HMS_Kilinowski

So you think being an experienced and good player in low tier is not perverted enough. You also want the best ship? You can't just pick the most underpowered ship with some 3 pointer and show that you can still rofl-stomp the new and inexperienced players like that? You actually need advice after 5k battles for a T3-ship and you ask such a question in the forum? *throws old virtual tomato* Shame on you, sir. Just be a pro. Regrind some lines. There you still fight a few battles in the low tiers. Don't let seal-clubbing get the better of you.

So that is why they didn't give DDs a citadel and why BB shells do reduced damage to DDs, cause they are so OP. It had nothing to do with keeping BB or cruiser dmg potential against DDs in check. Only the laziest BB main could complain about a weapon that gives its target 30-60s to apply its rudder and completely dodge a salvo.

The Nelson earns less credits than the T9-premium ships. If only credits are important to you, you should wait and get a T9 ship. That said, a premium ship is more than just a credit earner. A T9-ship that has a good credits multiplier, but is not fun to play, does not earn credits, cause you won't play it as regularly as a ship you like. A ship that you play well in, will yield better results and thus earn more credits. The Nelson imo is just that, a good and fun ship at a tier that does not have particularly many good ships. The Nelson is one of my favorite ships in T7-Ranked. It's a no-brainer. Get it first. If anything, play more so you can afford a T9 on top of it in maybe 6 months.

Die neue Klausel bedeutet doch gerade, dass man NIE ein finalisiertes Schiff haben wird. Die Stalingrad ist seit mehr als 2 Jahren im Spiel und wurde jetzt generft. Bei neuen Schiffen gibt es null rechtliche Sicherheit. Das Beste, was man mit seinem Geld machen kann, ist sich alte Schiffe zu kaufen, idealerweise solche, die demnächst aus dem Spiel genommen werden, gerade weil Wargaming sie eben nicht nerfen kann. Ich verstehe worauf du hinaus willst. Du vergisst nur eine Kleinigkeit: Die Spieler mögen CVs deswegen nicht, weil sie automatisch einen CV auf Gegnerseite ins Match bekommen. Der CV im eigenen Team ist ihnen ganz willkommen, aber nicht um jeden Preis, nicht wenn sie selber Opfer sein können. Die Ise dagegen ist als Schlachtschiff klassifiziert. Sie erlaubt es, Luftangriffe und Luftaufklärung ins eigene Team zu bekommen, ohne im selben Zug Opfer von Luftangriffen zu werden. Das wiederum ist für jeden Ise-Spieler ein sehr bequemer Zustand. Wer den Vorteil hat, der beklagt sich nicht, wie wir gut in dieser Topic sehen können.

Nur so am Rande: Die Ise ist aktuell auf Rang 1 unter allen T6-Schiffen bei Winrate, Anzahl der Kills, Schaden und XP. Sie ist außerdem auf Platz 3 bei der k/d-Rate, vor vier von sechs CVs. Das ist doch eine sehr beachtliche Leistung, umso mehr, weil jeder Hans Wurst sie kaufen kann und sie keinesfalls nur guten Spielern vorbehalten ist. Das müsstest du schon nachvollziehbarer erklären, warum die arme Ise so unterbewaffnet ist.

Bei der Ise fass ich mir wirklich an den Kopf. Die Community hat über 2 Jahre lang ihren Unmut mit den neuen CVs zum Ausdruck gebracht. Renommierte Clans haben ihre Namen geändert in Tags wie BANCV, NOCV und CVOUT. T4 ist für Anfänger tot, weil Sealclubber von ihren traditionellen Schiffen auf die Hosho umgeschwenkt sind. T5 ist in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Jetzt hat WG mit der Ise die Beschränkung auf 2CVs pro Team durch die Hintertüre ausgehebelt. Ich hatte Gefechte mit 2 CVs und drei Ises. An ein genießbares Spielerlebnis war nicht mehr zu denken. Gratuliere, jetzt sind auch T6 und T7 auf absehbare Zeit tot. Nicht nur das. WG verkauft nicht nur einen halben CV. Nein, ihr gebt den Käufern auch noch eine 200%-XP Mission für 30 Tage, damit jeder Ise-Käufer 30 Tage lang kaum noch was anderes spielt und wir tatsächlich Ises bis zum Abwinken in die Gefechte bekommen. Aber auch das ist noch nicht genug. Es gibt keine Beschränkungen für Divisionen, sodass wir regelmäßig Divs mit 3 Ises sehen, die wieder Crossdrops koordinieren, wie zu guten alten RTS-CV-Zeiten. Und weil all das nicht bereits völlig extrem ist, kriegt die Ise auch noch gute Flak, damit die Ises nicht auf die dumme Idee kommen, sich etwa gegenseitig anzugreifen. Nein, es ist ja viel einfacher, den Rest des Teams zu torpen. Das einzig positive, was ich sehen kann ist, dass die T6-Meta innerhalb kurzer Zeit so toxisch sein wird, dass Wargaming zurückrudern muss. Das einzige, was die Stats der Ise momentan im Zaum hält, ist die Existenz der Ise auf der Gegnerseite, die den Vorteil eines asymmetrischen MM ausgleicht. Kleiner kulinarischer Tipp am Rande: Wenn das Essen eh schon keinem schmeckt, sollte man nicht mit dem Esslöffel würzen, um es zu retten.

People are fine with RN-BBs and FR-BBs and they got 32mm hull. It is the dispersion. If an enemy makes a mistake and your guns are accurate enough to punish that mistake, that's a game changer, that is a direct impact on the outcome of the battle. What many people criticize about BBs is the lack of impact, not being able to take the key units out of the enemy team. Instead on Kansas you see a cruiser go broadside, you take into account his turn and deceleration and let loose a nice salvo, just about to hit him midship at the waterline ... and then you get overpens into the superstructure and shells landing all around in the water. I got a good 10k less dmg in Kansas compared to Amagi, and Amagi was one of my earlier BBs. I played it in August 2019. After having 20 months more experience in the game I now do 10k less dmg and 0.5 kills less in the Kansas. Why is that?

As I was trying to say, the line is only awful because of its reputation. The features are perceived as awful by skilled players. As I said, a bad player likely gets 1-3 hits with it, but would have got 0 hits on a ship with good dispersion, cause his aim is flawed. A good player would get 6 hits on a ship with good dispersion, but he only gets 1-4 hits on the Kansas. So he doesn't do that much better than a subpar player on a ship with shotgun dispersion. The Kansas has more RNG and that works in subpar player's favor. The issue is rather of psychological nature. A subpar player doesn't like to think of himself as a subpar player. He just thinks he gets shortchanged all the time. He would never think of a ship like the Kansas as favoring him. He would never go "at least I got 2 hits altho my aim was so terrible, I should have missed all shells". He hears good players moan about the dispersion, so he applies that to himself and feels equally cheated. If subpar players were aware of their true qualities, they would flood the forum and say the Kansas is one of the best ships they ever had. Finally they hit something, finally their days of headless yoloing are over, finally their long range allows them to still participate, even when terribly mispositioned. So it's not an awful ship, but a good ship, just for not so good players.

Not every ship is designed for everybody. The USN-BB2 line is supposed to be noob friendly. If a salvo is a lottery, then Kansas provides more lots at the expense of a lower individual probability of winning. You get more dispersion but more shells to compensate for that. That's a design specifically for inexperienced players, who fail to take the maneuvers of their targets into account and regularly slightly miss their targets. On other BBs they would miss every shell, while on Kansas they still get 1-3 hits per salvo. The slow speed is like a leash put onto the overly eager mind of those that would overextend or yolo in. The Kansas makes sure, you are hardly ever ahead of your team and the range ensures you still always have something to shoot at. Someone would have to check this in the data, but my guess is the Kansas is a low skill floor - low ceiling ship. You will likely see subpar players do better than on their other T8-BBs and above average players should do worse. I doubt Wargaming wanted to club us over the head with this line. They likely really intended to create a line for beginners. The issue is just that the design doesn't work, cause the more guns only compensate for the slower reload. The bad dispersion comes on top of that and holds the Kansas back. But then again, don't whine about the dispersion. People like me, who unlocked it earlier, had to play with a sigma of 1.6, while you now already play a buffed sigma of 1.7. Compared to the 1.5 sigma on the Lyon and the 1.6 sigma on the Lepanto, Kansas is a sharpshooter. Actually Lepanto is a good example of how the Kansas used to be. Ofc Lepanto at least is a faster ship and less boring in that respect. It's odd, cause you'd think WG got the message that people didn't like the USN-BB2 line. Yet they designed the italian BBs with the same slow reload and bad dispersion.

Funny @Yosha_naiwould mention it cause I vaguely remember odd incidents like that, that full hp ships appeared to be detonated on the first hit. Maybe some programmer put a plus where he should have put a minus. As far detonations in general. Please, people, use your detonation flags. You get way more than what you need for competitive modes. You can afford to use them at least on DDs in high tiers.

Hey there. I thought I can outrun SV_Kompressor once, bumping this. So yeah, we got some free slots and we'd love to meet some new people who are active in discord, like to div up and ideally, though that is not a strict requirement, play Clan Battles. Check out our discord and say hi. We also offer guest status to members of other clans who want to keep some liaison thing going or just stay in touch or even play with people from other clans and see how they approach things. So come and find out for yourself. Peace.

And also I ahve been playing very economic and even I just got into the phase where I accumulate 3-digit credit reserves at around 7k battles. You can earn credits with les battles, but then you probably are not grinding lines and not using the credits for regrinds. The people with 100M credits lying around usually are the 10k+ battles people, and I mean people who contribute to their battles, not the people doing 40k damage on T9.

Let me make a case here: You get a T9 premium ship for 228k coal. You can buy that ship for 62€ in the store instead. So the 100k coal has a fair value of 27€. How many credits do you get for 27€? There is a package of 62.5M credits for 82€ in the premium shop. You boil that down and you theoretically would get 20.7M credits for the same 27€ that are equivalent to 100k coal. This is funny. So either the 100k coal is only worth 20M credits or the credits for money in the store are hopelessly overpriced. Not very consistent pricing policy, to say the least.

The important thing to understand here is that this is not an auction. It's a probe. Selling stuff in an auction allows WG to charge prices not determined by them, but by the players outbidding each other. Say, as this streamer who was reported about earlier, the players bid 200M credits for 100k coal. Then this (a) is a signal to WG, that there is a higher willingness to pay than what they are charging themselves. It encourages them to raise prices to skim the whales. At the same time (b) nobody can openly blame WG for charging a greedy price, cause we don't know the bids and the players determined those greedy prices themselves. WG is just accepting the bids. Where ofc the greed comes into play is in the way you design that auction, which is deliberately in a way to take the whales to the cleaners. Looking at the prices of goods that can be bought for coal and credits alike - signals in the armory - it would appear Wargaming sees a fair value of 300 credits per 1 coal. That would mean the auctioned 100k coal do hold a fair value of ~ 30M credits.

If that is true, the auction relies on people getting insecure by talking to other bidders, expecting higher bids and trying to outbid each other with ever more absurd bids. First-price auctions are designed by sellers in order to reach the highest possible price, not so much the fair value. In first price sealed-bid auctions, usually you cannot alter your bid, which at least makes sure, your valuation is not manipulated by others. If the auction is designed as you say, I personally would recommend to bid very cautious. Make your bid equal to what you personally truly think the good is worth. Don't alter your bid and don't talk to anybody about your bid. This is the only way to not fall to a greedy auction design.

Can you please clarify what type of auction this is? The rules don't explain that and it dramatically changes the bidding process. It reads like a first price auction. In a first price auction, every successful bidder pays exactly his bid. It could also be a second price auction (the ebay-auction type). There all successful bids pay the same price, the price equal to the first unsuccessful bid. If you are confused, let me give a brief example: So say you auction 2 camos and got 3 bidders who respectively bid 1, 2 and 3 doubloons. In a first price auction the two higherst bidders would get the camo and pay 2 and 3 doubloons. In a second price auction, the first unsucessful bid would be the 1 doubloon, submitted by the lowest bidder. The remaining two highest bidders would pay 1 doubloon each. The type of auction is quite crucial for the bidding strategy and preception of reaching the true value of a good. I could go into detail and talk other types, but I am sure your auction is one of either types discussed. So which is it? What bid do the bidders pay?

Glühschwanz currently is leading the pack by 28 points.

I think it is less about laziness and more about individualism. Our liberal western society is based on the principle that you as an individual are important. If every person asserts his rights, a balance of rights for all individuals is maintained. We are taught to be selfish. Everyone for himself means everyone is being taken care of. Other systems have emphasized the inferiority of the individual to the greater good of the society. I once learned in a First Aid course that in socialist East Germany one third of the population knew First Aid, while in West Germany that number was and still is way lower. People were indoctrinated with that idea of mutual responsibility. In modern Germany the mentality is more like "How do I benefit from me knowing First Aid? So I need to do First Aid to others, lose time, maybe make a mistake and be blamed? Me knowing First Aid does not help me, when I need First Aid myself, It is sufficient if others know it to save me." So this individualist mentality of being responsible for yourself rather than others alters the mindset and makes systems break down that are based on covering each other. Consequently the whole mask thing worked mostly cause the dumb majority of people thought the masks were to protect themselves from other infected persons rather than protecting others from themselves. This illusion cannot be maintained with the vaccine, cause it's obvious you are for the most part protected, while you may still be a risk to others. How responsible will people act once they feel save? Wargaming is run on gut decisions rather than rational choice. An influential group is surrounded by expert knowledge and solid analysis to the point of excess. When it comes to conspiracy theory I like to mention the case of a german MoP. He was investigated for child porn posession. The secretary of the interior knew. He told the head of the party of that MoP. All in all a handful of people knew, all with the explicit understanding, that this would be kept a secret until evidence was sufficient to file charges and the public could not longer be excluded. That conspiracy lasted two days. Three people knew. After two days the whole country knew. So yeah, nobody ever landed on the moon, and 9/11 was a false flag attack commited by Mossad and CIA and nobody knows to this day although even a handful of people can't keep their mouths shut for a week when it's in their best interest. Whoever tries to tell me stuff like that, needs to explain to me how the human element for once in history complied with the principle of secrecy. Funny you would mention WG. When I read that twitter post, my first association was he was talking about Wargaming working the player base with their salami tactics of step by step selling higher tier ships, removing respecs and slowly but steadily increasing monetization. Ofc that would be an absurd idea. Mea culpa for such a flawed flow of thoughts.

I liked some of Zoups videos and I hope he continues to create non-political content for WoWs. As we can see with Flamu, you don't need to be a CC to contribute to the community. Needless to say a CC should not give his expertise on something that he is not an expert on. In his defence, I understand Zoup made his remarks not as a CC, but in his personal twitter account. I think a CC also still has a private life and the right to host other games and other content. As long as a politically sensitive statement is not made in context of the work as a WoWs-CC, he should not be punished for that. It's clear to me, Zoup did not make a statement that any reasonable person would in any sense see affiliated with Wargaming or their products. From what I heard by other CCs, some WG-staff in the past uttered disturbing statements about sexual orientation in the WG-discord. Don't ask me about specifics. I just remember a streamer talking about another streamer resigning after some incident. Maybe there's a double standard. That all said, I personally think Zoup should not make any inciting statements that suggest we as a society are worked by our government to take our freedoms away. We in my hometown are now below 50 daily new cases per 100k inhabitants and falling and I see street life slowly going back to normality. Nobody has tried to alter the constitution of my country to stay in power or combine law making, law enforcing and justice into one entity. Nobody has tried to alter the organization and competence of the states of my country. Nobody has put any journalists into prison. Nobody is forcing vaccination on anybody, much less forcing them to accept a specific vaccine. There has been a minor incident of members of parliament accepting bribes to promote certain manufacturers of face masks. But that is not by far an indication of anybody manipulating the world economy into a global recession that may well end up being the largest recession of this century and likely the largest since the Great Depression of the 1920s. Any person thinking that some social elite is behind a lethal virus, has an imo naive idea of what risks influential people are willing to take, when it comes to their personal wealth. Whoever would want global economy to decline into recession, would kill his own business. In a globally interwoven economy nobody can hit anybody anymore without hitting himself, not even countries as isolated and autarkic as North-Korea. So all in all a measly content creator for a computer game imo has to make a way stronger case than what has been done to even make me blink, when talking about conspiracies. My grandmother knew a lot about good apple strudel, but she hardly ever talked politics. So, Zoup, you know a lot about WoWs, maybe keep it that way and talk about what you know. Strangely enough it's even the opposite with my older family members and their social contacts. The feeling there is that many didn't even catch a flu this winter, where they usually got one at least once a year. So the sentiment is even going towards wishing people would continue to wear the masks voluntarily. Sounds excessive, but then again, is not wearing your mask while in public transportation or a supermarket a liberty for which each of us is willing to risk lying in bed with at least a flu for a week?

Not to the full effect of AFT and only these two ships.

First of all, the missing turret, even if it was supposed to be there or if there was room on the ship for that, is not a nerf. The Haida and Orkan got an arbitrarily fast gun reload that balances the ships against other ships of the same tier in terms of dpm. Needless to say, they perform quite well within their tier. If there was an additional turret then WG would need to increase the reload time and the ships would not be more powerful than they are now. Let's have a reasonable look at that secondary turret. It didn't hit anything before. The only range where it has a chance of hitting anything is under 4km anyway. Atlanta, Flint, Krazny Krym and other ships have become very hard to play as their main armament range was affected by the rework. Dozens of ships were designed around skills, that don't exist anymore, be that the aforementioned low caliber cruisers, or burning for all eterntity big cruisers or smoke cruisers ... . Then there is all the other stuff that is not fixed, like ships getting stuck on islands, the aimbot mod, the issues with the client, the chat server, the missing tutorials, not to speak of all the things WG thinks are fine but we think are not. The whole game is in shambles. But you go out of your way, making a topic because of that one secondary gun on a DD. Do you really think Wargaming should put that secondary turret on the agenda?

Die Idee selbst finde ich gut. Über die Vorschläge kann man uneinig sein. Der Weg die unteren Stufen beliebter zu machen, sollte nicht sein, Veteranenspieler nach unten zu locken oder zu zwingen. Wir haben bereits genügend Sealclubber im Spiel, die mit maximierten Kapitänen über tausende Gefechte gegen Anfänger ihre sehr begrenzte Überlegenheit feiern. Davon brauchen wir nicht mehr. Umgekehrt stören sich viele daran, mit wie wenig Können und Wissen neue Spieler in Rekordzeit in die oberen Stufen vordringen, um dort zu bleiben und nix dazu zu lernen. Das Ziel muss doch vielmehr sein, die Spieler von der Stufe her auf ihrem spielerischen Niveau zu halten. Würde jeder Spieler dort spielen, wo er von seinem Level hinpasst, wären die unteren Stufen gut bevölkert 1. Hätte ich kein Problem mit, wenn die neuen Linien nicht so stinköde zu spielen wären. Bei ITA-SAP mit Gießkannenstreuung und deutschen DDs, die jetzt Kreuzer jagen sollen, aber für typische DD-Aufgaben kaum zu gebrauchen sind, vergeht mir die Lust am Spiel. Da bin ich froh, wenn ich so viel wie möglich überspringen kann. Das würde auch eher Veteranen in die unteren Stufen spülen, und die sollen doch gerade Nichtschwimmerbecken sein. 2. Credits farme ich auf T8 und T9, wo die Premiumschiffe die besten Credit-Multiplikatoren haben. Das Problem mit der Spielökonomie ist, dass Signale nicht in dem Masse erspielt werden können, wie obere Stufen das erfordern. Also müssen Spieler auf hohen Stufen Geld für die Waffenkammer verdienen, um diese Signale kaufen zu können. Wären hohe Stufen völlig unrentabel, würde niemand dort spielen. Ich spiele jetzt schon kaum T10, weil es lukrativer ist, RP zu farmen, anstatt eliteXP auf T10ern anzuhäufen. 3. Warum sollte ich so eine Verzweigung spielen? Die Daily Mission und viele andere Missionen in einem mittlerweile gehetzten Grind durch Schiffswerften, Ranked und schlagmichtot sind alle ab T5 aufwärts. Die Five Epochs Kampagne war bereits mühsam, weil die Gefechte für nichts sonst gezählt haben. Da wäre mir ein Nebenarm auf niedriger Stufe völlig schnuppe. 1. Halte ich für eine exzellente Idee. Wir müssen mittlerweile Anfänger ja bereits for T3-4 warnen, weil sie nur von oben auf die Mütze bekommen und nicht zurückschlagen können. Anfänger müssen T1-3 spielen und, sobald sie aus dem Welpenschutz sind schnellstmöglich auf T5 oder besser T6 vorstoßen, um diesem künstlichen Missstand zu entfliehen. Alles nur, weil es irgendwelchen Sealclubbern eine Beule in der Hose gibt, Spieler zu killen, die faktisch wehrlos sind. 2. Die Beschränkungen für die Daily Mission sollten als erstes mal weg. Natürlich könnte das Sealclubbern Anreize geben, aber es gibt Anfängern eben auch schon was zu tun. Das Spiel sollte viel mehr Kampagnen bieten und die vor allem auf niedrigen PvP spezialisieren. Die Anfänger weichen auf PvE aus, weil sie die Nase voll haben von den Sealclubbern, kehren dann irgendwann in Stufe 8 zurück in den PvP, weil sie mit der Spielökonomie nicht mehr hinkommen und stürzen spielerisch ins Nichts. 3. Die Verteuerung auf Stufen 9-10, wie bereits oben geschildert, macht die oberen Stufen zur 2-Klassen-Spielerschaft. Die einen müssen noch andere Linien hochziehen und haben kaum Credits für Signale und die anderen können Millionen in Signale aus der Waffenkammer pumpen. Vor allem klaffen dann die Erwartungen noch weiter auseinander. Wenn ein DD auf T10 detoniert, ist das aktuell bereits schlechtes Spiel, weil die Signale nicht die Welt kosten und die Ökonomie deren Nutzung erlaubt. Dann ärgern sich die Veteranen und die Anfänger sagen sie haben nicht genug Credits für derartigen Luxus. Bessere Ökonomie auf unterer Stufe kann man machen, aber das ist nicht der Grund, warum untere Stufen leer sind. Spieler laufen der Illusion hinterher, dass oben alles besser wird. Da müsste man ran. 4. Prinzipiell keine schlechte Idee. Aber wieder das alte Sealclubber-Problem, quasi noch mit Ansage. Die Spieler sammeln so richtig Erfahrung und dann zack, zurück auf die niedrigen Stufen und Babyrobben kloppen. Das wäre ein künstlicher Eingriff in etwas, was idealerweise ein schöne gleichmäßige Verteilung über dei Stufen sein sollte. Mein Fokus wäre vorwiegend, a) den Fortschritt durch die Stufen deutlich langsamer zu machen, damit Anfänger mit Anfängern spielen können. WG hat die Forschungspunkte auf niedrigen Stufen verringert, sie müssten aber drastisch höher werden. b) Jeder Spieler sollte mal mindestens hundert Gefechte auf einer Stufe spielen, bevor er die nächste freischaltet, unabhängig von XP. c) Nicht nur Peitsche, auch ordentlich Zuckerbrot. Wer unten bleibt, muss die Ressourcen bekommen, die er zum Spielen braucht. Ich denke weniger an Credits, die dann doch nur zum schnellen Grinden verwendet werden, sondern "Naturalien". Sie Spieler sollten kostenlos Flaggen, Tarnungen und Module erspielen können. Dadurch haben sie nicht nur Vorteile gegenüber Spielern, die solche Aufträge ignorieren, sie lernen auch gleich, dass diese Ressourcen wichtig sind bzw. überhaupt existieren. Hand aufs Herz, wie lange hat's gedauert, bis wir zum ersten mal gemerkt haben: "Da gibt's ja noch Module und Flaggen, die mein Schiff besser machen"? d) Permatarnungen für ein paar Nicht-Sealclubber-Schiffe und mehr Premiumschiffe auf unteren Stufen überhaupt, wären nett. Relativ selten will mal jemand bei uns T4 spielen und ich stell dann immer fest, dass ich, außer der Ishizuchi, gar keine T4-Schiffe habe. Warum auch? Sie taugen nicht für Missionen - die sind alle Stufen 5-10 - und Schneeflocken kriegt man auch nicht. Premiumschiffe da unten sind Ladenhüter. Selbst T5-6 kann man mittlerweile vergessen, weil die Schiffe regelmäßig erspielt werden können und man dann nur Credits bekommt dafür, wofür man Dublonen ausgegeben hat. e) WG sollte endlich wieder an die Szenarien ran und anfängertaugliche Szenarien für untere Stufen liefern. Das bringt nicht direkt mehr Spieler in den PvP, aber hält die Anfänger bei der Stange, bis sie die erste Frustration überwunden haben. Gerade die unteren Stufen sie sowas von F2P, wenn da Spieler aussteigen, dann hat's WG verbockt, weil einfach kein Fleisch an T1-4 dran ist. f) Sehr weit hergeholt: Für Anfänger ist es sehr frustrierend, wenn sie permanent nach wenigen Minuten aus dem Spiel geschossen werden. Wie wäre ein Spielmodus, der näher an typischen Shootern ist, wo man, wenn man gestorben ist, mit einer Zeitstrafe wieder ins Spiel spawnt und gewinnt, indem man progressiv Kontrollpunkte erobert? Erfahrung kommt durch Spielzeit. Wer gleich stirbt, kriegt keine Erfahrung und kommt schnell in diesen fatalen Speedgrind-Modus, sich mit 3min-Gefechten hoch zu sterben. Mit einem Spielmodus, der mehr Wert auf Kontrollpunkte legt, als aufs Überleben, lernen dann vielleicht auch die Camper früh, dass die Caps wichtig sind. Aktuell werden die Gefechte auf unteren Stufen eher durch Vernichtung des Gegners entschieden als durch Punkte. edit: g) Vielleicht wär's gar nicht schlecht, wenn auf T1-3 keine Stats existieren. Das würde den Spielern, die mit ihren Stats unzufrieden sind, einen Anreiz geben, das Spiel dort zu lernen. Umgekehrt könnten sich Sealclubber nicht länger mit ihren "manipulierten" Stats brüsten.

Thanks. Thinking about this topic a bit more, I find it important to clarify that support should be reasonable. Occasionally I see the DD player smoking up some cruiser that passes through the smoke, not even noticing the gift, while the DDs heads into the cap zone with his smoke on cooldown. Things like that. I also regularly ignore requests for support, if it doesn't make sense. You don't make friends that way, but sometimes you need to sacrifice a player to save the win. Often players are almost bullied into supporting, where is makes no sense, just because some selfish player wants to save his results. Sometimes I observe rather selfish behavior from very good players, cause they have a mentality of either winning or at least coming top. So they tend to let others do the dirty work. No idea how to classify that sort of player. Usually I'd say they do much higher damage than they win games, compared to the typical player of equal winrate. Just a hunch.

It depends on how you do it. in the example you describe you basically commit to supporting a ship that later fails you. It's sufficient to be in a typical position where your team can expect you to be. Support then is an ad-hoc decision. When I am close to a cap and someone pings an enemy DD, I just rotate my turrets and I'm ready to go. If nothing of that sort happens, I can happily rain shells on some other target. That works for me. I shoot some BBs if I am in a BB. If then a radar-cruiser appears, it's in my best interest to shoot it. Good XP, good damage and my DD has one less thing to worry about. If a DD gets spotted, even better. One nice salvo and he's missing 5k hp, running home to mama and I won't see his torps any time soon.

Exactly. Class-players. Good players usually like to play a variety of classes. It broadens their horizon and in return makes them notice threats to others ships. If you see a map just as a player restricted to one class, you are likely missing details in the battle, that will harm your team. Also as a player who only plays one class, you lack the empathy of understanding what another player is experiencing in his class, as most notably seen in the general attitude towards CVs. So in general I'd say you get the most reasonable help from good players, cause they can link an unselfish supporting action to the consequence of winning the game. And, as said, generalists tend to get the broader picture. BB-mains imo are the least supportive players. I think it is due to the mentality of having protection for themselves in terms of hp and armor, while not being able to understand they will mirror another, usually better BB-player into the enemy team, thus burdening their team. They think the tankiness is for their personal comfort and miss the purpose of it being in the frontline and presenting yourself as a target. Worse players like to go for BBs. They lack knowledge, so they also think a DD is an unrewarding target as they only get minor damage. The long reload and bad dispersion makes them go for easier targets that are less relevant.