HMS_Kilinowski

But the submarine testing maps were separate maps, no? I mean, wouldn't that be a brilliant thing to happen in the now WG-hosted KotS-tournament? A DD getting stuck in the finals, streamed to the entire community.

Ships do not get removed due to being in the game for a long time. If that was the case, Atago would be long gone. They remove ships for two reasons: 1. The ship is considered too inexpensive in comparison to newer ships. The game economy has changed since the launch of the game, which makes ships released under the old economy easier to get. That would make new ships appear expensive and thus less attractive. So they remove these ships. 2. They messed up balancing and the ships are deemed overpowered. Since most of these ships are sold for money directly or indirectly, changing a product for the worse after appraising its qualities and selling it in a higher value state, could be a legal issue. So they never nerf the ships directly. The only way to limit their impact is by limiting their frequency. So they remove them. Officially there is a third reason, which is the ships popularity, but that is to cover up the real reason. If popularity was a reason, Tirpitz would have been removed years ago.

I appreciate the thought that went into the idea. I am wondering tho, if aiming would really matter more. A player totally unaware of the armor layout would get rewarded for a badly aimed shot by getting fires, while a player who correctly aims for a part of the ship, he can pen - mind this takes skill at range - gets the direct damage but also gets punished by getting no fires. It wouldlargely even out the skill-gap introduced by the knowledge of armor layouts.

i got none of the ships, so all I can do is go from what I see. Asashio is a ship that makes me raise an eyebrow if in the hands of a capable player on the enemy team. It has the potential to send a complete flank of lemmings to run home, which will often decide the game. Shimakaze is just a different experience. Asashio is a T8 ship, that can have an impact on a T10 game. if you know about good positioning, it is devastating. On top of that it gets the best concealment in the game. Efficiency-wise I am also thinking about the T-61. I wouldn't call T6 sealclubbing. It's not our responsability if seals are not content with the low tiers they have been given to learn the game but elbow their way into what by definition is mid-tier. The T-61 is considered op, but it is not superior in any aspect, it is rather universal, which ofc translates into better winrates and thus good aggregate results. If your BBs mess up and you need some damage potential to remove a BB or two, the T-61 has it. Usually that means losing against gunboats in cap duels. But the T-61 is universal and can also match an Icarus or Farragut. So you don't inevitably lose in the situations, where other ships are powerless. The rest of the ships is nice to have but I won't regret having passed on them.

Ist unschwer zu erkennen. Das Thema ist aber auch schon wieder durch. Vielleicht warst du in Urlaub und hast das alles gar nicht mitbekommen. Darüber hat die Community vor zwei Monaten geredet. Jetzt ist eigentlich schon alles gesagt worden, was es dazu zu sagen gibt. Bist du mit der Such-Funktion vertraut? Es wäre nämlich zielführender, wenn du deine Ansichten in einem der vielen Threads zu diesem Thema nieder geschrieben hättest. Wenn jeder zum gleichen Thema seinen eigenen ganz persönlichen Thread aufmachen würde, hätten wir hier ein ziemliches Chaos. Also bitte nächstes mal erst nach existierenden Themen suchen. Was deine Kritik am Rework angeht, solltest du sehen, dass wir alle gleichermaßen betroffen sind. Du kämpfst weiterhin mit deinem 19-Punkte-Kapitän gegen andere, die auch nicht weiter sind als du. Das Gleichgewicht bleibt gewahrt und dir entsteht kein Wettbewerbsnachteil. Ob ein Kapitän nun maximale Fertigkeitspunkte hat oder nicht, ist eine technische Formalität. Wenn du vorher auf deine 19-Punkte-Kapitäne stolz warst, warum auch immer man das sein sollte, kannst du das auch jetzt noch sein. Das Erreichte wird ja nicht schlechter, nur weil es nach hinten erweitert wird. Spielerisch wirst du kaum einen Unterschied merken zwischen alten 19-Punkte-Kapitänen und jetzigen 21-Punkte-Kapitänen. Meistens fehlt dann ein Skill, den man mehr aus Verlegenheit noch genommen hat als dass es ein echter Buff wäre. Was kann das groß ausmachen? Wenn's hochkommt, könnte man argumentieren, dass der Unterschied zwischen 19 und 21 Punkten eines von tausend Spielen entscheidet. Wenn das so super wichtig ist, kann man stattdessen auch mal in den Trainingraum gehen und stattdessen mal einen Schwachpunkt im eigenen Spiel in Angriff nehmen. Das wird sich mehr auswirken als die 1,2M Kapitäns-Punkte.

You should relax and take a few days off. This is not a losing streak. I had a streak of 22 losses out of 25 games. A friend of mine went all negative over the idea someone rigged his games, cause his winrate went down for a month. These things happen. Part of why they happen is that you let them get to you. You become insecure about your choices and you start making mistakes that you wouldn't if you weren't getting obsessed by the idea of some curse. Best thing to do is go easy, switch division mates a lot and play modes where winning or losing doesn't matter. Right now you got the luxury of having the game mode Big Hunt. It's all in your head, press the reset. If only it were that simple. I see a lot of games where my team has average winrates 6% higher than the enemy team and these games are lost hard. We already got this insider joke of my div mate saying "This is a win." seeing the line-up and me going "Well, let's see about that." It's not so much the quality of the players as it is the mentality. The good players start being selfish, caring about their XP. They have a certain impacton the game, since they reliably inflict good damage on the enemy. But they want to stay in game and farm damage as along as possible, so they suddenly are all clustered up. We see these huge blobs of green to purple players. Some people even argue this is super-unicum strategic thinking, cause they let the enemy overextend and shoot them to bits as they arrive, while people like me defend empty flanks and get outgunned eventually. But the thing is, I see these battles being lost way more often than they should be won, if you just look at the difference in team stats. So this move is rather super-unicomical. It allows good players to survive and come top and pad themselves on the back, when they actually threw the game. That is why I think the recent steam-rolls go beyond matchmaking.

My regret with these camos is more that I already linked two of the flexible perma camos to the Öland and Akizuki. I would have preferred the event camos to be just as flexible and be used on any ship of my choice, rather then being designed specifically for 3 ships. I bought the tokens for credits, I played the event for an hour, got the missing camo for Amagi. Now the event is pointless to me, cause I don't care about aesthetics. A bonus is a bonus and the rest can be done by mods. That depends on where you are in your grinds and how good and active a player you are. I personally had started the game playing coop with friends. I never bothered with the camos. So I built a stock of camos over a long time. Then when I moved to PvP those camos got less and less. If I didn't have perma camos on my most played ships, I would have depleted my camos a long time ago. I played 200-300 battles in some CB seasons. There is a difference in having 300 camos more or less. It was only recently that I finished ~90% of the lines. When you got 30+ T10 ships and get those supercontainers on anniversary, that helps a lot not running out of camos. So I'd say a lot of people who are in the middle of those grinds will certainly benefit from the camos. Labelling a camo that gives "only" 50% XP boost is a bit decadent. Let's not forget this game was in a state in the past, where we would have sold out souls for a 50% camo. So what's all the hurry? When I regrind lines I use the lines where I got perma camos. I handpicked those lines and put perma camos on most of the ships. I enjoy playing the ships. They would just collect useless eliteXP, if I played them outside the regrind. Why would I need to rush my way through them? I think its not a bad idea to take those perma camos and save your better consumable ones for those funny times, when WG throws another Pay2Rico type event at us or when we have to speed-grind some ressource cause some ship is announced to be removed in too short an amount of time to get it casually.

Cause you can blame her for Wargaming reworking the game over and over and all the countless weeks of work she put into her reviews being rendered pointless. There is nothing entertaining in her reviews. They are pure information. If anything, you might say she doesn't always get it right, but I don't think one can blame her for that. A ship can be more than the sum of its qualities. I don't think anybody could make a perfect prediction of how a ship will turn out once it's in the game. Also her reviews are more for the average player, who doesn't want to make his own calls, but rely on some expert. You want people to compare apples and oranges. Marco Polo has only been out a couple of days. Nobody can tell you if she is a decent ship and even less so if she will serve your needs. Yoshino on the other had is out for so long and still an endangered species. She struggles in the current meta, since so many ships got good accuracy and range and she is such a big ship, she can hardly be missed. Every DeadEye-turnip will aim for you as soon as you're spotted. If you got the WASD-skills to dodge under a Priority Target indicator of 6+, the Yoshino may be your ship. None of both ships will help evolving ones play style in a positive way. The Marco Polo will make people shoot SAP too much and the Yoshino will make the hang back too much. The Yoshino will automatically sabotage your team, unless played very consciously. Currently we don't see too many cruisers. The few that are left should have one or two of the following three properties: (1) Utility (mostly radar and hydro), (2) tankiness (hard to hit citadel or ice-breaker) or DPM. The Yoshino has neither.

Thunderer: This ship supports every misconception a bad player can have about the role, play style and impact of a battle ship. They encourage players to sit in the back, let weaker ships tank, lose because those weaker ships go down faster than the enemy BBs who fulfil their tanking duty, and come top on the results screen to confirm the misconception is legit. This is devastating if you have such players on your team, cause you will have little support, while irrelevant damage, after the game is decided, will make them more confident. The amount of times Thunderer has caused me to lose my excrement in Ranked cannot be guessed. It's the top pick for every player who thinks he is great if he comes top of the team and losses are only bad luck or manipulation. Yoshino/Azuma: The Yoshino is the complete opposite. It punishes every mistake. A bad player will die early, if he thinks this ship is designed for cap support. He will likely overextend. In any way the bad maneuverability will quickly end the game of every player who is too lazy to make hard turns and observe his opponents. The Yoshino typically dies early and so hard, her player doesn't even understand how it happened and what he did wrong. So he will struggle to improve and, lacking any explanation, accuse his team of some unspecific misplay. Yoshino is especially terrible in Ranked battles, where you need a cruiser to either have some utility (a.k.a. radar) or tankiness (a.k.a. 27mm+ bow) or dpm (a.k.a. dakkadakka). The Yoshino has none of these qualities and whoever picks such a ship for Ranked has not understood why these qualities are important in a reduced 7v7 format. The Azuma has the bonus of not supporting second line torping, at which the Yoshino excels and is only topped by italian CAs. Paolo Emilio: This one actually took me by surprise. The Emilio seems an interesting package. The only problem is: Every player thinks he can pull off some super-unicum stunts, just as he saw in some replay. There are certainly good players in Emilios, well, just as in aforementioned ships as well. I just never see them. I just see mediocre people trying some yolo rush at the earliest possible opportunity and get rekt regularly. Ofc you're going to rush 2 BBs and a radar cruiser and nobody is going to be even mildly suspicious if an angry looking smoke cloud is zooming in on them. If the movie in your head is too good to be true, it will hardly come true. Emilio brings coop play to Random battles. You wait until you are nearly detected, pop your smoke and wait until the distance to the enemy is reduced enough to rush out and torp, only in coop you sit still and the bots move towards you, while in the Emilio it's the other was round. It's the ship of choice for every player who does not care to win, but wants to make as much XP per hour as possible. Rush. Die. Back to port. Pick a different ship. Rinse and repeat.

Pommern definitely and without any doubt. All the questions are irrelevant in coop. You ideally will yolo. The secondaries and, most of all, the torps will make you prevail. Just please, for the love of god, don't at some point jump from coop right into T9-randoms or even ranked.

I got the Siegfried two days ago. So far it is a refreshing ship, which is a lot more than I can say for most of the ships I have seen lately. To me the design makes a lot of sense in the current meta and definitely has not lost its purpose with release of update 0.10.0. Most cruisers lack range at T9. It forces them to play closer to the enemy fleet than is good for them in the opening salvos. Cruisers get focussed early on, because they are easy targets. The Dead-Eye meta has driven away many cruiser players because of that. The secondaries are not as good as before. That is probably not a bad thing. The secondary build is just a meme build, not very efficient. It persuades a player to play foolishly close and lose his ship over a couple of secondary hits. That doesn't mean you should stay at range, but have the patience to wait for the right moment. The Siegfried has what it needs to do that, cause it gets BB guns, no strings attached. It gets more than 20km base range with pretty good ballistics. The dispersion is extremely good, not quite as good as Stalingrad, but Stalingrad is T10 and a class of its own. Siegfried has less dispersion as Stalingrad at the same range, but a smaller sigma value. The hit ratio is comparable. And these are 380mm shells with good pen. You can citadel targets at max range. You tend to overpen cruisers, but this is frankly a matter of timing and judgement. In Ägir you try to hit a cruiser flat broadside. In Siegfried your window is when the cruiser turns and is still a bit angled and again when he going from flat broadside back into angling. Then you don't overpen. I'd even say it is much easier to catch a cruiser in that state than flat broadside. On the other hand Ägir gets shatters on BBs, when Siegfried still pens. That makes all the difference. On paper Ägir should be the better ship cause it has way more raw dpm. But that is all for nothing if (a) the shells shatter and (b) dispersion sprays your shells all over the place. Ohio would still be my first pick. It is a nice jack of all trades. It is accurate at range, it has brawling power, it has survivability. It is the ship of a good BB player, designed to put your foot on the ground and signal to your enemy: "This part of the map is mine. Come and take it, I dare you."

Concerning the ships to be removed: Are they going to be removed before the coupons are being refreshed? I can understand some of the ships are quite powerful. Others can only be classified as overpowered, if you define overpowered as "2 percentage points above average". That again makes me wonder how Wargaming intends to balance future releases within such a tight threshold. If you balance premium ships you then literally punish the ship for the widely used possibility to use maxxed commanders on them, cause you will e.g. hardly find a T6-tech-tree ship that features a maxxed captain. This especially holds true with the commander rework, where I can have a dedicated build for a premium ship. You will probably even see lots of unique commanders on it. So consequently that increases the performance of the ship, tho the properties that cause this are not part of the ship. I doubt Wargaming goes into detail that much to decompose the effects of commanders, years of experience of its average player and ship on its stats. I especially want to make a case for the Graf Spee. We are talking about one of the few designs that have a historic relevance. You can't remove Graf Spee just as you can't remove Emden, Warspite or Yamato. That would demonstrate a lack of respect for the whole theme. These ships are the inspiration behind your game. Without ships like Graf Spee and their authentic stories, there would be no World of Warships. Also the maplysyrup numbers show 8k battles played in Graf Spee within a week as compared to 22k battles in the Nürnberg and 30k battles in the Bayern in the respective time period. That does not seem to be overly popular. Since it has been given away for free twice, I don't see the harm in keeping it available to new players. But that's me.

Ich denke er hat da sogar verschiedene Kämpfe zusammengeworfen. Das Geschriebene macht keinen Sinn. Er hat Lenin gespielt und ärgert sich, dass sein Torpedo keine Flutung verursacht. Ich habe Fantasque gespielt und ihn aus einer Insel heraus gerusht und getorpt. Eine Sache von Sekunden. Wie sollte ich da fünf Feuer machen? Das ist wahrscheinlich ein weiteres Problem, dass die Spieler direkt vom Ergebnisschirm ins nächste Gefecht hüpfen. Nach einer Serie von Spielen stellen sie dann fest, dass jemand sie reportet hat und glauben, das sei der Gegner des unmittelbar vorangegangenen Gefechtes gewesen. Es klingt halt sehr nach Frustration. Klar, in einem BB fährt man 3 min dem Gegner entgegen und dann hüpft der aus der Insel raus und torpt und alles ist in 15 Sekunden vorbei. Aber man kann doch von keinem Spieler erwarten, dass er sein Schiff nicht entsprechend dessen Stärken und Schwächen spielt. Dieser Spielmodus berücksichtigt die Siegrate. Die Spieler kriegen Gegner auf Augenhöhe. Das haben sie nicht erwartet. Jetzt sind sie frustriert. Einmal weil es länger dauert, die Missionen durchzuspielen. Und weiterhin passiert bei Gegnern auf Augenhöhe wenig Unerwartetes. Wer also aufgrund der Gegnerpaarung und Karte im Vorteil liegt, wird i.d.R. auch gewinnen. Das nimmt dem Spielmodus den Reiz. Im letzten 1v1-Ranked war das anders, weil durch Können auch widrige Umstände überwunden werden konnten. Um bei dem Beispiel DD vs. BB zu bleiben: Die Karte Sleeping Giants ist so offen, dass ein DD ein BB nicht erfolgreich rushen kann, wenn beide Spieler etwa gleiches Können haben. Umgekehrt sind Shatter und Two Brothers für BBs sehr schwierig. Es entscheiden die Umstände, nicht mehr das Können. Darüber ärgern sich die Spieler und werden dann toxisch. Wie man aus dem Gespräch, dass ich gepostet habe lesen kann, hat seiner Meinung nach nicht Können entschieden, sondern das MM. Und im Grunde hat er Recht.

@Sehales Bitte deaktiviert beim nächsten 1v1 die Reports. Beim 1v1 Ranked letztes Jahr gab es noch respektvolle Komplimente. Hier säuft jeden Tag mein Karma ab und regen sich die Spieler nur noch über ihr MM auf und lassen es an ihren Gegnern aus. Bei Spaß-Modi wie dem Halloween-Event und bei CB sind sie aus gutem Grund deaktiviert. Folgende aufschlussreiche, wenn auch skurrile, Konversation anlässlich eines Reports im 1v1, sei hier anonymisiert wiedergegeben: Ich will das nicht auf diesen einen namenlosen Spieler reduziert wissen. Aber man kann ja totale Frustration rauslesen. Also a) stimmt doch irgendwas an dem Spielmodus nicht, wenn die Spieler sich nicht mehr wie früher für gutes Spiel komplimentieren, sondern reporten. Ich vermute es liegt daran, dass es immer ein ungleiches Gefecht ist. Die Karte und der Schiffstyp entscheiden in den meisten Fällen über den Sieg. Ein Duell soll aber doch fair sein und kein russisches Roulette. b) hat das Report-System doch hiermit endgültig seine Legitimation und Bedeutung verloren. Sollte sich Wargaming gut überlegen, ob es solch eine Spieler-Kultur mit dem Karma-System weiterhin unterstützen will. Dich gibt's ja wirklich. Spielst du wieder Asashio im Duell-Modus? Hattest du da damals um eine Kiste Bier gewettet oder warum Asashio?

@YabbaCoe I get reported a bit and people start expressing some annoyance with the matches they get. Maybe preferencial MM would be a better choice. I don't see how people can be toxic about the opponent they get matched against. It's not the opponents choice to be in that battle, so if people dump their frustration on other players, they do it over what they deem a design flaw of the game mode. Also the skill-based MM is a double-edged sword. While the battles are more interesting, getting 51 wins is a lot to do, if you play against equally skilled opponents. So you got to do it around 100 times, which becomes quite repetitive. I have been eagerly awaiting the return of the 1v1. But I don't want to do it 100 times within a week, it gets boring. I know a game mode needs a full waiting queue. But waiting 10-30s for a match would not be too much, if the game mode lasted longer and was not packed into one week, especially when there is a parallel Ranked Season and Clan Battles on top of that. In short: I liked the old Ranked 1v1 better. It took about half the amount of battles, cause you got more less-skilled-opponents. It added a bit to the challenge to not know if you would get an easy opponent or maybe even one way better. You got more variety in ship types and tactics, since differently skilled-players try different approaches. People seemed a bit more open and courteous. That sounds like a vicious circle to me. You don't enjoy practicing countering CVs. As a consequence your counterplay is stuck at a level that makes CV-encounters unenjoyable. It's like a BB player says "I don't like WASDing, I just want DDs removed".

I wasn't referring to your demand of removing CVs but to your idea of mirrored matchmaking. A ship can be superior to another class (a torpboat to a BB), while being inferior within its own class (torpboat vs. gunboat). Also don't forget, this is a pure fun and derp mode. There is no pressure to perform. Most battles should be over in 3-6 min. At a 50% winrate you will need around 100 battles to collect all the rewards, if that is what you're going for. Since it is skill-based MM, winrates around 50% should be realistic for any skill level, meaning it will take the potato maybe 110 battles and the super-unicums maybe 90 battles. So the mode is not so much about measuring success, but about testing your skills in different environments. After Savage Battles I noticed my torp dodging and torping in dogfights had significantly improved. The game mode doesn't differ from when I go into training room with a clan mate to train certain moves, just it's so painful to get one of your clan mates to use an hour of his time for training while WG dumps one event after another on the community. Here you get a training opportunity AND on top of that you even get rewards. I think it's an absolutely good thing that CVs are in there. I get to train my dodging skills against rocket planes. I don't train against potatoes, cause the MM gives me 55%+ players with notable clan tags. Frankly, if you can get within torpedo range of a CV, in terms of skill, that is already a win, no matter what the result screen says. A CV player, if he is not too bright, may take a win as a success, but the good one know: If you can't kill a DD in 3-4 min, knowing his general location and direction, in an environment without blobs denying certain attack angles, you can't pad yourself on the shoulder and feel content with your skills. One can discuss Enterprise, since it's just too powerful in so many relevant aspects. But in general, take the chance for a free lab rat and practice the hell out of this game mode.

I heard from a couple of guys they got reported in the 1v1. You cannot report people in Clan Battles for a good reason: You got direct control over who is on your team, cause he is in your clan and you don't get to report your opponent out of spite cause you lost. So I am wondering, why do people get to report their opponents in this 1v1? Not sure about that. It's all a big gamble anyway. If a player takes a Kagero, he gambles for a BB or CV. In a way, if it is strictly mirrored MM, ships that are used cause they are universal, would not make sense anymore. However you put it, some ship will be at a disadvantage. So far in my Fantasque I have encountered 7 CVs and won against 6 of them. And they were mostly above average players. They are not my most feared opponent. There is no enemy team shooting you while being spotted, so you take only damage from air attacks and you can fully concentrate on outmaneuvering the attacks.

I gotta admit I like this game mode a lot. It's so non-toxic. You play, you have a laugh. If you lose there is no team to blame, only yourself. If the enemy plays well against the odds, you compliment him. I just did 9 min of ring around the rosie with a Talinn. At the end I typed "I'm a pacifist" and he expressed laughter. The last season was interesting, since the stats were there. It was a good opportunity for every player to actually see how well he can do without a team. But then again, without stats there is less pressure and try-harding. Hell, I go into battles without flags, cause who cares? If there's a team, you feel bad if you detonate. Now it's just my personal risk. I think I might even do a social thing some time and just launch into Brawl before taking a toilet break. Again, who cares? Doesn't hurt me and some potato gets a free win.

Yeah, you might want to rethink that approach. The last 1v1 Ranked Sprint produced a bit of a meme: You would need a minimum of 36 battles, 72 battles with a 50% winrate to rank out. There was one player - no. 2 - who did not rank out after more than 400 battles. He played Asashio. "Not rank out" is a bit of an understatement. He remained at the starting rank - rank 10 - with 2 victories out of 468 battles. I guess we know now how many players are statistically afk, 2 out of 468. So, friendly advice: Don't pick Asashio.

First of all, don't smoke up a friendly cruiser unless you are certain that he will put the smoke to good use. You will smoke so many cruisers and most of them won't even realize that gift and just keep sailing through it. If you then run into an enemy, your smoke is on cooldown and you can't use it to break line of sight, so you are dead. I sometimes smoke cruisers in division with me, when I can actually communicate with the cruiser and know he will need it. 1) In low tiers, if you encounter other DDs you need to make an early turn, as you would in an aerial dogfight. By doing that you will be facing away from the threat while the threat is coming towards you. Do torp to the end of your torpedo arc while turning out. That means that the DD coming towards you and turning out to torp you will be at around 90° angle towards your torps, while you will face ~135° away. You increase the distance to the incoming torps and will either dodge the salvo all together or have more time to find a gap in the spread. Timing is everything in dogfight. 2) Don't get fixated on your distance to your cruisers. You don't need to be a certain distance in front of your cruisers, you need to be just outside of your detection range towards the nearest supposed enemy. That usually will be a DD unspotted and unknown to you. So you need some imagination and experience to guess where they will be. So forget this whole cruiser-support bit. You support them by being there, not in the back, but in a reasonable distance so you are concealed. Don't get spotted unless you have a plan. 3) Capping is crucial, it is what brings your team victory in most battles. That said, you should not need to slip past anything or take huge risks to cap. You should have a safe escape route when capping, so if things turn out different, you can disengage and run. Capping starts with knowledge. You need to know the concealment of the enemy DDs and yours. If they can outspot you, you should cap very carefully and only with support or if the enemy DD is damaged. 4) Always keep one eye on the mini map. It is very easy to get focussed on one target and not see a threat. Also bear in mind that targets on the mini map are moving. A ship close to your detection range that disappeared behind an island might suddenly pop out well in your concealment range. There is literally a hundred things to say. Check your ship, how does it compare to other DDs? That dictates how to play it.

Es gibt, wie du schon sagst, mehr Auswahl. Es gibt mehr Gunboat-Linien als Torpedoboot-Linien. Die Torpedoboote sind noch dazu eher alte Linien, die viele schon durchgespielt haben. Die neueren Linien waren alle Gunboats. Natürlich, wer Gunboat spielen will, spielt Gunboat, aber die Spieler wollen doch Abwechslung. Wenn ich bei den Gunboats doppelt so viel Auswahl habe, werd ich die wohl auch häufiger auswählen als die ewig selben beiden Torpboot-Linien - PA und IJN. Gearing war selbst 2018 noch DAS Gunboat. Es gab russische DDs, die auf Reichweite funktioniert haben, aber auf Reichweite macht man nun mal keinen Nahkämpfer auf. Dann gab's noch die deutschen DDs mit Hydro, die aber nur gegen schlechte Gegner funktionieren. Schließlich gab's noch die PA-DDs, die vom DPM voll mithalten konnten, bevor der Nerf-Hammer kam. Die Yueyang war zeitweise sogar ein waschechtes Gunboat, weil sie Gearing-Nachladezeiten und wahlweise Radar hatte. Sie war der dominate DD einer ganzen CB-Saison. Die Gearing war, bis 2018 die Harugumo kam, der stärkste DD-Jäger. Langsame Geschossgeschwindigkeit war kein Kriterium, weil man den Gegner auf maximal 6km bekämpft hat Ich finde es vielmehr bezeichnend, dass von der Gearing als Hybrid geredet wird. Nur weil andere DDs teils gar keine Torpedos mehr haben oder die Torps mehr als 2 min Ladezeit haben, ändert sich doch absolut nichts an den Eigenschaften der Gearing. Ich könnte auch so argumentieren, dass die Harugumo ein Hybrid ist, wenn irgendwann ein Schiff ohne Torps aber mit 300k raw DPM rauskommt. Oder wird die Shima ein Hybrid, weil sie Kanonen hat, wenn WG plötzlich DDs herausbringt die alle 90s 25 Torps werfen aber kein einziges Geschütz mehr haben? Alles relativ? Ich meine es geht bei den DDs eben darum, dass sie den WASD-faulen zahlungskräftigen Wochenend-Spielern nicht den Spaß verderben und deswegen sehen wir keine innovativen Torpboote mehr. Halland und Co. entsprechen genau dem, was ich gut ein Jahr vor ihrem Erscheinen prognostiziert habe: Torpedos mit geringem Schaden und Flutungswahrscheinlichkeit, damit die Anzahl der Dev-Strikes sinkt und sich nicht reihenweise die Leute beim Support beschweren, weil sie nach 5 min schon weggetorpt werden. Die Veröffentlichung von Gunboats setzt das konsequent fort.

Gearing war mal DAS Gunboat schlechthin. Natürlich, wenn man eimerweise neue Gunboats ins Spiel bringt, die alle mehr Schaden machen, verschiebt sich die Skala. Das ist ja gerade das Problem. Wir sehen diese Designs und resümieren: "Guter neuer DD-Jäger". Aber wenn deine Gegner zunehmend selber solche DD-Jäger sind, was bleibt dann von dieser Überlegenheit in der DD-Jagd übrig? Ein Vampire II ist ja zur Jagd auf eine Vampire II genauso gut oder schlecht geeignet, wie eine Shima zur Jagd auf eine Shima taugt. Mit diesem Fokus auf Gunboats, den wir seit einiger Zeit sehen, hast du eben nur noch DDs, die sich gegenseitig rausschießen können und hinterher vor sich hin dümpeln. Ein Torpedoboot kann auch mit 1hp noch ein gefährlicher Gegner sein. Eine Vampire muss da schon eine sehr glückliche Position finden, von der aus sie noch spammen kann.

Bin bislang zwei mal in eine Vampire II reingelaufen. Die AA war ganz okay. Sollte die Nachladezeit aber tatsächlich 2,3s betragen, wäre das arg viel. Da komme ich auf einen dpm von 266k/min. Das wäre ein neuer Rekord, weil selbst die Marceau "nur" 253k hat. Die Flugbahnen dürften noch höher ausfallen. Es läuft also wohl wieder auf DD jagen und BBs ausm Smoke auf Reichweite vollstrullern hinaus. Kann man drüber streiten, ob das Spiel das nun wieder braucht. Von diesem Spielstil haben wir doch mit Harugumo, Marceau und Smaland nun wirklich genug Variationen bereits im Spiel. Es geht nur noch in die Schiene "DDs jagen DDs". Nur mal so zur Übersicht für T10: DDs die auf DD-Jagd ausgelegt sind: Gearing, Harugumo, Hayate, Daring, Marceau, Kleber, Halland, Smaland und dann Vampire II. DDs die bedingt DDs jagen können: Z52, Grozovoi, Khaba, Yueyang. DDs, die als Torpboote gejagt werden: Somers, Shimakaze. Ich glaube die Liste der Jäger ist ein kleines bisschen länger. Kommt, WG gebt uns endlich mal wieder ein Schiff, mit dem wir die Vollpfosten raustorpen können. Es würde dem Spiel ja nur gut tun.

If it actually would run backwars that would be a start, That thing is backing up like a grandmother trying to get out of the biggest parking space in the world. At some point I might start mounting propulsion mod on this thing. You see the enemy pushing, you plot a course and start your planes and two minutes later that thing is still stuck at the same island, trying to figure out how to move away. I think the autopilot is the same that makes colliding bots in low tiers go back and forth against each other in a never ending loop.

I looked at the data a couple of months ago. If you account for the average winrate of people who play a certain ship, you can easily calculate which ship is performing better or worse than the average of ships and which ship only appears to be better or worse cause its players are better or worse. Certain ships e.g. are no longer available. They now are played by seasoned players. These players tend to have more experience in the game and play better than new players. That makes ships appear superior, when they are not, or at least not that much as they look on paper. The results I found indicated most ships are within a range of +-2% from the average. I would not call that imbalanced. There are hundreds of ships in the game now. That their characteristics only account for 2 wins or losses in a hundred games is as balanced as it can get. Trying to decrease the spread would at some point be hysterical. Another point is personal winrates. You complain about the winrates of your team. If matchmaking took winrates into account, winrates would converge towards 50% for all players. Good players would stand the same chance of winning as bad players. What would be the incentive to play well, if you don't get rewarded? The only way would be different leagues with different rewards. Ofc then all the lower league players start whining cause they want the same rewards as the good players, which is why now every bad player can get a steel ship which initially was intended as a reward for competitive players. You gotta make a choice, winrates or leagues? The basic insight for you is, that if you find the game unbalanced, its up to you. Every player can tailor his challenge to his winrate. If I as a player have 38% winrate in my ship, I should move down a few tiers and play a ship that I can perform in at a 50% level. If every player did that, the MM would balance itself. As a human I don't need a balancing mechanism. I can make my own choices. It would seem that your team was full of players who chose a challenge they couldn't handle. With a <48% winrate a player should not be in T10. Which brings us to you. If you got the results to justify playing at a certain level, you did everything right. You did your part towards a fair challenge and a somewhat balanced match. If you don't, then you are basically complaining about yourself, since you yourself are causing the issue you are complaining about. Edit: Final note. If you think this game is unbalanced, try minding your own business in a lobby full of Oppressor Mk2 as a new player in GTA Online.