Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'mm'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 26 results

  1. Observe this example. what happened here, I carry, but once dead those left alive having spent all match hiding behind A come out to die. then check stats after 36 percent win rate over 61 games. fps mm is clearly screwing someone, cause these guys are actively playing for the other team.
  2. Yoshino has one of the highest damage rates of T10 cruisers, but one of the worst win rates. It seems like it is impossible to win in it. Can somebody explain why? Is there something wrong with Match Maker?
  3. Just got put into a game as a t6 cv into a t8 game. With capt skills I had a dd (kagero) that no matter what, by the time the planes spotted it I was too close to attack with rockets bombs or torps. Even dropping my squads speed to it's slowest I had to be humping him to see him. Quite literally impossible to strike back other than starting the attack run completely blind and hoping when it was set he was in view and in the right spot. So, I was gone when they decided to completely rat (censored) CV's but can someone tell me why bending them over wasn't good enough, that they also had to only make them available every other teir which just compounds the teir gap in MM?
  4. nastydamnanimal

    Balanced MM "tree" SPOTTED!!

    MM mechanic tree algorithm working like this.. Use 2 mechanics.... TREE MAIN BRANCH SEARCH : players average experience earned per battle "E/B" is equal or almost equal +/- something DATA COMPILING..... "E/B" player pool created successfully.... 1st search criteria met.... 2nd branch ready. 2nd BRANCH SEARCH : player pool tier/ship type sorting please wait...... 24 clients ready now ......50 clients sent to express queue.. ANCHOR......players play and players are happy.... WG wins game of the year for many years to come. The above is a type of programming logic but for those that are ACTUALLY confused here it is in layman's terms: E/B has to be the main search criteria , this creates a pool of players that have very similar E/B then and only then do you sort the tier and ship types from that pool. Anchor! This would also solve complaints of WG catering to passives vrs players that like to fight. It would free them up to cater away any way they please, cause with this algorithm, passives will play against passives and vise-versa. This would eliminate "Fake" unicorns diving up against noobs and vise-versa Break the shackles WG you can do it.
  5. So a few hours ago I had a random match that was decided before I could hit my W key. I was in my O.P. tier 8 RU BB. Heavy tier 10 match. 1 CV per side. Epicenter with winter snowstorm. 3 DD's. ...... I knew it was going to be a blowout as soon as i saw how "BALANCED" team list was. Red team had 2 test ships: Colbert and Smolensk. Predicted in all chat a blow out.... Less than 6 minutes. They capped both inner rings and killed 6 ships... We capped nothing and killed 3 ships. .... I don't mind having hope that MM has balanced match by ship types... And THIS IS NOT A SKILL BASED MM SUBJECT. BUT, Why have 2 OP TEST SHIPS ON THE SAME TEAM? The threat of their combined firepower kept our team at bay. .... Note: 1 was a WG CC and other was a Supertester. Neither one in a division. ..... IF MM IS TRYING TO BALANCE ON SHIP TYPES: 1) Balance Radars. 2) Balance by ship Performance. 3) hard cap CV to 1 per team. .... I can deal with 30% win chance based on players skill history, but not having equal Dakka or radar is a deciding factor. For example 1 team has 3 moskva other 1 Cleveland......
  6. nastydamnanimal

    1v1 DUEL to the DEATH

    Ok WG since there is nothing wrong with random MM Give us 1v1 duels!!! Absolutly No restrictions and points go to DUEL win rate. I challenge all unicoms wanna be unicoms to a duel forthwith.
  7. nastydamnanimal

    MM rework POLL !!

    OK how many of you want the MM to be as follows.... Random MM mechanics = same tier and same average xp average xp can be found in your service record btw. Low xp Premium and Armory ship buyers will also have to climb the xp ladder. There is a bunch of them so they will just have to play against eachother and bot fillers until their average xp improves opening up more full pvp no bot filler random games. this is a poll so dont flame me just vote maybe WG will listen? thanks
  8. Double CV games are completely unbalanced...When will this STOP?!? There is no counter when both CVs focus 1 ship and you have clueless teammate CVs that will not provide fighter support. A supposed AA strong ship cannot punish the planes when the enemy CV player can keep rotating squadron types and burn and flood the focused ship in a couple minutes. This is with other ships providing overlapping AA support. Any trash player that learns the basic game play mechanics can suffer no consequences by throwing their planes away. I'm so sick of this like many other players are. So tell us...when will it stop???
  9. Some background: Tried CV pre-rework albeit at a mere Tier 4. I wasn't particularly interested in the "RTS" style of the controls at the time. Having said that, I also haven't put it the time to learn it either. As a Destroyer main (my 1st Tier 10 was a Shimakaze) two years ago, which have now changed to all three types of ships. Essentially, being evenly spread across all classes of ships currently. I was on the receiving end from the 1st wave of the CV rework implementation, and the following second iteration, to current. Lately, I have tried the CV side to really see what the change was about. Frankly, the UI was intuitive and a vast improvement from the RTS style. Which suited me fine. Truthfully (and nefariously), I also wanted to learn how the view from the CV side was about. So I can counter them with my non-CV ships. Grinded through the "Fly Strike Win" directives, to earn the necessary "florins" to unlock the Tier 4, Tier 6 CVs (IF I was able to unlock T8 with Florins only, I would've as well). Sidebar, Thank you WG for allowing us to convert the Florins into Premium time. Now unlocked the Tier 8 CV, played some battles with her. Things that I have noticed with T8 CV game play. I can't speak for the "nerf" of the particular RN squadrons (Bombs), since I wasn't able to play it prior to two previous patches (ergo, after the changes). Having played the entry level CV (Tier 4). I have learned that it's not as easy (maybe I was incorrectly having large expectations) as some may have alluded to. It may be the introduction tier, but the word "enjoyment", "fun" is not. I have quickly skipped (and sold) Tier 4, to 6. Once on Tier 6. I have enjoyed far more than previous tier battles. It was quite literally like night and day. A massive jump, yet the Match Making (hence forth as "MM") would devilishly even out (or take the last bastion of perceived enjoyment) the enjoyment from you. However, this immensely pales in comparison with the Tier 8 MM. With Tier 6, one had chances and opportunities to "Fly, Strike, Win". With T8 MM, it's perfectly okay with playing against Tier 9's. But when faced with Tier 10's. It is not "fun" for the CV players. Interesting anecdote : I have read on the forum about how DD players have voiced their concerns with such passioned crescendo. That they "can't do anything against CV's". Whilst I agree from the previous patches (pre 0.8.2) this may hold some truth. But now with two patch changes, I would have to disagree with such statements. I fly my T8 Rocket/Torpedo/Bomb planes to T10 Destroyer Daring/Gearing/Harugumo (and some T9's). My planes would all reduce to orange health instantly. Loitering any longer in the AA bubble would kill them all. Again, very quickly. So DD mains here, with their strong arguments does not hold any weight any more ( Sorry, but not sorry. My former DD Main brothers/Sisters ). Specially with the current changes (0.8.2). One could argue that I should try it with T10 CV's. Here's the caveat. The progression to T10 CV is, ironically as such; 4, 6, 8, 10. There is no in-between tiers nor do the MM accommodate to the Tier 8 players. Whilst some may get the odd winning streaks with their T8's. Or fortunate MM's more often than most. This player, have had so far fought 111 battles with T8 RN CV alone. Would you like to know how many battles with majority of over 60% of Tier 8's/9's in roster was versus Tier 10's? 19 battles out of 111. That is roughly 21%. I read somewhere in the forum that the chances of relatively appropriate MM was around 30% mark. So I have one could say, have had an unlucky streak with MM. Looking back, I have had more enjoyment with Tier 6 CV than 8 (I now regret selling T6 CV). Especially considering the Service Cost per battle. Or shall I say Penalty costs per battle. Being the all mighty CV player that sways the pendulum to the win was rare for me, even more so with Tier 8 battles. No matter what I've tried, in Tier 8 MM. It is nearly impossible for me, or that is the experience so far (who knows, WG may eventually cater to the little people like me). I have last night, had a very close (because our particularly salty Worcester loitered around the spawn areas. Ran away from all caps, and contacts, and from the views of the rest of the players not just yours truly. Along with another BB. Didn't really help with much) loss/win. It was a four CV battle in total. 2 x 10's, 2 x 8's. We had a super unicum T10 CV player (after checking out his profile), and me trying to help. I can say quite frankly without any bias that, that player did all he could to turn the tide. No matter what he and I did, we could not secure that win. So the argument that CVs can literally change the course of the battle is yet to convince me otherwise so far. I believe that the psychological impact the T10 CV's brings, just like when you see Montana's, Yamato's. Is the same. What matters (the win overall), really comes down to AAA capable ships (hell, any ships) to pull their weight appropriately. That is what I've noticed in my novice point of view of playing RN CV (T8). So, the question is why did I play so many battles with such an uphill battle against with the MM's that I've experienced. I wanted to hone my CV craft more (I still think that I'm not good enough), and also I got the Permanent Camo ( "Perma Camo" ) for her. Which even after a bad battle (some resulting in sub 8 minute battle times with losses), I'd lose around 16,000~38,000 credit losses. Which is something I can swallow, considering that it is a "high tier battle". If it wasn't for the Perma camo & Premium Time during the grind. I'm not sure I would've played her beyond 30~40 battles, and that's pushing the estimate. The credit losses would cripple my already low credit balance. Adding to the fact that, I've been having sub optimal MM battles. It wasn't enjoyable at all, and I would've resorted to not playing her at all. Would I keep grinding to T10 RN CV? The answer is, I'm not so sure I would. Knowing that my MM percentage is already lower than most by a large margin. Without having a Perma Camo, and Premium time. My losses would place me into a negative balance, very very quickly. p.s. For those of you who would inevitably check my stats, to form a rebuttal. It is in my EU account as; LowSpeedHighDrag EDIT: spelling
  10. slayingclub1996

    WG, you need to fix MM NOW

    I'm nowhere near the best playing but I would like to think I am competent enough to carry games. Now, with matchmaking so skewed, that is physically impossible.
  11. So you know what they say about local observers and their observations, right? Can't be trusted. The last few days, taking my GC out to complete daily missions, earn coins, all the normal stuff, I sort of suddenly realized "hey... i'm bottom tier". Its been like every match, especially the last two days. I'm sure it's just a miss-perception on my part, but I don't ever recall seeing so many tier seven ships in battle against my GC. Is it possible/probable/likely that matchmaking could have been tweaked in such a manner as to push the GC into more battles where she's the lowest tier? You might ask "Why would they do this?" I would respond, "To gather data about her performance against higher tier ships". I'll also say playing carriers a lot then switching back to other types really messes with your aiming skills. Phew. Just curious - anyone else seeing more "bottom tier matches" in the GC? tiafyc
  12. 8 4939843 7 4501474 10 4362409 6 3840728 5 3695758 9 2807057 4 2534687 3 1871145 The list above shows the number of battles played by tier for the NA server in the quarter ending Sept 29, taken from here. I've organized them from most to least by tier. Note first of all the extremely low number of battles for T9. There are simply not enough T9s to fill out T10 battles the way the current MM is set up, so it must dip into T8. As you can see, T8 has the most battles of any tier, followed by T7. There would probably be a lot more at T5 and T6 if the MM wasn't so awful right now. If T9s are pulled into T10 in great numbers, there are few T9s to give T8s one tier and T7s two tier spreads. Hence, to ensure that T9s are spread evenly across T7-8 battles and that there MM has a fair two tier spread at T7, the surplus of T8s have to be shoved up to T10 to fill the slots that should be going to T9s. The problem of the current MM is that no one plays T9 ships and that WG has organized the game around T10 even though, as evidence shows, most players would rather be at T8... indeed, if we switched to a one tier MM there would be even more T8 games. What's interesting is that people are still enthusiastically willing to be abused at by the MM at T8. Here are the T8 ships ranked by number of battles... 1 Cleveland 47107 661986 2 North Carolina 20705 400507 3 Bismarck 20333 379471 4 Massachusetts 11822 271901 5 Baltimore 17353 260425 6 Tirpitz 20213 246180 7 Benson 10407 200233 8 Akizuki 9786 171531 9 Admiral Hipper 9870 168702 10 Kagero 9317 167142 11 Richelieu 8343 164301 12 Amagi 9423 158947 13 Mogami 8857 152044 14 Alabama 10727 136962 15 Edinburgh 8542 131836 16 Atago 9359 106768 17 Monarch 5193 105370 18 Chapayev 5871 92695 19 Z-23 4647 87826 20 Charles Martel 5410 85963 21 Kidd 8947 79291 22 Lexington 4351 75741 23 Asashio 3375 71387 24 Prinz Eugen 9622 65538 25 HSF Harekaze 5042 63381 26 Hsienyang 2789 54644 27 Mikhail Kutuzov 5715 51030 28 Kiev 3806 50862 29 Ognevoi 4133 47330 30 Loyang 5066 43513 31 ARP Takao 5219 38809 32 Roma 3759 38380 33 Kii 3035 28395 34 Shokaku 2088 25200 35 Gascogne 2320 20164 36 Enterprise 1462 10379 37 Graf Zeppelin 399 8612 38 Cossack 1077 8366 39 Lightning 940 8031 ...note that the majority are tech tree ships. Kii, Roma, and Gascogne are almost non-existent -- examples of how the two tier MM that shoves players up to T10 has killed T8 premium ship purchases (doesn't help that the recent crop of T8 premiums has been pretty meh, soon to be joined by the gimped Wichita). I've stopped playing T8-10 and will not lay out any cash on premiums for those tiers since why pay to be a fodderbote, and I doubt I am the only one to make that latter decision. In a one tier MM I would probably have bought Roma, Gascogne, and Massachusetts... Lightning was new so I imagine she will move rapidly up the charts. But of the top ten and top 15, most are tech tree ships. Only 2 premiums, Mass and Tirp, are in the top ten. At T8 lots of the tech tree ships are really enjoyable boats, and of course many people wanted to try the new Cleveland. Thanks for the food, guys. It's blindingly obvious that we need to switch to a one tier MM. WG's deference to T10 is killing the high tiers, while T5-6 are broken. If we switched to a one-tier MM T9 would hardly change, and more T9s would be available to be pulled into T10 matches. There would be a slightly longer wait at T10 since the hordes of T8 ships would no longer be available. What is really needed to make that happen is for WG to change the way it treats T10 like a spoiled, favorite son even though the numbers show that people would rather be at T8. The best gameplay is at T5-8 and that's what the game should emphasize. In a one tier MM those four tiers would be loads of fun, and everyone would play a greater variety of boats. Top ten T9 ships by number of battles. I guess people must be grinding Buffalo, because there is no other reason to play it, let alone so much. 9 Iowa 13423 283731 9 Fletcher 10385 245719 9 Missouri 11380 230637 9 Buffalo 11495 209645 9 Seattle 7606 192111 9 Friedrich der Grosse 8253 159845 9 Yugumo 6537 146543 9 Alsace 5568 142368 9 Musashi 5806 138180 9 Roon 5707 117235
  13. Currently, tier 7 Battleships have 25mm extremity plating - the same as their tier 6 counterparts. Most Tier 7 Cruisers (CA/CL) have 16mm plating, with a few Heavy Cruisers (CA) carrying 19m or 25mm. I believe that this particular choice leaves too large a gap between tier 7 and 8 ships, which for Battleships increase to 32mm plating and CAs carry 25-27mm plating. I suggest the following change: Tier 7 Battleships -> 27mm extremity plating. This will have no significant effect on HE resistance (150mm IFHE pens 32mm, non-IFHE shatters on 25mm), but protect them from being overmatched by 380mm caliber guns found on many Tier 6-9 Battleships. Now, there is a more incremental increase in protection. Tier 6 is vulnerable to 380mm, Tier 7 is now overmatched by 406mm and Tier 8 reaches the maximum of immunity to all but the Yamato/Musashi and their 460mm guns. This will have little effect on tier 7 vs tier 5 (which all have 356mm guns or smaller) and a slight effect on tier 6 (Bayern and QE/Warspite will be slightly less effective against tier 7 Battleships so might need a very slight buff). Tier 8 and 9 ships will not be significantly affected - the few with 380mm guns are more than capable of overpowering them by other means and are already balanced around this limitation. The goal is to linearize the tier 6-8 power progression in such a way as to maintain the balance in 5-7 and improve the survivability of Tier 7 in the 7-9 range. Tier 7 Cruisers -> 25mm midships and deck plating (for those without it) and 19mm bow/stern plating. Basically, some tier 7 cruisers (especially CLs) are a little too vulnerable to being overmatched by all battleships. This change would give them some protection against 356mm armed battleships common at tiers 5-7. The gap between tier 7 and 8 cruisers is a bit too large. Tier 6 cruisers might also need this change, as they are currently crushed by both tier 7 and tier 8 counterparts. Essentially, increase the survivability of tier 7 ships slightly, and place an intermediate step between the tier 6 and tier 8 protection paradigm. Additional possibilities: Tier 5 BB -> 25mm Tier 5 CA/CL -> 16mm (Cruisers shouldn't overmatch each other) Thoughts?
  14. This was a refreshing change. Tough battle, a pleasure to be in.
  15. I would like to gauge people's opinion regarding the MM spread. Don't vote on what you believe might be better for new players, etc. Vote for the MM that you personally would prefer to have.
  16. monpetitloup

    Tier 7 is the new Tier 8

    played a couple tier 7 games, both bottom tier, is tier 7 the new tier 8?
  17. ...when I'm doing good or in a good/strong ship, something wouldn't always go wrong to throw the match or my performance in it. I mean, it seems that every time I'm doing well and having fun, or plan to at least, the meta changes slightly in a flash and all the sudden there is a flood of my counters, AND constant bottom-tiering. When both decide to be nice, but something in WoWS is still against me, I'll get perfect set-ups(even the rest of the team are in perfect ships for defeating the enemy team's line-up) TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, AND UTTERLY RUINED BY TOMATO TEAMS SO BAD, THEY CAN'T KILL spotted 100 HP DDs, and THEY SHOW BROADSIDE IN EVERYTHING, meanwhile COMPLETELY MISSING THE OPEN BROADSIDE OF EQUALLY TOMATO ENEMIES AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, UNTIL THE TOMATO ENEMIES STOP MISSING OR FINALLY ANGLE. OH, DO I SOUND LIKE I'M ANGRY? THAT'S BECAUSE I AM! Oh, and that's not all, actually. Sometimes there will be clusters of enemy ships stopped or going very slow at one place or another, but instead of feasting and farming torpedo hits on said clusters of enemy ships(no radar in them, by the way), my allied DDs will be deleted because they were so inept that that they were brought down to EXTREMELY LOW health by(OF ALL THINGS) A MUTSUKI FOR GOODNESS SAKE. Sigh. I am so glad when these battles are over, but then when I jump into another ship for another battle, back I am into a match with floods of my counters and I am bottom tier. Oh, and there are MUCH better(read: higher-tier) ships on both my team and the enemy team, but my team's top-tier ships of my class are gone within minutes of the opening of the match, while the only thing gone from the enemy team's top tier ships of my class is any trace of doubt or fear as they farm damage, medals, and Devastating Strikes off my team. I do my best, but it's just not enough. The enemy team's ships are too powerful,their captains are just as undefeatable, and what damage they don't manage to deal to me my counters do. Inevitably, I go down too, and it's a loss by steamroll for my team. If this kind of crap were uncommon, I'd be fine with it, and just dismiss it as a fluke, but it is quite common for me. Also, when I am doing reasonably well against one or two enemy ships that would only be much of a threat if I was on low hp, in come allied torps, aimed miles away from where the enemy ships are, to deliver me as a boxed, gift-wrapped, and set under the tree easy kill for the enemy ships. Does anyone else see this kind of thing happen a lot?(or at all?) If so, please tell me in the poll. Honestly, I try to ignore it and have fun anyway, but constant defeats are anything but fun for me. - Regards, Legoboy0401
  18. db4100

    Tier 8 Match Making

    Is WG listening to our complaints about tier 8 ships routinely and constantly be up-tiered by tier 10s? Just to let you know WG, most of my fun tier 8 ships are being dedicated CO-OP ships because of your broken match maker. I will gladly sacrifice a few minutes of my time to wait for a better match in match maker, than to waste 20 minutes in a game that is not enjoyable with tier 10s. It is no longer fun being a T8 vs T10s.
  19. Disclaimers: First of all, this is not a rant or whine in any form, merely some observations on my part Yes I am aware of Lert’s Tier 8 experiment, in fact it proves some of the points I am trying to make. (https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/163474-lerts-t8-experiment-conclusions/) Because of my very limited experience at tiers IX-X I will not be talking stats or performance, basing some of my claims on tier VIII instead. Everybody has seen these topics pop up, about Tier VIII MM constantly seeing Tier X etc etc. To a certain extent I can relate, I play Tier VIII far more often than I used to. As a result there are times where RNJesus rolls a 1 for me on the D20 and puts me in streaks of Tier X battles. As a DD and cruiser main, I don’t really care for MM, especially in a DD. However that is not always the case with the rest of the playerbase. There is some outcry about it. Many people believe that Tier VIII at the moment is the least fun tier and instead stick to Tier VII. I don’t think most can deny this. The question persists however, why does this happen, and is there any way to “fix” any existing issue to streamline the average player experience? What I believe is the issue with high tier matchmaking, is the way Wargaming has relegated roles to specific tiers. Tier VIII is your moneymaking tier, with most of the premiums that can turn up high profits existing there. This is where people spend quite a bit of time earning credits (if they don’t have any Tier IX premium) or grinding. In addition all Campaigns require at least Tier VIII ships. Then, Tier X is regarded as the end game content and the focus of Clan Battles. Tier Xs represent the ultimate a line can offer. It is therefore logical to assume people would play that tier Last, both tiers are part of Ranked Battles. It is safe to consider these tiers are pretty popular. Then, we come to the factor creating the uptiering many people complain about. @Lertdid a random solo Tier VIII experiment to see the matchmaking he would get in 100 battles. While as he said this is not a big sample size, it is definitely an indicator. I believe that “18% tier 9 battles” to be the core of the problem. Tier IX is often seen as just a stepping stone. Of course, some of the Tier IX ships are pretty strong and keepers, no question about it. When it comes to certain ships however, it is often considered a gatekeeper tier for the glory of Tier X. The way Wargaming structures the game, with a moneymaking Tier (Tier VIII), then a stepping stone tier, and finally the end game/Clan Battles Tier (Tier X) shafts Tier IX basically. Granted, there are Tier IX premiums, but they are few in number and variety to really shift the situation. In order to “fix” Tier VIII MM we don’t need to look at strengthening Tier VIIIs to be more competitive or nerfing Tier Xs, but rather increasing the Tier IX population and providing incentives to play this specific tier. I believe in an ideal environment MM could be 30%/40%/30%, but I feel this is almost impossible to accomplish. A good first step would be to make some improvements to ships that are considered gatekeepers. Izumo recently got a buff, maybe other ships should follow suit like, F. De Grosse. Another way would be give more incentives for people to play Tier IX in the form of events. I don’t know how Tier IX Ranked would turn out, but it could be some food for thought. A different route would be for WG to print out as many Tier IX premiums as possible. I believe this would do more harm than good on the long run. Finally, permanent camouflage could be more beneficial to Tier IX ships, in order to promote more games in these ships. As it is now, Tier IX permacamo offers for 4000 gold: -3% to surface detectability range. +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship. -20% to the cost of ship's post-battle service. +100% to experience earned in the battle. Tier X permacamo offers for 5000, so just 1000 gold more -3% to surface detectability range. +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship. -50% to the cost of ship's post-battle service. +20% credits earned in the battle. +100% to experience earned in the battle. I believe a 10% to credits earned in battle for Tier IX permacamo would be useful. Bottom line, I fear the lack of attention in certain aspects of Tier IX will affect high tiers negatively. The feeling of Tier VIII constant uptiering is but a symptom of it. Hope we can get some good discussion out of this, disagreements/opinions/additions welcome! Thanks for reading.
  20. Question: Due to the tightening of MM in Clan Battles, has the variety of teams that one consistently plays against dwindled to such a small pool that teams across the board are only facing the same teams over and over again? I'm not in favor of swapping up tiers for clan battles. T10 is so well balanced. We do however need to relax the MM restrictions that were put in place this season. It has become so brutally repetitive in who we play that it's sucking the fun out of it all. Without the variety, it's become a game of back and forth. We all know each other so well at this point, we all just keep winning and losing pretty evenly. Without being able to see a larger variety of playstyles, it's become such drudgery. The population seems to still be there. When I look at the list of teams I don't seem surprised at how many or few there are. I just never see 99% of those teams. It's just the same ones over and over again. Am I delusional? Am I right? Idk... but I do know that I'm just so bored of the same fights over and over again. Beat them, then lose to them, vice versa, back and forth... same teams... forever and ever... over and over. No more "Oh snap it's those high end guys we never see!" Or the "Oh wow we never see this group comp! They're gale? Craaaaaap... we really can't lose to these guys..." No more excitement... just drudgery.
  21. So I get home for the night and log onto Warships ready to continue my grind. I ready up the Essex and press Battle. I immediately get into a game. With 8 people total. And 2 CV. Yeah. So, what are we to do about this? Well, the absolute gentleman in their Essex suggested an honorable CV duel. No planes. Just secondaries. Assides from a Mogami that almost ruined the fun but thankfully figured out what was going on, and the fight was on! I pulled out the win despite my handicap, and wrapped up what was certainly the strangest battle I've ever fought. I included the results in the spoiler.
  22. People claim there's an XP bonus when a lower tier ship damages an upper tier one. The simple fact of the matter is that a bonus doesn't exist unless it's clearly apparent to the players. There is no reason being undertiered in a match should be something people beshrew. It could easily be changed to seem like an opportunity rather than a curse. In the battle results screen, add an XP and credits bonus for ships that are 1 or 2 tiers down in a battle. Maybe +10% for 1 tier, +20% for 2. (modified, of course, by premium) This would definitely help damper a bit of the MM complaints we see so much and it's trivial to do. If there's an economy concern, just take the "hidden" xp bonus and make it unhidden so people can see it.
  23. (Place tongue firmly in cheek before proceeding. And remember: Irony is Truth) Invisible ships that whine about radar and battleship AP Big fat clumsy ships that whine about invisible ships, fires and walls of torps Floating citadels that win by hiding behind cover and lobbing lameness onto hapless targets that can’t fire back at them Smoke, smoke, smoke and some more smoke Fire-spitting smoke clouds featured prominently in the naval battles of the early to mid-20th Century Overpenetrations: 16” shells go right through a canoe, you know, for only 10% damage The Dispersion Slot Machine---feeling lucky? Well, are you, punk? Hair-pulling and rage incumbent upon the attempt to get a few digital stars next to one’s name through “competitive play” (mark you: there is no monetary compensation for this) Wailing, frustration and rage about the matchmaker Wailing, frustration and rage about “having a bad team” Wailing, frustration and rage about “losing 10 games in a row and it’s not my fault” Cyclones: “Well, Yuri Ivanovich, you have to encourage people to close the distance somehow.” “Great idea, Igor Semyonovich, let’s implement it!” (leaked conversation from WG St. Petersburg office, circa 2016). Angling: Because 2700 lb shells aren’t that dangerous if they hit you at 65 degrees. To borrow a phrase from WoT: "Bounced off!" Overmatch: The number 14.3 is extremely important in naval combat (who knew? I’ll tell you: The designers of 460mm Japanese naval guns. Smart!) One of the greatest innovations in naval strategy in this period involved pointing the bow of the ship toward the enemy and slowly reversing. Don’t you dare cross the T, noob. What do you think this is, a historical game? British battleships: Because to heck with your angling Great Naval Battles in bodies of water full of large masses of strangely-shaped land An aircraft carrier? Never seen one of those. Deep Water torps: Because battleship players are stupid and there are too many of them Radar: Because if your own DDs die, how will you ever see the little buggers? Egos and Tempers the size of the USS Midway Who knew the Soviet Navy boasted such a formidable surface fleet with artillery more accurate than anything any capitalist pig-navy could ever devise? “Destroyers in World War II primarily performed fleet and convoy escort, as well as antisubmarine warfare duties” Oh wait…. Detonations: “We at Wargaming.net believe in fun and engaging gameplay!” Detonations: “Buy this piece of striped cloth and hoist it up the mainmast. It will prevent the unlimited supply of torpedoes in your hull from going off when hit.” Fires: Because how else can a 127mm gun sink a 60,000 ton ship? 33% Skill, 67% Luck. Want to change that? Carry harder and git gud, scrub. “I play World of Warships because it helps me relax.” “I play World of Warships because of the friendly, welcoming and helpful community.” Losing credits? “May I interest you in a premium account, dear sir?” Armor penetration mechanics more Byzantine than organic chemistry Soviet Battleships: The End of the World is Coming
  24. I know, it's a dead horse but I'm going to beat it some more The uptiering of T8 boats into T10 matches seems the norm now, and it's really not fair to the players that are grinding out T8's to get T9's. Why can't T10's battle with 9 or 10 boats? Or give an option to be uptiered if the player wishes too otherwise they can just wait to fill a T8 battle. Both my kids have stopped playing because after T5 they felt like the game was against them, they stopped having fun and we're killed so fast that they learned nothing. There has to be a way to keep the game fun for new players, uptiered in a new boat with limited experience isn't good for the player base. The "old" player base doesn't want potatoes in the higher tiers, then why does the game uptier them into tiers they don't even have boats for?
×