asalonen

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?

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.

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.

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*

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My gut feeling is that the highly competitive "best of the best" don't like random, so they don't play it. They don't want to be in the same team with the Div 7 Dude who just came for quick, mindless pew-pew between the family dinner and putting his kids to bed. If they don't like what WoWS has to offer, other than randoms, possibly they choose to play some other game. The Div 7 Dude likes randoms, so he won't play co-op even if some stranger on a forum would wish he did. He's enjoying himself and will come again, and others like him. I'm not that competitive myself, but a pretty solid player and I have my moments of frustration. I try to remind myself that the reds are treated exactly the same, on average, and this is what I chose to play myself. In the end, I'm also enjoying it.

Kraken in the Alsace, after what felt like wonderfully aggressive and unapologetic gameplay, together with @jss78 and @lliuhto. The high-tier French BB's seem extremely suitable for this. I generally find it difficult to make a difference in high-tier BB's, but with Richelieu, Alsace and République my win rates seem to hover above 60 %.

Krasny Krym can be a nice, demented troll boat, but I wouldn't take it to ranked. It's massively dependent on captain skills. Once you have EM, BFT, DE, AFT and CE it becomes kind of effective in T5. The problem is, running around in circles at a distance and spamming HE isn't all that exciting in the long run. Also, Svietlana is almost as good and gets T4 match making. I've mostly played Bretagne with AA build with a friendly CV, and in that limited role it's very, very good. With a good skipper including manual AA you have a very strong 7.2 km AA bubble for T5. Other than that, it's a well-balanced ship in the sense that it has no strengths. Other than those two, the only T5 ship I've played a lot is Okhotnik. I can see a pattern forming here... T5 match making is so brutal that I never really cared what's good and what's bad. In fact, this is exactly why T5 ranked is very, very welcome.

Maps just make WG money indirectly. The old-timers may or may not buy another month of premium, doubloons, a premium ship, etc. The more fun the game is, the more likely they are to keep spending. If the game gets very repetitive due to the small number of maps, some will choose to go. I don't think the situation is really that bad with the maps, but I also have the feeling that WG is spending very, very little time with them. They seem awfully simple compared to level design in most other games. It's mostly water, and as far as gameplay is concerned the islands could be just dead rocks. I never minded the maps with just ice bergs. If they are pretty, detailed tropical heavens, well it's a nice touch.

République has the longest range, 12.1 km fully buffed. Next are Kurfürst, Friedrich, Alsace, Massachusetts, Bismarck and Tirpitz, all above 11 km fully buffed. Alsace has the highest volume. In general, I find it easier to actually use the secondaries and live to tell about it with the French BB's. Both Alsace and République are strong with secondary builds, although Alsace really needs IFHE to do damage. They are faster and have better concealment than the Germans. With the German BB's, I'm not convinced that they are strong with secondary builds, although fun as hell. I haven't tried the Massachusetts, so possibly it's really good for harvesting ribbons, if the secondaries are unusually accurate? What comes to the absolute number of ribbons though, I've got around 500 secondary hits tops. You can get more ribbons than that with the main guns of Akizuki, Kitakaze and especially Harugumo. I'm sure Minotaur can get close to or beyond 1000. Edit: I missed the bit that this is limited to T10. With secondaries, I'd go with the République. But you can definitely get more ribbons, on average, with Harugumo.

I've tried the Jervis five games now, and am trying to convince myself it's not a total turd. I'm mostly comparing with Akatsuki and Leningrad, my most played T7 DD's. Jervis is seemingly good for one thing only, which is getting rid of enemy DD's using the hydro and good forward facing fire power. Other than that, you're very helpless much beyond 7 km with all weapon systems. How do you play it to get good overall contribution? Also, what sort of captain skills? The first 10 seem clear: Priority target, High alert, Basic firing training (for the guns) and Concealment expert. I have 17 points and added both IFHE and DE to maximize the gun lethality. Superintendent would be nice for one more hydro, but doesn't seem like a must-have.

In the end, you have to accept the Russians DD's as what they are: Really fast boats with great accurate guns. Keep moving fast, and don't get too close. With a bit of distance between you and the foe, you're the one who's difficult to hit. Keep the guns blazing, but pull out if you get too much fire -- only to return again. When I play Minsk, Leningrad and Kiev, I think of myself as a general nuisance to the enemy. Often I switch targets to keep the fires going, and if possible also provide close support for a friendly capping DD. It's a dirty, cowardly style of play, but my win rates are good in these ships, so it seems to work. You can also use the excellent speed to perform other tricks occasionally. If you spawn close to cap, you'll be there first, but if contested you also have the speed to get away. Also, late into battles you often get the chance to ambush enemy BB's: With some cover, straight at them, wiggle a bit if you find yourself looking into 350 mm barrels, and then dump all torps in their side. They have very limited reaction time, and you really feel like the boss. It requires good judgement, but can be brutally effective. Edit: Additionally, like the lower tier Russian cruisers with 130 mm guns, up to Krasny Krim, these ships benefit greatly from captain skills. Expert marksman, Basic firing training, Demolition expert and Advanced firing training are all investing to the one thing these boats have going for them: guns. I also always try to have the sierra mike signal for maximum speed.

Just had a game with the République that got me thinking about this. I'm not sure if it's completely alright if somebody works his way up to tier X and then gets this guy as a team mate. But what you gonna do if you sell tier 8 premiums... Edit: I was wondering the other day if it would be good to have some kind of criteria to get beyond tier 7. Say for example a minimum of 100 battles in the previous tier with at least 40 % win rate. It wouldn't be too strict, but would guarantee a certain level of player quality in tiers 8 to 10. Very few people would feel the negative impact, but many might be grateful -- good for business? However, it doesn't work if you can just buy your way around it.

Some play better than others, always will. Some will always be below 50 %. In high tiers most players "have learned to play" already, so it's mostly about whether their performance happens to satisfy you. If it doesn't, stop playing random? You can end up with a 45 % win rate in tier X without doing anything fundamentally stupid. The 35 % guys are another story, and possibly a real problem. If you removed the current 45 % guys from the player pool, because they need to "play coop", "learn to play", or whatever you offer them, it would change nothing. Another group of players would then sink to 45 %, and you would then need to remove them as well. You could repeat this until you finally remove yourself, because after enough elitism you're the one who's below average.

I mostly play in a division with the same dudes, and solo win rate is about 2 % less. My buddies are both above average players solo, so it makes perfect sense: Two of my team mates are above average, guaranteed, while the rest are random. Generally speaking, I think it's safe to say that divisions drive the player WR's apart in both directions. Players generally team up with similar players. I often see divisions which are are just hopelessly bad, and each of their members would have a better chance of winning solo. So by teaming up they just drive their WR down -- not that they necessarily care, or even should care.

In the end, why would you? I'm sure the hypothetical German battleship above, with 8 Schwerer Gustav guns and what-not, could've been built if somebody had judged it's worth the massive expense? They did the same kind of thing with tanks with the Maus, but it's cheaper to over-do tanks than battleships. The biggest battleships built during the WW2 years were not economical, and this was realized already during the war. With carriers, what would be the reason to make them any bigger? If you have the money, why not build more instead?

This is easily explained: You have a lot of players who come and go. Don't get excited, never get good, and leave. Meanwhile, old-timers rub their hairy hands together and pad their stats. I expect it would be much closer to 50% if you could narrow down the SELECT's to cover only tier 8 to 10 battles, for example. Note: I have no clue what you hold in your DB, and/or what exactly the Wargaming API provides.