G01ngToxicCommand0

That is not a good question to ask since it can be answered with two phrases; 'gambling psychology & 'exploiting the minds of gambling addicts''. First before presenting the explanation; a link to a university paper on gambling psychology with a focus on "chasing the loss": http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/44034021/Biological_Psychiatry_2008_Campbell_Meiklejohn.pdf It can easily be shown that WoT and WoWS follows the principles and mechanics that casinos use to keep people spending money on gambling and to keep players in the games. The exact reason for why people can be explained to be deliberately placed in long strings of losing, which I do not claim is actually happening, is quite simple and analog to gambling addicts and the effect is called "chasing losses" where the gambling addict spends more and more money on gambling in order to try to break the chain of losses - placing people in losing streaks in WoWS and WoT will produce the same effect in the players leading them to spend more time in the games, more money on premium, gold/dubloons, flags, camos etc. etc. in order to break the chain of losses of which they have no real control over because that is how the brain works thus rigging the matchmaker can be used to manipulate players into spending money on the game that they did not initially intend on doing. Again I am not claiming nor do i believe that this is what Wargaming is actually doing to their customers but as shown above it can be easily and logically explained why it would make economic sense to do so which makes the question from MrConway not the best one to ask since a logical and reasonable answer to it can make the company he works for looks like a malignant business model targeted against the weak minded by preying on their emotions and exploiting their psychology in order to manipulate them into spending more time and money on its products than the customer initially wanted or intented to.

Those are bot stats...

It is not just a small percentage of the playerbase that are ultrabad let me elaborate; up untill 3.18k battles I was stable at 56% winrate since last year but then suddenly beginning in July my winrate have been plummeting and I am now on 55,1X% winrate but both my damage and experience per battle is increasing and not just because I am playing more high tier battles: https://eu.warships.today/player/501662755/atomskytten I have been wondering what the cause of that could possibly be and came to three possible causes: 1) I play worse now than before 2) I have been put on a WG matchmaking 'black list' for multiple chat violations where I am only placed on teams with the very bad and bot players. and lastly 3) The game has seen a massive increase in new players which for the most part can best be described as being ultrabad players. Cause 1) can readily be dismissed based on the steady increase of my other stats than winrate, Cause 2) while possible is implausible thus dismissed. And finally: Cause 3) By checking the EU server numbers it ic clear that player numbers have indeed gone appreciably and substantially up during this summer and has probably increased by 50% going from peak numbers from 20k online to 30k. And most of those players will play worse than the experienced and established players simply because they lack the experience and understanding of the game's mechanics and current meta. I've noted the player composition of my teams when I lost for 30 games and the result was quite clear: about 40-50% of all of my losing teams players were below 46% winrate while usually there were only 2-4 better than 50% winrate with the rest being in between with an average team winrate at or just below 48% or in other words the majority of my teams were below the theoretical average player winrate which should be very very close to 50% due to the extremely low amounts of draws. Bear in mind that the average winrates for all battles played on the server will be very close to 50% however it is indeed possible that the average player winrate to be lower than 49% because of the distribution of the number of games played across the server population so that the pre July server population had an average winrate of nearly 50% and very close if not identical to the server's total battles played winrate average but since the population increased by about 50% and those new 50% loses far more than 50% of their battles the result is a dip in average player winrate but no impact on average battles winrate for all battles played. Also when checking the below 46% players they usually had very few games, typically below 800 games even when playing in high tier battles from tier 8-10 with abyssmal damage, experience, kills per game and K/D indicating that indeed that the primary cause for the increase in defeats can be traced to the increase in new and inexperienced bad players. This of course means that every team now have far more bad players than before, up to a full third more of the teams' experienced players having been replaced by those new and very bad players. The consequence of this is that as a solo player it has become increasingly harder to carry bad players as their numbers have about doubled or so on the average team and as the bad and ultrabad players have far more influence on the battles' outcomes than a superunicum can neutralise or overcome by epic gameplay the inevitable result is an increase in losses if you, as I do, play almost strictly solo with very few games in division. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that if I want to return to 56% winrate I must play 3 ship divison in every battle in order to remove at least 2 very bad players from the team.

Only chat violations have sanctions connected to them 'Botting' and 'Plays poorly' are only used to collect statistics and if you really want to report botters/afk'ers send in a replay or screenshot proving that a player is indeed vilotaing the EULA, I've done it several times and have gotten positive feedback from customer support.

They still deserve it for late starts, now before people begin to 'but but but' I just want to say that late starters causes losses because they don't go to critical locations in time giving the enemy team the upper hand and late starters seldomly only do it once which you can usually observe from their usual abyssmal stats. In short don't feel bad over issuing reports for botting to late starters.

Good idea however I thnk that a max of 4 capital ships per side is 1 too many and a maximum of 3 capital ships per side would be better so that both cruisers and destoyers each outnumber the capital ships. This will change the game meta to one where there will be more close action between cruisers/cruisers and cruisers/destroyers as the capital ships will not be capable of engaging all of the cruisers as they can now while also increasing the effect of the capital ships players' skill as their decisions will have greater impact than now if they understand that their primary targets will now be the enemy team's capital ships rather cruisers which will now be fighting enemy destoyers and cruisers trying to kill their team's destroyers as being the sole remaining battleship(s) will have a substantial impact on the outcome of the battle. Firechance and/or damage from HE might have to be globally decreased in order to increase BB survivability now that the HE spamming ships will outnumber the capital ships 3 to 1 for balance reasons though. However as about half the playerbase is playing battleships there have to be battles consisting solely of capital ships, call it a 'Battle of the line' mode with the standard missions and maps only that the teams are exclusively made from capital ships where the BB players can slug it out at the ranges that fits them best while the CV players, if any available, will have far more large targets to sink than their complement of strike aircraft can sustain or overcome. Having tried a BB exclusive battle when the german BB line came out I can say from firsthand experience that it was very entertaining going in a large group of battleships applying massive firepower against the enemy battleships - total armageddon

Cruisers only have it hard because 50% or more of the teams are now battleships and you have to be lucky as a cruiser driver if there are more than 2-3 cruiser on each team and you simply can not perform the original role of the cruiser because the matchmaker makes teams where 50-60 on each team are battleships. In battles where the teams consists solely of cruisers and destroyers the cruisers don't see the limitations and problems they have in the average battle because the battleships that instagibs them are not there. The only real solution to make cruisers viable and fun is to adjust the matchmaker so that on 'normal' battles there can be no more than 3 capital ships of either BBs or CVs on either team and then have a 'Battle of the line' consisting solely of battleships against battleships for the great numbers of BB players that would rather stop playing than wait 5 minutes to play a game and actually having tried such a battle I can say first hand that they are actually quite fun and challening. Again the problems with cruiser play is that there are far too many players that play battleships instead of cruiser because they are noob friendly and the problem can only be removed completely by changing the matchmaker and hardcapping capital ships in normal battles while battleships get special battles only for them, nerfing BBs or buffing cruisers will not work because of the intrinsic noob protection battleships possess - the only way to improve cruiser play is through the matchmaker.

No

BB players in general need to grow a pair and play the class as it was meant to rather than being the gutless cowards failing their way to tier X. If torpedo armed battleships is the next excuse for BB players not closing the distance to the enemy the future of this game looks bleak. Remember those immortal words from a certain leader of men, that should need no further introduction, and play by them when playing battleships: "Engage the enemy more closely"

Great...now we have both cnacer and plague in WoWS- what's next, smallpox?

Excellent suggestion!

It takes time to manually check and award rewards to every single WoWS account

Did you manage to take a screenshot, WG customer support accepts those as proof of threats against your life and violence etc. so if you did you can use that to report this individual. Anyway I hoped you copy pasted that message and kept it for the scrapbook. I have yet to receive deaththreats so I must be doing something wrong - perhaps I am not salty and toxic enough?

Yes in fact several times: US Tier X T30 and Tier IX T34 heavy tank changed to Tier IX T30 TD and Tier VIII Premium Heavy Tank, FV4202 Tier X medium tank and Waffenträger Auf PzE100 Tank Destroyer removed and replaced, IS-4 Tier IX heavy tank upgraded to tier X and in all the cases the player had the crew, XP, camos transferred to the replacement tank and in the case of the T34 the players that had that tank in the garage got it as the premium tank and those players that had the IS-4 not only kept that while it was moved to tier X but they also received its replacement for free so you can say that Wargaming has an excellent record when it comes to making substantial chnages to tech trees. In short no player will be shafted when the IJN DD tree changes go live.

Akizuki will be pleased

You do as that 5k battles 45% WR 932 XP per battle moron I had the displeassure of having on my team two domination mode battles in a row while trying to get my first win of the day in the Udaloi: You make sure that you stay just outside the objectives and spam torpedos all game long because you, of course, are the primary damage dealer of the team and when the team asks you to go cap or spot enemy DDs or their torps you don't answer but continues to sail as far away from the objectives and the battle as possible while spamming torps at their maximum range and not once do you do anything that helps the team get into a favourable position and when you decide to finally cap there is 2 minutes left on the clock while the enemy holds a lead of 400 points. Not only what are the odds of running into the same mong player 2 battles in row but why in both battles does he end up on my team? WG just place the bad players in a league of their own instead of allowing them to make poor quality game experience for others...

Now that the Royal Navy Light Cruiser tree will soon be implemented I was wondering if that should not result in an update of the matchmaker as CLs are objectively inferior in both armour protection, survivability and firepower compared to CAs and if the matchmaker do not differentiate between the 2 classes it would lead to team imbalances if one of the teams' cruisers in a battle was made up of only CAs and the other team only CLs as the latter would be significantly at a disadvantage given the objectively superior armour, firepower and survivability of the heavy cruisers over the light cruisers. Now I don't know if Wargaming plans to include the CLs in the matchmaker as an independant class of its own or part of a single class of 'Cruisers' made up from CAs and CLs alike where the matchmaker do not discriminate between them as two different classes the latter beeing the case p.t. My question is: Should the matchmaker be updated to include CLs and CAs as two seperate classes with regards to matchmaking or should the current matchmaker continue as is?

Perhaps it is just me but I prefer to analyse what could possible go wrong in any given project, adjust then implement rather than implement, analyse what went wrong and then having to adjust and with regards to the BB/BC we can already observe in team battles that the BB>BC meaning that the latter is not used so there is merit to propose changes there methinks. True about the destinction between CA and CL is the calibre of their main battery but heavier guns equals better penetration which leads to more penetration and citadels hits on medium to long range compared to guns equal to or below calibres of 155mm which places the CA superior to the CL in their raw damage potential in addition to their larger hit point pools due to their larger displacements. CL<<CA in a one on one type engagement which I still believe the matchmaker should take into account. Can't wait to see a one on one between USS Des Moines CA VS. HMS Minotaur, my money would be on the Des Moines though based on its heavier guns, better armour and 25% higher hit point pool if the current available stats is accurate.

You didn't by any chance play PvE? Also your stats indicate that you make extremely low damage in your battles, even in PvE, which would also explain why you lose credits in your games even when winning. You must be doing something wrong when you play since you fail to generate much damage or XP, cant say what you do wrong without a game replay.

Not only that but the secondary batteries should begin to engage the DD which should have alerted at least one of the CA players if not sunk the DD.

I think they could work as their detectability would be lower than that of DDs meaning that when in torpedo range they should theoretically be able to shoot from as close as a TB medium range drop without being detected. They would be as fast as early US BBs on the surface and presumedly with lower detection range than the best DDs with CE captain skill and would only need to dive when spotted by airplanes or about to enter detection range of their surface camo rating where the maximum speed would be about halfed in value. Anyway with ca. 20kts they will demand the same kind of planning as for the slow US BBs and should be used at or near center map choke points and objectives so that they will still retain the ability to return home to own base if enemy forces are capping it. Obviously as for CVs this class will not be pleasing to play for the vast majority of players due to its slow and deliberate gameplay which should limit its proliferation on the servers. Offensive wise there will be limitations compared to all other classes. Obviously using the deck gun to engage targets with would be somewhat optimistic and clearly the primary weapons would be the forward and aft torpedo tubes but perhaps mines could be used as well? With an introduction of submarines it would necessitate the introduction of the means of attacking them while submerged such as ASDIC, ship and aircraft deployed depth charges in addition to the torpedos the submerged and surfaced submarines would already be succeptible to attack from and not to forget divebombers, ship artillery and ramming when surfaced. Whether or not it will be able to capture bases and objectives remain to be seen but it should be able to do so if it can not readily be attacked such as a DD can. Anyway it would add flavour to the game

The primary issue with cruiser survivability is the disproportionate higher numbers of battleships contra cruisers IMHO, the typical battle team composition is 5 battleships with the occasional CV taking the place of one of the BBS 3 to 4 cruisers and 3 to 4 destroyers; this result in an enviroment where the cruisers are outnumbered by battleships making it impossible for them to act freely against enemy destroyers and cruisers simply because that when detected the enemy battleships will usually nuke them instead of trying to sink the enemy's battleship first as those are the more dangerous oppponent as would be done had it been a real life battle. There need to be fewer battleships/capiatal ships per team, I say a maximum of 3 per team of BBs and CVs while the rest of the team is made up from cruisers and destroyers perhaps even with a limit for heavy cruisers as well now that the first CL line is coming which should be inferior to CAs in general.

Just wait to play the Shima untill the IJN DD tree is updated in October.

Perhaps a cap on capital ships is in order? I was think a maximum number of 3 capital ships per team so there could be either 3xBBs, 1xCV + 2xBBs or 2xCV +1xBB - no matter the distribution the cruiser class should be more survivable and fun to play when 75% of the enemy team is not a BB.

And from 4,4km range the 16 inchers have a penetration of about 750mm according to navweaps.com: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php. It not just the Iowa that has trouble penetrating it is a general issue, either the guns penetration do not have real life penetration, there is a bug in the penetration/damage mechanics or there is RNG on penetration afterall.