mrk421

Having separate MM for premium accounts would also all but remove all the OP premium ships from the regular queue, because most of the people that can afford buying these ships are the ones that can afford purchasing premium time. Esp. those kind of players who think buying a premium ship will make them better or have more success - they'd all siphon to premium MM. So while my initial thought about the idea was that it's a massive troll post. Now I say BRING IT ON!!!

Exactly!

Try 1.5-2.0 M FreeXP. Wit Sub_Octavian touting somewhere, think it was Reddit that considering the current FreeXP economy the Missouri is underpriced (!sic) you can bet that a T10 would cost at least 1.5M, my guess is closer to 2M FreeXP

Someone, I think it was Flamu, pointed out that the radar upgrade on the DM might be less useful than one might think. Because the base duration is so long already, that any poor sod that gets caught by it, will be dead before the duration runs out - therefore the increased duration would be wasted a lot of the time.

I more-less agree. If you've gotten 100+ battles on a premium ship, any premium, you've gotten your money's worth - everything beyond that is a bonus. It's a bit like paying for something by installments - once you've paid the final installment you still own the product and can continue using it. ...at least that's how I look at it. As for the ARP ships, TBH when the campaigns were going on, I assumed they would be able to train IJN captains - after all, they are identical ships. That's why I didn't purchase a Japanese premium and instead went for a US and Russian ship, figuring I'd have crew trainers for 3 nations. So I was a bit let down when it turned out ARP was considered a separate nation. So I don't mind the change that came with patch 0.6.9. But, like havaduck said, if you just bought the Atago recently (like last month or two), for the sole purpose of having a ship to train you IJN captains on, I can see why you'd be upset by this change.

@Ferry_25 I believe if you read my posts, it should be quite clear that I'm aware of the thread you're referring to. If it wasn't, then yes, I know of that thread and have posted some of my own suggestions there as well. What I'm trying to say is that while that thread in the gameplay section is absolutely a great thing, there are limitations to its potential. Limitations that could be dealt with if there was a whole dedicated forum section...

I think there might be a third possibility: 3. That they have stealthily introduced stealth firing back into the game ... . . . . . No, but actually I think there could be a third explanation: There's a distance, beyond which ships are not rendered in the client. That distance depends on the ship you're sailing in and is not very large for DDs for example. So it should in principle be possible for long-ranged cruisers and BBs to be shooting at a DD from beyond the distance at which they would be rendered for that DD, so effectively stealth firing. Now if they actually also manage to land their shots from that far away, they must be on mighty good terms with the RNGesus Were you sailing in a DD, OP?

I wanted to bring that up as well. AFAIK (and I'm not necessarily someone who would know) there haven't been any tweaks to the way teams are assembled for many-many months. I think the most recent changes were the move to 1 CV per team at high tiers (T8 and above if remember correctly) and the 'protected' tiers of up to T4 that get +-1 MM. And that was a looong time ago... All that time I've seen games where one team has a rather clear advantage from the start due to the ships they were assigned (which quite often, but not always, also materialises in the end result). And in most of those cases, the playing field could be leveled significantly by just swapping around 1 or 2 ships of the same class. However to my understanding this is currently not done - most likely because it's not quite straightforward on how to define the rules on how to do that. That said, for me personally at least, I cannot say that these uneven team lineups have gotten more common recently. BUT, if it were true that the cases where the opposing teams are unbalanced are becoming more common, I don't think it would be due to changes in the MM. I agree with ColonelPete that such tendency, if true, would be a symptom of the relative over-popularity of BBs compared to the other classes. There just aren't enough CL/CAs or DDs in the que to be able to balance them out nicely AND fill all the necessary places on the teams with this flood of BBs in the que. If that is the case, that's an argument AGAINST having a stricter MM because it would just make the que times waaay too long, especially outside of peak hours. Meaning the real solution would not be to have stricter MM, but instead making it fun and rewarding for more people to play the other classes -> shorter que times and more balanced teams for everyone. PS. And just for the record: I'm generally against skill based MM - I'm not convinced it would have the supposedly desired effect.

@ColonelPete did you ever look at the team lineups before the start of a battle and immediately recognise that, based solely on the ships that are on both teams, either your team or the enemy has an advantage going into the match? Please, do read on before you start writing a reply. In my experience, in most cases where this happens, I also immediately see that the disparity could be diminished by swapping two ships from the teams with each other. That is, sticking to the 24 ships that were assigned to a particular battle, by switching one ship from one team to the corresponding one from the enemy team, the disparity between the teams going into the battle could be reduced... Did you ever have a similar thought when looking at team lineups before the battle starts? I think a justified question in this case would be: why isn't it done then? OR could it be done, with some tweaks to the MM perhaps? I'm not talking about mirror MM or skill based MM or even 'even' MM. Just something that would do a better job of balancing the teams' lineups AFTER it has already selected which 24 ships will partake in a battle. I think screenshot nr.4 is a good example of a case where this could have been done. The enemy team already had 2 T6 cruisers agains 2 T7 ones. Why did it have to get the T6 DD as well? Based on those teams, there was no reason why the Akatsuki and the Fubuki could not have been swapped to help even the odds by even a little bit...

Thank you for the support mtm78! Here's my reasoning of what the benefits/advantages could be of having a dedicated suggestions' section instead of a mammoth summary thread/dedicated threads in the general Gameplay section. But before I get to that I'd like to acknowledge TheCinC for starting the suggestions collection thread - I think that's a superb thing that he's done - and also express my joy that the thread in question has been pinned. So WHY consider having a separate section dedicated to suggestions: - In the 'Gameplay' section, suggestions can easily disappear beneath the multitude of regular topics that pop up every hour - sometimes worthwhile suggestions. And many suggestions might be missed altogether - The suggestions thread in the 'Gameplay' section is and excellent starting point, however it's not an ideal place to have discussion about specific suggestions - it will get too messy with many suggestions involved. Also, even in that thread, some suggestions might go unnoticed, if the first post is not updated frequently enough - In addition to the above, a lot of ideas might require a longer explanation than would be appropriate in the suggestions thread and would preferably have a dedicated topic (which leads back to the first point) - Not all ideas people have would be appreciated by a significant fraction of the player base. In fact, some might cause a general uproar if they were even considered. By having the ability of forum members to vote 'up' or 'down' a particular suggestion, it would be easier to distinguish, which ideas can be dismissed from the start - On the flip side, with the ability to vote on suggestions, it would be much easier for the developers to determine, what sort of tweaks people are looking for or what the player base would like to see in a more general sense. TLDR; The benefits of having a section dedicated to suggestions/ideas would fall into two broad categories: their visibility and it would make it more obvious to determine what sort of tweaks the player base would like to see.

I'm an optimist by nature, so pardon me, but I think it could actually go the other way. By having the questions in separate threads instead of being randomly thrown in among all the flaming and chit-chat in one mammoth thread, I think this could result in more questions getting answered - if only because they're easier to find. Or one could hope at least that the ones that receive a lot of up-votes will. If on top of that they added a section for suggestions that worked in a similar way the Q&A section will work (with up-votes etc) that would make it much easier for WG to hear some of the great ideas the community can come up with. There is a topic in the 'General' section by TheCinC, which is a welcome effort, but it suffers from the same problem all mammoth threads do: it's difficult to pick out the suggestions from among the general chat. If those two sections were implemented and took off in a positive way, with good questions and positive suggestions getting up-voted and bad ones down-voted (I realise I'm being a bit too optimistic and naive here) then you could instead start 'actively avoiding' the 'Gameplay' section of the forums with all of its standard CVs-are-OP-nerf-CVs or There-are-too-many-BBs-in-games or When-will-so-and-so-be-released or MM-sucks or containers-suck and so on... threads.

'pops up', Tuccy, 'pops up', not 'popped up'... Present tense, because errors like this have been popping up probably since the beginning of weekly missions and continue to pop up. This is by far not an isolated incident. Have to say, if I was a WG employee, I'd be mighty embarrassed by the impression such things give to the customers.

I think this section could potentially be a great thing! 2 Questions about this section that came to mind: 1) If it takes off, you could potentially have hundreds of questions per week. In such case it might be unreasonable to expect to get an official answer from a WG member. How will you decide, which questions to prioritise answering to first? By votes? 2) Is there a possibility to always have the official answer by a WG member to be on top, even if it's not the most popular or the first one?

Hello USS Missouri!

I think it's quite fair to ask such a question, if it's about something you see repeated in several posts and desire to improve your grammar (of course a quick Internet search would also give you the answer). It is the English sub-forum after all, so this is fine - what isn't fine is when someone uses a language other than English. And it's not like the original topic was something very new and important anyway - it's a thread that pops up again and again every few days. In fact, imho that question contributed more to these forums than the original post did...

I always take the flags - you use up so many that every little bit extra you get is appreciated. Luck can still smile at you and just recently (1-2 weeks ago) I got a very welcome 50 dragon flags from a SC (the first one I had gotten since March or April). As for containers in general I think it's a great idea that has a lot of potential, but they're a bit underwhelming in the current state. I'm not being ungrateful, I'm really glad we have them, just the rewards aren't all that special compared to some other options that are out there. But I understand that WG are afraid of losing out on potential profits if they're too generous, so that's how they're handling it and I'm fine with that.

I do hope you meant to say 'containers' instead of 'games', but just made a mistake. If you run premium account, 50-60 games should net you around 10-15 containers, if you're performing well, perhaps 20 if you're also stacking up bonuses. That's way too few to justifiably feel denied. Now when you play >1000 battles and don't get a SC from any of the containers, a sadface will be warranted...

And the best part is: no actual steel is hurt when you're doing it As for the Kuma. I've been using it to pre-train a commander for the Ibuki/Zao as I'll be keeping the Mogami along with its commander. It's extremely fun when RNGesus says 'yes' and the BB shells don't magically find their way into your citadel.

The reworking of spotting mechanics had a profound effect on the gameplay of a lot of ships, primarily DDs. Not because they relied heavily on being able to stealth fire, but because since the change, they are far more likely to get detected when they fire their guns. Which has huge implications on how accessible the regular player finds these ships to be. One could also point out that while this change made DDs more complex to play, it actually helped lower tier BBs - when before the change, their detectability would bloom almost to the edge of the map after firing their guns, now it only increases by a few hundred meters in some cases. But judging by your alias, you of course already know all that... Didn't you get the memo? According to Notser as far as WG are concerned, the carrier redesign is done. They don't plan to implement anything new in the near future. Probably a lot of people, myself included, don't agree, but that's how it is ATM. Personally for me, the bigger issue with carriers are the controls, no the balance necessarily. It just takes a normal player far too long to get comfortable enough with the controls to be useful for your team in a CV. Bottom line is: WGs track record is that more-less every change to particular ships/ship lines or game mechanics they have introduced has made DDs and CL/CAs less accessible for the average player. The good and the dedicated players will of course adapt and still find success - they always do. As far as the Average Joe is concerned though, they are more likely to migrate to BBs exclusively, where they can still have fun and enjoy moderate success without being overwhelmed by all the things they need to pay attention to when playing their ship. Obviously, to be effective, you need to know what you're doing - even in a BB. Ideally however, anyone should be able to expect to enjoy moderate success regardless of what ship class they play and without feeling like they're constantly being handicapped. As things are right now, we're moving away from that situation, rather than closer to it. You can argue, but you'll be wrong.

On the positive side, if the firing from smoke penalties do go live* - even in a tweaked fashion - at least we can expect a discount on the Belfast and the Kutuzov. After all, there's a history with Wargaming of offering discounts on ships they've just nerfed massively (Blyska and some other DDs after the SF removal for example). * And you can bet they will at one point, because Wargaming does not want to admit when they're wrong. After all, admitting you've made a mistake IS a sign of weakness and insecurity** ** Being able to admit that you're wrong is ACTUALLY a sign of strength and confidence

WG could add those stat improvements in a hull upgrade costing around 10 000 doubloons or so (maybe throw in a credit income bonus) and make a fine buck or two...

An idea to help reduce the 'potato' of BB players. There should be a warning system, preferably voice-acted, to warn BB players of potential torpedo threat. Here's how it would work: 1) an enemy DD is spotted or was spotted, but has fallen out of detection near a friendly BB OR 1a) friendly BB is sailing close to a cap point which is being capped/contested by an invisible enemy 2) despite those factors, the friendly BB continues to sail obliviously in a straight line 3) In case the player continues to sail in a straight line at constant speed for 30s, he'll hear the following dialogue: Midshipman, "Enemy destroyers have been spotted in the area, captain. Should we change course in order to avoid being hit by a torpedo?" 4) To which the friendly BB captain can respond in one of two ways: 4a) Captain, "At ease sailor, I know what i'm doing!" OR 4b) Captain, "Aye! Well spotted, sailor. We will adjust course immediately!"

I like that we have this kind of troll threads ever so often. Reminds us not to have too much faith in the forum in terms of bringing about positive changes/adjustments to the game. After all, the forums are meant to be a medium for people to vent their emotions rather than for game developers to get ideas on how to improve the game.

I have to correct you there a little bit, just so people don't get misinformed: the weight of the shell has absolutely nothing to do with the drag it experiences. Drag* only depends on the velocity of the shell, it's shape (ie drag coefficient) and calibre. It is true, however, that if two shells are equal in terms of shape and calibre and travel at the same speed, the one that is heavier will be slowed down less than the lighter one - even though they experience the same drag. * the force generated by - in this case aerodynamic - friction on a moving object that slows the object down

I love it how you're being extremely critical of the mission requirements and clearly upset about them in the post and then sum it up at the end by saying that they're "genuinely quite bad" - you must be British