Tungstonid

Why so? I mean... It is not like this thread brings about totally new and ground-breaking arguments compared to the hundreds of former threads to this topic, does it? Edit: They could go with another "We are observing the situation" but what would be the point in that?

It was proposed several times and not only in WoWS. While the idea to limit the availability of at least some premium ships (I don't mind new players in tier 3, 4 or 5 vehicles, but at least tier 8 can definitvely be a problem for everyone involved) has a vaild point, WG did never say anything about whether they will consider it. I even think that at some point a WG employee stated that this will not happen.

Argumentum ad hominem and ... is this a composition/division fallacy?. These will definitvely help your case. PS: I want my historically accurate 46 cm dual purpose guns on the Yamato.

I agree. although, maybe it is just a "mimimi" thread in disguise instead of a serious and honest question?

Then I'd ask for a replay or at least screenshot. Three normal penetrations by an Iowa should not do 20k damage, but around 12k-15k (don't have the exact numbers in my head). Your explanation sounds like the enemy shot you in the side. Are you sure that they only hit your bow and not the citadel then? And that it only were 2 or 3 shells? 4 or 5 get you in the 20k damage range. Normal penetrations, overpenetrations and citadels always do the same damage, no matter where you hit and what module or real life compartment could be in that area.

You might want to read about the overmatch mechanics. In short: If the calibre of the guns is big enough you can penetrate armour no matter what the angle is. Noticable is the Yamato which can penetrate any other ship at the bow, as well as the jump of calibre around tier 6/7.

What I didn't really get until now is this (and I am sorry that it is a bit offtopic): "Aegis" is free for everyone. You can join alone or with a division no matter how many people are in there. "Escort for Raptor" sometimes follows the same rules as above. Other times it says there are not enough people in a division (tried with 2) "Killer Whale" can be entered sometimes by single players and sometimes you need a division of at least 4. "Newport Defence" can only be entered with a division of at least 4 it seems. I tried with a mate today and these were what we encountered. Can anybody explain to me why it is this way and if it is supposed to be like this?

The problem I see with this is that it can on the one hand be "abused" (note the quotation marks) by good players and on the other hand could lead to players complain about how certain classes but their favourite get boni over and over again. And it is questionable if you can tackle the issue as a whole with it. If you, let's say, give an incentive to cruisers as you suggested above (+50% credits, +50% exp, +50% free exp), better players will definitively be able to get the most out of it. Which is ok and the cruiser population might increase for this month. Now, let's say after the month WG checks the stats and sees that, while BB and DD population went down enough, the cruiser class has reached the wanted 33-41%and as a result they take away the incentive. IMO the chance that the populations reach their initial states are high. So in the end you are stuck with consecutive months with and without incentives which doesn't really solve anything. What bad players or BB-only players will see is that always the same class (or at least always another class but theirs) gets a bonus (which they will deem as unfair and complain about) and they are either not willing to play this class anyway or are bad enough that they can't really make use of the bonus. So on the one hand you will have players who will always try to get the most out of the current situation and therefore the population will neither reach a stable state (which IMO is important, too) and on the other hand a not so small group of palyers will complain because they feel treated unfairly no matter what the numbers say. However, I would find a similar solution by carefully increasing the income of cruisers (be it just credits or a slight exp bonus, too) overall permamently or at least as long as there is no stable population of 33-41% per match. This is not so simple though because it also shouldn't feel like every cruiser's income is comparable to a premium ship.

Fair enough.

IMO you are right for weekly missions and specials like the German BB weekend. More missions with focus on cruisers or even DDs might (as in "they could but don't necessarily have to") lower the BB population. I think it is hard to tell how exactely smaller events influence the ship populations and how many players go by them when they choose their ship. Lots of players (especially the ones who predominantly or solely play BBs) might just use the ships they always use and disregard the missions completely if they don't fit for them. But the Hunt for the Bismarck is supposed to be inspired by the actual historical events and since the Hood and the Bismarck are two of the, if not THE most famous ships participating and did their fair share of fighting, I can see why WG restricts some of the missions to BBs only. Other missions like plane damage dealing or achieving a certain number of secondary battery hits are missions where BBs are most suitable anyway.

The typical "I have 6 km torpedoe range so I launch at 20 km targets moving away from me from the third line" kind of players are as old as the game itself. Unfortunately. But as far as I can see there is no noticable increase. So maybe bad luck on your side? Luckily WG implemented the mechanic that allied torpedoes do only half the damage which is still bad enough, though.

What I found to be weird yesterday was that I could do two PvE missions solo (one in Kongo, one in Leander) and then it asked me to join a division to play more. Not to mention that they maybe should leave out the 30 minutes "cooldown" your ship has once it gets out of the mission. I don't really see the point in that Otherwise, quite interesting.

Oh really? Well, I'll see myself out for today since the question was answered right anyway.

Are you really that desperate that you begin to misinterpret what other people write? He doesn't speak about "we" as in "me and my company" or "we from WG" but he uses stylistic device (if that is what it is called) to illustrate what a company (like WG) thinks when they want to make a patent. Not to mention that you fail to address any point made to the actual topic.

According to a post on FB by the WoWS team both random teams and user made teams are possible depending on the mission.

It says Forts will return with a new 17 cm gun. So, maybe no anymore. :3

Can someone explain to me what exactely the buff, besides the reduction of the citadel, to Iowa/Missouri and Montana means? To my understanding bow, stern and superstructure are now saturated more easily because they have less HP, so it should overall be harder to do damage to the ship in certain scenarios. Is that it or this there more to it. Or am I completely wrong? PvE missions sound nice and, if implemented the right way, can be interesting, especially for people who either don't want to play PvP or want some variety.

2016 called. It wants its topic back. You have more than enough filter options by now to customize what ships you can see in your port, including deactivating ARP and Chinese New Years ships. Even though people have been over this topic over and over again you could have just asked how to do it. Instead you made it just another sh*t posting.

That's the point. There is a difference between having an average WR because compared to other random players I am average and the great conspiracy that WG actively influences the WR of all (or certain) players. The former is very likely and happens in every game where player skills play a role while the latter is nothing than an excuse players give themselves with no real evidence to base it on because they can't possibly be bad or "just" average or have bad luck.

Again, this is a wrong cause and effect relation. You say that the majority of players are at about 50% WR because WG decides to do so. I'd say that it is more likely that this establishes itself because we have a lot of random players, some bad, most of them around average and some good. Usually the WR of all players forms a Gausian distribution. In the spoiler is a picture from 2014, containing the player numbers per WR% for WoT. Most of the "noobs, potatoes and tomatoes" don't need any uplift in form of a better WR to keep playing. Just look around. Some of them are happy sailing around and looking at the landscape, others are just happy when their guns go BOOM. Even the worst player with some 40% WR, who lacks in every aspect of the game, will keep playing as long as it is fun for him. Most of them probably don't even know that you can have a look at your overall WR. And a "obsessive playerbase that deters new players" is balanced by WG's RNG. The more RNG you have, the less effect the skill of the individual has. Why do you think some players cry about WoT and WoWS not being good games for competitive (e-sport) tournaments? At least compared to some FPS which almost exclusively are based on reflexes and skill. And players "feeling a pattern" do by no means imply a basis of truth, because, as I said before, this is no more than anecdotal evidence and selective perception. Our brain is made to find patterns whereever possible as a result of evolutionary processes. So even if you take a totally random line of a thousand numbers from 0 to 9 and show it to any random person, this person will find a pattern somewhere.

What excately does your quoted patent have to do with your initial point? You claimed that A) the more flags you use on a ship the worse the MM gets. There is no mentioning of any kind of upgrades, modules, consumables or bonuses via signals and camos and therelike in this patent. How should it prove your point? All it says is that MM depends to certain degree on your win rate (Note: It doesn't says that players with high win rate will be placed low tier only but the chance to be low tier is higher). B) WG tries to keep players at 50% WR. Sure, one could interpret that into the text of the patent. But do they actively influence you in your playstyle and how you play? No. They just increase the level of difficulty, yet you are very well able to influence the outcome of the battle with your actions. Even when out against ships 2 tiers higher.

I have asked this question several times now in this kind of threads, but again: What reason should WG have to keep players at 50% WR? There is no real reason or evidence that speaks for WG rigging the MM, other than anecdotal evidence (aka "I once saw..."), cherry-picking/selective perception (aka "Everytime this and this happens to me" while ignoring that the opossite case happens just as often) or a wrongly used cause and effect relation. But there is a ton of things that speak against WG doing such things: - lots of players with (much) worse or better WR than 50% - players with premium but bad WR and players without premium and good WR (in case of the "premium makes your WR higher" assumption) - additional costs for WG (man power and equipment for programming and maintaining such an additional rigging system) - no gain for WG because there is no relation between players losing/winning and buying premium account or premium ships and players who are better will rather leave the game when such a program tries to "balance" them - WG can't influence the biggest RNG in this game which are the players themselves. Example: Giving some 40% WR afk bot a modest WR would be a bit conspicious, don't you think? There might be more reason against it. You can try to argue against it but please give some actual evidence and no half-baked stories on which you base the try of a porous argumentation.

Do you have a replay of this? Makes things much easier, especially because sometimes ranges of a close encounter are hard to estimate. For example: You can't see a range of 20 metres on the display on your HUD. The smallest steps are in 100 metres intervals.

I can only speak from my own experience (I know, anecdotal evidence and stuff). When I started this game I was in no way an expert for naval warfare of WWI and WWII. The ships I could have named were limited to the Yamato, the Bismarck and the Iowa/Missouri. Maybe the Hood, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. I could not have named a single cruiser class (let alone a significant cruiser of any class). The same for destroyers. Why? Because most of them are not as (over)hyped and subject of seemingly every documentary about naval warfare of this time period. So when I started this game back in CBT, besides wanting to try every line to get a good overall picture, I definitively wanted to reach the Yamato one day because, in a way, I have heard of her before. So while it is anecdotal evidence and in itself does not have any great impact on the discussion I can very well imagine that other, if not most, players have similar views. Now, again, to you not understanding my points: I don't see historical symbolism as invalid but I admit that it is not the only factor. You speak about inconstistencies that go with that. Yes, they are there. Why? Because historical symbolism is not the only factor but there are several which will shift the numbers of battles played with a certain ship or class. And not all of the factors have the same weight. It is a sure thing that certain competitive aspects of a class or a single ship will lead to this ships being played more. Just like how much fun (however this is defined by the individual) a certain class or ship is to play. I never said something different. I merely added that there is more to it than just breaking it down to the ingame stats of the vehicle. Like the little boys'/girls' dreams to sail the largest ship or fire the biggest guns. So if the first two mentioned factors outweight the historical symbolism you get the discrepancies you describe. But that doesn't mean that the symbolism does not play any role.

Please read my post again. I never said that the historical symbolism is the only reason why some ships are played as much as they are. I merely said that one should take it into account when talking about the BB overpopulation. And you seem to misunderstand my points. I said the NC is on the way to the famous Iowa hence players have to play her. This explains why it is played although it is not famous. Additionally, some players might recognize it as a capable ship which leads to them playing her more often. This, however, does not fall under the historical symbolism. I don't know what exactely your point is with the Izumo. IMO it is basecally the same as the North Carolina in this regards. And as I explained above: Players will see the >famous< Bismarck as a strong ship. The simple player's mindset will now say: "If the Bismarck is strong, the FdG must be stronger" so they take the step. Again, this might leave the historical symbolism reasoning but it is still a consequence of it. Again: I don't say and never said that the historical symbolism is the only factor why ships are played as often as they are. But it is not unimportant enough to simply neglect it.