_Teob_

Hi everyone! So the short of it is: I think the Z52 needs a bit of love. I may be biased here as the ship was my favorite for a long time and I still think of it fondly but I can't help but notice that due to the abundance of radar and the introduction of much scarier ships, its role has been greatly diminished and its gimmick is borderline useless now. So for those of you who don't own it, the Z52 has very low gun DPM with particularly low HE dmg but higher than average AP dmg. Its torpedoes also do comparatively low damage and the torpedo DPM is somewhat average and you can only launch 8 of them at a time (2X4) although it does get a low reload in return. But its main gimmick is the long range (6km) hydro. The whole point of the ship was that it was the absolute king of caps for a while. It could never outright outgun its competition but being able to use the smoke + hydro combination often gave you an edge. Today however due to the multiple radar ships introduced recently (Kronstadt, Stalingrad, the whole USN light cruiser line) and then the Daring which fills a very similar role, the Z52 (or Big Z as I like to call it) has been rendered somewhat obsolete. I think that it could really use a bit of love. Possibly slightly higher HE damage - I am not 100% sure how it could be improved. Below is t10 DD performance for the past 2 months with the z52 coming in dead last in WR, damage, XP and ships destroyed. Basically if there's a statistic out there, the z52 is the worst at it.

Closing this one down, folks. We're starting to discuss CVs again so we're all going way off topic. If you have additional questions or concerns please feel free to PM me. If you have issues with moderation, please PM @Sehales. Locked.

We're getting off topic here. The question was why we cannot have CV threads and I think that has been answered now. Does anyone have any issues with me closing this?

Because I cannot address the main issue. The reason behind it as you call it. I cannot stop people from being frustrated. I have no power over that. I think it's totally legitimate for players to feel that way. I understand. But at the same time I am powerless to do anything about it. And for what it's worth, in the moderation team, we have never been given any other reason to merge CV threads other than keeping the forum clean. It's a point of view I agree with as well. I think that, while people have legitimate concerns, it's simply not acceptable to spam the forum every day with the same topic over and over again. Now, do I think that there are potential benefits for WG? I don't know but it's not inconceivable so I know where you (and others) are coming from looking at it that way. I cannot say for sure that they are not benefiting from this otherwise legitimate endeavour of keeping the forum healthy so I totally see your point. But since I don't know either way, I can't say for sure. At any rate all I wanted to do here is shed some light from a mod's perspective because I thought it was unfair that the mod team was being accused of doing something underhanded. So I will say again, WG has never asked us to censor or suppress information on the forum in any way.

You replying directly to my use of the expression "apologist" and linking your unwarranted opinion of me to that. Second sentence has the word "combined" in the beginning, implying that it's linked to the first so that it's also about me. Can we PLEASE not do this? I am asking you to please stop.

This right here is proving my point perfectly. I have a different opinion than someone about CVs, therefore I am "removed from reality" and "elitist". That's a tiny throwaway part of my post where I just try to set out where I am coming from but because I don't think in the exact same way, I get attacked. The irony of calling me "thought policeman" while policing what I think is also pretty funny. As is the irony of disqualifying me from having an opinion about CVs because I don't have enough experience but then calling me "elitist". Also, we have moderators with more than a couple of hundred CV games in case one of us needs help with the minutiae of some CV thread. That is not usually the issue though. You don't need a lot of experience in CVs to be able to moderate people flinging insults at each other over 3 different pages. But this is all besides the point. It's literally not the topic of my post or of the thread so with all due respect, let's not start an endless debate about this, shall we?

I don't think they are currently taking suggestions for their market research. Nobody asked me for my opinion so I don't think I will make any suggestions. However, I am pretty sure they know what the situation is themselves. In all fairness, people have been saying they are quitting due to SPGs in WoT since forever and the game is still thriving so I don't know how much stock I put in the notion that people quit because of either of them (CVs or SPGs)

No, what happens is the first post says something positive about CVs, then someone reports it, we go to the thread and it's already littered with insults and snarky replies. We delete all of those and THEN merge the thread as at that point, it doesn't make sense on its own. Because most people don't see the deleted stuff they just assume we merged some random thread. Not saying it never happened - we make mistakes, I am sure. I certainly do. But in my experience, what I wrote above happens by far the most often.

I believe I have made my thoughts on the matter of CVs clear from my first post in this thread. That's not the point though. The point is that, even assuming that the grievances are totally valid, we simply cannot have the forum swamped with CV threads with virtually the same things being said in them again and again. It's just not healthy for the forum or for the game for that matter. Also, with the best possible of respect for the community on the forum here, we represent a very small minority of players. The vast majority of the population doesn't really visit the forum nor do they care about our endless debates here. What I am saying is that drawing conclusions based on the opinion on the forum is not a good idea. That's not to say that the population at large would necessarily dissent with the views expressed here. I am just saying that this is a bit of an echo chamber at times. I personally do not have access to any surveys that WG has run on the player base in general. I would LOVE to know what average Joe thinks of the CV rework. Edit: World of Tanks has just celebrated 10 years, and WoWS has been going on for like what, 4-5 years now? WG may not be enlightened but they are certainly in it for the long run with their games. Not saying they won't take the money, just that they won't run anywhere.

It depends how people want to interpret it, I guess. You know how it is, if someone wants to misinterpret you in a negative way, they will find a way to do it. I hope that what I wrote after makes it clear that the main issue is complaining about the same things over and over again.

no, you're right, let's just create endless topics about the exact same thing. Like for example the damage that CVs do with rocketplanes to DDs - that has clearly never been discussed before. Honestly, if we'd allow that, the forum would be swamped topics discussing the exact same thing. By the way, "constructive" doesn't mean positive. For example, think of constructive criticism. All I am saying is it's pointless to have endless threads with people insulting each other over the same arguments. Come on now, surely you must see the rationale behind that, right? On a related note, everyone understood the exact same modus operandi when it comes to the MM thread. We have a mega-thread for matchmaking for the exact same reasons.

Just your friendly neighbourhood wood pixie here fighting the good fight against necromancers. On a more serious note, this boat has sailed already in the sense that we have a full line of pan european (basically Swedish) DDs in the game so I think discussing that might be a tad late. Locked.

OK so I see that all the conspiracy theorists are out in force so how about I explain it from a moderation perspective instead of all this speculation? Everything that I will say here is NOT WG official position but rather my own opinions based on having access to a bit more information (not a lot more though). Full disclosure first: I don't like CVs in their current form. I am OK with them in randoms (apart from t4) but I think they are broken in anything other than 12 v 12 - which is basically any competitive mode (ranked or CBs). I am saying this just so nobody labels me a CV apologist or whatever. First of all, CV threads are absolutely allowed as long as they are constructive and discuss the class rather than just complain about it. We've had several that stayed open because people were somewhat civil in them. The problem is that, in most situations, when someone tries to get ANY information about CVs or discuss them in any way, they get absolutely flooded with pure hate and the discussion devolves into insults, personal attacks and arguments. Seriously, every time someone says they enjoy CVs they get nothing but hate and bile - we've all seen it and I see the reports. This is simply not OK. I mean I understand being upset with WG for their choices but vitriol directed at players is simply unacceptable. It really is that simple. People should be able to discuss any class and not be brigaded for having the "wrong" opinion. The reason the CV thread was created initially was because it was impossible for WG staff to keep track of all the different threads being created and they really did want to read what players said about the class. I know it's cool to pretend like WG don't care about their own game but it's also a really silly argument. They obviously do. We might not always agree with all their decisions but they do want their own game to thrive. As such they wanted to be able to read what was being said about the change, but it was genuinely impossible. We had at least 4-5 threads with basically the exact same content being started every day. So the decision was made to merge them. That doesn't mean that it WG didn't read it. They did - they even replied to some of the issues. As far as I know they still take a look at the CV thread now and then. Most forums try to avoid duplication of information. This forum is no different. So what I am saying is, if anyone wants to create a thread and rehash the exact same thing that has been already said ad infinitum on any topic, not just CVs, they will find that their thread gets locked or merged. It's not about supressing information. The moderation team has never been told to supress or censor any CV related discussions so please stop spreading that misinformation. I know all the moderators and I am virtually certain that none of them would agree to something like that. As such, saying that about us is genuinely unfair. I know, cry me a river etc. and I know I can't stop the conspiracies so I am just asking to leave the mod team out of them, please. All the moderation team wants to do is make the forum better and more welcoming. Also, how is a 240+ page thread full of complaints about CVs a good way of "hiding" anything? I mean it's the top thread and has been for a while. Anyone new to the forum will see that before anything else, basically. I would have imagined that simply deleting duplicate threads would have been a far more effective way of supressing anything if that was the intention - which it isn't. tl;dr: CV threads are allowed as long as people don't start insulting each other or if the content discussed has already been covered numerous times.

@HMS_Kilinowski I was never contacted so we didn't div at all. My offer still stands but I am not gonna chase people around to try to help them.

Fun spoiled etc. Locked. If the opposite of Necromancy is Nature Magic, call me a wood pixie or whatever.

Don't promote breaking of rules and, more importantly, don't break said rules. Locked.

Don't start arguments here please. Deleted some posts and edited 1.

This thread stays open (for now). The reason why most CV threads get closed is because they devolve into insults and circular arguments or because there is no point in discussing the same thing over and over again. Threads that "discuss" how CVs should be removed are simply pointless. It will not happen. So as long as discussion here remains constructive and civil, we're all good.

Nothing can stop people from lying. Nothing can be done to prevent that. Even now, one could hide their stats and then lie about everything. However I don't think that the majority of players would do that. Most people don't hide their stats right now so I see no reason to assume they would suddenly become highly dishonest with things could, generally, be easily verifiable. Not saying it couldn't happen, just that I think most people wouldn't stoop that low. Call me a hopeless optimist. At any rate, it would at least be better than the endless discussions we have right now on every topic where everyone weighs in and you have no clue where they are coming from with their opinions. I think they are totally entitled to those opinions but everyone else is also entitled to know where those notions come from. What I am proposing is a way to give everyone a voice but also to put that voice into its proper context when it comes to specific game related questions. I am still not sure that this whole thing would be of any interest to anyone but like I said, I do think there's a need for a place where you could ask questions without people arguing amongst themselves endlessly.

The signature thing wouldn't work. The whole point of my idea is that we all have different experience in different areas. So ideally when discussing a topic, you'd want to make the case as why you feel you can contribute in a meaningful way on that specific subject. Let me take myself as an example. I have significant variation in my performance in different classes and even in different ships. For example, without any false modesty, my overall DD performance is quite good however, my results in the Khaba are distinctly mediocre. I can't quite make that ships work. So even if my signature would showcase my DD performance, I would in no way shape or form be in any position to give out advice on the Khaba. In short, I would like to see specific claims of expertise that are relevant to the question. I know you could make the argument that general experience is relevant as well, and you'd be right, to an extent, but, in my mind, the specificity of the "credential" would give it more value. Another aspect is that writing something like that can trigger one's own self awareness. We are all guilty of having opinions on things we have no business talking about. Again, using myself as an example, because of my performance in DDs, I often tend to fall into the trap of thinking I always know what I am talking about. But if I had to write on what I am basing my opinions on the Khaba, I think I would be considerably more likely to either shut up and read what others have to say or at the very least be very careful and caveat anything I am saying. I hope this makes sense and thanks for reading my whole wall of text.

Come on now. Necroing a thread just to start an argument with someone over a year after they made their post is a new one for me. I mean I know quarantine is back around Europe so we all have more time but this is just silly. Locked.

The only solution I see for the whole "who is a veteran" question is to bypass it altogether and assume anyone is entitled to an opinion but that doesn't mean that opinion is, necessarily, worth listening to. Obviously the issue then is how to decide which opinions have a weight of experience and/or performance behind them. I have thought about something like this in the past, and my idea was to have a Q&A thread where every answer given must also contain the poster's "credentials" i.e. their experience with the topic and what they feel makes them qualified to reply. Basically, let the community decide who's advice they want to take. No stat shaming, no outside intervention. It would be incumbent on everyone answering a question to make a case as to why they feel they know what they are talking about. And I mean there should be no judgement whatsoever as far as those above mentioned credentials. Every answer would have two sections, one with an answer to the question and the second section explaining why they think they have enough experience to give an answer on the subject of the question. For example, an interaction would go something along these lines: "Poster 1 (OP): - Question: Should I take Survivability Expert on my IJN DDs? Poster 2: - Section 1 Answer: I believe that Vigilance is a better choice because I find I often eat random torpedoes and, at lower tiers, one torpedo can be enough to kill you, even with Survivability Expert. - Section 2 Credentials: I have played the IJN line up the Minekaze and I have 800 battles in destroyers in general Poster 3: - Section 1 Answer: Survivability Expert is almost mandatory on most high tier DDs and IJN DDs are no different. This is because of the current meta (with CVs) which can mean early HP losses and because, as a percentage gain, it's one of the best skills you can take. - Section 2 Credentials: I have 400 battles in the Shimakaze alone and I am a unicum DD player (60%+ WR) with over 14k battles in total." And that's it, no other judgement on the credentials or anything. It's up to the person who asked the question to decide who he thinks he should listen to. I think this would also be relatively easy to moderate as any answer that doesn't follow the template could just be deleted and, since other conversations would not be allowed, we'd probably avoid the usual tangents that discussions sometimes fall pray to in the general section of the forum. I think that everyone can bring an interesting perspective to a discussion and it's worth listening to everyone's opinion but it can be difficult sometimes to know if the person outlining the opinion is basing it on anything other than a gut feeling. The reason I never put this forward before is because I was never sure if people taking the time to answer questions would also be willing to give their qualifications. It's extra work for someone that's already kindly giving up their time. I still see this as the main issue. I for one would be happy to explain why I feel I am qualified to give opinions on certain subjects, but that's a purely subjective perspective based on the fact that I think that, in the long run, anyone willing to give advice would actually save time because, when you answer a question right now, there's a high chance you will find yourself in an argument with someone who disagrees with you that is usually not even the person who asked the initial question. This takes more time than just writing 1 more line in the answer. The other issue with this idea is that some people will naturally be better at "selling" themselves. I am not worried that people will write massive paragraphs explaining their credentials as that can be solved by limiting the second section to 2 lines or something. I am however slightly worried that some people will be able to make their experience seem more relevant than it actually is. I guess that's an unavoidable fact of life though - it's not what you know, it's what you can convince others you know. I am keen to know what the community thinks of something like this. (it's funny, first time I thought of this was a long time ago while reading the class specific sections of the forum and noticing wildly varying opinions on stuff and I was struggling to decide who to listen to when reading advice - I thought it would be really helpful to know what their perspective was because then I could make a call)

How to get your thread locked in record time 101: - clickbait title that doesn't explain what the thread is about - make the thread with some unclear/esoteric ideas that are not easily understandable - insult everyone who doesn't understand what you mean Locked before people start saying things that will result in sanctions. Please try to be constructive and courteous to fellow forum members and work on the assumption that not everyone understands or agrees with everything you say and that doesn't make them bad people.

Yes yes, of course. I just wanted to be super clear and not assume any prior knowledge.

It doesn't work that way unfortunately. The way WG applies bonuses is sequential rather than cumulative. So we have 3 bonuses, camo = 0.03, skill = 0.1, module = 0.1. Normally yeah you'd think that you'd just add these up, resulting in 0.23 so you'd be right. But the way it actually works is: 0.97 * X = Y -> 0.9 * Y = Z -> 0.9 * Z = final concealment. In the case of the Kitakaze, for example, if you'd just do 7.56 * 0.77, you would get 5.82. Which is wrong. What you have to do is 7.56 * 0.97 = 7.33 -> 7.33 * 0.9 = 6.6 -> 6.6 * 0.9 = 5.9. Which is correct. A workaround is to simply multiply by 0.785 instead of 0.77. You will get a pretty accurate figure like that.