EdiJo

To eliminate CPU overheating as the cause you can try to limit max CPU "percentage" in "Power Settings" to, say, 70% and see whether it starts to behave better. It helped me in tracking random hangs in WoWS. The box I use is quite hot (small standard mini-tower case and GTX 580 alone = 244W...) and it revealed that the CPU heatsink definitely needed repasting and cleaning. Other "hardware" sources of random hangs (apart from overheating various elements) may be memory errors or disk problems (which in turn can be induced by overheating), or the power supply struggling or failing. Generally, when the problems are not common (with fat threads even here on the forum), most probable cause is your machine and/or your software.

The keyword: sometimes. If it's occasional, it is not a big buff anyway. If it's not rare, we are back at "lowering skill requirement" point... Current "20-knot puffs" are usually quite enough to do that, without any "tricky" thing... Ofcoz you have more room in a bigger smoke, but it is not a huge upgrade. It rather makes things... yes, easier. I can only agree that bigger smoke somewhat promotes the "moving skill", because stationary RN cruisers in small plumes became quite easy target due to popularity of scout-plane-sniping among BB and heavy AP cruisers.

I think that the problem is misunderstanding. There are camping BB noobs who act like "my range is 20+ km so I should shoot from 20+ km". And there are BB drivers who actually try to fight for objectives, and support their cruisers/DD. Their typical fighting distance is 8-13km, often less. The main issue is that all the nerfs are hitting mainly that "active" BB population, without addressing brainless campers much. The whole RN BB class is introduced mainly as remote HE spammers. IFHE fire chance boost for DD/Lanta/Flint doesn't hurt BB which stays at 20km from them, at all. Smoke spotting nerf doesn't concern campers, at all. Eventual concealment nerf also will hurt only those BB which are close enough and just want to regenerate after pounding - campers 10 km further away won't feel a difference. CV powerups like AP bombs or deep water torps don't concern remote 2-3 BB group, too - the best target is the pushing BB which is much closer, usually without significant AA support, with his own AA decimated by HE spam, which often already used his dmg con and can't maneuver much because is already being focus-fired. And he's the obvious target for CV anyway because he's the threat, not some camping BBaby on the horizon. HE spammers also prefer closer targets, because they are easier to hit. So, WG and "general audience" is crying about BB sniping & camping meta - but the "countermeasures" are just pushing more and more BB players into remote-sniping play. It is too obvious to be missed by WG "analysts", so I have doubts regarding their intentions - especially when more & more premium cash-grabbing BBoats are introduced every month.

Yup. It is just part of "remove skill requirement" strategy. It does not address the problem at all - Neptune is still given on a plate when shooting from his smoke, and DD can spot any RN cruiser (which usually means quick'n'brutal death) while being concealed in smoke himself. This is just helping those "casuals" who still didn't learn how to smoke in RN cruiser. I keep seeing such "accidents" even happening to Neptune or Minotaur drivers. Usually stopping & slowly reversing boat is easy chunk of XP + dmg and everyone pings his position like crazy ;)

Thank you! It was actually quite easy to complete. Yeah... Key vehicle: Kutuzov. With 21k average dmg Thanks to players like you. I am not some godly unicum, but it is the players who do 75% of the (very casual...) server average, yet god-knows-why insist on playing tier 8+ are the problem here. Depends on who are you playing with. And how do YOU play. Even Kutuzov is not limited to "sitting in a puff" "with no risk" You just don't improve. 5500 battles, thousands of hours spent playing - and still your stats are way below the average. Learn - this "average" level is really not very high and you should be better simple from experience. If not - yes, uninstall.

I actually start to complain even before starting to lose. I am always pi$$ed when I see that my team has less DD than the enemy in domination. When we have 2 t6 japs vs enemy 2xt7 + t6 hybrids. When those 2 japs are in a division, spawn in some corner and for example go to isolated cap D completely alone. When our DD are AFK for the first 1.5-3 minutes. When we have some shitty CV driver in some US boat vs enemy divisioned unicum player in a japanese carrier. When our Saipan doesn't give a f*k about enemy Kaga slaughtering us. Generally I complain when I am in a minority which is -2 tiered compared to the rest. And so on, so forth.

What's so hard to understand? Most people prefer to play with stronger tools. It is WG who pushes people into grinding to get their "protected" MM back at T9-T10. But again, T10 ships are so much stronger than T9's, that even being -1 tier is often huge disadvantage. And T10 MM for T9 is given in about 80% of the games. Yes, there are some exceptions - but generally there is no point in fighting T9 vs T10, if you can do T10 vs T10.

We can repeat this thousands times, and they are not going to listen anyway: - number of radar ships - number of DD - tier of DD - subclass distribution of DD - spawn distance from caps (really screwed with DD divisions) must be equal for both teams to have a fair fight. Is it really that hard to understand? Didn't it went out in "tests"? How long does it take to fix - months? years?

Are you telling us you got Nx1000+ camos from xmas missions & like that? Edit: or you just had thrown a few kEUR on "gifts"...

Semantics. If somethings directly benefits a ship which has its capabilities heavily increased: kills, dmg, exp, win rate, survival rate - I called it a direct buff. I'm not insisting, if it hurts you so much - replace this with huge, immediate, whatever. It doesn't buff the class "among others" - nerfing smoking cruisers is just tailored for BB. Thank you, but it is still you who doesn't read what I wrote. DD can easily sneak on the cruiser, and even if the margin would be zero or negative, DD can just turn around, and run (smoking up, if necessary). I am not sure why you think that a surprised Neptune will kill moving DD (which is intentionally sneaking on him) faster than BB (one or more, possibly warned by a DD about the opportunity) will kill the (semi-) stationary Neptune. And I am not sure how do you think that any outcome of this dilemma is not benefiting BB? Why do you assume that in a random game we have some perfect teamplay with impervious spotting perimeter around smoked cruiser... like CV or radar cruisers have nothing else to do except babysitting a smoked RN cruiser? This doesn't happen in a typical "weekend" game, sorry. RN CL for sure dies, DD risks & maybe dies, BB is safe & gets all the benefits. Eh, G'night (5am in my place)

It's direct buff because BB get all the direct benefits: kills, dmg, win rate. Smoking cruisers are frequently targeting BB. What "isolation" are you talking about? DD spots Neptune, BB kill Neptune before he even moves. 20 seconds is plenty with 3-5 BB waiting. I made blops to Neptunes/Minotaurs spotted stationary, I've been spotted and killed also very fast many times. 5-6km is enough for DD to close, spot - and smoke and/or run. Not very dangerous to the DD (which has concealment <6km + smoke available), and the cruiser is sitting duck for 20 secs (or slowly moving duck for much more, if leaves the smoke). Typical T8-T10 game has 2-5 DD, 3-5 BB. Why it should not be common, if it is easy? RN CL to be effective have to get close. They don't spam from 17-20km. Usual range is 10-13km, often much less. In T9-T10 games this is pretty close for a large paper ship. What is so hard to understand here?

I read those pages, and mentioned specifically cruiser thing. I wrote why. You just facepalmed, and ignored everything I said. Spam.

If you don't understand, and/or don't have anything to say, don't spam.

Did you read what I wrote? Or just detected "BBabies" word?

(keeping the level) Why so authoritative? You obviously don't know much about smoking cruisers. Mere ~70 games in UK T7 is not much, and Kutuzov (which basing on low survivability and average dmg is not played "too smoky") didn't increase that experience either.

You mentioned some very specific T5 ships ;) Fast shooting long range cruisers with good AP, AA, torps and such. All those Iron Dukes, New Yorks, T5 CVs without manual drop, Mutsukis - total disaster. *kaze ships are slightly better, but you still prefer gunboats. Rest are not so bad, but really Budyonny is much more suitable than Kirov, T6 baguette than T5 one, Aoba than Furu etc. - and this really makes a difference in a random team. T5 AA is also much weaker. Usually MM gives too many BB and DD, often no CV, which is needed on Raptor mission. 2x T5 BB, T5 cruisers + 2 DD and no CV = practically zero chance for 5 stars. And about Raptor: 3 things to remember (by most of the team) should be enough for relatively easy 5*: - avoid spotting Zuiho unless you have CV which is working; at the end the kill is easy - prepare for The Central DD Encounter. Often potatos can't kill DD fast enough and there are losses or just loss ;/ - remember to be in the Exit before Raptor. Sometimes you carry, fight barely alive and none of the healthy potatos is willing to just move there...

"Smoke blooming" by RN cruisers is direct buff to BBabies. There is zero justification for doing this, nothing in the "official argumentation", which focuses on "passive BB play". RN cruisers rely on smoke, without smoke they are just 1-shot pinata (Neptune, Minotaur) or easy prey (T7-T8 ones) - given on a plate for camping BBabies, which patiently wait, slowly backpedalling 15-20km in the back to see a nice juicy paper stationary TARGET. Fairy tales about "DD needing to be suicidal to get at 5-6km from a smoked cruiser" are just that - fantasies. The moment cruiser leaves the smoke to check the DD (he has to choose the correct side, btw) will leave him spotted permanently. And even these initial 20 seconds is plenty when 2-3 BBabies are shooting. PTS is not needed nor helpful to confirm that - DD players need time to learn how to deal with a Neptune in smoke, but they for sure will. Who will get most benefits? Sweet kills & dmg? BBabies. Nerf like hell for them.

In such a division you at least HAVE the DD. The bigger problem is asymmetric MM which considers as "fair game" putting domination game of Fletcher+Kagero vs single Tashkent... (+/-1 nation +/-1 ship rule...). When finally WG will learn the simple fact that domination mode to give both teams equal chances requires EQUAL number of DD and similar DD types?

Nice Without those limits it is not stacking, just legit divisioning ;) Huh? What a lot exactly? ;) I thought we just came to the conclusion that small server population makes it quite easy to flood this random MM and the only issue for potential "multi-divisioning" is that mostly divisions are put into opposing teams (which is not good for participating randoms either...) Heh, don't bait me into social play ;) I don't have enough time even if I can choose when & how long & what. Yesterday, for example, I had time for only 4 games after ~1am CEST. Quite fun with "accidental" divisionmate, btw. Today probably will be similar, if at all. Besides, there is not much point - I agreed that this may look as you and Live85 described.

I can't argue with that, I have no numbers now. It all depends on how fast the queue is processed by MM. If it is really in ~10 seconds, then you're right that it is not enough player base to avoid stacking. So there is only quantitative problem, whether it is reasonable to extend queue time to avoid friends flooding MM. Of course I didn't try this - I play irregularly, at different hours, have several divisionmates who play similarly randomly. I didn't apply to any clan because of that. So no way I will find 8 guys (just) to try what you suggest. It is enough if someone more involved in group play writes that did that and what were the numbers - I asked a few times for numbers too... I already agreed on that. And "5-minute limit" truncated games? I had these quite a few times. Latency can give a hint about slow net - and we still see guys loading well over a minute after the game started (despite 20-30s pre-load buffer). There can be a limit like 1 minute in good server population. But I agree that 'stacking' thing may not be enough argument to make this longer than that. Yes, but it is not because of the 'stacking' problem. This is wider "issue" - MM is much more destroying fairness by putting average Steves vs 2 tiers stronger ships or by assembling uneven + unmatched DD setup in domination or by not doing skill-based MM for single-ship classes like single CV or single DD. You miss my point. I did not accuse anyone of rigging/cheating. I noticed that it is possible to deliberately abuse MM by stacking friends' divisions and it is making games not fair for randoms. If it would be possible to avoid this (and other MM issues, like +/-2, BB overpopulation, DD/CV symmetry etc.) at the cost of extending queue time to 1 or 2 minutes, it is acceptable to me. Nope. You misunderstood me. I have no accusations regarding all divs I met in my games, nor put in other screenshots in this game. For me it is an abstract discussion about removing POTENTIAL matchmaking vulnerability, if the cost is small. Doesn't matter regarding those particular games, because I don't think there was any "rigging" done by them. Cheerz! Yup. I agreed that WoWS population is too small for slashing MM pool too hastily. There are more important things to improve first, than "stacking"... Yet having players knowing each other fighting vs randoms is not fair even when there is no voice chat. I already recognize quite a few nicks and know what I can expect from them - which is totally not the case with random Steve teammates. Right. Sure it is not rational to do the stacking, yet it happens. That some FPS have worse situation is not comforting much ;) There are 2 separate points in all this discussion which seem to be confused: - that stacking friends into random games is bad thing (and as such generally should be eliminated) - whether eliminating is possible/reasonable in current state of the game population Abstracting from the 2nd one, do you agree with the 1st?

I said I recall this being 1/40 games. Then I looked into 200 records and 7 of them matched. I'm not the only one showing stacking, so "claim" that "it is not insanely rare" is proved enough. I don't recall any numbers from your personal experiences. You dismiss mine basing on nothing... You draw very extended conclusions. What exactly told you I take this "stacking" thing personally at all? Yup. I think that if I show that there is ~4% chance your game contains stacked divisions of friends some can consider it not "insanely rare" and agree that it should not be allowed. "Demanding actions from WG" on this forum is completely another matter though, because we all know it is usually pointless. It is your opinion. Showing 200-game sample is as good as doing 200 stacking attempts. Regarding "bashing clans by empty rhetoric" - it's only your imagination

Why do you think it would be "likely"? Yes, you may have more chance (only) if MM is lacking other divisions to match. This may be an issue during night hours, and this would explain why I've seen more clan vs clan games than stacked in one team. If queuing takes 1-2 minutes, and game takes 15-20 minutes, it means that players spend 10% of time in queues. So 10% of server population is queued in a given moment. If we take "tier brackets" centered about each tier (which is not the case, but enough approximation), we get 1/10 of that ready to be matched into given bracket. So those 200 guys (usually more, there are more brackets but overlapping) is the pool from which we see ~20 player queues. It would be useful to match players with similar ping, for example. Or it may be a side-effect like "server sends query to clients, and first to respond are queued first". Ah, OK. Sure. I play too much after 2am ;) Anyway, with ~10 seconds vs 1000 second game you get 1% of population, so 20 guys only for all the brackets. Not enough. You had to be lucky to be "the last one" to assemble team too often... I'll check queuing times in my games. Although I recall quite a few cases where we got truncated teams because some guy waited through his 5 minutes... What "drastically". You can't wait 30 seconds instead of 5-10 and have fair game? I agreed above that you'll get slightly higher chance for being in opposite teams, but not "because they're clans", only because the other division will be happily taken by MM to match the first, especially when there are no other divs waiting ;) But it does mean they CAN do that. And I don't see any reason to leave that to their discretion. Especially when there is no way to prove if they are not that honest. C'mon. I'm not telling that anybody is rigging games to club seals. I only tell that it is left by MM as a possibility. Most serious of "rigging" is probably some loose communication like "leave that Moines" or "he is afk" or "I wouldn't go there if I were you". And I believe most people don't talk about even such details. But I don't think that should be their decision, hence this academic discussion... It doesn't matter who won. Clan tags don't automatically add +10 to skill ;) My 7/200 showed only that it happens relatively frequently. Probably we can agree that it also somewhat confirmed that you get more often clan vs clan instead of clan+clan, especially during low server load. But still there is no argument against eliminating possibility of exchanging information between players who should not have this option. Certainly making (already very short as you said) queue times a bit longer is not the argument. Nor is WG decision to not do any work towards that. Nor is stating that "we don't do anything illegal and promise you we turn the chat off" ;)

Clans are just one of method. I mentioned also that MM should check recent game history and eliminate those who played together in last 20-30 games or so. Sure, most of people play fair, but still, again - why not just eliminate doubts? I didn't create this thread, this is not my imagination that people are concerned. Ofcoz it should be 50% same team, 50% opposite. Still, common voice chat is not thing we want between teams. I have nothing against clans - we are talking here about either creating divisions larger than 3 or having opposite teams on independent comm. You have better evidence? Or only empty whines that "this is insanely rare" which obviously it is not. If you check dates in file names, 2 of those are from a single evening. I've seen more than this during last weeks, just don't record everything, especially at night when it happens most often. Regarding clans - read above. Explain further, please. You now start to reply to things I did NOT mention...

You need a vacation? Maybe provide some citation regarding your "statistic"

Hm. What do you mean by "huge" clan? 20? 50 guys on the same voice channel trying to join games? Regarding observed frequency, I'll write below. About algorithm "cost": it's not that great, number of clan tags containing same 3-character string is not "very" large. Queue times are mostly influenced by network issues, even a few hundred of string comparisons takes negligible time compared to that. WG doesn't do the math on a laptop, it's a server cluster and we're talking about mere 20k players. And, as you noticed, most of them are in battle - which lasts ~15-20 minutes, compared to queue time 10x shorter. So we have ~2k queued - divided between tier brackets we have few hundred players per bracket. This small number means that computational cost doesn't matter at all, but - I agree - that during "dead hours" when we have 2-3k not 20k players, the queue can be long. But still, this can only cause the server to make clan tag matching rule less restrictive, in favour of (a bit more computing intensive) "last 20 common games" rule which will eliminate friends from joining the same game without divisioning. All those checks are easily applied to a distributed cluster, because they are just filters removing "friends" from already pre-selected sample of matching players... I assume that stacking results in a random assignment to both teams, so same vs different team is 50/50% ... I asked a few times "multi-divisioned" guys about the common voice chat and some responded "yes". I don't recall feeling that as trolling ;) I don't know what reasons they could have to stay in the same voice channel. To me it is nonsense as well - but they still can do that, and I don't like that possibility ;) Regarding "random encounters" - why not eliminate that? At least when you're in a division with a clan mate or joining game which already has a division of your (or similar) clan. But, ok, I think MM can allow 2 singles to meet Regarding "observed frequency", I just checked - very incomplete - sample of some screenshots/records. In about 200 files I found 7 with "multi-divisioning". In 2 of them there was a 5 and 6-member "division" in one team. Still, sample not large, and not representative... ;) It is hard to estimate real frequency from that, because for sure stacking happens the most on high-tier battles, which I do quite irregularly... Also, it happens more often outside of peak hours, obviously - and late at night I sometimes don't care about bookkeeping . I remember other, more obvious encounters, with quite funny comm chats - but unfortunately they are not in those images. Still, 7/200 is not "insanely rare", is it?