eliastion

Well, the stats indicate that Khaba - after all the nerfs and the BB AP change - is the second best performing DD on EU server. But, rather than stats implying that Khaba is a good (better than Tashkent) ship you'd prefer arguments for WHY that's the case - let me invite you to read my (though I'm not the only one explaining it here) comments in this thread. Statistics indicating ship performance - clearly not something to be taken seriously in a discussion about ship performance If you believe that there's something wrong with them, you should - at the very least - make the effort to explain what (according to you) could've skewed them so much that a supposedly weak ship scores as the second best. I mean, the stats can be a bit misleading - Shimakaze, for example, is better than her stats suggest, because the line draws in people who are as unfit for making the best use of her as it gets (Shima needs to be played close to the enemy, using her stealth to set up good torpedo attacks while IJN torpedo boat players often go for this line because they can enjoy good torp ranges and stealth-torp from safety). So yes, the stats are not everything. But what makes you think that Khaba's stats are so much better than what the ship "deserves"? What could be the cause for such disparity between the "deserved" and observed performance, enough to explain that the ship deserves buffs despite the stellar performance her stats indicate?

Still, that was not a big problem before the change - unlikely to become one after it. BBs never really scared me in Khaba and it's not like they gained an extra advantage - it's just that most other DDs got buffed against them. Precisely. And Khaba is MUCH better at that compared to Tashkent. See? Their advantage over Khaba is very situational since you usually won't be using the ability to stealth-torp anyway. Which is why losing this ability on upgrade to Khaba isn't a big deal. You yourself pointed out why Khaba doesn't really sacrifice much - the predecessor already sucked at the things Khaba sacrifices. And as for Trashcan - actually, she was just as bad at t9. The regardless of any subsequent buffs she still can't hold a candle to Khaba. I don't suffer from lack of credits or port slot so she sits in my port but if I had to grind the line again, I wouldn't even be buying Tashkent - I'd just skip her paying with freeXP not only for modules (as I usually do) but for just skipping the tier entirely. And I'd consider it a good deal because Trashcan is most definitely not something I'd want to sail in Randoms - and grinding through a t9 ship in coop would take forever. This ship is just worse at being a Khaba than a Khaba while sucking at everything else almost as much as Khaba does. I know not everyone shares my opinion, but from my perspective she is a complete stinker.

+33% DPM +a little bit of speed and hp but perhaps most importantly +armor that seriously mitigates damage from enemy cruisers and gunboats The only real problem with Khaba in her preferred playstyle is the range - with her flat arcs she could use that extra bit of range. Other than that - she's just more specialized... but the problem is: Trashcan's overspecialization for similar playstyle is already at crippling levels. If you want a reasonably versatile DD, you should probably go for Grozovoi (or something that's not Russian). If you want Khaba playstyle, however... why would you settle for a knockoff that can't really do Khaba's job nearly as good while still sucking at being a proper DD anyway? But hey, that's just my opinion, I'm aware that there are people that actually enjoy Tashkent. For me it just feels like a ship that's not particularly good at anything but at the same time sucks at quite a few things. The very definition of a stinker, basically. Khaba, on the other hand, has significant weaknesses, even more pronounced at certain points - but she also does have things she truly shines at. It takes some hard work for me to imagine a situation where I would be in a Khaba and thinking "man, I wish I was in a Tashkent". The picture of sitting in Tashkent and thinking "man, I wish I was in Khaba... or pretty much anything else, for that matter" comes to me pretty naturally, though.

There is no destroyer that does Khaba's job better than Khaba. But if you want to contest caps then you're in the wrong ships (well, probably wrong line even - at the very worst you should be sitting in Grozovoi's branch). Khabarovsk is a ship that mostly spams HE from her max range and annoys the hell out of people. You have the speed and the shell arcs for that. You have armor and the hp pool for that. You even have heal. Your one weakness compared to other DDs in similar circumstances is the weakness to BB AP that can tear you a new one. However, you're not an easy target to hit and you normally don't draw THAT much attention (unless you're the only target available but if that's the case then you've probably misplayed - being shot at is great but the point is to "draw fire away from allies", not just "draw fire, period"). Khaba doesn't have the best DPM, her handling is pretty iffy to say the least, her torps are extremely situational. When engaging enemy DDs, she prefers to do it at ranges where they can disengage at will, which makes her a poor DD hunter (not to mention that with her "stealth" there's usually no way to force an engagement as long as the enemy DD player didn't just suffer from stroke at their keyboard -- they'll see you coming LONG before you get a chance to spot them). And don't get me started on Khaba cap contesting. She's a great ship (imo much superior to t9 Soviet gunboats) but she has her own playstyle and you REALLY don't want to end up in a Khaba as the only DD your team has. Even one of the two is a pain. Basically, from what you're saying, it seems that "the only time you've been able to make it kind of work" isn't a fluke. That's when you played more-or-less in accordance to Khaba's playstyle. And if that's helpful... well, it depends. Khaba can put some pressure in a way no other DD can, tank in a way not possible for any other DD - but she's not capable of providing the standard DD services. It's ok if it's a DD-heavy match (even more so if friendly DDs have a brain or two between the few of them) but yes, it can hurt your team if it's a 1-2 DD per team match. As for captain skills - Khaba is a DD where CE is... optional, let's say. Basically, you don't expect to be sneaking up on anyone (more so since you probably aren't taking the concealment module since you want your rudder to work) and you won't stealth-torp no matter what, so the only point is to disengage when things get too hot... but you're REALLY fast and tend to fight from close to your max range, so disengaging usually isn't much of a problem even without CE. All in all, you can probably find better use for these 4 captain points. Still, concealment is concealment, it always makes it easier to re-position safely when needed and stuff. So it's not like the points are completely wasted. But "not completely wasted" doesn't yet mean "worth spending" - I'd look towards other skills.

They are really clear, though. There are many things that don't work or cause problems because players lack information, but the role of objectives isn't one of them. People know the importance of objectives - they just choose to ignore it in hopes that someone else will handle difficult, risky things for them while they just pew-pew from relative safety in the back.

The fact that she can be made to work doesn't mean that she's in the right spot balance-wise. Most players of any ship (even the more exclusive reward ones) don't really utilize their potential. This is true for Błyskawica but also true to similar extent for her competition. There are some ships that are significantly better than (or not as bad as) their stats show - Shimakaze would be a prime example due to the fact that the IJN torp line draws in precisely the wrong kind of people to play Shimakaze reasonably well. But Błyskawica doesn't suffer from similar problems - there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect that her stats are lower than "deserved" based on capabilities when compared to her direct competition.

Well, the answer would probably be: because you're splurging. 3 premium consumables, silver-bought camo, no credit-increasing signals or camos and the only cost-reduction measure taken seems to be the IBT signal (plus a small clan benefit). If you want to survive at t10 without premium, you need to be frugal. The economy is designed so that t9-10 are supposed to be a credit sink - you need some extra measures if you want to circumvent that... or you can just shrug, accept that t10 play is going to cost you rather than earn money - and seek the funds in lower tiers.

Oh, yes, people deciding that you are worth shooting at - a clear sign that they are cheaters Considering your attitude, you could probably make your stats public - there's a good chance that then at least the people that check people's stats would stop considering you a threat worth wasting ammo on... I can't be 100% sure but I doubt you're on the green side of 50% if getting shot at (and sometimes nailed) in smoke makes you believe that every BB that contributes to that is a cheater.

Damn, failed to stay up-to-date. I really hope they fix it at some point - it gets really ridiculous, starting with the extremely counter-intuitive "you can't damage this part anymore" coupled with the even MORE counter-intuitive "you actually CAN damage this part as long as your shell fails to detonate inside - overpens are still good".

Why is Harugumo listed as having best HE DPM if Daring has more? Also, there are more concerns than firepower when deciding what gunboat is the best - and the opening post of this thread explicitly mentioned speed - something Harugumo is quite mediocre at even before you take into account the absolutely abysmal handling that really doesn't help. Harugumo has firepower and that's it. Poor speed, ABYSMAL handling, poor concealment. If you want speed and firepower, you go for the Soviet ships. And even if you go the IJN gunboat tree - you're better off sticking with Kitakaze. Despite being only t9, she's far superior if what you want is a DD (Harugumo barely qualifies) with firepower (Kitakaze has two barrels left but she's still extremely well endowed for a DD) and speed (she's no speed demon but still faster than Harugumo). Harugumo is a side-grade, really - it's what you go for when you want a light cruiser level of firepower at the cost of handling worse than some cruisers, poor stealth and additional vulnerability to big shells (Harugumo - along with Khaba - gets the honor of being an exception from the DD full-pen resistance; and unlike Khaba, Harugumo doesn't have armor to mitigate some of the incoming damage OR the heal, so the survivability isn't that great despite huge health pool).

Btw, weren't there some plans to do something with that? I'm pretty sure WG were planning to fiddle with oversaturation mechanics a bit, so that even saturated sections would be taking 10% damage or something like that?

The funny part is that the unexplainable got explained to him - and that got him angry. He said that he could give 20 more examples but they would certainly get explained too, so he won't bother, because he's smart and he knows what's really going on! Look:

That is one of the funniest quotes I've seen in quite some time. Have you spared a thought that PERHAPS if each of your "proofs" of cheating can be easily explained away WITHOUT the involvement of (technically nigh-impossible since it would require hacking not the game client but rather hacking into the server) cheats, it might just mean that you're wrong about that whole cheating thing? You're like that bad student angry at someone who aced the test in middle school - the guy must've stolen the answer sheet from the teacher! It's clearly impossible for someone to study all the required material and answer all the questions without cheating!

So, to sum this up in a more concise form: "all the people participating in this forum are full of sh*t". Good job fighting the toxicity, I'm sure posts like these make the community better, friendlier and more welcoming I mean, seriously, it's amazing how conceited you managed to be while writing a post belittling people for being conceited. Get off your high horse, pal. Few of the super-unicums* are as arrogant (be it in chat or here on the forum) as you are. If you want to call for self-awareness... then please try to practice what you preach, because at this point it's not even funny. Your whole opening post is a huge condescending rant that goes well beyond what most elitists settle for (the "y'all suck at this game") and encroaches on the territory of a much more severe insult ("y'all suck as people"). And it's not an effect of a heated discussion escalating out of control - it's your opening post... *contrary to what you seem to believe, the term "super-unicum" has an established meaning that can't be easily re-defined just because the thing it describes seems to be held in higher esteem than, from your point of view, deserved. In this case, super-unicum refers to the skill and corresponding results in the game of World of Warships. It has nothing to do with whether the player is humble or conceited, capable of self-reflection or not, just like it isn't really concerned with his cooking or basket-weaving skills. If you want to say that being a super-unicum isn't as important as friendly attitude - be my guest. But trying to re-define the term just because you deem the game results unimportant? It's both quite ridiculous and pretty damn arrogant.

I'll just leave you with a couple things to think about: 1. You have played 1 battles in Isokaze. What it means is that there's a lot of luck factoring into the results. And bad streaks just sometimes happen. Even more likely for a new player with little experience and low-point captains. 2. You made a mistake of trying very hard to win. This is what makes losing streaks more likely and longer than they need to be even for experienced players: you lose a couple matches so you get frustrated, get impatient, perhaps start experimenting with some strange tactics (you mentioned suicide run, right?) or just making stupid mistakes that you wouldn't have made otherwise. This makes defeat more likely. Basically, after having lost, say, 4-5 battles in a row it's usually a good idea to draw a line and, at the very least, go play some other ship. Preferably: take a couple hours break or just leave the game for the day. 3. Don't get too hang up on the winrates of some 10-20 battles. Even veteran players with global winrates closer to 60 than 50%, sailing their favorite ships can find themselves suffering a bad streak where they win one or two battles among 10 played. To put it simply: - there's no way you deserve 15% winrate on your Isokaze. Mainly because it's almost impossible to deserve a winrate this low (you'd need to REALLY go out of your way to try and sabotage your team without getting banned in the process). Someone who only moves around enough to not get flagged as AFK is going to have around 30% winrate over enough battles. - likewise there's no way you deserve a mere 37% winrate in your Kuma - you dealt some damage, scored over one kill per battle and still lost most of them; this is quite obviously some bad luck there - similarly, your 75% in Myogi and over 83% in Kawachi are largely influenced by luck (good luck this time): even the very best players would be really, REALLY hard pressed to sustain 75% in Myogi and sustaining 83% in Kawachi seems outright impossible, even a unicum division would be very unlikely to pull this off, much less a solo player regardless of skill. Basically, you have less than 10 battles clocked on most ships and barely more (13 at the moment) on Isokaze. As long as it seems like you are doing something, scoring some damage, perhaps capping something - that's well enough. Now, if you happen to reach 50-100 battles in a single ship and WR is still abysmal - then it's the time to start getting worried; 30% winrate after 100 battles strongly implies that you suck in the ship in question, even if you're also unlucky. But with just 13 under your belt? As helpful as WR is for gauging your performance, it has the fatal flaw of requiring a substantial number of battles to stabilize - and you're nowhere near that number. So, don't worry about the winrate for now and keep trying to play in a way that helps your team and hurts the enemy. Having a brief look at your stats so far, it doesn't seem like anything more serious than an unlucky streak. Then again - the amount of battles you've played so far is low enough that even the stats much quicker to stabilize than WR are going to be pretty volatile

Well, it's not exactly "wrong" - there is no mistake, just terminology that might be somewhat confusing for unenlightened (WG communication skillz ztrike back) Basically, there are two similar but different mission conditions: 1. Get X spotting ribbons and 2. Spot X ships Every ship can be spotted by someone only once per battle - after that the ship is considered "already spotted" for the rest of the match (if you see a "shadow" of ship's last known position on the minimap, it means that the ship has already been spotted). Getting spotting ribbons is significantly easier since these are awarded also for re-establishing contact after a spotted ship had slipped from view for long enough (I don't remember how long precisely, but I think you can get that info if you hover your cursor over the ribbon). Now, currently most missions/tasks want you to accumulate spotting ribbons - but it should be noted that all of them state that clearly in their respective completion conditions. These missions/tasks explicitly demand you to accumulate a set number of ribbons of this kind. If, however, the condition asks for "spotting ships" rather than "accumulating spotted ribbons", it means that this particular task/mission doesn't follow that trend and what's needed is the initial spot; merely re-establishing a lost contact won't do the trick.

As long as you don't confuse pushing/aggressive play with with yoloing with no forethought, playing aggressively is actually efficient (depending on the ship you pick, of course, but we're working off an assumption that the player wants to see action so won't pick a ship with a campy playstyle). Aggressive play isn't inefficient - it's harder. It requires the player to take calculated risks and, obviously, this requires one to learn how to assess said risk. You need to have some understanding - often instinctual - about WHEN and HOW to push as well as when and how to retreat, because staying alive is a very important part of playing aggressively. Camping is just easier, because failing at camping usually means no damage done but more often than not lets you stay alive for quite some time. Mistakes of similar magnitude when you're playing offensively tend to mean a quick and humiliating trip back to port. Of course if the whole team is utterly useless then a single aggressive ship is relatively likely to just get themselves killed (then again, with such a team the defensive play isn't likely to work out either) AND, unfortunately, the Standard Mode battles exist where camping is rewarded generously due to lack of relevant objectives the aggressive side could potentially secure to accumulate point advantage and force the enemy's hand. Still, the players that actually get good results tend to have a relatively interesting lives - because camping behind islands isn't really the way to take the weight of the battle upon yourself, unless you're trying to defend a flank against superior number of enemy ships... and when you DO defend a flank while outnumbered then even your camping often turns out to be action because you might be sitting behind the island but the enemy needs to push (this is the flank where they have the advantage, after all), bringing the action to you. And if they don't, then it might be less interesting but hey, at least you can pride yourself in scaring away the enemy of clearly superior strength.

The calculations before were for 1000 battles. For 5000 I'd run out of fun ways to present numbers so ridiculously small. And as for flipping a coin 100 times - sure, there's quite a bit of variation still. If, however, you flip the same coin 2500 times (you mentioned something about your stats after 2,5k battles, right?), the chances of striking further than 3% from the middle are 0,26%. And in over 95% cases the result will actually be within 2% of the expected 50%. So when someone says that WR is pure luck and he's not a bad player and that 45-46% winrate is just his luck being bad... sorry mate. Your chances of being unlucky enough to get to 46% or below winrate through pure luck (that is: assuming that it's only luck and each battle is a coin toss) are way below 0,01%. It's not completely impossible, perhaps, but I'd be willing to wager quite a bit of money that no, his "deserved" WR is not 50%. Not to even mention anything above that. And then, when you mention differences between 52% and 56% - sorry, 4 percent points is quite a substantial gap if we're talking people with thousands of battles (especially considering that we're talking 52 vs 56 rather than 48 vs 52). It's technically possible that they're similarly skilled with one of them being extremely lucky and the other - extremely unlucky, but frankly, chances of that are basically negligible. It might be division play, some sort of intentional statpadding or some other systematical difference but luck? No, sorry. Not with thousands of matches on the counter. It's not precisely impossible but it IS unlikely enough to not bother with that possibility.

Random means that if you're an average player (neither an asset nor a liability compared to what randomly comes up as allies and enemies, resulting in an expected winrate of 50% with each match being basically a coin-toss between favorable/unfavorable MM and RNG combination; for simplicity we ignore draws) then your chance of having 0% winrate after 1000 battles are less than 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% So yes. The possibility exists mathematically but is negligible for any and all practical purposes. How negligible, you ask? - if every atom in the universe - created as many bots as there are atoms in the universe - and each bot created as many accounts as there are atoms in the universe - and on each of these accounts played 1000 battles with perfectly average skill level ...it would be more than 50 orders of magnitude (more than 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times) too few accounts to reasonably expect any of them to have a 0% winrate at the end of the experiment.

So, basically... you are afraid to push and you complain that your opponents are just as reluctant to play offensively? Go figure. But frankly, from what you're saying, it seems like there's some room for improvement in your approach to offensive play in the first place. I mean, if what compels you to engage in the campfest along the rest of the team is "because otherwise you'll get farmed by 4 cruisers, 3 battleships and a DD in smoke" or something like this, that doesn't sound like a sign of good offensive positioning. It might be prudent to look at the minimap and, perhaps, find venues of approach that might let you play a bit more aggressively without putting yourself in positions where literally 2/3 of the enemy fleet can shoot at you simultaneously. You do know that even straight-up "pushing" doesn't necessarily mean yoloing through the middle of the map with no cover on any side of your ship, right?

Battleships are something to be feared. It's the battleship players of certain caliber that are nothing to be scared of (at least when they're on the enemy team, that is).

No. There are other nations' DDs that have weaker but stealthier torps - if that's what you want, you should just go for these other nations. IJN torps might use a little buff but not a change that just changes their character to match that of other nations. The harder to land but making a bigger boom torpedoes are a national flavor of IJN DDs and it shouldn't be discarded. In fact, the basic stats of individual torps seem to be as they should right now (excluding 20km Shima torps that should be removed). They are hard to land but they deal a lot of damage - it would be nice to see some slight buffs going in a different direction though. Rather than meddling with what a torp does, it would be better to see some buffs affecting: a) torpedo reload (it takes REALLY long - I think a slightly shorter waiting time would make the hard-to-land torps less frustrating without creating a torpedo soup) b) the hulls themselves (some of them lack in concealment that really should be their another strong point - and they could do with a bit more nimbleness to not be such sitting ducks if they do end up ambushed/spotted/radared)

There are a few things you miss. 1. Torp detectability is less of an issue here than you believe it to be. Yes it does matter (and is what IJN DDs are bad at) but the truth is that, unless you're sailing 20km torprange Shima, a good spread (almost perpendicular to target's path, launched from reasonably short range) is NOT avoidable even for cruisers, much less BBs. The advantage of other nations' DDs widens the angle at which the spread is "perfect" - IJN DDs need to fire relatively close to perpendicular, USN DDs can deviate much more to the front and for PA DD DWTs the angle only really matters to the extent that a broadside-on target has wider profile so can eat more torps. 2. The real reason why "a Battleship can press WSAD once and dodge all of them" is not about torp detectability - it's about their travel time and that one is long enough for this to be the case even when you fire DWTs. Basically, when you fire the torps, you need to predict the general area where the enemy is going to be. If you predict wrong (because the opponent changes speed or course - or the opposite, doesn't perform a maneuver you predicted), your torpedoes are going to just sail across the empty sea. 3. While it's true that even BBs can (due to #2) avoid a lot of torps, this doesn't directly translate to the concept that "the enemy must be stupid to eat a torp". There are many situations where BBs and cruisers can throw off your torping attempts by behaving erratically but you need to remember that the torping DD(s), often unspotted for most of the match, aren't the only enemies the "targets" need to be wary off. A cruiser might not be very enthusiastic about leaving his waifu island even if he knows that there's a DD spotting him - because leaving the waifu while being spotted can be borderline suicidal. A BB that's bow-tanking a bunch of green BBs might try sliding forwards/backwards a bit but probably won't wiggle much to the sides and torpedo spreads from the side can saturate quite a bit of water to account for that sliding. And then there are people who either need to reach some position or GTFO under fire - and they are somewhat unlikely to waste time and compromise their angling just because an unspotted DD might be somewhere around and might be targeting them specifically - unless they have some additional reasons to suspect that. And not giving them such additional reasons is part of playing a torpedoboat well. To sum it up - IJN DDs aren't easy to play and highly visible torps are one of the reasons why. But it's not true that it's dependent on enemy stupidity. Sure, stupid enemies are always easier to nail regardless of weapon - and with torps the difference might be more emphasized - but in the end the torps are a weapon based on prediction. The torpboat captain tries to predict the actions of their target. The target's captain tries to predict where the torpboat might be hiding and when the torps might be coming. And the rest of the battle, all the other allies and enemies, influence the options of both sides A LOT. Be it through calculated gamble or due to situation pretty much forcing them to, even good players can behave in a predictable manner - despite having more than enough skill to realize how disadvantageous that might end up being with some enemy torpboats unaccounted for.

BEWARE THE THUNDERSTOR M!

Special ability: can drive any ship without specialization (they all look the same to him anyway).