HMS_Kilinowski

I wasn't aware someone actually read that funny remark I made a year ago on the Breitbart forum. The whole point is: Everything is already there in that analysis that @El2aZeR linked. There is no discussion to be made about math. Yet, in an annoying frequency we read these stupid topics driven by narcisstic personalities that want to change the world rather than themselves. Their mentality: If everything is fine about me - which is given - everything and everybody else must be wrong. If I lose the game, the game was rigged. It's that good old german joke where a man driving a car listens to the radio station and the moderator says: "Beware, there is a wrong-way driver on the highway." So the man comments: "One? I'd say they are many." This seems to be an easy joke with a superficial punch line. I found it funny as a child. But now, with everything that happens in the world, I start understanding the deeper layers of the joke and find it is symptomatic for humanity and how each person and subsequently each culture and political movement sees the other ones. Parliaments are stormed over this. It gets to the very core of the community of players, that each of them wants to be good, wants to be right. Even if they are not, they still make the claim in every situation in the game, that their team lost the game, not they themselves. They blame and sometimes insult their teams. This is somewhat independent of winrates, since even good players make mistake and cause their team to lose. Just not as often as bad players do, which again manifests over thousands of battles in their overall winrate. So if you look at it from this microscopic perspective "I did nothing wrong in this battle, it was them." and you repeat that claim for a thousand battles, you arrive at exactly that point of view we read in the OP as well as all the other excerpts of denial in this forum: "Since I made it all right for 1000 times, my winrate is just bad luck and I am still a good player and have the right to give advice and not take it." There is such an arrogant sense of entitlement behind this, that I just can't stand by and listen to that non-sense anymore. Yes, god made this world just for you and the rest of us is just ambience. All you guys with bad stats are such geniuses, so brilliant and just so screwed by RNG, that your right to tell other people they are wrong remains untouched by this and you still claim to be the ones to write books rather than maybe read one. Just give us a break, get your attitude out of our forums, get your pitchforks out of our parliaments, get back to school, get on your knees and humbly ask your old math teacher for forgiveness.

Is there a specific reason why we have to go over this once a week? Once a week some troll or other person that has no clue about the math of statistics, opens up one of these topics, like we have never seen it before. And again starts the discussion about: "Why are people telling me I am bad because of my winrate? Maybe I just had bad teams for 1000 battles while other had good teams for 1000 battles. The common denominator of all my battles is some conspiracy of Wargaming against me, cause I am so darn important to them and the world." It's okay, if you're not good at something, nobody is good at everything. Just don't come in here and dump your unscientific excuses for not being good at this one thing. If you want to be good, make an effort. If you don't want to make an effort, accept you're not gonna be good. If you want to go to space, go there and don't argue that naming is just a matter of arbitrary definition and that space is wherever you are right now. That's ridiculous.

[sarcasm] I don't mind that exchanging credits into doubloons has become more expensive now, but I just tried to convert my 200M credits into 100k doubloons and it doesn't seem to work. [/sarcasm] As long as certain ressources can only be exchanged one way, that is like saying in huge capital neon letters: .

Ich seh schon, dass du ziemlich frustriert bist. Da empfiehlt sich erstmal durchatmen und einen Schritt zurück gehen. Wenn du schreibst "das ding kann man voll vergessen", sollte dir bereits dämmern, dass die Perspektive nicht stimmt. Wenn ein Schiff für viele sehr gut funktioniert, für Wargaming sogar zu gut ist und deswegen entfernt wird, dann kann es kaum schlecht sein. Allein dann musst du schon die Perspektive wechseln und erkennen "das Ding funktioniert für mich nicht" oder, nicht böse sein, ich sag das selber über mich und einige Schiffe: "Mich in dem Schiff kannst du vergessen." Die Möglichkeit zu testen, auch umsonst, wäre wünschenswert. Allerdings brauchen manche Schiffe auch Zeit. Als ich die ersten Dutzend Gefechte in der Jutland gefahren bin, war ich absolut enttäuscht. Es hat mich etwa 50 Gefechte gekostet, um die Spielweise zu verstehen. Jetzt ist es eines der Schiffe, die am besten mit meinem Spielstil harmonieren. Klar, ich rede von dem Silberschiff. Wäre das ein Premiumschiff gewesen, hätte ich mich auch geärgert, aber auch umsonst geärgert. Sehr ähnlich verhält es sich mit der Georgia. Die Georgia fährt man nicht wie einen deutschen Brawler. Sie hat zu schwache Backen, ist quasi eine aufgebretzelte Iowa. Sie hat einen Turbo. Da kann man sich an zwei Händen abzählen, was wohl passiert wenn man da falsch in den Gegner rein drückt. Gegner links, Gegner rechts und mit jedem Meter machst du den Winkel weiter auf zu einem der beiden Schiffe oder gar beiden. Das ist so als würde man sich auf den Rücken legen und dem Gegner die Kehle entgegen strecken, kann nicht gut gehen. Also erste Konsequenz: Wenn es kein absoluter Brawler ist, sollte man es auch nicht bedingungslos auf Brawler skillen. Weniger (Sekundär) ist mehr. Ist ganz lustig, du lässt einen Schwall an Frustration raus, und gibst niemandem relevante Info mit der man arbeiten könnte. Das einzige Indiz, das ich sehe ist, dass du dich über Streuung beklagst. Da stimmt schon was grundsätzlich nicht. Die Georgia hat super Streuung, jetzt mehr denn je. Erster Schritt: Es klingt so als wäre da der Sekundär-Mod im sechsten Modul-Steckplatz verbaut. Weg damit, Geht gerade ja kostenlos. Da gehört der Streuungsmod rein. Die Georgia macht primär mit Hauptbatterie Schaden. Dafür muss sie auch treffen. Die Hauptgeschütze halten Treffer aus, deswegen kann man im ersten Platz die Sekundärbewaffnung am Leben erhalten. Im driten Platz kann man dann, wie gewohnt, Sekundärreichweite erhöhen. Es geht also darum, die Sekundärbewaffnung so zu stärken, dass sie in Duellen unterstützt und die mittlere Distanz dominiert, ohne zu sehr auf Kosten der Überlebensfähigkeit zu gehen. Das funktioniert bei der Georgia sehr gut, weil man in USN-BBs keine Reichweite braucht und der dritte Modulplatz bedenkenlos für Sekundärreichweite genutzt werden kann. Bei anderen Nationen sitzt da der Streuungs-Mod, das wäre dem Erfolg abträglich, müsste man hier abwägen. Also sollten die Mods so aussehen: . Folgende Skillung drängt sich auf: In meinem Fall ist das ein Halsey-Captain mit 21 Punkten. In deinem Fall würde ich eher die rot markierten Skills für den 14-Punkte Kapitän empfehlen. Wenn du bessere Kapitäne auf irgendeinem Kreuzer, DD oder CV hast, dann nutze die Möglichkeit der multiplen Skillung und setze einen anderen Kapitän auf die Georgia. Für Stufe-9-BBs sind 14 Punkte schon sehr knapp bemessen. Der Gegner hat die Punkte, du nicht, schlechte Ausgangslage. Im Zweifelsfall lieber auf niedrigeren Premium-Schiffen hochskillen und dann später auf Georgia umsteigen. Ich schlage halt vor, Priority Target statt Grease the Gears zu nehmen. Wenn Positionierung und Vorsehung noch haken, sollte man unbedingt wissen, wer anfängt auf einen zu zielen. PT ist ein recht hilfreicher Skill. Auf einem Schlachtschiff ist er sowas wie ein "Positions-Qualitäts-Messer". Ein BB auf das niemand schießt, ist zu weit hinten. Der Gegnerwird schießen, wenn nicht auf dich, dann auf schwächere Schiffe. Das wird dich den Sieg kosten. Wenn PT 1-2 zeigt, ist man im grünen Bereich. Alles drüber und du hast dich zu weit aus dem Fenster gelehnt. Deswegen ist auch Tarnung noch wichtig, weil man sollte zu gehen können, wenn es zu heiß wird. Gut, muss ich auch noch einschränken: Auch größere PT-Werte können kurzzeitig okay sein, wenn man gerade um die richtige Ecke kommt und alle schockiert auf dich zielen. Dann müssen aber auch 2 Schiffe mit den ersten drei Salven sinken. Über Fire Prevention brauchen wir nicht groß reden. HE-Salven von Thunderer tun jetzt noch mehr weh, also Feuer so weit es geht unterdrücken. Für 14 Punkte muss man sich schon in Verzicht üben. Gerade AR und Dead-Eye helfen enorm, mehr Schaden zu machen. Ursprünglich hatte ich auch mit ManSec und dem neuen CQC experimentiert, aber die Georgia ist ein vollwertiges BB, das auch auf Reichweite gut trifft und das sollte man nicht sabotieren. Abschließend sollte gesagt sein, dass gerade dieser Build gutes Spiel sehr unterstützt. Gerade die Mischung aus Dead-Eye und Sekundär-Reichweite verhindert, in die typische Falle zu tappen, sich zu weit hinten zu halten oder zu früh zu pushen. Beides wird belohnt, sodass kein Anreiz einseitig den Spielstil verzerrt. Man macht das Richtige und nicht das, wofür man einen Fisch bekommt. Denk dran, das ist kein Brawler. Es ist ein Schiff für schnelle Flankenmanöver, das als Bonus im Nahbereich gute Sekundärbewaffnung hat und auf Reichweite genau ist. Die eierlegende Wollmilchsau. Sie ist schnell, sie trifft hart und sie übernimmt absolut die Initiative. Such den Schwachpunkt in der feindlichen Linie, weich ihn auf Distanz ein und dann drück über einen geschützten Pfad rein und Hebel die Defensive aus.

Might we see a possibility to put premium ships into the Training Room in the foreseeable future? I know that is a bit besides the point of the OP, but passive testing is a big thing for a lot of players. When I get a new premium ship I often want to test it's armor scheme and stuff like that. I want to know the strengths and weaknesses of my ship and also possible opponents. The only way to do that right now is to find a fellow player who has that ship and ask him to dump his ship into training room, waiting bored for me to do my testing. It's asking a lot from other players for a bit of testing that in theory could be done alone. This has been a big thing on my wish list for some years.

I would still go with Kuznetsov. The possibility to use the special captain on other classes has made him so much more useful. I use Kuznetsov on the Kremlin, my premium heavy cruisers and a premium DD. Especially the russian premium cruisers are quite needy, since their builds differ a lot between smoke firing, long range kiting and heavy cruisers. I know, training a 10-pt captain takes a long time. But especially because of that, starting early is a good idea. Marceau seems pretty okay, tho it's not overly team-oriented. Don't have it, so I can't go into details. Yoshino I do have, also iirc over 100 battles on it. But I haven't played it recently. It has a reputation of paper armor and in such a BB-rich environment as we currently have, the reputation can already kill you. Could also be that the generous range of Yoshino now keeps it safe from harm. Your main impact on the game is damage, which I find a bit unsatisfying.

Certain game modes can be a very relevant factor. CVs are especially interesting when you have a longer Ranked season in T8. With other classes you are done after 200k XP, while a CV you can grind to T10 for 400k XP. Also very interesting are the smaller CB-sprints, mainly because you mount a lot of special signals anyway to farm FXP/CXP. In 3v3 you often get very high winrates. With all signals you can easily do 30k XP per battle. I reset my RN-DD-line during the last T9-Clan Brawl. Used the FXP to get the line up to T9 and elited the Jutland in a couple of battles. Rinse and repeat. The beauty doing so is that on the one hand you will often mount lots of XP-signals to fasten the grind, while the winrates in random battles are not good enough to justify mounting all FXP/CXP signals. During sprints on the other hand you want to mac FXP/CXP, since the winrate is high, but you usually waste the XP you gain for boosting your XP-multiplier. If however you pack both motivations together, you make great progress in grinding and farming alike. Love it. I would even go as far as to say I plan my regrinds accordingly.

Since I played Zao in CB two years ago, I've been waiting for a new cruiser line that gets the rudder shift, turning circle and armor scheme to effectively avoid damage. Currently I am playing the Drake, the T9 of my last cruiser line to grind. I know what the philosophy behind it originally was. The RN-line has worse maneuverability than the IJN-CAs at the same max range. It also has slower shells, so you are forced to play it at around 15km. If that sounds like a recipe for disaster that's cause it is. It was before the rework and it is afterwards. The RN-line is designed to not dodge as much damage as the IJN-CAs, due to worse rudder shift. It's supposed to compensate that with a heal that counters the damage actually taken. Needless to say that concept goes out the window when a tight grouping of shells hits your citadel. That again, due to a large step in the citadel on the stern, happens once every game. The Drake cannot be played without range mod and even with it, it is kept at arms length, since it's plane spotted and outranged. I haven't seen such animosity since I played the Pensacola, back when it still was a T7 ship. The Pensacola was notorious for being an easy kill. Players of Indianapolis will still experience the feeling, only that noob players ask "what is an Indianapolis?" while even the weekend players knew about the weakness of the Pepsicola. When you got spotted, your PT-indicator would rise to unreasonable numbers, just out of greed to secure you as the kill. Now, in the current situation, that is the fate of every non-heavy cruiser. If you get spotted, every damage-farmer wants you. Back in the old days with Pensacola, at least you saw a CV once in ten games. Now you are plane-spotted in 2 out of 3 games. You cannot even time your turns right, cause you get spotted out of the blue. That all makes it very demanding to find the right pace for cruiser play. Some cruisers have been nerfed to even mess with their pace. Venezia is a good example. Venezia had a very intuitive natural rhythm of shooting, turning out, dodging and turning back in to rinse and repeat. Then WG nerfed it's rudder shift and suddenly the guns are ready, but the guns are not on target again. Then, when you turn in, every third salvo, you just fall into the window, where the BB shoots you. So you cannot turn in and shoot, but must remain angled or even switch sides. Another issue is range mod. I remember a time, when you did not need range mod on cruisers. Then russian railguns arrived, necessitating the cruisers to increase their reaction time by equipping range mod. I personally am in a fortunate situation that I am almost finished with my cruiser-homework. When I'm finished with Drake, I don't see any point playing cruisers. It's already unrewarding, when your ship lacks the properties to have an impact on the game. If on top of that, you take a great risk of not even leaving the game with a good amount of XP or a fun experience, there is no incentive left. One can make the argument of cycles. Now we get lots of Dead Eye = Dead Brain BBs. So good players unpack their torpedo boats. The DD population then rises and at some point, good players will switch to cruisers to counter DDs. Maybe we'll strike some new equilibrium. But, if you think about it, the balancing of units against each other is not supposed to be gained by their frequency. That would be like saying RTS-CVs were not OP, cause you saw them only every 10th game. That can't be it. Ships must be able to regularly assert their natural playstyle, or they have forfeit their purpose.

The DD lines usually require the least amount of XP to regrind, so using them for the regrind makes sense ... unless you tend to have better games in another class. It could well be you are particularly good at playing let'S say cruisers. Then you would get the still higher XP required for the regrind in less battles, i.e. a shorter amount of time. One more thing to consider is taking your time. Regrinds can get quite costly if done a lot. I know players who use a lot of conumables camos to go through the regrind as fast as possible. Doing so, you will run out of camos in the long run. An imo better way is to play lines where you have perma camos for most of the ships in the tree, especially the T8 and T9 ships. You will get a T9 perma camo in the current dockyard event, so that could be a criterion where to put it. And ofc, if a line is fun to play that is better than if you can grind it fast, since we all know time flies when you have fun. That is the best way to see it. Don't focus on the shiny ship you want to get. Then regrinding becomes work and the game already has enough of that. Pick lines where you found it fun to play them and see it as a nice thing to experience them again. The RP then are just another ressource you earn regularly and get a ship for if the pile is high enough.

Now that you mention it, I sometimes use to lock onto ships that I know get focussed, even if I can't shoot them, cause the higher the PT-indicator goes, the more the opponent starts to panic and possibly make a fatal mistake. Or I switch back and forth to make the PT go up and down just to make the target nervous. Also I remember abusing PT to play dead once, cause when no torps are coming for 2 min and nobody is aiming at you, you start thinking that DD has run off in another direction, where in fact I am just in your soon-to-be broadside to hit you the second you stop zig-zagging to get back into the battle. There is an entire class of skills that is all about awareness. PT, IFA, Vig & RPF. They all give you more information. Even a good player cannot know everything all the time, but you can guess a lot, if you have the intuition and you can avoid situations where even that intuition couldn't save you. Otherwise, if you need that info, you skill into PT and Vig/RPF. You now have locked 4-6 skill points in skills that don't give you a straight performance buff. If you run into an enemy that works his way around those skills, he will gain the upper hand, just because he has some extra dpm buff.

Grease the Gears a.k.a. EM bleibt auch in CB aktiv. Das mag seltenst über Sieg oder Niederlage entscheiden, aber kompetitiv bedeutet ja auch, dass man jedes bisschen Bonus dankbar mitnimmt, auch wenn PM neuerdings nicht mehr für Kreuzer verfügbar ist. Man kann das hin und her wälzen. Ob man nun bei Randoms Lütjens an besten auf der GK, Hindi oder Z-52 nutzt, ist letztlich Präferenz. Aber in CB ist die Hindi immernoch relevant und das kommt für mich oben drauf. Hängt zugegebenermaßen sehr davon ab, welche Premiumschiffe man überhaupt hat und gerne/viel nutzt.

Ich würde noch immer auf Torpedos setzen. Die deutschen DDs sind vom Hybrid-Dasein zunehmend Richtung Torpedoboot verdrängt worden. Fast alle Kanonenboote haben bessere Feuerkraft bei vergleichbaren Tarnwerten. Deswegen wäre meine erste Idee dieser Build: RPF ist hier imo wichtig, gerade weil der Tarnwert so mittelmäßig ist und man zumindest die Jäger erahnen muss, bevor man sie nicht mehr abschütteln kann. Ein Lütjens-Build ist sicher komplett anders, aber Lütjens auf DD drängt sich mir nicht auf, weil er auf der Hindenburg mehr Bedeutung für Clan Battles hat. Z-52 sieht man in kompetitiven Formaten recht selten. Das wäre eher was für die guten Premium-DDs. Die sind mit ihrem exzellenten Hydro auch eher als Jäger konzipiert.

I started questioning the use of PT, too, after this rework. Allow me a slight digression. It's a weird thing that WG would go that way. It has always been my notion that some skills are must-have skills. In a sense WG originally designed the skills so that the first 10 points were a successive unlocking of essential upgrade-type improvements. After those 10 points, which also mark the early learning curve of low to lower mid tiers, you start shaping your build. There were even skills that were so essential they were moved out of the skill system and just given for free. The "detected"-indicator originally was part of the PT-skill, iirc. At some point it seemed so important to at least know you are detected, that WG decided even a 0pt captain needed to have that information. That principle extended into the skill cost. Some skills were designed to be mandatory, thus they were given at a low skill point cost, e.g. PT. That principle however was not followed very consistently, since CE is a pretty mandatory skill but quite expensive. It's hard to understand why they designed it that way and even kept it that way after the rework. I thought one of the key reasosn for the reowrk was to reduce the efectiveness of fully built captains vs. new captains, in order to give new players a chance. The first step in the right direction then would have been to lower the cost for the essential skills, so new player can afford them earlier. Now that reworks throws part of that philosophy out of the window by making basic skills even more expensive. In case of PT: Yes, it is absolutely worth it's two point cost, at least for inexperienced players, but that shouldn't be the point. Charging 2 points now instead of one Wargaming is turning the principle upside down. The experienced players that don't need it, can save that cost for skills that give them the edge early, while new players that absolutely need that PT-information to avoid typical mistakes, now must pay even more of their yet limited number of available points. That doesn't make any sense. That said, I experiment with playing BBs without PT. It works quite well since with the experience of thousanfs of battles, one should know who will likely aim your way. The PT-indicator can give a misleading sense of security. After all it does not tell you who is shooting a target near-by and can shoot you within seconds. It also doesn't tell you if a player is actually intending to shoot you. Especially in a DD my guns often lock onto som target while I do not indent to get detected by shooting. The skill can even work against you. I sometimes aim at targts behind obstacles. When they start moving in the desired direction, I unlock them, cause I want to mess with my target making him believe he is becoming less of a target by moving that way, when indeed I am just waiting for him to clear that island to be vulnerable to me. That works quite well, since a target that intends to move out of cover is usually alarmed if the PT-number starts increasing and will immediately reverse back into safety. I never used PT on all DDs that aren't "light cruisers". On long range gunboats you still need some information on when you start getting focussed. On all other DDs you gotta assume they will prioritize you immediately. I used PT on all BBs, but now I only use it on builds with excessive points. On some builds I have 1pt left, so I skill into IFA, on some I have 2 skills and then PT is the better IFA. On cruisers it's similar, tho there IFA now is a must. IFA has become much more attractive in comparison, since it's only a 1pt skill that somewhat gives less information but also more depending on the situation. As I already said, knowing how many ships got their lock set on you, does not mean they will shoot you. On kiting cruisers particularly I like to keep an eye on the one target that I keep setting on fire, which usually is shooting back. So observing the turrets to immediately dodge is essential for survival. With PT there is a shortcoming, that you may be targetted by several ships but not able to tell, when the ships you are not observing are shooting. You might even turn the wrong way and give broadside to one opponent, trying to dodge a less dangerous salvo from another opponent. IFA in that situation is imo more powerful, since you will observe your greatest threat through the scope while IFA tells you when another ship is actually firing. You can immediately see what ship renders on the map and take evasive action. The downside is that IFA is just blinking like a christmas tree when you get spammed by fast firing cruisers and you get no information out of it anymore. A BB salvo does not stand out Maybe I misunderstand what you want to say, but surely you mean you forget NOT having PT. At least that is my problem currently. I don't realize I don't have it and feel a false sense of security when no numbers are showing up. Then I get surprised by the first salvos hitting me and suddenly remember "right, this one doesn't have PT". That's a risk. I almost think it's better to not use PT at all, cause at least you definitely know its not skilled and don't get surprised. That's a valid point. But wouldn't that also be an argument to use IFA instead? You will play more defensively with PT assuming to get shot, when just some ship has you locked on and can't even shoot you, while especially at long range IFA really tells you when to give full rudder. Only in a DD I don't switch to my guns when supporting another DD, while closing the distance. I often wait just before I get spotted and then start the engagement with an initial volley at close range. That works even better with torping early, cause the opponent does not expect torps from another direction while he expectsto be in an isolated duel. It's almost like what Flamu does when he is baiting a DD with his own low HP while having the heal ready, only my bait is my own lower hp DD-colleague. As long as the opponent thinks he got the upper hand in that duel, he will not disengage and when I start shooting, he is already committed. Edit: Did I say "slight digression" in the beginning?

Yeah, it suspiciously looks like concealment is reserved for another class. One might say somebody is trying to artificially create a niche for submarines that hasn't existed for years, to justify their existence.

I think in this context you are absolved from any Duning-Kruger effect. If anything it is a collective effect shared by the bad players. Also, they might even hit more shells on bigger targets. My purely anecdotal experience with the new meta, especially with HE-spamming BBs is ambiguous. I was expecting much, using Thunderer with Dead Eye. I got hte impression that now I get less fires, since the tighter grouping tends to only light a fire in one section of the ship. More dispersion also means outliers hit different parts of the ship and light two, sometimes three fires in one salvo. More accuracy ofc still means higher alpha damage on a well aimed salvo. It's quite possible that only a minority of players feels a BB overpopulation is bad for the game. When I did some field reseach on what motivates bad players, I came across this strange idea of fairness and sportsmanship along casual players. I can't prove it, it's just a hypothesis. Among competitive players there is a strong sense of rock-paper-scissors, which is also why they value team play that much. They work on the basis that each of them has the tools to solve the problem of another player and together they are strong, they gain an advantage. The casual player works on a different mind-set. He wants to solve his own problem. Rock-paper-scissors is a concept he sees as unfair. Now the starting point is he initially went for BBs, since they are big and promise superiority, just because of their appearance. Cruisers are food, he doesn't take it serious. If an opponent is inaccessible, the casual player finds it unfair and unsportsmanlike. This is why you read a lot of these "reported" remarks and hate speech. A CV is unfair, cause he damages BBs without being in range to be countered. A DD has concealment, every torp is a taunt. Smoke-cruisers are hated, cause you cannot see them. The idea of fairness is this fight man against man on equal terms, a duel. So the casual players like the idea of a fair fight of BB vs. BB. There the casual player solves his own problem, does not depend on communication. If you operate on that mind-set, you will enjoy the current meta and not complain. So it's quite possible that these players, by means of their wallets, redefine the meta of the game, away from Rock-paper-scissors. Just think: Why have we seen mostly DD-hunting DDs in the previous years? So DDs fight it out among themselves and after they killed each other, BBs can have their big boy game uninterrupted by torpedoes?

I'm not sure if that is correct. That is the big argument, that bad players now hit more. They claim they hit more. I don't see it. I am a decent player. After years of practice, trial and error in predicting tens of thousands of targets moves I can not claim that perfect accuracy would do me any good. At a stationary broadside target, unsuspicous of me aiming at it, that might be true. Leading targets as much as 15s ahead, I think I would miss more shots with perfect accuracy. I mean different levels of accuracy are perfect for different player types, depending on how perfect their prediction is. Even I need a bit of dispersion to counter that last bit of error. I think the accuracy Dead Eye gives is already too much for most players. WG designed ships like Lyon or the USN-BB2-line around the needs of these players. More shots with lower individual hit chance. They will blame RNG for their misses. They will accredit Dead Eye with each anecdotal random nice grouping of shells. They will swear they hit better with better accuracy, but they are flattering themselves. They need the shotgun and they gain better hit ratio with more dispersion. Dead Eye works against them, they are just to vain to understand it.

Yes and no. For one we are not talking about the rework in general here but about one specific skill. And then, since Wargaming has granted itself the gift of charging 65% more for a full captain, they don't need to reverse that in order to at least design feasible skills. I mean this rework is not a conspiracy against the playerbase that comes without negative effects for the WG-staff. It is also pretty disrespectful to the people who designed the game for five years. I don't know how many BBs are in the game right now, let it be around 100 BB. Each of these BBs, copy-paste aside, has been designed under back then given conditions, much like a dish, consisting of ingredients that constitute a somewhat balanced mix. You got survivability, damage potential, utility, gimmicks and flexibility. If you got too much of one ingredient you need to balance it out by making cuts at another ingredient. That is 100 BBs that needed to be balanced against each other and all other ships in the game. People spent countless hours in testing environments to make sure that balance was reasonable. A LM-Yamato will hardly benefit from that extra accuracy as there is only limited control over where you precisely aim at 20km. But for a ship like Vermont that inaccuracy is the reason for its high raw dpm. If it is no longer inaccurate, the balancing disadvantage ceases to exist. Now some brilliant minds pour large amounts of a spice into the mix, just out of some gut feeling that this might taste well. Those persons must be utterly ignorant to that balancing effort to think such an action would not screw with each cell of this huge cross-tabulation of balance of each ship to each other ship. This is a huge faux-pas in approaching a sensitive, well-calibrated and - most of all - working equation system. Anybody with a bit of experience in that field would know, this can turn a system upside down. I wonder who is in charge of quality control and how such a thing could even happen. On one side, Wargaming removes reasonable and predictable skills like BFT, that have a very linear effect, appearantly cause the sum of positive effects of a fully built captain make it too powerful against new players with low-skilled captains. On the other side they apply spices as Dead Eye with a shovel. That doesn't make sense and one needn't be a genius to see that. If that were the case, it would decrease the skill gap, cause bad players would get better results out of their unaltered play. The opposite is true as you partially elaborated in the first part of that statement. The good players do not adapt their play to that skill. If they find justification to be closer, they don't mind losing that accuracy. I mean the mind-set is not that you lose accuracy but that you don't get additional accuracy. One can live with that, cause in pushing closer you usually (a) deactivate the enemies accuracy buff as well and (b) gain a specific tactical advantage in moving in, that was the reason to do so. The bad players are bad because they adapt their play style to that skill. They ignore the valid reasons to be closer to the target, cause they fall victim to that skill that has become their new credo.

That is exactly my point. Even more so, the downsides suggest the positive effect needs to be fine-tuned. The effect doesn't necessarily need to be OP. But if e.g. 5% more AP damage was such a strong effect, that you need to add longer fire/flooding, why not make it 4.5% more AP damage. It's not like anybody would kill Wargaming for using digits. I am not even going to touch on the subject that for 3 points in the old system you got a straight 10% dpm-buff, while you now pay a penalty for a conditional 5% buff. It's just ridiculous and it kills the whole argument WG gave about wanting more diversity. They just wanted a maxxed captain to cost 3M CXP. The rest was show.

You put 4 of 21 possible points into a skill that makes most players play less efficient. Isn't that penalty enough? I don't like the whole idea of a downside of a skill. A skill is supposed to be an upgrade, not a sidegrade. If I spend commander points I earned from lengthy grinds, I want a clear advantage, otherwise it's not worth the effort and we can all just play with 0-point-captains. I find the notion funny, that people ask for a feedback, whether Dead Eye is active. Aren't these the same people that tell us they now hit a sparrow between the eyes from 20km away with Dead Eye? If I can't tell the difference, maybe I just talked myself out of a placebo effect.

I think the key argument @Kartoffelmosis making, was that it's not the 10% less range that I said and I guess he has a point. So, assuming the graph is correct, without Dead Eye you would have to move even closer than 10% to get the same dispersion. But there is also a counter-argument to be made, refering to what @Sunleaderwrote in the following two parapraphs: I took the liberty to add some notes to the graph: What I want to illustrate here is the two effects Dead Eye has on good and bad positioning. The first effect is the Dead Zone. Now on this graph I assume a concealment range of 13km. You will see that at 13km dispersion jumps to the orange line. The red marker depicts the actual dispersion in the Dead Zone. So as you got an assured jump in dispersion, every player will try to stay out of that Dead Zone. That zone is the enemy's leverage to push you away. As a more range oriented BB I am now in a dilemma. I would need to push even closer or further back to regain dispersion. I know getting below that Dead Zone I enter the secondary range of brawlers. Bad idea. So the BB starts reversing and at a point where the enemy catches up faster than the BB can reverse, he will try to turn and run. Also pretty bad, since the BB gives broadside. One can see that this Dead Zone is the more pronounced, the greater the difference in dispersion is. So, given the difference is even more than the 10% I argued, the Dead Zone is an even larger ring around the cap area. In terms of good play we got the Sweet Spot. This is where we actually get better dispersion than without Dead Eye in absolute terms. There is no point playing further back, when dispersion is not better than it is at your detection range. But in that window, in the example 13-16km, you actually maintain an advantage. The problem however is, that while in the Dead Zone worse dispersion is guaranteed, especially the Sweet Spot area is also an area of uncertainty, where a DD or cruiser ahead of the BBs might pop up and ruin that dispersion. So for bad players even the Sweet Spot is a Dead Zone, since they got in their mind they need to maintain a buffer between their concealment range to the nearest known target and the possible range to an unknown closer ship. That kills the Sweet Spot and makes BB-mains ... I mean bad players ... play from a distance, where the dispersion is worse than at the range of assured detection. And that whole window becomes very large, if the effect of Dead-Eye is large.

I don't agree with him. I agree with what @Sunleaderwrote just before me. I don't see a meta change, cause I still play as before. There might be a perceived meta change that causes bad players to hang back. That's not my problem, it's something that I can abuse against them. If I can push closer without exposing, they will try to maintain a comfortable distance, so one after another they will retreat and give up map control. I can leverage their selfishness to get into crossfiring positions. I so far do not feel any pressure to hang further back than before. I do get hit more often, but that is due to me not using Priority Target anymore and trying to rely on my instincts rather than a PT-indicator. That takes time to adapt to. BB-mains have always been hanging back, it's just that now the rework has given them the perfect excuse to do so. Yes, you get a 10% smaller dispersion with Dead Eye, but let me tell you a dirty little secret. *drum roll* Rumor has it you can work around Dead Eye. There is a sneaky exploit to get even less dispersion than with Dead Eye: By moving your ship closer. It may come as a surprise, but BBs without Dead Eye have the same dispersion as those with Dead Eye, if you move them 10% closer to your target. If you look at it from that perspective, most BB-players now spend 4 skill points not for 10% better accuracy but for hanging 10% further back. So they get the same accuracy as if they were 10% closer, but they also get 10% longer shell flying time. At the long range that currently BBs are playing, that means a 1s-1.5s longer window to predict your opponents movement. People think they hit better, when in fact, due to the increased distance, they hit more accurately a worse predictor. Overall their results are worse than if nobody used Dead Eye. It reminds me of someone I know who paid thousands of Euros for better isolated windows to save energy cost, when ironically he ended up enjoying 3°C higher room temperature and paying as much as before. If people were smart, their play wouldn't change, cause they'd milk Dead-Eye for all it's worth, getting as close as possible and hitting the enemy accurately instead of playing their BB with one hand only. It's just funny how suddenly everyone feels his shells are converging towards a single pixel just because he got Dead Eye, while hanging back further. With german BBs and their bad dispersion, people were exaggerating about the shells landing all over the map. Now a skill gives a 10% smaller impact zone diameter and suddenly every ship is declared to be a sniper. The perception of man sometimes is just ridiculous. You may believe the full-bodied figures of speech of CCs or just look at the math and be duly less excited. Fact is: 1. Mediocre players are hanging back, cause they are too limited in their logical thinking to understand the trivial relationship between distance and dispersion. 2. Doing so they hit as unreliable as ever, but tell themselves they are more accurate now. They now accurately hit the wrong spot, instead of accidentally hitting the target due to outliers. They impose a handicap upon themselves without even realizing it. If you are average or below, you should thank RNGesus for existing. He exists solely for you and he helps your results. 3. Very good players are now hitting better than before, cause they can predict evasive maneuvers of their targets sufficiently enough to really aim for the spot where a WASDing target will be 10s after firing. 4. The points 2. and 3. increase the skill gap. 5. The worst point however is the perceived change in the meta, which cannot be addressed by nerfing Dead Eye, but only by removing the condition of no enemies spotted.

I am not a Pommern owner for precisely the reason that I had to choose between Pommern and Lütjens and I chose the captain. With the captain rework, a good captain has become more relevant to the game. Since the other german special captains were designed to be crap, the Lütjens captain is not just another captain, but the only one with relevant buffs and talents. The Jütland-captains have been for niche purpose before and since the removal of Vigilance for all ship types but BBs, they are even more useless. So Lütjens is the only captain that can keep up with the generous buffs that other nations unique captains got. Another BB in your port is not going to change your game experience that much, but the captain will. I use it on the Hindenburg, where the skill buffs also work in CB and I can use it on all premium ships, which makes it quite important. There will be plenty of time to still get the Pommern. All ships that were removed from the game were deemed overpowered or damaging to the meta. The Pommern is neither. It has a solid but not excessive winrate and since brawlers have never been the meta and do not appear to become the meta, much less change it in a toxic manner, the Pommern will likely never be removed.

There are some differences in philosophy. A lot of players will argue that secondary builds are dead. For certain situations that is true, but then again it has been true for those situations even before the rework. I think they are still alive and if you play them right you can even abuse the current meta to your advantage. My Georgia captain is Halsey, which I use on Massachussetts, Georgia and Ohio alike. It is a slight compromise of the needs of all three ships. You could tailor a normal captain to the specifics of each of them, but then you would lose the talents of the unique captains, which is not a worthwhile trade. So here is the build: It deviates a bit from what previous posts have elaborated. With Priority Target being a 2-pt-skill, I find it too expensive. There are certain skills that help your situational awareness, e.g. PT, Vigilance. However if you're honest, these skills also make you lazy and comfortable with having certain knowledge, that you should have internalized as you become a better player. It's nice to see torps from further away, it's good to know when enemies start shooting you. But you can avoid getting into a situation, where you are torped, at least be in a position, where you can dodge the torps. PT is not as easy. I had come to use PT regularly on most ships. But now I start experimenting around it and I find, you just gotta assume certain people will aim at you, when you are spotted in a prone position. If anything, I would now take IFA, since that really gives you an information you don't always foresee. But enough about skills I don't use. I use Gun Feeder and Grease the Gears, two skills that are identical to the previous skills Expert Loader and Expert Marksman. Thanks to Wargaming for changing names on unchanged skills, just to confuse everybody and make old tutorials and info material even more obsolete. The reason for both skills is simple: They are buffed versions thanks to Halsey, and they make sense. You still shoot quite a lot of HE at angled targets and DDs, so you need to switch ammo a lot. And since Georgia will end up in brawling situations, keeping your turrets on DDs or BBs during drive-by is essential for winning that one moment that decides over who eats 30k damage first and is out of the game. AR, CE and FP are still no-brainers. You still get lots of fires and FP keeps you alive, more than another heal. Then we come to the defining skills: Long Range Secondary Blabla and Close Quarters Expert (CQE). Both skills synergize. CQE gets triggered by an enemy in your secondaries range and LRS... extends that range. So you get a brawler that is not as dependent on secondaries, but buffs the main guns. If you look at your results, you will still do most of your damage with your main guns, so if you boost dpm, boosting main guns makes more sense. Also it may well be that an enemy tries to turn away, once he notices your secondaries. The faster reload on main guns makes it more likely you have your AP ready to catch him broadside. The upgrades are as follows: Main guns rarely get knocked out, so you can keep your secondaries and AA alive in the 1st slot. The 3rd slot is important to max out the secondary range and again synergize with CQE. BBs need to exert influence. They do so by putting their foot on the map and making a claim for the area around them. The area gets bigger the further your secondaries reach out. To make a claim they must stand fast and be inconvenient. So on top of a rain of fire, they must be tanky. That is why the Georgia uses FP and survivability upgrades in slots 2 and 4. The rest is obvious. Concealment is still needed to disengage and manage the damage taken. And since your opponents use Dead Eye, using the unconditional accuracy buff in slot 6 is a good idea to keep up. The idea of this secondary build is to exert influence. Also especially with the flanking and bullying ability the speed boost gives on the Georgia, you use your brawling skill to turn the tables. Imagine the psychology of the average BB player. He got Dead Eye, he likes one hand in his pants while using the other hand to operate his mouse and spam from long range. It's so convenient for them. Now you use the environment to push from an unexpected position. Ideally you do it in a division with other brawlers, since if you are alone, you get focussed down. At some point the psychology will work like this: "Oh, this ship is getting close to my detection range. Do I need to move? I don't want to, but my Dead Eye skill will no longer work. So I turn my ship or start reversing, stupidly assuming all other players will not react to my move." Now the next BB thinks: "Why is he moving back? I am not going to be your meatshield. Screw this, I will turn away." Now this vicious circle of selfishness evolves into a retreat. That allows your DD to take the cap. Now the cap is red. Red indicates danger. Have you ever noticed how ships start moving away from a red cap, cause they get this weird idea of "Stay away! Danger!"? They start giving more and more ground. What good is Dead Eye, when you allow your entire team to be cross-fired from a collapsed flank? All those mind games don't work on good players, tho, but most teams these days are mostly mediocre and, more important, self-centered players. So I claim a brawling build still works like a charm.

On a more serious note, I feel it's about time that we start hearing some statements from Wargaming. After all, the Dead Eye skill is suspiciously effective and very likely to get changed or removed. I think the community should get some feedback BEFORE the respec period runs out, so they can still react to the changes. There is not point having players commit to builds using Dead Eye, when it then gets changed to an extent that will likely require another respec. Dear @Sehales, enjoy your weekend. But come the next week, please be so kind to ask some colleagues involved in the skill-rework, what their plans are with the Dead Eye skill. I'm sure many people are eager to know.

I have done some testing and I am using something I would classify as a "brawling"-build, rather than a secondary build. I still max secondaries range, but appart from that I go for main gun quality. That includes the dispersion mod in the 6th slot and the new Close Quarters Expert (CQE) skill. So I still push into secondary range for an good reload buff. Since all the Dead Eyes are keen to keep distance and I am motivated to close the distance, this often results in an easy claim over my part of the map. But this is all anecdotal. My current - subject to change - captain looks like this: So there is a lot of main gun dpm in it, a bit of stealth and survivability. A compromise if you will. It works quite nicely in most situations.