tocqueville8

Being able to pay something to keep some % of the xp on our captains may be a nice option, but that's not the point: I basically never dismissed a captain! I have plenty of mid-tier silver ships where I keep a 6-8 point captain just to mess around every now and then: Iron Duke, Mutsuki, Gneisenau, etc. Now, because so many skills have been nerfed, in order to elevate my 15-ish elite captains to the level they used to be two days ago, I have to spend an insane amount of doubloons, or just a lot of credits that still will only allow 1 or 2 to make it there. I have basically lost my ability to earn free cpt xp, which was considerable. And the new 20th and 21st points are unfairly more expensive than the previous ones. While there is an improvement, it's to something I never did (except maybe on the 3-6 point captains that come with premium ships or from events). Meanwhile, my many elite captains are essentially held hostage: I need to pay 10k dubs or so to push one from 19 to 21 points, where it wouldn't really be more effective than he used to. Seriously: the same survivability build on BBs (PT+EM+AR+BoS+SI+CE+FP) used to cost 19 points; now it's 22 points (AR, PT and SI all got more expensive, and SI isn't even as good...), so unachievable, and it's locked behind a massive grind/paywall. Dismissing an elite captain, unless I'm willing to spend enough dubs to purchase a T8 premium for it, only gives me enough xp to bring 1 captain from 20 to 21 points: that's just nuts...

With a Dreadnought flag (+20% healing) the extra heal makes up for the loss in hp, so the net gain is the extra consumables (especially Def AA), which is nice. Added benefits: - your hp goes down faster, so you can make more use of Adrenaline Rush - with an extra heal, you're more likely to achieve a Dreadnought award, perpetuating the virtuous cycle (and helping your other lines) Added problems: - you're more likely to die in the first gunfight - you're more likely to get Dev-Struck by a torp Clearly, Superintendent is higher risk, higher reward, so consider how good you are in the line at the tier you're playing. I went for SE initially, but switched to SI later. While I'm pretty good with DDs, there were games where the change came back to bite me in the a**. A good buddy of mine went for both, giving up what used be BFT (better fire rate and AA). That's not wrong, either: EU DDs are slow and have no smoke, so safety first is a good approach.

Uhm, no. 200 xp/battle times 100 battles is 20.000 xp, which isn't even enough to go from 0 to 5 points

I believe every skill rework has been accompanied by a free respec period. Not that it excuses this extortion to go from 19 to 21 points and start earning free cpt xp again, but respeccing isn't the problem: training is.

The accuracy is worse, but there's a new 4-point skill that helps in close quarters, improving both secondaries and main battery reload. Also, if you like to go all-in on secondaries, IFHE is now only 2 points on BBs. I'm not saying you should take it, but it has some uses, depending on the nation and the tier. Adrenaline Rush is now 3 points, and there's no equivalent of BFT (secondary reload + continuous AA damage). Imho, it takes more points to get about the same result, which I'd call a nerf.

Not necessarily. I have a 19 point captain on the Georgia, secondary build. I could use him on the Oklahoma if I could stomach her, or on the Massa or Ohio if I had them. Why should I keep him, when in his place I can simply use my Gearing captain (also 19 points) with his new BB build? Or my Salem/Des Moines captain (also 19 points)? Why would I keep my Viribus Unitis captain, when I can simply add a BB build to my (much better) Smaland/Oland captain? Same for Paolo Emilio: I have more points on Sansonetti. This new thing about the builds is only useful if you have lots of premiums that require slightly different builds than their tech tree counterparts, or that don't have a tech tree counterpart (Atlanta, Flint, Italian DDs and BBs...), but otherwise it's terrible economy-wise. The progression in terms of xp necessary for the next point goes something like 159k - 189k - 222k - 259k - 300k - 500k - 700k. That's insane. It really should've been 300k - 350k - 420k or something like that. They were just greedy.

I completely agree. What's more, there are now 96 skills, some of them with the same name (but occasionally different point cost) instead of 32. For those 32 skills many members of the community had learned abbreviations: JoaT for "Jack of all Trades", SE for "Survivability Expert", IFHE, CE, etc. It was a practical shorthand that made a lot of conversations on this forum, advice and "literature" about the game quick to read and understand for many players. But 96 skills? That's just insane, and some have the same initials for sure.

That's been the case for months now, IFHE cuts the base fire chance in half.

It's not worse: it's a straight buff, albeit a small one, instead of a tradeoff which was so bad people usually only took it on the Asashio and Gearing. No, I'm referring to the fact that torpedoboats can do good damage while staying undetected, and they're usually stealthier as well, so they're a bit less likely to take damage, by default. A Yugumo might get attacked by planes or radared and focused, but in many games she can do well enough just by stalking and torping, while a Tashkent has to be shooting, which exposes her to counterfire.

DD-wise, the rework is a buff to torpedoboats and a nerf to gunboats, which is fine imho: 1) torpedoboats are less likely to take damage, so the increase cost of Adrenaline Rush is not as bad for them; 2) torpedoboats can get a cheap skill to improve flooding chances, particularly good for German and Pan EU DDs; 3) torpedo Acceleration gives less speed (only 3-5 kts instead of a flat 5), but you don't give up any range for it, which used to be the reason it was so rare; 4) a new skill improves ship speed as long as one maintains stealth, which again is better for stalking; 5) torpedoboats were less likely to take BFT, which has been nerfed.

There's a BB skill that improves AP damage by 5% in exchange for +30% fire and flooding duration. I mean, who on Earth would take that trade?!? And it costs 3 points!!!

I'm looking at the extended tech tree right now. The Atlanta has 13.3 km stock range, the Flint has 11.1 km stock range. I was going to get her for coal, but I guess that's out the window until they remember to buff her range as well. I mean, I know the Flint has smoke, but 11.1 is likely unworkable, and I can't find a cruiser skill that would increase it like AFT used to.

Out of curiosity, why don't you play DD? They're an exciting class...

Not quite, but sort of. There are many tasks in this game that some classes do much better than others: kiting with HE, Dev Striking with AP, radaring caps, stalking&torping BBs, capping stealthily and stern-in to avoid torps, finishing off low-hp enemies, spotting a cluster of enemies with fighters, etc. If, say, you're one of 3 radar cruisers on your team, you can sink without the team losing too much of the ability to radar a given cap. In fact, radar cruisers are often redundant, at least at high tiers. Likewise, you might have a Soyuz and an Alsace sitting in the same square, about equally able to Dev Strike a broadsiding cruiser. But with CVs, there's usually only 1, so if it's a bad player those things the CV does best (finding DDs, spotting, finishing wounded enemies, nuking stationary cruisers...) will get done poorly, for sure. It's sort of like multiplying by zero: the team can be solid in other respects, but if the CV is incompetent, you'll have zero (well, low, anyway) of that strategic capability. Because in some circumstances the game is really unbalanced (how do you deal with an Asashio in a BB, if you have no spotting and no hydro, but you have to sink it? Or how do you deal with a Tallinn in an Asashio, during a cyclone...?), you want your team to be at least decent at everything, so that whatever the problem someone will be able to do something about it, and the lone CV is the first place where the MM can screw you. The other place, imho, is bad DD captains in games with few DDs. Earlier tonight I had a match in the Pepsicola, Two Brothers, T8. Our Monaghan (torpedo build) overextended on the flank and got sunk by a Loyang, while our Oland and Lightning (big brain division) spent the first 7 minutes deciding whether they actually wanted to rush the middle. They did not, but it was too late. The CV was okay, but we had too little spotting on either flank for most of the thing, and it wasn't pretty. Cruisers are mostly for support, so even if your team got the bad ones you don't lose as much, strategically. BBs...well there's usually a lot of them, so they're less of an issue imho, though some just don't understand crossfire, and especially if they're in the same div they tend to cuddle together... Overall, CVs are the most susceptible to imbalanced matchmaking.

Between the weeb stuff and the sped-up replay, that sounded... ...why don't you take a seat over there?

However much you're leading by, it's not enough: lead more. Also, start your attack run blind if you think the DD is coming towards you, otherwise there won't be enough space for both the plane run and the torps to arm. It gets better with the Parseval: 3 torps at once, and sometimes 2 of them are so close they're very hard to pass in between.

In my experience, they often start way before the get sunk. And on the other hand, good players that get sunk while doing their best will often give good advice about things like which cap to go for, whether there's a low hp enemy for the CV to finish, and stuff like that.

As I said, that's the not the problem. The problem is getting reported by my team for a 1500 xp defeat...

T2 Random battles teach you more about this game than T10 Co-op matches, as people are (usually) smarter than bots. Unless you're some sort of massive introvert who's afraid to get bullied in chat (people can get pretty nasty, unfortunately), I say give PvP a go. Also, remember that Randoms give much better rewards (xp and credits), so the progress will be faster, if you're up to it. For low tier Random battles, I recommend Russian DDs, as they're the kings of torpedo rushes, and British BBs, as the Orion (T4) actually has enough AA to make the overpowered Hosho reconsider.

It happens very often: you play a perfectly nice game, place among the top 3 of your team and win, no one in your team complains about anything you do...but your karma goes down: it's that DD you Dev Struck in smoke that's being salty, or that BB you just overmatched into smithereens. But that's negative karma I don't mind, as it's still a (perverse) acknowledgment of my good performance, when it happens. It's still flattering, in a way. Plus if I won I'll be in a good mood, so I won't care. What I mind is negative karma by teammates for not "carrying harder", even though they never offered any suggestion in chat during the game. Examples: - I had a game in the Wooster the other day: excellent use of terrain, 200k dmg, 20 decaps, 2nd on my team by xp...and I got downvoted twice and ranted at because I "avoided the caps". I mean, in the caps there were a Bismarck, Georgia, Lion, Alaska, Yamato: you're supposed to use terrain cover to melt them, not to charge them. The Wooster is possibly the worst T10 ship at charging anything... If you downvote the guy who came 2nd by xp, shouldn't you also downvote most of the team, and yourself? And rant at them as well? - Another game, again with the Wooster: 1st in the team by hp, solid damage, I held a flank that the BBs completely abandoned...and yet I got yelled at in chat after the game, repeatedly and viciously. And by whom? By our Halland who, despite being a superunicum reroll, thought it was a good idea to rush the cap in the early game against a Smaland and a Salem (they had been spotted already), without asking for support in any way (which I wasn't in a position to give, as I had parked my ship stern-in and behind an island). Basically, he made what is a noob move at T4, let alone T10, and was a complete a*****e about it because it ruined his purple WR or something. Of course I got downvoted as well, because I didn't take part in the same idiocy (there were 2 Yamatos behind that cap, as well...). I'm reminded of these games because they happened basically back-to-back. And no, I'm not some kind of selfish super-camper in the Wooster: my WR is about 59%, so I am at least decent, and I did sink in both games. Frankly, I blame the recurring meme of "save-the-star players" from Ranked. Sure, flinging HE from 20km in the Thunderer, never pushing a flank or tanking a bit, is bad play. But parking your Wooster behind an island next to a cap and melting whomever comes close is what the ship is meant to do, and she does it well. Playing smartly, playing around the caps, and massively outdamaging the enemy, is playing well. One should be thankful their teammates are still alive and trying to win, not resent them for being still alive: it usually doesn't mean they're not trying, rather that they're trying better. Rant over.

Yeah it's going to be good for niche premiums that require a different build than your standard line, or don't have a standard line to begin with. I'm thinking Sansonetti on the Paolo Emilio, for instance.

Well yes, other than the Oklahoma I think the Viribus is the slowest T5 BB, or close to it. I recommend getting Concealment Expert before Fire Prevention on her, as she becomes really stealthy then.6 guns at the front and an extended armored belt are a powerful combination: technically she can bow-tank a Yamato better than a Sinop would... I was considering buying her when she came out, but I was lucky enough to get her from some supercontainer, I think, so I didn't even have to make the decision, in the end.

I know how it works, I'm just saying it's probably easier to get a permaflood in the FDR, which drops up to 8 torps at once, some of which are bound to hit on the bow/stern for a higher flooding chance, than in the Haku (2 torps at once, which can simply both strike the torpedo bulge). As to why people dmgcon floods, I think they find the lack of mobility more annoying than a fire. Also, if you take a torp to the stern you can lose steering and/or rudder as well. If you do, repairing might allow you to angle better against the next drop. At least, I think that's their reasoning.

Honestly, I don't like the term "unbalanced" either, as it's just not clear what people mean by it. I'd go with something like "low skill floor, high skill ceiling". Imho CVs have a higher skill floor than other classes, as they require accuracy and consistency with the drops (and to dodge flak) as well as strategic thinking (where and how should I help?). The skill ceiling is high, but it's also high, for instance, on British DDs and CLs. I've seen many conversations here that went: - "CVs are OP, even a potato can mess you up in one of those, if he wants to" (claim: CVs have a low skill floor) - "I don't have a lot of problems with CVs tbh" - "Ah well, that's because most CV captains are morons" (claim: CVs just attract dummies? Isn't it just a bitterer way to say they have a higher skill floor?)

I dunno, it's not that easy to get permafloods in the Haku with only 2 torps at once, and a much lower loitering ability. I'm sure better players than me can do it, but it just doesn't come as natural as on the FDR, with up to 8 torps per drop, a f**kton of hp on the planes and long cooldown times between runs.