Lazy preparations for Warships miniseasons

Wargaming announced that shortly after the last season there will be another, this time in 2×2 weeks, only 10 ranks and T5 ships only. The rewards are pretty limited, no steel is distributed.

I don’t overdo preparations for these miniseasons, no new meta plans are made, the last season strategy was downsized.

Instead of flanking Shima, I’ll have a Mustsuki. It has 5.4km concealment range and 8km torpedo range, 2×3 launchers. It doesn’t look much, but please remember that there is no radar in T5 and I can outspot everything. I purposefully did not add the aiming system upgrade, so the guns has smaller range, decreasing the spotting radius when firing. I don’t plan to fire long range anyway, just self-defense against destroyers. I merely grabbed my Kagero captain and put him to the Mutsuki:

Since T5 has carriers and even carrier divisions are allowed (in this miniseason 2-men divisions can play, each amount of divisions both sides), I downsized my AA Grozovoi too. The American T5 destroyer Nicolas has DefAA consumable and OK-ish air defense guns. As T5 ships have 3 upgrade slots, I could only add the +20% range upgrade. I gained Halsey, a special captain from missions and put him on this ship. He has 15 points, I’ll use elite commander XP to reach 19 before the season starts, allowing me to pick one more 4 points skill:

We’ll see how it works.

Corruption, communism and goblinism

While politicians are mentioned, this is a philosophy post, not a political (doesn’t endorse candidates or parties or values that align with parties).

I’ve already mentioned corruption in the sense of it’s being weaponized by partisan investigators. Now I want to talk about it in an ideal world, where angels do the investigations.

My point is: we should let politicians steal money and should not stop them by employing angels protecting the common money from corruption. This is quite counter-intuitive: why would I want politicians to steal from me?! Truly: I don’t. However as a believer of ruthless capitalism, I realize the opportunity cost: talented people not taking the politician road because of no money to be earned.

We don’t get hung up by the fact that Elon Musk is so rich that he can shoot cars into the space. Or that Jeff Bezos has more money than half of Africa. Or even the fact that half of the money we pay for a new IPhone is pure profit. We accept these as realities in capitalism: people who are at the right place can earn obscene amount of money. This money can only be decreased by competition: the grocer can’t have 50% profit in his prices, because there is another grocer around who sells for lower and we go there. IPhones are so expensive because they are so “good”, they provide so much value (even if it’s just Brand coolness) that people rather buy it than a competitor for half price.

If we accept this, why can’t we accept the same thing for politicians? I mean they are offering good government services, otherwise we’d hire the competition in the form of voting for them. I am voting for the politicians I’m voting for even if I know that 1-2% of my salary will go taxed for no other reason than them pocketing it. Even assuming that the other party is full of saints (they are not), therefore they don’t take that money; I wouldn’t vote for them, because I don’t like the way they bring the country.

Of course I’d prefer my favorites not stealing. But I would also prefer electronics producers going non-profit and letting me have my money I now spend on their profit, but guess what, they won’t! The only difference is that I can force politicians to take no “profit”, by supporting anti-corruption efforts. But even if they are successful, the only result would be that my favorites say “Hell with this, I won’t work for 10x median wage, I quit politics and go hedge fund manager” and then I would lose his services.

So as long as a politician is elected, he is elected with his pocket. If he overstuffs it, the people have the right to not vote for him and the opposing party rule. That’s enough check against over-corruption.

This is absolutely not how you fit a Grozovoi

Grozovoi is a gunboat destroyer, kind of light cruiser in World of Warships. It has bad concealment, horrible torpedoes (I managed to not sink a Yamato from point blank range, all torpedoes hit), slow turning and large size (easy to hit). It has good guns, but worse than both Khabarovsk and Harugumo, which are smaller, more agile and the latter has good torpedoes. No wonder it’s unpopular: only 1.2% of the ranked play was in Grozovoi (Shimakaze has 11%). In randoms it is the second least popular among T10 destroyers, but the least popular is the recently added Harugumo, which will soon surpass it.

It’s a bad ship, why do I play it? Because it has one very good use: it is the only destroyer with decent air defense and the DefAA consumable. This consumable not only increases its already good air defense by 300% for 30 seconds (36 with upgrade), but also decreases the accuracy of nearby attack planes, making them do very little damage.

In random battles, you press the queue button, you get pulled into a game with either carriers or not. Mostly not and then the specialty of Grozovoi is pretty much useless. However ranked battles fill up slowly, letting you dodge queue. The queue lists how many destroyers, cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers are in the queue. If there are 8 destroyers (4 on both sides) then maybe it’s a good idea not to play with your Shimakaze. However if you see 2 carriers waiting for a game, it’s a great idea not only to unlist the Shima, but to list with the Grozovoi.

The current carrier game meta is obnoxious: stay in a lemming train, attack the enemy head on and hope that “skillz” carry you. If you leave the lemming train, you are easy target for the enemy carrier who constantly look for targets outside of the DefAA bubble of the popular Worchesters. Except if you are in an AA-specced Grozovoi, because then you can sail wherever you please, mostly to capture a point, getting advantage to your team and to get to the back and kill the enemy carrier. He can’t do much against you, because DefAA gives a sure survival against the first attack and decimate his planes. You can survive the next attack using your smoke which doesn’t let him see where you are. You can just lay a big smoke field when you expect the enemy carrier to attack you (about 90 seconds after the first attack) and just sit somewhere in it until DefAA comes back. He can drop torpedoes into the smoke randomly, but the smoke is much bigger than you, so it’s a bad gamble.

I played 8 games with Grozovoi last season with stellar results:


The comparisons are to all ranked Grozovoi users and the top 5%. Please note how my damage was half of the average user and I sank 1/3 as many ships. This discrepancy comes from Grozovois usually fighting low HP enemy destroyers. But I killed 50% more planes than the top 5% (10x more than the average), showing that my ship excelled in the role I gave it. Unfortunately 8 games are too few to evaluate winrate, but next season it’ll be more.

Back then I had mere 13 points on my captain, because I used leftover “elite commander XP”. In the meantime I was busy and my captain is now maxed out. Guess what, this isn’t how people fit their Grozovois:

This ship is utterly unable to do anything but carry in ranked carrier games. Everything, even concealment is sacrificed for AA defense. I put my last 3 points into more HE fire chance. This is for two reasons: the lesser is to be able to engage battleships from long range while behind an island, smoke or simply when it’s aiming somewhere else. But the most important is to set the enemy carrier on fire when engaged. When you do so, the carrier will be close and will see you, ergo, it can rotate its airplanes against you fast. As soon as you run out of DefAA, you’ll be vulnerable to planes. You’ll still kill some of them, but the remaining can crossdrop and kill you. Except if they can only take off slowly from the burning plane – or not at all if the appropriate skill isn’t taken and it’s usually not.

CCP (and CSM) still doesn’t get the problem with highsec war decs

I’m still reading Nosy Gamer, the only blog left from my EVE days. Maybe I shouldn’t and I should cut all interactions with that game, but he is too informative and non-offensive. Now he wrote about how CCP wants to deal with wardecs that cause huge player activity drop.

The responses show that they still don’t have a clue why wardecs are completely broken. To understand, we must see that there are many similarities between highsec and lowsec, like no system ownership, NPC-owned stations that let everyone dock and no bubbles which make large fleet battles impossible as the weaker side can always run. So both zones are good for small groups. What are the differences between highsec and lowsec:

  1. Better ore in lowsec
  2. Better LP rewards for L4s in lowsec
  3. L5 agents are available in lowsec
  4. Valuable blueprints from lowsec incursions
  5. Higher level grinding and exploration sites in lowsec
  6. In highsec CONCORD and faction police come to your aid if attacked by a player

#1-5 are all “lowsec is better”. That’s crucial: lowsec isn’t “different” from highsec, but better. Safety is the only thing that makes people play in highsec. You have absolutely no other reason to play in highsec instead of lowsec. If everyone would become nice overnight and never attack anyone without consent, highsec would be totally depopulated as missioners, miners, incursion runners would move to lowsec for better rewards.

Wardec take #6 away. You can now be attacked, just like in lowsec. If wardecced, you should either move to lowsec for the better rewards, or don’t log in. So even in an ideal world, where players are motivated and capable of fighting, wardecs make highsec redundant. In this ideal world, no one plays in highsec, since there is no point: you’ll be attacked anyway, so why not take the better rewards of lowsec?

Of course we aren’t in the ideal world (as evidenced by the fact that I can’t play EVE thanks to CFC Falcon), so players don’t fight back, they just log off.

Wardecs should be limited to corporations that have structures in space. If you only do what you could do in NPC corps, you should have the same protections as NPC corps. (maybe with the NPC tax rate too)


PS: this is too funny not to share:

The siren song of rewards

The World of Warships ranked season has ended and I’m doomed to refill my signal reserves. “Signals” are 1-game buffs that are practically mandatory for ranked play. Not all of them of course, just a few. For Shimakaze the +5% speed, the +15% flood chance and no detonation ones are absolute must. They are pretty expensive (8000, 4800 and 6400 “coal” resource for 20 of them).

Sometimes I get lucky and receive some for achievements, but it’s greatly situational. There are also events, like the current “Royal Navy”, which gives out tokens that can be used to buy these.

But the main source is coal, and coal comes from two “daily quests”:

The first needs you to collect some XP. That’s pretty easy if you have premium and +XP camo. “Pay to win” if you want to call it, but it’s in the range of $15/month, so it would be an overstatement. Every container has 400 or 800 coal.

The other is two consecutive literal daily quests. The first is trivial. The second needs you to win 3 games, with 1100, 1200, 1300 base XP. That wasn’t a problem with Shima. 50% winrate means 6 games on average. Of course Murphy says that you win in a row when you have lot of time and you lose in a row when you have time only for a few games. But now I’m maxing out the captain of my Grozovoi. I was very pleased with its performance in ranked against CVs and want to use it next season. However an AA specced Grozovoi doesn’t perform well in randoms. Ergo, winning with 1200+ base XP is rare. So I must play a lot to complete this quest.

However, do I really need that 200 coal?! Is it worth doing randoms after the third box is already gained? No. This is the message: you don’t have to complete every daily quest and get every damn reward. You can just do those that are efficient and leave the rest. My time is worth more than 200 coal.

Let’s laugh on Aeternus gaming!

Aeternus wrote: “Unfortunately I’ve not been able to get myself motivated enough to join the gym again. I’m just way too insecure right now and I’m scared that if I go people will laugh at me. Instead I’m opting to cancel my gym membership for the time being and start/continue working out at home.”

This is hilarious. Refusing to go to the gym, because people might laugh. This is the most openly social thing I’ve seen in gaming blogs for years. (let’s not count the crazies who babble about white privilege and patriarchy, luckily they haven’t infiltrated gaming).

What the hell happens if they laugh? Will the ceiling collapse? Will you be outcast from the gym? (it’s more likely that the management tells them to cut it our get out, because scaring off non-fit people is the worst thing that can happen to a gym). What magic power do their laughter holds?

But even better, we are laughing on your social weakness now! Believing in lizard people because Alex Jones told you so couldn’t make you more ridiculous than confessing fear of being laughed at in the gym.

And we will keep laughing until you go back to the gym! Checkmate! HAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously. Please people, don’t give a damn what total strangers who have zero effect on your life think of you. I receive a “kill urself nigger faggot” several times a week and I’m still here. Other people’s opinion isn’t real danger. We aren’t living in an ape horde where the “bad opinion” meant that the other ape will jump on you to bite you. They can be safely ignored.


PS: playing destroyers in random CV game is so frustrating. You get a retarded CV and there is nothing you can do:

To the ash heap of history!

Philosophy post warning!

Smite wrote “The EU members have developped a certain political culture in the last 40 years, and most important principle is the rule of law and the separation of legislative, executive and jurisdiction. These fundamental principles are being raped by Hungary and Poland and suing them is the only rightful action.” My reply was “The [2024 EU] election we’ll defeat them and throw the “rule of law and the separation of legislative, executive and jurisdiction” to the ash heap of history.”

It wasn’t a rage-answer, I do believe it, though I want to explain and clarify. First thing first, I don’t think elected partisan officials should decide criminal or divorce cases. In that sense I do want an independent judiciary and never met anyone who didn’t. What I mean is that the judiciary should have no power either over the laws (ruling them unconstitutional) or the politicians (locking them up for corruption).

Let’s start with the first: if the country has agreed-upon constitution or established laws, it seems a good idea to prevent a bad politician create laws that conflict these. It is a good idea. The problem is that the judges who’d decide if there is a conflict are just as “bad” as the politicians.

You don’t have to look further than the “Travel ban” of Trump which was OK-ed by the Supreme Court 3 times now (one time with 9-0), but lower court judges keep blocking it with new excuses, causing delay until the SC smacks them down again. The most notorious judge became a literal meme for his efforts:

While this is funny, the democratically elected president cannot implement one of his signature issues because of these clowns. So the will of the people expressed by their vote can not be done because of “separation of powers”.

The meme-judge is of course only the tip of the iceberg. The Supreme Court is a problem in itself, due to being completely partisan. People openly discuss “liberal” and “conservative” justices who regularly vote 4-5 according to party lines. The lefties are losing their minds over Brett Kavanaugh to the point of promoting Pizzagate level nonsense against him, because they – rightfully – believe that he’ll always rule for conservatives.

This couldn’t possibly happen in Hungary. While formally they have the ability, Orbán sent every old judge into retirement and promoted loyalists to their places. If he loses the next election, I’ll support the new government doing the same. However I believe it would be much better if no democratically elected government could be stopped by activist judges. The government should be able to make any rules, even conflicting ones. If the people don’t like the mess, they can show them the door.

Corruption is bad. Politicians shouldn’t steal and they do all the time. Shouldn’t the law apply to them when they aren’t doing politician stuff, but simple human crimes? Of course it should. But who will apply the law? Honest, apolitical career investigators of course, like these two:


For those who didn’t follow US politics, these lovebirds were “investigating” the Trump-Russia hoax and did everything in their power to frame him for treason while also making sure that Hillary Clinton gets out of her private server investigation unharmed.

You could tell that they are an exception. Corrupted scum who got where they definitely shouldn’t be. But there is a serious problem: I wouldn’t have done better in their place. I would have also done everything to cover up for my candidate and frame the other one. I would do it for the same reason they did: I’d believe it’s the right thing to do. My candidate is the good one and the other is a disaster for the country. If I can’t do it, no one can. I believe there isn’t a single man on the planet who could serve as impartial investigator in a case against a politician.

I’m however capable of realizing that these wannabe dictators didn’t: that no one made me king(maker) and it’s not my call, but of the people’s. If the majority supports the other candidate, it’s their way or the highway (to exile). Forcing my way would be nothing short of dictatorship. Ergo, the only way to protect democracy is making sure that no judges and no prosecutors can touch our politicians, even when they’d deserve it. Only “we the people” should be able to punish them.


A personal note: I was a supporter of liberal democracy all my life. I didn’t even vote for Orbán in 2014. The US election, the Russia hoax, the sabotage of Trump by judges turned me into a rabid illiberal, a rallygoing Orbán fan and a supporter of Putin, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Duterte and co. I believe the liberal countries are in the state of “independent institution capture”, where the checks and balances are in the hands of a small minority.


Sunday morning update: I hope it’s not you Smite: