HMS_Kilinowski

Es ist egal. Es soll nichts passieren, weil's ums Geld geht. Da bei wird es nicht um den Einzelfall gehen. Wargaming wird generell davon ausgehen, dass auch diese Spieler Geld investieren, ohne das groß zu hinterfragen. Also Premiumkonto siehst du auch nicht. Ich vermute, bei Wargaming sind es schlicht die Strukturen und Prioritäten. Fälle prüfen kostet Zeit, damit Geld, und Geld investiert man lieber in Dinge, die wiederum Geld bringen. Es läuft tatsächlich darauf hinaus, dass detailierte Beschwerden mit geringst möglichem Aufwand abgewimmelt werden. Der zahlende Troll ist durchaus ein tragfähiges Argument. Wie du selber schreibst, machen sich nur wenige Spieler die Mühe, solche Fälle nachzuverfolgen. Das Der Unmut kann also nicht so groß sein. Gewinnerteam stört sich selten daran, auch wenn man im Chat Anteilnahme erfährt. Dazu kommt, dass diese Trolle glücklicherweise eine Ausnahmeerscheinung sind. Wenn sie nur in einem von hundert Gefechten oder noch seltener Auftauchen, sind das wenige kurze Aufreger. Die sind ärgerlich, aber auch zufällig, stören also die Stats nicht. Allein deswegen hört, vermute ich, niemand auf, Geld ins Spiel zu stecken. Wenn ein Kind mit einer Plastiktröte wiederholt Erwachsenen aus nächster Nähe laut ins Ohr pfeift und die Erwachsenen sich darüber aufregen, dann sollte man sich als Außenstehender nicht persönlich angegriffen fühlen, nur weil man sich selbst als unmusikalisch empfindet. Es ist doch nicht schwer, zwischen schlechtem Spiel und Trolling unterscheiden. Für mich als Menschen sowieso. Für eine Kontrollroutine etwas schwieriger. Ab einer bestimmten Schwelle kann ich guten Gewissens davon ausgehen, dass der Spieler entweder absichtlich sabotiert oder ihm die Grundlagen fehlen. Dann schick ich ihn für viele Gefechte ins Coop, nicht als Strafe, sondern, damit er erst mal üben kann. Man müsste mir erklären, wo hier jemandem Schaden entsteht. Welches Grundrecht wird dabei verletzt? Ist es nicht bei jeder Fertigkeit so, dass man mit leichten Übungen anfängt und zu leichteren Übungen zurückkehrt, wenn sich komplexe Übungen als zu schwierig erwiesen haben? Das ist bei solchen Spielern generell mein Eindruck. Ich vermute sie definieren ihren Erfolg über die Menge verbaler Angriffe, die Ihr Verhalten provoziert. Und dann gibt es noch den anderen Typus. Der erwartet von Wargaming ein Matchmaking, in dem er immer in der vorteilhaften Ausgangslage ist. Er will immer Top-Tier sein und noch dazu soll das Gegnerteam as möglichst vielen "Opfern" bestehen, also Schiffen, die sein eigenes Schiff hart kontert. Ist das nicht der Fall, also immer, wenn er nur mittelmäßige oder schlechte Karten bekommt, boykottiert er die Teilnahme am Spiel. Das zeigen die Kommentare im Ingame-Chat: "Bottom-Tier, nein danke." "Halbes Team nur Zerstörer. Und tschüss." Ziemlich kindisch, weil diese Erwartungshaltung impliziert, es sei okay, mehrheitlich gute Karten auf Kosten der anderen Spieler zu bekommen. Nein, im Gegenteil. Ich bin sehr dankbar, wenn ich so offensichtlich falsche Antworten bekomme. Dann weiß ich wenigstens Bescheid. Da ist mir sofort klar, dass hier der Support auf Energiespar-Modus läuft und nichts zu erwarten ist. Das Trügerische ist doch gerade, dass die Antwort meist Erfolg suggeriert. Dass letztlich nichts passiert, erfahren wir ja nur über den Austausch mit anderen oder über das Prüfen externer Quellen wie etwa Stats- und Replay-Seiten.

Appearantly WG is testing a new game mode with 3 teams: If half your team starts shooting each other for no obvious reason, it's once more an indication that the penalty system works as intended.

They are steam rolls. Compared to PTS, where tier 7/8 had half as many ships, the top tier team now has one more ship, which is enough to wipe the T5/6-team off the earth. I got a mod installed that tells me the top tier team now has more HP than the bottom tier team. So these steam rolls are not surprising. Even a Nelson can bow tank most bottom tier BBs. Put on top of that cruisers with gadgets like radar and better dispersion on secondaries plus they do direct damage without IFHE to most BBs. DDs got the concealment mod. I think Wargaming got carried away since during public testing the bottom tier teams appearantly won most of the battles. That however was largely due to top tier teams being one player and a complement of bots. So there was no lesson to be learnt from PTS about balancing the game mode. Edit: I just had a 5 vs. 12. and even that was a steam roll:

Seeing some statistics I always find more convincing than all the anecdotal evidence in the world. The score board does not distinguish between a torp hit in the first minutes or one cleaning up in an already won battle. It does not distinguish between killing the one good player that held the flank together and some infrequent player who was no threat. Also the score board does not take into account lots of actions that can break resistance. Being top of the board is very admirable, but I have seen far too many damage farmers come top, while more dedicated players sacrificed XP to block points gain for the enemy team, receiving zero XP-points for that. In short, the score board does not tell, who decided the battle.

Don't you guys realize how you are arguing over degrees of grey? Yes, you should use guns, if reasonable. No, you shouldn't use them, if unreasonable. I would put it simply: If you don't see a valid reason to not use your guns, use them. There is a good chance you will make a mistake, not seeing what an experienced player sees as a threat. But as long as you are self-critical, you will learn from these experiences. You will narrow down the situations from an aggressive play style. Consequently you will do damage that you wouldn't have done otherwise and have an impact. If you approach this from a conservative play style, i.e. not shooting unless you are sure you're save, you will likely not get punished, since you never make the mistake of opening up, when it was a bad idea. But the "what if"-situations will also not reveal themselves. There are still mistakes, like you could have shot that target or secured that kill and not get spotted/hit in return. But you likely will never know, cause it's not the nature of these mistake that you get feedback. It also means you will miss opportunities and have less impact. I am sorry to say, I disagree. Most torpboats have good concealment. They should absolutely abuse that advantage to contest caps. The direct torpboat vs. gunboat comparison is about 1v1. In duels it's obvious the gunboats have the advantage. But a battle rarely sees an isolated duel. Each good torp-DD player has more guns to shoot than Harugumo ... behind it. The trick is that you do not shoot, but you spot the enemy DD, while remaining hidden yourself, so your team starts shooting him. If he smokes up, then you torp the smoke and force him into the open, to then spot him again for your team. If the DD would spot BBs, that would be a tactical mistake. He then would move his team's attention to the most tanky ships. The focus however must be first and foremost on deleting their cap contesting power, by finding and pinging the enemy DDs from concealment. Next is dpm-cruisers. Why highlight enemy BBs, when you can reduce the enemy dpm fast by finding those light cruisers? Ofc radars are a priority in your own interest. Hardly any DD-player can afford to not contest caps. It imo takes a very very capable player to have more impact by killing big ships than tip the clock in your favor. There is a big point to be made. Yes, you can gunfight lots of DDs. Every torpboat is a gunboat, under certain frequent conditions. A gunboat is every DD that has a higher dpm-to-HP-ratio than his opponent. If you compare a full-HP-Kagero to a Benson on 500 HP, the Kagero has just become a gunboat, in relation to that Benson. The Benson generally now is a torpboat in that he cannot use his guns as effectively as a gunboat would need to. His AR skill and okayish torps have just turned him into a torpboat. The first thing every DD-player should do is re-evaluate his role as the battle evolves. The second thing is to shape the battle. Yes, a torp-DD can stay away from any danger and hope he has an impact. But why would I want to be afraid of being chased down by a DD, need to torp from inefficient distances and angles, trying to stay out of harms way, if I can neutralize the threat and then enjoy freedom of movement? So the first thing I want to do in a torpboat is find the radars. If I can make my team kill them, I keep them lit. If I just make them leave, that is good enough. Then I try to find the DDs, as described above, using my better concealment. Mind, I don't need my team to kill them. As long as they are heavily damaged, that has changed the game. All I need is change them into a torpedo boat and become a gunboat in comparison. Once I have done that I am free to do whatever I want. Are BBs around? Well their DD will not block the attack route anymore. Was the DD isolated? I can just chase him like a madman. Shape the battle. Don't practice a paradigm that has lost more battles than won. If the less experienced people would come to the forum in the first place, they would presumably know enough to not fall for bad advice. That is exactly what I have been doing for months now and even on many gunboats. I only use range modules, upgrades and skills on the russian and french long-range-DDs and IJN-gunboats. The reason is that I specifically want to fight enemy DDs in the cap. So for me it's crucial to go dark as soon as I break line of sight to the DD. If the DD smokes up and I am still spotted, since a cruiser is within my >12km firing range, I'm dead. If my range is not much more than 10km, I go dark as soon as the DD smokes or dies. Also in the worstcase , that a cruiser should be closer, I only need to run a few meters to get unspotted. The price paid is not being able to shoot ships at distance. At range, DDs are inaccurate anyway. You won't start shooting BBs at range cause it makes them turn away, missing the area where you hit them best. So usually you open up at ranges of about 8km. All you lose is that last bit where they run away beyond 10km. On the upside I get the better concealment and slightly shorter grinds.

Atlanta im Nebel kann man auf 4.6km erkennen, wenn sie schießt. Das ist recht wenig. Umgekehrt ist die Atlanta auch aus Pappe. Dass man sie also nicht sieht, ist eine Frage des Balancings. Sonst wäre sie ja immer schnell tot. Die Frage ist auch nicht zwingend, wie man die Atlanta trifft. Schießen in die Rauchwand will geübt sein. In erster Linie stellt sich imo die Frage, wie man nicht beschossen wird. Das reicht oft schon aus. Atlanta hat nur 13,3km Reichweite und trifft auf große Entfernung kaum noch. Also, wenn nicht die Uhr tickt, dann am besten Distanz aufbauen. Auf 14km kann ein BB noch bequem in den Nebel schießen, die Atlanta aber nicht zurück schießen. Alternativ sid die Caps doch meist von Inseln umgeben. Wenn nur wenige Gegner übrig sind, sollte sich eine Insel finden lassen, Welche die Sicht blockiert. Wer unsichtbar ist, ist schwer zu treffen. Hinter der Insel kann man sich ans Cap heran pirschen. Der Nebel kommt ja nicht von der Atlante, sie selber hat keinen. Er kommt nur vom DD und läuft nach 1-2 min aus. Dann kann man in den Cap fahren und evtl. auch den DD überraschen. Es bedarf eben einiger Zusammenarbeit bim dem CV und etwas Gespür, um dabei Torpedos zu vermeiden.

Das klingt verwirrend. Muss man das so verstehen, dass die Einschlagwinkel flacher aussehen als sie es sind und dann bei der Berechnung der Penetration tatsächlich steilere Winkel in die Berechnung einfließen? Fliegt das Projektil dann innerhalb des Schiffs so weiter, wie es optisch suggeriert wird? Dann müssten sich viele Overpens ergeben, wo man eigentlich die Zitadelle getroffen hätte. Oder wird die Flugbahn im Ziel dann unsichtbarer Weise realistisch berechnet?

Spieler mit rassistischen oder NS-verherrlichenden Namen melden ich oder andere Spieler meiner Div grundsätzlich per Ticket. Da handelt WG sehr schnell. Diese Spieler sind zumindest am Folgetag "Renamed_User12343456" o.ä.. Anders verhält es sich mit Trollen. Die spielen nicht schlecht im dem Sinn, dass sie Fehler machen. Sie sabotieren absichtlich ihre Teams, teils mit Ansage, dann kann man ein Ticket öffnen. Zumeist ohne Ansage oder mit vagen Andeutungen, die man nicht eindeutig interpretieren kann. In jedem dieser Fälle wird man vom Support abgewimmelt und es passiert nichts. Bei bestimmten Trollen wäre es schon kein Naming and Shaming mehr, sie zu nennen, weil sie ohnehin den meisten Spielern namentlich bekannt sein dürften. Ich kenne Trolle, da erzähl ich in unserem Discord, was der gemacht hat und dann les ich nur von anderen "Den kennen wir schon. Das macht der immer." Dann wollte ich es wirklich genau wissen, hab bei replayswows.com nach deren Namen gesucht und siehe da: Der taucht über Jahre hinweg in zwei Dutzend Replays auf. In jedem zweiten Replay schreibt er sinngemäß "Bottom Tier, ich bin raus." und yolot, ohne überhaupt zu schießen, in die Gegner. Also die Leute gibt's schon und deren Verhalten ist bei allem dafür halten auch klar als Trolling zu erkennen. Aber es passiert eben nichts, weil Wargaming das nicht will. Das macht ja auch Sinn. Wargaming hat nur Vorteile von solch einer Politik. Die Trolle geben Geld aus, die will man als Kunden nicht verlieren. Also bleiben die weitgehend unbehelligt. Die Nachteile kriegt Wargaming nicht zu spüren, die müssen ihr eigenes Spiel ja nicht spielen, sondern nur die normalen Spieler. Wer ein Ticket einsendet, ist verärgert. Wargaming will auch ihn als Kunden behalten. Also schickt der Support ihm einen maximal besänftigenden Textbaustein. Inhalte zitieren darf man nicht, sinngemäß lässt sich der Inhalt aber wiedergeben: Wargaming entschuldigt sich für die negative Erfahrung, die man gemacht hat. Sätze mit vorformulierter Empathie reihen sich aneinander. Dann sichert man dem Spieler zu, dass man im Falle von Regelverstößen ernste Maßnahmen ergreifen werde, aus Datenschutzgründen jedoch über die im Einzelfall getroffene Maßnahme keine Auskunft geben dürfe. Das hat zweierlei Effekt. Der Ticketersteller fühlt sich ernst genommen und glaubt an eine Sanktion. Er ist zufrieden und investiert weiter in das Spiel. Auf der anderen Seite sagt der Textbaustein aber nur, dass Wargaming bei Regelverstößen handelt. Er bestätigt aber nicht, dass der monierte Fall auch ein Regelverstoß ist und geahndet wird. Es bleibt also die Hintertüre offen, das zu tun, was für den Supportmitarbeiter am wenigsten Arbeit und Verantwortung bedeutet, nämlich garnix. Ticket geschlossen. Und der Troll der darf weiter über Jahre hinweg in jedem zweiten Spiel die W-Taste vier mal drücken und eine rauchen gehen.

Relax, @Excavatus, the cavalry is here. Let me get my expectations out of the way and then address the arguments made. I recently watched a Flambass video of him opening 34 supercontainers last anniversary. The content was mostly camos and standard signals. He got 2x1000 doubloons and a bit of coal. That cured me of having any expectations. I don't expect, I hope to get a T6-ship, a couple of doubloons and a bit of steel or coal. Also I recently found out I used 400 camos more than I accumulated since the beginning of 2020. So the anniversary seems to be designed to correct a discrepancy between earning and consumption of these consumables. That's the way to see it. We don't need to throw ourselves into the dust out of gratitude for the gifts nor need we be overly demanding. It's a closed system. Everything balances out in the long run. What you get today will increase prices or reduce rewards at some point in the future. And what is spent today will likely be compensated by some generosity elsewhere. It's certainly not worth getting wound up over the gifts. Take it, be content and move on. I can understand your point of view. I remember criticising the rewards myself two years ago, when I had just made it to my first two T10-ships. What puzzles me is why you would reward the same players every year over and over again for the same thing reached in the past. A player can have 30 T10-ships and played one battle per month for the last year. Doing so, he has not been active or contributing to the game/community in that year. Nevertheless he is rewarded as if he did. A player on the other hand who played thousands of battles last year, who has been available as a team mate/opponent to the community and been a regular part of those 2000-30000 players every day, is reduced to the number of T10-ships as a proxy for his commitment. To me that never made sense. That said, however, I must compliment WG on being transparent, consistent and trustworthy ... at least in this one matter. We have seen other examples where WG changed things, like the summer sale suddenly being a gambling box sale, when many players were expecting and looking forward to discounts on premium ships. WG has kept the anniversary gifts consistent for years now. As a player two years ago with only 2 T10-ships, I would trust WG to stay true to that principle. One may argue, if I should, but I chose to and for two years that trust was rewarded. Every year I knew, I now have a year time to get some more T10-ships and will get rewarded for it in the next anniversary. The next anniversary (2019) I had made my way to 12 T10-ships and 12 containers. Nothing you would plan for your whole year, but if you know the anniversary is coming and you got a couple of T9-ships in port, you got an incentive to elite them in the weeks to come. This is what I did this year as well. This year actually was special, since the removal of the Legendary Module missions has created a rush for T10-ships at the beginning of the year. Then with Moskva being moved out of the tech-tree, Moskva had to be unlocked. There was a lot of incentive to finish lines. Consequently I will get around 30 containers this year. Technically speaking, you don't need to bother with T10, but actually everything else up to T9, cause that is what you need to play to grind your way to the T10-ship. Of course there would be an alternative: Rewarding the number of battles played in a year seems more fair to me than the stock of T10-ships. I don't think people prefer being rewarded for T10-ships because they find it more fair. Just the reward overall is higher than it was getting 5 flags per 1000 battles. WG would need to give players a supercontainer for every 500 Coops 200 Randoms, every 20 stars in Ranked, every league gained in CB. That would reward actual activity rather than rewarding memorials of past activity. In this topic it's tempting to be an advocate of one's own interests - not addressing anybody in particular. We all want max. rewards. But we should try to look at the big picture, at other people's legit interests and at what is good for the game. Many of us want players to play at tiers reflecting their skill level. We get upset, when players pay/die their way into T10 without any skills and mess up what could be interesting battles. If that is important to us, then we should not be elitist about rewards and not create adverse incentives. This whole point of "you don't deserve SC, cause you're not playing the real thing" is doing just that.

Did you change the word pole to mast? What's wrong with poles? We even had one in our clan, tho I had a habit of rubbing him the wrong way. Can you help me, Mr. Bison? I bet you can:

How will you find a working build in 2 weeks for all your ships in port. Some are similar and if you figure out a build for one, you got it for all of them. But there's gotta be at least two dozen different play styles. Let me just make the case for DDs: Sneaky torp boat, Slow hunter-gunboat, Kleber-style-speedboat, RN-style-cap-contestor, AA-fast-torps-DD, hybrids plus whatever italian DD-line with SAP or special ships like Black/Neustrashimi will require. That is already six builds right there. Now do that for 4 classes, for a total of in my case 200 ships. All in some short respec period? Do we need to quit our jobs then? Take a vacation?

We imo need to see the big picture. This is a huge change of the skill system. Very likely there will not be one basic viable skill set, but multiple ones. That seems to be one of the goals of this rework. That also means there are no experiences with how these new skills work and interact. In short: Nobody can adhoc tell you, which builds will work and which will not. That creates a lot of uncertainty and potential for mistakes, resulting in subpar builds. As a consequence, many of you will have to respec your captains at least once, likely even several times before finding a working build. This artificially created need to respec now "coincides" with a change in cost to respec. It is very convenient for WG that they raise the prices for changing captains alongside this rework. If they had only changed the prices, most of us would have simply built their captains from experience and be 95% correct. Not many mistakes to be done with a standard DD- build: PM, LS, SE, CE, AR plus torp or guns or utility, based on the ship and playstyle. BBs mostly work with standard survivability build. So nobody would need to spend money. But with this rework, we all will need to spend a lot of doubloons over time. We can only hope that free respecs return to Clan Battles. They were justified before, they will be even more justified after this.

Dear community, I have been thinking about this for a while, but the recent experiences in the game have made me more curious. I have always struggled to understand the players who are not getting better over time, sometimes even get worse. It's a fact that there always will be a heterogenous player base and a potential for conflict. The good players have expectations and so do the bad players. If the not so good players fail to see things from the good players perspective, maybe it's up to the good players to reach out and explore the world of the casual mindset. So I am thinking about starting a project: I intend to start a new account and experience first hand, what it's like to be a very bad player. This is a well established concept of social science, called "participant observation". If you want to find out about a peer group, you become part of that group, adapt to their habits and document your experiences. I hope to gain a deeper understanding of what motivates different player strata. We have tried in the past to have discussions in here, but the peer group (a) was hardly present in the forum and (b) mostly refused to share their views. It's only logical to send a lab rat and after some reflection on the matter, I think about volunteering. This is intended to be a slow and rather long-term experiment. I still want to play my main account. So I would just occasionally have a few games on this test account, when I am too tired to make an effort. I would monitor my stats and slowly readjust, depending on the actual progress I make. I intend to share my experiences in this topic as an interactive diary. So we will know how other players interact with me, if they are helpful or hostile. So far for the outline. Now comes the hard part: I am not a very bad player. As hard as it may be for a very bad player to play like an above average player, it is even harder for an above average player to play like a bad player. After thousands of games, trying to get better, certain reflexes are tatooed into a player's mind. If you know how to aim, you cannot intentionally aim wrong. Who is to say that a bad player would have aimed the same way? If your inner voice tells you, an enemy will move to a certain area, how can you ignore that knowledge in your decision process? You cannot deliberately sabotage your game, since a bad player hypothetically wouldn't do that either. You see, you can hardly fake ignorance, which is why murderers often get caught and wifes know when their men are cheating. Now I could - every now and then - be afk, get DCed or TK, but that (a) would be against the rules and (b) it would get me pink, which gets in the way of experimenting freely. I suppose I could TK, if it came as a byproduct of a real unawareness and was not intentional. I can yolo or sit in the back of the map or give an awful lot of broadside, but the way I see it, the only possibility to exercise a consistent lack of skill would be to commit to a fixed set of rules how to play, in order to at least simulate bad play. So there would be certain rules like e.g.: - Never use camos or signals - Don't exceed a certain level of captain points - Always stay with the majority of the players - Don't move in smoke - Don't use hydro or radar - Never follow requests in chat - prioritize damage over objectives - ... You get the picture. I am not yet commited to do this project, unless I feel positive I can do it reasonably bad and still within the rules of the game. So long story short: I am asking for your input. Do you think such a project is practicable? What actions do I need to refrain from, to fully comply with the rules of the game? What rules come to your mind that could help simulating bad play? Mind, they can be specific to a ship type, game mode, map or be general in nature. Just be creative. One question especially for the bad players among you: How can I get into the mood of playing your way? Is there any habit of (legal) substance abuse (e.g. drinking) or parallel activity (talking on the phone / watching a series while playing) that is recommended to maybe reduce awareness? I know this sounds a bit trollish, but I actually witnessed some players were less aware when drunk, so this is a legit point. Share whatever thoughts you deem helpful in successfully conducting this experiment. I know this all sounds funny. But if I decide to do it, it's gonna be serious. Feel free to also share your concerns. I just want to say this: WoWs has so many bad players that one more will not significantly impact your game experience. So don't worry about that. Also Wargaming is testing any kind of new ships and to some extent even meachanics on the live server, so I think one innocent test account again is not gonna make your game experience any less enjoyable. It is a small sacrifice for all of us, but the prospect of a better mutual understanding is imo well worth it. Come on guys, we put a man on the moon. Let's put a man into casual mode. Share your thoughts. Edit: I want to draw your attention to the current update post.

I want to thank you all for your constructive feedback so far. I have been reflecting on the possible concept a bit. I have decided that I do not want to (a) burden the community more than necessary to gain results and (b) not put in unreasonable amounts of personal time, considering real life commitments and game-activity. So, as a first approach to the subject I would like to augment personal experiences by pure observation of unaware subjects. To do that, I'd like to watch some twitch streams of people you would qualify as bad players. I would ask you to PM me streamers you came across that struck you as bad players. Please refrain from naming them here as their identity is not supposed to be revealed at any point of the experiment. Ideally I want to cover a variety of habits and mentalities. So, if you find the time, let me know in a sentence or two, what makes this streamer archetypal. Stream languages can be English, German and French. Much appreciated.

I agree with what you wrote. Just one minor remark: You do not guarantee the win by ramming a purple player as a mediocre player, you level the playing field. Before the ram, the odds were against you. By ramming you have increased your chances from 20% to 50%. It's still possible to lose this, but the mediocre player is imo not to be blamed for that residual risk, as his team would be in a much more desperate situation before the ram. Call it a technical foot-note. In some battles I got 2000 baseXP. If it was possible to get that much XP in such a short game mode, likely 12v12 would be dead. Players would rush through the tiers in 3v3-mode much faster. If they then enter a game mode that takes a more tactical approach, they would be inexperienced and struggle to perform. So I prefer these modes to be events, but I would love to see more of them rather than the annoying 7v7 Ranked seasons. Even more so, I would love to see another 1v1 season. That was so much fun.

It depends on the player (I assume that is what you mean by "captain"), but only partially. The success of a player is determined by a combination of factors. Each of them has a certain influence. They interact and none of the factors can stand alone. A suitable ship, fully built, will offset a certain lack of skill. You can see it if you compare players of Ägir to players of Brindisi in the sprint. The best Ägir players ranked out with 90%+ winrates. Many of them are only slightly above 50% in randoms. Brindisi on the other side saw winrates below 80% at best, while its best players were also above 50% in randoms, some even above 55%. There are two distributions of winrates for both ships and Ägir's is higher. That doesn't mean the distributions don't overlap and that good players cannot get the same results in bad ships with bad commanders as bad players with good ships and good commanders. All I am saying is there is a huge gap between ships and it cannot be fully explained by better players vs bad players. From an unconditional perspective, I agree. But the situation of misplaying is inherent to the bad play. So either you are a good player in a bad situation or you are a bad player in a yet neutral situation against a good player. In both cases you are a pawn that hopefully can still be traded for a high value chess piece. I wouldn't be so strict about ramming being bad, if it doesn't guarantee the win. It's imo sufficient, if the ram is improving the odds of your team significantly. If I saw a Flamu-level player on the enemy team and could easily neutralize him, sacrificing a player who would usually lose 100/100 duels against this exceptionally good player, that doesn't guarantee a win at all, but adhoc it's a good trade. It changes a hopeless situation into a fighting chance. I agree. I played solo and in division and overall the division games were easier to win. I am not trying to blame the third player for the losses. What I meant is that at some point of team composition, the perspective changes and with it the approach. Let me put it into a clearer example. Imagine a full 7v7 Ranked, where you are in division with a clan mate. In your mind this is a Ranked Battle and your division will utilize your means of communication and coordination to bring a bit of structure into a rather chaotic game mode. The mindset will be that of playing with random players. You will look for opportunities and try to be as useful as you can. Now think of a 7v7 Ranked, where you can get divisions of 6 players into the battle and the team is filled up with one random player. Your approach will be more team-oriented. You will put more trust into your clan fellows. Your tactics will be more sophisticated, more coordinated. There however is one random player on your side. Depending on how crucial the role of his ship is, that will have a huge impact on your tactics. If the player knows what he is doing, you will get a closed-system of interdependent roles. The whole team will work as a unit and be almost immune to counters. If he is unreliable, you must adapt your tactics to compensate for that. I had battles where I tried to flank and the random player would follow me. So I let him flank and went center and he followed me again. It's a huge difference if you can take a random players approach as given and adapt your tactics around it, without him adapting to your adaption.

No comment:

There was a guy who ranked out in the T8-duel season in an Asashio with a 52% winrate. That doesn't change the fact they fought a steep uphill battle. I assume some of them didn't know any better and others were that good and confident they liked the challenge. I am not saying it was impossible to rank out in any other ship. But taking into account all players, the data shows a pronounced gap indicating adverse conditions for players who did not have the luxury of having one of the 53%+ ships. Newer players can use one of the tech tree ships, if they accidentally have ground their way to these specific ships. Given we now have around 30 lines to research, that is not small if anymore. Also these ships I have in port, too, as a veteran player, Jutland and Kitakaze even with a 19pointer. Good ships are keepers. Again, I do not dispute personal skill matters. That implies that (a) ranking out in ill-suited ships is not impossible and (b) ranking out in the best available ships with the best captain and build is not guaranteed. Also may I point out that ramming is not a bad strategy, if you are not a good player. If they tried ramming after they missed torps, they were at least amart enough to see they were in a vulnerable position, giving broadside to other ships. When you're solo, you are matched against another solo player, while a division always gets matched against a division and will not get an enemy team of three individual players. You can get matched against a casual division, but I have seen many more decent divisions than in other game modes so far. But maybe that is my subjective impression. That's a pretty good question, isn't it? I certainly struggle with the claim "more interesting", as long range duels can be annoying. As I initially said, the current season was imo fun and certainly interesting. So any other design would likely not be more interesting, but at best keep up with the current design. That said, what is causing the brawls is (a) the map design and (b) the spotting restrictions. The current map design features two fast ticking overlapping caps of small size. Small is relative. Epicenter mode has huge rings. They do not force both teams into brawling distance. The two overlapping caps however put a lot of pressure on both teams to contest them. On many maps the caps are encapsulated by a system of islands blocking sight. So both teams need to get close to get the caps and get spotting. Now I could easily say make it an open map with either no caps or bases on each side, so there is no pressure to get to the center. That would work down to 2v2. There would be a risk of being annoying, if e.g. the opponent is afk and you have to find and kill him in order to end the battle, where normally you just wait for the cap points to reach 1000. But, as long as there is an open map and one ship providing spotting, a long range ship can utilise its advantages. The 1v1 mode is favoring brawling ships by design, since you need to spot for yourself. Long range ships work on ranges well above the spotting range of most ships (exceptions: LM-Henri, fully secondary built Kurfürst, ...). They need to get below their comfort zone to spot and there the brawlers have the advantage. I fail to answer that. Even if you had a game mode, where e.g. you could call a spotter plane or bot to a certain location for spotting or you had these observation posts as in the operation "Defence of Naval Base Newport", then you would create an uphill battle for brawlers, cause the long range spammers would kite them or sit in smoke. Maybe a mix of such maps would make ship choices more risky. So you can get a small brawling map as we have now or a long range map with open sections, decentralized caps and external spotting. But even then other ships would struggle, e.g. ships designed for flanking. In 1v1 it's difficult to flank if there is no flank. Although even in the current game mode I managed to pop up unexpectedly in other ships flanks. So take it with a grain of salt. Georgia works well with a standard survival build as most of us will have it on their Montana. If a player wants a secondary focus, seasoned players have Massa and Ohio in port and share one captain on two or three ships. I doubt that's a shortcoming. FdG in theory should work well, but only if you kept it in port and kept a decent captain on it, not moving it on to the Kurfürst. What new player keeps a highly trained captain on a T9-silver ship? I got thousands of battles and even I could not afford to have a good captain on all T9 ships or neglect my T10-ships. Premium ships can make wide use of different captains, whatever works best. That is one of the selling points of a premium ship, no? With these two ships, too many factors come together. Yes, a good player making an educated guess what ship works best and wanting the ship that works best, is likely smart enough to not take FdG over better alternatives. Yes, that interacts with skill. A better player makes better choices, including choice of ships and builds. But the gap also suggests a challenge on the newer/less good players beyond that. Maybe it becomes more obvious if we do not look at two very different ships but take close relatives. Look at the Alsace and compare it to Jean Bart. Alsace has more hp, is faster, has much higher dpm compared to the situational reload booster of Jean Bart and Alsace has better range on secondaries. As long as Alsace is not flanked, it should outtrade a Jean Bart. However, the stats on the season show Jean Bart at 53,7%, while Alsace has 45,5%. That certainly is partially due to a skill gap. But it's also likely due to a lack of ressources of newer players. What is a typical Alsace captain, moving through the tech-tree to end up in Republique, going to look like: PT, AR, SI, CE for a 10-pointer and maybe FP if it's already a 14-pointer. A dedicated captain for this event on Jean Bart however will be a secondary specced 19pointer. In a 3v3 you are unlikely to get burned down due to lack of HE-spammers. You also will not need SI, as the battles don't last long enough to make use of all the heals. So you can afford to go secondary spec. That alone gives you a decisive advantage over the casual player.

I ranked out two days ago. It was a nice event. I had a lot of fun in the Ägir. Not so much in other ships. My suspicion is backed by the data on this sprint. Very obviously this sprint saw a two-class society of ships. On the one side premium ships with brawling power and heavy cruisers: Pommern, Ägir, Siegfried, Georgia, Alaska, Kronshtadt. On the other side the rest. Don't get me wrong. It is definitely refreshing if there is a game mode where brawling is not situational. On the other side this game sees so many ships that are created for longer range engagements. I cannot remember them having a map or game mode, where they shine particularly. Random Battles see cyclones, which already favor tanky brawlers. Now this sprint shows ships with >53% aggregate winrate and ships with <47% and huge six percentage point gap in between. The only non-premium ships that were competitive were 3 DDs: Mogador, Jutland and Kitakaze. In other words: The game mode greatly favored seasoned players with a wide selection of ships. Newer players who did not have the luxury of owning one of the dominating premium ship, much less the luxury of a 19pt commander tailored to that mode, were at a huge disadvantage. Don't get me wrong. I had my Ägir with a 19pt-captain. For me this was enjoyable and comfortable. I just feel it wasn't anything close to a fair competition. The damper on top of that was the frequent use of the Pommern. If a new ship fits perfectly into a current event and that ship was sold for a solid price, it puts a bitter taste in my mouth, that basically some players were served their wins on a silver platter at the expense of the less "gifted". Finally, a word on the divisions: Yes it was imo the right decision to allow them. Every game mode is mightily boring, if you cannot talk to some other player while your ship is moving in slow-mo. Very often the deciding factor for a battle was that third person matched into the team. If he had some skills, it would work. If he went behind an island and sat there, no 2-man-div can compensate for that. Basically what is the residual difference between the 3v3 Clan Brawls we saw and the 3v3 Ranked Sprint? It's the one random player you get matched in. And ofc the mirrored MM vs the forced 1-1-1-line-up.

Exactly, that would be another take-home message for WG-staff: Consumers finally want to know the probability of getting a certain item from a gambling container. If I got a 0.01% chance of getting a ship, even a single cent is pricey for a container. If it's a 10% chance, 4€ could be too much. At least it's not a bargain. WG is deliberatly keeping its customers from making an informed choice. I, and I dare say many players, cannot understand why WG is keeping the odds a big secret. It rationally only makes sense, if the buyer gets cheated. So logically, I must assume I get cheated. That greatly reduces my willingness to spend money. On top of that, players who bought containers and got nothing, will believe, the odds are unrealistically low. They feel insulted by an attempt to trick me into believing in higher than actual probabilities. So not only will they hesitate to spend money in the future, because they don't know what they get. They will, on top of that, not spend money, because they feel spite and anger over feeling tricked. That is not a basis for a good business relationship. And yes, I will in the future only refer to these so-called "loot-boxes" as gambling-containers, cause that is the correct term. Why should I play along and help the gaming industry disguise their gambling content behind harmless designations such as "loot-box"? We players must stop aiding and abetting these funny legal claims of gambling content not being gambling content, by not adapting this new-speak terminology.

YabbaCoe didn't google any random source on the internet, but a quite respectable dictionary. That said, the following statement is still largely besides the point: Yes, you can claim that technically any transaction is a "sale". But the "summer sale" is an established event in the WoWs-calender. It has always been a "sale" in the meaning of discounts on regular products. This expectation didn't come out of the blue, it was established by WG in this very meaning. So it's an evasive defence to duck behind the various definitions of the word "sale". You guys know what a sale in that context means and you know the player base was expecting exactly that, discounts on ships. Also the whole argument of "we decided to go that way this year" is besides the point. The loot-boxes do not conflict with a sale on ships. There is no restriction to go one way or the other. Wargaming could have done discounted ships and loot-boxes at the same time or could have sold the loot-boxes in a later extra event like a "halloween tombola". As long as loot-boxes are as attractive to the customer as a straight discount, there is no conflict. It would only be a conflict, if you expect people to buy the discounted ships and ignore the loot-boxes. And even that would only be a conflict, if you expect people to spend more on the unknown content of the loot-boxes to get ships than if they just buy what they want. And that WG expected, didn't you? So the whole talk about definitions of "sale" is just that, a technical excuse to justify another gambling event.

I remember you going down 10-line and giving me a nice slap on the cheek. After your DD was dead, I abandoned your flank to help our struggling west side, trusting our camping team on your side to get more pushy without the threat of torpedoes. Unfortunately they did not turn their advantage in numbers into anything useful, apart from giving you lots of kills and XP. So you deserved your win.

Can't we brag about free supercontainers for everyone like others? [german]There is a typo in the headline.[/german]

Small hint for our casual players: The fourth stage of the mission chain for the summer tokens is a bit difficult. You need to get 12 achievements and not everybody can get them easily. I just found out the achievements from the operations count towards that mission. We currently got the operation "Killer Whale", which is reasonably doable. So my recommendation for all who don't have a lot of time and need consistent achievements is: Do the operations. Go for the Sea Star, Assistant and Universal Seaman achievements. As long as you don't mess up and play the objectives, you should be able to 5-star it and survive in all 4 classes. Shouldn't take you more than 10-20 operations, depending on your play.

Lol, I make a motion we call it Wargambling henceforth.