Don't purchase super ship camo, useless (repair too expensive)

[wija_san]

I think wg wants us to purchase premium so we can play our super ship haha.

The super ship camo don't have repair cost -50% effect.

[Skarhabek]

yes it was intended as credit sink. in exchange the XP modifier is a lot. back in the old days T10 is used to be credit sink. but after Salem, Conkek and Slava the credit cost become damn cheap to operate premium T10 LOL. making T10 flooded with t10.....

 

in the end player have 500 million credit ++ and aand there need to be a new way to credit sink.

my biggest issue here is the supership cost is god damn cheap....

[Puggsley]

7 hours ago, wija_san said:

I think wg wants us to purchase premium so we can play our super ship haha.

The super ship camo don't have repair cost -50% effect.

Were you surprised? They have told us this right from the start of having them in the tech tree.

[dejiko_nyo]

Profitable.

Provided your team doesn't throw away the match

and with gud dragon flags.

[Mechfori]

On the other hand, many old timer who do go play the Superships report , instead , that Supership become somewhat credit earner instead of credit burner cause they can easily take advantage of the gimmick and OP over others , and since Superships require that much in game already to even start able to purchase them , it inevitably means those who can get them are mostly those who can use them ...

I seriously doubt in the end this work as it should be for WG ; yes there will be those whales and just the hot heads who blindly go play these Superships , not knowing the ship itself require skill and effort to maintain a balance ( in earning )  but for many already having loads of credits ( which also likely mean they had the experience ) , they most likely won't work as credit sink

[Max_Battle]

YOU'RE NOT MY CAMO DADDY!

[Grygus_Triss]

23 hours ago, wija_san said:

I think wg wants us to purchase premium so we can play our super ship haha.

The super ship camo don't have repair cost -50% effect.

Yep, WG wants us to spend a bunch of money on these ships so we don’t have as much and maybe need to buy more with doubloons.

Jokes on them, I already had low money, and no intention to buy more.

22 hours ago, Skarhabek said:

yes it was intended as credit sink. in exchange the XP modifier is a lot. back in the old days T10 is used to be credit sink. but after Salem, Conkek and Slava the credit cost become damn cheap to operate premium T10 LOL. making T10 flooded with t10.....

 

in the end player have 500 million credit ++ and aand there need to be a new way to credit sink.

my biggest issue here is the supership cost is god damn cheap....

Yeah. Superships still seem to cheap to play… they need to cost more so we only see them very rarely.

And what is the point of having high XP modifier. It’s not like you have anything to spend it on…

15 hours ago, Puggsley said:

Were you surprised? They have told us this right from the start of having them in the tech tree.

Yeah, WG did say that the camo would not reduce costs.

[Puggsley]

12 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

And what is the point of having high XP modifier. It’s not like you have anything to spend it on… Yet

Mwwwwhhhaaaaahhhaaaahhhaaaaaaaaaaa.............

Just getting it ready for future "developments".

[Grygus_Triss]

53 minutes ago, Puggsley said:

Mwwwwhhhaaaaahhhaaaahhhaaaaaaaaaaa.............

Just getting it ready for future "developments".

But… the Superships don’t even cost XP. You still have a bunch sitting on your T10s…

[Mechfori]

3 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

..

And what is the point of having high XP modifier. It’s not like you have anything to spend it on…

..

WG : but you can convert them to FXP ..

Rubbish Burnheap - FXP ( and no more FXP ship ) - more ship there to gain XP that yo can use no where ... call me conspiracy theory addict but do you see a pattern there

[Grygus_Triss]

39 minutes ago, Mechfori said:

WG : but you can convert them to FXP ..

Rubbish Burnheap - FXP ( and no more FXP ship ) - more ship there to gain XP that yo can use no where ... call me conspiracy theory addict but do you see a pattern there

If WG have been paying attention, they know I hate the RB and have no intention of using it unless they put Australian ships behind it, and even then it’s under protest.

I never got an answer back of why they decided to say “screw you Australians” buy putting Vampire 2 in RB.

[S0und_Theif]

9 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

Yeah, WG did say that the camo would not reduce costs.

Let's see how long WG's statement on this lasts.

WG has a history of changing their narrative to suit their malice and greed.

 

If I recall correctly, T10 used to not have the -50% post-battle service cost.

It is not, WG caving in to player pressure why T10 is popular. It is selling T10 premium ships why they added the -50% post-battle service cost.

Once WG is ready to sell T11 premium / special ships, they will change this narrative. (And probably add T12 ships just to say they are not selling high tier ships. Move the goal post. Again.)

As usual, WG will put the blame to the players, "the silent majority", for their malice and greed. Like they always do.

[Puggsley]

Well after a night of playing superships in a div they have a pretty high potential to totally break the game. 

Super carriers extremely common, one got 3991 base XP in a United States.

I bought the Annapolis and in 2 burst fire mode of AP, first set got 34k from a broadside Vermont at about 15km, and the second one got 28k from a reversing Conde at 16km.

Mate played Annap all night and was just driving forward into an island location and owning that area totally. He had the skill which improves dispersion with enemies in the area and was raining accurate fire on all and sundry. Scarey to see. 

Just mental.

[Hawk_de_Guerre]

Buyer beware is total crap. Starts an education arms race, nothing more.
The most informed are the least susceptible to loss. WG lives off this weakness for short-term revenue increases. If you're not aware of this already, you're probably too stupid to talk..
Vilifying trusting victims is poor form on any planet.

If you are one of those "well you should've known" types, obviously this business model is doomed to fail in it's current meta in a few years, so you are soon to become one of the mocked yourself.
I'm sure the spreadsheets will be shiny right up to the very moment. One thing is certain, you will end up with a playerbase of ratbags in the end.. almost there now

[Mechfori]

there is 2 side to this argument , on the one hand the camouflage do not come automatically and need to be purchased , whether in all the material relying the release of the supership and the actual " Exterior " - " Camouflage " tab the info clearly reflect the absence of any economy modifier , so yes it is very much a case of buyers fall into the trap of solidified mentality that perma-camou always gives economy benefit , on the other hand the repetitive text , info, etc since announcement of Supership ( closed test ) had always mention the absence of such economy benefit , its kind of hard to blame WG for what they did the way they did it. After all the system do not force anyone to play Supership ( but the players themselves ) 

Just like any other game's purchasable DLC , the Perma-Camou is  no different , one can reflect , positive or negative , on the nature of the arrangement, or the implementation but one really cannot blame others for one's purchase cause its the actual individual player who made the decision to buy or not buying it .. is it a case of " you should had known before hand " now that's something else .. in which its neither all in the right nor all in the wrong , both the publisher and the customers.

If its any other game , would you the player get to known the DLC before deciding on buying the specific DLC .. or not ???

 

[Puggsley]

12 hours ago, Hawk_de_Guerre said:

Buyer beware is total crap. Starts an education arms race, nothing more.
The most informed are the least susceptible to loss. WG lives off this weakness for short-term revenue increases. If you're not aware of this already, you're probably too stupid to talk..
Vilifying trusting victims is poor form on any planet.

If you are one of those "well you should've known" types, obviously this business model is doomed to fail in it's current meta in a few years, so you are soon to become one of the mocked yourself.
I'm sure the spreadsheets will be shiny right up to the very moment. One thing is certain, you will end up with a playerbase of ratbags in the end.. almost there now

No-one is being villified at all.

Some people read what is put out and some don't.

I'd say its not trusting victims, its people who make bad assumptions and then speak about it. Pointing out those bad assumptions is just that.

Educating people that making assumptions when the facts are actually published and its really easy to read them is not a bad thing.

[Hawk_de_Guerre]

9 hours ago, Puggsley said:

No-one is being villified at all.

Some people read what is put out and some don't.

I'd say its not trusting victims, its people who make bad assumptions and then speak about it. Pointing out those bad assumptions is just that.

Educating people that making assumptions when the facts are actually published and its really easy to read them is not a bad thing.

well thanks.. you've really opened my eyes

[Puggsley]

13 hours ago, Hawk_de_Guerre said:

well thanks.. you've really opened my eyes

Its not you, its everyone else's fault.

[Hawk_de_Guerre]

...

[Hawk_de_Guerre]

On 4/29/2022 at 8:59 AM, Puggsley said:

Its not you, its everyone else's fault.

glad you're seeing sense now, and I accept your admission of being a compulsory contrarian.
I applaud your bravery actually, as it's not easy to publicly admit antisocial pathological obsessions..

[Puggsley]

Its the same thing I thought when I read your original post.

Be careful in the real world snowy.

[Hawk_de_Guerre]

On 4/27/2022 at 11:59 PM, Mechfori said:

there is 2 side to this argument , on the one hand the camouflage do not come automatically and need to be purchased , whether in all the material relying the release of the supership and the actual " Exterior " - " Camouflage " tab the info clearly reflect the absence of any economy modifier , so yes it is very much a case of buyers fall into the trap of solidified mentality that perma-camou always gives economy benefit , on the other hand the repetitive text , info, etc since announcement of Supership ( closed test ) had always mention the absence of such economy benefit , its kind of hard to blame WG for what they did the way they did it. After all the system do not force anyone to play Supership ( but the players themselves ) 

Just like any other game's purchasable DLC , the Perma-Camou is  no different , one can reflect , positive or negative , on the nature of the arrangement, or the implementation but one really cannot blame others for one's purchase cause its the actual individual player who made the decision to buy or not buying it .. is it a case of " you should had known before hand " now that's something else .. in which its neither all in the right nor all in the wrong , both the publisher and the customers.

If its any other game , would you the player get to known the DLC before deciding on buying the specific DLC .. or not ???

 

Again with the buyer beware rationale, just with extra semantics??... and the tired, "WG is just doing what everyone else does" line.
Tell it to your loved ones when they get ripped off by any of the commercial organisations they've trusted.. see how comforting "there's two sides" wisdom is then;
What are you complaining about son?, it's all here in the text that you failed to read..

[Hawk_de_Guerre]

Some roots of the persistent "you should've known!" line:

There is a fool born every minute. P. T. Barnum.

The common man, no matter how sharp and tough, actually enjoys having
the wool pulled over his eyes, and makes it easier for the puller. P. T. Barnum

Is this philosophy of social cohesion?, or merely the rationale of con-men/predators/parasites.. and their compliant victims.
Due to the evolutionary quirk of Stockholm syndrome said philosophy is also adopted by the greater percentage of the victims,
ensuring perpetuity through compliance.

As a belligerent victim, i tend to get a little feisty about such things.

[Paladinum]

7 hours ago, Hawk_de_Guerre said:

merely the rational of con-men/predators/parasites..

And unfortunately, conmen can thrive exactly because there are people who lack the knowledge/experience/willpower, etc. to avoid being conned or scammed. The naive, the mis-informed, the desperate, etc.

Sure, punish the conmen but also teach the masses to avoid being conned. When there is no potential prey, the predators will die out. The law enforcement is there, but they could not keep you safe all the times, and they cannot see the future.

 

7 hours ago, Hawk_de_Guerre said:

"you should've known!"

In many cases, it's: "you should have read a bit" or "you should have asked around".

WG have said that playing soupersheeps is basically a luxury. The price tags are high. Service cost WILL be an issue. In the 4+ months soupersheeps have been in testing, NONE of those months ever showed that the premium camos will increase credit earning and/or reduce service cost - WG disabled credit earning for soupersheeps altogether during those months. They focused on the awful credit earning of the soupersheeps multiple times in Dev Blog posts and in web articles.

So yes, in this case specifically, if you play this game with any enthusiasm/regularity, you should have known, you should have read something. Puggsley already mentioned this - the information is there, some people just choose to be ignorant of it. WG haven't been even remotely vague about it, if you do read the information.

Sorry for the impossibility of siding with you in this situation. If you were talking about some things WG actually got wrong, I may side with you.

 

Are WG known for being vague to profit themselves more than they deserve?

Yes. Definitely.

In this situation, did WG deceive you in any way about the soupersheep premium camos?

No.

[HobartAWD]

On 4/19/2022 at 4:26 PM, Grygus_Triss said:

If WG have been paying attention, they know I hate the RB and have no intention of using it unless they put Australian ships behind it, and even then it’s under protest.

I never got an answer back of why they decided to say “screw you Australians” buy putting Vampire 2 in RB.

 

I don't think these decisions are made to alienate or annoy any one country or players from that country. Feels like when an upcoming ship is announced it is already decided what the mode of release is going to be based on how long it has been since the last ship for that currency, or something along those lines.

Just feels bad when we finally get a ship at higher tiers that is an Aussie ship and it is locked behind RB which many players cannot access or have no interest in. It is the only ship in game I have ever set foot on and being a RAN ship obviously has special meaning to us Aussie players.

Full disclosure, I do have HMAS Vampire II.