EdiJo

It is possible, because +/-1 rule applies to class, tier and nation independently... I recall for example my Kamikaze being single DD vs divisioned Gaede + Gallant. Some cruiser or BB had higher tier in my team as a compensation. Edit: found the image it was funny game

Player base is not large enough for dividing. And also, assigning players by WR will cause the WR to converge closer to some value (probably 55% in your example - you will have worse WR when in "higher league" and better when playing vs potatos) ;)

It is not about number of games. Potatos can play thousands of games while still having zero clue what it is all about. I wrote a few times here that "Exam missions" are needed to allow to play a particular tier of given ship line outside of co-op. WG can do scenarios complicated enough, so AI level is ready for that. You want to play Tirpitz you just bought in anything else than Co-op? Pass the "German T8 BB test" first. Which may include a short tutorial and require, for example, a few individual achievements in a brawling-type BB. Those tests could give some rewards, to avoid the "lost time" feeling, but still would pass to higher tiers only players who at least know what is needed to do.

I had the same problem when playing where I have only a Linux machine. I have quite powerful GTX, i7, 48GB RAM there but the box is not for playing, so no Windows... and Wine can support WoWS with medium settings, but is also not very stable. That is why I stopped playing there. I feel your pain (as I wrote above), but it simply means that you can't play (and I would need to hear from more people about Mac client to believe that all fault is on WG side), therefore you shouldn't play. If in DD/CV 3 minute delay means that you most often can't do your job in the team (and 2/3 of your games are CV and DD). Especially in domination/epicenter race. Even in some more demanding scenario games this can ruin the chance for victory. Why do you insist on ruining games for other 11 (or maybe 23...) players? If there is really no working client for Mac then buy some supported OS/hardware. If the client is fine then fix your problems before joining multiplayer real-time games. I don't understand the approach "oh, I ruin only every few of my games, so it is fine"

What with people "with technical issues" which "do this repeatedly" (have broken software/hardware/network but still join games and don't fix their stuff). Also, why not finally allow AFK-ers to be replaced by bots after they don't start to play after the first minute or two? There is ~30 second buffer BEFORE the game starts, so they are late more than 2 minutes (1/10 of the max game time). I see that a lot. Especially for a late/afk DD or CV this is quite ruining for the game.

When it was just "some hidden mod", WG didn't care. When including "Training battle" as a normal "public" game type, they don't want to allow us to have fun battles without using any consumables or credit cost. Significant part of player base needs to somehow pay for credits - either buying premium ships, premium account or just going to the shop for hefty crate with 30M credits. So far "Training room" has many advantages over a random battle. You can select your teammates, have private games on chosen map vs chosen ships, you can select game type, game time. It could become quite popular. Disabling bot AI is the simplest, zero-cost WG reaction to the "problem".

12 BB vs 12 BB is the thing I proposed long ago. And 1 CV does not change much (assuming no drastic skill gap between CV) and will rather struggle in AA soup until some enemies die / disperse. So for a BB it is dream matchmaking. It should be assembled by MM always when there is BB overpopulation in the queue. Our typical MM inventions like 1CV+5BB+1CA+5DD games are just wrong. For the cruiser, especially.

So far I am disappointed. I like new camera a bit more than the more limited old one, but I thought we will get really free cam, controlled with WASD + Space/Backspace or mouse wheel for height/distance. Why is it not done this way? Everybody would be happy then.

It seems the game had some doubt whether I reached the goal or not: 0/1 and 500/500 are mutually exclusive, right?

Maybe, but still bugu bugu making me look like I had enough WoWS for the moment, so did not investigate properly... It is hard to check whether there is +2 camo (I think this was the reward) in the inventory. After all those containers, rewards, missions, submissions I lost count

Nice ConqToy feature :) Not only tubes, but also 95% of hp . Small tiny compensation for roflstomping my team... In ~10 minutes you murdered or helped to murder almost all our DD Z-52, 2 divisioned LoYangs, no problem ;) And you were still shooting at me after this! Always nice to see you in the game

I also think KamiNinja has the highest chance to do 90k torp damage (and BB kills on the occasion...). You just need to find "standard game", without CV, with enemy DD in division going elsewhere, and with a few T5-T6 BB of the "oblivious straightlinus isolatus" kind. Yesterday though I quite raged, while trying to torp anything in Gallant Continuous games like T8, 5DD, double T7 CV etc.

Aah, you had to finish that hopeless "Week 2" with only a few camouflages as a reward. I didn't try that, didn't read about captain exp. I finished "Week 1" (it required only "normal DD"), but only recently bought some t4-5-6 pan-asians and played just a few games. Anyway, 120k is 3-4 good 19-pointer games with flags... so realistically speaking about 10 games in a "cmdr-xp specced" ship.

Did I miss something? What 129k captain points?

All possible solutions which would be really working involve either significant increase of WG manpower redirected to analyzing reports, or some kind of advanced AI to do that. Looking at solutions in the game I don't believe WG can do AI. And looking at WG's approach to "customers" I don't believe they are willing to spend a kopeyka on hiring people to get rid of abusers which are in the most part just potatoes (frequently: paying potatoes). The real problem are not vocal abusers, TK or other direct violators. The game is ruined by "below average Smiths" who don't give a sh$t about learning the game and yet are "swimming around" waay above "learning protected area", either deaf or easily triggered by remarks/directions. One particular subset of those are AFK-ers, who prefer any real-life "obligation" (like WC, finishing snack, playing with the dog) over ("just") the game into which they just decided to log in together with 23 other people. Current "reporting system" is obviously fake - and it is clearly visible when one checks the stats of guys you would like to report. Thousands, thousands of games with zombie stats - no ban, no nothing; numbers happily growing.

The concept is OK, but implementation is a fail. I don't like cyclones because they totally disrupt already frequently skewed balance. All sniper-type ships (Soviet cruisers & DD, most of RN BB, some IJN BB & cruisers, among others) are totally f*ed. Brawling BB/CA are heavily favoured, as usual. All they need to do is bunch up... Also, although it encourages team play (which should be a good thing) - typically it doesn't encourage enough, so the battle gets even more random and chaotic. You can have great plan but if randomly you alone will encounter 3 enemy ships which accidentally are in your 8km circle especially from different directions - you're toast. I would leave cyclone as an option so you can avoid having those in ships which become practically useless in such scenario.

Don't take me wrong ;) This thread is ranting about typical, average experience with CV players... I'm not sure whether this is 99.9% of the game, or "only" 80% - but the rant is true for most of the time. Maybe skill matchmaking for CV would help a bit - but I don't have high hopes about it

Lots of good CV players replied here, heavily idealizing what is really happening. And what is happening in reality? In games with a CV I usually want to know what to expect, so I check "matchmaking monitor" stats of CV players. Most of the time (like 70%?) CV players (tiers 6-8) have like 30-40% win rate, average damage 15-40k. I don't know whether this is weekend, or whether arithmetic average is much higher than median due to godly CV unicums, or whether it is about hours I play - but this is what I see. Sometimes they have 10 games in the ship - but sometimes they have 500. No rule. If I confirm such 30k average dmg and red/orange stats I only ask/look at the start whether he has fighter setup - which is the only helpful configuration usually, and which somewhat explains lower winrate and dmg. The disaster strikes when the enemy has rolled the actually decent CV player, or if our potato has to play vs enemy air-superiority setup, or if our potato just bought himself an Enterprise or Graf which cannot compete in the air very well. At tier 4-7 it is very hard to overturn. CV with fighter setup also tend to scout (even accidentally), which does not happen with "the Strike Ninjas" who love to hog map borders with ALL their aircraft. None of such potatos understands that scouting can be done with bombers too. No way. About 50% of them don't move at all until they are spotted and fired upon. Probably the same 50% don't understand the AA potential of particular ships until planes are starting to fall from the sky. So, please, dear CV forumites - your academic calculations regarding "whether US CV can afford to scout" or "how to not lose air superiority" are totally non-relevant in the real "potato game environment"

Edited.

OK OK, I didn't realize that you talk about salvo alpha, not gun alpha. You're ofcoz right then. Semantics. Only DPM matters anyway and that was probably what the OP thought about.

No sense talking about "individual alpha" when you fire every 5 seconds. Anyway, both "alpha" and summed DPM are higher for the Soviet boat, right? AND the Russian spots first.

In Polish circles there are still rumours about her going at 42 knots, some more enthusiastic "sources" mention 42.5 ;) This was the first disappointment when I saw the numbers. I expected 40 at least. Yup. But now every Soviet imagined vessel does 40+, even Le Frog cruisers do that. Just cash grab. With true stats nobody would buy Leningrad, Grem or Anshan. Uncorrectable, as usual with WG premium "policy". 1. Nope: 5x1 1900/2500 12/min 1x1,3x2 1700/2200 9.2/min 7x1700x9.2= 109480 5x1900x12 = 114000 7x2200x9.2= 141680 5x2500x12 = 150000 ... not to mention much better penetration for 130mm AP allowing easy citadelling cruisers and such. 2. 5 "guns" vs 4 "guns" in WoWS, so Lenin has more, in terms of "chain fire" or targeting ease. But yes, WG at least hesitated to invent new 180 turn rates... 3. dispersion of Soviet 130's is (fictionally) made similar to Bofors 120... 4-5. yes, but it is not as crucial. Especially when faster, stealthier and more maneuverable ship can engage/disengage when wants. 6. Soviet ships are known from their good arcs, don't wanna dig that now. Generally, the ships strength can't be reduced to "1 vs 1" duel chances. Usually you don't fight each other and you don't duel in isolation. And here for example better maneuverability + speed + concealment is much more important than "better gun angles". So, nope. CCCP must always win. It's a Russian game, after all.

It's all the US version of history Eh, nobody heard of Atago capsizing and Jap cruisers outclassed Allied ships everywhere in all sea conditions until permanent radar era. Sure, I understand that this is a game, not a simulator, and what I complain about, is relative buff of Soviet boats. Leningrad in reality was so much inferior to Błyskawica, yet in WoWS has almost all parameters buffed to be better. Błyskawica is strong T7 DD, but Leningrad has such important things "invented by WG" that she simply is stronger. Rudder turning time is one of most important things for a gunboat DD. So is speed. Turret placement despite all WG intentions obviously could not be buffed - but they managed to compensate for this by pulling from the hat +50% faster firing rate (compared to the best reality version). On the speed trials the shipyard didn't have any other option than meet and exceed requirements, even if they had to put TNT into boilers and start rowing to make the boat go faster. The alternative was gulag, because the first Soviet own real warship design could not fail. The ship could start breaking to pieces but Stalin had to get results. Yet WG happily takes "the score" from those trials and treats as everything was perfect. Even if the ship never used nor even could use that speed in real conditions. And adds spood beast making those already ridiculous 43 knots even more fantastic 45-46, so you barely can track that thing when aiming. Poland has only 1 ship in this game, which was one of the best (if not the best) DD of 1930's - and some Soviet fantasy is making her obsolete. Paper ships are what I don't like in WoWS. Games like this also educate people about history - and WoWS version of history seems to be "CCCP was the best"... BTW, I would gladly see T7 pre-war 7x120mm version renamed to Grom - and Błys introduced as Akizuki-type 8x102mm T8 1944+ anti-air version. With maneuverability closer to Kidd and of course with AA def consumable. Dreaming dreaming... time to bed ;)

Yup. I have Błyskawica, still good ship, but of course it hurts when pro-Soviet WG bias makes fantastic parameters on the Leningrad. Leningrad in-game characteristics have obviously not much relation to the historical truth. Some example reading (Russian...) http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/1998_06/index.htm http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/1998_06/17.htm Front gun useless when going faster than 18 knots, and generally all deck gun mounts (3 of 5...) were not very usable under even slightly harsher sea state. When going at higher speeds, Leningrad hull was unstable. Needed additional ballasting of the bow part. There are mentions of hull damage even under average weather conditions. Vibrations when going fast made artillery fire unaccurate. So her "once-achieved trial 43 knots" can be thrown on the fairy-tale bookshelf. But hey, she can do like 46 in WoWS with the booster and still turn, shoot and everything ;) Błyskawica in "Baltic pre-war setup" was also not very good at rough oceanic weather, but her only problem was being top heavy (which was fixed after transfer to the UK) - and this had nothing to do with her ability to be useful at high speeds. Leningrad was 13.5m longer (and is made 4 knots faster in the game), but still has only slightly larger turning radius (690 vs 610m) which is "compensated" with ridiculously better fantasy rudder shift (3.7 vs 5.8s!). Why? Who knows. Much larger ship reacting faster to rudder and also having better concealment than Błyskawica is obviously happy WG invention. When comparing guns to pre-war Błyskawica, Polish 9 shots/minute is historically accurate, but Leningrad's in-game 12/minute is clearly fantasy - above Soviet source states 8/min when auto loading, and only 6 in manual mode. Not to mention that 120mm world-class Bofors had much better accuracy than Soviet 130's (although surely much smaller projectiles) - of course in the game both have similar dispersion. When comparing torpedoes, as usual: Soviet ship although in reality the class was using variety of (mostly bad) torpedoes, in-game has the very best, very rare, 53-39 torps which were only slowly entering service on selected ships after 1941. Polish boat at the same tier has been given weaker 1930's era 533 even when being capable of using French larger 550 (Algerie's old '23 type have 9km range, for example). All balanced, comrade.

Because it is easier to have 20-40k captain elite xp game than 20-40k free xp from a game?