HMS_Kilinowski

Are you quoting the current weekly average or what? Indeed a full -0.82 percentage points higher than Petro, with a game breaking 52.09% average winrate. Clearly OP. No wonder Daring got voted out of KotS by a large margin.

Mach ruhig, das schadet nie. Am Anfang einer "Spielerkarriere" finde ich es wichtig, sowas wie den eigenen natürlichen Spielstil zu finden. Jeder Mensch geht an ein Spiel mit einer bestimmten Grundidee heran. Die einen sind aggressiv, andere sind defensiv, wieder andere gehen es wie ein Puzzle an und suchen, wo man den Gegner aushebeln kann etc.. Zu jedem dieser Stile korrespondiert ein Forschungsbaum. Man tut sich leicht in diesem Baum erfolgreich zu sein. Man wird kreativ und viele Dinge fallen einem von alleine ein. In einem Schiff, dass dem natürlich Spielstil zuwiderläuft, arbeitet man quasi gegen die eigenen Instinkte. Das muss in die Hose gehen. Natürlich versuchen wir alle mit der Zeit vielseitig zu werden und Stile zu meistern, die zunächst so gar nicht unserem Naturell entsprechen. Es hilft aber ungemein, wenn man sich selbst erst mal gefunden hat. Dann kann man sich in diesem Forschungsbaum austoben, hat Spaß und lernt viele Lektionen aus einer angenehmen Perspektive. Die Erfahrungen, die man dabei macht - man spielt ja gegen andere Schiffe mit anderen Stärken und Stilen - helfen einem dann später, diese anderen Schiffe korrekt einzuordnen und zu verstehen. Aber erst mal muss man sich am eigenen Stil satt spielen.

Ach so, ja danke. Worauf ich mit meiner relativ wertneutralen Aufzählung hinaus wollte, war, dass Karma nicht aussagekräftig ist. Es gibt zu viele falsche Gründe für Reports und teils auch für Lob. Ein Schlüsselerlebnis war für mich vor drei Tagen. Da bin ich mit meinen Clan-Jungs in der Division gefahren und über beide Teams waren drei Dreier-Divisionen des gleichen Clans verteilt, also neun Spieler mit dem gleichen Clan-Tag. Am Ende der Runde hat meine Division die Top3 des Gewinner-Teams belegt, alles sauber und fair, kein böses Wort im Chat. Im Hafen dann wurde jeder von uns fünf mal reportet, 15 Reports insgesamt. Wie soll ich da Karma noch ernst nehmen? Es ist ein völlig negatives Konzept, das von Selbstsucht der Spielerschaft getrieben wird. Auf jedes Kompliment kommen 10 Komplimente, die aus Egozentrik nicht gegeben wurden, weil die Spieler nicht über den Tellerrand schauen können und positive Leistung nicht gleich bewerten wie negative Leistung. In jedem Gefecht werden drei Spieler reportet und ein halber Spieler gelobt. Ich bin mir sicher, dass am Ende jedes Tages 90% der Spieler Lob übrig haben, aber nur 10% übrige Reporte. Ein guter Indikator dafür ist diese tolle neue Karma-Seite. Ich will sie hier gar nicht nennen, aber 5 Sekunden in Google und ihr habt sie gefunden, also auch egal: [edit: Hab den Link entfernt, da die Seite möglicherweise gegen die Forenregeln verstößt] Das ist eine Seite, auf der Spieler ihre Mitspieler bewerten können, über das Karma-System hinaus. Sie ist jetzt auch in den WoWs-Monitor integriert. Ich weiß das, weil ich heute zum ersten Mal einen Spieler mit negativem Karma angezeigt bekommen habe. Der Spieler hat also 0 Karma im Spiel und dann hat sich auf dieser Seite ein Spieler negativ geäußert und in Summe hat er dann im Monitor -1. Also schau ich, wo das herkommt und finde diese Seite. Und große Überraschung: 3/4 der Bewertungen sind negativ. Das ist doch affig. Was brauchen wir jetzt zum total nutzlosen Karma-System auch noch eine Seite, wo sich frustrierte Spieler dann die Zeit nehmen Rezensionen über Spieler zu schreiben? Bitte gerne, dann schreibt doch einen 5-Zeiler über jeden Spieler, der nicht pusht oder früh gestorben ist, oder sein Radar nicht gezündet hat oder sich im Chat aufgeregt hat. Da werdet ihr aber in diesem Leben nicht mehr fertig. Da könnt ihr dann nach jedem Gefecht 8 negative Bewertungen schreiben, weil jeder irgendeinen Fehler macht und gnädig den Spieler loben, der halt laut Ranking am besten war, weil selber gesehen hat man's ja nicht, braucht man ein Scoreboard, das einem sagt, wen man loben soll. Ist doch verlorene Lebenszeit.

From what we can excerpt from the CC scene and the players I know, WoWs players are 95% male and range from ages of youth to browsing brochures for coffins. They are mostly middle aged, 30-50. Their social background varies a lot. I doubt the game sees a lot of millionaires, but the pockets are surprisingly filled with moneys ready to be spent on the game. I guess many people are at least married, some have children, some even grandchildren. A lot of them seem to have pets. It seems that cats dominate, although if there is one pet that manages to jump onto your keyboard demanding attention, it is cats, so the observation may be quite skewed. I know, many people think the player base has an addiction to inhaling glue. If you watch their streams, it however appears they just don't put any thoughts into their play and treat things happening in the game as random. Their main motivation is a large collection of ships, so gaining a lot of XP to unlock them and thriving to win are very secondary goals in their game experience.

Which brings me to another issue. Changes are not well-documented anymore. A lot of that, sorry to say, is to blame on Wargaming. The official Wiki is maintained by the community, not Wargaming. Recommendations and reviews about ships were made by LittleWhiteMouse and CC's youtube videos. Then Wargaming changes a thing and renders a good portion of that information outdated at best, useless at worst. Where do these CCs take the motivation from to keep information up-to-date? From subscriptions and patreons. They are driven to offer new content on the ever new ships, just to keep up with the fast pace this game spits out new content and events. Meanwhile solid ressources of information disappear. When I was a newb, Shipcomrade was vital for helping me with my ship builds. Now it's gone. Not only gone, but the vote on builds were outdated and seldom reflected the requirements of the current meta. Same is still true for reviews. You can read that some ships require IFHE, while the changes have made it optional for many ships. But CCs cannot update their videos every time WG makes a change that affects a part of how a ship works. One change may not affect that much. But the sum of changes. Just think about how the CV rework, the IFHE-rework, the skill rework have changed the builds and playstyle of certain ships. I'm just making one point rather with many words rather than a few, for the people that don't outright get it. But imagine how the game looks to a new player. He knows squat. He's looking for info. He may even find it. But nobody even tells him that all he reads is meaningless. That things have changed. Even beyond what offical changes have happened. PT may have warned you about torpedoes 3 years ago. Today the player base has adapted and PT is not a give-away anymore. I remember the forum having these discussions about going A+B or B+C being smart tactical choices, a thing I today would label as totally outdated and a losing move. It may have worked back in the old days, when we e.g. had isolated caps on Islands of Ice. This flawed advice is still in the heads of many players. So in general the point is that tutorials, reviews and guides are outdated without being explicitly labelled as such and newbs are left alone with a minefield of information that may instruct them to do things that are subpar. The people who made the effort of creating that content partially retreated of the game or their CC duty out of frustration, cause Wargaming took a step to the right, found out this was the wrong step and countered that by taking a step forward instead of the simple solution of taking a step left to actually get back to where it was in the first place. To illustrate that, take the example of Dead-Eye. It incentivizes bad play. WGs answer is to replace it with Swift in Silence, a skill that does not address bad positioning but is pretty pointless in a meta that features CVs.

I got two things to say. One might be a bit of criticism, not really against your point, more an attempt to level it out a bit. People have been complaining for years. They almost complain in every battle. The complain in ingame chat, in the forum, everywhere. And when you look at them, so many are just as bad as the people they are complaining about. Not saying this is true for everybody. Everybody makes a choice. I have been criticised for complaining about good players joining a lemmingtrain, cause there is a mentality in very good players that says "this is lost anyway, might as well try to farm as much as I can while abusing those lemmings as meatshields" rather than "I go to the abandoned side and try to stall them, giving my team a higher chance of maybe still winning this, even if it means dying and being rather bottom of the team." YOU are the meta. When everyone whined about Dead-Eye, I didn't even notice it, cause I was playing as always, just taking that extra bit of accuracy as given, whenever the distance would trigger it. Others built an ideology around Dead-Eye. The other thing imo worth mentioning is that there is nothing wrong with a temporary change of the meta. I find changes in the meta harmful, if they change player behavior irreversibly. People react to a change, but theydon't change back to the old behavior, even if the reason to change in the first place has been removed. I fear we will see that with e.g. Dead-Eye. Players reacted to it by playing further back. Will they adapt to Dead-Eye being removed and move their ships closer again? Or will it take an extra incentive to do so? Swift in Silence is not a skill that can do that.

Karma ist reiner Schwachsinn. In der Summe mit den Stats gibt es einen Hinweis darauf, welcher Spielertyp jemand ist. Als Indikator ist es ansonsten ungeeignet, da die Spielerschaft das System aus vielen irrationalen Gründen missbraucht. Spieler werden reportet u.a. a) aus Neid oder Verbitterung, weil sie den Reportenden ausgespielt haben. b) weil sie CV spielen und der Reportende zu träge oder dekadent ist, dies direkt den Verantwortlichen, Wargaming, spüren zu lassen. c) weil sie etwas nicht gemacht haben, was nur dem Reportenden genutzt hätte, für den Sieg oder das Ergebnis des Reporteten aber kontraproduktiv gewesen wäre d) weil sie zu gut sind und damit aus Sicht des Reportenden das Recht verwirkt haben, das Spiel zu spielen. e) weil sie Freunde und Bekannte haben und lieber in Gesellschaft, also Division fahren, als alleine f) weil sie auf unterschiedlichem Niveau die Taktik kritisiert haben. Je mehr Sachlichkeit und Substanz, desto wahtscheinlicher tut es weh, desto wahrscheinlicher der Report Und natürlich gibt's nebenbei noch die legitimen Gründe, g) dass ein Spieler grob verletzend ist h) dass ein Spieler trollt oder afk ist i) dass jemand für Teamschaden verantwortlich ist. Für Komplimente gibt es auch mehrere missbräuchliche Gründe, nämlich a) dass man jemand "aus Funk und Fernsehen" kennt. Das betrifft Streamer, WG-Mitarbeiter, Foren-Eingeborene und Mods. Die werden massiv gelobt, hauptsächlich weil der Lobende glaubt, wenn er jemand kennt, der bekannt ist, macht ihn das auch bekannt und wichtig. Wenn mir ein Kanal/Post gefällt, kann ich es dort ausdrücken, das Spiel ist der falsche Ort. b) dass man sich mit Clan-Mitgliedern oder Bekannten in Gefechte synchronisiert und dann aus Prinzip lobt, weil jeder so schlecht ist, dass sie ansonsten in Grund und Boden reportet werden. Man sieht das sehr gut, wenn ein Spieler 47% WR aber 200 Karma hat. Von gutem Spiel kommt das nicht. c) dass jemand unsinnige Aktionen macht, die als freundlich gesehen werden, wie etwa ein BB einzunebeln, dass man bekannterweise immernoch auf relevante Distanzen sehen kann. d) dass jemandem alle Reports ausgegangen sind und er jetzt zynischer Weise die schlechtesten Spieler lobt, weil sie wissen, dass das Lob nicht ernst gemeint sein kann und versteckte Kritik ist. Auch hier gibt es natürlich legitime Gründe, die gelegentlich Anwendung finden: e) Der Spieler hat gut gespielt und zum Sieg beigetragen. Ob man gewonnen hat, ist dafür irrelevant, es zählt nur der persönliche Einsatz f) Jemand teilt relevante Informationen, die dazu beitragen, dass das Team gewinnt. g) Jemand wird zu Unrecht von anderen reportet. In dem Fall nutze ich mein Lob als Solidaritätsbekundung. h) Ein schlechter Spieler spielt ungewöhnlich gut. Ein Kompliment kann ein Zeichen setzen, dass er auf dem richtigen Weg ist.

Der Typ den du hier zitierst, ist zwischenzeitlich wahrscheinlich schon verstorben. Das gewährt wieder mal tiefe Einblicke in die intellektuellen Kapazitäten der Spielerschaft.

Agreed. But is that a point in favor of the ship? You could also convert 100k eliteXP to FXP for 4k doubloons, cause you get it for free. You could buy a T9 perma camo at full price. Making one choice, you forfeit other choices. That is what opportunity cost is about. So, at least for me, it's not a simple matter of "do I have the doubloons" and if so I'll get the ZF-6, no matter how good or bad it is. Doubloons are a currency that buys a range of products in the game. I would only spend it on a dockyard ship, if that ship was the worth it, meaning it is superior to anything I can buy now or in the near future.

The ZF-6 looks like a puzzle where the pieces don't fit together. It got some BB-spamming qualities with 32mm pen, but it is too slow for open-water gunboating. It got a smoke to hide, but the duration is too short and the lack of hydro turns it into Schroedinger's Death Trap. It got rather good concealment, but the dpm is too low to commit to duels against other gunboats. The torps hit hard, but the range is insufficient in a tier with lots of 12km radars. and enemy DDs between you and the target. One might argue the ZF-6 is just an odd mix that can work, if you know how and when to switch beteen different play styles. But it sits at T9, where you got excellent alternative choices. If I had the ZF-6 in port, I would still ask myself, why I should play it. The argument even goes beyond my choice. How do I justify taking a ZF-6 at the prospect of running into whatever the enemy picked: ZF-6 vs Kitakaze: Maybe I land one of my fast torps, if not the Kitakaze outguns me heavily. ZF-6 vs Jutland: First it looks good, cause I hit the booster. Then the Jutland pops smoke, a heal and hydro. The next time I see it, it's healthier than me and I lose. Z-F vs Mogador: He got more dpm plus dmg-saturation. I lose. ZF-5 vs Fletcher: Fletcher outtrades me. ZF6 vs Yugumo: I win. ZF-6 vs Z-44: I win. ZF-6 vs Benham: I win, unless I catch one of the many tops. ZF-6 vs Z-46: Even fight. Then one of us smokes up and I get hydroed and shot to bits. ZF-6 vs Black: He smokes and radars. I die. End of story. ZF-5 vs Neustrashimy: I outtrade him with he booster. Then he smokes. Next time I see him, he got double my hp and kills me cause my booster is on cooldown. ZF-6 vs Friesland: I outspot him and can keep him lit, hoping my team will shoot him down into an opponent I can take on. If I get spotted, the camera shakes as I get dakka-dakkaed into oblivion. ZF-6 vs Östergötland: He outguns me, but I got the smoke. Might go either way. ZF-6 vs Udaloi: Udaloi will get outgunned, but hit me with every shot. Could go either way, depending on the heal ZF-6 vs Tashkent: similar to Udaloi ZF-6 vs Chung-Mu: The longer it takes, the more I will get outtraded. Hope it's not a radar Chung-Mu. Forgot anything? Ah, yes: ZF-6 vs Paolo Emilio: If I get rushed and kite away, my torps will catch him faster. I win. This is all just guesses. There is a thousand things that can happen. But generally, the competition in T9 is hard. Why should I pay 5000 doubloons for a ZF-6, if I can just put a perma camo on one of several good silver ships or get a Friesland, Neustrashimy or Yolo Emilio? I don't see the unique selling point. But as usual, I will wait for the stats after 10k battles and see if I was wrong. I think what he meant is a concept called "opportunity cost". You will likely spend those doubloons on something, if not for the ZF-6 then maybe on another product. Then you either can't get this other product or you have to spend real money to get the doubloons that you are now holding. Every ressource, be it money or something else has a cost. You spent money or time on gathering it, you could have spent that same money or time on something that gives you greater value. Ofc, if you are positive you never again buy anything in this game, then you are right. Then the doubloons you now hold are worthless to you and spending it on the ZF-6 makes the ZF-6 a freebie.

In den Videos ist das Muster ähnlich den deutschen AP-Raketen eine sehr flache Ellipse. Sieht so aus als sei in der Mitte eine Lücke. Die Bomben kommen also fast wie ein ultra-schneller Fächer von vier Torpedos rein. Demnach wäre meine Anfangstaktik, wie bei Torps, etwa 10° zu den Bomben zu fahren, um dann reinzudrehen und sie möglichst mittig zu nehmen.

The Nelson is a very nice ship. She has the RN zombie heal, very good HE against DDs and good AP for anything exposed. Her downsides are the 25mm bow, with a rather wide citadel behind it. The Nelson must be angled and should never sit entirely stationary to throw off precise hits. Her AA is weak, which works against T6-CVs but makes you a prime target for T8 CVs. So stay close to another ship with good AA. The Nelson plays similar to the tech-tree ships, so you can use your highest trained BB-captain on her and all the skills will synergize perfectly.

Du bist ja lustig. Zum einen ist Wargaming auf Zypern ansässig. Du rufst also keine deutsche Domain eines deutschen Unternehmens auf. Dann gilt nicht deutsches Recht, sondern EU-Recht. Zum anderen müssen Unternehmen sicher nicht aktiv ihre Identität kommunizieren, also jedem einzelnen Verbraucher auf Anfrage Auskunft geben. Sie müssen eben in einem Impressum Angaben zum Eigentümer machen.

I find the mass of coal ships available lately excessive. We haven't seen new FreeXP ships for almost a year. Either those FXP-ships were removed (Smaland) or people refuse to spend 2M FXP on them (Hayate). Yet no alternative is given for such a long time. At the same time even the most active players are probably 1M coal short of buying all the coal ships and captains in the armory. Does Wargaming intend to move away from releasing new FXP-ships in the future? I would like to know, so I can maybe invest my FXP into something useful, if that is the case. So some people unlocked those upgrades with FXP and now they will be converted to elite XP on that ship. Do they stay on the ship if one is to regrind the line? Rhetoric question, but hopefully you get the point. So one can convert the eliteXP one gets to FXP for doubloons, reinvest that into an upgrade of a new line, and maybe that upgrade gets removed in the future, just as the one skipped using FXP is removed now, and one again gets eliteXP. Sounds to me like an endless cycle with a lot of doubloons magically vanishing.

Well, he did shoot down a plane. Also never forget: 40% of the player base are worse than an actually blind woman.

I find it cheap to immediately downvote a topic like this. The OP has put some thought into it and made a nice and comprehensive suggestion. Compared to the manure we see regularly on this forum, this is paradigmatic. The least he can expect is a serious discussion and some profound feedback. Shame on you Big Hunts. I am missing a direct link to victory. More than anything, an action should promote the victory of the team as the prime objective. If a player goes off to rescue survivors, while not supporting the cap control or fighting, that weakens the team and supports the already existing fallacy that this game is not about winning. The simplest link would be that rescuing survivors gives victory points. A team already loses points if a ship is destroyed. This action is rewarded double as the enemy team gains points. Rescuing survivors could reduce the points loss for a sinking ship. Generally the idea is not the worst I've ever seen. I am not sure if it overburdens our community of rather simple people.

The Siegfried is a nice ship. I got her after the rework and still have fun in it. She has only 6 guns and a low dpm, but those few guns hit where you aim them. Her dispersion is almost as good as Stalingrad. Worse sigma, but tight dispersion. She suffers a little from the cruiser specific captain skill tree. One would ahve thought that having 24 cruiser-specific skills would improve their utility. But instead some important skills were removed, like FP for BCs or smoke expert for the smoke cruisers. It's funny how we again arrived at boring standard builds, cause the alternatives are more, but still not viable. Also Siegfried is not at home in the current meta. There are too many BBs in the queue. A BC does not add to the mix, as teams do not need more big guns but utility. Maybe when Dead-Eye is gone, BB players will find cruisers more interesting again, making room for the Siegfried.

Even if the dispersion would be disproportionally higher than it would be in terms of a simple intercept theorem, it is still smaller in absolute terms. Also don't forget the nerf is beneficial to the Thunderer as a whole. It forces Thunderer players to play closer to the caps. That itself is a good thing that will help win games that would be lost otherwise. I can remember so many battles that were lost, because there was no pressure on the caps, that another BB could provide. For me it's a nerf cause I know where to sit in my Thunderer and if I shoot at max range I gotta have a good reason. But for most Thunderers I saw this nerf is a buf that will help them do better in this ship.

You are impatient. You want the higher tier ships in way shorter time than is healthy. Whatever is waiting up there is not worth the haste. As was correctly noted by @Panocek, the higher tiers become increasingly challenging. You will get nice and shiny tools, but your opponents get the same tools and use them better. They will kill you in 4 out of 5 games and you will only just scratch them, maybe kill 1 in 5 games. Is that satisfying? I don't think so. Take it way slower. Allow your brain and reflexes to adapt to the increasing difficulty or you will just be everybodys punching bag. Ship-line-wise I would go for the New Orleans as a long term goal. It leads to the USN radar cruisers, which, if played right, have a lot of impact on a battle. Also there are containers in the armory for the 2nd (?) anniversary collection. They give you a perma camo for the New Orleans, among others.

Before asking why that is, one should ask if that is true at all, no? If I look e.g. at the Hakuryu, winrates go as high as 88%: https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4179605200,Hakuryu/?order=win_rate__desc#leaderboard That is pretty high. Surely it indicates that Haku is overpowered. Oh wait, let's look at some surface ship for comparison, say Montana: https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4277090288,Montana/?order=win_rate__desc#leaderboard Montana must be overpowered, since winrates also go as high as 87.5%. So what does that mean? Are CV players just antisocial loners and that equally high winrate is driven more by solo play than on the Montana? Or to look at it from another perspective. Even if we would accept the hypothesis that CVs cap out far higher than surface ships, just for the sake of argument, that also implies CVs bottom out far below surface ships. Applying the same logic, wouldn't that mean that CVs are underpowered? Or is a skill gap now equivalent to being overpowered? All I can see is that some players are not making the most out of that class, which enables the players that specialize, to have that impact. Who is to say that impact is driven by the quality of the ship class and not by the quality of the good CV-players or the bad quality of his matched CV-opponent or by us who skip all the AA skills and generate this environment of free lunch for CVs?

I see, so you're a philanthropist and I misjudged you. There certainly are a couple of fighters in the mix. When you rush the CV, it usually automatically spawns them. The thing is, as a bottom tier cruiser I am a Richthofens prime prey. He got the rocket planes especially for me, he got the torps. In a german cruiser even the bombs should hit hard, if you drop them late. But that also works against the CV. Being his prey means you can bait him, which is what I did. If you, as someone earlier wrote, have to decide between taking a full spread of torps or giving broadside to enemy ships, you made a big mistake 30-60s ago. Most people, as one can see in replays, start thinking about incoming planes when they are already attacking. Hell, some even start thinking about dodging when the torps are already in the water. As with everything in WoWs, you should start thinking about incoming planes a minute in advance. Against anything but the best CVs, you determine the direction from which you will be attacked, by indicating a course. Most CVs are selfish. They don't bother much about how their team mates could citadel you, if it requires them to take a long detour. In almost every CV game you can even see a CV involuntarily saving an enemy from DD-torps by making him turn away from the torps. CVs will try to get a good angle and once they are in your AA they are commited. It's not hard to align that attack direction roughly with the direction of the enemy team and dodge the attack without exposing your ship to incoming fire. All it takes is watching the minimap, reading your opponent and planning ahead.

If there is no counterplay, how come I can do this to a Richthofen in a Prinz Eugen without DefAA and without any AA skills or modules? Maybe getting some glasses would help you more.

It's a bit like natural selection. You get to grief the right people for the right reasons. If people can't get their counterplay straight in the 3rd Year of the CV, they don't deserve better. The simple truth is: If CVs were as OP as people say, they all would play them, just like they jump at everything OP they can get their hands on. The queue would be full of CVs. But with CVs they want us to believe suddenly they developed a sense of sportsmanship and that is why they don't play them. It's pretty easy to see through that. CVs are not OP, the people not playing them are just too lazy or mediocre to learn them and want to cover that up by pretending to have standards. Inb4: A few people too limited in their intellectual capacity to write their opinion in a grammatically correct sentence will downvote this. Appreciated.

It gets the point across. Thank you. On a different note, I see you make a pretty steep 45° turn during your drop, while the reticule still decreases. How do you do that?

Meaning what exactly? That the angle where flak is spawning is more narrow, since the flak is spread over a deeper zone? But your turning circle is also increased as you go faster. Doesn't that in return make it harder to get out of that flak? Or do you slow down to make a tighter turn after baiting the flak to spawn in a fast pattern? Is there a sweet spot?