Spartias

Interesting. Do you mind elaborating?

Typhoon group two and below teams? Yes I'd agree, they've been very non-inventive. But not the top teams. 5D has spent most of the season in Typhoon group 1. We've spent most of that time slugging it out with Hurricane teams after their 5-8 minutes ques. There's a large, large variety of team make ups in those teams.

Yup. Want survivability and dpm? Moskva Want to do a full map push? Gonna need to cycle those hydros. Moskva. Depending on the strat, there are currently a lot of good reasons to take a Moskva over a Stalin. Stalin merely punishes mistakes (and at the top you so very rarely see those), so unless you're using it as an anchor/kiting ship, the Moskva is better at team play.

Completely agreed.

Personally, I've got the choice in my CB team to run what I want, either Stalin or Moskva. I've probably chosen the Moskva about 70% ish of the time, depending on the strat and what was needed. Other teams however of late in hurricane have taken to a borderline season three Moskva push meta. We probably saw it for about two weeks. But ya gotta understand, there's about three different cycling meta's up there. Running onto the meta you counter grants a large chance if winning. The opposite is also true. Very rock paper sizors. Teams try weird things sometimes trying to break the vicious cycles.

The meta has been constantly in flux this season. For a good long while we even saw the Moskva take over instead of the Stalingrad.

My reasons? I'm a pretty decent player. My own experience with this game teaches me that a skill based MM wouldn't work with this game. When I see far superior players to me in agreement to that I tend to listen. There's a reason they're better than I am. Better players strive, and find a way to succeed at attaining victory more than others. When I'm delving into the api, writing spreadsheets so that i can better break down player statistical data (in combination to my clan battle experiences), I've come to certain conclusions. Stats definitely correlate to more reliable players. If better stats correlate to better players, does that not stand to reason that those players have a greater grasp on the game? I would say it does. Stats are NOT everything. I've seen a lot of great players in randoms completely fail at CB. Personality matters too. You have to have both, the skill and the way. Hence why I carefully listen to Fara when it comes to CV. Hence why I do not listen to Notser, or Nozoup when they rant about competitive. Notser is a good player, but he has no experience with competitive. Hence why when a top player from the last victors of KOTS expresses an opinion, I listen. When the best come to a conclusion, it's likely worth listening to. Ranting against those with a proven track record of surmounting challenges in this game merely comes across as gross petulance. My experience is my reasoning. Your lack of it is why, I'd wager, your reasoning does not come to the same conclusions.

“In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason." James Madison on why there should be guards against the empassioned majority, aka a mob. The majority is not always right. Sometimes the majority should absolutely be ignored for more... renaissance reason.

Those teams you’ve faced, from the records you’ve shown, are all storm and typhoon. None of them are Hurricane. I’d wager that this late in the season the gale teams have generally just quit playing. They got their rewards, discovered they were stuck low on the totem pole, and stopped.

The best 3 man div combo is 1 BB 1CA/CL 1 DD Mutual support wins games.

Mmm... I am going to miss the rts cv gameplay. Having played as an old Supremacy CV player, it was so much fun coordinating spotting and damage with a team. It was super well balance down in competitive. That being said, I do enjoy the new stuff. It’s not horrible, and I’ve had some very fun moments on the test/pts. I’ve just been unable to play as much test as I’d of liked. I'm concerned about AA, too many people seem to want it the way it isn’t now, being able to outright garunteed slaughter an entire flight if you’re fully AA built. But with only one squad at a time, that’s not going to work. I’m concerned people will complain so much that a cycle will start. 1 Everyone complains until the initial release makes it so that bots slaughter planes. 2 Live hits, and CV’s can do nothing against the hail of properly built AA ships. 3 Wargaming overreacts and flips the balance the other way somehow, and then everyone will have to spec for full AA on everything. 4 Cycle flips again... and again... The real reason the rts gameplay failed is because wargaming never properly balanced AA. It was either too strong or too weak. They need to find a happy middle ground here.

New data entered and processed as requested. Full 100 player dataset available now.

New data ran and processed from the NA server as requested by @LoveBote Data was requested since there are now 100 players available in the base data set. Nothing much seems to have changed. Henri now is in full tolerance. Salem still has far too few players that are applicable. Wooster still beats out the Stalingrad. Older ships seem to be generally in the same relation they were prior to this run. Did notice that the Moskva data set grew exponentially, likely from the new 44 players from the base Stalingrad data set. Moskva data changed a good bit. Same qualifiers are likely in effect with it however from my first post. Early Generation Cruisers Mid Generation Cruisers Late Generation Cruisers

My friends and I* Sry... Imma horrible person...

Yes, I can update it more data asap. Gotta hit the gym first though.