Jump to content

mariouus

Players
  • Content count

    310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5138

Everything posted by mariouus

  1. They are both balance and realism. If real things fit into game, they used realistic values. If it did not, they used something fitting for that tier.
  2. Tell me the Ibuki is not EDIT.

    Yes. In order to make a tier.9 cruiser, WG have gone two different ways. In Ibuki (and more or less in Baltimore), they took Tier.8 ship and gave it some higher tier features. So Ibuki is Atago on steroids. In Roon (and Donskoie) WG went different direction, they took tier.10 ship and reduced some of its properties. So Roon is Hindenburg with-out one turret. This also explanes why Ibuki and Baltimore is considered "hard grind", because Ibuki is only a tier.9 ship, when you can use its higher tier properties, if you can not, it is tier.8 ship in tier.9 MM. Roon in the other hand is always tier.9 ship, but certain situations it will perform like tier.10 ship.
  3. Weird glitch

    Try it. Make a clean reinstall on latest Graphic Driver (if you do not know how, then just Google "gpu driver clean install"). If you are using Laptop, make sure High Performance GPU is used and Power-setting are not set for Powersaver. And if this does not help, make a clean install for WoWs. Are other games working well?
  4. Yes, but this depends on MM. For tier.8, currently, it is much more likely do be MM 2.tiers higher than being matched one tier higher and more likely than being top tier. This is also anomaly. Ship that is up-tired like that will loose meaning of its tier, because it effective tier will surpass its actual tier.
  5. No actually. I am more thinking in line with more or less fallback to tier.6 only when needed, most of the battles would be tier.8 ones. To be fair tier.8 ship are more similar to tier.6 than to tier.10. It looks, that because EU has rather high proportion of tier.X players, MM likes do take tier.8 do patch up holes in MM.
  6. Even though I usually do not agree with Latvians(neighbor thing, no insults intended), this is not a bad idea.I did not think about it, even average grub like me can still make credits in tier.X. Still, I would not go below 50/25/25.
  7. To the Tripitz Skippers out there

    Tirpitz, when no CVs around, is more or less same as Bismarck.
  8. Yes and what we have out of it? We have tier.8 ships that have to play against tier.10 40% of the time, what is 6% more than they can play against tier6/7/8 combined. Yes, you can play tier.8 ships like that, I can as well. But at the same time this gives just about most unfair MM in the game. Because they are more-or-less Matchmaked like tier.9 ship, some case even harsher (that is what I am saying that they have MM rating of tier.9.1(tier.8 cruisers for example (Eddy, Mogami) has battlerating high (and low) enough to be used as substitute to tier.10 DDs)). It would not be that hard for the WG to rationalize tier spread (semi protected MM). I think WoT (Blitz anyway) uses it on platoons for years now. This, while not that "random", would definitely draw more players into tier.8 (and also into tier.9, what is actually good tier). Tier.8s are good ships, but not when you have do face tier.10 more often than other tier.8s. While I understand what you mean under 33/33/33. This would and actually is tier.9 MM (33 against lower tier, 33 against own tier, 33 against top tier). And giving it do tier.8 would (and as we can see does) seriously hamper tier.8 population.
  9. Tier.8 has five tier spread 6/7/8/9/10. 20% as top-tier against min tier.6, 20% as top-tier against min tier.7, 20% all tier.8 game. 20+20+20=60%. so my actual 60/20/20 would be 20/20/20/20/20 or why not 15/20/25/20/20 (or 10/25/25/20/20 and so on). Anyway still better than what we have now. Or that balanced 33/33/33. The problem with that is that it is almost what we have now. It is hard to justify tier of a ship that meets higher tier 66% of the time. This will but MINIMUM tier for tier.8 ship somewhere around tier.8.7 and normal to around tier.8.9. This would, yes, be better than current tier.9.1. But still... This is actually curious case. In my experience in tier.9 MM is not that bad. Probably because tier.9 can use rather numerous tier.7 do bolster Matchmaking. I would not be surprised if tier.9 ships have lower average tier than tier.8 ships.
  10. In my opinion it would be bit excessive. This would still give it rather high average tier. And also the fact that it is "low" tier for 66% of the time and is about 22% more likely to meet ships two tiers higher than being the ship two tier higher. It is not a balanced approach as such, because first 33% covers three tiers and following two only one or two. And like I said. As long as tier.8 ships has normal MM, they do not need any buffs. Infact, not even Hipper, I consider it easiest tier.8 cruiser to play. I, for one, have no real issue with BB numbers. Why I do not play tier.8 that much, is entirely down do MM. For example, when I played Hipper, I was top-tier 5. times (20%, three battles were full tier.8 and two had couple of tier.7 in the mix), granted, it was DoY mission time, where many were playing tier.X ships, because they are best XP takers.
  11. Tier.8 has five tier spread 6/7/8/9/10. 20% as top-tier against min tier.6, 20% as top-tier against min tier.7, 20% all tier.8 game. 20+20+20=60%. Tier.9 has four tier spread and tier.10 as three tier spread. You are definitely right. My calculation was quick rough estimate.
  12. It is hard to understand what you mean under that. 34% top tier is not fine for Tier.8 (or tier.6 and 7). If a tier.8 ship sees 26% of the time tier.9 and 40% of the time tier.10. Then it is not effectively a tier.8 ship. This would give it an effective tier of 9.1. Tier is a representation of ships capabilities. Tier.8 ship, in order to be a tier.8 ship, should be distributed in battles so, that this distribution would give average (effective tier) tier of 8. From the top of the head, it should be more like 60/20/20. MM is actually the reason why we have so many topics about tier.8 ships needing Buffs. While at one point of view, I maintain that tier.8 ships are balanced and do not need a buffs. But only as long as they are Matched as tier.8 ship. Currently, because of the MM, tier.8 ships are treated as tier.9 ships. Their average tier is 9.1 currently, in this point of view they really are underpowered.
  13. Weird thing with this battle was that I got disconnected for 2.minutes in the middle of this battle.
  14. DD Player Forced to Play BB's to Get Citadels

    If you are talking about permanent missions, then you can just replay a mission (just select already completed mission again). If you are talking about daily or weekly mission (like that French mission). Then nothing there, trust me nobody enjoyed those battles where I played Minekaze either. But generally yes, it would be nice when there would be more options.
  15. Apart from few turds, most of the cruisers from tier II- tier X are completely balanced and playable.
  16. In current meta. It would be too team-up, division -up, with either 2XCA and 1.DD or 2XCA and a CV. If you have good teamplay between you, then that combination is much stronger than BB or DD divisions.
  17. For a tier X cruiser, for example, camping BB is not really that massive problem (alone). Nor is when there are 5 skirmishing DDs. Problem is when there are 5."cowardly" BB and 5."cowardly" DD (and also 2."cowardly" CA, while cowardly is too strong word, "with realistic view on thing" would maybe fit better). And this is more or less general problem, specially when there is a torpedo mission. And biggest problem is for a cruiser player, that those 5.DDs usually do not skirmish with other DDs. They try do cap, they try do score long range torpedo hits, but they do not try do spot opposing DDs. What makes Cruiser pointless. Tier.X cruiser can not spot a DD on his own, but if the DD is spotted, they can dispose of it really fast. Rather often, if you drive to cap with your destroyers, DDs just stop in the edge of the cap circle and starts circling that edge or smoke up. And this will leave you, as not really that stealthy ship, perma-spotted by enemy DDs, you will get focused-down by enemy camping BBs (and CA). And you can not do anything about it. If those 5.DD would really skirmish, than CA would have a purpose. It has decent maneuverability, it is reasonably stealthy. So it can follow DDs in caps and if DD spots an enemy DD (skirmish with it, skirmishing is not wanking-about in the edge of cap) it can kill it fast and really help out a DD and for overall victory. So, if people are migrating for DD or BB, it is not because CA (CL) are bad ships. No, mostly they are excellent. But because both BB and DD have distinct strong point - Range and armor on BB and stealth and maneuverability on DD. So they are easier to play (and suck in) than cruiser.Cruiser is more-or-less "average", it does not have any real strong point, it is reasonably good in anything. How strong or weak cruiser is, depends on how many of those "average" attributes can a cruiser use. Easiest example, Yamato and Shimakaze - Shimakaze can spot a cruiser, with no fear of being spotted and fire his torpedoes at it, at the same time Yamato can fire at that cruiser while staying well out of range for that cruiser. So in this case you would be better off in being in that Shimakaze or in Yamato. But, if we now add a friendly skirmishing Shimakaze in the mix, then tables are turned. Now the enemy Shimakaze is screwed, Zao or Hindenburg with their 12.guns will kill it in as little as 16-20 seconds and after that that Yamato is screwed, because after disposing of that DD, CA can use its full spectrum of "average" attributes against it (and in this case, specially tier.9 and 10 CAs are extremely strong) not do mention that friendly Shimakaze. What we have in the game is general lack of trust. BBs do not want do push because they are not that maneuverable and their only real strong point is range and armor at that range (due to lack of overall maneuverability, they are easy prey for torpedoes). CAs do not want to sail into cap with DDs and support them, because too often they are left do die by friendly DDs (so they would stay back and snipe, using only one average feature out of many, so their actual impact is very small). DDs do not want do spot enemy DDs, because usually CA will not come to support and they do not want to loose their only strong point (stealth). Why we have the migration, is that: 1. Players like do play ship with distinct strong points.Cruiser is not it. 2. CA, while very good in general, are most team reliant ships. For example cruisers are stealthy and fast enough too approach into "killing-range" from the enemy DD, but they are not stealthy enough to spot him. (and so on)
  18. Secondary turret bug

    Like this
  19. Secondary turret bug

    In Graphic setting there is a option called something like "animate small objects". Make sure you have it checked.If not, then secondary battery is not animated.
  20. Been experincing heavy daily Loosing streaks since early December. I have played WoWs for some time now, while I have seen loosing or winning streaks before, I have seen nothing really like since early December. Some days it is fine, but occasionally, I will hit unmanageable loosing streaks. If it would happen on single ship, I would just attribute this to my inability to play it. But it happens on ships I usually do well in. Some days, I can just not get a win, what ever hoops I jump trough. For example in Yorck, one day I have 30% winrate, regardless how I play it, but next day it is well above 60%. At first I attributed it for being unlucky. But now, after having it on Mogami, Molotov, Yorck, Roon and Hindenburg and Schanhorst. All are ships, I tend do play somewhat better than average player could. I do not think that this is the case. Now, you realised Steam version in late November. Meaning that most likely I am experincing is the result of "Unchecked" influx of new and unexpierenced players. Because I did not see it in such propotions before. Now, I think new players are important for longativity of the game. And I do not mind it. But currently, it is too crappily done. If you can not design Matchmaking that could handle it, it is bad for the game. Thing you have do think about, is that what is the motivation of "Old" players continuing do play the game. Because I am not seeing it. For example today, had 33% win rate in both Roon and Hindenburg. It is less than Bot would get. And still, I played them above average. The fact that battle is lost, even before it starts, is not fun and most importantly it is not sustainable. Yes, looking back at experience of last couple of months, tomorrow everything is fine. But what is my motivation for playing tomorrow? Sure, at long run it would probably even out. But if person would "Burn" camos, flags and premium account during loosing streaks there might not be a "long run".
  21. Because I had premium account active.With-out it, I would have stopped after couple of battles.
  22. Well, computerized random number generators are actually not random at all. They follow pre-defined algorithms to be "random" .The more pre-defined variables it have to account, the less "random" it actually is.So they are pseudo-random, their operation gives impression of randomness, but at the same time they are not really random.If given same variables they act in predictable and lets say pre-defined way. But this is not the case here, or maybe it is. Like I said before. I have seen a lot of loosing and winning streaks. In WoWs and in WoT. It is not the issue as such, yes I might loose 5-6 battles (or win) and after that it was business as usual. What I am seeing now, since 24 of November I think, is daily loosing streaks, that last about 24.hours, next day I get absurd winning streak, that also tend do last a full day.Sometimes it happens other way around, day long winning streak followed by long loosing streak next day I play. So yes, on average everything is fine. But MM should not work like that. In your example, if RNG at one day constantly pulls up single combination then it is most likely something wrong with pre-defined part of that RNG algorithm. For example I have gotten loosing streak on 5 or 6 days and all of them is followed by winning streak. In other words, in last two months I have had 10-12 days where I win most of the battles or loose most of the battles. If loosing streaks would happen in ships I play badly, then I would totally understand. For example low win-rate in Martell or Moskva is no surprise to me, I play them badly so no real mystery. But in ships like Molotov, Mogami, Yorck, Roon, Hindenburg and even Schanhorst this phenomenon is not that easy do understand. On one day, I am struggling to achieve 30% winrate and next day I have easy 75% winrate, this is not really normal. While my playstyle remains the same. Why I am complaining about it is not a win-rate, do not care about that much about that. Specially because I know that win rate gets evened out the next day, when I hit winning streak. It is more or less tech-tree or captain progression thing.If have time do grind some ship, have camos and flags mounted and I get 33% regardless of my performance, it does not really matter that next day is better. If I have already burnt my camos and flags and activated my 24.h premium account. Second thing is that it is actually rather predictable. RNG based system can not be easily predictable. Yesterday, when I was writing this topic, I already knew that I will hit winning streak after 2400 a clock and I did. Because it had happened 5.times now. So I am either unlucky in "organized" way, or there is some variable in MM that causes this.
  23. Problem for me is not the loosing streak in general, it has always happened. Problem is that since December loosing streaks have gotten longer, usually lasting full day and are more numerous. I am not really worried about the win rate, but of the grinding part. So the fact that win rate evens up eventually is much less important than having MM that works reasonably consistently. Yesterday tried to train my Hindenburg captain, had camos and flags mounted, so loosing two out of three games did not help. Nor did the fact that the win rate did even out, it did, but after I had ran out of those camos and flags.
  24. Yes, but my issue is continous loosing streaks. Something I did not have before Steam. If MM gives you full day of losses and next day "balances" it out with easy winning streak next day is not a working MM. And I did not see it, for example in october. And no, influx of bad player does not make me play better
  25. German cruisers

    I would say that in Roon and Hindenburg (and for example in soviet Donskoie) mounting range module is ill-adviced. Taking advantage of it, will but you in range where incoming fire is blunging enoght to citadel you through deck armor.
×