Deckeru_Maiku

Well, the skill gap got a lot wider in fact while even potatoes gained the ability to be a real pita for all other classes without any real countermeasures... So a lot has changed... just not how WG wanted it to... and to the worse.

Playing with tits is also one of my favourite hobby... oh.. wait... Seems to be some kind of misunderstanding here, it seems...

The kettle calling the pot black here, aye?

Well, that would still make them more qualified than about 80% of the rest of the playerbase, right? Around 50% winrate and at least a limited understanding is way ahead of <50% and no understanding at all.. ^v^

I will, as soon as I have enough numbers and not only a small sample size number of battles. But it will take some time, as I have a life besides WoWs..

...which, considering the potato-ish actions by quite a few same-clan divisions that I witnessed, isn't a real solution...

Other than You, I'm working on gathering proof... you just quote unclear statements of intent

another one liner without a word about the facts given in my post. So just your usual discussion style. "Win by post number..." Doesn't work though...

They do... mostly the wrong things, they learn from the other potatoes they meet... Check teams with one of those tools available, and you see that in most teams the number of skilled players from new players could really learn something postitive is greatly (or if you're a fan of that orange-haired former US president: bigly) reduced or trending towards 0 (= zero...)

I did test it and I test it reight now. Did You do that? Or do You just believe in fairy tales what WG writes in Public Relation stints? I just noticed a nice difference between two of those PR thingies, both quoted here by You: Update 0.8.7: We’re introducing strict limitations on the tiers of battles that you can be sent to. For each player, the matchmaker will take into account the number of battles they have played with ships of the same tier as theirs, as well as the number of ships one or two tiers higher. After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits. For example, for Tier VIII ships (which might mean, that for other tiers the limits might be different), the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher. This means that out of 20 battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships. Another advantage of this change is that series of battles will be reliably interrupted, because the matchmaker will analyze the last 20 battles each time. This means that when calibration is done, long series of battles with ships of higher tiers will not occur when repeatedly using a single ship tier. Update 0.9.3: For Tier VII–X battles, we've placed a limit on the minimum number of ships two tiers lower than the battle tier. (without giving details how it gets handles, except for on example for T10 battles... is it the same rules for T7 to T10? Or are they different from tier to tier? No data given...) ... The number of destroyers and battleships in the team will not exceed 4 and 5 ships of each type, respectively. (Also only T7 to T10 battles? But even it is restricted like that, it is, regularly, not handled like that at all.. lots of examples here in the forum with screenshots and whatever.. so... Oxfeces?) Which allows us the following conclusion: WG did some nice proclamation of intent, without giving any real details about how the rules are really are set and handled. The "restrictions" mentioned in the Update 0.8.7 patch notes might or might not allow these mentioned restrictions work the same for T8 and T5 ships. Or not. We can't know... it's not in the text... And it's the same for the patchnotes for 0.9.3 - they might work the same for all battles from T7 to T10... or not... So, it's still the same... where is the effing beef?

And what is it then? And what is your proof for your assumption? Validated proof, of course, not another "proposal" or something like it. Or do will again only give an answer without any real value, devoid of facts, another one-liner which would leave the reader with the desire to shout out "Where's the beef?" like in that old american TV commercial spot? So.. Where's the beef?

fixed that for you, until hard facts come unto the table about it being really a fact and not only an "proposal" by WG Yeah, it probably shouldn't. There also shouldn't random battles with only 9 or 10 players per team during prime time, and still there are such battles. And occasions where a lone low tier ends in an otherwise full +2 battle. And in fact it doesn't make any difference if there's one or two T9 ships meeting 11 or 10 T10 battles... or T8s instead of those T9s

Exactly what I thought after my previous testing. Only did five battles on my alt account today in three different T5 ships and ended in T7 battles three times and as a "mid tier" and "high tier" (so T6 and T5 battles) each once. I'll go on for a while... Not really... you can still end as the only T9 with 11 T10 ships. And you have to endure the utterly stupid and borin T10 "hug the island, as the one that moves get nuked" meta.

Of course he is.. he gets paid to seriously state that.

Don't know... I generally don't watch streams.

Never played that...

To be fair, there's cruisers with quite loooong torp ranges... who don't have to "rush in"... and probably face a way bigger torpedo deviation when firing them when turning than a DD with only maybe... what? 4.5 km range (Like Ochotnik). So for me they do matter.

Can we then also get refunds for Yubari and Sims (for example) which were advertised as having "great AA" when I bought them in the Beta? Na, just kidding... even with their crippled AA I enjoy playing them...

It's not restricted to DDs.. Cruisers use torps, too..

You know what, I'll do another test.. just for you. Still got my alternate account, which I haven't played for more than a year (19th June 2020 was my last battle on it) so results probably aren't tarnished by previous battles. Then I'll report the outcome... Personal, y'know... better than "I read it on the forum... somewhere..."

Shouldn't that be "Knecht Ruprecht"? Can't wait to put one of those "famous german monsters" captains on that ship... oh, wait... probably won't go that far up in the Tier ladder anyway... Spähkreuzer Please refrain from molesting the german language.

That's not proof. That's a statement of intent. My testing showed me, that it doesn't work as described in that piece of text. So, again: have you hard proof that it works? Have you tested it yourself? Or do you believe the sky is pink because WG wrote so somewhere here in the forum?

The problem with this is that there still will be clans that WILL play CBs with 2 CVs - successful or not - which will make WG go "See! See!!! We TOLD you.. people just LOVE to play CVs... WG is always right... stupid peasants.. pay up and shut the f*ck up"

From my experience it isn't. At least not as proposed. But I guess You will soontm produce hard fact that support your claim?!?

Nope... tested that a couple months before already, with writing down tier of ship played and if it's L-M-H tier in the battle... and the %s weren't nowhere close to what WG had proposed them to be. It might (!) work if one plays the same ship for 20 battles in a row... which is not what was proposed by WG. Of course if you have some hard proof yourself, feel free to show it here. A blank "it works" isn't proof though.