Introduce real penalty for unsporty behaviour

[MarChil]

1 minute ago, CoffeeFueledCurmudgeon said:

Been watching DD's, BB's, and even CV's just sail into the enemy since the patch began.

And, without any form of shame, sense of dignity or selfreflextion WG is blaming 'the playerbase' and rinsing their hands like Pilatus. After checking their finances, they will undoubtely have some neurons firing ('thinking' is a big term) and having a feeling of satisfaction. Yeah, they're doing great.

[BLUB__BLUB]

6 hours ago, Peffers said:

You seen recent elections in Uncle Scam?

Is it worse than in my country, where 60% of the voters just do not vote at all? 

Yeah it looked more like a freakshow... on both sides... I'd be ashamed if that were my country. 
Well I already am... its not any better here either. In fact it is probably a lot worse.

 

6 hours ago, MarChil said:

You must have been to one of the better states then. Most American living overhere are ok, most I met in south and central where a rather 'less broadminded' group. Mind you, it was in my fairytale time, so not that narrowed the group maybe. But there certainly where a lot of them. And boy, freedom was a rather narrow concept in their minds. 

Freedom is always limited where it touches the freedom of others. I think that is a problem of both 'lefties' and 'righties'. 

The respect for one another is long gone, sometimes rightly so, as it is a quid-pro-quo. 

 

6 hours ago, MarChil said:

The ones stolen by god-hating queers that want to destroy the 2nd promised land and have people live their lives godless?

LOL! The real question is, why is it that such a great country only has to offer such poor choices when it comes to the biggest job of them all?

No matter whose side you're on... you'll probably agree that all the candidates are a damn goldmine for South Park, Simpsons, American Dad, and all other cartoon series.
 

Quote

edit: We really should keep this on topic.... But it's so tempting...

Not much difference anywhere in the world, and is it off topic? WeeGee also caters for the lowest common denominator, mostly... 

The problem being that, when the biggest failing idiot gets the most rewards, then what do you get: more idiots. 

[MarChil]

2 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I think that is a problem of both 'lefties' and 'righties'

Seriously depends on how far on the ends they are and what counts as right/left in a far more complicated society then a 100 years ago. If you are a half-decent christian (the left cheek, help thy neighbour kind of) in the US you have to choose between the 'family value'/abortion/euthenesia/LHBTIQ+ stance of the Rep's and the social policies of the dems, you can't have both. You don't want a president that alligns himself with dodgy groups that have a love for streched-out right arms and dislike to much pigmentation? You're stuck with a old guy who needs to keep up with groups on the other end of the spectrum. Politics will always be about compromise but certain systems let the voters do the compromise and other systems let the politicians fight it out after the elections. I have a clear preference.  

 

2 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

why is it that such a great country only has to offer such poor choices when it comes to the biggest job of them all?

because of a system that is not made for modern times. because of laws that are in effect from a rather recent past that's not that free for certain groups. because the system is far to open for lobby groups (read: money) to have an influence that far exceeds their backing by the public. because people that are used to being influenced by commecials. Lots of facinating reasons really. Who thinks up a system where 1 of the 2 parties is allowed to draw the lines that make up their voterbase? The system i the US is broken, but there's somehow no will or way to fix it.

[Yedwy]

10 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

LOL! The real question is, why is it that such a great country only has to offer such poor choices when it comes to the biggest job of them all?

Because when you not only legalise but institutionalise bribing people to get a certain vote passed (called lobbying) you start to get an underlayer of power that is not so visible but actually pulls the reigns and in such sytem the officials need to be a distraction for the public and also not hold to much true influence and not actual leaders...

 

Thats is also the reason that when somebody from the "shadow goverment" or even worse a guy that doesnt need more money decides to take direct control it ends up being a VERY interesting administration and often makes groundshaking moves

[LukkaiCH]

Vor 20 Stunden, Ronchabale sagte:

We all sometimes suffer disconnects and I guess sometimes AFK:s too for some diffuse reason (children, pets, phones, coffee spilled in keyboard etc.) 

Perhaps the Halland had screaming kids or even worse, wife, maybe the dog shat on the floor or whatever, point-wise its better for him reversing out of harms way than him getting killed

The description doesn't sound at all like that though. If he'd only been reversing, maybe. But not as the OP described it.

 

Vor 35 Minuten, Yedwy sagte:

Thats is also the reason that when somebody from the "shadow goverment" or even worse a guy that doesnt need more money decides to take direct control it ends up being a VERY interesting administration and often makes groundshaking moves

None of the people running for those jobs actually need more money, let's be honest here. They may very well want more money though. As proven with a recent officeholder using his position to shovel tax money into the companies he wasn't supposed to lead anymore, like a certain golf club. (Unless he actually did need that money. But then he's loudly protesting any such thing to the point of sueing people who bring up the possibility that he might.)

[tsounts]

A strange thing happened today in coop where I was knocking off some snowflakes at tier 5, our team had 3 tier 4 ships that weren't bots, they got sunk in a blink of an eye and then after the match was over when I tried checking their profiles the results stated that the profiles did not exist!!!

[COPlUM]

Why are they even doing this, depending on how many ships you have you can knock out a bunch of snowflakes per 3 minute co-op game. Just rush into the bots in a DD and go back to port for 4 snowflakes or whatever.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

4 minutes ago, COPlUM said:

Why are they even doing this, depending on how many ships you have you can knock out a bunch of snowflakes per 3 minute co-op game. Just rush into the bots in a DD and go back to port for 4 snowflakes or whatever.

As it happens you need a minimum exp gain to get the additional snowflakes. Is it possible that WG increased it from 200 to 400? Or is it me getting old?

[Bland_42]

3 ore fa, Karkong_the_Impaler ha scritto:

As it happens you need a minimum exp gain to get the additional snowflakes. Is it possible that WG increased it from 200 to 400? Or is it me getting old?

I don't know what is written on your ID card  but relax that this isn't an old age issue... me too noted this thing, they increased the minimum bXp to gain the "free" snowflakes. Now it's not so easy to gain it in Coop.

For people like me with few (relatively) ships in port it's still reasonable to play Coop for snowflakes, but if you have a lot of them it's more time wise convenient to gain it in Random/Ranked/Brawls.

 

Maybe it's a WG tactic to make more players be preys of CVs and subs.

[Ramsettin]

There are more people insulting matchmaking and the RNG god as soon as the game starts. Or there are players who insult each other during the game. Are they punished? I have just wondered. 

[Sir_Sinksalot]

1 hour ago, Bland_42 said:

I don't know what is written on your ID card  but relax that this isn't an old age issue... me too noted this thing, they increased the minimum bXp to gain the "free" snowflakes. Now it's not so easy to gain it in Coop.

For people like me with few (relatively) ships in port it's still reasonable to play Coop for snowflakes, but if you have a lot of them it's more time wise convenient to gain it in Random/Ranked/Brawls.

 

Maybe it's a WG tactic to make more players be preys of CVs and subs.

 

The snowflake/gift thingy is definitely flawed and has most likely been another large contributor behind so many of these poor battles where it' appears to be a case of several players looking to reel off as many battles as they can with different ships to get those snowflakes.

 

As we know, for every snowflake we get, we can also skip one ship. So that's at least a good idea instead of having to effectively play twice as many battles with ships we mostly ignore and probably didn't want to play at all. But overall it's not a good idea, some players have lots of ships and ultimately most players just want to play the ships THEY WANT TO PLAY, which is usually just a small few ships. So why effectively force players to have to play lots of battles with ships they really don't want to play and which will therefore not be a fun experience and lead to the crappy battle quality we're currently experiencing as these players are just looking to "Get it out of the way" asap.

 

For example, I recently got the Bourgo, and that is all I really want to play right now along with a few of my go-to favorites. So my suggestion would be that so long as a player gets, lets say, 900-1000 base XP in a battle, they get a snowflake(or gift, whatever the f its called) even playing the same ship repeatedly.

 

That way, they will get to unlock all the snowflakes they want with even just the one ship and avoid having to play lots of ships and classes and tiers they most likely don't want to play. So this way players get to play the ship/ships they ACTUALLY WANT to play, but will also need to play to at least reasonably ok standard in order to get the snowflake. This will therefore remove this yolo/botting sort of approach we're seeing in randoms too so overall the quality of most battles should improve too, that would be a win win situation.

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

14 hours ago, MarChil said:

how far on the ends they are and what counts as right/left

Well, I find that points of view that were considered "leftist' in the '80s now are considered 'extreme rightwing'. 
I think they're mostly reading "1984" and "Animal Farm" as if they were a users manual. But that's just me (and probably also 'far right'). 

[LukkaiCH]

Vor 2 Stunden, Bland_42 sagte:

Vor 5 Stunden, Karkong_the_Impaler sagte:

As it happens you need a minimum exp gain to get the additional snowflakes. Is it possible that WG increased it from 200 to 400? Or is it me getting old?

I don't know what is written on your ID card  but relax that this isn't an old age issue... me too noted this thing, they increased the minimum bXp to gain the "free" snowflakes. Now it's not so easy to gain it in Coop.

I actually checked, just to make sure. But you are both indeed wrong.

 

The numbers are exactly identical as with the 7-year anniversary. In every regard.

 

 

 

[Bland_42]

29 minuti fa, Sir_Sinksalot ha scritto:

As we know, for every snowflake we get, we can also skip one ship.

If I'm not wrong, skipped snowflakes will scale up with the number of ships owned.

I think it's +1 if you have 100-200 ships, +2 with 200-300 and +3 with more than 300... or something like that (sorry, don't wanna go search the related article).

 

Other than this small detail, I think your idea is more or less a good thing...

 

The real problem is that 1000+ bXp need a win to be achieved (also with a decent playing)... something that is relatively problematic for the average players to achieve with regularity.

With the average win rate around 48-50%, winning 2 games per hour, my 130 T5+ ships will need at least 65 hours of gaming... without count of losing streaks ('cause sh!t happen).

For many people something like this would be difficult, because it's a lot of time.

 

WG (I think) use this event to have more people playing, and to achieve it they made the target relatively easy... limiting the earning chances will go against WG interests (drop of games played).

 

On the other hand, if they keep the current bXp requested but make it possible to gain even with repeated consecutive games with the same ship... that would be satisfying, I think.

[Bland_42]

22 minuti fa, LukkaiCH ha scritto:

I actually checked, just to make sure. But you are both indeed wrong.

 

The numbers are exactly identical as with the 7-year anniversary. In every regard.

 

 

 

Sorry, my bad... I stand corrected.

[LukkaiCH]

Vor 9 Stunden, Bland_42 sagte:

If I'm not wrong, skipped snowflakes will scale up with the number of ships owned.

I think it's +1 if you have 100-200 ships, +2 with 200-300 and +3 with more than 300... or something like that (sorry, don't wanna go search the related article).

Actually - and I blame this one on WG not making it clear enough in the news, I only found out through experience myself - those are the maximum extras you can get. If you are someone with 200-300 ships, you will indeed get two extra rewards if you make 800+ base xp. But if you manage to get 400-799 base xp, you will still get one extra reward. So those do not replace the lower rewards. They are additional tiers you unlock by having more ships.

[Ymustihaveaname]

15 hours ago, Bland_42 said:

The real problem is that 1000+ bXp need a win to be achieved (also with a decent playing)... something that is relatively problematic for the average players to achieve with regularity.

With the average win rate around 48-50%, winning 2 games per hour, my 130 T5+ ships will need at least 65 hours of gaming... without count of losing streaks ('cause sh!t happen).

For many people something like this would be difficult, because it's a lot of time.

 You could play ranked or brawls to get shorter games on average and therefore play more games per hr with still get far more exp (and therefore snowflakes depending on ship numbers) than coop?

[Bland_42]

5 ore fa, Ymustihaveaname ha scritto:

 You could play ranked or brawls to get shorter games on average and therefore play more games per hr with still get far more exp (and therefore snowflakes depending on ship numbers) than coop?

Theoretically yes, but this don't solve the problem about winning chances: both Ranked and Brawls are more skill/ship/team dependent than Random, consequentially the average solo player don't have a decent assurance to be over the threshold

frequently enough to gain the bonuses.

[Ymustihaveaname]

2 hours ago, Bland_42 said:

Theoretically yes, but this don't solve the problem about winning chances: both Ranked and Brawls are more skill/ship/team dependent than Random, consequentially the average solo player don't have a decent assurance to be over the threshold

frequently enough to gain the bonuses

Really? Im finding Brawl full of players who are I think also grinding snowflakes atm in ship they dont know how to play ?(as am I!) so that I can even win with no captain ships?

No captain Sinop yes it's a good ship, but I played plenty of others without as well, I did all my T7s with or without captains and did not move any captains to play and won well above my normal random WR even then due to I think everybody else doing the same in brawls... (unless you hit a 3 man div of meta ships going for fast wins to get the coal then you just lose the game, and it's just a mater of getting your exp.....)

 

[Bland_42]

42 minuti fa, Ymustihaveaname ha scritto:

Really? Im finding Brawl full of players who are I think also grinding snowflakes atm in ship they dont know how to play ?(as am I!) so that I can even win with no captain ships?

No captain Sinop yes it's a good ship, but I played plenty of others without as well, I did all my T7s with or without captains and did not move any captains to play and won well above my normal random WR even then due to I think everybody else doing the same in brawls... (unless you hit a 3 man div of meta ships going for fast wins to get the coal then you just lose the game, and it's just a mater of getting your exp.....)

 

Mate, if I can believe your stats you are better than average (and better than me)... then sorry but you can't be a good example of the average player.

 

More seriously, using your screenshot: if a player would need a 1000 bXp to gain the snowflake, only 40% of those in that match would gain it.

This would be lower than the average winrate, then less convenient time wise.

 

If WG would ever decide to consent consecutive winnings with the same ship to gain snowflakes, I think a requirement of 800bXp would be optimal.

[Ymustihaveaname]

3 hours ago, Bland_42 said:

More seriously, using your screenshot: if a player would need a 1000 bXp to gain the snowflake, only 40% of those in that match would gain it.

This would be lower than the average winrate, then less convenient time wise.

You dont need 1000 BXep unless you want to get lots of snowflakes at the same time with lots of ships in port? (I have 190 ships in port, so only need 400+exp to get the 2 rewards per games)

From WOWs web site,

So everybody got at least one snowflake done from that battle, and all but one would have got two if they had 100+ships in port? And even if you have 350 ships and want 1000 B exp to get 3 bonus rewards per battle, I think you can still 2 if you get 800 B exp as if you only had 299 ships etc...?

 

(from that game 2 of us could get up to 6 snowflakes with 1200+, then 2 could get 5 with 1000, 4 could with 800+, 1 got 2 with 400+ & one with a single for a win/300? (all assuming they had the ships (I did not, for my 6 so was caped at 2 out of the 6 snowflakes I could have got from it due to having 190 ships)

 

And state wise I'm 54% solo (57% random inc divs /59% ranked) so above average but by no means Unicum?

[Bland_42]

1 ora fa, Ymustihaveaname ha scritto:

And state wise I'm 54% solo (57% random inc divs /59% ranked) so above average but by no means Unicum?

Still better than me.

 

The thing about 1000 bXp came about a requirement to gain a snowflake in the theory writed above, but was not stated if was for 1 or for a greater number of snowflakes.

I mean, now you are (correctly) using the current event conditions to calculate it, while I was writing based on the idea that Sir_Sinksalot presented.

If we are using the conditions of the screenshot above then yes, it would be fair... even if I'm not so sure about the convenience vs Coop, time wise.

[doerhoff_damian]

I wonder what Penalty that Guy in the Thunderer/Schlieffen would get in this Video?

Wow Now I'm Cheating Too - YouTube

@Seraphice

[AkulaTSR]

I just quit a battle after about 3 mins , the ONLY Tier 8 ship , uptiered to 10 , CV had taken 3/4 of my health off with his first pass , Quit , warning on screen for leaving early - RAM IT 

 

Strange thing is , i clicked Battle , and was locked in nearly instantly ! Only to then wait over 30 seconds for the battle to start !!!!!  To be the only tier 8 in the game ! i wouldnt have minded waiting another 10 or 20 seconds to get a more fair battle 

[Ymustihaveaname]

6 hours ago, AkulaTSR said:

the ONLY Tier 8 ship , uptiered to 10 , CV had taken 3/4 of my health off with his first pass

I feel your pain, today I had a nice 9v9 t9 game.... with 2 t11 super ships on each side including a USS each.... also two Kearsarges to make it even more fun for dd. (this was in normal prime time EU after 10 sec in que....)