eliastion

[most of the post edited away because I was not aware of existence of the article linked by Geralt_c_Rivii365] Dealing a couple thousand accidental damage usually doesn't turn people pink unless they actually "score" a kill that way. It's a different story if someone has such "accidents" every other match, of course...

I didn't call you a liar, I said that what you claimed is not true. Admittedly, I originally did think that you were just trying to make it easier for yourself to argue but now I'm convinced that you just don't know what you're talking about... Although your attempts at clinging to details of a simplified example - to avoid accepting what the example actually showed (the lack of direct correspondence between being an average player and having average skill) - comes off intellectually dishonest. You cling to the idea that it would work only if 10% winrate players played only againat the 90% winrate player - sure, and what about it? If average player had, by definition, average stats, THEN IT WOULD IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE TO CONTRARY, no matter how contrived. Also, btw, if everyone had the same win% against one player then that gives a pretty solid foundation for comparing their individual skill - after all they all tried their skill against the same opponent and all had some measure of success in doing so (10% is not an insignificant number) suggesting that they actually did perform on comparable level. Not that it is of any importance for what we're talking about, of course - what I showed was a situation where average stats are obviously very divergent from stats of average player - if such example can be constructed, it clearly proves your claim of average player having average stats to be false. It really doesn't matter how (un)realistic the example is. Want something less contrived, though? I can give you one that - while still somewhat simple - is also pretty realistic. Be my guest. 5 players, the game of chess (pretty much no luck involved). Let's assume that each match is repeated until one side emerges victorious (so that each game gives us a winner, no draws can happen with this system). One player is more active: he plays 100 games, 25 with each opponent. He's also much better, he wins 24 and somehow loses 1 against each of them, giving him 96% winrate. The others are of similar skill and play less. They each play 25 games with the better one and 5 against each opponent. They score as follows (number of victories of the one on the left): __ P2 P3 P4 P5 P2 xx 03 03 02 P3 02 xx 02 04 P4 02 03 xx 03 P5 03 01 02 xx So P2 scored 8+1 wins = 9 P3: 8+1 = 9 P4: 8+1 = 9 P5: 6+1 = 7 Since each of them (other than the first one) played 30 games, this gives us following winrates: P1: 96% P2: 30% P3: 30% P4: 30% P5: ~23% Now - the fun starts. Remember how you claimed that average winrate between players = 50% + 1/2 draw%? Here we had no draws and yet the average winrate of a player is 41,8%. However, even with that (lowered by disproportion in the number of games played between good and bad players) average winrate, we seem to have a slight problem. If we go by your definition "average player is the one with average stats" then we must conclude that 80% players in this group are WAY below average player level. Now, you do tell me - is that what people would call the average player when using the term here on the forum? Is that - possibly - the definition of average player that has any use in this context? WoWs, of course, gets more complicated because there are teams, much more players etc. However, once again: want to claim that the average player does not have below-average stats? Show it with some statistics or just say you have a gut feeling that it works that way - because the meaning of average has nothing on that, unless you specifically design a definition of "average player" that will support that... only with a slight side effect of being useless and different from what people understand when they use the term.

Ok, let me re-phrase what I meant to say without examples that should clarify things but apparently made them more difficult. You. Used. An argument. Based. On. Falsehood. Average players don't necessarily have average stats and even if they do - it has nothing to do with definition of average. Period. Or, to maybe bring some other example to show clearly what I mean... I'm pretty sure that there are some WoWs players who lack a leg, or even both. It's also unlikely that we have any players with three legs. What does it mean? Well, obviously it means that average number of legs in WoWs community is below 2. The average WoWs player, however, most certainly has 2 legs, putting him firmly above the average number of legs. Do you understand now?

Unlikely seems like an understatement since it's a scenario with exactly 5 players playing the game, 4 of them with exactly the same winrate... I wasn't claiming it to be likely nor was I implying that in WoWs there exists a similar pattern - what I did was provide an extremely simplified and exaggerated example pointing out that "Average players have average stats. That's what average means." is a faulty argument... due to it being false, plain and simple. I am inclined to believe (as I even stated in my previous post) that this is, in fact, the case: average player's stats are most likely pretty close to the server average. But if someone claims that "average player usually has way below average stats" and you say that this is false then you are NOT allowed to invoke FALSE arguments to support that. No, average player DOESN'T mean one with average stats. You yourself acknowledge likelihood of average player actually having BELOW average stats. You want to dispute the "way below" part? Be my guest. You want to dispute the claim that 80% players are worse than bots? Again, be my guest, I will even support you as the claim is outrageous no matter how I look at it. But please, do stick to truth, even if it doesn't sound nearly as convincing as the falsehood that the other side's claim is untrue due to meaning of average. As far as semantics go, there was nothing wrong with his argument.

...don't mention it, devs might actually see this and decide that the community asked for more RNG in the game

Yes. Once the captain is trained for a silver ship, he will remain that way until you train him for another silver ship - no matter how many premiums he helms in the meantime Although, in fact, I can even recommend a simple trick: you can get your captain to the silver ship you want him trained for (Shiratsuyu), start the retraining... and then bring him back to the premium ship As stupid as it sounds, the retraining won't stop that way - he'll still be training for the new ship (rather than accumulating XP for next level) BUT, being on a premium, he will nonetheless have access to all his skills. This way you can avoid spending doublons WITHOUT dealing with a captain-in-retraining pain ...for obvious reasons, this is not a viable option for a captain that has 18 skillpoints and retraining requiring more XP than training a new 18XP captain from scratch...

No, read through what he wrote again - he doesn't want more bounces - ricochet angle overmatch still goes in and deals damage but (for balance reasons) can't score citadel hits. Since DDs don't have citadels in the first place, his proposition will change literally nothing when it comes to your Yamato vs DD example.

I'm pretty sure T0byJug is right here, guys. Think about it that way: 1. What's the most obvious way to do when you remove/move a ship from its original spot and replace with some other ship? Obviously, he answer is: give the player the new equivalent, so a t9 for t9 - that's how far in the tree he got. 2. However, some people really like the ships they have in port and don't want to part with them. So - after #1 is done, let's give them back the moved/downtieered ships if they had them in port. Any further additions seem unnecessary. For every tier you had a ship on - you get a ship of that tier. And no ship you had disappears completely from your port. I don't really see WG giving people anything more. Tuccy implies the opposite but seeing how he doesn't really state it clearly, that might be him guessing rather than sharing actual knowledge... What I do hope for, btw - and what I am certainly going to make a ruckus about if it doesn't happen - is not "will I get free ships and credits" but a matter of free skill respec for all affected IJN captains since different ships require different builds... the respec would seem like a common sense thing but I'm worried with how nothing like that happened when they changed around high-tier torps, making Torp acceleration more of a liability than a perk for Kagero and Shima...

You can, but the flood if Div requests might be due to "win 10 games in a division" reward so plenty people just invite whoever so that the match will be marked as "in a division" in case it ends up being a victory .

Ok, let's split it up 1. You have a Kamikaze captain (that is with Kamikaze specialisation right?) and transfer it to Shiratsuyu. You retrain him to fit the latter. You have a Shiratsuyu captain in Shiratsuyu. 2. You want to play Kamikaze again. You transfer your Shiratsuyu captain to Kamikaze. He's still a Shiratsuyu captain but Kamikaze is premium so Shiratsuyu captain (his specialty doesn't change) magically can captain the ship with full effectiveness despite still being specialized in something else. 3. Now you need to use Shiratsuyu again. So you take the captain from Kamikaze - but it's not a Kamikaze captain, it's a Shiratsuyu captain that was using Kamikaze, so obviously no retraining needed, as you put Shiratsuyu-specialized captain in charge of Shiratsuyu.

Well, that, in fact, isn't exactly true. I mean, I am pretty sure that average player does, indeed, have average stats, but it's not by definition. Imagine following playerbase in agame where people play 1v1: player#1 1000 matches, 90% winrate player#2 250 mathces, 10% winrate player#3 250 matches, 10% winrate player#4 250 matches, 10% winrate player#5 250 matches, 10% winrate Now. 1. The average stats (as in, stats averaged across all players) are 400 matches, 26% winrate. 2. The average player (as in: the statistical opponent you would get at random from this playerbase) has a 50% winrate (because players with 90% winrate play as much as the rest combined so a random player from this pool has 50% for being 90%winrate and 50% for being 10%winrate player, giving you the average winrate of your opponent at 50%). 3. The average player (as in: most typical player, one that places around the middle between the best and the worst players) has 250 mathces and 10% winrate The average player - especially in the context present here - does not mean "the player whose stats are equal to average of all players' stats". It's obviously either meant to mean ( ) a typical player (#3) or a typical opponent (#2). And neither of these average players - in this scenario - actually have average stats.

I must say I personally am a fan of saturation as a "no, you can't just shell this small part of the ship forever and win". The problem is that "saturation shouldn't just nullify the damage completely. Why couldn't it just transfer 10% of any damage taken to the ship hp even in saturated mode? This way a DD could still survive, if lucky, a second torp hit to the same place - but not 4, 8, 17 hits! It would remain a mechanic you do well to play around if possible (to hit for actual damage you can deal, not 1/10 of it), but it wouldn't be so frustratingly broken, granting ships some damned god-mode... Also, what Havaduck said - "oh, no, I've hit his guns again" syndrom isn't much better.

I heard that bots are pretty good at aiming and pretty bad ad playing it safe whether by angling or retreating when need be. This two taken together suggests that bots could be a pretty dangerous BB players if thrown into Randoms with a name not giving away their actual nature. Especially good choice for them would be german BBs that don't suffer that much when exposing broadsides. They would go in to tank AND hurt enemies with well-aimed salvos. They wouldn't place among the best players but they most certainly would be better than some... not so good ones.

Throw in a couple... dozen respawns for DDs (and a couple for cruisers) to reflect cost - and therefore numerical - advantage of ships smaller than BBs.

My bad. I thought it was about the "coming" nerf hammer someone mentioned but I actually went and checked (I don't own any of the premiums). Well, that's some major mess up on OP part. Might seem like a half-measure at this point but... Nicholas: 8 Zuiho (1/2/1): 23 Kongo: 32 Minekaze: 24 Fujin/Kamikaze: 24 Gremy: 29 Murmansk: 10 Konig: 26 Königsberg: 22 Aaand I suggest we roll with this. If we do, the OP will have no choice but to roll with it too

Nicholas: 8 Zuiho (1/2/1): 23 Kongo: 32 Minekaze/Fujin/Kamikaze: 24 Gremy: 28 + 1 = 29 (some id... someone called this ship a "torp spamming one-trick pony" - that's the strangest thing to say about a ship whose torps are the only "meh" thing about her; although, yes, even they are perfectly workable under correct circumstances, allowing for stealth torping in a pinch) Murmansk: 10 Konig: 26 Königsberg: 25 -3 = 22 (I really don't understand such high score for this ship; I've only met her as an enemy but frankly? She doesn't scare me, not at all. Neither do a couple others but this one is left with some ridiculous amount of points, so I'll do my part in bringing her down) When they actually stop being the same.

Since you've got all the links I could give you and more, I'll just suggest being very cautious with comparison of some stats - especially damage - since te difference between damage dealt depending on your main "prey" differs a lot. Dealing the same amount of HE+fire damage to DDs you will cripple or kill a few of them, helping your team immensely - while the same amount and kind of damage dealt to a couple of same tier BBs it will be mostly just annoying them and maybe "waste" their one heal charge/cooldown without putting a big dent on their combat capability for the rest of the match. Either way, take care and fair seas! It's good to see a (relatively) new player actually interested in how to play the game and control his performance o7

I'll disagree. Well, with everything but your first sentence which I agree with a lot. So... Ok: actually, base PvP mode in AW is better and more interesting than WoT. But - that's important - only just. and it has its problems - some balancing issues are even worse than what WG produced. Still, it's a bit better overall... but being SLIGHTLY better is not something that will convince big crowds of people to abandon their WoT accounts with thousands of battles worth of grind - not to mention real life money spent. Let's imagine a ship counterpart to WoWs and make it even clearer how it works: WoWs getting some welcome (by everyone, somehow, to eliminate the personal preferences aspect) update... but with a catch - to get it you need to agree to have your account wiped (ships, gold, EVERYTHING) with no compensation. How many people would want that and really switch to that WoWs2? And that's what switching to a slightly better but otherwise very similar game feels like. That's what AW has to fight against - and WoT is around so much longer, people have spent so much more time and money there... The results? Even if AW is slightly better (which, of course, not everyone will even agree on since personal preferences vary) - how many old WoT players will be willing to make the switch? It's still mostly the same and WoT actually made significant progress by FINALLY incorporating some XVM features into the game - features that first appeared as part of the vanilla in AW. Coincidence? Basically, just because it's an upstart on a WoT-controlled market, AW just can't effectively compete with WoT in PvP aspect of the game. This leads to less players, more waiting times and that's an additional problem that makes influx of ex-WoTers even less likely. What AW needed to stay afloat was: something WoT simply doesn't have. And that's why coop SAVED them, not killed. Coop needs few players so the queues are short. It's also something WoT doesn't provide - so people looking for THAT will just happily switch (if they played WoT) or play AW while they wouldn't play WoT... And even some people who continue playing WoT will sometimes launch AW just to play some coop games when they can't stand WoT PvP and seek something else for a moment... So, while I disagree with most of what you said, I wholeheartedly agree with the very first point of your post. Coop is what made AW. It's what made AW its own game rather than just pretty much a tinkered with copy of WoT with modern tanks. EDIT: Well, ok, THAT is another point I definitely agree with you on It's in fact one of the aspects that make me stay very firm by my position that AW is a better PvP than WoT - the very absence of f*cking premium ammo.

Well, these are perils of smoke - it's not like I never managed to blind myself with my own smoke. It happens, especially early in the game (when teams are pretty close together and/or pretty far from each other) and late game (when there are much fewer ships to spot each other when you take yourself out of the spotting game).

WSAD to avoid them, armor to survive them, planes to spot them, guns to 1-2 shot delete them when they get inevitably spotted by someone while playing at the edge of their detection range, secondaries to melt them without bothering with main battery. And these are just things that BBs - that should be DD food - have against them. Don't get me started on CV spotting and things Radar-equipped cruisers are capable off (not to mention friendly DDs operating under protection of allied big guns).

To put it simply: smoke works both ways. They can't see into smoke but neither can you see out of it. And, obviously, nobody can see THROUGH it. So, if your allies are too far to spot your enemies, the latter will disappear. And even if they are close - if they're perfectly behind your smoke, it may so happen that your smoke effectively conceals both teams from each other. Oh, one more thing - not being detected doesn't make you invulnerable. Make yourself a favor and avoid sitting dead in the water broadside on to enemies - they LOVE to send torps into smoke screens because a DD standing still has very, VERY limited options to avoid perpendicularly approaching torpedoes.

I can answer that. One of the banes of the high-tier play was people being... excessively cautious, let's say it. Part of the reason was high repair bills. So the whole system was changed and you don't pay for damage suffered anymore - you pay a flat service fee that it takes to bring your ship into the match. The results aren't great - as people mention, still lots of backlines snipers, but at least that sort of play isn't encouraged and/or rewarded. As for why it is not working so well - my guess would be bad communication. I even see people mentioning something about repair costs. It seems that many, possibly most of the players aren't even aware that avoiding damage actually doesn't change the bill they need to pay after battle anymore!

Short answer: the better one. Long answer: there is a couple of major factors: skill, actual composition (WHAT non-CV ships, exactly, and what CVs) + initial positioning and overall tactical situation. 2 IJN BBs are very likely toast even if the CV is alone - too slow to get him fast enough, not enough AA to protect themselves. A combination of 2 US BBs or, better yet, 1 US BB and 1 AA cruiser would most likely wreck the CV and his teammate - the former would be powerless, the latter - outnumbered 2:1. As for positioning, the question is whether the CV is somewhere safe (preferably behind a big island, not too far to operate effectively), whether the enemies are together and/or how well is their position known (especially crucial if DDs are involved). Furthermore - is CV's ally in a good position to stall for time in hope of air support making up for numerical 1v2 disadvantage? CV needs a lot of time to do something: for all their stopping power, strike planes reload longer than shells and fly slower. Also, I mentioned tactical situation of the match as a whole - that's extremely important because CVs have somewhat limited potential of decaping (they're good for emergency decaps with no other ships in vicinity but that's not a sustained thing) and are absolutely terrible at capping - too visible and too vulnerable, not to mention that the hull itself is not threatening, only the planes are and these are hardly an effective short-range weapon. So, depending on the phase of the game and the situation, the enemy has 2 ships that can effectively contest caps while the CV team has only one. Of course, all the above assumes a pretty unrealistic scenario of all ships being full hp and the CV having all of his planes. With the latter being much less believable than the former, mind you - while it's perfectly possible to end up with most of your health remaining (especially in a BB that can heal some less severe damage up), the CV will always lose planes - and in extreme late game (2v2) he's pretty likely to be short on them. When I play CVs, I usually end long games without any dive bombers and often without enough torp bombers to put all squadrons in the air (or at least to have them all fly with full complement). When I play other classes and happen to play with/against CVs, in long games I often witness distinct lack of air presence - lack of planes whatsoever or less-than-full squadrons. Or, at the very least, a very cautious play suggesting (based on my own CV experience) that the CVs I see just can't afford to lose any more planes and remain as a factor in the game - so they just keep clear of any targets that aren't completely alone OR have some AA defense to speak of.

Ok, we've had our laughs (especially with the ridiculous idea in the very thread name) but let me answer the concerns of OP - especially those poorly expressed, because it's not like he has absolutely no point. The thing is - every class (save for cruisers) is, in fact, primarily "countered" by the same class. I don't really need to mention BBs - the main thing capable of stopping BB is usually a BB. The same for DDs - even if they're not exactly fighting each other all the time, the presence of same class counterpart is a game-changer. In Randoms it's somewhat mitigated by general large-scale clusterf... I mean, general chaos. But if one side has DDs and the other either doesn't or has DDs that don't do sh*t - the former is in big disadvantage. It gets more obvious as less ships remain on water: imagine following teams: 3BB, 3CA, 1 competent DD that knows when to torp, when to spot, when to smoke an ally in danger 3BB, 3CA, 1 DD that sails around the edge of the map and drops long-range torps that get avoided by basic combat maneuvers against the enemy The team with incompetent DD is in big disadvantage here - even if they have 3 competent BBs and the enemy - only 2 plus a sniping potato (the equivalent of line-hugging torping DD) that won't be enough to offset the impact of that single DD... Let's take another scenario: 3CA, 3 DD, 1BB with 60% winrate 3CA, 3 DD, 1BB with 40% winrate Once again, my money's certainly on the team with better BB. Even if one of his team's DDs also has 60% winrate to 40% winrate of one of the enemy DDs - they don't even out because there are 2 more DDs on each side while each team has only one BB to do the BB thing with these big guns of his. And that's the major factor (well, one of the major factors) that actually make CVs so influential. There is almost always only 2 of them, one in each team. Add to that the huge impact of their individual skill - the better CV can shut-down its worse counterpart like no other class can. It's a known problem (one of the big problems with CV gameplay). So, when you take these two factors into account, what do we get? The situation described before: one side has a CV that does CV things and throws in his impact while the enemy simply can't count on their CV. The latter might not be as bad as sniper BB or border-hugging DD but it doesn't matter - superior opponent shuts him down and there goes any significant CV contribution - CV spotting, CV damage, you name it. Only one side of the match has it, like in the previous examples only one side effectively had DD smokes, spoting and torps or (in second example) BB tankyness and big guns. This, indeed, makes CVs more influential. But it's the result o them operating on 1v1 basis AND CV skill being too overwhelming of a factor in the CVvsCV matchup - partially because skill differences polarized when "average players" disappeared, partially because the very design of the class lets them nullify each other's game so well if not equally skilled. PS: Also, although that is purely anegdotical and doesn't really count as "evidence" for anything... I've recently (within last two days) had a game where I played my Taiho and boy, how I failed. I was destroyed without doing anything - and yet the enemy CV, despite being of the OP allmighty CV class, failed to deliver his team from defeat. In fact his part in my sinking was the biggest thing he managed to do that game - looking at his position in the team, he failed to even inflict much damage on my allies (despite playing most of the game without opposing CV). And we were actually high tier in that battle (important thing in CV due to the way AA scales). This seems to really suggest that CVs are only as OP as the players that sail them, after all. Oh, and also within the same two days I actually won a battle in my Błyskawica after our CV suicided (and I don't mean just playing poorly and dying: he got mad that he has a "noob team" and his first strike didn't go well and so he went full steam ahead to meet enemy fleet on the flank where they were advancing full fleet). Once again, enemy CV free to rule the sky and yet we won. So, once again - seems like it's the skill talking after all, the victory in CVvsCV match-up simply leaves the victor free to show his full power. That power, however, still needs to come from the player - and like a bad DD won't make use of being the last DD alive or bad BB won't become the bringer of death he can - the same with bad CV. Being the only living/active CV just gives him the opportunity to have an impact - if he's bad at his job (in general or just having a game of misclicks and bad decisons), his impact will still be irrelevant.

But... that sounds like free damage/kills. I mean, BBs charging into your smoke?