Dutchy_2019

Nope, I did not. Nor would I buy it for the following reasons: - Tech Tree ship - I do not nearly play enough of those tiers in Randoms anyway, as I am slowly grinding up the Random lines. - I rather spend my doubloons on whaling Premiums, and some of the crates (to get Premiums).

Yup. Once had the same with a Podvoisky butt-slapping a Minekaze (panick move because I potato' d the rush) capping our base. Laughed a lot, and part of my team was like 'WTF ?!' I thought the same while nearly falling out of my chair laughing.

I will reset all captains, and probably for a little while work with a base 10pt set-up for these captains. Might use one 21 pt captain for Ranked, though. Not sure which ship I will use him or her on.

Well, I burned myself out a little over the past month, grinding two Hizens and two Lunar NY campaigns. Had a few games today, trying to grind a few T4s to T5 on NA through Randoms. I needed 8.5k XP on Bourrasque to unlock the T5; I thought it might take a couple of games. It took me only one. It also set my NA T4 Damage Record.

Please read what I said originally, please read carefully my statement that I made, the reaction to which I responded (which is the reaction you quoted). I NEVER asked for a perfect division of divisions. ALL I asked for is that IF there are TWO 3-man divs (and ONE 2-man div) in queue, MM OUGHT to put ONE 3-man div on ONE team, and ONE 3-man div on the OTHER team. And then put the 2-man div on one of the teams. It should NOT put TWO 3-man divs on ONE team, and the 2-man div on the OTHER team. To do that would add ABSOLUTELY ZERO time to the MM waiting queue other than the microsecond that the calculation costs.

Completed the Lunar NY grind on EU, and also finished the Dockyard on EU:

I was just involved in this gem: The enemy zero-ed out in 6:16 minutes, we lost not a single ship. From a look through stats of various players, the win rates and experience were roughly equal. That said, the enemy DD's (again, similar experience it seemed as hours) were playing extremely stupid.

Yup. Fail Divisions should simply be forbidden in Randoms (or Co-op). As simple as that. Solves a whole lot of aggravation for the rest of the team because of some players being deliberately stupid or stupid by accident (or having no clue at all how MM works).

Report guy to WG through ticket, provide screenshot in chat and send in replay.

I see that point. I think it is absolutely stupid that MM does not look at whether these are 2 man or 3 man divs. As that makes a massive difference if the two 3 man divs end up on a single team.

So it does not balance between 3 man and 2 man divs? How absolutely stupid is that?

I thought that MM was supposed to try and balance divisions. How then is THIS possible? TWO 3 man divs on a single team - Average Randoms experience: 4000 games played; lowest 600 and 900 games, most well over 9000. A two men FAIL div on the other team: None of them played 75 games in Randoms. Guess how balanced THAT match was.

Part of the problem is that WG looks at the wrong statistics here (as let slip by a Dev on a stream a while ago) to determine the ROFLstomps. Which means there is a massive discrepancy between Player In Game Experience and Statistical Outcome. And as so often, CV's are a big part of that problem. The increasing problem of back line campers also makes this worse. One of the primary things they look at is the time the game lasts. Which means that if all but one or two ships are dead, and those surviving ships are hiding somewhere along the edges of the map (and 95% of the time that ship is the CV!) the time your team is looking for those one or two ships is counted as 'competitive' for the game statistics WG looks at. While in actual reality it is absolutely not. But in this way there could easily be 3 to 5 minutes added in time to a non-competitive match, where all players know the game has been over and is in 'mopping up' duty.

Forgot to mention: Yesterday I accidentally ended up with a no flags and 2pt captain (thankfully with modules installed) Smaland in a T8-T10 Randoms game, actively taking part in the game, not getting killed, and not coming in last in the team. And that was with TWO enemy radar cruisers covering the cap on my side. It was a complete ROFLstomp in our teams favour.

Yesterday I had a game in Co-op on NA, first time ever I think I broke the 1000 Base XP barrier in Co-op. It was me and 3 other team mates, of which 2 (the Vermont and Iowa) had been of more use had they been bots. They literally 10-lined, most of the time having their firing archs blocked by islands. What helped was the way the enemy BB's moved, allowing me to take them on more or less one by one, once I had charged straight into the enemy spawn. At the end of the day I completed the Lunar New Year Campaign, and got myself Anshan.

Thing is - Immelman is not released at all. And - as the SuperTester has attested in this thread - there have already been iterations of Immelman tested before the 'Live Server test'. Problem is that there it is almost impossible to 'guesstimate' what the server population will do both when playing the ship being tested and when running into that ship. That is only something that can be done by Super Testers (who as far as player skill goes are fairly all over the place - and on the live server. PTS itself is mostly intended to verify whether some of the game mechanics and game modes intended to be used for the next patch actually work. Not for testing specific ships.

Where in whatever's name do you even get the impression that I meant that a ship cannot be OP if only a few players get that ship. There are quite a few broken ships in the game (Kamikaze, Giulio C, Kutuzov, Enterprise) but relatively few people consider them a serious problem mostly because they rarely if ever run into them; even for Enterprise much of the anger seems to come from it being a CV, not a broken ship. If I hand a broken ship to a bad player, the results are still quite bad (that is part of the problem with WG's use of spreadsheets for balancing the game). As far as Smolensk vs Colbert, quite a few streamers who IMHO consider (very) good players who have or tested both, all came out and said that many CC's and testers considere(d) Colbert even worse and more toxic for the game than Smolensk - purely as a ship. Yes, the skill floor might be higher for Colbert than Smolensk, but if you get her to work in their experience she is even worse than Smolensk. Problem was that everybody could get their hands on her easily, and you saw multiple Smolensks in each game on each team. Not that dissimilar from the Thunderer problem that there is now.

Well, generally you start out by testing extremes settings for ships, and then find a middle ground. Second, the testing population is very diverse (just as server population). For all we know OP had the bad luck to (a) run into an 'extreme' version of Immelman, that was being played by (b) a very good CV player. Sure - this version of the Immelman sounds (extremely) bad. Note BTW that for Smolensk, much of the problem was that everybody and their mother could get their hands on the ship, whereas Colbert - which many CC's and apparently testers considered even more toxic - is rare because of it being behind the Research Bureau.

PTS is still - at best - an extremely poor reflection of the live server environment. So the balancing of ships has to be done one the live server. It is inevitable. The big question is what WG will do with the data gathered.

Today was NA-server day, some Co-op, and one game in each of the 10 T5 ships I am currently grinding. Nice game in Co-op in Odin; my best game in Randoms was in Kotovsky. Being top tier helped a little, as well as an enemy that let me get away with murder.

Decided to get the final bits of the Dockyard campaign done tonight on NA. Needed two final games in Randoms; the final game showed some incredibly bad DD play - even for someone with only 148 games in Randoms. The first of the two games was a nice one: 1900 Base XP in a Furutaka; matchmaking was somewhat borked 2 vs 3 BB's, 5 vs 4 DD's) due to a Fail Div on each side. Never thought I would get away with charging down the Fail Div enemy BB. Also not sure how the New Mexico ever got 1200 Base XP (I guess a lot of it was for killing the enemy BB, and kill stealing the Nürnberg kill). But I got in the end what I wanted: Hizen.

Yes, I will. And then probably continue with 10 pt captain specs for a while, until I have a better idea what I am doing and what to spec various captains into.

Most of the former top level players make absolutely atrocious trainers - in ANY sport. It is usually the ones that did not make it who are the best trainers.

That kind of odd stuff seems to be quite normal these days.

Playing around to get this weeks' Lunar New Year's mission done, and get something done in the Dockyard campaign. Along the way I was able to pick Alaska, even if I already have Alaska B - which only leaves Somers as the one ship that will be removed soon, but I will not be able to get that under any normal circumstances. Missouri and Friesland in Co-op trying to get the doubloons for the Lunar New Years mission. Two Karlsruhe games in Randoms. Somehow she seems to click for me, those two games netted me +3 karma (including at least one from the enemy team). And finally the Alaska in my port.