evilleMonkeigh

Damn. Imagine if this happened too often and Admiral Thunder were restricted to only co-op for a few games as punishment! It would be awful for him, as I know he hates co op so much. It's totally worth him making a thread about this.

Here you claim games are rigged because the "good" players (which you define as the ones with high win percent) are on one team. In the next sentence, it appears you claim win percent is meaningless as wins are "handed out" due to MM. I find the mental gymnastics here amusing.

Ah, so this GC issue is all the "community's" fault, I see. This all has nothing to do with WG. I admit though, I'm a little curious as to where they draw the data that the majority of the "community" is happy with OP ships and is not interested in balance. Some of the points in the OP seem a little contradictory. It's great to hear that WG's balancing has become better though; I suppose this is why the introduction of CVs was so smooth and drama-free. It's great to hear you guys know how to incrementally buff and nerf instead of swinging a sledgehammer wildly, and have learned how to listen to your testers and player feedback. Hmm. Is special occasions a Russian term for "loot crate?"

So the team with the better players (the ones with high average win %) wins more? My goodness! *mind blown*

Down a lot. Played a few co op. Waiting until randoms are fun again.

Easy. It's if they feel the nerf was fair or not. Or if they liked the nerf, it's not a nerf. Also, some people don't understand indirect nerfs. It has to be reaaally obvious. Also, widespread nerfs somehow cannot be nerfs. I.e. if it effects more than one ship, it's "balance." Logic is not a part of this. I've had people argue OWSF was not a nerf to Blyskawica "because it was good for the game." Ignore the fact removing OWSF made a ship weaker/less effective. (definition of nerf) If OWSF wasn't effective, then why did they want it removed? If OWSF WAS effective and potent, then removing it is a nerf) No, as long as they feel something is not a nerf, it isn't a nerf. Feelings > Logic.

Q: "The playerbase is rioting about CV's - what can we do comrade?" A: "Simple, nerf or change a premium. Even better if it is a BB premium as the BB folk will react the most. I guarantee CV complaints off the front page by tomorrow"

This seems a good way to calm people down who were upset over the CV rework.

Wait - what? BB got a nerf? What year is this, 2015?

Is this the persuasive cat guy? If teams are evenly balanced, they have an even chance to win (initially). 50/50 If teams are unbalanced, i.e. all the good players are on one team, the chance to win is uneven i.e. 70/30, 80/20, even 90/10. This is completely correct, but the reasons you arrived at the conclusion as well as the causes for them are completely false.

SBMM sounds like a nice way of making a more even chance to win..... But given how WG "fixed" MM in WoT with 7-5-3, ensuring you get to be bottom tier 100% of the time in T8 instead of 50% of the time.... ....I'm wary of ïmprovements" as WG never rolls back mistakes, but only adds new mechanic over the top, creating Rube Goldberg-esque balancing issues...

I'm sure they will be incredibly weak when first released and need numerous buffs which will only slowly be implemented....

Given OP's concern is equipping ships with weapons or gear they didn't have, a better analogy would be giving the Missouri 9 x 18" Yamato guns or adding Long Lances to all USN heavy cruisers. Or CVs like the Langley operating jets. Of course WoWs completely arcade. It's mechanics are completely made up, scale is skewed, etc. However the ships in WoWs usually have similar weapons to their real life counterparts. I don't think he is being unreasonable in questioning a deviation from the in-game "norm" in the sense that ships tend to be equipped similar to their real life counterparts. I'm sure if all US cruiser came with Long Lances, there would be complaints... ..and I doubt there would be people racing to shout the OP down then...

The Belfast and Missouri have not been nerfed at all, for YOU (the owner). The delay (nerf) exists only for your team mates. So it is your team mates who should be eligible for a refund, not you. You have not been nerfed at all. So you cannot expect a refund. But if you want that one credit back you paid for the Missouri, I'm OK with that.