HMS_Kilinowski

I recommend submarine battles, they are fun to play. No need to change anything else, "sniping from a distance" is still the winning strategy and german BBs excel at it. Just remember: Submarine Battles. They also give more XP than random battles, so you can grind to T10 even faster and be even more successful, since you get even bigger ships.

You seem quite upset. May I offer a change of perspective that hopefully lifts your spirits? There are no stats on sub battles. So progress and success are not monitored. Finally, what so many of us wished for, has come true: Wargaming has given the 4phun-players their dedicated casual game mode that we wanted to dump them in for years and that they always claimed random battles to be. If you play sub battles, you are effectively trespassing, so don't hurt their sensitive souls, but play by their rules. I see a real opportunity for all of us. If we make them feel at home in submarine battles, while convincing Wargaming that submarines deserve to keep their own game mode, we finally got everything we ever wanted. Casual players get their natural habitat, where they can potato as much as they want without affecting anybodies cherished winrate and without feeling bullied by suggestions. And the more dedicated players have the random battles, where every loss counts and poor play is sanctioned. This only works if we commit: "Casual players, please stay in sub battles. We will leave you alone there. You will get the same XP as in randoms, but you can go as broadside or drunk as you ever wanted to. And nobody will question your education or hurt your sensitive feelings by suggesting your play is indicative of a lack of intelligence in those nasty words that make your eyes water." I am not particulary known for my serenity when it comes to witnessing casual players losing a won battle. But even I manage to watch the below-coop play in sub battles in calm restraint. I even played a few CV-battles, cause why not. I realize this is their turf, this is their rules. I can even have a laugh instead of making sarcastic remarks in chat. Isn't that wonderful? Wargaming, can we please have a permanent separate submarine battle game mode? This already shows such great potential.

Then it would appear some people would suffer from the Duning-Kruger-effect and get personal over a reflex of feeling attacked and trying to falsify an argument they are unable to comprehend. Mind, I just quoted your post in the first place, I wasn't specifically addressing my post to you. The requirements for an extended discussion as such are not given.

I got what you said. But let me correct your preception a little: The perma camo is not perma, but limited. You do use the camo for a limited time, the time until WG abandons it and shuts down the servers. The value of each product labelled "pemanent" actually is depreciated by the time left to use it. Let me facilitate grabbing that thought: What is the current value of the perma camo for the Moskva? The price is 5000 doubloons, yet that is not the value as I am sure most of you will agree. The value is individual to each person. One might argue the value shows in the number of sales. If people are still buying the Moskva-camo with the same frequency they bought it before the announcement, then the value would be the same. If people do not, then it is reasonable to say it is not worth its price anymore. If I bought that camo one day before the Moskva gets replaced, would the argument "you had the benefits of the camo for a long time" still apply? That is an extreme example, but sticking to it, what is the value of any perma camo one day before this game is shut down? One month? One year? Right now?

The thing that makes me sad about the Odin is: They must either have started from the point that they wanted to charge 3500 doubloons and designed a ship that performs according to the price. So they thought "A low price justifies a mediocre ship". Or they nerfed the ship too hard and then thought "Instead of mitigating the nerf a bit, let's charge a low price to correpond to its mediocre performance and by implication set this event apart from the high price of Puerto Rico." Wargaming, could you not have charged 4000-5000 doubloons for the final tokens and given the Odin back 10k HP? I think people gladly pay more for a ship that doesn't perform the task of a vacuum cleaner.

I think being upset is not even an option. One can choose to sanction that decision. The problem with sanctioning is that there is no visible link between the sanction and the cause. Some people can announce they will not spend any more money on this game. There will not be a WG employee sitting on his desk, comparing the user names of people threatening consequences with sales over the coming months and then jumping into the boss office "Thomas really has done it. He said he was done and he really hasn't spent money for 6 months now. And Pyotr has done the same, which is even worse, since he is on the russian server. This is a crisis. " Maybe if enough people would not buy a Nevsky camo, that would be noticed, but still the conclusion of this being a sanction and not just the ship being unpopular is a stretch. A counterfactual argument is weak by design.

It's okay, he is just grumpy after hibernation. Don't overstrain him. He will get there eventually.

Strange things happening. I've seen hundreds of topics of people announcing they leave the game, complaining about everything being wrong and expecting the community to hold them back, although nobody ever even heard of them. And here suddenly is a topic by a guy returning and saying everything is as it used to be. You know @waxx25that just by announcing your return and sounding content, you inadvertently will become the troll of the day. Also, try to not come top of your team in Ranked after an extended hiatus. Your play is supposed to be rusty as hell. If you come top, you insult all the players who played thousands of battles since your break and still come bottom. Wow, now I am convinced your are trolling on purpose. Casuals, tar and feather him!!! Omg, I spent too much time with @_Warfarin_. I start sounding like him. I start scaring myself.

It's funny, that we had these discussions for more than a month in other topics. Yet, few people felt the need to express their concerns and interests back when the information on how the line-split would be handled was still somewhat preliminary. Back, when your ideas and arguments could have affected the outcome, so many of you were silent on the matter for whatever reason. Now that the decision stands and will not be changed anymore, the drama begins. After seeing thousands of Puerto Ricos, most of them not ground for free, despite the pompous pledges to not support such a greedy event, I have my serious doubts that many of you whiners will not buy a perma camo for the Nevsky. Most of you are writing big cheques with your mouth, the type handed over on press photos. Yes, ofc WG is never gonna see another cent from you. *yawn* If that was the case, the development would be that such decisions have a bad impact on earnings and future events and changes are handled more generous. But the development takes a different direction. Events are getting increasingly greedy and compensation is becoming less and less generous. This demonstrates imo, that many of you players are not acting on your words. So maybe the time for many of you has come to accept your weaknesses and stop complaining. Ofc it affects me, but because of uncertainty rather than spite. I have my T10 perma camo from the Twilight Battles still lying around unattached to any ship. Why? Because I cannot tell which ship deserves a perma camo. Had I put it on the Henri, I would be bloody disappointed now, since WG nerfed the Henri to a point where it is not fun to play anymore. Yes, in absolute value you always keep what you pay for, but I don't buy the absolute. I buy the relative. I want a camo on a ship that will still be fun to play and competitive in 2 years. Same goes for the Moskva. If I had put my Twilight Battle camo on the Moskva, I would be disappointed now. That this camo is still lying around, while it could be attached to a ship and have generated these praised extra bonusses is a testimony of the uncertainty that is generated around these perma camos. It's not even that I refrain from getting a perma camo to sanction the greed displayed lately. It is a rational forward-looking behavior. I cannot make a decision which camo will be worthwhile anymore. Which ship will still be good and fun and part of the CB-meta? Which ship will not be made a special ship and replaced? I can't find an answer anymore. All that keeps me from spending money on perma camos. There were many T10-ships that I intended to get perma camos for: Yueyang, Worcester, Henri, Kleber. Now I am not content but happy that I didn't, cause all these ships have been made worthless by unilateral decisions of the seller, decisions that devaluated these ships and by implication their perma camos. And I would not have been given the option to opt out. Likewise there are camos that I bought and regret it now for the same reason, that the ships have become worthless. And, as a consequence of these experiences, there are ships that I play and like, without getting a camo for, since I expect WG to once again nerf these ships or make them inferior by changing the meta. So, instead of getting more money out of me for buying camos over and over again to have them on the "ship du jour", WG is losing out on money, since I can't buy any of them anymore. Another thing that strikes me is the argument of depreciation and amortisation. Some people say a perma camo like e.g. for the Moskva cannot be reimbursed, since it has been used. Its value is depreciated through usage. But the principle of depreciation is not based on prior usage, it is based on a lower usability in the future. If I sell a used car, the selling price is not low cause I drove 100k km in it, it is low cause the next owner can only drive another 100k km before the car falls apart and all that with high maintentance cost. All that does not apply to a camo for a WoWs-ship, ... unless ... you argue that the used camo is worth less, since the amount of time you can use it before the game is shut down, is less. So the camo for the Mokva is worth less cause you would use it for 1000 battles when you bought it 2 years ago, while now you may only have time to do 500 battles. But then strangely this argument applies to all camos now. Then any fresh perma-camo now is worth less than a camo two years ago, since the time to use it before the game is shut down is less. Also all the premium ships now are worth less for the same reason. So it's a dangerous argument to be made by Wargaming to talk about value based on depreciation. The argument does not work in WGs favor.

Not only is it not fun. I seriously doubt a lot of people would even play the mode, if it was not for the rewards. Over the years I heard a lot of people talk about Ranked and only very few ever said it was about the sportsmanship of ranking out. One of the most frequent statements I hear is about stopping to play once you reach rank 11 or rank 6, because rank 10 and rank 5 "only" give you those temporary flags for service cost. So most people see this mode from a cost-benefit perspective: How much toxicity gives what reward and is it worth it? For Clan Battles I can make a clear case that I love playing it. It's fun, it's so not toxic and you take home a few new tactics and ideas from every season. Ranked in comparison is just work. People rant about their teams. I remember players completely losing it, people changing their attitude towards the rest of the players. It's imo not a healthy mode. If one was allowed to div up, at least one could cheer each other up, make a few jokes and take the losses a bit easier.

So - despite the chance of being slightly OT - what's the word on the Dynamo scenario? Did Wargaming designers make any progress in the last 16 months on updating the operation? Is there a schedule to re-release it?

It's not a matter of two teams, two paces. Most clans have rather homogenous distribution of skill. You can differentiate between players who commit many hours a week to CB and others who have more family obligations, but that's it. And that doesn't change the need to rotate players. Some come home from work late, others are in a different time zone and need to go to sleep early. So even the All-Star team needs to rotate and it is not all that all-star on average clans.

As you wrote, "experienced players" can make it work. I start to figure out a couple of things lately and I couldn't claim I figured out most ship. A lot of players know less than me. I assume they might struggle. I am not even talking about @GarrusBrutuspoint that many players only have a limited number of ships. But now i must come back to that. Even knowing what ships would be part of the meta beforehand, didn't mean all of our players had all the ships available. The game interferes. Suddenly Wargaming announced LMs are going into the NTC and people needed to grind certain lines before the LM-missions disappeared forever. Suddenly the Moskva is announced to become a special ship and people need to grind the Moskva to make sure they get it. And then the season starts and the supply of Venezias and Stalingrads is limited. So it happens that our FC wants two Stalingrad but of 6 players only 2 have one, one of them utterly disliking the ship. I am not talking about vanities. I am talking about line-ups that work. What you have in mind requires a full team of players who (a) have available a broad selection of T10-ships and (b) are familiar with these ships, ideally maybe don't hate the ships you need them to play. And that is only the player side. I know the top clans work a bit differently. They don't need a lot of FCing (Originally I had written "They can FC themselves." but that read a bit wrong). Can you imagine the chaos of an average clan if you rotate ships? In my experience, even rotating one or two players, while still having the same line-up, can throw the chemistry of a team. Now imagine rotating ships on top of that. It's already hard to find a capable FC, someone who can do the job and wants to do it. The FCs tend to burn out over a season. The stress, the focus of their mind is pretty tense. Even under the current set of rules, it takes a while to familiarize with your team, with their play. It takes even longer for your players to get where they are usually expected to go, to develop certain standard tactics, so the FC doesn't have to micro manage every player on every map. If you get all that in order, the FCs job starts getting easier and he can focus on what he is supposed to do, read the individual battle and figure out how to deploy his team. Now if you make the team a ship salad, where players rotate and on top of that jump between ships and positions and you as an FC need to figure out within 30s of the loading screen, how your line-up fits the current map and opponent, that is imo far too much to ask from an FC. It's far too much to ask from an average player. I mean, don't get me wrong. What do I know? Maybe this is a great idea. Maybe I lack vision or I am too negative. All I can say is, it sounds like chaos to me. The idea makes me uncomfortable and I have serious doubts this would raise the quality of play.

Wargaming, can we please get a :smile_cry: emoji, so I can line them up on occasions like this? It's a pretty costly thing to pay for an entire team to lose, also it's quite a misleading statement. What really happens is that you pay for external software to modify the dispersion and aiming point of enemy ships, so they miss more often. You didn't believe the rumors about desync, did you? But as I said it's quite costly. That is why most purple players I know use the light version that only works for one/a limited number of enemy ship, but is considerably more affordable. . . . . . And of course I'm just messing with your speshul mind. The enemy team lost cause they were just even less gifted. Part of the sad reality of the corona steamrolls. .

I only know the EU-DDs from T5 and above. First of all: Torpedo range is definitely not a weakness of these ships. The torpedo range is top for its respective tier. The concealment is rather good, and corresponds to the good guns. You have respectable stealth torping windows. Yes, a 10-point captain is helpful but that is true for pretty much all DDs. The good thing is the speed of the torps. What good is all the range on torps if it takes forever to get there and the target has turned long before they reach it? Guns are mediocre but have good arcs, similar to IJN-DDs. Personally I found the mix quite good. You need to stay away from typical plane flying paths. But the torpedos are good for flooding. You don't hit hard, but you have very short torp reload, so you can follow up on a repaired flooding with a second perma flooding. The torps have a huge psychological impact on BBs as they feel helpless to dodge them and disengage pushs. The key imo is that you do not play it like a IJN-torpboat, operating independently, but you support your team. You set floodings on key units, so your team can burn them afterwards. The EU-DDs are great for torping enemy DDs in smoke. The torps reach the smoke pretty early while the enemy DD still feels safe. The speed and the narrow spread makes them very hard to dodge. They don't dev strike the DD, but one hit is enough to turn a hunter into a hunted. All in all the EU-DDs are solid. The mediocre AA in mid tiers is a bit disappointing since you have no smoke, but each ship needs to have a downside, too. I think EU-DDs are the right line to learn playing DDs. If you manage to play without smoke, you will use your smokes much wiser on other lines.

Mixed feelings. Personally I like the idea of specialized players for certain positions. It creates trust and respect within the team to know each player brings an individual feeling to the table. If ships are on cooldown, that would promote a generalist approach. It would not solve the issue of dominant line-ups. If you force teams to take subpar line-ups, they will win battles where their line-up is superior and lose battles where they use inferior ships. One could argue clans might take an even approach, taking a mix of good and bad ships in every battle to have the equal chance of winning in every battle. But then it's mostly a competition of line-ups, not players, much like the Ranked Sprint 10 - the duels. I don't want to start a CB, see the enemy line-up and think "this is lost/won". I want a meta, where many ships are competitive and where it's the skills of the players that make a ship excel or disappoint, not the ship itself.

It's noteworthy that we all recently got a lengthy survey on our thoughts on AA and CV-counterplay. The reason I find it noteworthy is, that Wargaming used to change things mostly based on their own ideas. Sometimes suggestions from the community quietly made their way into the game, sometimes they were overlooked, although they were demanded actively and advocated in a conclusive and sound manner. Now, as far as I can remember, for the first time WG asks us what we think about the AA and what we would change about it. I don't want to say this is a desperate measure, since WG seems very concerned about their image of having everything under control and not needing advice. It's after all a positive step, a necessary step to admit the CV-interaction does not work. I am positive they knew it wasn't working as intended and just pretended everything was fine, since they believed it would sooner or later all fall into place once players adapted. Now for the first time, we get a sign, that we are heard. What they want and what they get is not the same. A casual CV does not get the same impact as a unicum. One can make the argument both ways. When Wargaming buffed the AA for a short time, CV-planes got melted by everyone. Surface-ship players did not complain. They thought it totally fair that any redish player can melt entire squadrons not even realizing what is going on in the sky above him. No matter if you buff or nerf or how ever you balance the current system, you will never have counterplay. You might have something like an equilibrium, where the spreadsheet says: CVs do an appropriate amount of damage and have the amount of impact intended. That doesn't change the fact that the interaction between planes and ships is almost fully automated. Yeah, DDs can pull a few stops and every player who is not deaf and hears his AA starts shooting, can reinforce an AA sector, but that is trivial. It has nothing to do with skill. A player can build his ship and captain to improve some AA-multipliers that increase the cost of planes for a strike on his ship, but that cost is anticipated by the CV-player. The CV-player knows, "this is a an average AA-ship, I will trade 3 planes for 25k damage. Acceptable price. Let's do it." Likewise a player can buff his AA, maybe discouraging attacks on his ship, but implicitly encouraging attacks on another maybe even a key unit in his team. Him being AA-built might even lose him the battle. And also this again is a choice made before the battle, not counterplay. It's like saying "playing DD instead of BB is a counterplay to HE-spam". As long as a good CV-player loses all his planes attacking a bad Halland and as long as a good DD-player can be harrassed by a bad CV for minutes without causing massive plane losses, as long as skill is only involved in the play of the CV, not the AA, the CV-rework will always be a failure. I recently saw an old pre-rework video of a DesMoines being attacked by 4 squadrons, making some evasive maneuvers, popping DefAA, he shot down 24 planes of a strictly limited supply of planes. That still was largely automated fighting, but at least there was a point. A player had to decide if an attack was severe enough to go into full defensive mode and if he succeeded he was left alone for a good while. Now every attack is like the last one or the next one, if you pop DefAA you will have it on cooldown for the next squadron. If you turn now you will avoid the torps but give broadside to BBs, so you get hit by torps. Then the next attack comes and it's the same dilemma over and over. There is no good or bad timing in popping AA or making moves, cause you are continuously under attack/threat of attack. The CV is designed to exploit reasonable play, i.e. play aiming to perform the tasks assigned to your ship type. That is what makes CVs toxic to the game and cannot be captured in any spreadsheet. The only reason for flame wars is that players want to have/maintain an unfair advantage for their preferred ship class, so they get results easily. Again this works both ways, as many players were not able to admit the once tested AA-buff was too strong just as currently many CV-players dismiss the perspective that CVs are still too powerful. How you actually define counterplay has nothing to do with it. Or, more specific, these two definitions you give are just brackets of counterplay. You want to be able to successfully and even more so, skillfully defend against an attack. That is one bracket. The other bracket is, that you do not want to wait it out until a CV lol-drops you. The current counterplay is like providing a little shield to defend against a longsword and counting on the sword-bearer to eventually get tired or annoyed and turn to another target. Yes, that might be what wastes time and gives your team the upper hand and eventually the win. But hell, did you sign up for this? Your ship has guns, it's a fair expectation to be allowed to use them. That is why we had so many Hoshos all ofa sudden. Cause attacks were not only successful for the CV, but costless. The irony of the interaction is that even when you get close to a CV you gotta work through their immunities to flooding and fires and secondaries. They get a big shield and you got a tiny sword. Ofc now I am talking purely DD-play. It's no coincidence that people talk about counterplay in DDs, since they are the only class with real defensive options. Anyway, I am going off topic ... The point that hit me, when I read your idea of counterplay is that this again works both ways. Are you really wasting the CVs time if you do your defensive dancing routine? Yes, you make it hard to kill you, but while you do so, he is also wasting your time. When I get attacked early, e.g. in a DD, I smoke up, I slow down. Now an enemy DD gets into the cap before me. Do I contest that cap now, as my smoke is on cooldown? Bad idea. I wasted one drop of planes, maybe killed one plane. The CV can immediately start a different squadron and attack another area. In a DD I am now out of the game for several minutes waiting for my smoke to be available. In the meantime the cap turns red and my team, seeing red starts reversing, giving more ground to the enemy team. So yeah, I may have defended quite honorably against the CV, but I still would have had more impact on the game could I have contested the cap or been unspotted and able to launch a good torpedo run.

I think you overestimate the impact of such divisions. You project your fear of a systematic disadvantage into it. There are way more "glue-sniffers" than unicums, so most of the time you would have glue-sniffer divisions on both sides. The choice of words that you would have unicums against you and sometimes with you is misleading and biased. You would have unicums on your side just as frequent as on the other side. Only everybody takes a good team as given while it's a mild drama when the enemy has the same advantage. I didn't see Flambass stream, but the obvious reason why he left the other team fraked probably is because (a) he is a good player and (b) the MM does not account for divisions manipulated into the game through syncronizing. If divisions were allowed, the divisions are official and on both sides. Btw, how did Flambass ensure that his CREED friends were on the same side? The chances usually are 50% to land on the same team, given you make it into the same battle at all. And those 50% only apply if you pick different ship classes. The chance is rather high to land on opposing sides if you pick the same ship class. I would know of no method that makes syncing into the same team anything but a rather unlucky coin toss. So Flanbass and his clan mates must have landed on opposite sides pretty often and the fight must have been rather even. On a side note: If you want to avoid bad divisions on your team, just play BB. Most bad divisions I see in randoms are double-BB and the MM will try to avoid 3 BBs on each team if 2 works as well. My hopewould be that the issue solves itself. Even bad players want to advance in Ranked. A division of bad players will lose even more than a single bad player, so I would assume they give up their divisions at some point. As I wrote, i would love divisions. I am just tired of 1v13. Let it at least be 2v12. The last season seems like yesterday to me and ruined my appetite for Ranked. When you try to get buffs in the center of the map, while your Thunderer team mates sit in B-/I-line, applying no pressure to zone out the radar cruisers and DDs from the center, when they come top in a losing battle, cause they get your intel and shoot for 18 min, while you cannot cap cause the enemy controls the center, that is utterly frustrating. I have seen two rather untoxic ranked "seasons". One was the last sprint. When teams are 12v12, appearantly keeping your star is nothing to count on anymore and players make more of an effort to play the objectives. Also, ofc, divisions. Finally another thinking man in a thinking man's game. The other one and my favorite ranked "season" so far, was Sprint 10. The duels. Thank you Wargaming. Finally I got a good team. Maybe with perfectly mirrored MM next time, but the duels were the closest to my understanding of what ranked battles stand for. You as a player count and not your team.

Ja, da passiert nichts. Wargaming ist das egal, weil sie das Spiel ja selten selber spielen und dann eher unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Qualitätskontrolle. Die Spieler, über die du dich aufregst, haben gelegentlich Geld ins Spiel investiert und WG will es sich bei keinem Kunden verscherzen. Darüber hinaus ist die manuelle Prüfung von Verstößen sehr personalintensiv und damit kostspielig. WG setzt lieber auf automatisierte Routinen, um etwa afk-Spieler und Teamschaden zu identifizieren. Vorsätzliche Untätigkeit lässt sich sehr schwer erkennen und noch schwerer eindeutig beweisen. Ohne einem Spieler einen wiederholten Verstoß gegen die Spielregeln nachweisen zu können, kann man ihn kaum rechtlich stichhaltig sanktionieren. Es ist schon ein Unterschied, ob jemand schlecht spielt, oder - so wie ich es kürzlich erlebt habe - beim Spielstart erstmal 3 min afk ist, dann sein Schiff 180° dreht und Richtung Kartenrand fährt, um dort dann parallel zum Rand teilnahmslos vor sich hin zu fahren und während des ganzen Gefechts keine einzige Salve abzufeuern. Ich denke diese Leute trollen einfach. Vor ein paar Jahren haben sie noch Teamschaden verursacht. Jetzt, wo das früher als zuvor sanktioniert wird, suchen sie sich eben neue Methoden.

Die Frage ist halt, warum so eine Entschuldigung offen stattfinden muss. Offenbar hast du bisher 56 Posts in diesem Forum geschrieben. Ich kann mich nicht an irgendwelche Auffälligkeiten erinnern bzw. falls ein Post über die Stränge geschlagen wäre, war das nicht unbedingt Stadtgespräch. Eine öffentliche Entschuldigung ist gemeinhin bei Dingen gebräuchlich, die die Allgemeinheit betreffen (z.B. Causa Uli Hoeneß, Bill Clintons Blowjobs). Also wäre meine Vermutung, dass diese Entschuldigung sich allenfalls auf irgendeine Nichtigkeit jenseits unserer Wahrnehmung bezieht. Ein öffentliches zu Kreuze kriechen ist unnötig, so gut es sicher gemeint ist. Der liebe Sehales hört jeden Tag Kritik und da ist sicher auch mal ein Tiefschlag dabei. Ich denke mir er nimmt das sportlich und wird nicht sofort in die Gesprächstherapie müssen, nur weil wir uns über Puerto Rico und Co. aufgeregt haben.

I would love to play Ranked in division. At least I would have someone I can rely on and vent instead of getting into discussions with my team. Also I am a social person and playing Ranked battles alone for more than a dozen battles is pretty boring. Last Ranked I switched from DD to selfish Thunderer, cause my teams abused me to spot so they could do continuous damage while ignoring the caps. I just felt, Ranked was no team work whatsoever. Suddenly, when I could div up in the previous sprint, that whole Arms Race mode made a lot more sense to me. Finally I got the support to do what helped my team win by playing the objective rather than selling their souls for damage. I don't see an issue with divisions, as they get mirrored. It's not so much an issue of purple divisions than of super-red divisions having the insolence to drag their teams down. But that is just an extension of the super-red player expecting his teams to carry him.

Ich bin verwirrt. Versuchen wir jetzt ein Ereignis innerhalb der Physik des Spiels mit historischen Gegebenheiten zu erklären, die im Spiel nicht abgebildet werden? Nach meinem Wissensstand unterscheidet das Spiel Panzerung nur nach deren Dicke, nicht nach unterschiedlicher Materialdichte. Nicht, dass ich die kleine Geschichtsstunde nicht zu schätzen wüsste ...

HE-spam was killed by the IFHE-rework. He-spammers now either do direct damage or DoT, where they did both before. Whoever still complains likely chooses his positions without map-awareness and is too vain to admit it. As most of my clan mates expressed so nicely in Wargamings survey on AA, AA does not need a buff. AA is currently a pretty fixed price in planes to pay for the CV. The CV attacks a ship with certain AA qualities, he can guess his losses and make a solid choice if it's worth to attack right now or wait until the AA is burned down by his team. The skill of the attacked player is not a factor in this decision, as AA is fully automated and skill is irrelevant. Buffing AA would only increase the price in planes to pay, it would not change the nature of the interaction between the CV and his targets. That players press the button for the priority sector is not skill, every player of every skill level can easily master this. Flak clouds are not a factor, as every CV player knowing the basics can dodge them. Changes to the AA need to be made, but they must be in a way that gives the player more control over his flak, so that good skill pays off. Two days ago I saw a Hakuryo successfully dropping bombs in a combined AA bubble of two Stalingrads. Both Stalingrads had DefAA enabled and still a drop is possible. That is ridiculous. But then again it is noteworthy that AA-skill also needs to work both ways. If a player has no skill otherwise in the game and no awareness to air attacks, it can't be that the CV attacks him and loses lots of planes, just because the attack comes at a fixed price. The whole AA system doesn't make sense. I hear a BB player talking, still believing that a bigger ship must be the better choice and that he wants to be king of the seas. Overpens are an essential balancing mechanic. If one was to drop that, one would need to give up balancing attempts, have ships of different power and restrict players to certain ship types depending on the players performance. Bad players only get weak ships, while players who proved they can play for their team, get the more influencial classes. The majority of players would be upset, since they obviously would be driving around in Flower-corvettes. That would make the island camping strategy, as you criticized in your first point, even more powerful. It would encourage players to sit behind islands, even on ships that are intended to not camp. As we already suffer from too many players playing safe rather than well, that might not be healthy. Battleships are not supposed to be the Death Star. There must be ways to ambush them. In situations like you describe, a BB misplays. If you allow a light cruiser to rush you, you clearly ignored what is going on. It's on the contrary pretty unfair and counterintuitive that certain CVs, like Graf Zepellin, get to punish rushing DDs at close range. If a player did not see a threat that he could have easily anticipated, there must be punishment for the player, not the attacker who set up his ambush perfectly. In the current stage that would make BBs too powerful. A single ship cannot have the firepower of a BB, two cruisers and two DDs combined. They would need to be balanced then by nerfing other things, like e.g. giving DDs better concealment, harder hitting torps or increasing reload on BBs to 40s for main guns and 12-15s on secondaries. Alternatively, as already discussed in your third point, BBs would then need to be restricted to purple players, since if certain ships are more powerful than others, they would need to be earned by some sort of performance, which again the majority of the player base would not be willing/dedicated to achieve.

Da ist es wieder mal schade, dass Wargaming keine Premium-Schiffe als Bots im Trainingsraum ermöglicht. Dann könnte man diese Situation nachstellen und testen. Theoretisch müsste ein Zitadellentreffer im hinteren Deck möglich sein, wo die Zitadelle nur von 95mm Panzerung geschützt ist. Allerdings müsste die Granate sehr steil von oben einschlagen, um nicht von der 32mm Deckpanzerung abzuprallen. Ich sehe aber gerade, der obere Seitengürtel ist auch nur 32mm. Die Granate könnte also dort eindringen und dann in ausreichend steilem Winkel die 95mm durchschlagen.

I think that saying translates a bit differently, more like "once you ruined your reputation, embarrassment is not an issue anymore." Anyway, for Wargaming it's not that their reputation is damaged beyond repair. Just like betraying a persons trust through a bad action, trust is not regained by one single positive action. It takes a series of positive actions. After the Puerto Rico disaster, Wargaming would have needed to at least have a positive event like the Cossack event was and a series of minor positive signals. That would have meant forgoing some profit. So Wargaming is not trying to costly repair customer relations but rather milk the cow for all it's worth. Puerto Rico, Lütjens-captain, Legendary Modules, Smaland and Hayate. "Yes, I cheated on you, I am not bringing home flowers for the next year and going to therapy sessions. Live with it or get a divorce. I don't give an excrement."