KiyoSenkan

What's different about this 4x3 14 inch battleship that makes it T7 material when the other two 4x3 14 inch battleships New Mexico and Pennsylvania are not?

So I'm supposed to act like a saint even when I'm only given hate and bile? You don't think someone's gonna get sick of trying to be the nice person and only getting spat on for the effort? I've been here since CBT. I've tolerated this trash for years, everyone has a limit to their patience.

I was in a tier 5 ship, and saw tier 7 ships 64% of the time. Even Lert's findings were heavily biased towards seeing tier 7 in a tier 5 ship, to the aggregate total of..IIRC, 56 or 57%. Which is not symmetric distribution at all.

1: I was part of that study. The data I submitted of 500 matches in tier 5 indicated 64.32% matches in tier 7 with a tier 5 ship. It's close enough for a general statement. 2: In previous conversations the response was a very direct "No, we will not do this". So the change in response actually is important.

The game's glacial growth rate, a little logic, and some anecdotes. 6 of the 10 people I've invited to play this game with me quit out of frustration with tier 5 encountering tier 7 so much. 3 more quit upon reaching tier 6 and seeing more of the same vs T8. Only 1 friend I invited even still plays the game, sporadically. This anecdotal experience seems to align with the trend, The game's growth rate is somewhere around 1-2%. With a churn rate of, as of last calculation, around 65%. Most companies would lose their mind over a 6% churn rate in customers.

I give what I'm given.

Please vote for the presented options. Bacon acts as an abstain. Saying other ridiculous matchmaking spreads is just trolling, guys.

That actually explains a lot. Also fixed that typo for you.

Gonna ignore the rest of the post? You can't refute it, so you'll hope it goes away.

It's more an issue of how poorly protected the New Yorks are than anything.

That'll resolve itself as the playerbase grows. Don't forget that the current MM is strangling growth and keeping the population remarkably low. Might take longer, so we'll have to be a bit patient at first, but it solves itself.

The only real "legitimate" opposition to +1/-1 MM is the reduced ship variety. Logically this makes sense. You're seeing 2 less tiers of ships. However, that's something that kinda gets resolved on its own as WG adds more ships to the game, so. It's not really an issue. It also kinda operates only on the assumption that everyone will play the same thing. Oh no, everyone will play Furutaka (Let's ignore the other tier 5 cruisers that exist?), etc. I'd argue it actually improves ship variety, as port queens people no longer/barely play anymore will become more viable. When you're no longer getting autopenned to death by Nagato in literally every game, Marblehead and Murmansk are a lot more fun.

I agree protected tier 4 was a mistake. Undoing that or extending it to all tiers is the solution. Whatever the choice, all tiers need to be treated the same (except maybe tier 1) in order for MM to not create choke points as it's doing now at tier 5 and tier 8. The current status quo is strangling the playerbase, hindering the game's growth, and negatively affecting premium ship sales. Loads of people I've spoken with have said they've passed on premiums in the problem tiers that they otherwise wanted, strictly because of the tier they were in. Fixing this, alone, would be a big win for WG.

Since it's already been established that radar doesn't hamper the best players at all, why are you only checking top player stats? Recent shipwide averages would be more accurate info. Then again, shipwide averages show around half of all non-Russian destroyers at sub-50% so it kinda torpedoes the argument.

They all boast improvements over their tier 8 cousins. Every single one. Even the bad ones like Izumo are still better than their predecessors in some way. Some tier 9s are the best examples of their line, like Fletcher, to the point where the tier 10 is considered a downgrade (buff Gearing)