HMS_Kilinowski

I know the Atago has a nice center belt, but it also has a 25mm bow, which means every BB with a caliber greater than 356mm can citadel it through the nose. I agree you can have fun with Hipper and also Prinz Eugen. Those have 27mm of bow armor and can tank 380mm shells, which are still common on T8. Mind you, I am not saying Atago is a bad choice. It's just not ideal for the job. It is best played at range actively dodging incoming fire, which is not the coop-meta.

Checking your profile, I see you are mostly playing Coop battles. T8+ BBs are questionable. You will struggle to keep up with the faster ships in most BBs. Coop is dominated by DDs. Also the high cost of high tier coop battles makes them less suited for farming ressources. The Atago B unfortunately has 25mm bow armor, which makes it vulnerable to almost all BBs within your matchmaking range. Also cruisers are the first to be spotted by bots in coops, so they are the first to be shot at, then consequently the first to take damage. The bots are programmed to focus damaged ships, which will turn you into the prime target for all bots in range. So Atago is not the best choice for coop. A ship however that I find excellent for coop battles, that can be bought at a discount right now, is the Scharnhorst B. The Scharnhorst in my book is the epitome of the coop meta. It has torpedoes and secondaries for the brawls, which you will experience in every single coop. It has formidable armor and most of all, it is rather fast for a BB, so you can keep up with the smaller ships and don't have to take the leftovers. It is T7, which makes it less expensive to buy. The earnings at T7 outweigh the service cost compared to higher tiers. And finally, Scharnhorst is a great choice for Operation Narai.

Sehr erwähnenswert erscheint mir noch ein kleiner Exkurs Wahrscheinlichkeit zu den seit heute veröffentlichten Gewinnchancen der Container. Ich bin heute leider zu müde. Deswegen gibt es erst mal nur einen Teil der Betrachtung. Mehr, wenn ich Zeit dafür finde. Teil 1: Unsicherheit Was bedeutet Unsicherheit für Container? Als Käufer wünschen wir uns ein Produkt, das klar definierte Bedürfnisse erfüllt. Während wir beim Kauf eines bestimmten Schiffes diese Bedürfnisse sehr genau stillen können, stillen die Container eine Vielzahl von Bedürfnissen, die wir gar nicht haben, und, als unsicheres Ereignis, auch das Bedürfnis, das uns zum Kauf motiviert hat, den "Hauptgewinn". Unsicherheit bedeutet, dass wir ein Ereignis nicht als sicher erwarten dürfen, dass es im Extremfall nie eintritt und dass wir erwartungsgemäß wiederholte Versuche starten müssen, um das gewünschte Resultat zu erzielen. Wie verhält es sich mit unsicheren Ereignissen und dem menschlichen Verstand? Die Verhaltensforschung hat hierzu intensiv experimentiert. Ein häufiger Zusammenhang lässt sich exemplarisch bei van Zuylen, H.J. and Kikuchi, S. (2003), "Traveller's Behaviour Under Uncertain Conditions" sehen. Keine Sorge. Ich will keine große wissenschaftliche Debatte lostreten. Ich hab nur eine Grafik dort entliehen und da sollte die Quelle genannt werden. Wir sehen da also sowas: . Das ist ein seit Jahrzehnten bekanntes Muster. Der menschliche Verstand neigt dazu, sehr seltene Ereignisse zu überschätzen. Der Effekt besteht unterhalb von ca. 20% Wahrscheinlichkeit. Konkretes Beispiel: Bei Gewitter meiden wir das Freie, weil der Blitz uns treffen könnte, obwohl die Wahrscheinlichkeit verschwindend gering ist. Dagegen ist zu vielen Jahreszeiten die Wahrscheinlichkeit für Regen hoch und dennoch verzichten wir häufig auf einen Regenschirm. Im Kontext der Container in WoWs lehrt uns die Verhaltensforschung, dass wir Gewinne, die mit geringer Wahrscheinlichkeit eintreten, für deutlich wahrscheinlicher halten. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit für ein Schiff aus einem Premium Black Friday Container beträgt, wie wir seit heute wissen, 12%. Für den Standardcontainer ist sie 0,32%. Beide Werte liegen deutlich im in der Grafik als "Opportunity seeking bias" bezeichneten Bereich. Hier, so lässt sich lose ins Deutsche übersetzen, verzerrt der Wunsch Chancen zu nutzen unsere Einschätzung. Wir überschätzen unsere Chancen und investieren Geld, in ein Ereignis, das bei fairer Betrachtung seltener passiert. Wir überbewerten. Überbewerten wiederum führt zu höherer Zahlungsbereitschaft. Wir kaufen, wo wir bei rationaler Betrachtung verzichten würden. Klassische Glücksspiele - Roulette, Lotto - setzen auf diesen Effekt. Bei diesen Spielen verliert der Spieler systematisch. Sie ergeben also wiederum, rational betrachtet, keinen Sinn. Der Spieler spielt trotzdem, weil seine ungleich höhere Erwartung von Gewinnen ihn täuscht. Sind die Container bei WoWs also Abzocke? Nicht notwendiger Weise. Es kommt hier sehr auf die konkreten Wahrscheinlichkeiten an. Vorab besteht ein großer Unterschied zu klassischem Glücksspiel: Klassisches Glücksspiel ist eine Wette um echtes Geld, für die der Spieler ebenfalls echtes Geld einsetzt. Die Spielbank kann das Geld nicht drucken. Sie muss echten Wert gegen echten Wert wetten. Daraus ergibt sich, dass bei klassischem Glücksspiel die Spieler immer systematisch verlieren müssen, wenn die Spielbank rentabel sein will. WoWs hat hier einen entscheidenden Vorteil. Die gewetteten Gewinne können von Wargaming kostenlos und in beliebiger Anzahl generiert werden. Schiffe in Premiumcontainern können also durchaus zu attraktiven Konditionen angeboten werden, ohne Wargaming wirtschaftlichen Risiken auszusetzen. Ob ihr nun ein Schiff bekommt oder eine Niete, Wargaming kostet euer Gewinn keinen Cent. Dies erlaubt Wargaming zumindest eine sehr großzügige Gestaltung seines Glücksspiels. Ob dies auch konkret zu Wetten führt, bei denen der Spieler systematisch gewinnt, muss man im Einzelfall prüfen. Falls dem so ist, lassen sich daraus Kaufempfehlungen ableiten. Falls die Preise dagegen an die subjektive Überschätzung angepasst sind, könnte auch Abzocke attestiert werden. Mit den heute veröffentlichten Gewinnchancen haben wir nun erstmalig die Möglichkeit unsichere Angebote mit sicheren zu vergleichen. Mehr dazu bei nächster Gelegenheit.

Haltet euch mal mit euren Käufen ein bisschen zurück. Ich bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass hier im Laufe des Tages noch ein paar aufschlussreiche Analysen gepostet werden, die die Kaufentscheidung sehr nachhaltig beeinflussen könnten. So oder so.

If you don't understand probability theory, why don't you ask here first? Then we could have told you your real chances. Instead you come after the damage is done and complain. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Ofc you're not offending me. You are arguing which is not personal and I'm not offended by a difference in opinion. However I do not share your opinion or possibly we are talking of different things. I am not judging a player based on a single battle result. I am arguing that most player who post their results, do so to promote their argument. Over thousands of battles every player can find a few battles that make him shine. Every player of a certain level - say above 43-45% winrate - will experience battles where he is top of a team. There are potatoes with >40k battles with winrates like that and even they have battles with >200k damage. I don't think you were arguing that such a player is a good player, just because he has decent results in 1 out of 100 battles. And this is exactly what anecdotal evidence is. It's a sample chosen by the person to promote his idea of what is going on. Yes, I am arguing that it's probably a bad player that is lucky in one out of many battles. The odds are not nearly impossible, but all but likely. To get such a battle only a few frequent conditions need to be met: (a) Most of the team mates need to be similarly mediocre, (b) these mediocre team mates need to perform as average as they usually do and (c) if there is a better player in the team, he needs to have a bad battle. No, I won't calculate the odds, but I see such battles regularly. It was not my intention to argue about anecdotal evidence. I am pointing out that it's an anecdote and doesn't prove anything. Stats do. Anecdotes are there to tell you what can happen. Stats will tell you what typically happens. Obama may prove the point that one African-American had the opportunity to be successful. Stats on income and incarceration still show they are treated unequally.

I bothered reading more. And you are right, "bothered" is the correct term for the emptiness that you make claims off. Your ideas say it all. You think you post your best battles of the month and we are supposed to deduct from that, that you are a good player who only gets short-changed. Screenshots are anecdotal evidence, they contribute zero to the topic. Every potato has such screenshots once in a while. Doesn't prove anything. From your philosophy I would expect you are just an average player with average skill, who has the average impact on the game, but thinks he is much better than that and tries to find external reasons for that mediocrity. If the reasons are external, than you can feel good about it, cause it means you don't have to change, which would be inconvenient. Nothing new about that. We have had hundreds of similar people over the years, all saying how the game sabotages them, while they are too vain to even see the flaws of their plays. If you post a replay, we might be able to help you. Besides that, I think enough players have explained how the game works. It works for us. We win and we know why. If you don't win, don't know why and don't want to know why, this is just a hopeless case and really doesn't concern the people in this topic. I suggest you stop derailing the topic. Your mediocre impact has nothing to do with balancing

If 95% of outcomes were random then the best players would win ~52.5% of their games and the worst players would win 47.5%. There would be a distribution over all players' results increasing that range a bit. In the long run the law of large numbers applies and the worst players would converge towards 47.5%, the best towards 52.5%. Numbers however differ from ~38% for afk- & yolo griefers to 70%. That must be one hell of a lucky player who wins 17.5% of his battles more than what his impact on the battles was. I'd like to hear how that is explained by your 5%-theory. One can see that and start observing what such people do differently, maybe even ask such people. Or one can be apologetic and dismiss their impact as pure luck. Your choice.

You, as anybody, are free to assess whatever information is given. I for my part have some analytical skills. They tell me the graphs shown are inconsistent. I find it important to point out that not we, the players have chosen the focus of this news bit. WG decided the topic of their last Q&A was balancing. I claim they did so cause they know that balancing faces a lot of criticism from players. The players doubt balancing is done correctly, following the right objectives or taking the right measures. So, way I see it, WG produces this bit that is supposed to create trust and credibility. The flaw I see is you don't create trust if the data you base your decision on looks odd.

Strangely my experience differs. In general, as a DD you cannot move beyond the areas "controlled" by your team, in basically all battle types. If you run out of fire support or AA, you are vulnerable, cause the area that is not controlled by your team is controlled by the opponent. You don't want to fight on their turf. In most other game modes the cap areas are big enough to allow contesting them still within the area held by a camping team. In Arms Race however most buffs are so close to the center that a DD overextends to get them, unless there is some muscle behind it, i.e. BBs. BBs are always spheres of influence and this becomes very clear in Arms Race. So the BBs hold immense power. It's them who decide which buff you can get and which one is out of reach. It's not so much that the good DD player has an impact. He is just not stupid enough to fall for the trap set up by the enemy and bullied into by his own ignorant team.

I appreciate the effort of using all those complex words just to purge your bowels on me.

I thought Makarov will be the half way reward for the christmas dockyard event. Ofc everyone who pulls Makarov from the shortlist will get credits. Praised be the lord!

I think the equation is more like: faster matches = less XP per match = less ressources per set of signals & camo = more costly ressource farming The big issue Wargaming imo sees is that they developed a nice game with complex physical models, a.k.a. "the thinking man's action game". Then WG found out the thinking men are only a minor portion of the potential customers. The majority prefers a much less complex game, that can easily be mastered. So WG tries to come up with game modes that are more action-oriented and faster, to take into account the intellectual limits of many players. If Arms Race generates more steam rolls, then winrates converge towards 50%, so that players can blame their team for losses and praise themselves for wins, that is a win-win situation for most players.

I know what you mean. But even a sample has some meaning. You can't strip it of its patterns, unless the data itself is totally random, i.e. artificial. Such data is called "test data". It is used by scholars to test whether programs written for data analysis run smooth and without errors for a known classified data set. It's a mess to generate such a random data set, as you have to programm each variable to be similar to the original in type and values. A research data center only goes to the trouble of generating such data, if there is a substantial external interest, not just for the sake of a presentation. It's work and at WG certainly nobody pays you for that. Why would they want to? It's data on a game. Nobody external has any interest in that and everybody internal is cleared to access it. It nearly worked. I almost ignored the fact that my commander on the Serov was moved to the reserve as it went from special ship status to silver status. Before, the commander stayed on the former special ship and could be further used on that ship without retraining. Time to firmly grip that hand in my pocket.

No. Good thinking and you might be right, but I'm pretty sure you're not. If you look at the lower variables, they differ so much, they would fall into different categories or winrate brackets, if you sorted by them. Say you were to sort by the second variable - average damage. Then the 54% bar would move up in order next to some of the bars around 58%. The whole sorting by account winrate in the x-axis wouldn't work anymore. You can't sort by 2 variables in a 2-dimensional graph. Even ship winrates could differ in order. Again I am pretty sure that it's not an intentional sample. The only reason to do so would be to comply with privacy legislation. But that can't be for the following reasons: a) Aggregate data does not violate privacy as long as the information of the lowest level of aggregation represents a certain number of individuals. E.g. in Germany public data will be based on a minimum of 20 observations. As long as each bar contains a group of at least 20 players, that data set should be fine by our standards and certainly by standards of Cyprus. b) Every user accepting the ToS for the API gets access to data like that and can generate graphs like that of the whle population or any sample. If such a privacy legislation applied to my data samples and consequently I was bound by them, I would have read it in the ToS. In fact you can see data on single players, as long as they didn't opt out. And again, if WG's data contained such individuals who have opted out, then WG would violate their own privacy policy. If, say, you knew Peter has a 45% winrate, cause he told you and the 45% bar represents only 5 individuals, then you could theoretically get additional information on Peter and that would be a privacy issue. But since Peter's winrate is not publicly available, that is not in violation of privacy policy. c) Precisely because of privacy increasing with the number of observations, a sample is highly unlikely. The more people are represented within a bar the lower the risk of de-anonymization is. d) The only reason for sampling beyond data privacy is if the data set is too large to be processed. One bar represents between 5k and 40k battles, call it 20k battles on average over 66 bars. That is 1.3M battles in total, a data set that I could analyse on my old smartphone. Hold on a second. You see what's happening here? Now they got us talking about their non-sense, instead of them tallking about it, which was the point of the whole exercise. Confusion and distraction? Mission accomplished.

I think the graph says a lot. Not about the players but the person analyzing the data. As far as I can see, the bars represent equidistant strata of players sorted by their winrate. They are oddly grouped, as there are 11 strata for every 4 percentage points of winrate, which means each bar represents a range of 0.36 percentage points. It is reasonable to assume adjacent groups are similar in their playing behavior and size. So if the group of 52%-winrate-players plays almost 40k battles, why would the group of 51.5%-winrate-players only account for roughly one quarter - 10k - of the battles? It seems that either (a) the strata are not equidistant, which would defy the whole purpose of such a graph or (b) the sample size is so small that random variation between the strata is a large portion of the overall variation. If you only look at very few individuals you will get such charts and thus a pretty randomized picture. The point is WG is showing us these pictures to fulfil their own claim of being more transparent, sharing their insights and explaining to us how things work. Their topic of choice for the past Q&A was the balancing and now they show us these graphs to highlight what results they base their balancing decisions on. Part of the risk of transparency is criticism, getting questions that you do not want to answer or do not know the answer to. I rather like to see is as an opportunity, cause by showing us these graphs, we can actually see a questionable data analysis and give some valid feedback. I don't know if that is what WG is aiming for or if this whole article is just a marketing bit, tailored to meet our approval. All I can say is, the data looks odd and I suspect some people extracted it under stress or serious workload and do not have time to check their results for consistency, which as it happens, used to be part of my job description at times. If I would see charts like that, you would find me digging my nose into tables and looking for errors.

Thing is, I generally might believe WG, they are trying to balance things. I just doubt your methods and understanding of game statistics. For example, how do you guys interpret the following graph? I mean I cut you some slack, cause a graph that makes it into a presentation still showing a title "New Chart", might already be a bit of an ad-hoc result. Does the graph suggest that players with ~52% winrate played almost 40k battles within the time frame, whereas players in the adjacent stratum, 51.5%-players, only played less than 10k battles? I don't know your data and how you process and analyze it, but it is precisely funny oddities like that, that usually make me very suspicious or even alert, when analyzing data, that there might be something off. If these tables are from your test server with only a few thousand individuals in total, then nevermind. Then it is just bad data and not bad processing. But if this is from the life-servers, with - in the center of the distribution - some 10k individuals per stratum, this is certainly alarming. Is this the quality of the results that WG bases their balancing decisions on? My general advice to Wargaming is: You guys should hire some professionals working with social data, not coming from an IT background. Yes, this game happens on computers, but it is played by people, who, by definition create social data.

I think the page is https://whaling.in.fkn.space/ . It usually gets updated to the recent event, once the respective patch goes live.

I didn't question the reality of your experience. I just find the notion funny that a griefer expresses grief over something as perfectly normal as divisions.

Derzeit gibt es keine Info über Kohleschiffe, die aus dem Verkauf verschwinden. WG hat nur Schiffe entfernt, die aus ihrer Sicht zu gut waren. Von den aktuellen Schiffen kann man das nicht sagen. Die Kearsarge könnte zu stark geraten sein, ist aber eher was für CV-Spieler, die ein gutes Gefühl haben, wann und wo ein Luftangriff effektiv ist. In diesem Sinne herrscht keine Eile. Ein Schiff, dass man unbedingt haben muss, gibt's imo aktuell nicht. Pommern ist nett, wenn man mit Bismarck & Co gut und gerne fährt. Napoli ist lustig, aber nicht übermäßig effektiv. Carnot ist eine komische Mischung. Sie ist sehr schnell, aber sie hat keine Gimmicks. Da stellt sich mir die Frage: "Was macht die Carnot, wenn sie in Rekordzeit irgendwo ist, aber ihr die Mittel fehlen, diese Position auszunutzen?" Ich persönlich liebäugel auch immer mal wieder mit der Lazo. Der Gedanke drängt sich mir auf, weil du in Kutuzov und Shchors ganz gute Ergebnisse einfährst. Da müsstest du auch nicht gleich deine ganze Kohle ausgeben, sondern kannst weiter sparen, bis die Situation klarer wird.

It's expensive, cause many players got it for steel and would start whining if others got it for an appropriate price in coal, i.e. 228k coal. It is worth the price if you already have all the better or equally good ships for a lower price in port.

"Griefer"? lol. Well, @SEA_TRAKTOR, your topic suggests you actually do care about having good games. However the reports made also suggest, you are not having the aspired impact. The big question is, why are you going to the trouble of creating a topic, demanding the world to change, rather than changing yourself? Wouldn't that be much easier? Why are people always complaining about the wall not lowering itself, rather than asking how to climb it? Please explain. Isn't it funny? So often we get people accusing other people of abusing OP premium ships. And when they finally get one themselves, we don't see that jump in winrate. People are complaining about the power of divisions, but when they are in a division themselves, they fail to share information and again, we don't see the huge increases in winrate, that they try to explain with external advantages. So finally, they accuse good players of using aimbot. Yet the streamers we see all don't use aimbot, some play solo, most play a mix of ships. And still they are way better than the average potato. How the hell do they do that? There is one thing to remember. This is a PvP game. As such it is egalitarian in nature. Every player has the right to succeed, if he makes an effort. So there is no easy mode or hard mode. If anybody wants that, a challenge tailored to his performance, that is what single player games are for.

I think you played the Z-44 quite nicely. This whole moving in, torping, moving out routine kept our team zoned out for a long time. A big deal was that Kearsarge that provided so much spotting for your DDs in smoke. The BBs tonight were speshul. They must still believe service cost depends on the HP of your ship.

That argument works the other way around, too. You are comparing the performance of the top 10 players of ~1303 Anchorage owners (the top 1% of all players with at least 40 battles) to the top 10 players of currently 21 owners of Rochester(the top half). Ofc the top 1% of a bad ship will perform better than the top 50% of a good ship. Apples and oranges. The median for damage on the Rochester is at 47k and for the Anchorage at 44k. But then again the Rochesters doesn't look solid to me either and it doesn't make sense looking at ship stats after 4k battles. As you said, opinions differ. I don't see alpha damage, cause with those high arcs the first salvo won't be on the spot anyway. I see dpm, 130k HE dpm vs. stuff like Mogami with 230k. I see a smoke that is a death trap, cause 8km smoke-firing concealment is impractical. For good reason the London, a similar ship in T6 was hardly used in the T6-CB season. That is why I think the comparison to the Smolensk is lacking. Smolensk was played with at least AFT in the past, now with range mod, which gives it a 10km "stealth-firing window" in smoke. You can go in and start spamming and the enemy will not be able to close the distance as long as your smoke lasts. A Smolensk can even kite and if everything fails it can go full broadside and tank overpens. The Anchorage is a T8-Buffalo that gets citadelled as soon as it uses all turrets. It has bad rudder shift and can't kite and even with propulsion mod it accelerates like a BB. I know this is only an opinion. But if I look at all the dockyard ships, the Anchorage is the first ship that I would get my doubloons back, if that was an option.

Well I'm right, no? The information about the properties of the final Hizen was available. Whoever ignored the info and whines about making the wrong decision now, should complain about his own noobish habit and not about Wargaming.