DFens_666

Aim high enough, moskva has only 25mm on the upper bow. GK actually has 60?mm lower bow, so it can also bounce Yamato shells. Basicly thats common for T5 BBs (some others too, and i think all germans) aswell, they have heavily armored lower bow armor, but only 16mm ontop of that. This can result in 2 same ships shooting their bows and one dealing 0 damage and the other several k.

Ontop of that its literally worthless for AA mounts. We tested that a while back, whether you use that module is basicly irrelevant. Doesnt do anything. What to expect when AA mounts have like 200 HP? Secondaries seem to get a bit buffed by that, so they wont get destroyed in one hit (alltho we didnt try BB HE, so i dunno how that turns out)

This. Yesterdays match i just plowed through 2 Zaos and 2 Henris. Meanwhile you just laugh at them when they shoot HE at you

This is ofc again skill dependant. You think the current potato CVs will be able to that stunt? If anything, it is even harder for them, since they cant leftclick anymore. Even an autodrop bomb has a chance of hitting, but with that, you can miss totaly. So its hard to say how it will be, but atleast accidently being spotted by bad CVs wont be a thing anymore. However being permaspotted and bombed like CV players from your caliber will totaly be a thing (which is worse than to die right away, slowly withering to death without being able to do anything about it is horrible - i feel with those Cruisers i raped with my Orion)

We had the pleasure about this once, and i still think its wrong, here is why: The law basicly says that, the more equal the setup is, the more likely it is to get a snowball effect - correct? So lets say we put 24 really bad players in one game, with Cruisers that dont have Torpedos. Because they are extremely bad, they only use HE. The only thing which matters, is how good is your aim, how good you can evade or what RNG does (this is already something which doesnt exist IRL). So the team that loses one ship first, will be at a disadvantage - sure this makes sense. So ofc its more likely to kill the enemies even faster, since you now have more firepower. But in WoWs, the ships arent equal even inside their own class. If i play a Hindenburg, there can be a Minotaur in the enemy team. It can be played by someone who deals 30k avg dmg. If he dies first, it doesnt have a big impact on his team, since he is that bad. If i die (can i be a bit arrogant ) ofc it will have a bigger impact on my team. So there are 2 different factors when talking about equal teams: - Individual player skill - Type of ships The 2nd one can never be truely equal, since we dont have exactly matched and mirrored MM. The first one we could balance out, in 2 ways. So basicly we put all bad players in one match, then we are close to the situation i mentioned above. But what quickr wants is basicly this (if i understand it correctly): If you have x unicums/average/bad players in the queue, the MM should deliberately split those players so that both teams have an equal amount of each skilllevel. Basicly what you are all saying, that a game where one side has all super unicums vs a side which has only 40% guys would LESS OFTEN result in a roflstomp - which is utterly wrong ofc, since they arent equal. The problem i have with quickr's idea is, that a good player is more likely to get stuck with bad players, because it would need to balance the difference in skill. This is simple due to the fact, that there arent enough unicums to match them all the time against each other. What ive discovered in the sprint season (were it happened a couple of times, that we got paired with the worst players, i.e. 2 best WR players + 3 or 4 worst WR players in the game). This isnt a roflstomp - but the games usually turned into a loss. The assumption is totaly stupid, if i may say so. You say, that a good player dieing will cause his team to lose faster. With this, i agree ofc. But you somehow assume, that the good player is dieing often as the first one - this is totaly wrong, because he wouldnt be a good player then. Simple truth. Thats why, roflstomps cant happen more often with this setup, see bolded part above. If both sides have an equal amount of bad players, those bad players will MORE OFTEN die early. It can happen that a good player dies early, but its not very likely, so the arguement doesnt hold up, that roflstomps would be more frequent. Only when the good player dies early will a roflstomp occur with a higher chance, but its not likely to happen. Last 2200 battles my survival rate is 57% and still rising after that (last 250 battles 66%)

1) this decides no game - if anything it decides the game in the enemies favor. Even more so if you sit behind an Island as a Hindenburg. 2) well melt isnt really the right word against BBs. Alltho Cruisers have the tendency to punish each other quite heavily, regardless of which Cruiser are facing each other, DM/Salem can do it a bit better because of their super-heavy AP shells. 4) Which ship doesnt have gimmicks (and Hindi doesnt even have Radar...) 5) Not really, Hindenburgs concealment isnt too great, and it is quite large and not so maneuverable. It has the advantage tanking wise compared to Worc/DM/Mino ofc, but they have better concealment instead. 6) Id say this is because Cruisers are the most frustrating class to play when you play badly. So if you suck as a Cruiser, i believe you rather switch to DDs (stealth) or BBs (survivability) Many Cruiser player (mains) have adapted (and learned) how to play these ships - and they do it well. Cruisers dont have much impact early in the game - unless they carry Radar and use it. Otherwise, they become more powerful the longer they survive, especially true for ships like Hindenburg, Henri IV and Zao. If at the end of the game, you have an almost full HP Hindenburg, you can basicly do what you want, because even your biggest threat (BBs) will be reduced in numbers. And a Hindenburg which is only looking for DPM without attracting enemy fire is just played wrong.

Which is good, but again, its an outside source, which not everyone likes to use. I think at this point its pretty futile to talk WG into giving more information. They might sometimes add tiny bits (i think on PTS you can see the HE penetration now, i saw it in Flamus stream afaik), but by that time they added several other new things which they arent telling you.

Cant remember exactly anymore, but i think it was rather early because i watched YT WoWs vids even before i played the game. I think i rather early heard the magical 14,3 value for overmatching. Also thats why i would disagree with @Allied_Winter , that the game is infact very complex because of all the different values. Its easy for us who are 2y or more around. Back then there were less different ships around. And f.e. if you dont want to learn about armor and overmatching, its kinda hard to know why a Hipper can bounce 380mm shells (like Bismarck) with his Bow, while a Mogami cant. At the same time, Hipper cant bounce Colorado shells, which is a tier lower than Bismarck, so imo its everthing but simple. Simple would mean, i can tank a T8 BB, so i should be able to tank a T7 BB aswell.

Ill get ma popcorn Yes, I agree, especially since WG is changing CVs, AND they want to change Radar aswell. Both which are countering DD stealth, and both are getting nerfed so to say. Currently even a bad CV player can spot DDs, even when its not deliberate. But after the change, this will be different since they only 1 squad in the air. Ofc a good CV player can just harass the DD himself permanently spotting and damaging him. Ontop of that, they are changing BB AP vs DDs... I think this are waaay too many changes at once which either are making life easier for DDs, or atleast have the potential to do so. This might make it difficult to change something back, since you dont know what change had what kinda impact (like playing mastermind board game - if anyone knows that) But i dont agree with Cruisers being the deciding factor in a game -> its DDs when there is no CV around. Mostly one side will lose their DDs very quickly, and its downhill from their. If the enemy DDs are good, then you will have problems even with radar. Also i dont agree, that BBs have the lowest impact in the game. You simply need BBs to not let Cruisers run free. This works even at long range because T10 BBs are very accurate and have the most guns. But any non-Radar Cruiser has no impact to stop a DD run freely, only Radar Cruiser have that ability.

Still the 2nd question: what happens if there is not enough unicum players to match each other? Like there is a 3x Omni division, so you need 3 of that kind for the enemy team too. Most likely there wont be, unless you let them sit in queue until there would be enough. Or the other option would be, to put more bad players on the Omni side, so that it would even out - which i described as horribly bad. If someone who is good, gets deliberately matched with the worst players, then it will only make matters worse. Im not sure how this will turn out in a 12vs12, but as ive said before, i checked some matches from the 6v6 sprint, and they looked like what you guys are proposing. Its hard to call them roflstomps in a 6v6 format, but most of those were just lost by sheer incompetence on how to play the game. Players with <47-48% (id say) are actively hurting your game - they arent even trying, most likely due to the fact that they dont understand that the fault is with themselves.

Am i missing something? I wouldnt need that at all, or maybe im just weird Basicly the Spotter plane equals the Range mod, but not permanently. If you take spotter, you could take reload mod - but imo thats not really necessary. The other option would be to play with spotter and range, but why shoot more than 20km?

And by what criteria will someone be a Unicum? WR, PR, or Both? - If WR: I had the pleasure (after checking) in the first sprint season to see with what players we got paired up with -> mostly guys with red WR. Enemies had players with 50+% WR, which is usually a loss. 2 good players cant outkill 6 average guys when the other 4 bad ones on your team just die instantly. A 60% guy will outplay a >50% guy - but it takes longer for him than for the 50% guy to kill a 45% broadsider. In a 6vs6 when you are down 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1 with caps disadvantage AND point disadvantage ofc, you simply run out of time. Also 2vs4/5 is extremely hard to fight against, even without points/times ticking away from you. Another example from yesterday, alltho i didnt check the WR from the players: Ring , i played DD and went B, because there were 3 DDs total so i expected atleast one of the enemies to go to B. Do you think more than 1 from my team (which was my division ofc) tried to shoot the enemy DDs (were 2 actually)? We asked the Omaha to support there, he would have been TOTALY safe, while he could have shot 4-5 times against almost stationary DDs. Omaha went A full broadside vs 3 BBs died. So you know, enemies took A + B now. You think 2 of our DDs would take C without enemy interference? haha good joke, one stopped before the cap, the other went though without capping it Same time our 2nd BB ran towards J1, somewhere there is an island to hide behind. So back to the question: If you manage to decide who is potato and unicum, how will they be paired against? If there arent any unicums, will i get a really bad player instead? Then i might aswell quit WoWs right away, because those players are too bad to even carry if you put too many in one team. Many ppl have said, not the side with the better players wins, but the one with less idiots. This is very true.

In WoWs you can win basicly without fighting - we had one match not too long ago by simply capping the enemy Base. This would kinda mean, that your army failed and just gave up to defend your country. Lanchesters Law is from the time of WW I, where in 4 years ~8 million military personal was killed. Even when its not the main objective to kill the enemy, its simply impossible to not do so. (or atleast very unlikely), while in WoWs it works basicly without killing anyone, and here we start with a level playing field. Id guess in order to rather give up than to fight, you must be seriously outnumbered (which can happen IRL ofc, since you dont automatically start with a x vs x) @159Hunter The advantage of injuring the enemy cant be wiped away. After this, i WONT continue with this subject anymore

He doesnt play BB to have both hands free to do you know what

I always wonder why especially Cruisers seem to get flamed in situations like that Must be their thing... DDs get flamed for not spotting or capping BBs get flamed for camping Cruisers get flamed for not killing and tanking half the enemy team Finaly proven: Cruiserplayers are the best of all, since they are the only ones who are supposed to kill 6 ships at once

But if you leave the game, your ship stops moving.... so he just went AFK that A-Hole

Ive had Bots deliberately try to ram me, but i dodged^^

Had great games divisioning with @ForlornSailor and @Blixies I like that devastating strike on my Minotaur without a torpedohit (also no detonation ofc) I just looked at our stats on wowsnumbers: when a GK (Blixies) has more spotting than me in a Cruiser... shamefur dispray by me

The problem is, you can win by other means than just killing the enemy - unlike real war, where you basicly have to kill the enemy, or he has to surrender. Neither does happen in WoWs (theoratically the first one, but its not a must) Also capping and timelimit does impact the players to do something - ontop of not "losing" anything, while in war you would die.

Didnt want to imply that, but majority of the games looked like that. And i rather wanted to show, what it feels like if good players are paired with the worst players, and the enemy team gets the "average" (in this sense between bad and good) players - then the team with less bad players will usually win.

The base assumption from that law DOES NOT fit into WoWs, because: DD ≠ BB ≠ CA In WoWs you could shoot and kill unspotted the whole match. Or you can never hit anything. The law assumes that you WILL kill someone over time.

No words... And ofc, this Jianwei must be German, because you write dumB with B in english, but DumM in german... There would be no reason to write dumb wrong, unless its dumm in your own language I think you should report that Jianwei to the Support, because he told the enemy team your location, and afaik this is a punishable offence. BBabies and DDummies flooding the game with incompetence

Well, if i would have a reasonable chance to win for the first 10 minutes, then it would be prefectly acceptable imo. But currently you have those games, where all your DDs die after 4 minutes - and then its pretty much lost from there. The only times you can win this, is when the enemies are even MORE STUPID and start feeding themselves - but then we are at the original point: Idiots throwing games left and right. Or when your CV is hugging the border to snipe the enemy CV -> even tho its not a guaranteed loss, but the odds are right away heavily against you.

Ive experienced this "balancing" occasionally in the first sprint season: We played division (2x 61% WR), and mostly our teammates were <47% ppl. While the enemy team had mostly players >50%. The result is quite obvious: 6x 50+% ppl will basicly beat the enemy team all the time, when it consists of 2 good and 4 really bad players. Its actualy quite interesting to see, how big the difference really is when you go from 45% players to >50%. The first ones are really actively hurting your team, while the >50% guys have some kinda understanding of the game (changing course, angling, not yoloing in Cruisers, spotting/capping as DDs) While the bad players just do the most stupid stuff: Go straight to the middle of the map as a Cruisers, open water gunboating in a DD, constantly broadsiding in a Cruiser or BB... list goes on.

The difference was, that i could actually see him when i played the game! So the question is: Why is there a difference when i watched the replay on the same PC? Settings are the same, so what did cause that discrepency? Also we really cant know how big the difference really is, since the moment was so brief when he was spotted - or better: How long would it have taken in the repay for the CV to get rendered? Obviously its longer, but by how much? Which makes me wonder: What is really the problem for the difference in rendering time? At this point we can even rule out graphic settings to some degree, since there is a difference between actual playing the game <-> watching the replay from said game.