mrk421

What boggles my mind instead, is how the initial value of 138 m got that far into testing in the first place. I mean wasn't it quite obvious it would be too much good? Begs the question of whether the developers understand their game at all...

Despite the skepticism of many people, I think that having a dedicated Q&A section is a very nice idea that could have tremendous potential, IF handled responsibly by the community. With that in mind: - Would you consider having a dedicated forum section for ideas and suggestions of new features the players would like to see in the game? In relation to that, do you even consider ideas proposed by players as a source of inspiration for new features at least? Or is there no point for us to even think about what could be done to improve the game since the developers will not consider any of it anyway? In case you DO at least occasionally consider ideas put forth by the player base, having a dedicated 'suggestions' section could be immensely useful, I think...

@_VAMPA_ In fact I tend to agree. However, IMO the rules for ranked need a bigger overhaul than that for it to become a less frustrating experience than it is now.

Like anyone who actually bought this would be stupid brave enough to publicly admit it on the forums...

It's possible, and according to this old thread it does happen. The reason is, that there are irrevocable ranks, AND with how they're spread in the lower ranks means that absolutely everyone can get to R12. From there, from "0" stars at R12 it only takes 46 stars to get to R1. And yes, while technically you can't advance from R12->R1 with <50% win rate, it's not impossible for even bad players to have lucky streaks where they get 46 more wins than losses over X number of games so that they manage to rank out before the streak ends (while their overall win rate remains <50%, they can't fall further back than R12). On top of that: ... which effectively reduces the required win surplus to less than 46 from R12 on. Although I suspect this to be less of a factor for poor players as I don't expect them to finish top of their team that often.

I second that! In fact just recently I thought of the same question. If you want to use the same ship with different builds (captain or upgrades), it can get quite expensive very quickly to always swap them around, so it would be really nice if you could have multiple 'sister' ships of the same class in port. For example, if some of your builds used any 'special' upgrade modules, you'd basically have to always demount them for doubloons every time you wanted to use a different build, as these modules are not that easy to come by - which would get prohibitively expensive real soon. So being able to buy more than one copy of a ship of the same class would be a neat option.

I really hope you're right (about them getting the memo that is)

Isn't this feedback, if it gets acted upon, going to cause a lot of players to get very unhappy however? *ahem* BBabies *ahem*

what would you then call a 47% WR (in ranked) player who takes ~1000 battles to get to R1?

Maybe that's a mistake. You know the meta's broken, I know the current state of class balance is abysmal; I think even WG know, but they're not willing/don't dare to do anything about it - maybe because it's not bad enough just yet. Perhaps the best chance there is to force a change would be if even more players - and better players - switched to BBs. Maybe that would be enough to "force" WGs hand, or maybe not, I don't know. I am pretty sure however, that it has a better chance of working than us discussing the current state on the forums does.

The problem with ranked is not that the rewards are bad, but that ranked battles are viewed as a form of competitive play whereas in reality they don really meet all the requirements for that.

@Minoranis about the importance of Winning or Winrate. I think you need to appreciate that a lot of people are quite competitive by nature. And WoWs is a game where a team of people face off a team of other people to determine which team is better. Some people say it's just a game, but if you think about it's not really just a game, is it? Psychologically it's just as much of a game as football, bowling, a game of cards or anything - sure, it's a unique setting, but it stimulates exactly the same parts of your brain as those games do. And we know how passionate people can get about a game of football for example, even if they're not the ones playing themselves... Does that mean that it's ok to get abusive in the chat? Absolutely not! But perhaps it helps to shrug these comments off, that almost all of them are made in the heat of emotion and people who say those things don't really mean them.

Aand another thread has fallen off the topic and degraded into 'RN BB OP' - which I don't disagree with, just that wasn't the reason for this particular topic. @Teob_VG I don't have the Shima so I don't know the exact numbers and I also am not at home with exact IRL values, so this is going to be a ballpark estimate, but as such, I think it still makes the point. So let's look at some numbers: With the Type 93 mod. 3 torpedoes what's the lowest you can get the torpedo reload - if you take all relevant upgrades and captain skills, incl AR? Around 100s? If we use 100s and battle time of 20 min, this would mean at most you could launch 180 torpedoes during the battle. If we assume one torpedo has about 1 ton of high explosives in it, that comes to 180 tons of explosives carried by the ship in torpedoes alone. Add to that the powder charges for the shells of the main guns and the explosives in the shelles themselves, maybe a few tens of tons? Plus a couple of hundred tons of fuel? All in all this comes close to around 10% of the total displacement of a ship that displaces 3000-4000 tons! So you're sailing in a ship that's 10% made of explosives or volatiles and think it's weird you get detonated so often* * just slightly trolling

I agree that one person should not be able to cause another one to lose more than 1 point of Karma per 1 match. However, most of everything else you proposed seems to not take into account what a lot of people in this thread have explained is wrong with the current Karma system: that people very rarely give compliments to fellow players (just) for playing well - probably they think it's "normal" that they should be carried by a teammate - whereas many more people will report a player who outplayed them because they feel frustrated that they got sunk and that's their way of "getting back at them". For Karma to have some meaning, the latter needs to be reduced to a minimum or at least heavily discouraged. I have proposed one way of discouragement: a system where it would cost more than one point to report a player with higher Karma rating than you. Such a system assumes that not so good players who have very little Karma are more likely to report someone out of spite, which I think is a fair assumption in general. Another way could be to tweak your argument about a "Karma drop premium", based on how many "independent" players reported you. Because positive Karma is harder to come by than negative, your proposal most likely would not work as intended. However, if we tweak it in such a way that you would not lose any Karma from being reported, UNLESS you got reported by several independent sources - now there's something. Of course sanity checks (like are in place now as I understand) would have to apply. For example, if you were reported for misbehaviour in chat, but didn't use chat during the game, those reports would be ignored. Same for AFK. PS. They should really re-introduce "bot" to the report options.

@DFens_666 look man, I understand how you feel and a lot of what you're suggesting has been proposed by others before. But here's why I think it wouldn't have the desired effect: as long as a BB (cause it's most often the BBs that do that), who's camping at the edge of the map, can do even some damage, while at the same time being relatively safe from getting deleted early on, in their mind, they're a more valuable member of the team than the DD who wanted to fulfill their duty and rushed ahead into the cap unsupported, only to get deleted 4 minutes into the game. Increasing dispersion at long ranges (or overall) would only strengthen that position, as they'd be even more safe in that case. What you want to do instead, is to decrease dispersion, so that they wouldn't be safe even if they stay waaaay back, or so that the brave members of their teams would get deleted early soon followed by the campers. That should be a clear enough hint for them, that they need to change tactics if they want any kind of success. But therein lies the problem... Many of those players do not feel confident enough in their abilities to apply more bold tactics and would opt not to play the game instead. Which is understandably a big no-no for WG. So one can see why, with the situation being as it is currently, the company feels reluctant to make any changes that would shift the current meta. Hopefully they'll be forced to do so in the nearer future, but until then... we just have to accept the situation for what it is and demonstrate our displeasure by either keeping our wallets shut, not playing or, my personal favourite, joining the dark side

Wrong! Dispersion acts as a skill balancer, allowing bad players to do damage by lucky dispersion despite aiming poorly, while reducing the damage skilled players can do by scattering well-aimed shots. It also works AGAINST skilled cruiser players, as they might get lol-citadelled by that one random stray shell, even though in principle they did everything right to avoid the incoming shot. For me, as someone who likes to play CCs a lot, I'd rather get nuked by a lucky, yet accurate prediction (cause you don't wanna sail predictably when avoiding incoming fire) than a lucky RNG-roll. But maybe that's just me... Anyway, IMO this game enables unskillful play too much already and we don't want to increase that element even more...

Well, what they could do, is to look for ways to make other tactics than the currently prevailing one more viable. Like maybe make CCs and DDs less punishing to play. That should be within their power...

Just to get the whole picture: if you inflict a flood on a ship that's already flooding, will that refresh the duration or will the maximum duration remain that of the original flood? I suspect it's the latter, but if someone can confirm this...

Perhaps... And my proposal was of course the creme de la creme. I do feel, however, that if Karma was to give any real benefits, the system how it's awarded/deduced could use some adjustments at the same time. In order to discourage "salty" or out of spite reports.

You guys are way exaggerating. Sure, you may only get complimented once for every six games where you carry your team to victory. But I find, you don't really get reported that often either - unless you're really asking for it. But for simply screwing up? ...Naah, not that much. There have been plenty of times when I potatoed and thought to myself this is going to cost me some Karma for sure, only to find myself exonerated after the battle is over. Sure, I too get reported by people who are ticked off by my deleting them, but I find that if you play decently well and maintain a polite tone, you should have no problem keeping a positive Karma balance - unless there are other factors at play, like if you're famous, then you're "screwed"... But yea, like someone mentioned: the best way to get compliments is to praise someone in chat for playing well and give them a compliment. Then, after the battle is over and they discover they've been complimented, they're quite likely to return the favour. Why just yesterday night I got a total of 4 compliments, which pushed me over the 110 karma limit to put me in the highest bracket, so I'm a happy camper

@V_RASK I'm a bit surprised no-one else has mentioned that before and you might already be aware of this, but there's a mod in Aslain's pack, which actually displays your Karma value on the main screen, under your username. I'm not 100% sure, which mod it is, but I believe it's the 'Better ship icons on compact carousel' one. If you're interested I can dig a bit more into it. I for one like the idea that players can give feedback to each other in a more permanent way than a simple 'thank you' or 'you suck' comment in chat. And I would also like to see Karma being a bit more meaningful than just a number in your profile, but more on that later. Also, like @mtm78 and others have pointed out, I agree there are flaws in the current system in that it can be 'abused'. @Teob_VG & others thinking of how the Karma system could be improved and how reports/compliments from people with high Karma should have more weight, here's how I figured it could be done. I've had this idea ever since they introduced Karma brackets in 0.6.6. Since 0.6.6. you can give out different amount of reports/compliments, ranging between 7-11, depending on which Karma bracket you're in. I think this could be used quite naturally to reduce the amount of 'abuse' possible. Here's how it would work: - First of all, anyone could only lose 1 point of Karma for being reported by one person in one game (if several people report you, you can lose more Karma in a single game). As I understand that's how it works now as well? - Depending on which bracket the one reporting and the reportee are in, it could cost more than one point to report them: If the reporting player is in the same bracket, or a higher bracket than the player he's reporting, it would cost one point. However, if he's at a lower bracket, it would cost 1 plus the bracket difference to report that player. For example, if a player who's at the lowest bracket (19 Karma and below) wanted to report someone who was at the highest bracket (>110 Karma), it would cost them 5 out of the 7 reports they have available for that day. They would be notified by the system that the report would cost them 5 points, at which time they have a chance to reconsider. IMO such a system would greatly diminish the 'salty' reports - firstly because the people who tend to give them would run out of reports sooner, and secondly because many would realise it's not worth using up so many points over something trivial (this assumes people with higher amount of Karma are less likely to report someone out of spite, which I think is a fair assumption) - For compliments, the logic would be slightly different. Regardless of your bracket, it would always cost just 1 point to give a compliment. - However, in this case, the amount of Karma received from the compliment would depend on the bracket difference, with 1 being the minimum. So if a player in the fourth bracket (between 80 and 109 Karma) complimented a person in the second bracket (between 20 and 49 Karma), that person would receive 3 Karma instead of 1. However, if a player from the lowest bracket complimented someone from the highest bracket, that person would still receive 1 Karma. - To further reduce possibilities of abuse, you could only report/compliment people on your contact list - and all your clanmates and everyone you've ever divisioned with should automatically be added to your contact list - at maximum once per day. And the effect would always be just one point: either +1 Karma or -1 Karma. - It would be impossible to report/compliment people on your blacklist. Hopefully I could explain it clearly enough. To me such a system would seem straightforward enough, even though it took a few lines to explain... As for Karma having and effect in the game how about this: the amount of Karma you have would affect your chances of getting a SuperContainer from a container drop! Brilliant right?! As you know, good Karma is supposed to bring you good luck. It could be a multiplier for the SC drop chance. For example - the chance to drop a SC: BaseChance * log(10 + YourKarma). In this example, if you had 90 Karma, your chances to get a SC would be exactly doubled compared to someone with '0' Karma, and tripled, if you had 990 Karma - a small effect, but not anything game-breaking whatsoever. * BaseChance would remain the same as it is currently.

@Kandly So it looks like the Q&A section has come alive a bit. Unfortunately it seems to have brought with it a decline in developer/staff interaction with this section. ...but that's not my point. What I wanted to say is that if you follow this section, you'll notice, that at least half of the questions posted here, are actually SUGGESTIONS, presented as questions. Same goes for the General section, where most of the topics that aren't whining, are suggestions of features people would like to see in the game, or about game balance improvements etc. I AM AWARE that there is a topic in the General section dedicated to suggestions, but considering the amount of ideas and feedback people on these forums provide, a singular topic is by far not enough. Main reason being that not all suggestions make it to the topic in the first place, AND you can't really discuss these suggestions withing that topic in a meaningful way. So with that in mind, I think a separate Q&A section is definitely warranted and should be a rather high priority - that is, in case the developers actually care about player feedback and getting inspiration from them or at least from somewhere other than the bottom of a vodka bottle*. The way I see it, there would be a couple of major benefits to having a separate section dedicated to suggestions: 1) you could have meaningful discussion about each suggestion separately AND 2) If the 'voting up' a suggestion feature was not bugged like it seems to be on the Q&A section currently, the developers would have an easier time figuring out which proposals would be highly regarded by players and might therefore be worth looking into. Of course the upvoting system could be prone to being abused, but if enough players embrace the Suggestions section I don't think it would be a real issue. *I apologise. I didn't mean that literally, nor did I have anyone specific in mind. Just couldn't help but express my frustration about a lot of the changes that have been made to this game over time.

@Tuccy Is it very difficult to confirm or deny this? And maybe a comment on a potential time line?

When can we expect to get a properly scalable minimap in the game? Gaming at higher resolutions is becoming more and more common and even at maximum size, the minimap is far too small on resolutions above 1080p. So why isn't it in the game already and is someone at least working on it?

@WG staff: I'm not very up to date with which format you're considering for the Clan Wars - like is going to be a tournament style a la King of the Seas, or will it be an ongoing thing where different clans challenge each other to do battle? Because, especially if it's the latter, I don't see a need to have strictly defined rules for the format. Why couldn't the clans that are facing each other agree upon the rules themselves before each match? Like number of ships, ship tiers, possible ship restrictions, battle type, victory conditions etc... I think it could be relatively easily balanced by making the rewards when playing lower tiers less than at higher tiers. What am I missing???