What you think are the problems of the game.

[Andrewbassg]

Well...as per the title.I will start

Cv rework.

Ops rework.

Sub implementation

Interclass balance.

We can expand on them, if there is interest. 

[EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico]

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to also elaborate in detail? This just looks like low effort.

[Asym]

Generational income to quality paradigm shift (change of market); which, equates to a game quality paradigm shift to match the targets, the new generation's market requirements and expectations.   Grand dads now want historical based and quality materials to spend on and kids want constant, exciting change because they have the attention span of 11 minutes.     High cost to achieve (grandparents) and very low cost (grand kids of today) 

I.e.  Duck modes versus WW1 or 2 real life reenactments - if you want an illustration.  Ducks win !  which means, goodbye Boomers.....

 

[Verblonde]

It might be worth differentiating between problem seriousness?

For example, although some of the early CV reework patches made the game entirely unplayable for months on end, I think we're currently at a point where CVs are not wholly intolerable in 'large team' modes (context: DD Main against real people). Yes, I do miss having AA that works properly (Atlanta AA traps were glorious), but I can bear the CVs in their current form (although I would hard-cap them at one per team, regardless of tier, and do think spotting in particular needs more work).

Crucially, CVs probably won't drive me away from the game in their current form.

For me, the serious game-breaking problem is submarines, and that is because the implementation was hurried - the time wasn't taken to ensure they enhance the game for everyone. As things stand, they make the game less enjoyable for almost everyone who isn't playing a submarine. The reasons why have been done to death elsewhere (over-taxing dcp, no counter-play for most etc. etc.).

Submarines have driven me out of Randoms, and caused me to back away from one of the two servers I played on (if something that isn't work isn't fun, I stop doing it). It could be just me over-reacting, of course, but if that is a more widespread reaction, then that's a serious problem.

[Admiral_Karasu]

Interclass balance is something that rarely gets a mention anywhere, even though I consider it once of the major roots of evil when it comes to the .... poor balance which is today's meta. Any balance discussion always inevitably starts to move in circles from HE spam to AP overmatch and onto BB this, cruiser that, DD what else and then there are the CV's and subs thrown into the chaos that the battles tend to be.

[Andrewbassg]

56 minutes ago, EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico said:

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to also elaborate in detail? This just looks like low effort.

Absolutely. it was just a sort of an intro.

So.... Cv rework.

The biggest problem of the rework, as I see it,.....is that created a rift between players  A rift that till this day persists. And created a class, the only class in wows, who can stealthfire.  But there is more. It is way worse than Artie from Wot, because not only spot for himself, but also for the entire team. in essence a strategic class in a tactical environment.

Strategic in a ...tactical shooter?  Yes. The strategic nature of an asset is deriving from its capabilities, not from its role. More so a strategic asset can be used in a purely tactical role.

So what are those capabilities? Can strike anywhere, not hindered by geography and distance. And that describes perfectly the capabilities of Cv's. More so, the class is also capable of providing recce ,with the same attributes. 

The class is also the worst offender for artificial PvP imbalance, namely, all surface ships are subject to module damage as torptubes, secondary and AA guns and even main guns, while Cv's can produce and launch their planes even when under direct fire, or on fire, or flooding, unhindered. And .....there is more. They also have autoconsummable management, almost( if not) the best AA and ASW.

Wedgie......don't you think that this is a bit too much.... dishonesty?  🙂

Edited August 26, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Well...as per the title.I will start

Cv rework.

Ops rework.

Sub implementation

Interclass balance.

We can expand on them, if there is interest. 

Most "problems" stem from two things in my opinion.
1.  Failure of some players to accept that this is a video-game/arcade-game instead of a simulation.  (Simulations would be *really* time consuming, by the way.)
2. Failure of some players to read the wiki pages, study the helpful information and view the "How to" and "How it works" tutorial videos published on World of Warship's official youtube channel and a failure to pursue other useful knowledge and apply it in-game.

Sincerely,
 @Wolfswetpaws

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Verblonde said:

It might be worth differentiating between problem seriousness?

 The assessment of the seriousness of a problem can be done on subjective or objective basis. On objective basis, to me, Cv's are far worse offenders, because they mess with concealment (i.e positioning - strategy) they mess with PvP balance (their survivability is artificially boosted AA, ASW, fire, flooding protection, no module damage) and they don't have skill requirements equal to their capabilities. 

1 hour ago, Verblonde said:

Crucially, CVs probably won't drive me away from the game in their current form.

How to utilise an asset is an entirely subjective matter. If every other Cv  player would be on El2Azer level.....ouch. That's why I kept this.... analysis entirely on factual grounds.

 

1 hour ago, Verblonde said:

For me, the serious game-breaking problem is submarines, and that is because the implementation was hurried - the time wasn't taken to ensure they enhance the game for everyone. As things stand, they make the game less enjoyable for almost everyone who isn't playing a submarine. The reasons why have been done to death elsewhere (over-taxing dcp, no counter-play for most etc. etc.).

Submarines have driven me out of Randoms, and caused me to back away from one of the two servers I played on (if something that isn't work isn't fun, I stop doing it). It could be just me over-reacting, of course, but if that is a more widespread reaction, then that's a serious problem.

Submarines are problematic from the personal enjoyment, fun pov. They dont have the same potential impact on the whole match, their effect is localised.

  

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Interclass balance is something that rarely gets a mention anywhere, even though I consider it once of the major roots of evil when it comes to the .... poor balance which is today's meta. Any balance discussion always inevitably starts to move in circles from HE spam to AP overmatch and onto BB this, cruiser that, DD what else and then there are the CV's and subs thrown into the chaos that the battles tend to be.

That's because Wows uses an imbalanced balance model, where the players actions balance the game. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that Wedgie doesn't like cruisers and treat them as secondary citizens aka "food".

IFHE rework, cap rework, ec ( camo rework) second ec rework, ALL took away from cruisers and they lost more than any other class.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Verblonde]

39 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Submarines are problematic from the personal enjoyment, fun pov. They dont have the same potential impact on the whole match, their effect is localised.

Very true, but they drove me out of Randoms while CVs haven't (even at their worst, they didn't - I just used AA-heavy DDs that didn't care about stealth). Everything I posted is entirely subjective, of course.

For me, this is a game i.e. it's supposed to be fun. Submarines are more detrimental to my fun than CVs are.

41 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

If every other Cv  player would be on El2Azer level.....ouch.

Oof! That'd hurt!!

[AdmiralThunder]

The biggest issue and problem with the game, frankly, are those who make the decisions on how it is being developed and have got it to where it is with their multitude of bad choices. While I still enjoy the game the dev's have changed course and have gone down a path where the stealth/griefer classes, with little if any real counterplay against, have taken over. It has altered the game in a negative way.

So I could do a bunch of individual reasons with long explanations like Subs and their BS mechanics and coddling, CV rework and the total neutering of AA, Capt skill rework (diversity of build my butt - just more grind for less return on pts for us), Economic rework (income nerfs, camos made useless, and so forth), trying to fit special event modes into the normal game rotations (just stop WG for the love of god), long standing bugs and glitches ignored, constantly lying to and disrespecting the players, overly aggressive monetization of the game content, and on and on. The list is long for sure.

But, in the end, it always comes back to the same thing and that is the people who are running this game and making the decisions are the biggest single thing that is tearing it apart and going to kill it. 

The biggest problem with WOWS = WG!

Edited August 26, 2023 by AdmiralThunder

[Asym]

11 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

The biggest issue and problem with the game, frankly, are those who make the decisions on how it is being developed and have got it to where it is with their multitude of bad choices. While I still enjoy the game the dev's have changed course and have gone down a path where the stealth/griefer classes, with little if any real counterplay against, have taken over. It has altered the game in a negative way.

So I could do a bunch of individual reasons with long explanations like Subs and their BS mechanics and coddling, CV rework and the total neutering of AA, Capt skill rework (diversity of build my butt - just more grind for less return on pts for us), Economic rework (income nerfs, camos made useless, and so forth), trying to fit special event modes into the normal game rotations (just stop WG for the love of god), long standing bugs and glitches ignored, constantly lying to and disrespecting the players, overly aggressive monetization of the game content, and on and on. The list is long for sure.

But, in the end, it always comes back to the same thing and that is the people who are running this game and making the decisions are the biggest single thing that is tearing it apart and going to kill it. 

The biggest problem with WOWS = WG!

Frame this and color it GOLD.....  Almost, a military executive summary of years of terrible management (notice: not game Leadership....  Cause, WG doesn't have a clue there...)

**  Moderators:  I do regret using that highly sensitive word "Gold" in a Game Corporation discussion;  where,  that word evokes hysteria and almost Pavlovian drooling and Tourette like spontaneous cursing.....

[Verblonde]

13 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

camos made useless

To be fair, it's perhaps worth noting that although cammo (as in the aesthetic element) is now functionally useless, the detection distance buff is now baked into everything, so we didn't lose anything on that front (for example, Kagero was 5.4 km before the rework, and is still 5.4 km afterwards).

We did lose the dispersion bonus, but then so did everyone; all that changed there is that people who can afford cammo don't get anything that those who can't do.

[AdmiralThunder]

31 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

To be fair, it's perhaps worth noting that although cammo (as in the aesthetic element) is now functionally useless, the detection distance buff is now baked into everything, so we didn't lose anything on that front (for example, Kagero was 5.4 km before the rework, and is still 5.4 km afterwards).

We did lose the dispersion bonus, but then so did everyone; all that changed there is that people who can afford cammo don't get anything that those who can't do.

Yes I know the camo bonus got baked in. But that is irrelevant to my point. Camos are now useless. They do nothing beyond visual.

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Absolutely. it was just a sort of an intro.

So.... Cv rework.

The biggest problem of the rework, as I see it,.....is that created a rift between players  A rift that till this day persists. And created a class, the only class in wows, who can stealthfire.  But there is more. It is way worse than Artie from Wot, because not only spot for himself, but also for the entire team. in essence a strategic class in a tactical environment.

Strategic in a ...tactical shooter?  Yes. The strategic nature of an asset is deriving from its capabilities, not from its role. More so a strategic asset can be used in a purely tactical role.

So what are those capabilities? Can strike anywhere, not hindered by geography and distance. And that describes perfectly the capabilities of Cv's. More so, the class is also capable of providing recce ,with the same attributes. 

The class is also the worst offender for artificial PvP imbalance, namely, all surface ships are subject to module damage as torptubes, secondary and AA guns and even main guns, while Cv's can produce and launch their planes even when under direct fire, or on fire, or flooding, unhindered. And .....there is more. They also have autoconsummable management, almost( if not) the best AA and ASW.

Wedgie......don't you think that this is a bit too much.... dishonesty?  🙂

In some sense you could say the CV rework launched the game into a spiraling slippery slide where we still are today. In past discussions we have touched upon the cons of the RTS CV's, the strafing and counterstrafing issue/buggy UI. I'm not saying if there were issues WG shouldn't have fixed those issue, but their way of fixing is akin to hammering it down with a sledgehammer. The CV rework effectively broke the game and thrust it into a direction where it, IMO, wasn't supposed to go based on the original concept. They had most things pretty close to right in those early years, and have since drifted, or rather been driven, further and further away from that vision.

[Verblonde]

6 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Camos are now useless. They do nothing beyond visual.

Presumably, the question is a variation on 'so what?'; there's no shortage of games where purely cosmetic elements are sold. I happen to think that Cammo is wildly over-valued in the new system, but the basic principle is still relevant, no?

[Admiral_Karasu]

9 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Yes I know the camo bonus got baked in. But that is irrelevant to my point. Camos are now useless. They do nothing beyond visual.

Still, I like it better this way. I can choose whichever camo I like, or choose to equip no camo at all without it negatively impacting my game.

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Most "problems" stem from two things in my opinion.
1.  Failure of some players to accept that this is a video-game/arcade-game instead of a simulation.  (Simulations would be *really* time consuming, by the way.)
2. Failure of some players to read the wiki pages, study the helpful information and view the "How to" and "How it works" tutorial videos published on World of Warship's official youtube channel and a failure to pursue other useful knowledge and apply it in-game.

Sincerely,
 @Wolfswetpaws

Here's my spin on your bullets:

1.  Failure of some players to accept that this is a video-game/arcade-game instead of a simulation.  (Simulations would be *really* time consuming, by the way.)

• The game's "vision statement" was centered on the World War ships and what they did....  So no, it wasn't advertised are an "kiddie arcade shooter" at all...  They (WG) wanted the Boomers, whom remembered what their parents and neighbors stories of WW2 in the Atlantic and Pacific.  They wanted the cash of retiring or retired Boomers that were willing to spend.   Until, they realized,  it was too expensive to provide first world and quality material.   Plan B.........the grand kids which is so much easier to do at a very low cost.

2. Failure of some players to read the wiki pages, study the helpful information and view the "How to" and "How it works" tutorial videos published on World of Warship's official youtube channel and a failure to pursue other useful knowledge and apply it in-game.

• The game is a mess and somehow, it's our fault?  Randoms got so bad at the Cruiser Line Split and shortly thereafter, the CV rebork (Update 8.0) the CC's and their videos simply couldn't keep up with the game's intentional de evolution into a kiddie arcade shooter for a different market....

You could be more right than I am and I look forward to a good conversation.

Best regards

Aysm

Edited August 26, 2023 by Asym

[AdmiralThunder]

18 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

Presumably, the question is a variation on 'so what?'; there's no shortage of games where purely cosmetic elements are sold. I happen to think that Cammo is wildly over-valued in the new system, but the basic principle is still relevant, no?

 

18 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Still, I like it better this way. I can choose whichever camo I like, or choose to equip no camo at all without it negatively impacting my game.

My comment was they made camos useless which they did. I don't see how that can be argued by anyone (not saying you 2 are - that is a general statement)? It serves no purpose now other than visual. Had they just left the +3%/-4% on them at least then they would have some purpose. Now they are purely cosmetic and that is it. While that is ok it should have seen a massive reduction in their cost when purchasing as a result and that didn't happen (shocker - WG offering less for the same price LOL).

The LOL part of it all is they continue to offer them as rewards, and sell them (only discount of sorts is on a 1st perma camo for a ship - other than that old pricing style costs), as if nothing changed despite them offering zero useful purpose (other than visual/cosmetic). I don't necessarily have an issue with what they did (I would prefer at least +3%/-4% had remained) but rather, in typical WG fashion, they lessened the value of something to the player while keeping costs basically the same.

My personal favorite during the whole economic/camo rework mess on the NA forums was an NA CM telling me camos are still very useful for their intended purpose; as camo. He insisted that using camos made the ship harder to see in game, thus making aiming harder, and thus working as intended. I laughed so hard at that I almost pee'd my pants. 90% of the camos are garish brightly colored monstrosities that in no way hide the ship. Instead they scream HERE I AM SHOOT ME! LOL

WG employee telling me in game camos work like IRL camo and are thus valuable...

 

[SureBridge]

17 minutes ago, Asym said:

2. Failure of some players to read the wiki pages, study the helpful information and view the "How to" and "How it works" tutorial videos published on World of Warship's official youtube channel and a failure to pursue other useful knowledge and apply it in-game.

There is some very good information out there on how to play the game, and from reading the forums (a lot) there *used* to be a good training ground (low tier randoms) but this has become very underpopulated and "seal clubby" in the last few years. 

This leaves a void for the new players who come in all bright eyed and curious - many of whom buy a high (ish) tier premium, get into the Random "whack a mess" and drop out. There was a group of players trying to put together a "Warships 101" training program, and got two modules in before the forums were swallowed by the void. Since WG has not (in many years) put together such a program, then we, the player base need to. 

You can expect a "Training" area to appear on this forum in the coming weeks, and it would be GREAT if folks could contribute clarifications, commentary, feedback and even some in-game time in the training room (or in div) with new players to try and help new players "git gud" and explain to them what they can do to be competitive. 

There is already a Clan Battles training group that does inter-clan scrims, so that you can find out what your team did that was "scary" and where your mistakes were from the other side's point of view. 

I enjoy Randoms when the players on both sides are capable - a steamroll isn't really fun for anyone so IMO the best way to improve the quality of the game is to increase the quality of the players I play with (and against). 

More news coming when we have time to actually put the program together, but I'll try to make that happen this week.

(Edit to add)

So in addition to "what are the problems" I'd love to see some suggestions for solutions that we, the players can do something about.

[Wolfswetpaws]

28 minutes ago, Asym said:

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Most "problems" stem from two things in my opinion.
1.  Failure of some players to accept that this is a video-game/arcade-game instead of a simulation.  (Simulations would be *really* time consuming, by the way.)
2. Failure of some players to read the wiki pages, study the helpful information and view the "How to" and "How it works" tutorial videos published on World of Warship's official youtube channel and a failure to pursue other useful knowledge and apply it in-game.

Sincerely,
 @Wolfswetpaws

Expand  

Here's my spin on your bullets:

1.  Failure of some players to accept that this is a video-game/arcade-game instead of a simulation.  (Simulations would be *really* time consuming, by the way.)

• The game's "vision statement" was centered on the World War ships and what they did....  So no, it wasn't advertised are an "kiddie arcade shooter" at all...  They (WG) wanted the Boomers, whom remembered what their parents and neighbors stories of WW2 in the Atlantic and Pacific.  They wanted the cash of retiring or retired Boomers that were willing to spend.   Until, they realized,  it was too expensive to provide first world and quality material.   Plan B.........the grand kids which is so much easier to do at a very low cost.

2. Failure of some players to read the wiki pages, study the helpful information and view the "How to" and "How it works" tutorial videos published on World of Warship's official youtube channel and a failure to pursue other useful knowledge and apply it in-game.

The game is a mess and somehow, it's our fault?  Randoms got so bad at the Cruiser Line Split and shortly thereafter, the CV rebork (Update 8.0) the CC's and their videos simply couldn't keep up with the game's intentional de evolution into a kiddie arcade shooter for a different market....

You could be more right than I am and I look forward to a good conversation.

Best regards

Aysm

I've played simulations, mostly flight-sim simulations, but a few naval ones.  Also I've played computer games based-upon Amarillo Design Bureau's Starfleet Battles.

Simulations, in my experience can last a long time. 
If they're in "single-player mode", usually there's an option to speed-up the game or cut-to-the-chase or the area of action.

WOWs is maxed at 20 minutes per battle.
WOWs uses "consumables" and other stuff that defies physics. 
Repair parties 3-D printing hulls, radar and sonar operating through islands, unlimited ammo and etc. & etc.
That's more like "Mario Mushrooms" or other power-ups provided in other computer games or console games or arcade games.

WOWs, in my opinion, is a lot like "paintball".  
The maps are small.  Guns don't reach-out to their actual historic ranges.  We're prevented from leaving through the map-borders.

 @Sailor_Moon and I did an investigative session to determine if Deep Water Torpedoes could hit a Submarine.
In theory, if the physics were modeled properly, then a Submarine that happened to be at the right place, at the right depth at the right (wrong?) moment would be hit by deep-running torpedoes.
Well, "nope".
Turns out, the DWT's are computer programming coded to only affect certain ships and Submarines are off the list.
We published our findings in a topic on the old forums.
But, if WOWs were a simulation, I figure we'd have had more success at actually hitting a submarine with DWT's.
One might argue from the standpoint of WOWs using "lazy coding", but the game behavior remains (at least for now).

I've read about a historic aerial attack method used by Norway and a few others.
Essentially, the squadron finds a ship and then splits-up to attack the ship from 3 or more directions (if they have enough planes).
The idea is to split the ship's AA attention and hopefully one or more planes can "get through" to perform their attack.
Can that be attempted in WOWs?  Nope.
The closest thing was when RTS CV's could use 3 or more squadrons to attack a single ship.  But, that's no longer feasible.  The closest approximation we could try now would be two CV's working with one or two Hybrid BB's to make a coordinated attack from 3 or 4 directions simultaneously.  Possible, but rare.

Simulation compared with arcade game.  🙂

Is WOWs fun to play?  Yes, I think so.
Is it a simulation?  No.  I don't think it is.
But some people persist in their personal expectations of what WOWs should be.  They persist to the point of it being unhealthy for them, in some cases, I reckon.
And that unhealthy outlook is one of the phenomena that I consider to be a problem.
It's a game, played for fun.  Some of the time people's expectations become burdens for themselves and others (who have to deal with the "toxic" aspects and expressions stemming from the unhealthy expectations).
In some cases I figure a given person simply doesn't know better, yet.  Other people might be persuaded to an understanding and acceptance of "what is" compared with "what they want".  It varies for each person, I suppose.  🙂
 

  

11 minutes ago, SureBridge said:

You can expect a "Training" area to appear on this forum in the coming weeks, and it would be GREAT if folks could contribute clarifications, commentary, feedback and even some in-game time in the training room (or in div) with new players to try and help new players "git gud" and explain to them what they can do to be competitive. 

👍

[Admiral_Karasu]

@Wolfswetpaws It's about immersion and suspension of disbelief, or lack thereof. Understandably, it cannot be a simulation because of the time limit on battles and the built in time acceleration, which I personally think is too fast especially now although it might have originally fit the game's tempo, effectively making the game harder to play than what it used to be. I've argued that WoWS isn't an arcade game too because it, both in terms of mechanics and the player input required, is too complex for that. An arcade game in my book is always a game you don't need a manual to play, fast learning curve, limited replayability kind of game.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

@Wolfswetpaws It's about immersion and suspension of disbelief, or lack thereof. Understandably, it cannot be a simulation because of the time limit on battles and the built in time acceleration, which I personally think is too fast especially now although it might have originally fit the game's tempo, effectively making the game harder to play than what it used to be. I've argued that WoWS isn't an arcade game too because it, both in terms of mechanics and the player input required, is too complex for that. An arcade game in my book is always a game you don't need a manual to play, fast learning curve, limited replayability kind of game.

Even the card game known as "Uno" has a rule-book.  🙂
Game of pool/billards?  Yeah, you can pick it up with some observations and verbal instruction, but there is a rule-book, and there are training videos on youtube for the advanced aspects of play.  🙂

[Admiral_Karasu]

35 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

 

My comment was they made camos useless which they did. I don't see how that can be argued by anyone (not saying you 2 are - that is a general statement)? It serves no purpose now other than visual. Had they just left the +3%/-4% on them at least then they would have some purpose. Now they are purely cosmetic and that is it. While that is ok it should have seen a massive reduction in their cost when purchasing as a result and that didn't happen (shocker - WG offering less for the same price LOL).

The LOL part of it all is they continue to offer them as rewards, and sell them (only discount of sorts is on a 1st perma camo for a ship - other than that old pricing style costs), as if nothing changed despite them offering zero useful purpose (other than visual/cosmetic). I don't necessarily have an issue with what they did (I would prefer at least +3%/-4% had remained) but rather, in typical WG fashion, they lessened the value of something to the player while keeping costs basically the same.

My personal favorite during the whole economic/camo rework mess on the NA forums was an NA CM telling me camos are still very useful for their intended purpose; as camo. He insisted that using camos made the ship harder to see in game, thus making aiming harder, and thus working as intended. I laughed so hard at that I almost pee'd my pants. 90% of the camos are garish brightly colored monstrosities that in no way hide the ship. Instead they scream HERE I AM SHOOT ME! LOL

WG employee telling me in game camos work like IRL camo and are thus valuable...

 

From a technical point of view you are right. As far as the game mechanics go, the camos became useless. They only have a cosmetic 'function' (which isn't a real function) and some credit value. I might also need reminding did we lose something in terms of value for the permacamos we had bought because we lost the dispersion bonus, didn't we? So if we did lose in terms of value, we got a little bit cheated in the process but .... I don't really remember the details that well any more.

The NA CM you mention wasn't entirely wrong, in my opinion, because I think some camos under certain map conditions make it harder to see the targetin detail. The benefit is marginal only, and since it's only visual does not impact the game mechanics side in any way. It may cause a slight delay for the aiming, or it might not, depending on the reaction speed and skill of the opposing player targeting you. Obviously this only applies to historically accurate or historically inspired camos that have the actual ability to visually function like real camo patterns. 

10 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Even the card game known as "Uno" has a rule-book.  🙂
Game of pool/billards?  Yeah, you can pick it up with some observations and verbal instruction, but there is a rule-book, and there are training videos on youtube for the advanced aspects of play.  🙂

Real men don't read manuals! Well.. at least not until they've effed up and have to...

[Wulf_Ace]

Wargaming policy not to talk to playerbase.

WG ignoring ALL feedback.

WG gamble events.

WG dont play their own game.

Basiclly WG fault, players can adopt to the game but they cant anything to this toxic publisher.

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 minute ago, Wulf_Ace said:

Wargaming policy not to talk to playerbase.

WG ignoring ALL feedback.

WG gamble events.

WG dont play their own game.

Basiclly WG fault, players can adopt to the game but they cant anything to this toxic publisher.

I gather some issues we can adapt better than others. Also, obviously, the above average players will be able to adapt better, or at least more quickly and easily, than the below average players.