MarChil

Just stop handing them out to inexperienced might help there. On that note, making sure tiers are (at least) experience based is a good overall idea. I'm sure it has has been mentioned once or twice before.

In my mother tongue we have a saying: Someone floated to the surface due to a lack of weight. You'd be surprised how often that happens in companies. Now let's all enjoy the lack of subs for the next few weeks and rejoice the fact the dev's showed an ability to learn and make adjustments. It does after all give hope for the future.

Now you might be stretching it. These are concept that are a bit further down the learning-line. Let's for now be satisfied with the goals they reached and take it 1 step at a time. It might discourage them if we ask to much improvement in a to short a time.

We all have to learn, some a bit faster then others. Learing is never wasted

Oh well, never hurts to give them a heads-up. It's so hard to keep track, they might have just not thought about it.

Now, now. A bit of patience and understanding towards the dev's. They are undoubetly doing the best they can.

I'm rather happy about the decision to stop testing on the live server, after all it is not the test server. However, could it be that the performance of subs had something to do with the people you (for all intents and puposes) handed them to? I took the liberty of keeping a bit of track of the general skill of the subplayers I encountered, and it showed me they were rather low-games and/or low WR players. I found that subs in the hands of a (on paper) skilled player was a rather unpleasend expierence. As a sidenote, does the playerbase get any compensation for this unwanted test? After all, we did help you out at the cost of a lot of effort and less fun games.

Google is your friend. just type the name and Warships. There are other primary sources that seem credible

If you read only this part, it might be right. Well, at least they moved against it. Question is, how many others are out there? Has WG taken steps? They have now admitted that it is possible.

In that case, I agree.

Let's take it 1 step at a time. Carrying a match is next level, new players should first focus on their direct opponent, you cannot expect a inexpierenced player to learn everything at the same time. 17K battles also means you have a few years of learning behind you. I doubt you would find your first T8 game a 'job well done' if you look back.

Don't let the haughty reaction discourage you to much. Remember, without you and me, the pros wouldn't have their fancy stats. Don't stare on WR or PR to much. Try to learn a trick from every game you play. As time goes by, you'll meet more players that are not as good as you and you can start to focus on that unicum status if you like. But please remember to be nice to the players that hand you your victories by then. You will need them for the boost.

This beautifull example of condescending ignorance

Then why were we treated to a dubbed video telling the players they should be silent about balance because they knew better? Besides, aren't that CM's making streams?

Abuse will always be there and the perfect system does not and will not excist. I said it would be better from a learning point of view. I do not assume a collective will in "the playerbase" as that would be rather strange, since the players are far from a collective.

The karma system is useless without any explanation. I also find that you getting alerted about a drop in karma is not consistent. The least they could do, is give you an immidiate pop-up when someone hits the button. Better would be if, after the battle, the player (dis)liking you would fill out a drop-down to what it was he (dis)liked you for, and that would be given to you in a pop-up. In that way, you can use it as a learning tool and the system would also place a hurtle on casual dislikes, as a bit more effort is required. But I guess the dev's are already having trouble enough with keeping the basic game running, improving these things takes a lot more of our patience and understanding.

In that case i'm afraid we where discussing rather different points. However, I thank you for taking the time to challenge my views and giving me points to think about. Enjoy your evening, I hope to speak to you again.

Well, getting your views challenged is never dumb, it is rather enjoyable and entertaining on a boring night like this, while in quarantine. As for the momma joke, I hope to hear it one day.

You most certainly can argue that. Yet downvoting a class by default because of certain characterics of that class cannot be classed as misuse of the system, because WG does not make clear what toxic play is. See, we might even agree on some points and it makes the entire system rather pointless.

And thus, toxic gameplay is a term that is 'in the eye of the boholder', so to say. And thus you cannot judge people for downvoting a certain player/ship class etc. If that players feels that CV's and subs are toxic, you are in your right to downvote them.

Now you are indeed clear in your meanings. I misunderstood your shortness, you shall have to excuse me. Your argument is true in that both can obvious be done, yet practical evidence shows neither happens all that often. Although subs can be excused because plenty of players lack commen sense. The, in my view, toxicity lays in the part were the CV can, and often does, survive until the end of game, while playing poorly. The number of games I waited because the sub ran off to areas unknown are plenty and judging by the forumcomments I certainly am not alone. The points I made about team- and passive play remain as, since you did not address those.

The way you stated it, made me read it as a simple 'both can be sunk, so they are not toxic' Since you did not adres any of my reasons given beyond your rather generalist statement about sinkebility, I can not agree or counter anything. I wish DD's where all about stealth. When did WG introduce a new 'stealthboat' in the DD class? Most new lines and uniques are about rapid gunnery and manoeuvrability, not stealth I'm afraid. I see why though, stealth is reserved for an other class right now.

I never claimed that toxic behaviour isn't there. I was trying to point out the mistake in the reasoning of Col.Pete

You don't think WG has a responsibility to make sure that a system they design with a goal in mind is potato proof? You could blame all on the playerbase. Sure, it's the players fault they buy high tier ships to early in their careers. WG can't help that. It's a hell of a philosophy.

Like I said, you disagree. So do the Edited* at WG. But I think these classes display toxic behaviour for the reasons stated. And there in lays the problem that WG (and seemingly you) has no clue about. Every player that in your vieuw displays toxic gameplay can be sunk. So there is no toxic behaviour? Maybe think things through instead of making assumptions and black/white falacies. It might help :-)