TobiAssho

So viele sind das nicht im Verhältnis zu denen, die Rang 1 insgesamt erreichen. Außerdem ist daran prinzipiel auch nichts auszusetzen. Mal angenommen du musst 50 Sterne sammeln. In der ersten Woche spielst Du 100 Spiele und verlierst alle. Im Schnitt sind die Spieler in den ersten Wochen stärker. 2 Wochen später nachdem die Besten Rang 1 sind und im Schnitt schwächere Spieler noch spielen, gewinnst Du die nächsten 50 Spiele und bist Rang 1 mit 33,33% Winrate. Meines Erachtens verdient. Die Winrate gibt ja keine Auskunft darüber, wann und gegen wen Du gespielt hast. Die Vorstellung, dass Du nur genug spielen musst und dann schon irgendwann Rang 1 wirst ist etwas weltfremd.

Sein größter Kritikpunkt ist, dass gewinnen nicht ausreicht und man gegen sein Team spielen muss. Funktioniet wohl super :D "This is encouraging surviving over agression and leading to a very stale meta. It is better to not make a winning play and stay passive and finish 1st loser than to take a risk and make a winning play but finish not top." "This is providing toxic competition inside players of the same team." Ich habe den Modus selbst nicht gespielt, kann mich daher nur auf meine Mutmaßungen und die Erfahrung anderer verlassen.

Überlege dir genau was Du wünschst. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass ein "passiver Gewinner" gewinnt ist sehr gering. Und was bedeutet überhaupt "passive"? Angenommen im 7vs7 die top 5 Gewinner und top 2 Verliere bekommen einen Stern und die anderen verlieren einen, dann wirst Du gezwungen gegen dein eigenes Team zu spielen. Du musst verhindern, dass mehr als 4 vor dir sind. Als DD wäre es also besser sich in seinen Rauch zu setzen und Schaden zu machen als zu spotten. Sonst bekommt dein Team Punkte, aber der DD nicht. Im gleichen Atemzug beklagst Du dich bestimmt über mangeldes Teamplay und forderst, dass Teamplay bestraft wird. WoWs ist ein Teamspiel. Das bessere Team bekommt einen Stern.

Jap, keine sicheren Ränge mehr wäre noch besser.

Why do you keep kidding yourself? Here are your stats from yesterday (I couldnt fit in all ships but thats enough to make my point): Lets look at them ship by ship and see why you are constantly dragged down by your team. Kleber: extremly poor performacne in all games, but carried by team onces Gorizia: 70k dmg 66% winrate => well done, winrate reflecting your impact Bismarck: 75k dmg 50% wirate => well done too Öland: 44k, 0 kills, below averad PR => 50% winrate, reflecting your impact; not bad not good => average Yueyang: 47k 1 kill in 2 games => 50% winrate, reflecting your impact; not bad not good => average Myoko: well done Republic: 2 games, 28k average dmg in those 2 => you performed terrible and got carried by your team once Alsace: 2 games, 29k average dmg in those 2 => you performed terrible and got carried by your team once Surrey: ok performance Venezia: well done Atago: no comment Yorck: well done Indianapolis: carried by team. So what I see is a player performing well sometimes and terrible sometimes, so on average you are an average player. Not good, not terrible. You keep kidding yourself, that you constatly perform well. Your stats are not showing this at all. Stop thinking that its your teams fault that you win 50%. You lost some games when playing well and you won some when you played terrible. Your 50% winrate reflects your average performance. You can tell your grandma that you were top in your games in Indi, Kleber, Repu, Alsace and so on. Your stats just prove you wrong.

Typical for ppl who feel caught and attacked to respond with a counterattack on a personal level. I am sad to see this. Thats where you are wrong. If you are "constantly" inside the top 3 of your team and you have a 52% winrate, 2 things are possible: a) You are farming "empty points" while not doing anything to win the game. Imagine you and an enemy both in a Conquerer go to A1 each game and shoot each other with HE. Both of you will end up with 200k+ dmg and very high on the bord, but neither of you did anything to win the game. You are not a good player if you are proud to produce "emtpy points", and you should not blame your team for losing. In the post game score it looks like you did a lot, but you didnt. b) Some cognitive bias, means you see what you want to see. Most common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias So everytime you lose a game and you are top 3 your brain screams out and says: AGAIN! When you lose a game and you are not top 3, it doesnt fit to your perception and is immediately forgotten. So if you had data of your last 100-500 lost games, you would see, that you end up in the top 3 in about 25% of the games, which would be average. I didnt only look at your winrate, I also looked at your average damage and kills. Both stats suggest that you are average. Average players should win 48-52% of their games. You are right in there. And average is not said in a disrespectful way. Playing well is rewarded, by winning and 50% more XP. The games is there for fun, not for punishment. If you want to motivate people longterm, reward them, punishment only works for a very short while. Uptiering gives players like you the chance too feel strong when they are in T10 and can bash T8 ships. I honestly much prefere pure T10 games. Luckily we have them much more often since the MM changes. Uptiering makes you want to lvl up and progress. It creates the whish to continue grinding to be stronger next time. I can see why its good for the overall game (hooking players), but I am not a big fan personally. If you get deleted in 2 salvos by my Stalingrad, it is very likely that you made a mistake ;) You also forget that in 50% of the matches I would be in your team and carrying you ;)

I am the last to say that CVs provide good gameplay. But as a player I would consider CVs "acceptable" if they are just annoying but do little damage. So first CCs want to test new ships. Its fun to play them. Also you get some very vocal feedback about those ships from the CCs directly to WG. Second as mentioned, you can prepare a review/content and release it when the embargo is lifted. So in an ideal world there are no changes in the last testing period and you have 2 weeks to prepare the content and then the embargo is lifted 1-2 weeks before a ship is available.

Here are our rules for Testships: Basically, here is two simple rules: 1. You are not allowed to play or show in Port test ships which we will credit to you publicly until further notification in this Discord. 2. You are not allowed to share any information / emotion / expression which you get during play session on test ships until embargo will lift. You still may talk about test ship if you based only on publicly available information (compare it with other ships, for example). (This is whats posted on CC discord as rule.)

It is exactly vice versa: All DATA are open and visible to everyone on the devblog, but how the ship "feels" and plays is NDA. It makes sence because if any CC tells you now: The ship is super bad and it gets changed before release, you still have this first impression in your mind. But looking at the advertised speed of the planes you can pretty much guess how it plays :P

As an elitist, I feel offended that you call that guy an elitist ;)

Looks like you are not talking about yourself. Your stats: 0,84 destroyed ships per battle Survived: 34,32% PR: average T10 winrate: 51% Your self perception is amazing. If you want to win more, get better and dont blame your team. About your idea: why should ppl get punished for playing a game? It is random battles. You dont want less people playing, do you?

If you look at the devblog, planes of FDR were much slower in the very fist version. Slower planes = less spotting. If CVs to little dmg, they dont need much counterplay to be balanced. Counterplay makes the interaction better, so it improves the gameplay. Balanced and counterplay are not the same. And honestly, this was more of a joke. How FDR feels is under NDA, so I cant tell you what I think of its gameplay, sorry.

"Another" means more than one ;) Slava/Pobeda is the only ship I can remember (and I mentioned it) in the past year (and gz for digging so deep, must have taken you quite some time) which was considered too strong in testing and got nerfed a lot and ultimately not released. I think we tested it for something like 2 weeks in that state before it got changed, so a very brief period where this ship was in the game. Guns were definetly too strong and to accurate for a BB. If I remember correctly, winrate overall was not that much out of line, becaus the tanking ability and maneuverbility was mediocre at best. For all the ships tested in the past year having 1 out of line is tolerateable. You should be very thankful to the test on the real server to prevent this ship to enter the game. Thats what testing is for.

=> If all CVs were like FDR they would be balanced!

The advantages of testing on a real server outweight the possible negative impacts by far. Just to put your personal issue into perspective. There are 5mio accounts on EU. Lets assume that 2% of them play per day, so 100k players (probably more as EU peaks with 30-40k). There are maybe 500 STs, 100 CST, 100 CCs, 100 Privateers, lets round it up to 1000 people with access to testships. Lets assume half of them play daily, so 500 ppl and lets assume they only play testships. 500 out of 100k play testships, thats 0,5%. So 1 out of 200 is a testship, means you will meet a testship every 8,33 games. Big whoop. From my subjective perspective, 80-90% of the testships only get minor changes, so every 41 games you might encounter a ship that will be changed significantly compared to the release. All this under the assumption, that those ships are gamebreaking bad or op. Testers are supposed to "just play normal". There is no order to rush in and see how long you can stay alive or go to A line and wait for the CV to attack you. If you find a tester abusing the fact that he or she has a testship, report it to WG. Thats not supposed to be. Average Joe can take a look at the devblog and see that a ship has radar, or the cruiser rushing him has torps. If average Joe does not check devblog for this, he will also not check anything when a ship is released, so no difference here. All specs and perks are public info for testships. I like the speed in which new lines and ship are released. As pointed out earlier it would take 10 times longer to test ships not on public server and in addition the data would not be as reliable. So testing improves quantity and quality of the content WG produces. The game would be less "smooth" if ships were only tested in closed tests. In addition, I bet you think that server capathity and cash grow on trees. We should all be happy if WG earns enough money, otherwise there would be no WoWs. So it is in our very own interest that they can cheaply and quickly test ships. Do you think Victor Kislyi will step up and pay for the server and development from his own pocket, just because ships is so cool? My example shows the need of tests under real condition. You are living in a different reality. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32750810 2015: This summer some of the self-driving cars will be tested on the roads around Mountain View, California, where the search giant is based. Before now, the small vehicles have only driven on test tracks and have not mixed with regular traffic. Google has tested autonomous vehicles on public roads but all of them have been heavily modified Lexus SUVs. Nobody driving in Mountain View got asked if they want to share the road with google cars. Government decided that the need to test new technology outweights the risk they bring. Just as it is in warships: Its better for everyone that new ships are tested on the real server.

Never called their balancing brilliant, dont you put words into my mouth which I never said. Just for you, I checked your first 2 posts. They are lacking any arguments and are just salty. I have no issue with anyone saying that strawberry icecream tastes better than chocolate. Even if chocolate is superior imo. Everyone has a different taste and thats fine. But saying in my opinon the world is flat is wrong. Even if neither of us ever managed to sail around it. You are saying the world is flat, without any arguments to prove your point: Which are the unbalanced ships? Do you consider finetuning on the live server as wrong, if more than one guy here stated, why it is necessary? I would agree with you if a) there are multiple testships each game, b) most of those testships were brokenly op. Give me any example from the past 12 month. 1. You are not bothered with the testing. Balancing and therefor good testing is not only WGs problem. Its all our problem, because we want a balanced game. If you look outside of worships: Corona treatment is not only tested on apes and pigs, its tested also on humans, like all drugs have to be at some point. Fully automated cars were tested on public streets before they were licenced to be there in big numbers. As you can easily see, not every test can be done under test conditions. There need to be tests in real conditions for good results. As stated, tests are tests and cant fully reflect the reality. It would also cost too much time to only do such tests. So you bought a game advertised as "development stopped"? Well, I didnt. You example is lagging any real argument. To me it sounds that you drank too much coffee with salt. Even if you order 10 cups of coffee and in one of those 1 has 23/24 sugger in it an 1/24 sugger with a grain of salt, this is worth it for the greater good of the game. I would buy into your example if you could name any salty testship from the past 12 month, but you cant.

You can follow the devblog. All changes are public and well documented. I cant recall big changes in testships in the past 12 month (reload changed from 10s to 11s wont count as big changes.) SubOctavian posted their thoughs on that ship on reddit a while ago. They consider it as too strong and tried to change it and thats why the T6 version was tested. Look up its stats, the community vastly agrees with that view, so its not just me. Why do you give me a faceplam for telling you that I cant remember the testing? But for you I checked the devblog and the current status, it got buffed before release, reload changed from 30s to 28s. Thats the only major change I found. Tell me why it was op when tested? They nerfed secondaries and buffed mainguns. If you would just buff mainguns and not take away the secondaries it would be too strong. Thats called balancing. You take something away to buff something else. They ditched the concept of a secondary focused cruiser because the gameplay was not feeling good enough and the ship had not the right "hardware configuartion" (secondary placement and arcs, armorment etc) to make it work propperly. The testversions of Stalin and the released vesions are very similar and neither version is considered as op after a bigger chunk of the community got its hands on it. As mentioned, your stats proofe it. The changes that were made during the testing were minor except that the concept of an AP only version was terminated. I dont have any data or info to support my gutfeeling, but having played it, I would consider it as strong, but definetely not flat out stronger than the HE/AP version we have right now. If you cant play the current Stalin, that version would have not been your friend too. To be fair, after testing so many ships, I cant recall all testing in the past, thats why I asked about the last 12 month. If the issue is as immenent as you want to make it look like and you cant get any example from the past 12 month, it might be no problem at all. It has been a while since WG released a completely broken ship, so it is save to assume that the testing and balancing got better since the early days. As biggest mistakes I (and, I guess and mostly they admitted it, WG) would consider: Belfast, RTS Zepplin, Giulio, Kamikaze + clones, Gremmy, Nikolai, RTS Enterprise. Maybe I forget some, but those are the dark hours of WG balancing. All of them were released longer than 2 years ago, iirc. So there is definetly a positive trend when it comes to avoiding big mistakes. We can debate about Smolenks, but it was not changed during testing, so it was no op testship. Its completely unfun to play against and in my eyes not well designed. But calling it op is just a insult to other op ships. Belfast 55% winrate, Kamikaze and clones 57%, Giulio 57%, Nikolai 60% compared to Smolensk 49%. So, I am still waiting for any argument from you proving, that testships are op op. Neither of your examples past that test. Also you are using a bit too many discrediting emotes to make up for your lack of arguments.

Typical reaction of someone running out of arguments

Because testing quality and philosophy changed in the past 5 years. The final version was stupidly broken, but not only in testing, but when released, so not proving that a testship is more op then the release. Was also not sold again until the CV rework. WG very quickly figured out that they did a bad thing there. The version which is currently in the game is way too strong. Cant remember testing it (T5 is not my field of interest), but was not stronger when testing iirc. So another ship not fitting your arugment. We did some testing with the T6 version, but it was not strong enough. Was tested in various iterations, none very much different than what we have right now. Who ever told you that it is an op ship lied to you. (Point in case: your stats in it.) It was not considered stronger when in testing. Maybe the AP only version, but it was way more situational and definetly not straight up stronger. I dont remember how it was in testing or how strong it is. Ägir 2ndary was nerfed because the idea of 2ndary cruiser as a concept didnt work out as planed. The ship was underpeforming in tests. Thats why they killed the 2ndary and buffed the mainguns significantly. The 2ndaries were super situational and sometimes working fine, but not constistant at all. If you saw a secondary build Ägir in battle yesterday, clean your screen. As shown, none of the ships you listed actually fits into the concept: OP as test and changed for release. Most of the (premium) ships I tested were fine and needed just a little tuning at best. I dont need to tell you, thats all well documented, just look it up. The same op op Stalingrad we tested is now driven by you with 51% winrate. Looks not broken to me. The stats get worse over time because more people get the ships and usually the first who get a new ships are the most engaged players who usually perform better. You can see this effect for every ship comming out. Stalingrad is the perfect example. When it first game out average dmg was around 120k and winrate 60%. Now its at 57% and 90k, dropping. You just sound very salty that you are not testing the ships. I still dont get any valid argument from you which ships should not appear in random for testing.

Balancing is happening when creating a ship. Balancing in happening in internal tests. Balancing is happening on closed testservers. Balancing is happening on public testservers. Balancing is happening on the live server. Balancing is not done like 1+1=2. Even ships that are currently in the the game are constantly balanced. (Point in case: Hindenburg.) "They have they presure to test op unbalanced shits against random player" Which of the ships tested and released in the past 12 month was op when tested and drasticly changed when released? Give us examples, not just random accusations. Everything is posted on the devblog loooooong before a ship comes on the public server. Your next argument would be: But most players dont read that. I agree. The same most players dont look at other ships beside those which they play in port to check their specs, speed, armor layout etc. So when a ship is released they would have the same issues. So better dont bring any new ships for them???

Following your suggestion would reduce the testing capathity by over 90%. 24 testers could test 2-3 ships. If they do it on the regular server they can test 24 ships. Beside the fact that you have to organize sessions on a testserver instead of just clicking into battle. Either ships would be released in a much slower pace or with way less data collected. Both are not desireable. Additionally 12vs12 testgames are not able to represent 12vs12 regular random battles. Players play different in testgames than they do in regular battles. So even if you would collect enough data it would not match with the results you would have in random battles. How often do you see a testship in random battles? Every 2-3 games max? Maybe when they are very fresh a bit more often, but usually less. So on average it happens pretty rarely that you see a ship in testing. Since I test ships ~2 years, I found 1 ship that was completely out of line and should have never been tested in that way: RTS version of Zepplin, but it went live like this. There were a few very strong ships which got nerfed before release like AP Stalingrad, Kremlin, Slava but most ships only were changed a little before they went public. None of the tested ships boosted my winrate outrageously. Some mistakes were made in the past: Belfast, Nikolai, Gulio, Kamikaze ..., but they were tested like this and went live like this, so dont blame the op op testverison. If you look at the past 12-18 month, I cant remember any testship that was utterly broken when tested and completely changed when going live. So from a tester point of view, I dont any reason to not test ships on the live server. You gain more reliable data in a much bigger quantity, while very rarely supprising players with a ship they are not familiar with. There is no such thing as brokenly op testships.

So another ask for skillbased MM. Havent seen that in a while. In the past it has been explained at lenght why it is a bad idea and on top its contrary to everything WG intends to do (luckily). Sadly your stats are hidden, I would love to see from which side you are looking at it. Are you a frustrated unicum who is annoyed by the 11 sub 50% players on your team while the enemy team has all the pros? Or are you frustrated because you die to often and want a protected MM? Both will not significantly change with a skillbased MM. As already pointed out, players with 50,01% winrate would have a mucht harder time than players with 49,99%, why is this desirable? Of course we all like the 20min game when it goes to 999 points and only 1 ship left on each side better than a 6min beatdown. Battles with twists and turns and change of pointlead etc are way more fun. While playing random in the past, beatdowns rarely happened because of a huge skillgap. Usually its just an advantage that snowballs. Imagine teams split up evenly on each flank, so instead of 12vs12 each flank fights 6vs6. Because of different skill, fire rng, lucky citas, ... one ship dies first, turning it into a 6vs5. Assuming all ships have equal firepower one team now has a ~20% firepower advantage, making it more likely that one of the 5 ships die than one of the 6. So it is likely that it turns into a 6vs4, with a 50% advantage, making it more likely.... Some time ago there was exactly this explanation in the WoT forum from a military historian. If I remember correctly math indicated that there is a 50% chance that a 12vs12 ends in a 11-9:0, so a felt beatdown. MM cant change it. Never the less I would gladly approve some protected MM for fresh players, especially around T5-7. I think it is pretty steep curve from T5 to T10 gameplay.

Weather or not "better" players play early or late, lets leave that one open and go with your premise. You are looking only at 1 dimension, your team. You think that because worse players play now you have worse players in your team. That may be true, but you also have more worse players in the enemy team. If only clueless players are playing in ranked, 12 are on the enemy team and 11 are on your team. So if you are not clueless, your team should have an advantage. Lets think about the opposite: Only unicums were playing with 60%+ winrates. 12 of them are in the enemy team and 11 are in your team. So in order that your team has no disadvantage you have to be at least 60%+ unicum. To elevate your team above the enemy team you have to be better than the average unicum. Conclusion: If better players play at the start of a season, it its more difficult to have an impact on the game, due to the higher overall level. If only bad players play it is easier to be the one standing out and carrying the team (and keeping the star if failing). Stop thining that your team only consists of clueless players while the enemy has unicums. In my experience most of the time teams are equally clueless on both sides. Its up to you to make the difference.

But beginners play on both sides. Your team and the enemy team. So it gets easier...

How does it work that less players make it easier to go up? I dont get your argument here.