FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

Got six cap assists in twelve Musashi games.

One other thing: First time I asked a similar question, somebody said skipping ships (especially with converted Free XP) is basically paying Wargaming in order to not play their content.

From what many people keep writing on the forum, as well as the personal impression from playing the game, we are increasingly getting very lopsided matchmaking as regards player skills, resulting in an increasing number of "roflstomps" where the team with all the bad players gets wiped off the map very quickly. This sucks for players on both sides, though possibly not quite as hard for those on the winning side as they at least get a win out of it. But if they're not the ones carrying that win, they don't get to do much. This is a dangerous development for WG as well as the players because it sucks the fun out of the game. And if you include the causatory function of WG's predatory marketing techniques, which result in purposely moving players up to higher tiers much faster than their skills develop, it has all the hallmarks of a vicious cycle. Also because, even on the winning side, lesser players by and large don't get to learn much. If your misplays aren't punished, you might often not even recognize them as misplays, or don't reflect on them much. I keep wondering if there really isn't anything that we as players could do to try and steer WG toward a more sustainable, less predatory business model as a whole. Especially in view of the recent postponement of 0.8.0. Or do we really have to rely solely on the CCs raising a big enough stink. This might be a digression fuelled by the respective passage of the most recent Mingles w Jingles video as well as the new Flambass version of the genre, provisionally title "Fun With Hans". In any event, what I'm proposing is not grouping 'bad' players into whole matches of their own, but at least making some form of effort to distribute carry-capable players and "potatoes" evenly on both sides.

Either that or they use the well-known Amazon marketing technique ("Players who bough this also liked...") Just to get them off the shelves, I mean their DCP stocks must have dust and cobwebbs all over by now.

Sharing the criticism of the final stage, even though personally, I wasn't impacted that hard by it. The ship itself was a terrible, terrible disappointment. I had been very much looking forward to a Tier VI German premium BB but if there's one kind of ship I hate, it's clumsy ones that don't handle and have slow turrets. Squishy armour and the gigantic size do not improve things either. Neither the speed nor the secondaries nor the soon-to-be-obsolete AA can compensate for that, not the least since two of these features are automated and thus contribute little to an engaging gaming experience.

No. I do the exact same matchmaking thing that is done currently, and in the vast majority of cases, I leave it alone. I just add an extra stage that checks for $ridiculous lopsidedness and if that is detected, swaps a few players to even it out a little.

Same thing seems to have happened in this match:

No, it does not. For the umptienth time, my suggestion is not to change the fundamental picking-players-process. I think you're just trying to bait me here. Just read the fourth paragraph of this post and kindly do try to understand it before any further whining, thank you.

Oh look! Behind you! A Mystic Spiral!

At the point in the queue where the matchmaking occurs, consumables have of course already been picked and the players can't change them any more. So the MM can easily base this decision on how many players actually did pick the radar consumable. Now you might say this could give players too much information about the enemy team composition; viz. they can infer if there is a British cruiser on the other team that did actually pick radar. To that, all I'm saying is 1) not even "X marks the spot" on the minimap is considered "too much crucial information" #rofl and 2) once again, not going for total balance, plus minus one or two could just be declared ok.

Sorry, I still can't see what it has to do with queue times. Once again, what I'm proposing - and "skill-based MM" might be a misleading term for it EDIT which is why I did NOT use it, see the title of this thread - is not a fundamental change of the workings of the Matchmaker. A certain degree of imbalance can easily be ignored. What I envision is to keep letting it initially do the same thing it does currently. It would pick these very same players of my example match, by whatever method is currently employed, and provisionally split them into the same two teams. All I'm thinking of is to then add some kind of extra step where it uses some combination of parameters in an attempt to determine if the match-up is really brutally lopsided, and if it comes to that conclusion, swap a few key players from each time to make it hopefully more balanced. I can't see that step taking a significant amount of time. And it would take the same amount of time for all players selected for the match, no matter their skill. I'm not even talking about the situations where one team has four, five radar ships and the other has none, although that would be a totally clear-cut example with no wiggle room at all and could be fixed super easy by adding very straightforward guidelines.

Not that I'm complaining, but who can explain why I got over 1K Free XP out of this Co-op battle in my Gearing? More Free XP than Ship XP - with no power camo and no signal that gave any extra XP.

That's not what I suggested. The fact of the matter is, my own low skill notwithstanding, against this kind of enemy team, even I can carry. Even when the rest of my team is just as inexperienced or bad as these opponents were. It went exactly as expected, with me only getting three kills because in view of the MMM readout, I mostly held back and watched the V-25 division rack up eight or ten kills between them. And it has to be possible to find some combination of metrics to smooth out this kind of thing at least a little. No need to get it balanced down to several decimal places either but at least the most extreme cases, such as this one.

Well please do keep up the great work of reading each and every one of them, just to make sure... you never know, there might actually be some interesting content at last! It would be a real shame if you missed that. And please do continue to make the effort of informing the forum about your opinion about my postings. This is the kind of invaluable and selfless public service that web forums depend on. I think it's great that you're making such an important and selfless contribution. My greatest respect and admiration!!

That's what you get for lolligagging in Clan Battles the whole day!

So explain to me what exactly would be bad about an MM algorithm that, in my example (MMM screenshot), would have kept the same players overall but just swapped me and the St Louis and possibly one of our V-25s for some of the rookies on the other team. Based on, say, our winrate times number of games in the ship times total number of battles. Sorry but that is the poorest argument ever. I don't even understand what position you intend to support with that. Nobody has to play 100% each and every game. They can play as chill as they want. They just have to accept that it will increase their chance of a loss then. Simple as that. Nobody has the right to expect guaranteed wins no matter how sloppily they play. And why should they have?

It's pointless because most players out there simply do not care about getting better. Nor will they ever make an effort. I'm completely with Jingles on this one. Casual players even have completely different standards as to what they consider "a good game".

It doesn't, actually.

What I'd actually like to see in the shop, being a filthy old man, is of course a pin-up calendar featuring Dasha and Alena, possibly along with a few choice ladies from the respective dance video. SCNR, not sorry.

When that's really, really stupid because concealment expert is much more useful and you can easily find all the enemies on those tiny postage stamp maps without RL anyway... so that is a skill best reserved for at-least-14-point commanders. Just saying.

If this was last night, they had general server trouble / maintenance and people even got kicked out of games. So just disregard it, probably not a systemic issue.

I find the important thing is to max out those commanders first that you can get the most bang for your buck out of, meaning to say the ones you can use on as many different ships as possible, as well as those ships that are likely generating the most elite commander XP. Looking at your premiums, from a purely economical point of view, you should work on maxing out a Russian destroyer guy (preferably Russian Ovechkin), a Japanese BB guy and a British BB guy, preferably one of the Dunkirk brothers. All of these should be specialized on the respective top silver tech tree ship of the same line that you are currently grinding. That way, you can ensure that the least amount of XP derived from special signals and power camos gets frozen uselessly on Premium ships and Elite silver ships and the most of it goes into Elite Commander XP and ship grinds. Just with these three maxed out captains, if you have enough special signals and camos, you can then easily generate six figure amounts of elite commander XP in one day just by playing their three silver ships and the three respective premiums to the first daily win. Up to now, your US captains don't really come into it at all since your only US premium, the Charleston, is too low tier to generate a lot of XP in the first place. The good thing is that you can keep focusing on enjoyment with that ship, which so far hasn't entered the equation... What you actually want though, is maxed-out captains on ships you can use for Operation Dynamo, which is now a part of the regular Op-of-the-Week rotation. Provided WG doesn't increase its difficulty next time around. Because currently, that OP is way too easy, making it an absolutely surefire XP generator extraordinaire. You can hardly lose even with several very bad players on your team, unlike almost every other operation in their current state. I was in a random group that five-starred it without any American DDs and their defensive fire consumables and long duration maxi smokes - just with British(!) ships and one Minsk, which has surprisingly good AA. In fact it's even better if there are a few bad players because that way, you get to splatter more of those little torpedo boat XP pinatas. Getting 40,000 to 60,000 Commander XP out of a single run is basically the norm with a high powered camo and lots of signals, which you can of course also exploit any time if you manage to get a division together specifically for that purpose. Doesn't even have to be a full strength division. Also I found that Monaghan's defensive AA is almost as good as Sims in that OP, which made the Santa loot boxes an even better investment because that DD basically gets dropped immediately if you get any ship drop at all.

The performance is great in the hands of a very skilled player. If your positioning is spot on, you can punish any cruiser misplay instantly and even harder than a Scharnhorst. However, "positioning is hard", as a wise man once pointed out, and even though he was referring specifically to the Yamato, whose gameplay is of course more or less identical to Musashi, as a noob, I find the latter less challenging.

I think it could be quite a while until they put her back on sale, if ever. For some reason, WG didn't even bring her back for the last Ranked Sprint season, which would definitely have generated extra sales at no extra effort. In the mean time, if you're just after the gameplay experience, get a Nürnberg instead... that's basically what it is, albeit with better AA.

If you feel like a newbie, you should not be playing Tier 9. It really is that simple. You might be forgiven somewhat for doing it in a premium ship to grind credits, but Neptune will of course not even do that for you. Listen to the Flambass. (relevant passage starts around 12:00)