HMS_Kilinowski

No it isn't. You just try to get away with some platitude to cover you wrote something mathematically wrong. You don't have to like that I pointed it out but you need to accept it. Playing like you are too smart to be bothered explaining yourself is not gonna make you right.

So we could subsume that under my category 2: People that don't know what happened but feel like blaming somebody. Case solved. Still not a unicum-specific behavior. If what you describe is true, that means that the players flaming had no map awareness cause any good player would quite early switch to the weak side and try to prevent it from collapsing. Of course any player who switches sides may be out of the game for a minute or two, sacrificing damage for the chance to win. Some players play rather selfish and damage oriented. They don't switch sides or play the objective. They just farm damage for as long as possible, relying on others to keep the game going, so they end up top. You can see that behavior very pronounced in Ranked. Of course playing for damage does help the team getting the upper hand and often translates to a win. So they frequently have good stats. Still these players cannot be counted on and when push comes to shove they got no more tactical expertise or map awareness than the average player. So they blame anybody for the loss and feel supported by their top rank and damage average. @Egoleter: I don't read any hidden message. Please enlighten me what crucial piece of wisdom I may have ignored. My apologies in advance.

So what you are saying is that whenever a player gets to you in chat, criticising you, bringing up your stats or telling you to play coop, you feel you played fine and they just picked you or anybody to arbitrarily give way to their frustration about a battle that was lost anyway and by whatever circumstances not related to your specific contribution to this very battle? I wish you would be very precise here about your hypothesis, what is going on there. In my experience there actually are three possibilities, all of which I experienced at some point: 1. I made a mistake in a battle by not seeing what was more or less obvious, depending on your skill and focus. There were situations where I have cost my team the game, cause I did not do, what I could have done, had I been more aware of what happenend on the map and could have disconnected me from some duel. I even a few times may have single-handedly cost my team the game, cause I e.g. planned an evasive maneuver poorly and left the enemy base in the process. I can totally understand if some people were upset there. It might not be very nice being told insulting things, but they had a point and as I accepted that fact and drew the right conclusions, I would avoid the mistake in the future and my playstyle would improve. 2. Sometimes players really just randomly insult a player they see has bad stats just because the game was lost and they personally lack the map awareness to see where the team failed. They will even overlook their own mistakes. Typical insults are "idiot team" and other insults that would be against forum rules if I cited them. Funny thing is, I can see their stats, too, and they are not so much the unicum players but often rather mediocre, even bad players. They lose a game and they want someone to take the blame although they themselves did not contribute much. 3. These are the strange fellows. They insult or criticise people who did reasonably well. Like yesterday I was insulted by a Des Moines player who asked me, if I just played my first game on my Des Moines, as, according to him, hydro was totally useless and only noob players would not pick radar. Another player joined in on the noob-thing. I then very patiently explained to him that DesMo gets both, hydro and radar, a player with more than 3 times my battle on the DesMo. Afew hours earlier some guys insulted our CV player. A Shima had just killed 3 ships in one single salvo, 2 of which were BBs, all camping in a big blob behind the volcano in the 3 line of the Hotspot map. I just shook my had and complimented the well playing CV afterwards to counter at least one of the 3 reports. Again, these were bad players insulting others. What I want to express is that the way you present what is happening seems biased to me. Just because somebody tells you you are a bad player, it does not mean he is dynamite. You assume that, because it makes sense to you that a player criticising you must be better than you. If he brings up your stats he must have great stats, right? No. That conclusion would be hasty. Many of the insults I got, I got from players who generally do worse than me. They won't care about facts, They got alternative facts. You cannot reason with them cause they will only insult you further and abuse the report system. On the other hand, I seldom got good hints ingame, but if I got them, they exclusively came from very good players, who wanted to avoid me making a blatant mistake. All it took for me was to read the chat. That is the other side to your story and I feel it deserves to be told. I think you need much more to get to 65% WR over thousands of battles. You will find such players having a good memory of the armor layout, peculiarities weaknesses and strengths of most ships they encounter and how do deal with that with every ship they frequently play. The second paragraph imo sums up the situation well. Some players see the game as a simple point and shoot thing and just do not want to put any thought into the game. Physics? Tactics? They don't care. They just have a few quick rounds for the evenening before they move on to the next game in their library. So that is an attitude. Of course you can say it is wise to accept that fact and live a happy live in serenity. When I see a guy single-handedly throwing a won battle, I however get agitated, too. When e.g. I go to the movies, just cause I personally don't care for the plot and want to make sarcastic remarks to my friends still does not mean I am allowed to shout all over the theater and spoil the other peoples experience. I think one can expect people to behave and show a littler consideration for other peoples interests. It is a multiplayer game and you have a team. So it is not my obligation to accept the fact that others don't give a damn and choose another game if I cannot cope with that, but it is their obligation to make an effort or go for another game, .... not just to coop. I play coop too and I expect people to not utterly potato there, too. They can choose from an almost indefinite number of single-player games, where they can suck to any extent they wish. They can get drunk and stoned and fall asleep on the keyboard involuntarily typing phrases like "7666zhbbbbbbbn[...]". Nobody will object. Sorry, but as you come up with such simplistic explanations, please don't tell anybody to get back to school. An 80% player must correspond to a 20% player? Is that what you said? Did you ever see a 20% player? Please send me his account name, I wanna see that. The reality is more like that for any 80% player you would see four 42.5% players. Ever heard of a thing called distribution? If a society has an average per capita wealth of 50k dollars it does not mean that for every millionaire there is a person on the other end with a 900k dollar debt.

Yes you can, but - and that is the key - only, if you announced that you would do so at the next anniversary. You see the dilemma right now is nobody knows what it could be, so nobody could alter his behavior in the preceding year. Also, with all the events and stuff, we tend to forget. If I told you now, that in 3 months I will reard you for having the T10-Daring of the upcoming RN-DD line, then you would maybe play accordingly, put more effort in the game and thus constribute to the community by being active. If I announce that in 3 months, one day before I give the reward, it will not have an effect on you. So you either need to announce a reward prominently or you need to build reputation. But nobody seems to believe too much in generous rewards this year, so the reputation appears to be damaged. If you want to keep a successful business running, you really cannot afford being moody. You see, I am not complaining. I am just analysing what is happening. On one side you have players who have everything you can have, all the ships, OPish or bad, all the advantages. On the other side you want to attract fresh players and not discourage them by putting them up against all the veterans. So you give something to people who have almost everything and keep them from spending money for the few things they are missing and you discourage players that might have invested into the game, by excluding them from certain rewards. I had friends who stopped the game cause it was too repetitive for them, never even got to the juicy core above T5, where they might have changed their opinion. It is quite common in business. You will rarely get letters from some firm announcing they grant you an unannounced cashback for purchases made in the preceding year. More likely they will send you a coupon for your next purchase, stating it is a reward for having been loyal the past year(s). It still is "I pad your back, if you pad mine" but given your padding in the future, with your padding in the past just being an alibi to get a cheap excuse of sending you the coupon in the first place. Everybody wants fairness. The idea of what is fair however is subjective. Ask different people what they think about taxation. You will find wealthy people thinking everybody should pay flatrate, some middle class people saying everybody should pay a fix percentage of his income and low income people saying progessive taxation is fair.

It seems we both tend to overread some content. You see I suggested oil being one parameter. Whatever it does not matter that much. So let me consider your suggestion. The idea with the number of ships could be a nice compromise. But then again it is easy to keep around lots of low tier ships cause they are low cost in credits and doubloons. Maybe the whole idea of reward being based on anything is flawed. It is an event, they could just hand out some perma camos, ideally for at least one T10 ship. The idea there is to give something to the community and also incentivise people to grind a line. Think about it. You are going to reward people for things they did in the past, when your focus should be keeping the game going in the future. The player base is slowly decomposing. Even for the most seasoned player the greatest gift for an anniversary must be an outlook of still having 3k-30k players to play with every day. What use is it if old players have a port full of ships with camos and commemorative flags and all the stuff but the servers are shut down, cause 99% of all accounts are inactive? What use is it when all those gifts, that are temporary in nature, are gone? So my suggestion would be that rewards should be an investment into the future of WoWs. You should want players to have an incentive to play the game. Players who play the game will support the player base. If they get an incentive to grind a line (e.g. a perma camo) they might do it. In the process they may invest some money to retrain commanders or demount modules, get some premium time to help the grind. If the line that is supported by a perma camo, is not an old line, like USN, then even tenured players might find it helpful. I know you guys always got the T10 of a new line the day after it comes out, but maybe you can take it easy once. However even the old players are not rewarded for past activity but for their future activity. If you play in the future like you did in the past, then you have nothing to fear, you will get the rewards, maybe easier and earlier than newer players, cause you can retrain with your flotilla of permium ships. I can speak for me, when I say that e.g. the camo for the Normandie was an incentive to get the french BBs started. Likewise now maybe getting the camo for the Edinburgh makes me think about doing RN-cruisers. Both of them were not a priority to me. If I had gotten that shark camo for Worcester, I might have grinded that line. After they removed the containers prematurely, that idea was gone. So as I said, I think a reward can be a bit selfish, too. WG could offer a huge discount on premium ships or premium time, just giving something and getting something back. The problem with rewards for past behavior is that you cannot announce it back in the past to have an effect up to the present. If you get your daily containers you do so, cause you know they are waiting for you and so the incentive to play to an equivalanet of 2k , 12,500 or 37k XP has an effect. It is economic for WG and it is fair to the player, cause the active player noob or old-school knows of its existence and can play accordingly.

Could say the same for people complaining about first buyers getting a bonus in doubloons. It's a bit cheap accusing somebody of bein envyous just because someting does not favor him. Then again, what would the skill be for a player who defends a procedure that favors himself? Is that skill one of good charakter?

Oh yeah, I know that guy, has done 4k battles in the time I did 500. Does 25 battles per day, just sets autopilot and lets others do the dirty work. That got him 38% WR and enough XP to get more T10s than I got, putting some effort into the game, staying around to watch the battles even after I get killed and maybe hand out some hints to broadside allies. So he gets the love, right. I think it should be about what you did in the recent year, how present you were in the game and in the community. Maybe oil could be an indicator. What you got in mind is basically giving money to the rich. Really helps getting fresh blood into the community.

So what would be the right way to do it? I have one T10 atm. I can understand if you feel cheated if you have been a good customer for years and expect some respect and reward for that. But a reward system that rewards those who already got everything in the game, would imo be excessive. So there are people who have hardly played the game this year but got their T10s in the years before, and they are supposed to be drowned in rewards? I don't see how that is fair. What is so wrong with a flat reward for everyone who is active in the game, no matter his "tenure" or ships in harbor or battles played? So it is anniversary, and whoever is your friend atm is invited.

I begin to see how you got your 12367 answers so far. I don't want to get into this. There are people that just browse a forum for any possible opportunity to dump some quick and unreflected reply, like there was an achievement or you got flags or camos for reaching a milestone. And there are people who go for topics that seem worthy, think about it and post something meaningful. I think the latter is what makes a forum thrive. I think the topic deserves a discussion. One can discuss if ops have become too restrictive. Not only the ops, they whole game. If we take a look at it. Clan Battles are restricted to T10. Ranked Battles are restricted to T10, tho you can get to rank 15, if you have a T8. The new Arms Race seems to be restricted to T9-10. Some campaigns are restricted to high tiers. So any player will have an incentive to focus on one line to get to these tiers and take part in the juicy core of the game. To do so he has to choose on line. Now as he does so, he closes a door to take part in some operation that will come out, as it will take him weeks to months to get up one line. While the game gives incentives to focus on one line, at the same time it incentivises levelling as many lines as possible, by suddenly popping up some reward that can only be unlocked by playing a very special combo of nation and ship type. These things happened to me often. Suddenly there is a challenge which is "only german ships of T5 and higher" because Gamescom is in Germany. Whoever for whatever reasons decided he wanted to go other nations first, is excluded. For most of the seasoned guys, who have grinded all lines to T10, these restrictions don't apply and it is just a motivation to take one of your many german ships into battle again that you have not played for weeks now. But there are people who do not have 100 ships in port and even they might be excluded when Operation Cerberus gets into the game, which can only be played with two premium ships (Scharnhorst and Prinz Eugen) and one silver ship (Gneisenau). Or would they include japanese and italian ships? If russian and american ships are present at Dynamo, so would have to be axis nations in Cerberus. Imagine Japanese BBs travelling all the way around the globe just to run the blockade of the English Channel. Yeah that would really make a whole lot of sense.

I did not give a dramatic answer. Imagine, I filtered out the essence of his topic, which was not "delete ijn" but "make all ops available for all nations". If he "would get dramatic answers", how could I do the impossible and turn this into a constructive topic? It is not about the OP, it is about operations and how much sense the restrictions make.

People tend to dramatice for effect. A smart guy like you certainly has come across that phenomenon and knows to recognise it, when it happens. Or do you pull a gun, when in a bad movie and your significant other asks you to "Shoot me!"?

I do not agree with both of you. Sure you are right somehow but that is not the point. It seems to me that whenever someone complains about something, there are people who out of a reflex reply "Nobody put a gun to your head. Go some place else, do something else. The problem is given, it is you who cannot cope with it." If that is your personal philosophy, nice, I am glad for you. Live your happy lifes. If somebody you love dies cause of some mistake in hospital or an accident, move on, it is given. Quit whining, you cannot change things. Here we got a user who talks about a shortcoming of the game. That is his right. It is subjective. You may in the end feel differently. But the whole process of a person starting a topic and other people discussing it, not immediately dismissing it, is one of the reasons why we got internet forums in the first place. It would be nice if we could make that happen. I can understand your frustration. You however get slightly off topic and a bit bitter. A constructive argument, why that is a bad thing and how to possibly counter it, should be preferably. It's called forum and not wailing wall for a reason. I, too, feel the restrictions on Ops are debatable. Iam not too familiar with WW2-history, at least the military aspects. I don't know about any operation Cherry Blossom or Hermes. But Operation Dynamo was an actual event, it is historic. Now I was not there I have to rely on external sources of information. But they all say nothing about any American or Russian destroyers taking part in that operation. The only military type ships that took part in that op were british and probably a few french and canadian. We do have a few Commonwealth ships, e.g. Haida, but the specific ships did not take part in Dynamo. The Operation Dynamo comes down to an allied-only scenario, in which suddenly all allied nations included in the game up to date, took an active part. That is wildly inaccurate. So if the Ops are merely "inspired by real events", you can just as well remove the restriction all together. I mean what's the point of having nations anyway, if they fight alongside each other as they do in most game modes? My ship travels 60 km in some 20 minute battles, doing effectively 180 km/h. The whole game is a huge compromise in terms of accuracy, be it historic or physical or geographic or technical. We, most of us, I assume, accept that for the fact that we want balanced gameplay and short waiting times. Operations take a step in a different direction and then still they are a compromise. It is just unrealistic to take historic battles and restrict them to the individual ships that originally were part of it. The nature of most operations would be that one, sometimes two or three nations took part in it and the other nations are sent to the bench. Furthermore there is a reason why the ops rotate weekly and other operation can only be started by dedicated divisions. It is simply that waiting time would be too long if all players in the game at a certain time would be scattered around 9 different scenarios, random, coop, now ranked, sometimes clan battles and very soon Arms Race. Now let's stay with the scenarios, the reason why only one Op is available at a given time, is that WG wants to keep waiting queues short and it would be near to impossible to match players into up to 9 Ops at times where only a few thousand players are on and only a few dozen wish to play ops. Under these circumstances any further restriction must be contrary, thus increasing waiting time for the players who fulfil the restriction and excluding other players who don't. To me that makes no sense.

Funny you would ask that. I got a SC when selecting a ressource container just yesterday. Got 50 Halloween Camos.

It is sentences like this that make me sceptical. I have developed some map awareness by now. I think about positioning, how I approach the frontline, where my options to disengage are, where I expect certain enemy ships to go. Then I pick a fight and I dedicate most of my ressources to winning it, while keeping at least an eye on possible threats. I could not for the sake of christ tell, what my BBs or cruisers are doing for the first 5 minutes. Isee them move on the mini map. Do my BBs hit anything? I don't follow their salvos. Are my cruisers broadside? Unless they are close by, I would not know. So if you follow the actions of your team so closely, you either spend to much attention on them and forget your own situation or well, you do not actually observe that for a fact, but are taking guesses. From pure description it is next to impossible to analyse what you do right or wrong. It sounds like a rant, but after a series of bad games I feel averybody has the right to do some ranting. We're only human after all. Yes the odds should even out a bit and I think it is safe to say, it is not the teams fault, although RNG can have quite an influence. I allow myself a slight off-topic anecdotal digression on the topic of RNG and bad luck: I recently played two similar ships in a line. Both I grinded over 50-60 battles and they are supposed to be played identically and just as I played them. On the first one I did really well tier-wise, ended up with a 45% WR. I could not believe it. On the successor I did slightly worse but still quite good, ended up with 64% WR. I could even less believe it. Frankly, I felt I did 55% WR on both and there was like a 10% variation in luck over 50 games. This is like winning 22 games on one ship and 32 games on the other ship instead of 27 games on both. 5 games of good or bad luck over 50 games seems possible. Still on paper it looks like i played one ship like a potato and the other like a unicum, which both is nonsense. That was just to showcase bad stats may have considerable tolerance to good play. In your case, I don't think the bad experience solely lies with the T7 ships. Quite naturally you get matched into T8 and T9 games and that can be a damper. But I suppose your problems may be ship-specific. You are not talking about T7, but actually about the three T7-ships you have so far. I took the liberty to browse your stats. 1. Ranger: T7 sees some good premium carriers: Kaga and Saipan. Ranger can match them, but not if they are played by experienced players. Many players who stick with CV play and even get premiums are very seasoned. You don't stand a chance. 2. Gneisenau: Gneisenau is special. She is a dedicated brawler, bad at long range, few guns, shines when built for secondaries. Must be played accordingly. So you need to find the right place and time to move into caps and bully other ships. If you move too early and alone, you get focussed and burned down. If you wait too long, you have little impact on the game and your team gets behind on ships while you take ineffective shots at range. Gneisenau definitely is not a Bayern. So the adaption comes at a price of defeats. 3. Maass: While at T6 you may occasionally end up in T8 or come across a radar equipped Indianapolis, at T7 radar is much more prevalent, when you get into T8-9. Combined with a ship that has T7 survivability, that may be hard. Getting deleted early in a DD may put your team at a decisive disadvantage. Many of these losses will start with your team falling behind on caps. But as I stated, I don't think a player making an effort can mess up his team in a way that he alone is responsible for a 36% WR. I have seen stats of really bad players and they get consistent 40%. Nobody making an effort can top that. That is definitely bad luck. Probably, there is some bad play, too, but without a typical replay, there is not much point speculating.

I think that is a very modest expectation. The situation is imo much clearer and I can say that not speaking for me, cause I don't own a premium-CV. WG sold a product at a price reflecting an estimated objective value. Players who felt their valuation of that product was at least as high as that price, bought the product. Now, after the purchase, WG changes key properties on that product that must affect its individual valuation for each buying customer. Why is a Saipan currently worth 9500 doubloons, why is a Kaga worth 200 doubloons more than that and why are both worth 4500/4700 doubloons more than a Sims? These virtual prices are obviously driven by parameters like different prospects of earning XP or credits, historic significance or popularity. So naturally the value, thus the prices must change with a rework to the extreme that the ship and maybe even the game as a whole is no longer appealing to a customer and that he feels he had never gotten this product had he known the nature of the rework. If the contract is upheld and not reversed by WG, this in a legal sense might constitute misrepresentation. Personally I was slightly irritated about how vaguely sub_octavian expressed their intentions in the twitch-presentation of the CV rework yesterday. The first and foremost thing to do in the presentation would have been to put paying customers' minds at peace and then go into the details about the rework. I think it would have been a much smarter move to say: "We think the new CV play will be great, our testers were excited and I think CVs will be even more fun to play than before. If some players feel, they don't like it, we are willing to offer a full refund in dollars and cents. But honestly, we recommend you bear with us, give it a try and we are positive you will like it." This would have been a bold statement, marketing-wise much better. The message would have been: "We improved the product and if you wanna give it back, we will find a new buyer in seconds". Right now the message is: "We know you get less value but we try to compensate you so you will be unhappy but not angry and we get to keep your money." There is this thing called reputation. It is of great importance where people want to do business repeatedly. IKEA has this policy where they take back any product and give full refund for a year, no questions asked. Seems like economical nonsense. Actually it is the opposite. People buy products cause they trust IKEA. Where they would have hesitated and rethought their decision otherwise, maybe looking for and finding a better product elsewhere, they now buy the product immediately from IKEA. They get used to it and before they even realize it, the year is gone and they keep it. And they are happy and buy again.

Sorry, but your whole starting post seems unappealing. You name a hypothesis in the topic and then jump directly to a lenghty summarization of arguments. A bit more structure and streamlining would be helpful. IJN-torp boats are anything but useless. They however have become increasingly difficult and unrewarding to play. Why are torpboats not competitive anymore? For that there is several reasons that add up: - People are aware of your tactics. That was a matter of time. A few years ago, players were new to the game and unexperienced. Now few new players start playing and the old players know the threat of torpedo bots. With a slight adjustment of course or speed you can evade a whole salvo thrown at you from 8-10km away. Not really WG's fault. It's like an old fraud scheme, that nobody buys anymore. - Torping has become an unrewarding lottery. You launch a dozen torps every few minutes and if lucky get one or two hits. In the same time a light cruiser can burn down a BB getting 50k dmg. - Spotting, capping, even attempted caps are not rewarded (enough). Even starting to cap or contesting a cap can throw an enemy off his game or delay points gain. A DD get little to no reward for saving his team. Not IJN-DD specific, just more pronounced, as the IJN-DD is more stealthy and has less options when not torping. - Radar: Again with the radar. A blasting gunboat is not as affected as it is visible while shooting anyway and mostly too far away to be radared. Also being spotted does not help evading it's shots, whereas detection is a huge give-away for any torp attack. Radar mostly counters torpboats. Right now the only useful torpedo boats have a range of their torps of at least 10.5 km, although the only safe range is beyond russiand radar, making the Gearing and Shima the only real choices. - Hydro: Not a direct threat for the torpedo boat itself, but a problem for it's torps. - Catapult planes and CV planes. On certain maps (e.g. Two Brothers) a CV can just park his planes near the caps and make torping effectively and capping near to impossible. Might be less of a problem with the upcoming changes to CV play. - New DD-lines: In an attempt to please the DD-players complaining about the hardships of DD-play, WG has come up with the solution to make them more gun-oriented. The ship class DD has become more of a threat, but the intra-class meta has been shifted even more to the disadvantage of torpedo-boats. Originally, in an iChase tutorial about DDs, he drew this line about DDs being towards the extremes of torpedo boating playstyle or gunboats, the IJN line marking one extreme and russian DDs sitting on the other end, with USN-DDs close by and german DDs s bit to the middle. Now WG has extended that line towards gunboating with the new IJN-gunboats and the upcoming RN-gunboats. A torpboat meanwhile is almost guarateed to take a beating or get deleted, if it steps on a cap, while other players expect it to jsut do that and report it if he refuses and if he gets deleted likewise, a no-win-scenario. Even the ultimate advantage of torpboats, being better concealed, is not there anymore, as some new gunboats (e.g. Daring, Gearing with legendary mod) will have enough conealment to spot the torpboat. Technically, the torpedo boat will have an advantage of spotting the gunboat first. But to do what? Have the first shot? After 15 seconds of fighting the gunboat has made up for that and then the torpboat is going down. To flee? Two DDs running towards each other. Even a kilometer difference in spotting would not be sufficient to turn your ship around and accelerate away from the gunboat undetected. If both are running almost parallel, then maybe 0.1 km - 0.3 km might have an impact, - BBs wasting you even with AP-salvos. The whole rock-paper-scissors thing is just not present anymore. How does it affect the players? If we put all those ingredients together, it looks very unappealing. Frankly, I mostly play IJN-torpboats in division nowadays, cause I need at least one decent cruiser near buy who cares if I run into trouble. I mean forget your team, they cannot hit and even if you F3 a cruiser, your team is too busy and you call is buried under that BB calling for support 10 times, although he is 5km behind first line. Still IJN-DDs can be fun to play and do massive damage. It is just not given. Other classes can hide in smoke ans spam HE. The ijn-torpboat is the smart predator. He has map awareness, he sees the patterns in, like a lion he guesses, which ship will be isolated from the herd, he plans his apporach, he looks for the radar ships and anticipates the dead spots in the enemy defence. Of course this can be pretty disappointing many times, but the joy of this is the intelligence of your gameplay. Anybody can rain down shells out of smoke on ships, other players spot for him. It does not take a lot of brains, to do that. But players feel too, that smart play should be rewarded extraordinary. Some dedicated DD-players I know have effectively stopped playing at all. What can we expect? The real problem with torpedo boats is another one, a problem that sub_octavian has addressed in his presentation / interview with @MrConway on reworked CV-play yesterday: WG feels that playstyles doing massive damage and devastating strikes to a player, are contrary to what the community likes. Nobody likes to play a game, where he puts on a lot of flags and consumables, thinks about his tactics and then gets dropped in an instant by one perfect attack. That is one of the reasons, why CVs got reworked. No more crosstorps, HE bomb-TB-Combos but 3 planes out of a squadron attacking and the other ones waiting for their run. Players want to be able to make a mistake and live through it. Now you take ijn torpedo boats, a class that literally takes one shot every few minutes, gambling for all-or-nothing. If it fails, the DD player is unsatisfied. If it succeeds, that is another angry mail to WG-customer service by a BB player who gets the very situational feeling that torps are overpowered. The only way to make torpboats competitive again would be to give it the means to counter some of the countermeasures, enabling it to do its devastating strikes again, which would be the opposite of what is done in the CV rework, contrary to the new philosophy of steady damage rather than instant deletions. I can imagine WG reworking torpboats some time in the future, drastically reducing damage and flooding chance but overcompensating it by shortening reload to low tier level (less than a minute), reflecting the new way. They will never buff the jackpot, they might buff the odds.

The Edinburgh camo could come in handy, if you plan to keep it for the Cherry Blossom Op. But then again the Cleveland also qualifies and most of us will have it in port with the freedom camo. So not much point unless you wanna alter between both ships to cut down the 30min waiting time between ops. On the other hand a free IJN-captain would allow me to go IFHE on the Mogami I just unlocked and not have to respec until next CB-season.

Okay, so 400 to 422 tokens depending on who is right and if WG has no surprises either way. Thanks for the quick reaction to both of you. All in all the tokens should be enough to get either 2 perma camo or 2 captains or one of each. Slightly restricted to quickly make a choice. Camos are not bad, I guess, if, like me, you have not already grinded that line. I mean it's nice to make fast progress through a T8 ship. Only stat-wise both don't look much like keeper material. I made that mistake on the USN-cruiser line split, getting a camo for the New Orleans, so it would be duplicated on the Baltimore. Now both ships idle in port. Why play a mediocre silver ship, when there is gold ships and other lines to grind? And captains are nice. Still things you can get by just playing the game seem less valuable than things you are charged with real money, like camos.

Short question: Has anybody a clue, how many of these anniversary tokens we can get all together? For the GoNavy-Event we knew pretty well how much it would be, only the crates got removed before the end. Now we know the exact end, so again, to plan what rewards we want to purchase it would be helpful to know how many tokens are possible.

Holy ... where do I start? Have you ever considered the possibility that you are not supposed to get passed Rank 15? I know you want to, cause the rewards seem worthwhile. But is it worth the trouble? As a BB player you have to carry and tank to a certain extent. If I look at Clan Battles, there the team has only 1 BB out of 7 ships. The BB's job is to be there as a threat, to immediately see opponents making mistakes and punishing them with devastating strikes, to keep enemies pushing at distance or enforce a push. In short, the BB must make a lot of damage, take a lot of potential damage intelligently and give the opposing teams something to worry about. Can you do that? Ranked Battles are also reduced numbers, 7 vs. 7. So individual weaknesses have a greater impact on the outcome. Players often think they play it safe, when they play BBs, cause intuitively they are big, got lots of health and can deal a lot of damage. It makes them look superior, a ship that can counter individually flawed playstyles. The opposite is true. You get matched with another BB on the enemy team. Now you have to play at least as well as the other guy over there to make up for that. So either you got that now, then you will progress through the ranks just by playing and being patient. Or you don't have that qualities right now. Then you will have to be very lucky to get enough good teams to win more often than you lose. This will be extremely frustrating, give you bad chat comments and make you feel bad about your impact on the game. Now the good news is, everybody can improve. You need to spend less time playing and more time watching or reading tutorials ... and not only watching them but internalizing the ideas promoted in the tutorials, and then trying them out. This question you asked about concealment in another topic, you would not need to ask it if you watched some tutorials. You would know the answer to that question and many other questions that you would ask in the future or even worse, that you would never ask in the future, not being aware they are there in the first place. Also as stated before, you might wanna go back a few tiers, maybe just grind another ship line. To exploit mistakes, you need to learn what they are, how to see them and finally observe them in the game, which does happen much more often at tier 5 than at tier 10. Go back a few tiers and stay there until you win about half your games or more, then move up one tier. Good luck

Yes please stay at range. The one thing that saved that game is BBs spraying their shells at each other at 23 km while a radar cruiser or DD press that F3-button in vain. Plese WG give them a unique upgrade that trades range and gladly even reload for a boost in intitiative. What? You cannot do that? This feature lies with the player? Damn it, there is always a catch.

Erm, yes I can. You ever heard of expectation in the mathematical sense? Not in the whining WoWs-player "I did not get what I expected."-sense. With a 3% probability of getting a supercontainer on TYL and choosing one TYL per day, the expectation is ~33 days, so roughly a month. That does not mean that anybody is guaranteed to get one SC per month, but that the average duration to get a SC is 33 days. Glad I could help.

Your probability is conditional on the event of getting a SC, mine is unconditional and based on trying your luck 365 times (once a day over a year): (1- (1- 0.03 * 0.012)^365) = 0.123 . 0.03 * 0.012 = 0.00036 (prob of getting a ship for each TYL) . 1 - 0.03 * 0.012 (prob of not getting a ship) . (1 - 0.03 * 0.012)^365 (prob of not getting at least one ship for a whole year with one TYL a day) . (1- (1- 0.03 * 0.012)^365) (prob of getting at least one ship within a year with one TYL a day). You could max out your chances by playing every day to an extent that gets you 3 containers and strictly choose TYL. Then the prob is (1- (1- 0.03 * 0.012)^1095) = 0.326 . So even if you max your odds, you will only get one or more ships with 32.6% probability. No, you can expect a SC once a month, if you choose one per day. I did it like that and I documented my rewards. So far I got 8 containers this year.

Yeah, I got it wrong. Sorry for the confusion. It did not mean 90% is the probability to get a ship, it is the prob to not get at least one ship within a year. Actually it is 87.7%, cause the probability of a premium ship being in the super container is 1.2%, not 1% as stated before. So you have a 12.3% chance to get one or more premium ships from a container. Could be a T3, could be a T8, could be a ship you already got and you get a few credits compensation you don't need. It seems to me you get less value from TYL if you are fixated on a special reward and do not value all other rewards equally to the value assigned to them by Wargaming. If you however do and are indiscriminate of what you get you probably get better value from TYL. Yes and no. You get more of what you wanted to have and that seems more value. On the other hand, having things in your inventory does not hurt you, they might come in handy some day. I got 2 smoke generator mods and a spotter plane mod that don't make sense to me. But hey, maybe some day they might introduce a line with insane smoke generator and the mod will make it OP. I had the hydro mod in the inventory for a year, pretty useless, I thought. Then I got to high tier german cruisers and got the Jutland commander. Suddenly mounting that module together with Vigilance makes a lot of sense to me, for it gives an extremely powerful hydro.

LWM not only had stated that it is 1.5% and 3% but that it was buffed from originally 1% and 2%. I would call that a vivid imagination if it is not fact or a small piece of leaked info. Where exactly has LWM been mistaken? Just being curious. I am not saying that it must be right. But to me it seems reasonable that a community contributor with a good rapport to WG might squeeze some numbers out that we don't get to read normally. It is not a number that by itself allows you to make an educated guess about what container is the best value or how to play the system.