HMS_Kilinowski

I would feel guilty if I talked you into one and your personal playstyle works better with another. Paolo Emilio is imo too early to make a recommendation. It seems to have a funny play style, but that is given the player base has not gotten used to it. So you can currently rush unsuspecting weekend-warriors and torp them, using your speed boost and smoke. That however will only work until the players have adapted. Soon BBs will turn hard and switch to HE as soon as they see some suspicious smoke coming their way. The long run playstyle of Paolo Emilio is probably very similar to Kleber, just without the fires. The hp-pool is even bigger, the ship is insanely fast. I'd even make a case for a Khaba-like double rudder-shift and AFT build. Since the dpm is mediocre, the guns should keep shooting contiuously so you won't use concealment expert too much. Smoke is your situational insta-concealment. Marceau is similar. It has a fall back option of stealth torping, which is nice if you happen to be low-hp early. Just the arcs ... the arcs. They are ... I'm struggling to find a word that wouldn't get edited by a moderator. A ship that needs range as a defense but doesn't have the arcs to hit reliably at that distance to me is an ill package. I had the coal for Marceau, I was close to getting it during the anniversary. I was bribed into getting it with the perspective of another supercontainer. Still that wasn't enough and people who had Marceau explicitly talked me out of it. Smaland is the only ship I currently have of the three. That one grew on me. AA like Halland when not using DefAA. Huge difference, but still good enough. The radar is very nice cause you can almost guarantee to expose a capping DD. The guns are the 3rd best in it's tier close to Marceau and Harugumo. Actually they are as good as them, but the lower HP on Smaland makes you lose in direct comparison. So it's more about using radar to gain the initiative. It's a smart boat with lots of options, DD-hunting, HE-spam, torping. But the main argument for me is that even with all the gunboating, similar to a Harugumo it still has the tools to take caps. That said, none of these ships is what the game imo ever needed. I am tired of Wargaming introducing more and more of these selfish DD-designs. The Paolo Emilio tops it off. You might just as well send a Minotaur to cap. We see more and more of these battles where teams don't contest caps and epicenters. The steamrolls are not due to these designs, but they are part of that problem. I was advised against it. Better AA is nice, sure. But if a CV finds you, he will nonetheless engage and hit you, even more so since the spotting window is so comfortable that even a noob can aim. What sets Marceau apart is the torps and the arcs. The torps are a plus, but then again the ideal fighting distance of a Marceau is >12km, so it's a waste of time to get close for torps and then back up to go back to gunning. They are more for an unexpected ship or to torp smokes. So that is two points in Marceaus favor, but both are not overly relevant. On the downside there however is a very relevant argument that you struggle to hit anything but BBs at range. So you need to be at range to kite cruisers and they can kite you and it comes down to if railgun cruisers hit a fast DD more reliably than you hit a moving cruiser with >10s shell flying time. To showcase that I look at the stats of a clan mate. In Kleber he has a hit ratio of 38%, while on Marceau it's only 27%, by far the lowest hit ratio on all T10-DDs. That raises the question: What good is all the dpm, if 73% of it plunges into the ocean? One can do that better in a Colbert and way better in a Smolensk, without occupying a DD-spot needed for cap control.

Camping becomes a problem if it prevents a player from exerting influence on his part of the map, specifically the cap area he is closest to. I do not claim the following theory perfectly describes reality. It's more of a mathematical concept: A good way of thinking is that every ship is a force that keeps enemies away from himself and others. This force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between respective ships. In plain english: The further away you are, the less you are a force in the sense that you are a threat, and not by a small amount but distance has a huge impact. If you think of a Großer Kurfürst, this thing practically chews all smaller ships to pieces at close range, so it's a huge no-go-zone. If this ship is close to a cap, it will require a lot of enemy presence to push it away. Compare that to a Thunderer camping at maximum distance. It plays it safe ... safe for himself, not for others. It may light fires, yes, but most cruisers can do that, too. While it is back there, enemy ships can push into the cap zone. Friendly DDs cannot stay and defend as there is no muscle behind them. The friendly team needs to fall back and loses control over an area of the map, where the enemy team can dig in and create crossfires. This is the first step to a loss. So how does the camping cruiser fit into this? By "crossing the T". Strange way of puting it I admit, but essentially it's just that. Crossing the T - as an abstract construct - means to arrange your ship's ideal fighting distance with the other ships on your part of the map, so everyone can shoot the same target at the same time as it comes into range. If you can do that, be in this line, then you can camp and it will not cause any problems. So the trick is to find a piece of cover that is as close as possible to that ideal line. Of course, specifically as a radar cruiser you need to be able to push in a bit - ideally unseen - to radar the cap. But you will do that with your camping position in mind, so you can fall back into cover or run, if needed. This idea is not as absolute as you think it is. Taking damage often is a zero sum game. In every game some ships will be spotted and shot at at every moment. You are right, taking damage is not about a heroic self-sacrifice, it is a calculus. Like in a real-time strategy game, you will not expose a single unit to focussed fire. Your enemy player will try to focus a unit and you will retreat it to a position where the enemy units expose if they follow it, so they let it go. Then you will try to heal that unit, while other units take over the frontal position and tank damage. In RTS, the player who can distribute the firepower of his opponent over as many units as possible, while decimating the enemy units sequentially, will win the battle. Same goes for WoWs. The reason why teams die fast is that players are stupid or selfish - also a kind of stupid. If you are selfish, you need to realize that every player could operate under the same rules. What will happen if every player is selfish? As soon as he gets shot, he will start retreating, so others tank for him while he can farm damage from a safe position. So now the next ships gets focussed and starts running selfishly. It's a vicious circle that turns into a racing retreat on a complete flank. One can see it quite often, especially on red teams. Pretty much the same happens, when every player is overly brave, so he pushes in ahead of his team. You can see that often when weak sides do not realize they are weak, so they get greedy and try to be first to farm damage, basically feeding themselves to the enemy team one after another like villains in a Bud Spencer movie. So you, as everyone, need to realize that there is no such thing as absolute survival. It's about maintaining a balance of aggression of the enemy team. Even a small squishy cruiser can pose as a weak target for a moment, so a Yamato stops firing at a heavily damaged team mate. By the time he got his turrets on you, you go dark. Even weak ships can take a hit or two, the mentioned Salem can even take a lot of damage for a cruiser. I have seen Smolensks abusing their weakness and the hate the playerbase feels towards it to bait a huge volume of potential damage, relieving their team mates and thus keeping them alive until late game. There is no point conserving your ship, if you practically don't exist for the enemy team, if all their aggression remains focussed on your team mates. So you gotta keep that in mind and strike a balance between surviving and drawing attention. And no, you cannot explain that concept to other players during battle. Either they know or they will not understand it anyway, not during a battle. Discussing during a battle takes away attention from where it belongs, on the map and on the enemy. WoWs is not designed to have discussions. You could have them back in port, but (a) most players are not interested in discussion anyway and (b) the in-battle discussion is just a pretense to blaming others for an anticipated loss instead of oneself, no epiphany will arise from a fixed point of view.

In a way epicenter does that and it already suffers from a lack of intelligence of the player base. Trying to explain to the XP-oriented players why they should sacrifice a good farming position for the greater good of a points advantage, often seems to be an exercise in futility ... even more so in a world where a BB player reports a DD for capping, while the BB wants to gain more XP for killing and is fine with the DD coming lower in XP instead.

Willst du uns aufn Arm nehmen? Wer hat denn das prophezeit? Muss der gleiche Prophet gewesen sein, der für 2020 das 1-Liter-Auto vorhergesehen hat. Ich bin alles andere als ein Prophet und dennoch weiß ich, dass es in diesem Spiel immer BBs geben wird. Es wird immer Spieler geben, die so beschränkt sind, sich von größeren Schiffen bessere Ergebnisse zu versprechen. Das sind die gleichen Leute, die andere Klassen als Zulieferer sehen und dann neue Threads aufmachen, wenn das MM mal nicht ihren Idealvorstellungen entspricht.

Eben. Vielleicht hat der OP sich falsch ausgedrückt. Was eingangs beschrieben wurde - 3 DDs innerhalb von 5 min tot - ist ja symptomatisch für schlechtes DD-Spiel und das ist nun mal unabhängig von der Anzahl der DDs. Umgekehrt beklagen viele DD-Spieler, dass sie eben gerade wegen des mangelhaften Supports ihrer weit hinter dem Cap campenden Teams so früh sterben. Wenn man nur einen DD im Team hat und der stirbt, liegt sofort der Vorteil bei Spotting und Cap-Kontrolle in der Gegnerhand. Mehr DDs sind also duchaus sinnvoll. Vielleicht kann ich diesen Widerspruch auflösen: Wir beklagen uns nicht über zu viele DDs / BBs / was sonst noch. In der Essenz hat der OP sich über schlechte Spieler beklagt. Das können wir alle so unterschreiben, denke ich. Also ist die Lösung denkbar einfach. Wargaming sollte nicht Schiffsklassen beschränken, sondern schlechte Spieler. Dann wird nicht so schnell gestorben und die einseitigen Gefechte nehmen ab. Pro Team könnte man max. 1 Spieler <45%, 2 Spieler von 45%-49% und 4 Spieler von 49% -50% WR in der Tierstufe zulassen. Natürlich käme es für die unteren Segmente zu längeren Warteschlangen. Das wäre nicht optimal, aber auch ein Anreiz aktiver das Spiel zu gestalten und sich zu verbessern. Wenn man zu lange in der Warteschlange hängt, kann man ja mal zwischendurch einen Trainingsraum aufmachen und Schwächen ausmerzen. Weil der MM auf die WR im Tier schaut, besteht ein Anreiz für unerfahrene Spieler, auf niedrigeren Stufen zu lernen und auch erst dann aufzusteigen, wenn die nötigen Fähigkeiten erlernt wurden.

Not sure if I would buy any ship right now. But when it comes to ships that imo should be in the game I think about: 1. USS William D. Porter: This Fletcher-class DD is basically a meme-boat. The stories are so weird, it needs some sort of gimmick reflecting that, like a near miss on any friendly Iowa triggering a talent. 2. SMS Derfflinger: The Derfflinger-class WW1-battlecruisers were key units in the Battle of Jutland. They represent the phase of the battle that was still fought in daylight. Game-wise they would bring the battlecruisers into lower tiers, where cruisers are in a difficult spot, being weakly armored against mighty BB-guns. As other german BCs, they also had torp-launchers, 4x1. They might bring some interesting concept into lower tiers and make for a nice reward ship.

Das deckt sich so gar nicht mit meiner Erfahrung. Ja, Gefechte mit vielen DDs können unangenehm sein, sie sind aber die Ausnahme und kommen eher zu bestimmten Uhrzeiten mal vor, wo der MM schon kämpft, Teams vernünftig zu matchen. Wie ja im Weiteren ausgeführt wird, sind große Spreizungen bei den Tierstufen den gleichen Spielern ein Dorn im Auge, denen eigentlich grundsätzlich jede Teamzusammensetzung nicht passt, bei der ihr Schiff nicht dominiert. Irgendwo muss halt in diesen Ausnahmesituationen ein Kompromiss her. Aus meiner Sicht wurde das gut gelöst. Das Problem bei vielen DDs liegt nicht in der Menge, sondern mehr im schlechten Ausbildungsstand. Gute DD-Spieler sollten eine Weile überleben können. Die schlechten DD-Spieler sterben dagegen früh und bewirken eine Art Dominoeffekt. Ist ja auch logisch. Viele DDs bedeuten beispielsweise 2 DDs pro Cap. Wenn jetzt in so einem 2v2-Duell einer früh torpediert wird, schießen sich die zwei gegnerischen DDs auf den verbleibenden DD ein und zerstören ihn. Die größeren Schiffe bleiben bequem zurück und folglich gehen die gegnerischen DDs auch sofort zu. Schon steht's 2:0. Steamroll programmiert. Das eigentliche Problem von vielen DDs ist nach meiner Erfahrung aber die Dominanz von Kanonenbooten seit dem CV-Rework. Zu viele Spieler waren nicht in der Lage Torpedos auszuweichen und haben sich beschwert, anstatt selber besser zu werden. Wargaming hat fälschlicherweise reagiert. Die neueren DD-Linien waren überwiegend Kanonenboote, darauf ausgelegt, feindliche DDs zu jagen. Das hat den Dominoeffekt noch verstärkt. In der Folge stehen beide Teams neuerdings recht teilnahmslos da und schauen zu, wie die DDs das innerhalb von 20 Sekunden unter sich ausmachen. Hinterher wird natürlich gejammert, wenn der eigene DD es nicht gewuppt bekommen hat, aber selber hat man dann doch lieber auf den Kurfürsten im Hintergrund geschossen als auf den DD, der vom eigenen DD zig mal gepingt worden ist. Die Lösung ist denkbar einfach: Wir brauchen wieder mehr Torpedoboote, die intelligentes Torpen auch mit ordentlich Schaden belohnen. Natürlich soll auch ein DD in der Lage sein, DDs zu bekämpfen, aber es sollte nicht die dominante Aufgabe sein. Ein DD wie etwa die Friesland geht voll am Bedarf vorbei. DDs brauchen weniger DPM und mehr Überlebensfähigkeit, damit die DD-Duelle nicht so schnell entschieden sind und Gefechte nicht zu früh kippen. Im Zweifelsfall wäre ein aufgewertetes Neustrashimy-Konzept besser fürs Spiel als DPM-Monster vom Kaliber Harugumo/Marceau. Das wäre auch mir neu, dass man in CVs schlecht vergütet wird. Die CV-Spieler, die ich kenne sind allesamt recht zufrieden mit ihren Ressourcengewinnen. Die FDR sollte dieses Problem selbst für in ihrem Spieleinfluss stark eingeschränkte Spieler beheben.

Bots do communicate a lot, especially the ones without the names in colons. Unfortunately, they seem to have been programmed to mostly communicate generic unoriginal insults, which they have been programmed to send after getting violently blapped for going broadside the whole time, using the additional firepower of the rear turrets to still not hit anything. These bots!

No need to be sorry. I was not referring to you creating a topic. I can understand your interest and it's perfectly legit to ask that. I was referring to some of the replies, which try to imply the Kitakaze was overpowered. It's an impression one can get, but the Kitakaze has pronounced weaknesses. It's great to kill DDs, if they are without support. It's great to spam bigger ships, if you find cover or a spot to use smoke effectively. But for every job there are ships which are better at it. For spamming ships, the Mogador is much more capable as it can perpetually shoot, not caring much about cover or incoming fire. Yes, Mogador hates CVs, but then again a Kita only has the additional protection of smoke, which backfires as that is its protection while spamming bigger ships. So it's a double-edged sword. If what I wrote makes you rethink the Fletcher, then the Jutland doesn't make sense at all. It's even less of a superlight cruiser. The arcs are rather high, the smoke does not allow for extended spamming periods. For the play style you envision, the french DDs are ideal. They mitigate damage through speed and dodging while being open and firing most of the time. They set fires, wear down cruisers, ambush light cruisers with AP and use their speed to make quick torp drops or chase DDs. That is their impact. To a certain extent the pan-european premium DDs can be played a bit like that. Smaland has a speed boost and can be skilled for range, allowing it a Marceau-like "throw enough **** at the wall and some of it will stick"-play style. Similar to Kitakaze is the Friesland, also with high arcs but spamming from smoke. And then there are the russian DDs culminating in Khabarovsk. I cannot recommend them, as they take too much damage these days and cannot compete in survivability to e.g. the french DDs,

That is 5 min in which I did not spot for my team, did not wear down more important targets, did not force ships into vulerable positions, 5 min in which I can give no utility to my team, while at the same time the opposing CV is providing these services to his team. By hiding in smoke and turning like a worm the DD has won his team the battle. He has won the game. He does not die in real life, right? It's a game. He wins, he gets a 50% bonus on his XP. I went after him after he had already capped in smoke and torped two of my less gifted BBs, so all in all he went home with more XP than if he had lost but lived another 5 min. Do not make the mistake to subscribe to this flawed idea of "I am more important than the team". Being a meatshield is anything but irrelevant. I do this every day. If I die while at the same time 4 enemy ships die, that is my job, that is my win.

Oh boy, are we really having this "Kitakaze OP" nonsense again? As usual it depends on your play style. If you really know how to play a DD as a mini cruiser, shooting without being hit back, than Kitakaze is the better mini-cruiser. It dishes out high dpm and can hide in smoke. If you position right, close enough to spam relevant enemies, but far enough to not be radared, you can have a lot of impact on the battle. If you want to secure wins by taking caps, which is imo more of the DDs job and a more straight forward way to win, the Kitakaze is too clumsy to avoid torps. Believe me, I have eaten plenty. Unconditionally, I think the Fletcher is the worse mini-cruiser but a way better DD. The Fletcher can actually contest caps. It's got even better concealment, good dpm, excellent maneuverability and most importantly, it's flexible. If the Kitakaze is hit by a torp or otherwise heavily damaged, it's impact on the battle relies on how much smoke you got left, and how much you can shoot from that smoke, cause if you are spotted, you are dead. The Fletcher on the contrary has a fallback option of going into torpboat mode. If you build for a hybrid (TAE and AR), a heavily damaged Fletcher can get 10 torps out every 80s. The Fletcher is still a threat, even more so since the torps reload faster, when damaged. A Kitakaze in the same situation gets her torps every 2 1/2 min. That is not a threat anymore, that is a last resort self defense. Likely you get bored, open up on a BB and get deleted. Friesland is even worse. A damaged Fries is just out of the game, the best thing if low-hp on it is to just run and deny the enemy the points for killing you. I feel more confident in a Kitakaze, but confidence can get you killed and my stats and my appetite for torps tell me, I am way better off in a Fletcher.

Now you'Re talking about a rather special situation. Ognevoi and the other high tier DDs of this line have been nerfed by reducing the loads of their consumables, a step that I don't understand to this day. It gave the russian DDs a lot of flexibility and a lot of gimmicks, but those gimmicks helped them stay competitive, while they were never even close to dominating the field. So ofc smoke is more of an option with RN- and PA-DD. On russian and even german DD it hurts and you should consider it a last resort. On the other hand Ognevoi has DefAA. That doesn't prevent attacks, but it hurts if a CV comes in for a second pass. Combine it with running for better AA-cover and a CV might not want to risk his planes and retreat. As in nature, the protection lies not so much in being immune to attacks but having a bitter taste or taking too much effort to hunt down. Don't run faster than the bear, just faster than the guy next to you. The important lesson to be learnt is that countering CVs should not be a zero sum game. Don't dump the DV on your team mates, make him waste time, while your CV is hopefully killing relevant targets. It once took me 5 min to kill a DD in a CV. In the meantime their CV had flooded DCPed ships and caused a lot of damage. So don't see it as a failure, if a CV kills you, if it takes disproportionately long. It is a win.

You clearly are upset. Have you considered just explaining what happened and being open to advice on evidentially limited counter play? First of all, did you disable your AA so you are not spotted from further distance, alowing the CV to make a perfect approach? Second, did the planes appear out of thin air so that it was too late to set a smoke screen? And finally, were you moving in a predictable path, allowing the CV to roughly predict your location? In case you are utterly frustrated, which I as much as any frequent DD player can feel for, you should know that WArgaming is experimenting with a change in the spotting mechanic which will at least make it much harder for a CV to spot you on his own.

Let me think. One Minnesota, two Minnesota ... Yes and no. If you would have to buy the Colorado again, grind your way to T8, then buy the T8 and grind through that, I can see a T9-tech-tree ship for 1000 doubs makes some sense. If you have enough EliteXP on the Colorado, so that you can go T8 as soon as the early access is over, then you pay 1000 doubloons for saving the grind through T8 and the cost of a T8 and a T9 ship, plus the cost for a port slot - you'd buy that on discount for 150 doubs max. Also there is the remote chance that you might like the T8-ship, so the grind there is fun. So take away the port slot, makes 850 doubloons for ~ 18M credits and ~ 30 battles saved. Nothing you cannot get for free, so it's really your personal preference. Generally, early access makes sense for players who immediatly got a new ship figured out. Each grind is a learning curve. Skipping the grind also means skipping a few classes and possibly drowning at the deep end. Keep that in mind.

Shimakaze has a hard time compared to 3 years ago, because of the many radar cruisers and gunboat-DDs designed to hunt torpboats. Basically Wargaming got so many complaints from incompetent BB players about getting hit by foreseeable torps, they at some point released mostly DD-hunters to BaBysit. Although this has successfully relieved BB-players from using any residual intellectual capacity, it has forced Shimakaze to play very carefully these days. That said, I would still pick the Shima any day over the Khaba. The 5.6km concealment is still pretty comfortable and nothing makes lemming trains scratch the back of their overheating heads more than 15 x 23k Darwin Awards. In the beauty of that lies the strength of the Shima. Let's face it. Khaba, even if it ever works again, only punishes players for Wargaming's mistake of giving ships bad dispersion at range. It punishes even people who play half decent. Shima on the other hand is a tool of justice. It punishes people with an above average appetite for torpedoes - nom nom nom - who are not willing to watch the minimap or make reasonable assumptions about where a DD might be. Be a corrective! Let there be free torps for all!

I am willing to admit that AA on Halland and Minotaur are too strong if the OP is ready to admit AA is too weak on all the other 300 ships that are not CVs. Boy, do we really need to bloat the forum with nonsense like this? Even in a parallel world where a petabyte costs a single cent, this would be a waste of server space.

Exchanging ressources is never a good idea, as you will end up with less value in comparison. So I would not trade FXP for RP. If you want RP, just casually regrind a line each time the 2x bonus is available. Skipping ships is also hardly worthwhile. Most ships prepare you for playing the next higher ship. For example, when the pan-asian DD-line came out a lot of "veteran" players immediately skipped the entire line, only to then torp DDs with deepwater torpedoes cause they knew nothing about the line's properties at all. If, as you say, the new USN-BB-line ships are not enjoyable, the T10 ship will likely not be an exception. So why would you want to pay 700k FXP just to be able to play a ship you cannot relate to? Getting FXP-ships is generally not a bad idea. Sadly, none of the ships left is a must-have. They are all okayish. That said, I feel the T9-ships for 1M are better bang for buck than the T10s. I would likely get Ägir and Azuma. If you can't decide, just take the FXP to skip the A-hull on your future grinds. It will make grinding more enjoyable while not missing out on the experience of playing a ship completely.

I wanted to reply to some quotes. But I would basically have repeated myself. So instead I will focus on the key argument. I understand you're being ironic, but since I doubt some ... actually most of our community will understand it, I want to explicitly explain, why that would be a bad idea. The thing is you really got a point. If today some player comes into the forum demanding a nerf on one of the top DDs in a tier, then tomorrow another DD is going to be top. So the next person will come in here and demand a nerf on the Jutland. Then maybe the Mogador is top, so it gets nerfed to. At some point the Z-46 and the Yugumo will be top, so please, Wargaming, nerf them. Every nerf of a top ship of a class within its tier does two things: a) It slightly reshuffles the balance within that class b) It lowers the impact of the class on average, basically nerfing the entire class, allowing other classes to become more powerful. It is specifically because of b), that such a demand should be met with scepticism. DDs as they are today are struggling anyway. They may appear not to be because they still fulfil the role of anti-DD-play. Apart from that, they impact the points lead, the zoning out, the mind game of the hidden threat. But these things hardly give XP. It's not a coincidence we see such criticism from BB mains. They want to get rid of something they don't want to worry about. So they act like HE spam was still a thing, which it wasn't before the IFHE nerf and which it is even less now. If anything, we should think about an upward spiral. We should talk about which DDs perform weak and suggest to WG to buff them. I remember a time when a Khaba struck fear into my heart, when I was in a BB. A good Khaba could mess up a complete lemming train ... more than they are messed up already. Now Khaba and its T9-brother Tashkent are a laughing stock. Yugumo can hardly get her torps out without being radared and shot to bits. Friesland is a trojan horse, a cannibal within the DD-class, useless against anything else. But yeah, we cater to the false prophet and seriously discuss if Kita is OP?

Ich hatte gerade wieder so einen Spieler und bin entsprechend genervt. Mein Kollege ausm Clan erzählt mir, er hätte schon mindestens 3 Tickets inklusive Replays von dem Typen beim WG-Support geöffnet. Nix ist passiert über tausende Gefechte, über Jahre. Der Kollege hat prognostiziert, der Spieler würde regelmäßig in seinem CV Vollgas Richtung Gegner fahren und sich rausschießen lassen. Genau so ist es dann auch passiert. Wir haben ihn dann gepingt. F9 - "Get back". Nix. Ein freundliches BB und ich haben uns sogar vor ihm quer gestellt und ihn eine Weile zu blockieren versucht, damit er vielleicht aufgibt und wenigstens dieses Mal ernst spielt. Aber er ist dann mitten im B-Cap verreckt. Das ist doch kein schlechtes Spiel mehr, das ist Vorsatz. Ein Ticket brauch ich ja gar nicht erst aufmachen, weil wenn drei mal nix passiert und wahrscheinlich schon zwanzig andere sich beschwert haben, dann wird beim Einundzwanzigsten auch nix passieren. Und der Name des Spielers ist: Warum sollte man diese Spieler denn nicht beim Namen nennen dürfen? Damit nicht in drei Jahren jemand diesen Namen in die Suche eingibt und herausfindet, dass dieser Spieler schon damals bekanntermaßen getrollt hat und es WG noch weitere drei Jahre nicht die Bohne interessiert hat? Wieso sollen wir Trolle genauso durch Anonymität schützen wie den Otto-Normal-Spieler, der halt eben nur nicht gut spielt aber sich wenigstens Mühe gibt? Es ist nämlich eben kein Naming and Shaming, wenn der Spieler aktiv und selbstgewählt wider besseres Wissen seine Teams sabotiert. Bei diesen Leuten ist es eben nicht so, dass sie nix dafür können, sie definieren ihren Erfolg in diesem Spiel daran, wie vielen anderen Spielern sie ihr Spiel verderben. Es ist nicht mal so, dass sie ihre Anonymität verlieren. Dass sich Peter Müller aus Magdeburg hinter irgendeinem Fantasienamen verbirgt, weiß trotzdem niemand und kann niemand zurückverfolgen. Ich verstehe auch nicht, warum sich immer gleich die weniger guten Spieler aufn Schlips getreten fühlen, wenn man sowas anspricht. Es musss euch doch klar sein, dass es da nicht um euch geht und das ihr nichts zu fürchten habt. Ihr dürft ja weiter so schlecht spielen, wie ihr es eben nicht besser könnt. Ist nicht toll für euer Team, aber wenn das euer Limit ist, dann isses halt so. Davon redet hier ja auch niemand. Es geht nur im dieses Trolling. Wargaming hat viele Möglichkeiten zu trollen über die Jahre unmöglich gemacht. Danke auch dafür. Aber es ist eben immernoch das Hintertürchen Selbstzerstörung geblieben.

Since the Asymmetric Battles-experiment is over now, I wanted to provide some final feedback. There seemed to be a pronounced cycle. At first no players had tokens for the top-tier team. So everybody played bottom tier. Lacking players, the top tier team was complemented with bots. That was very convenient for the bottom tier players, as they practically won every game. The few players who dared into top tier, fought a frustrating uphill battle. They could hardly earn XP in such steam rolls. Consequently that incentivized most players to stick to bottom tier and farm easy wins. The battles were not overly exciting, so many players lost interest and at some point cashed in their tokens by playing top tier. There was a brief period, where both sides were pure PvP. In that period especially better players used the impact of a strong top tier ship combined with their superior skill, to farm kills and XP. The game mode started seeing more and more steam rolls and the majority changed sides to top tier. The end of the "season" only saw bots and casual players on the bottom tier teams, mostly players who seemed to not have tried out the mode so far or thought they could knock off snowflakes, missing the early rush. I myself had anticipated this cycle and done lots of low tier battles to knock off snowflakes on T5/T6 ships. It was pretty guaranteed wins at the beginning and better XP than coops. I assume lots of players had the same anticipation. I then lost interest in the middle, knowing it would be unclear conditions. At the end I used my big pile of tokens to finish the mission chain and again knock off snowflakes on T7/T8 ships. I stopped playing the mode with a surplus of ~11k tokens. If such a game mode would ever be permanent, these cycles might still occur. I can run out of tokens and be forced into low tier, but I can always play low tier. So that will imo make people vote with their feet towards a temporarily dominating side, using tokens to buffer phases of top tier dominance. We saw a similar behavior two years ago in the "Eagles vs. Sharks" event during the USN-cruiser line split. There were strange unanticipated mixes of ship types and numbers that strongly favored one side. I saw battles of 4v8 up to 9v12, not to speak of the ship types hard countering the composition of the other team. All that made the game mode a gamble. My impression was that people don't like to gamble when it comes to winning a battle. An easy win means less XP due to fewer opponents and shorter duration. A certain loss means less XP due to not getting the win-bonus. So players do not venture into this investing in lots of signals. It's a rather minimum effort thing. I have even seen players just going afk if a loss was likely. There is no stats, so losing is even less an issue than in random battles. Ofc that backfires, since all players adapt to that casual approach. It made the battles very static and boring, since no player was invested. The asymmetry did not work well. Bottom tier ships struggle too much to compete over numbers, when top tier ships are holding the technological advantage. Top tier brawlers can bounce and shatter most AP, while overmatching bow armor of bottom tier BBs. They can reposition fast. They got two cruisers strapped to their sides penetrating almost every armor at 11km, while the bottom tier ships need to play close to that range. The top tier cruisers have the range, fire chance, gimmicks and speed advantage to dictate terms. The DDs have the concealment advantage and dpm to survive in cap areas. And the CVs? T6-CV against T7/T8 is not uncommon. The few battles I had saw packed formations of top-tier ships that you could hardly penetrate for a single drop. The maps were too small to feature isolated targets to attack. For a T8-CV T5/T6 was just like christmas, their AA like two dozen baby fists hammering against a berzerker. In theory there should be a relation of bottom tier to top tier that equals a fair fight. But since the top tier ships are designed historically to counter known flaws of earlier ship designs, it will always be a matter of RNG and devastating strikes against bottom tier ships. If there was no rewards, as some other activities in the WoWs world, this game mode would likely be dead shortly after it ended anyway. Edit: Now I see. We now get the 200% Daily Win Bonus. Cause I was wondering why a Game Mode would end in the middle of an update. This is very unusual. But now it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? The game mode ended just the night before the bonus , because you didn't want it to overlap with the 200% bonus, knowing people would spam T8 ships to cash in big on that bonus with their newly earned special signals. I mean a win in T8 of Asymmetric Battles at the end was pretty much guaranteed and would stack nicely with the bonus. Smart move, Wargaming.

I still don't understand the rationale behind having a temporary campaign. I finished it months ago, I couldn't care less. But I care for the quality and success of the game. To me it is an ill step to remove something that could motivate new players. One might argue that the rewards of this campaign, the special EU-commander, can be sold later in the armory. But still, what's the point? All the current players already have it. New players would have to earn the coal to buy it. But they got all the other special commanders in there, too. They would have to earn an excess million coal to get them all, just to catch up with the rest of the player base. Let's be realistic, this will never happen. So there is no extra revenue to be made by removing the campaign. It's just plain non-sense.

It was the same for me. The PEF grind and snowflakes christmas 2018 just were too much. I just played another game and suddenly I forgot all about WoWs for months. I felt it for the first time during the Indianapolis-Marathon. The only reason the Puerto Rico didn't burn out half the community was because it was so obviously impossible that most players didn't even bother. I think the game would be much more motivating, if we had less events, in particular less overlapping events. This whole bit of having missions for a special game mode, while collecting snowflakes, while doing a dockyard event, while doing KotS missions is just too much right now. And I am even totally postponing the new campaign, since thankfully it is not expiring. You could play with people in lots of other games that don't give rewards. Are you just playing because you now got used to meeting these people? Would your mind tell you there is something missing in your life if you didn't know these specific individuals but some other people in some other clan in another game? Maybe the rewards have more of an influence on your decision to play than you realise. Doesn't your mind tell you you are sitting on a port full of virtual ships that you invested years into grinding? Would you give that up just like that or rather find new people doing the same old? One of the points in the video posted is, that tasks/quests/missions create incentives to not do what is intended. A mission to farm 1000 secondary hits is intended to make you play secondary-specced brawlers a lot. It is not intended to make people not shoot their primary guns and risk losing the battle in favor of getting the required amount of secondary hits asap. Yet such a mission does exactly that. Usually you are not speculating about things but have tried and tested whatever you are talking about. Not that there is anything wrong with it. Sorry, you had it coming.

I understand a Kitakaze also has its ways to deal with a Jutland. I didn't say the Kitakaze is outplayed by default. As with any DD, one player makes a mistake and another player sees and abuses it or one one player provokes you into making a mistake. It's exactly my point, that the Kitakaze is anything but a "get out of jail free"-card. But it works both ways. One can not argue that a Kitakaze is overpowered just because it outguns other DDs. It is balanced by pronounced weaknesses in maneuverability, utility and torps. If anybody thinks differently, please be my guest and become a Kitakaze-main. Play the "wonder-boat" and become a super-unicum in lazy-mode. And whoever suggested nerfing its fire chance somewhere in this topic, must be a BB-main catering to his vanity and blind to the big picture who doesn't know too much about DDs. Newsflash: The Kita was already nerfed significantly by the IFHE rework. Now you either set fires or do direct damage to some 32mm-BBs, no longer both. A BB main should feel like in the promised land since the IFHE rework, but instead you hear them whine like the IFHE rework did not change a thing. Oh yes, sorry I forgot, cruisers now can angle against some BB-calibers. How unfair is that, that a BB player can no longer lol-drop cruisers from any angle? It's never gonna stop is it. When will WG finally give you a meta, where you get Kraken just by pressing the mouse button? I mean, we read people stating that whoever says Kitakaze is balanced basically is just lying to protect his beloved Kita. But to me it seems the other way round. People who argue against it just want to get rid of a ship that counters their typical play style. And what I find increasingly funny: Every day we read some new topic here about buffing or nerfing some ship. Why? Cause it is one percentage point above or below average. The ship may or may not impact your outcome in 1 out of 100 battles. The rest is other factors. The biggest factors is the player. Yet we seldom read topics by players wanting Wargaming to buff themselves. So players spend way more thought on how ships are responsible for their results, when they should rather think about what they might do wrong that some ship or opponent doesn't work for them. Ofc one thing is convenient and the other is effort. I get it.

It's similar for me, but I find that quite positive. I am not not playing the game feeling that I would like to play and get additional rewrds for that. I rather feel like the rewards are keeping up a pressure to play because you do not want to miss out on anything that later turns out to be required. I took a break last year and promtly mised out on the Benham, the ship I now so wished I got back then. I also missed the Kuznetsov-commander and had to buy it in the armory. The thing is, this wish to keep up interferes with your decision making and makes you exceed your equilibrium. You would play the game a bit, then do something else. Your willingness to pay for the game would be unaltered. Still you would burden the WG-infrastructure less. Now by exceeding that limit, the game starts having a negative effect. You at some point get fed up. There was this guy back in another clan, who had just nuked his account, cause the game got him so wound up and all the missions delayed him taking a break to a point where he lost it. Another guy was quite active in the game, when his girlfriend at some point gave him an ultimatum. He is married to her today, but he hasn't played the game ever since and subsequently not spent any money on it. So yeah, maybe less is more. I lately quite enjoy playing the public test server. There are no grinds, I get to play the ships I like. There is no stats, so I can potato as much as I like. No pressure. Ironically without feeling there is a stats page counting every loss, I feel I play better. I take risks, I try new moves. I experiment. Normally, I would feel an obligation to not let my team down and take the safest shortest route to victory. I can't remember when was the last time I rushed the channel on Two Brothers. So yeah, while keeping scores and collecting rewards has its merits, I think it makes the battles increasingly monotonous. The snowflakes are the reason the entire community spams coops. Do we have fun doing it? Hell, no. Would we ever do it if there was no reward? Certainly not. How many players would rank out in these braindead Ranked Seasons, if it wasn't for the rewards? I have experienced calm people getting increasingly toxic over ranking out, just because they want the rewards. I would dump the whole game mode and just do the funny sprints.

People who argue for a nerf of Kita might be stuck in tier 1 in their play style. I mean they operate in a state where two ships shoot each other stubbornly and then one ship gets destroyed. Ofc if you see a ship purely from a dpm point of view, the Kita seems extremely strong. But tier 9 is won by gimmicks. Just two days ago, I did a late night round in my Kitakaze on PT-Server. I ran into a Jutland. The Jutland played it right. He knew if I was to move in on him, he would hydro me. He knew I had to rush him or turn a certain way. So he torped my retreat and the sluggish Kitakaze just couldn't turn fast enough to avoid a torp. I was finished. After that I jumped into my Jutland. PTS was so empty I got into a 1v1-battle ... against a Kitakaze. So I snuck up behind an island, gave him a quick salvo and smoked up. The Kita ofc torped the smoke once and then a second time with his reload boosted torps. But I had already left the smoke to surround the island and attack him from a different angle. So as I shot out of the island, I torped his escape route, just as the guy before had done to me. I forced him to come even closer and his sluggish bucket just couldn't dodge the second spread anymore. I looked the guy up, he was a 56%er. So far I used the IJN-gunboats and RN-DDs to regrind. However, I ate torps so often in the Akizuki and Kitakaze, I really can't say they are good cap contesters. Really, just think about it, people, which DD have you hit most frequently with torps sitting in his smoke? They are not well-suited to project influence. Frankly, I am thinking about sticking to the RN-DDs for regrinding and not do the IJN-gunboats regularly, since they are just too unflexible. The point being. If you lose against a Kitakaze, maybe you are engaging him on his terms, not using the tools you are given effectively. Of course you will lose against it in a stupid open-water gun-only duel at constant speed. That does not make it overpowered. There was a good reason why we did not see a Harugumo in the Savage Battle game mode. The IJN-gunboats have very pronounced weaknesses and if you know them, not only will you be able to ambush a Kita but even use their players overconfidence against them.