Admiral_noodle

I get that. But if everyone "decided" I wasn't good enough in a certai ship and left me to die, i would get very salty and maybe even quit the game and play something else. Not sure WG would want that.

@aboch. Thank you for pointing out a good point of xvm. "Following a good player" actually is a very good point! If I'm a cruiser I want to follow the good bb. Not the sniper potato or the fool who rushed in and dies. I'm still undecided (it's being squished in 0.5.3 anyway)

Observing even 60 games is spurious anyway. Far too small a sample size and confirmation bias is too easy to fall into. Instead let's take the hypothesis that people with worse stats are harder to hit -> like for like situations. Let's start with "dispersion increases as you get better". - easy to reject. If true, hit % would not increase linearly with win rate for people. People would come into the forum to complain about this very obvious effect. Flamu and Notsers videos would be awful. They aren't. Reject. Let's take "bad players are harder to hit because of hit boxes" - harder to reject as how would this measurably affect stats? It probably wouldn't. It ought to decrease hit rate in good players, which we don't see, but even then good players fire at good players too There really isn't a way of disproving this with stats. The observational side is *incredibly* hard to do objectively. You would need a frame by frame analysis of shots and hits. I doubt you've done anything like a proper analysis of 60 games. More likely - you've looked at 60 games, cherry picked people you had a hard time hitting, looked up their stats and determined they are "bad". Now you said these LSPs make up 90% the player base. So of course. 90% of the time you do this you will find a "bad" player! And that's because the vast majority of wows players are only "ok". Only the minority are really good. Anyway the last point comes down to "business case" Since 90% of people "aren't brilliant", they will face each other a lot more than they face Unicums. Therefore they ought to get wins as much as losses in randoms, keeping their WR close to 50% and then happy enough to keep playing. There is no reason (no profit motive) to implement "smaller hit boxes" Now. If bad players are only 50% of the population or less, doing the above would upset the other 50% (my shells aren't hitting!!) so again, no profit. If bad players are less than 25%. Who cares. No business case. No profit motive. No point.

@Namolis. Very good points. I was being overly naive. As for the "game is rigged". No it isn't. It really isn't! Dispersion is certainly not affected by yours or your opponents ability. Why? No point. Expensive uneccessary code. Also these theories are lovely, but if the LSP stuff were true, you'd be able to see it in action and in stats. Good players ought to have oddly lower hot rates. They don't. We would see win rates not normally distributed. They are. Basically any tweaking with gameplay based in stats would show up in statistics very fast. The more I think about it the more I am convinced WG does very little to try to "balance" teams. Randomness will give the overall results in the end and "fiddling" with anything to "help" poor players experience is an exercise in futility. MM doesn't even balance very well So WG will - and are - balancing MM better to get more even *ships* in teams. As for the players. Total random. Let nature take its course.

First game 60k credit profit second game (4 hits!!) 9k profit. With premium.

First coop in kami was great. I'm really good at DDs! 2 kills 50k damage. Easy! Second game over exposed. 4 hits then sunk by bots. Yeah. Not going ou in randoms any time soon.

That's a bit harsh on the red yam if he's trying. He'll stay red because no one will help him. It just feels elitist and anti team play is all and yes winning is important, but at the cost of people enjoying the game? Not sure. It also seems "unrealistic" in the context of naval battles. I can see its utility I'm just not convinced that overall it makes the game "better" and more fun for everyone. I'll need more convincing.

Summary of xvm problems. - rage and toxicity --> less fun - bad players get less help from their team and abuse --> less fun - good players get singled out by the enemy --> less fun What are the pros? Seriously I want to know what makes seeing stats in game a good thing.

True. I'm not sure the stats actually help either. And 12 good players doesn't always make a good team.., one game this morning. Murmansk. Loss. But I think I played well, killed 3, came top on XP with 1700 on a loss. So "satisfactory". I think the trick is "did you have a good game?" If yes, but you keep losing, then trust that eventually you'll get wins. One thing which was odd was their carrier kept going for me with everything, despite the fact I was in Murmansk and escorted by a Cleveland. He pretty much lost all his planes but reduced me over 4 attacks to 3000hp - meaning I couldn't effectively carry. Suspicious.

...I was more thinking that if you're an excellent player you should be balanced by an excellent player on the event team - rather than trying to "nerf" your team. Similarly a poor player should be balanced by another poor player - rather than having them both on the same team.

If it was relatively simple to get "balanced" skill on both sides... Why not? Or am I just being thick...?

Well. 15 games a week is a commitment for some of us it really got me playing different ships and committing to play every evening. So a successful event.

I'm one of those people who *has to* fill in surveys. So I always complete them fully.

True... But without RNG people would have 80% hit ratios in BBs (well they wouldn't, targets move) which would be very unsatisfactory as a naval game...

Proper non premium keepers for me are as follows (no DDs and I only have one carrier) Tier 1: why? Tier 2: Dresden (emden) Tier 3 St. Louis Tier 4 Wyoming (I have Arkansas tho), Langley (my only cv, but she's a keeper) Tier 5 Kongo, Omaha (Murmansk), Koenigsberg Tier 6: New Mexico, Fuso, Nurnberg (no to Cleveland for me) ---and later Tier 7: Nagato Tier 8: probably amagi when I get it Tier 9: Iowa these are the ships I enjoy playing and are kept primarily for fun gaming, though they come in handy for missions as Babykim says - oh and project R had tier 2 and 3 missions, so you could keep one of each tier. If port slots are a constraint, then sell them. Buying them back costs very little and you don't really need captain skills at tiers 2-3

I need DDs! I've got Kongo so I might try Myoko now. Kamikazee spam might help if I take Nurnberg for a few spins

I get plenty citadels. 5 in my first game with Iowa but only 18% hit ratio. One game though so I've not learned how to lead her guns properly yet. Also I was using the scout plane at the beginning. My general hit rate in BBs is about 25% mainly because I will use a gun cool down on a weaving cruiser if there's nothing else to shoot at. Ammo costs nothing and there is always a chance you'll nuke the cruiser - plus just shooting at him might make him flee. However I've not played enough games at tier 7 and up to instinctively know where to lead all the ships. Also I'm only learning now where the citadels of each ship are, and it makes a big difference. IJN ships you seem to have to hit under the conning tower for best results while US cruisers it's often the smokestacks. On Cleveland and other later ships it's front and back while German cruisers seem very vulnerable to plunging fire - citadels on those come mostly from distance. You can manage RNG if you get better at shooting. Simple as that.

Sometimes you take your Iowa out for its very first game and get a nice open map vs. 3 Yamatos, at least one Zao and a shima. We had one Yamato and a very salty Izumo (my division mate on comms. He was unimpressed) Tried to influence the game but ended up running away from the Yamatos (ours sat still) and happily sank their Iowa and a cruiser. I died and made 5k profit with premium. 71k damage. 2 wins out of 5 in our 3 man division across the tiers tonight. One win at least was due to our division being aggressive and playing well. The defeats we couldn't do much about. So I reckon we made one game of 5 into a win tonight, about right --> influencing 1/5 games positively will yield a 60% win rate "eventually" That's just how it works. Forget the games you had no chance in. Take the opportunities in those you can and enjoy the ones where your entire team is on song.

I just want to tell you good luck, we're all counting on you...

Well, since tiers V-VII will be the most populated in the queue I would suggest that tier IV ships are more likely to be up tiered than be top tier.

Well because most people aren't anywhere near getting a tier X ship. I've not played 1000 games yet and only just have Iowa. And I used money to boost that progression. Most players are around tier 7, grinding several lines at once for variety and having fun with that. Next I'll be going for amagi, before turning back to the Nurnberg. I expect my first tier X might well be Hindenberg but not for ages! No intention of getting Montana. So if WG wants to boost tier X, they'd need to make it easier to get there. I do think tier X meta will change as the population grows though. (Not saying good). Question really is: is tier X gameplay fun? Is world of torpedoes fun even if it's balanced? Is it fun sitting around waiting for someone to go forward? I've had a few tier X games as bottom tier now. Not all are like that but I do feel too many are.

This. Leo don't worry about your ships win rate till you have 100 games in her. Plus side; you are learning all the ways teams can lose so will be a better player in the long run

I've found what time I play to be important regarding team work and overall gameplay. Playing early (before 11am) on weekends and playing early evening or through the day if I get chance in the week (rarely, I have a job) yields much more enjoyable games than playing at "peak times" I've found.

From personal experience CVs are the most frustrating. Spending all that time setting up a drop only to mess it up ---> frustration. And why I haven't played them since CBT. Battleships are an exercise in frustration. Especially when you have to wait for your guns to aim. Only to miss. DDs. Frustrating if your trying to do unseen torp attacks. At least with cruisers you can fire and hit, do some damage. If you do get randomly blown up its more disappointing than frustrating. So cruisers for me are the least "frustrating" Having said that BBs are the most satisfying. Deleting cruisers in one salvo and halving bb health pools is always very pleasing it's worth the frustration.

I wouldn't play at all in that case. At the moment it is possible to fail your way up the ranks by being carried. This is why some tweaking of stars st the top and bottom of the pile would help. No star for bottom winner. No star loss for top loser. Etc.