mrk421

What are they?! I'm dying to know.... On account of your comment I changed the word in my original post, to make it less strong.

Topics along the lines of this one pop up fairly regularly on the forums. So I think it's safe to say, that a large number of players feel that there's a problem with the BB class in one or more respects. WG themselves have also acknowledged that BB numbers in battles are higher than would be ideal, but so far have not taken any successful steps at remedying the situation. On the contrary, it could be claimed that they've been making the situation worse. So instead of writing about this in the forums I think we should take action to hopefully, if we're successful, force their hand. What I propose, is to make October the Month of the BB. Basically everyone who agrees to participate, would play predominately BBs (at least 80% of games) during the month of October. Ideally, if we can spread the word and enough people jump aboard, we should try to get the average BB numbers in games to 8 per side or higher. That should be enough, to prove demonstrate (even) to WG that there's a problem, which they can't put off solving any longer. Or it could go horribly wrong and blow up in our faces... Let's hear what you think, and if enough people like this idea and think it might be worth a shot, I'll make a dedicated sign-up thread with the exact rule set.

WOW, a quadruple post! Don't think I've seen this happen before

I agree with you on the TX economy. No disagreement here. I just didn't like how you implied that people need to be encouraged to work towards TX, when in fact that is the natural goal for most players from the get-go. Slightly OT: I strongly believe that anyone who's enjoying the game (and playing >1000 battles is a good indication that they are), if they at all can afford it, should consider spending at least some money on the game, to support its development and running. Be it in the form of purchasing a premium ship to help with the silver income, or premium time or whatever. Continuing on the same OT: I agree with a lot of people that the pricing of items, at least in the EU shop, tends to be a bit high. That's why I always wait for some "sale" before I make a purchase - for me, I tend not to buy anything unless I can get at least 300 doubloons worth of value per 1€ spent.

What on Earth does reaching the highest tiers have to do with WGs business model? I mean, if you play an MMO for example, with a level cap @ lvl 50, you'd probably want to get to the max lvl one day, cause that's when you've "completed" the game... It's the same here. In WoWs TX is the highest tier. So most players' natural goal is to reach that tier - nothing to do with WGs "business model". Selling means to get there faster, on the other hand, I agree - business model all the way :)

Exactly! @Nechrom there's no denying that WG have much more data to rely on, and your argument would be valid if it was only a few players. BUT, if a lot of players, who between them spend thousands of hours per week playing this game - and playing all the available classes btw - all have the same experience and come to the same conclusion, it's no longer "subjective view of the game from the viewpoint of one player." You can't help but wonder: how can WG understand their game so badly with all the supposed advantages and superior tools at their disposal.

Indeed, didn't think of that, thanks! I'm sure that's it. Come to think of it, that kind of diminishes the weight of any point that relies on statistics like these. Because we don't know exactly what proportion of players have their stats hidded OR if they're distributed between the different ship classes in the same proportions as players with public stats (which I suspect is not the case).

I'm not quite sure I understand what you meant by that... Are you implying I'm some doomsday proclaimer or what? I freely admit, some people on these forums, myself often among them, tend to be quite critical of WG. We really should remind ourselves, that they are the ones with InfiniteWisdomTM and most of the time we're just delusional *sarcasm*

We seem to be straying off-topic here... I believe the idea of this topic was to point out, that the mechanics WG are introducing with the purpose to restrain certain overperforming ships, will end up hurting many ships that don't really need any nerfs more severely than the ones they were intended for. Because, you know, WG logic. Sadly, these unnecessary 'casualties' seem to be the norm whenever WG makes some changes... Signalling how they don't really understand their game, OR how they just don't care - neither of which is a good omen.

It's not a new idea tho. It's been proposed before, many times. I completely agree that the bloom times should be different depending on the gun calibre/class AND it should have been implemented immediately along with the change in the detection logic. Personally, I think that for DDs for example, the bloom duration should be even less. Perhaps in the 10s neighbourhood.

@t0ffik1 I'm curious, what would you consider unreasonably high number of BBs per side? According to the table you provided, in higher tiers, BBs constitute just under 40% of all battles played, and in lower tiers almost exactly 40%. That means that there's on average 4-5 BBs per side, or 9 BBs in total in a typical 12v12 game. That's a 33-67% more than the 3 per side WG have once said would be optimal - and I'd say rather supports the claims that there is a 'BB plague'. Of course, it's not quite oversaturation, that would require probably more than 90% of the game's population to be BBs, but no-one has claimed the situation to be this drastic. On a side note, something on this table is confusing me. In both the higher and lower tiers, CVs have reportedly an average win rate >50%. Could someone explain to me how this could be? To my understanding it should be exactly 50% (or slightly less if you count the possibility of draws), as in all matches CVs are mirrored by both tiers and numbers... A stat that would be very interesting, and I suspect quite telling, to see, would be the total time spent in battle for all the different classes. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they were quite far ahead of the CAs in that statistic. For while their overall survival rate might not be that much higher, in my experience at least, they are typically among the last ships to go down, whereas CAs struggle in that regard (unless it's a really good player who's being extra careful). Overall I agree with a lot of people's sentiment here that BBs have it a bit too easy compared to the other classes. For sure they should be the tankiest class, but right now they're just too far above CAs and also DDs in that regard. However, I disagree, that the solution would be to nerf BB survivability. I think that would lead to either even more passive and conservative play style than what's currently the norm, OR far shorter battles that are over in 10 minutes or less. Neither option seems appealing to me... So instead, the proper way to improve the situation would be to improve the survivability potential of CAs. Easiest way to do that, without having to change any mechanics or bring in new stuff, would be to give all cruisers some sort of heal (that could also restore fraction of damage taken from citadel hits) and/or reduce their gun bloom time (which should also be done for DDs).

Then you're weird Most people would like to see either a ship or a ton of doubloons. Frankly, SCs are so underwhelming that for the most part I don't even remember that they're in the game - other than when I happen to get one or when threads like this pop up. If I understand correctly, they're supposed to be a kind of 'lottery', but what good is a lottery if it doesn't get people excited and thinking about the stuff they could win or how they'd spend their winnings?! I think the SC system could have had great potential, but not how it's implemented now. So what went wrong? Right now when you get a SC, you get fireworks, the screen starts to flicker, confetti flies all over the place - the full monty - as if you've won the grand prize, whereas in reality what you won was a chance at the grand prize. It's this double dice roll that IMO ruins their potential. Even if you make the second dice roll more favourable - like the OP and some others have essentially suggested - it still doesn't fix the fundamental issue that there are two dice rolls. The way I see it, there are two ways to make SCs part of the formula to incentivise people to come back and spend more time playing this game - which I suspect they were intended to do: - First option would be to remove everything else from the prize pool, and leave only doubloons and premium ships. Those are the only items that cannot reliably be earned in-game, therefore they are the most coveted prizes. Of course this would be accompanied by a severe cut on the SC drop chances, but at least when you happen to get one, you'll know that it's something good or at least unique. - Second option would be to leave SCs untouched, but introduce a reliable way of earning them. For example there could be a recurring weekly mission where everyone who earns a set amount of base XP in a week, gets a supercontainer. For something like this to be meaningful, the requirements should be reasonably met by the majority of dedicated players - I'd say someone who plays at least 30-40 battles per week is quite dedicated - perhaps around 50-60k base XP in a week. If the requirements were so high that they could be met only by the top players or those who play at least 10h per day, it would be pointless. IMO that would be and excellent way to motivate people to play the game more AND get the excited and thinking about what they'd do with the stuff they get. Of those two, the second one would be my preferred choice if implemented in a reasonable manner, not the typical WG way. LET'S MAKE SUPERCONTAINERS GREAT AGAIN!

I know for me at least, and I suspect many others... If there was another ship game that was as polished as this one in terms of looks and gameplay smoothness, and if its developers showed even a little appreciation towards their customers, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to switch camps.

You don't really believe that do you? You just have to say that because you're employed by WG... Thanks to the missions you have set up for the rewards, team lineups on the test server tend to be quite different from what you'd encounter on the live server in random or even competitive battles. Which means many of the scenarios described here by others can realistically not be tested on the test server.

Because of WG logic? xD In fact in my opinion already the 20s bloom time is too much. It should be 10s. That way ships that are already prepared to shoot into the smoke will have plenty of time to fine-tune their aim and take the shot, while ships that have not yet aimed their guns at the smoke will not have enough time to point their guns and shoot unless the smoked up ships keeps firing. Giving the smoked up ship a fighting chance. @Schneekristall excellent analysis and suggestions! Too bad the PT is used just for marketing purposes and the changes to the smoke firing mechanic have already been finalised. You can pretty much expect them to go live in exactly the way that was described in the PT notes. Edit: @t3h3th32 I'm afraid it is already too late. Changes are going live exactly like described in the PT notes. We just have to live and adapt. Which we will...

Could you elaborate, what exactly XP is rewarded for? In the post-battle screens there are a lot of statistics displayed like 'damage upon your spotting', 'damage avoided', 'capping points' etc. Could you list all the actions that currently award XP. And does getting achievements like 'Confederate' or 'High caliber' award additional XP on top of what you earn from these actions?

In principle I like the idea, but it needs some tweaking. For example: the detection 'debuff' duration is a joke. 20s? What? It should equal the smoke duration, so for high tier US ships about 120s, for japanese what is it, like 90s?

This is the best troll topic in a while!* *sad thing is, there's more truth to it than we'd like.

It seems that the staff have started to ignore this section? Also, upvoting of questions does not seem to work.

In fact it makes perfect sense. Nowhere in the original proposal did I get the impression that the same reward type should not be rolled multiple times. In fact, if I understood it correctly, it was almost an assumption that you would often get the same reward type on more than one roll. The presumption was, that even if all three containers roll a module, there's a better chance that at least one of those three would be one that you would find useful. So your lengthy analysis is kind of unnecessary. All three SC would roll independently using identical drop tables.

That would indeed be really nice to see. I'd upvote the question, but for some reason it isn't working...

Good effort, but I'm sorry to tell you that you clearly did not understand the question. I'm well aware of the '+/-' keys and their function. The problem is, that the minimap has a maximum size that is set in pixels. I don't know the exact value, but seems to be around 400x400 px, which is fine for regular resolutions, but comparatively tiny if you're running at 4k or 1440p for example, because at those resolutions it covers a smaller fraction of the screen. Purpose of my question was to ask WG to implement a scalable minimap. That is, instead of the '+' and '-' keys changing the absolute size of the map (in pixels), they would change what fraction of your screen the minimap covers - for example between 1/8 of screen height up to 1/3 of screen height. Some maths: assume the maximum size is 1/3 of screen height (vertical resolution). On a 1080p screen that would lead to minimap size of 360x360 px, whereas on a 1440p screen it would have to be 480x480 px (and on a 4k monitor, 720x720 px). Get it?

Essentially the proposal is: if I get lucky and roll a Super container, I want to get a pick of three Super containers instead, ie roll three instead of one. Who wouldn't want that! Unfortunately I don't see that working without some rebalancing like nerfing overall SC drop chances. If the choice was between items of the same type, it might work, but would also be less appealing. What I mean is, if you rolled a module, you could pick which module to take. Or which flags, if it rolled flags etc. But strictly between items of the same value. Like you could choose between the halloween camo or the WG anniversary camo because they both have the same bonuses, but you couldn't pick the Victory day camo or something else instead of them.

We just had an announcement of public test for version 0.6.11. As usual, everyone who participates is awarded Tier XYZ ships of all lines on the test server along with 15pt captains. My question is, why 15pt captains? Awarding 15pt comanders made sense prior to 0.6.0, but seems quite weird now. I mean it is officially claimed that public test is meant to allow people to experiment with stuff. Why not allow the participants to experiment with captain builds as well then by giving them 19pt commanders? Or at least make attaining 19pt commanders on the test server possible...