Admiral_H_Nelson

Well, true, but you a good player, and I believe that (like many good players) you sometimes forget that the average player doesn't experience the game in quite the same way as yourself. (Huge respect to you for being a good player, BTW - yes I did have a peek at your stats - ) Us average plodders find the game a challenge at the best of times - as it should be. However, the +/-2 tiering can be a bit OP sometimes to the average plodder such as me. Especially for example in Furutaka, in a tier 7 game on the Ocean Map! It's only bearable providing that you get to be top tier roughly the same amount of times that you are bottom tier (which is another sore point with me at the minute, and a separate discussion). I think that the tiering used by the matchmaker could be greatly improved. especially with regard to some ships which suffer more than others when bottom tier. Maybe some ships could be given only a +1/-1 difference more often? Others, such as DDs which are better able to cope, could have a +1/-1 difference less often.

"...while bad players are more likely to be carried when bottom-tier..." I would call myself "slightly below average" (the valuation of http://wows-numbers.com), rather than "bad", but I have already experienced matchmaking which is already somewhat similar to what you describe. I am sure that this has happened purely by good fortune, rather than by design though. In my last 24 battles (20 won, 4 lost), I've been in some very good teams which have won without me! My own performance in these battles has been poor overall, with only a couple of good games. My team have carried me completely during this period. I've been amazed, quite frankly. In 17 of these games I had to battle against higher-tier opposition. I always struggle badly when low-tier, which is one of the giveaways that I am not a good player. It feels as if the bad luck of being forced to play higher tier opposition is balanced by the good luck being put in a good team. However I don't find playing in such battles any fun at all.

Just a statistical note . . . provided as a ballpark figure to hopefully help others in their buying decisions. On the topic of the strength of the AA of the USS Texas, someone sensibly commented earlier that you don't see CVs in every battle, so in these games you won't get to use this special strength. These are personal figures from my database ( I started recording my own stats after Patch 0.5.3):- I encounter an average of 0.9 enemy CVs per game at tier 5. 34.9% of games there is no enemy CV 40.6% of games there is one enemy CV 24.5% of games there are two enemy CVs. So, overall, that makes 65.1% of games where you see at least one enemy CV. Whether this makes the Texas more/less attractive is up to personal preference. (Edited for typos)

*Cough* Imperator Nikolai I *Cough*

All very true. In some ways, the players of Yubari and Iwaki Alpha are "their own worst enemy" by playing them so skilfully. They seem to be able to get the most out of their ships regardless of their limitations. For example in the last two weeks on the EU server, Warships Today reports these figures for Tier 4 cruisers: SHIP Battles WinRate Ave Damage XP Frags AC Frags Survive% Iwaki Alpha 410 61.20% 36,366 959 1.4 0.6 31% Yubari 2,076 55.30% 26,968 861 1 2.5 30% Svietlana 31,150 52.70% 24,645 656 0.8 0.1 25% Kuma 13,941 52.70% 24,254 655 0.8 0.2 24% Phoenix 10,543 52.70% 21,609 708 0.7 0.2 23% Karlsruhe 13,028 50.40% 16,813 566 0.5 0 21% This is a classic example of the need to understand the stats - not just follow them blindly. It's only when you appreciate that the skill level of the average Yubari and Iwaki Alpha is quite high that you can interpret this data correctly - otherwise you would think that Iwaki and Yubari were rather OP (which is NOT the case).

Oh! Goody! It will be even more fun to play cruisers when this happens. And even more incentive for the "snipers" to stick to their guns! (See what I did there?)

Fair point. I misunderstood what he said, as refering to new developments. Now all I need is a way to rehab out of WoWS. (And i am being at least half serious in saying that)

Vallter_ must have a short memory. I think that these changes had a deep impact on more than just the hardcore players:- - A change in captain's skills so radical that all captains had a free skills reset - Key changes to Basic Firing Training, Expert marksman, and Advanced Firing Training skills that primarily nerfed light cruisers Justified by saying that high skill captains were abusing mid-tier play (but don't worry you can still put you Captain with the level 5 concealment skill in Kamikaze R and go seal-clubbing, it is only cruiser abuse that is wrong) - Changes in AA firepower which effectively nerfed carriers - Changes in carrier squadron composition, with some US CVs losing their second TB unit - Changes in dive bomber capability, adding yet more RNG to the game at the expense of skill - Selling unbundled ships to make them more accessible (can't remember - was Anshan or Blys the first of these?)

OK. I shall play Devil's Advocate here. Suppose that Campbeltown turns out to be a tough ship to play for the average player and feels very UP. (I strongly suspect that this will be the case) The good people of Asia will be the ones to find this out, and to suffer from the consequences. Wargaming can then buff the ship and provide a much more attractive ship before offering it for sale to the EU players. Imagine, however, if the EU players were guinea pigs for a UP ship. There would be accusation of bias against the Royal Navy, exploitation ...all sorts of things judging by the inventive people in this excellent forum!

In post #26 in thread "Tier 6 & 7 Matchmaker" http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/49431-tier-6-7-matchmaker/page__st__20#topmost, (THIS THREAD HAS NOW BEEN ARCHIVED), you said ". . . but the MM seemed fine. Even in the battles with T8 there were only 3 T8s on each team in one of the battles. So if there is something wrong having actually stats to demonstrate this would help a lot." You are welcome to have my spreadsheet data, complete with analysis. The question is, How do I get it to you? Since my original posting on the above mentioned thread, the previous trend has continued. There is a marked imbalance in the number of games where I am bottom tier, compared to those where I am top tier. My own Top tier:Low Tier split is 43:57. (and since my win rate briefly nudged over 55% on April 8th the split has been 40:60.). I don't expect an exact 50:50 split, but this is ridiculous. This is a real struggle for me, because: a) in almost 80% of games where I am bottom tier, I am TWO TIERS below top tier. b) As this site (http://wows-numbers.com) explains, I am "below average" as a player. I agree with their assessment (sadly). However, note that I am NOT arguing against the "+2/-2 Matchmaking" concept. I understand the advantages. My moan is that I am not getting a "fair crack of the whip", and i strongly suspect that the matchmaking algorithms are contributing greatly to this (Hasn't the English language got some odd expressions! )

Agreed - which is why it is driving me nuts. As you rightly say "So you can only realistically expect to be top tier in 33,3% of the games." But then you can "realistically expect" 33.3% Mid tier games, and 33.3% bottom tier games as well. The fact that I am getting almost 50% of my games bottom tier is not conducive to happiness! Seriously, I don't think that you would be happy with it either.

Sorry to be thick, but could you talk me through this. I went to the forum message page to see if I could send you a message with an attachment, and I can't see where I can do this. EDIT : Now sent two plain text messages with imbedded tables. First table is the raw data, second is simple analysis with counts of games top.middle/bottom tier.

There are more than just the cases you mention for a tier 5 ship. Case 4 - you end up in a T4-5 battle. You are top tier Case 5 - you end up in a battle of ALL tier 5 ships. You are top tier. Case 6 - you end up in a T5-6 battle. There you bottom tier. My comment "a) in almost 80% of games where I am bottom tier, I am TWO TIERS below top tier." indicates that I am seeing CASE 3 when bottom tier, and CASE 6 only 20%. I am NOT including middle tier games at all in this particular item of analysis. Incidentally, since my original posting on the subject in the previous thread, I have played another 7 battles. Naturally, only one was top tier. Three were mid tier, and three bottom tier. Only a small sample, but conforming to the pattern. World of Warships is a great game, but sadly I am not good enough to battle these odds. it's just not enjoyable struggling in the majority of games.

Being an island has spared us the painful arguments that many European neighbours have had over their national boundaries (which, TBH have been often very indistinct and ripe for disagreement). We know when we have reached our national boundaries - our feet get wet! Plus we have the unique (possibly not?) situation of treating our Navy as the "Senior Service" rather than the Army - like other countries.

I've just been replaying Furutaka, and done rather better in it this time (though still not a star player in it LOL!) In the hope that the 3x2 Furutaka comes into the game I shall keep her in my port. Fingers crossed!

I generally agree with the idea of releasing all ships in a tier at once, for reasons previously stated by others up thread. However , I am aware that there are many interesting ships in navies which might not be able to fill a full thread (e.g South American navies, Austria-Hungary). If WG decide not to go down the "panasia" route for such ships, then I think that it would be great to allow partial ship trees. (Austria-Hungary would be an candidate, maybe?)

So it's "Midway" to completion, then?

219 games (if I include the games in new Russian cruisers) . I did not include the Russians in the posted stats - but THEY FULLY CONFORM TO THE QUOTED PATTERN. e.g I got my record kills in one Budyonyy game, and my record damage in another Budyonny game. My games in this ship have been Top Tier(10), Mid Tier(2), Bottom Tier(16). After making a very good start in Budyonny, I was bottom tier in 12 of the last 17 games in her - mostly tier 8 games. This matchmaking has been driving me nuts lately. I am not good enough to cope with being bottom tier any more than my "fair share".

I am seeing something similar. Patch 0.5.3 nerfed cruisers quite strongly (which many people feel needed to be done -> a separate discussion). I have been collecting data on my games in tier 4-6 cruisers since the patch in order to see the effects of the nerfs on my performance. There is an interesting pattern. The matchmaking seems to be different for cruisers where I was doing LESS than average damage before 0.5.3, compared to cruisers where I was doing MORE than average damage. Pre 0.5.3 performance Top tier % Mid tier % Bottom tier % Less than average 39 25 36 More than average 25 19 56

There has been a great deal of very thought-provoking commentary in this thread. It shows how interesting these ships are, and what an asset to the game they will be when (if) they are introduced to it. It cannot come soon enough, IMHO. Then, we can all try out our theories and see how they work in practice!

This ^^ I don't mind the lack of AFT so much as the EM nerf. There is only so much "planning ahead" that you can do to mitigate the effects of the EM nerf. I've been logging my results since the 0.5.3 patch, and I am 10-15% less effective on light cruisers since the patch (based on damage inflicted on the enemy). A lot of fun has gone out of the game. A LOT!

We also get with Aoba- a better main battery range ( 14.9km versus 13.0km)- more torpedoes (2x4 versus 2x3)- Better AA ( AA rating 30 versus 14)- Faster maximum speed ( 35.0 knots versus 34.5 knots)- Better rudder shift time ( 6.5 seconds versus 9.2 seconds)- Tighter turning circle (710m versus 750m)- better surface detectability (12.1km versus 12.2km) (cue the Monty Python sketch "What have the Romans ever done for us")

(1) All true, plus Murmansk hits harder with AP since its shells have a higher Krupp value (Omaha = 1772, Marblehead = 1772, Murmansk = 2692) (2) Again true. Which makes this stupid at tier 3. Tier 3, fully upgraded range of main battery, with appropriate modules and AFT skillBogatyr 13.7kmKawachi 9.8kmSouth Carolina = 11.2km You'd almost think that there was some Russian bias in the game.

I am intrigued by this - did you manage to do this from a distance (i.e greater than 10k) or did you need to go in closer?

It appears to me that I have had my reserve extended for free, and four new captains that I don't have to pay for (since they come with 3 skill points) Five free gifts in effect - thank you Wargaming!