HMS_Kilinowski

I admit Vampire II is tempting. I'll soon have the RP. What holds me back tho is Wargamings practice of removing ships at short notice. They think 2 months notice is sufficient time. But you don't earn 50k-60k RP in two months just like that. You could dump a lot of FXP into RP, but the whole process would be pretty costly and inconvenient. if they were to remove the Slava, I would regret not getting it. Not that I see Slava removed, it is only 2.5% above average. But WG has become a bit neurotic about those numbers and removed ships that were only slightly above average. So as much as I want a Vampire II, I think I'll wait and see. I would compare it to a T10 version of the Cossack with crawling smoke and better hydro. It's worth noting that the torp reload is quite okay. It doesn't turn the Vampire II into a hybrid, but you can use the torps regularly, relying on that they will reload fast enough to account for surprises. On say Harugumo, I often hold the torps cause when you get rushed by a BB they are your only defence. The smoke has its disadvantages, too. On the Daring you get 6 charges, which is enough to use them against CVs. If you smoke up in the wrong position, you lose 40s of shooting from smoke, you wait a bit, get to a better position and the smoke is already available again. Daring smoke is a good smoke for a compact HE-spamming on a single target. That makes it convenient. On Vampire you need to account for several targets that you can shoot and if they retreat you run after them with your pants between your ankles, cause you either run out of your smoke and can't smoke-fire or the targets get out of range. Another thing that troubles me since I saw the concept is the Smaland. So you smoke up and suddenly that Smaland radars you. It shoots you and you can't shoot back, cause you don't see it. You got that insane dpm and all you can do is try to run out of your smoke sideways to spot the Smaland, which will take a few salvos, or run away, or run into the Smaland hoping to get it into hydro range. I know, that won't happen often, but if I saw a Smaland from a good clan on the enemy team, I would think twice about being caught in that smoke.

The only cruiser one could possibly be playing to come up with such a fallacious idea as dedicating three skills to torpedo armamant, would be the Kitakami and that disappeared from testing so quickly, one could not possibly have it in mind when designing skills. If they'd asked the community, what skills they deem useful on cruisers, they might at least have come up with something remotely useful. The whole rework had one purpose: To decompose combined effects of skills into separate skills and penalize skills that were not situational by design. What we got was not variations in play style, but one standard build and a bunch of useless skills that can be used as an excuse to justify a selfish play style like e.g. a Donskoi spamming at 20km.

I had Vigilance on Hindi specifically for that reason. One might even say Vigilance is such an inferior skill in general, it only was worth the 3 points when it came together with a Jütland commander and the Hydro mod from the armory. Then ofc you had a 5.4km spotting radius for a significant amount of time. But I'll leave it to personal preference to decide whether removing Vigilance for cruisers or giving the german special captains was the bigger mistake. All I can say is that both decisions together are inconsistent. Wargaming removed 8 CV related skills from the cruiser tree. That alone gave them a lot of space to fill up with new interesting skills. They also removed skills that were useless on most cruisers, but pretty essential on a few, among them the Smoke Expert so popular on RN-CLs, the AFT that was so essential on Atlanta and Flint and popular on Smolensk, the Vigilance that some used on german cruisers (Little White Mouse and the wiki even recommended it) and Preventative Maintenance, a skill that saved me in numberous Clan Battles. That all together gave Wargaming 12 skill slots to fill with more useful skills. What did they come up with? Three skills promoting your torpedo armament ... on cruisers. I mean certainly some smart person at Wargaming can explain to me why 5% faster torpedoes are more useful on a cruiser than Preventative Maintenance, a skill that keeps your torpedo launchers intact, which rumor has it is a prerequisite to being able to launch torpedoes. Who cares about 5% faster torpedoes, when the tubes get knocked out and you can't fire them?

The only if in there is "If they pick ZF-6 for Ranked ...". The rest is simple straight consistent deduction. Also you misunderstood my statement about whales. I did not say whales are utter potatoes. I said that players who want a ship but cannot guarantee they will play good or enduring enough to finish the grind, are more likely to buy their way to the ship. That's also the difference between ZF-6 and your example, the ARP Yamato. There was no grind to get ARP Yamato, buying it was the only way. So good players had to buy it just as well as bad players. With ZF-6 however I know I will play enough to unlock all tokens, so there is no need to whale it.

The reason Odin started out well was that potatoes only memorize Odin has torps after getting torped at least once. ZF-6 is imo a different story. Normally the community needs to adapt to a ship and learn to counter it's strengths. With the ZF-6 it's the other way round, it's players need to adapt to the ship. Show of hands, how many of you have seen a ZF-6 shoot AP? The stats of a ship are a combination of the ships quality and the quality of their players. Now look at the Ranked leaderboard for ZF-6. Do you see a lot of above average players in there? I see very few and they do as well on the ZF-6 as they do on their other ships. The numbers are driven by players with rather subpar impact on their battles in general. The battles played represent 0.1% of the ships played in Ranked. This is a highly selective sample. I don't see any reason to condemn a ship based on that. To observe ZF-6 in Ranked, it takes a person whaling the ship. One might speculate this person is not confident he will play the quality and volume needed for the grind, quite possibly a player lacking experience or skill. It also takes a person playing a T9 ship in Ranked. Those are not Gold League players, but either Bronze League - not exactly a certificate of quality - or Silver League. A good player in Silver LEague is good enough to know that he as a good player has a higher impact in a top tier ship. The only reason to play a bottom tier ship is the rational choice to grind a line - e.g. playing Kitakaze or Mogador ... . So you are talking about people who play a bottom tier premium ship. They definitely miss the point. a.k.a. not exactly top notch brain capacity. So, beyond the obvious numbers from the Ranked leaderboard, we already have two strong indications of a lack of quality of the players of ZF-6. They chose to get ZF-6 early and they play T9 in Ranked. On top of that even players who are commited to a tier, choose a ship out of several options. They forgo the possibility to grind pretty suitable ships, Kitakaze, Mogador and Jutland. In a CV-rich environmet even Östergötland is a viable pick. They pick a premium ship. They also don't pick other tested and trialed powerful ships as Black, Benham, Neustrashimy. Even if the ZF-6 might be a good ship, very few people would pick it over better options. That indicates they don't understand the Ranked mode, a.k.a subpar players. Add all of that indication together and tell me if you still think those bad numbers are driven by the ship and not their captains.

I just inspected the new LM for Kleber. It reduces detectability by sea and air by 20%. A full concealment build will get it's detectability down to 6.2 km. This however comes at an obviously painful price: Your reload is now 80% longer. That reduces reload to 12.6s stock, resulting in 76190 raw dpm. The impression I get is: The LM turns the Kleber into a high speed torpboat, that jumps into range of radars on cooldown, dumps its torps and is gone before the radar comes back up. It dives into the enemy territory, makes a sneaky torp attack on a BB and is gone before any DD could intercept it. This playstyle is even more pronounced, if you consider the possibly upcoming new commander skill system. There is a new 4pt-skill for DDs, giving an 8% speed buff, if you are concealed. Combine that with the speedboost of Kleber and a speed-signal and Kleber can push 59.1 kts. The speed advantage and workable concealment gives the Kleber ... not a real cap contesting ability, but the Kleber can rush into distant caps, stay hidden a while and leave before it gets hairy. The new LM however turns Kleber from hunter into hunted. It will not be easy to nail it down, since it can outrun every DD easily. But if it is caught, the low dpm makes this upgrade still pretty questionable. What's your opinion? You intend to try it out? You think a torp-Kleber will work?

Wenn ich mir das Leaderboard ansehe - auch fürs Coop gibt's sowas - dann sind auch dort weniger als 10% der Spieler SU, bezüglich PR. Coop ist natürlich recht einfach, aber es gibt dennoch messbare Unterschiede in der Spielerqualität. Das Rating ist nicht auf den Coop kalibriert, weshalb vergleichsweise viele Spieler gute Ergebnisse bescheinigt bekommen. Ich glaube nicht, dass es fürs Thema zielführend ist, den Coop-Spielern ihren Spielmodus kleinzureden. Davon wird niemand größer. Jeder soll machen, was er will. Wenn ein Spieler im PvP nicht die gewünschte Leistung zeigt, sind wir unzufrieden. Dann frag ich mich, was man umgekehrt erreichen will, wenn man Coop-Spielern einreden will, PvP sei das einzig Wahre. Willst du die in den PvP rein mobben, weil das Niveau dort zu hoch ist? Also lassen wir das doch. Davon abgesehen, teile ich die Einschätzung, dass die Z-44 sehr gut im Coop funktioniert. Sie hat genau, was man dort benötigt. Sie kann sich einnebeln und damit die Zeit überbrücken bis die Gegner sich von der Aufdeckungsreichweite bis auf Torpedonahkampf angenähert haben. Die Z-44 bleibt also erst mal unbeschädigt und kann bequem einen DD und den begleitenden Kreuzer wegtorpen. Dann hat sie bei voller Torpedo-Auslegung eine knappe Minute Nachladezeit. Das entspricht ziemlich genau der Zeit, bis der Nebel sich auflöst und der DD das nachfolgende BB rusht. Wenn es zwei BBs sind, dann reicht der Torpedoschaden wahrscheinlich nicht für beide. Aber man kann beim Rushen schon HE schießen. Mit etwas Glück bricht Feuer aus und der Bot löscht das sofort. Dann reicht ein Torpedowerfer pro BB, weil der Flutungsschaden obendrauf kommt. Und man ist vermutlich nicht der einzige, der vorher schon Schaden auf dem BB macht. Mehr Schadenspotential hat kaum ein anderer DD. Benham ist noch brauchbar und Somers/Shima sind schon wieder T10. Übrigens, nur so am Rande: Du hast selber mehr als 2000 Coop-Gefechte gespielt und dein PR ist aktuell unter SU. Wenn also, wie du sagst, "jeder Trottel mit ein bisschen Resthirn" SU wird, du aber nicht, dann ist diese bewusst allgemein gehaltene Beleidigung für dich doch ziemlich nach hinten los gegangen.

In general people like to downvote people for lots of reasons. Not all of them are legitimate. One of the legitimate reasons is to complain about bad play. You are a pretty new player and still learning. I think the best advice as usual is for you to take it slow and not move up to higher tiers until you have become good at the lower tiers. That way you will at least avoid bad karma as a result of criticism. You might even get a few compliments. But don't give karma too much weight. Look at your winrate, not your karma. People are selfish, winning is selfless.

Die Frage wurde ja schon beantwortet: Ja man kann die Forschungspunkte stapeln. Ich wollte dazu noch ergänzen, dass dies auf allen Stufen möglich ist. Man kann also auch in der Mitte mal ein Schiff mit FXP überspringen, weil einem das Schiff nicht liegt oder man keine Permatarnung hat.

I think one can look at that, but it only makes sense if you are able to account for the specifics. If you play mostly ships that are played by good players, your PR can be below average and still doesn't mean you are a below average players. It just means you are not as good as the mostly good players who own that ship. Likewise you should know about changes. You can have a good PR in the Izumo these days, but the ship got several buffs over the years. So having a good overall PR on that ship also ignores that many of the people in that sample played the Izumo in an earlier significantly inferior version. You are almost comparing two different ships. So having a PR of 2000 certainly means you are good in the Izumo, while 1300 is probably equal to in quality to 1200 PR for people who played the ship in, say, 2018.

The nature of an achievement is that it is supposed to be a good thing, rewarding good play. In coop I regularly fail to see good play. Coop boils down to picking the right ship, a ship that eneables you to yolo, get torpedoes off on targets and get as much dmg as possible. There is not much to achieve in a repetitive experience, cause the conditions can be replicated. Basically the achievment would punish everyone picking a slow ship that doesn't get a piece of the cake and reward players that spam the ever same play against the ever same AI. What can be achieved in coop that is a proof of extra-ordinary quality of play? In PvP the issue is not that people are not getting the achievements, it is that they are not motivated to play in a way to achieve anything. Getting achievements is partially a deliberate choice. If a player wants to stay in the back and let others tank for him, he can hardly play WG for not getting a Dreadnought achievement. Same goes for yolos. After several years and reworks, the achievements (a) do not reflect the current state of the game anymore and (b) are largely inconsistent, as has repeatedly been pointed out by prominent streamers. What I mean by (a) is that some achievements are now much harder or easier to earn than before. One example: Flooding duration has been nerfed quite a while ago. Up to then a flooding did massive damage and destroyed a ship if it was already damaged. Consequently the Witherer and Unsinkable achievements happened more often, cause flooding dealt a larger portion of damage in the overall mix. I have a total of two Unsinkable achievements, the last one I received in December 2018. The Unsinkable achievement gives you the Juliet Yankee Bissotwo signal, reducing flooding duration. It is practically impossible to get through the achievement these days. Staying with the example, the Unsinkable achievement is also a case for (b). You get it for taking a huge amount of flooding damage and surviving the game. This is extremely inconsitent with the idea of an achievment. A playershould avoid taking damage and use his DCP in a smart and rational manner, in order to have a maximum impact on the game and win the battle. Also survival is not that much of a quality of play. Good players often have to trade their ship for killing certain key units in the enemy team. If you make survival a priority, you are less likely to win the game, which in my book is bad play. Yet, the Unsinkable achievement does exactly that. It rewards a player for being dumb enough to use his DCP on some minor damage at the threat of being torpedoed, to then eat a torpedo and almost sink due to flooding, but miraculously survive and then retreat from the battle to save his neck. Similar achievements are Detonation. You get rewarded for being dumb enough to not have a detonation flag. Using a detonation flag punishes you by not replenishing your supply of the flags while taking the risk is rewarded. Dreadnought rewards you for taking damage rather than baiting potential damage and avoiding it. Taking a lot of caps or holding them fora long time is not rewarded at all, though it is vital to winning a lot of battles. I guess, if the combat missions were just a formality with generous expiration dates and no restrictions to ship types, that would be okay. If finally achievements are limited to a real impact on the battle and not as a consolation price for being stupid, I can subscribe to that.

This sounds rather negative. I am sensing some dissatisfaction. Maybe we misunderstand Wargamings statement. Let's wait for YabbaCoe to clarify things. To us now this reads as if we get less signals. We have to get the achievements, which is already hard to do. Then we don't get the rewards but have to do a grindy mission with a strict time limit. Doing so we spend signals, only to get a minor portion of that back through the reward. This is how I understand it. But I am a negative person, biased by my negative expectation of changes that Wargaming introduces. So maybe we all get it completely wrong. Maybe there is some benefit here, that we don't see and that YabbaCoe or somebody else from the WG-staff is all too happy to explain to us in plain language. I am sure they will do that once they see how irritated some of you are. They will be even more motivated to walk you to that epiphany, since there is nothing to hide, but a simple positive truth. So be patient and give them the time to clarify things.

Since as you say some achievements didn't give signals and some signals were not attainable by any achievement, wouldn't the much simpler solution have been to link those signals to the empty achievements? Now coop players are eligible to getting signals for playing coop, which could have been solved by defining coop-specific achievements. I see the value in that. Strangely enough WG has been rather ignorant of the coop community for a long time. Changing the entire way achievements work for the sake of pleasing the coop community is - dare I say - not a credible reason to do that. Can you pleae elaborate what the specific improvement of this change is, beyond WGs sudden interest in the coop players? Do I understand you correctly, that we now get a higher absolute amount of signals in the sense that they are worth the additional effort beyond reaching an achievement as restrictive as Solo Warrior or Kraken? Would you classify that as good news and why? I cannot speak for all players but my signals are depleting steadily since the game allows to mount up to 21 signals. It is now possible to consume 21 signals per battle, where before the limit was 8 signals. Even with a strict selection of necessary flags - certainly not the masses of flags the game mounts when you "mount recommended signals" - you run out of flags over time. I fail to see how the change in the achievement rewards can help matters. Can anybody please explain that to me?

First of all I'd like to bring @asalonen into the discussion. He's working on a tool and certainly knows more about PR than me. To explain your question: The PR is calculated based on the performance of all players. Your PR on say the T-61 is based on the specific performance of all T-61 players. They define the expected values for a ship and your performance is calculated in relation to that. Assume for a second they are rather mediocre players, then it's much easier to get a high PR. On the other hand a ship like the Siegfried is played by more seasoned players, since it takes RP to get it and is not the first choice among the RP ships. So the Siegfried likely has pretty good overall numbers driven by the good performance of its above average players. It will be much harder to have a good PR on the Siegfried. In your case your good performance on the T-61 evens out the PR despite the 0% winrate, while it's comparable on the Siegfried even tho you won. The daily or even overall performance however is calculated over all the battles It does not take into account the specific ship types. You can play the most overpowered ship all day long and still your result will be treated as if you had just played the average ship and put into comparison with the results of all players in that time frame. To put it differently: Your PR on the ships is ship-specific. You daily PR is not calculated as an average of the ships-PRs you played that day, but as an overall number of your battles played in comparison to all the battles played by all players. That is why the numbers differ.

A friend of mine got connection problems since the new patch. He says he can't even get into the forum or other WG-ressources, so he can't post here nor open a ticket. Is this related? shot-21.04.20_19.54.42-0853.jpg (1920×1040) (discordapp.com) Needless to say, other games and web-pages work fine.

That might be the case if you could have several copies of a silver ship. As it is, most silver ships are fine and the LM doesn't provide an upgrade. Wargaming designed the LMs to be sidegrades but pretty much all of them (a) don't support a viable playstyle or (b) are not significantly different from the standard build to be an interesting alternative. On top of that they are too expensive. A sidegrade can't cost extra, since you don't get extra. Why would I dump a third of the cost of a ship into a LM, if I don't get any extra impact on the battle?

Well the latter three are no longer available, so you're saying you're only missing Ägir and Hayate. I got em both, I don't play them a lot. Ägir is not bad, but she lacks pen and accuracy and doesn't compensate that with utility or dpm. She is very nice in brawls, tho. Maybe instead of going in deeper, let's go back to the surface. The whole "which ship" dilemma is only real, if you have to make a choice. They have not announced any new ship for FXP for almost a year. You are in fact 1M FXP short of getting all the FXP ships available. None of these ships are so popular or powerful they are at risk of being removed. So' I'd say, don't get a headache over this. Just pick whatever you are missing more in your port first. Need credits? Get Ägir. Short on T10 DDs? Get Hayate. Then save another 1M FXP and get the other. At least none of them is crap. So, easier choice than you think.

Exactly what FXP-ships don't you have?

I've changed my mind. I will give it a shot. Since both silver lines are unappealing, I don't have any usable german DDs in port. The ZF-6 synergizes well with a hybrid-built captain as you use it on the mid tier premium-DDs, so you can and should use the Lütjens. The talents are reasonably easy to trigger. I'd even say it could work to use the reload booster liberally to spam a BB at the start to trigger the reload talent early, which in return will give you the edge in duels mid-game. The ZF-6 looks difficult to play, cause there are so many restrictions and it requires a conscious play, something not too common. So it's not a ship to pick when tired. But it also looks like a good hybrid in the sense that is doesn't run out of answers to multiple situations. It has some gunpower to take on DDs, if at least minimally supported. It has decent AA to deny a CV camping it. And what is very important to me: It has dev striking torpedoes. It's not too easy to get into position, but if you manage, one good attack can take any ship out of the game. Not being spotted from the moon helps getting into these positions. So since I got some doubloons lying around and it still is a good credit earner, I'll give it a try and certainly paly it more than this piece of crap Anchorage that I let those CCs talk me into.

It's 3 months for one bonus. To convert 2M FXP you need 3 bonusses, so it takes 9 months. Ofc if you did not touch the bonus so far, you can do it in slightly more than 3 months. You regrind the IJN-gunboats now, wait 2 weeks for then new bonus, regrind again, wait 3 months and do your third regrind. That should give you ~60k RP, which is Vampire II plus change or almost enough for a BB. That all doesn't change the fact that you need to earn the FXP first, then wait for the bonusses and convert them. The regular exchange price is 670k FXP for 10k RP. So the more you want an RP-ship, the more you gotta regrind without the bonus and the more expensive the ships become. That is why I'd still prefer the Hayate. That at least is 2M FXP, no strings attached. Also then you can take the regrinds slower and actually play the ships rather then skipping the entire line. The only difference between farming for a ship or on that very same ship is that you got a skill less. Playwise it doesn't matter too much. Grinding CXP has led WG to nerf the value of CXP through the rework by raising the price for a fully-built commander by 60%. It's just not worth dumping a lot of ressources into this anymore. I'm not so sure about that. The Hayate is already a hybrid. I want as much gun power as possible on it to compete with all the good opponents. If you use it for a torpboat captain, you still play the Hayate as a torpboat with a long torp reload and subpar concealment for where it sits in the food chain. Don't get me wrong, you can do it, but I'd assume your impact on the battle is more limited and you'd have to accept worse results.

I don't think you need 21pt-captains. RP ships can be nice, but in terms of exchanging FXP to RP they are quite overpriced. Hayate for 2M is already very costly. RP-ships are equally expensive, but only if you wait for the 2x bonus. Then it takes you 9 months to get the RP. If you do it without them, e.g. Ohio costs the equivalent of 4M FXP. Hayate is not super impressive, but also not a bad ship. She just lacks gimmicks in a state of the game, where every ship gets dumped multiple gimmicks on it. It can also be a blessing in disguise. If you don't depend so much on gimmicks, you learn to play a DD solid and traditional. Hayate has some of the best guns in the game. Basically they are Shima guns, so they hit reliably, hard and in the Hayate version pretty fast. Just if you get it, don't think of it as a torpedo boat, think of it as a less angry, more cold-blooded version of the Harugumo.

Please no, I don't want to be the only non-Tirpitz in a battle where the greatest threat to my ship are the wide-spread torps launched from 5km behind me. Nah, just joking. No BB would be as close as 10km to its DD.

Warum ich drin bin? Zu meiner Belustigung und um beispielsweise kurz anzumerken, dass es dem Teamspiel sehr förderlich ist, wenn man als DD mehr als einen 4-Punkte-Kapitän auf Stufe 8 fährt: Die 4-Punkte-Fähigkeit Concealment Expert (in der deutschen Version "Tarnmeister"?) ist auf Stufe 8 überlebenswichtig. Ohne sie kann ein DD seinen Beitrag zum Teamplay - sehen ohne gesehen zu werden - nur schwer leisten. Schneller Munitionswechsel gilt dagegen auf einem DD, insbesondere einem Torpedoboot, als vernachlässigbar. Kleiner Tipp am Rande. Bin auch schon wieder weg.

Du willst dich also beschweren und hören dass es uns allen so geht, dass es nichts gibt, was du evtl. durch den eigenen Spielstil zur Änderung der Situation beitragen kannst und das die da drüben, die anderen, dafür verantwortlich sind, während wir hier auf der richtigen Seite, der Seite der Teamspieler stehen. Klingt für mich nach einem recht sinnlosen Thread, in dem wir uns gegenseitig in blinder Solidarität auf die Schultern klopfen sollen. Ich bin eher im anderen Lager, wo man den Fehler bei sich selber sucht. Aber sowas kommt in Heulthreads erfahrungsgemäß schlecht an. Also will ich euch nicht die Stimmung vermiesen. Nicht mein Ding hier. Ich bin raus.

Is that your personal tool or a public source? Can you please give me the link?