• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

386 Excellent


About SyndicatedINC

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Birthday 07/03/1978
  • Portal profile SyndicatedINC

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

624 profile views
  1. Often I would agree however the OP's entire post/vid is an attempt at belittling WG for what the OP views as a sneaky underhanded deception. Given that several notices went out including via email and in game, and in the port UI mouse overs, it is quite clear that there is no deception going on. Thus the OP is getting what they attempted to give, and rightfully so for their lack of research and instant toxicity. These sort of quick-triggered ill-informed bile spewing is problem enough on these boards. If a thorough public mocking of them causes them to clean up or clear out then either way the better.
  2. The only thing about the WG crates that might be able to be considered gambling is that they offered items that can not be obtained via predictive reasonable regular play or static cost purchase. Things such as ships that are permanently removed from the store. So for example the santa crates offer gremy and nikolai meant that random chance determined whether you could get one, and spending more meant more random chances. This is gambling. If however you could get them from Super Containers and you had a guarantee that every 100 containers was an SC and every SC dropped a ship and if you already own it then it drops a different ship, well then you could easily do the math and say I play X amount and I can get a guarantee of a gremy or nikolai. Or if they were for individual sale in the shop. This is not however what happens. Thus the there is no guaranteed way to get it only increased odds with increased money. The rest of the items being for sale at static cost in game or in the store, or rotating in and out of the store at static cost, etc, mean that you are purchasing a chance at an random valued item, that can be obtained guaranteed by another means, you just are choosing to purchase this chance item (essentially a raffle for something that is available in the store as well). The Halloween crates were a bit problematic as you were capped at 5 free. So they really should have offered the unique skins as doubloon cost items in game along with the crates, so folks that didn't want to spend as much but wanted a guaranteed X ship skin could but it that way. Obviously they did not do this so that they could maximize their profits. Which is not great, but also no where near the EA SWBF level as these are in many cases just cosmetic. As for the super economic flags etc in the Yamato mission and dunkirk crates, if you recall they also offered those flags for static cost sale for limited times periodically around then. The only think you couldn't get for static sale that was in the crates was the collection items which could be obtained (albeit slower) by playing the game. This is the definition of pay-to-progress-faster, not gambling or pay-to-win. So the TL;DR is the removed ships being in purchasable santa crates, and the Halloween skins being locked behind crates, are probably the only line crossing that WG has done. Bundles with locked ship at static cost are not "random chance" therefore not gambling. They are fixed cost items, albeit maybe high cost fixed. However they aren't "chance". If WG wants to avoid gambling accusations, all they need to do if make sure all items offered in crates in the future fall under the category of also available either for fixed purchase cost and/or available by guarantee from reasonable in game play (ie not "if you play 20 hours a day each day for a month..."). Which means no unique random chance items or removed ships in crates you pay real money for.
  3. I don't understand why people keep calling it advantage over other players. I ran a free account for a year, and ran full camo and premium consumables, signal flags etc. I just however was unable to advance very fast, getting only a single ship line up to T8 in a year of games. Switched to a paying account, and the grind became simple, I ground 15 lines to t10 in the same time frame while still running full camo and premium consumables. It is absolutely a pay to progress faster. The only reason a free to play player would be unable to run the same in game advantages on a tech tree ship is if you are choosing to save for grinding. Yes it is an insidious tactic to drive people to pay more than they want to, and will discourage players who want to play and progress but refuse to pay so much, but consumables and camo are by no means any sort of game advantage over a free to play account unless the free to play account chooses not to use them. Some premium ships are stronger than some free ships, but likewise many premium ships suck, and many tech tree ships are superior to their premium counterparts.
  4. pretty much this WG doesn't want to change team sizes from 12 v 12, they dont want to alter the 3 tier MM spread. Fine, if they insist on that, then at the very least change the reward bonus for victory from winning to being in the top 12 of the 24 in match. People care so much about losing because the grind is painful and you lose a LOT of potential XP when you have a good battle and lose because MM had unbalanced teams. If people weren't losing their bonus simply because their teammates failed to load in, they are a lot less likely to be so upset.
  5. I agree with the others. Kraken should be earned. Although I have intentionally withheld shots on a target that was burning/flooding and had DCP on cooldown and doomed to die if the ship doing the DoT would get a kraken from it. However I only do that if #1 our team is definitely going to win (victory comes before achievements) and #2 no one else is shooting into the target and likely to secure the kill. If it is a mass free for all on target, then may as well join in.
  6. This is absolutely true. Clearly the programming allows for different division sizes based upon game mode (no division for ranked, 3 players for random and 7 allowed for Operations, with 7 only of same clan tag for clan battles). So why can't divisions of up to 12 be allowed for CoOp with a spread of 3 tiers (ie 4, 5, 6 or 6, 7, 8, etc)
  7. A historically and factually incorrect assessment. During the colonization of the Americas the European super powers referred to both continents collectively as "The Americas" and the people living there as "The Americans". This continued even after nations gained independence from their European colonial powers. Read primary source documents for trade and reference on shipments from Milan going to Quebec or Havana refer to the inhabitants as "Americans". Naturally the inhabitants often then referred to themselves as "Americans". However nationalist sentiment eventually caused a desire to separate one's own national identity from their neighbors. The term "American" began to be viewed as reference to the 'A' in 'USA' and exclusively something that their residents used. Residents of other American continental nations began resenting being called American, as a means of declaring their national identity. IE American is a term used by the people of one continent to refer to the residents of the American Continents. The residents of those continents however turned it into a phrase for the people of one nation. If the rest of the American continents did not want residents of the USA to be called Americans, then they should have first not discouraged the use of calling themselves American, and second not continued to refer to USA residents as Americans, but instead Unitedstatians or whatever.
  8. Indeed, such as that player who had ~800 battles in a single week. Well even if they were queing up, entering battle, yoloing, and restarting. At best they are playing about 6 games per hour (sometimes more but at slow times such as early morning and late night, it is much more like 3 to 4 games per hour). But being generous even if they could average a battle every 10 minutes, that means they played over 19 hours per day every day for a week straight (however given the use of the same ship over and over it seems they were not just switching ships and jumping back in, making this much closer to 24 hours per day for 7 days. This sort of behavior is highly visible and easily policed. Either this is a bot or a shared account. Either of which is a violation of the ToS.
  9. Well done have a +1
  10. That is what I thought but a replay of it was posted not 2 months ago.
  11. Are you sure it was radar? I mean ignoring the icon, could you have been ship or plane detected, and the incorrect icon came up instead showing radar? Someone had a screenshot of a T1 match where the detected icon showed plane detected, so the icon can screw up.
  12. Commander voices were broken in the last patch. The hotfix helped but some still are not right, especially in relation to operations commands. Friends list still showing online people as offline, locking up when searching a player name, or showing no such player for correct spelling of a player. Division members can still lose ability to see the rest of their division in the port screen. MM is still broken, see post right above your own in this thread. 1 CV vs Zero still happens, 2 Gearings versus 1 Yugumo still happens, 3 German ships versus zero still happens, etc etc. Yes it is rare, but it keeps happening on occasion so either WG changed the MM rules from what they told us and what the Wiki says or there is something broken. Appearing/Disappearing ships. It was stated this was fixed, but we still have ships that enter detection for a split second appear on the minimap but never render in game, and creates interesting artifacts in replays. Replays not being supported, but being requested by official WG support. Having had to talk down more than one new player who submitted a support ticket to only get a response of "need a replay", who then finds out replays are not a game supported feature nor automatically activated, well this is a "broken" issue Replays crashing/buggy (seriously a high chance of crash on load, then doing anything but watching at normal speed is taking a high risk of it crashing). Port UI freezing and locking up. High performance machines on dedicated T1 lines should not take upwards of 30 seconds to mount/demount a single signal flag. The majority of game client crashes are in port or switching from port to loading into a battle. Something is wrong when the high performance battles cause less crashing than the port screen.
  13. My problem is when the respond with "our automated system handles this, so we won't be investigating this report" and close your TK ticket. Uhm same player TKing in 3 back to back games. Managed to kill 4 teammates somehow. Clearly the automated system isn't working. Just saying.
  14. This, for all those naysayers here trying to claim that it is impossible to police/identify, you are incorrect. One of the main purposes of botting is to play more games. The volume of play is a very easy tracking measure to identify bots. Yes bots can be programmed to alter how soon they re-enter battle or how many battles per day they play, etc, but that is the point of the bot. So if it isn't spamming games it isn't doing its job and the purpose of having it is limited/reduced. Further we have seen serial AFKers accounts. WG knows the numbers. There is a very clear Win/Rate threshold for real live human and bot/afk. While there are folks legitimately below that point, they are not numerous. If one uses a double metric of games per day and low win rate, it would give a very clear list of potential bots. It is then easy enough with this small list to analyze the player behavior to tell for certain. 30% W/R player, playing 25+ games a day, who never launches planes and just drives in a circle is either a bot or violating the passive play rule.