Jump to content

HMS_Kilinowski

Players
  • Content Сount

    757
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12453
  • Clan

    [THESO]

1 Follower

About HMS_Kilinowski

  • Rank
    Officer Cadet
  • Insignia
    [THESO]

Recent Profile Visitors

961 profile views
  1. HMS_Kilinowski

    Why the insane resource ship price inflation?

    I didn't mean that prices immediately jump, but the difference between Black and Neustrashimy already indicates a price taking higher steel income as given. Steel is not intended to be earned by casual players. It is aimed at competitive players. This is not an exlusive thing in the sense that only certain people can get that. Players are supposed to self-select into certain groups. If they e.g. want steel, that is an incentive to select themselves into the group of competitive players, thus increasing their commitment to the game, thus securing future revenue. Ofc the system then got messed up out of greed. Casuals saw the steel-ships similar to a child seeing his brother play with another toy. Suddenly the irrational sentiment arises that this toy must be special, must be better than what he is holding in hands. So he wants that toy. They argue over it until he gets it, only to find out it is not that much special to what he had before. Stalingrad was overpowered and players took that as a signal that steel is the ressource to get overpowered ships. so they wanted steel. Wargaming reacted out of greed and introduced the steel campaign over christmas 2018 for as low as 50€ - or was it 60€?. Then they granted steel for snowflakes, drip feeding plebs into steel addiction. But that all was just a hoax. Steel ships were not intended to be overpowered. Stalingrad was but an exception, much like Smolensk is for coal ships. Bourgogne, Somers, Black are all decent ships that show decent stats, mainly cause they are played by unicum players. A Bourgogne in average hands is not superior to the Thunderer. I'd even say average players will have far more impact in Thunderer than in the Bourgogne. So it's not supposed to be an issue for casual players, it's going to affect the players who earn 20-30k steel per year, which may soon see new ships for 35k steel.
  2. HMS_Kilinowski

    Hayate for 2 Mil FExp?

    The strange pattern with FXP-ships is that ships of the same tier have an identical price. That is different for all other ressources, so it would make sense for Wargaming to also vary prices for FXP-ships, depending on their performance or historical significance or whatever they base their prices on. Any price above 1.25M FXP for a T10-ship doesn't make any sense to me anyway. What is so special about T10-ships? They are slightly more powerful. For most players that is a bad thing. They play bad. The more influence they have within their team the lower their winrates get. Yes, everybody thinks a more powerful ship will mean better results, but you will get another T10 ship into your battle and you have to match his power and skill. According to server stats, 2/3 of the players can't do that. So a T10 ship doesn't get the average player a better winrate, compared to a T9. Does a T10 get better XP? No. Again, if we look at server stats the average XP for T10 ships hardly differs. T9 ships get less XP if they are top tier, but then again they make up for it in T10 battles, where they get more XP for the same damage. Do T10s make more money? No. In terms of credit earnings, T9s so far got credit multipliers that make them way more profitable. If you're short on money you will play T9 premiums rather than T10s. Does a T10 cost more to design? Hell, no. They are all 3D-models with a comparable degree of detail. So where does that idea come from that T10 ships are worth more and are worth a 50% or - as that strange Smalland screenshot suggests - 100% higher price? Maybe one might justify a higher price if all T10-ships were useful in competitive modes. You then would play them more often and that could be an argument for a higher value, thus a higher price. But Bourgogne, Salem and Yoshino suck. Even Colbert and Somers are not outright competitive ships. I own a Somers and right now we still mostly go with other DDs (Shima, LM-Gearing and Kleber), since they either are faster or have better concealment. I mean this sterotypical idea that something "higher" must be more expensive is imo apologetic nonsense, that is not backed by valid argument. Don't worry, @kfa, I think he meant a reduction of the detection range, which is a buff, not a nerf. Intuitively the opposite wouldn't make sense, since the currently mediocre concealment is already difficult to work with.
  3. HMS_Kilinowski

    Why the insane resource ship price inflation?

    Ofc you like it. Everybody likes getting more rather than less. But in the end, prices are based on what buyers can afford. Without snowflakes, steel ships would probably cost 10-15% less and nominal you would get the same. It's what @kfawrites in his inittial post. You get some signals and camos more, that, if you use them efficiently, get you 500k FXP more per year and subsequently prices for FXP-ships increase by 250k. So you get 2M FXP now and get two ships for 1M each , and 2018 you got 1.5M FXP and got 2 ships for 750k each. The only difference is that whenever we get something, people preach us about gratitude. "Look at all the signals you all got for free in this event. Be grateful you greedy babies." But when it turns out that these signals won't get you more cause on the other side of the equation prices have gone up, it's inappropriate to complain. Something is off in this system. Either I am grateful for what I get, but then it's equally called for to be disappointed in price increases. Or I don't complaim about prices increases cause "Wargaming is an enterprise, they have the right to do whatever they want." But then those signals, even the containers you get for compensation when the server was down are not free, but just something you have in stock that will be logged and used to determine future prices to keep this a zero sum thing.
  4. HMS_Kilinowski

    Smaland cost

    How could I forget? I didn't mean that this doesn't work in the sense that they won't find people spending any sort of money. As some people at Wargaming hinted, they even know some players have some sort of gaming addiction and they accept that as part of the business model. What I mean is that this policy will backfire eventually. Reputation is important if you want to do business in the future. This game I like, so I am somewhat commited to it, I accept certain actions that I find disappointing. Butthis product won't last forever. At some point Wargaming will launch future projects. Players will remember the pricing policy and the reputation built in WoT, WoWs and WoWp. They will decide whether to get involved in these future games. They will recommend future games or the existing games to friends or do the opposite. The bargaining power of taking certain prices from people is based on their commitment. For any future game this commitment is zero now. So yes, I can make a buck out of peoples gaming addiction or commitment to a product, but in the long run, people will substitute. This is promoted by the public relations you generate around your business. If you got good explanations for your pricing, people will accept that. If people think you are covering up your greediness, that will generate bad reputation and backfire as explained above. Names are irrelavant. I know a guy who bought the Puerto Rico twice. For them this might be reasonable, that is not for me to decide or judge. What I see is that there are hundreds of thousands of accounts that Wargaming never sells a product to. Each enterprise tries to identify the sweet spot of demand. What is the best price? Traditional economics suggests it is where you maximize earnings, i.e. the product of price times quantity. A digital ship has no cost per unit, so it's that simple. Was the price charged for the PR the sweet spot, the optimum? Let me put it this way: Maplesyrup shows numbers on the Asia server. Within a window of two weeks 2080 players have played at least one battle in the PR. The server has more than 450k accounts with more than 100 battles played. I am sure most of these players would not be willing to pay any money for the PR. But then again charging some 0.5% of your players around 50€ for the boosters, wouldn't you think you're skimming only a small segment of the market? Isn't it reasonable to assume you could double or triple your earnings, if you charged less but sold 5 times the quantity? This is just a rough example, but I hope you get the idea.
  5. HMS_Kilinowski

    Why the insane resource ship price inflation?

    I think @MrWasteeexplained the flaw in the system quite comprehensively. Let me dissect the game economy a bit. 1. Inflation The increase in prices a year ago was justified. Back then people started getting more of the special economic signals and camos. Most of all, and that was a key factor: Players had certain game modes, where they could ensure a high amount of baseXP. All the flags and camos stack on baseXP. In certain modes you had 3000 baseXP almost guaranteed. Combine 8 special signals on top of the camos Mosaic, Spring Sky and Asian Lantern and that game mode and you could earn 30-40k FXP/CXP per battle. That was a unique situation. These game modes do no longer exist. So people had spammed that game mode, blowing all their special stuff and gained a lot of FXP. Consequently Wargaming thought their economy was broken and readjusted prices. That was over a year ago, mind you. Currently I cannot think of any game mode that would even guarantee me 2000 baseXP. I hear rumors of Operation Narai, but that is a zero sum game. I know one person who likes to spam that operation, but his gains are other team members losses, it only works with an incompetent team. So this is not a reliable way of earning baseXP. I know some players who get 2000 baseXP in randoms, but they are the top 0.5% of the playerbase, it doesn't make sense to calibrate the economy on their income. My point being: The miscalibration fixed itself over the course of a year. Wargaming has not increased the amount of special camos and signals in the last year. That has remained pretty constant. In the same time period, game modes that yield good and reliable baseXP have been removed. This has set things straight. There is no further inflation in earnings. Consequently any increase in pricing is not indicated. A simple indicator is to think how many ships people are intended to get and adapt prices so they get exactly that. 2. Ressource types Right now there is four "freeish" ressources: FXP, coal, steel and RP. Having four ressources to do the same, makes no sense, right? The logic thing is to use these ressources for a principle called "price discrimination". If Wargaming wants to cater to different strata of customers, the ressources are means to discriminate, if you cannot convert them. This usually is done to satisfy different customers needs or adapt to individual willingness to pay. WG basically does that, but has messed up this system. We can see that very clearly in the Research Bureau. Ships there take a long time or a lot of real money, to unlock them. They are intended to cater to the whales. You, the average player are not intended to have these ships. They are for bragging. Whales look for ever new ways of dumping money into the game, Wargaming is well-advised to abuse that. I know, some of us find it unfair, but players who finance the game more than others, at least want some appreciation. Then we have steel ships, originally designed to reward the high-performing players. Again, bragging rights, but in a different way. RP was to reward players for long time or financial commitment, whereas steel ships aimed at rewarding players achieving high ranks in Ranked or Clan Battles, to reward good players. The motivation is that good players motivate others to play. You see videos showing great play, you want to get involved. That generates revenue. Again, there is a link of economic benefit for Wargaming and a reward for the players making it possible. In principle it would be entirely possible that some excellent players have these steel ships but never get a ship for RP. Likewise, 24/7-players could have RP ships, but would not achieve getting a lot of steel, playing a lot but not well. Then we have coal, a ressource for everyone that rewards consistency. You don't have to play a lot nor exceptionally well, just do it regularly. This is an important goal for Wargaming so the servers are not too empty on some days, while being overloaded on others. Capacity costs and you want it used as evenly as possible. Finally we have FXP. This is the most flexible and everyday ressource of all. It also rewards commitment, but not to the extreme of RP. While RP aims at players having unlocked most/all of the lines, FXP is a ressource earned from the very beginning. Although it seems arbitrary in accumulation, it has a very key purpose for Wargaming and there is a good reason of having it in the game to reward every bit of play a little bit. FXP evens out balancing issues. People complain about certain ships and being matched bottom-tier in a stock ship. That is to be overcome by you investing your FXP to skip certain unpleasant parts of your grind, making the game more enjoyable and the player less whiny. And in case you put up with the bad ships and stock configuration, you get rewarded with a freemium ship. You play a ship that is subpar, enabling other players to own you. You are a willful damage pinata, which makes other people than you happy. So as an incentive to do that, you save FXP and get a ship. Every ressource has its purpose. If you stay true to that purpose you can define, what type, quality and number of ships is appropriate. 3. quality and quantity of ressource ships I talked about the motivation of ressource types. Based on that one can answer the question, what quality and quantity of ships is indicated. The top of ships is supposed to be the rarest ships. If you intend to reward people who invested into the game or are promoting it by playing competitive, you want them to have something special. The number of ships is irrelevant. Ofc you want regular rewards, so these players continue to contribute. But one ship per year is enough. If you don't see these ships in every battle, the bragging is guaranteed. It doesn't get better with more ships. That applies to RP-ships and steel ships. These ships are supposed to be rare and highly selective. A player cannot pick them all, he can pick one out of several. He has to make a choice, a choice that reflects his playstyle and promotes exclusiveness. I think Wargaming is doing quite well in that respect. RP-ships are rare and even steel ships are not a common sight. Stalingrad has become a bit of a regular encounter, but it is out for quite some time and WG has handed out steel to non-competitive players making it less exclusive. The difference is that ships appealing to whales need to be exclusive in appearance. Great looking camos. Ships that say "I am a whale, I use money for toilet paper." The rewards for achievers on the other hand must be interesting to play, not overpowered, but giving a special flavor of playstyle, they must be fun to play for a smart player. Now if you compare that to the more everyday ressources coal and FXP. These ships do not need to be super-special. They should be decent ships, interesting, giving some economic bonus, but they are supposed to reward players regularly, reminding them that playing the game pays off. Being that, there is not supposed to be any exclusiveness. The ressources are supposed to be designed so that an active player can get all the ressource ships. They don't need to be high-tier-ships, but irrespective of what they are, they should be available at a reasonable cost. 4. So what's off, professor? Exactly that last bit. Increasing prices on an everyday ressource will mess with the quantity of ships that players can get. Players will need to make a choice and that introduces an exclusiveness into these ressources that should be restricted to the "premium" ressources. If there is a ship like Smolensk for that everyday ressource, that messes with balance, as such a toxic ship is not supposed to be available to a point where it alters the meta. Likewise a ship like Neustrahimy probably was not interesting enough to be offered for steel. If Wargaming continues on that path, the distinct attributes of the different ressources will cease to exist. Coal, steel, FXP and RP will just be ressources that can be converted at will into one another. That mixes the reasons to reward certain behavior and Wargaming loses control over which player type they want to address. If you want whales to go for a reward, you cannot allow everybody to get it, negating the bragging property. If you want an everyday player to claim his reward, you cannot rise prices to whale levels. 5. Consequence Suum cuique. Don't mix ressources into a salad. RP: A reward for players who grinded all the lines and have been devoted to World of Warships for years. The ressource should allow for one ship a year or every two years. We're talking absolute exclusiveness. No OP ships, just damn good looking eye-catchers. Steel: Stop selling it out in snowflakes and purchasable campaigns. Make it exclusive again to competitive modes. You want it, you gotta reach a certain level of skill. One ship a year is enough. The ship should be versatile and promote an exciting and unique play style, not be boring and OP as Stalingrad. Coal: Wargaming decides how fast players can accumulate this ressource. You don't need new ships every month, but an active player should earn enough coal to own every single ship. Keep in mind, players need coal for signals, modules, captains and whatnot. Don't overload the ressource with options, keep it simple. Two, three, four ships a year, it doesn't matter. These ships are not supposed to be super-unique, you should get them all but not feel it a great loss if you can't make it. FreeXP: Pretty similar to coal. Rather than increasing prices, lower prices and reduce the amount of special signals. Cater to different tiers, instead of being fixated on T9. Again, every active player should be able to get all the ships and not need to make a choice. As Wargaming rewards players for not using their FXP to skip bad ships, they should get decent ship to compensate for the grief that is the "A-hull-horror".
  6. HMS_Kilinowski

    Smaland cost

    I apologize and remove my polemic remark.
  7. HMS_Kilinowski

    Smaland cost

    You can bet your lower back they read this and are perfectly aware and deliberately not commenting on it. But we know that they know. And they know that we know that they know. Which makes this all the more embarrassing. Sorry, guys, we didn't start the fire. I doubt anybody but the few who have money coming out their ears ever converted doubloons to FXP. The conversion rate is 1:25, which made the old 750k FXP ships cost about 90€,a price 50% higher than the price charged for a T9 even today in store. The 1M FXP ships now already cost 120€, if you would convert them. Why would I convert FXP to get an Azuma for 120€, if I can buy it for 60€ in the shop? Now imagine paying 240€ for a T10 ship. That doesn't work. All along the line from T2-premiums to T9, there is a moderate increase in pricing (rough averages): T2 ship: ~7€ T3: ~8€ T4: ~10€ T5: ~14€ T6: ~20€ T7: ~30€ T8: ~40€ T9: ~60€ The increases are partially irrational, cause I can think of no explanation why a T8 ship would be 33% more valuable than a T7 ship, while a T7 ship is 50% more valuable than a T6 one. Irrespective of that, increases vary from 15% to 50%. I see no indication why T10 would promote an increase of 100%. Wargaming would need to explain that wo me, if that was the case. Russian cruisers are besides the point and we don't know yet how LMs will be made available in the future. It could be an easier grindthan before, tho I admit that seems unlikely. Anyway, one storm at a time. [self-censored]
  8. HMS_Kilinowski

    Smaland cost

    I hope so, too. We're talking Katrina levels of manure storm, if I was wrong. It's just too extreme to be true. We had discussions in our discord, where people said 1.2M, maybe 1.3M. Already 1.5M was a price some of us found excessive. We don't want pitchforks, they don't want pitchforks. Puerto Rico was a money grab aiming at the whales. This here would affect us all. It would be like a daily taunt for every newb, shoving it into his face: "You will never be able to afford me, better stop playing right away." A total marketing fail.
  9. HMS_Kilinowski

    Smaland cost

    Exactly. Wargaming had this huge manure storm just around the corner back with the Puerto Rico. The last thing they need now is a total mess-up over FXP-ships. It would be an utter disaster. Don't get me wrong, it's not unheard of that WG does greedy nonsense like that, but this would be like taking the PR-event and trumping it into overdrive mode. FXP in the last 5 months really wasn't earned easier than a year ago. There simply is no need for any inflation. Whales are burning their excess FXP on Ohio and Colbert. So charging 2M for the upcoming FXP ships would be unreasonable even from the business point of view. Dear Wargaming, a disclaimer in that situation would be a smart thing. I can see the erinyes unleashed, if this unfunny hoax is not resolved soon.
  10. HMS_Kilinowski

    Smaland cost

    Don't worry, The real price will be lower. Only a person who has completely gone beyond insane could think a price of 2M FXP to even be remotely fair. Remember, the price increase from 750k to 1M was due to us getting more signals and camos back then. So FXP came fairly easy. Now that hasn't become any easier in the last year, so a further price increase would be unjustified. The surplus for a T10 ship compared to a T9 is around 25%-30%. So the real price on the live server could definitely not be higher than 1.3M FXP. It's a hoax. Get your pitchfork back into the barn. Even Wargaming is not that insane and stupid.
  11. HMS_Kilinowski

    Want to buy a resource ship to make credits. Advice?

    It seems you can hold your own and you are a DD main. You likely will get the most XP and credits in a DD. T9 is the best tier to earn money for better players. Consequential, a T9 DD should be a save bet. Too bad you don't have the Benham, it would be perfect. The thing is, the only currently available T9-DDs are Friesland, Black and Neustrashimy. Black and Neustrashimy are about to be temporarily removed as of update 0.9.3 and reintroduced for coal. Friesland seems to be a good DD killer and has great AA. Shooting down planes helps a lot earning credits. The missing torps might reduce its damage potential, that depends on your playstyle. The Black could be nice, since you are probably used to contesting caps, and a DD with smoke and radar is a strong combo. The torps suck, they are slow, but then again you mostly want the threat of torps rather than using them a lot. Having torps, discourages bigger ships from rushing your smoke, which is one of the shortcomings of Friesland. Finally the Neustrashimy. Rumor has it, it's good for good players. It has a strong heal, decent torps and precise low dpm guns. One can see it's an interesting combination, suited for people who do not go for the quick kill, trading their ship, but doing more surgical pick-offs. Kill a damaged DD, go dark and heal, go some place else. If you don't have steel available, ideally with a coupon, there is only one choice, go for the Friesland. In the current meta, melting planes is just hilarious. If you have steel, I'd seriously think about buying the Black now, since, Wargaming will likely make it much more expensive as a coal ship. But it's a bit of a one trick pony, radaring DDs, smoking up and killing them is what it's good at. Neustrashimy has more options, it can go russian long range gunboat, torp boat and contest caps. The price is however fair but not cheap. If the price was irrelevant, I would go for the Neustrashimy. A heal is very helpful in surviving til the end and a DD in the endgame is often key to winning a battle. So, nobody can tell you definitely, what to pick, but each choice has it's charm and I hope you you can identify your sweet spot.
  12. HMS_Kilinowski

    gegen chatban vorgehen?

    Wenn ein dummer Mensch dadurch intelligenter würde, dass man ihm seine Dummheit unter die Nase reibt, dann würde es ja wohl kaum noch dumme Menschen geben. Das hören die täglich, hilft ihnen aber nicht weiter. Wenn du anderen sagst, dass sie dumm sind, dann machst du das für dich selber, um deiner Frustration Luft zu machen. Das ist menschlich nachvollziehbar. Ich bin selber nicht darüber erhaben, andere manchmal im Chat blöd anzumachen. Aber es bringt halt auch überhaupt nix. Da prallen Mentalitäten aufeinander, die unvereinbar sind. Die einen wollen gewinnen. Die anderen wollen sich nicht anstrengen Auch das muss man ein Stück weit verstehen. Jedem wird täglich Leistung abverlangt und manche sehnen sich dann in ihrer Freizeit nach ein Ausgleich, bei dem es nicht um Leistung geht. Dann kommen sie ins Spiel, gurken planlos über die Karte und verursachen bei den guten Spielern Kopfschmerzen. Gegen einen berechtigten Chat-Bann kann man nciht vorgehen bzw. sollte man ihn als berechtigt hinnehmen und die Konsequenzen ertragen. Du musst dich eben zusammenreißen, nicht jedem sofort mitteilen, dass du ihn für blöde hältst. Statistisch gesehen gibt es genau so viel dummes Verhalten im Gegnerteam und darüber regen sich die wenigsten auf. Den Sieg dank Fehlern der Gegner nimmt man gerne mit. Auf lange Sicht gleicht sich alles aus. Also sei schlau, nimm die Dummheit wie das Wetter. Nicht schimpfen, sondern Regenjacke anziehen ... und Carry-Pants.
  13. HMS_Kilinowski

    Returning after about 2 years

    I once saw this guy explaining how to fold a newspaper into a bat to defend against some terrorist with an AK-47. Many of us will get the impression that DD counter play versus CVs is limited to minimizing harm inflicted upon the DD rather than actively fighting back, harming the CV. And partially that is true. You can only disarm a CV while those buggers continue to hide in some remote corner even when the game is decided for minutes. I know this is not satisfactory. I am not preaching this to be a fair fight, it is not. It is like one guy holding a sword and the other guy holding a tiny shield, based on the guy with the sword getting tired or bored. When a CV ruins your game, you at least want a chance to mess him up real good in return. It's only human. Wargaming unfortunately has designed CVs almost immune to damage with armored flight decks, short fires and floodings and no detonations. They were cutting CVs some slack cause they wanted to attract players to get into this, back then very unpopular, class. Couple of days ago we parked a Friedrich next to a Hakuryu, secondary-only duel. Those Hakuryu secondaries are no joke. The FdG was semi-secondary-specced and still the Haku took it down to 1/3. So yes, it is an odd definition of counter play. I am not trying to legitimize CVs as being balanced. I just think we need to make our homework, too. Slingshots, triangulating DDs, AA dodging, CV-players didn't get these tactics on a silver platter. They had to develop them, search for exploits, weak tiers to seal club. Some trial and error went into that. So as a DD I can't expect WG to give me a simple button or skill that will render CVs useless. I need to improve, too. The problem is not CVs isolated. It is the whole complex of HE-spam, radar coverage, gunboats and quick response time for CVs that make DD play so inaccessible to new players. @ProcrastesFunny idea, but .... DARK THEME?
  14. HMS_Kilinowski

    What's your opinion on the new/reworked ship modules?

    There is no subjective approach to this. Choice matters. Whether the player is aware of the effect on his outcomes, doesn't change that. Objectively speaking most players, given their playstyle, will live longer and have more impact with concealment. Not in every single battle but over the course of thousands of battles. If sub_Octavian said that and if it is correct, it still is a bit vague, since it doesn't define what concealment is. Do players value concealment if they pick both, module and captain skill or only one of them? There are builds that will skip on one of them for a valid reason, e.g. BB-secondary-survival-hybrids, or even both, e.g. double-rudder-shift-Khaba. And then look at all the 45%ers. To have so little impact on the game, you really need to sabotage your reults in every way possible. There have to be players who don't use concealment mod, but they also don't use anything else. They either haven't realized they can mount modules yet or they don't use them deliberately. I once read a guy in chat thinking "they are too expensive and i don't need them anyway". There were times when I thought myself, what the benefit of concealment is. You start shooting it doesn't matter anyway. It takes a certain level of experience to value concealment. tl;dr not taking concealment doesn't automatically mean taking torp lookout.
  15. First of all the term "accomplished potato" is most beautiful definition I have ever heard for that stratum. The thing is, I couldn't tell you which of these DDs is gonna work. It's difficult to imagine how this Ranked Season is going to work out. The combination of CVs in the game and the small buff circles, will imo make this a very aggressive/brutal game mode, especially for DD-players. The buff circles are a bit like epicenter, the reward is too tempting to ignore it. You fear of the other DD getting the buff will drive you towards the circle. In there it's going to be a [edited] fight arena, where CVs and radar cruisers throw tainted goods at each others cocks. It will be utterly frustrating cause you will rely on support from your team mates. If the past is any indicator, Ranked has no teams. They will not risk being destroyed since it ruins their chance of keeping their stars. They will bully you into the buff circles or your sense of responsability will make you go in there. Then you will depend on having a CV that protects you from the enemy rocket planes and helps you spot and kill the enemy DD. You will also need a radar cruiser that can get close enough to radar the buff circle and add his firepower to the team effort of killing the enemy DD. If any of these things are missing, if your CV-player is bad or your radar cruiser is incompetent or gutless, you will have a very hard time. Ofc the situation is mirrored for the enemy team. Their DD is living hell, too. If their radar ships or CV fail more than yours, you will prevail. That said, if I picture this correctly, you will need a DD with a) smoke (lots of it) b) good concealment c) good guns and ideally d) hydro. You will sit in the cap and very likely you will either be spotted by planes or by the DD. If one of both spots you, the other one will make contact and attack you as well. If the DD spots you, expect planes on the scene within 30s. If planes spot you, expect the DD to torp you or shoot you from smoke. So you will need to smoke up often. You will not be able to leave the smoke since planes will be circling over you, so you need hydro to carefully dodge torps within the smoke cloud. I can already sense, how much fun this is going to be, an environment as toxic as an illegal mafia waste dump. If your CV keeps the DD spotted, you need to smoke up and shoot it, so you need good guns. And you need a lot of smoke, since you will need to reposition a lot and might get spotted by the CV over and over. So the DD I would pick is the Daring, since it has a lot of smoke and fast cooldown. It also has hydro, lasting for a long time and great in a defensive role. It also has single torpedos, great to torp Kremlins on the nose - you're gonna see lots of them. The long reload will be mitigated as long as you can secure the initial buffs and get your torp reload down. Problem is: You don't have a Daring. So I'd go for either Gearing or Z-52. Frankly, if you are not sure you are up to this very demanding play, I wouldn't go for it. This game mode will be decided by the amount of players who got a feeling of entitlement towards a specific high impact class, while not having the wits to master it. So it comes down to observing the meta in a low impact class, trying to determine patterns and make a realistic call if one can do better then the other players in a given class. If so, go for it at all cost. If not, stay away from it without remorse.
×