mrk421

That definition is severely lacking, as it is completely omitting the crying. If I'm not mistaken, the term BBaby is just a shortened form of "BB Cry Baby" Yes, I acknowledged that some posts ago. And it might be true. Perhaps as something for ranked, as that is supposedly meant for the more hardcore players? But tbh I'm perfectly fine with nothing like this in the game. I do quite often think that it would be nice to have a little more sophistication to this game, especially since RNG plays such a big role that it can often eliminate a large part of the sophistication that might already be there (I mean on a game-by-game basis - obviously in the long run skill is the major factor).

I don't think it would be as bad as you imagine. Then again, it probably wouldn't work as nicely as I have in my mind either. Anyway would be nice to hear a few more opinions on this... And regarding static gameplay and salt, I'm sure WG has at least 10 new things in the pipeline as we speak, to increase both of them.

Because torpedo tubes have instant reload and there's no turnaround time for planes? Obviously you'd have to weigh the risks of whether it's worth it to go after the survivors or not. I do see your point that such complex mechanics might be too difficult for the general player base to come to grips with. Just sometimes I let my optimism get the better of me and think that who knows, maybe people are capable of adapting.

Exactly what I was going to say... I agree with most of what you said. However, "500 or 1000 doubloons" for compensation... LOL. Try more like 20-30 for fair value

First of all @MrKonfuzed I think that it's great that you care enough about this game to spend time thinking of ideas on how to make it even more enjoyable/interesting, and posting those ideas on the forums. It's players like these who keep the game alive and well in the long term. I'm only going to comment on a couple of the ideas you had, so here goes: I'm not sure I understand correctly, but I get the impression you're talking more along the lines of visual customisation without any economic benefits. If that's the case, I agree fully and have thought for a long time now that that's a potential source of revenue WG are completely omitting as of now. I don't know exactly what form they should come in, but it should be something that's not very labour-intensive to implement. Why not sell the ability to design and mount your clan flag for example. Another one that should be easy enough would be to sell the ability to change the colours on existing camo patterns. I think WG should really look into it! Well, they sort of implemented something along those lines in the Dunkirk historic scenario. A few other people have suggested something similar, and I think there could be potential there, if we tweak the proposal a little bit. First of all, obviously no humans would be animated, it would be just numbers, so the "gory factor" argument shouldn't be an issue. I think it could work somewhat similarly to how it was in the Dunkirk event: When a friendly ship died, your team wouldn't lose points instantly and the enemy team wouldn't gain them instantly. Instead, there would be an area around the shipwreck filled with survivors. Over time, the number of survivors would decrease and with that number decreasing, your team would lose points and enemy team would gain points. When all survivors died, the points gain/loss would be the same it is now for each class of ship. However, if a friendly ship entered the area of survivors, the number would stop decreasing for the duration. If the friendly ship was traveling slowly enough, they would start "picking up" the survivors and by doing that reduce the amount of points your team could potentially lose and the enemy team gain for the sunken ship. If more than one friendly ship was inside the area, they'd recover survivors more quickly. Something like this could potentially have a few positive effects on gameplay, I think: a) it would encourage people to sail in tighter groups rather than a few people going off in their own direction, b) it might reduce the number of very one-sided matches and c) it might even encourage a few players to take on a few more risks, cause they know that if they die it doesn't spell certain defeat for their team. Sure, if you lose ships you're down on firepower, but if you at least manage not to lose so many points instantly, it might leave room for comeback...

(1) First of all, I don't understand what you mean by this part, care to elaborate? (2) You bet things will get worse at higher tiers! In fact, all of the things you listed tend to really become an issue at the higher tires, beyond T7/8, so I find it highly dubious that you "noticed those things while playing for a week". Seems more likely you've been reading the forums a bit... Welcome BTW

With the BB HE meta brought on by the RN, the skill factor of managing your DCP has been made essentially irrelevant. You either: a) burn the DCP on one fire, get set on fire again (potentially on multiple locations) and take massive burning damage OR b) wait until you have 2-3 fires going before burning the DCP, taking massive burning damage during the process and then might get set on fire again for even more burning damage before you can find cover OR c) you're very disciplined, and wait until you break line of sight before using your DCP, despite potentially having multiple fires raging on your ship, which will cause you massive burning damage as well. So, really, in the current meta, the only way to avoid ridiculous amounts of burning damage is to be able to position yourself in a way you can break LoS and not get HE spammed in the first place.

First a little background discussion or a foreword if you will: Put very briefly, what I'm proposing is this: what if there was a system in-game - it could be either opt-in or automated somehow - which made the game slightly more forgiving for the not-so-good players at the expense of lowered credit and XP gains AND slightly more rewarding for the better players by improved accuracy, credit and XP gains. That's it, that's the core concept. This is what I'd like us to discuss: would something like this help to improve the gaming experience of all players? And what would it take to make it work? Of course I've had some time to think about those questions myself and some potential ways a system like this could be abused and how to counteract that etc. I probably couldn't think of everything but that's where this community comes in . I'll put my initial thoughts in spoilers so as to hopefully not prejudice anyone: Hopefully we can get a good and constructive discussion going.

Quick question: can anyone confirm whether the amount of credits you earn for a battle depends on win/loss or not? I know there's a +50 % multiplier for base XP for a victory. And afaik the base credits earned should correlate with base XP, but is that before or after the victory multiplier?

Thx for the fast responses guys! I suspected winning gives no additional bonus, but wanted to make sure. Because you tend to have better performance when your team wins, which would lead to the tendency you're describing.

I'm sorry if maths hurts your brain But I respectfully disagree. The forum is a place where people can vent themselves more than anything. Most people vent about the MM or weekend warriors or a ship they might feel is OP, others vent maths... I say let them have at it!

Everyone would, duh... They are the most versatile of the rewards, which is why WG wouldn't want to give them out hand-over-fist. And frankly, I'm a bit surprised they are as common as they seem to be... To each their own... I'd consider FXP the least valuable. For me 24h premium would be more useful, because when you stack that with some appropriate flags, you can get massive boost in all: credits, XP and FXP - it's not uncommon to make >5000 FXP in a single game if you have a good game and stack your bonuses. So 5000 FXP is really, rather meh. But for someone who's running premium account constantly anyway, I can see how this option would not be that appealing.

So, judging by what people have reported so far it would seem that, actually, the chances to get either 5k FXP, 24h Premium of 250 Dbl are relatively equal, which is better than I expected. With Doubloons possibly being slightly less common (the 250 Dbl version, >500 Dbl is probably extremely rare), but the sample size so far is too small to say that with high confidence. Only thing that can be excluded already is that Doubloons are much less common than the other two. Which, I think, is quite kind of WG...

Question in the title. Edit: By "dead" I mean "abandoned by WG staff" So, it was a nice idea... on paper. Too bad you guys didn't follow through

Well, I do hope no-one posting on this section is hoping to get a reply from a WG employee, as apparently all questions are forwarded straight into a black hole...

First of all, I understand your reservations. While my posts in this thread may not convey it, I have had the same fears/thoughts and I have considered them at great lenght. (1) I find it funny how people assume that there's only two options with respect to a potential "handicap" mode: a) no "handicap" mode or b) make people who opt for the "handicap" mode completely immortal and immune to any sort of damage. If there was a scale going between option (a) and option (b) where (a) would sit at "1" and (b) at "10", what I would propose would probably be at 2, 3 at the most, nowhere near 9 or 10! (2) In my proposal, if you read it again, good players would get compensation for the advantages "handicap" mode people had: in the form of better credit/XP gains and, perhaps more importantly, in the form of improved dispersion, which would actually allow them to have more of those satisfying moments you talk about. If you think about it, dispersion is the ultimate skill balancer in this game. So in a way it's already in the game...

@ghostbuster_and regarding your idea, that new players should just "try harder" to get better, grinding their teeth the whole way. Well, I'm not so sure it's working in reality. I don't know any stats, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the majority of new players who try this game quit after 2 days or so, because they find it too damn unfun. Without enough new players coming in, unfortunately, this game cannot sustain itself for very long...

First I'm going to clarify once again, just to make it clear: I'm not advocating for a "handicap" mode for my own benefit. In fact, if something like this was in the game, I personally wouldn't need to use it. Now. Do you really think that it's fair to compare when you started to play this game (in closed beta?), to someone starting today or next month?! First of all, there's so much more choice in terms of available ship lines, so many more gimmicks associated with those lines AND the skill cap between the best and the worst players has probably increased at least tenfold - so learning to play the game from scratch right now isn't anything what it was 2-3 years ago! BTW, any comments on the post I made earlier today (post #28) or did you find my reasoning agreeable?

Are you enjoying the ship?

So [OWNED] is accepting average players in its ranks? Since when and where do I sign up? JK, I'm quite happy with the clan I'm in currently

Yeeaaaahh... I don't find your argument convincing, I'm not buying it. Chiefly because you seem to be adamant at ignoring the key point I'm trying to get across. I'll try it one last time... I claimed, "1 minute of being engaged in a PvP battle with other players can teach a player more than 10 minutes spent watching a YouTube video or a stream of a good player playing the game. Therefore, if there was a way to allow worse players to survive even an extra minute or two into a battle to see it unfold would go a long way towards helping them get overall better at the game. I submit that more good players should be the goal..." Please, address this one before any other point you might want to comment on. Two more points: 1) I would say, that "noobs" fall for the most part into one of two broad categories: a) those who push too aggressively and get killed right at the very start of the match and b) those who camp at the very back for the duration of the battle because they're too afraid of getting shot at. Noobs of type (a) breed the type (b), because the (b)-s see that "pushing is dangerous, so it's best to stay safe". Now if there was a mode which allowed bad players to have a chance (not "get away with playing stupidly with impunity") to escape from a bad situation they put themselves in, type (a)-s might learn the lesson of when to push and when not to and type (b)-s would see that "you don't always necessarily die when you move forward, so maybe I should try that..." Overall in time this would build up the correct skills and confidence of those players so that once they "remove the training wheels" they can be valuable members to their teams. 2) I like this argument of, "It teaches players to handle their ships differently than they would without those small advantages", because when you actually look at it, it's quite clear that this is complete BS. Because, currently, without any advantages, the "noobs" are using their ships wrongly - that's the whole problem isn't it??? So, if any advantages would make them use their ships differently to wrongly - chances are at least some of them might actually learn to use their ships in the correct way. Now there's a thought... Looking at your stats you're an excellent player. Are you really saying that you would mind it if players who are overall bad at this game had a few minor leeways compared to you in terms of survivability? If so, I find such attitude mind-boggling. It's not like that would affect your results in any meaningful way or give them an edge over you - you always have the edge due to your experience, tactical and map awareness.

First of all, I didn't make this post for my own benefit. I'm already performing well above the average player and actively trying to improve my game. And I am able to get better regardless of any changes the developers make, even if they make the balance far worse than currently. It's possible my logic is flawed. Do you mind pointing it out for me? Just look at this quote and say where I got it wrong if you'd be so kind. It's from the same post you quoted, just slightly above your quote, but it seems you didn't read that part:

LOL! That was a rather poorly chosen example wasn't it? Of all the ships, Atlanta is probably the least affected by that particular change (or maybe indirectly it even got a buff in terms of its gun bloom range, I don't remember/know)...

Errm, perhaps because unlike skill based MM, what I'm proposing would not significantly affect the stats of those stats obsessed people. How I spend my time in or outside of this game is hardly relevant to the discussion here.. Judging by your stats it seems more likely you're an alt account rather than a completely new player (or just just get a lot of hand-holding), which probably makes it less relevant to ask what you think would be useful to help with the learning curve of new players. Exactly! The "real thing" is playing random battles with other players. If you wanna use the term "training wheels", sure, I'm cool with that. And yes, essentially that is the basic idea and how exactly it would be implemented is not important at this point. Continuing on that analogy of training wheels I don't see how that could be a problem. Lots of kids learn to ride a bike with the help of training wheels. Does that mean they don't learn to ride without them or ride weirdly for the rest of their lives? I don't think so... I'd say that any minute spent in the battle teaches more than 10 minutes watching a Youtube video on the game or a live stream -> if we can extend the lifespan of the poor players by even 1-2 minutes, I think that would go a long way towards ultimately improving their skill (and much more quickly than they otherwise would to boot). You sir, and @22cm are so far the only ones seem to have at least somewhat gotten the message of my OP, so kudos to you. It's not about how it's done exactly, but the general idea of easing the learning curve of the bad player to allow them to improve. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Obviously. Dude, please go away and don't come back to this thread again. I want to believe you're just trolling, because if you were being serious, that would imply your IQ is actually lower than your win rate and I'd like to think better of you.