InterconKW

Yes, it is you. Dispersion has not empirically changed at all.

I spent an entire half a year worth of spare playing time (outside normal grinds) trying to help statistically bad players (we're talking 48% and below range) be good at WoWs, and came to the conclusion that the primary issue stopping people from being good at the game was not actually some inherent weakness or characteristic, but a bad attitude. We're looking at a playerbase that largely thinks it is perfect at the game and is more willing to blame the team or WG or whatever factor they can stir up with no real empirical evidence than to actually fix the fact that they are part of the 2/3 majority of people who don't even pull their own weight in this game. To let everyone who falls in this category know what a wonderful and perfect job they are doing every time they blow up at the start of the match, we donate honest and well-deserved F11s.

For a BB, Georgia actually has very usable armor. Like Iowa and Montana her amidships are plated in 38mm, so when angled the bulk of her profile bounces all BB shells (even the likes of pick-one-of-three-Yamatos) and this 38mm also stops most normal cruiser HE (STS memes abound). Of course this good armor comes into play best when she is angled, if not she only has an internal 12" belt (still adequate) to save her. Still, I feel like you'd get a better understanding of the game if you played randoms instead of coop.

Everyone is talking about Dead-Eye, but I'm going to be honest. A ship with 18.9km base concealment that gets barely under 17 with concealment fully stacked isn't going to benefit much from it in the middle of the tiers where the default range of engagement is shorter than that. So I'm still running the no-CE no-Deadeye full survivability build, and it's business as usual. I already have the best gun output and second best HE/overmatch invulnerability at T6 anyway. May have been reported three times, but I don't really feel too much remorse. Kind of a shame the Devstrike achievement remains broken because I got at least four.

Dear Asia Playerbase. I know it is hard, extremely hard to play this game. Not rushing into a crossfire of 5 enemies when all are spotted on the map is hard. Landing torpedoes at 0.4km is hard. Actually doing anything to pull your own weight in a match is obviously a chore for the average Asian player which is why the average server WR is 47.5% But please, for the love of god, learn to read who is green and who is red. At the very minimum. This is going way too far.

Sadly WG supports the behavior of these lesser humans.

Ticket submitted. These players will TK you to prolong the game. Their names deserve to be shown, fuck the rules. I'm too tilted to care.

Intercon Naval Research Institute File 39 Section "Mikoyan"Citadel protection (Or lack thereof) testing (Chapter 2 and 3) Explanation: Mikoyan's exposed 35mm citadel is actually terrible. Illustrated here are first Emerald getting a near 80 degree angled belt citadel pen due to her special AP angles, then 6k damage bow on to a Konigsberg (2 citadels by HE shells), then losing almost half her HP to Montecuccoli's SAP while angled (Special pen angle and ~42mm SAP pen) Theoretically, Konigsberg can HE dev strike Mikoyan. Montecuccoli can SAP dev strike it while ~70 degree angled with just 3 shells. USN DD AP also penetrates about 45mm not counting angles at 12km, and thus USN DDs with their slow shell 5"/38s can long range citadel Mikoyan with AP too. This ship has fine handling but a sad HP pool, no armor, poor damage output (relying on its AP to be anywhere near competitive as it will lose DPM trades with any other equivalent) and... I just don't see much reason to like it even if it can get a decent game. It is true that ships like Omaha at T5 also play around not getting hit, but Omaha has a better citadel belt and actual DPM. But it is funny.

Intercon Naval Research Institute File 39 Section "Mikoyan" Citadel protection (Or lack thereof) testing. Conclusion: "Garbage Ship"

Hello @sdrgio. I recognize you are quite a new player, just starting WoWs at the beginning of this year? World of Warships is not an easy game and you have progressed to Tier 10 very quickly. I also saw your recent post asking about how to play Tier 10. Looking at your performance statistics and going off your statement you might be dying too early due to not properly reading the game situation and putting yourself in a vulnerable position. It is hard to say. I am willing to help you, but just going off those values it is difficult to make a clear judgement. If you want, you can upload replays of your Montana gameplay, ideally just normal games, to say... https://replayswows.com/ and I can watch them and evaluate them. Keep in mind there is a lot of game sense that needs to be developed to be good at this game, and although I think Montana is a good ship still, she in particular is a very balanced BB that is versatile but does not have clear cut strengths. Learning will take time but I am glad you asked for help, though I do not approve of jumping to blaming the ship or meta.

I'm just addressing your argument. This is a misconception that I do have strong opinions on and it needs to be addressed. I know nothing about you as a player, thought you seem suspiciously defensive to that remark. I do actually wish to look at your BB stats to help you understand what is going on since even battle count/damage dealing alone would help me tell a lot.

About uh... pretty much nothing, so sometimes I question if I should support the game more. About 40 USD equivalent on a few experiments with premium time total in 4 years?

The reason for repeat steamrolls on Asia can be put down to a lack of good players. Only 1-2 good players are required to play reactively to prolong a game, but in practice there is no assurance you can even get one good player in a random battle anymore. As a result one side getting a small disadvantage like one suicidal ship weakening a flank results in that entire flank feeding or retreating excessively and giving up all position. I've watched it happen repeatedly on both sides. I would love to assess your stats in both Yamato and G. Kurfurst but for some reason you have marked them as private. I'm sure you have nothing to hide or be ashamed of if you are bringing them up openly? From experience players who state that stats are meaningless do not understand them and tend to play poorly, so I hope you are not one of them. 75% solo winrate in most ships seems highly unlikely for the vast majority of the playerbase minus the top tenth of a percentile or so. I'd like to point out how winrate (over large sample size) is actually one of the single most reliable values to show a player's contribution to the team. 24 players in a match. The other 23 will have different overall contributions, completely random. Over a small number of games, it is true that many statistics are unreliable. For example in 20 games if you perform average but have good luck and get an extra couple of 3 game win streaks, your winrate can hit 75% (15 out of 20 won). Even in a hundred games, it only takes a couple of win rate "freak values" to get a 46% WR (seen as terrible) or a 55% WR (seen as good). Therefore, it is true that short term WR is meaningless and I believe the values you quoted for your Kurfurst/Yamato are thus not accurate. However, in a large number of games, say... 1000 or so, the contribution the other players make will normalize towards a 50% middle value. This is basic mathematics, I believe it is called a central tendency: In a probability distribution the values generated "tend" towards a middle value. This is where you come in. If you are a good player contributing more to your team than the expected average (be it in damage, kills, tactical impact etc.) you will ensure that when the other 23 players tend to 50%, you will be a net positive impact on any team you play on. That is where you can skew your winrate upwards over time. You won't get 100% since inevitably some teams will be too heavy for even the best of the best to carry, but many closer games could be influenced into wins by you alone. Conversely if you are a bad player, you will skew your long term winrate downwards. One of the attitude problems I brought up was how bad players live in denial that they are bad, and hence they hate this statistical truth. If you don't believe me, find me a good player by contribution that has a bad long term winrate or a bad player by contribution that has a good long term winrate. Even without divisions. Trust me: You won't.

I stated that I don't inherently hate bad players. I myself actually started as a 44%er who was called out by a better player, resulting in me first seeking out the forums and then the SEA players active on Discord. I absolutely know how it feels like to go into WoWs blind and I also still believe in giving advice to new players should they be willing (but also wish for that advice to be objective and factually substantiated) But I definitely do have a major problem with the attitudes of many players (being that they blame the team or game and go chat toxic despite not applying much logical reasoning to their gameplay) as opposed to the far less prominent group who will actually try to see their own flaws and improve. In fact their attitudes are counterintuitive to them "overcoming the plateau" and many settle to be bad without attempting to go further. This is more common than it reasonably should be - my quoted examples are actually of people in Tier 10 games who have 4 figure game counts and sub-47% winrates. It's a growing problem and if the situation continues to remain the way it is, the echo chambers will fill and it will only grow more.