Jump to content

eliastion

Players
  • Content count

    2,165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8563
  • Clan

    [TOXIC]

About eliastion

  • Rank
    Lieutenant
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

466 profile views
  1. And YOU have the audacity to speak about reading comprehension? If you hadn't noticed, I'm talking exactly about this: yes, it is fine either way. Be it 34% or 55% top tier. Neither is too low - and as long as players don't get shafted with really bad MM, it's not a problem whether their top tier matches are only an ok portion of all their games (around 1/3) or a surprisingly big fraction (more than 1/2). But ok, if you failed to understand what I was saying, then let's go back to the start: please, let me hear, on what basis do you say that 55% is "not fine"? You say that you're not a doomsayer and never claimed that 55% top tier matches for t8 must mean that lower tiers are screwed - why, then, isn't 55% fine?
  2. Variety. The game doesn't have that many ships on each tier, after all. The most populated tiers could easily support +/-0 MM, but that would be pretty boring. +/- 2 MM creates an environment where, depending on circumstances, you end up either trying to press your advantage or make up for having a weaker ship - all that with pretty varied opponents (and allies). Usually works well enough since WoWs (unlike WoT) doesn't have situations where one ship is outright unable to hurt the other based on MM, so regardless of being top or low tier, there are always things you can do - even if you're the sole low-tier ship on the team. Not that there are no problems, depending on tier and class. There are some cut-off points where a new consumable or modification slot is introduced that make ships above the point a bit too powerful compared to those below - perhaps the most obvious threshold being placed between t7 and t8 DDs with the latter enjoying the tremendous advantage of concealment mod. Then again, problems like these would remain regardless of +/- 2 or +/-1 MM.
  3. You literally said that if 34% is fine then 55% can't possibly be (and vice versa). Sorry, but that's not pointing out that there's some sort of correlation - that's, yes, doomsaying that the lower tiers (must) suffer catastrophical, unacceptable abuse. Because if they don't, then your whole claim that 55%+ can't be fine crumbles to nothing. You can't simultaneously claim that 55+% can't be fine (because lower tiers suffer) AND deny claiming that lower tiers must suffer unacceptably. Or did you perhaps change your opinion midway and just continue arguing for argument's sake?
  4. Well, thanks for proving that you have no arguments whatsoever to support your "point"
  5. So, I take it you would prefer a more realistic game where - to keep up with actual worth and prevalence of ships - instead of one DD with multiple reloads of torps you'd see players commanding a small fleet of DDs, or at least sailing with DD reloads, that is: multiple lives so that they could scrap their DD after one attack and pick another one with torps loaded and ready to go while their first ship returns to base on autopilot? This is a game, mate. A game based on the premise that each players controls one ship. Obviously, this means that ships are meant to have somewhat comparable impact - despite the fact that realistically the cost and impact of a single destroyer was not comparable to that of a battleship, not by a long shot. And then there were CVs that pretty much relegated all the other classes to support roles... So no. We certainly do not need the realism you ask for - trying to implement any of the things you suggest would make the game a bit more realistic, perhaps, but also significantly worse as a game. And, guess what: WoWs is a game first and above all. And its quality as a product is determined by how good of a game it is, realism being important only as far as it improves player experience, mostly by tying into the naval warfare theme.
  6. Sure, here you go: and explained by this claim of yours: Sorry, but if you now say that you never claimed that high % of top tier matches for t8 is going to screw over the lower tiers, then what was even your point in all of that? Did you even have a point? Because if the lower tiers are NOT screwed over and still retain acceptable levels of being top tier, then there's literally no problem with t8 having 55, 60 or, hell, even 80% of their games as top tier.
  7. And where exactly do you get your idea that it's NOT reflected? Despite having oh-so-many t10s that are ALWAYS top tier, EU still enjoys... was it 34% top tier MM for t8? And yet you insist that lower tiers on other servers must suffer unacceptable levels of MM abuse. MM for t8 ships on EU might not be as good off as elsewhere, but seems ok. Why wouldn't MM for the lower tiers on other servers be ok too? I see absolutely no reason to believe that more comfortable t8 mm on other servers would cause some catastrophic situation further down the line. So, please, do provide some stats instead of just whining on the assumption that t8 having it good there means that lower tiers must be screwed. Seriously, you have no data to support your complaints, all you base your opinion on is the general idea that more high tier matches for higher tier probably affects the number of high tier matches below them negatively. That's literally all you have. No knowledge of tier distribution there, no knowledge how big or how low of an impact that one factor you perceive might have - nothing. I've said it already but, once again: your gut feeling has zero value as evidence. Extremely high % of high tier matches for t8 is, at best, a slight hint that there MIGHT be a problem somewhere below that. But making a claim that there IS a problem - as you do - should require a liiiittle more evidence than figuring out one factor increasing the chance of problem's existence, right?
  8. Well, apparently it IS hard to understand since you fail to do so this spectacularly. But let me give you a very simple example that might help you understand that "logical consequence" of yours is just your assumption: Imagine a shared environment, a queue where there are exactly 20 ships of tier 8, 20 ships of tier 7 and 8 ships of tier 6. That's enough for 2 matches. Now imagine MM putting them together like this: Match 1: 20 t8 ships, 2 t7 ships, 2 t6 ships Match 2: 18 t7 ships, 6 t6 ships What do we get, then? t8 ships were 100% times in t8 matches t7 ships were 10% in t8 matches and 90% in t7 matches t6 ships were 25% in t8 matches and 75% in t7 matches Despite there not even being enough t6 and below ships to have a single t6 match AND despite the fact that t8 ships were ALWAYS top tier... t7 ships still got to be matched as top tier in 90% of their matches and the poor t6 sods only ended up with bottom tier (+2 tier) mm on 25% cases. You assume that t8 ships getting a lot of top tier matches must mean that lower tier ships will end up uptiered a lot, but that's just that: your assumption. Your gut feeling. It would be perfectly possible to have each and every tier be well above 50% top MM. If you want to claim that lower tier ships get uptiered more often than not (just because t8s are top tier a lot) - you need to provide stats to support your guess. Assumptions are not proof, no matter how sensible they sound for the person making them.
  9. Weren't we talking about certain tiers being top tier more than their share? You just make assumptions that this must mean there is a problem with lower tiers, then - but you pull this straight out of your behind, you have no data. We know that t8 (on servers other than EU) get to be top tier a lot - and that's it. We know nothing of the lower tiers. It might just as well mean that t8 matches consist mostly of t8 ships - in the extreme case a match with 24 t8 ships is a match where everyone is top tier (the highest tier allowed for this match).
  10. Well, that part is easy. If ships of some tier are uptiered too much (say, 55% being bottom tier) - that is a problem (how severe is up to debate, but still a problem). But it doesn't work in reverse - being top tier too often is not something that hurts players, after all. There is, in fact, the tier 10 that, by design, is top tier 100% of the time, right? Not to mention that these numbers suggest that there are just not that many people playing t10 on other servers - so making sure that t8 gets to be bottom tier more would end up with t10 ships spread out more thinly... and frankly, I don't like matches like these too much - if there's t10, I'd like to see a bunch of them at once instead of making that one tX the sole king of the match.
  11. Riding the map border BS

    Currently it's not possible to exploit it. It messes you up in various ways and yes, the behavior of the affected ship can throw somebody's aim too, but mostly it makes you a sitting duck. And it's very rare to really see someone on the line - rarer still to see someone on the line and NOT trying to get off it asap - usually indicating that someone is in a REALLY precarious position, as in: the very reason for hitting the border is usually because turning to avoid it means showing broadside and being deleted right away. OP's whine that he can't hit an enemy stranded on the blue line is just pathetic.
  12. The fact of getting into matches against much stronger/weaker Clans isn't a problem in and of itself - you lose hardly any points when you lose against a much better clan (and get a lot of them on the off chance you actually manage to win) so when there's not enough top clans to give them proper opponents, it's acceptable for them to see opponents two leagues below them. This, however, does not extend to the "best of 5" struggle. There it's either a victory or a defeat - and so the MM should be much stricter, restricted to the league they're in and the one they want to get into - and even that's a VERY loose approach. And if that's not feasible, then the whole "struggle" phase should be scrapped. I don't think there would be any problem with smooth progression, really - there could be just a unified point ranking with "leagues" being nothing more than "you must be this tall to be in this league" indicator with no actual threshold that needs to be broken through to advance (or that keeps you from dropping out of a league).
  13. DD Player Forced to Play BB's to Get Citadels

    This is false. It's certainly POSSIBLE to get citadels in DDs and when you get to score them, there's a good chance you can get a lot of them (accurate guns, fast reload, low damage per citadel so the target doesn't die from one citadel-rich salvo). Problem is: it just happens in pretty specific situations that aren't too common. You can't actively seek citadeling opportunities AND do your job as a DD decently at the same time. And when you wait for opportunities, you can end up waiting A LONG time.
  14. 30 seconds into the game and detonated

    In 30 seconds most CVs won't even be able to get their planes into the air, nevermind covering the distance to your BB and actually dropping you. Anyway, welcome to the daily life of a DD that can be detonated from full hp by ANYTHING, not necessarily a torpedo Anyway, good news for you, from next patch you need to be below 75% hp to detonate
  15. Nuked by CV - no rewards

    There really is no excuse for being CV-nuked too fast to cover required distance/score damage required to have the match counted - ESPECIALLY in a US cruiser. If you got insta-deleted by a BB sallvo, I might sympathize with you. But you got nuked out of the water by a CV while sailing a US AA cruiser - one of THESE cruisers that CVs normally don't even want to get close to if they can help it. Most likely you were sitting immobile behind an island (which is why the enemy could make a clean approach), you failed to use an AA consumable AND you didn't even direct your AA to focus incoming planes. You played on the level normally expected from an AFK. You received all the rewards you deserved.
×