Double punishment playing Dm. Donskoi

[Exocet6951]

34 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

The best you're going to get with a full concealment build is ~ 12.3km, which means you're still going to be spotted most of the time so the benefit of the build is much less than some other cruisers.

 

There's also the fact that Dm Don has 180 mm guns so IFHE is a strong choice, but you then also want SI and DE as level 3 skills so CE is going to need 17 points if you spec it at all.

 

Also, if you're going to be spotted most of the time anyway and have a glacial rudder shift is the concealment upgrade better than the rudder upgrade?

 

Also, the 920 m/s guns work well at long range, so if you're going for LR HE spam does concealment help now that stealth fire has gone?

 

It might not be the best build but eschewing concelment in favour of other builds doesn't look bizzare to me.

 

 

 

Indeed.
I ran full rudder shift + IFHE on the St Louis for the lulz (and that 50mm HE pen on the HIV) , and it worked great.

 

There's far from a single build, and being in a large, easily visible cruiser with dubious maneuverability is going to lead to some awkward situations when you have 5 hungry BBs with enough range to shoot you where you spawned from where they spawned, and high enough caliber to overmatch you literally everywhere.

 

Like being in an Omaha with a new captain you're training in a T7 game.
You're minding your own business, trying to get to some cover a few km in front of your spawn, and boom, spotted by a DD from 13km away, and suddenly you see 2 Fusos and a Lyon looking at you.
This is a situation that new players are going to face. A lot.
There is no amount of git gud that will make you dodge all 17 thousand shells coming from a single salvo of said ships, and all they need is 3 hits.

 

[Affeks]

Donskoi is awesome, my fav tier 9 CA. Mix of unique traits and good stats make it awesome. Like all other Russian cruisers tho its squishy if you show broadside. Angle, kite, play aggressive when map situation calls for it. Awesome ship.

 

Some notes:

Get IFHE

Go full concealment (due to radar range being almost as long as min concealment)

Donskoi has better pen than you might think, Donskoi has the best Air Drag coefficient in the game afaik so shells do awesome on any range.

If you still feel uncomfortable go with rangemod to let you play more safe while you get used to the ship

 

[BeauNidl3]

23 minutes ago, Affeks said:

Donskoi is awesome, my fav tier 9 CA. Mix of unique traits and good stats make it awesome. Like all other Russian cruisers tho its squishy if you show broadside. Angle, kite, play aggressive when map situation calls for it. Awesome ship.

 

Some notes:

Get IFHE

Go full concealment (due to radar range being almost as long as min concealment)

Donskoi has better pen than you might think, Donskoi has the best Air Drag coefficient in the game afaik so shells do awesome on any range.

If you still feel uncomfortable go with rangemod to let you play more safe while you get used to the ship

 

 

I really liked the Donskoi too, I find the Moskva rather boring because it handles badly, has lost the torpedoes and the flavour of the previous ships.

Like you I played concealment to allow the freedom to get in radar range, disengage and position, as you said the gun performance with HE and AP is very decent and the range is fine, but played completely open water it's vulnerable to eating citadels from BB's across the map so some sneaky attributes make a big difference, at least to me.

[Affeks]

Just now, BeauNidl3 said:

 

I really liked the Donskoi too, I find the Moskva rather boring because it handles badly, has lost the torpedoes and the flavour of the previous ships.

Like you I played concealment to allow the freedom to get in radar range, disengage and position, as you said the gun performance with HE and AP is very decent and the range is fine, but played completely open water it's vulnerable to eating citadels from BB's across the map so some sneaky attributes make a big difference, at least to me.

I kept my Donskoi because its so different from Moskva. I love both of them and appeal to me in very different ways. My two other fav tier 9 Cruisers are Roon and Neptune, but as their tier 10 counterpars Hburg and Mino are both clear upgrades I had no reason to keep the tier 9s. Donskoi however is so different from Moskva, yet is a clear upgrade over Chapayev in my opinion so it was no brainer to keep it. 

 

For me playing Donskoi out in the open is no issue, just staying on the move and being unpredictable works fine. I dont play it too aggressive around islands as an ambushing Baltimore or DM would erase me from existance with their superior AP and HE DPM. I want to stay in the open so I can run away cruisers and BBs that out DPM me instead of getting locked behind an island I cant move away from.

[AnotherDuck]

4 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

Testing things out is great, doing it in a Random isn't, that's where we have the Training room (now with the feature for active firing bots again) and COOP where you don't spoil the game for 11 other people. The system uses the term Unsporting Conduct.

Yeah, the training room or COOP are great to find out what actually works in a real PvP battle. Bots are not real people. Come on. Use a real argument. Calling it Unsporting Conduct is just plain bullcrap when there isn't an alternative.

 

4 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

His decision isn't unlucky, it's incompetent and inconsiderate to his team members when there are facilities to try stuff out without impacting the fun of the rest of the team.

So in your world, bot battleships always hit cruisers at max range? That's what your logic adds up to.

 

4 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

An automated system doesn't read intent, but then neither can a human referee without telepathy, from what @Yogibjoern described, a human may well judge it wilful negligence just like the system did..

So if it can't read intent, why should it assume malicious intent when in doubt? That's just screwed up. And don't tell me two games is not in doubt. That's not even a pattern.

[wilkatis_LV]

16 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Where do you get this 34 seconds number?

You have to be active at least 75% of the time you are alive. 34 seconds is 25% of his 2 min 16 sec long "participation in battle" (time from battle starting to him dying). It's just the minimum time he was AFK there.

 

And yes, that means that as soon as the clock hits 15 min (a.k.a. 5:00 left in battle) you can freely quit to port leaving your ship floating without getting punished

[EdiJo]

8 hours ago, Capra76 said:

 

Let's assume for a moment that the OP was in a T5 ship, playing one of his first games at that tier, would you still say that getting a penalty for getting killed 2 minutes into the game was fair?

If it happens a few times in a row, it is not fair for N x 23 other people playing. Same as AFK or disconnect. If it repeats often enough, by definition it's not an accident. 

Quote

 

Alternatively, lets say that a friendly DD slams a full torpedo spread into you 30 seconds into the game, how long do you think your TK penalty should be in that case?

If being TK victim makes you pink, it is a flaw in the system. Even if it happens often (how probable is it?)

Quote

I mean WG doesn't penalize BB players for being useless damage farming border-surfers, so why should other classes be getting hammered for legitimate mistakes?

I think BB with close to zero damage should be flagged as well. I'm not sure what exact threshold is?

7 hours ago, pra3y said:

 

Posted this in another thread but shall post it here as well. Barely doing anything in a battle will not result you in turning pink. I literally did nothing, 0 damage (for that matter 0 shots fired), and only spotted 1 ship in the game above, yet no warning. So I'm really doubtful that the warning system is that cranky.

That's why I'm writing about "doing it a few times" which seemingly makes OP angry for some reason 

7 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

If you're expecting everyone to learn from every instance and not repeat it, including if the same thing happens despite trying to change it, then you're just punishing players who're not playing optimally. If it's not okay to test things out more than once, you're stifling the game and encouraging camping.

Differentiate between testing, and suiciding. 

Quote

 

I would count you as a toxic player who doesn't deserve forum rights. People are allowed to experiment. People are allowed to not make perfect choices. This is a game. This is not a real war.

It is not about perfect choice, but about playing according to that choice. As people pointed out, non-concealed Donskoi is playable, but you have to be extra careful. If you don't care about that multiple times -  you get flagged, for being useless to your team too often. 

Quote

 

By any reasonably definition you're just whining and dogpiling someone to increase your e-peen. It's possible to play the ship that way. You have to learn how to do it, and to learn that takes more than a few games if you're not used to it.

Either experiment in conditions where you don't do harm to other people's fun (training, co-op) - or face the consequences like a responsible person. Being pink is not the end of the world, and it is a small punishment for making multiple games unfair to ~20 other players.

Quote

 

Yes it is, because you think it's reasonable that a player gets punished for rulebreaking while trying to play the game, just because of not being all that good of a player (or just being unlucky). That's inherently a system that punishes lesser skilled players, which is elitist.

 

There is a difference: intent.

There is a difference between: I tried, but I am not good enough - and between I continuously keep trying despite I perfectly well know I am not good enough. This is not single player mode, and you're supposed to play according to rules. For example: Flambass can make fun in his YT videos charging the middle, but I hate when average Steve (or worse: group of Steves) tries to imitate him and ruins the game from the start.

Quote

 

Now, if you agree with me that a player shouldn't be unfairly punished for someone they didn't do, then that's fine, but please make clear that's what you actually saying, since any reasonable interpretation of your post was the opposite.

Keywords: often, repeatedly

6 hours ago, mariouus said:

Not really true. I have always had non-consilement build Donskoie. It is not bizarre, nor unworkable built.

It's much harder, less team-friendly build to play, and makes you practically only long-range HE spammer (which may be effective in terms of damage). It's OK, as long as you really are surviving long enough to have any impact.

1 hour ago, AnotherDuck said:

Yeah, the training room or COOP are great to find out what actually works in a real PvP battle. Bots are not real people.

Oh, for testing citadel vulnerability bots are MUCH better than average player environment. Much. Especially after recent AI upgrades.

Quote

Come on. Use a real argument. Calling it Unsporting Conduct is just plain bullcrap when there isn't an alternative.

There is lots of alternative builds, and it is unsporting only if it is (keyword:) frequent

Quote

 

So in your world, bot battleships always hit cruisers at max range? That's what your logic adds up to.

BB always try. Always. And built-in aim assist is good enough to quite frequently hit the target IF the target is not doing anything to prevent it. 

Bots are doing that too, I recently got hit in Raptor game by a Kongo which just appeared at the edge of map. 

Quote

 

So if it can't read intent, why should it assume malicious intent when in doubt? That's just screwed up. And don't tell me two games is not in doubt. That's not even a pattern.

Two games is enough, if it is 2 of 3 or 2 of 4 subsequent games. Then you are flagged. Only flagged. Not banned, fined, removed, killed. It's not the end of the world - just a signal that you're doing it wrong and you have to change it. 

[Spunyarn]

15 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

You have to be active at least 75% of the time you are alive. 34 seconds is 25% of his 2 min 16 sec long "participation in battle" (time from battle starting to him dying). It's just the minimum time he was AFK there.

 

I thought you had to be active at least 75% of the total duration of the battle; you are generally reliable so I checked and the example given was someone quitting the battle after seven and a half minutes and being punished if the battle lasted longer than ten minutes. So this fellow would have had to be afk for longer than he survived to reach a quarter of the twelve minutes the battle lasted.

 

As to the original point people here have made it clear they think the OP should be punished, but the question remains whether Wargaming would agree. People on these forums condemn and complain about people going up the tiers "too fast" or buying higher-tier Premium Ships, the first of which Wargaming allow with how progress is structured and the second of which they are happy to sell to whoever has the money. So is this another case of a difference in opinion between what the forum thinks should be punishable and what Wargaming intended? If someone isn't afk then being given a warning for being afk on top of the frustration of having had such a bad game is adding insult to injury, and I'm not sure how many people are as Zen about it as ShinGetsu said they were about being detonated in their Neptune.

 

(Hell, I've got rather annoyed about being spawned alone and therefore coming under heavy attack even without being detonated, and if I'd been detonated AND got a warning then I'd have been really peeved. The game would have put me in that position to be attacked and the game would have decided that hit was a detonation, so neither was my mistake. I didn't step in front of that bus, that bus swerved onto the pavement.)

[wilkatis_LV]

11 minutes ago, Johmie said:

I checked and the example given was someone quitting the battle after seven and a half minutes and being punished if the battle lasted longer than ten minutes. So this fellow would have had to be afk for longer than he survived to reach a quarter of the twelve minutes the battle lasted.

Note that his ship is still alive in that example - he quit to port before dying

 

He was active for 7.5 min before quitting, so if the game reaches 10min (and his ship is still alive at that point) - he has been inactive for at least 25% of the time and gets punished for it

 

It's the time your ship is alive that matters (and if you are late-loading your ship is definitely alive while you are inactive)

[TeaAndTorps]

5 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

Like being in an Omaha with a new captain you're training in a T7 game.
You're minding your own business, trying to get to some cover a few km in front of your spawn, and boom, spotted by a DD from 13km away, and suddenly you see 2 Fusos and a Lyon looking at you.
This is a situation that new players are going to face. A lot.
There is no amount of git gud that will make you dodge all 17 thousand shells coming from a single salvo of said ships, and all they need is 3 hits.

Thanks for making me feel a tiny bit better about my own embarrassing record in the Omaha! I really enjoy the Phoenix but just could not get on with Omaha, and decided I wasn't bothered enough about other US cruisers at this stage to make the suffering worth it. Lolpenning enemy Omahas with my Furutaka's 203s has since become some of the best fun I've had so far in WoWs

 

That said, as others have pointed out, I can't see how one could make an automated system distinguish between a player getting deleted after 2 mins with no opportunity to contribute to the battle on the one hand, and a player pressing W, pressing S, and then going AFK on the other. So either we accept that, unfortunately, honest players will occasionally (as in, not very often as an overall percentage) get caught in that system, or we have not automated system to deter AFKing. I'm a fairly new player to PvP (<500 randoms) and still a decidedly below average one so maybe it's not entirely my place, but I'd vote for accepting an imperfect AFK-deterrence system over having no such system any day of the week.

[OddyB]

From what, I understand from the info, and watched the news videos a couple of times just to make sure that I understand the new punishment system. From what I understand it is 75% of the battle inactive (inactive meaning not moving), and this is accumulative, as WG accept that people get D/Ced .

Also it is Leaving the Battle BEFORE you die.

 

Last week My ISP started to have DNS problems just as I started the Battle, All I could do is try to re-enter the battle, and succeeded only to be kicked out again ( rinse and repeat until dead, 0 battle contrib, less tha 5k travelled). I received NO warning.

 

So looking at the OP's Sreenshot he should not have been warned for this one event alone, or it is a fault in the system if it is a first offence. Either way WG Should look into it as a precaution to see if the system IS working as intended.

[Spunyarn]

@wilkatis_LV ...As I said, you're generally reliable and I think you're right in this case. I was taking it as active or dead versus inactive and compared with total battle time, but if it worked that way then people who were afk might not be penalised as it might take longer than 25% of the battle for the enemy to sink them. Depending on their detection radius and enemy gun range/if a carrier and if the enemy team think of the afk ship as an XP Piñata or a lesser threat. 

 

[mariouus]

4 hours ago, EdiJo said:

It's much harder, less team-friendly build to play, and makes you practically only long-range HE spammer (which may be effective in terms of damage). It's OK, as long as you really are surviving long enough to have any impact.

No. Because of the Donskoies poor base consilement, in order do take advantage of consilement build you actually are farther away.

 

You can actually see it. I use double rudder shift module. And I have less avarage damage, but higer win-rate than you - using consilement build. 

[Tungstonid]

12 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

Yes it is, because you think it's reasonable that a player gets punished for rulebreaking while trying to play the game, just because of not being all that good of a player (or just being unlucky). That's inherently a system that punishes lesser skilled players, which is elitist.

 

There is a difference: intent.

 

Now, if you agree with me that a player shouldn't be unfairly punished for someone they didn't do, then that's fine, but please make clear that's what you actually saying, since any reasonable interpretation of your post was the opposite.

If you would just read... I don't think it is reasonable to get flagged as AFK since he was not AFK and I stated that in the last paragraph you quoted. But I think it is comprehensible why the system "thinks" he was which I also explained in said paragraph.

My initial statement was not about OP or bad players (or unlucky ones) in particular. As I said, no matter the stats of the player in question, getting deleted early on does not contribute more to the outcome of the battle than being AFK. Is this more probable for bad players? Yes, so what? Doesn't change a thing and that doesn't make the statement elitist since (contrary to what you claimed) I DON'T think being flagged as an AFK player is an appropriate punishment.

[EdiJo]

2 hours ago, mariouus said:

No. Because of the Donskoies poor base consilement, in order do take advantage of consilement build you actually are farther away.

 

You can actually see it. I use double rudder shift module. And I have less avarage damage, but higer win-rate than you - using consilement build. 

Yes, I noticed that when you wrote previously - you had 1 recent Donskoi battle with 11k dmg  

Now you played again and it is already 44k, so it looks like a big random spread to me ;)

 

One is not careful for a moment: kaboom monsieur.   

[aboomination]

3 hours ago, mariouus said:

You can actually see it. I use double rudder shift module. And I have less avarage damage, but higer win-rate than you - using consilement build. 

You can actually see it. Mario Andretti's Opel Corsa was just as fast as my Porsche 911. Thus both cars are quite equal imo!

Brilliant analysis!

[mariouus]

5 hours ago, EdiJo said:

es, I noticed that when you wrote previously - you had 1 recent Donskoi battle with 11k dmg  

Now you played again and it is already 44k, so it looks like a big random spread to me ;)

 

One is not careful for a moment: kaboom monsieur.   

You were talking about "team-friendly-ness" and long range HE-spamming. Being "Teamfriendly" in a radar cruiser, means actively contesting caps and supportin DDs. Yes sometimes it does backfire. But now talking about recent performance, your 120k loss was more teamfriendly than my 11k? Now considering that you have impressive 70% survivability (much higer than me) and 27% hit-rate (somewhat lower than mine) will suggest that, while using consilement bulid, you are actually farther away from enemy.

 

4 hours ago, aboomination said:

You can actually see it. Mario Andretti's Opel Corsa was just as fast as my Porsche 911. Thus both cars are quite equal imo!

Brilliant analysis!

Analysis? Statistically speaking he is slightly better cruiser player than I am. And has about 1/3 more cruiser battles.

 

He uses consilement build (apparently). What has given him 46% winrate, because goal of the game is not do survive, but do win. He s consilement build "works" 46% of the battles. I use non consilement build, and have 59% winrate. So non-consilement build "works" 59% of the time (while having low overall survivability). So saying that non-consilement build is not working (or like some other player sayed "bizzare and un-workable) is wrong. It does work, yes most likely you are not going do have as long aand healthy life in a battle as consilement-build user, but it is fun and it does work.

[ghostbuster_]

On 4.05.2018 г. at 8:24 PM, Yogibjoern said:

position ??? lol... Point is no matter how bad your position is, You should never be punished by the new system when you actual is active.. Equals being one shoted by BB AP in a DD early in the match.

If you get one shoted by a BB in your cruiser, its your fault. Learn to juke the enemy ships, try to dodge, try to get your position without being spotted.

 

On 5.05.2018 г. at 11:29 AM, AnotherDuck said:

If you're expecting everyone to learn from every instance and not repeat it, including if the same thing happens despite trying to change it, then you're just punishing players who're not playing optimally. If it's not okay to test things out more than once, you're stifling the game and encouraging camping.

 

I would count you as a toxic player who doesn't deserve forum rights. People are allowed to experiment. People are allowed to not make perfect choices. This is a game. This is not a real war.

 

By any reasonably definition you're just whining and dogpiling someone to increase your e-peen. It's possible to play the ship that way. You have to learn how to do it, and to learn that takes more than a few games if you're not used to it.

 

Yes it is, because you think it's reasonable that a player gets punished for rulebreaking while trying to play the game, just because of not being all that good of a player (or just being unlucky). That's inherently a system that punishes lesser skilled players, which is elitist.

 

There is a difference: intent.

 

Now, if you agree with me that a player shouldn't be unfairly punished for someone they didn't do, then that's fine, but please make clear that's what you actually saying, since any reasonable interpretation of your post was the opposite.

What you did forget is that donskoi being a tier 9 ship. So if he couldnt learn how to play russian CAs until tier 9 (their playstyle is smilar), there is something wrong with that guy. 

 

On 5.05.2018 г. at 12:46 PM, aboomination said:

So the account he's posting with is indeed a reroll account - no wonder he was boasting about his stats 

Did he mention the name of the actual account with the DMD?

So those are the boasted stats? 

[loppantorkel]

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

If you get one shoted by a BB in your cruiser, its your fault. Learn to juke the enemy ships, try to dodge, try to get your position without being spotted.

RNG does play a role here though. Even if you disregard detonations, you're still at risk for multiple citadel hits, if you're unlucky. Doesn't happen often, but given the topic about warnings and punishments, it's something to consider and maybe tweak if there's a chance you're punished multiple times just for bad RNG.

[AnotherDuck]

17 hours ago, EdiJo said:

There is lots of alternative builds, and it is unsporting only if it is (keyword:) frequent

Two games is enough, if it is 2 of 3 or 2 of 4 subsequent games. Then you are flagged. Only flagged. Not banned, fined, removed, killed. It's not the end of the world - just a signal that you're doing it wrong and you have to change it. 

You keep saying "frequent", but two games is not frequent by any stretch of the imagination. And we're not talking about sailing broadside here. We're talking about bow penetrations. This is apparently "suiciding". If you say exposing yourself to those is bad play that should be punished, then exposing yourself to any shots at all throughout the entire game is bad play. Which is just as ridiculous as it sounds. It's exactly the kind of elitist bullcrap I'm talking about. Punish players the moment they don't reach your standard of gameplay, whether by luck or skill.

 

2 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

What you did forget is that donskoi being a tier 9 ship. So if he couldnt learn how to play russian CAs until tier 9 (their playstyle is smilar), there is something wrong with that guy. 

So if you get deleted from the front, you're automatically a bad player? Right. If there's something wrong with someone, I don't think it's about him.

[ghostbuster_]

6 hours ago, loppantorkel said:

RNG does play a role here though. Even if you disregard detonations, you're still at risk for multiple citadel hits, if you're unlucky. Doesn't happen often, but given the topic about warnings and punishments, it's something to consider and maybe tweak if there's a chance you're punished multiple times just for bad RNG.

RNG can get you citadelled yes but it cant get you devatated. To devastate a CA you need multiple citadel hits. And to hit multiple citadels on a CA, you need to aim properly. 

 

5 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

 

So if you get deleted from the front, you're automatically a bad player? Right. If there's something wrong with someone, I don't think it's about him.

If you try to bow tank with a donskoi, its your fault indeed. You can not bow tank in it. You have to dodge shells. You have to use terrain to your advantage. And yes, if you try to bow tank in donskoi, you are a horrible player.

[loppantorkel]

10 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

RNG can get you citadelled yes but it cant get you devatated. To devastate a CA you need multiple citadel hits. And to hit multiple citadels on a CA, you need to aim properly. 

So..? It's the CA in risk of being punished, even if played properly but caught in a turn at the beginning of a game, it could receive multiple citadel hits and the question is if there's any risk of receiving a penalty for it. Still early days of this new penalty system and I'm not sure if there are any potential faults in it.

[Exocet6951]

7 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

If you try to bow tank with a donskoi, its your fault indeed. You can not bow tank in it. You have to dodge shells. You have to use terrain to your advantage. And yes, if you try to bow tank in donskoi, you are a horrible player.

The Donskoi is enormous. 

 

If the guy is sailing away to the sides, even at an angle, you can be sure that the 10 seconds required for BB shells to land on him might not be enough to give him time to veer away enough. 

 

 

Skill goes both ways. 

The BB can be good enough to adjust his aim to take into account maneuvering. 

I've done it to Donskois, I've done it to 1st rank good clan Zaos, and I'm certain I'll do it again. 

 

To consider getting unlucky twice to be a punishable offense is ridiculous. 

**** happens that's a fact of life, and I'm damn glad that it's not punishable by law to be on the receiving end. 

[ghostbuster_]

2 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

So..? It's the CA in risk of being punished, even if played properly but caught in a turn at the beginning of a game, it could receive multiple citadel hits and the question is if there's any risk of receiving a penalty for it. Still early days of this new penalty system and I'm not sure if there are any potential faults in it.

If you turn while being spotted, you accept the risk of being deleted. like someone already said: there isnt much difference between an AFK and a bot who manages to get devastated at the begginning without doing anything.

[loppantorkel]

1 minute ago, ghostbuster_ said:

If you turn while being spotted, you accept the risk of being deleted. like someone already said: there isnt much difference between an AFK and a bot who manages to get devastated at the begginning without doing anything.

Well there is. I'd rather have a player risk being deleted than a borderhumper. You have to take risks. I deleted a Hipper with a 6 citadel salvo at the start of a game a week ago. He wasn't spotted for long and he just had superbad RNG. Nothing more to it.