HMS_Kilinowski

Oops. Thx for noticing. I corrected it.

You just made me laugh. "Good day to you" is a regular re in my spam folder. Could be a billionaire by now, if only I had believed all those accountants of late mrs. higgins trust fund wanting to share with me. This is my old Clan Battles build. You will notice there are only few expensive skills in it. One may even argue that DE is questionable, but since fires are important for your damage total, it is imo worth it. I tried other builds with RPF or Vigilance. They are valid. But I lost guns or torp launcher and steering gear way too often, when kiting bigger ships, so PM was important and JoaT the nwas just to round up the build. This is a typical build for a Zao playing at long range. There are people playing Zao a bit closer, which I find difficult. The armor scheme is not sufficient to tank and the ship relies on enemy shell flying time in combination with good maneuverablility to avoid damage. However, if this is your playstyle, I would suggest this build. It trades a few of the skills needed in competitive environment, like EL, for RPF and Vigilance, which enables the Zao to hunt down DDs closer to the center. Also you sacrifice some of the excelled dispersion for faster turret traverse to better deal with surprises jumping you from islands. Both builds and a lot between are valid. The Yoshino is different. It should not be treated as a cruiser, cause it suffers from longer fire duration. Personally, I also don't want to waste a dedicated captain for the Yoshino. So for me the choice is to use my Yamato captain. The survivability build works fine on Yoshino. Ofc you can also use the second build for the Zao captain. There is no perfect build. Each of them has downsides in certain situations, but depending on your playstyle and what you know about yourself, you should be able to make the right pick.

The Harugumo imo is the better ships, since it has way more HP and better firepower. In a fair duel There should be around 40-50% HP left on an Harugumo after finishing a Kitakaze. Tierwise I still prefer the Kitakaze, since it's 5.9 km concealment still enables it to contest caps. The Harugumo suffers a bit from not fitting into the Clan Battles meta. So there is no pressure having her. She is nice, but so is the Kitakaze. These two factors together make the IJN-gunboats one of my preferred lines for re-grinds. So I rather play the Kitakaze a lot. I basically never play the Harugumo and only buy it when I cash in the accumulated research points on her.

So grundsätzlich stimme ich dir zu. Allerdings dafür, dass du extra ein neues Thema aufmachst, teilst du dem Leser argumentativ nicht viel mit. Vielleicht willst du da noch nachliefern und uns detaillierter erklären, was das Problem ist, wie es sich äußert und welche Alternativen du konkret vorschlägst.

Schade, dass hier auch nach gut 2 Wochen keine Antwort möglich ist. Muss wohl doch ein Staatsgeheimnis sein, welche exorbitanten Stats ein Schiff in der Testphase hatte, dass es mit der Brechstange generft werden musste. Vielleicht liegt's ja auch nur daran, dass der liebe Sehales gerade seinen wohlverdienten Urlaub genießt. Wollen wir ihn mal nicht extra pingen.

First of all Wargaming should separate reports and compliments. It's unintuitive to equalize the motives behind a report with the motives for a compliment. The mere fact that many players don't use compliments at all while regularly reporting, suggests compliments are harder to earn and thus have a higher value than a report. Second, I think it makes a lot of difference, what you get reported/complimented for. Not decomposing this catch-all variable karma is not helping anybody. If I get reported for unsporting behavior I should address that criticism in a much different way from being reported for afking. People should be able to see how they are seen. They should see how many compliments they get and what sort of misbehavior is criticized. That itself does not change the meaning of karma in that it has no consequences. It allows the players to still ignore it or address possible issues. Anything else, rewarding good karma with ingame benefits is imo problematic as I already see lots of bad players manipulating their karma through syncing into battles with friends and clan mates. These manipulations would render karma meaningless, if it had any real value. Even the most useless or toxic players would suddenly have +1000 karma. And as a consequence, the incentive to punish others out of spite by reporting them, thus denying them the ingame rewards, would be another problem.

What rule specifically are you referring to?

One should never accept a price as being the true value of something. The Atlanta costs 9300 doubloons in the Armory. The Flint was priced at ~11500 steel. Both are sidegrades. I would say 1 steel = 1 doubloon, maybe a bit more or less. Accepting that parity, the steel camos are equal to 10k doubloons. I think that is excessive, since even the pretty unique camo on Hayate was "only" 8k doubloons. Did it really take you 2-3 years to accumulate the 14k steel you have now? If you got it faster, I would assume you can get a steel ship reasonably fast. I would wait for a steel ship. You are a member of a decent clan. You guys should be able to earn another 8k steel within the next CB season. Maybe have a couple of Ranked battles in the next season. That's all it takes to get Stalingrad or Bourgogne with a coupon.

A general suspicion was that with the corona lock-down many people sat at home being bored to death. So many turned to playing computer games, amongst others WoWs. That created an inflow of lots of less-skilled players on top of what we already had. Bad players ignore the objectives. Battles are over in 5-10 min mostly because one team runs out of points, which happens, when one team does not own a single cap or only one cap combined with a fast loss of ships. Also the epicenter mode suffers from people treating the center like a prohibited area. i had battles where I was the only ship within all three rings and all begging and finally cursing did not make my team move into the center. I had battles where I threatened my team to abandon the epicenter and go to square A1, if they didn't move into the center. It did not get them to contest the center but only got me reported tho I didn't abandon the center. So yeah, this is the game right now. Can't help it. The problem is that obviously most players are selfish. They think that most of all damage is what helps them progress through their grinds. So they focus on doing damage rather than playing the objectives. Ironically that idea is wrong, since the winning team gets a 50% bonus and winning is the most important thing to do, if one wants to progress as fast as possible. People fail to understand that.

Generally, it might work and promote a new experience of yet unseen tactics. Knowing the community, every losing team will immediately claim getting the short stick and complain in the forums. What however worries me more is the stories I hear about WoT, where lower tier units struggle to deal damage to top tier units. Now WoWs has recently seen the IFHE-rework. Part of that was to change penetration for mid tier ships so they can no longer pen high tier BBs. So if such an asymmetric MM is supposed to work, such immunities against bottom tier ships are a no-go. There is already a bunch of players who sabotage their team by going afk, complaining about being bottom tier as they do it. Wargaming does not even deal with these players, as I see them continuing that behavior over years undisturbed. So how is being the pawn in an asymmetric match going to affect that already existing attitude?

Ich verstehe nicht, worin der Mehrwert eines Tech-Tree-Schiffes gegenüber dem jetzt im Hafen befindlichen Spezialschiff liegen soll. Kann man mir das bitte erklären? Die Moskva in ihrem jetzigen Status verursacht weniger Kosten, wenn man sie spielt. Als Techtree-Schiff ohne Tarnung waren die Kosten für ein Gefecht 180k Credits, ohne weitere Kosten für Munition. Jetzt kostet ein Gefecht nur noch 45k Credits, sodass man selbst bei fast völlig nutzloser Spielweise noch Gewinn macht. Darüber hinaus verbraucht man keine Tarnungen mehr, weil die Moskva eine kostenlose vollwertige Permatarnung hat. Ich verstehe nicht, worin der Mehrwert eines Tech-Tree-Schiffes gegenüber des jetzt im Hafen befindlichen Spezialschiffes liegen soll. Kann man mir das bitte erklären? Geht es da um die Ästhetik, eine Linie vollendet zu haben? Geht es nur darum seine Sammlung möglichst vollständig zu haben? Da steht doch jetzt ein vollwertiges T10-Schiff im Hafen. Alles beim Alten. Besteht irgendeine Not, das nun neu hinzu gekommene Silberschiff schnellstmöglich freizuschalten? Ansonsten würde ich empfehlen, die Spezial-Moskva und andere etaige Premiumschiffe zum Erspielen der fehlenden Credits zu nutzen und dann eben die Nevsky etwas später zu kaufen.

I go with the principle that if someone creates uncertainty deliberately, he does so cause it's in his interest, not in mine. If the probability of getting supercontainers was higher than we expect it to be, it would be in Wargaming's interest to let us know. After all, a higher probability of getting ingame items would be an incentive for us to want these containers. Consequently then we would play more and thus create more revenue. So that simple deduction of assuming that Wargaming is acting rationally when hiding these probabilities tells us that the probabilities must be lower than we expect them to be. I think I remember Little White Mouse once stating the probability for a supercontainer was 1.5% in general and 3% for Try your Luck containers. Appearantly a WG employee shared that piece of classified information. But it is not confirmed. The odds could have been different back then. They could have been changed in the meantime - this info is 3 years old. And even the info of TyL-containers having double the chance of a SC is not confirmed and could be bad information. Personally, I go with ressource containers all the time. I can get everything I need and at least I can decide, what I want and not take the odds.

Immer wieder interessant, wie allgemein die Überschrift zu einer sehr spezifischen Frage sein kann.

I can't even remember sinking you, since I was rather busy avoiding that Kitakaze-Friesland-division that had already kindly provided me with a second anus while contesting B-cap. I was a bit salty as our team was huddling around C9 like little children in a thunderstorm, which doesn't seem to be a winning move on Tears of the Desert. Appearantly that is not common knowledge. Anyway, well played.

Dear WG-staff, In the news article you feature the Graf Spee for purchase from the premium shop for 16.44€. You try to get people to spend money on this ship, while they then get credits for unlocking the ship in the dockyard instead of doubloons. Is this morally sound?

For what it's worth, does this work?

This is a picture. The idea of a survey is that it is supposed to be a simple random sample. If the survey would allow people to deliberately take it, because they are overly motivated to be heard, the results would not be representative of the general player base anymore. I can understand it might be frustrating to not get the survey, if one is eager to give feedback. I hope many of us get the survey, but then again, tens of thousands of questionnaires full of individual wording would be too much effort to analyse, so likely most answers would be ignored and only a sample of the asnwers would be analysed. That defeats the purpose, so it is at least fair to not bother all of us with the questions, if they cannot hear all of us. Maybe it comforts you that, since it is a random sample, the answers will be taken more seriously. If it was the players choice to take the survey, Wargaming would dismiss many answers thinking they were just a measure of venting and not represantative of the general opinion. If on the other hand, let's say 80% of the people randomly asked about CVs, have the same opinion, that gives a very convincing picture of the dominant perception. Have you checked your browser settings? My browser would block homepages if opened from certain applications or block certain scripts. So likely it is not Wargamings fault.

You see guys, when I told you it was too early to vent, I meant waiting for this: Showtime ! 1. No CVs for the time being. Test certain changes to spotting in occasional Clan Brawls with CVs, closely monitored by surveys on how players see the changes. Reintroduce CVs into CB, if those surveys indicate clans are comfortable with CVs. 2. Getting as much dpm and tankiness into a team is a dominant strategy. Consequently teams pick as many BBs and heavy crusiers as possible and as few light units as needed. Currently DDs are almost out of the game. With CVs they became all but obsolete. In the past BB-mains and DD-mains were forced into cruisers. Wargaming should test stricter limits on ships choices to promote more even line-ups. A good starting point would be line-ups closer to randoms, e.g. 2 BBs, 3CAs/CLs and 2DDs. That would also counter the issue of spamming one ship-type (e.g. Kleber rush, 5 Venezias, 4 Puerto Ricos, ...). 3. It may sound strange or even greedy: I would like some rewards to keep players motivated towards the end of the season. At the beginning we fielded 2 comeplete teams plus reserves. At the end we struggled with low attendance and failed to even gather one team, once people got the rewards they thought were possible to get with reasonable effort. Maybe the clans could get some rewards for their treasury to distribute among the active CB-players or the rewards are not limited to a certain number of battles in a league. I don't want to tell you how to manage this, since Wargaming would give something extra. We initially thought that people would appreciate the mere competitive character of the event and play to reach the top, but it seems even the purple players are somewhat prone to cost-benefit analysis.

Auf das läuft es hinaus. Ich verstehe schon, dass ein Unternehmen positiv kommunizieren will. Aber wir sind ja auch keine Neugeborenen. Wir haben doch im Laufe unseres Lebens tausende solcher Formulierungen von Pressesprechern, Werbebroschüren und sonstigen Propaganda-Werken der Marktwirtschaft gehört. Es beleidigt geradezu meinen Intellekt, wenn man mich mit solchen Klischees abspeisen will. Da geht dann das Marketing nach hinten los.

It's interesting, where this discussion is going. It triggers me somewhat. Since I read this devblog article, something about it felt off. My empiricist mind told me, these numbers might be biased. Now I think I know why and the reason is so obvious I feel embarrassed I didn't point it out immediately: What Wargaming is describing in their analysis on the impact of Legendary Modules is a "difference in differences" approach. It is widely used in testing of the effectiveness of certain measures, like e.g. new medical treatment. A key factor of this analysis is that the proband cannot choose his treatment. If such a thing is possible, that introduces so-called self-selection bias. How does this affect Wargamings analysis on LMs? Players differ in their playstyles. Subsequently some players have a talent for playing a certain ship, which increases their winrate for that ship in comparison to their overall account winrate. Other players may play the ship in a way that is not promoted by the ship's design. They may lack talent. Their winrate for that same ship is below their account winrate. The devblog specifies the following: This would be true, if people were randomly assigned to either use the LM or another module. Technically one would even need to distinguish between the different kinds of modules that can be used from the beginning. But for the sake of simplicity let's assume for now, there was only one standard module - for the fifth slot concealment mod this is almost given. Let's consider the following example: One type of players has bad general stats. He plays the chosen ship rather successfully, meaning his winrate in the ship is far above his average. He also then chooses the Legendary module, which in this example shall be defined as less effective than the standard module. His winrate now is slightly lower - due to using the less effective LM - but still well above his overall winrate. This makes the LM appear an effective choice. Especially if you would see it in comparison to another group of player. This other player type is performing rather bad in the same ship, while his overall stats are way higher than for this ship. He consequently does not care for playing the ship a lot and never mounts the LM, maybe just grinded the LM-mission so he completed the mission and would be done with it. Now he is in the group having the LM but not using it. His negative difference in winrate of the ship will further support the result that the LM is too powerful, although, as defined, it is weaker than the standard choices. So @Tanatoy, how does WG address that possible self-selection bias?

Damn. I knew I forgot something.

Does it make any difference? I sold them first, since I wasn't aware of the benefits of resetting the line. And even when I heard it, it took me a while to confirm that you still get the Moskva, even if you are in the middle of a regrind.

Okay, so here I am, finalizing my preparations for the line-split. I have sold my Kirov. I have sold my Moskva. I will reset the russian cruisers today. The special ship, credits and RP are highly appreciated. If all the info Wargaming gave beforehand was correct and the wordings leave no room for misunderstandings or hidden meaning, this will imo still be a successful line split. That owners of a perma-camo do not get some sort of compensation (e.g. a free Type 20 camo to link to a T10 of their choice) is unfortunate and imo should have been handled differently. However we have discussed this back and forth with WG-staff for months now. They have passed on our feedback and it was consciously rejected. So the perma-camo owners must live with that decision. You can sanction WG by not spending money on the game. But that also makes it easy for them to ignore you in the future. For Wargaming appearently there are two types of players: 1. Players who spend anyway, so you don't need to take their threats serious and be generous to them. 2. Players who are lost and will not spend any money anymore, so you would only get them back if you were overly generous in the future. Being overly generous means foregoing profits, so that won't happen. So try to be a third type of player: 3. Continue spending a little money on the game, but make it clear, that you sanction a specific decision by not spending money on something linked to that very decision. In the case of the Moskva, do not ever buy a perma camo for the Nevsky or Petropavlovsk. Your satisfaction as a customer needs to matter. It will only do that, if Wargaming is not entirely giving up on you or feeling totally secure that you will continue spending and that they did not miss out on some revenue. The message must be clear: If Wargaming refuses to appreciate you spending money on the Moskva-camo, they must realize they are missing out on earning at least 5k on the Nevsky camo or even 10k on the camos for Nevsky and Petropavlosvk. You decide.

The price is fair. The Moskva is a decent ship. She has been relevant for many CB-seasons. I've even seen her in this season in teams that did not fancy the low fire chance of Stalingrad shells, but still wanted flat, tight and punishing AP-salvos. If I was a new player, I would certainly pick Moskva over Salem and Yoshino.

They claim they did or you claim they did. But how do you distinguish having a closed mind from the beginning from being open-minded and just quickly forming an opinion? Maybe they want to see themselves as having an open mind, as many closed-minded people like to see themselves. I am not making a judgement or statement here. But going as far as to change one's clan-tag and doing that at the beginning of the season is a pretty strong statement. I am just saying that I for myself can claim I gave it a try, not being prejudiced. I likewise derive my conclusions from that season. But at least trying to be open, gives me a good feeling about where these conclusions come from, which is the experience of 125 clan battles under this meta.