HMS_Kilinowski

Sorry, no, the players are still beyond basic levels of tactical thinking. This is unlikely to change any time soon, since the typical topics in the forum have been on whining about mechanics rather than comprehending them. This game is like shooting fish in a barrel ... filled with glue.

You left because you were unwilling or unable to cope with new mechanics. Since some time has passed, it is reasonable to assume you may have forgot a few more things, thus being even less able to cope with new mechanics. So unless you simply were unwilling back then and are willing now, there is really no point coming back.

But why rewards? If a player's level is T4, what do they need the daily rewards or dockyard for? The dockyard gives a T8 or T9 ship. If a player is on the T4-level, they don't need a T8 ship. The daily rewards give coal, which is mostly for getting high tier ships, again what a fun player doesn't need, and signals, boosters or ressources, none of which is necessary at lower tiers. A player correctly restricting themselves to low tiers, will find a perfect F2P economy. They are not punished playing low tiers. They are just not compensated for the higher expenses and requirements of signals, boosters and training of high tiers, which they don't need in the first place.

Why would you need the mission achievements? If T1-5 is a player's level, he doesn't need to do missions to get high tier ships that are beyond their abilities. They don't need signals, cause they only use them on tiers, where their subpar results are a waste if signals and boosters. That's the beauty of low tier. A player can have an impact without needing highly trained commanders, signals and boosters. It's impossible to lose credits on low tiers. If, in a player's mind, the game ends at T5, then T5 is the endgame, with a very generous economy. There is literally no need to punish oneself playing beyond one's skill level and yet everybody rushes up there like there was a big reward waiting at the end.

Yes, cause enemy stays the same, while I get better ship.

What breaks the game is not really WG granting freedoms, but the inability of players to self-select. Years ago I registered for an advanced course for MS Excel. The course after day one turned into a beginner's course on Excel, since it turned out that most participants didn't even have basic knowledge of the program but their vanitiy kept them from admitting that and correctly self-select into the also available parallel beginner's course. WoWs likewise would work perfectly, if players correctly selected themselves into the tiers that reflect their level of skill. I for example would naturally not play T10, cause I feel my skill is ~T8-T9. If every player managed to control their vanity and would likewise self-select accordingly, then tiers, as intended, would reflect skill and experience and every tier would be frequented by its typical range of skilled players. Also T1-5 then would not be dead. But apparently everybody thinks there is some mysterious fulfilment waiting at T10/T11.

Die Sturdy gefällt mir von allen bisherigen T8-subs am wenigsten. Sie ist zu langsam um dem Kampfgeschehen zu folgen. Dadurch fängt sie sich auch öfter Wasserbomben ein, weil sie nach dem Pingen nicht recht vom Fleck kommt. Zweiter Kritikpunkt sind die nach vorne ausgerichteten Torps. Man ist nunmal annähernd die Hälfte der Gefechte auf der defensiven Flanke. Da hilft es wenig, wenn man auf der schnarchend langsamen Flucht einen einzelnen Torpedo abfeuern kann. Das reicht noch nicht mal um einen beschädigten DD zu treffen. Anders als bei der Salmon, rentiert es sich nicht, das Schiff für die Nutzung des hinteren Torpedos zu manövrieren. Man nutzt quasi nur die vorderen Torpedos. Allerdings ist die 5° Streuung der Sturdy echt übel, wenn man DDs shotgunnen muss. Mein Eindruck war, dass man selbst mit 4 Salmon-Torps und 3° Streuung mehr effektiven Schaden macht, als mit 6 Sturdy-Torpedos. Und dann kommt noch die Geschwindigkeit dazu. 75 Knoten erscheinen flott. Ein BB auf 9km wird trotzdem aus dem Wirkungsbereich heraus fahren, bevor die Torps die 11km Distanz überbrückt haben. Den Salmon-Torpedos weicht man indes wesentlich schwerer aus und das U-190 hat wenigstens 12,5 km Reichweite. Ich denke das ist der Genickbruch für das Sturdy, die Torpedogeschwindigkeit. Bei 75 Knoten liegt der Vorhaltepunkt deutlich weiter vorne als beispielsweise bei den 86 Knoten bei der Salmon. Dadurch muss man zum einen mehr pingen, um auf Kurskorrekturen zu reagieren. Zum anderen pingt man früher und warnt damit das Ziel auch früher. Kombiniert man all das, dann kann jedes Schiff sich in eine Position bringen, wo das Homing aussetzt und die Torpedos weit vor dem Ziel vorbei gehen. Der Tarnwert ist okay, aber meist unbrauchbar, weil das U-190 sehr beliebt ist und man zumeist auf dieses als Gegner trifft. Das deckt die Sturdy einseitig auf, startet das "U-Radar" und die ASW-Flugzeuge der BBs dahinter erledigen den Rest. Kaum Chance da noch lebend raus zu kommen. Die längere Tauchzeit ist nur was für Noobs, weil gute Spieler eher die flotte Wiederaufladung der Batterie brauchen und die ist auf der Sturdy die bislang langsamste. Daher ist meine Rangliste: 1. U-190 2. Salmon dann laaange nix und schließlich 3.Sturdy

Initially I wanted to write something in this topic, but given the Spanish Inquisition already going on, I won't bother.

Usually 2 out of 3 disconnects are just the WoWs-servers, since I keep having normal conversations on discord. It feels like WG lately has initiated some energy-saving measures that disconnect you more at night to save server capacitiy. I'm pretty sure you may find the moderation here to be just as tyrannical if you keep using profanities.

Man, you seriously need to familiarize with the basic web-sites for this game. E.g.: https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PGSC108&modules=11111&upgrades=000000&commander=PCW001&consumables=111&pos=0 https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PGSC109&modules=11111&upgrades=000000&commander=PCW001&consumables=1111&pos=0 Besides the obvious differences in numbers, that you can check on your own, the Hipper: - is T8. In T8 she may encounter more BBs with 380mm caliber or less, which means she can bow tank with her 27mm of armor. - has 6 torpedoes per side. This gives her more tactical flexibility in short range engagements. - has an ABXY gun layout. - Take all that together, the Hipper can work on the offense, especially in ambushes or mid range rushes on BBs with 380mm. The Roon: - is T9. Her 27mm still tank 380mm shells, but BBs with such small caliber are less common within its MM range. - has 4 torps per side, which often isn't enough to kill a BB. - has an AXY gun layout, so the firepower is more on the rear of the ship. This changes the situation a lot towards defending. - has a heal and a spotter plane. - Take all that, the Roon is a cruiser better suited for kiting. With 2/3 of her guns on the stern of the ship, she better faces away from a pushing enemy and uses her excellent HE-penetration to melt the well-armored BBs, unless ofc other ships are a priority. She is not that good for ambushes, since she lacks the forward oriented firepower and dev-striking wall of torps. Some players will even mount the range mod, tho the spotter plane is sufficient and the reloaf mod is the better choice. I find especially the one torpedo launcher per side hard to work with. The entire line has two launchers per side. I often use the first salvo to bait a target into a position to hit the second spread. On Roon my reflexes fail me since I bait and then have nothing left to actually torp the target. So I'm not a big fan of the Roon. I like the Hipper better, since the 27mm armor and 51mm HE-penetration make it rather useful when bottom-tier.

The game modes we discussed were along the lines of: - 12 BBs vs. 1 Paolo Emilio. Only ramming allowed. - 12 low tier DDs vs. one high tier cruiser. - 12 vs. 12 Shimas only, torps only. Nobody's allowed to cross the center quadrants. So it's all about weird stuff remote from the usual play, memeish and also about balancing out asymmetry. inb4 "In update xx.x. we're going to remove training room for a yet undetermined period of time, cause it has been causing unspecific stability issues."

Guys, i like the idea. I never understood why we need Wargaming to provide us with drip feeds and a fair environment. An honorable gentleman doesn't cheat and a low-life shouldn't get into a gentleman's game anyway. I always felt, WoWs would ahve been a better game with community-designed addons and player-hosted lobbies. So long story short, I might find the time to participate occasionally. Usually weekends are rather bad for me, cause that's family time, but we'll see. We thought about hosting an event ~2 years ago, but the guys involved quit the game. We already had a couple of ideas about game modes. Stuff like asymmetrical battles, hide and seek, awkward limitations. There is clearly a lot of fun to be had outside of WG's rat race.

Given something actually is wrong with the playerbase, which at that point is just a hypotesis, my theory is there are two factors: (a) Very new players, who are not invested into the game. They have joined late, so they feel they have missed out on most of the good times anyway. They don't expect the game to last long enough to justify doing their homework. Let's face it. You don't care about stats for a game that you don't plan to play for a prolonged time. One can guess it from the names that players select, they did not put a lot of effort in. They wanted to give the game a quick try and move on. Now they have played quite a lot, but the attitude is still one of non-commitment. So they play bad and they don't care. All they care about is grinding quickly for that empty promise of an overpowered ship waiting at the end of the line, which then turns out to be jsut as powerful as its enemies. (b) The senior citizens. They like ships, so they feel attracted to the aesthetics. They don't understand they are part of a bigger PvP experience. Once they are commited to the game, they struggle with the required multitasking. They come from generations that had little experience with computers. Those who did, worked on computers with a single window. All their perception is focussed on one task at a time. They see a ship, they stare at it and forget their surroundings. They don't read the minimap anymore, cause they are in a duel with somebody. Then they get smashed by what they didn't even see was there. The pride of a life lived, does not allow them to admit they are overstrained. So they get very stubborn and refuse any advice from younger people, who they see as kiddies. tl;dr The playerbase struggles with individuals who are unable or unwilling to change their approach to the game.

Just why do you even expect anybody to give you feedback? Initially you say this: Then you post your replay. And then you downvote the people who give this kind of positive feedback. I mean what do you expect from forumites? With your downvotes you show no respect and appreciation. It's not like you pay anybody money for wasting their precious time to watch your replays, right? What's in for them? That they waste their time on an effort that does not benefit them, but you. And as a kind of "thank you" for that selfless courtesy, you reject their feedback and downvote them. Do you even understand (a) how childish and (b) how sabotaging that behavior is for the purpose of this topic as you define it? If I see what's going on here, I lose every motivation in helping you.

The whole question depends a lot on whether I'd meet the forum member on my team or the enemy team. In general I'd like to meet any forum member >52% on my team and any member <50% on the enemy team. On a more serious note, I'd like to see some of the oldschool forumites, who left the game, in battle, just because I feel the game is a better one with the right people. I fear you'd have to do a lot better than the 9k you did on Queen Mary. As they say: Be careful what you wish for. I once had him on my team in Ranked. Courtesy doesn't allow me to comment on the encounter.

Sorry, I'm not gonna dignify this binary arrogance with a paragraph long response. As @Sunleader correctly understood, this was not supposed to be a comprehensive explanation, but merely one aspect of BB play and it is in its specificity correct. I am not suffering from insomnia, so I allowed myself to write a short bit about a key revelation that comes to mind irrespective of knowing the OPs playstyle, which at the state of the discussion, without replays is the sound approach. Bear in mind, I agree with your advice, too, it just deals with an entirely different aspect of BB play, both of which are not mutually exclusive. BBs are the most tanky ships. As such their role is to use that armor and HP-pool for the team's purpose. Even in a Slava, I may be required to push a cap and move out of my comfort zone, if the team is losing on points and this forward action is indicated. I was not talking about specifics of BBs, but about a mindset. The BB-player-type that burdens their team is egocentric in nature, based on a misconception. They think they are choosing a ship-type based on their needs. They think if a player wants action, he picks a DD. If a a player wants safety and survival, he picks a BB. But WoWs is not an RPG, where you encounter a fixed set of opponents and just deal with them differently, based on what play-style you built into. WoWs is a team game and every team has certain positions. Those positions come with responsibilities, dictated by the properties of the unit that you agree to take control of. So you don't pick a BB to cover yourself in armor and HP. You do so, because you are supposed to take fire and by extension some sort of damage. The way the battles progresses may not require you to sacrificy your ship. But in general, if at the end of the battle all smaller units are dead and you are still full health, you didn't do your job. This and only this, is what I was saying in my previous post. Firepower, ability to crossfire, punishing enemies, that is all correct. If however you are sitting in your range-mod-Republique or Yamato way in the back, so that every cruiser in front is aimed at by 4-6 enemies as soon as he is spotted, you are not utilizing your survivability skills for the team. WoWs is a Real-Time-Strategy game in which every player takes control over one unit on the battlefield. The mindset that a good player should have is to see yourself as the admiral that selflessly decides, where that unit you play is best used on the field. If in an RTS-game the player decides to push a flank, there is no self-aware AI-unit that suddenly resists, cause he wants to survive or farm more XP. This is what WoWs struggles with, players that put themselves above the team. A good BB player should understand that. Many good ideas are derived from that epiphany.

You mean the kind of discussion where somebody asks about counterplay to CVs and then somebody explains it and gets massively bullied in return, cause he dares to not preach to the choir of "there is no counterplay"?

As @TenshiAkumaNdndsaid, replays. On a general note, to be a good BB player, every player must overcome their selfishness. Most BB players choose to play BB, because a BB satisfies their needs for safety. They pick it, cause they think a BB is hard to destroy, well protected and can stay further in the back, due to its range. But all these preferences are selfish in nature. The player is blocking an important strong and tanky unit within the team, to utilize its strengths for his personal needs, rather than for the team. So the first step is to understand a BB is not there for you and your needs, but for the needs of the team. So the tankiness is not to keep you safe as an individual, but to draw attention away from weaker ships, that are easily destroyed, towards your ship, and then make it as hard as possible for the enemy to efficiently damage you. A good BB is not a BB that survives until the end, but a BB that can tank a couple million potential damage and bait a lot of enemy firepower, while its team mates stay alive. WoWs is a war of attrition and the BBs are the means to make the enemy trade unfavorably. This is not anywhere near to what it takes to be a good BB player. So many other things are important. But its a starting point. The shift from an egocentric RPG-perspective towards and team perspective is key to the mindset of a good BB player.

Well it's not like anybody at WG notices this topic already is 500 pages long. It's not like they say: Wow, people seem to write a lot about CV. Maybe that is a dominant topic. Maybe there is an urge to change something." If, on the other hand, the forum was full of topics about CV mechanics and balancing, that would give the topic more weight. This topic is more of a firewall, to keep complaints about CVs confined, so they can be easily ignored.

Wouldn't dare to.

When I wrote "slow ship game" I was under the impression a reader would understand this means World of Warships as compared to the "fast shooter games" I mentioned in the same sentence, you know the Counter Strike type 3D-shooter, where victory depends on milliseconds of reaction time, not minutes of correct positioning. So to be clear, this paragraph did not compare CVs to more maneuverable ships. No, they are not. WG could have changed the way AA or spotting worked back in RTS times. Those are tweaks that can be changed by changing a simple parameter in the code. They can and have been changed from one update to the next one, not touching the principle of whether planes are controlled from a top-down RTS-type perspective or directly maneuvered from a 3rd person view. It's not a black box where you either approve of every CV-related mechanic and balancing parameter or reject them as a whole. In fact it would be unwise to reject a rework, just because some parameter isn't quite what someone hoped it to be. Only if that was the case, if the way CVs work was a "take it or leave it" mix, the properties would be integral to the discussion of either type I don't have selective memory. I vividly remember how we had those discussions about recommended builds for ships in my clan. The consent always was that AA is not worth vuilding into, cause you encounter CVs too rarely. In fact if you check old youtube reviews of ships back in the RTS-times, if they discuss captain builds and modules - I think Flamu was very thorough in that respect - they will focus on survivability and dpm and not on AA skills, even for so called AA-ships. The gameplay reality was much like with subs today, that you practically never encountered a CV worth mentioning in RTS-times. Now the class is more popular, played by more people and more frequently met in the game. That however is not due to a higher impact, cause as I ahve established, that was higher in RTS-times. It is due to the appeal of the 3rd person direct control over planes, which seems to appeal to the player base. So yes, you are right, if gameplay reality means the actual occurence of CV-interaction. I get attacked more now. It is certainly not true if you view it conditional of the situation of having a CV game. Unfortunately shipcomrade doesn't exist anymore, where we could check the most recommended builds. But, as I said Athervox, the recommended builds were all about damage and survival. Yes, ofc there was some AA thing baked into AFT and BFT, but the players took those skills for the main guns and were happy about the AA-buff as a bonus. That 4pt-Manual AA skill or whatever it was called in the old days, nobody took that for the simple reason because 19pts is not much and "AA-cruisers" often took IFHE, if they had HE-shells or Superintendent. There wasn't much left for the luxury of good AA, even less so, since you encountered a CV so rarely, not to speak of a CV that even knew how to play. No, I totally agree. Only the motives now are different. Now AA is too weak to justify investing into it, while you basically need it at least in half your battles. Before the rework, AA could be strong and melt entire squadrons, but you didn't need it in 95% of your battles. So one way ot the other, AA is irrelevant for the average impact on the outcome of a battle. Well if you're talking tournaments, that is a completely different setup. I am not familiar with the old meta there. But it is a different situation, if you know that you will encounter a CV with absolute certainty and it will be played by a good player in a 7v7 setup. Your ship choice and builds will reflect that

Yes, the rework has ever since seen more CVs added to teh game, some of which are very powerful. One might argue they are selected by players more often than older line, whihc may result in the sentiment of CVs now being more broken. Nevertheless, if you compare T10-CVs that existed before the rework to after the rework, they were originally stronger. And that was back in RTS-times, when there was no T11-ships that increase the overall HP-pool. I do remember that AA could be powerful, if invested into. However you will remember very few people bothered investing into AA, since they encountered CVs in maybe 1 or 2 out of 20 battles. It wasn't worth it skipping relevant ship vs. ship skills just to defend agaisnt a CV in one out of 20 battles, given the CV would even come for you and not attack weaker targets and win the game by weakening your team there. The RTS-CVs were not allowed in CB at least since I played competitive, I have been playing CB since season 3. That was the specific reason why we got free respecs before and after CB-seasons, because WG accepted we had AA-built ships in Randoms and had to respec them for a CB-meta without CVs. In fact the first time CVs were allowed into CB was in 2020, iirc in the second CB season after the CV-rework. So it was exactly the opposite, that RTS-CVs were deemed too powerful for CB, but reworked CVs have been present in some seasons. You may keep that in mind for yourself. Are you trying to preach to the choir, because you couldn't find your arguments without Erazer's help? I don't see you playing much competitive to draw your conclusions from. I'm pretty sure the kiddies are better at multitasking than a senior citizen. They just don't care for a slow ship game, when they can better cash in on their fast reflexes in fast shooter games. AA and perma-spotting are not properties of the switch from RTS to reworked CVs. They are changes to the mechanics and could also have been implemented into the RTS-meta. Otherwise one could argue that planes spotting torpedoes was a feature of RTS-CVs, which again it wasn't. In fact this whole 500 pages of non-sense discussion are largely due to WG forcing any discussion into one thread, when in fact AA and spotting are not boundto the rework. If CVs e.g. did not spot ships and AA was powerful, the CVs would still not be RTS-CVs but still reworked ones, but many people would be utterly satisfied with the way they interact with CVs. So I would suggest, not mixing and confusing different mechanics into one huge phenomenon.

Apples and oranges. You're comparing two silver RTS-CVs with the two top CVs of the current meta in terms of damage. Idk about the proships data, but the wows-numbers data shows the current Haku and Midway way lower in terms of damage. This may be due to differences in data processing between proships and wows-numbers. Nevertheless, the wows-numbers data on Haku and Midway shows them 12k-20k below the FDR and Nakhimov. So they should also be comparably worse on proships. So if FDR does equal damage than Haku(old) and FDR does 12k more damage than Haku now, wouldn't that mean that Haku(old) did 12k more than Haku now? For Midway that difference is more than 20k and well in accordance with my earlier statement. Yeah, you're a philanthropist, I know. Playing the least broken classes has always been your main motivation in playing CVs and subs. Apparently we're the only one's who remember it that way. Also I then must have been one of the chosen few who regularly got strafed. Sad that nobody told those purple CVs they were wasting their time on me, since my drops supposedly would have been so irrelevant. I definitely wouldn't want to master the RTS-CVs. Just the whole micromanagement was too much. It's imo much easier to foresee a ships maneuvers and optimize one squadron for the attack than 5 squadrons at once.

Bei einer Winrate von 45% beträgt die Wahrscheinlichkeit 16 Spiele in Reihe nicht zu gewinnen 0,55^16 = 0,00007011. Der Kehrwert davon ist 14262. Wenn also 14262 "schlechte" Spieler je 16 Gefechte spielen, ist im Schnitt einer dabei, der solch eine Pechsträhne hat. Das Spiel hat zehntausende Spieler. Also ist zieht täglich ein Spieler den schwarzen Peter, kann das kaum glauben und geht dann ins Forum, um über Manipulation zu spekulieren. Diesmal bist es eben du. Gratuliere.

Ofc you want RTS-CVs back. In your best RTS-CV you had a PR of more than 1400, while on the reworked CVs you struggled to adapt and your best CV is less than 300 PR. Your opinion may not be about what is best for the game or the community, but what is best for your results. I would argue, that constitutes a significant bias. The RTS-CVs were way more powerful and in their potential to dev-strike even BBs way more toxic. The only upside was that you saw a CV once in 20 battles, while the current design attracts many players, so that we see CVs every second battle. But whenever we had a CV back in RTS-times, it would dominate the battle like the early reworked Hosho-dominated T4. The RTS-CV automatically searched for a ~90° drop on the torpedo bombers, while lots of potato-CVs today drop from easy to dodge angles. Also even back then a potato could manage to maneuver two squadrons so they would drop at the same time and create a tight double-spread of torps. You can see in the video, how much damage the torps back then did. As for the damage, the T10-CVs in RTS did ~15k more damage. It may be that now CV-players are less skilled than theywere back then. It is even rational to assume that. But then again, skill is irrelevant, since as a player I cannot pick my fights. Whatever CV I get matched into my battles is unconditional on skill. In the old days, a CV was rare, but if it was in the game, that meant taking more damage on average than now. Ofc, the skill gap was huge and got bigger, the more squadrons had to be micromanaged simultaneously. Especially for you it must have been a picnic to strafe those noobs. The mere option to deplane your mirror and take them out of the late-game must have been a huge multiplier .