Weekend oh God my f#$%^& back, thank God that's over.

[Utt_Bugglier]

10 hours ago, Arcus_Aesopi said:

…”Free" Wisconsin due to having WV '43…

“WV ‘43”?????

That would be, by definition and by constraint of history, a “dockyard ship” of its own. Permanently for that matter, having been in one dockyard or another for all of 1943.

But that might be a cool dockyard event someday: take one of the Pearl Harbor battlewagons that was raised and modernized, and have a dockyard event covering that process - instead of the conventional launch stage, replace it with the transfer from Pearl Harbor to Mare Island/Puget Sound, etc.

[Frostbow]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Using the PTS to be "thrifty" with one's live-server account is among the many tricks in his "bag of tricks" that @Ensign Cthulhu has shared over time.

It is no one's trick, Wolf. I've seen plenty of players who have zero presence and participation on the old NA forum do it. On my end, I explored and maximized the PTS way before I 'discovered' and started participating on the old forum. 

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

It is, however, much more cost-effective to conduct initial testing on the Public Test Server.

I've always wondered why credits are a key consideration. Don't you guys have at least a year's worth of Premium Account? 

And how can 'testing' of a ship on the PTS be of meaningful value when there's not enough real players to test and fight against? 

Perhaps it is due to a player's self-imposed limitation, i.e., play Co-op only, paired with significant skill issues, that severely limit one's credit earnings and therefore, one's enjoyment in World of Warships. Imagine, a player with 20,000 Co-op battles still has to wait for the next round of PTS to be able to play and enjoy the fruit of his 'back-aching' grind because of 'credits'. PTS has been relegated to a crutch.

[Arcus_Aesopi]

10 minutes ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

“WV ‘43”?????

That would be, by definition and by constraint of history, a “dockyard ship” of its own. Permanently for that matter, having been in one dockyard or another for all of 1943.

But that might be a cool dockyard event someday: take one of the Pearl Harbor battlewagons that was raised and modernized, and have a dockyard event covering that process - instead of the conventional launch stage, replace it with the transfer from Pearl Harbor to Mare Island/Puget Sound, etc.

What you didn't get the WV '43 with auto aiming main guns, 50% decrease in reload time... Rocket pack engines with 200% speed boost for 300 seconds... 100% effective AA and auto mine-clearing?   Mine logs in and plays autonomously... it just earns resources on its own!

You musta' said something mean about WG... I though everyone got the "new" boat... 

I like the "alternate" dockyard you suggested... would make for interesting graphics if nothing else.  The "clearing debris" phases would be interesting 🙂 maybe a salvage phase...

😉

(I'll fix the typo 😄) 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

15 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

It is no one's trick, Wolf. I've seen plenty of players who have zero presence and participation on the old NA forum do it. On my end, I explored and maximized the PTS way before I 'discovered' and started participating on the old forum. 

I've always wondered why credits are a key consideration. Don't you guys have at least a year's worth of Premium Account? 

And how can 'testing' of a ship on the PTS be of meaningful value when there's not enough real players to test and fight against? 

Perhaps it is due to a player's self-imposed limitation, i.e., play Co-op only, paired with significant skill issues, that severely limit one's credit earnings and therefore, one's enjoyment in World of Warships. Imagine, a player with 20,000 Co-op battles still has to wait for the next round of PTS to be able to play and enjoy the fruit of his 'back-aching' grind because of 'credits'. PTS has been relegated to a crutch.

Credits are the rate limiting resource for grind in this game...this has been true for most of my years in the game.

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

It is no one's trick, Wolf. I've seen plenty of players who have zero presence and participation on the old NA forum do it. On my end, I explored and maximized the PTS way before I 'discovered' and started participating on the old forum. 

I've always wondered why credits are a key consideration. Don't you guys have at least a year's worth of Premium Account? 

And how can 'testing' of a ship on the PTS be of meaningful value when there's not enough real players to test and fight against? 

Perhaps it is due to a player's self-imposed limitation, i.e., play Co-op only, paired with significant skill issues, that severely limit one's credit earnings and therefore, one's enjoyment in World of Warships. Imagine, a player with 20,000 Co-op battles still has to wait for the next round of PTS to be able to play and enjoy the fruit of his 'back-aching' grind because of 'credits'. PTS has been relegated to a crutch.

I get the impression you have "disdain" for anyone who isn't a "random main".
Personally, I feel the 'Bots have more courage than most human players, and their bold charges make the game more lively and entertaining.
Lately the 'Bots have been adding to their repertoire and have provided me with some "clever girl" moments of appreciation.
When 'Bots beach their ships onto islands, they're only emulating the behaviors of humans, among other dumb "oops" stunts that humans do, anyway.
Essentially, the spectrum of behavior among both humans and bots is something that forum members have complained about for years, even though both humans and 'bots are doing the same things.
So, I see zero need for "snobbery" or "discrimination" or exclusion of points-of-view merely because of some arbitrary categorizations.
Whatever.  Agree to disagree.  Moving along.  🙂 

While there's no copyright on the good idea of using the PTS to save on live-server expenses, not everyone thinks of it early in their WOWs "career".
So, sharing that tidbit of advice, among others, seems fine by me. 
I don't care who shares good information, as long as the information is correct.

I'm not sure that I can adequately explain what seems to be an alien way of thinking for you, based upon your words above and in other posts.
Not everyone is a "millionaire" in real life, and quite a few millionaires in real life achieved that status by knowing how & when to be thrifty.

[Wolfswetpaws]

31 minutes ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

“WV ‘43”?????

 

15 minutes ago, Arcus_Aesopi said:

What you didn't get the WV '43

The WOWs wiki lists the VI W. Virginia '41   and the VII West Virginia '44 .
Where are you finding the West Virginia '43 in-game?

Edited to add:  Are you perhaps confusing them with the VII Scharnhorst '43  ?  Or the VIII Belfast '43  ?

Edited June 3 by Wolfswetpaws

[Frostbow]

4 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I get the impression you have "disdain" for anyone who isn't a "random main".

Your impression is unfounded, Wolf. And I'm not even what you would call a 'random main', because the number of random battles I have entered is just a third of the total number of Co-op battles I have. Add to that are the countless forays I had in Operations. 

6 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So, I see zero need for "snobbery" or "discrimination" or exclusion of points-of-view merely because of some arbitrary categorizations.

What are you talking about, Wolf? You feel snubbed by my inquiries? That I questioned the strategy to do ship testing on the PTS is 'discrimination'? 

[Wolfswetpaws]

15 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

25 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I get the impression you have "disdain" for anyone who isn't a "random main".

Your impression is unfounded, Wolf. And I'm not even what you would call a 'random main', because the number of random battles I have entered is just a third of the total number of Co-op battles I have. Add to that are the countless forays I had in Operations. 

25 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So, I see zero need for "snobbery" or "discrimination" or exclusion of points-of-view merely because of some arbitrary categorizations.

What are you talking about, Wolf? You feel snubbed by my inquiries? That I questioned the strategy to do ship testing on the PTS is 'discrimination'? 

Well.  I'm glad that's cleared-up.
For a while there, you could have fooled me.
It seems that I over-reacted to the recipe of your words, the interpreted sentiments, and my own personal experiences with various people over the years.
For my over-reaction, I apologize.

[Arcus_Aesopi]

29 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

 

The WOWs wiki lists the VI W. Virginia '41   and the VII West Virginia '44 .
Where are you finding the West Virginia '43 in-game?

Edited to add:  Are you perhaps confusing them with the VII Scharnhorst '43  ?  Or the VIII Belfast '43  ?

Or, the 4 and the 3 keys are side by side...   🙂   The rest was just scary auto-play nonsense that is kinda happening over time... I fixed the typo.

[Arcus_Aesopi]

7 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

For my over-reaction, I apologize.

That was nice.

(pssst... overreactions are the lifeblood of online chatter...)

[SolitudeFreak]

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

there are never enough Fletchers!

It's true, there aren't.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

18 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

 

Or were you working at a grind hamster wheel...and you could have been enjoying the absolutely gorgeous weather over the weekend instead?

😉

I forgot to mention - where I was, the weather was absolute f#$%^& s**t. I missed nothing.

1 hour ago, Frostbow said:

It is no one's trick, Wolf. I've seen plenty of players who have zero presence and participation on the old NA forum do it. On my end, I explored and maximized the PTS way before I 'discovered' and started participating on the old forum. 

I've always wondered why credits are a key consideration. Don't you guys have at least a year's worth of Premium Account? 

And how can 'testing' of a ship on the PTS be of meaningful value when there's not enough real players to test and fight against? 

Perhaps it is due to a player's self-imposed limitation, i.e., play Co-op only, paired with significant skill issues, that severely limit one's credit earnings and therefore, one's enjoyment in World of Warships. Imagine, a player with 20,000 Co-op battles still has to wait for the next round of PTS to be able to play and enjoy the fruit of his 'back-aching' grind because of 'credits'. PTS has been relegated to a crutch.

There is a saying: watch the pennies and the pounds (dollars, whatever) will look after themselves.

So it is with credits spent on module refits in the live server because you didn't do your homework in the place where credits are irrelevant. A couple hundred thousand here, a few million there - eventually it adds up. 

I don't need to play against humans to assess what the Wisconsin's secondaries will do to an opposing ship with an all-in build. I don't need to play against humans to see how she shoots if I take both APR mods and pour everything into the main armament, or forego APR2 for rate of fire. 

I also don't need you bringing skill issues into this. I play co-op because (a) I'm frequently on call for the local hospital, (b) I often have to get up and do things around the house, (c) I want a game mode that's fun, relaxing and lets me blow off steam.

Sometimes I play Randoms. My original plan for the weekend before last was to power-grind the Yorktown in Randoms on stream and pick up the Essex, but Friday brought a nasty thunderstorm which, among other things, molested my router and made that impossible. The weekend just past, I was on call and not willing to risk blue boosters in a  game I might have had to AFK from because of my job. This weekend coming, Little Miss Cthulhu has her final dance recital and I'll be sacrificing the stream to go watch that. But it does happen.

Availability of credits isn't an issue either; I have over 180 million, but I got that way by not wasting any on unwarranted refits, among other things.

PTS isn't a crutch. It's a test server. The function is all in the name. So I test things there. 

Go stick a burning Izumo up your aft sideways.

 

[Jakeshuffle]

This weekend was brutal for me in Randoms. Not sure if it was all in my head, but every match where I made a difference it wasn't enough and I definitely didn't make a difference in many matches. Weekend prior it was like matchmaking was just gifting me Victorys because it felt bad, I got them so consistently even when I played poorly.

 

"That's the way she goes. Sometimes she does, sometimes she doesn't. Just the way she goes" Ray, Trailer Park Boys.

[Utt_Bugglier]

34 minutes ago, Arcus_Aesopi said:

 

(pssst... overreactions are the lifeblood of online chatter...)

Wussified response of a gutless forum dweeb!!!

(Levity, people!)

[Aethervox]

11 hours ago, Asym said:

Yes, we are stuck in the "era of the clones" because the game simply can't afford new content...."

ROFL. All Victor Kisilyi, the owner, has to do is open his wallet. Can't afford new content. ROFL

[Admiral_Karasu]

Honestly, though. When was the last time you people checked how frigging many ships there are in this game. I wish WG would focus on something else than just ships contentwise.

[PrairiePlayer]

25 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Honestly, though. When was the last time you people checked how frigging many ships there are in this game. I wish WG would focus on something else than just ships contentwise.

I absolutely agree with your comment, however, I am sure WG believes that new ships better translate into more money spent by players. 

[Asym]

44 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

ROFL. All Victor Kisilyi, the owner, has to do is open his wallet. Can't afford new content. ROFL

OK, talk is cheap.....  I've heard this straw-dog argument since this forum opened... Oooh, he's so rich that........  So, where is any new content ? 

• Seen a North Atlantic convoy game mode designed for subs and DD's and Cruisers??? 
• Seen any Cold War modes of play with new, vastly larger maps that can include missiles???
• Seen any World War 1 and Washington Treaty combat modes of play??? 
• Seen any Pacific littoral combat modes designed for US PT boats and DD's against the Japanese supply lines?  (since a PT boat never sunk a single ship !)
• Seen any technology changes to the IJN that were actually in used late war?  i.e.  the Akizuki line's anti-aircraft ships with AA radar?
• Speaking of the IJN, have we seen the I-400 series subs that we sooooo secret we actually stole them, studied them and then, sank them deep?
• Seen any corrections to the recent cheating scandal in the Far East???  Nope, "not world was spoken, the game is simply broken..."
• Seen any large game population increases in North America???   Nope....

Hmmmmm?  He's really trying to...........spend nothing to make money from lazy people whom these past few years simply don't care anymore.....

Nope, talk is cheap.   All we see is the same ole, same ole with more and more young adult themes and games of chance components.

Edited June 3 by Asym

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Asym said:

OK, talk is cheap.....  I've heard this straw-dog argument since this forum opened... Oooh, he's so rich that........  So, where is any new content ? 

• Seen a North Atlantic convoy game mode designed for subs and DD's and Cruisers??? 
• Seen any Cold War modes of play with new, vastly larger maps that can include missiles???
• Seen any World War 1 and Washington Treaty combat modes of play??? 
• Seen any Pacific littoral combat modes designed for US PT boats and DD's against the Japanese supply lines?  (since a PT boat never sunk a single ship !)
• Seen any technology changes to the IJN that were actually in used late war?  i.e.  the Akizuki line's anti-aircraft ships with AA radar?
• Speaking of the IJN, have we seen the I-400 series subs that we sooooo secret we actually stole them, studied them and then, sank them deep?
• Seen any corrections to the recent cheating scandal in the Far East???  Nope, "not world was spoken, the game is simply broken..."
• Seen any large game population increases in North America???   Nope....

Hmmmmm?  He's really trying to...........spend nothing to make money from lazy people whom these past few years simply don't care anymore.....

Nope, talk is cheap.   All we see is the same ole, same ole with more and more young adult themes and games of chance components.

Aren't you forgetting all the exciting events and combat missions that shower valuable rewards on us?

[Aethervox]

29 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Honestly, though. When was the last time you people checked how frigging many ships there are in this game.

Challenge was accepted 😁. I just checked WoWS Wiki & did some counting. They, presently (today) have 728* ships listed 😁.

The one anomaly I found was that WoWS has only 16 DDs listed for the UK. Surely, the UK had many more DDs (classes & ships) than what is shown. 'Anomaly'.

* this total includes plenty of clones, btw

[Admiral_Karasu]

Just now, Aethervox said:

Challenge was accepted 😁. I just checked WoWS Wiki & did some counting. They, presently (today) have 728* ships listed 😁.

The one anomaly I found was that WoWS has only 16 DDs listed for the UK. Surely, the UK had many more DDs (classes & ships) than what is shown. 'Anomaly'.

* this total includes plenty of clones, btw

I do believe they actually had clone ships in reality too. They also didn't sail out of the Lesta Cafeteria Napkin Cabinet.

[Asym]

Just now, Admiral_Karasu said:

Aren't you forgetting all the exciting events and combat missions that shower valuable rewards on us?

I wasn't going to even bring the obvious up for fear of setting off the several,  silver lining commentators....   It's just you commentators.  Get GuD types that abound at speaking meritocratic, personal bests in a game that doesn't even have a skill gated process or requirements...? 

Sigh

[Asym]

6 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

Challenge was accepted 😁. I just checked WoWS Wiki & did some counting. They, presently (today) have 728* ships listed 😁.

The one anomaly I found was that WoWS has only 16 DDs listed for the UK. Surely, the UK had many more DDs (classes & ships) than what is shown. 'Anomaly'.

* this total includes plenty of clones, btw

Yeah, let the eat cake....

I visit a game I played before WoWs.......  Mechwarrior online.  They have Mechs and we have Ships....  Guess what???  I went back and looked at just how many imaginary mechs there are now !  Oh My GoD !   It's insane....    In three more years, in this game, we'll have another 700 plus ships because..............they can fleece collectors with money and nothing better to do......

Quantity is not Quality.... 

And, unlike Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen et al., we don't have an "open Universe" to sail in.  We play on one planet on just a few small maps that never change or get added to.....

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Honestly, though. When was the last time you people checked how frigging many ships there are in this game. I wish WG would focus on something else than just ships contentwise.

Many years back, we pitched on the forums a number of ideas for actual new content that WG could monetize...campaigns, special map modes, the whole shebang.

It was aggressively shot down by WG leadership.

[oldblackdog]

59 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Many years back, we pitched on the forums a number of ideas for actual new content that WG could monetize...campaigns, special map modes, the whole shebang.

It was aggressively shot down by WG leadership.

I remember those discussions, and I would include the frequent requests to add content for low-tier ships***. Despite our pleas, WG continued on the course of high-tier fantasy and supership silliness. 

 

***Long time players will remember when WG didn't always treat low tier as an unwanted step-child. They had missions and events for low-tier, and some decent rewards (I keep Wakatake in my port, along with her bonus package and perma camo). I miss those days.

  

Edited June 3 by oldblackdog