Karnsteinchen

Players
  • Content count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1797

About Karnsteinchen

  1. I went straight from t2 to t6 and skipped 3-5. Train of thought was the following : I loath playing DDs without CE captains and I was not in the mood to retrain the 10pt one I got from killer whale over and over again.
  2. It was, all you needed each day was getting 2k base XP in any other game mode than COOP over the course of multiple mission. Basically you could play pretty much whatever you wanted and you got that single container each day. So the "skill level" of the event was quite low, the only thing that could screw you over was lack of playtime, because the number of daily containers was capped.
  3. I would also go one step further and argue that the real issue of possible unique captain power creep isn't even the accessibility, but how they would warp the overall tech tree balance due to them being all different and no clones of each others, yet every single one unique to a certain nation. At which point it doesn't really matter if the captain is part of a permanent campaign, a event that gets repeated once every year, or a one time only event... Just to use an exaggerated example: The Italian tech tree gets a destroyer line, that can give the US a run for its money when it comes to close-quarter brawling (either at a specific tier or in general), Normally which one you would choice for ranked or clan battles , would come down to personal flavour. Then WG releases a permanent campaign called "mare nostra", with the final reward being a 10pt italian captain that has -on top of 1-2 other buffed skills we have seen before- a SE skill that grants double or thrice the amount of HP/level than the regular version. No player with a competitive mindset would pick US over italian destroyers anymore, if getting a good close-quarter brawler is his primary goal. In regards to "how to make previous one-time event rewards avaliable to all" and after being able to use a PC to write a reply, instead of typing it on a smart phone: I honestly think permanent campaigns are seriously a bad choice, because they are too much of a risk opening another can of worms. If WG simply decides to repeat the Dunkirk Event event once a year, it's up to you if you participate or not. If it is designed exactly the same as before, everyone who has already completed the collection will get a bunch dunkirk containers and the doublets will be directly converted into a small amount of additional cash. Compared to someone who for whatever reasons missed out on the event in the previous year, they would have the benefit of having him earlier than the other guy. But in the long run everyone who bothers with playing during the event will get him. And if you have all but one collectible and then a emergency (health, family) keeps you from playing any more WoWs before the event ends, you still have a lead next year over someone who only picked up the game a month before the Dunkirk event gets repeated again. if you make him part of a permanent campaign, how do you reward those that already have him? Do they get nothing in his place or do you grant them something else (unless you make a campaign with a 1:1 copy of him, that only has a different name...in which case some would have him once and the others twice)? One could find arguments for both approaches, as long as we are talking about people who have solved it easily by simply playing as much (or even less) as they normally do. Sure one could argue that the event was super easy and anyone who plays more than once or twice a week should have been able to finish it. And you are right about that... But just because the missions themselves were quite easy, due to the randomness of the container drops, the amount of containers one needed could vary and depending on your luck. Judging from a chart on reddit, the minimum of containers needed to finish the collection was 8. On average it took 14 containers and the max possible was 18, if you got really unlucky. So if you bought a Gallant and got super lucky with no doublets, one could get the collection over the course of a weekend (Friday-Sunday =3x3 containers). If you only played on working days, on average one would have finished it at the end of the second week just in time. If someone only plays on Saturday+Sunday and has no interest in the Gallant? Could have been tricky, if luck wasn't on your side (3 weekends = 6 days = 12 containers). And that has nothing to do with how good a player is and how many games it takes you to get 2k base XP and a win with a top5 finish. If for whatever reasons you can only play on Saturday and Sunday, you could have aced both missions in one single game and yet over the course of 3 weekends having been short a collectible or two from getting a complete mission. Now put yourself in WGs position: There surely are at least some weekend-warriors with big wallets out there, who may have struggled to finish the event in time and then spend cash on Dunkirk containers to do so. Or some passionate weekend-warriors, who used a day or two of their yearly holidays , just because they wanted to complete the collection (regardless of their interest in Dunkirks ingame-abilities). Most likely they spend cash/holidays, because they knew that the event was a "only once, never repeated thing". So whatever WG does, they will get some flak from some paying customers... and between those two options, the one that's easier to "sell" (both in terms of PR and also the chance to again create additional revenue), would be to say "Dunkirk event was so popular and we got so many great feedback about it, that we have decided to make it a annually event and we will create more events like this in the future". With that they would still risk disappointing some people who paid for containers, but way less than if they said "we think anyone should have Dunkirk, so we made him part of a new permanent campaign".
  4. And I seriously wanted to know what you think would be a fair mechanism that won't has a immense risk of a crap storm for WG... Because if we can't come up with one, how likely do you think that WG will change anything regardless of how many more pages this topic will generate? And again, not meant as an attack... I'm simply curious why you think that campaigns are the right way for dunkirk and what wg could do about Steve if the way the cooperation with him back then was legally worded prevents them from using repeating the event. I mean sure they can create a clone of this captain with a different name for sure, but do you think they will do that?
  5. I think you misread my posting, which by the way doesn't mean that I think you willfully did so. Let me rephrase it: WG has more or less to options if they want to make dunkirk available to anyone. They could either repeat the original event again each year at the date were dunkirk happened and tie the containers to scenario play only. Which means it would basically work like operations, that you can only get the rewards once and nobody is forced to play ops. And those who have already got him in the past would get a small amount of cash for the doublette collectibles. Or they could make him part of a campaign like they did with Yamamoto. In which case you have the problem that if two people grind through the campaign and spend the same amount of time on it, it is not reflected in the rewards. So after giving it some thought, I would to amend my stand point on the discussion: I would be fine if WG repeats such historical events once a year. If you did it last year, you have already been rewarded in such a way that you could play dunkirk all the time if you wanted. Making them part of a campaign on the other hand is problematic because like you I think campaigns shouldn't be too easy (because you have no hard time limit) and the final reward not being the same for anyone is bound to create a Edited for WG... In regards to the topic of unique captain with buffed skills I think that they are not a good design choice. And with that I mean in general, because it screws with overall balance between the nations and if they go overboard somewhere in the future has the potential that some nations are mandatory picks in competitive play and that would create an akward meta game, regardless of the question how that captain is made available to the players... This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing.
  6. To keep it civil and not be accused of trolling : 1. Would those that are against unique captains have been fine with their addition if their advantages would have been strictly restricted to economic ones? Say dunkirk dropping post battle maintenance or Steve netting you 10% more captain XP? And if you're also against things like that, what is your stand on event premium camos... 2. If you are still thinking that wg should hand both Steve and Jake as part of a permanent campaign to everyone, what would be on your opinion on how wg should reward those who already have them? Especially in regards to dunkirk where people could spend money on containers to shorten the grind if RL kept them from playing enough battles to get all collectibles or get enough doubles to trade for them. Just curious... Edit : just as a quick example, they could of course either hand out a vanilla captain of the same skill level or elite XP as the final campaign reward for those who already has the unique captain. That would be a bonus that will even itself out in the long run, but that still leaves the question how WG defuse the potential mine field / Edited of - however big that crowd is- of people who spend money to finish the dunkirk collection... And then there is the question can they bring back Steve at all? License stuff... This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing.
  7. Well, I know what you're aiming at... technically the missions are easy, as long as one a) knows how the missions are scripted, which one can either figure out by playing them a couple of times or going on YT and typing the name of the mission in the search bar... b) uses that knowledge to their advantage. c) reacts to hints in the chat, when they got it totally wrong and sail off to god knows where... Sadly that doesn't always happens... In some missions it is easier to fail than in others, if the best guy in the team isn't that much better than average (I mean your stats are far from average....) or if the rest sabotages you with some of the scripted events. If you play Killer Whale and some people don't understand how the evac works, but fail to be so incompetent that they get sunk before the timer hits zero, you may not have enough ships in the Evac zone... And then a 3 or even 4 star win goes down the drain. But yeah, Newport is way easier now than it has been the first time I played it... it surely is doable without a division...
  8. Yeah, saying that DDs are a terrible choice for ops is quite a broad statement, one that completely ignores player skills of course. I don't think anyone with a sane mind will debate that. If someone has a 10+ captain and enough experience with DDs. I'm surely no great DD player (far from it), but I nowadays can get results in PVE with the Gaede that are way better than what I achieved with back then when I unlocked my first few cruisers and had no a decent grasp how the game works and how the missions are scripted. Heck, back then my damage was way below 40-50k in a Cleve on Aegis and I managed to get torped by the TBs more than once, after sailing north towards the 2 CVs spawning there. But as a general rule of thumb for an inexperienced or a below average player? I think cruisers are by far a saver pick than a destroyer, esp. T5 ones... The issue I see is threefold, when it comes to DDs and (below) average/new players: 1. If you're new or not playing a lot of DDs, you're most likely don't have a 10p Captain on it. Which means no CE and DDs are squishy...and since the AI isn't that bad at dodging torps at max range from target they can see, the earlier you're spotted the more fire they will draw. And the closer they get to AI DDs, the bigger the risk that they loose the close range torpedo fight. Seen that all to often on Killer Whale, when the guys in the Anthony or Cyclone get killed by the low tier KG DD in the southern defence force. Or when people play Raptor Rescue in the Mutsuki or Minekaze 2. If you're in a torp-focused DD like say a Mutsuki, your DMG potential comes from torps not from guns. Every salvo the AI dodges, lowers your damage/minute compared to sitting in any kind of T6 cruiser... with the RPM of a Cleveland or Budy, something will hit...maybe not the DDs, but they will hit the cruisers and BBs... 3. if you put them in a gun DD like the fara or the gnevy, why not use a cruiser instead? Fara needs to get awfully close, if they don't get how spotting works and smoke up at the wrong moment, they won't shoot anything and if they are too focused on the binocular view than WASD-haxing, they will eat a ton of DMG in their squishy Destroyers. Which means that Cruisers in most Ops have the better tools (more range, better gun DPM, more HP, Def-AA...Hydro) , so unless someone is really comfortable with DDs they are imho the saver bet. Doesn't mean that sitting in a Cleve won't save a bad or inexperienced player getting torped by the first T3-4 Bot-driven DD/CA. But I think I have seen more low tier DDs driven by inexperienced or below average players getting torped in the first few minutes of the game in Raptor Rescue, regardless of the teams effort to kill the first wave, than people managing to sink their T6 cruiser on the same mission in that same time frame. I would also argue that BB are a worse pick for a newbie on those missions that a Cruisers. If they don't know the mission and play like everyone does on Random, they will don't draw fire from the smaller ships of the team. Due to RNG and a majority of targets being small low tier DDs and CAs, DPM won't be that good either and most of them don't have great AA and turn like a turd, so they are more vulnerable to ship and plane-dropped torps. Just taking myself as an example: I'm maybe an average player when it comes to cruisers and BBs on random, feel free to look at my stats. They are not great at all... but I do way better with cruisers in PVE than with BBs, because RNG can really screw you over there and some parts of the missions are time-sensitive. I had one round of Newport Defense, where I played the Dunkirk and the team moved away from the second (or third can't remember anymore) wave. Try to put some hits on a bow on T4 IJN DD or CA, before they cross the harbour boundaries... Main attack came quite soon in that round. In a cruiser my chances would have been better...
  9. @jss78 But you run into same issue if you and the other guy runs the same kind of boat, but from different country right now too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but both Steve and Jack have improved EM, right? Let's assume we have two cruisers of the same tier, one from the US and the other one from a different nation than UK or US. Both are pretty much on par in terms of balance/power potential and both suffer from such a bad turret traverse, that EM is a mandatory pick a captain. This mean the guy that for whatever reason decided not to play the US tree, is in a disadvantage in a 1:1 fight with the other dude if he runs Steve in that US cruiser. And that's regardless of the question if he has Steve/Jack or not. Same issue with the bigger smoke, if one of you runs Dunkirk on a Campletown or Gallant to smoke up his division mates, while the other does not. So I agree with you that it would have been wiser for WG to create unique captains with economy buffs (like a free or captain XP buff), instead the straight buffing of vanilla combat skills. Sadly it is as it is and I don't expect them to change it any more...
  10. I only may have a third of your total games, but so far I never found myself in a situation were after I got killed or my team has lost, I thought that the enemy double Belfast/Mino/Conqueror + Spotter-DD Divison must have had Dunkirk and that was why we lost or I get sunk. Same with Steve: Don't think there was a single game so far, where I thought "man, that guy in the other Cleveland must have had Steve, that's why he ripped mine apart...if I only had him too, I would have surely given him a tougher fit or even won it".... Where is that small pile of crap? Where is the hard data that shows that the accessibility of Dunkirk or Steve skews the outcome of games? And not some fancy "what if" scenarios with random frequency of appearance numbers, that someone made up on his way to the bakery...Because while those do can happen, I don't think they are statistically relevant... So that pile of crap you're talking about in my humble opinion is not small, it's tiny and such I don't expect it to get fixed before 2025...if at all. Because there is no easy fix for it. Let's say they decide to make a permanent Dunkirk campaign, where everyone can get Jake as one or even the sole final reward....I'm mean that's basically what you're advocating for, right? What can Wargaming offer to those, who due to whatever RL reasons hadn't had enough time to either collect all items or get enough doubles to trade for a full collection and used money on Dunkirk containers? Those are paying customers, people WG don't want to alienate... Regardless how WG approaches it, there will always be customers they alienate with whatever approach they take. And I would guess that for WG it's not worth it. I expect them to do nothing and if they think they went too far with the skill boosts on one particular captain, they would rather go for some direct or indirect nerf to "balance" it out.
  11. I'm still waiting for a post with a reasonable written in-depth analysis, that shows where that balance issue stems from... And with that I mean something more analytical and in-depth than simply saying "-10% is better than -5" or some over the top guessing game scenarios like "even if better JOAT only kicks in 2 out of 100 games, this means that guy will automatically win 2% more games, thus his WR is better than if he hadn't had Jack D". I mean that " 5% is better than 10%" all nice and dandy, but it is not a real balancing issue in the grand scheme of things.
  12. Interesting train of thought... but since I am a kind person let me spell it out for you again, maybe I expressed myself badly due to the fact that I'm not a native english speaker: 1. I don't mind not having Steve. I don't mind that he got handed out way before I joined and thus I will never get him...I'm not going to cry any tears, if at some point in the future WG runs another unique captain event right then when I'm off for a holiday or something else in my RL keeps me from diving pixel ships around an island. Esp. if those pixel ships are part of a f2p game running on some servers, which could close down at any moment in time due to lack of success or the head of WG embezzled all the companies funds on drugs, champagne and hookers and they go bankrupt. 2. If WG tomorrow decides that unique captains like Dunkirk were a dumb idea in terms of balancing and that they screwed the pouch, I wouldn't if they removed Dunkirk from each and every account incl. mine or turn him into a vanilla dude that looks like one of the actors from the Dunkirk movie. Got it? I agree with the first part... that's simply human nature and I see nothing wrong about it. But the second part is just bollocks. Not saying that there aren't people who think so, but painting all people who are not sharing your personal opinion with that simple "they in their hearts want OP stuff" brush is not a very mature way to argue. I know, we are talking about the internet, but come on guys...
  13. Yes, JOAT makes your smoke cooldown a few seconds shorter. That's math and it is true...have I ever denied that? Please read my postings again... But: Noticable to me =something that matters, that makes ameasurable difference in actual gameplay. And not just on paper... because if we start worrying about that, we better lobby WG to remove all nations except one (or reduce nations simply to cosmetic flavors) and make all maps sides mirrors of each others, better simply remove all maps except a ocean map with no island... If I'm not spotted or not targeted, having -10% instead of -5% doesn't help me at all. I won't pop my smoke earlier, just because I can. And if I run AR, I won't pop my heal unless I'm targeted to further lower my reload time. Again, in that case having a few seconds shorter cooldown on the heal doesn't makes a difference. It only matters if not having those few seconds shorter cooldown is actually the stuff that gets me killed. And if the enemy shoots into the smoke that I popped 4 seconds earlier than you could have w/o Jack, the effect of a better JOAT is zero again... How often does that happen and is it such a relevant number, that it affects game balance more than the ton of other issued this game has? And if that's not the case, isn't the time the developers have better spent on those issues? That's my whole point. Either unique captains are not influencing the outcome of matches significantly or if they do, them being event limited isn't the real issue anyway and WG should remove them completely...
  14. Assuming that there really is a noticeable imbalance. More often than not you don't know if the guy that killed you had Dunkirk or not. Or rather if him having JK made any difference at all. Unless you see him pop his smoke/repair/heal/hydro/radar and keep track how long it takes for him to pop it again. So I'm not saying that there is no difference in power between a vanilla captain and dunkirk, but at least to me the difference is negligible compared to some imbalances in the game when it comes to unique events/withdrawn from the store Premium ships. Or the question what is worse: p2w premiums, or single event rewards anyone could get his hands on. Esp. one where there was no tier requirement, except for having an account level high enough to play operations... Or to phrase it in some other way: I'm a new player, I own Jake and I even decided before he was available that UK cruisers would be the first cruiser line I want to grind all the up to T10. To me having JK doesn't makes a difference in tems of game success. I started him on the Fiji and then moved him to Edi and just last weekend promoted him to the Neptune. I still play the Fiji once in a while, which is driven by the vanilla captain I started my journey into UK cruisers. To me there is no noticeable difference in how the Fiji performs nowadays. The only thing Dunkirk offers me, but that also something that should become irrelevant in the long run, is a slightly bigger safety net when it comes to popping smoke while acceleration w/o overshooting my own smoke. And 99,999999999999999999% of the time stuff like this happens has nothing to do with an enemy getting a jump on me I couldn't have foreseen, but me getting distracted by either talking politics on my clans voice chat, or other RL related distractions... And there will always be an imbalance in this game...if I could trade Jake for a life-long guarantee not to end up in a Domination match where your CV is afk for the majority of the match, or not getting screwed in a DD by the MM putting all 4 Radar ships in the other teams and none in mine, I would do so...heck, even for a 6 months period of not getting screwed by an afk CV or one who bought a Saipan or Kaga because he could w/o knowing how manual drops and strafing work, I would trade Dunkirk away and wouldn't even miss him after those 6 months.... :) Honestly to me the bigger question would be something else: are special captains a good idea in general? If you play a ranked match in a non-UK ship and in the last few seconds the enemy has only one ship left. But he a point lead, so he has to die before the time runs out. And then JOAT could be thing that allows him do DMC the fire just in time, to let the last second tick away and him sitting on a double digit HP number. It makes not difference if you had Dunkirk or not. Because even if you had, he is not the guy driving your ship in this battle and then again it would a question, if having a special captain would have allowed you to kill him before he had the chance to repair the fire... Same issue with Yamamoto...if both teams manage to get a kraken, but the guy in your team who gets it not running a IJN ship and the other guy on the enemy team does: It makes no difference at all if your kraken guy already had the chance to earn him or not...
  15. Which isn't completely true. Yes, simply in terms of actual in game performance ARP ships don't offer you anything over what you can achieve with silver ships (Kongo, Myoko....) or by putting money on the table (Atago). But they do offer their owners the ability to farm a bunch of (elite) XP on days with +100/200% win bonus, or greatly accelerate the retraining of a IJN captain. Sure, the max you can make in a single gamet is lower than what you can get on a silver ship or the Atago, due to the lack of camo access... it still is an advantage for someone who plays IJN a lot, or a nice way to create elite XP to spend on non IJN captains...