Aotearas

Queue times, or at least that's the only information I've heard whenever someone asked WG and they didn't just answer back "not going to change it".

I have, you just choose to misrepresent them and put words in my mouth. You're making up like I'm preaching the end of the world for pointing out a simple correlation. A correlation which fits the server data we've been given as I have pointed out on numerous occasions now. That correlation being that an overabundance of one tier effects the MM for the surrounding tiers. Which you somehow interpreted as me doomsaying that other tiers suffer catastrophical, unacceptable abuse, which is something I've decidedly NOT said.

Met @Runner357, @Spithas, @Flambass and @ElrogGA in two OMNI division on the enemy team. Just so happen that my divisionmate @MortenTardo in his Roon and me in my Saint Louis weren't really particularily well equipped to carry on our own, so the game ended as one would expect. Though if the enemy chat was to be believed I gave Flambass a sweaty torpedobeat moment. Left a couple compliments for them. In an earlier game I ran across @pra3y in his Yamato ... and his entire team that had lemmingtrained to the cap I was hoping to contest in my Lo Yang until a Baltimore radared me and literally EVERY enemy ship on his team opened up on me for half a minute. They did somehow manage to not sink me, but left me on just a hair over 700 HP so my contesting days against a still full HP Benson and Lo Yang were cruelly dashed. A bit later an out-of-position Lion was actually bitching about me not spotting the DDs that were hounding him, he reported me for playing poorly ... because, you know, I didn't actually went to spot those two full HP DDs in my 700 HP one. We still won that game (cuz enemy lemmingtrain ...) though I had a pitiful payout. And that was my +100% first win of the day aswell, fml. Also left a compliment for pra3y.

Keep firing. Russian DDs (with the exception of the Ognevoi) are more or less pure gunboats, so essentially all your damage comes from your guns. Find a target and pepper it from a comfortable range. If you have others spotting for you you can smoke up and dakka the enemy team down, but russian DDs are relatively big and prone to catching torps if they surprise you stationary in smoke, so if feasible it's preferable to kite in the open and wiggle to evade incoming shots.

Good job proving you can't read I suppose. If you want to try again: Or: Because I certainly don't remember ever having said anything even remotely resembling such sensationalist nonsense.

*Commenting to bookmark for further study now that I've arrived at the Lexington*

Erm ... Feel free to point me to where I was throwing around buzzwords like: Or: Because I certainly don't remember ever having said anything even remotely resembling such sensationalist nonsense. What I said was: Which apparently I have to rephrase in fewer words to ease you into understanding the concept that an overabundance of one thing within a system effects other elements in it. Which is goddamn basic knowledge. I haven't said it's resulting in " unnacceptable levels of abuse" or in "catastrophic" situations as you so happily claimed I had. All I said is there is a correlation. A point which you don't seem to understand: And now compare that to the other numbers that Sub_Octavian has given us (you know, the kind of statistical evidence you ask of me). The part where he says that on other servers tier VIII ships on average are seeded toptier 55% of the time ... on servers that also happen to have a noticably smaller tier X population. My, it's almost as if having a server with strong tier X population means more tier VIII ships end up being bottomtiered, whereas it's almost as if on servers with weaker tier X populations means less tier VIII ships end up being bottom tiered. I admit that isn't 100% watertight evidence, especially not with the oversimplified statistics Sub_Octavian has given us, but it's really not hard to make the simple observation that one effects the other, which is what I said.

Can also fit an inspector or two that have seen too much ...

For someone demanding me to answer your questions with impossible goalposts you're ironically unwilling to answer our quite simple ones. Once again, how do you think simply winrate averages could isolate the number/difference of radar ships as the decisive element? Random games aren't exactly a controlled environment and any of the elements you had previously named can and will influence those winrates. A hundred battles, a thousand battles or tenthousands battles make no difference if you can't eliminate other influencing elements. You speak of scientific working principle but apparently you have little idea how to design a working experiment. So far the closest we've come to a conclusive experiment was my offer for staged training battles, an offer you seem all too happy to reject whilst unashamedly preaching cooperation. Where is your cooperation? Where is the trying to figure out a solution together? So, you can take your thin veneer of consideration for this inconvenience and fall on it after that high horse you keep trying to climb shakes you off.

That's funny, last time you defined your required evidence you said this: How come that simple winrate statistics that don't take the same parameters you specified earlier into account are satisfactory now? What if the disparity in radar ships isn't properly reflected in the winrates because the other team had better teamplay, the better players or something else. How would you infer from winrates alone that the radar ships won this? How would you know when they used their rader? All of them? How would you know what happened during every single radar cycle? Did the teams shoot at radared ships or not?

So when I give you the offer that we both stage games in an controlled environment in order to produce satisfactory evidence, you deny the offer and refer back to me having to prove myself. Mkay ...

You know, if you really want to I'm sure we could arrange a training room battle with two teams in domination mode, both teams get the same ships but yours doesn't mount any surveillance radar consumables (use catapult aircraft instead), ours does and then you can test out to your heart's content if radar influences matches or not. If interested, do drop @Loran_Battle a PM and we can try to work out a date so we can bring enough friends to fill up two teams.

I'd say that actually works in the MM's favour. More ships that can (and most commonly will) mount radar means MM has more variety to switch ships around to avoid carbon-copy match-ups. And if MM takes a bit more time processing and doing ye olde switcheroo, that's waiting time I'd glady sit out if it means not getting into games like the one I shared in the opening post. Those aren't much fun to be on either side as they tend to end rather lopsided which makes for poorer XP and credit payout compared to good long battle even on a win.

Radar starts at tier VIII for non-premium ships, not tier VII. Only premium ships (Atlanta, Indianapolis and Belfast) at tier VII get radar. So in total we'd have Atlanta, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Baltimore, Des Moines, Missouri, Black, Chapayev, Dimitri Donskoy, Moskva, Belfast, Edinburgh, Neptune, Minotaur, Hsien Yang, Chung Mu and Yue Yang, seventeen ships in total that can mount radar (includes all premiums). Plus presumably the upcoming tier VIII-X US CLs, which would boost the total number of radar capabable ships to twenty. As proposed earlier, MM could be amended to check if ships have the radar consumable mounted. Alternatively a stopgap measure would be to simply assume that the traditional radar ships have it mounted and that RN CLs and PA DDs have smoke instead (because that's how majority of people outfit their ships after all). Even if that latter system would be far from flawless and couldn't account for players choosing different consumable loadouts, it would improve the radar distribution a fair bit, or at the very least marginalize the chance of games where one team gets several radar ships vs the other teams' none.

I'd say the opposite would be the case. BBs like to shoot and they can only shoot (or at least reliably hit) what they can see. If radar ships were evenly distributed between teams, that would mean that on average BBs would get more cruisers helping to spot ships in smokes (and less frequent threats of DDs sitting savely in smokes with no good options to flush them out). I genuinely see no good reason not to balance radar ships, no matter how I look at it. If you feel particularily adventurous, yeah. Those ships have to trade quite a valuable consumable for it though so the majority of players don't do that and even if they were (they weren't, Edinburgh in particular got very salty when he got nuked in his smoke) that would still only be two low range, low duration radars outmatched by the enemy rader ships in range except for the New Orleans and duration (except for the Chapayev, but it gets much better radar range in return).

Wasn't a lack of pirates the cause for global warming?

One's a zombie, the other one's a bad steak.

"Some form of" was the operative part there. Not saying the game has to field to carbon-copy teams, but making sure they have roughly the same capabilities with consumables. For example in a CV game, if your team's cruisers all opted for hydro and the enemy team's cruisers all run DFAA that would be quite an uphill battle. Or as another example, say one team gets two IJN DDs with TRB, whilst the other team gets two IJN DDs with smoke (skewed their relative performance one way or the other depending on the game mode). All in all, make it less of a diceroll of what you're getting in a team and make it more about how people use their ships.

Toxic moaning, not toxic mooing.

Only differences between Tirpitz and Bismarck is the former has torps and the latter has better AA and hydro. So in any game that doesn't involve a CV, the Tirpitz will behave just like a Bismarck that changes hydro for torps. If a CV is involved, the Tirpitz' (do you put a "s" after the apostrophe here?) lack of midrange AA hurts a bit, but is ultimately not much of a gamechanger if you know how to manouver to migitate airstrikes.

The more curcial thing about dodging shells is that in order to be successful with that, you have to create distance (certainly more distance than you're at if you're within radar range, even floaty Des Moines shells are plenty accurate enough within 10km) which inevitably means that staying alive also means staying nowhere near the capture zones if the enemy radar ships have any sense on where they position themselves. I could've spent the entire game well outside radar range of any of those radar ships ... but I wouldn't have been anywhere near the objectives doing that. And this is just hearsay, but I've been told that not playing the objective isn't a reliable way of winning games. I'm not sure how much effort that would be, but WG could possibly include a consumable check upon entering the MM queue that checks if you have radar mounted or not. Going even further than that, it could also check for other consumables to achieve some form of capability parity with other consumables as you noted.

I have no idea why people got so furiously defensive (and insulting) over something that would only help provide a more balanced set-up for both sides. Just looking at the reactions here I'd guess I was trying to steal a toddler's lollipop or something.

Then how come that none of what you said is reflected with the current MM distribution? Whereas it just so happens that the EU is the one with the highest tier X population and also just so happens to be the one where the tier VIII MM is so disproportionally skewed towards feeding them as bottom tier in tier X games than it results in toptier games. Do you mean to tell me the two aren't correlated at all and it just so happens that on the EU server (and ONLY the EU server) the MM algorith has a personal vendetta against tier VIII ships?

I believe your (mis-) understanding on how DDs play is severely limiting your ability to comprehend the presented situation. You what now? I'm not sure you actually understand my point here. I'm not trying to take away your radar consumable. I'm asking that MM balances the distribution among the teams so that match-up like the one I showed no longer give one team an overwhelming gameplay advantage. If there's 4 radar ships waiting in queue, the MM should attempt to put 2 into each team (preferably also accounting for the radar specs (US vs RU radar)), not put all 4 radar ships on one side.

Folding sun loungers, typically deployed when camping behind an island waiting for ships to enter ambush range.