Admiral_noodle

Because -3 isn't that bad. Because 1v1 a ship tier difference of 1 is massively less important than player skill. Including knowing the capabilities of your own ship. Maybe it's because I remember MM on CBT. Now that was... Interesting. And a challenge. And the team you expected to win didn't reliably win. Like they don't now. I suspect in your game you got less skilled players - as I said a Scharnhorst + Nurnberg division is a bad combination. I doubt the division played particularly well? I don't think your case was at all exceptional. Bad MM is 2v0 carriers. Before the AAA buffs. And I've seen the team without carriers win too. Ah the old days...

Yeah you have to set it for each ship. Once done that's useful, but until then every new ship you play you have to set up.

I like that people think it would even be simple to do an offline coop patch. Even assuming it would be possible I'm not sure I'd want to play wows with bots at all.

MM is handling it. It simply wouldn't be fair to count the division as anything other than all ships are of the highest tier. Otherwise I could get in my Scharnhorst, div up with a tier VI (DD, they'll be ok) and then guarantee not facing tier IX. So it is what it is. In the end WG went for the acceptable +/-1 division rule - a compromise this forum actually favoured. Having -3 in MM overall isn't that bad and doesn't in any way mean you are auto losing the game. Of course people willing to team up a Scharnhorst with a Nurnberg might not be the best of players...

In one evening in 3 successive games I saw Hurz, ShockPirat and Aerroon. Shockpirat was manly in his Gneisenau and came top, leading the way. The game against Aerroon didn't go well and was my worst game of the night.

More variety, more tactical options, more choice... what's not to like

If the peak is 20k online if an evening I would expect the active population to be around 10x that*. So the numbers are "ball park" correct anyway. *using extrapolation of player behaviour.

Play the ship. Free XP the hull upgrade. Brawl. You'll do better Vs. Battlesheeps than cruisers because overpens. Especially lower tier cruisers. You'll go right through those. She's nothing like a Kongo.

MM conspiracies are generally used as an excuse for a run of losses by people who think they "ought" not to get them because they are good. People who understand realise runs of losses happen to everyone in randoms including Unicums and only long term WR means anything.

To be honest I fire at German BBs to farm damage. They give it away so reliably from every angle. No citadels true but 11k damage every shot. Meanwhile against IJN BBs if I miss the citadel I get overpens and if I miss the citadel on us BBs I get practically no damage. German BBs are tanky but at the same time easier to wear down than the other two lines in my view.

I think I'll suggest this at the next ST session. Order us by WTR and make "equal" then "unbalanced" teams to see what happens.

Sorry but this idea simply cannot be converted into code so it works for everyone. If you rate everyone (let's say there is a rating) and *then* try to modify that rating by "recent win streak" it quickly becomes impossible to create teams to fit your criteria *for everyone*.

They have already (I think) said they had "no plans" to bring in skill based MM. I understand the idea that equal skill teams would make games closer and more "fun" but it rarely works out any better than random anyway. Over time random delivers so why bother. Plus it's not really in the ethos of WG to do skill based MM. Possible though. You could use say WTR or something to rate a player and try to get sum(rating) equal on both sides. Hard tough and would slow queuing even more. Anyway skill "balancing" is completely different to "MM giving you crap teams if you keep winning". Which is frankly laughable simply because it's impossible. Try it. Not just for you but for everyone simultaneously. If you have a grasp of maths and statistics (hint for every win there is a loss) you'll see such a system cannot be coded.

We always come back to +/-2 MM and usually it is just a chance to adapt your play style and earn more XP defeating those higher tier ships! The trick if you are bottom tier is to pick your opponents carefully. Bottom tier BBs can still wreck top tier cruisers (just don't go alone) and bottom tier cruisers can still kill top tier DDs. Obviously some ships suffer more than others but as a general rule of you're the underdog - support your top tier team mates better than the opposing teams bottom tier ships ---> win. As for CV skill balancing. I see the point but then you have 1) queue times for CVs and 2) how is a lower skilled CV ever going to get better? All BBs and one cruiser is a problem and mainly the result of the recent German bb introduction. Wait for British cruisers and that should see the balance shift. Over time if WG release the right balance of ships this should work itself out.

There is no skill based MM. If you play *even more* and record your W/L you'll see... No pattern. Total chaos. If you are a good player you'll have more W than L as you carry to turn a L into a W *every now and then*. But the pattern will still be random + a bit of your input. Your brain however, has evolved to recognise patterns in otherwise random data. This is a very useful trait. However in this case it's not useful and your brain is trolling you. I invite everyone to do the same. Then run it through any correlation function you like - Vs. Tier, vs. Win "run" etc. Anything you want. All you will find is that as games played goes up the correlation to anything goes down. In addition there is no commercial motive in wows to do skill based MM in random. If there was skill based MM it would also make ranked 1) totally pointless and 2) rather embarrassing as a mode

Doesnt seem to me like OP is having much fun... And I'm not stats shaming. Go look at my CBT stats or even better my WoT stats! I suck at WoT and if I wanted to play that game (I don't) I'd be asking for help, looking at guides and trying to improve. But first I would admit to sucking. And it's down to inexperience that's all. We ALL sucked when we started playing. Those accounts with Unicum stats after 300 games are "rerolls" and you know it

Ok I just checked OPs stats. Mr Hades_Warrior. You are fairly new, inexperienced and your stats are... In line with your inexperience. If you like this forum can help you improve your gameplay and learn to get better results. But first you must realise that your accusations of cheaters are mostly if not entirely down to most people being better than you. And that's not a bad thing. You're new! We can help you, but first you need to see that after 300 ish games you are still very new.

Ok can people please stop the baiting Let me try to help OP with *one* point. Average XP per game. Mine is 1434. First. XP increases with tier. Second. Premium account is not taken into account. My "base XP" isn't shown. Instead the inflated XP for running premium. Third. A "botter" would have a lot lower XP because boys are BAD. So what is your question?

This thread should be closed. Bots are one think. Cheats are another. Hacking is something even more specifics. To summarise. Bot - replacing the player with a program that plays for you. Hums bot - getting your brother/sister/wife/mother to play for you because you're too lazy to grind Cheating - amending the code (client or server) to get an unfair advantage - as defined by WG Modding - amending the client side code (note this may or may not be "cheating" depending on the above Hacking - interfering with server side calculations (presumably in order to cheat) Most of the accusations of hacks are simply inane. For example hitting a target you can't see. If you did that, well played and well predicted. A true "hack" to do this would have to directly intervene and change the location of the shells in real time when they arrive or else override the server and force a hit. Not only would this be very obvious in game it would also be very obvious at the WG data centre. In addition you'd have to know the wows server side source code. I don't think it's remotely possible to do this. But a "hacker" might be able to break the server instead. Aim assists are in fact "illegal mods" not hacks. They give you visual access to data the client already has available, do the "lead maths" and show you "where to aim" - of course this is no different to doing it in your head with the information presented to you - just made clearer. So if you learn about client side Vs server side you quickly realise that 99.9% of the time everything you see happening is skill and luck. So please don't go off on a "cheating" rant because someone is better - or luckier - than you are.

WW1 only mode with black smoke etc would be a nice addition. Maybe in a few years and maybe a coop mode first. Would require a lot of investment in terms of tech trees. But it could be done. Why not throw in pre dreadnoughts as well as another mode. Nice idea. Would need work.

I would also recommend fully acquainting yourself with the spotting mechanics - in new players section. If you notice something odd then describe what happened Vs. What you *expect* to happen given the detection mechanics. That way we know what to look for

You're likely to have sarcastic comments incoming Seriously though ARP Kongo is... A Kongo. Is your captain fully skilled? Have you forgotten how Kongo feels? I remembered her as awesome but was "re-acquainted" with her wacky dispersion and overpens when I took out the ARP version for the first time.

I got detonated today. The torp hit me under the forward magazine and one hit did 44,000HP worth of damage. Detonations are random, but it seems getting hit under there is particularly risky. Of course that does mean that with torps - which are the primary cause of detonations in "big ships" - you can take steps to avoid detonation. Try to dodge the torps but if you have to take one DON'T take it under the forward turrets...

I quite like the idea. But i don't think it would catch on. Also WG have taken the decision not to put crew in the game visually to keep it "clean". I like it though. Would add to immersion... And rage as you pick up survivors and don't shoot anyone. Plus picking up survivors is something you do after a battle not during it.

I don't think it was meant to be elitist though. Put it this way. I would rather have inexperienced players on my team trying their best to play well and for the win than a bunch of skilled yet selfish players simply trying to boost their stats. What I think people dislike is people not trying to win. Not trying to win = not playing the game. The post wasn't (I don't think) saying "if you're not good go play coop". It was saying if you're not playing the game go somewhere else. And even if you aren't "skilled" you can still contribute to the win. If you know you're skill level you can use the thing between your ears to create situations where you have the advantage no matter how good you are at shooting and angling. Just don't give the enemy a fair fight. I doubt I'm actually a particularly good shot actually. And one on one sure I'll probably beat the "average" player, maybe not even that at tier 8+. So I won't give them the chance. Play with the team. Play for the team. Be aware of situations and play within your skill - and you get more wins.