nerderklaus

3 times in row other flank falling quickly with enemies almost unscratched left there? Just out of curiosity please post your definition of "pretty balanced IMO" (similar ships there)... My definition for such events is "extremely imbalanced player distribution" Edit: If it's just a game, there would be no problem with letting people who harm their own team like the NC that runs away from a single Cleveland not get money for an Iowa and very low winrate

What do you expect when they stand up for that trash? Texas game: 20 first hits on sides of unangled cruisers, each one overcam First AP Shells taken double citadel from 47% ARP Hieu through angled front in the end 40 hits, most of them on unagled cruiser sides, 40k damage... (some bounces obviously, 2 of them on DD lol) 1 citadel = 10 overpens Players below 50% would get 3-5 cits with the same shots and bang... Adds up different... In the mean time some Colorado gets that in two salvos at maximum range on angled ships 3 last games, half the team dead in less than 4 minutes without accomplising anything, enemies with over 95% HP coming from the places where they died. Usually the particulary bad games when things happen like Soviet CL getting nothing but overpens on the side of a Cleveland are the games where the team does nothing. Lots of unwinnable games, but oddly I didn't get a single game in this year which I would have won when being AFK... The stupid stat pages say the same, everything going up, winrate going down... For people like the corner camper BBs it's the other way around. However, obviously the creators of the player rating did take special care of themselves, f.e. Cruiser defending his CV against enemy CV not getting points in the rating for that or CV with air superiority build smoking enemy aircraft and keeping DD lit up, but not getting points for that...

[edited]

Looks like I have hurt the feelings of the peas inside of two of the BB players heads who "do nothing wrong and play so tactical" when being all the time in the corner, but WG is so "nice to them" by rewarding their "tactical gameplay" like a Yamato that drove in the corner and never moved since then, not even when 15km next to it the base was capped. Ofcourse someone who isn't below the IQ SD should only get overpens when hitting unangled sides and ofcourse the noob aimed well when his Colorado/Nagato go the citadel through the steeply angled Tirpitz.

The corner campers, in particular BBs of tier 7+ and Shimakazes are the ones that need to get deficites out of the games. I did three yolo rushes in games with rigged MM today: 2x 1st, 1x 3rd in scoreboard. This shows that people like the corner campers are the issue. Anyway, who is that guy with the name I would not want to pronounce IRL?

Both manual control perks are heavily flawed in my oppinion. I know that they have benefits, but the main problem is they disable AA/secondaries on targets that are not selected, but in range of guns, f.e. a ship on one side of you when a target on the other side is selected for secondaries. This part should be worked on with such kind of requirements on the perks and I don't accept discussion on that even though it's somewhat situational. The perk for secondaries is concerned more by this, but it's somewhat situational in general, but such drawbacks for five points are unacceptable. The other big one obviously is BBs camping in the corner. The problem is these extremely bad players who do it simply fare too well, because it saves them repair costs when they ignore their base getting capped or the enemy having all 3/4 bases in domination. This concerns some CA/CL and Jap DDs as well, but most of it still are BB players. Some tool of rigged MM literally gets saved credits losses with the corner camp tactics so that they get money to buy the next ship or upgrades for a ship which simply should not happen. The economy in WOWS needs to get some functions that causes heavy credits losses and drastically lowered XP for the toptier BB or the Shimmy that camps in the corner instead of rewarding players who literally rig the MM against their team. Corner camping as BB should make it impossible to buy the next Ship at tier 5 or 6 without other income sources! In order to compensate for such sins of the past something like negative experience needs to be introduceed to lock the Yamato of someone who is doing that until changing from dead weight to asset for the team! It's ridiculous that the corner camper who ignores the cap can net more than someone who suicides for decap this way. PS: The nerf on the 20km Torps was good though, even though the midrange torps of that ship still do too much damage, in particular to people who got unlucky to get highly Shimmy-infested +2 matchmaking...

Can someone explain me the following? Why don't the American got more high tier premiums to make some nice captains? Saipan can be fun, but you are obviously limited to CV, but Atlanta? For every game where you can lob shells over rocks all game long you get another one to end up as XP pinata. I mean can it be so difficult to design something like the following? Tier 8 Premium Cruiser: Alaska, US Cruiser Characteristics, BUT 12'' Cannons with BB Penetration and 20s Reload? Range something in the area of 18 or 19km? Good AA and derpy cannons, but squishyness as weakness. Obviously the cannons should not be as accurate as Atago or Kutuzov, but still accurate and not gambler tools like certain BBs... Or somehow an armor profile like solid from the front (f.e. no cita through bow), but weak sides. The important thing obviously makes the boom. A South Dakota Class Ship similar to the NC? Obviously I would much rather have such a premium Alaska and it would be insta-buy the day it gets available for me... I mean look at it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser who in his right mind would pass on such a cool and beatiful ship, if it was designed nicely???

Can someone explain how they work? Does the damage concentrate somewhere in the AOE? Fixed position or random? What does it do exactly? I mean I had strafes that got 10 planes down, but at the same time making one fighter squad lock the enemy and strafing the second squad over this with the enemy fighters in the center has done all from nothing up to wiping that squad down. Though I obviously can not tell which of the two fighter squadrons did most of the work in the later case. It seems like strafing can inflict more damage. Is there ever a reason not to strafe when I could hit it?

The BB-CV thing includes a lot of rubbish as a lot of politics to sell higher margin ships were involved there obviously. Just upgrading some old ships obviously would have been superior to some contemporary purchases and cheaper, but that is another topic. I read about the background stuff, but my primary concerns have been gameplay reasons. Something in tier 8 that is between CA and BB like the Tirpitz, but closer to CA would be cool. Having this as a cruiser with 3 rounds per minute, BB pen and DPM in between but squishy and no torps to compensate for impressive AA would be a cool mix for fun and spicing up things. Overpowered or not? There is a ship incoming that could be considered D-Hull for the NY in the same tier. So I think a nice thing for the gameplay could be made in tier 8 which keeps it relevant for ranked and nice for cash/captains. It's not like the characteristics of a Moskva aren't closer to BB than they are to CV below tier 9...

Well, what to say? I don't really get that ship. More theretical alpha in a salvo, seemingly better HE, the range and seemingly better HE are the only things that don't feel worse than the predecessors. All in all I usually feel like I could have done more in a Nürnberg in the same games. Is there some special trick to play to all the time with that ship or is it really worse than a Nürnberg in the same game? In particular the cannons are annoying with a traverse like the Tirpitz, hitting is more difficult than with the Nürnberg and as a reward of that shells that would have penetrated/citadelled as Nürnberg would often not just do minimal damage or bounce... I thought that line is all about good AP performance.

Cruisers: - San Francisco -> New Orleans class (CA-38?) - Fargo -> At least a new class though similar to Cleveland (CL-106) - Helena -> CL-50 St. Loud Class, CA-75 Baltimore Class, (CL-113 Fargo Class, I suppose one of the other ones is meant) - Charleston (12 gun Pensacola Design) -> all the Charlestons I find are older than Pensacola -Wichita -> CA-45 is interesting Battleships: - Massachusetts -> BB-59 whatever ship from the class doesn't matter to me. It's mentioned here already - Alabama -> BB-60 whatever ship from the class doesn't matter to me. It's mentioned here already - Alaska -> Oppinion given already - West Virginia -> BB-48 Colorado Class I just think that a ship half between the two as Cruiser with some BB characteristics like their pen, relatively high damage (but not as much), BB pen and better accuracy than a BB would be better to spice things up and deliver a cool ship than just going copy and paste.

Ofcourse it's a hard nut to crack, but more or less it's fair to say we got a 50/50 here. Now however, the balance shifts a bit with some BB size cruisers introduced recently. On top of that you could make decisions to diversy the pool instead of having an invasion of T-54 clones like in other products of certain companies. I just think they trying to work in a cruisers with BBlike cannons into the mix would be better overall. Obviously with such cannons and good AA you would need to compromise somewhere and survivability is the best area to pull that string so that you get a ship that has cruiser benefits, but can hit hard at the price of being less forgiving. This is with recent developments taken into account. I wanted to request the ship earlier, but didn't have as many things on the table as now. Well, ofcourse you got such backgrounds, but I would rather see the South Dakota class just for the reason to keep copy and paste to a minimum. However, if they shedule a second BB line they certainly would need the South Dakota class for that one. The problem is that Alaska probably would be required for that as well. Nobody knows whether they want one line per class for each nation or multiple lines or splits (f.e. two tier 8 BB for USA) or late splits (f.e. German Cruiser line splitting to get two tier 9 and two tier 10). I consider this the worst solution. Having a diverse pool of viable options so that everyone has better chances to find options for his niche is vastly superior. I mean obviously some WOT premiums have just been made for the sake of being there while others are fully thought through. In particular for everything with teams or class your solution is a hazard, because there are major problems when one of these premiums gets competetive there, but at the same time the premiums should be competetive at pubs. This simply just leaves you with one option.

The game has some nice things going for it, but obviously other areas still need work... Lets go through some. Secondaries The mechanic in it's current state is broken, in particular when someone in range is low HP. There can be the craziest hit and miss streaks to mess up a lot of situation. I would suggest the following rework to fix it. Make the hits reliable, but slow down the rate of fire to compensate for how insane that would be with current secondary values. Change the tier 5 perk to add an active effect similar to defensive AA for the secondaries. It should be pretty powerful, because it is expensive and often you don't use secondary even when playing aggressive Smoke Generator Camping allows way to many cheap points which is a problem for the complete beginner as much as a (truly*) good player who wants to carry. The problem is how it forced you to even get in proxy spotting range when you get close so that more or less a single DD has far too much potencial to stop a push, even worse than a hulldown T95 with depressed gun in a WOT corridor. The camoflage against nearby enemies needs to be nerfed, f.e. change it to only undo the penalty off shooting on camo or reduce it in other ways or give BBs a higher proxy spot range against DDs. In particular for BBs it's troublesome, because even if they decide to take two torps to push the RNG still might make the two following salvos draw a circle around that DD, even at ranges like 5km which is completely retarded BB Accuracy RNG is far too powerful there. Having two properly aimed salvos in row doing nothing at short ranges or the basecamper hitting half his salvos consistently at 20km or someone getting two salvos with almost no spread at 15km in row simply can do far too much. In some situations just one very lucky or unlucky salvo can decide a game. That is unacceptable and makes the eSports rumor sound like an April Fools prank. Power Creep At tier 7 the IJN/USN lines have a retarded jump in generation that makes it far too easy to penetrate lower tier battleships and even makes for some stupid situations against higher tier BB (f.e. citadelling bow on 30° angled Tirpitz at 7km). That tier leap simply grants too much presents when different tiers fight against each other. Things like a New Mexico fighting a New York is much better balanced. The other big issue is that tier 10 get far too much in comparison to tier 9 and in particular +2 MM as tier 8 is very broken. This needs to be adjusted better so that in some areas you don't have you game broken as hard by getting in the wrong matchup. Noob Bonus Obviously something has changed there in the last patch. Before that I did some stuff like grinding my Königsberg. Killing Clevelands in 2-3 salvo from the side made roughly half the damage in my estimation and I had a couple of games with more citadells than regular hits before the patch. However, lately I am often getting not a single citadell at 100% unangled sides at less than 10km in situations far easier than others where I would have gotten consistent citadells before the patch. It's not that the shots go off too far. They simply don't citadell. This usually happens against CA and it happens to me when with BB and CA. A look in profiles usually shows 45% players, but oddly in exactly the same situations someone with more wins than losses dies like before. Just before writing that some tomato in his Atago could take 5 salvos to the center of the side of an unangled Atago at 5-7 km. This would not have been possible. I know that there is the BB dispersion, but it was never extreme enough to make very bad player get away with taking 5 salvos to unangled side at such ranges. Like yesterday a 42% Colorado even hit 6 shells with three citadells at 20km on me. I would be happen with three shells of a salvo hitting on such a range when I shoot... Way too much broken things happen when shootings the sides of a bad player at easy ranges lately. That happens far too often to be coincedence and a drastic drop over night during patchday neither looks like coincedence. I mean I literally saw things like people hitting full salvos on bow on DDs at 7km which obviously is out of the player's hands and I experienced three salvos dispersing around a oneshottable DD who inteded to suicide rush me in a straight line. That simply is marxist gambling and not a video game. WTF is that? "Ohh the PZK carebear tard showing the enemy the broadside. We need to compensate for that making him take more damage than someone who dares to use his rudders"... Whenever possible I zomed into ships when such stuff happened and looked for hit decals which clearly showed areas that gave me citadells in the past. The only other explanation on this would be unannounced changes on armor layouts of some ships, but I doubt it, because the odd stuff happens most often against Cleveland... Oddly, this thing somehow could become one of my top2 most killed ships next to Atago so I was in such situations more than once. "It's just a game"... But jumping into the volcano has the same consequences for everyone in a fair game which is the principle that should carry over when a 45% player exposes unangled sides at ranges like 5 or 10km. Edit: Not to forget the winrate manipulations which obviously has increased in the current patch as my results are going down despite of doing more and doing it earlier than before while oddly the basecamper BBs suddenly are being carried by MM to winrate increases... BB Camping in the Base 100% of the battle's Duration Something needs to be done about that. Getting a game where you just can camp somewhere instead of playing, because all your BB camp in the base is going way too retarded lately. I mean I understand that you can get games in which you are severely restricted by such teams so that the battle is closer to playing against the own team than playing against the other team, but it probably will not happen all the time. A function with heavy credits losses and XP losses (lose XP that already is on the ship) should be added for people who deny their own team like this. In the current way of the game you need either some activity from the DD or a CV AND allways at least a certain impact by the BB. The basecamper BBs literally grief battles apart and thereby are the number one issue in randoms. On top of that it's not fair to ban bot users while such behaviour is tolerate, because their teams will feel the same when confronted with either one. Anyway, I suspect that it might be a bot which could be the door to making the randoms more enjoyable for the vast majority of people who even play. Motivation to play DD is completely gone as long as every second game I light up ships, but instead of shooting them my dreamteam is busy driving towards the corner... I personally suspect most DD suicides are out of frustration about such things...

Ofcourse you can observe what happens in the same situations and when a game is rigged in a way that either you kill half the enemy team ALONE or you lose and on top of that your damage is denied by dispersion turning your salvos into huge ciricles instead of a radial gaussian distribution. It's ridiculous that such a BB that camps in the base gets 40-50% WR, but the last two days I had a major MM rig against me with lower results despite of doing more than such people.

There must be something... I mean guess how often it was impossible recently to citadell CAs on 10km and less, because full salvos were drawing a large circle around that area. Oddly that happens in particular in games which are obviously rigged, f.e. half your team dead within 3 minutes, enemies who killed them were outnumbered and none of them has less than 80% HP after that... In particular in games that star like this the really broken things happen, f.e. being unable to cita a cruiser that goes straight at relatively short range due to widely spreading salvos as BB. Other examples would be often catching fire upon the first 1-3 hits of a German CA. Checking the stat pages confirms my theory. The extreme dispersion on results I get with the same gameplay speaks volumes, but obviously things like luck with MM plays a huge role in there as well. If there would be winrates for +2 Matchmaking only I would have less than 20% there, but toptier games and +1 create the average that is in my profile. Hopefully they do something. In some cases +2 is managable and in some it's just broken. Getting a tier 10 battle as tier 8 feels like punishment for not converting or focusing on dying up one line all the time (f.e. Tirpitz taking triple cita from 20km away when angled at 45°). The same way however it's relatively managable as tier 4 I think. Why does such crap need to be in the game?

Well, to be honest. In the tiers I had the feeling that the German cruisers are best to delete another German cruiser. They are easy to cita and these ships are good at getting shells where you want them to go, in particular at medium range.

It's more like the last last person is the kind of people that cause the downfall in the current Western society. Unable to accomplish things by himself, but entitling itself to have others harassed with denied opportunities while demanding unearned income. Ingame this would be translate to predicting benefits from the normalization via RNG compared to properly designed non-random game mechanics or other cheap tricks like free results from rock, paper, scissors when MM denied the other team the part of the circle that is responsible for the counter which could be a random BB camping in the respawn instead of doing what it is supposed to do or one team losing all their DDs within 90 seconds or generally being owned by the power creep like the usual experience of getting in a tier 10 battle as a tier 8 teamed up with tier 10 that play worse than the tier 8 player did in his first 10 games - your usual experience in WG's communities... A lack of thought in the post is there as well, f.e. my version of the secondaries balancing secondary upgrades better due to linear scaling compared to diminishing returns for something that already is a bit on the weak side of things.

And I got 4 points on my Hieu right after getting the captain as I hoped it would add 16 points to the previous one

I talk about that wide default reticle that has kind of an indicator for lead and the edge of this roughly corresponds to 10km cruise, unangled at 10km with relatively flat shooting guns such as Tirpitz or Atago. Edit: Right after writing I just had such a BS situation even in a Cruiser... Yorck (POV) vs Murmank, same salvo twice in row, as described with some more lead due to lower shell velocity... 1st Salvo 18k, 2nd Salvo 0.6k... Took the game to keep going straight as he did, because he shoot HE and well... This difference is just retarded the range of results for the same salvo from removing most HP (or oneshot with noob bonus) to something that is neglectable in the second salvo... Even as a cruiser... It even was such a nice situation with paralel course and me further ahead so that I hit in a nice angle and he wouldn't have got that in case of switching to AP while this even denied his torps completely.

Atago is one of the more trollish ones. I had situations where (lets say) the server screwed me big time on easy shots and in other situations I just had some really odd multi-citas on long ranges which I thought I did not earn to hit. Cleveland however used to be a rather easy one to citadell. It has a pretty wide citadel, but I don't know how high it is to be honest. When I grinded the Königsberg aiming for the center of it's side usually gave me multiple citadels per salvo.

It's hard to say with the eSports. Different games came there on different ways, f.e. Dota 2 established itself during the start of it's closed beta when there obviously was trouble with the playerbase or Painkiller which was selected simply because it was the most suitable game for what was intended to be the biggest competition until then or there are cases like SC2 that literally had that status purchased. In my oppinion WOT and WOWS both disqualify themselves from eSports with too much RNG and that is before looking for other NoGos. Even opportunitiy obviously is essential for creditibility in eSports. Obviously getting rid of any RNGs is one important thing to get there (the damage RNGs from WOT or RNGs like the MM in LOL SoloQ). The other big thing is that unlockables need to be irrelevant to performance in such circumstances. This means a hat in Dota 2 is OK, but not things like a massively buffed premium ship that was sold once and never again could be. After this you get some conflicts with balancing. I mean it's kinda odd how the least popular character often turns out strong out of the blue or just the way how that happens frequently in certain F2P games that force character unlocks. Obviously, there is a business conflict of interest, but smarter designs can bypass the issue (f,e. Dota 2 vs LOL). Still you got some x-factors left like the tiny bits that seem no big deal until they have added up to something major.

Well, problem is without that way of researching whether there is or isn't a change it can't proof that there was such a change, but at the same time this denies the proof for no such changes being there. OK, there are various illegal ways to get that goal, but this game at pub level is not worth so much trouble. Coding, bad memories... I have some experience in the field without certain limits though. However, reading out a value via target selection and putting an IF into the RNG based on that value really is basic level coding. To think or not to think? To WG or not to WG?

Then tell me why things like the edge of the horizontal part of the reticle to the bow of a moving cleveland ~10km, perfectly unangled, going straight at full speed suddenly doesn't work like it used to do anymore despite of seemingly no changes being there... Obviously this didn't work for all ships, but most ships with flat trajectories used to hit this way. It's basicly like clicking on a link. There is no mechanical failure possible on such inputs.

Frankly, the point where the own goal happened was talking about doing something with a large sample when being unable to retrieve the comparison sample from an older version. This is the way how you would research how much that has been alterered recently. It usually works different than research, at least in practical fields. I used to be in a mentoring program that aimed on building the connection so that the graduate gets into research. BTW with the degrees that will most likely limit you on research jobs you really should get the PhD.

Colorados usually get relative good grouping compared to what used to be there and on top of that you got things like rangemod issues. You can simply stay outside of a New Mexico's range and do save damage based on differences of upgrades and that is where too much penetration really gets troublesome. Like in WOT this class certainly is unusually sensitive to power creeping. Such things wouldn't be as critical, if the MM would be limited to +/- 1, but oddly WG doesn't want to do that. Not even in WOT where the player pool might even allow +/- 0 (exceptions on LTs). Why do the 100% useless players have winrates like 45% instead of very low ones? People that are as useful as an AFK player until the game is pre-determined. Basicly the same impact as an intentional teamkill at the beginning of the battle (-1 ship). Why are such winrates so close to 50% instead of 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% being there? That is much more significant than progressive ad hominem. In case of the Shima it's the retarded design. I mean for me it's the least desired tier 10, because most of it seems to be do the one spread, wait eternities and do some save spotting while reloading torps here and there. It's not like some other ships that are made to constantly be active. Probably most of them simply can't figure that scouting between torps would be useful. Such thinking wouldn't be a surprise in WG's games. On top of that the unprecedented [edited]who act like "not camping, tactical gameplay, bobfloplobfap" (conclusions a healthy brain would not make) are overrepresented in WG games and you get your WOT effect that a lot of people just die up the one line without getting better or even getting worse than they were when grinding their lowtiers. You don't want to know how often I cycled between hightiers and lowtiers in WOT with getting more skilled teams in the lowtiers...