HMS_Kilinowski

So if it's not a Clan Brawl, what exactly is the measure of success? In the 1v1 Ranked Sprint you climbed up ranks to rank out. Does Clan Brawl in that format mean I earn points for my clan and we all together work our way up against increasingly better players? And if so, what is the goal for clanless players? On a different note: My old notes show that back in the Ranked Sprint, I was pretty uniformly matched against BBs, cruisers and DDs. Bearing in mind the map selection, doesn't that again leave the players with only a handful of viable ships to choose from? Wasn't that the lesson to be learnt from the last 1v1, that only a few ships stood a fighting chance against an unknown opponent? Wasn't it that for the rest of the ships the match pretty much decided the outcome, not the skill of the player? Iirc it was said back then to be a bit of an experiment. Wargaming wanted to know how ships are balanced against each other in an isolated environment. Since e.g. it's pretty obvious how well an Asashio will do against a cruiser, that experiment had it's boring aspects. So I wonder, what insights did Wargaming take away from that Ranked Sprint and inplement them how into this Brawl?

There is a lot of difference in play style and mentality I find PT too expensive after the rework. Usually people will aim at you when you are spotted. They will hold their fire to wait for a better angle or switch their target. It tends to make me nervous. Still I never know when they are shooting. One can observe a certain target and its suroundings. Usually that's the target you are spamming. But then you miss the potshot from a BB 20km away. IFA gives more information and also less information. So it depends largely on what information you need. I got a hunch who might take an interest in my ship, but there is no hunch for when they are shooting. Pyro is not a perfect choice it's more like the least bad choice. Also it results from picking IFA. IFA makes PT somewhat obsolete, but you still need one 2pt skill to unlock the lower skills. At least in CB environment I feel every fire counts. But it's okay to classify Pyro as optional. One might also take PT to help with map awareness. Again, it's that ambiguous design of german cruisers. You can kite in them, but you run the risk of doing it too much and too far back and not have an impact on the game. You might just as well ignore the concealment and build it full spam build then. Ironically Top Grade Gunner stays relevant since a full spamming build has 17+km concealment, so you get the bonus pretty reliably. In the current meta you could make a case for that. Maybe even take range mod and use all the sensors to dodge shells at long range and be a target, a bit like Henri used to be before they killed it. You don't have the speed but the rudder shift and turning is decent and with IFA you will get an early warning. But it's also a play style more typical for something like Yoshino or Azuma. If that is what I want to play, I might as well play it and not build the Hindi that way. The niche of the Hindi is that it can do both. With a concealment build you promote that play, so it's reasonable to assume you will end up in some medium to close range shootout and that will decide the battle more than the spamming you did up to then. The Hindi has always been special in the sense that it does not absolutely require a lot of skills. They all help somewhat. RPF is nice to have, a bit more fire chance is nice, some early warning is nice, the improved turret traverse helps. But nothing sticks out. I used to go with Vigilance since that at least got a buff and made you spot torps for an entire flank together with the german hydro. But since the german Jütland-captains are stripped of anything that made them unique, you are free to choose what ever suits you.

I'd probably skill it like that: https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PGSC110&modules=11111&upgrades=134321&commander=PCW001&skills=4538457&ar=100&consumables=1111&pos=0 Currently most players are struggling to get a lot of 21pt-captains. Also the last two points are insanely expensive. So I'd just use a 19-pointer and wait if WG at some point comes up with better cruiser skills. The Jütland-captains have benn rendered useless. They got no talents and the only thing they were useful for was a meme build for torp spotting, taking Vigilance, the hydro module. That's history. So I'd go for the mid range kiter that can brawl. For Clan Battles switch the 6th module from reload to range.

Mogador and Kleber got a very hard nerf to their concealment. That redefines the role of french-DDs. LeFantasque still has workable concealment, which allows it to cap if the enemy DDs are not on the stealthy side. It can also fall back on stealth torping, if heavily damaged. Mogador has bad concealment. It gets outspotted by most DDs, by many to an extent that you cannot rush them, hoping to close the distance before the enemy team stars focussing you. Your options are: a) Support another DD. Be ~1.5-2 km behind it. If it spots an enemy DD your superior shell speed and reload booster will help your DD gunning down the other DD in no time and surviving. Doing so, your team can dispose of enemy DDs and when that is done, you have better concealment than the remaining enemy cruisers and can carefully attempt to cap. b) Prepare ambushes. E.g. on Sleeping Giants, the Mogador can use it's speed advantage to go wide on the 2-line and sneak into the encapsuled A-cap before any opposition arrives. Once it's in the cap, it can outgun every single DD that tries to contest A. Radar won't matter, since the islands cover you. Once you killed the DD in there, nobody wants to rush you, since you have lots of torps and the speed to rush them. So you are very hard to dig out of there. Similarly, if you know the position of DDs, use islands to cover your approach and pop out within their detection range to gun them down with the reload booster. That works best, when you got RPF, since you will be aware of yet unspotted DDs. c) The fall-back option: Use range to spam BBs and light them up. This is a good option, when you are too damaged to go into DD duels. You still can harrass an entire flank by lighting fires and just generating psychological pressure of hearing a rain of shells go down on their BBs. You don't kill the BB, but you get the ship killed that will be abandoned by that BB you harrassed. A Mogador that does it right will be shooting all the time and not require concealment. At some point, the annoyed opponents will start shooting you and miss you. You will do some WASD-hacks. Also the speed-boost module bought in the armory will help, since speed-boost makes them underestimate your speed and miss you. A Mogador can and usually will tank more damage than a BB, since BBs are too afraid to scratch their paint. Just the sheer volume of shells plunging into the ocean instead of damaging your team mates will help win. But you need to be brave. You need to tell yourself: "I will spam them to a point where you won't be able to ignore me." People are weak, they fall prey to wanting to retribute, rather than doing what their ship is good at. You exploit that psychological weakness. Depending on your play style you want to invest into skills and mods increasing your range and open water speed boost or skills that help finding and killing DDs.

That is exactly why the game has Tier 1. If you are afraid of real players, just take it really slow. There is nothing to be afraid of. You can tailor the challenge to your needs. Tier 1 is as easy as it gets. So just don't get ahead of yourself. Don't try to beat human opponents with your Perth, cause you will face people with experience. You need to get a feel for how humans think and how they don't follow predictable patterns as bots do. I'm flattering real players. They are not magical in their actions and with a bit of experience you can easily beat them. A phobia is not something constructive. Try to think for yourself, what works and what doesn't. Watch a few replays on lower tiers. You need to get at least some experience with PvP. Nobody can tell you what you do wrong or right, based on a PvE, when your aim is PvP.

Kürzer können die Gefechte schon sein. Das ist aber kein Argument. Dann sind eben noch Bots auf der Karte. Wenn ich Schneeflocken wegspiele, dann mach ich zehn Gefechte pro Stunde. Dafür, dass man da nur ein paar Bots wegschießt, dafür, dass nicht die Frage ist, ob man gewinnt, sondern, wie viele Bots man wegschießt, dafür dass Spieler sich fast schon um die Ziele streiten, sind 3000-4000 baseXP pro Stunde ganz ordentlich. Dafür muss man im PvP schon ackern. Dann geben die Spieler im PvP noch Flaggen und Camos aus, was im Coop mit Kanonen auf Spatzen geschossen wäre. Die Bots, die in einem Kartenbereich spawnen, sind jetzt so programmiert, dass sie erst mal in Richtung ihres Caps fahren. Sie beschießen dann den jeweils schwächsten gespotteten Spieler. Jeder Bot verfolgt dann individuell sein nächstes Ziel. Früher sind die Bots aber von Anfang an auf den nächsten ungesichteten Spieler zu gefahren, id.R. den DD, der in die Mitte mit Boost gefahren ist.

Wargaming hat die XP bereits indirekt angehoben, indem die Anzahl der Schiffe von 8 auf 9 erhöht wurde. Dadurch werden Gefechte länger, es besteht mehr Möglichkeit Caps zu nehmen und für gute Spieler ist ein Bot mehr im Spiel, den sie beschießen können. Im Übrigen muss ich widersprechen. Der Coop-Modus ist heute einfacher als er es je war. Das liegt daran, dass früher all Bots in Richtung des nächstgelegenene Spielers gefahren sind. Es gab früher Gefechte, in denen 5 Bots einem DD zum Kartenrand nachgefahren sind, nur weil der das nächstgelegene Ziel war. Ich erinnere mich noch, dass diese Spieler häufig Hilfe erbeten haben, während das ganze Team versucht hat, den Bots überhaupt hinterher zu kommen. Das hatte einen Leistung steigernden Effekt: Die Bots konvergierten zum selben Ziel, es bildete sich also ein Blob. Dieser Blob traf auch früher schon sehr zuverlässig. Da Coop-Spieler taktisch eher unreflektiert agieren, sind sie früher einer nach dem anderen auf diesen Blob zu gefahren und rausgeschossen worden. Vor ca. 3 Jahren lag die durchschnittliche Winrate im Coop bei ca. 93%. Heute liegt sie bei mehr als 95%. Coops sind also leichter geworden und es gibt mehr XP und Credits abzustauben. Ich sehe den beklagten Misstand nicht. Diese Bestätigungen gibt es überhaupt erst seit kurzem. Sie sind und waren schon immer eine dringend benötigte Hilfestellung für die einfacheren Gemüter, die sich gar nicht bewusst sind, dass es überhaupt sowas wie Kapitäns-Fertigkeiten gibt oder ihre Punkte nicht vergeben haben. Ich bin sehr froh, dass es diese Erinnerung jetzt gibt. Außerdem, überleg doch mal: Der Normalzustand ist doch, dass Spieler mit trainierten Kapitänen ins Gefecht gehen wollen. Keiner will einen ineffizienten Kapitän. Deswegen macht diese Erinnerung sehr viel Sinn. Der Zustand, dass ein Spieler alle Kapitäne zurückgesetzt hat und über längere Zeit auch ohne verteilte Punkte spielen will, ist höchst ungewöhnlich und kann keineswegs empfohlen werden. Dann noch zu verlangen, dass solch eine Erinnerung entfernt wird, nur weil sie dich als einen der wenigen stört, das ist doch unrealistisch. Dann streng doch mal deine grauen Zellen an, ließ dir ein paar Empfehlungen durch und vergib deine Kapitänspunkte. Wenn du ohne Kapitänspunkte zurecht kommst, dann gibt es auch keinen Grund neurotisch vorsichtig bei deren Verteilung zu sein, oder? Nebenbei bemerkt ist das doch ein Beleg dafür, dass Coop eben nicht schwer geworden ist, wenn man nicht mal seine Kapitäne skillen muss, um was zu reißen.

Ich denke ich habe die mathematische Tiefe einer komplexen Spielphysik hinreichend erklärt. Ich habe erklärt, dass ein non-lineares System (a) auf Änderungen sehr unvorhersehbar und non-linear reagieren kann und dass (b) der Programmierer bzw. Nutzer nicht mal eine deutliche Rückmeldung bekommt, dass gerade etwas aus der Bahn geworfen wurde. Das verstehst du nicht oder vielmehr willst du es nicht verstehen, weil du U-Boote haben willst. Deswegen willst du mich jetzt mit diesem simplen "Nennt sich Bug. Und kann gefixt werden." abspeisen. Es gibt keinen Grund hier persönlich zu werden und wenn die Diskussion auf dieser Ebene laufen soll, kann ich den Spieß auch umdrehen: Du willst U-Boote und deswegen ist dir jedes dahergelaufene Argument recht, um sie ins Spiel zu bringen. Passt schon. Das nehm ich dir nicht übel. Einen sachlichen Grund, ein funktionierendes System aufs Spiel zu setzen, gibt es nicht, bzw. hab ich keinen gehört. Du kannst dich entspannt zurück lehnen, weil wir beide wissen, dass U-Boote kommen werden, allen Argumenten zum Trotz. Du gewinnst. Gratuliere. Für U-Boote braucht man kein Argument, man muss nur mit dem Geld winken. Das ist Argument genug. Ich weiß aber eben was passieren wird. Unsere Spielerschaft, der bereits jetzt der Dampf aus den Ohren kommt, wird ein Spiel mit U-Booten noch weniger auf die Reihe kriegen und noch grottenschlechter spielen als bisher. Wir werden noch mehr Steam-Rolls bekommen, die dann nur ein paar Minuten länger dauern, weil das letzte Schiff ein 40%er U-Boot sein wird, das am Kartenrand versteckt ist und unbedingt überleben will. Der CV in J10 wird schon längst rausgeschossen sein, während das gähnende Gewinnerteam im globalen Chat das U-Boot immernoch bittet, doch jetzt endlich aufzugeben und aufzutauchen. Da schießt mir vor Aufregung glatt die Milch ein. Und dann ist das Balancing erst mal 2 Jahre verkorkst, weil's nicht direkt Geld bringt, weil Wargaming wichtigeres auf der Agenda hat und erst mal die nächsten zehn Line-Splits und die ugandische BB-Linie plant - Idi Amin hatte da mal was auf eine Serviette gekritzelt. Einige tausend Stammspieler verlieren die Lust am Spiel und hauen ab und dafür kommen zehntausend neue Vollpfosten über den baldigen Release auf Epic. Aber nö. Haben will.

Das hat im Fall der Paolo Emilio noch geklappt. Wenn die mit Swift in Silence für ihren Nebel zu schnell wird, dann macht man den Nebel halt größer oder weiter vorne. Aber das Spiel nutzt ein mathematisches Gleichungssystem und da kann vieles passieren, was sich nicht vorhersehen lässt. Durch eine kleine Änderung kann's plötzlich multiple Lösungen geben. Dann trifft plötzlich eine Granate auf der Panzerung auf und die Kalkulation spuckt aus, dass das Projektil jetzt einen Durchschlag von 312mm oder 8,45 E+15 mm hat. Plötzlich gibt's einen Overpen, wo vorher ein Shatter war. Es gibt ja bereits lustige Videos und Anekdoten von Zitadellen-Treffern von DDs auf BBs. Klar, da lachen alle und reden von schlechter osteuropäischer Verarbeitung und digitalen Spaltmaßen. Aber kann eben alles sein. Irgendwo hast du eine Definitionslücke. Ein non-lineares System lässt sich nicht einfach pauschal kalibrieren. U-Boote sind ja auch noch nicht im Spiel. Ich rede auch weniger von den Langzeitspielern, als von den Gelegenheitsspielern, die einen ungeheueren Enthusiasmus an den Tag legen, wenn's um neue Schiffe geht. Meine Befürchtung ist eben, dass das Balancing nicht klappt bzw. U-Boote das Spielkonzept aus dem Tritt bringen. Und dann werden viele Spieler keinen Spaß mehr empfinden und sich einfach wortlos dem nächsten Spiel zuwenden. Auch für dich selber kannst du das nicht ausschließen, dass mit U-Booten plötzlich dein Spielstil, deine Denkschule nicht mehr funktioniert und bei dem Versuch dich anzupassen, dir plötzlich der Spielspaß abhanden kommt. Und dann hörst du vielleicht auf. Ich bezweifle, dass man darüber im voraus eine fixe Prognose wagen kann, wie eine tiefgreifende Änderung den Spielspaß verändert. Ich kann's für mich selber jedenfalls nicht. Vielleicht würden U-Boote meine neue Lieblingsklasse werden. Ich finde aber, das Risiko, dass es in die falsche Richtung geht zu hoch. Es rechtfertigt nicht, ein funktionierendes System aufs Spiel zu setzen. Ich hab nix gegen U-Boote an sich, nur halt nicht im altbewährten Random Modus. Don't change a running system. Dann sollen sie eben einen Konvoi-Modus machen, wo ein Teil der Spieler mit DDs einen Geleitzug bewacht und ein gegnerisches Team mit U-Booten diesen Geleitzug angreift. Dann hast du deinen PvP und es geht wenigstens halbwegs historisch akkurat zu. U-Boote haben sich nun mal keine wilden Gefechte mit Korvetten geliefert, wie es in diesem peinlichen Film "Greyhound" inszeniert wurde. U-Boot hat nix mit Action zu tun. Ein U-Boot hat sich mit rekordverdächtigen 10kts an ein Handelsschiff angeschlichen, was überhaupt nur funktioniert hat, wenn das Handelsschiff zufällig nahe genug vorbei gekommen ist. Dann haben sie einen Fächer abgeschossen und gebetet, dass wenigstens ein Torpedo trifft. Und weil das so super spannend ist, fährt man bei Silent Hunter auch die meiste Zeit im Zeitraffer. Die U-Boote haben ein Überwachungsnetz im Ozean aufgespannt. Wenn es sich mal ergeben hat, dass ein U-Boot tatsächlich in Reichweite eines Gefechtes war und man es überhaupt per Funk erreichen konnte, dann war mal ein U-Boot in Kampfhandlungen involviert, dann auch eher so "vom Rand aus". Wargaming macht daraus jetzt eine Klasse mit Lenkwaffen. Klar, U-Boote mit Torpedos ausm Kalten Krieg kämpfen mit Fossilien wie der Bayern. Das ist mir einfach zu bemüht. Klar, fürs Balancing lässt man schon mal fünf gerade sein. Aber hier werden U-Boote mit vogelwilden Eigenschaften in ein Spiel hinein gezwungen, wo sie nicht hin gehören. Es gibt also zielsuchende Torpedos mit Mega-Sprengköpfen auf kleinen U-Booten mit Platzverhältnissen, die einen Wohnwagen luxuriös erscheinen lassen, aber DDs mit viel mehr BRT hatten nicht genug Stauraum für solch fortgeschrittene Technologie? Ein Typ VII U-Boot fährt 20+kts unter Wasser? Es beißt sich. Es ist auch nicht so, als seien U-Boote nicht bereits im Spiel. Konzeptionell übernehmen die Torpedoboote bereits diese Rolle. Sie haben gute Tarnwerte und nutzen diese, um Torpedoangriffe zu starten. Ob die nun tatsächlich tauchen können und damit auf bestimmte Distanz unsichtbar sind oder ob es nun Zerstörer sind mit geringer Sichtbarkeit, ist doch Jacke wie Hose. Wer diese "Stealth"-Spielweise bevorzugt, der kann nicht meckern. Der hat bereits das perfekte Schiff dafür im Spiel. Für echte U-Boote ist so gesehen kein Platz, keine Nische vorhanden. Es besteht schlicht kein Bedarf. Der Bedarf wird nur künstlich erzeugt, indem Wargaming neuere Zerstörer zunehmend Richtung Kanonenboot entwirft, um die Präsenz von Torpedobooten auszudünnen. Wenn nur noch maximal ein Torpedoboot pro Seite existiert, kann man schon 1-2 U-Boote reinquetschen, ohne dass es groß auffällt. Das ändert aber nichts daran, dass WoWs bislang ein logisches geschlossenes Spielkonzept hat, in dem keine Lücke existiert, die durch eine neue Klasse geschlossen werden müsste. U-Boote kommen aus Gründen des Marketings, nicht des Spieldesigns. Anstatt das DDs die Mittel bekommen, sich gegen Luftangriffe zu wehren, wird man künftig einfach abblocken: "Dann spiel halt U-Boot".

The whole game mode sounds like one big painpoint. "Meant for fun" you say. Wasn't the overall feedback on Key Battles that they were "not fun"? Savage Battles were fun. That Fight for the Filth or what it was called, was somewhat fun. The good old Sunray in the Darkness was fun. Space Battles were fun. The Halloween submarine mode was fun. The Bathtub Battles - again don't know the exact name - were fun. You guys have so many fun modes to develop further. Yet it had to be the least popular mode ever. It's self-evident that it is a special mode and that someone decided to use Key Battles again. No need explaining the obvious. Much less self-evident is, why this mode was chosen. It does not offer any features that would need testing cause they would fit into the regular game. At this point, I would find it more useful to make the old removed operations a fun mode and use that effort to help bring them back. At least you listened to some feedback and made the event suited for divisions, cause grinding those halloween missions alone was pretty boring. And once again I cannot say how much I despise a game mode with shifting alliances and betrayal and the resulting toxicity. The community needs game modes that bring players together not a mode that promotes selfish behavior.

Das hat ja auch gute Gründe. Nicht alles lässt sich balancen. Viele Faktoren interagieren. Das ist ein bisschen so, als wenn man sich mit einer viel zu kurzen Decke zudecken will. Egal in welche Richtung man etwas ausgleicht, etwas anderes gerät dabei aus der Balance. Es schreien halt vor allem die Spieler nach U-Booten, für die Balance irrelevant ist. Die sammeln halt gerne Schiffe oder sind eh nicht involviert. Wargaming bringt dann U-Boote und die Hälfte derer, die nach ihnen geschrien haben, spielen schon wieder ein anderes Spiel. Also warum sich nach denen richten, die die Implikationen gar nicht umreißen oder im Zweifel nicht für ihre Meinung gerade stehen? Wenn ich skeptisch gegenüber U-Booten bin, weiß ich warum. Und ich brock auch nicht anderen eine Änderung des Spiels ein und verdrück mich dann. Die Spieler, die sich dagegen aussprechen, sind dem Spiel seit Jahren treu und bleiben auch involviert. Deswegen hoffe ich doch, dass Wargaming dieser Expertise aus der Community glauben schenkt. U-Boote und der ganze Entwicklungsaufwand sind ja nicht umsonst. Man kann mit U-Booten auch lustige Halloween-Spielmodi oder Events gestalten, ohne sie regulär ins Spiel zu bringen.

If you are that much a completionist, you don't need to go out of your way of winning the game. Just pick the right ship, mount the right flags and play the ship as intended. Nevsky should work fine, unless you skilled into IFHE. Smolensk starts more fires, but the careful positioning and limited range will limit the number of targets available. Nevsky has great range and doesn't die that easily. The traditional way in that region is by serving some green tea.

Just to be clear: I reacted to your post with the funny reaction, cause it's funny, not because I wouldn't agree. There's a lot of things wrong with that picture. That Benson is so isolated, the CV should at least have forced it to smoke up in G-line, so that he now is out of smoke and could be killed in 2-3 good drops or 4-6 mediocre drops. The Benson and Edinburgh are competing over who is "First Blood". The Edinburgh should win this clearly, he should never get into the cap. Tbf, if you were not playing Asashio, you could have torped that entrance. Anyway, the east side should be easy. benson is dead, Musashi and Georgia should not be facing away. Riga should be in a position to radar the almost dead Benson at some point, so your CV gets a final perfect drop onto a smoked up Benson. Yeah, I'm going into unnecessary details. Noteworthy again, how players notice criticism in chat and react within seconds, but ignore pings. Sometimes I think they are so bad, they became neurotically obsessed with reacting to insults more than playing the game. If they got the awareness to follow the chat, can't they channel that intensity into analyzing the map? Isn't it almost the same? "Someone tries to sneak into the cap and lose my game. Not on my watch. Gonna radar him immediately." No. But: "Someone called me selfish in chat. Not on my watch. Gonna dig up every 'no you'-type argument I learned in kindergarten." Grown-up people, mind you. It's always the same. You play one class, another class is played so badly, that you think: "I need to strengthen that class by playing it". The in the next game another class is not doing its job, so you decide to go for that. And then in the third game the class you originally started playing is not in position, so you go back to your first choice. Call it the eternal triathlon of Ranked. This is why I happily accept playing against another division, if it allows me to have at least one divison mate in the game that knows what he's doing. Maybe the problem is with how this game is advertised, as an action game, when in fact it has more in common with an RPG. It attracts the wrong people for the wrong reasons, the promise of a "jump right in" action experience. These people don't want to gather information, they are too impatient to even watch tutorials. Let me illustrate that thought with an anecdote. A year ago I had this weird conversation with a guy asking me "What's the thing with Daring and IFHE?" Needless to say, he had come back after an 18 months break from the game to jump right back into high tiers: I'm not gonna complain about how impolite it is to ask for information and then reject it, when it cannot be explained as bite-sized and simple as you want it to be. Just the mere situation, that players like that will refuse to learn. Probably he just opened a ticket accusing a Gearing of hacking, cause his Daring HE shattered while I told him Daring would pen DDs without IFHE. This is such a good community and so many people have created so much palatable information, invested days and weeks of their life-time into reviews and tutorials. And the people they did it for are too lazy to even watch it, much less read it. Edit: Did someone else notice there was a guy in the official german Warships-stream yesterday asking in chat about some trouble-shooting? Yeah, they demand individual customer-support now in a stream with 5k viewers. The level of intelligence of the average WoWs-player.

I tend to ignore chat more and more recently. Usually some weekend admiral is taking command. He is making stupid suggestions like "all go A" which usually translates to "all go A, stick the finger up your noses and wait behind the cap for the enemy to comfortably take the uncontested C-cap, take a flanking position and pen your teams rear sideways". If you try to tell them it's a bad idea you get into a lengthy discussion that your weekend admiral takes personal and it ruins the morale of your team. If you don't get mister "I won 45% of my games and that qualifies me to talk strategy", and actually get to make suggestions, nobody listens to them. One bad player is enough to ruin an even split or a push. Don't bother talking to him, he struggles to read chat and focus on the screen at the same time. He will die doing some non-sense ram in the hope it saves his star and be in the next battle before you even type in chat what a stupid idea that was.

First of all, we're having a serious discussion. Opening statements like "not true at all" are not serious. Don't use phrases like "at all", trying to trigger people in a serious discussion. I know I have a point and trying to devaluate it with exaggerations is not going to work. You are mixing apples and oranges: a) You can't argue with rate of fire buffs that are available to all BBs and independent of playstyle. Even Dead-Eye campers get the reload module and Adrenaline Rush. There is no choice to be made, whether to get the accuracy buff of Dead-Eye or the reload mods and skill. So it can't alter the behavior. b) My argument was made for the counterfactual situation of Dead-Eye being removed and replaced by a skill that gives a pronounced bonus to brawling. I don't mean some slight buff like Close Quarters Expert. I am talking about a buff that is obvious to every potato. Dead-Eye effectively gives a 23% buff in dpm. So for one, the example can't work if two skills compete, one rewarding brawling and one rewarding camping, and second the buff must be a blatant choice for every player of every skill level, like 25% dpm when spotted. In such a scenario, BBs would close the distance to the enemy fast to get the reload buff for as long as possible. They likely would build into a survivability-dpm-hybrid. We would see BBs shooting at each other at ranges of 11-14km. They would likely even skip Concealment Expert to get spotted earlier and get the buff. We would see BBs about 7km away from the center of the caps. DDs would operate in a tiny window of 3-7km from the cap, extremely cautious to not get spotted, since BBs at 10km range would hit them hard. Spotting would become irrelevant over night. Maybe you would still need a CV to spot some HE-spammer hugging an island in the back. Again, arguing in a binary way is not convincing. You don't jump from 6 shells hitting to 4 shells just because suddenly you pass the 10km mark. This is what a Venezia does in one salvo at 11.5km: . Too hybridish? Let's see a gunboat: Too much superstructure and hull? How about Shima: That's 7 of 15 shells hitting (stock Venezia vs. stock Shima). Can you imagine what the upcoming Austin will do with SAP and MBRB? Also it's not so much about spotting. The rock-paper-scissors is more about who can dev strike who. I can stealth-torp a BB in Zao or burn it down. That doesn't alter the fact that the BBs are the counter to cruisers and regularly dev strike them. This above is what one cruiser can do in one salvo to a DD. Des Moines, I admit, is a bit weaker, but since it can radar a DD for 40s+, it's okay if it takes a few salvos to kill it. Call it balancing and also skill, since it's somewhat fair that a DD can outplay its predator when he dodges well and the cruiser can't aim. I think we all are aware of what a good spread of torps can do to a BB and how little a BB can do if it is not shielded by any other class. You can say a lot, but you can't deny that there is rock-paper-scissors in this game and that it defines the efficiency of a team. Also you cannot deny how the mind-set of players to care about their own worries kills that efficiency. I remember a recent battle, where a damaged cruiser and a DD were moving in on our german CV. I was shadowing those ships, but I could not shoot the DD, cause the cruiser would have annihilated me. I begged the CV to attack the cruiser, which he could have killed in one AP-rocket attack, giving me the freedom to move in on the DD and kill it, thus in return solving the CVs problem. But this selfish player was more worried about the DD which was slightly closer to him. So he missed one torp drop after another on that DD. In the end the DD killed the CV and the cruiser later killed me and the CV was raging in chat about "no support". I mean obviously the order what ship counters what threat is not as strictly circular as RPS, and each ship has the capability to solve problems himself, but the general idea of RPS applies. Worcester is an early version of the Smolensk concept. High dpm vs. high risk. It got a survivability buff of 30mm center deck armor, which enables it to bounce shells up to 429mm caliber. In summer 2018 we had a huge radar meta with the USN-cruiser line-split. Some DD-mains stopped playing, cause of the omnipresence of radar. Then there were some minor nerfs, but it's not like cruisers did not have their moments in WoWs-history. With the russian-cruiser line split again radar peaked and 50mm icebreakers dominated the meta. Even CB was reduced to Stalingrad/Petro vs. Venezia. You are asking for buffing cruiser survivability, but that is like asking for a hazard suit in a pool of toxic waste. Maybe your point of view needs to shift to not being dumped into a pool of toxic waste in the first place. You don't need more armor, you need less 457mm guns. 457mm is the epitome of Wargamings expression of love for BBs, unable to pen 32mm, while giving cruisers the finger. This is what you should argue about. Edit: And if you are still wondering, what's wrong with this game and Wargamings attitude and ideas, maybe this ad sums it up nicely:

Can you imagine what would happen if, instead of Dead-Eye we had an equally powerful skill, that would give BBs a 25% faster reload on all guns, if they are spotted? DDs would be unemployed over night. Suddenly we would see BBs in the caps, storming them like there's no tomorrow. There would be no room in between the frontlines for DDs to even operate unspotted. Vision would be inferior to the prospect of a dpm-buff. I experience that already in some matches where in a DD I kill the enemy DD and thus open up the flank. Suddenly I get literally pushed aside by german BBs, cause now they got nothing to fear anymore. They don't need me anymore. In my torpboat I can't stay outside my detection range without falling behind my BB. I can't torp anymore, cause they just close into the enemy. Vision is a very relative concept, held together buy certain incentives, but we are only one skill or buff away from the current meta totally turning upside down. And that is not a conceptional change, but merely a behavioral. I was in a Clan Brawl recently with 3 radar cruisers. I think I was radared and spotted more than I was concealed. It's not just spotting. Spotting is a team effort. A DD gets radared, then plane spotted, then hydroed, then the radar cooldown is gone and you are radared again. And on top you are spotted by shooting, no stealth-firing anymore. Cruisers counter DDs in that they can hit them accurately with a massive salvo that will not overpen. Also they gotta leave a bit of purpose to the CV. Yes, technically already with CVs and even more so if we ever see subs, rock-paper-scissors is not a strict intransitive relation anymore in this game. But the concept of one player solving another player's problem so the other player can solve your problem is there and it determines the team's success.

They got pretty decent verbal torp protection in terms of the forum rules. I would probably support their demand for cruiser nerfs, ask Wargaming to grant us an unscheduled 2xRP bonus on regrinding the PA-DD-line and IJN-torpboats and record a nice compilation of BBs sailing in a straight line into my torps, popping hydro as they spot them. Nothing wrong being the flaming sword of a higher justice. Edit: Look what I just got. I'm just in the right mood for this. Hold my beer!

Can't tell you that either. Sounds like a typical Wargaming-idea, the logical next step in dumbing down a class. BB-only battles would be like safe-mode for BBs. It would deny them the epiphany of learning "what goes around comes around". They are happily cheering in their super-accurate back-line BBs. I think they would love BB-only battles. It's the mind-set of the casual player that he wants the battle of equals, the fair duel, the manly thing. It's what you read in chat: "Cheap coward DD, show yourself." These people do not comprehend rock-paper-scissors. They don't want to understand. They want their idea of a fair fight. Thus, a BB-only battle would make matters worse. It would strengthen their concept of what this game should be. This game however revolves around the rock-paper-scissors principle. The player who does not act selfish, but protects his team mate, enables the team mate to protect him in return from a threat that he is not equipped to deal with efficiently. A team that understands that principle is more efficiently and prevails over a bunch of individualists. This is not just a random concept, it's a core part of the design of WoWs. The relations of who can pen who with what armor, who will make overpens, who will get shatters, is all designed with that mutual dependence of one player on his team mates. The BB-players need to learn that lesson, that by exhausting their prey - cruisers - they have become vulnerable. Let them stew in a torp soup for a couple of weeks and BB players will start begging Wargaming to remove Dead-Eye.

Wargaming, remove the caps! They have become too important to win. May I offer a highly provoking hypothesis: DD play has not become too important. It just appears that way cause DDs are where they are supposed to be, near the caps, securing vision and points gain for their teams. On the other hand other classes have not become inferior, but they just appear to not have an impact on the game, since they are not, where they are supposed to be. If I look over my shoulders in a DD these days, I find the closest ship 8km behind me, which on the map even looks like he's overextending. Isn't it self-evident? A radar-cruiser that does not radar, cause he is not in the game, cause he has been dead-eyed into a port-queen, cannot be important for the win. A BB that is full-hp, cause it let weaker units tank for it, is not important for the win, cause it is hardly even on the map. This is not a matter of design, but a deliberate choice. If I go into a BB-division these days in a pack of brawlers and I slowly push into a cap, in a reasonable distance behind my DD, I become very important for the win. No DD wants to get into that cap, cause as soon as my DD spots him, he gets spammed by secondaries and focussed by 3 BBs. This is not a pack of BBs trying to out-dpm the enemy BBs. This is a claim for a segment of the map and it wins the game. If I am alone in my DD, cause my team abandoned me, I am not important for the win, but I am CV-food. That's the essence of rock-paper-scissors, that whoever is not doing his job, is creating a loose end that dominates the game. It has nothing to do with being important. DDs are not the apex-predator.

I remember watching a video by Flamu about 3 years ago, where he complained about the "damage focus in WoWs". I think that's even the title of the video. Let me find it. Here it is. What he described there has not changed, it has even got more pronounced. The game is rewarding the wrong things. It has always done so and it was never changed afaik. BBs should get rewarded more for potential damage. BBs should get some buffs depending on how close to their DDs they are. Ironically I immediately think they would demand the DD to camp with them in the back, so they get the bonus, rather than ever thinking about getting towards the caps, but that's just a funny remark besides the point. BBs have been wheelchaired into bot-mode. I even heard that some BB player in the forum demanded an all-BB-gamemode. BBs job is to be present, to draw attention and aggression away from weaker units. That is why they got their health-pool and armor. Yet they are mostly rewarded for dpm * time spent spamming. DDs don't get rewarded for unsuccessfully contesting a cap. They prevent points gain in the enemy base or in blocked caps. The points lead gained through this is winning many games. Yet, afaik no XP for that. I successfully held the center circle in epicenter two days ago. As I zoned out enemy DDs, I gave my team 300 points, yet in the results I got rewarded for one solo-cap. Another ship went in and out of the outer circle. The outer circle switched between teams several times. Our team got maybe 100 points from that circle. The player who capped that circle several times instead of continuously holding/blocking it, got rewarded for 3-caps and ended up with way more XP. If I am moving onto the enemy base in a standard battle, I draw massive attention to my DD. Ships from flanks start returning to defend. I delay the points gain. Reward-wise I get nothing for that failed attempt, tho it has a huge impact on the stability of the enemy team. All these things and many more are known for years. We could gather experiences and immediately name dozens of situations, where XP does not reflect a player's contribution to the outcome. Yet this is not even among the top 100- priorities on WG-agenda. Since Flamu's video 3 years have passed. A dozen new lines were more important. A CV-rework was more important. IFHE-rework was more important. The Naval Training Center was more important. The skill-rework was more important. New Halloween-modes that players felt inferior to older ones were more important. Subs will be more important. What are we even talking about? A better reward system does not directly make more revenue. So we can pad each other on the back in mutual consent. WG won't even take notice. Unless you ping some staff, this is just white noise. In fact let's see how long it take for some staff to quote this and say, "we heard you", if at all.

Why would it be legit to ask more from DDs and cruisers than from BBs? When I play BBs I regularly break a sweat, which happens if you do your job. I yesterday had a very nasty conversation with a BB player. All the BBs lemminged to one side. The other side was almost empty and got overrun. They ofc kept camping and slowly moving further away from the base. Then all the requests from BBs started: DD, go spot. Cruiser, go defend base. CV, spot DD. CV, defend base. CV, save the world. While doing so, being 30km away from your base in a BB-blob and making no attempt to even get back into shooting range was totally fine. In the mind of a BB player, all other classes can fix every problem he has and also are obligated to do so. There is a blatant disparity between what BB players think others should do and what they think their own job description is. I see those queues full of BBs. I see them play. it reminds me of the good old Mighty Jingles videos, where we saw BBs derping for our entertainment. This is not a problem. Wargaming should just remove the hard limits in MM and let it sort it out by itself. Let's be blunt. The BB players got everything they could wish for. Armor? Have 37mm-60mm deck armor. Forgot to skill Fire Prevention, cause "damage is XP"? Have IFHE-nerf. Pen-angles too much to memorize for your bio-CPU? Have high-caliber HE and SAP. Now they got Dead-Eye and they get italian BBs to totally wreck smaller ships. But now something unanticipated has happened. The BB players in their ever growing demands for buffs have clubbed themselves over the head. They have overdone it. Their favorite prey - cruiser players - have given them the finger and moved to other classes. Oops, minor flaw, the cruisers are what protected you from DDs. BB players on both teams have eliminated each others support. Not in a single battle, but for the entire waiting queue. So this is the BB-paradise that BB-players have wished for. Have it. Just let Wargaming remove the hard limits and let rock-paper-scissors sort it out. For a couple of days I have played DDs now. Apart from the occasional slave-to-the-BBs gunboat, it's hilarious. I am even starting to see some more 20km-Shimas coming back. This is what you get for chasing cruisers away with your camping Dead-Eye blobs and the reaction is not toxic to the game. It is a cleansing. A hygienic step towards a more healthy meta. If BB players don't want to support their team, their support will withdraw and they will learn the hard way, why camping in the back is not in their best interest. Wargaming, drop the hard-limits and let us have our torp soup with meaty chunks of BBs in it and spiced with tears of BB-players who will come here and whine about how broken torpedoes are.

Ich hoffe doch sehr, dass U-Boote nicht ins Spiel kommen. Ich hab mich jetzt 2 Jahre mit dem Gedanken anzufreunden versucht, und ich seh die Lücke nicht, die mit U-Booten gefüllt werden müsste. Da verhält es sich ähnlich wie mit CVs bei mir. Ich hab noch nie ein Gefecht ohne CV erlebt, wo ich mir gedacht hätte: "Mit einem CV wäre das spannender oder besser oder sonst irgendwie erfüllender gewesen." U-Boote brauch ich nicht, weil DDs ja ausreichend getarnt sind und Aufklärung betreiben und Torpedoangriffe starten. Diese Lücke ist also perfekt gefüllt. Klar kann ich das Argument anführen, dass es nun mal in der Realität U-Boote gegeben hat und diese in einem Spiel mit Kriegsschiffen repräsentiert sein sollten. Dann müsste ich auch Versorgungsschiffe anbieten oder Truppentransporter steuern können, die Kontrollpunkte auf Inseln erobern oder Minenleger. Macht das das Spiel spannender? Nö. Ein Argument, um ein Spiel zu erweitern kann niemals "warum nicht?" lauten. Mir fällt da immer der Aphorismus ein "Perfektion ist nicht erreicht, wenn man nichts mehr hinzufügen kann, sondern dann, wenn man nichts mehr wegnehmen kann." Nach dieser Maßgabe entwickelt sich WoWs mit jedem neuen Schiff davon weg, perfekt zu sein.

Congratulations, you have come to the right place. First of all, let's answer your later questions about rewards. Yes, you get better rewards in PvP. You should get 2.5-3 times the XP earnings in PvP, compared to PvE. Credit earnings in PvE are very limited. Starting at T9 your cost will outtrade your earnings. That however should not be the reason to move to PvP. I myself have played Coop for a long time. You develop a pretty good aim there, since you shoot many more targets. You will be perfectly prepared for any yoloing human. But humans are sophisticated in their methods, so you also need to relearn a lot. You just should understand one thing: The mentality in PvP differs a lot. People in PvP like to win. If they lose and if they think your play is partially responsible for your team losing, they will criticise you on different levels. This is what you are afraid of and I think that is not a bad thing. it is a courteous attitude to accept you are in a team game and your team mates also deserve your consideration. That said, I don't see any issues with you playing PvP, as long as you don't get ahead of yourself. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you go to T6 in your Perth, you will encounter players who are much more experienced than you. They will outplay you frequently and your team will not be happy with your performance, nor will you. There is no fun to be had with losing over and over. So the logical thing to do is a huge step back. Start playing at T2. I know some say you should play T4 or T6, but there is nothing to be gained jumping ahead of yourself. At T2 you will mostly meet new players and be less frustrated. At T2 you will already earn more XP than in Coop. The credit costs are very low, so you will build credit reserves that will help you later buying and outfitting ships. Most importantly, it's - beyond question - your right to play T2, no matter how bad a player you are. Nobody in the world has the right to criticise your play there. T2 is the first step into PvP. It is where mistakes are allowed to be made. So whoever would criticise you in T2, you can just tell them to play higher tiers, if they want better team mates. You don't have to adapt your play to their expectations, but they have to adapt their expectations to the T2-level. Don't get me wrong, you still should play to the best of your ability. But every player must start somewhere and T2 definitely is the right place. So you play there, you experience how human opponents act and you build up your confidence. You can check your stats at WoWs-Numbers to see if you are getting better. Everybody has a hunch, but numbers don't lie. And then, when you see green numbers, like you won 50%+ of your battles and have above average results, you increase difficulty by going up one tier to T3. Rinse and repeat. Don't be afraid to make mistakes, just reflect on them. What went wrong and how could you have done it better? And then next time, try to do it better. Also familiarize with your equipment, the possibilities of your ship, how to skill your captains? Watch tutorials, read the official wiki. Just don't jump into battles without knowing your ship and the potential opponents. I know this must be very hard for new players. When I started, you had to memorize the raw properties of a dozen potential ships you would encounter. Since Wargaming has dumped line after line into the game for years, you now potentially encounter 50 different ships, all of which have some special trait. This is not trivial. But again, as long as you take it slow and don't jump into challanges that are beyond your ability, you don't need to be afraid and nobody has the right to belittle you. Don't deactivate the ingame-chat. I know someone has advised you to do that. You remove the possibility to be insulted, which is legit. But you also remove the possibility to get helpful comments. Sometimes that info is wrapped in nasty words, but it is still helpful info. And again, as long as you are playing at a tier that matches your ability, nobody has the right to expect more from you. Frankly, a person who criticises bad play at T2 has not understood what the purpose of T2 is. He has forfeit any right to criticise you on the spot. And if you want to really learn the game, don't become a battleship-main. I know, some people will hate me for saying that, but it's true. You should learn to play BBs with the experience made playing DDs and cruisers. It will promote your understanding of positioning and how a battles progresses. And if there is something you don't understand, don't be shy, come into the forum and ask the community. This is the purpose of the forum.

Umso besser. Es klang ein bisschen nach Ironie, deswegen hab ich vorsichtshalber mal nachgefragt. Ich denke wir alle sind dankbar, wenn jemand im Zweifelsfall hier nachfragt, statt munter drauf los zu torpen. Wir sind sozusagen gebrannte Kinder. Umgekehrt kann keiner von uns behaupten, noch nie einen eigenen Spieler getroffen zu haben. Das ist ein Abwägen. Auf der einen Seite steht Empathie. Klar, ärgert sich der Spieler, wenn man ihn trifft. Er hat Flaggen und Camo und Lebenszeit investiert und geht wegen des Schadens wahrschenilich mit schlechterem Resultat nach Hause. Das verbietet der Anstand. Auf der anderen Seite hab ich auch Situationen, wo es wirklich ums Gewinnen geht. Wo ich also einen gegnerischen Schlüsselspieler rausnehmen kann, bei minimalem Risiko, einen Freund zu treffen, der entweder nix reißt oder höchstwahrscheinlich tot ist, bevor die Torps eintreffen. Da geh ich dann ein kalkuliertes Risiko ein. Das geht aber (a) auf meine Kappe und (b) rede ich da vom berüchtigten Letzten Mittel eine Niederlage zu verhindern. Ich hab beispielsweise mal zwischen ein sehr gesundes befreundetes BB und ein ziemlich beschädigtes gegnerisches BB getorpt. Der Feind wollte ihn wegrammen und wegen des Anwinkelns war ihm der Erfolg da sicher. Das eigene BB fuhr rückwärts, was der einzig logische Schritt ist, um Zeit zu gewinnen und den Gegner vielleicht doch noch rauszuschießen, bevor er rammen kann. Es macht nunmal keinen Sinn sein intaktes BB gegen ein kaputtes zu tauschen. Also hab ich getorpt. Dann, aus unerfindlichem Grund ist mein Verbündeter plötzlich doch vorwärts gefahren, um genau das zu machen, einen völlig unlogischen Tauschhandel. Dabei ist er natürlich in meine Torps gefahren. Man sieht also schnell: Selbst wenn man rationales Verhalten zugrunde legt, kann man sich irren. Für das Resultat ist das egal. Es mag gute Gründe gegeben haben, zu torpen. Bei deinem Team gewinnst du dennoch keinen Blumentopf. Was noch unerwähnt geblieben ist: Die Reichweite und Geschwindigkeit des Torpedos sind auch wichtig. Russische DDs haben Torps kurzer Reichweite und hoher Geschwindigkeit. Ihr Potenzial, Schiffe hinter dem Ziel zu treffen, ist gering. Torpedos von Schiffen wie Umikaze, Black oder auch die unbeliebten 20km-Torps der Shimakaze oder Yoshino, sind lange Zeit im Wasser, weil sie vergleichsweise langsam sind und, für ihre Stufe, eine lange Distanz laufen. Da ist das Potenzial für Teamschaden sehr hoch. Ein Derzki-Torpedo ist 20s im Wasser, ein Shima Torp 2 min.. In der Zeit kann viel passieren.

What about if I was a promiscuous princess, would I be accepted? Love, Kili