HMS_Kilinowski

I gotta say tonights Clan Brawl was not overly enjoyable, partially due to the FDR. The FDR is designed for massive strikes in a full 12v12 team. Now the Brawl forces a CV into a 5v5 format and many CV-players go for the FDR. The maps are still rather big for the small team size, so ships easily get isolated. That situation does not work well with a CV dropping 8 torps on you in a tight pattern. We even saw early CV-sniping attempts, which I am sure are quite successful. Wiht CVs like FDR, CVs clearly break every format that is smaller than 12v12. Regular T10 Clan Battles with FDR will be a nightmare.

@Tanatoy Concerning the removal of Somers: Usually Wargaming is giving a reason for the removal of a ship. Not so far for the Somers. Is there going to be a more explanatory statement in the future or can you give us the reason for that decision now? I got the Somers. I wouldn't go as far as to say I regret getting it, but I only play it when I see no CVs in the queue. Honestly, it never struck me as being powerful. I got a terrible winrate in it, and that is including the selection bias, that I only play it when no CVs are to be expected. It might have been powerful before CVs became more popular. But now it is just CV-fodder. It has too many things to fear and run away from to be effective. All the new DDs added, are outgunning it: Halland, Smaland, Hayate, Marceau, Paolo Emilio. Its concealment is so close to its predators, that it doesn't get a lot of reaction time. Really, if anybody would have asked me which steel-ship might be removed next, Somers would certainly have been the least likely. Stalingrad has always been powerful. Bourgogne can be very powerful in the right hands. Roosevelt looks brokenly strong. Even Shikishima has its moments, tho it seems somewhat balanced. Somers is a dinosaur in the current meta. The thing is, removals are announced still at short notice, concerning how slow a player earns ressources. This inconvenience up to now was mitigated by common sense. The player base could up to now make sense of what ships would be threatened of removal. The removals of Smolensk and Thunderer were somewhat obvious. They could be foreseen months before the removal, way before it was ever announced. So the players had anticipated that and got the ships early or they had started saving ressources just in case. The removal of Somers, on the other hand, is totally unanticipated. So, bear in mind, players are extremely unprepared this time. The stats on Somers are misleading. Somers is a torpedo boat. Also it has far better long range capability than Shima. The huge damage numbers are mostly done torping BBs or accidentally hitting them in the second row. Current numbers say Somers does 60k dmg, while Smaland only does around 50k. But 60k on a ship like the Yamato are almost irrelevant, while a Smaland gets a higher proportion of damage chasing, radaring and killing DDs. Smaland has a pronounced impact on the cap contest the destruction of enemy DDs, gaining the spotting advantage and thus winning the battle. To evaluate a DD, talk about its winrate, not its damage. For a good reason we have not seen Somers in a competitive environment other than the first KotS right after Somers' release, which also didn't feature CVs. And bear in mind stats are biased by what type of players play a ship. Many players would buy Stalingrad first, then Bourgogne and Somers only, if they had excessive steel earnings. So Somers players are likely more experienced and experienced players likely have better stats. So unless there is an extremely plausibel explanation as to Somers' removal, I don't see it. And honestly, I doubt a lot of people will now buy it out of panic, when they are much better off, getting a Roosevelt or the upcoming Plymouth.

Yeah it's a patch, but that's a different situation, cause a duplicate of a patch does not fulfil any purpose. So getting compensation is intended.

That's interesting. For a couple of days I wasn't all sure anymore if that bug had actually happened as I described it. But then I saw the iChase video, where he opens 1000 Santa containers at once - 3000 all together - and there it's basically the same principle: The crates are opened simultaneously and that changes the drops compared to if he had opened 1000 crates one after another. I mean he would never have gotten only mid tier premium ships for 1000 crates, if he had opened them sequentially, After each opening the set of ships would have reduced and he would have started getting the good ships after a couple of hundred crates at most. But opening the Santa containers simultaneously obviously means all crates are opened without the drops sequentially altering the drop rates of the remaining crates. I wonder if that is a bug or if it is intended? Can anybody shed light on this?

No cherry-picking, mate. No risk, no fun.

Dear Wargaming, can we please make a swap? Since NobleSauvage doesn't like his Supercontainers, can I get them instead, whenever he gets one? You can happily remove one of my ressource containers from my allotment that day and give it to him. Hell, he can have all 3. Win-win. Sincerely yours, HMS_Kilinowski

Yes in terms of cleanliness, giving the player what he opts in, is definitely the fail safe way. But you should also keep in mind, you are talking about a very minor flaw. It's literally only going to be an issue if a ship is removed the next day that you would need another 400 coal to get. Very remote case and also avoidable by planning ahead and not spending coal unnecessarily.

So you expect someone who cares so little about this game that he abandoned his own clan to still hang around this forum and read your topic. And even if he really reads this and cares, he is left with no proof of your honorable motivations other than you wanting to save a few bugs. There might be a minor flaw in your plan.

Solo Warriors have become extremely rare since the CV rework, unless of course for CV players. They can get them easier since they are away from the battle anyway. The usual way is for a DD to make sure your team has the cap points ticking, even if the battle goes somewhat bad at the end. Usually it takes a team that does not throw too hard at the beginning but gets somewhat greedy at the end. If you have another player with a working brain cell left, he likely will disengage, realizing your team will win on points. So what it takes is that the last few players do not care about winning on points but are stubborn and will ignore chat asking them to "go dark, run and survive". They then will go move in against superior forces and get annihilated, leaving at least 4 enemy ships and you alive. With the general presence of mind, it might seem surprising you don't get Solo Warrior more often. But as I said, since the CV rework it got harder. Lots of CVs in games and if you want to go dark and run, you often get spotted by planes and killed by incoming fire.

I like the chance of getting a SC. Not getting the coal from the chosen ressources container is only an issue, if you e.g. need the coal to buy a ship that is about to be removed from the game. But that should hardly ever happen. I mean the odds are very low. What Wargaming might consider, if that is not deemed too greedy, is giving the player the ressource container and a SC on top of that. The odds of getting a SC are so low, iirc 1.5%. So you get one once every 2 months, given you play a lot and get all three containers every day. If you would still get that ressource container on top, that would not change the ingame economy. You'd be getting one extra ressource container every 2 months. That's not gonna make you rich or Wargaming poor, as we say around here.

How many losses in a row? Statistically speaking a real losing streak is to be expected roughly once a year. The best thing is to do something else and cool off.

Well, I did it. For the first time in my "WoWs-Career" I skipped a grindable ship - the Minnesota. It cost me more than 300k FXP and that means a lot, since I am usually quite carefully spending my FXP and saving it for ressource ships. I agree to a certain extent. Wargaming can't win, irrespective of how powerful a new line is. However I suggest this is not directly linked to the ship's power. First and foremost a new ship line is expected to add something to the game. The power is just an extension of that expectation. Let me dissect that with a couple of recent cases: 1. RU CA-line: We already had enough radar ships. Some russian cruisers before the line split had calibers of 180mm and 220mm, they were already heavy. What did the new line add? A bit of Moskva-ish bow tanking ability and better AA. The latter is nothing new but just a shortcoming of all lines due to increased squadron sizes and plane tankiness. The russian CA-line was not needed and most players before the announcement would never have put that on the agenda. So what did Wargaming do to draw attention to this repackaging of an existing line? Make it so strong, it would become the meta ships. Now Clan Battles are drowning in Petropavlovsks. In short: RU-CAs are superior to compensate for adding nothing new. 2. RN-CAs: The RNs are kiting fire-starters, much like IJN-CAs. Only they got less range and worse maneuverability. They get hit more, so to compensate for that, they got a heal. The line has not a lot of utility, it's just another mild variation of the existing lines. However this time, Wargaming did not make it a powerful line. Consequently the line was deemed "boring". The line is not more boring than the RU-CAs, its same-old playstyle just becomes more obvious as it is not obscured by superiority. In short: If they are not superior, people realize how unexciting new lines have become. 3. USN-BB2-line: The line itself is just plain boring. To experience the action, the evolution of a battle, you need to be in the center of events. The USN-BB2-line is too slow to keep up. You mostly experience the battle at maximum zoom level, wishing you were 10 km ahead of your current position, whether you are pushing or running. The accuracy got buffed. Vermont seems to land a hard punch. Anything before that does not. Ofc it is not exciting to carefully aim for a distant target and see your shells disperse all around it. The USN-BB2-line is as sexy as porridge. Now here comes the irony: Tho it is designed to help the weak players, it is not appreciated by them. Why? Cause no weak player likes to see himself as requiring the aid of a line for beginners. If they miss shots - in their perception - it's cause the the target was moving too fast/slow/whatever, never cause they failed to anticipate that movement. If they miss, they blame dispersion. If they hit, they claim skill. They would never think, they aimed wrong and got lucky by getting at least a few minor hits. Even a beginner thinks he would hit better with a ship having Stalingrad-levels of accuracy. Even a beginner will blame the slow speed of the USN-BB2s for being out of position rather than keeping him out of trouble. Grandpa hates the wheelchair and the hearing aid, cause they make him feel inferior. In short: People say it's junk, cause this line is perfect to take the blame, covering up individual misplay with its beginner traits.

Don't buy them now. Wait for them to be moved to the ship section, at least if you want to use a coupon to buy it.

Jedes sekundäre Geschütz schießt nur, wenn es ein freies Schussfeld gibt, also (a) die Deckaufbauten des eigenen Schiffes nicht im Weg sind und (b) Erhöhungen von Inseln die Flugbahn nicht verdecken. Sofern die Insel flach genug ist, erkennt die Zielautomatik das und schießt auch selbständig. Es dauert immer eine kurze Zeit, da die Sekundärgeschütze erst drehen müssen und auch dann erst die Munition geladen wird. Und natürlich: Falls man die 4-Punkte Kapitänsfertigkeit Manuelle Sekundärbewaffnung gewählt hat, schießen die Sekundärgeschütze nur, wenn man mit Strg + linke Maustaste auch ein Ziel auswählt.

That is unfortunate. Dear @Harvin87, if a guy as good and knowledgable as Teob offers to div up and check your play, you really should follow up. Hell, I am a good player and even I would happily take a lesson from him any day. Need I spell it out?

You realize the first topic you refer to was started by the OP of this topic. It's reasonable to assume he is familiar with his own topic, even more so since he participated actively in the discussion. Your stats are so even, I struggle to see any pattern. Bismarck didn't work but Scharnhorst did. The ships are so similar, I feel most of your ups and downs are just random variance. So it's hard to give advice. Actually the first link referred to by @HansRoaming is not a bad starting point. Maybe you should have stayed with that topic and not opened a new one. Now readers will treat you like you never asked advice and give you the same generic info you got in the first topic. You have taken advice before, you posted a replay that you were given specific feedback on. From what I read, you even divved up with @_Teob_. So let's go from there. What did you learn, what lessons did you implement in what way into your play style and how did that turn out for you? Maybe you want to post another video, ideally playing the Akizuki in a CV-battle again, for comparison. Give us something to work with. Please, just don't. You know there is gonna be people who read this and not get the joke. One of the last things the game needs is more bad CVs and the last thing the game needs is more good CVs. One might even sum it up: The last thing the game needs, is CVs. Interesting original thought. Maybe I should tell that to Wargaming, since they don't seem to know already since seemingly nobody ever told them.

The new USN-BB-line is what it's supposed to be. Whatever negative impression people here got is just consequential. These ships are designed for inexperienced or unmotivated players. The forum rather sees players not being part of that majority. Being motivated is what brought you here in the first place. So it's not surprising many people here do not find in these ships, what they like, and "downvote" or freeXP parts of the line. It's like criticising a tricycle for kids for not being good at cornering. If you think about what characteristics a ship for casual players would need to feature, it just looks like the USN-BB2 line. Maybe I would make it harder to citadel, but then a ship like that almost starts being overpowered. Of course it has bad dispersion, cause the guns are designed to mitigate flawed aiming and make one or two shells of a completely missing salvo hit the target. They compensate that with more barrels and higher caliber. Of course it is slow, to prevent yoloing and make changing sides and lemming trains less attractive. The line mitigates some of the flaws of bad play and does not reward the qualities of good play. If we in the forum would like it, it would have failed its purpose. Not every line is for everybody and this line is likely not for us, as much as it may disturb any completionist or collector. If you look at the stats, the USN-BB2-line is not bad ... for a silver ship. In comparison to the other lines, the USN-BB2 are on the upper end XP- and dmg-wise, and for most part the winrates are okay or good. Now keep in mind a ship for casual players by definition (don't punish bad play, don't reward good play) gets a higher bottom end and lower ceiling. The first to jump to a new line are usually the ones who can afford it, who have finished most lines and have FXP lying around to get T9/T10 ships as soon as they are available. They are usually the more experienced better players. They cannot have the same positive impact on the stats as they would with lines designed for pros. That makes the USN-BB2-line initially appear weaker than other lines. But that is okay. Even if it was a line that would on average see 3% lower winrates for the top half of the players, but 0.5% higher winrates for the bottom half, the line still would make sense.

You should have considered more options for your poll to account for the preferred ship class of the person voting: I am a torpboat-main: DDs are dead. I am a gunboat-main: DDs are dead and I'm proud to say I did my part. I am a CV-main: DDs are dead. CAs and BBs will be next. I call myself a CV-main but I ignore the square my team keeps pinging and use my rocket planes against a top tier BB instead: Buff CVs. I am a radar-cruiser-main: Hold it right there! Well this DD certainly is as dead as can be. I am a non-radar-cruiser-main: Why is the BB next to me dead and what is a "hydro idiot"? I am a BB-main: BBs are dead. Remove DDs. Make cruiser plating 25mm max.. I am a BB main and don't know what the w-button is for: No opinion (as in: What does DD even stand for?). I am a BB main and don't know what the s-button is for: DD-campers, hold my ... . Noob team! Back to port. I play all classes and get teamed up with the player types above: The Enlightenment is dead.

I am through all lines but RN-CAs - currently T8-Albemarle - and the freshly released USN-BB2, with T9-Minnesota currently in port. The big to-do list is CVs. I know people hate them. I am not particularly looking forward to it. Still, I know I'll have to play them soon, if I want to understand them better. In the past I ground the lines almost all at once. Some lines were further ahead, others almost untouched. The goal was to have a couple of grinds in every tier to choose from and gradually work my way up using as many daily wins on as many ships as possible. If I didn't have time to play them all - quite often - I prioritized the lines most needed for Clan Battles. The downside of grinding lines evenly is that you don't get used to ships. Playing russian railguns along with american rainbows throws off your internal aimbot. Your winrate is lower than it would be if you played one line after another On the upside you get to know a lot of playstyles early. Stupid stuff, like me bullying a Khaba to cap early, never was an issue, cause I knew what ship can do what. Also, no matter who I was in division with and what tier that person needed to play, I never had to sink XP into an elited ship. I would do it like that again, if I had to. Maybe I'd do it slightly different: I prioritized too many fun lines early, so at the end I was stuck with inferior lines. I had hoped they would get buffed by the time I play them. Some did (e.g. Izumo, FdG). Others however I unlocked just as they got nerfed (Chung-Mu, Mogador, Jutland). So yeah, my kingdom for the gift of foresight.

For me it's never a single isolated event. There are actions that create appreciation and such that create disappointment. It's like a dance, one step forward, two steps back. The Puerto Rico is tattoed in my memory. The changes in compensation policy, with premium ships (credits instead of doubloons) as with perma camos (e.g. Moskva) have left a mark. Moving Legendary Modules / Unique Upgrades to the NTC 2.0 a.k.a. Reseach Bureau was a step in the wrong direction. CVs are not fixed yet and already all energy is put into forcing submarines into the mix. The summer sale became a gambling event. The anniversary was a huge success and recovered some hope. Then Halloween and Black Friday came and both fell behind their respective past events. The Santa Containers are just another confirmation about the direction the game is heading. They don't change a thing. I started thinking about an "exit-strategy" for this game as a consequence of the Puerto Rico event. I have adapted my purchases in a way that will allow me to go through my premium time and then move back to F2P. I got enough high tier premium ships that will allow me to play without a premium account. Part of the whole business model of WoWs is to bloat the game with ever more ships, none of which can compete with the qualities of the few removed ships. So if you have some of those "must-have"-ships, you can certainly live without having Odin, Anchorage and whatever ships will make it into the game. That is not a fixed exit strategy. I got enough doubloons and premium time to wait yet another two years and see what the future brings. I had my fun. I feel I got my money's worth in the past. The best things in this game were for free, meeting good people. So yeah, the Santa Containers don't change a thing for me. I implemented my exit strategy a year ago. I was confirmed in this step throughout the year. A very long countdown is running. Unless I experience a dramatic change in how this game evolves, I will probably be gone within the next two years, without needing to spend a dime. I'll then maybe play a handful of battles a year. Also it's not a big deal anymore. I have stopped giving lengthy feedback in the forum, analyzing why a certain policy is bad for the product. It takes too much of my time and nobody listens anyway apart from some WG-staff that functions as a firewall between us and the people who make the decisions. Let's face it, they tell us they listen. But if the state of the game today is the result of them listening and considering our feedback, you wonder what this game would look like without our feedback. It would be an utterly broken game without a playerbase. That tells you a lot about how good the instincts of the people developing WoWs work, if they need massive external feedback to prevent them from running the game into the ground every few months. I am not even angry at anyone. I just very smoothly get ready to move on. Also the WoWs-experience taught me something about the whole F2P-concept and why it doesn't work for me. After WoWs I will move back to traditionally sold games. I will pay my money for a copy of a game I own, where I am in control of what progress I make, where I can decide which mods I use and don't depend on a server that gets shut down sooner or later. I am old-school, I admit. My generation still collected games, put them in a display-cabinet for bragging and as a girl-deterrent (since nothing gets those juices flowing like boys and their toys). We owned it and even when the game was removed from sales, we still could play it whenever we wanted, cause we were in control. We got our bonus-content from free community-created downloads, whenever we wanted. If there were such addons for WoWs, we would see an Iowa in the game that would make the current Iowa look like a toy model in comparison. Why? Cause it would be designed by a player with the love of a fan, and not by a person who gets paid for doing so within a cost-efficient time-frame. It's insane to trade that freedom away for continuously chipping in money to be drip-fed and be bossed to fulfil time-gated challenges for rewards. I'm not a dolphin in an aquarium, being manipulated to jump through fire for a fish. I'll just buy my fish, whenever I am hungry.

I do some of these missions in coop, too. But I certainly wouldn't engage autopilot and go afk there. First and foremost it still feels disrespectful towards the other human beings in the game who expect certain qualities from me. But I also can finish that mission faster if I am actively playing, cause getting into the perfect range to a certain target, not getting citadelled and keeping your secondaries shooting for as long as possible is not something you could predict with autopilot. Finally, and that is where my respect for other players and my personal interests align, even coops can go south occasionally. I can sail around, not shooting my main guns, cause I farm secondary hits, I can shoot AP at angled ships in my Smolensk cause I am farming main battery hits and don't want the target to go down fast. I can farm torpedo hits or defended ribbons, not shooting bots as rigorously as I could. But as soon as the win is at stake, I switch my play style to doing my best to win again, as I would in any random battle. I feel personally, that taking things easy is not an option for me. I need to respect, other people take one game mode more serious than I would, if they were not there. They are there and that changes my obligation. I expect nothing less from my team mates in the game modes that I care about. I can't accept people derping in Clan Battles and I struggle to accept low quality play in random battles. So I cannot be selfish and define a certain game mode is unimportant, just because I see it that way. Consequently most of my disagreements within the game arise from me not being pleased with other player's behavior, rather than them complaining about mine. Actually, I feel like apologizing now. Sorry, I didn't mean to get in your face. I just got caught on the wrong foot cause I hear that sort of thing so often lately, that people, society and the media is making this appear like dark times. I know good people are dying and it's certainly not bright days we're currently seeing. Just at the same time I think that in many parts of the world their every day life without the pandemic has been worse than our lifes are now. If the worst thing in world history that happens during our all life times is Covid, we are still a blessed generation. So, again, no hard feelings. I know you mean well.

Dark times? For centuries the vast majority of people had hardly any public life and was laboring from dawn to dusk. Our grandparents lived through two world wars and the Great Depression. They lived on rationed food and when they came home from work, they didn't know if their home was bombed, with all the people they loved buried underneath it. Drinking Latte while doing Home Office, watching movies on Netflix instead of the cinema and taking a walk with one friend, giving him your full attention instead of sitting on big tables competing for attention with ten friends is not dark times ... in comparison. In 3/4 of the world, people can't afford to do the things we are used to do when the mood strikes us, yet we couldn't be bothered thinking about them cause we were so busy shopping and eating gelato. And now our fat, spoiled society wallows in self-pity over some minor restrictions.

I got them both, Thunderer first, Georgia I only got recently. Before I played them I would have said Thunderer was the better ship. Now that I experienced them, I think Georgia is the better ship. I so far am more successful in Georgia. I like playing the Georgia way more than the Thunderer. The Thunderer is a bit boring. I end up spamming HE most of the time. Also the Thunderer cannot tank well. That means it cannot stand its ground and thus not fulfil a BBs primary purpose to exert power. Thunderer is not suited for the BB-role as much as a Kleber is not suited for capping or an Azuma is not suited for cap-support. In return the Thunderer depends on its team. It needs other ships to keep the enemy team at a comfortable distance, it folds if pushed. The flaws become obvious in Ranked, where Thunderer is the choice of the star-keepers with bad winrates. You can farm damage in it. A good player will use it to win the game by the excessive amount of damage it deals. It's the perfect tool for a bad BB-main, sitting in the back and abusing his team to tank and spot, while having his damage counter go up. The Georgia surprised me. It's like a child of Jean Bart and Massachussetts. It combines the mobility of Jean Bart with the secondary bubble and healing power of the Massachussetts. It's tankiness is a bit weak, when you try to use your rear turret and secondaries, but Thunderer is worse. In Thunderer I once got devstruck on the cheek by a Stalingrad at 25° angle. Thunderer excels at doing what I hate to do, sit in the back, slowly wear down the enemy team and hope that your team makes the right moves on the frontline. Depending on your team mates is the horror of every good player. That is why I rarely play Thunderer, only on days when I go into potato mode and want a ship that doesn't require a lot of thinking. Georgia I love, cause it enables me to do, what every good BB-players wants to do, exert influence, be where the action takes place, where the battle is won or lost. On top of that both ships differ in economy. Georgia rewards good play with good earnings. Thunderer does not punish bad play with high cost. tl;dr Georgia wins games. Thunderer farms damage.

Substitute the word "coop" for "random" and suddenly a lot of people will disagree. Just because you do not take coop serious, it doesn't mean everybody has to share your mentality. There is no such thing as an absolute and official way to see this. Every player has personal preferences and even the coop community has a right to experience somewhat decent play. Needless to say, that claim does not justify insulting you. That could however easily be avoided by playing to the best of your ability. I would at least suggest doing such a CV mission late at night, when you got a chance of getting a (nearly) complete bot team on your side. That way, no other person is disturbed. If you do it during the day and consciously interfere with people try-harding, take it like a man and don't whine about insults.

@YabbaCoe: I experienced what I'd call a bug that has probably existed since since collections were introduced into the game. Forgive me for being too lazy to make a ticket. The ticket requires diagnostic files and stuff and this is clearly not an issue related to any hardware or my copy of the client. The bug is as follows: If you open your daily containers one after another, you usually get one piece of the collection you activated per container. If however you open all daily containers at once, and you get the same duplicate twice, you get one piece of the collection less and a compensation of 15,000 credits for the duplicate of the duplicate. The number of duplicates in the collection is also not increasing accordingly. The duplicate of the duplicate probably is not counted and vanishes completely. I experienced this issue with the "German Navy" collection. I do not know, if this can potentially happen with all collection. Also, it is possible that it already happens if the two identical pieces within one opening of several containers are not duplicates but one is a yet missing piece and only the second one is a duplicate of the first. For collections that are not limited in the number of pieces you can get, this is a minor issue. It would be a major issue, if the number of pieces is strictly limited. Say you get a strictly limited number of 16 containers for a collection of 16 pieces. If one or several duplicates disappear as you open multiple containers at once, the collection can not be completed. The same goes for such collections, whose containers can be purchased in the premum shop or armory. In that case it might even be a massive issue, since the customer in return for real money or coal is sold first and foremost the possibility to complete a collection. He doesn't pay for a compensation of 15k credits, but at leat a duplicate that can be exchanged for a missing piece at a predetermined rate.