eliastion

As someone with a fair deal of matches in my t IX CV, let me tell you - fighter planes are extremely annoying. You might not notice it really: you launch your float planes correctly (that is, the moment you see enemy planes) they take off and enemy planes never get engaged by it or they still get through and torp you, or they find the moment when your fighter is on the other side of ship and then they go in for a strike... you get hit (especially if you didn't maneuver to avoid it) and you think "useless fighter". You never think how much better the drop could've been had it not been pressured by the floatplanes of yours and/or your friends (since you shouldn't be alone ). How many torps went wide, how much less time did enemy CV have to adjust the strike to account for your evasive maneuver etc. Good use of fighter floatplanes does make a difference. It doesn't really counter a CV, especially if you do little or nothing else than launching the plane, but the difference is there. It might be a difference of 1-2 torps but I must admit I remember more than a couple stirkes that were pretty much wasted or half as effective as they should because fighters got in a way OR because I was in too much of a hurry trying to prevent them from getting in the way in time... It's no AA cruiser but it's far from useless.

And with this final part, dear sir, you excluded yourself from any reasonable debate. DDs, you see, ARE NOT supposed to be WORSE than BBs. And it was repeatedly stated by WG that they're not supposed to be "scouts" for that matter. Sure, significantly lower DD survivability would be ok but under some specific conditions: - if BBs had a habit of becoming dead-but-not-sunk (that is: if it was a common occurance for BBs to end battles afloat but with all their main battery turrets destroyed) or, say - if DDs had a habit of dealing much more damage in limited timespan so prolonged survival would lead to insane damage values or, of course - if DDs were offered some mechanic reflecting their quantity-over-quality nature, say: multiple respawns (potentially giving them much more than 1 death per match ) Is any of these really happening? Neither stats nor my experience in/against BBs seems to support that. And DDs sure as hell don't respawn when killed. So - why exactly is it that this type of vehicle should, in this game, survive less than another type of vehicle? Because the latter is represented by a bigger model in our game environment? This is, if you haven't noticed, a game, after all, where every single ship is supposed to be roughly as strong as another ship. There might be some abberations in that general model (CVs that are very strong against separated ships but useless against close-knit fleets, for example, or, say, Akizuki that's pretty weak in 1v1 due to how easily angling conters her but very powerful when she has a friend to occupy enemy's attention). The general rule, however, is that ships are roughly each other's equals. And DDs specifically should win against BBs, as that was the core design concept in original rock-paper-scissors approach... So, why exactly is it expected for BBs to survive much more? I mean, among total potatoes I can get it (BB survivability is passive (armor) DD survivability is active (proper use of smoke and dodging) but among the whole population?

Oh, noes, the game actually has a mechanic that promotes teamplay (smoke covering a ship with bigger guns than DD) - IT MUST BE REMOVED! Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of the smoke-Radar-torp Ranked meta but the fact is: current smoke mechanics are this game's most obvious application of teamplay where players actually support each other in significant manner. I'd be very cautious with any ideas that pretty much state outright "DDs should be stopped from supporting their team with smokes". As it is the game has serious enough issues with (not) promoting teamplay.

Actually the ones oblivious of own shortcomings get the most frustrated. An average player that knows that he's average is happy about each victory and sees his mistakes when he makes them. A player (even really a bit better, mind you) thinking that he's better than he is sees every victory as obvious thing (he's so good, after all) and each defeat as being unfairly punished for other people's mistakes (never himself just not being good enough). That's a very frustrating state of mind to be in since such a person feels wronged almost half the time...

Players incapable of getting through Ranks infested by people that can't get through in 500 battles are probably on the level of the former ones - just with less free time on their hands. Face it - Ranked requires quite a lot of time (sub-100 battle R1s happen but to do that you require both significant skill and a bit of luck) but it ultimately sorts consistently better players who just get pushed upwards. Worse ones get a losing streak for each winning streak and end up stuck. And - here's another bit of insight: the worse the people around you, the easier it is to carry. Sure, the meta might be worse and you can count on your teammates less BUT in a swamp full of idiots not being an idiot means that enemy teams has 7 helpless tomatoes while yours is burdened only with 6 of them - and actually has one decent player. Which team is more likely to win in such situation? If you really believe that you have the skill to move forward but your results don't seem to reflect that skill, perhaps your problem might be a bad "culture" of play. You keep playing when tired or when angry about a couple defeats. Making breaks at right moments (usually when you feel tired or when you lose 2 matches in a row) can go a long way in making the climb both quicker and less frustrating.

Have you actually seen that video you're talking about? Grozo was decimating planes from beyond air-to-sea spotting range. It was no "no-go" zone like around a cruiser - it was an invisible field of death capable of repositioning with over 40 kn speed. Its AA was just ridiculously op on such platform and it just had to go, simple as that. Fortunately WG realized that and fixed that problem. Unfortunately - the ship didn't really have much more to offer. So, basically, AA being just great (rather than completely broken) revealed her weaknesses where she's too unwieldy to be a generalist DD, ultimately relegating her to just being a worse Khaba.

The problem wasn't that she was able to protect herself from CV harassment. The problem was that she was able to harass CV planes - and without even getting spotted at that (and all that on a very fast platform so it can't really be played around as once located (At heavy cost in planes) it can quikly pop up somewhere else entirely. That had to go, it was op and really ridiculous. Of course, the problem is that while the ship was stupidly OP with AA, it was pretty, errm, underwhelming elsewhere. When the AA got nerfed to just very good (instead of ludicrous) all the weaknesses became glaringly obvious. Multi-purpose DD my stern. Just taking away strengths that make Khaba a mini-cruiser without significant buffs to things that force Khaba to be a mini-cruiser don't make a DD a generalist...

No significant change noticed by me either. Victories too easy and crushing defeats always happened and don't seem to be any more or less common than they always had been.

Po czasie, który minął, pozwolę sobie zapytać. Jak postawa WG - która doprowadziła do śmierci Superligi (mecze praktycznie się nie odbywają) i anty-sportowego ducha w tych nielicznych meczach, które mają miejsce (wrogiem jest nie przeciwnik tylko członkowie drużyny, bo chodzi o to, żeby mieć więcej XP od nich - nie żeby wygrać) ma się do idei zabawy i nagradzania tych, którzy chcieliby grać? Czy WG jest zadowolone iż zapobiegło niepożądanym zachowaniom w Superlidze poprzez zapobieżenie odbywaniu się w niej meczy? Moje doświadczenie z gry w Super Lidze jest następujące: pierwsze podejście (w dniu zrobienia 1 Rangi): najpierw 50 minut oczekiwania, potem przerwa, 70 minut oczekiwania, żadnego meczu. drugie podejście następnego dnia: mecz po 45 minutach oczekiwania. Zero współpracy, doświadczenie frustrujące, irytujące, 3 miejsce w drużynie (lepiej niż 4 innych graczy, ale cóż, nie w pierwszej 2, więc żadnej nagrody) trzecie podejście (koordynowane przez Forum i chata) kilka dni później: pomimo koordynacji i tak nie znalazło się dość chętnych by grać czwarte podejście dzisiaj: jakimś cudem trafiłem na bitwę już po kwadransie (ten kwadrans potrzebny był, żeby znalazło się 2 graczy brakujących do czekającego w kolejce "tłumku" by uzyskach bitwę). Niestety, zginąłem dosyć szybko w starciu niszczycieli, następnej partii (mimo czekania przez prawie godzinę) już nie znalazłem. Podsumowując: O ile wiem - pomimo AFKerów, sporo osób miało dużo zabawy z Superligi. To nie AFKerzy zepsuli tę zabawę - tylko WG poprzez absurdalne ograniczenie nagród tak, że przestały być inicjatywą do grania w SL a stały się inicjatywą do anty-drużynowych zachowań. Czy WG zamierza coś z tym zrobić i przywrócić SL w jakiejś formie choćby na koniec sezonu? Jestem pewien że, gdyby np. każdy ze zwycięzców dostawał po 2 kontenery (a przegrywający nic) to nie tylko znów znaleźliby się chętni, ale i bitwy stałyby się zaciętymi starciami o zwcięstwo (a kontenerów na bitwę rozdawałoby się tyle, co w oryginalnej misji - tyle, ile było planowane, prawda?). AFKerów liczących, że się przewiozą na drużynie wyeliminowałoby ograniczenie np. min. 500 xp - czary mary, problem rozwiązany, nikt kto nie będzie grał nie dostanie kontenera, nawet, jeśli by za niego inni wygrali! Oczywiście, powyższe zakłada, że celem WG naprawdę było poradzenie sobie z problemem AFKerów, a nie uśmiercenie SL jako przypadkiem dającej nagrody, których WG tak naprawdę wcale rozdawać nie chciało, więc pod przykrywką radzenia sobie z nadużyciami celowo uśmiercili SL. Podsumowując - jeśli WG nie kłamie nam w żywe oczy, to DLACZEGO NIC NIE WYNIKA Z ICH "MONITOROWANIA SYTUACJI". Rozwój sytuacji, na który ponoć czekaliście obserwując, jest dość jasno widoczny: SL umarła! Nie trzeba dłużej czekać, by zauważyć, że zmniejszenie nagród do mniej niż 30% oryginalnej ilości, oraz rozdawanie ich w sposób promujący grę antydrużynową, NIE wyszło Superlidze na zdrowie! Więc? Zamierzacie coś z tym zrobić, czy będziecie problem wygodnie ignorować aż Sezon dobiegnie końca?

"Edit" function? Either way, one-sided battles are just an inevitability in this kind of game. Let's say we have two teams, one is slightly better and has the luck of the better players actually ending on one flank. Now, the better team (or rather: the better flank of the better team) starts by pushing a bit more coherently and focusing fire a bit better - and so the match starts with corresponding enemy flank losing 2 ships. Now, the 12 vs 12 match has just became 12 vs 10. More importantly, on that particular flank it's, say, 6 vs 4. Where the 6 are a bit better than these 4. Of course they're going to win that flank, perhaps losing one of the more damaged ships and letting one of the weaker enemies retreat. So, now we have a 5v1 flank. If the other flank is deadlocked with no kills so far, we have a 11 vs 7 state of the game with the 11-ship team having a bit better players! How crushing is the enemy defeat going to be now? With one flank fallen (so they can no longer angle against all enemies capable of shooting at them)? With less ships? You see, WoWs isn't a football game where you score points but - if the enemy is equal to you in skill - you can also lose points just as easily. It's like a football match where with each point scored the enemy has to take one player off the field. The more the point difference, the easier it is for the winning side to score even more! Snowballing is built-in. If you kill enemy ship, you take away some of the enemy firepower and some of the enemy tactical options. If - by whatever means, for whatever reasons - one team manages to gain ship advantage quickly, the remaining enemies may well be on par with remaining players on the winning side and still the magnitude of the defeat is likely to spin out of proportion and end up much bigger than the actual skill difference between the teams.

In games that have small teams (or better yet: are solo games) and a really big playerbase - yes. Games with relatively small playerbase and big teams? You gotta be kidding. PS: your experience in WoWs Ranked is the experience of latecomer in noob ranks - even at the beginning of the Season actual Raked starts with R10. You literally made sure to play mostly with people who weren't good enough to advance out of the realm of safety nets and headless chicken play. There is a selection. You just ended up on the wrong (that is, assuming you have some skill, I don't really feel like digging up your stats whatever they might be) side of aforementioned selection. At this point in the Season good players are either R1 already or trying to get through the R2-5 league. Still, it also means that grinding through lower Ranks should be a breeze - a good player cuts through the herd of noobs like a warm knife through butter, carrying a good portion of his games and on many defeats being still able to save stars (not that hard to be the top of a noob team, after all).

Oh, people again demand MM trying to keep people at 50% winrate (when they're not busy complaining that MM does try to keep them at 50% winrate)?

You know what? There seems to be 13 people in SL queue now. Perhaps this could actually work if some people come, like, right now?... o_O

Actually Ranked Weekend Warriors might be more skilled than all-week players - these guys only had weekends to reach R1 so the stricter selection might be in effect

You're the brain of this operation But I don't believe we'll succeed today if we didn't yesterday. I can try but I don't have much hope.

To all the whiners. Luck plays its part. It can slow your progress down ot it can make it quicker. The thing is: luck only matters in the short run. As you play more, what starts to really matter is - your skill (how much you can help your team) - your playing culture (how much of your skill you can actually use - many people make the mistake of playing when tired and sleepy or continuing after a few defeats that get them angry and make them make stupid mistakes down the line, resulting in more defeats) There are always some matches that pretty much can't be won. They might be MM giving better players to one team or sometimes a bit of bad luck early in-game. Most games don't belong to that group, though. In my Ranked grind I had many matches where I thought "why did I sail so far from the team trying to line up that torp run, had I stayed closer to smoke them when smoke gets off cooldown we might've won" or some other more or less complicated "f*ck, it might've been a victory had I just acted differently". Sure, it's easy to blame the team but the reality is that were I just A BIT better of a player, I would've won like 10 matches I lost. And 10 matches won instead of lost is the difference of 20 stars - the difference between being R1 and R5 with 0 stars. If I were much better, I would've won even more. And were I worse? Well, I distinctly remember some very close games where even slightly worse performance on my part would've meant a defeat. That's basically how Ranked works. You lose some matches no matter what and you win some no matter what. These don't really depend on your skill (you might go AFK and win) but when you play 100, 200, 300 matches - they even out. Then there are all the other matches. The matches where it DOES matter how good you are - where that bit of contribution of yours (be it not-sucking-too-bad or carrying-your-team) lets you get a victory that was not secured. Or, alternatively (by sucking-so-bad-you-brought-team-down OR by not-carrying-the-team-that-could-be-carried) you fail to contribute enough and you suffer a defeat that could've been prevented. The better player you are, the more of these potentially winnable matches you can win. The worse you are, the less likely you are to as much as notice that the match actually was winnable had you played better...

Also, it seems very likely (no solid proof, of course...) that we saw supercontainer drop rate nerf somewhere along the way and santa presents' rewards nerf after day 1 or 2. Although bad flooding chance on CVs is a thing for a looong time, OP probably just had bad luck with RNG.

But WG.

Top 2 players get a container. Incidentally, when a team loses the R1 match... top 2 players get a container. Guess who's your actual enemy if you actually try to play seriously to get the reward provided generously by WG

There are several separate queues, each for other battle type: - Random queue for Random players, whether they are within your tier range (usually +/-2) or not - the Y shows all players in Random even those with t10 ships when you're t5. - Coop queue, similar to Random and, finally - Ranked queue for all Ranked players. This one might seem strange because the ranges don't overleap: each league plays among their own with SL being just another league. Still, the Y - as with Randoms - shows the number of players queuing for Ranked, not only those eligible for getting into a match with you (that is: those in the same league as you). PS: SL is really dead, even a coordinated (in advance) through both Forum and in-game chat effort to get some matches failed...

SL proved to be more dead than predicted. Even with some concentrated previously-coordinated effort we didn't manage to get a match. Maybe tomorrow. Or next week, when more people hit R1? Or maybe when WG makes the rewards worthwhile never? Well. Who knows...

Anybody else? Even with all this planning we still lack 2 DDs to even get things started

Well, this sort of discussion is what's the only way to play SL now. Had they shifted the rewards from losers to winners (2 containers for winners, nothing for losers) they might have normal gameplay on Rank 1 level with people doing their best in their favourite t5 ships. As they made it - some wacky DD action is the only way I see to actually have some fun and get any rewards. "Serious" matches (if they even took place - and they just don't) would be a frustrating experience of playing against your team (it's them you have to beat for containers, not the enemy) for underwhelming rewards with ridiculous waiting times. I've once managed to make it into a "normal" SL match. It was absolutely awful. This, on the other hand - well, this seems like the kind of fun I get out of german t2 DD. Only without the awful feeling of being a nasty sealclubber. And with enough matches there is at least a chance for getting a couple containers in the process. When WG changes the rules again - to something sensible - we can talk normal gameplay. In current state of SL? No way. PS: The chat channel is the same as always, right?

Well, it's not that bad seeing them topics pop up - perhaps WG is going to realize that the playerbase isn't exactly happy about the joke SCs have become.

If you want english voiceover, doesn't just setting it to english voiceover via settings do the trick?