Search the Community

In the next clan battle season that starts later this month, WG has announced the return of rental ships. To the best of my memory, I think this is the first time the rental ships have been available since the economic rework. That said, I have a question about these rental ships. When the economic rework happened, the buff to concealment that camo used to provide was hard baked into the ships themselves, making camo purely decoration. This used to be an issue with the rental ships, as they could not mount camo of any kind. In this new system, from a tactical standpoint, will these rental ships also have the new baked in boost to concealment, or will they lack it? From a tactical standpoint, these rentals seem to function like premium versions of tech tree ships, minus the economic benefits of the premium eco boost. This could actually be advantageous over their tech tree sibling, as they can take any commander without retrain. On the other hand, another direction WG could be going is to forbid these rentals from mounting any of the eco boosts. The old rentals could still mount draconic signals, so from an eco standpoint this would be a major nerf to rentals. So what is the story WG? How do rentals now compare to rentals prior to the economic rework? Do they get the boost to concealment they lacked before? Can they mount economic boosters? I am sure at least one of these will be no, but one could still be yes, and if so, which one?

I maxed out my base XP and have to stop until this mission re-cycles. I am not a fan of subs. I feel they have too many gimmicks to make them "work" in the game. They aren't surface combatants so stop trying to make them into one. The homing torp/ping mechanic is overpowered. The fact that they got this torp aiming capability instead of using what every other ship type uses highlights their lack of basic ability as a ship type. WG is trying to make their primary weapon as accurate as a surface ship's gun. Give them more powerful torps but get rid of the ping mechanic. Detection gimmick is unreal. I know this is an arcade game but hydroacoustic search works on everything but subs. As a type, they should be able to rely on stealth without the gimmick. They will die to fast without it, you say? That says a lot about how weak they are at a base level that you have to change the rules to make them survivable. They have low tonnage by design - unless WG sprinkles fairy dust and gives them DD leader health. Play a sub, take greater risks, get greater rewards. WG just needs to adjust the post battle rewards upwards. Speed! Another case where WG is taking a ship type that relied on stealth and prepositioning and make them able to participate in a "fleet action". Too much fairy dust here even for an arcade game. Subs outrun even the slowest (20knt) BB? Shouldn't happen. Spawn them closer to the center to "preposition" them for the battle. I don't hate subs. I just don't feel they belong in this game and they definitely won't be found in my port. I would really like to see WG give us all the ability to "opt out" of rental ships, subs, whatever. Put a setting in the game controls which flags your account and when rentals are available your account is bypassed.

The player feedback of this feature has been overwhelmingly positive. Currently, the only material problem is that players cannot skip ships in the sequence. This is discouraging if the player has already purchased the ship, and has to "rent" it again to see the next ship. Personally I feel this feature gives me a renewed to reason to login and play this game. At times, watching lots of guides, improving in-game skills, and practising to meet the stringent D/B, F/B, & P/B targets for FPU Clan Battles can be repetitive and unfun. But the thought that I can try out a new ship on a new day gives me a reason to use leisure time for WOWS instead of something else. Devs, would you please give us this Armory rent-a-ship feature back?

Rank Battle Issues – No One Wants to Talk About Rank Battles is advertised as the Best Players and Best Boats battle it out to see who is “Top Dog”. Well Can anyone honestly say that's what is happening this season? Lets review the issues and the facts. Issues - 1 “Rental Ship”. Why its bad. In order to get a tier 10 Battleship, I had to grind my BB up to level 10. That means I know the strength and weakness of not only my but the other ships class/nationalities and their characteristics. Those that don't are a terrible disadvantage. It got so bad teams were regularly counting who had the most rentals, as it generally resulted in a loss. 2 Match Maker(MM) is out of control. I run a large fleet and have a variety of top tier ships and top tier commanders. In its zeal to make every game balanced even in ranked, it makes decision based on players ability(win percentages, total battles played, etc), ships ability(upgrades, consumables, and Commander skill points allocated). Thru the ability of rating each ship mathematically and the power of averaging, the MM Algorithm can theoretically balances the teams out. In Practical Use/Application not so much. Ranks is not Random Battles(where WoWs can place house Botz in here or there and get away with it).This can be proven by running a simple test of 10 matches. Run the same ship with a 10 pnt commander vs. a 19 pnt commander and notice the quality of team mates you are paired up with. You want to win don't run high level commander. MM will neutralize your advantages in the name of Fairness. 3 Game Balance. CVs are out of control. Since the Great CV Nerf of v8.x all in the name of FPS, the balance is off the scales. The primary reason the lack of Fleet Fighter Cap Role, which is a Design Error and a game flaw of Moronic Proportions. After all why do CVs carry fighters? For Rockets … LOL. 4 Game Balance . DDs When I read the Ships overview for DDs, it say one of there roles is to smoke the fleet. Why smoke has been Nerfed to the point where its virtually ineffective. No point in smoking the BBs and CAs for the most part are not much better. 5 Economics at Tier 10 in Ranks and Random are Broke. If you score 1,400 plus on a winning team how the hell do you loose 60k in credits in a ranked match. I know what I am seeing as I have 2.3k Ranked Battles and over 13k Random Battles under my belt. BTW the patch I wear indicates that I have been around since the Beta version of World of Warships. In short I know what I am seeing.

Title says it all. I don't have any tier X ships as of right now and I don't often buy stuff from the premium shop. I also wanted to fully kit out all the Rental ships I could because I wanted to try them out, see how they perform. But there, in the process of equipping those tier X rentals, lies the rub. In order to fill all the equipment slots and equip all the flags I wanted to, I had to burn through 4,500 gold, around a hundred million credits, spend over $150 on said gold and credits, and dip into my limited supply of flags. Frankly, for some ships I'm only going to have for a limited time in a game mode that's only going to be around for the next month, that's a little absurd. I'd much rather it be like one of the years of the Halloween game mode or the original Space Mode, where all the upgrades were basically free. I understand that the game works on a free-to-play model, but that's just it: It's FREE to play. This kind of makes Ranked feel like an Electronic Arts game, where access to something you want is locked behind a paywall, and we all know just how maligned EA is for that practice. I'm guessing that the idea of having Rentals for this season of Ranked is accessibility, but keeping the tier X costs around seems to defeat that purpose. Not everyone can afford a trip to the Premium shop in order to kit out a bunch of rentals, nor is everyone quite as (begrudgingly) willing to spend their hard-earned money as I was. I hope that the next time WG decides to give everyone rentals for Ranked, they learn from this instance and keep the costs low in the name of accessibility. Alright, rant over. If you want to insult me for my apparently monumental idiocy, go right ahead. I've voiced my two cents and that's all that matters. Now I'm going to go watch the Raptors play in the NBA Finals. #WeTheNorth

So I logged in this evening and found I have a personal mission I don't recall signing up for. I don't mind but what I am concerned about is the possible bug the mission has (or two of them). First off a screenshot of the mission. Please take note that the valid ships for the mission are all rentals that are in my port, but only the Mass seems to be counting towards the mission. So I don't know if this is just a visual bug or the mission actually won't count the Kidd and Prinz Eugen which the mission also gave to me as rentals. The second and more glaring bug and concern I have is the fact that the mission ends on the 8th of October, but here's the thing. The rentals only last for the next 6 days. Seen here: And here: This is rather frustrating as I personally feel like I am being strong armed into paying for the full Prem ships unless I want to grind the hell out of the game for 40 wins. This is a team game after all and just because you do really well, doesn't mean your team will. Which is fair but 40 wins in less then a full week is just...absurd. I can't afford to pay for ships that range from $40-$60 as I am a student and paying for school is rough enough. I'd rather spend smaller amounts on containers then a large lump sum for a ship that I may or may not like or do well with. I now know there have been visual bugs with Personal Missions within the game but I really doubt this is one of those. Unless Visual Bugs grant you Rentals that you can use in a match (just did with the Prinz Eugen and ran a match just fine. No game errors). So unless those 6 days get reset to another 6 days one the initial one is up this is a pretty bad tactic to use on players. Or that it's another visual bug that I am not aware of. Some clarification with this would really be appreciated. From someone at WGing would be preferable. I've never had this Personal Mission before so if this is another known bug then I don't know about it. @Radar_X Would you be willing to weigh in on this? Thanks!