Where I stand

[ArIskandir]

This post is a reply to @Aethervox question about where I stand on different 'controversial' issues of WoWS. As I said to him, there's no easy, short answer to that question so I consider best to start a new thread to explain 'where I stand'. I know for many of my NA brethren this may be redundant, but we also have here folks from EU and ASIA who may not know my opinions. 

Let's start with the easy one... Superships, I'll just copy/paste a recent answer I wrote on another thread about why I dislike the concept of T11/Superships:

Spoiler

Because they ARE an Upgrade over T10, the tier that was suposed to be the end of the road and apex predator on the food chain.

Because their existence diminished the value of tier 10 and tier 9 ships. Even more, their existence makes tier 10 redundant and tier 9 a painful experience. 

Because at its core, it reeks of P2W mechanic.

Because it deepens the "fantasy" elements of the game without bringing anything interesting in terms of design and evolution, just more of the same but more silly and ridiculous... it's a quite literal turning the knob up to 11. (you are too young to get the reference but the older folks here will get it).

Because it shut the door on the face of a possible evolution path to Cold War Era ships (with potentially interesting mechanics and playstyles).

and this final one is just a personal opinion: Because they are a stupid, generic, cowardly and flacid concept for evolving the game. It meant caving in to Market trends instead of aligning with the player base desires. It represents either a deep disconnection and ignorance about what the player base want from the Game, or a very insulting "I can't care less, you are just cattle to be herded and milked" statement of facts... both scenarios are hateful

Let's explain why Superships are barely veiled P2W mechanic...

Let's start with the following evidently true statements (if you doubt they are true we can discuss them later):

1. Superships are more powerful than their respective T10. They represent an upgrade and provide a competitive advantage over the previous tier.
2. It is impossible for a F2P account to make profit or even break even when playing Superships in any consistent way. It's unsustainable to play T11 as F2P.

Now that we have established Superships are the Apex of Power within the game and you can't enjoy them consistently for free, let's observe how it is perfectly possible to enjoy them on a regular basis, even exclusively if you so desire, as long as you are willing to sink whatever amount of credits required, which you are free to acquire from the shop without any limitation, or through any of the different "enhancement" mechanics like PT, Battle Pass, etc.

I know you'll say "but you can farm credits playing (whatever suitable tier/ship) and then play your Supership". Yes, it is true but the operating word here is CONSISTENCY. As a F2P (or even standar Premium account), you are forced to play a significant amount of matches in lower tiers (aka act as fodder for the apex predators) in order to play the apex predator role yourself. If that were the rule for everyone I would say it's fair, but that rule can be easily circunvented by paying. You can pay for the privilege of enjoying the Apex Predator role EVERY SINGLE MATCH if that's what you desire. That reeks of P2W mechanic.

Now a bit of history. I was a WoT player and started playing WoWS back in 2016 iirc but left the game a few months later once I realized WoWS also had the same twisted, exploitative "F2P" mechanics (as in serving F2P population as fodder to Premium customers). In time WoWS "corrected" (or shot themselves in the foot, depending on the perspective) the most exploitative elements and actually became a really good and fair F2P game, honestly. Superships are a throwback to the old ways, to how the game was originally envisioned, they are a regression to a more exploitative monetization scheme...

That one is simple, my opinion of Superships is 100% negative. I can't find any positive to their addition to the game... change my mind. 

Next I'll lump CVs and Submarines together as they share some common ground, but each one has their own particularities that I'll address later.

Spoiler

TL;DR: I don't like how they were designed but I prefer them existing in the game than not. 

My biggest complain about the implementation of CVs and Submarines is and has always been the lost opportunity to make ship types with a more complex, deep and interesting playstyle. Instead, WG chose to follow the opposite way and turn them into extremely simple, basic playstyles, bordering on boring. That vexes me to no end, tho I am consious this is likely my own 'snobbery' wanting complexity. I understand other people may prefer simplicity. 

A second common complain is WG's decision to 'castrate' the mirrored PvP interactions for these types. The lack of a fully functional direct PvP interaction with your mirror opponent means these types will be heavily focused on farming other ship types, with minimum opportunities to support team mates against their opponent. I find this abhorrent and deeply obnoxious, being the main reason why I barely played both types. As an unintended consequence, it makes hunting and killing them more satisfying as they have an aura of 'villany'.

A third issue is the extreme asymmetry of the interaction between CV/Subs and many surface ship types. The 'I can touch you but you can't touch me' situation. I need to confess this doesn't bother me in a significant way, I can't explain why... it just doesn't (I might have a secret BDSM fetish waiting to be explored 🤔). Tho I can perfectly understand why it is so grievous for many people. I can also understand why they were designed that way (mostly in order to comply with the historical expectations of what CV and Sub play should be).  

Now on to CVs in particular:

Spoiler

When I came back into the game, it was at the peak of the CV rework. I had the (mis)fortune of experiencing them at their worst, I mean triple CVs at T4, at a time where they had no delay rockets and TBs dropped 2 torps per attack. They were really broken and it was impossible to not have a very negative opinion about them at the time, experiencing what I experienced... those were the good old days of 'I hate CVs with passion'. 

As time passed on, changes piled up, some very significant as the delay to rockets or the standarization of reticles. I also became very good at dealing with CVs (being forged in the depths of CV hell and so), it was a slow but steady change leading to a state of the game where I was no longer bothered by CVs, they were no longer a primary threat for me. I still wasn't attracted to playing them but I was rather indifferent to playing against them. 

A final, fundamental change happened with the release of Bearn and D7P. For the first time since the CV rework, there was a CV that could perform effective Air Supperiority, support their team mates and troll CVs in their own game. I loved that, and was the turning point for me finally playing CVs, an experience I enjoyed very much. Tbh, it was only Bearn in PvP, but I started enjoying playing CVs in Ops. From what I read, the new support CV lines could be interesting for me to play as they share some characteristics with Bearn. 

On the surface ship side of the interaction, having D7P changed my perception of the Surface/Plane interactions, for the first time I stopped being prey and became predator. Having the right tool to twist the narrative allowed me to really enjoy interacting with CVs as a surface ship. 

So, by the time I retired from playing, my stance was of genuine enjoyment of CV/Surface interactions as a Surface player and enjoyment of Support roles as a CV player. I never partook on the 'farming' meta for CVs.

Finally on to the most painful deception... Submarines

Spoiler

I had the fortune of being involved in every Submarine test iteration since the very first 'formal' event... the T6 live test. The one where BBs didn't have any ASW weapon and Sub detection rules were shrouded on hydromancy. It was a long and twisty road, at moments very dissapointing given the direction WG wanted to set for Subs, at moments rewarding at watching how the feedback provided was implemented or at least considered and tested. The road to actual release of Subs saw as last test a fairly balanced version of Submarines (imo), an actual glass cannon, powerful under the right circumstances but very fragile if discovered...and just at that final moment came the final, bitter 'betrayal': Sub vs Sub was castrated by a change on the spotting rules and HP was buffed by 50% in order to accomodate clueless players. Over night Subs changed from being a type requiring a significant degree of intelligence and foresight to be effective, to being a turbo assited farming tool. My enthusiasm for Subs died that patch.

 

 

During the course of the test period, I became very adept at Submarine operation but after the 'Betrayal' I shifted my interest to ASW, I then became very adept at hunting and sinking Submarines, to the point of it being my favorite role in the game. So even if I was very dissapointed at the outcome of the Submarine addition, I was enjoying a lot playing against them. 

 

So even if I don't particularly enjoy playing most Submarines or CVs, I do enjoy playing against them and have no issue having them in game. 

Edited May 20 by ArIskandir

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

That one is simple, my opinion of Superships is 100% negative. I can't find any positive to their addition to the game... change my mind. 

I don't dispute your well-reasoned and honestly conveyed sentiments.

I can only speak for myself.
I do enjoy playing Superships.

Due to their high cost (to acquire and to service) I limit how many games I play on the live-server in the Conde' and my recently welcomed Piemonte.
On the Public Test Server, Superships are very affordable to play.  But, access to them is limited to when the PTS is open for business.
The "Speed, maneuverability and firepower with a little bit of armor" recipe has appealed to me.
In my experience, my most enjoyable games have been Co-op and Asymmetric Battles. 
The 'Bots don't lack for courage and have been able to provide me with lively games that aren't boring kite-festivals while I push my ships to their limits.

So, I probably haven't changed your mind.
But, their positive addition to the game, for me, is my own enjoyment of playing superships among their peers (other superships).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoyed reading the rest of your post and have enjoyed our constructive exchanges on the old forums during submarine testing and other topics.
And I've enjoyed learning about the Bearn and of how to utilize Dutch Cruiser AA power via your trail-blazing game-play and youtube videos demonstrating that you practice what you preach.

I'm glad you're here on DevStrike and look forward to your shared insights and thought-provoking perspectives.  🙂 

Edited May 21 by Wolfswetpaws

[Aethervox]

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

even if I don't particularly enjoy playing most Submarines or CVs, I do enjoy playing against them and have no issue having them in game. 

Edited 4 hours ago by ArIskandir

Myself, I opine that both CVs & Subs should be in WoWS which is, after all, utilizing all the motor powered warship classes from approx 1900 - 1950 (or so).

&, yes, I, like you, particularly like (enjoying) sinking these, imo, 'abominations' (as designed).

I suggest Subs are not at all utilized properly in WoWS and you, Arlskandir, mention a 'betrayal' of Sub play design by Wedgie.

I would utilize the exact same term, a 'betrayal' of RTS CV play by Wedgie so Wedgie offers 'reworked' CVs that don't take much skill to operate.

The net result, I believe, of these alterations to both CVs & Subs is to turn off many players even to the point of quitting WG products entirely.

 As to Superships, I agree with you entirely - I have never played them nor have any desire to (being more of a historical ship aficionado)

[Navalpride33]

High tiers have been a mess for years... All because WG wants

• Shorter battles...
  • This means Cruisers are one shot kills. OR they will gravitate to cruisers with better defense against lethal AP.
  • Radar and hydro are killing the match for DD players...
    • YOu have a BB over matching the offensive capabilities of DDs in their tier of operation.
    • BBs becoming independent from everyone else.. Because every class has these tools.
• BBs to have all the armor and the power to sway a battle.

Now, what neutralizes BBs? Torps. But wait, torps have been nerf'd by all platforms since 0.8.0 series.

My only complaint about CVs... They are the reason, we do not have a good AA mechanic in the game anymore..

[ArIskandir]

15 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So, I probably haven't changed your mind.
But, their positive addition to the game, for me, is my own enjoyment of playing superships among their peers (other superships).

I'm glad you are enjoying them Wolf, honestly. I'm not interested on making proselytism and changing people's minds on this topic, that won't make them happier... I wish I could see them under a more positive light (I would be happier that way) but I can't. 

[Type_93]

15 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

 

High tiers have been a mess for years... All because WG wants

 

No. High tiers are exactly what they need to be.  Higher tiers have a proportionally higher skill ceiling.  
 

 

15 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

Shorter battles...

• This means Cruisers are one shot kills. OR they will gravitate to cruisers with better defense against lethal AP.
• Radar and hydro are killing the match for DD players...

 

If you play your cruiser like you can in tiers 1-7, then yes, you will not have a fun time.  You have to learn to position, learn how to kite effectively and learn how to go dark. Cruisers are very effective in high tiers. 
If you can’t cope with radar and hydro, you aren’t a very capable DD player. To play a DD well in high tiers takes much more knowledge of game mechanics and skill than playing any other class. 

[Itwastuesday]

Reverse opinion time. While I would like all of these removed, I can stomach supership games and find enjoyment in playing them. CVSUB games, no.

[ArIskandir]

2 hours ago, Itwastuesday said:

Reverse opinion time. While I would like all of these removed, I can stomach supership games and find enjoyment in playing them. CVSUB games, no.

That's the beauty of free will, we all can have different opinions and make the world richer for that. 

[Itwastuesday]

Just now, ArIskandir said:

That's the beauty of free will, we all can have different opinions and make the world richer for that. 

Yes. If only we had a world where people understood that not everything written is Accurate Information From God nor meant as such, but a viewpoint of a person.

[Navalpride33]

2 hours ago, Type_93 said:

No. High tiers are exactly what they need to be.  Higher tiers have a proportionally higher skill ceiling.  

There no skill in WOWS... Nothing at high tiers is different from mid and lower tiers...

There  no skill barrier for entering high tiers

.

• There's nothing more to learn at high tiers, what you already know at mid and low tiers.

High tiers are more suppression tiers.. Its unfair for a reason.. It creates shorter battles so that you the player, spend your resources faster. That's it.

If you take a step back and really pay attention... This is what WG envisioned when they forced out the only skilled based ship class out of the game (the RTS CV).

3 hours ago, Type_93 said:

If you play your cruiser like you can in tiers 1-7, then yes, you will not have a fun time.  You have to learn to position, learn how to kite effectively and learn how to go dark. Cruisers are very effective in high tiers. 
If you can’t cope with radar and hydro, you aren’t a very capable DD player. To play a DD well in high tiers takes much more knowledge of game mechanics and skill than playing any other class. 

Position, kite going dark? Negative... All at takes for a cruiser to head to port (or get HEAVY DMG) at high tiers is one well placed AP round (not a salvo, just one rought from a four turret barrel). That's it.

IF you want a cruiser player to run away and hide behind island all match.. No wounder people dont go up to high tiers anymore..

Limiting a ship to play a certain way because its the ONLY way to get any success.. Is by definition, suppression.

[thornzero]

22 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

There no skill in WOWS... Nothing at high tiers is different from mid and lower tiers...

There  no skill barrier for entering high tiers

I'll give you some credit for sticking to your guns, but no one else shares your opinion. Then after some back and forth - the thread usually gets closed.

We get it. You think there is no skill in wows. Great. How many threads are you going to close over it?

1 is not a sample but you must see that you do not have a contingent of like minds preaching your opinion. I mean you would think if you were right, you would be winning hearts and minds on the issue? Then the closed thread dies and you manage to bring it up again.

 

 

[Type_93]

14 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

There no skill in WOWS... Nothing at high tiers is different from mid and lower tiers...

You really sound like a broken record man. 

I’ll grant you that most mechanics are in place for low and mid tier, same as t8 plus, but the degree of those mechanics impact on play is much much more pronounced.  Just take overmatch for example. It’s there in lower tiers, but only at 10 does it really punish a player for bad being in a bad position. 

 

18 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

There  no skill barrier for entering high tiers

True. Any player of any skill level can play high tiers. The difference is that mistakes and general bad play are punished more. 

 

20 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Position, kite going dark? Negative... All at takes for a cruiser to head to port (or get HEAVY DMG) at high tiers is one well placed AP round (not a salvo, just one rought from a four turret barrel). That's it.

So, a player aiming well isn’t skill?  A player showing broadside to a BB isn’t a lack of skill?

 

21 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

IF you want a cruiser player to run away and hide behind island all match.. No wounder people dont go up to high tiers anymore..

Yes, you mean players using game mechanics to thier advantage? High firing arcs = hide behind an island undetected and farm the other guy. That skilled game play. 

 

23 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Position, kite going dark? Negative

All great ways to have positive battle impact. 
 

The bottom line is, you aren’t very good at playing high tiers for whatever reason. There is much more going on in a high tier match that a competent player has to manage to be successful.  You have good stats in low tier DDs, but you’re playing bots at least 50% of the time.  Your claims of no skill is just a cop out no matter how much you believe it to be true.  
I’ll even water it down to try to see from your point of view.  
A players Skill in this game is how well they use the in game mechanics to their advantage to help secure a win for their team .  

 

[Navalpride33]

8 minutes ago, thornzero said:

I'll give you some credit for sticking to your guns, but no one else shares your opinion. Then after some back and forth - the thread usually gets closed.

We get it. You think there is no skill in wows. Great. How many threads are you going to close over it?

1 is not a sample but you must see that you do not have a contingent of like minds preaching your opinion. I mean you would think if you were right, you would be winning hearts and minds on the issue? Then the closed thread dies and you manage to bring it up again.

 

 

IF people want to believe the lie that WOWS is skill based, its a choice (not based on reality)...

Say the lie long enough people begin to ignore reality. Thus creating a reality on lies.

I don't live my life that way.. So I try to save others going down the "WOWS is skills" rabbit hole..

Then again..  This is the prime example of the Galileo affect.

No matter what I tell people in support of how to correctly view stats in WOWS... People will cling to the old ideas like a Koala.

Edited May 21 by Navalpride33

[Type_93]

Just now, Navalpride33 said:

IF people want to believe the lie that WOWS is skill based, its a choice...

Say the lie long enough people begin to ignore reality. Thus creating a reality on lies.

I don't live my life that way.. So I try to save others going down the "WOWS is skills" rabbit hole..

Then again..  This is the prime example of the Galileo affect.

No matter what I tell people in support of how to correctly view stats in WOWS... People will cling to the old ideas like a Koala.

Because You Are Wrong!  I’ll make you a deal.  I’ll be on in a couple of hours.  We can both run a couple of T5 matches and then a couple of T10 matches.  We will post replays here so all our fellow forum goers can see who uses their knowledge of game mechanics to best effect.  If there is no skill, we should have the same scores.   

[thornzero]

2 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

IF people want to believe the lie that WOWS is skill based, its a choice (not based on reality)...

Say the lie long enough people begin to ignore reality. Thus creating a reality on lies.

I don't live my life that way.. So I try to save others going down the "WOWS is skills" rabbit hole..

Then again..  This is the prime example of the Galileo affect.

No matter what I tell people in support of how to correctly view stats in WOWS... People will cling to the old ideas like a Koala.

Well, its just my opinion, but you are not changing minds [or saving anyone].

I find I play better in the mid tiers. When I choose select modes to play high tiers I tend to play worse [especially Tier 1o]. These modes are a little more forgiving than randoms and I receive far less toxic commentary. One of my weaknesses is often positioning. This I think is a skill set to be able to position properly. RNG is not a skill and is like actual gambling. Pulling the trigger often enough is not going to net results. But positioning takes learning and experience.

The definition of skill is simply the ability to do something well. There are aspects not ruled by RNG. This is why I think you have little support or saved people.

[Navalpride33]

1 minute ago, thornzero said:

Well, its just my opinion, but you are not changing minds [or saving anyone].

I find I play better in the mid tiers. When I choose select modes to play high tiers I tend to play worse [especially Tier 1o]. These modes are a little more forgiving than randoms and I receive far less toxic commentary. One of my weaknesses is often positioning. This I think is a skill set to be able to position properly. RNG is not a skill and is like actual gambling. Pulling the trigger often enough is not going to net results. But positioning takes learning and experience.

The definition of skill is simply the ability to do something well. There are aspects not ruled by RNG. This is why I think you have little support or saved people.

Too many people have a misconception of skill.. There's no stat in game right now, to measure/gauge/determine a players' skill. None what so ever..

In the end, since there's no correct information to determine the quality of a player..

What you stated could be a good skill set however, there's nothing to determine that for sure... That's my point.

That's your opinion that's cool.

Again its not based on hard stats.

WOWS stats are trophy based and thus we should treat them as such.

I understand, reading stats correctly is desperately needed. That way, people dont get swayed by made up conclusions.

[Type_93]

2 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Again its not based on hard stats.

Ok, what hard stats would be needed?

 

3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

There's no stat in game right now, to measure/gauge/determine a players' skill. None what so ever..

What stat would that take? 

 

3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

In the end, since there's no correct information to determine the quality of a player..

What correct information would you use?

[thornzero]

5 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

In the end, since there's no correct information to determine the quality of a player..

I know I am a low to medium quality player and not a high quality player. Since there is no correct information, then I could identify as a high quality player.

But at the conclusion of any match, someone would realise my actual quality without seeing any statistics. [How can they do this?]

[I do not want to derail this any further.]

[Navalpride33]

2 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

Ok, what hard stats would be needed?

 

What stat would that take? 

 

What correct information would you use?

There's no useful stats WOWS, all stats in WOWS is trophy oriented.

Using trophy stats to gauge/determine a certain skill or skill base.. Is ill-advised.

Therefor, I used the stats in WOWS to admire what Ive done to the opposition.

Not to mislead others of what I'm capable of.

 

[Navalpride33]

3 minutes ago, thornzero said:

I know I am a low to medium quality player and not a high quality player. Since there is no correct information, then I could identify as a high quality player.

But at the conclusion of any match, someone would realise my actual quality without seeing any statistics. [How can they do this?]

[I do not want to derail this any further.]

You brought up good points and its a good question..

That's why its best to leave stats as they are now, trophy based. Once you start going into trying to read into quality of a player... You'll find there's just a lot of opinions rather then hard numbers.

[Type_93]

2 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

There's no useful stats WOWS, all stats in WOWS is trophy oriented.

Using trophy stats to gauge/determine a certain skill or skill base.. Is ill-advised.

Therefor, I used the stats in WOWS to admire what Ive done to the opposition.

Not to mislead others of what I'm capable of.

 

See, you don’t know.  What are “Trophy stats?”  I’m no statistician, I’m an electrician.  
If other players see my stats in a certain ship at T10, they know how likely I am to contribute to my teams win or loss. At Tier 5 and below I’ll grant that stats don’t have as much merit on determining battle outcome in pvp because t5 and below is mostly bots.   

[Navalpride33]

10 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

See, you don’t know.  What are “Trophy stats?”  I’m no statistician, I’m an electrician.  
If other players see my stats in a certain ship at T10, they know how likely I am to contribute to my teams win or loss. At Tier 5 and below I’ll grant that stats don’t have as much merit on determining battle outcome in pvp because t5 and below is mostly bots.   

Trophy stats... Meaning.. Looking at electrical schematics and admiring the complexity of your work on how to make to deliver electricity to a building.

I would not use that document to gauge the work of one electrician. For that, you really need to observe more in dept and I dont think there's anything in your tool box to gauge the work of an electrician till after the work is done.. 

In other words, trophy stats reflect action not defines it.

Make sense?

Edited May 21 by Navalpride33

[SureBridge]

@Navalpride33 seems to be saying that there are no statistics collected / derived by WoWs that can accurately gauge if a player is "objectively" good. I'll buy that, it depends. I'd argue that over a large sample set (~2000+ games?) the aggregate indicators will suggest that a player with a higher win rate, damage average or number of kills is likely to be the better player. 

Want to test "skill" play against someone in a training battle, best of 7. You'll get a good idea how skilled you are. Lose in 4 games? they are probably much better than you are. Comes down to a clutch with the other guy "winning" the last game of 7 while burning and under 500 health - probably pretty evenly matched. 

If you want my "Objective" test for player skill in WoWs (which includes a marked "must play well with others" component) take a look at their clan battle record (in achievements) and see how many seasons in Storm+ they have played. 

Compare and contrast this with the "stats" that you can pull:

Gosh, this looks like a total crap player based on overall stats - only 500 battles? Less than a 50% Win rate?

I'm fully aware of how to "lie" with WoWS stats, I do it all the time - these are my stats (so I'm not stat shaming) and missed my first Typhoon finish in CB's this season by bouncing off the O7/EPOXY/NaCL wall in the struggle 3 times. I have more than 2x the number of clan battles than randoms, and have played in every KoTS since KoTS 14. I'm a MUCH better player than I was. 

I'd characterize the difference between "moderate tier" (T8 where all the "gimmicks like Radar and overmatch are available) and T10 as a ship lethality issue. At T8 you can make a mistake and probably survive it. At T10 you can't. At T5/6 even if you offer perfect broadside, the dispersion of most ships guns mean that you have even odds of a perfectly aimed shot not killing you. Not so at T10 with laser guided railguns...

I'm not in the same class as a lot of the folks from "elite" clans, and (since I have a life) I probably never will be. But I'll get good enough to make them work darn hard for their victory. and as I play Randoms my stats will creep up - but until they do, I enjoy folks who run matchmaker mods, because they'll consistently do stupid things in front of me, because they "know" I'm a scrub player.

To answer @thornzero's question, at the end of the match, if folks say "GG (ship you were playing)" you probably played well. If you get a compliment (karma) you probably played well. Losing Karma is less informative. If you lose Karma, you probably played a CV or sub, or "killed someone better than you are". Or didn't follow the instructions of "that guy" who lost his ship at 3 minutes and followed your play after that 😉

 

[SureBridge]

The other thing I'd throw in is "can the player teach me to get better" - I've learned a lot from @ArIskandir explaining the mechanics (and how to use and abuse them) so he's in my list of "good players". 

My mad attempt to get this thread back on track with "Where (Arl) stands".

I'm personally waiting to see how subs shake out, happy that they are no longer DD killing machines (but think that this change could have been done better - even if it was a declining chance of torps being armed at shorter distances rather than the stupid "they do less damage up close"). CV's should be more "reasonable" with the changes to plane spotting mechanics, so I'm waiting to see how that comes out. As for superships... I don't see them a lot, but the only ones that bug me are the super CV's, which may become "reasonable" with the new spotting mechanics - I have a few that I don't play, but don't have any real trouble playing against them (although Conde is a freaking monster).

[Type_93]

2 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Trophy stats... Meaning.. Looking at electrical schematics and admiring the complexity of your work on how to make to deliver electricity to a building.

I would not use that document to gauge the work of one electrician. For that, you really need to observe more in dept and I dont think there's anything in your tool box to gauge the work of an electrician till after the work is done.. 

In other words, trophy stats reflect action not defines it.

Make sense?

First off, that’s EXACTLY how you judge someone in my field as a skilled electrician.  The studying the schematics of a system to determine e the best coarse of action to do the job within code, make the work look professional, within time and on budget.  
Matter of fact you can judge my skill pretty well just by looking at my tools.  The quality and condition of them, the simply vast array of tools I own tells you I am skilled. 
Who would you hire? The guy with a rusty box and only a few tools, or the guy with a full truck tools, well maintained?  Same for this game.  Knowing the game mechanics (the tools) and using them correctly equates skill and that skill is recorded as a number of metrics in the game.  
 

To me stats that measure your action as good or bad is pretty good dead recognition of skill.