Long Time Player, Very Frustrated

[SunkCostFallacy]

6 hours ago, MnemonScarlet said:

Man I wish we saw Ocean more. So many BB players need to learn the hard way on it.

I was thinking earlier today ... I'm 99% sure that I haven't had a match on the Ocean map at all so far this year.

[HogHammer]

7 hours ago, MnemonScarlet said:

Man I wish we saw Ocean more. So many BB players need to learn the hard way on it.

One of my favorite maps.  Tests your skills and tactics regardless the ship class you captain.

Separates the sharks from the guppies.

[Frostbow]

On 2/6/2024 at 11:51 AM, BOBTHEBALL said:

Some stuff that will decrease your WR:
- Farming oriented ships

In my experience, Azuma, Henri IV (lighthouse build), and Hindenburg helped raised my WR and a few other stats that I personally track, chief of them the number of times I land on the top 3 of our team scoreboard in terms of Base XP.

[BOBTHEBALL]

6 hours ago, Frostbow said:

In my experience, Azuma, Henri IV (lighthouse build), and Hindenburg helped raised my WR and a few other stats that I personally track, chief of them the number of times I land on the top 3 of our team scoreboard in terms of Base XP.

Eh it's more consistent to play ship that could actually help the team. Sure thing you can have good stats in farming oriented ships, my Yoshino has around a 61% WR and 2.1k PR but that doesn't mean it's good for winning. If you want to win you bring radar that's it, straight up. Radar and a great position will allow you to give off amazing game impact.

[YouSatInGum]

10 hours ago, Frostbow said:

In my experience, Azuma, Henri IV (lighthouse build), and Hindenburg helped raised my WR and a few other stats that I personally track, chief of them the number of times I land on the top 3 of our team scoreboard in terms of Base XP.

Speaking of Base XP.

In this kind of thread it should be brought up that current state of BXP accurately scoring a player's contribution has never been worse.

I'm referring to this:  https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/419

The changes that WG brought in a year ago now allows some really back assward scoring to happen.  Things like Sub with 0 damage getting top of the team with over 2k base or 1 DD killing half a team but the other DD on the team scores higher from a couple easy caps and chasing BBs in the backfield for little gain. 

I did feel that spotting needed extra reward but at 100% it was way overcompensated for and WG of course over nerfed other things that are necessary to win a battle.... like Damage.

They were highly disingenuous about the effects of the changes as ships that have damage dealing as their primary play style such as light cruisers were the most hurt by this change and yet that the only only class not even mentioned in their rationale of the change. 

Also, I don't have proof of this but on average team scores in aggregate seem lower.  While they claimed the overall differences would be between 2 and 10% on damage focuses ships like Friesland I've notice 20% less BXP for similar type games.

Simply put, WG took something that wasn't perfect but more or less worked fairly well, and made it much much worse.  When 0 damage can lead a team.... that's borderline broken.

 

[Zysyss]

19 hours ago, iDuckman said:

#teamOceanMap

 

I like that map 🙂

[Frostbow]

13 minutes ago, YouSatInGum said:

BXP accurately scoring a player's contribution has never been worse.

I know that. It is rather unfortunate. And I do not play submarines. 

[Frostbow]

4 hours ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

Eh it's more consistent to play ship that could actually help the team. Sure thing you can have good stats in farming oriented ships, my Yoshino has around a 61% WR and 2.1k PR but that doesn't mean it's good for winning. If you want to win you bring radar that's it, straight up. Radar and a great position will allow you to give off amazing game impact.

Previously, you said some ships, farming-oriented, decrease WR. Now you said you have that WR in same ship. Perhaps you should have qualified your opinion much earlier. An overgeneralization such as that can confuse, even contradict, written posts. 

And in my experience, radar is not a guarantee for winning. It helps greatly, yes, but the game allows for other ways of countering it. 

I have dev struck a Des Moines once with Yoshino AP. And my Des Moines once got rekt by a Satsuma. 😄

[BOBTHEBALL]

1 hour ago, Frostbow said:

Previously, you said some ships, farming-oriented, decrease WR. Now you said you have that WR in same ship. Perhaps you should have qualified your opinion much earlier. An overgeneralization such as that can confuse, even contradict, written posts. 

People can have good statistics in bad ships, does that make those ships bad? No it doesn't they're still bad the player either just has a good understanding with that ship or enjoys how it plays. What I said still stands and is the truth. 

1 hour ago, Frostbow said:

And in my experience, radar is not a guarantee for winning. It helps greatly, yes, but the game allows for other ways of countering it. 

Yes radar helps a great amount in winning, which is what we want to do in this game and in this thread. 

1 hour ago, Frostbow said:

I have dev struck a Des Moines once with Yoshino AP. And my Des Moines once got rekt by a Satsuma. 😄

Good for you, I'd attempt trying to dodge next time. 🤣

- Boob

[Verytis]

6 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

I'm referring to this:  https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/419

The changes that WG brought in a year ago now allows some really back assward scoring to happen.  Things like Sub with 0 damage getting top of the team with over 2k base or 1 DD killing half a team but the other DD on the team scores higher from a couple easy caps and chasing BBs in the backfield for little gain. 

I did feel that spotting needed extra reward but at 100% it was way overcompensated for and WG of course over nerfed other things that are necessary to win a battle.... like Damage.

I don't believe the increased spotting rewards are an issue, because you only gain spotting dmg when your allies can't spot for themselves.

Once both sides start shooting, they keep each other revealed via gunbloom. The only ships that actually require sustained spotting are friendlies firing from smoke or cover island.

For most ships, the purpose of spotting is to reveal initial enemy positions and potentially catch them offguard, or to prevent targets from disengaging.

 

6 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

They were highly disingenuous about the effects of the changes as ships that have damage dealing as their primary play style such as light cruisers were the most hurt by this change and yet that the only only class not even mentioned in their rationale of the change. 

Concern for CLs is appreciated, but they're often the next ship to handle spotting duties when the DD is absent or dead. So they don't really lose out anything.

[Unlooky]

On 2/5/2024 at 11:03 PM, Asym said:

WR is not a skill metric because there simply is too much RNG and, with dissimilar weapons breaking the "Game Physics" - there's nothing but Chaos......  And yes, I lecture on Chaos and Asymmetrical Systems Theories and how they affect cultures.....  And, take a look at this game if you want to see "just how cultures process change"........they don't and you get anarchy....  Culture trumps process 100% of the time.....

Doubt this>?  See any Subs or Carriers in KOTS???  uh-huh, we know what the real score is...

If winrate is not a skill metric, how do more skilled players consistently net better winrate? Why has the community collectively decided on an inaccurate metric to quickly assess a player's skill? Over a large sample size of thousands of battles and hours, the effects of RNG on a player's winrate will be minimal. In those thousands of sets of data, there is only ONE common factor. 

 

I'm also not sure why you mentioned cancer classes not being in KoTS since both of the cancer classes are even more broken in matches with smaller player counts and especially in the hands of the most skilled players. It seems logical that a tournament run by players don't want the most despised classes. 

[Frostbow]

10 hours ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

People can have good statistics in bad ships, does that make those ships bad? No it doesn't they're still bad the player either just has a good understanding with that ship or enjoys how it plays. What I said still stands and is the truth. 

There you go with another overgeneralization again. Saying a ship is bad despite players having good statistics with it is self-contradictory. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

13 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

Speaking of Base XP.

In this kind of thread it should be brought up that current state of BXP accurately scoring a player's contribution has never been worse.

I'm referring to this:  https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/419

The changes that WG brought in a year ago now allows some really back assward scoring to happen.  Things like Sub with 0 damage getting top of the team with over 2k base or 1 DD killing half a team but the other DD on the team scores higher from a couple easy caps and chasing BBs in the backfield for little gain. 

I did feel that spotting needed extra reward but at 100% it was way overcompensated for and WG of course over nerfed other things that are necessary to win a battle.... like Damage.

They were highly disingenuous about the effects of the changes as ships that have damage dealing as their primary play style such as light cruisers were the most hurt by this change and yet that the only only class not even mentioned in their rationale of the change. 

Also, I don't have proof of this but on average team scores in aggregate seem lower.  While they claimed the overall differences would be between 2 and 10% on damage focuses ships like Friesland I've notice 20% less BXP for similar type games.

Simply put, WG took something that wasn't perfect but more or less worked fairly well, and made it much much worse.  When 0 damage can lead a team.... that's borderline broken.

 

Plus, we don't actually know the math behind how BXP is actually generated.

I suspect it changes semi-regularly based on what goals WG has that month or quarter.

It's a 'gaming company'...a euphemism for a casino...and its not regulated. Let's stop pretending that they don't mess with the game parameters regularly...the ones that aren't part of published parameters.

[YouSatInGum]

6 hours ago, Verytis said:

 

Concern for CLs is appreciated, but they're often the next ship to handle spotting duties when the DD is absent or dead. So they don't really lose out anything.

If you are playing Wooster and have a ton a spotting then either 1. you are doing something wrong  2.  It was one of those super weird games  3.  All your teammates are dead and you have somehow have lived.

In other words, being it Wooster or Austin should be the last ship trying to spot.  I tend to play my terrain abusing CL like overgrown DDs....  if I'm spotted, I try to get unspotted.

...and trust me when I say these ships were hurt by the change.  I've had 200k+ games where I barely crack 2k.  It would have been over 2.5k before. 

Gunboat DDs were also big losers.

7 hours ago, Verytis said:

I don't believe the increased spotting rewards are an issue, because you only gain spotting dmg when your allies can't spot for themselves.

 

More points for spotting wasn't directly the problem but WG reduced other parts of the formula to compensate.  Fair enough, but they reduce parts that represent a greater contribution towards victory than 100% spotting.  Spotting is necessary but on it's own doesn't do much to getting opposing units off the board, and that's the primary path to victory.  In other words, spotting now gets too much credit and actual damage that reduces opponent combat power is now not getting enough. 

Additionally, WG's motives for this change are highly suspect.  Considering the sub multiply was changed to a nutty amount at the same time, it seems rather coincidental that this change was done for any reason other than that new pet class.

[YouSatInGum]

29 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Plus, we don't actually know the math behind how BXP is actually generated.

I suspect it changes semi-regularly based on what goals WG has that month or quarter.

It's a 'gaming company'...a euphemism for a casino...and its not regulated. Let's stop pretending that they don't mess with the game parameters regularly...the ones that aren't part of published parameters.

I highly doubt it.

No we don't know the math, but once you have enough games you start to get a feel for what does what. 

I bet there are some parts of the game that they fiddle with if they are confident they won't break something....for example the multiplier on various op maps which I convinced they did change without notice.

However, I suspect they'd be scared to screw with the BXP formula for the risk of breaking it and basically getting caught making changes without notification.

[Asym]

5 hours ago, Unlooky said:

If winrate is not a skill metric, how do more skilled players consistently net better winrate? Why has the community collectively decided on an inaccurate metric to quickly assess a player's skill? Over a large sample size of thousands of battles and hours, the effects of RNG on a player's winrate will be minimal. In those thousands of sets of data, there is only ONE common factor. 

I'm also not sure why you mentioned cancer classes not being in KoTS since both of the cancer classes are even more broken in matches with smaller player counts and especially in the hands of the most skilled players. It seems logical that a tournament run by players don't want the most despised classes. 

Ok, show me the server data....  Prove it in other words.  Prove that WinRate is a non-alterable metric.  Let's take for example:  Stomps.  What are the average number of stomps experienced?  Show me that data please.  How many "terrible, no good, very horrible spawns" are the individual average?  After all, if you spawn in the worst places, game after game after game, are you seriously going to tell me that doesn't affect Win Rate???  Let's talk Win Rate and Divisioning versus Farming at lower levels.  Now, many Barney level players farm in Divisions??  If I remember correctly, right after the Cruiser Line Split, all we saw were Divisions of Radar ships eating noobs.  Then, explain to me "gimmicks versus Win Rate"?  Let's also ask the question what the "cost of a high win rate" is....  Real money buys of Premium ships versus F2P...

My Observation of repetitive years of playing and experiencing all of the gimmicks since 2017, Win Rate at best is a snapshot of what a player has done........it doesn't describe effectiveness - only outcomes we have no idea how they achieved.

The reason KOTS does not allow the "Gimmicks" in is because we'd end up seeing "one ship to rule them all" and that means, One Player's skill level would make or break hundreds of others efforts.  Dissimilar weapons increase variation exponentially;  because,  they operate "extra-dimensionally;" and, as a rule of complexity, for every level of dimensional difficulty added, there has to be an exponential increase in support processes that host it !  If not, the "system" implodes or explodes...  It's the only way a culture can protect itself from the damage of how dissimilar weapons work....  Take the Atom Bomb if you want and it's effect on Culture.  Take the Flash Drive and what it did to the Computer business.  The Machine Gun in WW1 and most importantly, Billy Mitchell in 1925: 

"He antagonized many administrative leaders of the Army with his arguments and criticism and in 1925, his temporary appointment as a brigadier general was not renewed, and he reverted to his permanent rank of colonel, due to his insubordination. Later that year, he was court-martialed for insubordination after accusing Army and Navy leaders of an "almost treasonable administration of the national defense"  (wiki for expedience) for investing in warships."   Battleships to be exact.

  The end of the Battleship.........  want more?  <<<< that's where we are.

BTW, that investment in the game, to prevent Carriers from being the one ship to Rule them all, are that Carriers would have to fight Carriers and obtain "air superiority" first before they could "do their thing..."  AA would have to be "Aimed and Controlled" and it's effects greatly increased....   That won't happen........see where this goes.....as the system fails....

And, win rate means very little - other than being some macro level metric that really, means nothing...  Can we reject a game where we, as average players, refuse to be fresh meat?  Hmmmm.

[Wolfswetpaws]

9 minutes ago, Asym said:

Win Rate at best is a snapshot of what a player has done........it doesn't describe effectiveness - only outcomes we have no idea how they achieved.

This ^^^^ I can agree with.

As for the kots portion of your post, if they really wanted to level the field and eliminate gimmicks, then kots would have tournaments using only one of the available Tier-1 ships.
For variety, they could have the ship be different for every battle, but every player would have the same ship for gimmick elimination and balance purposes.  🙂 
But they don't do that, eh?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

53 minutes ago, YouSatInGum said:

I highly doubt it.

No we don't know the math, but once you have enough games you start to get a feel for what does what. 

I bet there are some parts of the game that they fiddle with if they are confident they won't break something....for example the multiplier on various op maps which I convinced they did change without notice.

However, I suspect they'd be scared to screw with the BXP formula for the risk of breaking it and basically getting caught making changes without notification.

LOL

I'm pretty sure they fiddle with it occasionally in randoms to based on my experience.

[Asym]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

This ^^^^ I can agree with.

As for the kots portion of your post, if they really wanted to level the field and eliminate gimmicks, then kots would have tournaments using only one of the available Tier-1 ships.
For variety, they could have the ship be different for every battle, but every player would have the same ship for gimmick elimination and balance purposes.  🙂 
But they don't do that, eh?

It's even simpler:  take away the Carrier and Subs and eliminate what that community "deems a gimmick..."  Create a list of ships WG wouldn't let in and then the KOTS teams themselves chose from that list....  All ships less the subs and carriers and the ships that were intentionally created as "OP" ships....  Heck, allow them and let's see whom can or can not play this game....  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  So they say.

AND, if I had my way, Open Ocean is a required map at every stage and is one of three maps in the final and, the actual finals map.  Period.   Let's see who are the actual open water sailors and whom are the Tankers....

4 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

I highly doubt it.

No we don't know the math, but once you have enough games you start to get a feel for what does what. 

I bet there are some parts of the game that they fiddle with if they are confident they won't break something....for example the multiplier on various op maps which I convinced they did change without notice.

However, I suspect they'd be scared to screw with the BXP formula for the risk of breaking it and basically getting caught making changes without notification.

Ah, how many times have we heard they are making "Art Changes...."  What that may actually mean is that they've altered the "Hit Box Geometry" to neuter defensive capabilities:  so as to speed up matches.   This has actually occurred in other games and when the Players found out how squishy their Premium mechs became........."ooops, did we do that?  Sorry..."

 How would we know????

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Asym said:

It's even simpler:  take away the Carrier and Subs and eliminate what that community "deems a gimmick..."  Create a list of ships WG wouldn't let in and then the KOTS teams themselves chose from that list....  All ships less the subs and carriers and the ships that were intentionally created as "OP" ships....  Heck, allow them and let's see whom can or can not play this game....  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  So they say.

AND, if I had my way, Open Ocean is a required map at every stage and is one of three maps in the final and, the actual finals map.  Period.   Let's see who are the actual open water sailors and whom are the Tankers....

How is what you suggest "even simpler" than Tier-1 ships on ocean maps?

Edited February 10 by Wolfswetpaws

[Gillhunter]

If they would restore T1 ships to what they were when the game began I would play them daily.

[Unlooky]

7 hours ago, Asym said:

Ok, show me the server data....  Prove it in other words.  Prove that WinRate is a non-alterable metric.  Let's take for example:  Stomps.  What are the average number of stomps experienced?  Show me that data please.  How many "terrible, no good, very horrible spawns" are the individual average?  After all, if you spawn in the worst places, game after game after game, are you seriously going to tell me that doesn't affect Win Rate???  Let's talk Win Rate and Divisioning versus Farming at lower levels.  Now, many Barney level players farm in Divisions??  If I remember correctly, right after the Cruiser Line Split, all we saw were Divisions of Radar ships eating noobs.  Then, explain to me "gimmicks versus Win Rate"?  Let's also ask the question what the "cost of a high win rate" is....  Real money buys of Premium ships versus F2P...

My Observation of repetitive years of playing and experiencing all of the gimmicks since 2017, Win Rate at best is a snapshot of what a player has done........it doesn't describe effectiveness - only outcomes we have no idea how they achieved.

The reason KOTS does not allow the "Gimmicks" in is because we'd end up seeing "one ship to rule them all" and that means, One Player's skill level would make or break hundreds of others efforts.  Dissimilar weapons increase variation exponentially;  because,  they operate "extra-dimensionally;" and, as a rule of complexity, for every level of dimensional difficulty added, there has to be an exponential increase in support processes that host it !  If not, the "system" implodes or explodes...  It's the only way a culture can protect itself from the damage of how dissimilar weapons work....  Take the Atom Bomb if you want and it's effect on Culture.  Take the Flash Drive and what it did to the Computer business.  The Machine Gun in WW1 and most importantly, Billy Mitchell in 1925: 

"He antagonized many administrative leaders of the Army with his arguments and criticism and in 1925, his temporary appointment as a brigadier general was not renewed, and he reverted to his permanent rank of colonel, due to his insubordination. Later that year, he was court-martialed for insubordination after accusing Army and Navy leaders of an "almost treasonable administration of the national defense"  (wiki for expedience) for investing in warships."   Battleships to be exact.

  The end of the Battleship.........  want more?  <<<< that's where we are.

BTW, that investment in the game, to prevent Carriers from being the one ship to Rule them all, are that Carriers would have to fight Carriers and obtain "air superiority" first before they could "do their thing..."  AA would have to be "Aimed and Controlled" and it's effects greatly increased....   That won't happen........see where this goes.....as the system fails....

And, win rate means very little - other than being some macro level metric that really, means nothing...  Can we reject a game where we, as average players, refuse to be fresh meat?  Hmmmm.

You realize that every factor you've mentioned thus far is an important factor in your winrate, right? These "gimmicks" are part of the game. Steamrolls, bad spawns, etc, etc apply to EVERYONE. If this only applied to a selective number of people, then you would be correct. Unfortunately, we are all at the mercy of the RNG. There are also ways to filter winrate by tier and division status. The most accurate representation of skill is solo Tier 10 winrate. If these RNG Factors did not apply, then everyone's winrates would probably be much greater in fluctuation, from 30%-80%. As you have said, winrate depicts your impact upon previous games. The deviation from the server average of 48%, after all these factors, measures how good you are as a player. 

 

 

You are correct about KoTS though. Both Subs and CVs are unbalanced classes, and therefore the organizers will not allow them in the tournament. There are old KoTS tournaments where CVs were allowed and the games were basically centered around them, with everyone else being a target. 

3 hours ago, Asym said:

It's even simpler:  take away the Carrier and Subs and eliminate what that community "deems a gimmick..."  Create a list of ships WG wouldn't let in and then the KOTS teams themselves chose from that list....  All ships less the subs and carriers and the ships that were intentionally created as "OP" ships....  Heck, allow them and let's see whom can or can not play this game....  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  So they say.

 

These gimmicks are what makes the game interesting and why nobody plays tier 1- all the ships have the exact same playstyle at that tier, with virtually no distinguishing factors from each other. At a high level, World of Warships is about exploiting your ship's advantages in conjunction with your team against the enemy's weaknesses. If I am playing Minotaur in KoTS, my advantage is my concealment, damage output, and utility but I have to play cautiously due to my horrible armor. Stronger ships already have restrictions applied to make team lineups more diverse. 

 

7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

This ^^^^ I can agree with.

As for the kots portion of your post, if they really wanted to level the field and eliminate gimmicks, then kots would have tournaments using only one of the available Tier-1 ships.
For variety, they could have the ship be different for every battle, but every player would have the same ship for gimmick elimination and balance purposes.  🙂 
But they don't do that, eh?

The same goes to you. Gimmicks are what makes this game and the meta interesting. I guarantee you, as someone who has played in KoTS, that no KoTS player wants to eliminate gimmicks from KoTS. "Gimmick" is such an arbitrary distinction anyways. Is Des Moines's fast reload for a heavy cruiser a gimmick? Is Moskva's 50mm deck, abnormally thick for a heavy cruiser, a gimmick? I don't think anyone would argue they are. Moving to the newer ships such as San Martin, her Combat Instructions are her advantage over the other cruisers. At the end of the day, the game is made more interesting when ships are different from each other, not similar. 

[Unlooky]

10 hours ago, Frostbow said:

There you go with another overgeneralization again. Saying a ship is bad despite players having good statistics with it is self-contradictory. 

I do not see how it is. Yodo is easily the worst ship at tier 10. There are players with 70%+ winrate in her and 120k+ average damage. That doesn't mean the ship is good, it just means they're sufficiently skilled players to overcome her weaknesses and perform well in her. 

I have 2.3k PR and purple damage in Takashi. Do I think the ship is good? Of course not, it's one of the worst cruisers I've ever played. I can do solidly above average in Puerto Rico, but I still would argue the ship is one of the weaker Tier 10 cruisers. 

You can do well in a ship and still think it's bad. 

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

How is what you suggest "even simpler" than Tier-1 ships on ocean maps?

Oh Gosh Wolfie, what I suggested people will show up to play....  No one wants to play Tier 1 ships on Ocean.  They don't like the Ocean and get disoriented with out the terrain...!

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

57 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Steamrolls, bad spawns, etc, etc apply to EVERYONE.

This is an assumption. We don't actually know it's true, we only suspect it is.

58 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

The most accurate representation of skill is solo Tier 10 winrate.

Why tier 10?

It's not in any way different in terms of balancing or equitable setup, as far as I can tell.

59 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

You are correct about KoTS though. Both Subs and CVs are unbalanced classes, and therefore the organizers will not allow them in the tournament. There are old KoTS tournaments where CVs were allowed and the games were basically centered around them, with everyone else being a target. 

...as if the other classes are balanced. They are not.

The reality is that KoTS wants a particular meta...and CVs and subs don't allow that meta.

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

These gimmicks are what makes the game interesting and why nobody plays tier 1- all the ships have the exact same playstyle at that tier, with virtually no distinguishing factors from each other.

Another interesting assumption...that is wrong. There are people who play only tier 1. Also, the ships DO have distinguishing factors from each other.

It's somewhat interesting hearing you defend KotS for banning excessive feature disparity...and then abhorring tier 1, that takes the idea to its logical conclusion.

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

The same goes to you. Gimmicks are what makes this game and the meta interesting. I guarantee you, as someone who has played in KoTS, that no KoTS player wants to eliminate gimmicks from KoTS. "Gimmick" is such an arbitrary distinction anyways. Is Des Moines's fast reload for a heavy cruiser a gimmick? Is Moskva's 50mm deck, abnormally thick for a heavy cruiser, a gimmick? I don't think anyone would argue they are. Moving to the newer ships such as San Martin, her Combat Instructions are her advantage over the other cruisers. At the end of the day, the game is made more interesting when ships are different from each other, not similar. 

Ha.

If KotS teams weren't afraid of gimmicks...then they wouldnt be afraid of CVs and subs.

Except actions here speak louder than words. KotS teams ARE afraid of planes and subs, because they know those gimmicks would change the game they love.

Perhaps it's time we do some honest self reflection on KotS?

The only reason it doesn't have CVs and subs is that those who play in it don't like how the meta would change. This is a valid concern, mind you...but let's not pretend that somehow the current version of KotS is somehow some sort of perfect game mode.