mrk421

I'd say around 30€ for a T8 premium is quite acceptable. Here's how I see it: If we take T8 to be the sweetspot/benchmark - which I think is a reasonable assumption, because that's what most of competitive revolves around (all the server clash events or KotS etc.) -> A typical non-AAA game title today costs around 30€ -> from a typical game you normally get from 10-30 h of gameplay -> let's say about 100 battles is a reasonable break-even point for a premium ship - the point where you got your money's worth -> that 100 games will take up to 30h to complete -> therefore - around 30€ for a T8 premium ship is a reasonable price, as that's in the same ballpark with respect to typical modern games in terms of the gameplay you get out of it compared to the initial price Naturally this should be scaled down for lower tier and up for higher tier premiums my 2¢ EDIT: otoh I personally agree that 30€ as a discounted price is a bit on the steep side.

Weird, he also has only 48% win rate in the Kutuzov... ...I thought the Kutuzov was the quintessential carry boat?

Troll spotted

Apparently the 7th season of ranked battles is coming with patch 0.6.7. Judging by the rules that were posted along with the Public Test announcement, they are the same as the previous season(s), other than the change of ship tier from T7 to T6. With that in mind I would like anyone who cares to answer the following question to see if I'm really alone with this opinion: - In your opinion, should rank 1 be reserved for human players? In my opinion, bots (or even players with very low win rate in ranked, sometimes even less than 50%) should not have a chance to reach the higher ranks, let alone rank 1. However with the rules for advancement as they have been in the past seasons, they certainly can AND WILL. This bothers me quite a bit, as for me this goes directly against the fundamental idea of what ranked battles should be - what most people expect, when they hear the term 'rank' and even what WGs own rhetoric claims. So.... Am I alone with this opinion?

Didn't play any ranked yet, but I'd say T6 is a far better choice than T7, so I approve. OTOH: we have yet another season of ranked where Bots are eligible to reach rank 1!? Am I really the only one who thinks this is wrong???

The sad part is, with these rules for advancement, reaching rank 1 is once again a matter of grind or persistence, rather than a reflection of player skill. I'm confused. According to WG ranked battles are "the principal competitive game mode of World of Warships" - where exactly is the competitive element here, when the sufficient requirement for reaching high ranks is that you have enough time on your hands and even a lucky bot can get there?

Isn't that what WG is all about though? Time and again they've offered all sorts of missions, scenarios, campaigns etc. some of which promise frankly very alluring rewards to those who complete them. Yet at the same time they make sure that the top rewards are well out of reach for all but perhaps a few per cent of the playerbase - due to the insane level of luck, skill, time or a combination of those required to achieve them.

WG seem to be quite hard of hearing. So I think the best feedback we can give them is stop playing the scenario mode on PT - like we'd do on live.

I just had a thought about the 'pay to participate' aspect. Like I said previously I agree with the people who say that it's not acceptable to charge people real money (doubloons) for the right to participate in a scenario (in the form of waiving the 30 min cooldown for taking out the same ship again). In the context of a F2P game - which is how you market WoWs - that does not fly! Because what you're essentially suggesting here, is to limit people's access to content, unless they're willing to pay up. You could argue that this content is optional anyway and people could choose to do something else while the cooldown is on, but I'm not buying that. Of course you're not actually forcing anyone to pay, only 'encouraging' and giving them 'options' - to my understanding that sort of rhetoric was widespread in the Soviet Union and we all know how well that worked out for them (the rulers that is)... However I think I thought of a compromise which might be acceptable. In the patch notes you mention that there will be a 'weekly' operation which will be available for everyone and the other operations that have been unlocked up to then are available for divisions of at least 4 people. How about you made the other scenarios also available to anyone - at the cost of doubloons. That way you could do any operation that has been unlocked by either paying doubloons or being in a division - and the weekly one without any restrictions. This way there would be a truly free alternative to spending money, which people may choose to take advantage of or not - their decision.

Managed to play all four scenarios multiple times with both random people and divisions of random people. My overall impression on the 'balance' part is that the overall difficulty level is rather high, but more importantly varies a lot between the different operations, with some being very doable and others (*cough* Aegis *cough*) being extremely challenging. I would say you could lower the difficulty level of all of the scenarios by a varying degree. I understand and agree though, that you can't make the operations too easy, because then they'd be absolutely steamrolled by people in divisions. On the other hand, like people before me have pointed out - if they're too difficult, regular players will just not find them enjoyable enough to bother with... So here's my question: why not make the normal difficulty slightly easier but disable divisions for that and only enable divisions for the hard difficulty mode? Below I will give my more detailed analysis of the four operations - as they are right now - focussing on the following aspects: ease of completion (with random players and divisions); ease of getting 5 stars; and clarity of the mission/tasks PS. Generally I really like this addition to the game and I feel it has a high chance of engaging even someone like me who otherwise plays PvP almost exclusively. Kudos!

I've posted this before, but I'll say it again. Even though I seem to be the only one who cares... Please overhaul the rewards and awards for PT. 15 point captains make no sense ever since you introduced the new captain skill tree and commander XP readjustments. Please award us at least 16-18 point captains at the beginning of the Public Test and/or speed up the captain training considerably. I would also like to see you put the new additions like containers/supercontainers etc. to use as rewards for participating and perhaps in-game missions. I think it would make a lot of sense if the rewards were up-to-date with the current state of the game.

the 20 doubloon cost to supersede the wait time - NOT COOL

I agree with the OP that this is ridiculous and the BB-mania is seriously out of control. I find it hardly surprising though, as WG are quite known for not sticking to their word (a recent YouTube-related scandal springs to mind). In fact, I challenge anyone to bring up examples where WGs actions actually coincided with their words. As a positive side effect though, at least the que times for cruisers and destroyers are really short

Just checking if my translation from WarGamingese to english is correct: Personally I'm not at all upset about the new 'special' upgrades. I just treat it as if they don't exist because they don't bring enough to the table to be used in place of the regular ones (94 per cent of the time) - so they are not affecting me at all. What DOES upset me however, is how your propaganda machine continuously tries to make some of the useless things you come up with or the dubious 'tweaks' and 'improvements' you have made to the gameplay look like the best thing ever that was made 'by taking player feedback into account'. Unfortunately there are probably a lot of people who can't see through your BS and can potentially make some ill-conceived decisions based on this hype. That is in my opinion not good business practice. I mean, it's probably effective and works, but it's dishonourable.

I would really appreciate an answer to my question about ranked battles. I believe it would be useful for many people to know so that they could make a more informed decision of if it's worth bothering with ranked battles and/or mentally prepare themselves appropriately.

The impression I get looking at all the missions and specials and campaigns that WG has organised over the year that I've played the game is that they really really don't want to give away free stuff. Probably because they're afraid that if they're too generous it will cut into their earnings. However they seem to understand or at least acknowledge the possibility that it's a good idea to allow players to earn all sorts of rewards so as to incentivize them to spend more time playing the game. What to do when you don't want to give out good rewards, even though you know you should? WG's solution: make it LOOK like you're giving out nice rewards, while in reality you're not. So they put together these missions and loudly advertise the cool things you can earn, but at the same time design the requirements for getting the more meaningful rewards so high, that only very few people will have the time, patience or ability to actually earn them. Let me be clear: I don't feel that I'm entitled to free stuff from WG so this is not a whine about "I want moar free stuff WG!". it's their right to decide if and how much they want to give away for free and I'm not trying to tell them what to do. I will say this however: If you don't respect your playerbase and think of them like idiots who blindly believe and accept everything you say and can't see through your BS, it is going to cost you WAY more business than being too generous ever could. Considering that WG are based in developing countries, it's understandable that they're no aware of it, but that's how it works in the developed world - people are generally willing to spend far more money on products from companies whom they feel appreciate their customers than those who don't. If WG insists on continuing on the same path they've been on, here's an idea for a future campaign: - The reward will be the premium T9 US destroyer, the USS Black - The campaign will last for 2 weeks - For the final mission, to unlock the Black, the requirements would be: In one battle, survive and win the battle and; cause at least 300 000 damage to enemy ships; destroy at least 9 enemy ships; get at least 5 'captured' or 'assisted capture' flags; shoot down at least 3 enemy aircraft, ship requirements: must be sailing a US DD, CA/CL or DD of Tier 6 or higher.

On the one hand I understand and agree with the OP's suggestion, because it would make things much easier and cleaner - esp. for the newer players - when all the skills that you can choose from on the tree will benefit your captain on the ship you're sailing at least a little bit On the other hand, there are a lot of skills in the current tree that can be useful to any ship class in some situation. With this much overlap we'd have in the skill trees the question becomes: is the benefit of separating the skill trees big enough, considering there's so much overlap On the other hand, BECAUSE there is this quite a big overlap of skills that can benefit most ship classes (CVs possibly being the exception as their gameplay is very different), it shouldn't take too much extra effort to separate the trees as you wouldn't need to design a whole lot of new skills On the other hand, there are so many skills in the current tree that you can't possibly get them all anyway AND on each line there are already multiple skills to choose from for each ship class - you just have to know what you're doing On the other hand, having skill trees tailored to each class would allow the introduction of some potentially cool more specialised skills for which there just isn't enough room on the current tree On the other hand, having unique skill trees would raise the question of captain swapping. If for example you want to retrain your DD captain on your premium cruiser - would any of their skills work on the cruiser or could they even operate the cruiser? To sum up: there are positives and negatives to consider either way. For me, I tend to lean towards being in favour of separating the skill trees mostly for the extra options that could open up.

... Or when your team has 2 DDs vs enemy's 3 and your 2 DDs are AFK for 5 minutes. Or you know the game where you're in the team with 5 DDs vs eney team's 4 and 2 minutes into the game 4 of your 5 are There's lots of BS that can happen. You can't really argue tho, that if everything goes according to plan, the team that gets one DD when the enemy gets none, almost always has a big advantage. Still I'm not too tied up about the MM, at least in randoms, because the numbers of ships don't tell you anything about the quality of their captains. And with a semi-decent team you can overcome any odds. I mean just an hour ago my team faced an enemy with a 3-ship division with a Flint. Yet somehow our team managed to more-less neutralise said division and while it was quite close in the end, claim a victory.

I think you got it wrong dude, and you sort of proved my point - probably not intentionally.

I have two questions: 1) We are currently at patch 0.6.4. Will we one day get to 1.k.i and would that entail a completely new or severely reworked/overhauled game engine? Is there anyone looking into this possibility at all as of now? 2) What is your stance on ranked battles? As it is right now player ranks are more a reflection of the payer's ability/willingness to grind rather than their skill. Anyone who says that reaching rank one is a matter of being a skilled player rather than your willingness to grind to rank 1 is ignoring the facts (I agree that being skilled will speed up the process immensely and is a big advantage, but that is besides the point). So the question is: according to WG, should the higher ranks be reachable only to the more skillful players or is it OK, if it's just a matter of grind? If it's the former, I can give you some ideas on how to effectively and even more effectively achieve that varying from requiring you to change almost nothing at all to a more-less complete overhaul on how player ranks are calculated for maximum effectiveness

To the OP: it is indeed quite difficult to understand what exactly you were trying to say with your post, so it's understandable some people would comment on that. But don't let those people stop you from trying to seek help as there are plenty of people in these forums who can and want to assist Here's my interpretation of what the issue was that the OP wanted to communicate: First our hero is playing a CL and engaging and enemy BB. He keeps doing minimal damage, while the enemy BB deletes him in two salvos. Next the situation is reversed. He's playing in the BB and being engaged by enemy CL, who's sailing broadside. He keeps shooting at the CL and getting only overpens, if that, while the enemy cruiser is causing all sorts of hurt with shells, fires etc. So I think what the OP is asking is that how is it that he seems to always be at a disadvantage, even in situations where theoretically he should have the advantage. To which I can say: I think we've all been there at one point or another. There's no sorcery involved, sometimes the RNG just says "no" - while it's frustrating, you just have to accept it and move on. Because it's not going to change as long as this big RNG element remains in the game. Also keep in mind, that you tend to remember more vividly the occasions where the RNG was working against you and quickly forget the games where luck was on your side - during those games you just say to yourself "man I'm good at this game!" A typical example for me would be: I'm sailing in my Graf Spee shooting at a BB near my max gun range. 10 HE salvos with 20+ hits, I set 1 fire. Next game I'm sailing in my Scharnhorst being engaged by an enemy Graf Spee. Three separate salvos, 3 fires set. Infuriating! Or you set 3 fires in your Chapa with one salvo and then in the next 90 seconds not a single one. In the post-battle screen the total number of fires set is about what you'd expect, just the timing can screw you over big time. So yeah...

Do you mind answering this: As you keep making the game more and more punishing for ship classes other than BBs, in your research, do you consider that over time only the more capable players will keep playing these ships which will in turn make those ships look far more competitive than they are in reality?

Either you have misunderstood something or didn't manage to explain it very well. But just to limit the amount of misinformation out there, let me correct you: HE absolutely NEEDS to penetrate in order to do direct damage (it can set fires regardless, whether it penetrates or not). However where HE differs from AP is that HE cannot over-penetrate (as far as I know) and HE cannot bounce/ricochet. That is if an HE shell has enough power to penetrate some thickness of armour, it will do that irrespective of the angle at which it hits the armour - whereas AP shells, if they don't overmatch will ricochet doing 0 damage if the hitting angle is too steep (even if they would normally be able to penetrate that armour).

I'm sorry but when was the last time you played a random battle without being in a division? Because if you had played recently you'd know that the scenario you're describing would not unfold the way you described for many-many months now. NO CL/CA will push towards a cap if they don't have DDs ahead screening for them. And the first one that does, gets blown out of the water in mere seconds, unless they get the rare combination of skill AND luck. So no, having 1 DD vs 0 is not an inconvenience, but a massive advantage for the team who has the DD. And "...as long as the other team knows what they are doing." LOL It's amazing how WG staff seems to work in this parallel universe where things actually unfold the way they envision they should and people play their ships the way they're supposed to. The reality, I'm afraid, is quite different most of the time.

On topic: Low tier ships are generally quite slow, especially the battleships. So making the maps larger would mean you spend the first 5+ minutes of the game just getting to shooting range which would not be fun at all.