YabbaCoe

Understood. We asked for some information about Lazo, too, as we don't know, why it was actually included there. Same with München. Not in the game. I am glad, that you like the video. It atleast show how the development went for each nation. Thank you. It is the main purpose of this video to really show the size comparison of those ships.

Hello, Sorry for this situation caused by manual mistake. Correct T-shirt with Vermont should already be on its way to you.

There was time from Thursday evening until Monday somewhere midday. So more than 3 days to try to finish those missions around Battle of Beasts. But on the live server it will be much longer and also all timeframes should be explained in particular articles, which will be published next week.

Also a good suggestion. So you would take for example 24 of the better ones in the queue to be matched together and after that next 24 worse ones played together etc. (considering 12vs12 random battles condition) ? I am also thinking, how those calculations would influence waiting time, as still we would have to have same ship-based MM, to which this Elo system would be added. Or you would like to see some asymmetrical battles in terms of classes per team?

Veškeré lodě, včetně FDR se samozřejmě sledují a v případě, že tak uznáme za vhodné tak se její parametry mohou změnit. Přece jenom Stalingrad a Thunderer byly ukázkou, že i nerfy mohou být aplikovány na speciální lodě. Nicméně momentálně není žádná informace o tom, že by se Roosevelt měl nerfovat. Veškeré nerfy či buffy jsou vypsány na DevBlogu a pak následně v článku k aktualizaci. Nešlo a jednoduše: Nenič spojence v žádném herním módu. Pokud ti to dělá problém, podívej se raději do operací, kde je teamdamage vypnut. Prostě jakmile jsi růžový dávej se bacha na jakékoliv poškození a aby se ti něco podobného nestávalo, dávej hlavně bacha, kde máš spojence. Nicméně v jakémkoliv režimu jsi odpovědný za své torpéda a pokud je tedy pošleš do spojence, ovšem že následuje trest.

Well, I can't promise you any edits of this video, but I will surely pass the points and questions further

Also good point. I will ask about Eugen too.

Good question with those, I will ask why those weren't included, but maybe it was because they were sisterships to other ships already visible in those lists In these videos we mostly wanted to show the lenght of those ships. Emden was completely the same as Dresden and Eugen was a sistership to Hipper. It was like this last time that Bismarck was there, but not Tirpitz etc. But with Kirov Molotov... good point

Not entirely, as we mentioned: laid down, built or launched

I agree with that. Though it is definitely not nice, if somebody decide to leave you alone there, but still it doesn't mean, that he necessary is rigging the battle. And as I mentioned several times, I checked the battle and this CV player was playing normally, did his tasks, better or not, but was playing trying to help atleast someone. The fact, that in the same battle there are other members of your clan doesn't necessarily mean, that you have to fight only them, but you still have other ships to choose.

CS agents are the ones dealing with all tickets, so also the ones about rigging. They carefully are watching all those replays and if they see rules violation, they apply sanctions. As I said before, I've seen situations, where the rigging was very obvious and therefore violator was indeed punished. "Necessary action taken" can mean both... it really depends, if the rules were violated or not. How else you would actually detect rigging? It is possible, that together you would sink him... also it is possible, that not... and he didn't fly there, so we won't know, what would have happen. Still no rigging spotted in your case...

Well he spotted those mentioned ships, which already without Halland together provide much stronger AA than the second flank ships. So he decided to fly to that flank, where was lower AA defence according to which ships were spotted. Halland itself is not really recommended to attack by planes, so it is special category and it also haven't been spotted yet during that decision. While he was already attacking right flank of course he haven't changed his decision while AA strong Halland was spotted. He was busy on second flank. It is not easy to distinguish actual rigging, it is for CS agents to decide on particular cases while analysing data provided. With that CV chosing enemy CV first, as you know, this is one of the "common" tactics, yet not one of those reccomended ones. But in your example, you would be rigging the battle, but only you actually knowing, that you are rigging. Who else would know, you are actually doing that willingly and that you are actually playing for both CVs at the same time? Players would probably report you, create a ticket, as with the second one you would play very badly and they wouldn't be happy about that. So is bad gameplay a rigging? Yes, this guy ignored his clanmate, but he played for the team spotting and helping one flank, dealing damage. But as I said, the fact that your clanmate is in the same battle doesn't neccesary mean, that you have to fight only him, especially when he has very strong AA ship, so your time spent fighting him would be useless. Actually loosing plenty time and planes just for one Halland which is from the same clan would be probably more obvious rigging, as the combat capabilities of the CV could have been used elsewhere...

Coinflip sounds "fair", but it still can create very unequal situations: Just imagine team A wins the coinflip and get the best BB player, tier VIII for example... team B gets the second one according to certain skill, but he is in tier VI ship. Like this team A will get always better players, who can even be in higher tier ships. If you would multiply lower tier by 0.9, in this case you would definitely need to have some coeficient number to understand the skill of those players. Divisions are usually making a bit mess in all of those calculations. What if you have only 2 divisions in this particular queue? One full of superunicum players and one very low skilled players - your MM would need to compensate other players to second team, basically assigning only "tomatoes" to this superunicum division, who definitely won't be happy about that. Criteria WR helps, but WR with the ship, what if you have brand new ship, or ship with 100%WR as you played only 1 battle with that? Damage per battle in overal? That can be improved significantly, just playing high tier BBs, where you have usually higher amount of damage dealt, while for example for DDs, damage done is not saying much how well they played. Having average damage per battle as a criteria would force players to only farm damage, not to focus on other tasks.

I checked the replay again... indeed Halland wasn't spotted, but all those other ships including Oland, Montana, Venezia, Buffalo were spotted by squadron.. well honestly those together is already quite a strong AA side. But first he spotted your left flank before deciding to farm damage on right flank. He sent some torpedoes to Kremlin and other ships and after this flank being pushed, he again changed to take a look on left flank. There is definitely no rigging in this decision, as he helped to spot enemies and after that decided to support one flank over another. It is definitely not easy to detect rigging the battle, while somebody is attacking ships, that are closest to him, not willingly chosing his clanmates on opposite side of the map. The fact somebody decide to support one flank to another doesn't necessary mean, that he is rigging the game, especially when he is doing his job on the selected flank. Maybe he was telling your positions to his clanmates, maybe not. We can't know that. But as I said, his gameplay doesn't really show, that he was rigging the battle, just because he didn't help your flank. With your example, again if you decide to hunt enemy CV first, it is not a good tactics, but it is your decision to do that. And if you will have second account to do that - while you said this, it would be rigging, as we have the information from you, that this enemy CV is your second account. But without this knowledge looking just to the battle itself, difficult to say now. It would really depend on certain decisions.. like reaching enemy CV and not attacking, just flying there etc. But if you would actively try to torp, bomb that enemy CV taking damage down, well your decision how to play, to eliminate your selected thread first. Yes I am serious. In logic you gave, everybody who don't play his role, as he is supposed to according you is basically rigging the battle as his wrong decision will may lead into a loss...

I see, Thank you for the further explanation on your idea. So first the battle formation would be chosen and after that from the pool of players in queue they will be selected to teams regarding their class they have and skill. Would those battle be only same tier, or is you idea considering +/- 2 tiers? What if there would be just one very skilled player, but other lower skilled? One team chose first all the time, or how it is decided who pick first for each class? What about divisions? And still which criteria should be chosen to determine the skill of each player? Overal WR? WR with selected ship? Sorry to bombard you with questions, but those are the classic ones trying to have the overal idea of that suggestion.

Still I mentioned, it is questionable. Would he attack there if there won't be his teammates, knowing Halland is operating there? Also in the beginning of the battle he did the classic round to spot, also his clanmates. Also nobody knows, if they communicated, or not. The thing is, that I saw some examples of obvious rigging in past and this one is really far from that. But still it depends on CS agent, how he/she will measure this situation. But as I said, in that battle they all played their part, better or worse, but it is in every single battle, regardless if you play against player you know, or not. And it is not mandatory to attack certain ships or that you have to attack your clanmates if they are in the battle. But if there would be only his clanmates and he wouldn't attack them, it would be something completely different. Because in your case, in every single battle half of players should be reported for rigging, just because they are not doing exactly what they should with their ships. Exactly. It is a big question, if it is correct to farm damage, or to support one flank or another, or to spot excesively etc. CV player can decide to avoid strong AA ships willingly, it is the same, that with BB you won't push a flank while you know there is shimakaze or other DD around. And not every single CV player have to be Unicum one and simply will make some mistakes running into strong AA, forgetting where his ship is located, missing drops etc.

Well, he wasn't spotting for you. It is sad, also probably bad gameplay, as he focused mostly on damange dealing. I know, that you probably felt cheated, as he wasn't directly helping you. But unfortunately it was his own decision to fly on second flank first to farm the damage. You definitely can't punish a player, that is normally playing, dealing damage, helping few players, just because he wasn't on the second flank at the same time. As mentioned, clan tags aside, it is most likely quite plenty players would do exactly the same. It is probably not excelent unicum gameplay, but still he participated in that battle. So it is definitely not obvious... not everybody that is not helping you personally is rigging the game

Cool. Now you should be set correctly for those drops, so nothing should prevent you getting them, hopefully

We see some player drop... investigating

MM is considering only ships to form two teams. All personal data and skills are irrelevant. So MM definitely is not picking players regarding their number of battles. With only one little exception for newcomers until I think 150 battles. They (if possible) get matched only with other newcomers, also it is restricted until I think tier V. But apart from that skill or experience of players is not considered in MM calculation.

Cool! So you received drops?

Not yet. As announced, Submarines will appear on special Public Test, but we haven't specified the date yet. We will announce arrival of that PT once it will be close to its release. Yes, it indeed finished sooner and as I mentioned it was intentional to test the funcitonality, also to use post-event table with a personal summary. But the deadline was on Monday, so there were plenty time to finish those menitoned PT missions.

I saw that replay and honestly, it is questionable. He wasn't supporting you, as he chose to support second flank, where he had enough ships to torps. I know, that you expected help from him, but regardless their clantag, seeing Halland coming on one side, while there is another flank full of big ships to hunt, everybody would choose the flank without Halland. After that right flank was cleared, he arrived there to fly where you were pinging... late than expected, but he was there. Who knows, if they were communicating on TeamSpeak, Discord etc. with each other, but there is no clear sign of intentional rigging...

Hello, Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately we mentioned several times, that we are currently not planning any skill-based MM, so even your suggestion most likely won't be considered. But we can talk about your suggestion here. So in your example, everybody would pick how the battle should look like as ship distribution, also considering higher and lower tiers and than MM would distribute players from the queue how exactly?