Deckeru_Maiku

Just to make one thing clear: A winrate of only (!) 95% in CoOp is sh*tty... In fact, everything below 99% is not acceptable.

Uhm, no... that was I... to possible a fixed maximum of BBs for teams. Maximum 3 BBs per team, all others that sit in the queue for longer than 1:30 minutes (or so) end up in "BB only" battles, where they hump map edges or island-waifus all the battle long and happily exchange shots with their counterparts on the other team until one manage to hit someone... Seems WG didn't like that idea much... I wonder why.... The only classes that will get again f*cked when the subs get into randoms are - who would have guessed - DDs, as everybody - and especially BaBBies - will spam the chat with "go kill sub, DD. It's your job", while all cruisers will just wait for exactly that, the DDs going ahead to be spotted to by Subs so cruisers can blap them... And of course instead of trying to cross a whole map to get juicy BaBBies, they rather will go after the easier targets that come to them. Like DDs. And cruisers... BBs might (!) end on their menu shortly before the battle ends. So, yeah, but no... subs will just achieve one thing: they will f*ck up the meta even more and give BaBBies even more excuses for humping the rear map edge.

Even though this would be great, my experience over the last weeks using PotatoAlert shows me that it is impossible to achieve... there are just not enough players in that 50-55% range around... Example from today... 10 battles played. One (1 !!!) was fought by teams that both had a >50% average winrate. In all other battles there were at most (!) 3 >50% average winrate players per team around. Usually it was then 2 vs 3 or 1 vs 3 and not 3 good players per team. Teams were again everywhere between 44% to 48% average winrate. Usually it takes one look at PotatoAlert to know how the battle will end. As soon as the average winrate of a team is ~2% lower than that of the opposing team it ends with a loss. Today that was the case in six battles. Two battles ended with "surprise wins". And two battles had a lower then 2% average winrate difference. And it doesn't help to be the lone 54% average winrate in a 46% average winrate team. Nobody reacts on anything one writes in chat - assigning priority targets or areas to watch or attack or whatever - but potatoes just potato... Had that in my Krispy Kreme (T6) battle today, in which I gathered 94k damage (no sinker though, as low health enemies were blapped from map edge humping BBs) and survived until 2 minutes before the battle ended. At there time there were two BBs and our CV - Weser - of "my" team alive, against three enemy BBs, a FurryTaco and the enemy CV - Ryujo - with the FurryTaco in our cap (standard battle mode). "My" teams' survivors "hurried" from one corner of the map along the baseline towards our cap, like they had earlier "hurried" from the cap to that corner. And even though the FurryTaco and one enemy BB got sunk, in the end only two of our ships survived until the time ran out and we lost with ~200 to 900 pts... These kind of losses are the ones that are really, really, really hard to bear. The enemy team had an average winrate of 48.5% btw. So yes, WG should set up teams to have average winrates within about 1% from each other. If they can't manage it with 12 player teams, then reduce team size according, to maybe at most only 9 players per team. Reduce divisions to one per team. Makes it easier to balance the rest. But of course it will not happen...

I wonder how one could not understand that these lists only showed players who got sunk in battle (by a CV)? In the E-Peen Comparison Thread battle result screenies are shown all the time with names readable and nobody ever started any naming/shaming there.

Install PotatoAlert and, lo and behold, see exactly that already on work without the need for a "equalized" MM. Whenever I played since I installed that app I learned to face the horrors of the WoWs Community Skill level. In about 60% of my battles I ended up as the only player with a >50% average winrate. Same on the oppositing team, with also only one or at most two players with better than 50% avWins In about another 25% of the battles there's 1 to 2 more >50% on my time and the lone >50% player on the opposing team is in for a tough battle And about the last 15% of battles are kinda equal-ish set up. What is even more horrible, that the average total winrate of my or the opposing teams reaches 50%+ in about 1 of 10 battles. And no, not BOTH teams' average winrate, but one team's average winrate. The "average" winrate of teams shown to me by PotatoAlert clocks in at around 47%, but often goes as low as 44% On all tiers.. low and high.. with little differences between the tiers... The deviations between the two opposing teams can go to as much as a 5% difference, although it usually is more in the 2 to 3% difference range. Setting up the MM so, that at least the total averages for the two teams would be the same, would be a big step into the direction of more balanced battles, as it would help to assure to both teams are equally bad. This effect could further enhanced by restricting the amount of divisions per team (pre battle made divisions, that is - no restrictions needed for divisions made when the battle started) and by reducing the MM to +1/-1 But of course something like this will never because WG doesn't really care WG makes more money for vodka and ladies of negotiable virtue by keeping the MM as it is (as explained by others above) Even IF WG would attempt any modifications to the MM the chances are great that they come up with a totally useless and/or damaging change and/or even manage to f*ck it even more royally than the CV reeework A large portion of potato-ish T10 players would start whining on the forum that won't get any easy opponents any more...

Considering my lifestyle outside of the game, the karma not gathered here will make absolutely no difference to the direction I will have to take if there is an afterlife.

I never wrote anything in chat that would have disturbed ME when I was a kid. It says in the documentation from WG "You must be at least 13 years of age to use the Services" so to me it seems WoWs players are supposed to be at least 13 year old. And when I was 13, I probably would have use a lot more nasty language in chat than I do now. So... If any WoWs players are special snowflaky enough to get hurt by chat stop playing or just deactivate chat. And if parents let their <13 year old kids play this game, omg, what are You doing to your kids? It's YOUR f*cking duty to mare sure your kids aren't hurt over the internet, so get them the f*ck away from the PC and send them to play outside...

And of course there's also the fact that WG in it's undeniable wisdom gave us ships as Mikasa, Vampire, Katori, Campbeltown, Prince König Albert, Smith, Tachibana (L) and others... So what I am supposed to do with all these Premium (!) ships in my harbour, except for putting a T(as high as possible) captain in them and go club seals do some competitive low tier battling? Just have them rotting in harbour and look at them once a week and sigh, as playing them would be a nasty thing to do to the one or two non-sealclubbers in the average T2/3 battle?

20 battles in the last 20 days 12 in Implacable - 75% winrate... 8 in other ships - 50% winrate If that not statpadding, what is?

RPF = 10 pt captain for a DD hunting DD or even Cruiser... Easy to achieve at T3, 4 or 5 so not a bit a "hallmark for a high point captain", rather for a experienced player, who wants to have a edge in DD infights

Nothing could be further from my intention... but we could turn it into a "WG is sooo incompetent, people go to sink 1500 other player's ships because of it" thread?

Probably NOBODY asked for THESE changes. People asked for changes to RTS CVs. Nobody asked for World of Warplanes featuring Naval Targets People asked for changes to some of the less good working RTS CV mechanics, but nobody asked for the utter f*ck-up that WG delivered with the reeework. NOBODY asked for THESE changes. Remember that.

Never heard of "Competitive Low Tier League"? And with teams set up with those 4k battle players on both teams (!) the chances to "pad stats" are low. Especially, as 4k isn't really a lot battles... You don't like it? Well, there's a saying: If You can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen...

That's no stereo system, but the most modern technology in Anti Air Weaponry... Soundemitters that waves of extreme low wavelength at enemy planes, which then get to vibrate horribly until the pilot loses control and they plunge into the sea... Russian technology, of course...

I haven't noticed no changes in my ranked game results during the last couple months.

You forget those nasty 11 killstealers just waiting to send salvo after salvo against all ships a CV attacks, to make sure that he can't do the killing blow...

Hmmm.. lets see... Your best ships statistically are... what surprise... Hosho and Langley... which also the most played of your ships. And You really complain about sealclubbers? On the other hand, there's an easy solution for Your son to not to have players with 21pt captains: go and play CoOp. No nasty sealclubbers there. Only bots. Quite dumb bots. Who happily get slaughtered by about every player who "play just for fun".

Have to agree with @Big_Daddy5 - WG makes sure it's Fool's Day every day of the year...

People still throwing imaginary money at WG for these gambling containers? Really?

Only played three random battles today, due to italian missions being doabled in CoOp. So I started with - surprise, surprise - the Ranger. The last couple days I was shown my limits by getting uncarryable teams. So my hopes today weren't very high, even when PotatoAlert showed my a +2% winrate advantage for my team over the opposing team. 49% to 47% doesn't sound that promising... Luckily the enemy CV was quite potato-ish and the DDs in my team proved to not be completely incompetent. So me sinking one of the three enemy DDs gave us an edge. As did taking out the enemy Nürnberg when it tried to keep an allied DD from taking the B cap (on Strait map, domination mode). After that is was mopping up duty, sinking two already damaged enemy BBs - Bayern and Warspite. The battle ended shortly after that Warspite kill as we reached the 1000 pts margin. So 4 kills, 72k damage and 4.5k PR got recorded for me. In my Furious I got a T8 battle with only two T6 (non CV) ships per team, with a Baltimore and Cleveland being the enemy cruisers, and T7 and T8 Euro DDs... as expect it didn't turn out too well, as also this time my team had a 3% lower average winrate. And yes, it showed... I barely managed 30k damage, didn't sink a single ship - even though I damaged all three enemy DDs and helped getting two of them sunk by spotting them... still the battle was lost. And as I try to play my Krispy Kreme every day, she had the honour to my last random battle candidate for the day. And as there was a Krispy Kreme on the enemy team, I did reward a +1 karma to the "other masochist in the other Krispy Kreme", as I always do when I face a Krispy Kreme in battle. Oh, of course it was a T6 battle with a CV, as so often when playing the KK. And the teams were kinda equal-ish, even when it meant equally bad (~47% average winrate, said PotatoAlert). So from the start I knew that I had to make an impression and an effort to carry this sack of potatoes. In the end I managed to sink an enemy DD and two BBs - even though not all on my own - and gathered with these 3 sinkers 76k damage and a 4.9k PR, even though the honor to secure our win went to our last survivor - a DD - who managed barely not to get killed by the last surviving enemy ship - a german BB - while the counter finally reached the 1000 pts. Yeah, I might have avoided to get sunk myself, and yeah, I put a lot of pressure on our DD by playing risky... but when I checked before going after the next to last enemy BB the DD was safely hiding away from the other BB and we were already ahead 900 to 200 or so, which in my book read as "Battle won of the DD doesn't do anything utterly stupid". Which he luckily really didn't...

See below... And even one of the creeps that does it in CVs.. usually a clear sign that real ships don't work for him...

Considering the tiers I usually play at, I guess it's not very probable for me to end up on Your list... so all I can say is:

I'll probably never get the Ranger to a nice winrate until the 100 battles (self set) limit... Got a sub-par on my side in the T6 battle (for once ONLY T6 ships) against a slightly less sub-par enemy team. Got a shipload of spotting done, 100k damage done, 20 planes dropped when defending allied ships and sank one of four enemy DDs - and spotted two more so they got downed... I even got into the enemy cap (standard battle...) when all - allied and enemy ones - was down. And still the battle was lost... so now 83 battles and 50.6% winrate... meh... The other battles weren't anything to talk about... except for one in the Oktober Revolution on the Neighbours (Domination mode), in which my 47% average winrate team faced a 45% average team... right at the start our BaBBies and Crusassers did the often seen "Left goes right, right goes left, DDs go everywhere" dance... As I started on the left side of my team's "battle line" I did the easy thing and followed two DDs to the left (A cap). Shooting at everything that got into my range, I probably frustrated some Cruisers and DDs - sunk one of each - and also had a nice shell exchange with an enemy BB (New York, who misjudged his ability to stand against 12 guns pointing at his broadside from < 5 km) In the end I got sunk, too, after doing 44k damage, 3 sinkers and 2.2k PR in the win, having me taking the #2 slot in the exp result list for the battle.

That ocean liner camo is the main reason why I still take the Normandie out for rides... and that 61.96% winrate, 61k average damage, 1.27 average frags I have in her over now 92 battles... Secondaries skilled, btw, as I use the same captain for Normandie, Dunkerque, Strasbourg and Jean Bart. It helps to know when to change to HE when you smell a DD close by, as those "shotgun" guns are a nice surprise for many unaware DD potatoes (of which there are lots...). There's tankier BBs.. there's also some with more accurate guns. And the gun arcs are suboptimal... but - at least for me - it's quite fun to play.

1 & 2 were only implemented to make more money without really thinking the consequences (meta changes, balancing etc) through.