HMS_Kilinowski

The PR is afaik calculated dynamically. That means that your PR can go down, even when you are not playing, if the player base as a whole does better than you over time. A good example is the high tier pan-asian DDs. They first were strong, so people did a lot of damage. Then the gun reload and the torpedo reload got nerfed massively. At that point I played through the line, did less damage than I would have done before the nerf. Then, recently the line got a torpedo reload booster, because Wargaming found they had nerfed it too hard. So now people playing will again do more damage. Since PR is covering the entire history of a ship, all battles played by all players under different metas, a PR value of a ship played under a nerf or harmful meta, will gradually decrease, once new battles are played by other players under more fortunate circumstances. You played a lot of battles in earlier years. Coop before - iirc - 2019 was harder, because bots turned into a blob stalking the closest human player. So naturally they focussed fire, which made them kill players better than now. Now the AI is designed to resemble more of a Random Battle dispersion of ships over different caps. The bots are more isolated and get killed more easily. On top there is one more bot, which stabilizes results. All in all, coops nowadays feature higher winrates. This likely decreases the PR of older battles within the data. So I wouldn't take those results overly serious. If I were you, I'd just adapt to the current AI, and pick damage dealers. Ships that do not work in coop, may work well in operations. A lot of operations also feature lang and medium range battle, which favors designs like IJN-BBs, french DDs or kiting cruisers.

Subs are not designed for dynamic battles. Enemies pushing or running at full speed usually means the enemy rolls over you or you get left behind. In coop, your ping gets cleared immediately. So either you wait for the bots to take their first fire and the DCP to be on cooldown, at which point the target is probably already quite damaged and destroyed before your torps ever reach it. Or you go for shotgun attacks, which, as you said, means close range and by the time you get close, also most bots are gone. Coops, as they are programmed, imo work for a small fraction of ship designs, mostly those with several of the following properties: speed, high torpedo alpha, secondaries, high pen AP, concealment, smoke, bow tanking ability. It's all about getting into brawling distance fast and without getting blapped in the process and then doing dev strike levels of damage. American BBs are mostly useless, cause they are too late to the show. Gunboats, as good as they may be to kill the frontal DD, mostly lack the torp alpha to blap a BB, which gives a lot of XP. Coops have changed a lot since the early years. Wargaming would need to increase the bot level a lot to make them interesting again. If operations work with +1/+2 tier bots, so imo does the regular coop. Or they could make Coop into a 9v12 mode. Only if coop becomes hard enough to transform the mentality from "get as much as you can, taking whatever risk is necessary" into "conserve your ship or you might well lose this", Coop will be a worthy game mode again.

But you are playing mostly coop. I would imagine that italian DDs are not that bad for coop. You move towards the enemy. At some point you get spotted, then you wait a bit until they are shooting at you and you start the exhaust smoke. The smoke safely takes you very close to the bots, which you then torpedo. I mean take e.g. the european DDs for comparison. No smoke, no hard hitting torps. They suck in coop. I don't see no harm in playing some coop and operations whenever the mood strikes you. And there is nothing wrong with having a certain level. Nobody expects you to improve in coop, especially since nobody gives any pointers. When I check your account I see a lot of good coop ships: Prinz Eugen, Tirpitz, Okhotnik. All of them hit brutally hard in coop. Holy, you even got a Nikolai. If you want to improve, just post a replay.

Tell that to the OP:

Haha, so for pinging me, I'll ping you back now. See how you live with that. Would it be against forum rules if we ridiculed each other's genitals?

Case closed then. If a veteran player says that, no point in even having my own humble opinion. After all, I am just HMS_Unpronouncable, while we have been dignified with one line from the original VeteranGamer84. Not 83 or 85, those two guys don't know what they are talking about, but 84. sry, couldn't resist.

I see what you mean. But if we tried to devise an experiment based on "a larger dynamic", you would probably say, the setup was too chaotic and too much driven by RNG, thus not representative of any difference of power between T9, T10 and T11. Actually the whole IJN-BB experiment is rather representative, because the bots in the experiment, at least if AI is set to "high", stay at 18-20km range. So they do exactly what the IJN-BBs are designed for. One might joke the only difference between the bots and typical human BB-mains is that the bots have better aim. So in short, the bots play the ship according to its role, which is the strong suit of the line. Also there is no inconsistency within the line. The Izumo, the Yamato the Satsuma, they are all designed for the same role of long range war of attrition. As you said, the sample size is small. But I do not have the possibilities of WG. For me, one run takes ~10-15 min. There is already 2 hours of training room in there. WG can probably simulate such results within a fraction of the time. I didn't want to give a definitive proof, just make people raise an eyebrow. I suspect superships are basically overpowered. And with the Combat Instructions on top, they are probably on a T12-level. Too bad. Is there a possibility for you to ask - just ask - what the average damage on the current tech-tree subs is? Just to once put the class into perspective. The arument of subs being balanced must be based on some hard numbers and hopefully they are not top secret. I think you misunderstood that. Nerderklaus is trying to say that my number of battles doesn't give me expertise, although I never claimed any expertise based on my number of battles in the first place. But another poster brought it up and now Nerderklaus, who is unable to differenciate between people, is trying to hang that around my neck, ignorant of the fact that I didn't say that. It's not just a quarter of HP, you also most of times, get a flooding and an oil spill that is like waving a big red flag and shouting "Here I am, please kill me." Then you are literally forced to use one of your DCPs that is limited to 3 charges and lasts 5s. Those 5s are too short to outlast the waves of ASW planes that are sent your way. So a late ASW strike catches you on cooldown and you get a second oil spill, this time permanent. This will get you killed. If this was not a thing, submarines wouldn't spend 12.500 coal to mount the otherwise so useless DCPmod1, for a measly extra 2s of DCP-action time. Ofc none of these critics knows these details, because they don't play the class and don't care about the play style. Just "Pls gib easy mode." Talking about anti-skill games, but refusing to learn counter-play in this game. Not a contradiction at all.

Please don't quote me just for some cheap attempt to insult me. I get pinged whenever a person quotes me. It's my time. Don't waste it for some empty comment. I didn't even make any claims. What would I need to prove? You are the one who made a topic. You made a lot of claims and persistently refused to back them up. And now I was even courteous enough to deliver some evidence for one of your points, doing your homework, and you are so stubborn and so blind that you can't even recognize that. If this is your level of discussion, I can't be bothered. Do your thing, but whatever you say, you will still be here a year from now and all the other people who join in on this requiem. You all will still complain about this game while still being too weak to leave, possibly still dumping your money in. And then, when after another 5-7 years this game finally dies of natural causes, you will self-righteously brag that you had foreseen that and that this is proof that WG did everything wrong. You will still be here, exactly because this game is relevant. Cause if it wasn't, you guys wouldn't even bother to write all your complaints. If a game is subpar, you don't bother writing to the developer. You just move on to one of the many alternatives. You don't have an alternative and you know it. And that is so embarrassing to you, because you know whatever you threaten to do, you won't do it, because you need this game more than it needs you. Like a person threatening to leave their cheating partner, and then sticking with him time and time again, until he doesn't care anymore and cheats on you without even apologizing. Prove me wrong and uninstall. Where would you go? Play Candy Crush, cause that got so much to do with warships? You are desperate to save your favorite pass-time. You got no leverage, no ace up your sleeve and you know it and that is why you jump into everybody's face who dares to question your empty claims.

That was exactly what I challenged them to prove earlier. I even told them how to do it, but our tinfoil community is afraid of trying to prove anything, cause maybe the outcome is different from what they claim and that would kill their narrative. So I did their homework and look what I found: Since you specifically name the IJN BBs of T9 to T11, I put 11 Satsuma bots against 11 Yamato bots for 4 battles in training room. Then I did the same with Yamatos and Izumos. I switched starting positions for half the battles so any unbalancing effect of the map would cancel out. My DD was out of gun range and unspotted at all times and behind the friendly BBs as soon as possible, to not interfere with BBs maneuvering. These are the results: Satsuma vs. Yamato: tl;dr In four battles the Satsumas lost 11 ships, while 34 Yamatos were lost. That is a kill ratio of ~3:1 for the Satsuma. My hypothesis is that, if the relation of power is comparable between Yamato and Izumo, the kill ratio should be somewhat similar. Now Yamato vs. Izumo: tl;dr This time 24 Yamatos were lost, while destroying 37 Izumos. That's a kill ratio slightly better than 3:2. I do admit this is just a short dirty experiment with bots. Maybe human players would act differently. But at least the bots are all subject to the same AI level, they are all "equally skilled". I do even suspect that bots are not programmed to use the "combat instructions". Maybe you can verify this. If these results are without use of the combat instructions, the Satsuma as used by human players is even more powerful in relation to the Yamato than the tests reveal. I could do more of these experimental battles or maybe some of the people who feel so enclined to make those up to now empty claims rise to the challenge and post some results for other superships. My preliminary findings however suggest that at least the Satsuma is way more powerful than one tier step difference would suggest. If the Satsuma is actually designed to be a T11-ship, the testing suggests it is massively overpowered. And if Wargaming balanced superships against each other, that suggests that T11, as a whole, is overpowered. At least for CVs I always assumed that WG balanced them to be T12, since T12 is probably the hidden plan in the drawer and the odd-tier-CV in that respect makes no sense. I don't think WG will ever get past these claims made by the community that submarines are unbalanced, as long as the community cannot see the data. So yet again, I beg you to explain to WG the importance of fixing the API. Only when transparent third-party stats pages have data on subs available for everyone to check, we will have the means to go beyond anecdotes. The simple truth is, nobody can tell whether subs are OP at this point, because their results could be anywhere from shamefully bad to insanely high. Somebody at WG knows, but we don't. And even if that somebody proclaimed some internal results, the community would not believe it, if the results don't fit their perception. We need solid public data. We need the working API.

No not wrong. If anything, wrong in your opinion, but correct for any person that thinks about what they read. I mean first of all if you dare to write a statement like this to some other forum user: then how can you involve yourself in a discussion that was also not addressed to you? The same standards apply to both of you. Either he has every right to comment on your post, even if it was not addressed to him, or you don't have any right to comment on my post since that wasn't addressed to you. And second, I did not say he had no right to express an opinion. I said he wasn't qualified to do so. Nobody wants to take away anybody's freedom of speech. Just please, for once, think before you write, is all I'm saying. The other thing that needs to be said is that we are never short of expressions of opinion in this forum. Literally with the rise of social media, the volume of opinions has skyrocketed. Everybody claims his freedom of speech. What about my freedom of listening? Don't I have a right to listen? I claim I do. And I demand that what I am forced to listen to is not an indistinguishable medley of unqualified opinions. I mean do you have any idea what a forum is for? What about the people wanting an expertise? This is why they come to the forum. When they write topics, they often specifically ask people who e.g. do have a certain ship in port or fulfil other criteria they see as the basis for an expertise. If you go to the doctor, do you want the doctor's opinion or are you fine with the entire waiting room joining in on the conversation and each trying to tell you what illness your symptoms might indicate? There is a freedom of speech, but there is also a right for expertise and nobody has the right to claim expertise and confuse a help-seeking individual with a non-expert horse manure opinion. Again, I didn't tell the OP and usually don't tell anybody what they may or may not do. It's a free world. I do however allow myself to tell people the consequences of their actions. And when it comes to talking about the game, then yes, there is a certain amount of experience that entitles a person to have a qualified opinion, maybe even an expertise. It doesn't come from a certain number of battles, as you can easily find some 45%er with even double my amount of battles and I wouldn't recommend following their advice. The number of battles tho is part of that expertise. When it comes to certain aspects of the game I frequently ask clan mates that know more than me about details. I can only recommend to you or anybody to read very carefully whatever some of my clan mates recommend, as I myself have a great deal of respect for their knowledge. On top of that, as I said, it's not the number of battles. What you fail to see is that many of us spend countless hours in training rooms, watching replays, checking and comparing data, to understand how the game works. I don't just rush from battle to battle, without reflecting on what I did and whether it worked or not. I observe my opponents and read their plays. I try to understand what motivates them. Not just to hopefully win against them, but mostly because I learn 24/7. And yes, being a musician helps a lot appreciating good music, cause, as in WoWs, I cherish what you may not even notice.

Mich nervt eher, wie es zu diesen Ansagen kommt, als die Ansage selbst. Ich wäre vielleicht selber dümmlich, wenn mich die Ansage mehr stört als die Tatsache, dass ich gerade wieder mal ein Gefecht verlieren könnte. tl;dr Man kann die Ansage deaktivieren, indem man den Gegner nicht in Führung gehen lässt. Wenn ich mir ansehe, wie viele scheinbar sehgestörte Spieler in relativ stressfreien Situationen auf Grund laufen, dann finde ich, sollte man denen nicht auch noch sagen, wie sie das Gepiepse auschalten können. Für machen brauchen einfach Schmerz, weil sie sonst Gefahren nicht einschätzen können.

I didn't realize so much had happened in 2022. Apparently a lot of non-essential stuff has been achieved in 2022. Does that imply that now you have room on your agenda to finally fix the essential things in 2023?

Maybe you are too nice a guy or it's that raffle that you did regularly. Play subs, I dare you. I'm a solid zero and would be a -100 by now if that was possible.

IFHE usually means too much reduction in fire chance. Fire damage is not subject to saturation, while direct damage is. IFHE grants extra damage to a small window of ships within the threshold. Ships below and above take less damage since they are penetrated/not penetrated anyway, but suffer less from fires. So IFHE is mostly a sidegrade, shifting damage from cruisers and heavily armored BBs to a few CAs and battlecruiser. This sidegrade costs skill points that usually are invested into an upgrade instead. So IFHE is often inferior. The only ships where IFHE imo makes sense are low caliber ones with high rate of fire and low fire chance per shell, such as the IJN-gunboats. For them you can take the fire signals and partially compensate the fire penalty. Doing so however is costly, since it requires both fire signals and the detonation signal to compensate the then issued detonation penalty.

Can someone explain it to him?

Worst ships from my very subjective point of view: T5: I hated the T-22. It's a mediocre hybrid DD that manages to even look as fecal as it plays. T6: I found the Kijkduin terrible to play. The mix of an open-water oriented cruiser with 152mm guns and no torpedoes is gruesome. An open-water CL needs good maneuverability, but ever since the old IJN-CAs, Wargaming has only released cruisers that are too sluggish to dodge. For the Kijduin that means that she is ill-equipped to avoid damage. At the same time, she has a ridiculously short ranged air-strike that puts her in harms way and a caliber that shatters on most bigger ships. If she is pushed, she can't wear the enemy down sufficiently. The Cachalot is also pretty meh. For a ship that has a limited number of DCPs and drags a tell-tale oil spill around, whenever a shell hits its postal code, a 6.4 km detection range is very unpractical. T7: I take the Colorado. In a way T6 and T7 are interchangeable. I might as well have taken New Mexico at T6 and Eendracht at T7. The reason is that both lines take their weaknesses from T6 into T7, where they become obviously inferior. The Colorado, just as the New Mex, is a sluggish BB that needs static battles. It's such a fecal concept, that WG turned it into a dedicated line and released the 2nd USN-BB line. Offensively, the Colorado is like a guy who got his wallet stolen in the toilet and is running after the thief with his pants down. Defensively it's the same. It doesn't get away and gets left for dead by team mates. T8: Now the 2nd USN-BB line is a hot contender all the way to T10, but that would make it boring. So I pick the Maerker. It doesn't have the firepower to compete with gunboats, while it gets outspotted by most of them. T9: Easily the Buffalo. A cruiser that only has 50% of it's guns on the front with rear angles that get you punished every time your are trying to use your rear turrets is a recipe for disaster. The USN-CAs were designed for covering cap zones dug-in next to islands. That play style has been punished by Wargaming successively by releasing AP-rockets, submarines, pre-aimed torpedo squadrons of FDR and Malta, and redesigning maps to deny safe camping spots. The Seattle is similar, since WG redesigned many islands that allowed shooting over, while being unspotted, in a way that does not promote USN-CLs anymore. T10: I honestly have no idea. Since WG has removed the mission chains for unlocking Legendary Modules, I have never played T10 ships that I suspected of being poorly designed. There is no reason to play them, since they don't unlock anything and their economy is meh. I found the Des Moines painful, but back then I was new to the game and had no clue how to play the line. I don't remember low tiers, plus I haven't played any new lines down there for years. So I am incompetent to judge tiers 1-4.

You forgot the old-school way of writing 100k (learnt it in the 1st class of primary school):

Yeah, you are so right. I get paid by Wargaming to troll users into putting their money where their mouth is and leaving the game. That conclusion of Wargaming paying people to ruin their revenue makes so much sense and testifies to your genius IQ. Chapeau.

Oh yeah, we're all familiar with every post anybody made 4 years ago. No link needed.

So you say, and yet you are still here. Tell me, at what point of not going through with a threat does it become an empty threat? So? You have neither established any argument of ships with planes being unbalanced nor overrepresented. All I can see is a guy who once tried to play CV, performed very poorly in them, then stopped playing them out of frustration and now tries to bend the narrative to "CVs don't fit in the game". Isn't that a little cheap? So what? It's a fanatasy ship. It does not belittle any actual achievement in engineering. Even more so, what is so "german" about a "german" ship? It's not like as a german you are restricted to only play so-called german ships. There are not even factions in the game. Ships of all "nations" play together against other ships of equally mixed "nations". The whole concept of nationality is arbitrary in this game. Yet some people have a strange affiliation to ships that are modelled after historic designs of their home country. I don't get it. If you don't like the Clausewitz, just play other ships. It's not your problem. If WG wants you to spit out 50M credits to play a ship, let them worry about making it attractive to play.

Come on, Yosha, cut the boy some slack. Look at the trash we are discussing lately. For two months now, every time I check "unread content" I see the stupid birthday discount topic, right next to some whining threads where the same people, that miss their discount coupon, say they will no longer spend money cause the game has become unbearable. In comparison this is a technical topic. We all at times lose track of some mechanic.

Was ist nur aus dem Forum geworden? Ein Haufen [edit]!

And more arbitrary claims, now increasingly with insults towards WG staff. It's so sad that so many people cannot back their claims with any proof or at least a transparent chain of arguments. Isn't that taught in school anymore? Not that this needs to concern me. I'm not the one who asks for a change and you are not going to get a change with that level or reasoning. Just saying. This is yet another one of so many topics about somebody claiming the game is in a poor state. If all those comparable topics before this one have failed to make a point, why bother with this one? What does this one add to the countless other ones before, that justifies its existence. You were challenged to show some evidence. An example was even given how to do so. If you don't care to do your homework, than this is just another irrelevant attempt to get what somebody wants but fails to justify. That bit about rich people caring about inequality was quite funny, tho.

It's a bit like a rich men saying that beggars are bothering them. For rich men the biggest problem of society is taxes, while for poor men it's unequality. So ofc experiencing a pheonomenon only from one perspective tends to make you biased and unempathic towards the other perspectives. This is the essence of what I was trying to say. As long as people are unwilling to experience a different point of view, not for lack of availability but for lack of will, they will remain biased. All I read from the OP are arbitrary claims. I'm not saying any of them are wrong or right. The mere fact that they are claims makes this yet another boring venting topic. And the choice to just make claims and not provide evidence, yet again is made deliberately against better judgement and despite the possibility to do so. Want an example? The OP claims superships are too powerful, as in "they outclass T10 ships more than T10-ships outclass T9-ships". Simple way to start: Put 10 Hannover bots in training room against 10 Preussens repeatedly and see if they win systematically more decisive compared to 10 Preussens vs. 10 FdGs. I mean do whatever, just at least, if you make some arbitrary claim, put in some effort and make a case.

What would even be the point of going beyond 21 points? When they gave us two more points, they nerfed the skills, so effectively we ended up with less improvement of skills for more expensive commander points. If Wargaming ever increased the number of points to say 23 points, a full commander would cost 5-6M CXP. The whole point of a skill tree is making a choice and not getting all possible skills. It would take away the element of intelligence. The whole debate about how to build a certain ship would become obsolete. Just somebody asking "what skills do I take on this ship?" and somebody else replying "All of them." Wow, that would give the game so much depth.