Jump to content

asalonen

Players
  • Content Сount

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6676

1 Follower

About asalonen

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Helsinki, Finland

Recent Profile Visitors

201 profile views
  1. asalonen

    Yamato- How to position?

    Yamato is THE ship that I have never really mastered. Possibly it's just difficult, or alternatively I just don't have the correct mindset for it. In any case, after 100+ battles I still don't have the comfortable feeling of really knowing what I'm doing. Stats support this too: I'm very average in the Yamato, while in many other high-tier ships I manage very good damage and unicum WR. Some of the points in this thread are probably spot-on. Personally, I think I generally play too close, especially considering how brutally accurate the main battery is with the unique upgrade. When I'm too close in such a slow ship with a juicy citadel, well... The secondaries aren't anything special either, and definitely not worth investing in. Whenever you end up in secondary distance with the Yamato, you just wish you had brought the Kurfürst or République instead. The point about preferring flanks to the center makes complete sense as well.
  2. asalonen

    Le Terrible, and how it should be buffed

    Le Terrible is the most fun I've had with a new ship in quite a while. It's very unique, very challenging, but can be very efficient and rewarding if you get it right. Paradoxically, the many ways how Le Terrible seemingly sucks are exactly what makes it fun for me: Gun DPS sucks except when you hit the booster. Time its use well and it can really pay off. Turret traverse and firing angles suck, so better be aware to which direction you likely want to shoot next. You can't dump all torps to one side -- not sure with how many T8 destroyers you need to deal with this, but I don't have others. No smoke, so better have a different plan B. You'd really want a 30-point skipper in it, so some tough choices to be made there. I would agree with buffing the guns slightly, in some way. Could be lowering the general reload just a bit, or maybe making the reload boost last 5 to 10 seconds longer. It wouldn't change the general nature of the ship. Possibly hydro? It would give you some additional survivability when charging the enemy DD's.
  3. asalonen

    Please do something about tier 8 matchmaking

    That's not really true though. Tier 8 is actually very popular. I checked the EU stats for last two months from here. If you sum the ships by tier it looks like: Tier 1: 86k battles Tier 2: 37k battles (least popular, those who get excited just skip?) Tier 3: 101k battles Tier 4: 175k battles Tier 5: 739k battles Tier 6: 1057k battles (Bayern most popular, followed by Nürnberg) Tier 7: 1522k battles (Gneisenau by far most popular) Tier 8: 1749k battles (Bismarck by far most popular, followed by Tirpitz) Tier 9: 1329k battles (less popular than either 8 or 10, Musashi by far most popular) Tier 10: 3076k battles So overall, the higher the tier the more players it has. The only exceptions are 2 and 9. Player base might have something to do with this, as the famous real German warships are really popular in tiers 6 to 8. Edit: I like the idea of pure T10 and T9-10 battles, as something taking place randomly alongside the good old T8-10. There are so many people at the end of the line in T10 that player numbers make it very feasible. Then T8 wouldn't have to be bottom tier so often, which is only fair?
  4. asalonen

    Please do something about tier 8 matchmaking

    It's an impossible problem to solve so that no tier suffers to some degree. With the current match making, T10 needs fodder from T9 and T8. Different number of players in each tier affects this as well: When I last checked, mid-tiers have the most players. (Edit: not true anymore, just put latest stats in my more recent post. These days high tiers are most popular.) Possibly it's not as harsh for T8 if it has more players in the queue than T10. In any case, if T8's are up-tiered more often than not, it then propagates down to T7. In order to create T7 games, they need fodder from T6 and T5. T5 is in a tough spot because going down the tiers, it's the first that's matched only one tier down, and additionally T6 and T7 could very well have more players than T4. So the T5 guy is very likely thrown up. But however you change it, some tiers pay the price. It's trivial for WG to simulate different kind of match makings with the current player base. On the other hand, armor thicknesses and penetration rules have no doubt also been chosen with the current match making in mind. For me, match making across three tiers is more fun because it gives more variety. Very few ships are completely useless when matched two tiers up. When I first made it to T8 I loved because I finally met the formidable Yamatos et. al. It's still one of my favourites tiers. I personally have tough time in T5, but I can also blame myself for being fond of Krasny Krim and Okhotnik. The single thing that for me sucks most in the current match making is the number the pay-for-radar ships in T7.
  5. asalonen

    Please do something about tier 8 matchmaking

    This is in line with my experience as well. When I'm up-tiered I just try to play conservatively. I'm not the top dog that everybody expects to carry the team. However, if I play my cards right I can still make a difference. It's a different kind of challenge that calls for a different kind of attitude. Reds have T8's as well, facing the same challenge. Some T8's up-tier mighty fine. I'm very happy with Kiev and Richelieu for example. When up-tiered in the Richelieu I just do the French reverse thing more often, and shoot HE more often instead of AP. With the Kiev I'm more paranoid about keeping the distance and am happy for having AFT and DE. Disclaimer: I don't really play high-tier cruisers. In T8 I only have Atago and it is pretty frustrating against T10. For me T5 is clearly most difficult, but it could be about ship selection as well. But in general I feel the match making spread is pretty good as it is. It provides variety.
  6. asalonen

    U Mad Bro? Post battle rage messages.

    This guy was sailing without cover in a Cleveland, and I sank him in short order with my Jean Bart from about 10 km. Didn't take much, but the guy was convinced of a conspiracy. This is just the post-battle bit... *edited*
  7. asalonen

    Legendary Upgrade opinons/debate.

    For anyone running a secondary build on the Kurfürst, it's simply very, very good. You don't lose significant secondary volume compared to Secondary Battery Modification 3, and you get a big boost in main battery volume. The loss in range is a non-issue since your build is not for long distances in the first place. If you don't run secondary build, then it's a different story... I'll always run secondary build on the Kurfürst simply because it's more fun. If I want to snipe I'll take out the Yamato instead, which also has a great legendary mod for that kind of play. In general I feel the legendary mods are pretty well thought out. They support each ship's unique play style, which may or may not be most efficient in the current meta. High-tier German BB's are suffering right now. République becomes a monster with the legendary upgrade dropping main battery reload time below 20 seconds. Like with the Kurfürst the loss of range isn't really relevant. You come around an island running the 4.5 min turbo and quickly send the other guy to kingdom come. Or at least that's what you're best at. (Haven't tried other than these three yet. Possibly some are completely useless)
  8. asalonen

    Idea: Remove citadels from cruisers :)

    I mostly play battleships and destroyers, but not because I feel that cruisers are weak. In fact, some of the red cruisers I face are damn terrifying. If I'm in a destroyer I can avoid them, but If I'm in a battleship, the fact they have a citadel gives me hope. The problem is, of course, if they are really good at it I often don't get the chance.
  9. asalonen

    Why no skill-based matchmaking for random?

    My first thought was to use an ELO rating (or something similar to it) within your own team. If you carry in a battle, you gain a bit of rating from your team mates, if you don't you lose a bit. It seems simple enough, but does depend on XP being a reasonably valid measure of carrying, which I believe it is even now. This doesn't push everyone towards a mean value. WR's would get closer to 50 %, but they're not the measure of skill here. I admittedly kind of suck at math, and haven't thought this through in low-level detail. Old battles wouldn't count at some point, skill brackets would be dynamic to cover only active players. Not sure where to place new players -- they enter low tiers anyhow so possibly it's not very important, unless they buy a Tirpitz. I don't see why it wouldn't work. I think it's more of a gaming-philosophical question, as one poster put it -- is it OK to roll a different set of dice for different players in the random queue? I just believe that you would get happier gamers overall, and possibly make more money.
  10. asalonen

    Why no skill-based matchmaking for random?

    When I wrote the original post, I wasn't thinking about stomps at all. I appreciate the random in randoms, or in WoWS in general. All I had in mind was the perceived quality of teamplay. As an above-average player (according to stats at least), I personally wouldn't mind if I didn't have way-below-average players in either blue or red team. It's not a huge thing, but if I could choose I would play without them. Also -- and I may be very, very wrong here -- I don't think the way-below-average players would mind not playing with the unicums. I would think they'd feel more relevant, and likely get less *hit in the chat. I think just three skill brackets and two queues would do the trick, because it would achieve this without increasing waiting times much. Also, you can always adaptively switch to a single queue if the tier range doesn't have many players at that time. Nothing else would have to change.
  11. asalonen

    Why no skill-based matchmaking for random?

    I think the position on team score list is "indicative" of player skill. Possibly it's not spot-on in every individual game, and possibly the XP calculation could enhanced to treat different kind of contributions more fairly. In any case, a single game shouldn't have a big effect if the target is only to split the whole player base into a few skill levels. I presume you would consider hundreds of games.
  12. asalonen

    Why no skill-based matchmaking for random?

    I don't think that there's any reason to even try prevent steamrolls in randoms. The element of surprise is part of the fun, and I enjoy both long nail-biters and battles where one of the teams experiences a quick cascading collapse. It's more about why it happens. Sometimes you lose skilled DD's early on and you deal with it the best you can. It's a different kind of experience compared to having high-tier DD's go surf the border and not contribute (an extreme example, no doubt). But in general, teamplay is more fun with teams with more equal skill. Skilled players carry the team more often. If you're only trying to split the player base to a few skill levels, it can be fairly rough, and a single battle could only have a small effect on your rating. Still, if you consistently finish near the top of the team score sheet, your rating would slowly rise. I see it more like a simple solution to a small problem... A division mate mentioned that Mechwarrior Online does exactly this: players are split into five tiers, based on skill (didn't check how exactly it's determined). The matchmaker starts by looking for players from the same player tier, but to keep waiting time in check can combine players from up to three different tiers in the same game. It's done to keep the opposite ends of the player base in different random battles. It's also a F2P game and somebody's trying to make money with it. ...so I was just wondering why it wouldn't be good for WoWS.
  13. There have been several rants about poor player quality in randoms lately. I'm sure the rants have popped up since day one. I'm also sure WG may have explicitly stated that there will be no skill-based matchmaking in randoms. Still, if we consider something like this: Each player gets XP from a battle like before. Each player has a rating such as ELO. After each battle, each player gains rating from team mates with lower XP, and loses rating to team mates with higher XP. Zero-sum game within the team for each battle. If you consistently contribute more than your buddies your rating goes up, or vice versa. Based on ratings, player base could be split to three levels: the good 33 %, the average 33 %, and the bad 33 %. Instead of one queue, there would be two. The good 33 % would go to high queue, the bad 33 % would go to low queue. The average guys would have a 50-50 chance of being thrown to either queue. If there are few players online for the tier, you could switch to using one queue. This is just an example, and you could argue about details such as XP calculation, naming and exact numbers forever. However, it's a simple system that guarantees that players with vastly different skill levels don't meet too often. Wouldn't it give a better gaming experience for all, and thus make WG's product better?
  14. asalonen

    Terrible good/BAD in premium shop

    I've played Kiev quite a bit, with pretty good results. Possibly I'll manage to equal that with the Terrible, but I'm somewhat doubtful after the first 15 games. 1. Kiev has better ballistics. You can utilize AFT to great effect, especially combined with DE. You can deal the damage from greater distance so you're safer. I can do stuff even when up-tiered. With the Terrible I often feel pretty useless. 2. Kiev has much better turret layout, four out of six guns firing straight ahead. You really use that a lot. 3. The individual torps might be worse, but Kiev launches ten instead of six per side. Reload time is not that relevant with either ship, since the torps are mostly used in the occasional ambush or a yolo run, where you either get the guy or you're *ucked. 4. In Kiev, you might actually want to switch on the AA. 5. Kiev has smoke. :) Le Terrible is a lot better for the torpedo runs when you combine the 54 knots with better concealment. The victim has very limited reaction time if you do it right. However, other than that... I like it because it's different, but it really is kinda *hit. It deserves a buff, be it better gun arcs or a heal. Something.
  15. asalonen

    What is the stupidest thing you did today?

    I'm getting excited about Le Terrible. It is kind of terrible, but I like it. It's different while many ships are just plain dull, and it can be very efficient. Up-tiered you're likely waiting for the lucky opportunity that may or may not come, but then that's tier 8 for you.
×