TeaAndTorps

1) Can be done in a training room, with clanmates for example. I think having it as a result game mode would be tricky, given e.g. automatic radar imbalance. 2) Every single warship in the game would have carried plenty of ammo of both/all types to last a 20 minute engagement. (Except maybe if they were packing incendiary shells for shore bombardment missions, but that's not really relevant here). Torps are the exception but they have to be unlimited for game balance reasons. It's fine as is. 3) As repairs do not cost credits, I don't really see the point. As can be seen from the recent thread about the Inventory, the port UI is complicated enough for people to miss features already; no need to make it more so. Also, imagine the salt if a teammate decides to bring only 75% HP to a battle. 4) Ah, that flag's called a 'jack' in English. I mean, why not? I guess it's unlikely to be a priority for the Devs though, at the end of the day.

Well, clearly it hasn't in WOWS. As it happens, WOWS is the only online multiplayer game I play, so I'm afraid I can't speak for other titles. I expect it wouldn't be too hard for someone with the time, resources, knowledge and necessary data to model the outcomes of doing what you suggest, to arrive at a balance of nerfing credit income and increasing other running costs that punishes poor play without premium at a similar level to the current system. It's a fairly simple formula, after all. I would emphasise again though – if you remove fixed service costs, you remove the automatic economic penalty for AFKers/sleepers. There's no way of getting around that, and I doubt you'll find many people willing to get rid of it. What would be more complicated would be testing the psychological impact, i.e. how your proposed system would change player behaviour. The question, really, is why it would be worth going to the effort of doing any of this when the current system does what it's supposed to.

The thing is, I'm not sure that would have the same effect. One important part of the service-fee model, as I see it, is that AFK players will always lose credits, and players who play extremely passively or don't have the requisite skills will lose credits on higher tiers. I don't think you could replicate that by simply reducing gross credit earnings and having camo, premium consumables and ammo resupply as the only deductions. Unless you massively increased the cost of all of those, which would create perverse incentives to play poorly (by not firing your guns as much, by not taking a camo, or by not taking premium consumables at tiers where you frankly need them).

That's good, I'm having that.

Yes, getting More Resources all the time these days. I'm aiming to complete the Vive la France collection (wasn't able to play enough to do so at the time) and the Dunkirk collection (was before I joined the game) through the Arsenal. Really, the only disappointing possibility in those crates is more ramming flags... I might go back to picking camos and signals if I run out of some important combat signal like India Delta, but I can also just get a pile of those with coal and a 50% voucher or two... I realise that's an inefficient use of coal in some ways, but I'm not that interested in any of the ships currently available in the arsenal, and it doesn't seem significantly less efficient than opening signals boxes hoping to get the ones you want.

This. The distinction between 'easiest to play well' and 'easiest to feel like you're playing well (even if you don't understand how to play it well)' is an important one which should be made more often. And I say that as someone who was quite recently at the 'not understanding how to play it well' stage, and still has some way to go before I can consistently apply my – still patchy – theoretical knowledge of positioning, planning ahead, being useful without overextending etc. in practice – in both cruisers and BBs, tbf.

As others have said, it's really nice seeing someone with a good attitude like this. Thanks, OP You can get more info about the spotting mechanics on the wiki page here, too: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Detection I can tell you from recent personal experience that, along with the forum, the wiki is another fantastic source of information about these kinds of questions.

Ooh and what about the other two times in the past 3 weeks that OP has posted inaccurate or readily available info claiming it was a 'leak'? First it was a copy-and-paste of the 0.7.8 dev bulletin ('leaked', apparently), then a 'credible source in the devblog team' with a 'tip-off' that premium ammo would be happening in a couple of patches' time, and now this. This is not just bait; this is extraordinarily tedious, lazily executed bait marinated for 48 hours in the lowest-quality bull excrement.

And has pretty fast-turning turrets for a T5 BB. The major weakness is an above-the-waterline citadel which will get your broadside punished hard if you expose it, but as the numbers presented in the thread linked above show, that weakness is not exactly enough to make it balanced at its tier. If you come across an angled target that you can't overmatch, and there are no better targets for your AP, you switch ammo and quite easily turn your opponent's deck into an oversized HE-fired pizza oven

I can't decide whether or not I'm a little bit sad that my first ever 100k+ game was in top-tier battle in a ship as, ahem, balansd as the Giulio. I definitely am sad that I didn't manage to get the last 690 damage for the kill on that Hiei but altogether a fun battle, playing 'backstop' as my team flanked pushed round the map through the other flank. On a generally... mixed... evening, things came together nicely here.

I joined the game around the same time as you left, and I still find it really fun (more so since I got a grip on the game mechanics ) though I can't really speak for the high-tier meta. Yes there are some rollover defeats/victories, but I still get mostly enjoyable battles tbh. The other change I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is the introduction of mirrored MM – so each team gets the same number of each class and tier, at least outside graveyard hours. If you have two T7 DDs, so does the enemy, and so on. It can occasionally mean someone gets dragged into an inappropriately high-tier battle to mirror a fail division, but that's much rarer than the old 2 vs 3 DDs used to be. Altogether I think it's a very positive change. The introduction of the Arsenal is great too.

I know right, I've had the same. But it should be there in the client. Counting 25 days from the start date (27 July) also gives 21 August as the last day of the competition. So that gives us a day afterwards to spend any last tokens, if 0.7.8 does indeed go live that Thursday.

The last day is the 21st, I believe – it should say so somewhere in the Go Navy tab in the game client, IIRC. The announcement on the website says that tokens will be converted into credits after 0.7.8 is deployed (just above the start of the 'Containers' section). Which I'm guessing will be on the 23rd, but that is only a guess. EDIT: Sorry, forgot to quote @Oldschool_Gaming_YT

Presumably so – I'm just not convinced that either is a particularly good criterion (even before you take into account the Finns' perspective on b)!). But I suppose WG decides on the basis of what relevant laws and their markets demand/will tolerate, so meh. It doesn't wind me up particularly, I just find it odd/surprising.

I'd always wondered why WW1-era German ships in the game had a nearly-Nazi-but-not-quite ensign instead of the IGN ensign, and why the IGN flag couldn't just be put on all German ships with the aim of giving WW2 ships an ensign that really existed but doesn't include a Nazi symbols. I hadn't realised that the IGN ensign could also be covered by the same ban. So I learned something new today. (On a more-or-less related note, I've never understood the thinking that leads to the Rising Sun being beyond the pale, but hammer-and-sickles being fine.)

This is a good, thorough explanation of how bonuses stack for free XP and captain XP, from the NA forums: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/146130-so-you-want-to-maximize-your-free-xp-gain/ Altogether more lucid than I could manage on my own

I'd say the event is pretty well designed so that everyone gets a decent amount of free stuff, whether their chosen team wins or loses. So, moving on...

I got a 35k FXP supercontainer back when I was very new to the game and, in my naivety, used it to skip all the way to the Mutsuki with like 2 randoms in Wakatake as my most advanced experience of DDs. 'Gratification' is not exactly the word I'd use to describe what happened next I imagine something similar happens at T9-10 if you haven't got enough T6-T8 experience first.

So if we say for argument's sake that you average +/- 400,000 credits a game (if 600,000 is where you top out), and it takes about 20 million to buy and kit out a T9 ship, you would need +/- 50 games to be able to afford to do so. I don't see how that's an unreasonable expectation for getting your hands on a fully kitted-out high-tier ship. According to warships.today (I looked for the purposes of these sums) you've played 841 games in the past 97 days, which is an average of 8.67 games per day, so that credit grind should be done in less than a week of normal gameplay. Hell, even if you average 200k credits per battle, it's less than two weeks. That still doesn't seem unreasonable at all. The Missouri thing would be an issue if earning credits/getting to T10 was a race against other players. But it isn't, so I'm afraid I don't see the problem. And no, I don't have a Missouri. The idea of ever having 750k FXP all at once still seems like a very far-off ambition for me tbh. Earning the credits to buy your next ships gives you an opportunity to: – Level up your commander – Bank free XP without paying to convert it (which is a monstrously inefficient use of doubloons anyway) – [Edited to add] Play your favourite ships some more – Most importantly, develop your knowledge and experience of the game, which you will need even more at high tiers. Maybe if you look at it that way, it will feel less like a grind?

The problem with using WR for skill-based MM is that it would presumably just result in the vast majority of players trending towards 50%, making it useless after some time in use. And it would create very long queue times for those at both extreme ends of the curve in the meantime. A more practical suggestion might be a system like the one for Ranked, but given how resoundingly popular that isn't, I'd rather not, thanks very much. That's before you even ask whether the playerbase is big enough to support it. Something along the lines suggested by @ColonelPete sounds more feasible. But then you get into questions like: How does MM measure skill? How does it take tier and class into account? How does it deal with divisions? I very much doubt the answers to those questions would satisfy everyone; people would still find something to complain about. So while I'm not suggesting that everything is perfect now, I can also see why WG prefer to keep MM relatively simple rather than complicating it further for (probably) marginal gains.

Because your win rate is precisely what it says: the percentage of your games you have won over the course of your time playing WOWS. Websites like warships.today and wows-numbers.com include tools that will show you your win rate over the last x days once you've been using them for a while (you have to look yourself up first, before any of your data gets into their databases), and graphs on which you can track your progress. Would it be nice if similar features were integrated into players' profiles on the official website? Maybe. But I can't see any good argument for replacing your lifetime WR with only the last 100 battles. Why should people be able to manipulate their stats in this way? Base XP is a pretty poor measure of how well you played for the win (see also: unpopularity of 'save-a-star' system in ranked battles), so I don't see how this could possibly work out well. It might be nice to see a player's average position in the team, but again: base XP as it is currently implemented is a poor measure of how well you actually played, so I doubt people would really care that much. No, by far the best and most satisfying way to improve your WR is to learn how to play the game better. It's not the easiest way perhaps, but that's surely what makes it worth doing. There are lots of people on these forums who are far more competent than me and who are willing to help out newbies who ask for it and show a good attitude and willingness to learn (so not: '[insert game mechanic] OP, plz nerf'). Hell, they've helped me a lot over the last several months. If you ask (probably best in a different thread...), you shall receive. iChaseGaming's Captain's Academy YouTube videos are worth checking out in the meantime. Read the game mechanics sections of the wiki as many times as it takes. Watch good players on Twitch and try to learn from them (in no particular order, Flamu, Izolate, ClydeThaMonkey, PricieGaming, Flambass, Notser and Runner357 all spring immediately to mind. For carriers: Femennenly and Farazelleth). EDIT: And I forgot one of the most important pieces of advice for learning: don't race up the tiers. Stick at a tier until you are comfortable with it. Do not use free XP to skip ships; use it to skip module grinds and captain retraining instead. Do not buy premiums at a much higher tier level than you have for your silver ships (and if you do, only play them in co-op until you reach that tier naturally). You'll save yourself a lot of pain and aggro that way.

The Eclipse of Reason by Max Horkheimer is also well worth a read on this subject. I've only dipped into it myself, but do keep meaning to go back and read it from cover to cover.

I'll admit that when I actually used it the booster didn't seem as ridiculuously, stupidly cheesey as I was expecting. But I would certainly echo the posters above who have said it seems unnecessary and fairly uninteresting. Apart from that, as others have pointed out, it is very situational. So nerfing the DPM of hte CM and the St.-L to justify putting this consumable on – which, as far as I'm aware, no-one really asked for and many seem opposed to – is not a decision I really support. The ships don't need the consumable in order to be interesting, but they do need their damage output. I hadn't really planned on going further than the Algérie, but this nerf just makes it even less likely that I will. I know it's a textbook example of the slippery-slope fallacy, but I am concerned that introducing this consumable at all will only lead to calls for BBs to get it. That would IMO be A Bad Idea. Better to avoid it altogether perhaps?

Thanks for the explanation, got it. And it's being more complex than strictly necessary/than the previous launcher presumably increases potential vulnerabilities? And turning off the uploads and stopping it when you don't actually need it to be running are insufficient to mitigate said potential vulnerabilities, whereas this was less of an issue on the previous launcher? Sorry for being a bit slow on this. As I said, I'm less familiar with some of the 'under-the-bonnet' stuff on my PC than I would like to be...

Yeah, fair point. I'm in the (probably minority) position of WOWS being really the only game I play, so maybe have more tolerance for this particular launcher than others. But I agree that it seems like an unnecessary and unwelcome imposition on players.