HMS_Kilinowski

Still doesn't work. Still no update on this? Hello, McFly, ...

In the past summer sales, you got a discount on a known item, a specific ship. Now you are supposed to buy an item, to then maybe get a discount on a second but mostly unknown item. Isn't it obvious what is off here? Let me break it down with an easy example: To get a T5-ship container (65 tokens), you need to purchase one daily token stock (50 tokens) and do the mission chain (15 tokens). The token stock costs 8.24 €. You then can get a random T5 ship, which is usually priced at 10 - 18€. So they get a random discount between 18% and 55% for a random ship. On top of that they have to do the mission chain. Not all casual players will be able to finish it. One of them requires 12 achievements. All of the missions must be done within 6 days. So that random discount is depreciated by the randomness of the item you buy and the effort you put into the mission. I assume you cannot get one of the Lima ships, like Marblehead Lima for a retail price of 7.50 €. If so, the buyer might even pay more in the summer "sale". The whole point of this lottery is that it is irrelevant if anyone "feels lucky". It is an illusion to "feel lucky". It's the whole problem of gambling and why gambling laws exist. Wargaming can pull whatever tricks your legal department advised you to. It doesn't change a thing about that Wargaming takes advantage of people "feeling lucky" where there is just some RNG deciding what a person gets. That has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with "feeling lucky". It's just abusing some person's gambling problem, disguised in the friendly construct of a "sale". And these schemes are getting more and more. Now they are taking the place of a good old honest sale. You get what you pay for, simple as that.

A minor correction: Wargaming did not "tweak". They nerfed a ship that was too powerful in CB. Doing so they also affect its performance in Random Battles, where the ship was not overperforming. It's two different environments. In CB you practically had no BBs and mostly long-range cruiser engagements. In Random Battles, the Venezia needs to support cap contesting, get closer, while being targetted by a couple of BBs. They nerfed the rudder shift, which certainly doesn't help dodging those BB shells. A huge thing in CB was chain-smoking into and out of caps. That needed good coordination and communication of two Venezia players. Try to achieve that in Randoms. If there was two versions of each ship, one for CB and one for Randoms, they could actually tweak a ship to a game mode. But there isn't. Everybody is talking about Venezia being too powerful in CB, and that was right. But the ship was balanced for Randoms, like any other ship. We are always talking about ships that are too influencial in CB. Doing that, killed the Yueyang. The Henri was dominating CBs, got nerfed and is dead now. We might as well be talking about the ships that never make it into CB. It's just as legitimate. They don't work in that meta. Same argument, different direction. Do we call for buffs? Does e.g. the Harugumo need a concealment-buff, so it is a legit choice in CB? A buff that would make it overpowered in Randoms?

It's an interesting idea, certainly worth a good discussion. CBs would get pretty interesting with all the changes in tiers. Minor note: squall is below gale, so squall would be T7 and gale T8. There is two sides to this suggestion. Nay: - The more competitive clans do a lot of training and preparations. Would they lower their expectations? Would they force/expect their players to train for different tiers/metas? That looks like a lot of work. Lower clans don't have the time for a lot of training. They would struggle to even get their tactics right for one meta. Then they get to the next league and the deck is reshuffled. So they need to addapt to a new meta. Then they fail and they get relegated and it's back to the one tier lower. That's a lot to adapt to. - Many clans expect their players to have well-equipped ships, ideally with 19pt-commanders. Newish players hardly have the CXP to train one captain for a ship below T10. Now they need good captains for every tier and ship involved. Their FCs might be more flexible and not expect perfect ships but for higher clans I wouldn't bet on that. Yay: - Maybe CBs would be taken more easy - Such wide requirements of good captains might persuade WG to reintroduce the free-captain-respecs, an actual necessity that was taken away for no good reason. An alternative idea: Drop the tier restrictions altogether. Assign points to each ship equivalent to their "power". Let the clans decide for themselves, what tiers they want. Lower league could mean less points, which translates to less or lower tier ships. High leagues get more points so higher tier ships or more players. That way not only clans with few ships could participate, but also clans with few players.

Kann es sein, dass sich der Client neuerdings öfter mal aufhängt, wenn man die Tech-Tree-Ansicht öffnet? Ist mir so ca. 4 mal passiert die letzten paar Wochen. Ach und: Warteschlangen sehen in letzter Zeit häufiger so aus: Könnte es sein, dass es zuletzt mit den BBs etwas übertrieben wurde?

The article reads as if people only get the camos for the ships. Do they get the ships, too? This should be clarified. In case the article is worded correctly and the ships are not included: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the König Albert and the Vamire are not available in the shop/armory and not announced to be sold any time soon, are they?. So what use is a camo for ships that many players do not have and will not be able to get in the foreseeable future? Also the camos are for premium ships, which already come with a camo. Are the new camos providing any bonus beyond the existing perma camos or is the incentive to get them merely of aesthetic nature?

Mit Mietmöglichkeit hat der Vorschlag nach meinem Ermessen nichts zu tun. Ein Schiff im Trainingsraum zu testen ist nicht vergleichbar mit der Möglichkeit, das Schiff zu spielen. Man bekommt keine Ressourcen, die Ergebnisse zählen nicht. Für das Recht das Premium-/Spezialschiff zu Spielen bezahlt der Kunde. Man zahlt ja auch nicht im Schuhladen Miete dafür, den Schuh vor dem Kauf anzuprobieren. Was meiner Meinung nach zurecht bemängelt wird, ist die fehlende Möglichkeit, Premiumschiffe zu testen. Dies muss nicht mal im Zusammenhang mit einer Kaufabsicht stehen. Es ist vielmehr eine Frage der Fairness und Transparenz. Der Spieler ist immer wieder mit Gegnern konfrontiert, die er nicht einschätzen kann. Wenn ich im Spiel eine Odin als Gegner habe, woher weiß ich denn, wo ihre Schwachstellen liegen? Woher weiß ich, ab welchem Winkel sie meine Panzerung overmatcht? Bei jeder Silberschiff-Silberschiff-Paarung kann ich in den Trainingsraum und alle erdenklichen Winkel und Distanzen etc. testen. Nur über den Premiumschiffen steckt ein unerklärlicher "Nebel des Krieges". Soll der Premiumschiff-Besitzer einen Wettbewerbsvorteil haben? Darf er die Schwächen seiner Gegner kennen, diese aber dessen Schwächen nur vom Papier aus abschätzen? Mir erschließt sich jedenfalls die Geheimniskrämerei um die Premiumschiffe nicht. Da fällt Wargaming kein Zacken aus der Krone, wenn man die (a) im Trainingsraum selber testen bzw. (b) wenigstens als Bots auf Schwachstelen untersuchen kann. Wo der einen Mietpreis begründende Mehrwert eines Tests im Trainingsraum liegt, müsste man mir mal erklären.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think a T7-ship will get matched against two T5-ships, whereas if you take a T8- ship, you will also get two more T6-ships in to the enemy team. I think it depends a lot on what you actually bring: It's still PTS, mind you. The whole point of playing is testing, so the WG-guys can rebalance the game mode. I guess most of us agree that the bottom tier team wins most of the time. The bottom tier team just has more ships over all the map and can create crossfires, spotting and distraction. There are lots of ships that work well even when uptiered. WV, as you mentioned, is one, tho the pen is not that great on T8-BBs. I also like the Kongo, since it has the range to stay at a safe distance. And the bottom tier torp boats are just as dangerous. Fushun is a guaranteed flooding even on T8-BBs and Shinonome just pumps them out every minute. I had a lot of fun playing my T5-Krazny Krym, kiting T8-BBs. Put a Smolensk-captain on it and spam HE at 16km. It gets the BBs so upset, they focus you, while your team gets the upper hand in a 7vs3. Bottom tier need ships with range, concealment and punishing power. Top-tier needs calibers that don't overpen, radar and a CV with hard-hitting rocket planes.

I didn't know you even get tokens at T8. That might balance it out a bit. Not entirely, tho. I think players will still need to do more than 2 battles in T6 to finance one T8. On top of that I question the overall motivation to do so. At T7 I am bottom tier of the high tier team. I have to fight double the amount of opponents, while my impact on my team is limited due to playing a weaker ship. For this dubious privilege I am supposted to pay tokens? Why would I do that, if I can play one tier lower and be top of my team? The only motivating factor that comes to mind is if I have to do it as part of a directive.

I see the MM fills up teams with bots. This totally breaks the balance for the team that gets a higher share of bots. It also makes this testing slightly pointless, as you get no real results that tell you how the power of each tier relates to the other tier and class. I think Vaska here is absolutely right. As far as I could see, the MM tries to get 8 vs. 4 battles. So you try to get 2 T6 players vs 1 T8 player. This however doesn't work if the players can unlock one T8 battle by playing more than 2 battles in T6. If you keep it that way there will always be less top tier ships than needed for a match.

I think as a moderator, Exca is caring about topics being clear even for the future reader. While the second thingy being the second flag on german ships is totally clear to me, given it is the only possible second thingy anybody might refer to in the current patch, which includes the "German Navy"-collection, future readers may not be aware of it anymore. Likely there might be even more 2nd thingies. Who knows, a few years from not 2nd thingies in your pants might be the new fashion. So as paradox as it may sound, in general being specific is a good idea.

Okay, so I thank Wargaming for making you happy. Ofc I would like to see the point. Maybe there is something I missed. I just feel it's a tiny flag on huge ship that additionally is bloated with now 21 signals, where there were 8 before. Is that a detail that dominates the eye of anybody? Enlighten me. Hands up, who pays attention to these flags on other ships during battle?

Interesting topic. I never paid attention to that detail. Do I assume correctly that also DD-torps with TA arm later? Then one could do a close pass on e.g. EU-DDs in a Black and use the sea mines to torp it, while oneself was immune. I know, that's quite a stunt to pull and not exactly everyday stuff. edit: Actually I just tested it. Seems the Sims needs about 180m to arm its 51kts torps, while Östergötland torps at 86 kts take 240m to arm. I am not entirely sure if I tested it correctly tho, since that would suggest that arming distance is not proportional. Östergötland should take 300m, if "time in the water" was the only factor.

Well, if you think of it, the planes in WW1 had their colors. Wargaming could easily make some money out of allowing people to customize their camo schemes. The whole point of customization is to be recognized. My GTA-avatar is immediately recognizable by the entire crew. And here the ships got preset camos and a pair of flags. If Wargaming did that, they would likely make more money with it than with all the premium ships. Just think about all the weebs, combining 50 shades of pink on their ship.

I always assumed the second flag would just come as it did as a collection, like the second flags for all the other nations were introduced, too. I admit, I am special. I couldn't care less for flags and customization. I never saw a ship that made me shiver in awe. Likewise, I never had the feeling an opponent was more frightened and prone to mistakes because of my red jolly roger. It's a nice gimmick, but also hardly anybody notices each others flags and I still struggle to see the point.

Is there any doubt there will be LMs for premium ships now that they cost ressources?

I see. Thanks for the link. I'll never understand how Wargaming makes such decisions. Yes, Zao with LM is imo superior to other builds. But the ship itself is largely inferior by now. One might argue nerfing the LM was okay in order to bring it down to the other modules. But then at least Wargaming would need to buff the ship itself. It's such a cheap policy to kill old ships just to make players pay for early access to the OP-ship of the month that then gets powercrept into oblivion by the ships to follow. Zao was one of the most interesting cruiser concepts that rewarded good play while punishing bad play. It just hurts to see it gone. That makes sense, I admit. In my case I am quite economical with my 19-pointers. I still don't have an awful lot of them, so I am also using my Gearing captain on the Somers and the premium DDs below. It's rather a hybrid-Ovechkin with TAE and RPF than BFT. Somers really needs RPF, since it's so easily spotted by gunboats. With the LM it would start to change from hunter into hunted.

I got most of my legendary modules lying around in the inventory. Way I know Wargaming, we don't get them demounted for free if they chance them to be worthless. So the best thing is imo to wait and see and decide a while after the changes, if they are still attractive. There is also a lot of changes going on in the CB-meta. For example Gearing with LM used to be a decent support-DD. It could spot while being concealed, it could lend its 2 min USN smoke to HE-spammers. Now with CVs, the Gearing is practically useless. And since random battles do not see much teamwork and support, the Gearing needs it's dpm more than a bit better concealment. So the Gearing-LM has become obsolete by changes in the CB-meta and I don't see it becoming relevant any time soon. So this general uncertainty about where the game is heading is also discouraging calls about using certain LMs. Did I miss something? Where did they announce that? You got a link? I can't believe this until I see it myself. The Zao is flatlined already, a ship with inferior HE-pen, low dpm and inferior range in comparison to other CAs. If anything, it would need of a buff. I can't imagine anbody would want to kill the dead.

It depends. Let's compare premium time to economic signals. Premium time gives +50% XP and +65% credits. You can buy a +50% XP flag for 16 doubloons (per battle). There is no regular signal that can give you +65%. The closest would be packing a +20% credits flag for 8 doubloons and put a -10% service cost flag for 4 doubloon on top of it. That still doesn't get anywhere near the premium time credit bonus. Just for the sake of argument, let's say this would replicate the premium time bonusses. Then all three flags would cost you 28 doubloons per battle. Now let's look at your stats. You played almost 300 battles in the last 30 days. Do It would have cost you 300 * 28 = 8400 doubloons. You'd have to buy the doubloons. The closest doubloon bundle is 7500 doubloons for 24€. So you'd pay roughly 25€ for playing one month. For the same amount of money you will get 3 months of premium time. So, given you current play time, which is quite high, the signals are never worth being bought with doubloons. I'd say you break even somewhere below 90 battles per month.

This is gruesome. Sorry this is now a f****** Great Wall of China of text. Whenever I was finished with one quote and proof-read it, two new replies have been posted in the meantime. Then I lost a whole segment and had to rewrite it. So forgive me, if I tune this down a bit from here on. The essentials are said. Let's focus on the suggestions. I'm not gonna make it a priority. It'll just be a game or two every now and then. It's even perfect for these losing streak days, patch-weekends, where I will probably be in the right mood to specifically not care rather than be frustrated on my main account. No, i don't get paid, but if you want I can make it a crowd-funding project and you guys can shower me with money much like you shower WG. I will mostly answer that further down quoting Novents. But since you specifically asked: Getting flamed at is probably part of the experience. It's not exclusive to bad play, we all get flamed at now and then. In terms of the experiment it's interesting how it affects your mood and play. What messages will be encouraging, and what will leave you puzzled or offended? As a consequence, what way of communicating was more constructive or motivating? It might well be that one rejects constructive detailed feedback and it doesn't change the playstyle and a simple F11-"well done" is more motivating. I don't know yet. A claim is a closed question. Not every experiment starts with a claim. I ask myself what motivates people, how things impact you and why? I didn't mention the movie because of its research leading questions but because of its approach. Every nutritional scientist could tell the result years before the movie, it was about experiencing it. First of all, I did not at all dismiss your suggestion. In fact I said it would be a good idea, twice. It doesn't replace the idea I have, it complements it. The part where I used the word "boring" was about presenting an indiscernible growth. I can't imagine you would sit down eating popcorn watching a kid grow in excitement. That's what we're talking about, a slow long-term development that reads probably a bit like a training diary ("50 push-ups, 3x15 bench presses with 50kg, felt slightly easier than last week"). I don't think pointing that out is dismissive. If you still see it that way, I apologize and repeat once again that your idea was certainly interesting in general, but also a different idea for a different project. And I don't know where that childish bit about AnAdorableTomato came from. To me he is first and foremost a clan-mate who was kind enough to offer watching a couple of replays. This was the most recent such event, had happened just the day before my post, so I named what happened in the replay as an example for a situation that could not be reproduced at will. It was btw some DD-replays, not the blatantly obvious Alsace-bit you described. The point was that to learn a lesson you need to get a similar situation. If you don't get the situation until weeks later, you will likely forget the situation, forget to apply what you learned and not make any progress. That was the whole point. I mentioned AnAdorableTomato, since he was part of that revelation and deserves credit for it. Also you know him and so you see that we in the clan don't just play aimlessly but actually help each other occasionally, a thing I cannot say about everybody. I mentioned him much like you tag me, twice in a post where you already quote me. I certainly did not tag him to clothe myself in purple and if it's that important to you, I will gladly say: I am totally unimportant and I am not best friends with any WoWs-superunicum, or any other celebrity or person of power. If I was pretending to have intimate knowledge of Scarlett Johansson's body features, then your speculations would be graspable. What you are implying here however is a cheap attempt to smear me and that is inappropriate. If there is any personal grudge, I doubt it's overly interesting to the rest of the readers, you do have access to our discord and can ping me. There is no need to derail this so far nice and interesting discussion. Again, I did not picture you as a villain. I simply pointed out my doubts, most detailed in my reply to @Sunleader's remarks. Is it okay to tag him or am I once again pretending to rub shoulders with a player from my clan whom in comparison to I am unworthy? Anyway, the person I took the liberty to tag thinks it would be too much effort and I again think it would be too slow and thus as interesting as watching a slug. That again is not an offence - I hope - it is my way of expressing that I cannot picture your vision in my mind. This was your suggestion. Great, thanks, I appreciate it. But instead of elaborating that idea, you expect me to jump at it in excitement and fill in the blanks. If you are so interested in what you deem a positive contribution, why are you so persistently refusing to follow up? Do I really need to scratch your back and humbly ask you a direct question? Okay, here we go: Would you please be so kind to tell me how you envision such a project of documenting a slow and lengthy self-improvement and how would it need to be presented to be - hell, what inoffensive word may I use - exciting? Why do I need a cut-off criterion? The participants in this topic have conclusively defined bad players by the summary of bad plays they contributed. Let me once again put a little disclaimer: Not every suggestion is to be taken literally, which was already clarified repeatedly. Not every point made necessarily defines bad play. I get my ideas from all the people who posted so far. I am not picking "lab rats", I am the lab rat. Categorizing is simply irrelevant and I think you just want me to do that in order to derail this up to now constructive discussion. I have learned a lot. I am certainly not naming and shaming anybody. This is an open discussion. If anybody would fall under a "bad player"-criterion, he would do so by identifying himself as such. Consequently lots of people have given reasonable feedback. Some may see themselves as bad players and talk from personal experience, some may sum up what they saw others do. That is not for me to distinguish and again irrelevant. If a person felt he was a bad player, he did so by himself and not following any catergorization, as I suggested none. Whoever identified himself as bad player also appearantly took it with humor and did not feel offended or at least not express it so far. I was not implying one had to have a drug problem to play bad. I was implying I would play worse under the influence of alcohol. Further, I specified legal substances, which in my book does not include drugs. And no, I don't feel disrespected by myself, implying I have no tolerance for alcohol. I'll try, but you are writing walls of text full of questions, so forgive me if I am not as concise as you want. Way I see it, the deal is, you write a wall, you read a wall. I would like to explore what it's like to play under different priorities than mine. I suggest as a working hypothesis, players are not generally unhappy with the way they play, so each playstyle and motivation must have it's merits. I want to experience what these merits are and how they interact with each other. Do you assume your way to play the game is the only valid? Probably not. I couldn't even tell if the way I play is the most enjoyable. I have not tried any other way. In the end I hope that it helps me understand others better, hopefully it helps others, too. You mentioned toxicity. Different mindsets lead to different expectations and searching different rewards. Conflicting interests and thus conflicts are programmed. That is the origin of the toxicity, we deal with in WoWs. Nobody talks about what drives them. You may guess, but you never know. If what I envision works out, you will know. If I can reveal the valid motivations behind several playstyles, as a bonus I can also help understand what the common interests are and how we need to deal with each other to consider these interests. A considerably better player than me - not gonna name him after that Tomato bit you pulled - said one had to treat other players just like a given variable. So maybe my explorations will help some of you see your team members as humans and not just a given factor in a random scenario under which you try to perform as perfect as possible, again, not implying this perspective is yours. I really don't see where this would be making fun of anybody. It will be a description and the reader may draw whatever conclusion he feels is right. This would not be a video where I juggle with five raw eggs, drop them on my head and say "this is how them bad players operate". If this is funny, which I hope it isn't, there is nobody to laugh about but me. There is nobody but me so nobody needs to feel categorized, insulted, exhibited or humiliated. It's about differences. If you ask a person who has never travelled "what is special about your culture?", he may well know a lot about his culture, but not know what is special and what not. If you go there as an outsider, you will not know every detail of how they feel, but you will immediately understand things about this culture that the people living there never notice. That is what I find difficult about all your questions. They appear closed-minded to me. I just want to see whatever is there to discover and go from there. And if I find out all my cliche ideas were wrong, I couldn't be more satisfied. Who knows, maybe I like it better and come back telling you I uninstalled the MM-monitor and stopped caring what my team does. Not at the moment. You can ofc try to convince me or even do it yourself if it's such a valuable contribution. Both ideas are not mutually exclusive, as far as I can see. Again, this is your vision, feel free to describe it in as much detail as you like. I will surely read it and not dismiss it. Technically speaking I do not know what motivates you either or the players who actually slam their heads into the keyboard when they lose. I am certainly not pretending to be the best player the world has ever seen. I just imagine it is much easier to play more casual and notice differences than play more wound up. The self-improvement thing I can totally see from a practical point of view, since I can do it on my main account. So again, I am open to any suggestion. I do not have a history of griefing and I am sure I can make that call. If I feel I am wrong as I do it, if I do it at all, you can rest assured I will not waste my time on it. If I try it and fail, what do I have to lose apart from having invested a couple of hours and then going into this topic and saying "it didn't work for the following reasons"? And then you can pad yourself on the shoulder and say "told you so" and we're still one experience richer than so far. What you describe is funny to read and imagine. It would be griefing, tho, and yield foreseeable results. Same goes for the names. I don't intend a parody. I rather thought about some relaxed name that promotes an idea of "chill, it's only a game". I also don't know about 40% WR, I would imagine you can have a substantial drop in WR by just some minor carelessness. I don't even know if it wouldn't be best, to not monitor my results and just assume bad play is bad for results. Maybe I will just ask some trustworthy person to look up the stats and give me some pointers. ... and you'll be the first to hear it, mate. I might miss my dynamic crosshair and timer. Exactly, finally someone gets the idea. It's symptomatic for people with bad play habits to not be in the forum and not use other ressources. So it is ludicrous to even think a player would ever come to the forum and tell us about his experiences in playing the game without caring as much as most forum members do. He would come in here with his pants down and be tarred and feathered as a figurehead for all the red players that caused us frustration. I couldn't say how I would react to such a person. However if I do it and people know it's just an experiment, they will hopefully take it more kindly, tho some replies here suggest otherwise. Now this is what I was hoping for. Thanks for showing up and sharing your thoughts. You see, guys, here we have a player self-selecting into a self-chosen category "red player" and not being offended. That is paradigmatic. I will keep the possibility of using external probants in mind. But basically I would open the door to shaming after someone reveals publicly an account identity. I just don't want to burden this on anybody. I'd rather have all types of players hang out in the forum not feeling every idea they share is dismissed just because their stats are below average. It's what killed the dialogue so far and made this experiment necessary in the first place. I'm not gonna lie to you, some of those thoughts are the opposite of my regular philosophy and it causes me pain to read them. But then again, I want to find out about that, so I need to manage that and bury my feelings. Your observations are duly noted. Interestingly enough, this reads just as ironic as the comments of other players who did not think of themselves as bad players. Maybe extreme actions are not as burlesque as I thought. Would it be realistic after all to do the extreme now and then? You are mixing my posts and your words and putting words in my mouth. Please clearly separate quotes and answers. I do not intend to make a parody, as I have repeatedly stated. Please read my posts before accusing me. Yes, the experiment will not immediately help new players. But if it promotes a common mentality, that will help everyone and reduce toxicity. I start getting headaches of having to explain that again and again to an ignorant reader. Ofc it was an assault. I did not ask you for feedback on this very battle, I didn't even ask Tomato. I ran into him on the opposite side of that battle which is how we came to talk and finally analyse the replays I was referring to. It didn't take external views to understand what went wrong. For the point you tried to make or claim to make, any mention of a potato move in a replay of mine was irrelevant and only suited to smear me publicly. You don't like walls of text and yet you devoted a whole paragraph to that. For presenting your argument it was totally sufficient to explain how your idea works and what is positive about it and what is in your opinion negative about mine. If you had been fair you further would not have exaggerated my idea to a ridiculous parody but assumed I would do a moderate approach and discussed that. You claim you know me so well from being in the same clan for five months and yet you distrust my motives and portray me as a person every language has lots of swearwords for. Forgive me for not being flattered. I absolutely don't mind you mentioning private stuff from a restricted discord-channel ... just this one time. Yes, that was another imo good idea I had for a long time. An idea that NOBODY was enthusiastic about whenever I brought it up. We back then settled on a "HMS_Kilinowski, if you want people to watch your replays, just put them in the #[universally titled, mainly used to bump anything important with Pepe-emojis, and deleted meanwhile]-channel and ask nicely." So consequently, there is no replay section in our discord and nothing anybody could link here. Also naturally whatever replays were in the channel never got watched and analysed by anybody. So while I see a lot of reactions when I discuss a project about me going potato-mode, nobody could have cared less about my self-improvement. Maybe that is the core of the problem. If I want to improve nobody cares, cause this is a selfish community and another player becoming better is at best a competitor, at least some faceless person not important for anybody's personal gain. Ofc when I say I might go mild-potato-mode, now everybody thinks "this guy could end up on my team and this affects me and I don't want that". If that wasn't the case, the asymmetric interest in both directions could not be explained. Divisions of good players increase your WR, but that doesn't mean you become a better player. In fact the more I div up, the harder playing solo gets. You start to assume a div mate starts joining forces, while your random team lets you down. There is a difference in div-playstyle compared to solo that is almost as pronounced as a CB-playstyle. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand what you try to sell. And again, we can talk about that and even do that maybe, but this is this and that is that and they are not a binary choice.

Wow, this is already turning out to be work. I'll try to address most of your comments and dispel some of your concerns, as far as they are misconceived. If I do not mention your ideas specifically, please consider them duly noted and appreciated. I see a lot of scepticism towards certain rules of play. Let me remind you, we are currently just gathering ideas here. The project hasn't started yet and I haven't made any decision yet if I will do it and which ideas will find their way into the project. Not all of these ideas are practical, some might be over the top and many are likely just sarcastic cliche of bad play not to immediately be upset about and take all too literally. If I do it, and that still is an if, I will take great care to not have it lapse into some sort of burlesque. That doesn't sound at all like abusing an isolated event from a private conversation for a personal attack to make a player with greenish stats look incompetent. I grant you the courtesy of seeing you get personal as an isolated event, too. I was hoping you would elaborate your idea about your proposed self-improvement process and how it could be efficient and interesting to document. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. Most improvement happens in very small undiscernible steps. A kid growing a tenth of a millimeter a day does not sound like an interesting event. In order to make a documentary about improvement even possible, you would need to be able to measure the immeasurable. There are some minor epiphanies, maybe once in a hundred battles or more, the rest is white noise. Also, as you said, one plays for fun. Fun may be misleading. But just as clan battle results do not get better when people stop enjoying them, fun is part of the equation. The way I play takes into account a lot of indirect ways to reach a goal. Do you want to improve in clan battles? That also means staying in touch with the meta and grinding the relevant ships. Grinding a ship is not improving your skills, but it's a means to have the tools in the future. Not picking all relevant signals might get in the way of playing a ship in the best way possible, but not running out of signals, when they are needed, is more essential. Or even now grinding to unlock some T10-ships to get a supercontainer, is probably counterintuitive to playing consciously, but the 100 signals in there will help. So not every step is black or white. If it was all about improvement one would focus certain ships and repeat certain approaches until one has mastered them. The requirements of keeping up with an ever changing environment get in the way of that. And finally, you would need an external view on yourself to identify and address your major flaws and misconceptions (ideally in a civilized manner). That would take effort and time not only on the test person, but also on some instructor. My experience is that such a person is pretty hard to find. That's another thing I find discouraging about the idea. I have been repeatedly told I was generally overthinking. A process that will make a player look for something that cannot be found in every battle, a flaw, a winning move, has "overthinking" written all over it. Would I really document actual improvement or just some paranoid ideas? Just a couple of days ago I had this idea of torpedo spread patterns and how you would torp in different situations and I thought if I was to bring this up, everybody hearing it would think it's conceptualized horse manure far from practice. We definitely are thinking about the same person. It reminds me of the Seinfeld-episode "The opposite", where George realizes every instinct in his life was wrong, ignores his instincts and is actually more successful. I really appreciate the offer, but I think that would (a) bias the results and (b) we would chat a lot and it would prevent me from living the experience as much as possible. Also I would need to make use of naturally favorable conditions, like playing late. It'll have to be extra-curricular activity. If you are looking for a casual experience, you can always join me on PTS. I might however consult you every now and then for some advice. Every test person needs some supervisor to keep him on track and pull the plug, if things go south. I am pretty positive I can do even better. Just yesterday I watched some replays. I don't want to jump ahead, but I saw a player applying a certain valid philosophy that just is not helpful for winning. I found that striking, cause he demonstrated a sportsmanlike attitude that just was not called for. As an example, you can foresee a collision and take evasive actions that put you into a vulnerable position. Out of courtesy you will risk getting citadelled. You can try to avoid a friendly torp, so your team-mate doesn't get penalized, again risking damage from the enemy team. These examples are symptomatic for a niceness. Is the player a bad person or less intelligent because he acts that way? I mean from a competitive view it is easy to judge this as misplay, even report the player who does such things. But if I can highlight the positive side of that mindset, I think I can actually promote a mutual understanding. That is what I try to clarify at the beginning of this post that not all ideas are meant to be applied in the extreme manner they are written. It would just take too long to name all the conditions, so the desciptions are short and on the point. It's more of a "do or don't"-things as you go along. People just spoke their minds, uncensored, which in this topic is imo a good thing. One can understand that others might feel provoked by that. That would be a by-product of such a project, since I would start a new account. It's not just about ressources, a big part of the learning curve hypothetically is how players are instructed within the client. Wargaming puts people on the track. It is to be expected that not all players will search the internet for all information they can possibly get. As already clarified, some of the suggestions were too extreme. The opposite of doing the best is not necessarily doing the worst. But we all have some instincts that we learned are counterproductive. We play a certain way cause our mind tells us the instinct is flawed. Did I get citadelled cause I thought sitting broadside was a good idea? No, I was shot at and after a certain amount of damage my instinct told me to get out and I turned. The instincts are still there. All I would need to do is follow them. Yesterday I was trying to get myself into the mood. I wanted to start a quick test run, just to see, but before that I needed one last game. So at the beginning I was already so focussed on that way of thinking, I almost gave up my concealment for a quick HE-salvo on a Lion. Then it hit me: "Do you really want to be the first ship spotted, just for a quick fire on a ship that will heal it all back?" I really had to actively remind me this was not the test. Hell, it happens to me a lot that I am absent-minded. I just need to utilize that and put a bit of a technical handicap on top of it. I think @Ace42X has given a couple of ideas in that respect. And because there have been accusations of trolling this is imo the right place to address that: One can use what the game offers. It's not trolling, as some of the comments suggest, if I play the game as intended. If Wargaming makes players use stock ships, then playing them stock and not skipping bad versions is not trolling, just because a win-oriented player would do that. If Wargaming gives players the option of a more cinematic game-experience, with only a small minimap or no minimap, that is part of the everyday preferences all players are allowed, by Wargaming. Making use of that cannot be trolling, just because I would usually take a more tactics oriented approach. When it comes to mods, even some streamers have uttered their concerns this would give an unfair advantage since the mods are not known to the general public. So again, not using mods, could not possibly be trolling. If willfully putting a team at a possible disadvantage was trolling, then 70% of our community would be trolling. Wargaming would be trolling running unbalanced test-ships on the live-servers. As long as my play follows a valid rule rather than ignoring any valid rule for spite, I don't see the issue. Playing with me would just be a rare random event that, if at all, each player has a 50% chance of getting on his side or the opposite side, much like a detonation. I think that middle-ground could well be a result of the experiment. Not for the entire playerbase, but maybe for me and hopefully for the reader. Tolerance would be great, but if the result would just be how to communicate to get the best out of the situation that would already help. Maybe I get raged at, maybe some guys are constructive, and I can see how I feel about that. Maybe I get frustrated over not winning and change the narrative of my progress to bolster my ego. May I don't care at all and find out I am just a tourist who gets comfort from kowing I can go back to playing as I used to. The guy who made the documentary "Super Size Me" couldn't get into the mindset of a person who doesn't care about his diet, but he still found a lot of evidence on how it would feel to live that way. Interesting you would mention it. I thought about that, too. The idea is appealing, since getting the XP-time-ratio up is a clear rule that has a negative impact and wouldn't need lots of complicated rules and tricks. What i don't like about it, is that you would hurry through your battles. Such an experiment however needs time to reflect on things. What did I do? Was that bad in the end? How did I feel? How did the team react? You need to stick around a bit and make notes.

First of all thanks to all of you who gave me feedback and ideas and helped complement the list of rules. I think one cannot implement all of them, cause it would be too extreme. But there is room for variation. Tbh, I was not sure about the reactions and whether I really wanted to post this, cause I didn't know how you guys would take it. You took it quite well, so thanks for that. That person would have to be interested in the project and commited to it. I doubt that a player who doesn't invest time in anything but the shortest way to the next tier, would have energy for that. Besides I think an important step is understanding differences. You need to be an outsider to register what is unique. Part of the experience is conflict with other, better players. So it's important to understand, what triggers criticism and how you feel being criticized in different manners. I just think some things you need to experience yourself. I know that might read trollish to some, as @waxx25 suggested. In the end I will find out, if I get some sort of dark kick out of it. The results will have to stand for themselves. That is precisely what I don't want to do. That would mean deliberately trolling your team to actively sabotage the win. Although it could be a interesting insight to experience what motivates a troll, that would be unethical and besides the point. I can hardly fake unawareness, but I've read a lot of suggestions that help lowering it, like e.g. switching the minimap off or playing tired. If I was to follow most of these suggestions, I should get pretty close. Thank you for your quite extensive analysis. I hope you forgive me for not commenting on everything, mostly cause I see your point and there is not much to disagree. You are describing exactly what I see as the dilemma. But I think doing the wrong thing is still within each of us. We all make mistakes, some more often some less often. I e.g. get hit in smoke if I get lazy. So there is this side of forgetting stuff. All you need to do is promote it by the way you play. I can hear loud music. Is that not using the advantage of not hearing music or is it being at a disadvantage? You see it's relative. Some good players got habits that handicap their play and most bad players will not apply every possible disadvantage you can have. So I just need to pick a set of disadvantages and see how much they impact my play. I will address that further down together with what @novents wrote. That is a nice way to see it. Thanks. Even if the topic was to achieve nothing more than that, I think it would already have a unique purpose. That imo depends on your perspective. If you look at it from the expectation of a competitive player, that might be true. You want to win and I would not make that a priority. I wouldn't make losing a priority either, that would be trolling. But on the other side there will be lots of players who find it anti-social if I was a try-hard imposing my expectations on the team and being toxic. So if I create an atmosphere of tolerance towards all playstyles, many of the bad players will probably see that positive and preferable, which then is the opposite of anti-social ... from their point of view. I thought about that specifically. I am not sure if it is "ethical" to fake a clan life. It couldn't be a clan just for the clan base, it would need to be a clan who divs up and then it gets personal. The playstyle would not randomly put a team at a disadvantage as e.g. a detonation does, but the same persons over and over. Also the results would get biased by the playstyle of usually a hadful of people who would div up regularly. It feels wrong. I see no contradiction. I can do that without much effort on my main account. It sounds like a good idea. Maybe I will do that, if I figure out a way of making that interesting. You say it would be more interesting, but random battles with random events cannot guarantee that. Like a couple of days ago @AnAdorableTomato helped me with a replay. There was a specific situation I want to do better in the future, but I did not run into it, because random battles mean random situations. Anyway, it's a valid idea and I will think about it. If nothing motivated them, they wouldn't play. You assume motivation means the aspiration to win. That is one motivation and if there is a way to combine different motivations, that would certainly serve multiple purposes. But to answer that, one first of all needs to understand the other side. Part of the inspiration for this experiment comes from me playing PTS and testing some other online-game. I notice that if there is no measure of success, I tend to be more relaxed. I am sure if there was stats on the test-server, I would be considerably worse. But I find it enjoyable, although I still try to get some missions done. I think a key to make peace with our heterogenous player base lies in understanding these different motivations, finding out there is a positive side to it, hopefully a common interest. I think he has a point. What he suggests takes no extra effort, as I am trying to improve anyway. But in hindsight I got better over the last two years, still I could not say what really changed. You progress so slowly, it's like when you were a kid and an uncle would visit and note how much you had grown in height, which to the people who see you every day is hardly noticeable. That is why I think Novents idea would be rather boring to follow. You cannot say: "Today I learned this and it affected my impact on the game by that amount."

Now it makes perfect sense. I ran into so many super bad Pommern-players today that my forehead is hurting from smashing it into my keyboard. I was wondering if this was still in testing or already available. Then I checked the advertisement news-bits that I usually ignore for reasons of intelligence and there I found this. The lesson to be learnt from Derpitz obviously skipped some WG-executives mind. Hey WG-staff, can you at least make some special MM that whenever you WG-guys play the game, you get your teams filled up with these bath-tub-admirals that bribed their way into high tier battles, instead of the general public?

The Mainz is not that much different from a Chapayev. Actually there was no need to create that ship apart from financial interests on behalf of Wargaming. The segment of kiting long range HE-spammers was already sufficiently diversified with Mogami, Atago, Kutuzow, Chapayev, Charles Martell, Bayard, Irian and partially Hipper and Prinz Eugen. Actually looking at the number of ships I just named, let me rephrase that: The segment needed another contender as much as a subway train during rush hour needs another passenger. But still, the Mainz stands apart only in its better HE-penetration, being able to pen BB armor ranging from 32mm to 38mm without IFHE, so maintaining its fire chance. So by definition that poll answers itself. The Mainz cannot be problem for anybody not in a BB and is likely gonna be a problem for a BB-main. In any of the above cruisers, one should be able to match or beat a Mainz in a duel. The concealment of the Mainz is bad in comparison. The fire chance is "german", i.e. inferior. Even a Monarch outspots it. Its maneuverability is as bad as Chapayev, which is insufficient to effectively dodge BB-salvos. Yes, it has its merits against BB pushes, but you really don't need to be afraid of it. Unlike e.g. a Kutuzow, which can smoke, its flat arcs force it into the open, where it can be focussed down. Maint is one of the ships that are spotted most of the time, so little room for error and lots of opportunities to punish them.

Way to kill a topic about a topic. Thx, you saved me an appointment.