HMS_Kilinowski

I ran into @blindhai yesterday evening. He was rushing the B-cap on Islands of Ice in a Kurfürst, which happened to be the spot I had picked for my Zao to torp whatever ventures close. He ventured close, but was wise enough to not let himself bait into a prolonged shoot-out. He actually hardly shot me at all, cause there obviously were juicier targets available and I had to switch to two broadside Worcesters. At the end of a quickly lost battle he was surrounded and almost survived, but did not leave before getting himself 2 kills and he was pretty much top of his team. Well played and Merry Christmas.

I think I know what you mean. We play the game for fun and we spend a fun time. So how can saving that time be of value to us? Obviously we think our time is limited and we want to experience certain highlights before time runs out. But that is not supposed to be our problem. If I don't experience certain things in a game within a reasonable time frame, I move on to other games. So that is a problem for the developer. If I bought for that campaign, I would pay for staying entertained by the game, which first and foremost is in WG's interest, cause I got a dozen nice games in my steam account I haven't even tried. I will not get bored, but WG doesn't have a dozen of games on my computer. That is another thing, I also wrote about in the official feedback topic. If you pay for something that seems too expensive, it starts to be a luxury product. Now typical luxury products are rare, like diamonds, or costly in production, like sports cars. Is the campaign rare? No, it's zeros and ones, it can be reprinted at will at no cost. Is it costly in production? Now "costly" is relative. But frankly, if the design of that campaign took that many hours of work that you have to charge 50€ for it to cover the labor cost and make some profit, WG should hire a consulting firm. I don't think the cost for designing the campaign was that high, so that means they arbitrarily charge that price cause they think it's appropriate. And again, I know people who cannot buy that campaign cause they don't have a lot of money. Gamers are not supposed to be rich people. In some countries on the EU-Server the average per capita income is 5000€ per year. Even in wealthy countries not the entire society is wealthy by definition. These people already struggle to pay their lifes and gaming is the one hobby they can afford. If people are left behind cause you cannot milk them, that sends a bad signal to players. I can totally understand that a game has its price and maintenance cost. I even understand that once you have managed to have a successful title, you want more than just earning the cost, you want some profit. But don't overdo it. Stay authentic and don't be ignorant to the people who are on very limited income.

I think you exaggerate a bit. Sure there have been changes that made the game more challenging or more accessible tu new players. But every nee play style has a counterplay. CVs will only make us take more AA skills and mods again, which is probably a good thing cause meanwhile the survival builds are becoming a standard to the point you ask yourseld why you even got a choice. I doubt CVs will be that rewarding. They will be more noob friendly and hopefully less OP. Stick around and find some people to go into training rooms. Nobody should leave without fighting his worst counterpart in a training room and learn what works and what doesn't. Adaption is part of the quality of a good player. If that was the case, the playerbase would be growing massively or at least consuming new players in high speed. I don't know what times you are talking about, where 80% of players were quality. Maybe when you started the game you felt many others were better than you and you attributed them with quality. New players actually are a nice thing cause they got lots of room for improvement. It is the players with 5k+ battles who still play like newcomers that I just don't get. That really worked for you? Okay, suits me. Here it is: My team sucks. Salt me like a christmas goose and feedback me up to super-unicum.

I am not convinced. I know a rough estimation is the best one could do. But the value of the whole campaign is conditional on you accepting the value of each reward. E.g. are 7 days of Premium Time worth 1250 doubloons? It says so in the shop. Still, few people would buy such small amounts of premium time. Most people will buy at least monthly packages. For them the value of one week is only 625 doubloons, for holders of a 1 year subscription the value of a week will be 25000 doubloons / 51 = 470 doubloons, if they consider the current discount (12k doubloons for a year), it's even half of that, so 235 doubloons. So that value of one week of premium time can vary between 90 Cents and 5€. Can people choose, when this week begins? No, it starts as soon as the reward is unlocked. Maybe they don't have time then, whereas in the shop I can buy on demand. All in all, you will only arrive at a value close to the price of the campaign or higher, if you accept very arbitrary "retail" prices. And a campaign, where certain rewards must be grinded and cannot be unlocked at will, has a significantly lower value than the sum of imaginery prices of it's individual rewards. The value of a sandwich is not generally 10€, just because that is the price at the airport.

Da wird nichts umgestellt. Das ergibt sich automatisch aus dem Umstand, dass beide Konten prarallel laufen. Ich bin nicht ganz sicher, ob ich das richtig verstanden habe, aber scheinbar soll hier eine Art Rabatt gegeben werden, damit Spieler mit Doppel-Abo nicht doppelt bezahlen. Wer also ein volles Jahr WG-Premium laufen hat und nun 360 Tage WoWs zukauft, sollte über das Jahr hinweg 9000 Dublonen "rückerstattet" bekommen. Das entspricht einer Art Rabatt von ca. 35€, sofern man sich mit Dublonen etwas anzufangen weiß. Weil das 360-Tage-WoWs-Premium-Paket für aktuell 40€ im Angebot ist, kann das für Vielspieler schon eine Überlegung wert sein. Man kann das 360 Tage Paket aktuell auch ingame für 12000 Dublonen kaufen. Für Spieler, die auf ihren Dublonen sitzen eine gute Alternative. Zieht man also die 9000 Dublonen ab, dann zahlen WG-Premium-Kunden effektiv 3000 Dublonen für den 15% Bonus bei WoWs.

Okay, I'm back. Sorry it took so long, I was tired from CB and christmas preparations. Now we got a T7-Christmas-tree. So let me continue the thoughts of my first post. I am not talking about that campaign per se, I am also discussing, what it stands for. Three distinct points need to be made: a) First of all: The campaign is way too expensive. What is the fair value of that Steel Monsters Campaign? You got 4 Big Santa Boxes and 1 Mega Santa Box in it. Those are in your shop for around 14€ all together. Then players get 28 days of premium time, a bit less than the 30 days for 10€ and some people will have running subscriptions of 180/360 days running. For them the value of a month of premium is rather 7€. You probably put in lots of flags, consumables and credits/FXP/CXP in it, but that is just to fill up the deal. Every campaign has that. If people want it, they buy it in the shop. And finally the big advertised reward: 4k steel. What's the value of steel? A Flint costs 11600 steel. She is a sidegrade to the Atlanta, a powerful one, but a sidegrade nevertheless. The Atlanta costs 9k doubloons. So let's for simplicity say, the Flint is worth more than the Atlanta, cause she trades radar for better torps and smoke. Let's say she is worth a surcharge of 25%. I mean she is still a T7 premium ship and the player has to make her work and is not handed victory on a silver platter. Then we arrive at a price for the Flint of 11600 doubloons. I am cheating a bit for simplicity. Let me remind you, even very powerful and unavailable ships like the T8-Kutuzow originally cost 10250 doubloons, therefore the estimated 11600 doubloons for a Flint are quite realistic. So we pretty much got a value of 1 steel = 1 doubloon. 4k doubloons cost around 16€ in a medium sized package, leading me to the conclusion, the value of 4k steel would be around 16€. So let's add it all up and be generous to Wargaming: 14€ (Santa crates) + 10€ (premium time) + 16€ (steel) = 40€. That is not the value of the campaign, mind you. That is the value of the rewards, if you were to buy them in the shop to get them right away. Basically this has always been WG's trade. WG claims to not sell a pay2win product but a pay2shortcut one. So 40€ is the value of the shortcut. The campaign however takes action on behalf of the player. The player must grind the rewards, this is the long way. Furthermore the player is the risk carrier. The player pays in the present for a reward that he might not get in the future, for different private reasons. He stops playing, gets sick or run over by a car, takes a new stressful job, whatever. Now WG has implemented that principle very paradigmatic in the RN event. The players paid 1€ for 10 Guineas and agreed to a lenghty grind to get the T8-DD Cossack. The shortcut to that ship costs 35€. So the price for the shortcut was 35 times higher than the grind. In the Steel Monsters Campaign that grind is 50€, 1.25 times higher than the fair price (40€) for the shortcut. The campaign would have to be significantly cheaper than that shortcut, half the price is a good starting point. The grind is not that long to justify as low a price as for the Cossack. So a reasonable price for the campaign would have better been 20€. Maybe even less, if one agrees to c). But still forget that talk about prices for now. b) It's about knowing your customers, economies of scale and community spirit. A game like WoWs - if you boil it down - generates income through a simple equation: revenue = number of customers * propensity to buy * price. WG assumes it can generate more income by increasing the price. They forget that more than 95% of all accounts are inactive. These 95% are people who tried the game, at some point in time did not like what they saw and left. That is lost revenue. Every customer that left, might never return and never spend a cent. By raising prices, WG risks losing more customers, having to compensate with even higher prices and accelerating this process to the point of killing its up to now very profitable product. There is one key property to the product: It is a digital one, it has a fix cost of development but no cost per unit. It can be reprinted for free. Unlike so many material products out there, by multiplying the number of customers, you effectively multiply your revenue by the same factor. So losing on the quantity by raising prices, is - can't put it differently - utter economic nonsense. I don't know the sales numbers. I know in our clan maybe 3 people got the campaign. Had it been half the price, 15-20 people, me included, would have got it. Simple maths, half price, 5-7 times the quantity equals 2-3 times the revenue. Now some people I know have even stated they cannot afford the campaign. They are gamers, not golfers. When a game developer plays the community card, us and them being part of the same gamer scene, them being active in the same game as us, having real life events, it is also important to show, you respect your customers. That means WG must be aware that many of their customers work hard and long hours for their pay checks, some might be out of work, some may be waiting tables to finance their studies. Them spending some of their very fixed income on this game is a sign of appreciation. It is a big deal to show that loyalty. In return they will expect or at least hope their money is used thoughtful. If they feel, prices are way higher than working hours spent on development, they might feel, their own hard work is not respected, they are not respected. They might start thinking the programmers and designers on the other side have lost touch with reality. That would be a fatal signal that must backfire into returns. That could not be good for business and the community. It's not a crowd-funding project but a regular business and WG is entitled to make money and please don't cut back on the free apples in your office. Just think about all those players out there who pay for it. I am aware, this was a rather emotional point with only indirect impact on business. So for all the rational minds, let me get back to business c) It's not about selling a campaign. It's about customer loyalty. If you sell a campaign, giving people steel, two thirds of your customers will say "Steel? What's that?" Only a minority of players participates in Ranked Battles and gets steel out of it. Only a minority of players joined a clan and only 10% of all clans participate in Clan Battles. Again only a fraction of CB-participants earns significant amounts of steel - a minority of a minority of a minority, so to speak. These players are potential customers for the Steel Monsters campaign. The rest will see that ressource and the prospect of ever seeing a steel ship as remote and abstract. That, thinking about a), is why steel is less valuable that doubloons, it has no direct purpose. See that post by @sneakyscotsmanabove, member of a clan that easily plays upper Storm/Typhoon league. Selling the campaign to a minority, you leave behind a majority of players, only to squeeze a few bucks out of an "elite". Does that really make sense? Now remember that equation in b). The number of active players is important. You will only get the players that already have a lot of steel through Ranked and CB to find that steel campaign useful. On the other hand, if you had made that campaign easily available to the general player base, some of the players would for the first time get any steel. They might find out, what to do with that steel, you can get a great ship. Maybe they will suddenly be more attracted to the Ranked Battles and Clan Battles, might think about joining or creating a clan. Players who before did not participate in any of the deeper activities of the game, would start being more dedicated to the game. So instead of skimming a few players, WG could have created a primer for new loyal players. And for the rest of the players a bit of variety by getting new content cannot be bad for business, right? The Steel Monsters campaign would not create minor direct revenue but very significant indirect revenue. These newly won or bound players will at some point buy some premium time, maybe one or more ships, some premium camos, port slots and whatnot. That, my friends, is the difference between greed and smart business sense. Finally, let me finish my comprehensive analysis - sorry, never been the concise guy - with reminding us all of that one incident, where iChase stated about the "Graf Zeppelin", that whoever decided to sell that unfinished ship should "get fired". I am sure that caused some outrage at WG and it's natural that one would be insulted by a CC daring such a coarse judgement. But if one were to see the message beyond that, it would be that bad decisions are not good for business and not good for anybody, as the people making that decision are held responsible by their superiors. I hope, we never see campaigns for 50€ or Ovechkins for 40€ and alike again. Please don't have us talk in forums in five years, how WG blew it with WoWs like they currently do with WoT. So let me end it on a positive note. This deal on a 360 days-subscription of WoWs-Premium-Account for 40€ you offered today, is very smart. Whoever decided to offer that, should get promoted. He/She understands a key lesson in business: It's about customer loyalty, good reputation and not about the quick buck. Chapeau. @Viper_Tech_ Nice avatar. Just please tell me you didn't change it especially for that post.

Where to start? When I saw the price tag I inevitably thought about a bunch of kids selling homemade lemonade on the street. A man from the neighborhood comes across their nice little lemonade stand. The kids look kinda cute playing the grown-up game, being all serious. They ask the man if he wants a glass of lemonade. He immediately says yes, cause they are kids from his neighborhood and remind him of his own childhood. They pour a glass. Then one of the kids says "20 Euro." The face of the man freezes and a thousand thoughts go through his head: Are these kids insane? Is it that they are young and have no conception of money and the relation between how hard the money is earned, what the prices of typical other consumables are and how their little non-essential product fits into this? Should he maybe talk to their parents and explain them, what their kids are doing and why there are no more lemons in the house? Should he feel insulted and assume the kids are just greedy and disrespectful? No, maybe the grown-up thing is to take a deep breath and very calmly and patiently explain to these newcomers to the free market, why no mentally unchallenged person is going to buy that lemonade. And that's what I am going to do ... tonight, after I finished work and clan battles ... unless of course somebody else would step in and save me a lot of time.

And fix the turning circle. Make a hard turn east on the 2-line and end up at 10-line being called a border hugger with your nose still pointing straight to the east. How are you supposed to kite in that thing if it doesn't turn on a dime? @Negativvv: [SCRUBS] won't like that.

How dare you. I saw the topic, immediately thought: "I gotta see this! Popcorn-smiley-time!". And now this.

People on EU-Server write "B+C" cause many different languages are spoken. "B+C" is independent of that, it's a logic term that everybody can understand. English seems to be a standard, given a certain level of education. Not all players have that. You read players writing in many languages not even realizing, nobody understands what they are saying. Pardon my French. What language is spoken on the russian server? Mostly russian? Do most people speak russian, maybe even as native speakers? Would that help promoting more specific plans? I am not disputing that you observed that. It is just that certain contrary observations tend to not get the same attention. It's called confirmation bias and it happens in many fields and to the best. You saw people pushing? On the EU-server? Where is that smilie with the big eyes expressing utter astonishment? Now I know something is off here. If only, for chist's sake, people would push! On EU-server people like to go with the majority, cause they are so insecure about their skills, they don't want to be on the weak side. Once they arrive on the spot they start picking their noses, wondering .... actually not wondering, what's supposed to happen next. Nobody uses chat apart from insults. Maybe that one guy who repeatedly hits the F3-button on so many different ships, you start wondering if he wanted to switch to torps and accidentally pressed the wrong key, wondering why the torps don't come up. Then at some point one player cannot take that random action anymore and starts moving towards the cap, pressing F5. The other players look like cows at him getting set on fire, trying to process in their heads, why he would do such a folly. They then comprehend that coming closer to the enemy ships results in being shot at, which leads them to the conclusion that if they turn their ships broadside, they will be able to keep their desired distance, while even being able to get all guns on target. Now they could potentially experience a moment of self-reflection as they receive multiple citadel hits but they rather express their hope that everybody in the team, including their wives and families and friends and family friends and family friends' tennis partners die of cancer. But then again that is just my observation and I might be biased.

And if that red Roon and Kurfürst had some skill, they should have sent your radar-Mino to the bottom. instead they probably shot that Ibuki and didn't land a single hit. Tactics or skill? Again, there is a thousand things that can make the difference. The Missouri overextends as he moves around the island and gets focussed and burned down. That Harugumo is just another player who has seen the shiny reviews and sits in smoke waiting for others to spot for him, so he can rain down fire. I speculate a lot, I can only see what is visible on the screenshots. These decisions, e.g. going on the 10-line, are not made by the team, random teams don't talk much. The decision is an individual one of the player suited for that role. In your example that decision rests with the Zao, he should go wide on C. He doesn't, when don't know his motives. Maybe there was a sound reason. An isolated Zao with hydro on 10-line in a game with a CV is very vulnerable and with 3-4 targets in range to burn down, I would not risk my Zao in that situation on the 10-line. The Missouri stays close to the cap for its radar. The FdG is a brawler and not very effective creating long range crossfire. That Massachusetts with his limited range is practically out of the game and risking torps from B. There is so much going on here. You can attribute some of it to differences in mentality on different regional servers. That would be a sentiment, an impression. I would not go as far as saying it's a fact. Once someone has a theory he is looking for verification and it might blind his judgement. Just think of it as a group of individualists. Which player would have made which choice differently, had he been from another region?

One can always post pictures of battles and speculate as to the reasons why one side won. it doesn't necessarily reveal a tactical pattern. We would have to be in the very same battle to really see, what's going on. The smallest things can make a difference. Even a perfect tactical approach will fail, if the individual skills of its participants are significantly lower than that of their opponents. In your example on Shatter, I immediately look at A and wonder what kept the red Roon and Shima from contesting A. C with it's big island in the center is often like an epicenter map, where both teams send a DD and contest it for an eternity, before one side gets the upper hand and pushes through the center line. There are CVs and that has a great influence on which DDs are spotted and taken out early, which again is a decisive advantage. I don't see any peculiarities in terms of an EU-server pattern. But then again I never played on the russian server. That whole approach of focussing two caps out of three, is a basic rule of WoWs primary school. It is the attempt of the community to get a minimum of strategic thinking into the thick skulls of many new players. It keeps them from yoloing right at the start so it has it's merits. The next lesson is to not blindly focus two caps. That is when many players already drop out of school and just do the same tactical thing over and over, not even wondering, why it doesn't work. Too put it simple, the two out of three caps is just sticking to an old rule for unwillingness to reflect the current situation. As @ColonelPetealready said, some maps (Two Brothers, Shatter, Strait, North(ern Lights), Estuary, ...) are better played not going to one side only. If your team only has one or two DDs, it is reasonable to focus your efforts on two caps. Even then you may find the ignored cap is completely abandoned even by the opposing team and easily grab it with a stealthy cruiser - Trap I am looking at you. I get a bad feeling when I am in a team with 3 DDs or more and they still want to focus two caps. Generally though it depends on so many other factors. That Warrior's Path map just posted: You get crossfired at the middle cap. Still worth a try, if no radar cruisers are present. CVs focussing a certain area can invite DDs to go to another cap. I personally would say, you should always make an effort to get as many caps as reasonably possible. That needs some thinking and adaption and we on the EU-server obviously are not smarter or dumber than anywhere else in the the world, so we struggle to get some sense into our teams.

Musste ich nun wirklich explizit schreiben, dass der Anbieter die Konditionen nicht zum Nachteil des Kunden, aber selbstverständlich zu dessen Vorteil verändern darf? Ich dachte, dass sei selbstverständlich. Auch wenn WG nun ein weiteres Abo-Modell anbietet, dass für eines der Spiele einen Vorteil bietet, berührt das nicht das alte Abo. Es wird nicht schlechter dadurch, da das bestehende Abo übergangsweise die Vorteile beider Modelle bietet. Erst mit dem Erwerb von Premium-Zeit nach Update 0.7.12 muss der Nutzer sich entscheiden. Ein Nachteil zum bisherigen Abo ist nicht erkennbar. Das wäre dann der Fall, wenn WG sich entschiede, nun die XP-Anforderungen für das Freischalten von Inhalten um 10% anzuheben oder aber 9% weniger XP zu vergeben. Dann würde der Grind für WoWs-Premium-Inhaber genau so lange dauern, für WG-Premium-Inhaber aber plötzlich 10% länger. Das wäre eine verborgene Preiserhöhung. Das würde unserer höchst wachsamen Spielerschaft, glaube ich, nicht entgehen. Zudem war zuletzt das Gegenteil der Fall, dass die XP-Anforderungen für mittlere Stufen abgesenkt wurden. Dies wurde vo nden Spielern nicht durchweg positiv aufgenommen, da es die Häufigkeit unerfahrener Spieler in hohen Stufen erhöht. Also muss man auch klar sagen, WoWs-Premium wird noch mehr dazu beitragen, unerfahrene Spieler verfrüht in komplexe Spielstufen zu bringen. Auf der anderen Seite wird es mehr Elite-XP-Millionäre geben, die, aufgrund des schlechten Umtauschkurses Dublonen+EXP zu FXP, auf ihrer EXP sitzen bleiben und sich damit nix anzufangen wissen. Mein Eindruck ist, dass WoWs-Premium vorwiegend für Spieler mit mittlerem Spielfortschritt sinnvoll ist. Wer schon alles hat, der wird die 10% mehr XP nicht brauchen und wer noch nix hat, der tut gut daran, sich Zeit zu lassen.

Ich wollte eben nicht zu schwarzmalerisch sein, sondern auch potenziell positive Möglichkeiten aufzeigen. Aus solchen Abos kann man gute Prognosen erstellen, wo mittelfristig welche Kapazitäten benötigt werden. Bei Spielern mit WoWs-Premium ist klar, dass die wenig bis gar nicht WoT/WoWp spielen werden. Dann ist für den Hersteller klar, wo Server ausgelastet sein werden oder künftig Umsatz mit optionalen Inhalten erzielt werden kann. Man kann also Kosten senken und dies durch Vergünstigungen an Kunden weitergeben, falls man das möchte. WoWs versteht sich ja nicht als Crowdfunding-Projekt. Entsprechend orientieren sich Preise nicht an Kosten, sondern an Zahlungsbereitschaft. Überschüsse im WoWs-Topf müssen also nicht unbedingt in mehr Inhalt oder Preissenkungen resultieren.

Eine Sache, liebes WG-Team, versteh ich allerdings immernoch nicht: Warum bietet ihr nicht beide Konten im Paket vergünstigt an? Kaum ein Spieler wird doch beide Konten-Typen parallel für den doppelten Preis erwerben. Die Kosten auf eurer Seite werden immer die gleichen sein, da der Tag nur 24 Stunden hat und kein Spieler simultan in zwei Titeln spielt. Mit einem "dualen" Premium-Konto könnte der Spieler +50% Bonus in WoT/WoWp nutzen und +65% in WoWs. Für einen mäßigen Aufpreis, sagen wir mal 30 - 40% für ein duales Konto, könnte man durchaus bisher unerschlossene Zahlungsbereitschaft mobilisieren. Allein der Umstand, dass viele Spieler vor Update 0.7.12 noch mal ihr Premiumkonto volltanken, zeigt doch, dass dies als Mehrwert verstanden wird. Mach dir da mal keine Sorgen. Das wird rechtlich nicht möglich sein. Dem Kunden wird zu Vertragsbeginn - also jedes mal, wenn du für einen bestimmten Zeitraum ein Premiumkonto freischaltest - eine Leistung zugesichert. Diese kann dann nicht willkürlich geändert werden. Das wäre vertragswidrig, etwa so als würde dein Telekommunikationsanbieter im laufenden Vertrag deine Minutenpreise ändern. Geht nicht. Die Idee der Flexibilität geht imo in eine andere Richtung. Man kann das sehr schön aus dem aktuellen Entwicklerblog-Video heraus hören. Premiumzeit, die in einem Spiel gekauft wird, musste bisher in allen drei Titeln anerkannt werden. Es gab also Situationen, in denen in einem der Spiele für eine unkomplizierte Mission Premiumzeit gewährt wurde und aus allen drei Spielen kam die dortige Stammspielerschaft hereingeströmt, hat die Server geflutet, und recht stümperhaft die Belohnung abgegriffen, um dann in ihrem favorisierten Titel Premiumzeit zu bekommen. Mit der Trennung kann nun WG für Missionen reine WoWs-Premiumtage gewähren, die nicht in WoT oder WoWp gültig sein werden. Ist das ein Vor- oder Nachteil? Das kann man jetzt noch nicht sagen. WG wird es als Vorteil loben, wir als Spieler können nur kontrafaktische Überlegungen anstellen. Freie Premiumtage sind eine Facette. Wenn in WoWs nun eine Mission erfüllt wird oder mal wieder einen dicker Bug auftritt, kann WG nun Premiumtage gewähren, die dann nur für den einen Titel gelten. Das ist ein Nachteil für die Spieler der anderen Titel. Umgekehrt werden wir vermutlich auch nicht mehr von Premiumtagen der anderen Titel profitieren. Irgendein Jubiläum bei WoT? Da gibt's dann wohl WoT-Premiumzeit. Vorteilhaft wäre es dann, wenn WG bei einem Jubiläum oder einer Mission fortan 3 Tage WoWs-Premium ausgibt, wo man bisher einen Tag WG-Premium bekommen hat. Ist das realistisch? Ein wesentlich stärkerer Einfluss liegt im Marketing. Falls WoWs künftig die Preise für WoWs-Premium verändern will, muss dies nicht mit den Teams der anderen Titel abgesprochen werden. Bisher war es ja so, dass in WoT/WoWp, aus einem bestimmten Anlass, Rabatte auf Premiumzeit gewährt werden konnten. WoWs-Spieler konnten dort Premiumzeit günstig einkaufen und diese in vollem Umfang in WoWs nutzen. Auch wenn das Warships-Team zu diesem Zeitpunkt keine Aktion vorgesehen hatte, musste der Kauf in allen Spielen anerkannt werden. Aber wer bekommt nun welches Stück vom Kuchen? Wird der Erlös aus einem Jahresabo Premiumzeit gleichmäßig auf alle Teams der drei Spiele verteilt oder geht er vollumfänglich an das Team des Spieles, in dem er gekauft wurde oder analysiert man Daten und verteilt den Erlös entsprechend der Zeit, die der Spieler jeweils pro Titel gespielt hat? Egal wie WG das intern handhabt, wird es Uneinigkeit darüber geben, wo nun die Wertschöpfung erfolgt und ob die Gewinne dort landen, wo der Spieler Kosten verursacht. Mit den getrennten Konten, liegt der Fall deutlich einfacher. Wo der Spieler sich Premiumzeit kauft, wird er auch Serverkapazität, Support und neuen Content nutzen. Ein Vorteil wir das, wenn WG für WoWs nun starke Vergünstigungen anbietet, die vorher von den anderen Teams nicht mitgemacht worden wären, also beispielsweise zu Weihnachten das Jahresabo WoWs-Premium für 40 Euro angeboten wird. Es kann natürlich auch ein Nachteil sein, wenn etwa WoT günstige Aktionen anbietet, die dann von WoWs-Spielern nicht genutzt werden können. Überlegen wir mal folgendes Szenario: WoT ist dem Todesröcheln nahe und deren Marketing-Abteilung versucht das mit einem großzügigen Nachlass auf Premiumzeit zu kontern. Bei WoWs sagt man dagegen "der Laden läuft, Rabatt haben wir nicht nötig", dann wird man vom Schwächeln bei WoT nicht profitieren und bei WoWs auch seltene und mäßige Rabattaktionen beobachten. Natürlich kann man aktuell weiterhin WG-Premiumzeit erwerben. Für Spieler mit WoWs-Premiumzeit wird das aber unrentabel sein, da sich die Zeiträume überchneiden werden. Was anderes wäre, wenn man beide Konten jeweils wahlweise aktivieren odr deaktivieren und so nach Bedarf nutzen könnte. Das ist aber leider derzeit nicht vorgesehen. Wie man die Lage nun einschätzt, mag jeder selbst beurteilen.

My impression to the current CB season is that for one it has become much harder to proceed. Maybe that new system that should allow clans to advance or be demoted into another group does the opposite of what it is supposed to do. We have seen a lot of known top clans struggle to quickly make their way through squall and gale league. As these clans struggle, they get matched against less competitive clans and the stickyness is passed on top-down. The clans should by now be more divided into the leagues and the actual competition within the leagues should have started. It however feels more like a race in its starting phase. Thanks @Aragathor for that quote: That actually is a bit puzzling. My initial thoughts, concerning that aforementioned struggle, were that we now have a harder competition within the leagues cause more clans are participating. The opposite seems to be the case. In another topic I already expressed my concerns that certain burdens keep players from participating. Excluding clan battles from certain assignments, missions, campaigns, tasks and whatever label you put on basically the same "to-do" stuff, is putting people off. Players tell themselves: "If I do CB now, I won't be able to finish my missions in time. I risk not getting that Dreadnought, I might not finish that "show a flag"-mission and whatnot." Initially there was the chance of getting rare ships. That was reworked to getting steel, which players can trade for rare ships. Now that carrot is made available through campaigns and the snowflakes. That's a comparably easy way to get that ressource. So why participate in CB? Well, for fun of course. But that seems not to be a sufficient motivation. That is why players are attracted with ressources, much like the clan bonusses. What a poor reason to be in a community just to get some ressources. But that is just a side note. How representative of the community can CB be, when not even 10% of all clans even participate? CB season North is in its second week and already we played against some clans for the third time. We need more participation, we need a higher awareness of that event. Bloating that season with other competing events, missions and excluding CB from counting towards them is dampening the resonance to this fine event. That is tragic as the solution is rather obvious and without side effects. Towards the Stalingrad my impression is that it indeed provides their owner's clans with a certain advantage. I dodged a lot of salvos in this season so far. Some are easy to dodge, some are hard to dodge. Some will hurt a bit, some will hurt more. So far we have cruiser salvos that are hard to dodge but hurt less and BB salvos that are easy to dodge but don't dare to dodge an instant too late or let go that rudder. When I personally am shot by a Yamato, my attention is towards that Yami. I will not miss that black smoke and immediately try to avoid all shells. For cruisers that procedure is a bit looser. You need to avoid being full broadside and you are fine. No need to follow the cruisers every movement, just wasd a bit. I know that when I am shot by a Stalingrad, my attention is on that Stalingrad and that alone is a strong indication of its power. Stalingrad salvos are hard to dodge and will hurt. They are the best of both ship types and that is scary. I know the blatant weaknesses of that design, we torped Stalingrads that thought they could push alone, we burned them down. They are anything but omnipotent and when played wrong, they are easy prey. But still they are way too powerful for my definition of balance. They sit in typical spots for Moskva or DesMo and those are not spots that can be shot at by the entire team. It's the whole definition of a Moskva spot that it provides some cover against flanking. So the Stalingrad is not exactly HE-spammed from the start but it starts picking off enemy ships as they move into its angle. One Stalingrad is still managable but we saw battles with two of them and that firepower is just overwhelming.

Funny how so many people complain about the content of their boxes. Not providing you with the full details of that purchase, not giving you the information needed for a rational choice, is not a matter of impossibility on behalf of WG. This is not the recipe for Coca-Cola. The lack of information on the boxes is intended, basically tells the whole story. Still some can't figure it out. Let me help you. If the value of the boxes was way bigger than the price of the boxes, there would be an economic incentive to let you know the probabilities of all drops. Assume rational behavior on behalf of WG. Basic maths, not patronizing, just saying. If someone wants to sell you a lottery ticket for 10 bugs with a probability of 10% of winning 1000 bugs, why would he not tell you the probability that in that case is so much in your favor? Knowing that probability is, what convinces you to buy the ticket. Whoever could offer such a big deal, would be well advised to be very open about it. He would sell more of these tickets than if he kept it secret. In case of these boxes the case is literally that simple, cause the content is of digital nature, it has no "cost per unit". They can "print boxes" for free. So the logical conclusion is that the value of the gift boxes must be lower than its price. How could the value be lower when the boxes can be printed for free? The valuation is basically a number in your had. You will either accept the regular price tag in the premium shop and base your valuation on a discount factor that comes with the boxes and guessed probabilites, or you will be totally independent of that. Then you just give a digital product an arbitrary price, much like the people in WG marketing did. Forget the idea of production cost. A Missouri is not harder to design than a Mikasa and therefore not more costly. The price was based on a concept of willingness to pay rather than production cost. A ship that yields more ingame ressources and/or wins more games and/or is more historic must have a higher value to the customer. Long story short. If you knew the probabilities on all potential contents you would probably see that their expected value is pretty much the "retail price" minus a mild discount, okayish but not spectacular. You would probably not buy the boxes but wait for some discount on the product itself in the store. Now you might think, I forgot something. There are potential contents that cannot be bought for money, like that almighty Missouri. Well, behavioral science has found the human mind cannot value extremely low probabilities correctly. If I tell you you get 10 bugs with 10% probability you will correctly see the value of this gamble is 1 bug. If I tell you that you can get one million bugs by buying a ticket for 1 bug,* you might find that the chance of your life. Don't think about it. What is one bug compared to the chance of being a millionaire, driving a Missouri? The chicks will love it! Whatever the odds are, you will find it appealing as the price is what you spend in an instant, whereas the jackpot is of another world. That is the whole psychology behind people playing lotteries. So why should it be different here? You even get people who will confirm your greed by posting things like "I bought one box and got a Belfast". So you switch off your mind and open your purse. I am not judging you who buy these boxes nor WG who offers them. All I want to point out is, you know it's a gamble, you know there is no guarantee of getting anything worthwhile, no matter how much money you pour in. The odds are kept secret and that suggests they are not generous. If you want to make sure, you are not disappointed, don't buy them. If you go for it anyway and lose, don't complain. The mere emotion in this post testifies to the absence of rational thinking. Your government did not make that law in a vacuum. It likely reflects the stand of a majority of the belgian people on the issue of gambling. So you might want to curse your "stupid MF"-fellow citizens or, if your parents vote and are against gambling, take it up with your "stupid MF"-parents. *Probability of winning is 1 * 10-7 .

What are you saying, that both options will remain active as long as the current subsciption of premium account does not run out? My read on this was that you get a one time subscription of both accounts for the duration of the premium account active at the time patch 0.7.12 gets rolled out. If I extend my premium time after patch 0.7.12, I will have to decide which option I want. Right? If you get a free day of premium it might be for both options but I think it is probably only for WoWs premium. Otherwise that raises the question if that combined premium day is active immediately or, as with an extension, at the end of the current period. Don't stone me, I just think too much.

I want to stress that the suggestion made is not just one of these "some players want more cause they always want more" things. There is a rationale to that that is beyond players time restrictions. Wargaming and the WoWs community want an active community. So one of the means is to introduce clans into the game. The reason to have clans is not so you can give players clan bonusses. Some clans only exist because of that but that was not the aim. The bonusses are an incentive to create clans cause clans serve a "higher" purpose. They are a means to dedicate players to the game, cause they got friends to play with and that raises expectations and obligations to be there when others are online. So clan players play more than they would if they were not in a clan. That results in higher revenues business-wise. Clans promote a word of mouth news flash that helps getting relevant game info and commercial info to their players. I hardly miss any sales in a working Discord channel. Clan-members help each other with troubleshooting, so customer support gets less tickets. Those are the motivations for the business side of a game to have clans. To give clans any meaning on the customer side, you need to introduce competitions. Clan players want a social component and 3-player-divisions can hardly give you that. So you got the Clan Battles. That is where it all comes together. Now not only do clans play in teams, they also interact with other clans. So we know a couple of clans from playing against them in CB. Now the social aspect of the game goes beyond the clan. It tightens the community. I see a player in the forum and he is no longer just a name but someone who shot at me in CB. That promotes respect and helps the community being less toxic and selfish. Consequently you hardly ever read any taunts/rants/accusations in CB. It is by far the most sportsmanlike game mode. So there are a lot of good reasons to have clans in a game and promote their existence. It is noteworthy that nobody ever said "give us XP-bonusses for being in a clan". Was that necessary to motivate people? I don't know. All I know is that someone at Wargaming felt it was necessary. So there was a reason. For that very same reason, Clan Battles should not be treated secondary to other game modes. Removing wins would only be half a solution. You still would need to play at least 6 battles additionally to clan battles. That is another 2 hours of time. Then again 1000 - 1300 base XP are frequently gained in a battle, they are not guaranteed. It still could take you more than 6 battles. If players had no jobs or no studies or no homework or no family, 6 hours of gaming might be possible. Most players will have one or more of these "duties". So I think the easier, more consistent, way is to acknowledge winning is important and clan battles are not a secondary game mode but are "the cream of game modes". So whoever plays CB knows he will likely get his Daily Missions done along the way. Now I am going a bit off-topic: I can understand your general concern. Still, I think winning as a condition is a crucial condition for many missions. A success in a game must be defined. Since we were playing board games in childhood, winning the game was the key goal of the game. Fun was the motivation to play but every game must have an end. That end needs to be defined by a condition that ends the game and grants victory to a player or a team. That is the whole concept of having players perform to the best of their ability. WoWs has difficulties establishing that goal among the player base. That is based on the rewards and achievements that are still very much damage oriented. We see lots of players who either do not play to win their battles or are not aware that winning is the key objective or are unable to determine what actions must be taken to promote victory. You are mildly complaining about clueless players. I take it, you, as most of us, still feel that motivation to win your games. In the best case that will be independent of missions. But, and that is my point, if you took winning completely out of any mission/task/assignment, that imo would not help the community. Players would not play better. The motivation to to win would be even lower. It might be that good players would be less toxic towards bad players if winning became completely irrelevant. But then the game mode would have to be different. You would need "last man standing" or just "highest XP wins". The game would rather be a deathmatch than a team domination mode. I am not saying that is unreasonable, I just say game mode and rewards must reflect the winning condition. In our current game mode that is winning by gaining 1000 points, pushing the enemy below 0 points, destroying all enemies or having more points after 20 minutes. I personally want players to unterstand that winning is key. So I think having wins as a condition to accomplish a mission is valid.

I want to join the lottery. Free lunch. What's not to like?

Come on, there are no pitchforks. You know how salty suggestions can be around here and we are presenting our case in a rather civilized manner. ... Oh you mean that pitchfork behind my back? No, big misunderstanding. That is just cause I work in the fields today and what might appear to be an aggressive look at your crotch is mere admiration as to the perfect symmetry of your testicles. I just would like to emphasize what @Loran_Battleas well as me earlier tried to bring to your attention resp. to the attention of WG: The Daily Missions are even more restrictive than any event. You only have 24 hours to complete them, so they cannot be postponed but must be done on the very day as the CB session. That is not realistic. There should be a strong argument against it and I can't see one. One might fear that normal missions could interfere with the goals of CB. As I said earlier, that is unlikely, but for the sake of completeness, let's assume that could be the case. The Daily Mission is mostly about getting a certain amount of experience in a win. Now we did not define a win in CB was worth 2500 base XP but WG did and that obviously reflects the effort of winning. It is not about individual achievement but a team effort. So that is not a shortcut, it qualifies for the first requirement of the Daily Mission. The second requirement is to win. Whoever wants to get the Daily Mission done, will be motivated first and foremost to win the battle. The objective of Clan Battles also is to win. So both motivations are superimposable. Consequently there is not need to exclude Clan Battles from the Daily Missions. So please give our suggestions to whom it may concern. Please open up the Daily Missions to Clan Battles. Clan Battles are struggling as it is. I would guess only 10% of all clans are motivated to participate at all, 90% of the clans don't bother and only a minority of players has joined a clan in the first place. Any hurdle that can be removed to promote that game mode will serve the community and WG's interests.

I would say that is one of the key points to make. There are missions and tasks that simple cannot, should not and would not be done in CB. No clan is going to allow a Kurfürst or Mino into their team just because there is some mission to get 200 hits with secondary/primary weapons in one battle. But the Daily Missions are hard to do. You can have a losing streak and it takes you way more than 6 battles to do them. Also they can only be done that very day. Now that I can fully understand. Why should someone spend time to tailor requirements for missions individually? That only increases the risk of missing out on something. It's perfectly reasonable to categorise missions and not spend any thought on what events are up in the near future. Missions should in general be open to any PvP mode, some even PvE, if their character is not one of a heroic achievement. It's okay if you want a mission to be hard to finish and it is restricted to a high tier and PvP, like e.g. the Honorable Service Campaign. But the ones of everyday difficulty or simple accumulation should be doable in any reasonably tasking game mode.

@wilkatis_LV: Funny they would put it this way. I would put it another way. Any kill or hp of damage you do anyway in CB is one you don't have to worry about having to do in Randoms AFTER being a bit worn out by 4 hours of CB. In our clan we really like our CBs and we certainly wouldn't skip on that to do some missions. I cannot speak for other clans but I am sure that in our clan nobody on the roster would think even one second about how to get one missing mission. It is absurd. If you do CB you would normally fulfill most mission requirements just as you play along. Now you see, you got it wrong. In Ranked you play with a lot of players you don't even know and would not need to care about. Of course you would dedicate your life to the team effort. We have seen plenty of Ranked Battles where players selflessly rammed an enemy player, not to be top of a losing team but trying to turn the game. Whereas in Clan Battles, you know these guys, their bad charakters and their individually plentiful flaws. So naturally you will play selfish there. @Salentine: The same goes for the Daily Missions. They, too, don't count clan battles. I got the first Daily Mission chain today only cause I got some of us to do a few more games. Frankly, the people were tired and although quality of play was still high you could hear that in their voices. Not trying to be the big drama queen here. I mean really. The Daily Missions are about winning. CB is about winning. There's exactly zero conflicting interests. Please, Wargaming, reconsider allowing Clan Battles to count for any regular mission. Clan Battles are not less challenging than Randoms, they are way more. The wins don't come easy. Whoever cherishes his clan and plays in CB has done his part for the day and should not be "punished" by having to get another 6 wins in randoms on that very day. Also please don't forget that not every clan has enough active members to rotate players during a CB session. Some people really play the whole 4 hours. There is no indication that players would neglect the team effort to get a certain mission done. If they did, in any reasonable clan, the field commander would ... how do I put it nicely and without violating board rules? @Excavatus What would you do if in CB someone went shooting at a BB instead of a DD cause he needs a BB kill for a mission chain?

Recht polemische Antwort. Ein respektvollerer Umgang käme deiner Außenwahrnehmung zugute. Wenn jemand einen Drucker kauft, dann ist der Preis der Patronen auch ein zentraler wertbildender Faktor und wenn dann der Hersteller hinterher die Preise für die Tinte kräftig anzieht, dann kann man nicht sagen, hier sei von Anfang an mit offenen Karten gespielt worden. Mitwettbewerber werden hier wegen unlauterem Wettbewerb klagen. Oder ein Discounter verkauft eine schicke Kapsel-Kaffeemaschine und bietet die Kapseln sehr günstig an. Und dann nachdem jeder Haushalt so ein Ding bei sich stehen hat, kostet die Kapsel plötzlich einen Euro. Was die Kunden sich da "zusammenrechnen" wird dann sicher schnell das juristische Problem des Anbieters sein. Für die Täuschung ist nicht relevant, ob irreführende Informationen aktiv gefördert wurden, bereits das Aufrechterhalten einer wertsteigernden Information gilt als hinreichend.

Das würde übertrieben dargestellt. Die Missouri hat ihren Besitzern mehr Geld verdient als sie ausgeben konnten. Dieser Mehr an Credits ist wertlos, wenn man nichts dafür kaufen kann. Die späteren T9-Premiums haben weniger gebracht, aber immer noch genug, um nie von fehlenden Credits im Grind gebremst zu werden. In diesem Sinne ist die Missouri auch nicht mehr Desaster als andere T9-Premiums. Man musste eben zwischendurch weniger Spiele mit der Missouri machen, um Credits zu farmen. Aber wenn man sein T9-Premium gerne spielt - und das sollte bei 750k FXP in die Wahl einfließen - dann hat man auch in der Musashi genug Credits verdient. Der einzige Punkt ist, dass die Missouri sogar Spielern mit Standard-Konto das verlustreiche Spiel auf T10 gegenfinanziert. Ist halt fraglich, ob die sich nun ohne Missi einen Premium-Account zulegen oder einfach die T10er im Hafen lasen und weiter in rentablen Schiffen fahren. Wenn letzteres der Fall ist, hatte WG mit der Missi keine Einbußen. Mal Hand auf Herz, mir könnte Geld zu allen Körperöffnungen rauskommen und ich würde nie Credits im Shop kaufen. Das halte ich für juristisch nicht unproblematisch. Schließlich hat WG große Flaggenpakete im Shop verkauft, die XP- und FXP-Boni geben. Deren wertbildender Faktor ergibt sich nun mal u.a. aus der Möglichkeit, mit FXP ein Schiff zu erwerben. Die Flaggen sind rein ökonomischer Natur, also kann das Kaufargument auch nur rein ökonomischer Natur sein. Der Kunde sieht diese Flaggen und er überschlägt im Kopf, über wie viele Spiele er welche zusätzliche Menge an FXP akkumuliert. Er vergleicht diesen Wert mit den Preisen käuflicher Schiffe oder dem Preis eines Premium-Accounts, für den im Wesentlichen das Gleiche gilt. Basierend auf der Rentabilität trifft er seine Entscheidung zum Kauf. Dann erhöht WG die Preise für Freemium-Schiffe und wertet damit diese Flaggen ab. Ohne davon persönlich betroffen zu sein, erfüllt dieser Umstand, nach meiner Einschätzung, den Tatbestand des unlauteren Wettbewerbes. Es wurde ja der Eindruck einer höheren Wertigkeit vermittelt, die nun vorsätzlich reduziert wird. Wären Käufer bereit gewesen den gleichen Preis für die Flaggen zu bezahlen, hätten sie gewusst, dass sie dafür nun weniger bekommen? Ich denke nicht. Falls die Pakete überdies zu einem Zeitpunkt angeboten wurden, als deren geringerer Wert für WG absehbar war, dem Kunden aber noch verschwiegen wurde, könnte es zudem ein Fall von arglistiger Täuschung sein. Das ist dann das nächste, dass FXP zwar abgewertet wird, ihr Tauschwert aber gleich bleibt. Damit werden in der Konsequenz auch Dublonen abgewertet, da immerhin eine Tauschoption nun deutlich unattraktiver ist. WG wäre besser beraten gewesen, den Erwerb von FXP nicht weiter zu erleichtern und damit seine Ingame-Ökonomie nachvollziehbar und wertkonstant zu halten. Und das vorgeschobene Problem mit der Musashi ist hausgemacht und hat nichts mit deren Preis zu tun. Wenn ich für FXP nur Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer anbiete, muss ich mich nicht wundern, wenn die Nahrungskette nicht mehr stimmt. Man hätte längst einen Zerstörer oder einen "echten" Kreuzer für FXP anbieten sollen. Viele der Silber-Kreuzer sind Durchhänger und werden mit FXP übersprungen. Ist doch nur logisch, dass eine Musashi hier dominiert. Mit dem CV-Rework kann sogar das Gegenteil eintreten, dass Schiffe mit schwacher AA keinen Spaß mehr machen und Spieler von allein der Jean Bart den Vorzug geben. Ist eindeutig: Wer die Ressourcen hat, ist gut beraten, die Schiffe jetzt noch zu kaufen. WG kann, will und wird für die höherpreisige Alaska und Jean Bart und was noch alles kommen soll keinen Mehrwert bieten in dem Sinne, dass diese Schiffe nun wieder Missouri-Einkünfte bringen oder OP wären. Sieht man an der Jean Bart ja bereits. Die ist ein relativ gut ausbalanciertes Schiff, ein bisschen besser als die Silberschiffe aber nicht übermächtig. Im Schnitt erzielt die Community knapp 70 XP mehr Base-XP in ihr als in der Musashi. Mit optimierten Flaggen lassen sich damit etwa - wo hab ich mein Spreadsheet? - 70XP * 575% XP * 1527% * 5% = 250 FXP mehr pro Gefecht verdienen. Ob das 50k Kohle mehr wert ist, muss jeder selbst entscheiden. Auch die Alaska ist jetzt noch etwas aufgebohrt, damit gute Reviews und Kaufanreize generiert werden. Spätestens zum Erscheinen ist sie auf leicht überdurchschnitlich generft. Sind die neuen Schiffe den Mehrpreis gegenüber den älteren wert? Allgemein gesprochen, nein. Im Einzelfall, ja, gegeben ein Spieler kommt mit Kronshtadt/Musashi nicht zurecht und weiß, dass die Alaska/Jean Bart genau dem individuellen Spielstil entspricht.