Afghanicus

Welcome to the club.

Just another bug (among many) as a result of server instabilities and high pings..

You know what happens they the server hiccups in the middle of you launching the torps? Zao's torp drop can be divided even though that's technically impossible. So the first 5 torps are fine... then server hiccups and when the next frame comes (few seconds later), I'm dead and the second set of torps has been divided into 2+3 torps. Very interesting. WG never ceases to amaze me.

@leonkent23, welcome to the club.

Still tempted to buy her?

I think moderators (or WG staff) should lock all these threads once both rounds of PTS end. What's the point of keeping it open when no further input will made and it seems it only opens the doors for the geniuses who cannot read few posts above them and post the same questions that have been answered already. @CptMinia @WG_Lumberjack

I really wonder why are they giving the UU mission for CVs when you don't get the UU after completing it. Many players (definitely not me) are wasting a lot of time to grind those CV UUs, just to find out they get absolutely nothing in return. WHY!?? @Crysantos @MrConway @Sehales

I opened 10 (regular) bundles and got 0 ships. High chances indeed. No, the update is to make you think WG wants to offer the new line to their players, or at least the ones who play the game regularly (read: players ready to grind) but even grinding is quite irrelevant for them now since they are only focused on doubloons and nothing else. You want the RN Heave Cruisers? You'll have to drop a significant amount of doubloons in order to get them, far overpaying what they are actually worth. So just wait til the regular release and research/grind them normally instead of wasting money and supporting their scams. The more players support their scams, the more they will do it. Once players stop wasting money on their scams, they will stop with those unethical practices as well. It's all very logical and obvious but seems like an average WOWs player has more cash than grey cells and that works perfectly for WG, quite terrible for the rest of the players.

Another BS from WG I've noticed... Besides all the stupidity behind unlimited random bundles (which are an insult to players), you can't even see how many you opened so far. So not only you're faced with an unlimited amount of random bundles with no guarantee of a ship drop (sounds so appealing, doesn't it?), but they also made sure you cannot track how many you opened so far to reduce the frustration. I mean, I have my own means and I've opened 10 random bundles so far (regular ones, I'd never waste doubloons on their scams). Guess how may ships I got from those 10 bundles. Yeah, exactly.

Hey, it's another T10 event... who would have guessed!?

Can you explain us why my assumption is false? Is your certainty based on spreadsheets or common sense and logic? Since I'm writing so much in detail, just to obtain a short, not-so-relevant response, I'll be short this time. Having another bot in the team (9 vs 9 instead of 8 vs 8) results in another bot which results in another -xx points "for" the bots (when they are losing which is 99% of the time). If that additional bot is a BB, that's -60 points for the enemy team in co-op battle making it quicker to reach the 0 points and get zeroed, ending the battle in less than 4 minutes or so. Just to be fair.. this also means that the same applies to the "human team". So, by common sense, using basic logic... having 9 vs 9 instead of 8 vs 8 makes the games longer when the "human team" isn't that good and makes the games shorter when the "human team" is far superior which happens much more often, resulting in an overall shorter time for co-op battles. Is this false as well? If so, please elaborate with facts. So you found one player who prefers the shorter battles and you're bringing that up as an excuse not to do anything about the battle time in co-ops? You're actually serious? Do you want to make a poll and see what the majority of players here would like? Please feel free to do so but we both know what the answer would be. It'a also worth noting (actually repeating, since I already wrote that) that the difference in battle time would be minimal. It's not like players such as @Leo_Apollo11 would be wasting 20 minutes in co-op battles. We're talking about additional minute or two needed to sink the remaining 2-3 ships which often remain alive on the enemy team. So once again, I believe you're wrong and writing replies in a manipulative way. If that's not the case, again - elaborate with facts for us. Thank you.

Recycled news, once again? Wonderful.

Yes. Still don't know how is that relevant to anything I wrote. I can see mine. It contains no ship. Even if it was I'd probably not take it. Seeing that does not contain any ship I'm 100% certain I won't pay anything. Anyways I said I'm not gonna participate in any WG gambling with loot boxes. Being able to see next random bundle doesn't change the fact that it's gambling. It was done just to avoid problems with many countries monitoring the gambling online and for quite some time WG is on a limit and thin ice when it comes to gambling, loot boxes, PEGI rating etc.

I did not. My bad. I guess I'm getting toxic every time I see players digging stats from someone else just to prove a point or find something they can use against them. Not necessarily in this case but I'm seeing it every day and that's why I might overreact sometimes when something like that pops up.

So far, out of like 50-60 players I've talked to... only 1 got the lowest tier from those 5-6 loot boxes. Even the addicts paying 1000 doubloons don't seem to have much higher chances.

Nope. Let me see... I have the option to pay 1000 doubloons for a random bundle and a (tiny) chance to get a silver ship with a perma camo or wait a month and get it for free, guaranteed... Tough choice, huh? And I've seen players already dropping 10-15-20k doubloons on those premium boosters or whatever they are called. Some people just can't help themselves. And then they say that they have no problem with addiction... LOL When you don't have a problem with addiction at least you use your brain... Paying so many doubloons for stupid loot boxes for a chance to get a silver ship can't be done by a sane, mentally healthy person.

I read your reply, you just never said how many battles you played or gave any details. I'm not Nostradamus. Anyways, let's agree that we have completely different experience when it comes to battles ending too soon due to the 'bot team' reaching 0. Seems like you have 10% of those (even though a 10 games sample is too small for any relevant data) and I have more like 40-50%. (about half of the games end that way). Not sure where are you digging the data from or how you read it but DDs are the class I least play, in any game mode. I love when people start checking other players' stats to prove a point but they fail miserably in doing so. The bots on the PTS seem to always behave differently than the ones one the live server. If your average co-op battle last 7 minutes, you seem to be an exception. From my experience and what I read (including examples from the threads on the forum, even this one), the average battle time seems to be 4-5 minutes. Often even less than 4 minutes like in some examples posted.

You must be happy about the investment.

Same here... 0 ships so far. Looks promising. I only know one thing - I won't spend a single doubloon on the premium bundles or whatever their name is.

Yes, I know this has been proposed as well but even as a complete noob when it comes to coding and developing I know that's probably the hardest and most time-consuming way to fix the issue. That's why I've been always proposing much easier ways to deal with this issue but a 4th option can always be the best - developers choosing what's the easiest. But for developers to start fixing it, WG staff (usually CMs) have to pass the message to their superiors and this needs to be discussed on one of the meeting where much more important stuff is being discussed (think: loot boxes). @Sub_Octavian is the only one who promised to check this and discuss it but seems like he is ignoring the forums completely and the promise he gave had no weight at all which is quite disappointing (not to mention unprofessional). That's why I tagged the other WG staff that I know is active on the forums even though the one response I got so far was far below expected.

You didn't answer my question. Here is one more.. How often do you play co-op battles? Seems like not too often or almost not at all. If that's the case, your replies and opinions have no weight at all. Have you checked all the threads that were active in the last few months? Especially from 0.8.10 patch (mid-November) when 9 vs 9 co-op battles were introduced? Here's one post on that original thread, to remind you and the rest about it... Here is the screenshot for the ones too lazy to open the post and read it... And a short explanation for the ones not understanding the issue, even with the screenshot: There are 4 enemy ships remaining. The enemy team has 55 points. Georgia was sunk few seconds later, before I even approach her. You lose 60 points when your BB get sunk so once the Georgia was sent to the bottom, it was over. The battle ended not even reaching the 4 minute mark with 3 ships on the enemy team remaining alive, 2 of which with full HP. This happens more often than not and everyone who plays co-op battles regularly know this. I hope it's clear and understandable now. But again - if it needs to be elaborated with even more details, just let me know.

Well, maybe we could be a bit less selfish and think about issues in a broader sense, not just from one's personal perspective and experience. But even if we're focusing on you... answer this please : Would you rather have... 1. A co-op battle lasting less than 4 minutes where you did less than 40k DMG (often 20-30k) and finished the battle by the enemy team reaching 0 points, while 3-4 ships remained alive (usually not even scratched) OR 2. A co-op battle lasting few minutes longer where you did at least twice the DMG (often even more) and all enemy ships were sunk ?

I'm sorry but seems like you didn't even read my post, haven't followed all prior threads about it and completely ignored the Sub_Octavian's promise I mentioned. I'm not talking about how players play co-op battles, I'm talking about the system in force in those battles. Alright, let me elaborate (shortly) once again, hoping you will read the message thoroughly this time (no offense please, just put yourself in my position for a moment). In WOWs, you can win a battle by fulfilling various conditions, right? Let's focus on one - points (by capping or sinking enemy ships). You win by reaching 1000 points, no matter how many ships are left in each team. That's completely fine. However, you also win if the enemy team reaches 0 points. I'm calling it (heard it from others) "The Mercy Rule" because I guess it was implemented so that one team doesn't completely humiliate the other (when in Random/Ranked battles) by sinking all the team and not losing any ships (at least in theory, in practice humiliation happens more often than you'd think). Now, do we need to so-called "mercy rule" when playing co-op battles? Do we care about bots being humiliated? I didn't think so. That's not ok and should be changed. As discussed previously, there are various ways to fix this, from my non-developer perspective. 1. Removing the points mechanics in co-op battles completely and having the one and only condition for winning - sinking all ships from the enemy team 2. Increasing the starting amount of points for the bots team thus making it much more difficult (or impossible) to reach 0 points during the battle 3. Playing with other details like reducing (or removing) the deduction of points when a bot team loses a ship 4. Any other fix that developers know it would be the easiest and the least time consuming to implement. I hope it's clear now and you can look into it, especially with @Sub_Octavian. Mentioning snowflakes and directives doesn't make any sense IMHO, especially because I just posted this screenshot which is from yesterday, when all snowflakes and insane PR directives are in the past. It's also worth mentioning that this problem did not appear with the snowflakes so they have absolutely nothing to do with it. This is an issue that has been around (and complained in the forums) for a long time. Last change to co-op battles was adding one ship per team (9 vs 9 instead of the 8 vs 8). This change affected the mentioned problem in a negative way, making the battles last even shorter. I hope I don't have to explain why, I guess it's pretty obvious. Please note that switching back to 8 vs 8 wouldn't solve the issue I'm talking about here, it would just make it slightly better like it was before 9 vs 9 was introduced. Because after 9 vs 9 was introduced in co-op battles, they are shorter than ever and players are enjoying them less than ever. Especially battleships who usually can't even get to more than a ship or two during the battle. Alright, that's all. I hope I explained as thorough as I can but if something is still unclear, let me know and I'll follow-up on it.

You can also buy them with doubloons, can't you? But I don't see how that answers the differences I pointed out. You remind me of a WG customer support. Figure out why.

I know they are waiting and the worst part is that it will probably work for a certain group of players. The same players who have troubles with loot boxes (read: gambling) and have no control over it. It won't work on me though, for sure. My button says "15k doubloons" but that's probably 15k more than I'm willing to give to support WG scammy and manipulative tactics. Well, I can hardly agree that Puerto Rico is the same. You never had something like a Dockyard/Shipyard before. The temporary tokens you'd obtain could be exchanged for a variety of things (you had many options) and with shipbuilding tokens you could only get boosters, nothing else. So no... I couldn't sat that the mechanics are the same, not even close.