HMS_Kilinowski

The effect is that it evens our the winrate. If there is one ship constantly or regularly matched against itself, the aggregate stats of the ship converge towards 50%. You can see the phenomenon very well with CVs, since there is mostly only a single CV on each side. In the old days, when there was only 2 CV lines, the probability of being matched against an identical ship was ~50%. That made CVs look rather balanced on paper. With other ship types it's less common. I don't think there is an order in which ships within a class are displayed in the team. But there are so many factors contributing to the winrate, that I only see it matter for CVs and very popular new ships in the early stage.

Wären eure glorreichen 7 bereit auf Englisch zu kommunizieren? Das wäre so ein Kriterium für viele Clans.

Why go to extremes? We all suffer from the same shortage. It's a zero-sum game. If I can only afford to mount a few selected flags, so does my opponent. I doubt players are willing to spend hard cash for consumables, just to get the edge in a battle. The player base will use less signals. Maybe it has already started. For example some people have suggest that detonations have increased lately and raised the question whether Wargaming has secretly increased the detonation probability. Maybe it is just more and more people running out of detonation flags and not willing to spend 96k credits per battle to replenish their stock. I mean they gave people free premium consumables, cause they wouldn't spend 22k per consumable, but having 4 premium consumables cost less than a single detonation flag.

Expect to get insulted and reported through the roof if you detonate in a DD in T9-10 or get rammed in a BB without a ramming signal.

This topic actually triggers me to do the math for you all. I know @Sergeant_Hulkawill love this. Some people have been arguing that you lose money if you only use signals from the armory. What do reasonable sets of signals cost and how does that relate to your credit earnings? Let me make a simple case for a typical signal configuration for high tiers. Assume you are playing a silver ship with somewhat reasonable results and have to buy your signals exclusively through the armory. You absolutely should equip (prices are per piece) (a) on a DD with few consumables and no heal (e.g. the new german DD2-line): Victor Lima (+fire, +flooding) 192k; India X-ray (+fire, -deto) 144k; Juliet Whiskey Unaone (+flooding, -deto) 72k; Sierra Mike (+speed) 120k; Juliet Charlie (+deto) 96k total cost: 624k per battle (b) on a DD with a heal and enough consumables to justify a signal for shorter consumable reload (e.g. EU-DDs, RN-DDs): same as (a) plus November Foxtrot (-consumables) 96k India Delta (+heal) 120k total cost: 840k per battle (c) on a CA with a heal and lots of consumables (e.g. ITA-CAs): Victor Lima (+fire, +flooding) 192k; Sierra Mike (+speed) 120k; India Delta (+heal) 120k November Foxtrot (-consumables) 96k; total cost: 528k per battle (d) on an HE spamming CL with heal, consumables and a high risk of detonation (e.g. USN-CLs, Smolensk) same as (c) plus India X-ray (+fire, -deto) 144k; Juliet Charlie (+deto) 96k; total cost: 768k per battle (e) on a tanky BB (IJN-BBs, USN-BBs) India Delta (+heal) 120k; India Yankee (-fires) 96k; Juliet Yankee Bissotwo (-flooding) 24k; Hotel Yankee (ramming) 12k; total cost: 252k per battle (f) on a fast flanking BB (e.g. FR-BBs) same as (e) plus Sierra Mike (+speed) 120k; November Foxtrot (-consumables) 96k; total cost: 468k per battle (g) on a brawling BB (e.g. german BBs) same as (e) plus Mike Yankee Soxisix (secondaries) 48k; total cost: 300k per battle I'm sure I did not cover all possible ship types. Also you can make a case for using signals more generously, as smoke cruisers might need the smoke signals, most ships should have ramming flags and an AA signal is useful on many ships. That all increases cost further. I talked about the cost, now let me check the earnings. I just earned 350k credits in a 1977 baseXP game on T9-Mogador with a premium account and a perma camo. That includes all service cost discounts used and no credit signals used. With a credit signal I would have earned 430k. I won't consider special signals, since they are far too scarce to use them regularly. So this is it, a net profit of 420k for being top of the board. Keep in mind the signals lowering service cost and buffing credit earnings are costly, too, they just can't be bought for credits. The reality is that we get an increasing number of steamrolls. Most of the time you will earn far less XP and credits, while still every battle consumes a set of signals. Conclusion: You can see that on anything but classic tanky BBs and brawlers, you will make a loss, if you have to pay for your signals via the armory and if you want to have a somewhat competitive set of signals consistent with the expectations of high tier play. Yes, every player can earn signals and there are coupons, but that only gets you so far. If you play only a few battles per day, enough to complete your missions and get all signals from combat missions, that is the sweet spot of the economy. If you play more, there are no additional rewards and you will bleed signals in the long run. The earnings are not sufficient to sustain a moderate level of play. I rest my case.

My clan mate @asalonenlikes to play with a full set of signals. He starts running out of credits now. I'd say it's not so much a question of 50M credits or any exact number. The simple fact is that the economy of the game is not selfsustaining anymore in terms of signals. I myself restrict my use of signals to maybe 4 signals in high tiers, below T6 I mostly use no signals at all. OFC in Clan Battles I am expected to mount a full set. My observation is that my stock of signals is decreasing rapidly lately. And I have finished most of the lines. So at the anniversary I get 30+ supercontainers for all my T10 ships, many of shich contain signals. But even with that, the number is decreasing. Funnily enough, at the same time my camos are increasing. So maybe we get too many camos and not enough signals. The thing is, I am talking about late game economy. I got it all, I got a premium account, I got lots of premium ships, I got lots of camos, I am an above average player in quantity and quality. Not that I want to make any claims here, but if I can't sustain my reasonable spendings on signals, how are people with less supposed to sustain it? Also I find those new combat missions after achievements quite confusing. The whole mission tabs are bloated with missions recently. I can't even tell if some code gave a new mission and if the code is working properly cause who can still tell which mission is new and which was already there? It's not necessary to link a certain type of signal to a specific achievement. You can just randomly get them and it would solve the issue that some signals were not linked to any achievement. If anything, Wargaming should have increased the number of achievements to reward yet ignored actions. Let there be rewards for potential damage, cap points taken, citadel hits. WG, help us set the right incentives for good play again.

°|°

Let me bump this. ROT8 is a nice clan of friends who play very well in divisions, without any toxicity and with lots of laughs and a fun time.

Imo one of the few movies worth watching is Das Boot, about german submarine warfare. There is a cut version. But you really need to see the Director's Cut, significantly longer but worth every minute. What makes this movie great is the authentic mentality. Simple sailors cursing at each other. Everyone is clean and shaved at the beginning of the movie and then deteriorating into a dirty smelly ghost. The best thing tho is that we don't get this agenda-driven heroism that so many other movies exhibit, that just feels like a lie told to the audience to gain their support for whatever war was fought during the time of the making of the movie. In Das Boot, the sailors are driven by boredom. They are sailing on the ocean for weeks, locked into a tiny submarine. The torpedoes are taking up space. They just want to dump them and get some action for the sake of ending the idle routine. And yet nobody wants to be a hero, but just survive and they all see with horror the sailors who they leave to drown. This is similar to an interview that iirc was made with a german sailor witnessing the detonation of the Queen Mary in the Battle of Jutland. He stated there was no huge cheers but silence as they all knew this was the fate that could happen to any sailor. The worst movie I've ever seen was this Indianapolis bit with Nicolas Cage. Sharks pulling people off life-rafts is just outright ridiculous. Sharks are as cautious as any other animal and don't risk injury from a living being when there is a perfectly fine dead body drifting a few meters away, not to get into the dietary habits.

Points are just an arbitrary definition done by some clueless person at Wargaming or something. You need to check the actual values to see the benefit. The B-hull changes the continuous AA damage from 128 to 154. That is a ~20% buff on AA. Doesn't make planes fall from the sky, but still anything but pointless. The rudder shift is shortened by 2.1s. The A-hull has cruiser-like maneuverability. With the B-hull you get it down to at least 5.3s, which is still miserably sluggish, but way better than before. Both upgrades should help the survivability of the Schultz quite a bit. They are not pointless (a) if you want to keep and play the ship or (b) intend to get the T10 ship, cause then you need to unlock the B-hull anyway. They are only pointless, if you don't want to play the Schultz at all, in which case it's not the B-hull that is pointless to you, but the entire ship. Ofc you could find out those things for yourself here. But I get it, just whining about it ensures a minimum effort.

This explains why I ate torpedoes so many times lately just after leaving the smoke that I thought was about to be torped. I have come to admire those players for so skillfully predicting the moment that I would abandon my smoke. And now you tell me they were just torping while turning and I got hit by torps actually aimed into the smoke. This is disappointing. Just when I thought the player base had become smarter... It works the other way 'round, too. I recently torped a rushing Georgia. I should have totally missed him, since he was turning out to get his rear guns on me. But since I torped while turning hard, the torps went more to the side and almost all hit along the broadside. But funny anecdotes aside, yes this is quite an irritating bug. Not hitting is one thing, but if you miss a target you should have hit, that messes with your confidence and changes the way you torp. We can't have a bug that messes with the aimbot stored in our brains. It's bad for the quality of play. a key property of a good game is the link between a good action and the reward for it. A good aim must result in a good hit. So this bug should be addressed asap.

Ich stachel die Leute dann gerne noch an, indem ich schreibe, dass ich das seit Jahren so mache und Wargaming nix macht, weil ich viel Geld ausgebe. Aluhüte suchen bekanntlich Bestätigung, also warum nicht 'n bisschen Spaß haben? Das Faszinierende an Beleidigungen ist, dass jedes Mal sich gleich mehrere Spieler angesprochen fühlen. Ich hab gestern im Global-Chat dem feindlichen CV gesagt, er solle man im Trainingsraum üben, weil er so oft an mir vorbeigeschossen hat. Dann hat sich mein CV angesprochen gefühlt und gesagt er habe bereits 30k Schaden. Kann man verstehen, wie so ein Missverständnis entsteht.

Wargaming hat das Problem aber mittlerweile erkannt. Zu viele Schwachköpfe hatten keinen Kapitän auf dem Schiff und der Gefechtsknopf war deswegen inaktiv. Also hat Wargaming seit ein paar Updates auch das Spielen völlig ohne Kapitän ermöglicht und seitdem ist die Anzahl der Spieler wieder gestiegen. Gut gemacht, Wargaming, es gibt ja viele rationale, legitime Gründe, warum jemand ohne Kapitän spielt. Zum Beispiel, weil er gar nicht weiß, dass es Kapitäne überhaupt gibt und weil man ihn da nicht überfordern will, indem man ihm das in einem Tutorial mitteilt. Oder weil er eine traumatische Kindheitserfahrung mit Kapitänspunkten hatte und Wargaming hier einfühlsam sein muss.

Good boy.

Oh yeah, forgot the obvious. Thanks for reminding me. I am one step away from taking stimulants. Now compare that to the list of people complaining about DDs. They (think) they gotta: (a1) launch into battle while going to the toilet and taking an excessive amount of time dumping what would be a better player than them. (a2) finish what they are currently eating before moving their ship. (b) check their small mini-map, which flank most ships are heading to and turn their ship that way, even if they spawned on the opposite side of the map and are the only ship of their type on that flank. (c) sail for 3min - after already being afk for 2min as specified in (a) mind you - to that far cap without having range on any of the enemy targets (d) manage to keep their ship perfectly broadside to the enemy team, so when they finally get in range they can "optimise their Adrenalin Rush" skill (e) sit in the middle of a blob shooting whatever target is biggest in their scope (f) ping the DD that is just shot at by 4 ships in the cap 15km in front of them for spotting and support (g) insult their team which all of them have better stats and tell them they are the worst team they ever had. (h) tell the entire team they'll report them to quickly realize they already spent all their 7 reports in the first battle they had on a CV-player. (i) find comfort in the fact that spamming HE on 10 different ships over time, not killing a single one, was enough to get a Confederate achievement and be in the upper half of the team, proving one isn't a total potato. (j) press "Battle on", cause the sentence "you forgot your camo" didn't ring a bell. I realize that list is way longer than the minor stuff DD-players need to consider, so, not surprising, many players are overburdened with their job.

I gotta say, I find DD-play quite challenging lately. It's the sheer number of things you gotta pay attention to and multitask. Losing sight of only one of the factors in many cases already is a ticket back to port. If you try to contest the cap you gotta: (a) guess and observe what DD will oppose you. You gotta pay attention to the map and where other DDs are spotted and to incoming number and speed of torps to deduct, which DD is on your cap. (b) decide if the presence of radar and planes is likely to deny you a successful cap, despite ignorant team mates expecting you to do exactly that. (c) plan your approach to the cap so you stay clear of typical radar cruiser positions, have some cover to dodge behind, are sufficiently angled to dodge surprise torps and do not give away your position by capping the second a CV is looking for possible targets. (d) move within the cap to not sit in a direct line of some BB using you as a meatshield and the enemy DD torping that BB, while either being angled away to run at the first sight of trouble or close to cover or AA that you can accelerate into. (e) make a call which of the unspotted cruisers is radaring you, which other cruiser is about to move in to radar you as soon as the first radar is off and whether it's worth sitting it out or running. (f) feel like a special school teacher on a field trip, communicating with your team while juggling with (a) to (e) to hopefully prevent your support to back their bags as soon as the first shatter hits their ship. The point of the bingo cards is that they contain common issues as well as personal ones. A change being applied doesn't keep people from ignoring it. You can try, but keep in mind, a Benham can troll you back 16 times every 65 seconds.

You forgot one. Wasn't fixed by WG, tho, but by the BB-playing glue aficionados as early as closed beta:

What's red on top, yellow in the middle and green at the bottom? We'd all like it to be a traffic light but the correct answer is: A typical WoWs team. What are the BB players even whining about? Every day you get matched against people who tend to be very limited. That itself is the biggest buff you're ever going to get as a BB player. That you yourself are not able to take advantage of that for obvious reasons, is on you.

If it was desync, the torps at some point would need to make a jump to the left as desyncs are not resolved by a gradual correction. It rather looks like the torps are off from the beginning. Unfortunately even the clip is not providing us with a steady neutral perspective, where we could see the trajectory, ideally on the map.

You quote an entire post for a brief remark about the last sentence. Just sayin'. Ofc there is no point arguing about personal taste. If you find BBs more fun, then that is what you are free to play. But first of all, the cheapest BB line takes 846k XP plus rather mandatory modules to regrind, while the cheapest DD line only takes 676k XP and doesn't require additional modules (apart from the terrible Hatsuharu stock torps). So you should ask yourself: Do I like BBs that much more I am willing to grind an additional minimum of 170k XP on them for the same result: 10k RP? And second: You have played the Harugumo line up to the Minekaze and the USN-BB1 line up to the Wyoming, up to the New York if you include Coops, at least on the account you use for posting. So you are comparing one line you haven't played past T5 to another line you haven't played past T5 and drawing the conclusion from that, one line is fun and the other is boring. Shouldn't you at least finish both lines before judging which is more fun to regrind?

I'd say @Europizza got it pretty right. Personally I'd put caps a little higher in the priority on 3rd and damage on 4th, depending on which DD you take. The RN-DD line is excellent for learning. The only downside is that they spoil you with options. You will be able to sit in smoke and see torpedoes coming, thanks to hydro. You will be able to position more aggressively and torp on the nose who ever is rushing you. You got excellent concealment. So you're not gonna learn to play around typical weaknesses of other lines. RN-DDs are a good starting point if you keep that in mind. So whenever you play a different line later, you need to think what they can't do that RN-DDs can and implement that into your play.

You're insane. I'm not talking about the number of lines you reset, but the fact that you do them all at the same time and stage. You should reset one line and then progress it a little before resetting the next line. You now have 5 ships all sitting in T6 and whenever you div up it's T6 T6 T6. You gotta create a constant flow of resets, so you have reset lines at each tier. This is right and wrong. Resetting the USN-BB1 line and only playing it starting with a fully upgraded Colorado will cost 684.5k XP, according to @asalonen's excellent tool (not sure if I am allowed to link it, since it might still be in beta). The shortest alternative line is the Harugumo line, which costs 676k XP. So, given one would skip the optional modules, the effort is almost the same. So in that respect you are wrongish. The truth to the matter however is that the Harugumo line is perfectly fine with skipping the range upgrade. It only requires the player to not spam at max range and go more for enemy DDs and cap zones, which in general is the better recipe for winning a game anyway. So skipping the modules is perfectly viable. For USN-BBs I'm not so sure. They are fast from T8 on and they got range. But I think you still greatly benefit from the upgrades. Upgrading NC and Iowa and researching Monti will altogether cost 744k XP. That's 68k XP more than Harugumo line. The only reason I can think of why one would want to reset a BB line is that you will run out of detonation-, fire- and flooding signals, doing only DDs, while BBs rather consume damage mitigating signals.

Ich bin die Mega-BBs noch nicht gefahren. Aber irgendwas scheint mit deren Ruder nicht zu stimmen, weil umso größer die BBs, desto geradeaus.

you're welcome.

It's just a claim that WG does this deliberately. They design the economy and yet I see nothing that pressures a casual player to pay to play. The players can draw all sorts of conclusions from this, the most obvious and logical being to stay away from high tiers until they play well enough to make a profit. They choose to pay real money to compensate their losses by themselves. As I said, they could apply all sorts of playing behaviour: They can a) play the game in low to mid tiers exclusively. b) do the same as a) but at some time use the coal and FXP earned to get one or several T9 premium ships, which print credits even if you play below average. c) use doubloons earned in the game or paid for to buy perma camos for their favorite ships and play them at reduced cost d) use whatever premium days they get from events and containers and play high tiers then. Really, if anyone has issues with the economy, he must either be a very passive player or make horrible economic choices in the game.