Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

729 Celebrated

1 Follower

About Rina_Pon

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

3,217 profile views
  1. Rina_Pon

    The Sad Truth

    Wow. Not exactly what I'd suggest as being good advice for DDs in Ranked. A video presuming to teach people how to play a DD in ranked, using as an example a Kitakaze in a game with no radars and no enemy Kitakaze. Could he have cherry-picked more favorable odds for himself? I doubt it. Next, his first move is to rush the cap, and then he has to run away because he gets detected by the enemy DD and hadn't noticed the enemy cruiser had closed up to the edge of the cap. If the enemy DD had been just a little smarter and hung back to detect the Kitakaze without himself getting spotted, the video could have likely ended at the 3 minute mark.
  2. Rina_Pon

    The Sad Truth

    Or maybe I tested out the commander skills during the reset.
  3. Rina_Pon

    The Sad Truth

    XP factors in relative tier and ship type though. As it happens, over the last 6 months damage, XP and PR all show a linear increase, up about 4-5% in each. WR, otoh, is a parabola, reaching a maximum around Xmas 2020. As reality check, I played three games of Ranked in my Benson this morning. One win, got totally carried. Two losses, save my star both times. The second game I had almost 50% more XP than the next best teammate, 1900 vs 1200. It's odd, to say the least.
  4. Rina_Pon

    The Sad Truth

    There can be slight wiggles for all those reasons. It's amazing how it balances out over time though. My recent DD totals to 191 wins and 191 losses. What's interesting is the almost complete lack of correlation between PR (a reasonable metric of how good I am in the ship) and WR (vs. actual effectiveness). Clemson we ignore. 1 game for the snowflake. I don't sealclub T4 anymore. Blyskawica, I do well in. Fine. But actually I'm good at the IJN torp boats too. And considering my experience, 200+ games played in each ship, and high point captains, etc., it's remarkable that my recent WR in almost all these ships is below 50% and lower than my historical average. Yugumo for example. 43k avg damage and 0.88 kills/game. 189 wins, 191 losses. 35 recent wins, 42 recent losses. Winrate: 49.7% WR overall, 45.4% recent, 50.8% before the last 77 games are added in. I need to highlight this: my WR dropped from 50.8% to 45.4% in a ship I'm playing better than ever, and in one which I play better than most people. The average stats on Yugumo is 38k dmg and 0.74 kills. I'm at least 43k and 0.88 in the interval my WR is just 45.4%. And this result is no outlier. My recent win rates are in the toilet across the board, yet I'm consistently performing better. (and no, it's not like I'm ignoring caps or just yoloing to pad my stats - more often than not I'm carrying the team's capping efforts, too) I'm beginning to suspect WG has built in some kind of skills-based MM. MM looks at my stats, and puts me on the "B" team. Either that or SEA players have recently vastly improved in skill. Or, the meta has so completely changed as to make ships like Yugumo irrelevant to the game outcome. (Which I do not believe, given the importance of capping in most random battles, and the usefulness of 12 km torps against radar.)
  5. Rina_Pon

    The Sad Truth

    Average damage is calculated from all your games since day 1. What you really want to see is the average damage of your recent games, which is normally higher. Over the last 500 games, I'm averaging 40k with 0.80 kills per game. My WR is decreasing because far more of my games played are T8 and T9, I hardly ever play T5 anymore, and T6 only rarely. More tonnage on the map means my damage output has to scale just to keep up the enemy teams total hp.
  6. Ranked is skill based MM. By definition of. But you have to get out of Bronze first.
  7. Rina_Pon

    Italian BBs: What to know?

    So if I got this right, I'm supposed to shoot SAP at places that would be give overpens with AP, is that right? Extremities and superstructure, and CL with buried citadels like Cleveland etc. I see the argument now, ok. The counterargument is that there are almost always opportunities for citadels in a game, and even when you don't roll a cit., the distance you have to be to be able to aim consistently for an overpen location are far and few behind. I'll be the first to admit that in a BB, whether I get cit., pen, or overpen, or torpedo belt bounce, is pretty much decided at random by the spread of the shells. Most of the time I'm just happy to see the majority of my shells land on target.
  8. Rina_Pon

    [2019]Best Tier V Ships For Fun

    It was historical retrofit the ship actually underwent historically, so it makes sense to offer this in game as the upgraded C hull - c.f. Mogami 155/203 mm. Anyway, an inexperienced Furutaka is very easy to kill, upgraded hull or not. An experienced Furutaka is nearly impossible to put down.
  9. Rina_Pon

    Italian BBs: What to know?

    Minimal AA. Minimal Secondaries. Average hp & speed & maneuverability. Good armor & torp protection. SAP is no more effective against DDs than AP. I honestly don't really understand the point of BB SAP tbh. Long reloads, poor accuracy, and poor range compensate for lots of guns. WG really seems to be doubling down on the "moar guns!" school of BB design lately. For the Italian line, it's moar guns and moar armor - with everything else detuned to balance. Not really my idea of fun, but on the other hand there's nothing game-breaking here like the firestorm when British BBs first showed up, and nothing that's much of a threat to my game as a DD main. So yeah, sure, I'll take it - but like the alternate USN BB line - I won't bother to outfit the ships.
  10. Rina_Pon

    Overall Thoughts on Rework after 1 Month?

    Pretty much. If the enemy doesn't have it, I'd rather spend the points elsewhere. If he does, there's a lot of plays immediately taken off the table. This is regardless of whether I have it or not, sure, but I still need it to deny the enemy DD's access to those same plays. I can't afford to allow him that tactical advantage.
  11. Rina_Pon

    Overall Thoughts on Rework after 1 Month?

    Thanks, @Moggytwo, for being nice enough to summarize it for us. I've used Dazzle on Yugumo, Fletcher, Gearing and Benson for a while, and fwiw it felt like it was working. Certainly when I took it off I got a distinct impression that I was getting smacked around a lot harder on those first volleys after being detected. With Dazzle, it was a bit like living a charmed life. A number of instances shells flew all around me got me thinking that I was really lucky.
  12. Rina_Pon

    Overall Thoughts on Rework after 1 Month?

    Useless in the sense that as far as anyone has been able to tell it provides almost no benefit yet it costs a full 4 points.
  13. Rina_Pon

    Overall Thoughts on Rework after 1 Month?

    Pls WG for the love of Pete, keep the free resets open for another month. As it is I'm going to have to go through all my ships tonight to un-spec the skills - just so I have more time to think. I watched flamu's commentary on build choices the other day. So apparently Dazzle is useless? Which brings up my biggest beef with this whole debacle: How are we supposed to get any idea of the relative benefit of the different skills when they are so frickin obtuse? No really: how am I possibly supposed to come to a conclusion about whether I should equip my DDs with dazzle or not? I understand the idea: 20% increase in dispersion for 15 seconds after getting spotted. I understand the nominal advantage: I take the vast majority of my damage in that brief window I'm detected. It feels like eternity, but usually I drop back into stealth pretty quickly. So 20% dispersion is like getting 20% more health. Or is it? And this is where it just becomes a mess. Changing the dispersion is going to change hits into misses, but if the target is close and the aim is good, then it's unlikely to make a difference. At long ranges, it could, in theory, change 5 hits into all misses. The old skills were straightforward in comparison in that at least you understood precisely what they did (10% faster torp reload) even if the actual advantage in game could only be estimated. Anyway the point is that after a month I'm not even anywhere close to final builds I am happy with yet. Yes, the basic 10 or 15 points are mostly set, but there is still a lot of variability in the last 2-3 picks. re: RPF. This is very meta dependent. Basically, if everyone else has it, you are pretty much forced to take it too.
  14. Diversity of skills =/ diversity of builds
  15. No, the rework does not encourage diversity, no, it was never WG's intention to ensure that it would. The diversity is in the captain skills, not the builds. There is enough diversity in skills to allow each tech tree and ship class to have one optimal build. So under the new system Kagero, Benson, and Le Fantasque can spend the full 21 points without feeling like they are being forced to choose skills they don't need or won't make use of. Inevitably, some ships are lucky enough to have multiple viable options, others are locked into a single set, while still others are going to be compromised no matter which skills you choose. For the great majority of my ships, I have found a comfortable build - most often just going with the defaults, or the defaults with just a minor change for taste. Some seem to work better than before. My new secondary Bismark for example is more fun than my old survival build Bismark. For others though I've retained builds closer to the old system, keeping concealment builds on Iowa and N. Cal for example, because I play the BBs as big cruisers - camping is not my strong point. Then once in a while I run into places where I am flummoxed, like Ognevoi.