Allied_Winter

Yeah... the bottom line... Judging from what was written already here, there'd be a bunch of players that'd love to do that. IF scrims were every night AND give you the opportunity to grind your ships. But unfortunately, that's not the case. So we're back at square one.

Mostly because those that care in here are a minority of the folks out there. Sure some will get angry if you present them ingame their 45% and how they're a detriment to the team, but most players simply don't care. Not wanting to argue that much, but there is an incentive to win. +50% XP (and all realted bonuses). But keep in mind, most players just want the game to reward them for left cklicking. If getting that +50% XP requires them to NOT left click ... they don't want that. That's easy: Double standards. "I can tell you how shitty you are, but don't you dare come back at me the same way I came at you."

True. But I assume @Linkaex is referring to those players that simply don't care. I don't get it either, but some people simply enjoy ... well ... doing the same stuff over and over again and not want anything to change. Like an addiction (or at least a very bad habbit) methinks.

Achso ... nun ... auf einen 19 Punkte Kapitän kann ich verzichten. Nur ... was ich mit meinem vorhandenen Spielwissen. Ich bin zu wenig Alkoholiker um mit 4.0 Promille Warships zu spielen.

Gut. Dann mal eine Frage einfach weil es mich interessiert und ich neugierig bin. Wenn ich als Veteran jetzt mal Low Tier spielen möchte? Wie soll ich dass Deiner Meinung nach anstellen?

Wenn dein Kollege lernbereit ist, wird er auf jeder Stufe erfolgreich sein und sich dann die Stufe(n) heraussuchen die ihm am meisten Spaß macht. Clan Kollege von mir fährt z.B. am Liebsten seine mid Tier BBs (hat aber das eine oder andere T10 im Hafen). Wenn dein Kollege nicht lernbereit ist ... nun ja ... dann gilt der alte Spruch über verlorene Bierzutaten.

Natürlich hatte ich schon solche Gefechte. Sieh dir meine Gefechtszahl an, da kommmt sowas zu Hauf vor. ABER: 1. Solange ich am Schluss gewonnen habe ist es mir ziemlich wurscht ob ich 2000 oder 200.000 DMG gemacht habe. Sieg ist Sieg. 2. Wenn ich verloren habe ist es mir wurscht ob es eine knappe Niederlage war oder mit meinem Team innerhalb von 5 Minuten der Boden gewischt wurde. Verloren ist Verloren. Und das ist Mist. 3. Ich habe doch arge zweifel daran, dass sich der MM so verändern lässt, dass solche ROFLstomps seltener vorkommen. Selbst ein zu Gefechtsbeginn perfekt ausbalanciertes Team (meinetwegen auch nur alles innerhalb einer Stufe, +-0 MM also) kippt, regelmäßig, innerhalb von wenigen Minuten. Siehe Ranked viellerlei Arten. ROFLstomps wird es immer geben und es gibt NIX was der Spieler oder WG durch Verändern des MM dagegen tun kann! Und so hatte ich deinen ursprünglichen Post verstanden. War meine Antwort darauf etwas sarkastisch? Vielleicht. Aber sieh es mal so: Clan Battles als Alternative zu sehen ist etwas daneben in meinen Augen, weil a) CBs nur zu bestimmten Zeiten stattfinden und b) nur für bestimmte Stufen. Was also tun mit Zufallsgefechten? So lassen wie es ist, denn da wird niemand bewusst/unnötig benachteiligt.

The thing is, not to let it slide when the stuff hits the fan. Just keep playing, just keep playing ... While I'm not that salty (the most you get from me is a: 'Well folks that was pretty useless'), I'm happen to get sarcastic. Which is also one of the reasons why I try not to watch a battle to it's end, once I'm dead. Then it's even more of a surprise if the team manages to win a game. Well.... good tutorials are of little use if nobody likes to watch them. I mean ... take a look at the "how it works" videos. The first one has roughly 200k views and from then on it's downhill... The third video of the "How it works: Spotting" has a measly 35k views Now I know: It's not that easy to determine (since the first video is also the oldest, so you'd have to take e.g. the views in the first 30 days or so), but judging from the responses the videos get on reddit .... ehhhh. So I can kinda understand WG not to sink hours into something that is appreciated (and not financially rewarded) by very vew people. I'm doing some tutorials for the German speaking playerbase. I like to do the videos. But I do them as a hobby, so for me it's rewarding enough if one or two players pick something up from each video. A luxury WG can't really afford. Streamers/CCs do quite the job, but for them, the same problems occur: What if nobody watches what I have to offer? And let's face it: The average joe does neither know nor care about tutorials outside of the game. Mostly because the three battles after work dad has to spent his time wisely, and I'm sure he'd rather grind his ship than spent an hour watching somebody else play (and explain...). Sorry if I came off condesending, didn't mean to. Guess all the 'good player - bad player' talk, got me nerves shook up. And it's not the average joes I have my gripes with. It's the maroon that 4 people tell, that if he want's to win he just has to shoot the low HP DD 5km away and NOT the BB 14km away, and ignoring it just to sail straight into torps from said DD....

Möglich. WG hat da sicher seinen Teil auch dazu beigetragen. T10 Missionen hier, Feldzüge ab T8 aufwärts (wer will schon seinen Yamamoto/Halsey in 200 Spielen erfarmen wenn es mit einem T10 in etwas weniger geht), Clan Battles (klar das ist ein gesondertes MM, aber man will ja die Schiffe die man für seinen Clan mitbringt auch kennen lernen).

If you're losing anyway, sure. Why not. But you do that even if you're winning? I maybe mistake you here, since - like fallen said - not all players play to lose the game. I'm just ... curious.

Zur Technik kann ich leider nix sagen, aber ... zum Teamdamage. Sind da die 4 XP und 20 Credits ein Problem? Mehr habe ich jedenfalls selten abgezogen bekommen. Oder geht es Dir da mehr ums Prinzip?

I could think of a lot of ways. Unfortunately: Most of them, containe the words 'Forced' and 'Tutorials' or 'Climbchallenges'. So that wouldn't bode well with the majority of the playerbase. As hard as it may be, try to help and be friendly (or at least not downright toxic/insulting). Best you can do is tell a player if there'd be a more successfull outcome. But always bearing in mind, that the adressed player doesn't want to hear what you have to say. Also: Lead by example. Should? Bring in more tutorials. More educational stuff in all languages asap. Could? Nothing as I assume the current setup is financially efficient enough.

Naja aber das geschütze T4 MM kam ja als Paket mit T2 und T3 zusammen (und mit dem T1 rework iirc). Bevor ich jetzt ne Korinthe zu viel ... : Das geschützte LowTier MM ist der größte Einflussfaktor für das aktuelle T5 MM Achso... jaaa ... spielt durchaus mit rein. Aber ich bezweifle, dass es a) weniger T8 Premiumschiffe gibt und b) ein Wegfall derer das T8 leiden lassen. Meines erachtens: - Spätauswirkung des T5 MMs (viele T7 Top Tier, fehlen demnach für T8 MM) - Auf EU gibt es die größte T10 Population.

Jein. Wenn man sich das alte MM ansieht (als T1er noch echte Schiffe waren), dann war galt das -1+2 MM für die T2 und die T3 (iirc, keine St. Louis hat je eine Hermelin gesehen). Somit ist nicht nur das T4 MM geschützt sondern T2 und T3 gleich mit. Klar ist T5 etwas härter, aber alles nur wegen des T4 MM? Da spielen alle low tier MMs mit rein. T10 ist doch teurer als T8. Oder wie meinst du das?

Nun ja... Fair ist subjektiv. Und was das T5/T6 MM angeht ... WG könnte z.B. wieder alles (exklusive T1) auf ein +-2 setzen (gute, alte Zeit. St. Louis gegen Kongo). Dann wissen alle gleich von Anfang woran sie sind.

You can. If I'm behind an island when the enemy uses his radar, in most cases I'm in a position where NOBODY can shoot me. So the radar is wasted. And then I can act freely. Take what the enemy uses and use it against him. Sun Tzu 101

In that case I have to clarify: It was never my implication that players that don't play for the win, automatically play to lose a game. Playing for the win CAN include solo stuff AND teamwork. It's the balance of those (and RNG) that matters. For me: Doing all for the win means simply, minimzing the RNG aspect (and to a certain degree the impact of my lesser skilled team members). And with saying: "Maybe for the grashopper winning is not that important", I simply meant, that the grashopper might not give it's all for said win. Sometimes that means throwing your ship into the enemy all guns blazing, sometimes that means dying for your team, sometimes that means 15 minutes of waiting in your spawn while you have a point lead and the enemz doesn't want to come closer. Regarding the 'Army of one' mentality: Think about how the game play would look like if only a quarter of the players in each battle would behave like players that care for their team AND the win. Imho there'd be much more action, much more stuff to win and in the end: Much more fun. The players that turn tail or fight from max range, are rarely the players that want to win. They are the 'Army of one'. And to a certain degree I agree with the notion in this thread: You can't help those. Help in terms I defined further up. They are on their solo mission for whatever reason. It's not class bound nor tier bound. It's one of the mind sets you encounter in this game. However: When I turn tail, I do so with a good reason (good as in: Staying would mean certain death, thus a loss. Leaving keeps the chances of winning up) and with an announcement in team chat. If my team member then ignores said warning and stays ... well ... I can't force players to go where I want them to go, can I. Me too. But I prefer them to have won the previous battle...

Well... I can understand those players too: A skilled player is contributing to the win. The team wins. Mostly to his work (or better: to all skilled players). However he enabled the average joe to win as well. Success for both. Basically the average joe is seen by some as the grashopper from the tale 'The grashopper and the ant.' The ant does all the work, yet the grashopper benefits from it. IF (and that is the point where probably we both disagree on) you think that WINNING is the benefit. For the ant it surely is. But for the grashopper winning might not be important at all. So when the ant demands a "thank you" for carrying the grashopper to the win, the grashopper might think 'why? I don't care about it, so why thank you for it.' At least, that's the way I try to explain this situation. As said, playing not for the win is alien to me. I once met a player that asked us DDs (Benson & Fletcher) if we want to push the A cap with him. We declined. We lead on points but were behind on ships. To us it was completely logic to do nothing, let the enemy come - since defending is easier than capping - and win. He wanted to fight. Go in all guns blazing and said: I rather have fun dying than watch points ticking up, doing nothing and win.' But that he get's more stuff by winning, is something many players forget when throwing the win....

Well ... and a radar cruiser that is badly played - which might still be fun to the player who knows - can be easily outplayed by any competent DD player. I know going up against radar ships in a DD might be an uphil battle, but a premium ship doesn't automatically grant you an 'I WIN button'. It's the player using the ship to it's strenghts that makes it less fun for you.

I'd never demand for anybody to be excluded. It's ... it's just so hard for me to grasp how one can play a game and not care about the objective. Although we might have a different idea of what the objective is.... Well... as said: To each his/her own.

Je Patch kannst Du 16 Guineas erspielen. Patch 0.7.9 waren 4 Wochen und je Woche vier Guineas = 16 Patch 0.7.10 sind 4 Wochen und je Woche ebenfalls vier Guineas 16 Patch 0.7.11 sind 4 Wochen (bis Patch 0.7.12 kommt) und mit an Sicherheit grenzender Warhscheinlichkeit ebenfalls je Woche vier Guineas = 16 = 48

You read the part where I admitted that I misplaced the 80%?

Ich nehme das mal als Aufhänger. Also, zwei Spieler. Aktuell 70% Solo WR (etwas utopisch, aber gut plakativ). Nun sorgt dein MM dafür das diese beiden Spieler häufiger gegeneinander gematch werden. Habe ich dich da richtig verstanden? Erstes aufeinandertreffen von Spieler A und Spieler B. Spieler A gewinnt (weil vielleicht RNG auf seiner Seite war). Danach hat Spieler A eine neueWR (NWR) von 100% und Spieler B eine NWR von 0%. Jetzt lassen wir diese gleichguten Spieler immer und immer wieder gegeneinander antreten. Die Wahrschienlichkeit sagt doch, dass über kurz oder lang beide Spieler gleich oft gewinnen werden. Also sowohl Spieler A als auch Spieler B am Ende bei 50% NWR landen. Richtig? Naja ... und 50% WR klingt irgendwie viel beschi$$ener als 70%.

Yes and no. Leaving aside that CWs are only on certain days and for a short period of time. I rarley can field my Belfast or my Warspite into CVs. And apart from bringing my Des Moines (soon: Wooster) there's little point (for me) in bringing any other ship. If you're in high competetive play, there's little point in playing any other ship than the one best suited for a job. So no Khaba, no Mino, ... not what WG's intention was with T10 ships, me thinks. And that brings us back to the starting point of that discussion: Randoms is a game mode that throws all players mindsets together. The comp guy, the pro, the wannabe pro, the average joe, the after work dad, the newbie and the noob, the elitist and the flamer. It's up to each player then to make up their mind about this situation (and pray, that RNG gives you somewhat competent team members...) Personally: I'll continue to play each game as if my teams life depended from it. I don't want to end up as the guy, that throws and goes: 'Now all is lost, I play solo and farm DMG.' Imho, that's equally shitty as not listening to tips on how to win a game.

Wouldn't it in that case be equally childish to stay at your position of playing for fun?????? This forum can be too. But that requires (like with every other topic) the person coming in to be open minded. E.g. hey, I know I'm bad but want to get better. Believe me, either here or in the German subforum, people want to help. Questions are answered quickly (that's why one rarely see a good question thread on the first page, it's finished after 5 posts) and even replay analysis' are offered. Yet you chime in, telling that just because someone said 'Change your attitude, because we don't want to play with you and your attitude' you react on the same childish level. Maybe, but you said you understand both points of view. So why not accept that some players can't stand others that don't want to win? I mean ... sure you're not responsible for some of my losses, but dang, you're precisley the player I never want to have on my team as it threatens my teams victory.