Dutchy_2019

In one of the treads out there related to the removal of Smaland and other ships, Verblonde showed a list of how often a ship has been played by different players since date X - basically how many of that ship are out there. And IIRC Smaland was stuck on a few thousand (only a fraction of the other ships being taken out). So yeah, odd of running into a 75% Smaland set up are pretty small.

The most extreme one I have seen is apparently a day where GURKA and GURKB had decided to play some random training battles. All kinds of divs (mix between the two clans). On a stream streamer ended up with something like 15 players of those two clans in the game. I know on NA there are deliberate attempts at sink-drops between clanmates, even when in the same Discord or Team Speak, where there is NO evidence of the any collusion (or any other form of cheating) between the players on either side.

I know that. Fact is that I have no clue what the original Santa Crate roll was - a ship of the alleged preferred list(s), or another Premium which I already have.

IIRC these were the ships on the infamous list: Tier VI Cruiser Duca d'Aosta 112 Tier VII Destroyer Yudachi 105 Tier VI Cruiser Admiral Makarov 102 Tier VIII Cruiser Ochakov 84 Tier VIII Battleship Vanguard 76 Tier VII Battleship California 62 Tier VIII Destroyer Orkan 43 Of the ships on this list, I only had the Aosta in port. The Makarov dropped (first container), the other 3 ships I have gotten - Dunkerque, Massachussetts and Champagne - were NOT part of this list. All big crates which changed into Super Containers, BTW).

I voted yes; The rest of the team more often than not gets punished by a fail div playing on their side. If they are lucky they are matched by another fail div, and more often then not you end up in completely lopsided MatchMaking. Even worse, I get the impression that most of the time, the fail div players are not good players at all, making it a double handicap for one team. I can see allowing it for T8+ (since you end up with MM that is within 'normal' bounds). But anything lower? No.

Randoms game, in Königsberg. Somehow can make this ship work regularly (34k average danage on EU, 38 average damage on NA). This was a fun game on Two Brothers, and was quite close. Compliments to the Leningrad (who was instrumental in killing a Gneisenau coming up the middle, and was the only other surface other than me to react to that threat), compliments to the CV as well, for prioritizing targets. 1600 Base XP games are still rare for me. I have to admit that in the end I had some lucky dodges (I survived on 388 HP). It definitely helped that the Iron Duke decided to go shoot at the CV rather than me (perhaps out of frustriation?).

I see your point (and good to point it out). Personally I have not played her much at all (3 times or so at most). For me, saving up the Free XP for Smaland and (maybe) Alaska is the way to go. But I feel confident personally that I can get there the other way.

You need 4 missions per directive to complete it. Each directive there is a choice of 7 missions: - 2 of those missions are pretty much out of reach for most players because of their requirement: high amount of single game Base XP and Requirement to own specific ships. - Of the 5 are left, the cumulative Base XP mission is hard (and IMHO in the end over the top) for most players, simply because of the time required to earn that much Base XP. That leaves 4 missions that are reasonable to complete, IMHO, assuming you are willing to play Co-op, Ops and Randoms: Directive 1: - 12 hits to citadel or incaps / 55k fire or flooding damage - easy - 25 Destroyed ribbons -easy - 12 Battles top 3; hard for some, but IMHO doable when one is willing to play Co-op and/or Ops. - 70 Commander XP: Very doable if you are willing to spend special flags and camos. It could be done in 3 games in Narai, for example. Directive 2: - 10 captures/assisted in capture/defended ribbons - easy. - Get 1150 ribbons - easy - Get 100 torp hist / destroyed / hits to citadel: - doable, especially in Co-op. - Earn 60k XP - doable, especially with the use of camos and flags. Depending on game modes, most of the 3 previous directives will be done along the way to completing this one. Directive 3: - 500k damage: easy - Earn 10 achievements: probably difficult for many, also only in Randoms. - In 25 battles, join top 3: doable when using Co-op. - 4 million credits: doable, and probably completed while trying to earn 10 achievements or have 25 top 3 finishes. The problem I see for many/most is Directive 3. This one is very grindy. The way I personally would tackle directive 3, is try and earn 10 achievements in Randoms, and then complete the 25 top 3 in Co-op. Conclusion: I am not sure about the reward - the Special Christmas Camo - is worth all the effort to get it if one does not have time. And I honestly hope that this is NOT a preview of what is to come for the Dockyard End Of Year event.

It could well be (one hopes) that there were a number of testers who deliberatelky tried to "break" the ranked season system during the test on PTS - and that the devs have not found a way to fix it yet. One CC specifically mentioned how he - on PTS - tried to see if he could rank out going AFK. And he could, and notified WG how he did it. Next round he tried something else (also a broken mechanic that causes a lot of grief), and that worked as well.

Well, the first time around, without the bundle mechanic, from the very start it was pretty much human subs vs BOT other ships. At least with this bundle mechanic, they got a few rounds in where there were few if any BOT DD's, Cruisers, BB's and CV's. As far as your conditions go: 1. Apart from the training room, the other resources are pretty much there on PTS (simply by the sheer amount of resources you get, and the low cost of everything). 2. I can see where you are coming from - and to a considerable extent agree with it - but I am not sure how you could realistically implement such a system within the limitations of proper testing. The best thing I could come up with is extend the testing period (i.e. PTS lasts a week rather than 4 days). 3. This one I fully agree with; the rewards as they currently are are mêêêh at best. The T6 Premium per quarter was an incentive for me to play PTS. I am not sure how effective an incentive it actually was. The way I would argue they could do a reward system: 1 quarter: T6 Premium 2 consecutive quarters: T7 Premium 3 consecutive quarters: T6 Premium 4 consecutive quarters: T8 Premium

That is how I read it as well. I was responding to someone who - the way I read it - was complaining about something that he represented as being new in the update (0.10.0) which is already there in the present situation (the having to respec / retrain commanders if you move them between Tech Tree ships).

Quoted from the Dev Blog Post of September 1st, 2020: ****************** ST, CHANGES TO THE COMMANDER SKILLS SYSTEM Please note that all information in the development blog is preliminary and subject to change during testing. Any showcased features may or may not end up on the main server. The final information will be published on our game's website. In the near future, there will be а ST of the updated commander skills system. At the moment, we plan to update the skills in 0.9.11. We will conduct several stages of testing and will closely monitor your feedback. ************* BTW, the fact that the refer to there being a ST of the updated Commander Skill Tree means that: - There has been AT LEAST one round of testing of the skills internally (as - per the words of multiple CC's - there is internal closed server testing before ST's get their hands on something). - There has been AT LEAST one round of Super Testing The fact that they postponed the release of the updated skill tree and are willing to release it in 10.0 suggests that there might already have been a few additional rounds of testing, or there will be in the near future.

Did you read my post? Presumably, THEY HAVE BEEN TESTING THIS THING INTERNALLY for a while now! 1) This rework was already announced THREE MONTHS AGO!!! 2) We have no clue to what extent this was tested on closed servers. We only know that WG announced that based on certain developments (which could well have included closed server testing, as we know WG uses closed server testing) an introduction of the new skills in 0.9.11 - which was the ORIGINAL intention - was not realistic. Again, announced IIRC in a Dev Blog Post. I would be STUNNED if this new thing will NOT be tested on PTS, possibly already the upcoming test session. WG has made several attempts to do exactly what you wish for: use separate game instances for testing. It is called PTS, and it was done with the submarines. THE VAST MAJORITY of the player base is/was not even interested in EITHER of them, and MASSIVELY complained about methods by which WG tried to make testing more valid.

Well, if we talk about the Infamous Soviet Dude, you can now have him specced for say Lenin, PetroPavlovsk, Moskva*** and Leningrad at the same time. ***This potato is assuming that PetroPavlovsk and Moskva can run the same captain skills effectively.

And HOW is this different from the current situation? The way I have read it: 1) Your captain is specced to ONE specific TECH TREE ship. Speccing it to another Tech Tree ship will cost you doubloons, Commander XP and/or Free XP 2) You can spec your captain to FOUR classes of ships (DD, BB, Cruiser, CV). Result (as I have understood it): - You can use special captains on multipls ships and multiple classes without having to respec them, but specced to each class (or even ship): 1 Tech Tree, and Premium DD's, Cruisers, BB's and CV's. - If you have a single low/mid tier Premium of a nation, you can now effectively use that single premium to build up or retrain captains of ALL classes. Say, for example, I only have a EU Viribus Unitis as Premium, I can still train my Pan-EU DD's up to say 10 points (and upgrading their BB specs) before dumping them in high tier Pan-EU DD's (where I can spec them to DD captain for no additional cost. In theory it should make retraining captains easier than it is now.

First of all, thank you for saying what your issue with the proposal is. That was not at all clear to me from your first post. I see your point about the time it will take you to upgrade them (and you potentially not enjoying a major advantage over others), and I do not envy you there. On the other hand, you still have a substantial advantage over many others, who do not have any 19pt captains (or have far fewer). As far as me having 19 pt captains? Currently I have 2 on NA, and something like 5 on EU. The way I am going to tackle the problem in the near future? Grind the snot out of Narai (30k Commander XP) which I was planning to do anyway on EU (for the Free XP to get Smaland and maybe the regular Alaska). Not sure how I am going to do that on NA yet. Mostly start saving up all Commander XP there, I guess.

Please explain WHY you are disappointed. At first glance to me: Economics The cost of retraining for doubloons was reduced from 750 to 500 doubloons. As commander retraining now costs half the amount of XP, the ability to accelerate retraining time using credits was removed. Commanders with less than the maximum number of skill points (<21) will earn additional Elite Commander XP equivalent to 5% of the received commander XP. Retraining for doubloons: Seems to me a positive Retraining costing less XP, no credits: This is an issue when you want to retrain high point captains. For low point captains it could probably be a plus. Immediately earning Elite Commander XP: The fact that now EVERY captain earns elite commander XP is a bonus (which can at least partially help to offset the negative of the point above). Skills: We've updated the skill sections for each ship type. Skills were distributed in each section within particular categories: Attack Defense Support (only for aircraft carriers) Enhanced skills were adjusted to the new system. How this works out overall is to be seen. Especially when some of the skills need to be changed /buffed. It is up to WG to prove themselves here.

Ahum. - Originally this was supposed to be implemented THIS upcoming patch! They made the first announcement on SEPTEMBER 1st in the Dev Blog. - Based on the feedback from the community on that Dev Blog post FROM SEPTEMBER (and presumably closed testing) they have already come to the conclusion that introcuding it in 9.11 is NOT an option. - Presumably this skills rework WILL be tested on PTS. - We all have seen how effective (forced) community testing of new concepts has been with the Submarine testing. It was NOT an effective test. So the only way to effectively test the whole thing is by actually putting it out there on the live server. - The only way to test such a thing is throwing it out there on the live server, and see how all kinds of players actually deal with the issues. It is the very reason why Ship Testers are taken from the player base as a whole (and yeah, apparently there are Ship Testers out there with a 40% Win Rate!), and on occasion with specific missions, and ships are tested on the live server. Because - as it turns out - PTS is NOT a reliable test bed for that kind of thing. In general, I think that an overhaul of Captain skills is long overdue, and I generally like the idea of captains being specialized for one Tech Tree ship, yet being able to be specced for different classes of Premium Ships. It would be a massive help with training captains - and in many ways might actually hurt WG ship sales since in theory one Premium per nation is sufficient to (re)train captains! How the new skills work out is to be seen. And a lot of it will hinge on the response of WG to feedback from the public, testers, CC's and in-game data.

This morning on NA I played a few Random games for the Black Friday Crates mission chain. I for once got Minekaze to work somewhat (she runs hot and cold for me). Also had this game in Königsberg. The Kongo that ranked bottom tried to be helpful (saying we should use 'T' to fix our ship to the NY and me). He was dead less than 5 minutes in, then claimed that it was all 'part of the plan' and 'it worked because the enemy was shooting at him, not at others'. I guess he had a 38% winrate for a reason. Lucked out a bit in the game, tried to work with playing max range and make use of islands. Played the flank mostly with a single BB to help me against 3 BB's and a Graf Spee and the attention of a CV for much of the time. My best support seemed to be our own CV (he got a +1 for team play). Glad with the result, as 1500 Base XP gamer are not common for me.

- Are those games where you are uptierd two tiers ideal? NO. - Can they be annoying as hell when playing bottom tier? Yes (yesterday in stock Pyotr in a T7 game facing all T7 (and 1 T6) opponents on your flank. All I then try to do is (a) stay alive and (b) try to contribute somehow. Especially (b) is easier said than done. - Should it be taken out? No. It is a challenge, try and improve. - Is this the biggest problem in MM around? Definitely NOT. Much bigger issues are completely unbalanced teams (this morning on NA: 3 man Wooky division (with wooky himself as part of it) vs no division on our side, guy who ranked out on enemy team, and two others who got further in ranked than any of our own. Yeah, a 42k damage game in Kotovsky with a single kill got 2nd spot on the team. Also think of things like completely unbalanced radars and such.

Although I do not have ANY serious experience in any of them (especially in Randoms), I do own all three. My personal advice: Personally, I do not have a serious preference for either three, however: - Friesland is somewhat tricky to play well (easier in Co-op than randoms) mostly because of her concealment, and her being a one-trick pony. If you have an aggressive enemy who dares to push you, you can be in serious trouble. She is a great ship for certain Co-op missions though. But to get her for that alone? - Aegir can be fun, a bit of a super cruiser. Thing is, she will probably be available for quite some time. - Alaska with its radar and hard hitting guns, I think you can arguably get more out of her than out of Aegir. More importantly, she will be gone in about 2 months. Personally, if I were forced to chose between the three of them: Alaska first.

Well, tried to get the 33k XP done on NA. Did not go well. I was absolute sh!te, but so were many of the teams and MM (example: Stock Pyotr in T7 game, with all the enemy T7's facing my flank; chose not to yolo, so no damage as a result. In Furutaka on Solomon Islands, with on my team 2 BB's deciding to AFK). Decided to quit while I was still somewhat ahead.

No pictures, but I completed the Halloween missions for SC on NA. Result: T5 Sirocco and 50 Valentine's Day camouflages.

Earlier this morning I saw a suspiciously high number of Atlanta's, JB's and even a Kaga in Co-op as well.

I just saw that the JB 'doubloons back mission' which drops if you get the JB Black and have a JB in port will net you 2.5k doubloons AND 25k coal.