Jump to content

Exocet6951

Weekend Tester
  • Content Сount

    4,870
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    10124
  • Clan

    [SICK]

2 Followers

About Exocet6951

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,998 profile views
  1. Exocet6951

    What do you enjoy most in WoWs?

    Moving away from the interforum meta discussion, I still find that the most enjoyable thing in this game is getting that perfect torpedo salvo just right. I love seeing those ribbons add up, climaxing (I chose that word specifically ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ) in a kill and devastating strike medal. And it can't be that instant "8 torpedoes hit and kaboom" deal either. It's those perfect hits at an angle, with every torpedo impact being distinct. Lovely.
  2. Exocet6951

    Smolensk heavily under powered!

  3. "An unfortunate bug we didn't catch during testing, when we were trying to improvement gameplay by tweaking random stats that coincidentally happened to be on a Russian ship. If anything, you looking for it on the Smolensk is proof of anti-Russian sentiment on the EU server!" -S_O, probably.
  4. Exocet6951

    ☆ WG's secret and El2aZeR true identity ★

    Like it or not, that is what peak Enterprise performance looks like.
  5. Oh I absolutely do see the other side of the coin. Alas, since I'm a direct customer and there's a hefty amount of money poured into a game which I like a lot, objectivity is realistically not possible. What you can do though is rework how balance changes are made to explain things in much clearer terms (not you specifically, a general "you") You use a basic framework to give clear goals, vision and metrics, such as: Vision: This ship is built around [X]. (personal note: Have WG staple this to their screens.) Observation: The ship is too influential, with too high WR and too high damage. Goal: Align the ship's overall results with its same tier brethren, and DPM down to what we envision the ship to be capable of. [Insert quantified goals, such as 51% WR] Method: Increasing the reload speed in order to bring down the DPM Reasoning: By lowering DPM, this ship will ....[insert data driven reasoning] Expected result: [insert by how much you estimate WR/damage will decrease] Later on: Result: [Success/failure] Reasoning: By lowering DPM, this ship......[insert finding compared to the initial goal and expected result] (Reaffirm that the ship still fits the vision....or not) It's very methodical, and it's not a very sexy, infographic-on-main-page approach, but by god that's the thing that wins over at least semi-rational people. It doesn't even matter if a change is a success or failure in the end, we just know that you have clear goals, metrics and vision. It's not just a "Spreadsheet says [x]", it's a scientific and data driven method to align the goals you lay out to the public with the steps you are taking. If people agree with the goals, vision and metrics is another matter, but just knowing what those are creates transparency where there's currently just a thick opaque slab of reinforced steel. I also can't stress this enough, but if they haven't already, have the balance team literally staple and nail down post its or what have you with ship vision. It's clear that they don't, and after a while just do spreadsheet balancing by playing with RoF until WR is where they want it to be. Seeing an AP focused brawling CA branch like KM CAs be in a state of constant +/-1 second reload changes centered around its continuous HE potential, while the entire branch did a complete 180 from its original design, which was using very high alpha AP from close range is somewhat sad, and really just paints a picture of 5 accountants in a room trying to balance a spreadsheet, rather than people who actually play the game. On a more personal note, this is absolutely not a criticism of you or @MrConway , which I'm convinced do what they can with what they have, and have in the past (and this very thread) disagreed with how things currently operate. If work is to be done, it's on the development end, not the community management end. Though I would kindly ask S_O to stop, because he just contradicts himself and just lies, instead of being honest and disagreeing with things that absolutely don't make sense. *cough* Telling me personally that Strasbourg wasn't used in the FR BB branch because they don't like having ships with premium sister ships on different tiers, all while talking about the brand new Musashi is cheeky as hell.
  6. Indeed, but using a chain of single chain is. But that's my personnal criticism of WG and its balance team. What i would like to see is its objectives, goals and metrics. For example with the Italian cruiser, i would like to see if the objective/niche for the branch as seen by the developers The balancing goals and how they mesure how they succeed or fail. Saying "Kremlin is too strong, so we're changing something minute" isn't really helpful. Similarily with the Alsace at release, which i fervently argued on favor of a nerf. I want to know the reasoning behind how that nerf, which was downright failing to adress the problems, from my point of view. You may think that it's too much to provide, and I'm tempted to agree...I'm not stomping my feet demanding the moon with total disregard to what is realistically possible. But if WG wants my trust in balance, that's what it needs to provide, at least on more sensitive cases. After things like Smolensk, Stalingrad, Genova, RN BBs and YY, surely you can understand.
  7. Perhaps these two things are linked... After all, if you show us the context you specificaly choose to show us, you can't expect anything but sarcasm from us. Like the YY example. All we have is "balance team says mission accomplished" The same balance team who brought out the Graf Zeppelin and called players bad, despite it being basically unusable. What is the objective ? What are the success metrics ? Has that objective moved with new additions ? You forget that some of us are actually employed in fields that deal in data, and can cut right through statistic [edited] and blanket statements.
  8. Exocet6951

    Yorck - German VII tier ultimate floating disaster

    Do you mean : New Orleans, built 1929 thus designed in the late 20's Algérie, built 1931 thus designed in the late 20's Zara, built 1929 thus designed in the late 20's Myoko, built in 1924 thus designed at around the same time as the Yorck Those ones?
  9. Exocet6951

    Russian carriers coming?

    Would that mean that an Audacious carpet bombing AA heavy ships for minutes on end, losing dozens of planes, consequence free is considered by WG to be a bad thing? Wow, if only someone could have warned them in advance about such unforeseeable things. Like in a special test server, in late 2018.
  10. Exocet6951

    Twilight battles

    During one of the 3 battles I tried, I asked the people shooting why they did it, rather than get filth. "It's more fun that way" Then I thought about what I was doing. I was chasing empty circles on a map with temporary currency to buy permanent camos that I dislike, trying to get teamwork out of people who don't give a **** about teamwork in a team game. I was having literally 0 fun. So I stopped, and I'll never touch gamemodes like this again. To be honest, it's pretty damn tempting to apply the same logic to the entire game.
  11. Exocet6951

    how about a free roam mode

    Sooooo.....random battles?
  12. Exocet6951

    Italian cruisers are intentionally that bad?

    I finally got a 203mm armed ship to try out, the Trento. Oh boy, I was hoping that it was just the 152mm SAP that was bad. Nope, 203s are bad as well. For 20 salvoes fired with SAP, only one was actually worth it over have HE, with a pretty spicy 9k damage on a Nurnberg, the rest were strictly inferior to HE. Hell, inferior to Duca's pretty poor 152mm HE In fact, I would have been more effective using exclusively AP. Why does SAP have such ridiculously low penetration in the first place?
  13. You also forgot to mention that it was an extremely convenient 26mm plating, making it basically immune to non IFHE 152mm HE. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  14. Exocet6951

    In port "Community Chat" has been broken for months now...

    How to define when a WG bugfix will be implemented, a foolproof method. Case A) Does it affected monetized content and/or can it be monetized? => Fixed overnight Case B) Does it affect how battles are played, but can't be monetized? => 6-8 months Case C) Is it part of the general UI with no bearing on battles? => lol
  15. Exocet6951

    why german BBs should be the worst BB line in game?

    Clearly not the one he likes the most
×