daki

10 can be in the team however only 7 can play. The good thing is that a player can be a member of several teams, so I guess that there will be plenty of teams of people from forum

Exactly your actions by going solo and dying in vain without even trying to be useful, influence your other teammates. If you care so little about the result and only look for "point & click" fun, please go and play PvE. However based on the first sentence I underlined, I suspect that you in fact enjoy irritating and trolling your teammates. That is just sad and pathetic...

Couldn't have said it better myself Speaking of leagues, in 4-6 it would be nice to have a limit of say 40 ship points (out of 42 max). That would ensure that all tiers within the league are viable choices in team setup. For example you would have to choose 5xT6 & 2xT5, or 6xT6 & 1xT4...

Of course that some ships are going to be affected more than others, and sometimes unjustifiably so. It happened before, and it will happen again whenever there is a major patch affecting the core mechanics. That is why I am always surprised when I see so much discussion about a few ships, and then those ships being used to argue about how "bad" the patch is. One really should look at a bigger picture. Every major patch by default brings some "good" changes but also some "bad" changes. It is unavoidable, and it happens with any single title on the market. So yes, some ships might get screwed up, but at the same time they are likely to be fixed in one of the later patches. Even if one or two do not get fixed there will be plenty of other ships to fall in love with. Personally, I believe that changes in captain skills go generally in the right direction. Of course some improvements down the road are needed, but imho this change has a lot to do with the introduction of new battle mode "Team battles". It is strange that so few people seem to notice that aspect of changes. Good example is Mogami. In Team battles, the engagements tend to take place at closer ranges (compared to randoms) similar to ranked battles. Consequently, fighting exclusively at max range distances (in order to keep for example the range benefit with the old AFT skill of Mogami) would not be a very viable tactic. Hence from TB perspective, the nerf is of much lesser importance compared to randoms. Furthermore, the skills structure and limited number of points available will require some tough choices depending on personal playstyle and that is good in my opinion as we had too many "no brainer" choices especially in 3+ points skills.

Hahahaha, damn brutal! I wish PT was back with the same bug to try that Hindenburg

I would say it depends on if a player has actually tested the patch or not. Those who have not tend to rage and raise a "shitstorm", while those who have actually tested the patch are more on the "meh" side (of course there are exceptions to this). I haven't tried the Cleveland but I have buffed with all the AA perks&modules the North Carolina and tbh did not notice a difference. To be honest I am even quite disappointed as I thought for example that the AA perk (manual selection of targets) will bring a good boost but I did not really feel the difference. To note, tried it in about 4 games so its a small sample. TBH the bugged last stand perk was by far the most fun. As it functioned even at full HP, having a 20sec reload on NC was quite epic

Exactly to avoid "back in the days" context, I showed the stats for 30.1 only (though the situation does not really change even with previous data). Yes, the Mogami is fragile, but what does that matter if it still performs better than its peers? However my main point was never that Mogami is OP, but rather that the nerf will not affect it as significantly as people here claim, nor will they make it a "broken" ship. Personally, I like the Mogami, I have a lot of fun in it (and still manage to do decent with it) - so I am the last person you could call a Mogami hater. Unlike most people here, I actually tested it on PT and it is still a very fun and capable ship. I plan to use it in Team battles and can't wait for those to start

Whining about getting double the amount of regular XP for the first win? That would not be quality whine but rather poor trolling...

In principle I agree with most of what you said OP, however you could have definitely chosen a better way to name the topic. To all those whining about destroyers, no matter what you say, the stats show that they need a bit of buff. Please tell me what you believe is so OP in their performance (on a consistent basis), excluding the usual "...and that one time I got rekt by a wall of torps...". Maybe at best they will get a 10-15% boost in damage for example, but still they will remain basically a weaker class (most stats wise). Also isn't it strange that "destroyers" in high tiers have basically the lowest average number of ships destroyed? Speaking of Mogami, it is a tough nerf I agree, but the ship clearly and significantly outperforms its peers (CAs, damage wise): I still expect it to be the best T8 cruiser, albeit performing more closely to AH and others. Important point is also introduction of team battles which most people seem to forget. In them, there will be basically very little need for fighting at max range so the nerf will have very little impact. I tried it on PT in team battles and it is still a very potent and capable ship:

I guess because you believe that earning 300k credits is a challenge of epic proportions? If you plan to play only 1-2 games then yes, you might be in the red. However I doubt that people who want to create their own team will do so only for a game or so. Furthermore, I would suggest that you do not troll this topic which is related to team setups with your complaints about the pricing policy. There is already an appropriate thread for that in the public test feedback section. On topic, I am personally a fan of "balanced" setups. I do not see a need for more than 3 destroyers in any type of setup. Too many destroyers in a setup are a recipe for disaster against good and coordinated teams. Lots of destroyers might be good against random uncoordinated bobs, but to all those who are really good in the game and have good teammates, destroyers & torpedoes are not that big of a threat.

Indeed. Though I had some epic battles with North Carolina and 20 sec reload

So 85-90 losses in 100 games? Sounds a bit exaggerated mate On warships.today I see that yesterday you had 60% WR and in the last 463 matches a 58.3% WR. In case you had those 90 defeats this would mean that in the previous more than 350 games you were running at more than 70% WR (truly outstanding result for such a large number of games). So yeah, either you have a bad streak after an epic streak, or it is a subjective feeling that almost all games you played recently were lost. I would bet on the subjective feeling as we all tend to notice losses much more than the wins. There is no MM conspiracy directed either to paying or non-paying players.

Well, all the XP you gained already went to captain skills. On top, the free premium cammo gives an additional 30% xp boost (which also goes to captain). So there is in fact something similar to "accelerated crew training". TBH the system is in my opinion far superior to WoT. The levels are gained much quicker (no xp split among crew), premium ships can train captains of a nation no matter the class, and last but not least the skills are more diverse and useful than in WoT.

The title is I would say misleading. The text reads: "The introduction of a "sandbox" matchmaker will be an important improvement for new players. It is a separate matchmaker that is only for inexperienced players, who use Tier I–III ships and have lower levels in their Service Record." As service record levels are gained rather easily, there will be plenty of seals left The lower tiers are already very popular even though there is not a huge growth of new players. Consequently I believe that WG made a good decisions. Lets be honest after coop, the first PvP battles for new players are like a "cold shower", and I am sure a number of them drops the game prematurely.

Not sure what you mean by "part timer". Playing 5-10 games per day (a bit more on weekends), I have enough sample for my claims. Judging from your post, you seem to be one of those who love to call teammates "noobs" and other names. Maybe you should ask yourself if your chat behavior attracts toxicity towards you...

Epic job mate! Especially like the armor layouts pics. A huge +1 from me

To add an additional example to my previous post: Just finished a game a few minutes ago where the enemy had 5 DDs vs 3 on our side. Furthermore, one DD on our side was rather useless (me to be more precise ). Luckily, we had quite aggressive cruisers which managed to stomp the majority of enemy DDs in the first 10mins of the game. So yeah, we could have started the match with "OMG drunk MM, too many DDs, all is lost", and it would have probably happened. However instead we tried to communicate and coordinate which led to a rather easy win.

Long story short, its your imagination While some toxicity occurs now and then, I do not see any actual increase compared to previous months. It is always dangerous to make conclusions based on 1-2 games. If they manage to make you so upset than I am sorry to say but you are better off finding a single player game to play.

I also support the "not really" camp. The claimed "unfairness" basically assumes that there is a huge power and impact difference depending on ship tiers. Furthermore, it assumes that "counters" are extremely strong (e.g. cruisers do not stand a chance against battleships...). Since none of the above is actually the case, the mentioned issues in MM a greatly exaggerated. Furthermore, mirror matchmaking would just make the games more "simplistic" and hence "boring", since any existing disbalance can be rather easily compensated by adjusting the playstyle. 2 days ago I was in a team where we were 2 DDs vs. 5 enemy DDs (domination mode). Furthermore we had 1 less BB. At the beginning of the game the team agreed to first focus on DDs. Our DDs scouted well and cruisers picked off one by one the enemy DDs. Long story short, we stomped the enemy team with only 3 ships lost (they lost I believe 10) before we won on points with all caps in our hands. All in all, I understand that it is always easier to blame the MM (or teammates) than to actually try to adjust the playstyle, but that is not the reason to ask to "dumb down" the game. Lastly, I would say that the most exciting and thrilling games I had were when there were "imbalanced" teams so NO TO MIRROR MATCHMAKING from my side

Well said Ev1n Furthermore, I very much like the attitude - fighting it if it starts the toxicity.

The big "grind" until 5mln pearls is almost over. This portion of project required 3mln pearls until next reward. After the 5mln mark we will be getting prizes every 1-1,5mln pearls

Strange indeed. Maybe they will have it available for a limited number of days similar to ranked. I would presume that the availability limitation is due to expected issues with team battles population. In WoT first came the clans so when team battles were introduced there was already a sizeable player pool. While I expect issues at launch (both content and functioning wise - its WG after all ), at least it is a step in the right direction which should help in the start of building of a more teamwork oriented community. I look forward to trying it, as I hope will do a lot of fellow captains

I am not so pessimistic. First of all, I am yet to see the WoT XVM mentality in WoWs. Secondly, there are much less kids in WoWs compared to WoT (in game that is, excluding forums). Finally, with stat hiding options XVM basically becomes rather useless. That being said, sorry for off-topic

And that is exactly the point why winrate IS a very strong indicator (but not a predictor to repeat once again). Anyone can have a good or bad individual game no matter the skill. No one can have a high winrate over a large number of battles without the skill. In WoWs my record loosing streak is 12 games in a row while in WoT my record is 20 consecutive losses. Does that make me a complete tomato? I would say no As an example, I enjoy watching occasionally WGL matches. Now and then you see exceptional players playing a match as complete and utter noobs. Should I dismiss them as bad players because of it, or say that their good stats are rather "luck based" and hence are not any indicator that they are indeed good players? Definitely not.