Ergeo

Wargaming messed about (for what reason) with most of my controls. I went into the game one day - after weeks of playing - and I discovered that I cannot turn my ship (or it does the opoosite direction) etc. and I didn;t know hwat was going on. I went quickly during that battle in to the settings and I discoverd that all the controls suddenly, out of nowhere have some different keys assigned. Now, few day later I discover another spoof - ctrl key doesn't play its' function anymore (I cannot point any sqaure on the minimap to the team, I cannot choose any aim for secondary artillery or the anti-aircraft artillery). And I cannot change it, cause - as far as I see (unless I'm wrong) - there is no such an option in the "controls" settings... ??? -- Any help on that?

I see some really great gameplay in Ranked Battles. People started implementing really smart gameplay and you can see some par exclellence examples of how to win - a) people playing with speed constantly to mislead the enemy on a long distance (obviously not those stupid reverse moves - which never work more than few seconds and I don't know why people think it's smart or cheeky - cause mostly they die firyst - but that's in random battles); b) having to takie into account capping ALL THE TIME as crucial - which is great - cause involves a lot of skill, politics and risk c) cruisers gathering together with destroyers behind hills and with smokescreens to create ambush - taking enemys' ships one by one; d) whole teams rushing together with crushing firepower alot of manuvering and so on... e) .... And after coming back to a random battle you feel a drop in level of general gameplay. But - as I read here too in other peoples posts and that's a definately a weak point and crushes the whole idea of Ranked Battles - ranked battles are in many ways too random. My experience is a big question on how some players with their really antiteam approach (and dragging it down) manage to get to 20-11th ranks pool (so you get into team with them when you're on 14th or 15th rank)?... My experience is that your effort counts for nothing once you get into a team which plays poorly and (often) has teamplay for nothing. My experience is that you can be matched into this kind of team (and often with perfectly playing team of the enemy at the same time) repeatetively time after time, one after another, few times in a row - and then your good efforts COUNT FOR NOTHING (and you can get pulled few ranks down JUST LIKE THAT). My experience is that I can get one battle after another where I do 80-100k of damage (sometimes more) with my Nagato - so way more than my own HP and more that 2x of average HP of a ship in a ranked battle - and each of those battles is lost (and I don't mean damaging the battleship which repairs itself so I keep damaging the same ship - most cases it's often unrecovered HP). I climbed from 25th to 15th rank pretty quickly. - I think it was 2 afternoons of gameplay - and this was really enjoyable. But then (I reached 14th) I found myself drifting between 14th and 16th without much influence over it (and recently even dropping to 18th - which was pretty shocking). The thing is I can pretty often experience a beatiful gameplay of the enemy (really worked out and spot on) and my team wondering literally everywhere. And I simply don't know on what is this matching based?... (and I mean midranks battles - so between 20th and 11th) It makes me feel I am stupid - cause how repeatetively you can be put into team of happy wonderers (and ****** knows how did they get through first 5 ranks) and opposite team can have it really bang on? General feeling is that all my good efforts have next to no influence over my success as a team player in the ranked battles. So I cannot really nail my success (as my skill desn't count much) - in the area of ranks 20th to 11th. Even one bad player can drag the whole team down. == And also I do not understand how, in the mode where teamplay and skill REALLY counts you are not allowed to develop a fixed team (or 2-3 ships division) where your progress would really start to depend on your own skills. And don't tell me that it is because it would make the indviduals disadvatnaged cause in this mode only teamplay wins so they would have to just merge into your tactic - which would be still a much nicer experience than playing in team with no teamplay (or realitvely quickly new divisions or larger groups /if clans would come into place/ would develop). === So my basic feeling is that there is often no good teamplay in the mode where teamplay is crucial and counts the most for your own success (climbing up) in range of ranks between 20th and 11th (and you as a good player, even a good teamplayer have too ften no infulence over general results of a battle, cause you can regularly find yourself in "noteam" within higher ranks against very good teamplay) - where by theory it shouldn't be happening anymore (I mean it shouldn't be so often and so random) - which questions how well idea (which was behind ranked battles) works.

Honestly, On paper it should have more armour then Amagi and Nagato, but, although Amagi is less armoured then Nagato and has to compensate it with manuvarability and swaying + skills (so has different approach) Izumo time after time, within one [the same] battle, battle after battle (so all the time), instantly looses 20-30k of Hp after a single salvo of whatever ship (besides destroyers) - when with other ships it happens occasionally (rarely continousley in one battle) then Izumo gets beating time after time from the start of the battle (and I'm not talking just about set up raids of 4 or 5 ships on Izumo but even a confrontation 2 on 2 or 3 on 3). So?

Nie mam pojęcia dlaczego WG zatrudnia na testerów, (a więc osoby które poniekąd reprezentującały proces wdrażania gry) - bez względu na nację - zajebistych ignoratów, którzy odzywają się do zwykłych graczy, nieraz nowicjuszy, jak do wieśków na których należy nasrać. Ale "nie mam pojęcia" to toylko zwrot retoryczny (bo wszysyc wiemy z jaką "troską" i dbałością o partycypację odnosi się WG do wsoich klientów - wiec jego beta testerzy są poniekąd tylko prostolinijnym przedłużeniem tej natury i postawy), === Czy nie powinno być normalnym pożądkiem to że jeśli ktoś z WG zaczyna dyskusje nt. jakieogś statku, to powinien go może w wątku sam najpierw przedstawić (podać jakieś odesłania), jeśli statek nie tylko nie został wstępnie przedstawiony nigdzie (nie było go w news'ach, w których - nawet jeśli bardzo ogólnie, to choć - poinformowano o pojawianiu się wkrótce innych niemieckich krążowników), a już pojawia się znikąd w bitwach? Hmm? Kulturku troszku? To trochę chyba jakbym wszedł do sklepu, a sprzedawca by mi powiedział: "Mam nowy produkt w sklepie. Ja panu/pani podam jego nazwę, a Pan sobie go znajdzie, i opowie mi o nim, dobrze?"

This is what I AM saying. The selection (idea of ranked battles) ONLY works at the moment in the 3rd pool (10th to 1st) of ranks - the selection/average of players is next to no different in the 2nd pool (19th to 11th rank), 1st pool (25th to 20th rank) and ...random battles. That [not only] makes ranked battles at rankes 25 to 11 (so first 2 pools) FICTIONAL, besides the excitement of first successes, recived stars, climbing and rewards (so for first day or 2). You see, you climbed up, during the first days of ranked battles (where the procces was still quite natural) to the 9th rank, before all the worse players cramped inn (sooner or later - due to current mechanism), cause you overtook them (initially), where (at the start) the good players where progessing quicker (maybe now you finally will se the logic - so math - in what I'm saying, instead of follwing your "sophistiacted" graphs and equasions). So then you've started speaking with confidence (and ingorance - of a one not experiencing the issue which I was trying to adress, and which was already developing, due to the whole mechanism - and ONLY due to that). Now when you fell back into the second pool of ranks (20th to 11th) how do you feel with all your pseudomathematical and pseudological wisdom, which you've expressed earlier, after 2nd pool got crampped NOW - due to the mechanism - with LITERALLY average EVERYONE from RANDOM battles (with no difference - the ONLY criteria is "I wanna be there" /so to start playing ranked battles and that's it/)? How does it (your argment/s/) work (now) and how applicable is it (or more prior - more valid) in confrontation with KEY issues which I've expressed (and you were denying with your fictional ideas of 65% winrates)?... How influential/powerfull/powerless/hopeless do you feel now when it comes to impact of your skills and effort on your path on the ladder of ranks, ha?

Man, no offence (cause it's a pure fact) but you are a lunatic? 65% winrate? Honestly? Did you meet one? How many of them is there (and without any cheats and mods)?... (what - 10%, less? - can anyone actually provide ANY stats - instead of draggin us in a dicussion full of fog - as this kind of data on WOW is now?) To make this discussion reasonable can WOW actually just provide the current stats (publicly available) from any server (European, American, whatsoever) of the numbers of various ranks present at the moment? PLEASE? (why all this information - as well as other - various winrates stats, exp stats and so on, is not available?; that's not difficult. is it?) /probably WOT will not do it cause it would expose A LOt of inconvenient facts - here including flw in the whole idea of ranked battles). ...Just so we can make this disscussion anything else then just expression of people individual ideas/wantings and (supported with nothing) theories?... === So you want to tell me than in last 10 ranks (10 to 1) should be less than 10% of rnked battles players allowed? (that would mean that already somewhere around rank 5 there would be less then 1% of players allowed).

This is another theoretical and scientific B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T-E. Anyone preaching to the others here on the basis of math or logic (which is math) should first get any good score from it (as a student/pupil) before USING it. and if person doesn't posses those skills than should be banned from having (self made) authority to use it as basis of explaining anything - like partially in a real life (you cannot be a teacher of some discipline unless you're qualified... - although do you know that many of the math teachers - as it was tested - do not posses suffcient knowledge to teach, and many of them do not accept unconventional /not standard/ solitions of their pupils for mathematical equasions /even if they are correct/?) And definately you Cor3yBW, cause you use some model with ommiting total basis of logic and NUMBERS. ABOVE ALL - noone in that mechanism gets chocked out of ranked battles (out of 25th rank). So there is NO need of irrvocable ranks. People who won't be winning (climbing) will simply stay in 25th rank (and some eventually will learn from better players - and that's why many of came to ranked battles - to progress and enjoy better gamplay - which is not happening /anymore/). And the pool of 25th rank should grow naturally. And within the whole healthy proccess you will get something like: 20th IIII 21st IIIIIIIIIII 22nd IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 23rd IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 24th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 25th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII And with time... [...] 14th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 15th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 16th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 17th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 18th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 19th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 20th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 21st IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 22nd IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 23rd IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 24th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 25th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII And so on... and if you (or rather WG) would like to fix/improve this model then maybe rather should mak the system when star is added for a victory and deducted for 2 defeats. ==== Cause in the current system we have: 11th IIIIIIIIIIIII 12th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 13th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 14th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 15th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 16th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 17th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 18th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 19th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 20th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 21st IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 22nd IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 23rd IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 24th IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 25th IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Where players between 14th and 18th ranks are constantly THE SAME players jumping up and down, climbing up, mostly due to their own effort (as good players) and being pulled down by randomly given CRAP players who got to the second pool of ranks (19th rank) JUST being pushed up by the system (and without any chance of dropping down - doesn't matter how badly will they play and how toxic their behaviour will be towards all the efforts of their teammates, FULL STOP). CLEAR?

Cor3yBW your graph is a mathematical jibberish [edited]. It's not about math it's about simple logic - and no graphs or caclulations have to explain that. SIMPLY ranks from 25 to 20 ARE I-R-R-E-V-O-C-A-B-L-E ...got it? WHICH MEANS that E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E, I repeat EVERYONE gets (sooner or later) into the 2nd pool of ranks (from rank 19th to 11th or smthn), WHICH MEANS - the second pool in the ranks (out of 3 pools) is NO DIFFERENT from RANDOM BATTLE mode - FULL STOP (everyone who will start playinbg ranked battles will get to that pool). Which means (unless you've started playing ranked battles at their very start and climbed up quickly before most of average crowed filled in the sceond pool - as they were climbing a bit slower), that - on given terms (of bigger difficulty to climb up, still absolutely AVERAGE crowd of players, and huge dependance of a success /win/ on EVERY player gameplay in your team /even one wanker can drag/pull the victory down/) it's basically IMPOSSIBLE to climb up to the 1st pool of ranks. Cause regardless of your own preformance, due to very random behaviour of your other teamates (next to no difference currently from the random battle mode), you WILL end up just travelling up and down the second pool of ranks - being pulled up and draged down, by others, with little influence on it of your own skills and behaviour. FULL STOP. CLEAR? No graphs and theories needed for that, clear?

...I mean like EVER?.....! (this is not something new - it's going for MONTHS now) Or should THEY JUST REMOVE the possibility of defining your control keys (to not force people to constant reinstall of the game)?? (each time you redefine something in your controls, all or most of the ctrl key functions /which you ALSO cannot find and/or re/define in list of controls/ dissapear: so, you cannot point out ANYTHING to your teammates on the minimap, you /often/ cannot move yourself along the list of the players of your team /reporting/praising/switching view in audience mode/ and you cannot choose the target for your secondary and anti-aircraft artillery) http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31064-controls-what-happened-to-my-ctrl-key/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/17563-ctrl-click-not-working/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/22813-the-ctrl-button/ http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/30169-control-key-issue-please-help/

No bogata dyskusja Panie Falathi.... Gratuluję Wargaming'owi. Może ot raczej wy powinniści ujawnić jakies informacje (a nie trzymać je w tajemnicy i wypuszczać statek do naszych bitew) jeśli chcecie jakiejś "dyskusji". Czy może my mamy wam podać specyfikacje waszego okrętu?

I am actually wondering what do you want to say - that what, that 152 mmm of armor had been put on the most cruical part of the belt (e.g. citadels), and and 356mm was put where - on a kitchen compartment?? Your defense is pointless - someone is taking a piss here and that's it. And misleading or not disclosing crucial information and providing the one which misleads you at the same time - giving you the wrong view on the situation - is not any different for a lie.

That's interesting - maybe WG is lying - cause it behaves really as it would have 152mm armor (and in modules characteristics section there are many errors with various ships /e.g. after upgrade speeding up reload it shows slower loading time than original etc.). There is load of terrible errors in this game (as for a finished product). Obviously WG won't answer here (or anywhere) which and where (in which parts of the ship) is actually the acurate thickness of the ships' armor (and why - following given in characteristics /survivability/ data - thicker armor behaves much worse than supposedly thinner one)....

My: Avg Dmg Highest Dmg Avg Exp highest Exp Kongo 38,5k 111k 1225 2481 Fuso 37,5k 90k 1090 2840 Nagato 43k 133k 1375 3827 Amagi 50,8k 122,5k 1513 3045 Izumo 37k 77k 1171 2268 New York 31k 79,5k 962 2031 (and you have to take into account that by the time of reaching Izumo i became much more skilled player /with much more skilled commander as well/ then within many first battles in Kongo or Fuso /which lowers general results dipslayed for those ships/, so therefore also - on the top of that - adapting much quicker to the required gameplay for a new/next ship).. And coome oonn Sharazad you don't Really think that's it normal that the ships in naval warfare games are designed to be able to only swim backwards and only facing you pin point with it's face, with heavy cover of allied ships, to be able to survive and have half decent result by the end of the battle /cause I estimate that the one decribed by you was extremely lucky - even at the circumstances of extremeley good Izumo gameplay and his team exceptional teamplay /and udestanding of huge weakness and defenslessnes of Izumo by his team mates/, do you? Cause that sounds more like putting some heavy artillery guns on a front of a carrier - it could play more or less a simillar role...

Maybe Wargaming should include it in the main description of Izumo. Really - it's just A GREAT ship for campers (that's what I would add as a PR for it) - casue you have to stay as far as you can from any - especially mulitplied threat (and hope to survive till the end of the battle - with the rest of the team doing major work). Eventually by the end of the battle - if you have any reasonable pool of HP left you can ride in to finish off weaker ships with your secondary artillery. Once you'll dicover the true nature of amagi (which takes about 5 games) it becomes a great ship in your hands (very manouverable with great artillery - just have to avoid the damage and you have to aim skills at survivability). That's Very unusuall. My repetitive experience of Izumo is that it has more paper armor in practice (regardless of what is on paper) than Tripitz (and in all regards -> sides or deck). And its' HP goes like water (literally) - as I said any major salvo of ANY battleship in the battle and in 9 out of 10 cases 15 to 30k of you HP is gone straight away. Exactly as you say - you see for you it was enough to shoot not even a salvo but 2 shots... to get that kind of result. You see, you talk about some Ideal situation. The practice is that it is Impossible to not expose your broadside in Izumo - it's so slow and unmaneuvorable that it usually gets left by everyone else in your team behind (especially by escort ships) and once it gets exposed (from any side - and that's what usually happens - cause people get used to milk their score at the start of the game by jumping in few on Izumo - works perfectly) it CANNOT excape it. And alone (how it usually ends up) it's DEFENSLESS. ==== Listen - to cut out this praise (out of one, extremely lucky - even for a skillful player - battle for Izumo): Izumo is defensless even towards Nagato (it might be possibly weak opponent even towards Fuso AND Kongo) - and that's unusual in any case here in WOW that a Battleship is defensless towards his predeccesor 2 tiers down (not mentioning what I wrote in the brackets - so even worse case scenario). Izumo is basically - as Kamuka wrote - some kind of WG joke towards Yamato climbers (I understand that they could design some difficulty - but this is not a difficulty - that's an anti-tank ditch). (I remember when people complained about Colorado - which indeed delivers some real diffculties /as most lower tiers USA BBs/ - but The scale of that downfall with Colorado is Nowhere near what you experience in Izumo) === When with all jap BBs from Kongo on (so whether it's Kongo, or Fuso, or Nagato or Amagi) I get enemys' HP damage between 50 and 100k HP every battle, then in Izumo getting 60k of enemy's damage is already a r-e-a-ll-y good achievement. (And that's crap - that's what you're getting with New York - but even with New York you probably will be getting a beter average result /and higher highest scores/).

Can you tell me how score in the game can jump from 600 to 1400 in one sec?... (just happened to me a second ago)

First game of today - lost 1 of 3 turrets in first 30 secs of the game; 2nd - 30 secs later... - terrible. (never lost more than one turret on a capital ship in a battle)

Really? Cause in specs (survivability) it says armor 21-356 mm (Nagato 25-305 mm) So where did you get this 152mm from? Yeahm that sounds like it. First time I hear beta tester who does not: - defend blindly WG - talk that I am talking crap and that's not true. You're some kind of a special one - should I praise you to WG for good manners on the forum towards users? - It's a very heavy to manouvre cow (basically cannot avoid anything) - constantly penetrated - it's guns have Terrible accuracy (didn't play yet a ship with such a bad accuracy as this one) - within 4-5 battles I nearly haven't made any hit (and definately next to none from larger distance) - the only exception was ONE (one) salvo (within 4-5 battles) where I managed to hit with more than one shell (and then it was 3 citadel hits at once - but this was ONE successful - here very successful - salvo per few battles /when normally with any other BB I get good salvo /with 2-5 hits/ 6-7 times per 10) I don't mind the awkwardness of the main artillery (guns) set up (only at the front) - that adds to the challenge and makes things more interesting (need for adapting you gameplay very differently towards this specific make) and has it's strong points as well (e.g. most of your main artillery doesn't need to make full turns and is stragit away avaialbe at hand): but only if those guns could hit anything (and penetrate it on the top of that); and with this terrible level of manuverability once you head on for something (and you have to because you main artillery is at the front only) you're heading for death - cause you cannot avoid any torps either you cannot take down DDs with anything else then secondary artillery. My actual experience is that the only strong point of this ship is secondary artillery (unless you'll fully upgrade - then you loose 2x3 155mm) and you can make more damage with secondary artillery (if you won't die before that) then from the primary (!!!!). Till now the only role which I found for this ship is to become a main, first and defensless target of the enemy, and use (you have them be then - by the time of reaching this tier on jap BBs you should) all the skills related to survivability (incl. additional charges of consumables) to survive this bashing as long as you can (considering you large pool of HP, reagardless of it dissapearing like water), to make enemy busy with you as long as you can so your allies - if they are good and intelligent enough - can use this time to fullfill their tasks. And yeah (in opposition to all the other jap BBs - which can deal very well or sometimes even better - with many aims on short distance /including DDs - you just have to switch to HE consciously/ - below 8km) with Izumo YOU HAVE TO stay at ALL the time at a long or Very long distance (total minimum 10km, ideally more) cause it cannot confront anything manuvarable on any shorter distance. And also - with this level of manuverability it HAS to stay rather on open waters - otherwise, if you'll get involved in any battle and related to it manouvering on any other ground you get stuck or having no way out from a sure death - so hitting the isle or being a target board /and probablt hitting loads of torps/ - (that's the alternative) guaranteed... That's about all for what I can use this ship. It's basically [maybe] not a sitting target but a crawling target for sure - and to be it and to be there the longest and make enemy busy, it has to stay [at] far enough [distance] to provide any kind of diffculty with not being hit with every salvo.

I can agree that WG doesn't take into account, in the design of a game at all a modelling of benefits when it comes to interactions between players - as it should be in naval battles where only teamwork pays. Here everyone can do everything and be randomly gratyfied for it (even if he'she is an extreme egoistic player). That's a valid point.

In the case of extreme exploiting of other players engagement in the battle - shouldn't there be an option "exclude this player from maching it into my team"? Some players just take a total extreme lauch at the whole gameplay - and bring with theirs' behaviour the rest of the team into a defeat (e.g. I just had Myogi and Kongo huggin eachother at the brder and doing Nothing when others were dying - and they were, when it comes to tier and class, the backbone of the team, so it was definate that we we'll loose from the 5th minute). And also there is a lot of players who just wait at the back when their teamate will nib some HP from the enemy (and being left on their own die) to then engage 5-10 minutes later and exploit damaged by your dead allies ships to get some score. === There should be a choice of that kind. You should be allowed not to play with the players who sabotage the game at any tier (and it still happens in ranked battles - even at lvl 16 or 15th): - it would largely improve the gameplay (as clearly and surely the reporting system doesn't work and is a) just a smokescreen for the fact that anyone can do anything b) it's for statistical reasons only so Wargaming can adjust some mechanism but not to penalise any players at all) - you could put aside for you players which sabotage your team battles - it would allow you to match yourself with players with similar style of a gameplay - so, even if still randomly chosen, you could develop, shape and perfect with some circles a very specific tactics of your own; - it would put on a side pisstakers, learners and sabotagers and leave them to themselves, which would: - probably discourage some from playing (which Wargaming obviously would like, just for the fact, of few more pennies not going into a pocket - even if pisstakers usally don;t invest in anything or not much. and engaged players are those obsessively throwing bunches on money on the game - and they get discouraged from the game with these kind of situations) - it could pull up some pants of some of those players immediately or eventually - cause they would stop enjoying sabotaging straight in a face potentially victorius battles, or exploit others engagment and serious gameplay - match the learners and worse off players and sabotagers with themselves, which in effect - would make the gameplay for them much easier and enjoyable, they wouldn't be overwhelmed by much better players invading them in the battles on lower tiers, the newbies could still dominate from time to time (what a great feeling) by pasturing themselves on those sabotagers and pisstakers - it would remove a need for ranked battles (or leave them just for a privvilege of climbing for stars and rewards), and would remove a dillema of opening ranked battles for other tiers (or wating for developments widening it for other tiers), as this proposed option would in fact bring some aspects of ranked battles ====== What do you think? Obviously most likely noone from Wargaming responsible for development will read this idea, either it will never reach such person, and evn if, the're is even smaller likehood what it would be brought to any attention of those, even after reading it/hearing it.

When will they finally fix the fact that with any mindle of the assigned keyoboard keys the ctrl key stops working on the minimap?... (and that the OLNY way of fixing it is resintalling the WHOLE game?) :-0000 ( http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31064-controls-what-happened-to-my-ctrl-key/ )

Neither of these work for the issue with ctrl key - needed total reinstall of the game unfortunately, for now.

When will they finally fix the fact that with any mindle of the assigned keyoboard keys the ctrl key stops working on the minimap?... (and that the OLNY way of fixing it is resintalling the WHOLE game?) :-0000 ( http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31064-controls-what-happened-to-my-ctrl-key/ )

And I think main reason for that is that ranks 25-21 are "irrevocable" - which means ANYONE can get to the mid ranks without any major trouble (sooner or later) - and that midranks represent NOTHING ELSE then average in random battle (so you cannot rest the score of the game on your own performance in any bit, cause you don't start playing here with people of equal to yours skills and have to fight for climb up, but you still play with people of random /often poor skill/ and you cannot rely on ANYTHING else then luck when it comes to success. THIS IS WHAT SHOULD BE FIXED.

No you can't - that's innacurate what you wrote - you can rather see there stats of individual player i.e for his ranked battles. What would be useful is some table/stats showing all the players from the ranked battles...

I think the problem derives from the problem which I described here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31893-ranked-battles-dont-work/ Too many good players keep getting pulled down and up in the second poll of ranks (20-11th) by random behaviour of other players...