Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

219 Reputable


About InterconKW

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Not the bottom of Surigao Strait

Recent Profile Visitors

2,032 profile views
  1. InterconKW

    Public Safety Warning

    Sadly WG supports the behavior of these lesser humans.
  2. InterconKW

    Public Safety Warning

    Ticket submitted. These players will TK you to prolong the game. Their names deserve to be shown, fuck the rules. I'm too tilted to care.
  3. InterconKW

    About Mikoyan [Meme]

    Intercon Naval Research Institute File 39 Section "Mikoyan"Citadel protection (Or lack thereof) testing (Chapter 2 and 3) Explanation: Mikoyan's exposed 35mm citadel is actually terrible. Illustrated here are first Emerald getting a near 80 degree angled belt citadel pen due to her special AP angles, then 6k damage bow on to a Konigsberg (2 citadels by HE shells), then losing almost half her HP to Montecuccoli's SAP while angled (Special pen angle and ~42mm SAP pen) Theoretically, Konigsberg can HE dev strike Mikoyan. Montecuccoli can SAP dev strike it while ~70 degree angled with just 3 shells. USN DD AP also penetrates about 45mm not counting angles at 12km, and thus USN DDs with their slow shell 5"/38s can long range citadel Mikoyan with AP too. This ship has fine handling but a sad HP pool, no armor, poor damage output (relying on its AP to be anywhere near competitive as it will lose DPM trades with any other equivalent) and... I just don't see much reason to like it even if it can get a decent game. It is true that ships like Omaha at T5 also play around not getting hit, but Omaha has a better citadel belt and actual DPM. But it is funny.
  4. InterconKW

    About Mikoyan [Meme]

    Intercon Naval Research Institute File 39 Section "Mikoyan" Citadel protection (Or lack thereof) testing. Conclusion: "Garbage Ship"
  5. Heres a game for you to have a look at.

    My argument is given the amount of steamrolls atm, personal performance is somewhat irrelevant.

    This game really isn't anything, as I said Im not the best player im probably mediocre, but you cant fault me to expect more from the team, hence win rate right?

    G.F 2.jpg


  6. InterconKW

    Will Montana be obsolete until a new meta?

    Hello @sdrgio. I recognize you are quite a new player, just starting WoWs at the beginning of this year? World of Warships is not an easy game and you have progressed to Tier 10 very quickly. I also saw your recent post asking about how to play Tier 10. Looking at your performance statistics and going off your statement you might be dying too early due to not properly reading the game situation and putting yourself in a vulnerable position. It is hard to say. I am willing to help you, but just going off those values it is difficult to make a clear judgement. If you want, you can upload replays of your Montana gameplay, ideally just normal games, to say... https://replayswows.com/ and I can watch them and evaluate them. Keep in mind there is a lot of game sense that needs to be developed to be good at this game, and although I think Montana is a good ship still, she in particular is a very balanced BB that is versatile but does not have clear cut strengths. Learning will take time but I am glad you asked for help, though I do not approve of jumping to blaming the ship or meta.
  7. I'm just addressing your argument. This is a misconception that I do have strong opinions on and it needs to be addressed. I know nothing about you as a player, thought you seem suspiciously defensive to that remark. I do actually wish to look at your BB stats to help you understand what is going on since even battle count/damage dealing alone would help me tell a lot.
  8. InterconKW

    how much money have you wasted in this game?

    About uh... pretty much nothing, so sometimes I question if I should support the game more. About 40 USD equivalent on a few experiments with premium time total in 4 years?
  9. The reason for repeat steamrolls on Asia can be put down to a lack of good players. Only 1-2 good players are required to play reactively to prolong a game, but in practice there is no assurance you can even get one good player in a random battle anymore. As a result one side getting a small disadvantage like one suicidal ship weakening a flank results in that entire flank feeding or retreating excessively and giving up all position. I've watched it happen repeatedly on both sides. I would love to assess your stats in both Yamato and G. Kurfurst but for some reason you have marked them as private. I'm sure you have nothing to hide or be ashamed of if you are bringing them up openly? From experience players who state that stats are meaningless do not understand them and tend to play poorly, so I hope you are not one of them. 75% solo winrate in most ships seems highly unlikely for the vast majority of the playerbase minus the top tenth of a percentile or so. I'd like to point out how winrate (over large sample size) is actually one of the single most reliable values to show a player's contribution to the team. 24 players in a match. The other 23 will have different overall contributions, completely random. Over a small number of games, it is true that many statistics are unreliable. For example in 20 games if you perform average but have good luck and get an extra couple of 3 game win streaks, your winrate can hit 75% (15 out of 20 won). Even in a hundred games, it only takes a couple of win rate "freak values" to get a 46% WR (seen as terrible) or a 55% WR (seen as good). Therefore, it is true that short term WR is meaningless and I believe the values you quoted for your Kurfurst/Yamato are thus not accurate. However, in a large number of games, say... 1000 or so, the contribution the other players make will normalize towards a 50% middle value. This is basic mathematics, I believe it is called a central tendency: In a probability distribution the values generated "tend" towards a middle value. This is where you come in. If you are a good player contributing more to your team than the expected average (be it in damage, kills, tactical impact etc.) you will ensure that when the other 23 players tend to 50%, you will be a net positive impact on any team you play on. That is where you can skew your winrate upwards over time. You won't get 100% since inevitably some teams will be too heavy for even the best of the best to carry, but many closer games could be influenced into wins by you alone. Conversely if you are a bad player, you will skew your long term winrate downwards. One of the attitude problems I brought up was how bad players live in denial that they are bad, and hence they hate this statistical truth. If you don't believe me, find me a good player by contribution that has a bad long term winrate or a bad player by contribution that has a good long term winrate. Even without divisions. Trust me: You won't.
  10. I stated that I don't inherently hate bad players. I myself actually started as a 44%er who was called out by a better player, resulting in me first seeking out the forums and then the SEA players active on Discord. I absolutely know how it feels like to go into WoWs blind and I also still believe in giving advice to new players should they be willing (but also wish for that advice to be objective and factually substantiated) But I definitely do have a major problem with the attitudes of many players (being that they blame the team or game and go chat toxic despite not applying much logical reasoning to their gameplay) as opposed to the far less prominent group who will actually try to see their own flaws and improve. In fact their attitudes are counterintuitive to them "overcoming the plateau" and many settle to be bad without attempting to go further. This is more common than it reasonably should be - my quoted examples are actually of people in Tier 10 games who have 4 figure game counts and sub-47% winrates. It's a growing problem and if the situation continues to remain the way it is, the echo chambers will fill and it will only grow more.
  11. I'm not sure if your previous post in this thread gives me much confidence in this statement. Feel free to give me some concrete proof of in game performance showing otherwise though. This being said, I made my other point clear. I'm not against helping players, but from experience many think they are already perfect despite being far from it and won't try to learn.
  12. Here we have another example of my point 1 misunderstanding. These people who push are only looking narrowly at "engaging the enemy" instead of analyzing the whole flow of the game and realizing a more neutral interception instead of pushing towards them is usually far more tactically advantageous or realizing that inherently, aggression into an enemy majority or even just into the enemy side is a huge disadvantage and they will get overwhelmed. It is like trying to cross a 5 lane expressway just because the first lane has no traffic. But no. They're so selfish they point the blame at the people who turned back for their deaths instead of playing around how the game actually works. This is the second post in this thread reaffirming my point.
  13. What...? Uh... Um... I'm going to go to the objective truth here. Why were people expecting to get Nevsky just because they have Moskva? It was quite clearly stated that Moskva was going to become a coal ship in the future. Completing the grind to Moskva (I went from Budyonny to Moskva in a bit over a month) was in essence speeding to a more or less free Tier 10 premium ship (or special ship) that is likely to have more competitive value than Petropavlovsk - which is honestly quite generous to begin with. It would have been extremely generous from a game handling perspective to give people 2 top tier vehicles for a single grind, so I don't see anything particularly unreasonable about this even though I was open to both possibilities.
  14. I hate to say this, but this is an example of the misunderstanding I brought up in Point 1. What this statement indicates is frankly someone at the lowest level of game sense. A player sees his team is always "too passive" and thinks these teammates "cannot do anything to impact the match". However, instead of playing around this fairly constant basic meta, they push themselves into the front thinking they will make an impact immediately, without really assessing if they have an opening to do so or not. As a result, they make themselves the most appealing target to an enemy majority and die to the enemy (thinking "no support"). The truth of this is that they end up throwing their ship away with awful damage done, thus meaning they are a net disadvantage to the team, and also almost never achieve their goal of making a difference to the match beyond causing the team to lose another ship (them) and thus putting the team even further backwards on points and damage dealing potential. This in turn hurts their overall winrate and performance etc. but since they were busy blaming the team, they never stopped to realize how much more effective they could have been if they had waited for an actual opening or just passively worn the enemy down. It's a very narrow minded and illogical attitude, but actually a very common one. Meanwhile, a better player will realize the tactical advantages of being in a neutral position and play around his team instead of expecting the whole game to change for them.
  15. It's been a while since I started any new threads. I've been playing WoWs actively since December 2019, moreso in the last few months (especially since for unspecified reasons I have been working largely from home). So I suppose I have a lot to get off my chest. This is wordy. Be ready. Personally, I feel the quality of play on Asia has degraded substantially compared to about a year ago, when the meta was still distinctively kiting and angling, to a more chaotic and aggressive, sometimes suicidally aggressive one. It isn't unusual to see many ships dead in or around caps or overextended down the flanks etc. etc. 1. PLAYER QUALITY Have you noticed the number of steamrolls on Asia recently? Today in 8 Tier X random games twice the enemy was reduced to 0 points. Yesterday, in the same number of games the enemy was reduced to 0 once. The day before that... was the first day I hadn't seen this happen on Asia. Because I was playing another game. There's a logical reason. When there are no good players on a team, they are unable to make a reactive play (like setting up a defense or area denial) should they suffer an early disadvantage. Instead they start to feed, throwing away ship after ship into a growing enemy advantage. All the way until the points go to nil. It's a sign that frankly, people are getting worse. Conversely, a single good player will recognize he can draw out the match even if defeat looks likely. This is why a team with even a small number of them can draw out a battle substantially. Sadly, a small number of good players seems to be too much to ask for in this day and age. I think a lot of people have fundamental misunderstandings about being aggressive. Putting your battleship into the cap or your cruiser on the frontline or pinned to an island because you have a goal of holding down an area or taking out a certain enemy often fails to work because it is done without assessment of the whole game situation. In fact, it results in premature death due to you being the closest target to multiple enemies with no planned escape and only delays enemy moves rather than preventing them. Not worth losing a ship for. Most of the time if I die early in a match I find myself looking at the rest of the game playing out and realizing how much more I could have done had I just waited for a more favorable opening. 2. PLAYER ATTITUDE The first thing I'd like to make clear after the above section. I don't inherently hate bad players. Many people going into WoWs will suffer if they go in blind. The game is not easy. However, there are some people... "COWARD ZAO!" - A Thunderer sailing into 3 enemy cruisers around the C cap of Northern Lights "HIDE IN BACK WHILE I DIE!" - The allied destroyer today who ate a hydro spotted torpedo then proceeded to push into a cap with an enemy cruiser instead of waiting. "USELESS, NO SUPPORT" - A Kurfurst who pushed up to C on Okinawa and died, proceeding to blame my play for his death. Funny enough, I spotted the same player on the enemy today, dying within 10 minutes in a similar position. It doesn't take long to find loud echo chambers on other WoWs related forums complaining about the game, complaining about allies, complaining about WG... In some (not all) cases this seems to be the vocal majority. When was the last time you saw someone in-game admit they made a mistake? I don't think I've seen it apart from honestly myself. You'll also see a relationship between people who complain excessively about their team or the game in this manner and their actual ingame performance (which I shall not specifically mention due to certain rules). It makes no sense. Why do single individual players expect the other 11 people on their team to accommodate for their possibly flawed strategies instead of just learning to observe his team situation and making plays accordingly? They do not gain anything performance wise by dying first because they expected their own ideal (that as I mentioned earlier is often actually a flawed one that makes them excessively vulnerable.) Subsection: Entitlement Let's be real here. Everyone would like to have good stats. Good winrates. Even the people who claim they are "playing for fun" most of the time would like to win. Winning is more fun and more rewarding. Plenty of people complain about having bad winrates but the painful irony of it is that many are not willing to work for it and learn the game or assess the game environment properly. Isn't it selfish? 3. THE GREAT WALL OF "STATSHAMING" It's a common fact that bringing up a player's performance is against the rules on the forums or in official WG chats. The reason I've been given is that it prevents people from having stat wars on the forums. Seems fair, but... honestly, there's a problem. When it comes to discussing the state of World of Warships, be it game mechanics, balance, game sense or even just giving a new player advice, the things bad players say or do (as mentioned above, often in anger or frustration) are far less useful information than information coming from someone who actually has a concrete idea of what is going on. However with this discernment removed, misunderstandings of the game can spread like wildfire. There is a difference between protecting people from being put down and protecting people who hide behind this wall to push whatever agendas they want just to feel better. A CONTROVERSIAL THEORY Putting all this together, I see a potential vicious cycle. People going into World of Warships blind perform poorly (since the game is... hard). They are reluctant to take the blame but inherently, they want to win. So they take to searching it up but run into these pools of people who play poorly but rant about the team or the game (balance, matchmaking etc.). This is easier to accept. These players thus continue to fail but push the fault away from themselves, developing very entitled and toxic attitudes. In their eyes, they are perfect and other things are not working for them, and many others seem to have the same "problem". Not discrediting bad players results in more and more bad players. I may talk more about game balance later, but for now this is all I'm bothered to say...