daki

OMG! We must all take up those 2 pitchforks and ask WG why is there no crown drawn on the flag Again congrats to OMNI are due on the 2nd KOTS win If anything, OMNI can honestly be proud of making the history of competitive WoWs. To be remembered and quite hard to beat as wins record, as the time goes by - and who knows there might be 3rd win... On topic: As mtm78 pointed out, reddit definitely seems to be the best place to raise awareness about this community request

In order to avoid splitting the playerbase, my thoughts were to consider them as the existing random game modes (standard vs domination vs epicenter vs cyclone). As I understand WG MM assigns certain likelihoods of occurrence. As an example there is like 70% chance to get domination, 20% chance to get standard, 10% chance of getting Epicenter. On top of that there is like 5% chance to get a Cyclone irrespective of game mode. Please note that the figures are just an example as I have absolutely no clue what probabilities they actually use. With my proposal, the 70% chance for domination would consist of say 20% chance for 7v7, 20% for 9v9 and 30% for the regular 12v12. In other words you would not have the option to chose by yourself the mode, it would be "allocated" to you the same way the existing modes are. However after a sufficient number of matches, on average you would be getting into different modes as per above percentages.

I would believe that increasing MM time to as little as 30-45sec would do wonders for the MM balance. What WG seemed to have missed is the fact that WoWs is not a fast paced shooter where matches last like 5mins, or WoT for that matter. Hence there is no need to insist on the often "immediate" matchup to trow players in a new match as quickly as possible. As I wrote in another thread, including additional modes in Random with reduced number of players (e.g. 9v9 or even 7v7), would also do wonders for the MM algorithm by providing much more opportunities for a balanced matchup hence avoiding those 5 BB situations (or 5 DD).

The idea was to have 7v7 in randoms - separate from Ranked mode. Indeed, divisions would be a bad idea in Ranked. However in Randoms being a more casual mode, in 7v7 I would have no objection seeing a division. Of course there would have to be a cap of 1 division per team and possibly even limit it in 7v7 to a 2 player division.

Agreed fully on the psychological effect. It seems that the WoWs playerbase has way too many over-sensitive snowflakes which have a psychological meltdown each time anything threatens their precious (battle)ships. So instead of trying to create safe spaces for them, maybe WG should be looking how to motivate them to leave the game while attracting new players. Catering to this population has not brought anything good to WoWs imho. The more WG caves in the more they whine, and the game gets ultimately less fun and more importantly less varied. Did CV nerfs bring a more aggressive BB play? No, just more whine and more camping. Did fire damage nerfs bring a more aggressive BB play? No, just more whine and more camping. Did AFT/BFT skill nerfs bring a more aggressive BB play? No, just more whine and more camping. Did torpedo nerfs bring a more aggressive BB play? No, just more whine and more camping. Did radars as counter to DDs bring a more aggressive BB play? No, just more whine and more camping. So will stealth fire nerf bring a more aggressive BB play? Based on the above, the answer is an obvious no. And there is certain logic to it: By giving so many carrots to them in order to motivate the push forward, WG in fact heavily promoted camping and bad play. Because in the end when you look at the WoWs evolution since launch, it all boils down to the simple truth that camping and playing BB class is in fact progressively rewarded. So finally I wish WG would understand that it is time bring some sticks, but I know there is little chance for that... I may be too old for this millennial cr.p and may very well be completely wrong, but I remember the times when a kind action or word failed to properly motivate change of bad behavior, a slap on the kisser would do wonders.

There was in the past and there will be in the future. Looking forward to seeing your wood artwork

Maybe its better to have a wall of fire. We all know that BBs are most afraid of fire. Maybe trow in a few torpedo launchers on borders as well, for good measure

Am I right to assume that you never played RN cruisers and that you rarely (if ever) shoot the smokes?

This topic reminded me of a dream I have. Additional 2 new Random battles modes: 7v7 Domination with 2 caps (max. 1 division per side) 9v9 Domination with 3 caps (max. 2 divisions per side) Key benefits: - Much bigger variety of gameplay - Much more options for the MM algorithm to generate balanced teams and it could easily eliminate situations with 5 BBs or 5 DDs per side - Opportunity for players to experience the Ranked format without the stress & frustrations of the Ranked season - Bigger influence of a single player (or a division) on the match outcome

RN cruisers are a "niche" branch, that much is obvious. I fully understand people who do not enjoy them, especially if they play them solo. There are many ships in other branches that I do not enjoy even though some of them are considered by the community as some of the best and most powerful ships in the game. What helps me with RN cruisers is that I enter each match with 0 expectations to survive - so even when I get blaped without doing much I do not feel the rage and disappointment like I do in other ships. Somehow that all reminds me of the WWI defense of Belgrade against the Austo-Hungarian army, where Major Gavrilovic addressed his solders as follows: "Soldiers, exactly at three o'clock, the enemy is to be crushed by your fierce charge, destroyed by your grenades and bayonets. The honor of Belgrade, our capital, must not be stained. Soldiers! Heroes! The supreme command has erased our regiment from its records. Our regiment has been sacrificed for the honor of Belgrade and the Fatherland. Therefore, you no longer need to worry about your lives: they no longer exist. So, forward to glory! For the King and the Fatherland! Long live the King, Long live Belgrade!" Now I know that some of the British forumites may laugh at me now, but somehow the RN cruisers to me fully embody the spirit of British mariners of the WWII. Lots of flaws and issues compensated by the sheer guts of the crews who were not afraid even against overwhelming odds. Lastly, I believe that high tier RN cruisers greatly scale with teamwork. Have you tried playing them in divisions? (e.g. CA+BB+DD or 2xCA + DD sound quite capable) While I very rarely play divisions (so I am not really talking from personal experience), I believe it could be a path for you to enjoy them better. For example a division of Minotaur + Des Moines + Shimakaze sounds like a great combination allowing all 3 ships to shine. Not even to mention using USN DDs, and there are some great possible combinations for T7-T9. Agreed. The RN branch imho has by far the most satisfying progression from low tiers to top tiers.

Fully agree on the RN cruisers. The fun and excitement are unparalleled by any other nation imho. Feeling incredibly powerful, and at the same time having the knowledge that you can be basically insta-rekt by even a single good enemy salvo, is just a priceless feeling. Reminds me of that Italian proverb: It's better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep That's why I hate seeing high tier RN cruisers camping in smoke at max range. Such a waste... not to mention boring tactic.

Sorry mate, I misunderstood your comment as a claim that basically ships balance can be determined based on WTR and damage dealt, and that you claimed I was putting forward "alternative facts". So my apologies for ranting a bit at you Hence, going back to the points you tried to make: The issue with BBs is that due to their inherent characteristics there is much less difference between good and bad players. The main culprit is the very high alpha of guns in combination with reload time. In other words, even if you play badly you are almost guaranteed to deal a certain amount of damage thanks to strongest guns in the game. At the same time good players have a harder time over-performing compared to bad ones (damage wise), if nothing else then because they are physically limited to about 40 salvos per match . That is why, as you pointed out, the top players tend to average a lower WTR compared to a class such as DD. WoWs is in this sense a peculiar game since the "quality" of damage (e.g. to DDs instead of BBs, damage at the right moment and not end of match when it is all already decided...) is so much more important than the sheer "quantity" of damage. Unfortunately the simple damage stats cannot measure that quality. Lastly, in this sense, since the quality of play is extremely difficult to measure (and often impossible), I understand why WG has some issues with balancing and why they make some balancing decisions which make very little sense to put in gently.

Oh dear, the alternative facts accusation... Is this NA or EU mate? Its seems popular nowadays to accuse anyone who disagrees with your approach in a well-argued manner of "alternative facts". Hence before you start accusing others of "alternative facts" you should brush up a bit on how a hypothesis is defined in statistics, how statistical inference is done... not to mention how WTR functions or what damage dealt says (or does not say) about a player. Sorry to say, but just writing things such as "Hypothesis:.." or "Results:...", does not make your opinions suddenly become facts Not to mention that WTR (and dmg) can only be used to compare players on a specific ship and is completely useless for comparing classes like you are trying to do. You are free to have an opinion that a simplistic view of WoWs via damage dealt (or WTR) is enough to determine balancing issues. As I am free to have an opinion that WoWs is way too complex to be solely viewed via 2-3 isolated stats... My another 2 cents (please do not bankrupt me mate ) P.S. When US political cr.p is mentioned I can't help but:

I cannot see anything on the graphs as they are invisible Imho WTR is deeply flawed for this type of analysis. How WTR works? In short, it compares the actual with expected performance of a player in a specific ship. Expected performance is derived from average server stats. Depending on how much you under-perform or over-perform compared to those average stats, your rating is calculated using the following weights for the tracked stats: - Damage 50% - Kills 30% - Win rate 20% Hence the major flaws of WTR become more than obvious: 1. Contribution to capture and contribution to defense for example are not taken into account. Hence WTR is a very bad indicator for DDs and CAs who play for objectives. In WoWs (unlike WoT for example) the players/teams who play for objectives win the games in the end as "kill all" outcomes are very rare 2. Other important contributors are not tracked such as: spotting, tanking... 3. The weight used are basically "pulled out of the a.s" by WTR creator. In other words they are fully subjectively and arbitrarily defined. Hence if you have subjective assumptions for weights, no matter if the calculation algorithm is objective, you finally end up with subjective results. Hence a big "no go" for using it for balancing purposes or discussion 4. As there seems to be a large number of players interested in tracking their WTR (since there are no official ratings available from WG which could encompass more indicators), it influences the meta, i.e. how some players play certain ships. Just looking at the weights, if you are forced to chose between dealing more damage or doing something that will ensure the win (e.g. going for cap, doing damage & killing a destroyer...), it always pays off more WTR wise to do damage no matter if that will lead to a loss. In other words WTR strongly rewards camping & passive play since it is easier to maximize damage by camping than by aggressive play around and in the cap areas. So when you see those BBs relaxing in the back, or those DDs just sitting in the smoke spamming BBs while the enemy DD nearby is capping (and many other useless play by various classes), you can often say a big "thank you WTR" for promoting bad play. Before some top players start raging about my comments & criticism of WTR, let me point out the following: WTR is a decent indicator for top players since no matter the stats included or weight used, they will perform well thanks to very high skill. As an example, even if you would change weights to have 50% on winrate, 30% on kills and 20% on damage (or even include CTC, CTD, spotting...) they would score very high. All in all, as long as WG does not publish its own ratings (or at least starts showing average base XP) most of balancing discussions will lean on the subjective side, i.e. it will be more based on player's personal perceptions than actual objective reality. My 2 cents at least

Indeed, BB meta has great influence on one-sided matches - but more importantly those boring camping matches... Imho, on average BBs tend to make the largest amount of positioning errors hence increasing the chance of a one-sided match (or a boring match). Of course, that's not to say that other classes (or players for that matter) don't do the same type of positioning mistakes - they just do it less often

The "one-sided" games have nothing to do with RNG in WoWs, hence no amount of screenshots will prove anything... The one-sided games happen when a sufficient number of players in one team make some very bad positioning decisions.

I neither see any server load issues nor do I see issues with "unacceptable content": 1. In order to avoid too many flags, WG could charge some amount of doubloons 2. Flag is only available to usernames associated with a clan in question - so if you leave the clan, the flag is no longer available (i.e. availability is server based and not client based) 3. WG support checks the flags for inappropriate content before making them available (doubloon price from point 1. covers the expense for effort) All in all, great idea and it would be nice if WG would work on it as it does not require too much effort imho.

I believe a much better approach is to have the targets at the edge of your concealment range, sailing broadside to you. Max gunrange fighting is not a strong point of RN cruisers imho. In fact good smoke allow you to fight in the front at close range where the RN guns excel. Be aware when the smoke will dissipate so you can disengage in time without getting much spotted. Do not be afraid to spend some HP to get into the right spot. Even if people start shooting at you, that does not mean that you should pop the smoke immediately. To note my comments mainly apply to T6+ RN cruisers

Well, I have a certain amount of sympathy for those who try obsessively to make certain gameplay styles work despite them being considered ineffective by the community. If for no other reason then because I am also guilty of trying the same on several ships. Furthermore, I always hoped I could at least partially disprove the Einstein's definition of insanity (doing something over and over again and expecting a different result). TBH I failed rather miserably so far . What I find very problematic is when people do it in Ranked battles. All experimentation should be done in Random battles. There is no need to put more fuel on the already strong flames of rage in Ranked. The people who do it in Ranked always remind me of that epic scene with Gunnery Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket: "I bet you are the kind of guy that would f.ck a person in the a.s and not even have the god-damn common courtesy to give him a reach-around"

Maybe you meant BBs? BBs have much more similarity with arty in WoT than any other class...

Hahahaha touché However, as I would expect carriers to be very popular (i.e. present in each match), the Impregnator would not be too OP. Not to mention that good DD play can do wonders against it as well.

Well said. I would also add an important aspect of RN cruisers which is rarely talked about here on forums: HP management In order to be successful (in higher tiers), you have to "invest" as much HP as possible (while surviving of course), since you have by far the best heal of all ships in the game. Way too many people focus on minimizing the damage received instead of trying to trade it throughout the match. That is why we see a lot of players just sitting in the smoke camping, and then whining here on forum how bad, useless and situational RN cruisers are. So my advice is: - Do not be afraid to trade HP to get in a favorable position (especially early game) - Do not be afraid to trade HP in order to hunt down enemy DDs or cruisers - Do not be afraid to trade HP to molest battleships and push them into making mistakes If I have not used at least 2-3 heals in a match then it is a good indication that I did something wrong. RN cruisers are by far most useful in early and mid game. If you wait for late game to become more active, you will face issues with damage saturation. Usually I deal about 70-80% of damage in the first 10 minutes of the match.

I believe a player has to have enough and diverse experience over different classes before being able to comfortably play in T9 and T10 ships (with emphasis on "comfortably"). The figure I assumed is related to an "average" player (i.e. neither gifted nor completely bad). Imho an average player needs about 1000 battles per class and should ideally have played at least 3 out of 4 classes to be well rounded. Of course gifted players need less (like 1-2k total) and below average more (like 4-5k total). 1k battles per class allows for sufficient experience which covers full map rotation, spawns, game modes and of course a variety of tactical situations. The assumptions I used in the estimate: - Number of maps: about 30 in total albeit there are restrictions depending on tiers so lets assume average of say 20 maps - 2 spawns - 2 main game modes (domination + standard) - About 10-15 matches per combination to gather sufficient experience - 2 additional modes (Epicenter + Ranked) So for the first 4 points we get: 20x2x2x10 = 800 battles Add on top of that another 200 battles for Ranked and Epicenter combined and we get to about 1000 battles

7 kills in ranked - the dream come true Though I have to admit it was on NA server on my fun account