SV_Kompresor

So the "I'm not bad, I'm just getting the bad teams" people are correct then. Well I guess it really is all down to rng.

If no win scenarios have no noticable effect on one's winrate, then removing them doesn't either.

Only to try and avoid having lineups like these. How it's done, I don't care.

They don't have to be equal. Both just need to have a reasonable chance of winning.

Well, with you depriving your team of a teammate, it wouldn't be a 50% winrate so good luck with that. Eliminating (almost) no win scenario matches wouldn't have an effect on wr because statistically, you get on either end equally often anyway.

If that's the case, then you're basically saying that skill really doesn't matter that much, it's mostly about the matchmaking. I'm just talking about the no win scenarios specifically. If MM decides that one team is going to win, then it's a nearly pointless battle for the other team. Yes, it's random, but not everything should be. The solution to this is simply to put a similar number of 40, 50 and 60% on both teams. Although that does kind of circle back down to individual wr so that might not be the best option, but it can't be worse than one team having everything and the other having none.

If you go by individual wr, then you have both teams full of 45% or full teams of 60%. If that is implemented, then exactly what you said, would happen. Everyone would go towards 50%. Using combined team wr on the other hand (by trying to avoid going above say 3-4% difference) would at least remove the (almost) unwinnable/unloseable(?) matches where one team has 6-10% higher WRs. You could still have teams filled with 45% and unicums, they just wouldn't all be on the same side. It wouldn't have nearly as big of an impact as people think (nor would it increase their WR since they would also be winning less due to free-win matches) but at least it'd remove a few snowballs.

They wouldn't. Not if you sort by combined team wr, not individual player wr. That being said, all this would do is reduce the amount of snowball games caused by direct skill difference, which aren't actually all that common. Most nowballs would still be happening. (and it wouldn't help players who think they'd be winning more). But hey...it's better than nothing.

It's not that bad since it's got a heal and those airstrikes. The only thing is (as is with the whole line), if you can't make the airstrikes work, you'll have problems.

Literally all they had to do was call the other one (or the old one) missouri 1945, lima or whatever. But why make it simple if you can complicate it.

Just learn russian comrade.

It's really not a harmful concept though. Both ways work fine.

The more tier 10s you have, the more supercontainers you get. As long as you're not completely wasteful, you can stock up on hundreds on signals of each type that way. Though obviously rng has a play in it.

Get as many tier 10 ships as you can. Many signals become self sustaining that way, as long as you don't mount all 20 of em for every random battle.

Which is why you always save a few for competitive.

No

This. And also, if they're played by someone that wouldn't reach 300xp on a win, then the friendly team hates the sub because they're one player down.

No.

Ragnar isn't a test ship though. So I'm pretty sure that doesn't count. Also, are you sure they weren't just really good players? I mean, ragnar while strong, seems more of a CB pony than a random battle one. Similarly sherman doesn't seem OP to me. From what I've seen of it at least (though I could be wrong).

One per week. You recognise 1 cheater per week? Yeah I'm calling BS on that.

Good Well I mean....99% of the time that's exactly what happened. As for the remaining 1%, it's difficult to tell either way.

No.