Watboy

So I have today to farm 20mn potential damage for the French cruiser mission. What is better, bring out my tanky BBs (Preussen) or find the most hated ship in my dock (Puerto Rico? any other shell magnets?)

I know its sub optimal to go full secondary on these ships. But if I want to be optimal, I might as well play Georgia, Ohio, Thunderer. So I play my KG's full secondary.

Realism hasn't been a trait of the game for a long time, if ever. And its only getting worse with submarines going 20knots submerged firing warp speed homing corps.

36 super containers, no ships. But 100 detonation flags! 60 days premium, 2,000 doubloons, 1500 steel, bunch of flags and came.

Thanks for the clarification. Didn't realize it was that bad! They knew the shortlist was garbage so didn't disclose it. Its so clear to me now that Wargambling is choosing to not disclose loot tables because they know how bad they are, they are just using Chinese regulators as a weak excuse to not disclose.

the 2020 xmas crates where when I think they started the short list table, then all the drama and pressure for refunds ensued. I got a Kutuzov in 2019 xmas, but Makrov in 2020.

This was back when I could still... ahem.... farm detonation flags....

So I've been thinking why Wargambling won't disclose drop rates. They say due to China, but that isn't a regulatory issue as I understand WoWs doesn't have loot boxes there. The only logical reason I can think of us that China requires publication of drop rates, and if WarGambling is pressured to disclose drop rates in other markets, they might as well do so in such a way that would allow them to start selling loot boxes in China. I thus speculate that their current drop mechanism would not be allowed in China, and they need until next year to move to a drop rate system that is in compliance w Chinese regulations. It is a commercial business reason that they do not disclose now, not a Chinese regulatory one. How are they not in compliance? They use conditional drop rates, and China from I can gather, requires that you disclose definitive drop rates for every item, something WarGambling cannot do in its present state. Your odds of getting any desirable ship in last years xmas boxes was precisely zero if you didn't already have a Makarov. You had to meet a number of conditions first before you had a non-zero chance of getting the better ships. I bet you when they do finally disclose drop rates in 2022, it won't be anything like the drop rates of 2021.

I've never once gotten a ship. I did get 5,000 steel two SC's in a row though. Did they take steel out of the drop table? Worst I got was 50 detonation flags.

People may conceptually want Subs and CVs in the game (really who doesn't?), but they practically want Subs and CV's that don't break gameplay and is fun for all players. The real questions is, how many people want the current implementation of CVs and Subs in the game?

Why does it take so much time to disclose drop rates? Should be trivially easy to extract the rates as they are deliberate commercial inputs. This is a prime example of lack of transparency. The only logical explanation for the delay is you don't want to disclose the current numbers, and you need the time to develop more stomach able drop rates to disclose.

worked for me

I'm on the T7 and just want to give up. I don't know how many times my salvo's have perfectly straddled the target for zero hits, or close range salvos that result in only 1 or 2 hits. Its incredibly frustrating and not fun to play. I'd rather firepower be balanced w long reload like the Vermont line than by RNG. Balans does not necessarily mean fun to play. Maybe its better at higher tiers, but I probably won't get there.

Why do they need to collect more data? They should have all the historical earnings data for MO already to calibrate the credit mission. Their fix is essentially a 20% credit flag, why can they not simulate this with all the historical data? Why do they need more data at the expensive player time and flags? From what I understand, this 20% fix isn't one size fit all solutions issue. Its either calibrated against using all possible credit flags, meaning its a buff to those who don't use flags, or its a calibrated for no flag usage, then its a nerf vs using flags. Any middle calibration will be a buff to some and a nerf to others. The only reason I can think of why they need to collect more data, is to see how much nerfing they can get away with.

So WG is sorry that CC's left, but is not sorry for any actions they made that lead to those departures. Their statement is quite literally, we only addressing MO due to the outrage from our the public. Not even any lip service to improving communications or their relationship with CC's and gamers, not even an empty promise to change any policies or behaviors. They will keep doing what they've been doing and only backtrack in the face of public outrage.