HMS_Kilinowski

Also, inb4: WG will take the results of this poll very seriously: "Dear players, following the results of your poll, wishing to keep every single one of you satisfied, we removed every class from the game. You now launch into battle without a ship and the game ends after 20 min in a draw. We hope you have a more convenient game experience. Since we can't make money selling premium ships, cause there are no more ships in the game, we increased prices for premium accounts. Peace out."

... just their players. E.g. in workplace environments an obvious problem are people who work too much. In a poll, ~90% of workers complain about colleagues who make them look lazy, while only 10% complain about colleagues who make them do all the work. If you get the joke, you get what is wrong with this poll.

Interpreting the poll, almost everybody likes Torp-DDs, but many people hate subs. Good to know. Unguided Shima-torp: good, unguided Gato torp: bad. What puzzles me is why BBs are not the most hated class. Is it cause the question is about the ship and not the player? Cause my take is BB-players are the most stupid within the community and should easily attract the most hate. Unless ofc they represent a significant portion of the players, in which case they may absolve each other and, by implication, themselves in any poll. You could have narrowed the whole poll down to the option "I hate whatever counters the ship I'm currently playing." How would that happen in our community? we live in a hating age. Hate is en vogue. A whole new brand of parties formed in recent years revolves around being against things rather than have a constructive approach. So "I like everything" is so uncool and oldschool, as is the word "uncool", so sorry about that.

Exactly. If a player would bid, at least assuming the other players exhibit the same behavior as the bidder themselves, those bids don't make any sense. The only explanation is a strategy "just bid whatever you got, cause thinking about my own valuation gives me headaches and the other players will bid rationally, making sure I don't overbid." Turns out, the other bidders were just as lazy. It's like one of those parties, where people are told to bring food, cause if everybody brings a little bit, we got a full buffet, right? So sad to then sit in front of empty tables, cause people are selfish and lazy.

That shows the insanity of it, but also the fallacy. In the former auction type you paid your bid, which gave you no incentive to bid above your valuation. Now we have a Second Price Auction type, which in general is seen as the most fair type of auction, given rational behavior. Turns out our players are anything but rational. They are so used to gambling they gamble over other players valuation. So they bid way above their valuation to make sure they get the item, while trusting the other bidder's will choose the correct value to not make them overpay. Seems they misjudged the other bidder's stupidity. I guess that makes sense. If a bidder is stupid themselves, they likely are stupid enough to think the rest of the bidders is less stupid than they are. WG is really shooting fish in a barrel lately.

Quite nice. Usually breaks help me enjoy the game more. It's no use playing, when you feel you only do it to not let down people. I also clear my head during breaks. it helps me get a fresh perspective. I tend to play worse for a week, but then I get a boost and play better than before. And also I hopefully get some serenity.

This auction is a good example of what economists call the Winner's Curse. Luckily for Wargaming, the Winner's Curse is only a curse for the bidder's side of the auction, but a blessing for the seller. Only if you didn't have a coupon. Most of us bought it for 20.25k steel, so less than 1/3 of what the winners of the auction paid. That again is ironic, because whoever has 61k steel right now must be a very active player and should have had the steel to buy the Somers when it was regularly available. Be that as it may be. It's another example of why I increasingly blame the players for the state of the game and less and less Wargaming.

Also, apparently somebody doesn't like pierogi.

... with Blyskas as a side dish?

What? Are you inviting me for lunch? Have you prepared some Blyskawicas with potato salad?

How about fishy smell?

You really put effort into this. With 3 exclamation marks WG would ignore you, but with that many and that super-size text, Wargaming now must remove subs.

I noticed Wargaming implemented an imo huge improvement into the game with this patch. For 5 years I have repeatedly argued in surveys and the forum for Clan Battles counting towards the Daily Mission, a.k.a. the Battle Pass now. It has been an utter nuissance and non-sense to make dedicated players play extra games on top of a long night of Clan Battles. With the initiation of the Battle Pass for doubloons, this seriously hurt many players' willingness to participate in Clan Battles. Players, who had invested into the Battle Pass, didn't want to jeopardize their Battle Pass points by helping out in CB and then maybe being too tired to finish the Daily Mission. So now this has been changed. @Seraphice I want to take the opportunity to sincerely thank whoever is responsible for this change within WG. This was a smart decision and may impact CB more positively than allowing mercenaries. So, honestly, Chapeau.

I in general agree, I just want to add and clarify: I didn't just mean the cost in terms of ressources, which ofc partially explains ASW spam. The key factor imo is that ASW is an entirely separated weapon system. If a player is in a BB and a DD is spotted, they often don't shoot the DD, because they only may hit one shell of an entire salvo, while somewhere further behind the DD there is a bigger target. So they will shoot that bigger target, simply out of greed. They want to farm damage and many don't care to win. So when different ships are spotted, the BB-player will often choose the less relevant, but easier to farm target. Once they shot, a smaller ship may appear and disappear again. They will not be able to shoot that ship, because they chose to shoot at some other ship just seconds earlier, and now have to reload. If say in Ise or another hybrid BB I launch my planes, at that very moment I forfeit a salvo of my main guns, cause it will take at least that long, to make a successful air-strike. All this choice however doesn't matter against submarines, because ASW is always loaded and ready to strike and while you use it, your mainguns will casually be reloading. So ASW comes at no cost to its user. You want to shoot a DD for two salvos, you won't shoot a BB/CA for a minute. You may do 3k on that DD instead of 20k on a BB. But ASW is a gimmick.

I did a lot of training room testing. I'm pretty sure the depth charges don't do splash damage beyond 500m distance. Also I wouldn't move perfectly perpendicular. Just as figher pilots are taught, you rather want to use one of the infinite number of angles in between the common guesses (0° 90° 180°), to throw off your opponents predictions. There is a mod that shows the name of the ship that ordered an ASW-flight. The direction of the flight is always from the location of the ship to the target area. So you also get a rough guess of at least the direction of the ship. This ASW exploit is also what you need to take into account. Ships attract ASW. So you need to keep some distance from them, even if they themselves are not aware of sub mechanics and move into you and then start shooting next to you.

Somebody should also explain to him how to make a proper screenshot. I guess the OP is an older user with weak peripheral vision.

Oh please make a survey on this. I mean come on, everybody, tell me what you would be willing to pay for such a game mode? Say in doubloons per battle played. I would pay nothing. In fact I am quite okay with the way the game works. I would however be willing to pay 2 doubloons for a battle with no players below 50% Random Battle winrate, ofc with rewards reflecting the higher challenge.

Exakt. Es gab mal diese Dinosaurier, die mit ihrer biologischen Solarthermie-Anlage aufm Rücken früher als andere Dinosaurier ihr Blut aufwärmen konnten und deswegen diese anderen noch stocksteifen Dinosaurier gefressen haben. War diese Kälte deren Komfortzone? Wahrscheinlich nicht, aber sicher weniger unkomfortabel als für deren Beute. Deswegen war der Skillgap auf den RTS-CVs so hoch, weil was für den einen unkomfortabel war, 6 Fliegerstaffeln gleichzeitig kontrollieren, war für andere schier unmöglich. Selbiges gilt zunehmend für DDs. Wenn es für mich ein Drahtseilakt ist, meinen DD vor Radar, Hydro, U-Booten, Flugzeugen, Railguns und Detonationen zu schützen, ist es für meinen Gegenspieler wahrscheinlich zu viel um keine Fehler zu machen. Während die einen eben nur über ihre Probleme rumheulen und Anteilnahme wollen, führen andere konstruktive Gespräche und lösen ihre Probleme.

Eben. Die grundsätzliche Frage stellt sich, warum es überhaupt ein solches Thema mit solch einer Umfrage braucht. Wargaming hat bei jedem Patch, in dem etwas verändert wurde, den üblichen Fragebogen publiziert, insbesondere bezüglich der Implementierung von U-Booten. Welcher Mehrwert ergibt sich aus einer einzigen isolierten und suggestiven Fragestellung? Dass nicht Wargaming, sondern die Spielerschaft ein suggestives, nicht-repräsentatives Meinungsbild bekommt. Und was macht sie dann damit? Sich ignoriert fühlen und das Spiel verlassen? Oder doch eher sich aufregen und exakt garnix machen? Mit hängt dieses ewige defätistische Rumgeheule so zum Halse raus. Was neues kommt ins Spiel. Soll man's verstehen lernen? Mal 'n paar Videos zur Neuerung schauen und sich informieren? Oder mal eine ernsthafte Diskussion starten, wie sich die Neuerung taktisch auswirkt? Vielleicht gar mal in den Trainingsraum gehen und mit Freunden experimentieren? Nö, lass mal. Heulen wir lieber die nächsten drei Jahre rum, erklären die Neuerung für overpowered und verlangen von Wargaming, sie wieder ausm Spiel zu nehmen. Wer Mittel und Wege findet und erklären will, mit der Neuerung umzugehen, der wird aus jedem Thema rausgemobbt oder als von Wargaming bezahlt disqualifiziert. Gut, eine Sache muss ich zugeben und die finde ich von Wargaming seit Jahren schwach. Wargaming hat diese absurde Idee, dass Spieler im Trainingsraum nur die Schiffe testen dürfen, die sie selber besitzen. Das halte ich seit Jahren für eine absurde Situation. Wenn ein neues Schiff ins Spiel kommt, dann muss ich den Spielern ermöglichen, diese Neuerung kennen zu lernen. Ich muss die Möglichkeit haben, Stärken und Schwächen eines Schiffes persönlich zu testen, auch dann, wenn ich das Schiff nicht besitze. Immerhin werde ich dem Schiff als Gegner begegnen und habe ein Recht, über meinen Gegner genau so viel zu wissen, wie mein Gegner über mich wissen darf. Die Möglichkeit, ein Schiff im Trainingsraum zu spielen, stellt keinen Mehrwert dar, weil ich damit keine Ressourcen verdienen und nicht am geregelten Spielbetrieb teilnehmen kann. Allerdings muss man auch sagen, dass bei U-Booten die Möglichkeit des Testens in Gänze vorhanden ist, nur schlicht aus Sturheit ignoriert wird. Also sorry, wer jetzt noch geownt wird, selbst schuld.

How do you know one is better than the other, when you only play coop? Isn't a necessary condition to make any comparison, to be familiar with all alternatives?

Coop should be 8v12 or bots should be one tier higher. It's just a super-boring, super-repetitive and super-easy mode, unworthy of being played by humans.

As has been said a citadel hit depends on many variables. The worst case is that you cannot citadel a target, if the energy of your shell is insufficient. And the almost equally worst case is that you cannot citadel a target, if the energy is too great. The first case happens if you have to small a caliber with too little kinetic energy, hitting too thick an armor plating at too much of an angle from too far away. The second case happens if you have to large a caliber with too much kinetic energy, hitting too thin an armor plating at too flat an angle from too close. The sweet spot is somewhere in between and very case-specific.

And then they keep cheating on you, right? Like in this battle: world of warships : Random battle unfair game - YouTube where suddenly that sub player cheated and after his initial torpedo spread sent another 2 spreads of 5 torpedoes your way. Very suspicious. It's not like there was a Gearing behind that sub, which happens to have 2x5 torps. No, no! CV cheats, Colbert cheats, Sub cheats. There is so much cheating going on in your battles. These accusations all sound like they come from a mentally very stable individual with a firm grip on reality. Please keep making those videos. You might be onto some big conspiracy.

We don't know how long the OP has been playing nor his competitive ambitions. He could be either a "plain bad" player, who has been playing for years and never earned enough steel, or he could be a fresh player who has jumped right into the core of hardcore gaming. Unfortunately, the OP is not giving us much to work with.

Welche repräsentativen Umfrage-Ergebnisse erwartest du denn bei einer derart suggestiven Fragestellung? Ich hab mal einen Kurs in Umfragedesign gemacht. Ich dachte immer, eine halbwegs brauchbare Umfrage zu erstellen, könne jeder mit einem Minimum an logischem Denken auch ohne Kurs hinbekommen. Ich habe mich geirrt.