Admiral_noodle

Ships I won't sell Kongo New Mexico Koenigsberg Nurnberg (love hate going in there) Nagato I'd have kept Wyoming and Omaha but I have Arkansas and Murmansk

Team play exists but mostly at "off peak" times

I don't see why people who do more than X percent of damage to a friendly or certain number of hits - can't turn "grey" - ie they are on no side and anyone can shoot them. Seems to work because: - you get to fire back so people won't be as frustrated - trolling won't be as much "fun" as you simply get shot.

No I'm not biting.

Agree with the comments to op. The balance is actually quite good overall. DDs need stealth. I don't like invisible ships in general though as it breaks immersion. But I haven't thought of another way to do it. In "reality" DDs were often overlooked/missed in even reasonable conditions before radar. Current game mechanics are acceptable compromise. I don't play DDs. Tried it in CBT. Too hard and too stressful.

This is why if I lose three I stop playing. I only play 6 games in a row anyway. Otherwise I get tired and play badly. So I don't see "runs" because each day/session is new.

This. But it also has something to do with play style. I'm only "conservatively aggressive". Especially if it's standard battle. First I try to not lose which means I'm often looking to defend the cap or hold the side not containing the bulk of my team. When end we win hard I sometimes find myself rushing to get to the fight before the time runs out. When things go badly in often in the front line kiting and damaging. Not always true. Sometimes my defence turns to offence as a push fails and I'm joined by more defenders, and we become the attackers. However I do notice a fair few games where I do less damage in wins. Namely the roflstomps. If the hyper aggressive players go off and stomp the enemy I'm still likely to be looking at defending (too many stealth cap experiences) which is useful. But means I have slightly more damage in losses generally.

But... While this is all true having loads of potatoes online weekend gaming actually forces you closer to 50% WR. It doesn't mean you lose more - unless you are used to winning 75% When the player base is "less good" your overall ability to carry is impaired so that only 10% of games are decided by your actions instead of about 20%. So it's more "luck" in these times. I have a lot of success gaming weekday lunchtimes when working from home. Good teamwork too

Deliberately not firing in order to kill secure is stupid and uneccessary. I've never seen anyone do it mind. Finishing off low HP targets is a good thing and should be encouraged IF you are best placed. When in my BB I request people to "kill secure" for me.

Ok. I amend my statement to "win rate and stats in WoWs has a very very small to negligible contribution to the arbitrary and undefined concept of whether or not you are a good person" I also require a cookie.

Win rate says *something*. I was a bad or mediocre player with a 45% WR all through CBT and at the start of OBT. So I came here for advice. My stats went up and I got more wins. Because I contribute more to games (on average) than I did before. So now I have a 58% WR and over the last 300 games it's 65% - mostly solo. And it has to be said mostly in my comfort zone of tier IV to VI. Mostly for fun and credit grinding but also... Well winning is fun. So this middle ground I "know" and am good at so I have good stats there. Tier 7-8 I am now moving into. Baby steps. A few games here and there. Lots to learn and I have less impact at these tiers so my stats and WR aren't as good. You can definitely "carry" in this game if you know how. Does win rate mean I am a good person? Does it mean I'm a more valuable human? No! This is a game and my WR is a stat *for me* taken with all my others to analyse how I can be better at the game and therefore have more fun.

Same as me. Because if you are desperately trying to salvage a loss you're probably likely to be doing damage. This correlation suggests you are naturally defensive (try not to lose first then try to win) as I am. I don't think that's a bad thing. Or you play slow ships

@facefisted. We are indeed. I don't think the "business case" would stack up. But until someone does some analysis of player behaviours over a sample size of considerably more than the forum we are simply holding different opinions with nothing to back either case!

I understand the reasons for - balanced games. However the *marginal* benefit (slightly more balanced games - perhaps) I believe is not worth the likely profit opportunities (unproven. Would it really entice more people to play? Do people really quit because of "bad match ups"? I'm not sure they do and even if they do I'm not convinced a WR based MM would convince these people the game wasn't screwing with them anyway)

Deliberately aiming at turrets is a valid tactic especially at close range. As is going for torp tubes when a DD or cruisers turns to launch torps. I like that you can blow up turrets but the sound is a bit meh.

It is the missions mostly. I'm stuck needing a BB kill and I just can't get one. This leads others in the same position to get frustrated and vent at you for kill stealing. It's annoying but when people need kills they will get frustrated.

Interestingly over the last two days my stats have all been down. Less damage, more deaths and fewer kills. My WTR is taking a hammering And yet, out of 13 games I was on the winning side in 9. 3/4 defeats were abject disasters (Nurnberg blowing up or Amagi left out on her own) but one was my "best" performance stat wise. The wins - ignoring the 4 roflstomp games the other 5 didn't deliver me great damage or kills, because I was playing to WIN. In one game that meant sacrificing my Yorck to ensure the death of their last DD. In another my Murmansk spent a lot of time harassing DDs and preventing them from going into the cap (don't even get cap defence for that). Or simply threatening an area and causing the enemy to flee when playing a BB. So while great damage and kill stats might look good, the only stat that really "matters" is Win Rate in the end... And if you work hard to win as much as you can, and do whatever you need to do to get it, over time you should be rewarded. Sure you'll get decent "other stats" too over time, but I find the games I do "best" in stats wise are the last ditch attempts to salvage a loss.

WG have said they don't plan to use skill/stats in MM. That's good enough for me. Point is random MM will usually (usually) balance teams on skill just by accident. Try it yourself with a distribution of counters. Pick a nice sample of say 100 green, red, yellow counters and randomly sort them into two groups of 12. Most of the time the distribution will be fair. About 10% will be "a bit funny". Why bother going to the trouble of sorting them into equal sides? Add in ships, tiers, nations and MM queue times would either be very long or one of the MM rules will have to "break" to get teams in a reasonable time. TLR - skil based MM not worth the effort.

Just wanted to say *again* that RNG makes this game actually feel like naval combat. Because in real life RNG is a thing! This isn't a sport and I don't want it to be All praise RNG! (And be nice to me oh RNGsus now I have praised thee)

I have an explanation. Lose a few, get frustrated at potatoes all online getting their x3. Try to "play harder" and end up playing worse. Lose 3 in a row? Play something else. Also you guys need to play more low tier. Otherwise you get too used to "good players" (er normally) and don't know how to react to strange behaviour when it happens. (Why is that tier X cruiser sitting still? Why is that DD firing and sailing in a line? Why isn't that guy capping?!? Etc). Play some solo in low tiers and then learn to expect the unexpected

Also there is no need to "even out" the player base. Why? Because RANDOM does it just as well for a fraction of the COST. If WoWs and WoT actually did try to "balance" players, I'd go do the same game with no balancing cheaper, with the same results and make millions Just understand statistics and you'll be fine

What? Rubbish! My amount of citadels conforms to a normal distribution curve. In a few games I get none. In a few games I get tons. In most I get some. The idea that fires and citadels are determined *per game* and not *per shot* is... Understandable but wrong. RNG is calculated (dice rolled) when you click fire. Otherwise dispersion would look the same shot for shot and it definitely doesn't. Where you hit on a ship is done in real time by the server working out where your shot went. Kinda like life. Programming in "good games" and "bad games" is 1) illogical 2) hard and 3) something randomness *will achieve for you anyway*. There is no business case or profit motive to do this for WG. My WR is 58% by the way. But thanks

I managed to claw back to 60% but as I wanted *damage* for the port slot more than anything else, my damage was subpar. Because reasons

[edited] Yes RNG can be annoying but it's not "rigged". It's like damage rolls in WoT. It is what it is and there have been many discussions on whether it's too much or not already. Personally I quite like it as otherwise the game would be too far removed from a naval game. And it's no different to dive in a tabletop wargame which I also play (and never roll those sixes I need)

"(Players: after a series of wins, the MM tries to put me down by bad MM, team mates, or both) Malik: I can assure you that this is not the case. It would be in any case way too hard to implement, and we don't find this approach correct towards the players." So WG finally said it. Good. It was pretty obvious. MM can't cope with divisions or even ship tiers particularly well. I'm sure if anything skill based was put in MM would explode.