UnterSeeBot

ooooh I swear that one was below the belt, between the legs, somebody at WG is groaning in agony as we speak!

PEGI 7, obvious. Who doesn't want to see toddlers shooting water pistols while taking cover under the Blackjack table?

indeed, I was discussing the possibility in circumstances where there are major updates and changes to a game. As outlined by PEGI regulatory authorities.

don't despair : "So, I just got some clarification from PEGI regarding this. It seems if an older game that was rated 12+ is re-released, it would retain its age rating. However if it had upgrades, modernised, or reshuffled it'll need to be re-rated in which case would have it" for example reworking ALL the maps? or the CV rework that fundamentally changed gameplay mechanics for all? Or if the game engine were overhauled, modernized or changed in a significant way? Surely this ought apply to WOWS? see above and topic title (it would be unusual for older games to have a rating change, but not impossible. What this may do, inadvertently, is to discourage major updates to older games) : PEGI 18 : 4 All NEW games that have gambling I believe we are discussing NEW games, re-releases and games with major updates/core changes.

don't despair : "So, I just got some clarification from PEGI regarding this. It seems if an older game that was rated 12+ is re-released, it would retain its age rating. However if it had upgrades, modernised, or reshuffled it'll need to be re-rated in which case would have it" for example reworking ALL the maps? or the CV rework that fundamentally changed gameplay mechanics for all? Or if the game engine were overhauled, modernized or changed in a significant way? Surely this ought apply to WOWS?

WG is appplying (Sub_Octavian announced this on NA) for the PEGI 12 rating, up from PEGI 7. I think this is to protect WOWS long term status and its proto-monetization* (gambling) policies toward young (teens essentially) people. They know PEGI 7 is unsustainable, and want to head off an enforced 18+ rating before regulatory authorities take notice and take action. *free content that simulates gambling mechanics, aka lootboxes and other random prize draws.

this new rule for PEGI classification only applies to new games, for now. Also the devil is in the detail, 18+ refers to "simulated gambling", the crux of the question is what counts as simulation? Does the game need a virtual casino with one armed bandits and roulette tables (SWTOR has these), or do free lootboxes with randomized contents count? We don't decide this, but the momentum of current regulatory fashion is moving, steadily, in the direction of considering premium lootboxes to be a form of gambling, and therefore, free lootboxes to be a form of "simulated gambling". Would you consider Pokemon to be PEGI 18? The future will tell.

**********************************ing+1!

Sub doesn't distinguish between active and inactive accounts, or between weekend/holiday and daily players, for example. So much data is held back that what they do publish is quite meaningless rhetoric designed with one purpose in mind, win the "forum" argument. Another example of this, he claims the vast majority iof accounts are free2play, but what he doesn't say, is that the vast majority of accounts, are (probably) inactive too.

There are immense differences in Community management between NA and EU, and immense problems with community management in NA (not I am not pointing fingers, just stating the obvious). We just should not want to import those problems. Perhaps these problems are in part, as you say, due to a "let them eat steak" policy in the past (and present?). But the NA player community is not the immense problem I am thinking of.

I used to think that, but have long since decided that the regional forums have their own ideosyncracies, and personality, while if NA English merged with EU English, we can make a very easy bet as to which voices would dominate exchanges. Besides, there are language and cultural differences, we in the EU have higher standards /s

is that because you know that the stocking filler (flags, camos, etc) in loot crates, is quite simply not what players hope for when they buy lootboxes? I.e lootboxes are only worthwhile when used by marketing to capitalise on interest for exclusive premium ships. I think an alternate turn of phrase would be to say that "WG does what ever it is able to get away with," while this may seem like sound business practice, the absence of an ethical foundation to a company's activities, and so operational boundaries, is shortsighted. Making random lootbox content available, premium or free, to under 18s, is detrimental to the longterm mental health of young people. WGWOWS habituates impressionnable young people to gambling, even if they don't spend real money. You don't need the law to tell you that this is wrong. You know it, we all know it, just stop doing it.

Because the NA server pop is concerned with supplies of fresh candy and such niCCeties, easier to deal with. Come here and he'd face much tougher questions, and an audience that wouldn't be swayed by fetid promises of "we'll do better," or sly digs at independent community platforms such as reddit, an audience that wouldn't take as face value reasonable, an adjustment to the WOWS age rating from PEGI 7 to PEGI 12 (as though marketing lootboxes to 12 year olds were acceptable to us). Videos such as this one, below, wouldn't be immediately deleted because inconvenient either : Be proud that Sub isn't here, it is probably a (good) sign that the EU community still has its head on its shoulders, and is not so easily manipulated. (I hope I am not speaking too soon)

So this is a "Subs are mildly less broken than CVs" review? Out of 10, how broken do you think Subs are, compared to CVs? (let's just say for the sake of argument that CV brokeness = 10/10) Do you think that outstanding issues with subs can be fixed, or are they doomed to remain "just another" broken and toxic addition?

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/243700-the-great-missouri-experiment-for-science-na-edition/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-5557052 only concerning Missouri, but this coming hot on the tails of the Madamemoisail/Ev1n twitch stream where they and their colleagues categorically denied any knowledge the topic... Ev1n This may not seem like much, but many members of the community have been demanding the publication of lootbox drop rates since the very 1st day WOWS implemented lootboxes! It is also quite probable, in yet another seismic wet fart, that the Missouri lootbox contents having equally weighted drop chances, is also a 1st in WOWS lootbox history. The past refusal to disclose lootbox content drop rate weighting, (the chance of obtaining a particular item) was at least in part tied to unequal drop chances and what is called contouring (essentially manipulative algorithms which encourage you to gamble more, like card tricksters at a country fair that let you win a few rounds to hook you, before taking all your money and leaving you broke). This above statement by Ev1n is a sign of weakness in WG's "no comment" strategy that has held sway on this topic so far, which can be summarized as : supported by the doubtful excuse occasionally rolled out when all else fails to calm the community, "that because other MMOs steal money, it is ok for WG to steal money too". Like any Tobacco company in the 1960s, Wargaming knows they are selling a product that is harmful to their customers.

or how the odds are stacked, thanks, good post.

(how is this relevant)?

this is a recent development/innovation by WG. As to whether or not lootboxes are different to randombundles, isn't it just a matter if semantics? Both rely on a combination of a weighting algorithm defined by WG and player luck = gambling. The rest is just decorative packaging. "Likely to" is not the same as "100% confirmed by WG"! This is what makes Ev1n's statement, special. It is not revolutionary, but still, new. Which is still true of all random bundle/container events by WG, overall drop chances are still not listed at the point of sale. I agree that the random bundles are mildly more customer friendly, as at each purchase the customer is aware of what they will obtain. But the objective of each purchase is to unlock the totally random and unknown content of the next purchase in the random bundle series - which comes back down to random bundles being little different to lootboxes. WG are happy to see players tie themselves up in knots over this topic.

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/241504-dutch-loot-box-results/

Then you disagree with the European Advertising Standard Authority which condemned WG's practice of "shortlisting" over some previous lootbox events. here is some player collated data https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hCqaf324Bp6_xy55qciDKViBwcbJoGxqaodSsxMY4Yw/edit in which items were not equally weighted. This is an example, we do not know, authoratively, what kind of weighting was used in previous lootbox events by WOWS as they have never been officially disclosed.

in WG we trust, hey? Previous lootbox events for special ships were not equally weighted if stats collated by interested players are to be believed.

https://www.joueurs-info-service.fr/

/r worldofwarships is player managed and owned, WG has no control over it. Discussion of Wargambling's bad practices will continue, unhindered by lootbox reveals that encourage these same bad practices.

they have not banned the topic of gambling, just discussion of lootboxes, I believe. We will have to wait and see how clever their automoderator setup is. If it can ban discussion of lootbox results, but allow discussion of gambling addiction, that would be convenient.

There has long been discussion on WOWS Reddit about the morality of giving WOWS free publicity for lootboxes. This decision is welcome and overdue. Love U2 r/worldofwarships mod team -