Figment

You didn't and don't because you're argueing against something different than what I was talking about (probably why you find it hilarious and not making sense - the issue is on your end...). The problem is that you connect current pop level to a sort of maximum of interest in the ship class, when it's clearly not the case as there's been a time there were so many people wanting to play them that the MM couldn't cope at all. All I need to show is a moment in time where there were more people playing them. And I have named two moments in time (one of which you continue to ignore or do not wish to understand the implications of). For some reason your memory of pop levels stops at 2019 and you're focused on the Big Rework of 0.8, which I find less interesting since that was about new CV mechanics hype, rather than a base level of players. The rest of your arguments are... Not very relevant. :/ If you could find me some data on pop levels closer to 2012, you can actually attempt to prove me wrong.

With any online game the population starts to pick up around 6PM. MMs should normally be full enough by then to quickly generate matches for 24 people a side. One doesn't need everyone online to generate sufficient matches to get short queues. Queues for other ships around the same time will not take that long by far. I can imagine lulls between 12 and 18 on any given day, but 6PM, especially on a friday or on the weekends, shouldn't give queue issues. But the smaller the population, the sooner it's noticed for units that have hard pop restrictions in the MM. Below for instance an example of the World of Warcraft population.

Wow. Sometimes people seem to try to miss the point just to be in disagreement it seems. They don't have dinner time all at once, no, that's the point! ;) Dinner time is an hour or two hours earlier for the time for the east compared to western Europe (the north bit anyway), Italians, Spanish etc. tend to eat between 8-10PM, UK starts around 7PM relative to Western European time. Dinner time is pretty spread out over the evening across Europe. Why are you only looking at German/Dutch/Belgian/France/Scandi time? Lot more people play than that. You shouldn't see such a big difference. So unless you want to argue that everyone in Europe has dinner around 6PM Amsterdam zone...? Yep. The problem is he is comparing 3.5% of players who only play 28 units (likely fewer due to a third being premiums or coal ships) spread over just four tiers, with ALL other 300+ units in game spread over 10 tiers and thinks he's got a point. It would be odd if the CV population was actually higher than 5-10% given there's so many other units. And CV pop has hit highs of 15% (mostly due to hypes), after which - like with any other unit tree - people move on to the next new line since doing too much of the same ship feels like wasting progressing-grind time to many people or just gets old. Given there's only 4 top tier CVs in regular tech tree grind as is, it's not like most people are going to grind these endlessly either. Thing is, I rarely play CVs myself, for various reasons mentioned and I have a lot of critique on their gameplay design and balancing (I'd have designed them far more locally restrictive forcing them to be roughly within 20km of the enemy by air time and all rather than omnipresent threat). But whenever I shoot down someone's prejudiced statement, the haters in the Anti-CV crowd can't see any room for nuance and I come under fire from people with little understanding of statistics and fairness, outside their own frame of reference and who don't care about making correct statements and love to twist words and can't accept anything said by someone they perceive as "The Enemy" as true. It's very saddening. So you want to argue that 5-15% of the top players spend more money than the bottom 50%, while that top 15% doesn't need to spend as much to progress on an equal basis? I'd like to see that evidence. Let's otherwise stick to common sense.

Where do you aim on a ship nose tanking? I try to get enough angle to fire around their turrets through the top section of the ship.

Just wondering, how is the Z-31s AP against BB upper structures in comparison to other DDs?

Aside from being an exageration, relevance to my point please? If you're just going to spout random grievances and think it's an argument, please just don't.

It's hilarious that you still don't understand what I wrote and why I guess as you're still making the wrong connections. Did you just admit there was a MM choke with regards to CVs forcing the one per side rule to be changed because the MM couldn't cope and people couldn't play their ships without the MM having to waive the rule? D: Egads. You do like shooting down your own arguments. Maybe you should use that for AA. Exactly. It was your point that nobody wanted to play them. Explain why people jump to a new line of CVs if they don't want to play them period. There's a lot of ships I go through and discard after finishing the grind and never return to. CVs are no different in that respect for most players. "Happy to constantly fail"? Interesting prejudice. I think you misunderstand the application of the term common sense in my argument. It's not about their choice to fail up in game, it's about their choicehow to spend their time, so whether they want to spend a lot of time in a queue or not. One doesn't have to be a brain surgeon to understand that other classes get through quicker. When there's not much of it and people's attention is roughly equally spread over all their units, then the unit class of which there are least will naturally have fewer players. Unless OP. Guess by your popularity argument they're not OP btw. I get the feeling you've completely lost track of how this argument started. I suggest you go back to the initial statement I responded to and took issue with. To RTS post-restrictions. Not to RTS pre-restrictions. You seem to conflate the two constantly. Considering you're forced to play cruisers to get to CVs (unless you buy one), this is not really a counterargument, is it? CV players HAVE to play other classes, people who have no interest in CVs don't. It's a default and says nothing about most players want this or that. You can't make this argument. But you don't need everyone to play CVs (far from it), what you need is a proper rock-paper-scissors balancing, rather than rock-paper-scissors-"dynamite may win against all, unless" situation as it is now. I'd personally rather have some lighter ships be near immune to aircraft attacks and the majority of players would be okay with it if only they're not such generalists that can attack everyone efficiently by exchanging their squadrons to the situation. Hell, the initial RTS setup where you had to pick a flightdeck setup for specific situations would be fastly more palatable to most non-CV players and CV players would likely just accept it as "it is what it is" for balancing purpose. Acceptance from other players comes from not feeling powerless and those who suffer most from aircraft strikes are those who can cope with it least (incompetent players). There's more to it than that. They had issues balancing different tier CVs due to their hp-system on aircraft. If they had made the aircraft equal in power in A2A (for instance by refering to percentages of hp rather than hp and use hp for balancing against AA), they'd not have had the issue where being uptiered meant you'd automatically lose the engagement with the other CV (unless you had another CV to back you up or only engage in the vicinity of your side's AA). Since they didn't rework their AA and A2A balancing, they just wanted to create a MM void between CV tiers. It meant more CVs within single tier matchmaking where there are fewer matches available too (pure T5, T7 and T9 matches will not have CV's, but still exist, thus automatically there'll be more CVs in matches containing T4, T6 and T8 (TX MM is the same). I think where they saved time is when you could have the MM reserve space for a fourth CV, where they had three CVs selected and a fourth CV of a specific tier didn't show up. So while creating choke points, they may have solved this particular form of stalling.

In Russia/Eastern/central Europe/Southern Europe/UK it isn't... Already did. Multiple times. They're not the majority of the playerbase. So yes, it's a fact that the bottom half of the game pays more than the top 5-15%. I never implied none of them are paying. So what's your counterpoint to what again?

Wow, you're actually that unaware of what the argument was about due to being so prejudiced and projecting... Okay, here goes. No, I'm not explaining current pops. I'm explaining potential CV population is a lot higher than it is today. Try figuring out what the argument is when you had an active population pre-pop drops, where you could have over 6 CVs a side, regularly, in relation to the argument of whether or not people would play this game to play CVs or just other surface ships while someone points out there's not that many right now. It's not that hard to figure out. It has absolutely nothing to do with the current population. :/ It has everything to do with the potential population were CVs more attractive to play for the various reasons mentioned. Which MM restrictions have been lifted? - Tier 5, 7 and 9 CVs have been removed, so the CV vs CV tiering has been spaced out. (Further restricted by creating choke points in matchmaking) - Divisions are still restricted to one CV per division (multi-CV divs did exist before the end state of the RTS, and you know what, it meant there were naturally less CVs since *SHOCK!*) - Restrictions to max 2 per battle (mostly creating choking in MM at T4 and in T6 operations) lol. Yeah, I'm sure a 4 min wait at 6PM WET on the weekend is off-time. Oh but nice victim blaming WHILE ADMITTING I'M RIGHT: you suggest you should pick a different class to avoid the queue because that's something you can control to avoid the queue. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeey. GG. ;) During the queueing hypes of introducing German CVs for one waiting times were pretty awful. No, it's just common sense. When people find something tedious, they'll take a path of less resistance. I don't pretend to speak for the entire populace either, it only has to be true for a portion to have a severe effect. I also wonder how exactly you imagine the CV class to out do other ship classes in players and matches when it's coded to not be able to and is also a class severely outnumbered in unit and tiers, skewing any statistics that look at the entirety of the population at once. But hey, who's doing selective reading by pretending "3.5%" means it's unpopular when you don't understand what the statistics represent? You do realise that CVs make up just a tiny portion of the units available in game? You do realise that you are focusing in on a single element and pretend it's the only relevant element, just because it suits your argument? And then you ignore that despite the lowered influence to the roughly equal level of power, the CV population is still higher than it once was. Meaning by your own admission, power isn't the only factor involved, or even the predominant one. Variety and something being new and different is probably just as important, if not more important, to boost any ship numbers to a significant higher plane than you'd get over time. All these populations see the traditional early rise upon introduction, followed by a fall to a lower number as people get either bored with it or have some other shiny new toy to play with. But let's be clear, I'm not happy with any of the CV gameplay designs I've seen so far, none of the reworks (initial, fighter and squadron overhaul, techtree overhaul, CV rework to current situation). My issue is with the suggestion that people don't play this game to ALSO play CVs at times, simply because they like to. The fact that more people continued to play CVs post-rework is more than enough evidence of that. It's just not the only thing they do and it's not the only thing they can do to play this game. Every CV player plays other classes, the opposite may not be true. There's virtually always a CV or two in game, so clearly there's sufficient demand for it. And the MM is rigged with the purpose to prevent a high number of CV. Because this game would have been dead and burried without population. Like any empty game would be. The top 5% of players doesn't pay for the survival of the game. They're the least likely to need premium or other pay options to get exp, silver and other rewards. The bottom half on the other end... Face it, they pay so you can play. They're here as your targets so you can get good ratings. Remove them and your ratings could be 'average' or even bad, with respect to the remaining competent players. Thing is, you don't get to determine who is worthy to play this game. Depends on whether they're uptiered or not. If they're top tier, there's likely no issue. If they're not, there likely is just a squadron or two left near the end, which may not reach the target. At that point they tend to launch the wrong type of squadron to face a target, as those still have some aircraft left. This however, is one of the design elements I don't agree with in terms of balancing, so there's that. Make of that what you will, I think I know what your prejudice will conclude about how I'd change it anyway without you looking up any alteration suggestions I've made in the CV threads.

Not at all. How about you stop strawmanning and learn to read what is said, rather than what you want it to imply? I think you summed up Anti-CV I DONT WANT TO HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT I'LL PRETEND I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID NANANANANANANA arrogance pretty well though.

Except that the stats don't show the introduction of MM numerical limitations since those came shortly after beta when people were complaining about the abundance of CVs in game completely obsoleting other ships at times with their combined firepower and not in 2019-2020 (where the shown stats are from), so indeed no MM influence should be seen as the rules indeed didn't change in the time frame posted. Maybe check the statistic date stamps before making such a stupid comment? CV population naturally dwindled along with restrictions being imposed on them, including that you could only field one per division. They pick up slightly when new CVs are introduced, but given that where you could have 6+ Italian BBs in one match upon their introduction, you could NOT see 6 Rheins in one match. But during that period every match had two of them or Weser. If people can't get through the queue, they play something else. If people can't play in divisions, they might decide to play something else that does allow them more control over MM, shorter queues and doesn't uptier them problematically. Besides, as if you never change ship class in ranked when there's a 45 BB queue. Considering T5, T7 and T9 carriers were removed post-beta as well reducing the CV spread to fewer tiers and saturating matchmaking further, even creating choke points at T4, that can't have done much for the popularity either. Few people div with CVs unless they're top tier. I would bet a lot of people never returned to CVs after encountering such masochistic imbalance issues. Similarly, a lot of CV players will have looked at the crap of playing or facing 4 fighter squadrons in some of the early CV designs and gave up on them then as they either had nothing to do or nothing to bring in. lol right. Because everyone loves sitting in 4 minute queues. It's one of the main reasons I don't play CVs. CV matches tend to be long. So if I would grind a CV at tier 4 for an evening, I'd have full matches to play + long queue. It means you can't play as many matches as you would in a DD, cruiser or BB and you'd get constant frustrating interruptions where you watch a timer as if you're on a Customer Service Desk line. If you think people like wasting time this way and get little progression in return, you're probably ill-informed on consumer motivations and behaviour. But since you're projecting, like most people who dislike CVs, that's not unsurprising. No. You've played through beta, you know the change from RTS to Fly-It-Yourself changed popularity because it changed the whole concept, not because it was a buff or nerf. I was talking about uptiered CVs. Never engaged for example a high tier Euro DD with a T8 CV I take it? It's actually pretty effective to the point it's hard to come even near if the DD has half a clue and the CV player is poor. Getting dive bombers over some T8+ BBs can result in complete decimation of your squadrons prior to getting to drop. Can those decimations be avoided? Yes, but that would require a CV player that knows what they're doing, which in my experience often isn't the case. But sure, project more by suggesting it's easy for EVERYONE (not just good players) and ignore reality due to being blinded by hatred, or by personal skill making it impossible for you to acknowledge not everyone is that good at it. It seems highly problematic for people such as yourself to understand context because you only look at your pet peeve scenarios and the extreme potentials where a good player is involved. And yes, it's important to balance based on those scenarios, but consider the average and below player experience can vary greatly from yours. I know people with high stats rather ignore those, but unless you know what you're doing, CVs can run out of air quickly and become completely ineffective. If you do know how to manage your aircraft pool, approach and time, you can be devastating. But 'ez mode' it is not for everyone.

The issue is that you create a distinction based on the unit used in an attempt to marginalise and dismiss any need for aircraft, whereas the correct statement would be that people download WoWs to play with warships. Whether those are carriers (and thus include flying planes, whether one operates them personally or in some way ordering strikes instead) doesn't really matter. Basically, you try to define CVs as non-ships. They're ships, just with a different ordinance delivery method. I would not mind a return to some form of RTS style attacks where the navigation of the CV becomes way more dominant (as it was at first, operating the ship has only become a tertiary task with the CV rework. With the RTS version you controlled both more equally as you could switch between map and third person view). Agreed. There's a thousand ways to implement CVs, many of which aren't proper and we've mostly seen some of those so far. First of all, current pop is not representative and largely a consequence of matchmaker design. Of 12 players in a match, only 2 are allowed to be CV. The hard pop limit is therefore 16%. But due to saturation at the lower tiers (T4 often has 40+ people waiting with CVs in queue for 6mins, until people give up) there's a bit of a choking going on. The long queues have actively discouraged me from grinding the CVs for example. If you simply can't start matches, why would you keep trying and waste your time waiting? Prior to numbers being restricted and before the above scenario unfolded, we used to have on average 2 up to 6 CV per match in the RTS style design period (2 a side was pretty common, 3-4 a side slightly less regular event, but a major balance issue), but since there was no limit there could be so many even that the matchmaker just gave up and created matches where you could face up to 6 CV per side. As such, it was very necessary to impose number restrictions on the class and provide incentives not to play the class. The queue is the most effective incentive used. But, you can't argue based on a current situation, where people being actively discouraged (by both matchmaker, to avoid player abuse and to not feel like seal clubbers if you know how to use them) to play CVs that it's an impopular class to play period in a more properly designed situation. That's like argueing that just because secondary builts are in the current built not popular to use as they've been nerfed and are considered inferior builds, that nobody wants to play them. The average has chanced depending on the built of the game. At the release of a new tree or rework, up to 15% (close to the 16.67% maximum) of battles played were CVs before coming down to more normal numbers. Meaning in those periods there was a 2 CV per side presence virtually guaranteed. Given the hard matchmaker limits and relatively small amount of CVs trees in comparison to other units available, one would expect there to be a lot less CVs period, simply because CVs literally cannot outnumber other classes in game. You'll always get at least 2-6x more non-CV ships because the matchmaker demands it. What the above chart clearly shows is that there are multiple factors determining how many players use them. The most important seem to be the availability and variety of CVs, matchmaking limitations set on them (causing queues) and the design of its gameplay and counters. Note that there are just 16 tech tree CVs, 9 gold premiums (including black copies) and three coal ships. That's 28 total, 26 if you don't count the black camo versions (why would you have both?). Only 4 CVs are low tier, 4 mid tier and the premiums and coal CVs all T8 and T10. In contrast, there are currently 140 DDs to be played, including 3 black camo variants. 29 of which are tier 4 or lower. 4 CV : 29 DD ~ 1:7 and 24:111 = 1:5. If you look at the amount of players and battles, the ratio is more like 1:2 for lower tiers and 1:5 for higher tiers. Meaning CV are actually on a unit by unit level significantly more popular than a random DD in lower tiers, despite only being available at one tier. The actual ratio at T3-T4 is thus even more to the advantage of CVs. For cruisers you get a total of 171 in game, 46 of which T4 or lower. 4CV:46CA ~ 1:11. Yet CV : cruiser players for low tiers is approximately a ratio of 1:4. Again, the amount of T4s is quite a bit less, indicating low tier CVs are also relatively popular on a unit by unit basis (and why they're abhorred as low tiers have low AA as well). Furthermore, CVs don't have to be played, cruisers have to be played to progress along all the trees. For BBs: (total in game: 134, 19 of which T4 or lower, with just one T2). Ratio of about 1 CV to 4 BB in terms of units). Yet BB player population is only 3 times higher than that of CVs. Considering there's likely a lot of overlap and a lot of negative incentives not to play CV, it means CVs are actually pretty popular units and overused at lower tiers. At higher tiers there seems to be less CV popularity, which is likely in part due to the long grind and more functional and sometimes extreme AA making it harder for poor CV players to compete as easily, particularly if the other team has a good CV player. This is probably why we see more seal clubber CVs and goes some way in explaining the relative popularity of CVs at lower tiers.

So as each nation gets their own port(s), which home port(s) would you like to see for the Dutch nation tree? I named some of the most likely candidates, namely: Option 1. De Nieuwe Haven, Den Helder (Main Dutch Royal Navy port) This port might also include (in a modern setting) the amphibious ship / helo carrier Johan de Witt. But Den Helder could of course also be done in an older version. Option 2: Rotterdam city centre (Pre-bombardment) Option 3: Schiedam/Rotterdam Wilton Feyenoord docks Wilton Feyenoord's docks were home to the Dutch fleet at times, including the Karel Doorman. http://www.vlaggeschipsmaldeel5.nl/html/wilton-fijenoord_werf_5.html Option 4: Amsterdam My preference would have to be putting it in the vicinity of Kattenburg (with the Admirality Warehouse, currently het scheepvaartmuseum) next to the old VOC docks, the galion "De Amsterdam" and Marine Etablissement Amsterdam area. Also prominently featured in the image above is NEMO, the physics museum shaped like an oil tanker. Option 5: Batavia /Jakarta (Tanjung Priok) Most the Dutch navy ships would have made this Indonesian port their home away from home. Above showing theJava after having refueled shortly before its fateful last battle. Option 6: Soerabaja naval base

That's not true (that's just your projection of disdain towards CVs). A lot of people like to play carriers, especially because of their role in some of the most well known and epic naval battles like Pearl Harbour, Midway and taking down the Yamato. They speak to the imagination of a lot of people. That their implementation isn't that great is true as well, as the way it has implemented can in the right hands be a tool to dominate through support while jacks of all trading, being a reasonable if not good counter against all types of ships. Some CVs power curve has been hyperboled to the point you can't evade an attack, that's problematic. Yet it's also true that a lot of players are too immature to accept glass cannon snipers (or their users) period, regardless of implementation, in a whole lot of games, because it hampers their own capacity to feel the hero when they can be undercut and feel slightly powerless against an enemy that outranges them. When they deal dev strikes it's okay of course, that's just their awsum, in any case they want to feel like they can fight back (unless they targeted a cruiser for 4-5 citadel hits at 24km or less, preferably unspotted from cover, that's more than fine RNG following their awesome positioning... ;)). It's true that a lot of players don't like glass cannon snipers because they are have a very specific and for their own survival convenient definition of a fair fight balancing and will explain the above away with "yes but in other situations we could be engaged by that target - indeed and a CV would not be happy with you on their doorstep for that very reason, it's even the same argument.). CVs can be balanced, but in the current state if the team they support doesn't allow for them to be approached, they can dominate (if they play well). And that teamwork effort is often lacking, exacerbating any power leverages. Regardless, I'd say there's a couple other things why people play them less: - Numerical restrictions causing much longer queue times than other classes (a long, boring wait isn't why people play this game) - Frequent abuse from immature players (people want a fun evening, that includes the CV player) - Stigmatising by the same immature players trying to give CV players a bad name - The grind is really long without premium and flags, particularly in the low tiers - There's not a whole lot of variation to the lines - The AI you're forced to use for piloting the ship while you're flying is awful. - When the mechanics or power of a ship feels out of balance, on one hand some players will flock to it, while many players will avoid using it until it has been balanced and doesn't give them the stigma of seal clubbing (particularly at T4). And if you don't play through T4, you're not going to get the rest of the ships either. It's the main reason I don't play those CVs much even if some of 'm have yet to be grinded. - When you play lowest tiers, it feels like sealclubbing because it largely is as the enemy has little defenses to wear you down, in some cases none whatsoever, which to many people feels morally wrong. That's the same reason I don't play much T1-4 in other ships. They're nice ships, but the opposition is too weak. If CVs started at T5, a lot of people would have fewer problems with them.

The ship was pretty 'legendary' before setting sail though, iirc it was widely known due to reporting and feared in the UK at the time as being one of the foremost prime naval thingies the Germans had to offer that could endanger Brittain's shipping lifeline even further.

Where did you look for his stats? Could they have been reset or hidden and only recently started recording? Just saying, has everything he's ever done been recorded there? Did you check his coop play stats? Not needing to outsmart bots might lead to trying to fight players like bots if they're not used to anything else AND with a misplaced expectation that you'd maneouvre and fire as poorly as bots, which could lead to frustration on his end. I've actually come across people who thought Coop was the only game mode during Beta, so if nobody told him and he never changed it before... There were also people who thought they were only losing because they were fighting as low tiers (blame their tools, not themselves), so skipping all low tiers should in their logic make them instantly be good players...

From the looks of it the decision moment of where to fire is locked in from the start of the engagement rather than from the last second as it is now. One of the main issues with not being able to dodge is the flexibility they gave to the CV player to time drops and even break-off attacks resulting in a potential new attack rather than a wasted pass.

De Zeven Pronvinciën will be in the Dockyard Event then. Nice. :) I would presume that means the Wilton-Feyenoord area. But that's not saying anything about the main Dutch port itself.

But not done as of yet, so it'd be a point of attention. Yes and that gives them a competitive edge in an environment where individuals play as well. Competitive edges need to be kept even on both sides of a matchmaker and abuse of mechanics or other players discouraged. And so is speeding. So I guess speeding is not an issue attempted anywhere? How has something not being allowed without any enforcement ever stopped such action from occuring period? In this case, if the rules are ambiguous and vague and it isn't made explicitly clear on what is and isn't allowed with regards to match fixing the team setup, then particularly when it comes to throwing games or rigging a side with more coordinated people by synch dropping will continue to pose problems. I don't see how this can result in clear actions against clans abusing this mechanic as they can just claim incompetence or bad luck as explainations to throwing matches. Yet it's easy to code the prevention of coordination advantages by checking for clan tags and if necessary linking clans to sub-clans. In football leagues, you're not allowed to have teams of the same club or even satellite clubs in the same pool to prevent matchfixing. This is no different and since it's just a matter of matchmaker code, you can easily exclude these. So why would you allow it to exist? By that logic there is no sense argueing with you period, because by that logic if something is even remotely possible, there's no point in doing something about it.

Yes, but not with respect to clans.

Divs in ranked would make it from a potential advantage into a structural advantage over players who play solo. Ranked is about individuals, not divisions, after all. The goal of sync dropping is getting a communication and cooperation advantage over random players. Plus then you'd make it attractive for clans setting up division sync drops, exacerbating the problem with respect to solo players even further. It would thus require new MM rules that no divisions of same clan members can be on the same side and if a division is on one side, there has to be a division of similar size on the other team as well. That's going to be pretty hard. Easiest way to solve this whole thing permanently would be to disallow members of the same clan to be in the same match.

They can't tell because of privacy rules, but yeah, doesn't mean nothing is done about it. We had it in some online games where a GM would come online to ban openly cheating players (who used lliililIlili names on f2p accounts to make reporting them harder). The GM would use /global chat to notify everyone explicitly that they banned 'm and make people feel a bit safer again, for the time being. Of course, those players would often be back soon as it was just f2p accounts that were banned. Either they wern't IP banned, or they used VPNs. It was more satisfying to know your actions contributed to removing such people. As for the topic at hand, sync dropping may be allowed, but it's a tad annoying. Wouldn't mind there being limits to how often you can end up in the same match in a row. but yeah, with low pop that's hard. Had it late night where most of the same 14 people would get in the same Ranked matches 4, 5 times in a row as people started a new match after the last finished and nobody else would be online. As long as people don't throw matches it's fine, but if they undermine your side to get the other ranked out... That's more than a little annoying, luckily not encountered that yet.

OR play UK BBs and fire AP only and never aim for citadels. :)

:D (you explicitely said pc game in your first post, I made a funny and then made a pc version funny ;) )