HMS_Kilinowski

The graphics included in the guide suggest, he is actually talking about what I would call depth rather than width. I mean if you don't boost, the depth is decreased but the flak clouds are distributed over a wider angle to the sides, right? You will not fly through multiple clouds but the chance of not being able to evade the flak is higher.

And in yours. You pinged him.

It would be too obvious and blatantly arrogant to say the tools are weak but you are great. The trick is to pretend things come easy to you, so when others say they are not that easy, they indirectly raise you instead of you raising yourself. It's like the world's no1 football player says: "I just kick the ball and for some reason it hits the goal."

You intend to ask someone who wants to tell everyone the class is OP, out of vanity.

Please bring in some authority on the subject cause we are too unenlightened to find out for ourselves. Erazor is living on planet "CVs are OP" cause it is his way of saying "I am OP" in a manner of false modesty.

We are going to derail this into another CV discussion, I can feel it. You are caught in the cliché of the almighty omnipresent CV, which keeps you from taking the next step in your evolution as a player. CVs change the rules of the game, that is right, but in a different way. They reduce the viability of flanking maneuvers, which reduces the tactical element of the game. That is a very negative impact. Apart from that, they are bound by certain rules. They can find you anywhere, but it may take them a disproportionate amount of time to get to you, which is up to you and your choice of positioning. They can attack you anywhere and anytime, but doing so they will not attack anybody else, which works in your favor. You are a BB, you got great AA and torpedo protection. Whoever attacks you instead of a DD or cruiser is wasting his potential, while your CV hopefully is not. If you take 20k damage instead of your DD getting killed that may already be victory on a silver platter. Yes, a CV coming too close to the cap is a nice present. You however subscribe to a flawed idea of "payback", of this manly duel player against player. There is no need for payback. It's about winning as a team. Your payback is not to kill the enemy CV, but to make him rank low on the enemy team. It will hurt him more than any costly payback. A gift is literally that CV that plays from the corner of the map. It takes a CV around 1 min to cover 20km of distance. Even then he is not striking, but he needs to fly around his prospective target for a while to get the right angle. Then he strikes, depending on the AA around you, he can make a second strike or not. If he gets a good drop he can do pretty much the damage you would get on a good salvo in Thunderer or Marco Polo or Yamato. Only they get a shot every 30s. A CV squadron you can see coming from 22-30s away, given he goes straight for you. A BB salvo takes 10s to reach you. A Smolensk or Minotaur, or Friesland or Kitakaze or Worcester, you may not even not even be aware of until their HE rains on you for a min straight, melting your HP far beyond what any BB could do. CVs on average are not killing more ships than other classes. They also do not do more damage. You can verify that statement on wows-numbers.com. Any nerf would likely hit 95% of the CV players hard and render them useless. Every player can make a personal choice to pick AA-skills and modules and thus nerf the effectiveness of CVs. The real problem is that CVs still are not in the game frequently enough to justify investing skills into it. That is the same issue we had with CV before the rework. They were not powerful by design, they were made powerful by 99% of all players skipping AA-builds for the valid reason that there was one CV in 10 battles. The balance is simple. Attacks are uniform and repetitive. The outcome is almost predetermined. If ships have strong AA, the CV will lose a lot of planes for one mediocre drop and not be able to set floodings or fires. It will run out of planes without accumulating noteable damage, a.k.a be underpowered. If the AA is weak compared to the tankiness of planes, a CV will make several drops with minor losses and never run out of planes. He will do so on every drop since all drops are basically the same trade-off of plane HP vs. AA-dpm. In between is a thin line of balance, that allows good CV players to strike without getting deplaned, while bad CVs get deplaned. This is where we are now. If CVs did more damage than BBs then one could argue they are overpowered. If they did less, they would be underpowered. Right now they are in the middle. Any story about getting rekt by a CV is just as anecdotal as the triple/quadruple citadel hits we see in compilations. Eating flak is less deliberate than you think. Flak clouds do not overlap, the more are generated by ships in the area, the tighter they are. If your BB is close to another BB or cruiser with good AA, your combined AA will spawn a tight set of flak clouds in a wide angle to the front of the squadron. Sub_Octavian has tried to explain that in a topic that got the attention of 2 forum pages. Ofc it was easier to whine about CVs than read that topic and understand it. Here is a nice graph I stole from there: Imagine you got a few AA ships spawning a tight pattern of clouds in an angle of ~67° to each side 500m - I'm guessing - ahead of you. Take into account the speed of the planes and the >1.5km turning circle of a squadron. It will be near to impossible to fly around those clouds. A handful of players can do it. Even if they fly around them, they will run a slalom around those clouds as they spawn every 2s ahead of their current course. The turning will make them stay in the long range AA for a longer time, subjecting them to more of these clouds and the ticking continuous AA-dpm. If there is one ship, that is rather easy, since there are only a few clouds. Even more important, the flak clouds will stop at 3.5km, allowing the CV to align his planes for a drop. If there are more planes, their flak clouds will still spawn in the squadrons path, during the attack run. The squadron will either take heavy losses or take evasive action, lose focus and make very widely spread drops that miss you completely or are easy to dodge. Needless to say, to understand that one would need to get beyond the "CVs are impossible to counter" mantra, to the question "how do you counter CVs?"

So many emojis for so little content. Everybody thinks he knows a lot, only to look back after a long period of learning and see that he didn't. In hindsight I am shocked how much about counterplay I had to learn from CV-players or find out myself. Almost nothing was available in any publicly available format. That makes sense. On one side we got CV-mains. Why would they care about the community knowing how to counter them? So they get worse results? They will tell their clan mates, but they got no incentive to tell the public. On the other side we got the people who religiously preach CVs are broken. They don't know counterplay, cause they don't play CV. They don't want counterplay, cause that would counter their point. They want to be right about CVs being broken, in the remote hope they might get nerfed hard or removed. Educating the public about counterplay would decrease CV effectiveness and thus make the desired nerf less likely. They also have no incentive in making counterplay widely known. The CCs depend on the sympathy of their followers and subscribers. Most of these followers hate CVs. Why would they do anything but preach to the choir? The general public may know a few tricks, but you need to play the class you play against to understand the mind you're working against, in order to counter it. That takes time and active observation, a.k.a. effort. Effort is hard, complaining is easy. Easy choice for most people. Take me. I see myself as a generalist, though I recently play mostly DDs. If CVs were removed that would make my life a lot easier. What incentive do I have to bullexcrement you?

Maybe you should play them and see for yourself. There is only so much one can learn about playing BB from playing BB. The more you know about all classes, the better you will become in each class. I don't want to derail this into another CV-topic. But since I started playing CV, my counterplay has significantly improved. Just yesterday I was trolling an Enterprise (55%) - notorious for it's precise rocket attacks - in my Shiratsuyu - not notorious for its great AA. Ofc I took a bit of damage, but all in all I kept his full attention on me for 5min without dying and gave my BBs and cruisers the distraction to get the upper hand, so we won. The issue with CVs is not so much their power, it is that there is not a single comprehensive tutorial or guide on counterplay. If a player knows e.g. how the different torp patterns look on different CVs, he would know the different ways of dodging them. But since only CV-players know them and the rest does not even show interest, but instead goes for the much easier to master "CV broken" mantra, nothing will change.

I think @Zuihou_Kai regularly challenges CVs to kill him in a DD. Personally I found it a bit difficult to kill Enterprise in a Fantasque and Graf Zeppelin was a bit tricky, too, mostly cause of the secondaries, but every other CV was not a challenge. Ofc it helps a lot if you understand the CVs way of thinking to counter him.

No, CVs ruin the intelligent concept of good positioning and flanking. But they also prevent such non-sense actions as a DD sneaking behind the enemy line instead of capping, you know Asashio players who go from 8-line to 2-line abandoning their flank and team mates cause there is ony more enemy BB on that side.

Oh yes. I remember when Ranked was such a respectable thing, I as a newb would think: "I can't play that mode. That is for the pros. I will just mess up and they will all blame me." Then at some point I found out it was just a mode where mediocre but above average persistent players would knock their heads against a wall, until the wall would break. That's when I started playing Ranked and at the same time stopped caring. The thing is it takes time to adapt your play. It takes time to move into position for plan A. Then your team turns to plan B and suddenly you are out of position and need to catch up. You can hardly adapt to a plan that is not clearly communicated, where not everybody knows what to do. So you try to adapt and reposition. While doing so, you take yourself out of the game and don't do damage, but the enemy team continues firing and wearing down your team. So while you are still trying to adapt to an ever changing situation, your first player makes a move that frankly is too stupid to still occur in high tiers, but it does. And suddenly it's an uphill fight. Now your first BB-player thinks, this is lost, I'll try to come top, and yoloes in for some ram. Ofc he yoloes into a crossfire and suddenly it's 5v7. A good player can shape a battle as long as the odds are even. But each team is a time bomb. You never know when the least skilled player will make his utterly suicidal move. The steam rolls we see a lot lately are not caused by good quality of play, but by bad quality. One would think that a good player has the more impact on the battle, the smaller the teams are. But it's quite the opposite. A dev strike due to a stupid move is almost an instant loss in a 3v3, while you can absolutely recover from that in 12v12. But since WG has started selling the high tier ships for money and decreased the XP requirements to rush through the low and mid-tiers, we see less experienced players. I had a player in Ranked on my team twice, who had played one (!) battle in his bought Hizen before taking it into Ranked. Well, he certainly had experience in other ships, or did he ... ? No, obviously not: Mind you, I am not shaming this player. But this game mode used to be Ranked, it was intended as a competitive mode for those among us, who do not play Clan Battles, but like to test their skills solo. There used to be standards and a certain respect for the game mode. And now we see this, players with egg shells on their heads initiating steam rolls as soon as they leave the spawn. Players who can buy themselves into Ranked with not just little experience and mediocre skills, but zero skill, zero experience. What has happened to this game mode and what is the incentive to play it apart from being baited with steel?

It is not my fault that I have elited almost every line in the game and now have to resort to CV-lines. I just want a few supercontainers. No seriously, the CVs should not annoy you. They are a learning experience for me and for you. I played with CV-players a lot and it has broadened my horizon. When I read people whining about CV, I see most of their complaints are due to them not understanding the class and not wanting to invest time to understand counterplay. In the 1v1 season I ran into at least 10 CVs in my Fantasque. I lost maybe 3 out of 10 battles, and those were all good CVs - remember skill-based MM. There is a lot of ways to troll a CV, just 90% of the players don't even know it.

Good choice to postpone it. Like with balancing, take your time and rather have a balancing event in a few months than a flawed one now. We got too much to do in this game anyway. Apart from that, I see the idea of axis vs. allies critical. Balancing issues is one thing. but it's more about having this separation. WoWs is an international game, where people of different nationalities play together. It's never about taking sides, but about a common interest in ship designs. Historically correct separations are okay for scenarios. In a PvP environment this hassome potential for toxicity. I would avoid that.

I catch your drift. You're right about the very best players, like the top 1%. For the rest I feel the "keep your star" mechanic still is a double-edged sword. I had so many phases in Ranked, where I tried out different things in the past. I don't think I'm a bad player. But certain classes depend on the environment created by their team. As a DD you cannot go into noman's land in a CV game, cause you will get pinpointed and focussed down without any cover. You need to stay in a reasonable distance to your teams. But if your team is camping, you cannot go off to cap. The OP complains about his DDs not capping the far caps and stuff like that. He however fails to see that a DD cannot just go there, run into an enemy DD plus cruiser and come out of that alive. If he dies, he gets reported by the OP for bad play, if he refuses to go i nthe first place, that's considered bad play again. Since as a DD you are depending so often on your team making a claim for a part of the map, creating certain no-fly-zones, driving back radars, you often cannot do what gives good XP, while e.g. a ship like the Thunderer can continuously keep firing. Playing DDs I often found myself depending on doing the right thing, so I would help my team win. If my team did not use the spotting provided for efficient target selection, the team would often be decimated and retreat, while the ship that survives the longest, being the least attractive target most in the back, dealt the most damage. Not like XP distinguished between relevant and irrelevant damage Yes, an HE-spamming Thunderer will get less XP for shooting bow-tanking BBs than it would shooting cruisers. But the HE-spamming Thunderer will do so over a long period of time, accumulating probably more HP-percentage-points than the Thunderer that waits for a cruiser to move into a prone position. I ended up just dismissing Ranked completely and using it as my personal training room for my CV-gitgudding. Funnily enough I end up keeping my star far too often, since I am the last ship alive and get to do another 20-30k when everybody else is long gone. So many low HP ships around, you just need to pick one off and top the board in a lost battle. This has nothing to do with skill. Rather the opposite. At the beginning the enemy teams sit in nice tight AA-blobs. At the end when they win, they get greeedy, they overextend to find and finish the remaining targets, where it is easiest to isolate one of them and do the damage I wish I could do earlier. The issue with Ranked lies in the game design. Every ship balanced around certain strengths and weaknesses. A Donskoi can radar a DD and do significant damage to it, but it is too squishy, so it needs BBs as a muscle behind it. A BB can do good damage, but it relies on spotting and zoning out DDs. A DD needs the muscle of BBs to move into key areas without being pinpointed by planes, exposed by radar or rushed by superior DD-hunters. Every class relies on team mates to provide an element of support. Maybe if you are the best of the best, you can play around that. For everybody else, you stand and fall with your team. There is no hard earned kill on a ship that cannot be nullified by one potato on your team throwing away his ship in an instant. It takes a good player a few minutes to kill an average player, it only takes a bad player seconds, to die to an average player. Your impact on a battle is hard earned, the opposite impact of a potato comes as easy as breathing.

Both ships, Lightning and Jutland are used in the same role. Their play style is very similar. There are a few minor differences that you should take into account: 1. Concealment: Jutland has 5.7km concealment. That is still pretty good, but not as good as Lightning. Together with the time to render a target, you are almost on par with most other DDs. There are excellent DDs on T9, so you are not a predator. You can keep up. Lightning had the edge in terms of concealment, it could detect stronger DDs and keep them spotted for your cruisers, while remaining dark itself. Jutland will get shot at. 2. Heal: The heal is weaker than you might think. It's only 10%. That will hardly save you. It will make a difference over time. So you want to play the Jutland more careful, making sure you can use all heals. Don't go for the all-or-nothing duels. Disengage, heal, re-engage. 3. 10km-torps: The 10km are more to keep up with the wide-spread radar menace. You can use the range to dip into radar range during cooldown, torp a tight manual spread of single-launched torps on nose-in targets at that range or with a slight buffer and get out. The reload is however not suited for the rhythm of a torp-boat play style. So you are a hybrid with the occasional capacity for dev strikes. Since the reload is long, don't waste the torps on guesses and unnecessary range shots. If you can get close, get as close as possible. Use the opportunity for single-fire to fine-tune your destructive power, like e.g. 4 torps of one launcher on a cruiser and the remaining torp plus the 5 from the other launcher on a BB. One might make a case for buffing torp reload on Lightning, since SI is not yet worth the points and the gun reload skills are no longer worth it. On the Jutland however these points should be invested into SI. One might invest one point into Liquidator to make sure those floodings keep coming. But the Jutland can utilize a lot of skills, depending on your preferences.

I got a good question for your Q&A: Why don't you just tell the community where you want to improve so maybe they can help you?

I'm not getting into this argument anymore. I am exhausted. If someone put you in front of a firing squad you'd still argue that they have the right to shoot you, just for the sake of discussion. You realize this is also your ships in port that are at stake. This is such good news, right? All you people who spent 60€+ to convert FXP just before Missouri got removed may rejoice, when WG finally gives you the finger and nerfs your credit multiplier, so you earn 500k credits, where you previously earned a million, cause we all know, people really spent 60€ cause they just wanted an Iowa with radar. And for the record, I don't think a supplier can reduce the quality of a sold good arbitrarily, unless it's an act of god. At least I do not find such a clause in the EULA. Any non-defined or ambiguous clause is usually interpreted in favor of the customer. Even if a clause is harmful to the customer, it may still be unlawful and thus nullified. Ofc if anybody is specialized in the consumer law of Cyprus, he may correct me. But you are not, right? I am not against balance. Also I don't think I would refrain from buying a new ship just because it is explicitly subjected to changes, if I find that product interesting. People are buying new products, because they want to be the first to own them. You still see old Volkswagen Beetles driving around, while post 2000 cars are falling apart. Still the streets are full of new cars, cause people like new designs and innovation. Balance is fine. I see no issue in WG restricting ships in competitive modes, as it just did with Georgia and Musashi, ofc not Benham or Missouri, cause they're underpowered. All I am saying is that a contract has to be binding. This is not about honor. It is about the certainty of a contract. If not having that, would mean "sacrificing profits" - as you put it -, then politically instable economies would be the most wealthy, cause they can disappropriate factory owners at will. Contrary to your theory, that does not help their economy. International corporations prefer certainty in their investments and just build their plants in more stable countries instead. Exactly that will happen. If Wargaming chooses to alter their products post-purchase, I will invest my money into an other game, where the quality of my purchase is guaranteed.

Winrate absolutely is the one parameter that playing skill boils down to. Other variables may also indicate quality of play, but in the long run, they will affect your winrate accordingly. Other parameters are blurry. The damage number does not distinguish between different forms of damage that are more or less permanent or to key units. While 500 dmg on a DD may seem minor compared to 30k damage on a BB, they can make all the difference. If that DD was on 500 hp and you killed it, that has a deep impact on the battle. That DD could run and hide and cap in the late game, or even torp you with impunity, while there is plenty of chances to bring down a BB. Ofc in terms of XP or damage numbers, a player who would do the 30k on a BB would likely get more XP and overall higher damage numbers. Call it the Thunderer's Fallacy. The key insight to remember is: It's a game, maybe like sports. You can dominate the field, play the most precise passes, be the guy who does funny tricks. At the end you gotta win the game. There are lots of "excuses" to explain why one is a good player tho the winrate is not noteworthy. It may well be that you or anybody have the potential to be a good, even outstanding player. Yet to get there, you need to channel your qualities into the right direction. A good example is a battle I had a few weeks ago, where a team mate and I capped the enemy base. At first it looked pretty safe, so the team mate left the base to find the enemy CV and bump up his damage and XP. But suddenly a few ships died and him leaving the base gave the enemy ships time to get into their base and block our capping attempt. What would have been a safe win was suddenly at stake, only by the greed of a still very good player who in the wrong moment put his personal gains over the one and only objective in this game, winning. Long story short: We still won. But there are very good players that take risks, cause they want to carry harder or be noted or come top of the team. I've seen Flamu lose battles cause he needed to show off rather than win, cause if you're a streamer you gotta come top of a losing team rather than bottom of a winning team. There are players that would argue they are better players than others cause they do more damage, get more kills, more achievements, while they got the same winrate. Well, they may even be right. The point remains that they could probably be even better than that, if they were able to channel that potential into more wins. As a good player you got to overcome vanity. You can win a lot, but you will always win more if you overcome your personal motives and put the main goal above anything else. This will show in your winrate. It's not just vanity that may hold you back, also fun can be a factor as this idea suggests: If a player allows fun to decide what he shoots at, there is a big risk of shooting irrelevant targets. While nobody wants to take fun out of the game - after all we all play for fun and being entertained - you should never fall prey to letting fun dictate your target priorities. It's definitely not fun trying to hit a Kleber at range. Shooting a Yoshino instead is tempting funwise. However if the Kleber is the key unit on your flank, the one that holds the enemy team together, then you must overcome your frustration and your need for self-assurance and just shoot that Kleber. The player who in that moment plays for fun, will be less likely to win. Another bit I want to comment here, hopefully not out of context: You should not see yourself in a competition with all the playerbase. That will make you all tight and wound up. You will try too hard and fail, cause you lose fun. That all is true. However, you should absolutely look at other players results and compare yourself, because that tells you a lot about how you play and how to improve. If I take myself as an example, I see that most players with my solo winrate do higher damage, have more XP. That does not leave me unhappy or wanting. It tells me that I play to win and lack aggression. I don't take fights that I don't need to take in order to win. I avoid risks. That is a good thing. Nevertheless it also means I cannot carry real hard. I win 2% more battles than more aggressive players, cause I avoid risks, but I lose 1% that they would win, cause I can't wreak havoc. It tells me that if I manage to combine both qualities, I might improve. To be able to see that, comparing myself to others is inevitable.

How about the third option: WG adheres to its principles and legal obligations and does not change ships that were advertised and sold with their strong properties. They however stop undermining their credibility by stopping to sell them in lootboxes for excessive amounts of money. They also make perfectly clear (in huge letters on top of every product description) that future releases can be nerfed if deemed necessary. There is a phenomenon called natural attrition: Since over time owners of OP-ships stop playing the game and are replaced by new players, the OP-ships in their ports are no longer used and thus not encountered in the game. If Wargaming was to stop selling those ships in lootboxes, 2-3 years from now these ships would practically have died out. The discussion about nerfing these ships would have become pointless. Economically it doesn't make a difference what they do anyway. If they start nerfing premium ships, the incentive to buy lootboxes is gone and they will no longer be able to sell them in the amount they used to. Why would I spend 200€ for lootboxes for the hope to get a good ship from a lottery, if that ship just gets nerfed making it as mediocre as any other one? So they might just as well remove them from the boxes and at least keep their reputation ... what's left of it. Or look at the prices in the premium store. Why is the selling price of the T-61 currently 42% higher than the price of the Anshan and 18% higher than that of the Gallant? Nominally they are the same, they all are T6-DD. What defines that higher value? Isn't it that the T-61 is so powerful that they announced to remove it. Isn't that the reason they charge more? Is a T-61 still worth 42% more than an Anshan if it is nerfed to a point, where it yields the same results? If not, then selling it at that higher price and changing its quality is deceptive advertising.

Slightest hints got a habit of announcing changes in policy. Two years ago the up to then untouched T9 got its first test balloon in the premium store. Now selling T9s is a frequent thing. Consequently you encounter players with no experience in T9 Ranked. This is not anecdotal, it happened to me repeatedly. What may be just an odd thing today is a first test to see if you can make it a regular thing. It's quite simple: People have a right to get what they pay for. If I go into a bar and order a large beer (500ml) for 3€, I expect a large beer. If then after I pay, the barkeeper gives me a 333ml glas of beer, explaining to me that the bar owner found 500ml was too much beer for 3€ and reduced the amount of beer, I will feel cheated. Not only this. Such an act violates laws that protect consumers against such fraud. Currently we imo are in an ambiguous state. Some would argue, that spending money on ingame ressources that you exchange for a product of a suggested value, already is binding to Wargaming and that they cannot change special ships. Even the fact that the possibility of changing the value of the product is mentioned, might still violate law, as it is intended to lure customers based on an untruthful presentation of the product. This is the rather strict interpretation. A looser interpretation would suggest that still all laws are respected as only new ships are indicated to be subject to nerf. The consumer is at least informed about that unstable value and can adapt his valuation accordingly. Old, already sold premium ships so far are still unchanged. Their buyers up to now still have what they paid for. If however that happened, if Wargaming was to change ships sold for money in the past, this would in my understanding violate consumer protection law. WG is well advised to tread softly. People who spent 4-digit amounts of money on the game, have the money and might actually sue them or file a complaint with consumer protection agencies. However this is not yet the case. An upside to consider is a parallel from labor market: If there is a one-sided restriction on changes, an agent will be very careful to change a thing in the opposite way, if he never can change it back. In the labor market, firms forcet heir workers into overtime rather than hiring new staf, if firing restrictions are high. How does that translate to WoWs, professor? Ships that can be nerfed, are more likely to receive a needed buff, since that buff can be taken back, if a new meta would indicate the ship has become too strong. We have lots of underwhelming premium ships atm, cause of this. There is however a downside to that, too. If you cannot nerf a ship, you are more careful to balance your product. Back in the old days game developers released bug-free games, cause there was no internet and no possibility to remove bugs, once the physical copy of a game was sold. The internet could have improved that, but it did the opposite. Now we see games drowning in bugs. WoWs is still full of them after years. Why, cause the possibility to change them at will has made solving them a low priority. Same goes for ships released. If you can buff and nerf them at will, why bother balancing them? Even worse. Sell the ships in an OP state so all the simpletons dump their money into the illusion of overpower. Once you milked them, nerf the ship into oblivion and release the next illusion of overpower. You then don't pay for a ship anymore but for the early-access to an OP ship that becomes a mediocre ship once available to the general public. Does this sound familiar? Does this bring back memories of early state Henri IV, Yueyang, Kremlin, Petropavlovsk, Venezia? How many people in your clan dumped insane amounts of FXP into skipping these lines, cause their respective T10-ships were deemed powerful? Maybe that is the reason why they were.

Didn't it occur to you to read the details before resetting a line? You would have read this: I think that is pretty clear. Furthermore it's intuitive the rewarded action has to be replaying a line you like to play and not removing a line you find expendable. The reward is there and it rewards what it says. To get it, you need to grind a line for the second time, not reset a line you played for the first time. At the end it doesn't make a huge difference. You will end up with what you started, the line as you had it before the reset and the Research Points.

The reason why they announce this on 1st of April is so they can wait and see how we react. If there's a manure storm, they'll say "April Fools". Science calls this Schroedinger's April Fools Joke. It is a joke and yet it isn't, depending on whether we take notice.

This is the essence of the whole announcement and whoever is discussing whether this nerf is needed is imo missing the big picture. It is perfectly fine to nerf a ship, if no money is involved in the process of acquiring it. If money is involved, changing the property of a product for the worse after advertising a higher quality and selling the ship on that basis is legally questionable. People spent money on steel, e.g. buying excess phases in dockyard events or buying the "Steel Monsters" campaign. People also spend money on coal, where that is possible. If their willingness to pay is based on giving them the impression to get superior ships, that is unfair competition. Probably they would not have bought that product, had they known, maybe they would have bought a different product even from a different game. This is all fine and good for future ships, now that this new policy has been applied for the first time. Old ships have been bought under the flawed impression of maintaining their quality. This is beyond envy for the few players that got a Missouri. These ships have been used heavily to advertise christmas lootboxes. The value of the boxes is generated by the superior qualities of these exemplary ships. If Wargaming was to nerf the credit multiplier on Missouri to current T9-levels - which it could, given it is a FXP ship and was not sold directly for money - wouldn't that immediately affect the value of this ship? Will people still spend money on lootboxes if that can happen now? If a nerf on Stalingrad radar was urgently needed, then in comparison a nerf on Kamikaze torp speed and reload would have needed to happen long before that. Radar or smoke duration on Belfast would have needed to happen before that, as would a range nerf on Kutuzow. Nothing of that happened. If we are to believe those that say the distinction between special ships and premium ship still stands, we need not worry. But what if they are wrong? How would all the people feel, who spent hundreds of Euros to get those ships, lured in by the promise of quality, if that quality was taken away?

My current build on Jutland is as follows: https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PBSD110&modules=11111&upgrades=133221&commander=PBW100&skills=4409442&ar=100&consumables=1111&pos=0 Jutland is a silver ship. As such, extensive usage in competitive modes is not expected. The current CB-season is the first T9 ever. So at T9 you likely don't have a 21-pointer available for a silver ship. This is one of my regrind-lines, which is why it has a 19-pointer on it. Usually I wouldn't bother with T9 silver ships. It is too much effort to train the captain to a full 21-pt-build. As such, the build is a workable compromise. I might switch Pyrotechnician to RPF if I had a 21-pointer, but for CB this build works quite well. The Jutland is there for utility. It provides spotting and hydro coverage. Especially in CB it is not tasked to aggressively chase DDs. It is designed to outspot the DDs that outgun it. It has the means to disengage (smoke), so your job is to survive on a thin line between overextending and inviting enemy DDs to come closer. The Jutland is especially good at taking shots of opportunity. So you can use a short smoke to help your team set a few fires. The Pyrotechnician skill helps, as you only got limited smoke duration. it also helps to set an occasional fire shooting from cover. A very worthy point is Liquidator, as it helps setting up enemies for follow-ups. The Jutland is excellent at torping in phases, sending a few on the nose of bow in targets and then follow-up with the rest of the torps, in case the target uses repair.

The last April fools joke on christmas 2019 worked quite well. We all fell for the "Puerto Rico for free" thing. Actually that was the big giveaway on this one. If you had announced an Iceberg-CV for an impossible grind and 15k doubs on top of that, somebody would ahve believed it. But settling for 10k dubs, that's like getting offered an IPhone in the streets of Napoli for 200€. They just don't make them like they used to anymore. They used to be much bigger and had a hard chocolate top. It was a man's candy bar and now it's a candy bar for guys in skinny-legged pants.