loppantorkel

Too late, I bought it

Bump. Since anniversary and Coupons... How does the ship feel?

Not sure if I missed anything, but isn't it official you get an 'aim buff'/better dispersion with enemy ship locked, compared to unlocked? Doesn't that count?

WG is improving the MM and try to improve the experience of the game all the time, at least that's the premise here. Second thing: the MM is not completely random. Tiers, classes, uptiering etc makes for a better game and that's fine. What we don't know is if there's any other tampering with the MM. Many suspicions and tinfoil-hat conspiracies are thrown around, but it's difficult to test if there's any truth to what some players experience. It could all come down to RNG and bad luck, or lack of self-awareness. So this isn't going to be a test that prove anything but it might be something to try and perhaps get an indication toward something. I'm currently at a 4 game lose streak in which I've been 3rd, 1st, 1st, and 1st, last game was a carry that could not be won. I'm well above 60%WR in these ships. Does this prove anything? No, absolutely not, but here's the interesting part - I'll continue to play Clemson as a reference ship for 10 games. I'm winning 2/3rds of every game in Clemson playing solo - so far at least. Will I continue to lose or will I be able to keep going at a similar rate? Not entirely scientific but I think it the best test to date anyone has offered to do. If you have feelings about getting crap MM at the moment - post your streak, pick your best ship and inform in the post the number of games you'll play in said ship and post your results after the games are done. Feel free to post any objections or other thoughts about this. Edit: Test 1 finished -

I'm fine as long they flip me to the good side

If you read the opening post again, the whole post, with sort of an open mind, you'll understand that me losing 4 games in a row just is the starting point for the experiment. Since nearly every "MM rigged" is about this, I set up this little test - as explained in the opening post. It could increase your lose rate if you're at the other side of the coin. I gave you an example in the post you quoted. I agree in pretty much all @Chiledip has written. I'm not into any conspiracy theory and I've no reason to speculate how or why things could be manipulated. I thought it was a decent test to do and I didn't lose much in doing it.

The issue here is that you presume that someone is claiming WG is rigging the game to make the player lose 10 games in a row. Then you ask - why? It could be something like lowering or increasing the hit chance or making citadels occurring less or more often. Why? To make your, or the opposing player experience better? What happens when you've had 10 straight games as low tier? You get 'premium MM' as high tier. Some poor bastard will have to take your place as low tier instead. The objective isn't to screw the bastard over, but to give you better MM for one game or so. MM isn't absolutely Random, there a lots of rules governing which teams you end up in. This doesn't mean WG is conspiring against anyone.

Are you a bit paranoid about conspirationists..?

Result 10 games in Clemson: 6 Wins, 4 Losses. Reasonable result given that most games had double cvs each side, which kind of makes dd game a bit tougher and less influential.

I know. I'm soon done with the study. You'll be able to read it as soon as I get it accepted

I'm sorry but that isn't proof. If there was tampering and all people noticed it, it shouldn't be called tampering. We know that beginners are set in a different pool. Not sure when they explained this mechanic to the community.

You're taking for granted that the games and MM are fair at all times, without any proofs. Some people are convinced WG is screwing them over for some reason, also this without any proofs. They come to the forum with bad lose streaks and believe the MM is against them. I don't think there's any conspiracy, but some gaming sessions I can potato through and win by getting carried, while others I can't win despite doing what I can to carry. This can all be down to RNG, luck, bad mood or weather conditions ...or WG has a formula in the MM for whatever reasons. The point of this is attempting to get an indication. I'm on a lose streak - can I turn it around using a carry ship at low tiers or am I screwed for whatever reason? It's simple but a decent tool since I've accumulated enough games in Clemson to not get too strange results in a 10 game series. Still a chance to lose all but a few games, but that's why I ask others to try the same. It's not a huge effort.

What does it tell you? And why are people afraid of a little test? I've got no preconceived conclusions. I've explained the simple test beforehand. I've not stated there will be any proofs at the end. Neither of us knows fully what goes into the MM. Some people here are very suspicious of the MM. I'll do my games in Clemson and report the results. It's reasonable to expect me winning at least 50%, but if I don't, I'm not concluding WG is tampering with the MM or anything. If I win 2/10 games - that would be odd, imo, considering my WR in Clemson and me informing you beforehand of the series I'm doing. Not sure what odds there are of me winning 2/10 games in Clemson in a announced game series. What strange is some people's negativity toward this.

In the following sentence I wrote some examples why completely random MM can be disregarded. How do you fail to understand the basics. The MM takes several things into account before the game starts. Ships aren't just randomly jumbled. It's obvious to all but you apparently. Dear lord, try to get a clue before trying to patronize, you just look foolish. So.. no value from you as usual.

Don't open fire unless you're sure you'll outtrade the opponent. If you lose more health than the enemy dd, just end the engagement without firing and get away until you got the advantage. Either by having better support, smoke ready or better positioning.

Equally ridiculous. It's the mechanic that needs an overlook. I suspect WG wants to keep it the way it is because increasing consistency of AP at close-range broadside targets would increase the disparity between the good and the bad players. Total noobs don't get blapped as often when making mistakes due to safety thresholds and RNG. Just the way the community wants it...

Why discuss good arguments when you can gun down low hanging fruit?

It's mainly this. If a mechanic is counter intuitive for most players then it's bad. Going broadside to enemy ships shouldn't suddenly be a good tactic. I've done plenty of threads about this before and contrary to some players' belief, it's not about buffing certain ships or classes, those who believe that aren't getting the point, it's about replacing a bad mechanic with a better - if this means a buff to a ship or a class, you'll have to nerf the same ship/class in another way. It's not that difficult to understand. My best example is New Orleans vs Atlanta at close range. Heavy cruiser against a class it should counter, but I'd pick the Atlanta to win every time. Both broadside? Atlanta will citadel the NO, the NO will overpen. Either ship broadside - Atlanta will win. The only way NO can win is if the Atlanta sits in an appropriate angle.

This is just a bad solution. It's the same for heavy cruisers which are beaten by the light ones at close range. I agree with OP - This mechanic should be looked at. It's just bad now as it is.

To WG's defence, I should tell you that I'm on win 7 and perhaps not up do date on all things. I still prefer to blame them though

No mods at all. I've had some crashes before I had the motherboard exchanged. Seemed to clear the crashes. The latest patch seems to have brought them back. More now than before.

Random crashes are back. Too many now. Was better before.

I suppose it's working as intended. Both were in smoke as I got torped. Not sure what the torp concealment in smoke is... I sort of expected to see the torp launched from the Akizuki as the ship was proxy spotted. Feels like it would make sense to some degree. Probably not a bug though. I wouldn't mind having torp concealment in smoke negated if the torp-dropping ship is proxy-spotted.

Isn't the WR pretty average though? What's the explanation for it? Not sure what I think of the ship yet. I don't got it myself. It kind of makes bb play more passive, you can't risk pushing into 2 Smolensk or so. One is bad enough considering how tough/RNG based it is to kill it. So far I think it feels too tanky/too tough to sink - whether it's overpens, misses or bounces.