Bindolaf_Werebane

For sure there is less money to be made with a subscription model. As long as that is not an option, though, I'll personally stay free-to-play. I don't care about premium ships anyway. Some would be nice to have, but there is so much free content - more than I can use, really.

I see so often, in this thread too, "oh this camo or that ship should be free, as it used to be". I don't expect or demand free stuff, but I find the practices of the company predatory. I would be happy to pay a monthly fee for WoWs. That would mean no "premium" and "f2p" and also no premium ships. Ships could be locked behind expansions, which I could choose to buy it not. For example, for a one-time fee of 29.95, unlock the US CA tree! That would be a normal company practice. Ships that cost 100 euros is ridiculous, camouflages for 20 is insane. I have not spent one cent on the game, but I hate that WG takes advantage of people who just want shiny things and downright preys on people with gambling problems. It's not just WG, of course, and the game has not devolved into a gatcha (gacha?) game (yet), but the trend is disquieting.

Check out what happened with Star Wars Battlefield II (or whatever the heck it's called) and EA. I'm not going to say EA is a respectable company, but they backpedaled FAST, when the backlash came from the player base. Also, they are releasing the next big thing now and are sure to mention in the pre-release, "there won't be any loot boxes". Clearly our wallets have power. Unfortunately, the WG player base is not as (insert adjective here).. savvy? As the EA one.

Spreadsheet beg to differ. Let's talk about this again when the event is over. It's our fault WG behaves like this.

Damn. I still have 80 Soviet tokens to spend, since I passed on the Lolkoyan. Now they'll be wasted,since I don't have much time to play. Might just get some camos. Thank you for the response.

When does the update hit?

There's a lot wrong with QE. She eats pens from every angle (I personally hate that in BBs) and the turret traverse is abominable. The guns, though? Jeez. Especially the AP is insanely good.

My experience with the tier 7 ranked was pretty bad after reaching my goal for the season (rank 10). I will summarise: I don't have many tier VII ships and no premiums, except for the Nelson. I don't have any captains with 10 points or more at that tier. Which means, I didn't have a chance in hell. More and more I find that the big difference is not the ship (though Belfast and Enterprise are almost "click to win") but the captain. So, I did ok in my 8-point Fiji and in my 3-point Nelson and I did ok in the Sinop, where I think I had an 11-point captain, but there was no way to defeat the hordes of 19-point veterans. Do I mind? Not really. Is there a solution? Not sure there needs to be one. If ranked is supposed to be inclusive and fun, it's not. If it's supposed to favor veterans and be a grind, it does so. I usually rank out in Sprints and get to rank 10 in regular ones, using the games to level ships (since I'm never low tier)! That's the one reason I do like ranked (but not tier X).

1. Introduce ELO-based mode 2. Organize leagues based on 1. Top league gets to be E-Sport. 3. $$

I think it's pretty hard, but it may just be that I am crap at destroyers. Tiers 3-6 are just filled to the gills with seal clubbers. Literally the first thing I see with my stock DD, with my 3-point captain upon spawning is "Located". Also, 2 CVs per side make things impossible. Obviously, you should learn to play around CVs, but it's hard to do in a Klas Horn, for example. So, what do you do? Advance to tier 6-8 as fast as possible. What happens next? You just blow up. A lot. I half-enjoyed the French DDs and the Swedes, but I'll pass. I'd rather play other classes. On another hand again, this may be a natural progression. I was utter crap at cruisers and destroyers, first I got better at battleships. Later, I started doing better in cruisers. Maybe destroyers are next, who knows (no, they're not).

I didn't vote yet, because the question is so vague. What is "comparable influence"? A super-unicum can carry in any class - obviously not, though, if his whole team sucks. It feels to me that you want to complain about classes - that some are too numerously represented in the matchmaking, or too little, or do too much damage, or not enough etc. Speak plainly, then! As to your poll, no. A destroyer should not have "comparable influence" to a battleship. The destroyer should spot and torpedo and destroy destroyers, for example, whereas the battleship should tank damage, slowly advance, get rid of cruisers etc. Unless you mean something different by "comparable influence". I guess I don't get the point of the poll.

The only one I am sad to not have gotten is the Yamato one. I am not regrinding anything, though, I don't care that much.

As someone pointed out in a different thread, it's not really ranked. There is no special matchmaking, no skill rating. It's more about "you get ranks that mean nothing except the need to grind" than "you are in a rank with your peers and can have enjoyable battles".

Ranked (but not tier X) is great. They are shorter matches and always even tiered. Meaning, I get to advance my (many, many) mid-tier ships. So, while the coal is nice, the true bonus is less matchmaking BS.

On the other hand, you don't need another ship for tier 8 ranked. I ground (grinded?) the Implacable for experience and lost many (many) games. Then I switched to the Vladivostok (also grinding it, only 12 point captain) and am rank 2 (with some luck, I'll admit). The ship is stupid overpowered and makes even me look good. I guess a Lenin would be better, but why pay money when you can have the Soviet Übermensch for free?