Poll : Economic & camouflage separation

[Attalus120]

WG has stated that this has been requested by a large amount of players.

I had asked for a Poll on the main thread but realise that this is easier then modifying the old thread and allows us to see where the majority sits with regards to interest.

the poll is not asking for feedback on implementation or proposed mechanics for the change, only initial interest in the separation.

 

 

 

[Foghorn_Leghorne]

I'm just wondering how this effects premium camos. Like the ones I paid money for. Kobiashi especially for Roma.

[paradat]

8 minutes ago, Foghorn_Leghorne said:

I'm just wondering how this effects premium camos. Like the ones I paid money for. Kobiashi especially for Roma.

It means you can keep the buffs on the Roma but not have to look at that stupid beer can!

[Taylor3006]

30 minutes ago, Attalus120 said:

WG has stated that this has been requested by a large amount of players.

Yeah when the WeeGee first said that, I had to shake my head in disbelief. Oddly enough the ONLY time I heard anyone even mention doing this is when it was first announced a while back and someone mentioned in a post they had asked for it. I did a bit of forum searching and found exactly zero references for it save for that one single post. I am not sure I believe that any significant amount of players have asked for this change. Now there has been a huge amount of players asking for the ability to hide the absolutely awful camos like the Halloween monsters stuff (as an example) but still retain the benefits of that camo. Same can be said of that beer can camo that I forget the name of. Loads of people have complained about how stupid that stuff looks and want it hidden but want to keep the bonuses of using it. 

[Burnsy]

5 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Yeah when the WeeGee first said that, I had to shake my head in disbelief. Oddly enough the ONLY time I heard anyone even mention doing this is when it was first announced a while back and someone mentioned in a post they had asked for it. I did a bit of forum searching and found exactly zero references for it save for that one single post. I am not sure I believe that any significant amount of players have asked for this change. Now there has been a huge amount of players asking for the ability to hide the absolutely awful camos like the Halloween monsters stuff (as an example) but still retain the benefits of that camo. Same can be said of that beer can camo that I forget the name of. Loads of people have complained about how stupid that stuff looks and want it hidden but want to keep the bonuses of using it. 

Yeah I would have to agree. As long as the math works out right, I think I am actually going to like the change.  I think it's a good idea.....but I don't remember anyone asking for it. 

[Tzarevitch]

6 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Yeah when the WeeGee first said that, I had to shake my head in disbelief. Oddly enough the ONLY time I heard anyone even mention doing this is when it was first announced a while back and someone mentioned in a post they had asked for it. I did a bit of forum searching and found exactly zero references for it save for that one single post. I am not sure I believe that any significant amount of players have asked for this change. Now there has been a huge amount of players asking for the ability to hide the absolutely awful camos like the Halloween monsters stuff (as an example) but still retain the benefits of that camo. Same can be said of that beer can camo that I forget the name of. Loads of people have complained about how stupid that stuff looks and want it hidden but want to keep the bonuses of using it. 

I have seen a lot of players mention it over the years. Personally, I had been asking for it since way back. I hate having to use silly looking camos just to get the bonus I need. For years most of my fleet either looked like a damned school bus, like they drove through a pine forest, or like they fell into a vat of cotton candy just to get the bonuses I wanted to speed up levelling.  This way you can choose the appearance you want and the bonus you want. I don't see any downsides. 

[Taylor3006]

1 minute ago, Burnsy said:

Yeah I would have to agree. As long as the math works out right, I think I am actually going to like the change.  I think it's a good idea.....but I don't remember anyone asking for it.

I feel the same way, if the change is less confusing than its introduction on the DevBlog and the players don't get boned, I will be fine. 

 

2 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

I have seen a lot of players mention it over the years. Personally, I had been asking for it since way back. I hate having to use silly looking camos just to get the bonus I need. For years most of my fleet either looked like a damned school bus, like they drove through a pine forest, or like they fell into a vat of cotton candy just to get the bonuses I wanted to speed up levelling.  This way you can choose the appearance you want and the bonus you want.

This is possible I suppose since I have not read every single post ever but something this common, I would expect to see mentioned even offhandedly. That has not been my experience. Like I said earlier, have seen a lot of players mentioning hiding the camos but retaining the bonuses, never removing the bonuses to make what are essentially boosters (WoT style). 

[Estimated_Prophet]

48 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

I have seen a lot of players mention it over the years. Personally, I had been asking for it since way back. I hate having to use silly looking camos just to get the bonus I need. For years most of my fleet either looked like a damned school bus, like they drove through a pine forest, or like they fell into a vat of cotton candy just to get the bonuses I wanted to speed up levelling.  This way you can choose the appearance you want and the bonus you want. I don't see any downsides. 

Oh…

Other than the stupidity of going from a single click camo select, to some more than likely overly complex UI where you have to use multiple clicks to match up bonuses to a camo?

Other than that downside?

This isn’t Warcraft or whatever, where customization of your knight or thief or some such can show off your individuality.

This is nothing more than adding needless complexity to a choice that’s been straight forward and simple for six plus years.

[Cit_the_bed]

Seeing as they just sold me dragon flags in January, to remove them / nerf them 90 days later seems very much like class action lawsuit territory.

[Dah_Bears268]

This is as clear as MUD in the dark, and yes, my brain crashed too

[Mr_Argamas]

I kind of like the general concept; not feeling constrained by the economic bonuses I want to get when I apply a camo is great. I understand this is likely to promote the sales of perma camos, as there is little point owning them if you are interested into economic bonuses; you will likely equip disposable camos and signals to boost your rewards instead. Perma camo bonuses are easily surpassed by disposable ones.

However, I am a lot more concerned by a potential impact on game play.  They will also modify combat bonuses; -3% concealment will now be baked in into your ship (good), but -4% dispersion buff will simply be a thing of the past (bad). They attempted to modify dispersion across the board with a skill before (dead eye) and the thing fell flat on its face. Granted, it was 10%, which was a pretty huge deal. 4% is going to be less significant, there is no doubt about that.... But still, there is no way it is not going to have an impact on gameplay. The impact will be felt differently depending on the ships and tier you play, but still... It will exist.

So I have to say I am ambivalent, and leaning toward a "no" at the moment, since it isn't only about economy.  4% isn't significant enough to make me say no immediately, but I can't see this change positively either, not as presented.

[AdmiralThunder]

2 hours ago, Taylor3006 said:

Yeah when the WeeGee first said that, I had to shake my head in disbelief. Oddly enough the ONLY time I heard anyone even mention doing this is when it was first announced a while back and someone mentioned in a post they had asked for it. I did a bit of forum searching and found exactly zero references for it save for that one single post. I am not sure I believe that any significant amount of players have asked for this change. Now there has been a huge amount of players asking for the ability to hide the absolutely awful camos like the Halloween monsters stuff (as an example) but still retain the benefits of that camo. Same can be said of that beer can camo that I forget the name of. Loads of people have complained about how stupid that stuff looks and want it hidden but want to keep the bonuses of using it. 

Now and then someone would ask that they be allowed to use some other camo's visuals on a ship but keep the bonuses (Roma's beer can camo was usually the one they wanted the bonuses for but not the look). So what was asked for, a little, was visual/cosmetic changes.

I have never seen anyone ask for changes to flags and never seen anyone ask that the bonuses all be changed like this. Never. Not once.

This is WG's doing. It was not asked for.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

I've long wanted the separation but a lot of the stuff WG is doing with the change was not what I asked for.

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/318

It goes above and beyond what any of us was simply asking for.  It's part of a sweeping attack on player currency.

[SaiIor_Moon]

The separation of camos and bonuses is not something I specifically asked for, but it's something that I appreciate and want from an aesthetics point of view, as well as the indirect accuracy buff by removing the +4% enemy dispersion bonus. All other aspects of the actual economic changes are still up for debate, although it seems mostly positive (minus the decreased credit earning potential, which is unfortunate).

Also big buff to Missouri mission is good :D

[SaiIor_Moon]

2 hours ago, Tzarevitch said:

I hate having to use silly looking camos just to get the bonus I need.

Simple as this, really. My IJN ships in particular are about to look SO. MUCH. BETTER.

[Taylor3006]

4 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Now and then someone would ask that they be allowed to use some other camo's visuals on a ship but keep the bonuses (Roma's beer can camo was usually the one they wanted the bonuses for but not the look). So what was asked for, a little, was visual/cosmetic changes.

I have never seen anyone ask for changes to flags and never seen anyone ask that the bonuses all be changed like this. Never. Not once.

This is WG's doing. It was not asked for.

Exactly. Never seen anyone even mention redoing how signals operated so I would bet money that is all on Wargaming. 

I would have rather seen new maps added to the game or the old Operations made available again than a change to how camos/signals worked. Seems an unnecessary change to a mechanic that seemed to be well regarded. 

[HazeGrayUnderway]

2 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Now and then someone would ask that they be allowed to use some other camo's visuals on a ship but keep the bonuses (Roma's beer can camo was usually the one they wanted the bonuses for but not the look). So what was asked for, a little, was visual/cosmetic changes.

I have never seen anyone ask for changes to flags and never seen anyone ask that the bonuses all be changed like this. Never. Not once.

This is WG's doing. It was not asked for.

Remember when guys were reporting strange behavior by Operation Narai bots that needed fixing?  Then WG nerfed the rewards instead?

[arch4random]

2 hours ago, Taylor3006 said:

Exactly. Never seen anyone even mention redoing how signals operated so I would bet money that is all on Wargaming. 

I would have rather seen new maps added to the game or the old Operations made available again than a change to how camos/signals worked. Seems an unnecessary change to a mechanic that seemed to be well regarded. 

 

2 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Now and then someone would ask that they be allowed to use some other camo's visuals on a ship but keep the bonuses (Roma's beer can camo was usually the one they wanted the bonuses for but not the look). So what was asked for, a little, was visual/cosmetic changes.

I have never seen anyone ask for changes to flags and never seen anyone ask that the bonuses all be changed like this. Never. Not once.

This is WG's doing. It was not asked for.

i think wows needs to add morals into their equation ... i wonder how many players were gifted camos by their spouses over the years .

now wows wants to mess with these gifts.... I wonder how many players will nail their wallets shut over this ...i know i will 

[Estimated_Prophet]

2 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

This is WG's doing. It was not asked for.

 

2 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I've long wanted the separation but a lot of the stuff WG is doing with the change was not what I asked for.

 

2 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

The separation of camos and bonuses is not something I specifically asked for,

If anything, it smacks of folks coming up with a 'something' to justify the continued existence of their position within an organization.

Another alternative; someone with a 'great idea,' who is too important to be told 'no.'

 

[collisionSpace]

7 hours ago, Attalus120 said:

WG has stated that this has been requested by a large amount of players.

I'll take that claim with a large pinch of salt..

I'm not against the change per se, but it does seem a complex way to fix a non core game issue. 

As for developers claiming 'technical limitations' for the removal of the 4% dispersion buff, that's complete [edited]. WG have been removing the ways that players can reduce the damage they take for some time now and this is just another step on that path.

[Asym_KS]

This is an Economy change.....part of a process of changes...   I deleted the rest....... It doesn't matter anymore why.

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 hours ago, Attalus120 said:

WG has stated that this has been requested by a large amount of players.

I had asked for a Poll on the main thread but realise that this is easier then modifying the old thread and allows us to see where the majority sits with regards to interest.

the poll is not asking for feedback on implementation or proposed mechanics for the change, only initial interest in the separation.

 

 

 

I voted.
Thanks for making a poll.

[iamSamoth]

i went neutral, I'm not a fan they arbitrarily removed a useful signal. But it tells me they want the format to be excessively hard, for FtP.

This just follows suit for their on-going behavior. If they come up with a better system, sure, all for it.

But, I don't think that's the goal. We all know what the goal is, even if some what to dress it up.

Why would you simply remove the IBT instead of just bumping the value up to 20%, 30%.... Or what ever.

Simply make it effective, don't remove the option to use it. It's back-handed stuff like that, that I will never take anything they say at face value.

The format is similar to what they created. A circle of cut-throats waiting to capitalize on your mistakes.

[FltCaptAlan]

7 hours ago, Cit_the_bed said:

Seeing as they just sold me dragon flags in January, to remove them / nerf them 90 days later seems very much like class action lawsuit territory.

It isn't 90 days later, as it says in the dev blog, "We plan to release this update in late summer or early fall." You have, from when you bought them 8 to 10 months to use them as is, I know my stock of them I got at the beginning of the year is just about out, and been supplemented by the ones from the free gift containers and combat missions.

[SKurj]

eco bonuses could have been removed from camo and signals left alone...  just add boosters that fill slots on camo