tocqueville8

Coal was about 100M. I had almost 150M and bet it all, and now I have 49.9M

Well, that guy was a strong player. He just happened to be wrong (and angry about it) in that particular case.

Where's that gif of Fry squinting when you need it?

I'll take the liberty of copy-pasting the description I put on the website (they're not publishing them anyway, as long as there's that vulnerability ) A rollercoaster of a game on Canada. Standard battle, 4 DDs and 1 sub per team. After fruitlessly attempting to ambush the enemy Z-52, who's hydroing the whole center of the map, I finally nail him as I sail North to suppress the enemy sub, who snuck into our base. Eventually he has to emerge and I delete him. Meanwhile, we've lost the Eastern flank, but at least I secure my 3rd kill on the Marceau with a blind salvo. Then back to defend the base, farming a GK and then brawling the Petro. But there's still someone in there: the elusive radar YY is camping just on the edge, terrorizing my teammates with waves of undetectable torps. Eventually, the Mino moves in and, at my direction, eliminates the pesky DD But oh no! Mino goes down and they still have a Napoli, Colbert, Venezia, plus a Halland. We're doomed! But not quite: our Napoli pushes South and baits them, I keep sailing to the East of him, blap the enemy Napoli, then secure my 4th kill on a low-hp Colbert. We're now 2v2. Our Napoli is worth more than a Halland but we're still behind on points because they invaded our base. But there's time! 3 minutes to go, and together we can cap the base in less than that: Napoli proposes to defend, I say let's give them a taste of their own medicine (I don't actually say that, but that's the idea...) Our plan is working: the islands give us good cover and we're aaaaaaaalmost there, 10 seconds to go, but Venezia arrives and resets the Napoli (he couldn't know exactly when to smoke up ). But plot twist! He goes broadside and I pull another "clever girl": 15x8'', citadels, kraken, and we're now ahead! Moments later, it's over. +1 for our Napoli (4 kills for him, as well), and +1 for the radar YY

Let's not debate things "just for the sake of argument", please. That's too low a bar. My winrate in Ranked has been around 65% this Season, fairly consistent across Leagues, over about 150 games. My overall Ranked WR is 63%, over more than 1700 games. That's not luck, it's just too many games to be about luck. That's some combination of personal skills, will to win and a good setup (ship selection, a strong captain and some flags here and there). I won the next two in the Neptune, when I started trying again. All I'm saying is that good players (or excellent ones, in Flambass's case) can have bad streaks, but it's not just down to the teammates: if you get demoralized, you can play below your own level, and viceversa if you're feeling good. That's what you often say: the individual rising to the challenge, etc. You mean that it's easier to carry on a smaller map? But we're playing Tier 9 ships on Tier 6 maps this season... But back to the main point, blaming "the current state of the playerbase", which is just a cliché and a euphemism for "horrible teammates", for one's difficulties makes little logical sense: unless one alleges the MM is rigged against one (and in someone else's favor, inevitably), we're all getting the same teams in Ranked (divisions are not allowed) so the worse the teammates the worse the opponents, and the worse the general level and the worse the general level, the better good players should perform, at least as long as they adapt to it and play more aggressively. I mean...if Mbappé joined a random middle-school football team, a different one on each game, wouldn't you expect the team he's on that day to be much more likely to win than usual, no matter how many mistakes those middle-schoolers make? Compared to him, "the current state of the playerbase" is that everyone's terrible, but he's still going to have a massive impact. Even if he can't coordinate well because, well, his teammates are middle-schoolers, he's going to be a stronger player than any of them, so that's a clear advantage to his team, anyway.

So I'm winning about 65% of my Ranked games this season just because I was lucky with the MM? Over 150 games? Nothing to do with skill, the desire to win, or at least ship selection? And? It's a small sample: maybe he played well but was unlucky a few times and then kind of stopped trying. It happened to me yesterday in Randoms, grinding the Neptune: two losses in a row where I tried to carry and ended in the first place. I kept playing the same ship, but I wasn't really into it, played poorly and we lost, this time deservedly as far as I'm concerned. The first two games were probably unwinnable, but the second two I just didn't really try, so I can't complain. It happens. And again, what does "with the current playerbase" mean? You don't mean it as a compliment, do you? You mean there are tons of bad players around. But then it should be easier to carry, not harder. Same thing in Randoms: there are some bad players at Tier 10, but a lot of bad players at Tier 4, so it's easier to carry at Tier 4. And I'm having no problem with the current format, which by the way is very, very, very similar to the previous format: 7v7 or 6v6 is more or less the same, subs and superships are still not allowed. Supercruisers can't take Fire Prevention anymore, there are skills that encourage a lighthouse build, there are more skills with penalties...it sounds to me like the game is getting more complicated, not less. Subs may be dumb to play, but their presence certainly doesn't dumb down the game: they're annoying and often hard to deal with, but at the same time you can't really escape them. That's frustrating, but not a "dumbing down": it's one more thing to worry about, on the contrary.

Well, other than the generally gloomy atmosphere and music, that's his first point. He's still talking about it half the way through the video, blending into his second point, which is that he had a shitty time, meaning a shitty winrate, qualifying for Gold and then in Gold. Lots of bad teammates, he says, but unless the matchmaking is rigged that just doesn't explain it. He sounds completely dejected, as someone who had it much harder than expected and is now having a tough time even simply trying. These were his numbers (from his own comment): Bronze - 49 games, 61% WR Silver - 49 games, 69% WR Gold - 25 games, 40% WR If Gold is full of bad players, why isn't he, an outstanding player, stomping them all over the place? It sounds like he was very unlucky 4-5 games (how often did he actually have 3 teammates die before he'd taken the easy cap?), then sort of gave up. Never heard this expression, and it makes no sense Do you really think the game has been "dumbed down"? As in, it's too simple? With subs changing at every patch, gimmick-heavy new lines (Pan Asian cruisers, Soviet CVs, German BCs, Italian DDs...), superships, a captain rework last year, etc.? Sounds like the opposite, to me: the game is complex and confusing.

So...has anyone seen a Benham?

Pretty much Flambass's first point is that the save-the-star system removed a lot of frustration, as at least you wouldn't lose progress if you *tried* while the rest of the team was terrible. Which contradicts what we often read on the forum, that star-saving allowed toxic backline damage-farming potatoes to progress, and that removing that feature would've been the first step to "fix" Ranked. I have to say, I agree with Flambass entirely on this one.

But the OP's WR is 49%, both in Randoms and in Ranked...

Sure, I would. I've played a decent amount of 3v3 brawls, and possibly my first Ranked Sprint (when they were a different thing, between Seasons) was a Tier 8 1v1 affair, where I had a lot of fun in the Bismarck. It was the first time I had enough point for a full secondary build, and I was surprised to be able to win 2/3 of my games despite being relatively new at high tiers. In general, there are some ships that are stronger in the chaos of Randoms, where it's often a target-rich environment, and ships that are better in late games and 1v1 situations: Ranked just makes the second kind shine, so it's preferable for those, I think. And again, depending on the mood I might prefer having a greater share of responsibility. I also like the option of playing games without divisions, as they often skew the team balance way too much, since people tend to div up with other people of similar skill. I believe the common argument is twofold: steamrolls would happen anyway, as a result of bad early trades that are essentially random if the teams were artificially evened out by the matchmaker, everyone's winrate would get closer to 50%, so there would effectively be less emphasis on skill. Teamwork is rewarded handsomely by the increase chance of winning: it's better for the progess, the rewards, the xp...the incentives are there, period. If people still yolo it's probably because that's what they'd do anyway. They think there are fewer ships, so they can brawl more (getting focused by 3 enemies ain't as bad as getting focused by 6...), so they try. Then they blame the team in chat. Well, the current system essentially bribes people to stop playing after a number of wins, instead of spamming games hoping the stars align (or rather, the random walk has a lot of hiccups in the right direction...) and send them to Gold, possibly Rank 1, too. Because the rewards for ranking out are so meh (only 200 steel, the same as 2-3 wins, probably some special flags and a 1/10th of a permacamo that's no better than the standard ones...), I reckon most people stop earlier, instead of banging their head against the wall with more and more games. What are the alternatives? Either to kick people out at some point, telling them they've reached their "Peter's plateau", or to keep them playing opponents at their level, which in your case, objectively, means a lot of careless play. And a lot of overcautious play. And not very much teamwork.

I don't. Games with 1 CV per team have been standard for years, a that's never stopped me from playing BBs. I even played a lot of BBs at low tiers (Wyoming, Fuso, Queen Elizabeth...), where double CVs are quite common. Games with 5 DDs, i.e. 5 ships that are mostly unspotted, used to be a rarity, but now 4 DDs + 2 subs is fairly common, and they inevitably take up slots from the "meatier" targets, BBs and cruisers. With only 5-6 enemies to shoot at most of the time, playing BBs, especially snipy ones, has become less attractive, which creates a bit of a positive feedback loop. I share that sentiment. I don't think BBs have it too bad right now, but I do think games with 5 or more DDs/subs are just less fun, too chaotic, and somewhat unrewarding, as even if you pierce the screen there are going to be more DDs and subs to deal with before getting access to the "juicy" BBs behind them. Plus it's much harder to improve one's damage records: it's far down my list of complaints, but it's a small thing that was certainly easier with more BBs around. I agree with this, as well. Some difference is welcome to mix things up, but two tiers can feel oppressive on the lower end, and unfair on the upper one.

I don't understand what's "tedious" about it in your experience. With fewer players per team, each carries a bigger share of responsibility, so one has to get busy quickly. With fewer players per team, there are potentially fewer crossfires to worry about, so pushing and brawling becomes more common, at least more common early on. It's also encouraged to maximize firepower and utility at the expense of endurance, which changes the meta in favor of ships that are less suited for Randoms. So on the contrary, I find Ranked games quite intense. I'm also not sure what you mean by "competitive". In most competitions, losers are progressively kicked out until you're left with the winner(s). But that's not the spirit of Ranked, as it's not a tournament like, say, the Champions League or some fencing specialty at the Olympiads. Ranked is just Random's odd-looking brother, a similar mode with hurdles that somewhat restrict access to the better rewards to the better players. The smaller teams rule kills two birds with one stone: it creates a different meta and it makes the filtering down (not out) of weaker players more effective. As long as one plays more or less with strangers, not division mates or clan mates, I think it would lead to too much toxicity if a loss resulted in being kicked out of the competition. Other than that, even just increasing the requirements to qualify for each league would indeed make Ranked more tedious, possibly a lot more toxic, as well. Frankly, I enjoy it the way it is, and I did even before subs began to appear in Randoms.

Yes, they are. Because you should still be able to ask for support or make the team know you intend to flank, or need radar, etc. And yes, toxic players will still use them in a sarcastic way.

I skipped one of those two missions by cheesing a kraken in the Agincourt Seriously: if you have any strong Tier 5 ship, and you focus a bit, krakens are pretty easy to achieve against Tier 4-6 opponents.

Well...your numbers are mediocre, but you're also playing a rather poor selection of ships, imho: Friesland struggles to use smoke with all the radar cruisers around, and has no torps to do quick, decisive, possibly lucky, often massive damage British CLs have the same problem, plus no HE to reliably damage nose-in enemies British CVs are arguably the weakest, at least in the hands of most players. Basically, of your whole lineup I'd only bring to Ranked the Daring line (or Cossack) and the Queen Elizabeth, which was a pleasure in Bronze the first season we had subs. But still, saying you reached the Gold qualifiers isn't too alarming, imho: you're about average in Ranked (49% WR despite questionable ships), and it's not like you reached Rank 1 in Gold... Now, there are some bad players in Gold, but mostly, at least in the early sprints, it's people above 55%, lots of unicums or near so, and quite a few superunicums.

People at the top of the team in the final results routinely score twice the xp of people around the middle, so I'd say grinding is made a lot easier by skill, or at least a good setup (upgraded modules, a competent captain build...). With good camos (which are basically free), economic flags (ditto) and premium time (sometimes free), a good player can reach Tier 10 for a generic line in about 100 games, while fully upgrading each ship along the way. That's "only" 30 hours or so. A good player that mounts all special flags (which are also free) can do that several times faster, maybe 20 games and 6 hours. I began playing BBs, cruisers and DDs at the same time, reached Tier 6 on several lines and stopped there for a while to make sure I came prepared to the higher tiers. In the meantime, I just brought more lines to that level. I think it made me a better player, and honestly I don't get the rush to reach Tier 8 or 10 or whatever: there are plenty of fun, cheap and historical ships before Tier 8, in fact beyond there it's mostly paper fantasyland. Take your time, is my suggestion

You don't have to imagine, just look at the tech tree: the Nakhimov (Tier 10 Soviet CV) goes for 28 million credits, 24-ish with some clan discounts the Attilio Regolo (Tier 10 Italian DD) goes for 20 million credits, 17 with the discounts That's the deal. Selling old ships and old modules helps, but things get smoother if you play Tier 7-9 premiums on a regular basis. Premium time also helps, though it's not necessary.

CVs are more expensive than same-tier counterparts, I guess to somewhat even out the costs of the line, since odd-tiered CVs are a thing of the past.

IFHE means 26 mm of penetration on the 127s, which is great against Tier 6 and Tier 7 BBs, as they have that value as their bow/stern plating, as well as a lot of decks and upper belts. However, it gives you nothing against Tier 8-10 BBs, as 32 mm is the thinnest plating you'll find there (only a couple of exceptions: Slava and Champagne). High tier cruisers also have a lot of 25 mm, so it would help, but it's just not common for them to be caught at those ranges. Besides, you can overmatch the same armor with your main guns, just like the 26 mm of BBs. It's not a terrible choice, by any means: you don't have HE on the main guns, so at least you won't ruin their fire chance... I just think Brisk is better on a slow-but-stealthy ship. Vigilance too, if you like to push. Don't take turret traverse: it's fine as it is.

I think it's fine that they added some credit sinks when there are players sitting on hundreds of millions of credits. I am annoyed with the removal of flags for achievements, as it devalued achievements. I am happy with the coal auctions, as they allow me access new experiences (Napoli, Kearsarge, Sherman...) earlier, without taking anything away from anyone. I am angry about superships, at least in Randoms, as they devalue Tier 9-10 ships that took me way longer to obtain.

Too complicated. A lobby phase before the game is going to be useless on a server where a large % of people doesn't speak the same language, it's just going to annoy players with the extra wait. Also, how is this "redoing the matchmaker", when you make no mention of how the players are actually selected to be on the same team? How would it prevent "steamrolling"? To the average scrub, that means ~40 games just to get to Bronze, right? 40 games before he can even begin collecting some rewards. Think about it. Again, that's a terrible idea. You can play a flawless game in a DD where you kill the enemy DD, cap, spot, do a great job denying them map control...but you still come 2nd by XP. Or you play a secondary BB and the damage you do isn't worth the same XP, so you end up 3rd even though you did the push that won the flank and the game. I know I'm not even the best player on this thread, let alone the server, but I've made it to Gold for the past several seasons, and my winrate there is definitely above average. The qualifiers only took maybe 10-15 games each time. With your proposed change, it would be about 40 or more. No, thank you. Some excellent players would get up there faster, no doubt, but who would they play with if it takes me ages to join them, even with a 60-65% winrate? Not to me, they're not. No subs, no superships, no potato divs, no tryhard divs, more brawling, different ships are strong compared to Randoms... They would feel unmotivating if I had to play a bunch of extra games just to get into each league and start playing for the rewards and further progress. I try to play well and win, but sometimes that requires me to be in places where I won't get a lot of XP. Your reforms would punish me more than they'd help me. And you seem to be under the impression that good players take forever to progress, which they don't. In the current system, good players progress because they win, whatever it takes. Sure, they often save a star if the team is really awful, but that's not their aim, nor should it be. But with your criterion for the Gold qualifiers, you're treating them like average players who play for the xp (hoping to save the star, or in this case, to get one) instead of good players who try to win, and do. I can see cropping out the worst player if the winning team if he performs below a certain threshold, but only rewarding the 1st place to get to Gold is just unfair, anti-teamwork and potentially toxic. I'm sorry, but I hardly see anything in this post that I find worth implementing. You're surely putting a lot more hurdles to player progress, but with no mention of improved rewards, never mind the promise to reduce steamrolls. How this would "fix" anything is beyond me.

"Sheepdog simulator" is the best description I could come up with 2/3 of the team pushed the open flank, with a Chkalov leading the way of all things Meanwhile, "only" 3 red BBs got into our base. Our CV didn't even reset them, apparently, nevermind finishing the enemy Tarigo, who had most of the points. Just look at these people... Oh, and Mr. 43% in the Vladivostok even talked back while I begged the team to defend. Just unbelievable. And of course, I was running all the dragon flags...

Agincourt, Tier 6 game, Ring. I went towards the cap, I turned away as soon as I saw they had a T-22 and a sub there, and my own T-22 wasn't interested in screening them. I kept sailing away, back to the spawn. The sub, who'd still be in protected MM if he weren't playing a Tier 6 (just over 100 games, all of them at low tiers), did about 35-40k to me in two launches, absolutely undodgeable in such a slow ship. Years of experience, surely many more points on the captain...nothing, doesn't matter. 35k. And less than 300 xp at the end. I had another similar experience yesterday, Agincourt again, and a few days before, in the Viribus. Bottom line is: you can't even relax at tier 5 anymore. If there's a sub, even an absolute beginner, you might as well cordon off half the map until the DDs have cleared it, assuming they'll even bother. They're frustration factories, and it's not even monetized! How do I pay to make subs go away? What ship should I buy? There's nothing.

Once again, I'm ok with subs being stealthy, but I'm not ok with subs single-firing homing torps that are just undodgeable, especially in slow ships where you can't really bait them by going at full speed and then slowing down, or something like that. And it's mostly unhealable damage. I know CVs can grief you bad, but they still leave some time between attacks, and often switch to another target because, well, they can. But if you have to push into a sub, or he just catches up with you as you're minding your own business, you have his undivided attention until either of you goes down. It's pretty toxic, no doubt. There's also no ship that's particularly good at dealing with subs, or rather it's always dangerous to hunt them down, while there are a few ships I actually look forward to fight a CV with: Halland, D7P, etc.