Mrtipples

I don't know what you're expecting when you've got a class with known higher efficiency, that has spotting and damage capabilities, and has a hanger size and AA values designed for a 12v12 and allow TWO of them to exist in a 7 ship lineup... Everyone said this would be garbage and you still jumped off a bridge. At least you rectified it quickly by addressing the very overpowered comps (within a week), but I can already see the arguments being formed for allowing CVs in all the time "we blame the lower popularity on Tier 6, because we saw this in season 10.... efficiency with 2cvs is low after changes, etc." Maybe having the god class in small team format just isn't an enjoyable experience...

Imagine having a problem pointed out, the community identifying because it's the same shell type being used, an obvious solution of simply copying shell parameters to a new shell type, and hotfixing yet still suggesting it'll take a month to fix All just after we heard about how "easy" it was to hotfix the aa bug for the protected cv class...

The "got it on first pulls" are going to be over-represented relative to the true distribution in this sampling simply because it's possible those people wouldn't have spent a dime if they didn't get it in first pull. Put another way -- you've got a set of people who generally have a willingness to pay of "one box". If it's there, great (because it's free to see what your first box holds). If it's not, they won't spend anything. You're seeing a lot of the people show up reporting "got it on first pull!" because it's free to look and it's worth spending 1,500 dubs on a first pull. If people get flags+tokens in the first crate, they won't report here nor will they spend anything. So for every "got it first pull!" reported here there are probably 40 other people who didn't get it on first pull and won't be spending anything. But you don't see those reports.

Nah, I haven't participated yet because the meta has looked like garbage so far. I'm just on the sidelines watching pretty predictable and continued scummy actions. The ship bans are in no way on the same level of selling premiums and then nerfing their stats, but it's in the same vein. I'm sure there are clans and people out there that buy the meta ships because they want to win CBs and collect steel, only to have WG ban the ship and effectively nullify the main reason someone purchased a boat. There will be people that say "buying boats for CBs is dumb" and I'd more broadly agree that buying boats in this game is dumb, but it happens and it's crap for the people that do feel it's a justified investment.

Oh, what's that? Did we ban the Ryujo and Lowenhardt? Bummer..... guess you'll just have to consider buying the Ark Royal if you want the next meta cv. (disclaimer: I buy absolutely nothing in this game because these are pixel boats and paying real money for that stuff is ridiculous)

Step 1: introduce cancer 2 cv CB meta Step 2: inventivize plenty of t6 premium sales of Huang he, Perth, and Mysore Step 3: ban/limit amount of smoke cruisers a team can bring after you milk the competitive player base on all servers

I mean sure... all I'm saying is people are going to have sticker shock when this rolls out and they start to feel the expense to move 20 and 21 pointers because you keep referencing costs and figures related to a 10 point captain. People are already balking at 1.2m to move from 19 to 21... There are some big wins with this system (big buffs to unique commanders and premium ships in combo) but this system has become much more expensive for silver ships. edit: forgot to add -- if i remember correctly in the new system skills don't work until you've retrained, right? Current system you get half benefit for some things but that's going away? If that's true it makes it even more imperative that you retrain and incur these costs...

I don't, just a total guess at this point. Today a 19 pointer retraining is 250k ecxp, which is going to be cut in half in the new update (so 125k). But now we're talking about retraining a 21 pointer being retrained, not a 19 pointer. edit: and your post above is talking about a 10-pointer... not a 21 pointer.

yea but @Hapa_Fodder if I've got a 21 pointer and am swapping this single captain between silver ships and/or doing the RB grind (i.e. reset a line and using that same captain up the line), it's going to continually cost me what 250k ecxp to retrain him? Or you know... the low low price of 500 dubloons...

I hope you're all excited for the hidden cost of retraining commanders for tech tree ships... today for a 19 pointer it's 250k cxp, which you can cut in half by spending $200k credits. Sure they're cutting retraining costs in half and removing that credit avenue (so now retraining a 19 pointer is 125k), but I'm willing to bet that retraining a 21 point commander will again push up to that 250k cxp mark and there will be no way to cut that in half. You either grind through it, pay dubloons, or spend cxp. Yayyyyyy for aggressive monetization of pay2advance...

The flags argument isn't completely parallel because you can mount every economic flag you want and they're universally useful, same with camos. And on the combat flags, you're usually not space constrained. There's maybe 8-10 useful ones and you can mount 8. Further, they're highly disposable. This also isn't a commentary on "what AA ships are viable." It's a complaint about folks saying "just build in to AA skills if you don't like CVs" when in reality you're asking people to make a choice as say a BB between Basics of Survivability for 3 points, which is useful in reducing fires duration. This by itself is useful in every game as the bulk of ammo thrown around is HE. Orrrr you can spend it on BFT to buff your AA 10% for those games when a CV is present, where the CV represents 1 of the 12 enemies you face, and only in the instances where a CV decides to attack you. WG would be better off to build generalized "offensive and defensive" skills that benefit all classes. Today only BFT and AFT really do that and those skills only act as "offensive" skills for ships with calibers below 139mm. Everything else gets shafted. Same thing could be said about a fair chunk of the modules...

I'm not a frequent reader of topics so may have already been brought up but the new AA skills are presenting players with false (if not bad) choices. When picking skills, I'm guessing most people are looking to maximize value for point spent. So example -- FP for BBs or CE for DDs. Broadly speaking, these are skills that benefit ships in every single game in almost every interaction with any ships (fully aware there are corner case exceptions like a FP build BB vs a British CL). With the new, reworked AA skills (and even the design of them today to some extent) you're asking players to devote, 2, 3, 4 or more skill points our of their precious and resource constrained 21 points to focus on AA-specific skills that will benefit them only against planes. You know how frequently that happens? Let's for the sake of argument say you see a CV in 75% of your games, that CV is 1 of 12 enemy ships you'll face, and that CV has the option of attacking you or any of your 11 teammates. At best then, you're investing points for an enemy ship that you'll be expected to counter in 7% of your interactions (75% * 1/12). Even still, that CV could opt entirely to not engage with you, so maybe that 7% interaction is closer to 3-5% of your game experience. So now you're really asking a player to spend 3 or 4 points on a skill that has the potential to benefit them in >50% of their game time and experiences or 5%. The insulting part is that investment in AA doesn't let you dominate those infrequent interactions;, instead you may shoot down 1 or 2 more planes, if that, over the course of a game. So I can either feel that point investment over all my game time, or I can see it for maybe 5% of my game experience, and when I do see my investment in action, it just feels lackluster because you'll still be struck. Either roll up AA skills in to existing "offensive skills" (similar to how BFT functions for DDs today, but make it more applicable to BBs and CAs/CLs) or adjust the return on investment in AA-specific skills...

I had the same issue happen earlier today but didn't receive any resolution. Hoping it fixes when the server side updates tonight, but we'll see...

My download finished and now I'm getting an error claiming a mismatch with server version... anyone else getting something similar?

Steam downloaded and updated my game client to 0.9.9.1 this AM and now I'm getting a message re. the installed version being older than the server. Any advice here? Noticed this message saying the patch would be applied server side later today, https://na.wargaming.net/support/en/products/wows/hot-issues/33467/, so I'm guessing Steam pushed the patch down to client side but you all haven't updated server side yet...