daki

Imho a good solution would be to reduce the number of players in T10 matches to e.g. 8 or even 7 like in ranked or team battles. It would make people less afraid that they will get focused by like 4-5 ships, or that there will be endless waves of torps. Those who do not want to be alone in the seas being exposed will also be more likely to follow the attack group. All in all a much more aggressive and dynamic gameplay compared to now. Not even to mention a much better MM due to lower number of players per match.

First of all, welcome to forums, very nice first. Its refreshing to see. The topic has been already discussed many times and the only thing rather clear is that subs are a no.

It seems that a lot of people are trusting these forums way too much After all the whine on how Mogami has become "useless" with the nerfs in the last patch, obviously it is mistakenly not considered as a serious threat by BBs anymore

As it seems that a number of people have missed the announcement thread, it should be a sticky one

Great feature! +1 +1 for this. MrConway, please pass the feedback to bosses. This is a great game mode and should be promoted much more heavily. Some flags, free cammos, occasional free upgrade,... should definitely be introduced (e.g. for x battles played, x wins...) - no need to be so "cheap" WG . TBH I was very surprised that the mode was launched with basically 0 additional rewards/incentives. As RBs were launched from day 1 with some flags and such for new ranks reached, it is quite difficult to understand what is the strange though process of the WG marketing gurus behind the decisions made for TBs. Also, some TB specific missions would be a nice incentive as well. Last but not least, I was clicking for quite some time on "next 25 teams" until the list was exhausted. The results are: - 982 teams in total. I guess there are more teams, but it seems that the limit for leaderboards is to have played at least 5 battles - Lowest ELO is 3.180 - ELO ranges: 16 teams with ELO below 3.500 129 teams with ELO 3500-3750 332 teams with ELO 3750-4000 331 teams with ELO 4000-4250 133 teams with ELO 4250-4500 18 teams with ELO 4500-4750 5 teams with ELO 4750-5000 10 teams with ELO 5000-5250 2 teams with ELO greater than 5250 All in all the ELO distribution seems to be working correctly, despite me missing a team here and there in one or the other range. I am a bit lazy right now to go back and recheck what I missed Last but not least, congrats to scoreboard leaders

Well said. Basically any goal WG sets can be interpreted as negatively affecting the gameplay. Damage stealing is by far the worst problem no one is daring to mention or discuss much. With the exception of the occasional kill stealing, each match I see tons of damage stealing. Its like an epidemic of epic proportions... What about plane stealing? I see plenty of those as well. Can you imagine how annoying it is when there are say 2 squadrons of TBs and 2 squadrons of DBs which your humble captain joyfully starts shredding with the AA perk when, out of the blue, the friendly fighter squadrons rush to steal some of your well deserved plane kills? I do not even want to get started about cap reset stealing. Have you seen how much of those we have almost every game? Just when I start slowly turning my guns at an enemy capping, already imagining all that XP&credits gain from resets, some cap stealer ruins my day. Thinking of it, everybody is stealing from everybody in WoWs - that makes me feel: Pirates, pirates everywhere!!

I am quite sure that he has been transferred. There was no point for WGEU to keep him in WoWs taking into account what was going on forums. CM who gets constantly bashed by the "community" is usually removed. It does not matter that it was not really his fault... I personally miss him, and would be glad to see him here again, but even if it is his personal decision I understand why.

I would say that there is nothing wrong with ELO as such, it is rather the issue of still limited number of teams playing and MM rules which "discourage" playing against the same teams over and over again. It will take a few months imho until the sufficient number of teams is available for all ELO "tiers".

The good thing is that at least you are talking about opinions and not "facts". The only thing I would suggest is to first play the ships before going "OP this, OP that..." because otherwise it is not "your opinion" but rather the opinion of some other individuals.

Hahahah I was not too far away with the estimation Once again congrats to all and thanks WG for a great event!

As I already told you in chat, HMS Hood would disagree with you that detonating the battleship is a bug You have to expect it on a regular basis, however it occurs rarely. You for example get detonated every 112 games. In Tirpitz you got detonated after 81 games. I would guess more or less that is the frequency you should expect. Though some ships seem more prone to detonations. Speaking of BBs, I am getting detonated in my Impregnator about every 35-40 games (most of them by DD HE) . But I am fully OK with it. Yes, it bothers me a bit when it happens, however I know that indirectly I afforded that "epic" moment to the enemy and hence more fun .

All these "kill stealing" topics and posts make me wonder a thing: How on earth can you (and people like you) be so hypocritical?? Anyone who has played more than a handful of matches in WoWs has in fact "stolen" a kill from someone (i.e. killed a low hp target). As it takes a large number of hits to sink a ship it is just unavoidable. According to your logic it is fine when you "steal a kill" from another player as I have not seen any threads from you "apologizing" about it. But if, God forbid, someone kills a ship you are shooting at, then a shitstorm is raised on forums... Sad, just sad....

TBH my post was in no way a reply to you or your opinions (as I have actually read all the posts including yours ). Your posts here suggest that in case you have a different opinion, it is just pointless to have a rational discussion with arguments, as your opinions are much more "feeling" based and much less argument based. Consequently I am not surprised with that rather poor trolling attempt. However, with a bit of effort you can get much better at trolling in no time. It requires so much less effort than actually learning and understanding properly WoWs

Indeed you are right. Such polls do very little to bring an issue to the attention. Rather the opposite occurs, due to biased polls the statements tend to be dismissed. Nevertheless, there is a clear issue of Mikasa performance. To mention, I am a "proud" owner of this beast (or better say rusted can ) so I have some small personal experience with it. While I do not have that big of an issue with accuracy per se (managing around 30% hitrate), by far the biggest issue is the damage output. Battles in low tiers tend to last much less than higher tiers so in essence you can manage to fire very few shots during the game due to long reloads. Is there a solution? To be honest I am not sure. Adding more guns/turrets will make it less historically accurate; just decreasing the dispersion will not solve the reload issue; increasing secondaries range is not the point... All in all, the only solution I see is to adjust the ROF or reload to say 15-20sec

TL/DR: Removing dispersion (or RNG) as you suggest will in my opinion make the game much less fun, immersive or skill dependent. I have not read your original post, but that is a good thing as I am no fan of rants. Judging from the title and your last part of post, I believe you just have an issue in the proper understanding of "RNG" both ingame and probably in RL as well. I understand your "frustrations" when expecting one outcome while aiming then getting a different one in practice. However if this bothers you so much, you should maybe consider avoiding any games with any dispersion of guns, and definitely please do not go to gun ranges as they will just frustrate you in the same manner. Whenever we are talking guns and accuracy, in real life for example, you will basically never hit exactly where you actually aimed (despite skill) due to several factors which you cannot in essence control or influence - a rather precise equivalent of "RNG" in form of dispersion in WoWs. To illustrate, you can see below a target where the shooter always aimed for middle: Doesn't this look familiar in WoWs terms? (just imagine a ship instead of X) Despite his intentions, the shooter was neither able to hit exactly where he aimed nor did he manage to drive all the other bullets though the original bullet hole. Nevertheless, you seem to be asking for exactly that mechanic despite it being as removed from any reality as you can imagine. Speaking of the pic, a more skilled shooter can obtain a better grouping, nevertheless still unable to hit where exactly aimed: All in all, it just boils down to the situation that no one will basically be able to ensure that the shots land as aimed. However skilled players (or skilled shooters speaking of RL) will be able to better stack odds in their favor so to be hitting more frequently/consistently than an average player/shooter. As an example, in case of a gun shooter he/she will show skill and make better groupings by better breathing control, timing of shots, firearm grip, controlling heartrate, having good experience with the specific gun and its technical characteristics... Similarly in WoWs a player who wants to be more skilled & successful (speaking of shooting only) will have to learn to be good in target leading, learning in which cases the odds of hit are higher (e.g. broadside, vs retreating ship at 90deg angle, vs diagonally moving ship...), timing of shots, good experience and understanding of ship characteristics... Hence removing dispersion (or RNG, the word so liked here) as you suggest will imho make the game much less fun, immersive or skill dependent

Big +1 Great effort as usual

WTR basically takes into account: Damage, kills and planes shot down (planes shot being imho a bit of "whatever..." indicator). You are having some great stats in the Imp., so it might be a good example of WTR not really being that accurate. Looking at http://warships.today/vehicle/4293866960/eu/Imperator%20Nikolai%20I and looking at leaderboards by WTR of players with more than 100 battles (minimum imho to reduce the noise of winning / loosing streaks) we can see: - Only 2 players on EU have more than 1500 WTR (1521 and 1510 respectively) - A whopping 4 players in addition have 1400-1500 WTR A situation is a bit different if player with more than 25 battles are taken into account as there are 13 players with 1500+ WTR. However the highest WTR is 1581. As the limit for "unicum" is WTR 1549, it means that on warships.today there are no unicums with more than 100 battles and only 3 of them if players with more than 25 battles are taken into account. All in all this indicates that there might be something wrong with either the WTR calculation (at least in case of Imp) or data issues on warships.today.

Not even then. It is not that hard to take a look at stats of a player even without the third party ratings to see if he is OK or not for your clan. And lets be honest, WTR while giving some indication is far from being "perfect" as it does not include some very important aspects such as defended caps, caps won...

Somehow I doubt very much that AFK players are such a frequent thing as you try to claim. Replays or it did not happen

I am the follower of Amagi being heavy cruiser theory

But TBs have basically very little to do with Ranked with the exception of 7vs7 format. Once again, in ranked you have no freedom of choice so it is MM responsibility to enforce certain rules. From what I see, you basically want a "kindergarten" type of team battles where MM will "nurse" and "protect" you from any setup which is not similar/identical to yours. That is as far away from competitive as you can get. Just look at ESL in WoT, there are plenty of matches where one team has arty and the other has not, just to name an example.

Again, in random you cannot choose your team setup so it makes sense to have some additional rules. Team battles are fully controlled by a team of players and there should be no restrictions other than the ones already there (1CV max, 2 BBs max...). TBs are about winning with a team of 7 ships against any other team of 7. You want more guns and you have good AA ships to counter any teams with CVs? Choose a setup without CV You have epic team of DD/CA captains? If you are brave and want to gather some tears (from both enemies and teammates ), you choose a team of nothing but DDs or CAs. In some cases you will just stomp the opposition while in some cases the setup may make you struggle. You want a balanced setup which is good for any situation/map but not excellent in any particular field? Chose for example 1xCV, 2xBB, 2xCA, 2xDD. All in all, the freedom given to a team to choose its setup also gives it the responsibility to be aware of setups it might encounter and develop strategies, so absolutely there is 0 blame to be put on MM

Obviously the team leader who chose a setup without CV Look, it is a free choice how you will setup the team. If you believe CVs are "OP" for TB then just have one in the team and do not blame MM / WG

I think you posted in a wrong topic mate On topic: Well pointed out viceadmiral123, definitely an underestimated skill. And of course it is not always about choosing vigilance or say superintendent. I firmly believe that for BBs for example it is better to have an extra 3 points and 2 points skills (or 3+1+1) than to have any one of the 5 points skills

Excellent and very informative find, thx Carnotzet Though I am not sure I follow the "points" logic. If you just add 1315 for each tier after first, does this mean that a T7 has 8890 points (1x1000 + 6x1315), T8 has 10.205 points and T10 hence 12.835? If so, sum of T7 and T8 points (19.095) is well above T10 points (87% more). The only possible explanation I can see is if sum of points from previous tier is added to the next tier points so we would get something like (look at the last columns): Tier Points Tier Weight points 1 1000 1 1000 2 2315 2 3315 3 3630 3 6945 4 4945 4 11890 5 6260 5 18150 6 7575 6 25725 7 8890 7 34615 8 10205 8 44820 9 11520 9 56340 10 12835 10 69175 Here we have a T10 with 69.175 points which is not that far away from T7+T8 i.e. 79.435 (about 15% more). Did you maybe see some more explanations about it from RU forums?