Jump to content

Glacis_UK

Players
  • Content Сount

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2771

About Glacis_UK

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

91 profile views
  1. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    Yes, I know. Check out later postings. I changed my mind in the end.
  2. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    Yes and No. My idea was to eliminate the "Service" charge, and compensate for it by reducing the amount of credits that would be earned in the battle accordingly. I saw very clearly that a repair bill based on damage received tends to encourage players to avoid playing in order to preserve credits, and reduces satisfaction all around. I recognize that later posters are responding to earlier points that may have been conceded later, so I can't fault you for thinking I still needed to be convinced. Around the end of the second page of this discussion, thanks to patient posters who understood what I was trying to say, and could explain why it wouldn't really work, I have conceded that my idea was not really workable. Thanks for your polite contribution!
  3. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    A good question, and it probably wouldn't be worth doing.
  4. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    Jeeze, who is throwing ultimatums at you, then? Me? I don't think so. And I was perfectly aware that if it bothered me too much I could uninstall and quit playing, just in case you thought I felt trapped. I don't, so I won't. Listen, I have no reason to think less of you for disagreeing with me -- and other posters have pretty much convinced me that my idea was not sound, without feeling the need to tell me that I could either accept it or shove off. Please have a nice day!
  5. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    As I have indicated in other responses made by thoughtful posters, you make a good point here. Yes, well, the service fee isn't necessarily the only thing I have a problem with. It's just the thing that struck me today after one battle, and something I hadn't run into before. See my earlier post about how these ships are enormously faster than their real-world counterparts. The Fletcher, for example, moves at 109 mph, if you time it past buoys and divide the time into hull length. But if they real-worlded the game as to speed, they've have to allow a full hour for a battle, and most of the time would spent steaming to somewhere! Of course camo wears off --- WG must make a profit somehow! A freemium game must find clever ways to make money, after all. I don't fault them for it.
  6. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    You may be right about that. I wonder if it has been tried?
  7. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    You wound me, sir! :-) I do accept that there is a fixed service cost! I'm just arguing that it is unnecessary, as the same effect could be achieved by adjusting other factors (and I might be wrong about this!). The game does not need to be "real-worlded" to death -- game play would suffer enormously if it were to hew too closely to the real world. For example, do you understand that the ships in the game move far faster than their real life counterparts? You can calculate this easily by timing a ship as it moves through one of the buoys surrounding the caps, then dividing the time into the ship's real-world length. The real-world USS Fletcher's speed was 36 knots (41 mph or 67 kph). I timed my Fletcher dd, and at full speed it moves through its own length of 376 feet (114 m) in 2.35 seconds. That works out to 109 mph or over two and a half times its real world speed. Similar unrealistic speed results can be obtained for every ship in WoWS. Another thing: torpedoes. Neither DDs nor CAs carried infinite reloads of the things in reality. Yet WoWS destroyers and cruisers can fire torpedoes as fast as they can reload and for as long as the battle lasts. BUT if the game represented the real performance of these ships, it would bore everyone to death. So, a reasonable degree of unrealism MUST exist. But besides all that, what's with the "my way or the highway" attitude? "Accept [this] or don't play." Cannot reasonable people disagree in an agreeable fashion?
  8. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    Yes, I know that it was changed to stop players from avoiding action. What you're saying is that if players know they will be docked a service charge and they must first overcome that charge before they are in the "black", as it were, they will play more actively. I see this -- no mystery there. You're wording this in a way that makes a lot more sense than some of the other posts in this thread. I am willing to concede that you might be correct, and not only that, can actually and effectively explain why you might be correct. On the other hand, if the amount of raw or gross credits that were awarded were simply reduced to the point that ammo and other charges could threaten net credits, this would (in my opinion, at least) also incentivize players in the same way, without applying an arbitrary "Service" charge. Has that aspect been playtested at all? By the way, I suspect I am being way too cranky over this issue, but so many lovely posters have chimed in about it in reply, that I feel I must respond to them all! I wouldn't want them to feel ignored or neglected! That is some very interesting and valuable information! I hadn't know this, and I thank you for it!
  9. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    I do know this. And if WG was trying to be all real-world about it, they'd do what you say here: charge for daily maintenance even for ships that the player never plays. But since that would incentivize only those players who were obsessed with the game, and drive away casual players, who probably outnumber the obsessed, they can't do that and keep it a "freemium" game.
  10. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    I am relieved that there is at least one who can. Obviously my ability to explain things needs an upgrade. Or else more folks would see my point.
  11. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    Well, I finally got one poster to see my point, so it isn't a total loss. Not that it matters, because WG isn't taking notes on my complaints/whining. It's just a question of mathematics and incentivizing players to spend IRL money. I say you could get the result in a slightly different way, that would actually make a little more sense, but hardly anyone seems to be able to see what I am trying to say. In the end, I just hope that WG continues to make a profit on this game, because I want to keep playing it.
  12. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    Yeah, I'll buy that one. Since I'm the only one complaining about it. On the other hand, I am correct that it is a meaningless token. But if others like it, who am I to judge?
  13. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    As it turns out, I DO stay away from playing higher tier ships when I am trying to build up credits. And I play them when I don't care about credits and just want to play them because they're fun. Thanks for the advice about India Bravo.
  14. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    OK, you're entitled to your surprise, if you want it. I play this game nearly every day. I enjoy it tremendously, but I am not a "Gamer", and I don't meticulously research everything trying to figure out the optimum tactics and strategies to maximize my results so I can own every Tier 10 ship in the game. I post here in the forum only rarely. There's plenty of things that I don't know about the game. But I pay real money occasionally for Premium, and have bought other Premium things, because I enjoy the game and feel it is worth my investing in it. All I wanted to know was, what was the deal about the Service fee when I hadnt so much as got my fenders scratched. And then, thanks to everyone who responded, I found out. I'm happy with that. I am even happy that people disagree with me over whether or not the credit allocation scheme in the game makes sense or not. Freedom of speech and all that. But kindly stop chiding me because I didn't know about this wrinkle two years ago when it was implemented. I really don't understand your point here. I paid real IRL money for a couple of Premium ships. One I use frequently, the other I use rarely, if at all. I'm not going to try to tell you I paid nothing for it, just because I didn't use it. What does this have to do with what I've been trying to say about the meaningless Service fee? That I also don't pay if I don't use the ship? :-) What does this have to do with anything? I'm quite aware of it, btw.
  15. Glacis_UK

    What is the charge for "Service"?

    How hard can it be to understand that I understand why it was introduced? And that if the effect is to keep players from hiding in corners, I am happy about it? I do not want the old system back. But if all the Service fee does is arbitrarily reduce my net credits, regardless of what I do in the battle, you could accomplish motivating players to play just as easily by reducing the gross amount of credits awarded for overall performance, and only subtract credits that reflect what I actually do in the battle? Like how many torps and shells I fired and running into team mates, and camo and such I bought. It's hopeless. I am trying to tell you people that the Service thing is a arbitrary, meaningless and irritating number that annoys me. And it annoys me because it doesn't reflect any kind of reality. It could be eliminated with appropriate adjustment in other columns and the net result would be exactly the same.
×