Allied_Winter

Und wäre der untere Teil des Postes letzte Woche gekommen, dann gäbe es wohl auch weniger "Schwierigkeiten" die Entscheidung zu verstehen. Aber, das hat auch schon Conway und S_O von mir zu hören bekommen....

As Sub_Octavian explained on reddit: So basically it's not the that JB is expensive, but that the Musashi is (too) cheap.

Yeah, after a discussion with Sub_Octavian I came to the same conclusion. WG never made a statement like that. However, one could argue that since it's your game it's also WG's job to read what expectations you put into your community. On the other hand I've been arguing that "I'm responsible for what I say, not what you understand". Maybe yes. Like I said to S_O: Personally I would've been happy if the reason why you bring in the JB would be explained on the same level of detail as you explained why the Missouri will NOT be sold as a T9 premium. That however ... little to no objection. Conclusion: I was surprised that WG offers a T9 premium ship, while being under the impression that WG would never do such things. After carefull observation however, my impression was wrong. Am I now the fool? Maybe. Maybe not. I didn't buy stuff and got shafted so that's a good sign. But credit where credit's due, I have to acknowledge the fact pointed out, that I wasn't the only one under said impression and that WG did little to change that to 'cushion' the impact. Maybe we should all be more on our toes when WG is issuing a statement.

Das bezweifle ich. Sonst würde die Anzahl an Gefechten etwas über die Fähigkeiten eines Spielers aussagen. Tun sie aber nicht. Man braucht ja nur mal auf diversen Statsseiten nach max. Gefechten sortieren und sieht dann wieviele Spieler "Erfahrung" gesammelt haben.

Genau den Punkt bin ich gerade dabei mit @Sub_Octavian (hi there by the way, Vector speaking) zu klären. Also mal kurz und knapp den reddit thread (bzw. Subs Antworten zusammen gefasst): Wo ist der Unterschied ob ein Spieler sich eine Tirpitz oder ein JB kauft? Wenn er lernen will lernt er, wenn nicht, dann nicht (die Problematik generell high tier premiums zu verkaufen ist eine separate Diskussion wie ich finde). Die Zahlen von WG (ob man denen glaubt oder nicht ist jedermanns eigene Sache) zeigen, dass relative wenige neue Spieler sich sofort auf T8 (und ab heute T9) einkaufen. WG versucht Lockangebote die explizit high tier Schiffe beinhalten zu vermeiden Das Argument die Missouri nicht zu verkaufen weil ein T9 Schiff auf fähige Gegner treffen kann war gültig als die Mo verfügbar war, ist heute aber so nicht mehr gültig Daraus resultieren neue Experimente um Geld zu verdienen Die JB kostet vereinfacht gesagt "inflationsbedingt" mehr (Edit:) KOHLE als die Musashi

WG never made a promise. All they said was: We don't sell premium ships above T8. Which ... you know was true at the time the statement was made, and holds no implications about the future. However when asked WHY they didn't sell the Missouri for chash, WG made it clear that to command a T9 ship you need to have a clue what's going on. So it just seems that WG ditched that definition (judging by S_O where he said: Player skill is mostly determined by the desire to get good. If you want to learn and play better, and make effort, you will. If you just want to dakka-dakka, nothing will really help.)

It's not a P2W problem. The problem is, that now a player with a credit card can enter directly at T9 and not T8 where WG said in the past: They don't sell T9/T10 premium ships. True, the situation may have changed and lead WG to make that decisions but at least give an explanation on the why before such a change goes live.

Got the source for that at hand? On the other hand, if I say: "I don't sell a T9 premium ship" that hold no implication about what I'll do in the future. Only that I don't do right now. And that's what WG is currently claiming. Yes they said it in the past, but it was no statement for the future.

Sub_Octavian answered a few question in this reddit thread: Basically: There was no policy to never sell T9/T10 premium ships, it's a test balloon and if it doesn't worsen the player experience it may become practice in the future.

@_hondo_ Korrekt. Das erste T9 Schiff, dass es direkt als solches im Shop gibt.... man man man WG ...

The statistics in the end may flow but the definition should be somewhat clear. If we all bring different definitions to the table it becomes very hard to judge if a) how common stomps are in the first place and b) if there was an increase/decrease of said stomps. I beg to differ. A "stomp" is always a "one-sided" match. But a "one-sided" match doesn't necessarilly have to be a "stomp". So to me it makes quite the difference regarding time: Unwinnable match after 5 minutes? Stomp. After 15 minutes? One-sided. Now first if we compare data, I'd say the only thing that resembles a stomp to me would be your 9 minute match. The others draw out too long. Maybe a few "one-sided" matches but that's about it. But your data bring up another point I want to talk about: Wha'ts the average team to enemy losses we're expecting? If the common disparity is ... let's say 8 ships (so 2/3s of 12 ship difference between the winning and the losing team), shouldn't a "stomp" be above that number? E.g. having 9 or 10 as team to enemy losses? Reminds me of the discussion Quickybaby had in WoT where the average tank disparity after a battle is 10 tanks. So one team winning with a score of 15 to 5, 12 to 2 or 10 to 0. And your data indicates that a similar pattern occurs in Warships too. Further splitting the 'regular ending' of a battle from the stomp. After checking my mxstats, I have to adjust my definition a bit. If I'd go for the initial 8 minute mark, I'd have only ONE stomp out of 102 random battles I've played in the last month (05.10. to 05.11.) If I bump the "stomp timer" to anything below 10 minutes, I get 4 out of 102 random battles (one 6 minute, one 8 minute and two 9 minute matches). I'm also not sure if this "stomp timer" should be different for different tiers (e.g. high tiers take on average longer, thus a longer stomp timer could be thought of). E.g. 10 minutes for T7 and below, 12 minutes for T8 and above. On the other hand, one of the four stomps above was a Fletcher in a T10 game.

Not? How so... a fluid definition tends to obfuscate things. Stuff like: wouldn't count for me as a stomp despite e.g. slaying 2/3s of the enemies in 3 minutes but then looking for the rest (standard) of having to wait out the points (domination/epicenter). It may be a one sided battle. But stomp... don't know to me there needs to be the element of: Clicking battle, stuff happens friggin way too fast, be back in port. And that all in under 8 or even 5 minutes. Fair points, though again: a win where team A loses 8 ships compared to team B's 12 ... ehh ... that's a quick game or an offensive one, but not a stomp. In my book. Again: Not necessarilly to me... if team A manages to slay team B in 5 minutes but does so because team B yolos into the A spawn ... game decided in a short time. That I can agree on. Not debating that. It's the definition I'm debating. Will do so! Starting as of tomorrow. I beg to differ. A fixed definition allows to compare results (e.g. between you and me). Of what use is a statistic if e.g. I do some tracking (based on my definition) and count 4 stomps, but when you'd revise my tracking you'd come up to a different number.... Sure, SOME leeway is acceptable (e.g. team B lost all ships, we lost between 0 and e.g. 3). But who knows, maybe I'm just nitpicky about the terms applied ....

While we're at it: Is there a general concensus on what constitutes as a stomp? Something like: A game is a stomp if one team wins the game in less than X minutes after the start, with the winning team losing no/less than Y ships and the defeated team losing (almost) all ships. Is that it? With X being 8 minutes? And Y being 2?

Equally true. It's just ... what would you guess the age of the average Warships player is? Based on my knowledge (veterans I've played with, discussions here and on reddit). It's more towards late 20s and early 30s.

True, but I don't base the decision to play a game (or participate in a hobby) on money.

ELO basically doesn't work (thanks for the insight oh banned one!) due to Warships having different ship tiers. It might work in LOL or Overwatch (and even that is at least heavily debatable) but those games have a single tier system so to speak. So. Apart from the fact that ELO probably wouldn't work in Warships you'd have to rearrange how to distribute XP for players in a meaningfull way. And that is frankly impossible (e.g. how to decide if the smoke you deployed was intentionally left for a team mate or if you were using the smoke selfishly for your own and your team mate sailed into it. The former should gain you a reward. The later should not.). Imho it's not OK to roll a different set of dice UNLESS the player rolling the dice specifically acknowledging specific terms (e.g. being thrown into a seperate queue). Personally: I don't want the challenge of playing permantently against players with the skillset of myself. If I can choose to ... don't know ... queue into a random+ mode for a few games. Sure, maybe that'll do. But overall? Nope. Not interested. Would it make you happier? Probably, and it's fair to say so. But don't assume others would do to.

And the reason to create that in a seperate thread and NOT use existing threads is....?

True. But let's assume that for each goal Chelsea scores, Man City has to remove one player from the field? It would become a steamroll quite quickly. On the other hand. If you have a team with Neuer, Pogba, Messi and Ronaldo with 7 additional hobby league players versus a second league team. With a goal the second league team has a chance to get one of the four top stars removed (or just a hobby league player). Of course, this can also end up in a steam roll for either side. Football is usually a bad analogy because points are made differntly in Warships compared to football. Hence why I brought in the removal of a player. Especially since not all players WANT a SBMM

Ok, I'm assuming you want SBMM for the reason described above ("everybody has the same chance of winning"): Let me ask you this, what's more fair than giving everybody the same dice to roll? Wouldn't it be quite unfair to say, "Hey, you qualify for a different set of dice! But still can play against those with the regular dice!" Somewhere in one of those threads I mentioned a separate queue for those that qualify, but it has been rightfully pointed out, that splitting the playerbase is of no good idea.

And that's different from now how? I don't see any differences regarding the outcome between now and any proposed skilled MM. Remember: If the players are not able to use their ships in a way that would enable a win, why is it the MMs purpose to change that?

True. Even discarding all the players that'd ignore ingame help/information it'd be a step in the right direction in terms of distribution of information. But sadly, as pointed out above. WG doesn't want to.

By pure logic stomps will happen more! If you have evenly matched teams than BOTH teams will know that focusing will win games. Thus as soon as the first ship dies the snowball effect comes to place. The only thing that might change is the amount X in minutes it takes from the beginning of the battle to said snowball. But with both teams being (mostly) clueless ... games can continue. How many games do you remember where one team was behind and technically lost, but then the other team started yoloing in one by one, handing the victory over. With evenly matched teams I doubt such stories would be common. And in the meantime: Everybody is sitting and waiting until the enemy makes a mistake. Thanks, but no thanks! I'd rather have 5 stomps in an hour than 3 20 minute matches.

Which is basically the sole reason why I started a channel to explain stuff... but yeah. That: Plus WG not wanting to put up with anything but the bare minimum of information creates quite the disparity. Unfortunately.

Hmmm the longer I think about it, it comes indeed down to: Having different experiences with what complex means. What is complex to person A might not necessary be complex for person B. Wait, that's equally not correct. A space shuttle is a complex system. That's a fact. But some people immediately find at home in such a system while others don't even know where to start with such a system (or simply don't have the need to look up such a system) and accept that they won't be able to fly the shuttle. But at least they can book a guided tour.

I do agree with you there... the thing is though: This game isn't overly complex or fast. So it then just baffles me how little effort people actually want to put into something.