshot. So give it a shot. Edit (April 03 2020): For solutions please ping me explicitly since I will not check this topic regularly.

This is my playful attempt to get fun and "education" together. We all play these maps dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. But how familiar are we with the details? How good is our orientation? I'd like to test and strengthen that ability by putting us all to the test ... in this quiz threat. Rules are self-evident. You gotta guess, where the posted screenshot was taken. The correct answer must contain three informations: a) the official name of the map b) the square the ship was in when the shot was taken c) the orientation of the camera with a tolerance of +- 45°, i.e. the angle of the view towards the north, either in clockwise degrees or nautical terms, 45° being equivalent to NE, 90° being E and so on. Whoever gets it right, i.e. posts the correct answer first, as confirmed by the OP of the screenshot, gets to choose one of his screenshots in order to keep this thing running. The screenshots posted must meet the following criteria: 1. They must show a unique and recognizable spot on a map. The sample must depict the map in its current version, no outdated designs. Samples only showing ocean or unrecognizable patterns are not allowed. Obvously no Ocean map, no trolling. 2. Names of players in the screenshot must be anonymized. 3. Remove parts of the sceenshot showing your impact on the battle. It's a quiz, not an opportunity for bragging. 4. The minimap and compass must be removed from the screenshot as they provide the answer. 5. The full screenshot, now including the minimap, is provided by the quiz starter as the solution. The quiz starter posts the full screenshot to prove the correct answer and mentions/pings the "winner" in order to notify him. 6. If the spot wasn't guessed right after 3 days (72 hours), i.e. if nobody guessed it right or the quiz starter did not confirm the solution within that time frame, anybody may post a new screenshot and the quiz is restarted. So let me get this on the way: The first screenshot hopefully is easy enough. So, skippers, where was this screenshot taken?

Well, Trivial Pursuit is a while back for me. However I can not longer see this trivial screenshot going unanswered. So I will solve it: It's tha map Ring, quadrant C3, looking south. @Estaca_de_Bares: Am I right?

I didn't mean that prices immediately jump, but the difference between Black and Neustrashimy already indicates a price taking higher steel income as given. Steel is not intended to be earned by casual players. It is aimed at competitive players. This is not an exlusive thing in the sense that only certain people can get that. Players are supposed to self-select into certain groups. If they e.g. want steel, that is an incentive to select themselves into the group of competitive players, thus increasing their commitment to the game, thus securing future revenue. Ofc the system then got messed up out of greed. Casuals saw the steel-ships similar to a child seeing his brother play with another toy. Suddenly the irrational sentiment arises that this toy must be special, must be better than what he is holding in hands. So he wants that toy. They argue over it until he gets it, only to find out it is not that much more special to what he had before. Stalingrad was overpowered and players took that as a signal that steel is the ressource to get overpowered ships. so they wanted steel. Wargaming reacted out of greed and introduced the steel campaign over christmas 2018 for as low as 50€ - or was it 60€?. Then they granted steel for snowflakes, drip feeding plebs into steel addiction. But that all was just a hoax. Steel ships were not intended to be overpowered. Stalingrad was but an exception, much like Smolensk is for coal ships. Bourgogne, Somers, Black are all decent ships that show decent stats, mainly cause they are played by unicum players. A Bourgogne in average hands is not superior to the Thunderer. I'd even say average players will have far more impact in Thunderer than in the Bourgogne. So it's not supposed to be an issue for casual players, it's going to affect the players who earn 20-30k steel per year, which may soon see new ships for 35k steel.

The strange pattern with FXP-ships is that ships of the same tier have an identical price. That is different for all other ressources, so it would make sense for Wargaming to also vary prices for FXP-ships, depending on their performance or historical significance or whatever they base their prices on. Any price above 1.25M FXP for a T10-ship doesn't make any sense to me anyway. What is so special about T10-ships? They are slightly more powerful. For most players that is a bad thing. They play bad. The more influence they have within their team the lower their winrates get. Yes, everybody thinks a more powerful ship will mean better results, but you will get another T10 ship into your battle and you have to match his power and skill. According to server stats, 2/3 of the players can't do that. So a T10 ship doesn't get the average player a better winrate, compared to a T9. Does a T10 get better XP? No. Again, if we look at server stats the average XP for T10 ships hardly differs. T9 ships get less XP if they are top tier, but then again they make up for it in T10 battles, where they get more XP for the same damage. Do T10s make more money? No. In terms of credit earnings, T9s so far got credit multipliers that make them way more profitable. If you're short on money you will play T9 premiums rather than T10s. Does a T10 cost more to design? Hell, no. They are all 3D-models with a comparable degree of detail. So where does that idea come from that T10 ships are worth more and are worth a 50% or - as that strange Smalland screenshot suggests - 100% higher price? Maybe one might justify a higher price if all T10-ships were useful in competitive modes. You then would play them more often and that could be an argument for a higher value, thus a higher price. But Bourgogne, Salem and Yoshino suck. Even Colbert and Somers are not outright competitive ships. I own a Somers and right now we still mostly go with other DDs (Shima, LM-Gearing and Kleber), since they either are faster or have better concealment. I mean this sterotypical idea that something "higher" must be more expensive is imo apologetic nonsense, that is not backed by valid argument. Don't worry, @kfa, I think he meant a reduction of the detection range, which is a buff, not a nerf. Intuitively the opposite wouldn't make sense, since the currently mediocre concealment is already difficult to work with.