eliastion

If you don't enjoy playing the game but still log in every day to get a bunch of 1st wins and these 3 daily containers, then I might have bad news for you regarding that staying sane thing

I've had plenty problems with this mechanic from the point of view of a DD. I normally assume that smoke won't hide me from planes unless I'm going to be inside... but not because I know it doesn't work - it does work sometimes. But I just don't have enough grasp on HOW this works - I'm unable to predict the outcome of, say, throwing smoke behind myself while trying to run away from planes (and enemy fleet behind them). It MIGHT hide me. I've sometimes seen it working. But I have no idea when and how it works - and when it doesn't.

Personally, I'd say that at the point where you're focused down by four ships (three HE spammers from before and a Conqueror on top of that) things being bad are a given even if the 4th ship were a HE-spamming Yamato or Montana rather than Conqueror You literally have 1/3 of the whole enemy fleet (more if they lost any ships already) shooting at you.

Useless poll considering how you managed to miss Ocean Soul, for example... Or maybe you consider this one a "historical" or "realistic" one? Are you absolutely sure that they can't be hidden? Or sold, for that matter? I'm pretty sure they were made sellable at one point.

There are relatively few ships for which maximum range is actually an effective range. To put it bluntly - if you want to hurt enemies, you need to get closer even if range would allow you otherwise. There are exceptions, ships for which the maximum range is actually a limiting factor - but most ships tend to be woefully ineffective at their maximum range. And then there are some DDs where their range is actually borderline detrimental because they rarely hit anything so far but suffer from greater detectability bloom when firing... What you seem to be forgetting is that... ...is almost never an issue. For a couple reasons. 1. The game is not a 1v1. If you can hit someone and they are too far to hit you, they almost certainly can still hit your allies. And that means that you staying beyond their range doesn't actually limit their ability to deal damage - it does, however, limit yours. Because you're shooting your battleship's guns at a range where you don't hit sh*t. You're being useless while your allies are taking hits for you. 2. Even if you are left in a 1v1 situation where the enemy is beyond your firing range - he can't see you. 3. If you're in a 1v1 situation where something else is spotting you then you're in fact in a 1v2 situation and that would probably get you killed even if it was the enemy who had shorter range. You're deluding yourself. Victory or defeat, or any other stats, from a single match - sure, that doesn't tell us much. You could've been detonated by a stray shell, for all we know. But we're not talking a single match. We're talking over 500 of them and you're consistently losing, consistently dealing pitiful damage and consistently scoring very few kills. There's just no redeeming factor in your stats. Nothing to sow any seeds of doubt where it comes to their interpretation. You are a terrible player - and that will never change if you don't stop blaming MM (even though, as I already explained - being bottom tier actually improves your stats because it's easier to carry a bad bottom tier player than an equally bad top tier one). I mean, seriously, look up the stats https://wows-numbers.com/player/524307355,InfinityIncarnate/ Do you REALLY dare to say that it's a fluke? A f*cking 500 flukes? Open your eyes. It's not the MM. It's not bad teams. It's not being bottom tier. It's you, you, and more of you. YOU need to change, not the game. Changes to the game won't make you a better player. And the specific changes you suggest would actually make your lack of ability even more apparent - you'd be losing more rather than less. False. I already explained to you - pulling your weight as bottom tier is just as hard as bottom and high tier. Carrying a bad team is harder (but you are not capable of carrying a bad team since you ARE a big part of the reason why the team is bad) and dragging your team down is harder (and this you are very adept at - so it's a good thing for everyone on your team when you are bottom tier rather than top or even middle).

TRY your luck. You tried it. It wasn't good. You can't say that an STD test isn't working just because someone came out clean, right? Why would it be different for testing your luck?

Oh yes, yes you can. Every good player is capable of that and more. Let me put it so that you understand: as long as you're playing in more-or-less peak hours, you'll always meet an enemy team that has a ship of your class and tier to mirror you. If in most cases you were more useful than that single ship that's your other team's counterpart, that alone would give you an above 50% winrate. That would be pulling your weight. Good players, on the other hand, don't just pull their weight - they actually carry. And they do it also as bottom tier, although it's understandably easier to pull off when you're one of the top tier heavyweights. Basically: 1. For pulling your weight there's no difference between being low tier or high tier - while the lower tier ship has less power, she also has less of the "own weight" to carry with that power. Just being better than the enemy bottom tier ships is enough to be an above average player. 2. It's easier to carry your team when you're high tier - you have more power to do so. 3. It's easier to be a burden to your team when you're high tier - you have more of your "own weight" to carry and so it hurts your team more when you don't - because someone else needs to carry your useless stern to victory if you don't do it yourself. Do you know what it means? It means that if you were always top tier, you'd be losing more than you do now. Because your problem is that you're not playing very well whether you're top or bottom tier. You're a new player, you have 522 Random matches so it's perfectly understandable to be lacking in skill at this point - but don't mistake your lack of skill for being screwed over by MM. That's not how you get better. When top tier - you need to carry much more weight and you just don't have the ability to. Don't be in a rush to ask for changes that give you more impact. Try to first make it so that your impact is actually beneficial to the team you're on - right now it's far from being the case. You're a burden on your teammates - and whenever you are top tier, that burden is so much heavier. If there were open stats "how often does X win as top/middle/bottom tier" you'd be shocked to see the results.

Potentially can't she also one-shot Yamato, though? The point is - you don't blow up because you met a ship two tiers higher. You blow up because you met a ship that's good at punishing the kind of ship you are and/or the kind of mistake you made. And, of course, the ships of higher tier tend to have an edge - they can punish you more consistently, usually. It's not the certain tank game, though, where it's not that uncommon to meet a vehicle two tiers above you where you can't really pen them without gold ammo (if even that) and they can in turn derp you for most of your hp up-front without aiming for any weakspots. Tier difference in WoWs gives one an edge - but not an insurmountable advantage. Ships with reliable armor can, generally, count on still mitigating a lot of damage even as low tier. Ships with good guns still can do a lot of damage. Good torpboats are still lethal to things that forget their WSAD.

Actually, every single game that uses tier system similar to WoWs happens to do it pretty similarly. - Wargaming's WoT, WoWP, TWA are a given - Armored Warfare does it the same way - War Thunder has multiple vehicles per player per match and uses a more nuanced battle rating stat that takes into account certain upgrades, if I remember correctly - but as it comes to the problem you bring up? Guess what: you still can find yourself at the top or bottom end of the pecking order in a match No. One-hit kills are caused by class difference, not tier difference. A BB or a heavy cruiser can literally one-hit-kill a cruiser with a good salvo - and especially in case of BBs, a cruiser two tiers higher dies just the same if she presents a good enough target to a skilled enough player that doesn't get screwed over by RNG. And sure, a Yamato (a big, fat +2 t) can survive eating more of Kagero's torps than is the case for Fuso (-2 t) but the basic interaction between the two and the DD in question remains largely the same - and the reason why Fuso dies by eating a broadside full of Kagero torps isn't because Kagero is two tiers higher - it's because she has a face full of IJN torpedoes and that HURTS. Wat tiers affect the most is the interaction/comparison of similar ships. The same class and similar role - then, yes, the advantage is very clear. Myoko will rape a Furutaka if they are of similar skill level. A BB two tiers lower certainly shouldn't be picking a straight-up artillery duel with a two tiers higher cousin. But wrecking cruisers in BBs, HE-spamming BBs in a light cruiser or a gunboat, torping the sh*t out of a BB in a torpboat? All these work roughly the same whether you're lower or higher tier. Sure, if you're higher tier then you will be more effective at doing that but the basic interaction stays the same. Neither are you really an experienced one, though... Well, that certainly depends on what you mean by "balanced". Should every ship be balanced against every other one? Well, that's clearly a stupid idea because strong sides of certain ships will always exploit weak sides of others, thus creating natural counters. So you can't expect to be able to 1v1 every other ship you meet. Then what about balancing teams? Guess what, that's already being done. Unless the queue is too empty to keep up a decent matching speed, the ship classes and tiers in both teams are going to be exactly the same. In the end being low tier doesn't mean that you are less likely to win. It might be harder to outright carry a complete sh*t team, but more often than not all you need to do to win is "do your job". And unlike in WoT - you are perfectly capable of hurting enemy higher tier ships. Just be aware that you're not necessarilty their match 1v1 and play accordingly, adding your firepower where it matters instead of just adding your name to the list of enemy frags. Adapting to the situation will let you win - and have fun - even as bottom tier ship. And finally, there is a reason why +/-2 t MM is actually good for the game. Or, actually, four reasons. 1. Obviously, variety within the match. You meet more different ships instead even if you just keep spamming your favourite ship (or ships - if they happen to be the same tier). It would be sad to never see Yamato just because my favourite ship happens to be t9. 2. Progression. If you always see the same tier, the progression is a lie. Your ship doesn't get any stronger with tiers - because you always meet other ships of the same tier. There are some changes to gameplay (new consumables etc.) at higher tiers but other than that - getting a stronger ship just switches the game you play. Because there's no one WoWs then - there are 10 similar games and you just get to pick in which of them you wish to participate. It should be also noted that progression is what keeps this game alive - also literally, in the financial sense. People grind the lines to get stronger ships. Removing incentives for progression would hurt financial viability of the game - and that wouldn't really benefit the F2P players either. 3. Learning. It might be most noticeable for DDs, so I'll describe it on their example. A t5 DD can meet a relatively weak Radar in the form of a handful premium t7 ships. A t6 DD will meet Radar more regularly - when she's the bottom tier. As you further progress through tiers, you need to adapt to progressively harsher Radar environment until, finally, you reach t10 and cruisers of every tier you can meet (t8,9,10) are full of Radars as long as they belong to a Radar line. Now imagine a same-tier-only MM. You get to t7 blissfully unaware of the existence of Radars, there you occasionally encounter a rare (Premium ships) and pretty weak version... and suddenly boom - t8 and you see as much Radar as currently only possible at t10. 4. Variety of experience. You say that being bottom tier is frustrating - and sure it sometimes is. You miss, however, several aspects of the system - sometimes you get to be the big fish and capitalize on it - sometimes, while being bottom tier, you get to still kick the enemy team around for extra satisfaction - sometimes you get to use sides of your ship that aren't very viable against same or higher-tier opponents (Yugumo engaging in gun duels doesn't normally work - but when you meet a Kagero, it does) - sometimes you get to happily engage in activities that you normally wouldn't be "allowed" if top tier - basically, being lower tier you're under less pressure to be on the very frontline doing the heaviest lifting. You have less power but also more freedom exactly for the same reason Basically, the +/-0 MM would be less frustrating - but also less satisfying. And the game doesn't really appeal to players by not being frustrating - the appeal is in the moments of satisfaction. We might not consciously remember them quite as clearly - but they are why we stick with this game, even while we're repeatedly exclaiming what a steaming pile of sh*t it supposedly is Trading them away to avoid the moments of frustration just isn't a good trade for the game to make.

There are more and less effective ways to camp - sitting in open water in your cap circle is obviously not the former. No matter how you spin this, it's a super-boring, super-defensive game mode... unless you prefer not dying of boredom even if it is likely to cost you victory. And then, yes, you can try to carefully push a bit. Although, obviously, we're still talking the unlikely scenario where any of the teams employ anything resembling any sort of strategy instead of things devolving into a lemming train that's neither a push nor an attempt at setting up a defensive formation. Anyway. Epicenter is a good game mode that's, unfortunately, poorly suited for some of the maps that use it. Standard Battle is a bad game mode regardless of the map.

Which is why Standard Battles should be removed from the game. It's a mode where the winning strategy is to set up defensively and camp hard - trying to do something is a tactical error. Sure it's not insurmountable. If you're better, you can push and be successful - and there are plenty other mistakes that the enemy can make to squander the advantage of being on the defense. But if both teams otherwise play equally well but one decides to push and the other to defend? The active side just loses.

Well, telling something who sucks and looks to blame everything but themselves isn't arrogance - it might be rude but not really arrogant. And as for only picking on people with worse stats - well, telling "you suck" to someone better than oneself would be a bit strange, right? Then why are you making a thread about what basically amounts to hiding your defeats if you manage to farm XP instead of asking for tips about actually improving? Manipulating your winrate (by changing it into something that's not winrate anymore, btw) won't make you a better player. It won't make you win more. You claim you don't care about stats - but all that this thread is about is "WG, please make my stats better without me playing any better".

Then again - Daring is a ship that shouldn't normally be engaging at the extreme range in the first place. Her shells aren't very fast and her most terrifying feature is appearing in front of enemy DD at point blank range while carrying Harugumo's firepower, good-luck-trying-to-torp-me short-range hydro and decent maneuverability on top of all this. Lobbing some shells into enemy BB superstructures is just an afterthought when all the enemy DDs are dead and you still need some pastime for the remainder of the match

No, "evolution" implies slow incremental changes. Whether something evolves in the direction you want it to is another thing entirely. Also, as for NA reception... very few people voted there but 78% believe that the best was the first version. And the rest of the votes are divided between the other three versions in a way where the newer the map, the less people believe it to be the best version

I was talking about the lower tiers - the top two, with improved ricochet angles, are pretty obviously AP-focused.

You have an EXTREMELY limited experience with team-based online games, then. WoWs playerbase is actually pretty tame by comparison with most recognizable titles. WoT is worse, LoL is worse, DotA is even worse than LoL, I've never played the ever-popular shooters but I've heard/read legends... Armored Warfare seems to be better (but it's half-dead) and War Thunder seems ok - only there it might be more of a case of most people not even looking at the chat at all. Maybe it's different in ground forces though (I've played planes only). I'll tell you a secret: you don't get banned for a single report. I've done my share of stupid mistakes (and the opposite - had my share of matches where I humiliated whole fields of tasty poatoes). I've also done my share of salty rambling- I'm no saint in chat. Once I apparently even managed to be salty enough for someone to manually report me through support ticket and grant me a full week of chat ban "for insults and provocation" or something like this. And yet... I've NEVER received the 24h auto-chatban. Not once. Perhaps it's sell-perpetuating to make it hard to escape the vicious cycle (since being banned often makes it easier to get a chatban again) but to get to that point you really need to work hard, so to speak... Actually, if you did try to talk politics in a match I was in, I'd probably report you myself Anyway, to sum it up... ...perhaps you should dial down on the responses then. Because it might be that you actually are getting so salty in your answers that other uninvolved players actually disagree with your perception of who's the one rude and obnoxious enough to be worthy of a report. This method is... well, not very popular among forumites, that's for sure. Including me. But it should be mentioned that "just removing" the function isn't a viable solution. The Ranked system is a star pump. People generate stars by playing and "steal" enemy stars by winning. When someone gives up on Ranked or reaches R1, the accumulated stars vanish from the system - so they need to be generated. And star-saving produces one star per every match that has place - because 7 stars are awarded to the winning team and only 6 taken away from the losers. The star-saving can't be simply removed - it needs to be replaced by something. The "something" doesn't to be very complicated, at worst it could be "you save a star every 7th defeat" (it would keep the numbers up without influencing the playstyle because the gain would be completely irrelevant of what you do in the matches). There are some more sophisticated concepts out there too. The point is, however - it's not as easy as just "remove this mechanic". Actually, it isn't. The people who think "I'll save all the stars and sometimes I'll win giving me steady progress" aren't really the problem - they are rare and they usually fail at the first part anyway, preventing them from really progressing far. The real problem is that normal players (who do want to win) have that "mind your XP" mentality buried in the back of their head. And this affects the way they play, makes them more reluctant to take risks, makes them reluctant to do things that are necessary but lock them out of gaining XP etc. Oh, and it also spoils the team spirit - when the match seems lost, the natural thing to hope for is no longer "maybe my teammates can still pull off a miracle and win" - this is much too unlikely. "Maybe they can fail so hard thet they die quickly and I save the star", on the other hand seems much more attainable... Not great for healthy team atmosphere and last-survivor-cheering.

Low caliber AP (that actually arms on DD plating) can do wonders against enemy DDs (Akizuki and her higher tier sisters can often gain an additional edge in a DD duel this way) but it's harder and less consistent - you get overpens if you hit the wrong part of the ship and bounces if the enemy angles. I'd expect British AP to be pretty situational in this sense - a broadside DD that can't really angle (island blocking the turn, accelerating from full stop after just being lit up by Radar, corraled by torps) could eat a lot of damage if you aim well. HE should usually be the superior choice, though, for the sake of consistency.

I've seen the photos from Wargaming's office building. I wonder if they designed it themselves

It doesn't say this in promised rewards but I specifically checked when I got my t5 DD and yes - they come with their own slot.

FreeXP grind is an art. What you need is a little bit of a hoarding problem. You need to accumulate your signals and superior camos (those that give +200% XP or more especially, these that grant +100% XP AND +100% freeXP are the minimum, really). And then, when time comes, you need to either get Premium time from a supercontainer or splurge and buy some or - all else failing - use to the fullest these single days you sometimes get from some mission or PTS. And then you finally put all these accumulated goodies to use. You take a ship you can consistently do well in, you hoist a combination of XP and freeXP (mostly the two really big ones, others aren't as important) signals in as many slots as you can get away with (I use Kitakaze and don't give up on anti-deto and speed). And THEN you go grinding. Depending on the combination of camos and signals (especially with Spring Sky camo) you can actually get more freeXP than XP - and that's with XP boosted A LOT. A really good match can give you over 20k freeXP. Usially you won't get that much but over 10k even on defeat? Why not. The gains get smaller as you run out of the really good camos and selection of signals shrinks but I think I've earned well over a million freeXP (I mean, I'm more than a million ahead compared to before and I did spend some to skip a big part of Lion grind to get Conqueror's supercontainer) in about a month while burning through the super-special camos, the stars&stripes camos and now finally the shark/eagle ones - and then there were the various special signals I had saved and bought for tokens... plus the anniversary "I played many thousands of battles" stock of them, of course.

The problem with divisions isn't about three divisioned t10 ships or three divisioned t8s. There might be a problem of AA builds when a division ensures a CV match by having their own CV but the real problem lies elsewhere and isn't really fixable - it's too deeply rooted in the very essence of what divisions are. And the nature of this problem is: up to three players that don't conform to normal "player randomness". And usually they are of similar skill. Effect? Well, most divisions consist of roughly average players that might get a little edge from divisioning but that's ok. Unfortunately, not all divisioning people are average. This, in turn, produces two dreadful scenarios: 1. Three great players. People who individually would get close to 60% winrate or even cross that threshold. When these people get together, suddenly the team has a tremendous advantage. They don't even need to get ships with good synergy, they don't need to cooperate - just be there, all three of them, and the enemy likely has a huge problem. 2. Three absolute potatoes. It's almost like having 3 AFKers - a big problem to make up for for the friendly team. It gets worse if they pick the same class (and many are fond of 3xBB for some reason - triplets of other classes are much less common, although I've also seen three 45% DDs a couple times). Imagine a t10 match where all 3 top tier BBs are not only useless - they coordinate their uselessness and camp as a BBBlob in one place so that they don't even fool the enemy in other parts of the map into thinking that there's some potential BB pressure to be wary of. I have a fond (no, not really) memory of a match on North (the old one, obviously) where 3 Yamatos went to D. Oh, and they didn't have a DD either - in that match the only DD that went to that cap was the enemy Shimakaze, you see. You can imagine how the match unfolded. Although, I must add, the Yamatos somehow killed that Shima and only one of them died in the process - now that's another epitome of fail: to be a lonely Shimakaze vs 3 Yamatos and somehow end up spotted and killed. Still, by the time the two remaining damaged Yamatos appeared from behind the island, the match was long decided - the enemy had 4 BBs against our 1. At first it wasn't as bad as you might think, North has a lot of islands and all that. Unfortunately, at some point they finally figured out that there's no way we can stop them if they just push.

Instead of asking the question many times, you can 1. Read patch notes (you won't miss introduction of the upgrade) and other news (you won't miss an announcement if they post one) 2. Read "some interesting info from around the world" thread - if there's some leak beforehand, someone will most likely post it there 3. Read other threads that appear on the Forum and seem to have something to do with the topic at hand. Since it's pretty obvious that when somebody has some news about legendary upgrades for these particular ships, there WILL be some discussion about them.

Play cruisers. They are apparently immune to BB shells (only take some overpens and bounces when broadside on), they can spam HE and set things on fire every 2 seconds, their damage control party reloads fast to help control fires and they have plenty "modules" (you meant consumables) including defensive AA fire that makes it much easier to deal with planes and prevents them from dropping accurately. Considering how underpowered battleships are (and yet you persisted all the way to t10!) I'm sure your results when you switch to the overpowered cruiser class will be astonishing! You'll fare especially well against BBs when you sail broadside on to them and still bounce most shells, the remaining ones becoming meager overpens

...Harugumo has many advantages. "Insane concealment" is most definitely NOT one of them. In fact, Harugumo's concealment is her greatest weakness (and the main reason why Kitakaze is arguably the better ship overall, with Harugumo being a bit of a sidegrade to her smaller sister).

The weakest of the weakest Rank 1 players have some 48% Random winrate - and these are the low-end exceptions. Let's say: 1% R1 players have Random WR below 50%. This is probably a high estimate - but let's say that it's one percent. Now, so that you can't hang on the numbers, let's take this high estimate and multiply it by 10 - let's assume that we live in the alternate reality where as much as 1/10 of R1 players are actually the below-average crowd with less than 50% WR in Randoms. Even in that alternate reality R1 players are an elite bunch where 90% of them are above average or better when compared to the overall population.