ForlornSailor

Long story short: something is wrong with the balance when 2 ships perform so drastically different.

I tend to absolutly agree with this. Just makes a lot of sense and explaines a lot of things. First of all, its the type of ammunition: SAP. you cant go wrong with it - unless you have no clue how to aim at all but then you are a <10k avg dmg player anyway. SAP always deals damage. Even HE is harder to use efficiently, because it needs aweareness to maximize DoT. And since we have a ship with low skill celling, its easier for the average player to use. Also, other ships may have higher skill celings so perform better in the hands of the best players. But also the stats point to the direction, that Venezia (SAP) is broken. When you look at the average damage of Venezia, dont forget, that its 0% DoT (well almost, does sure include some flooding damage) unlike ships as Worcester or Henri. IMO, Venezia should more be in the damage region of a Minotaur, because they both deal a lot of direct damage. And that is 63 643 vs 87 043 infavour of Venezia....

Interesting. So while in your world, the DM is pounding the Venezia to dust, DM still gets full AR from somewhere, while the Venezia - which is been dumped by the DM in your example - does not get AR. intersting interesting. Also, the Venezia is moving around at 17 km, where the DM has a hard time hitting her. Oh, well, lets make it 21 km and then the DM...yea... does jack s. Also, the Venezia has a nice and convienient smoke screen when s hits the fan. While you sit there at your island, stationary, the Venezia goes invisible and sh´s 10k+ volleys from out of your range on your oh so fast firing US heavy cruiser.

Nah DoY isnt. You just have to make use of the better AP. Absolute cruiser killer. Used to be my go-to-T7-BB DoY was hurt by 2 things: - Raised citadel - Changed matchmaking for T7 which throws you into T9 games a lot Now one of those would have been possible to work around but the combination is horrible. The overmatchable bow plating when you are low tier in combo with the raised citadels makes you take citas from almost all angles. Not to mention that WG likes to throw around high calibre BBs more and more. I dont think I could reproduce my stats with her in the current situation. Actually, I dont even want to try. Making Duke of York great again: lower the citadel again. It was a wrong move anyway.

This. I remember setting up a rush around an island with my Isokaze not so long ago, because there was a BB right around it. A french DD with full speedboast is following me (ofc catching up since he is way faster). Im already smelling it and telling my divi "watch this n*** he will torp me for sure" Once we come around the corner, he seems to be paniking because of the red BB (yea situational awareness and minimap are hard to gasp), he first rams into me, then turns out, then launched all his torps (which would be almost all missing, since the BB is showing perfect stern towards our position) and ofc all the torps go straight into me. What followed was a minute long rage & insulting tirade, how blind I am, how I suck, what he does (and did) to my mother and yea overall how I have no idea how to play this game. I passed 100k damage and had 4 kills at that point. In the T4 Isokaze.

Thats without a question. At the same time, we all know, this is never going to happen, right? I wish, the trainingroom would allow for advanced setting, as if tinker with each and every possible setting, f.e. via a local settings file. This way, the community could easily test such ideas and present the results in the forum or directly to WG. Quite a few other games have such possibilities...

Huge contradiction here. Ill give you one example, that shuts down your entire idea. 2 mins left on the clock. standard battle. My team is leading with 100 points. Im the last guy standing, a Cruiser with 50 HP. Enemys have 2 Battleships left. Full health. A) What I currently do: Nothing. I run and hide. Secure the 100% win because enemys cant win by points, cap or time. I get additional XP because I got the win home. B) What I would do in your system: Run in, YOLO and try to get some damage in. Because it will get me more XP then just hiding, winning and doing nothing. Yea. No. As explained above. I would litterally have to throw games to gain a few XP more.

Honestly, I dont think you can draw a comparision between Azuma and Alaska just like this. A lot of things about them 2 have already been said but one thing Id like to add: What about the silver cruisers? Sure, you could conclude that Azuma should be buffed on levels of Alaska, but where does it leave the other Cruisers? What about Azuma vs Roon f.e.? The problems really comes from those supercruisers sitting in the cruiser class and beeing match against "real" cruisers.

The time is ofc subject of discussion but the idea sounds good - in adition with this: It would also suit the faster pace, the game had become over the years - fast reloading cruisers didnt really exist in the early days of wows, neither did the reload boost consumable and the super fast CV planes.

The current selection suggests russian, british, US and commonwealth light cruisers.

Yea, somehow I had to think of things like that and similar when writing ... *cold shiver*

I hate to defend @Excavatus () on that one but actually: If one player shows a much higher rating in one class, the only thing this shows, is, that he personally is better in this class. And if we really want to get down on this: IF CVs would be so overpowered (I think you are trying to say this with the stat analysis of exca), it would be harder for an individuum to reach a super unicum rating in his class. So him beeing super unicum in CVs actually shows this: there are a LOT of really bad players in CVs around. Because they fill the stats with average and below numbers. Super unicum is not some status that you reach automatically by performing a certain benchmark. Its individually calculated for each ship and only the best ... 5%? (i dont even know, but lets go with 5% for the example) get labled as super unicums. But WG prolly has to take the blame for such arguments beeing around. After all, it was them who defined the "skill gap" as a gap in individual performance between classes. While everyone else pretty much defined skill gap as a global thing, comparing classes against each other and leaving individual performance out of it.

You are wrong here. First, he doesnt "try" anything because he is defending what we already have. Second, you are implying, he (and others with a high winrate) have some kind of advantage over other players (your hint at Manichaeism). As if he is born into some kind of group, that for what ever reason has a higher chance of winning in a randon battle. He doesnt. We all start with the same conditions, the playing field is even. What seperates him from others is his skill. Your proposal actually narrows down to "punish the ones that are skilled". Third. This game is all about XP and credits. Winning gives more XP, performing better gets you more credits. Thus its is in every players interest, to a) win b) win more and c) perform to the best of his abilities. Nobody is at fault, that there is a (imo growing!) group of players, that do not care about those 3 points. They should be punished (and actually some of their actions are violaiting the rules of the game and are a banable offense) if they deside not to participate in the way the game is designed in randoms. Yet in your proposal - those players are beeing rewarded. Their incentive to learn and perform better is taken away. Why would they? the 35% player gets a 65% on his side so reach an average of 50%. Also, why would I try and perform myself (as someone with 65% WR) to the best of my abilities? I got only bad teammates. And the harder I carry - the worse my team gets. Why would I carry them? And last but not least: your system would defeat itself sooner or later. You use WR to determine if a player is good or bad and want to balance the teams from there. So at some point, when your system works perfectly - everyone has 50% WR. Then what? Who is a good player then? And yea, to counter your wrong hint on Manichaeism, ill give you a better analogy of what you want: A good student gets very good grades. His classmates are rather poor. But the school says, its unfair that the poor students are beeing "shamed" for beeing dumb. So they decide "we count all results together and build an average". And the better the intelligent student performs, the more bad pupils they place in his class. So all classes in school reach a perfect average score. Sounds fair? If you can explain to me, why such a system in a school would be acceptable - then your proposal would make sense. Else it just doesnt.

Thats indeed the flaw. The better a player is / the higher his Winrate is, the worse would be his teammates. Its just not a viable solution for a game with 12 vs 12 random battles. @Miblogdegolf. I can understand where you are coming from and it sounds good on first thought, but it might in the long run just create as much frustration as... anything else. And yea, a solo player with a WR > 60% - think about his team vs. the enemy team (unless matchmaker happens to find a similar player to throw in the enemy team). There is also a flaw in thinking, that WR scales linear. Lets say, you have the following setup in queue (and we leave ship/tier distribution completly out of it for the moment - lets say its a 12vs12 and everyone is in the same ship) - 12 people with 50% WR - 6 people with 55% WR - 6 people with 45% WR. Now MM throws the 55% and 45 % WR guys in one team against the team with 50% WR. My money is on the team with the 50% WR players. They are not awesome players but they carry their own weight. each of them. While the 45% guys are a liability for their teams for whatever reason. 6 above average players usualy cant balance this out. And then there is long term effect of everyone beeing drawn towards 50% which would eventually defeat the system itself, since it would lack the data it needs to seperate the players, aka the difference in WR.

Thats what I said tho oO

I absolutly agree on that part. I just wish people overall would be better / care more about objectives and winning instead of having the game bend to somehow fit them in.

I hear what you saying but isnt it more a problem of players skill? I can picture the game (ive seen them aswell, from both sides) but such players are pretty much unfit for the game. Quite frankly: I dont want them on my team nor the enemy team. They are just bad for the game itself. Thus I will not agree (if thats where you are headding) that the game gets any better, if you distribute the rotten potatos evenly across both teams.

Dont bother. You wont get an answer I think. I suppose it is because you blamed CVs. Imo thats one of the flaws of the line and especially for Venezia. Venezia has this insane range and throws 15 shells in the air. Additional to that, the SAP mechanics, that dont care how far you are away from the target. So you always get your damage even when you are 22 km away from the nearest enemy. Id think, if you put all the T10 ships up there and compare the effective dpm per minute you slay out at ranges past 20 km -Venezia is number 1.

What im wondering: does it keep seperat track for each game mode? Or does it track for anything else than randoms anyway? afaik there is no offical info on this or is there? somehow im always top tier in coop and I feel I throw myself under the bus for randoms with that. talking about observation bias eh

The best thing is: enemy bots dodging your torps perfectly while the bots on your team bend the law of physics to make sure to catch them xD The bots just completly ignore friendlies. If you happen to be in the way: you gonna have a bad day.

Its literally one of the easiest and at the same time strongest T6 cruisers out there. And Leander doesnt care about beeing low tiered. Her concealment / smoke firing penatly is better then Fijis. Wrong. Leander outspots every cruiser she meets. Every - single - one up into T8. Another completly wrong statement. Please learn about penetration and DD armor. Leander is a DD killer with its rapid firing RN AP. 26k damage... you fired only 100 shots with a hitrate of 22%. What do you expect?

no. True. It started to show by the end of last season, when Venezias often enough stopped our flanking Henris. Venezia just does everything better and has its panic 100 % saveguard insta smoke which is just...

Not true Also not true. You can write as much as you want but your view on the game is lacking experiance. Its as simple as that.

True, I got quite a few torp hits with Kiev, that made me go "lol". (some on cap contesting DDs that smoked up xD) Thats something I dislike in general but WG seems to push into that direction. I also dislike DDs with firepower of a cruiser. Anything that blurrs the borders between classes feels wrong to me (coughbattlecruiserscough). It just shifts the balance because they cant do what the class is suppose to do and do better in other categories. Regarding Kiev: just bring her in a division with a CV, let the CV take care of the DDs and you dont need to worry about beeing out-capped :D

Big surprise: you get more XP and credits for dealing damage to higher tier ships. Maybe do some research first before you critize things and rant-suggest to "fix" things that arent broken in the first place...