HMS_Kilinowski

Das Forum war auch immer ein guter Weg für die Community, sich nachhaltig selber ins Bein zu schießen. Zum Beispiel damals als hier viele superintelligente Super-Unicums ihre Screenshots von Ergebnisbildschirmen der Operation Dynamo gepostet haben. Das Forum hat sich damals sehr bewährt, Wargaming zügig auf die hohen Ressourcengewinne hinzuweisen, die mit Dynamo möglich waren, damit Wargaming schnell reagieren und die Operation nach weniger als einer Woche aus dem Spiel nehmen konnte, um sie seit mittlerweile über drei Jahren zu "überarbeiten". Hauptsächlich ist das Forum ein Ort, wo Spieler, aus teils merkwürdigen Motiven, vieles schreiben, was sie besser für sich behalten sollten.

RTS-CVs did on average ~15k more damage. If you further consider that back then there was no T11-ships whose higher HP-pool increases average damage on T10-CVs, RTS-CVs were way more effective and toxic. People who say otherwise are either just forgetting, or they secretly wish RTS-CVs back, cause they did better results on these. Anybody who opposes CVs today, must seriously ask themselves, if they prefer this. Well, it's easy. If someone does that to me, I put them on my ignore list. Objectively, a person who downvotes every post of another person, irrespective of its content, destroys its own reputation, not the reputation of the downvoted person. We're talking about a manchild. What weight does their opinion have in any serious discussion?

Das ist aber nun mal ein Forum und keine öffentliche Toilette. Wer einfach nur seine Exkremente abladen will und nicht am Austausch interessiert ist, der ist hier falsch. Wer ein Thema aufmacht, der hat sich auch darum zu kümmern. Das gebietet der Anstand, Was wäre das sonst hier? Eine Klagemauer, wo jeder einmal pro Woche einseitig seine Kritik ablädt. Wenn ich von anderen erwarte, dass sie meine Posts zur Kenntnis nehmen, sollte ich selber schon auch so viel Respekt vor anderen haben.

Hast du da mal 'n Replay? Für mich klingt das alles recht wirr.

Ofc it was a roflstomp. You and @KillStealBoss totally went over your allotment. Don't you know you are just supposed to back me up? Charles Manson had an entire cult and what do I get?

thx, fixed. Reading educates.

First of all again a shout-out to @Saltface who yet again manages to make a very comprehensive, constructive and - most important - correct analysis of a replay. I nominate you for the "Forumite of the Month"-award. I want to add a few things. First some general remarks 1. Your replay is from the NA-server. I'm not a big fan of switching servers. Different servers have different mentalities. Consequently, based on the culture, the teams play differently. If a player is used to play a certain way, all their instincts are somewhat tailored to the meta of their home region. You have been tuned to the EU-server. So you will make false predictions on how the team behaves on NA. This will lead to situations of overextension and focus-fire. 2. They who expect to lose play worse, since they are not invested into the battle. They are is defeated by their defeatism, not by the enemy. Every battle is a challenge to be met. 3. I think @KillStealBosshas already summed up the team-play experience. Some people like company. If a person prefers to play alone, they may not grasp the concept of a social life and try to explain it with selfish reasons. 4. Isn't it odd, that all those people that you downvoted for a year, every time they wrote something intelligent, are offering their help? Now some remarks on the replay (I will only say, what IIRC hasn't been mentioned): a) The battle starts on the loading screen. So there is a triple Agincourt division, then they spawn together. Then very likely they want to go for the fun-move, i.e. pushing one flank aggressively together. b) Kongo is spotted. There's not gonna be 4 BBs on one flank, so you already know the Agincourts will be pushing the northern flank. c) First Agincourt spotted. Surprisingly not going entirely north but a bit middish. Perfect. Agincourt may have good secondaries, but also the cheeks are weak. So going mid, means you can flank on the north and open up crossfires together with your southern BBs d) Shenyang is a bot, so not a top priority, since he shoots deepwaters and can't kill your DDs. You might want to hold your fire, since the angle is bad and the range, too and you will likely miss all shots. e) As mentioned, the mouse wheel is for minor zoom adjustments, like when you zoom out to hit a fast french DD. For full zoom, the shift button is faster and less distracting. f) Way too much lead on the BBs. They are doing 20 kts and are angled. You lead them like you would lead a slightly angled BB doing ~30kts. g) You want to push down the B-line with the Kongo and Courbet. The Agincourts will get trapped in a crossfire way before they can play their secondaries-card. Then smash their cheeks with AP. You however stay in the back broadside shooting HE. h) The BB is tanking, it's a threat. Especially at low tiers, where cruisers can be one-shot, the BB must claim the enemy's attention. Draw attention away from your cruisers. i) around 2:30 min into the game, one Agincourt eats a torp. You shoot immediately. He likely has DCPed a flooding. So you won't get a fire anyway. So hold your fire for 10 seconds and shoot then to maybe even get several perma-fires. j) You are full broadside when the Agincourt returns fire. Luckily he shoots HE. He gets a single fire, which you immediately DCP. Let it burn. One fire is not a threat. You end up with two perma-fires. Now you might want that DCP, which is on cooldown. Still lucky he hasn't switched to AP and citadelled you. Bad play from the Agincourt. k) At this point - 4 min in - the friendly Kongo that was abandoned and overextended, turns to run away. Now the push to crossfire the Agincourts is dead. At this point a possible way would be to angle in towards C7 and switch to AP. Either you get some broadsides on the Agincourt, or you can at least ram the healthiest of the three and would get at least 600XP and trade your T4-ship, played by a subpar player for a T5-ship, played by an experienced player. That's at least would gonna be a good trade, since now half the team is in secondary range and the golden hour of the Agincourt begins. l) One Agincourt was dumb and gave broadside and got deleted. Three enemy DDs gone, 2BBs gone. This is winable. Now the second Agincourt shows up rather broadsiding. If we had gone towards C7 with AP loaded, now would be the time to smash it on the cheeks at 5km. m) You got nothing to do. You are about to die. You got 2 fires and your DCP is available. The situation is not requiring attention on something else. So DCPing those two fires should not overburden the CPU. n) The Queen Marry is dead with 10k damage dealt, all of which was healable HE-damage. Ofc the possibilities of a T4-BB are limited. But two Agincourts pushing the middle is also an invitation to crossfire them and the third one going towards Torpedo Alley is also begging to get torped. This could have been won. The Queen Mary could melt some of those secondaries with HE at range, while moving into a crossfire position. That however was imo conditional on the Courbet and the Kongo doing the same. Maybe, if the Kongo wasn't abandoned early, he would have continued and a crossfire would have been possible. Or at least taking cover behind the line of islands to ram one of them once they commit to a path. The basic homework I see is what Saltface has mentioned, the positioning and, most of all, the aiming. After thousands of battles, the internal clock usually can reliable lead targets of different speeds at different angles. This is not the case because of the fire-and-forget-approach. You are slowly zooming in and out with your mouse-wheel instead of observing how the shells land. Consequently your internal clock does not get feedback on your aiming. So for thousands of battles, you lack the insight how good your aim is. You subconsciously program your inner clock to assume your aim is correct and over years this flawed aiming becomes part of your automatisms. So not only do you aim incorrectly, but worse, you also program your subconscience to consistently aim that way. Hell the whole point of having planes on BBs in real-life was so they could observe their long-range hits. This game has a flat earth and you ignore the possibility to observe your aim deliberately. And then ofc for a BB player, the angling. You need to angle. you are begging to get citadelled. It's bad play of the Agincourt he didn't switch to AP after the second salvo. You could have been dead 3 min into the game. And it's not just the angling to the nearest target. Those are basics of the basics. A BB player must see all threats on the map and angle and maneuver in a way, he is immune to crossfire from as many of them as possible. That is what the mini-map is good for. So on the downside, this is really bad play and lots of beginner's mistakes. But on the upside, this also means a lot of potential improvement. If you can just fix your angling and aiming, your winrate on every tier should improve by imo 3-5%. Getting this play into your automatisms, will open your perception to notice a lot of things you are currently missing in a presumable stressful situation. It's the beginning of a more active play.

Been there. Tried that. Honestly, I feel in hindsight, there is not a lot of difference whether you hide stats or not. Every now and then there seems to be a MM-monitor-warrior, who may focus me because I got better stats than the rest of the team. But that by itself is a fallacy. If a player focusses a good player solely because he's good, that means he is ignoring more relevant targets, maybe even getting locked in on me. So his focus on a good player is a losing move. If you think about it, if he focusses me, cause I'm a better player, that also means I will dodge better than a weaker player. He will do less damage. He will miss shooting some broadside target, cause he is blocking his view. You can clearly see it if you start a second account or help somebody get their account going. You play in protected-MM. You often play in teams of 11 bots and one player. So sometimes I see a player who is searching me, the one and only human player. While he does so, I have already killed two bots. I almost ignore him completely and just kill the bots. At the end I don't even need to shoot him anymore, cause my zombie-army of bots will finish him off. So it took the player way longer to kill me than it takes me to kill weak players. This is the essence of Ranked play. This is why the impact of good players is less pronounced, cause it's always focussing on a player that makes a huge mistake, that turns the game in one sides' favor. WoWs is won by abusing mistakes, not by attacking the strongest position. That's why you shouldn't hide your stats. Another reason is that you are cooperating with other players, some of which may be good players. If I see a good player in my team, I will support him, cause I trust his play more. But if you hide your stats, I will assume, you're a potato. So no support. But that support might save you, maybe win the game. So again, keep your stats visible. And finally: Stats are advertising good play. We got sooooooooooooooo many bad players already, what the playerbase needs is positive examples. Let them see that with a little attention and effort, good results are realistic. And let the team see there is hope. I know plenty of people, if they see a team full of red players and hidden stats, they give up. They don't fight hard, but worse, cause they think they can't carry such a bad team. However if they see at least you are playing well, they will keep hope and play better. tl;dr There is always two sides. Being honest about stats is overall beneficial.

Yeah, I said that hunter bit, cause that was my immediate regret. I saw the two of you in RN-DDs and knew I could not interact with you, because one of you is already a threat, but two playing together is too much, plus no concealment advantage. Irrespective of that I went to the 2-3-line, cause on 8-9-line there were already two DDs and only a Fantasque on the A-cap. Ofc that was even worse, since a Kitakaze and a Marceau don't even care about an Asashio, they just push into it.

I hate to tell you, but I didn't feel so much blocked by you, than I felt constantly zoned out by the Marceau and Star Kitakaze and the Petro radar. It was one of those battles, where you immediately at the start regret having taken an Asashio. It doesn't help when there are no bigger ships behind you that you can fall back to for protection, especially, when there is a full HP Conqueror trying to keep their ship in mint condition. But yes, all in all we got beaten hard and yes, it was a delight, as usual, to run into you.

How dare you ping me? I'm a golden god. Shake in awe.

It looks like answers are not intended to be provided in this topic. That usually is the case, when the players are expected to like the answers, in which nobody at Wargaming wants to be the bearer of bad news. So it's true. The main purpose of the changes to containers is to reduce rewards for veteran players at the anniversary event. The increase of drop rates is just to cover up that this change overall is disadvantageous to the players. That is sad, cause even I as a veteran player have been reducing my use of signals and bonusses since the economic rework, not because I wantedto, but because I noticed they are not replenished at the same rate we are used to consume them. If I as a frequent player have this issue, any new player must be desperate for signals and bonusses.

1. Aren't we supposed to write in English in the "English Speaking Forum"? 2. I did not force that situation upon you. You picked that fight. You came around the island into our half of the map, 2 min into the game, in an attempt to rush some poor 160 battles noob in a T6-Gaede with a T8-Split that has both radar and smoke. Fun and engaging. 3. You DCPed a single ping on the stern 5s before you disappeared in smoke. That is what took you out of the game, not the wonderful sub--->dd mechanics. Had you DCPed once you had disappeared in smoke and gained some lateral movement, all torps would have missed.

Also our division just faced @TOXIC_DD_MAIN , who put up a respectable fight in his test ship Split. The rest of his division also fought bravely! 👍

I remember in the middle of the battle suddenly realizing it was you. I notice you have become the most frequently met forumite in the last months. I mean I have run into a couple of our "speshul" forumites lately. But I feel it would not be appropriate to comment on their play here for obvious reasons.

But you also don't mention what those Narai battles cost you. You don't really play Narai. You use Narai to convert expensive bonusses to FXP and CXP. I'd guess you need blue bonusses. Those bonusses are very limited. And as we have seen since the bonusses have been separated from the camos, they are not given generously. Veterans had a lot in the beginning, which initially triggered them to spend them in a frenzy, thinking they would come back aplenty. Now, after keeping record over my bonusses for 8 months, I see they are slowly depleting. I have moved from using green and blue bonusses regularly, to using grey bonusses on premium ships and no bonusses on mid tier and below. Maybe WG panicked, when they saw how fast people were getting ressources in the last months. But they themselves forgot, this was only players depleting their generous stock of bonusses from old camos. In the long run, the current supply of bonusses will define the economy. And frankly, I see an equilibrium of using grey bonusses on selected ships and green and blue bonusses kept for passing hard missions in special events, like dockyards. I don't see the current economy as too soft. Even under the current economy, the game introduces new ships for coal, steel and RP faster than I can unlock them.

..., especially when the playerbase has proven time and time again, that they are going to make big-mouthed threats and then not have the guts to put their money where their mouth is. Frankly, I don't blame WG anymore, I blame the silent majority. They obviously miss the economic concept of "reputation". I really appreciate and respect the effort you put in, even more so since we got so many near-sighted forum dwellers, who may be quick to misread your intentions and attack you for taking that perspective. This change is not what I asked for. i am perfectly happy with a reasonable chance to get a premium ship out of my anniversary containers. The economy doesn't change my expenses. It rather allowed me to not play as much. Now if I look at the typical rewards like daily missions, it is clear there is a limit. Wargaming wants people to play a lot, but not as much as to totally abuse their server capacity. It's similar to a gym, where they love the people who pay for a subscription, but only go training once or twice a week, not 7 days, wearing down the equipment. So I'd argue it is in WGs interest to not entice players to go over their allotment. For me, the current economy did exactly that. It allowed dedicated players to keep up, while not forcing them to play to the extent of getting burnt-out and subsequently leaving the game, or use too much capacity for too little contribution. The more important part however is that the economy as such is fine. It's the grind through low and mid tier that is too generous. Wargaming is designing half of their ships so that players skip or play past them in a single day. What's the point of designing a historically accurate ship with all its details, if players spend 1-10 battles in it and never return to it? Looks to me like currently WG could just start at T6 and not bother designing T1-T5. One may argue this is due to economic bonusses, making it more easy to skip these tiers. But then again the T11 economy is painful. Even T10 is not rewarding for the average potato. So reducing the bonusses is going to affect those tiers, too. The smarter step would be to increase the XP required for eliting the low and mid tier ships. The average player spends ~100 battles in T9, grinding that ship. I fail to see how T9 is so much more exciting to keep a player engaged for repeating 100 battles in one T9 ship, while at the same time it should be too boring for them to spend 10 battles in T2, 20 battles in T3, 30 in T4, 40 in T5. If WG was smart, they would make their events more about perma bonusses and less about early access. Give the people a little incentive to play those new lines, by giving them the bonusses for the ships, but let them play the lines from scratch. Revive the low and mid-tiers and make players play those ship designs that you pay your employees for. The endgame economy is fine as it is. An endgame RB-ship costs an equivalent of 4M FXP, where people already felt 2M for Hayate wasn't worth it. In T11 all but the top 2 players are losing credits. There is not need to make it worse, unless you want to kill T11.

That is actually an excellent question that I would love to get an answer to from WG-staff. It seems to me that the only reason this change is made, is because Wargaming realizes that with all the ships they released over the years, that we bought, the number of supercontainers at the anniversary event was increasing and they want to nerf the number of freebies, without upsetting the community. Is that the case or will T10-ships now yield two supercontainers?

Only the silent majority is not really the majority. They are just a minority that plays the majority of battles. One griefer even now can easily play triple the amount of battles per day, compared to a serious player. If I make an effort, I can do 4-5 battles per hour. I made an experiment on an alt account once, where I managed 13 battles in an hour, basically just yoloing. If the restriction of waiting for your ship to comeback is removed, I would guess you can do as many as 15 battles. This means that even if there was as many good players as there are bad players - which is not the case - the bad players would account for 80% of your team mates, just based on the sheer volume of battles that bad players can participate in. Now take the more realistic numbers we saw back when the Maplesyrup database still existed, and it becomes abvious that in the future ~85%-90% of your teams will be playing below human intelligence, i.e. 10 out of 12 players orange or worse.

Der gesamt Spielstil im Coop ist doch mittlerweile durch die ~98% Winrate völlig verdorben. Niemand spielt im Coop mehr so, als müsse man den Sieg garantieren. Jeder weiß, dass der Sieg quasi garantiert ist und geht maximales Risiko ein, um sich ein möglichst großes Stück vom Kuchen zu sichern. Mit diesen Qualitäten wechseln die Spieler dann irgendwann von Coop zu Random. Es ist also kein Wunder, dass Coop-Spieler im Random erst mal voll abstinken. Und das meine ich. Da gehört angesetzt. Der Coop sollte zumindest ein bisschen auf die reale Herausforderung des PvP vorbereiten. Also muss auch der PvE auf 50% durchschnittliche Winrate kalibriert werden. Man kann die erhöhte Schwierigkeit ja durch eine attraktivere Ökonomie im Coop kompensieren. Aber Coop muss fordern. Coop ist aktuell wie God-Mode. Das kann niemand auf Dauer spielen, ohne sich massiv zu langweilen.

Well, all usual criticism aside, I am delighted that WG finally came around and understood the importance of the API.

Ja, Coop gehört wirklich spielerisch extrem aufgewertet. Mittlerweile kann man sich imo mit 90% der Schiffe den Coop schenken, weil sie einfach zu spät im Kampfgeschehen sind oder zu wenig Schaden machen. Der Coop bräuchte eine Rate von 3 Bots auf 2 Spieler, um auch nur halbwegs herausfordernd zu sein.

Oh yes, it has become a running gag with @asalonen and me that he says "this is a guaranteed win" at the loading screen, looking at the MMM and I reply "then it's a loss". Well, I brought the idea into the topic, cause I was hoping for an epiphany. The whole thing of making an entire topic to talk about other player's misplays rather than one's own, is imo so pointless. Nobody learns from that. For years my question of how to get better has been met mostly with silence, cause trying to talk about plays is actual effort. It takes time and whoever gives his knowledge doesn't get anything out of it for himself other than maybe a warm feeling of having helped a fellow human being. But this is imo what the forum should be about, not the whole venting, whining and accusations, blocking our view from the important things. I have come to hate the forum. I see the topics and they make me immediately stop wanting to read, cause it is all so pointless and vain. That said, I am getting warm feelings about seeing some old faces in this very topic, people who have stopped playing come back from the dead. It reminds me of a time where the forum was all about talking about plays and mechanics, not justifying one's own failure.

But then again you are missing the point. Ofc good stats do not give special rights, because it is not supposed to be about rights in the first place. When, in my youth, I took guitar lessons, I listened to my teacher, not because he had special rights. My teacher never claimed special rights, he never had to. It was up to me to be mature enough to understand he was further down the path and giving something back to me. Hell, it was because of that, that he charged money and I paid him. Why would I even want to claim rights or tell him he has no special right to tell me how to play the guitar, because we're both nominally equal human beings? It's perfectly fine to have an opinion, without having the skill to back it up. The point is, you don't learn and improve by listening to your own opinion. You learn from being challenged by other minds. In fact I encourage you to have your opinion and express it. I learn from it. Sorry to say that, but mostly I will read it, think about it and conclude it is nonsense. That doesn't change the fact, that I challenge myself to think about it and learn from the exchange. A player with worse results ofc can state their opinion and dismiss the opinion of better players. Usually, what I see is very little effort to reflect on those opinions of better players, because bad players want to be right rather than learn. So if a forum is about freedom of expression to you, congratulations, nobody can take that away from you. The deeper sense however is to read, not write, to grow in this case as a player. That is a choice each of us have to make for themselves.

I think the best way to counter a sub is a dynamic battle. A sub on a pushing flank is falling behind, cause they are so slow. A sub on a defending flank is left for dead by its team. A couple of area denial torpedoes usually are sufficient to send the average BB player running, cause they got no guts anyway. So they run at 30 kts away from whatever scared them. The sub with its limited effective range of 10-13km is well ahead of its team and overextended, since it cannot keep up. Once it has to dive, due to being spotted by a DD, other sub, radar or planes, it is blind and slow and can easily be killed. Yet again, when the API gets fixed this summer, the poor performance of subs in general will become obvious and all those ideas of them being near to invincible will finally stop.