That sweet spot in this game.

[Wulf_Ace]

Now imagine if wargaming staff play their own game, they could expirience something like I did now.

 

So its a new ranked season. Bronze tier 6 even with CVs is really fun, no radars, no super gimmicks, no submarines, just a feeling like a vanilla game. Its fun, you can carry the game and finish bronze fast if you want to enjoy it. CVs are annoyance but not that much to be OP in that kind of a way in tier 10.

 

Now I finished bronze and got to silver tier 8, and there where sweet spot comes.

There are radars but they last short, there are no subs. DDs CAN actually play the game. BBs can play the game and even cruisers can play the game. Without ultra mega lasting radars, without ultra mega superships, without ultra mega stupid secondary OP ships ( I am talking about you Schlieffen). Without ultra mega stupid Russian bias BBs and Cruisers (who are not OP but somehow they are always banned from CB). 

I can say you can really enjoy tier 8 battles, if they just remove CV spotting it would be perfect, let them do dmg, but just remove damn perma spotting (YEAH ITS THAT EASY TO BALANCE THIS CLASS).

Games were fun, even close most of the time, ships were nice and more or less balanced.

 

And then I came to gold promotion like always.

All fun is done, radars that last forever, you cant play dds, or you can play that but at max range (god forbid that you enter a cap with a DD, you are instant dead). Some mega battleships that last forever. Some light cruisers with thousand of torps. 

Instant dev strikes everywhere, toxic behavior, strange red noobs that end in gold ranked?? CVs that have unlimited and OP planes. Tier 10 is like a crap show of ZERO balance and fun in this game. Superships are even worse but I wont go to that.

-Ultra long lasting radars

-Battleships with ultra mega too big calibers

-DDs cant play the game as they should

-CVs planes striking power and plane limit is too big

-Cruisers worth more or less only with radar (in competetive)

-Light cruisers are sailing piñatas

ALL of this is normal up till tier 8.

 

So really, just by playing your own game you can really easy and fast find the problem and fix it. 

 

Am I only one that see that this game works just till tier 8, after that its a disaster of no fun gameplay and not balanced ships EVERYWHERE. Is it really and for you also that fun stops at tier 8?

 

Hi, art department.

[Redcap375]

Bronze for me.  Everytime.

 

You know what to expect and are never disappointed as the bar is so low.

 

Just think that every team mate is incapable of feeding himself, never mind doing anything useful to win the match. I'm at the point where I feel sorry for them and just go with the flow. 

 

Easy steel, no stress and doesn't effect anything. 

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

36 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

Am I only one that see that this game works just till tier 8, after that its a disaster of no fun gameplay and not balanced ships EVERYWHERE. Is it really and for you also that fun stops at tier 8?

Big caveat: Unless uptiered. Because then T8 is the shitshow it always was - because in addition to the worst ship, you get shat upon by tier 10. But for ranked it's fine. AA build Tiger '59 works beautifully.

[tocqueville8]

1 hour ago, Wulf_Ace said:

And then I came to gold promotion like always. All fun is done, radars that last forever, you cant play dds...

Gold qualifiers are a bit of a pain, so choose something strong (say, Venezia), fun for you (Colbert for me) or just reliable (AFT F. Sherman can bypass the DDs and put the hurt on their "burly protectors").

 

Once you're in Gold, just play whatever you like for the rewards. I find it liberating: I don't care about Rank 1, so I'll play until at least one win in each of a variety of ships. No pressure, which actually helps playing well.

[lovelacebeer]

This is why I happily stay in bronze, it’s very easy and I expect nothing of my ‘teammates’ as well as some nice low hanging fruit in terms of rewards.

[KHETTIFER]

Bronze is kinda fun (Budyonny ftw), had almost no matches with CV goons, qualified for silver, played a few matches and decided to call it quits. WG calls it "ranked", it should be called "retarded" because that WOULD be an accurate description.

[Ijime_Dame_Zettai]

I play ranked at silver qualy atm and I totally dissagree

I only get crap teams, noone can/wants to win, all BBs are usless cowards, cruiser go to one flank alone and die of cause

it is terrible! 40+ matches with zero advance

 

[TSD_87]

11 minutes ago, Ijime_Dame_Zettai said:

I play ranked at silver qualy atm and I totally dissagree

I only get crap teams, noone can/wants to win, all BBs are usless cowards, cruiser go to one flank alone and die of cause

it is terrible! 40+ matches with zero advance

 

You even made a topic about that, where all people unanimously agreed that it is you that was the cause for not winning! 

Getting a avg of 8K dmg in your YueYang is the reason why you dont advance, but apparently you still dont understand that.

 

Here is the link to your topic, so you can once again read it and perhaps now actually do something with the advice, like staying in coop! 

 

why are ranked teams so bad? - General Discussion - World of Warships official forum

[Hugh_Ruka]

Each CV tier has the same problem ... no matter if 6, 8 or 10 .... I had 4 games with CVs in a row where I was just bullied by the CV in a DD (Bronze) and could not do anything but lose HP ... so YMMV ...

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

46 minutes ago, Ijime_Dame_Zettai said:

I play ranked at silver qualy atm and I totally dissagree

I only get crap teams, noone can/wants to win, all BBs are usless cowards, cruiser go to one flank alone and die of cause

it is terrible! 40+ matches with zero advance

 

 

But don't worry, you're not the only one here in the forums, shooting your own leg by complaining about teammates while being terrible yourself. This has a long and hilarious tradition.

[BLUB__BLUB]

I usually play T5-6-7-8. Anything above that is just the same monkeys but with bigger clubs. 

OK might be one of those monkeys myself, perhaps the biggest one! 

 

[Kruzenstern]

On 2/22/2023 at 12:07 AM, Wulf_Ace said:

Am I only one that see that this game works just till tier 8, after that its a disaster of no fun gameplay and not balanced ships EVERYWHERE. Is it really and for you also that fun stops at tier 8?

 

I see it the same way, since I mostly play just operations and they don't exist beyond tier8...

[Andrewbassg]

45 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

But don't worry, you're not the only one here in the forums, shooting your own leg by complaining about teammates while being terrible yourself. This has a long and hilarious tradition.

While in theory you have a point, practice shows otherwise.

 

 

That's NA. On Eu on the same ship I have 64 % WR.  I can't produce the picture  coz I ranked out.Now....  I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most consistent player out there buut .....this variance (almost 20%!!!)  cannot be attributed to subjective factors,  alone.

 

That is one of the reasons, why I mock people's arguments, who think that stats are anything representative or deterministic. Also, MM is (supposedly) a simple roll of the dice, but Wedgie, by reducing line ups, have effectively removed the possibility to truly influence the outcome, in terms of winning (I can elaborate further on this if necessary).

 

[DFens_666]

26 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

While in theory you have a point, practice shows otherwise.

 

 

That's NA. On Eu on the same ship I have 64 % WR.  I can't produce the picture  coz I ranked out.Now....  I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most consistent player out there buut .....this variance (almost 20%!!!)  cannot be attributed to subjective factors,  alone.

 

 

 

Both 53% Mogami

51% / 53% Edin

51/52% CM

47/49% Cleve

45/43% Chapa

The only one that doesnt fit is Mainz. And we dont know how many games you played in it on NA. Probably 45% is too low, and 65% is too high, the truth is in the middle. And all other cruisers are almost identical. Even those with very few games which have a high probability for variance (few lucky/unlucky games can easily skew the result).

[Andrewbassg]

20 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

The only one that doesnt fit is Mainz. And we dont know how many games you played in it on NA.

I looked it up. 60 battles..... And that's why I'm saying, what I'm saying.

 

 

 

Oh dear... I never looked up my stats....well...ummm....

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

Speak of the devil...

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

While in theory you have a point, practice shows otherwise. 

You on the other hand don't have a point, neither in theory nor in practice.

To get meaningful results, you need to have enough samples. At about hundred matches, the error is getting smaller - but the more samples, the better. But even then, at 100 matches with Druid, I had a 14% higher win rate with it than I have now after 700 games more. And in between I dipped down below the current 60%+ solo to my chagrin.

Also server meta plays a role, so does ping, even when you played which ship, too. On weekends more bad players do random, uncarryable atrocities, bringing you closer to average. For you that's even a good thing.

 

So, basically, a 20% difference is well within the acceptable in this case.

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

That is one of the reasons, why I mock people's arguments, who think that stats are anything representative or deterministic. Also, MM is (supposedly) a simple roll of the dice, but Wedgie, by reducing line ups, have effectively removed the possibility to truly influence the outcome, in terms of winning

This is the usual bovine excrement excuse by bad players, as you have been told before.

It's not WG, it's not MM, it's not the phase of the moon, and it certainly isn't your team dragging you down...

 

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

(I can elaborate further on this if necessary).

Your Yoga teacher might be interested, though...

 

The very second you stop lying to yourself is the first step you git gud. As you have been told before - why would you need to improve when you think you already did everything correctly?

Look up the thread from a year ago, can't be arsed to post you the links to the guides again...

[DFens_666]

12 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

I looked it up. 60 battles..... And that's why I'm saying, what I'm saying.

 

Well if you see it like this:

57 games with 65% WR is 37 wins

60 games with 45% WR is 27 wins

so difference 10 wins. Or 5 losses on EU and 5 wins more on NA and it would be within 3% difference (53 vs 56% WR). Its not that much if you look at it like that. Even more so if the other 700 games (+ those on NA) are pretty much in the same range.

If you would play more Mainz on NA you would surely go above 50% WR. But on Eu you might also lose some and drop below 60%.

[Andrewbassg]

20 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Well if you see it like this:

57 games with 65% WR is 37 wins

60 games with 45% WR is 27 wins

so difference 10 wins. Or 5 losses on EU and 5 wins more on NA and it would be within 3% difference (53 vs 56% WR). Its not that much if you look at it like that. Even more so if the other 700 games (+ those on NA) are pretty much in the same range.

If you would play more Mainz on NA you would surely go above 50% WR. But on Eu you might also lose some and drop below 60%.

That's a good point. However, I tend to play them alternatively and not exclusively, to combat the boring factor( i.e by the differing play style) And as differing  server meta goes , NA needs moar play (because of a number  of factors) to get the same outcome. If anything, I tend to play more Mogami there.  

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

You on the other hand don't have a point, neither in theory nor in practice.

To get meaningful results, you need to have enough samples. At about hundred matches, the error is getting smaller - but the more samples, the better. But even then, at 100 matches with Druid, I had a 14% higher win rate with it than I have now after 700 games more. And in between I dipped down below the current 60%+ solo to my chagrin.

Also server meta plays a role, so does ping, even when you played which ship, too. On weekends more bad players do random, uncarryable atrocities, bringing you closer to average.

That's a good point.

 

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

For you....

You see, that's what got you into hot water in the first place. Try not to .....no matter what you think in your "cute 14 year old head". If you "want" to be a teacher then start acting like one. ( Hint the first thing you have to get rid is your ego)  Even if you are "Hans Zimmerman" (which I kinda doubt) you still are out of line.

 

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

So, basically, a 20% difference is well within the acceptable in this case

I still disagree.

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

It's not WG, it's not MM, it's not the phase of the moon, and it certainly isn't your team dragging you down...

That remain to be seen and (dis or)proven. However, WG as "custodian" of the game has an undeniable influence, no matter what you say or think.

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

This is the usual bovine excrement excuse by bad players, as you have been told before.

You can say that all day long and still could mean nothing, also you are mistaken about excuses. Yes, there are people who would love to use that as an excuse but I'm open as a window. However...

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Your Yoga teacher might be interested, though...

  

The very second you stop lying to yourself is the first step you git gud. As you have been told before - why would you need to improve when you think you already did everything correctly?

 Look up the thread from a year ago, can't be arsed to post you the links to the guides again...

a) you not gonna silence me, or attempt take away my voice, or show me my place simply because you think that you are entitled to, no matter what.You got that, chief? Also if you are not capable of making coherent arguments, please refrain from using ' arguments from authority" and/or ad hominems especially given that your stats are hidden.

b) while objective metrics are important, they also fail and are completely unsuited to quantify personal experience and motives.

c) however, you can freely chose to whom to respond

d) yo.....I don't have a yoga teacher.... quote marks or not.

[Viridem]

Agreed, tier 8 is by far my most played tier both in ranked and randoms.

I look at my tier 8 ships, and I don't see a single one I'd find unpleasant to play, or would perform poorly, even against tier 10.

(Unless it's against a submarine or a CV of course).

 

Maybe it's my ship selection, maybe it's my playstyle, maybe it's something else, but to me it's where the game is at its best.

Tier 6 and 7 are also very nice, tier 4 and 5 can be fun, but at tier 9 and above things go down very quickly...

 

 

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

That remain to be seen and (dis or)proven. However, WG as "custodian" of the game has an undeniable influence, no matter what you say or think.

Well. Better players have better stats. And the difference if obvioius. Oblivious players broadside because 'hurr durr shoot ALL THE GUNS!', good players notice when you snipe them from 20km away - and not only due to IFA.

Trolls like @Why_Cant_I_Be_You intentionally sail to the map border and try to game the not participating mechanic by trying to archieve just the minimum required to not get punished.

 

And guess what? It all shows in the metrics, even if you feel differently.

Edit: Even WG uses this metric, FYI:

 

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

a) you not gonna silence me, or attempt take away my voice, simply because you think that you are entitled to, no matter what.You got that, chief? Also if you are not capable of making coherent arguments, please refrain from using ' arguments from authority" and/or ad hominems especially given that your stats are hidden.

b) while objective metrics are important, they also fail and are completely unsuited to quantify personal experience and motives. 

c) however, you can freely chose to whom to respond

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

d) yo.....I don't have a yoga teacher.... quote marks or not.

But you really need to somehow align your chakras or something....  your aura is positively scintillating when you really harshly feel that facts don't apply to you.

[KhorneFlake]

5 hours ago, Ijime_Dame_Zettai said:

I play ranked at silver qualy atm and I totally dissagree

I only get crap teams, noone can/wants to win, all BBs are usless cowards, cruiser go to one flank alone and die of cause

it is terrible! 40+ matches with zero advance

 

Because you incredibly suck.

 

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Well. Better players have better stats. And the difference if obvioius.

Yes, but that's not the most defining characteristic of good players. Good players deliver consistently better results and very good players deliver even more consistently their results. This is something I told you a year ago. :)

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

And guess what? It shows in the metrics, even if you feel differently

Lolz.....I never disputed that. However, it wont give you the why's. As per your example, you didn't know why his numbers looked as they are, until he started a thread and then it become clear which you would have never guessed just by lookin' at them. So there you go.

 

As for feelings...yo... that's not that simple. Lemme give you an example:

 

On 2/24/2023 at 2:21 PM, Andrewbassg said:

That's not my experience. The thing is cruisers are not necessarily... "weaker", however they are much less survivable, ergo less fun.

Because that actually works like this -4+(-4). So its actually -8 on the receiving end.

On 2/24/2023 at 2:55 PM, Andrewbassg said:

Soo......Im not really a math guy and.....there have been  some mistakes made

 

Before Deadyee:  -7+4=-3

With Deadyee and FOUR points spent: -17+4=-13

After the changes for FREE : -7  straight.

And that just from the delivering side of things.

 

From a strictly math pov obviously the latter is correct. However the same is not true if we look at  this from social sciences pov. And that is wholly justifiable because  refers to an interclass issue, ergo a balancing issue. Because removing the disp debuff  also gave more accuracy to a class with a much bigger alpha strike and potential. And then all sort of other issues will also have  to be taken into account like survability and armor and...yadda yadda.

 

Think about this as.... taxcuts. Even if you give out taxcuts  numerically equally, the result will  not be the same  on all fronts . I never said that social sciences are not sciences, however they are very much misused and misinterpreted.

 

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

 

But you really need to somehow align your chakras or something....  your aura is scintillating when you really harshly feel that facts don't apply to you

 

I don't have any problems with facts however

a) I have a big problem with how they are "used" and for what (especially when...

b) what are those "facts" still needs to be determined. 

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

 

 

Oh so now you have feelings too? :)

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

37 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

I don't have any problems with facts however 

a) I have a big problem with how they are "used" and for what (especially when...

b) what are those "facts" still needs to be determined.  

You mean when you don't understand you have a problem with facts? And I use "do not understand" in a quite loose sense here, as it is more a fastmotion'esque willful denial thing.

And when you finally and absolutely have nothing else to add, you "still need to determine" what these facts could possibly be? Be my guest, determine away but be prepared that people laugh at your... unfounded hypothesis.

 

37 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Oh so now you have feelings too? :)

Yeah, intellectual feelings - and you are insulting them, again and again.

 

Edit: If you wish to talk to me personally, please do send private messages and don't derail the thread. Thanks.

[Andrewbassg]

47 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

You mean when you don't understand you have a problem with facts? And I use "do not understand" in a quite loose sense here, as it is more a fastmotion'esque willful denial thing.

 And when you finally and absolutely have nothing else to add, you "still need to determine" what these facts could possibly be? Be my guest, determine away but be prepared that people laugh at your... unfounded hypothesis.

 

Sweetie......I literally just proved to you that the relevancy of facts can be disputed. And that's why what are thpse facts needs to be determined. Also that's why context is (always!!) king. But here comes another one: the Earth is not flat, however that fact has no relevancy, regarding gunnery in Wows. Ur welcome.

 

47 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Yeah, intellectual feelings - and you are insulting them, again and again.

Oh..... this does sound familiar, for more than one reason, but 

 

47 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Edit: If you wish to talk to me personally, please do send private messages and don't derail the thread. Thanks.

Edit:  But thats a good point.