Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
22cm

WG MM, registered

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[AXIS]
Beta Tester
4,259 posts
18,413 battles

No comment.

*edited*

Edited by NickMustaine
Image removed due to naming and shaming
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,480 posts
6,694 battles
20 minutes ago, SeeteufeI said:

Serious or venting?

Venting obviously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,291 posts
11,774 battles

I'm overexcited. Not by the MM issue. But so good to see an "old veteran friend" reappear on the Forum! On Topic: that Yueyang player was only doing a, in essence brilliant, tactic to assure him/ her a solo warrior. And hey: all tactics need improvement and practice! I'm feeling a bit disappointed you, like I said being a battle hardened veteran, don't see that, 22!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NOCAP]
Players
329 posts
14,064 battles

None of the teams hold an advantage over the other. None of these players nor clans are recognizable, nor are they exceptionally better over the other. It is more of a L2P issue. I am guessing your team's DD's buggered up right from the start and then the cruisers followed as there was nobody to screen them from being spotted. I would be willing to bet that it is true considering how many kills the Minotaur had claimed.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,453 posts
11,405 battles
10 ore fa, OttoZander ha scritto:

I am guessing your team's DD's buggered up right from the start

Well, whatever green DDs were doing, 3 of them ended up taking spots #1, #2 and #4 on the team team XP list (although one of them is a Khaba rather than a DD) AND the sole surviving ship was a DD (the one from 4th spot), so I'd be careful with attributing the outcome to DDs' premature deaths :Smile-_tongue:

 

What seems more likely is that the whole team played like *edited*  and simply got picked apart one by one. And if you really feel the need to look for "who *edited* up the most" guys, I'd be starting with the top tier BB that scored 178 base XP - about half of the second worst scorer.

Edited by NickMustaine
Inappropriate remarks
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ASEET]
Players
220 posts
6,693 battles
8 ore fa, eliastion ha scritto:

Well, whatever green DDs were doing, 3 of them ended up taking spots #1, #2 and #4 on the team team XP list (although one of them is a Khaba rather than a DD) AND the sole surviving ship was a DD (the one from 4th spot), so I'd be careful with attributing the outcome to DDs' premature deaths :Smile-_tongue:

 

What seems more likely is that the whole team played like *edited* and simply got picked apart one by one. And if you really feel the need to look for "who *edited*up the most" guys, I'd be starting with the top tier BB that scored 178 base XP - about half of the second worst scorer.

Agreed, only imbalance I quickly notice is that the green team had 3 dedicated radar ships. So the radar population in that game was 3-4 VS 0-2 in favour of the greens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
978 posts
5,902 battles

The lemming train was probably feeding ships one by one to enemies focus firing. A real case of lemmings.

 

Then, the few remaining spread out ships say screw it and go in for some damage too. Only YY kept sailing around being generally useless (600 points).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,682 posts
15,336 battles
5 hours ago, walter3kurtz said:

The lemming train was probably feeding ships one by one to enemies focus firing. A real case of lemmings.

 

Then, the few remaining spread out ships say screw it and go in for some damage too. Only YY kept sailing around being generally useless (600 points).

Hmm, good theories all of the above Lads. But one more - I have been in a few matches myself, where I much to my bemusement, quickly discovered that no-one else in the green team was even remotely interested in shooting at the DD's or even Cruisers, but obstinately kept blazing away at the enemy BB's (or "farming damage," as some of the more enlightened explained it to me) only (sadly BB's can actually soak up quite a bit of damage before going under) all the while taking HE and torp damage from enemy DD's and Cruisers, who are meanwhile able to blaze away at them unchecked.:cap_hmm:

 

None of those matches have been wins and usually quite lopsided losses to boot, I'd bet my money on that (if I had any, that is). :Smile_Default:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,525 posts
9,851 battles
3 hours ago, Gleb_Reawer said:

Agreed, only imbalance I quickly notice is that the green team had 3 dedicated radar ships. So the radar population in that game was 3-4 VS 0-2 in favour of the greens.

 

but but.. more radars is always op and always wins.. right?

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,453 posts
11,405 battles
2 ore fa, AgarwaenME ha scritto:

 

but but.. more radars is always op and always wins.. right?

Of course. These Radar ships were clearly captained by undercover BB players who purposefully failed to use them just to keep the BB-friendly Radar meta going! :cap_viking:

 

5 ore fa, Gleb_Reawer ha scritto:

Agreed, only imbalance I quickly notice is that the green team had 3 dedicated radar ships. So the radar population in that game was 3-4 VS 0-2 in favour of the greens.

Well. I do see Worcester on the enemy team so it certainly wasn't vs 0 but yes, if I was on the green team, I'd be so happy on the loading screen to see such decisive Radar advantage, heralding a nice match with good chances of victory. Boy, would I be up for a surprise :Smile_teethhappy:

Although I strongly suspect the top Minotaur was running Radar - ships depending on smoke don't tend to fare too well when on winning team in rotflstomps (since at some point the enemy just keeps running and there's no place to smoke up properly) and here we have a guy with 2,3k base XP (far ahead of #2) and three kills. To me it seems like a Radar Mino with some luck in hunting the enemy DDs (that, in retreat, tend to stay behind to torp the sh*t out of the advancing enemy force).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,993 posts
10,374 battles
1 hour ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

but but.. more radars is always op and always wins.. right?

 

I see two dedicated radar ships on green team (Moskva and Des Moines) against one on the red team (Worcester). Not much of a difference and certainly far from approaching what I'd dub as critical radar mass (being able to get overlapping coverage of key areas of the map and/or chaining radars after another without sacrificing map coverage). This is what I'd consider perfectly acceptable radar MM. It's not like games I've seen where one team gets zero radar and the other gets 4+ ...

 

Plus I'm starting to get hesitant to automatically count Des Moines as radar ships, because apparently atsf got a lot of gullible followers and the number of Spotter Plane Des Moines I saw the past week was disconcerting.

 

 

This very much looks like a full-power potato team and I doubt that would've looked much different if they had more radar. Sadly this is starting to be the norm. Playerbase seems to have reached a critical potato mass instead, because the number of games where one team doesn't decisively roll over the other is dramatically decreasing ... close-fought matches against two equally competent (or incompetent) teams are becoming a fading rarity, at least as far as my experience over the past weeks goes.

 

 

8 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Although I strongly suspect the top Minotaur was running Radar - ships depending on smoke don't tend to fare too well when on winning team in rotflstomps (since at some point the enemy just keeps running and there's no place to smoke up properly) and here we have a guy with 2,3k base XP (far ahead of #2) and three kills. To me it seems like a Radar Mino with some luck in hunting the enemy DDs (that, in retreat, tend to stay behind to torp the sh*t out of the advancing enemy force).

 

Wouldn't be so sure about that. It's perfectly possible that the green team just fed themselves to the Minotaur one broadside at a time. Besides if the green team had been in full retreat mode, I would've expected more kills from the usual suspects, i.e.: Conqueror, Yamato, Hindenburg and Udaloi which are MUCH better at dealing damage against running ships. Yet all basically all kills are from the Shimas and Minotaurs, which are THE prime murder suspects against potato trains that just keep coming around island corners that they really should know not to poke around.

 

 

 

I have to say though, it's strangely engrossing to look at a team results tab and try to guess what the reasons for the outcome were.

sherlock.jpg?1358527625

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,682 posts
15,336 battles
9 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Of course. These Radar ships were clearly captained by undercover BB players who purposefully failed to use them just to keep the BB-friendly Radar meta going! :cap_viking:

That could indeed be the case. I witnessed 1 case last weekend, where my divisionmate in a Bismarck was capping B on "Warriors's Path" map. An enemy Chapayev then popped up from behind one of the islands next to the cap on the other side and saw it necessary to turn on his radar just to see him even better (I guess), weel it ended promptly, after the Chapa ate 3 insta-citadels and departed the game. I am still somewhat baffled tho. They weren't more than a few km apart to begin with, there was no smoke and the Bismarck must have been clearly visible.:Smile_amazed: But oh well, 1 score and a free cap for us YAY! :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,525 posts
9,851 battles
2 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

I see two dedicated radar ships on green team (Moskva and Des Moines) against one on the red team (Worcester). Not much of a difference and certainly far from approaching what I'd dub as critical radar mass (being able to get overlapping coverage of key areas of the map and/or chaining radars after another without sacrificing map coverage). This is what I'd consider perfectly acceptable radar MM. It's not like games I've seen where one team gets zero radar and the other gets 4+ ...

 

Plus I'm starting to get hesitant to automatically count Des Moines as radar ships, because apparently atsf got a lot of gullible followers and the number of Spotter Plane Des Moines I saw the past week was disconcerting.

 

 

This very much looks like a full-power potato team and I doubt that would've looked much different if they had more radar. Sadly this is starting to be the norm. Playerbase seems to have reached a critical potato mass instead, because the number of games where one team doesn't decisively roll over the other is dramatically decreasing ... close-fought matches against two equally competent (or incompetent) teams are becoming a fading rarity, at least as far as my experience over the past weeks goes.

 

Well if you can be bothered actually checking the different players on each team, there's not some massive difference between them.

 

And my point about radars, though it also applies to people who so love to call entire teams "potato" and to generalize the player base, is that people will look at a result, and see the cause as whatever they want it to be. Quite like people will gleefully go "the best CV always wins for his team, and I know he was the best CV because his team won so that proves my first point" as if that made any sense whatsoever. You could take the same lineup, have the battle end with a decisive victory for the other team and have someone past the lineup and blame the loss on fewer radars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
243 posts
2,605 battles

Dont`t expect anything of what they call MM. My T9 ship had 7 matches today of which 6 were T10. And that is not exceptional.

And of course unequal radar distribution is an issue.

 

But WG doesn´t care. And they evidently don`t understand about player retention.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,760 posts
9,542 battles

Dont forget that you have to spend at least 20 euros per Month in Order to receive premium MM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,993 posts
10,374 battles
2 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

Well if you can be bothered actually checking the different players on each team, there's not some massive difference between them.

 

And my point about radars, though it also applies to people who so love to call entire teams "potato" and to generalize the player base, is that people will look at a result, and see the cause as whatever they want it to be.

 

Well, if you know exactly who all those players are (because I certainly can't say for sure with so precious few nicknames displayed in full, just the first name alone gave me half a dozen possible accounts on the nickname) then feel free to share the stats.

 

Until provided sufficient evidence to the contrary I'm going to keep assuming based off on the result, that being a veritably curbstomp, which means that at the very least a game deciding majority on the green team must've played pretty damn bad, a.k.a. potatoeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,525 posts
9,851 battles
8 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

Well, if you know exactly who all those players are (because I certainly can't say for sure with so precious few nicknames displayed in full, just the first name alone gave me half a dozen possible accounts on the nickname) then feel free to share the stats.

 

Until provided sufficient evidence to the contrary I'm going to keep assuming based off on the result, that being a veritably curbstomp, which means that at the very least a game deciding majority on the green team must've played pretty damn bad, a.k.a. potatoeing.

 

So you're basicly using the exact same circular reasoning I examplified about CVs.

 

The few you can easily check shows no unicums or complete potatoes on either side, and the spread in CW and ranked statuses doesn't show a massive difference either.

 

Point is, there's enough random factors (both rng, and choices that aren't good or bad given information available) that might give one side such a decisive early lead that it snowballs into this. and it's not something new to the game. You could easily change only a few factors in that game and get a very different result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,993 posts
10,374 battles
42 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

So you're basicly using the exact same circular reasoning I examplified about CVs.

 

The few you can easily check shows no unicums or complete potatoes on either side, and the spread in CW and ranked statuses doesn't show a massive difference either.

 

Except I'm really not.  People who say the better CV wins games and the other CV was better because his team won isn't even REMOTELY close to a situation where one team gets utterly destroyed without managing a single ship sunk in return. The former involves a whole lot more of willful dispensation of logic compared to looking at a curbstomp result and thinking "well, those guys must've potatoed hard to let THAT happen" ...

 

There's absolutely NO circular reasoning involved in saying that the losing team derped hard when the result is this obviously conclusive.

 

Small factors can have impacts, yes. But they're called small for a reason, that being that they don't have that much of an impact when distributed among the remainder performance of the rest of the team. You'd have to assume an awful lot of small factors by a significant portion of the team to get this kind of result and at that point you can just as reasonably assume that all those small mistakes had to come from somewhere without just being unforeseeable circumstance. 

And for a small mistake to take a ship out of the game, you'd have to put yourself in a position where such a small mistake can cost you your ship in the first place, i.e.: yoloing forward without much regard to your safety or an exit strategy. On that note, I'm impressed the GK managed to die with less than 200 base XP, that takes a special breed of dedication in catching as much damage as quickly as possible.

 

 

42 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

You could easily change only a few factors in that game and get a very different result.

Could've, would've, didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×