tier 8 players

[ghostbuster_]

I guess [edited]reached tier 8 and now in every battle there are tier 8 ships which have no idea what to do.  the most important thing for them is staying alive, so they dont know anything about teamwork. No idea how yo angle their ships no idea how to avoid the shells or torps. They are just fishes around. WG should find a solution for this. I dont want to have that [edited]in my team and in enemy team too. They ruin the fun of this game. and a solution would be a better rank system even in random battles. Winrate based rank system is just bullsh*t. It should be based on mutliparameters. Avrg dmg in that ship, kill/death rate, total battles fought...

Its no problem to lose battles if the enemy team did really well but its just makes me angry to lose them because of [edited]in my team. The same for winning too. If i we win by doing really well its more fun and satisfying. there is no fun at winning because of the [edited]in the enemy team.

So what do you think about that?

[ColonelPete]

That should be old news since Tier I.

[OVanBruce]

And in tier IX, and in tier X...

 

Really, there are tomatoes on all tiers so don't count too much on your "big bros"

[N00b32]

The problem are carriers. Or rather the absence. And draws. Or rather the absence of them.

 

Both really forced players to adjust their playstyle for more efficiency. 

[Hedgehog1963]

The nature of the game I'm afraid.  There is no solution.

[ghostbuster_]

well i found a solution. Mirroring all type of ships and a good ranking system.

[Mayv]

To reach tier 10 you just have to play enough games.

[ghostbuster_]

yes its really easy to get a tier X ship. Thats why a good ranking system is needed even for random battles. 

[mtm78]

well i found a solution. Mirroring all type of ships and a good ranking system.

 

Mirror MM would kill the game, it would become boring imo. With divergent team compositions come different strategies. 

 

Diversity is a good thing, the only thing MM should do better is spreading ships. So no 4 clevelands in one team and 4 Aoba's in the other, or 3 Yamato's in one team and 2 Montana's and an Iowa in the other.

 

[bloomoon11]

The clue is in the name - random battle.

They're specifically not ranked.

[Kurbain]

yes its really easy to get a tier X ship. 

 

Yup, which is why I'm not even at T9 yet after 4 months of playing. 

 

 

Mirror MM would kill the game, it would become boring imo. With divergent team compositions come different strategies. 

 

I'm not sure it has a notable impact on tactics. Who checks the enemy team composition and thinks "Alright, because we got X DDs more and Y BBs less, we will go for a flank attack from the 1 and 2 line while 20% of the team defends on the 7 and 8 line focusing on point C" etc.?

And even if they did, it's not like you could put it into practice.

 

Most of the time people use the same tactics, the only difference is how much camping it involves. Lots of DDs/CVs = Mucho camping. Barely any DDs/CVs = Less camping.

 

That aside I also enjoy the diversity, though. Definitely mixes things up and keeps the game more interesting.

[Risalan]

You must do what you habe to do, the rest don't matters. People must learn the hard way. 2900 battles and I only have 1 tier IX of 51 ships. I learn step by step if you whant get a tier X with 700 battles is your problem not mine. I have more battles in the top 5 in XP of my team than in the botton 5, winnig gives you more XP and credits but no more battle expertise.

 

As in WOT high tiers requires diferent tactics on every ship of every nation, low tiers requires less, only ship class. With any BB (VII-X) you can kill some CAs with one salvo, so if you're in a CA be aware, DDs of each nation are played in a different way. 

 

Corollary:

When enough people of your team know how to play you may win, when not you may lose.

[N00b32]

 

I'm not sure it has a notable impact on tactics. Who checks the enemy team composition and thinks "Alright, because we got X DDs more and Y BBs less, we will go for a flank attack from the 1 and 2 line while 20% of the team defends on the 7 and 8 line focusing on point C" etc.?

And even if they did, it's not like you could put it into practice.

 

I play a lot of DDs and I do. It is essential for surviving. 

 

Of course if I play BB I don't care. But for a DD is is very important to know what DDs the enemy has, if there are carriers, what cruisers to expect and so on. And that dictates how aggressive I attack. But this line 20% bla - No. Won't work. You have to stay flexible and for that you should know what to expect.

[mtm78]

 

Yup, which is why I'm not even at T9 yet after 4 months of playing. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure it has a notable impact on tactics. Who checks the enemy team composition and thinks "Alright, because we got X DDs more and Y BBs less, we will go for a flank attack from the 1 and 2 line while 20% of the team defends on the 7 and 8 line focusing on point C" etc.?

And even if they did, it's not like you could put it into practice.

 

Most of the time people use the same tactics, the only difference is how much camping it involves. Lots of DDs/CVs = Mucho camping. Barely any DDs/CVs = Less camping.

 

That aside I also enjoy the diversity, though. Definitely mixes things up and keeps the game more interesting.

 

Well I can't speak for the masses, but team composition always influences how I play 

[EmilyFara]

 

Well I can't speak for the masses, but team composition always influences how I play 

 

For me only enemy composition influences how I play. But I mainly play USN DD, so a bit more solo warrior type.

Team behaviour influences me a LOT more.

[BrushWolf2]

 

Mirror MM would kill the game, it would become boring imo. With divergent team compositions come different strategies. 

 

Diversity is a good thing, the only thing MM should do better is spreading ships. So no 4 clevelands in one team and 4 Aoba's in the other, or 3 Yamato's in one team and 2 Montana's and an Iowa in the other.

 

 

This, most of the people asking for things like this either haven't played WoWP or are willing forgetting about the huge issues that fairness/skill factors in the MM did to that game. I would add gun/torpedo DD's to spreading out.

[mtm78]

 

For me only enemy composition influences how I play. But I mainly play USN DD, so a bit more solo warrior type.

Team behaviour influences me a LOT more.

 

And you don't think team behaviour is influenced by team composition?

[ghostbuster_]

 

Mirror MM would kill the game, it would become boring imo. With divergent team compositions come different strategies. 

 

Diversity is a good thing, the only thing MM should do better is spreading ships. So no 4 clevelands in one team and 4 Aoba's in the other, or 3 Yamato's in one team and 2 Montana's and an Iowa in the other.

 

I agree, diversity is a good thing. but the teams should be balanced. due to your example if a team has 3 yamatos the other team also should have 3 yamatos not 2 montanas and 1 yamato.

 

The clue is in the name - random battle.

They're specifically not ranked.

 

yes but there are too many [edited]every battle. You may like the easy wins because of the [edited]in enemy team but i want this game to depend more on player skill. And there is also no need to make two differennt battle types. just ranked battles with 12 person, with div and of course with a good ranking system.  So everyone can play against players in his level and the battles would be more intense and it would make more fun.

[bloomoon11]

I agree, diversity is a good thing. but the teams should be balanced. due to your example if a team has 3 yamatos the other team also should have 3 yamatos not 2 montanas and 1 yamato.

 

 

yes but there are too many [edited]every battle. You may like the easy wins because of the [edited]in enemy team but i want this game to depend more on player skill. And there is also no need to make two differennt battle types. just ranked battles with 12 person, with div and of course with a good ranking system.  So everyone can play against players in his level and the battles would be more intense and it would make more fun.

 

Maybe if and when they bother to introduce clan matches, in the meantime it's a casual arcade game pure and simple.

[TheJezna]

Mirror MM would be utter crap. But I wouldn't mind if they came up with some kind of composite skill figure, akin to WarshipsToday or such and use that number as a component along with the others to set up teams. Effect would be that while a team can still have more skilled players than the other, that will be compensated for by better ships. I would even go so far as to say that MM should limit the skill spread just like it does with tiers. That would save really good players from the frustration of dealing with bad teammates. 

[mtm78]

I agree, diversity is a good thing. but the teams should be balanced. due to your example if a team has 3 yamatos the other team also should have 3 yamatos not 2 montanas and 1 yamato.

 

No in that example one team should have 1 yamato and 2 monty's vs 2 Yamy's and 1 monty. Just spread them out, it doesn't need to be 100% mirror. 

 

On the other hand, national battles do sound like a lot of fun if you ask me, and if that means correcting imbalance between nations at specific tiers then that's what it means 

[Spellfire40]

The problem is that you cant have skill based MM since the pool for that isnt there. That and not all players would enjoy skill based MM since effective gameplay dosnt equals fun gameplay.

[mtm78]

Skill based MM wouldn't really be fun in randoms anyway, trust me. 

[OVanBruce]

Skill based MM wouldn't really be fun in randoms anyway, trust me. 

 

Indeed. Skillbased MM in tier X without full team coordination would be even more of an snipefest than now.

[EsaTuunanen]

The clue is in the name - random battle.

They're specifically not ranked.

And just how someone who does sub 10k average damage in Tier 6 BBs has any role in team even at that tier?

(6,4k average in Kongo with 165 battles)

 

There should be some kind minimum requirements.

It's rather obvious that such player has no idea how to play.

 

 

The same for winning too. If i we win by doing really well its more fun and satisfying. there is no fun at winning because of the [edited]in the enemy team.

"It's already over? But I didn't even really start." definitely isn't exactly satisfying.