Birkebein

I enjoy ranked. I'm not good at it, but find it fun. Ranked is awful/no fun when there are afk players, apart from that, win or lose, I'm having a good time.

Was easy to use. If AP performance is important then you'll, clearly, see which nation to play and which premiums to buy for best AP performance. Think I'll go away and re-spec my Yamato as an anti-sub/C.V./DD platform with buffed AA, secondaries and fire chance

Will there be a special option to upgrade the armaments on the ships... until they sink after leaving port?

Lightning - I don't play it well, but it's good fun as a gun boat. I used to think Fiji and Mino were op, and they probably were, but now it's hard to enjoy them since they're only a shell away from going pop. Still like them though. Bismarck with secondaries, fun but not particularly useful. In fact I think any of the "real" ships are fun even though they're mostly useless compared to the "paper" variety.

Same

I'd like to see a separate balance of positive and negative karma points... no need to net them out. What seems to happen is you get a BB camper asking you to take a cap in your DD with no smoke, ask for intelligence reports etc etc after which you "earn" a minus one. Then you do some spotting, torping, gun down an enemy dd, and cap later in the game an earn a point. In a good game you've earned zero points. Ok, someone is going to tell me karma is worthless as it's not a game mechanic and we shouldn't care - with the current system, yes, it's not worth caring. But if you'd get the chance to retain both the positives and negatives then it might be worth caring - after all, this is a game where people care about pixel tubs and caps. Maybe it would be an incentive for people to improve too.

Be nice to sail a ship and know your draft, and have maps (let's call them "charts" to confuse the landlubbers) with depth measurements, would add another dimension to the game, but I'm sure it'll be viewed as impractical, unless, perhaps, you'd have to buy them from a chart locker for some kind of currency... that's it, brilliant P2W and P2N ("Pay to Navigate") or it could be in the new captain redo, when skill points are increased to 30 with no free respecs and after everyone has run out of "economic" flags. Anyone else care to borrow my crystal orb and view the future?

This is the biggest issue as I see it. Imagine being a new player and trying to contribute/compete - how long before burn out happens? Players feeling that they'll never manage to become competitive unless they grind and pay isn't going to result in a dedicated and loyal player base. Once people feel they'll "never catch up" they'll stop trying (if they're sane) and either quit or play without trying to be competitive (causing other players to rage against the low skill, no modules, no camo and no flags non-meta silver ship in ranked). Anyhow, I don't see "dumber"/newer players getting unfairly rewarded with flags - I see a greater and increasing disparity between the well resourced and those that aren't. And, over time, it's a disparity that won't serve either WG or committed players.

double post

I'm all for the weather effects and would like to see sea state effects too. There are easy to reference sea state conditions (Douglas/WMO) and it's simple for WG to come up with scalable proportionate effects based on LOA, freeboard and tonnage. Hard for WG to take into consideration inherent stability effects of different designs, so any implementation would not be "perfect", then again no other implementation is perfect and some variable weather effects presents a nice challenge. More weather with a wider range of effects, tides and rip tides in coastal/island areas etc would all be good. Anyhow, I'm guessing WG inherently favours the premium space invader gamer (where the game remains predictable and your chance of doing well is strictly determined by an ability to pay for the meta), but if they were to rise to the challenge then I'm sure at least some players would find the increased game play variability exciting. Right now, we expect to "go to sea" on a perfectly flat ocean that doesn't affect gunnery or velocity, which is boring, and captain skills don't include any real sea going skills - which is both a shame and a missed opportunity... So what did this poll tell us?

Do sort of wish it wasn't achieved in a petro... not meaning to rain on your parade.

Got some mast rags from two containers

Opened one container and got some flags.

Flags are important both to progress in the game and to win battles. Would be nice if number of "battle" flags and camos per team would be matched by the matchmaker - in an attempt at providing a level playfield, a fair battle, whatever you care to call it... Anyhow, right now flags are being handed out by WG to anyone participating in the game, so most players will fly something off their masts, but when the freebies end the pay-to-win goal will be easier for all to see and understand. So the questions are: Do you want to pay to win? And, do you revel in the slaughter of a weaker enemy (where skill is irrelevant and only "paid for" meta ships, captain skills, flags, camos and upgrades matter [preferably in a well equipped division for three times the income to WG])? WG is betting the business that your answers are "yes", and current developments are intended to "benefit" the P2W customers.

Played a game of ranked in Fiji and managed to land three torps (that is all torps launched) into the side of a Scharnhorst at near max range... shame it was one of my teammates decided to go get a sandwich...

Sounds like great potential... let's hope it's well executed! I'm tired of fighting over circles in the ocean and looking forward to something more sensible

I revel in being totally unreasonable and taking things to their logical extreme - guilty as charged Anyhow, my suggestion for team damage is "solo" coop, that is, coop only with bots... and a fourth offense within ninety days would be a sentence of 256 games, solo, in coop... even by my unreasonable standards that's pretty tough... you want to try five offenses... you'll be waiting for the end of the ninety day period. To mitigate this harsh regime, I'd suggest "accidental" team damage of less than 5% of a ship's health pool is simply ignored - that way near stationary ships doing a bit of bumping into each other isn't a factor. I'm not consistently unreasonable Truth is, I know it's a game, I know it's not real, but trying to make it "seem" a bit more real isn't going to spoil it for people. IRL, "team killers" are in the brig and no one wants them around, in a game, they should be encouraged to reform, until reformed no one wants them around... changing the game mechanics in a way that makes becoming a "team killer" impossible will promote stupid behaviour and not make the game more fun, rather the opposite.

Ships should run aground and be stuck in shallow water - know your draft. Ships should be immobilized or have damage lasting until the game is over for hitting island, grounding, or other ships - the speed of the impact should determine the damage effects. There should be no damage difference between hitting/ramming friendly and enemy ships. There should be no damage difference for firing (shells, torps, skip bombs or whatever) on enemies or friendlies. There should be an algorithmic ban from playing anything other than solo coop on causing damage to friendly vessels. First offense, 2 games of coop, second offense, 4 games of coop, third offense, 16 games of coop, and so on... but a reset in 90 days. Ok, it's an arcade game, but let's get more real. I realise I'm advocating the exact opposite of what WG is imposing on the game and have probably gone way beyond what any "reasonable" player wants to see

I'm treating the Monarch as a cruiser. It's not working out well for me but better than if I make believe it's a battleship, like the Massachusetts or one of the Soviet creations. And I find captain skills and having all modules and ship upgrades makes a big difference... On some ships more than others though. Some ships just don't seem to function at all well unless served by a "full complement", Monarch might be one of those ships.

Passive impenetrable cruisers, please will you all give a big welcome to Petro etc

Gold ammo Speshul captains etc, etc.... Pay-to-win... All problems solved, everyone happy and the balans of the universe has been restored

Lots of fjords all over the world. But, the WG "fjord" port is modelled on Norwegian landscape (even has some traditional looking Norwegian boats in it)... anyhow... no matter, it was just wrong to launch the port together with the Swedish DDs. Closest "Swedish" port that looked somewhat similar would have been up in Narvik (again, actually in Norway), but as that's where a lot of Swedish iron ore was exported to Germany during WW2 it would have a bit more of a claim to being a "Swedish port"

Let's not... everything seems offensive to some people. Being reasonable, clear and concise seems particularly abusive. I think we'd just end up with all words banned. Senior military commander (of an elite expeditionary force and combined allied forces) friend and neighbour and decorated by royalty had a favourite saying, "there's no accounting for c*nts!" when someone didn't pay attention/made a mistake or were in opposition"/unreasonable etc - I think he just needed to say "something" then he'd move on to solutions. People verbally lashing out in chat shouldn't be viewed as a problem, it's people who never stop and never manage to become reflective and solution oriented who are a problem - people who fixate and are incapable of moving on and keep up the verbal abuse after an initial outburst should simply be banned from chat (my personal solution is just to report and mute them... uttering under my breath, "tnafc"!). And, kids hear "bad" words all the time, that's reality, but they should not be the focus of specific and intended verbal abuse, no one should - it's never appropriate and especially when you're not face to face. But, the internet, anonymity etc, does not bring out the best in people, unfortunately, so, the least we should do is chat ban serial offenders... forever - that is, people who can't restrain themselves to one outburst of abusive language per incident/game.

The main issue is that it was a Petro being sunk. Sinking a Petro is like convincingly demonstrating to a four year old child that Santa doesn't exist. Sinking a Petro without spamming it with HE, or torping it was also unusually cruel. Santa is mythic, a fantasy that can't be "sunk", unlike a Petro which is merely a fantasy - I bet it was a difficult day for the kid.

I'm not enjoying Thunderer and I don't think a range nerf will either improve my enjoyment or others', so that seems a fail. In part the ship is a one trick pony for most of the game, load HE and target otherwise invincible Petros, try to take out some DDs and wait for opportunities for AP... For much of the game, with its exposed citadel and lacklustre armour it's only good as a long distance four rifle HE spammer. Not sure what can be done to make it both less OP and more fun. One BB that seems even less fun is the Kremlin... sit and fire and take no damage until you get HE spammed or torped... Anyhow, both ships seem terminally dull.