Jump to content

CosMoe

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    15070
  • Clan

    [BANCV]

About CosMoe

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nope, the developers confirmed in a Q&A stream subs are to come to PvP. At the moment they seem to prefer that subs are countered by hydro, that means DDs and cruisers. Which of course makes sense from a historical point of view. However, this is the problem that I want to highlight in my original post: If cruisers counter CVs, DDs, and subs (3 counters instead of 2) the balance is off. And I just can not imagine that subs will be a suitable counter vs. carriers as it simply takes too much time for a slow ship that is bad at scouting to check all the carrier positions in the far back. If the developers force this counter then they have to expect that CV hunting subs will be: out of combat for 6+ minutes, then suddenly dev-strike a carrier who had no possibility of counterplay (no hydro), then being out of combat again for a few minutes until they reach the other ships again. Simply bad gameplay imho. Would you agree (when excluding the same class) that in general carriers are best against DDs and BBs, cruisers are best against DDs and carriers, BBs are best against cruisers, and DDs are best against BBs? This is what the first picture means. I did not include AP bombers countering AA cruisers because not all carriers have access to AP bombs. It is, however, a good example of what happens if add a game mechanic that violates the balance principle mentioned in the Rock-Paper-Scissors Wiki article. If you really, really wanted to add an additional counter for one ship class, then you also have to add an additional counter versus this ship.
  2. The WoWs game design and balancing department are introducing submarines as a fifth ship class. This opens the possibility to design, at least in theory, a perfectly balanced game which was not possible with just four classes because an odd number of elements is required for that. Since the new carriers and subs are still in the design phase a well-reasoned discussion might bring up some ideas that could help the game designers. The general rule for perfect balance is: Each ship class counters two of the other four ship classes, while being countered by the remaining two ship classes. No ship class is "better" than the other. This design also self-balances, i.e. should one ship class become to dominant, the two classes which counter it become more effective. Thus, no artificial limitations (like for CVs at the present) are needed anymore. However, this requires adaptations to already existing class interactions and also requires some non-historical balancing. Some of these adaptations will make sense, but others are debatable. The following picture shows the current balancing. Each arrow indicates how one ship class can counter another ship class, the arrow texts describe the most important defensive and offensive counter methods. A lot of problems with the current game balancing arise from the non-symmetrical design with just four ship classes. But what could be possible soon? The following picture shows one possible solution with the new fifth ship class, but it may not be the optimal solution. The main differences and additions to the old interactions are (clockwise, starting with subs): Subs counter BBs and cruisers with stealthy torpedo attacks. Reasoning: Subs have to counter cruisers instead of carriers because slow subs countering/hunting CVs would result in bad gameplay (e.g., subs slowly creeping along the map edge to hunt CVs). Cruisers lose ship spotting hydro but get spotting planes to enable long-range shots on carriers (more explanation below). DDs counter subs by spotting them (proximity and sub spotting hydro) and dropping depth charges. BBs now counter CVs because of their strong AA and can shoot at carriers that are far away. Reasoning: Since AA power declines with battle duration (destroyed AA mounts and AA ships) and since carriers will have unlimited planes, the carrier itself must become susceptible to damage. This probably requires that all islands outside of the center of the map to become low. There should probably also be some new game mechanic that spots carriers that are far away, e.g., periodic AI scouting planes flying along map edges near the spawning points. Carrier squadrons counter DDs and subs by spotting and bombing them. Other required changes: High caliber AP can only deal overpenetration damage to DDs and surfaced subs. Cruisers get spotting planes in a separate consumable spot. Hydro consumable is split into torpedo/ship spotting hydro and submerged sub spotting hydro. Only DDs get submerged sub spotting hydro in a separate consumable spot. Carrier squad composition can be chosen before each launch to have different plane types (e.g., a squad of 12 planes can consists of 6 HE bombers, 3 depth charge bombers, and 3 torpedo bombers). Carriers get a "Sonobuoy" consumable that can be dropped from the squadron to spot submerged subs (but not DDs in smoke!). Carriers also need to be able to quickly switch from squad-view to ship-view. No ship class should be invincible to any ship class. This mostly means that diving subs should have an oxygen timer (already confirmed in Dev Blog) and carriers should not be hidden until the endgame. This will probably be a highly controversial topic, so please stay calm and use arguments instead of name-calling and please understand that this kind of balancing is quite complicated. The above solution is by no means perfect (e.g., cruisers not countering subs is hard to defend) and other solutions may be better. In case you want to show your own solution, the Libreoffice Draw file for the balance diagram can be downloaded here. However, in my humble opinion and from a game design perspective the basic principle "counter two classes, get countered by the remaining two classes" should always prevail.
  3. CosMoe

    Ranked Season 8: General Discussion

    I agree that the starting day was poorly chosen and a January start would be much better. The significantly shorter duration (5 instead of 7 weeks) would be okay if the amount of wins/stars needed to get to rank 1 would have also been reduced by the same ratio. The reward for 7 times rank 1 is very underwhelming in both effort by WG and gratification for the player. Imho, the small picture indicates that while those two new camos will look very eye-catching that they will also be quite ugly. I prefer the clean, minimalistic look of their current camos. All of this will probably result in a continuous decrease in ranked players because the investment of time, flags, and nerves is not worth it anymore, especially after you get the USS Black. Maybe the 8-times reward will be really exceptional?
  4. CosMoe

    Holiday Lottery - Try your luck!

    I'd like to enter. :) #1: Scharnhorst #2: Arizona #3: Doubloons #4: Doubloons #5: Doubloons #6: Doubloons #7: Doubloons #8: Marblehead
  5. I just watched Fire's slight lead in XP (~1 million XP) switch to Blue's slight lead in XP in a matter of 1 minute. This can absolutely not be explained by any player or even clan coordination. My guess is that the new French ships very rarely create bugged stats that can flip the teams in the database of each category separately. The whole concept of this competition is flawed since it is to be expected that players will always try to join the winning team, especially when you join directly from the page that shows the winning team. Furthermore, the 5 categories are so interdependent that it is highly unlikely that a team does not win all categories at the same time. If possible, I'd suggest that in future events either the players are assigned a team at random or that the categories are different (but complementary!) for the two teams. E.g., team Fire needs fire damage, team Water needs flooding damage (much less of course); or Team fire needs (CV) airstrike damage, team Water needs planes shot down by ship AA. Such a complementary concept would maybe even slightly change the metagame for the duration of the event.
  6. CosMoe

    4 times rank1, no flint

    They already started giving out the ranked reward ships, I just got my Black. By the way, go for the IFHE skill on the Flint captain. This may require a dedicated captain for this ship only, but it's worth it.
  7. CosMoe

    Ranked Battles Season 6

    Superleague seems dead. Primetime (19:30 CET), 15 minutes queue with no more than 6 people in it. Any word from WG if this is "working as intended"?
  8. CosMoe

    Super League - Modified Mission Conditions

    Less whining, more constructive criticism, please. Superleague matches used a reward system that could easily be exploited and thus had to be fixed. Lesson learned: If any game mechanic can be exploited, it will be exploited. For example, if I really wanted to maximize the chance to get a container with the new system, I'd think it's easier to get top2 in the losing team than in the winning team. All I'd have to do is slightly sabotage my own team or play especially egoistic (not smoking teammates, pushing them out of smoke, making them mad in chat, etc.). Thus, sooner or later also this new system will most probably fail. Furthermore, I strongly feel that the new reward system is not enough to get rank1 players to play a hard, low XP, low credit tier 5 superleague battle instead of any easy random battle (maybe in a high-tier premium ship) which, on average, gives much higher rewards because a rank1 player's random match winrate will usually be much higher than his/her superleague winrate. Adequate ranked rewards are especially needed this season because the rank 9 to rank 2 rewards were very disappointing. (To be clear: New modules were a good idea and it's also okay that they are underpowered in comparison to the normal alternatives because future buffs would be better accepted by the community than future nerfs. So far none of them are worth equipping in my opinion.) I'd ask WG to monitor the amount superleague matches that are played and also the amount of reports in these matches and adapt the reward system again if needed. For example, the star-system of the ranked matches (all winners and best loser get one) seems like a time-proven concept that could also be used. Btw. is the superleague team size also seven, like ranked?
  9. CosMoe

    Ranked season announcement

    Edit: Super League rewards are now the same on all servers!
  10. Proud to be on that list! Just for logic's sake, a relatively high win rate is definitely not indicative of a selfish playstyle (as recommended in the OP), quite the contrary is true. In fact, a low winrate (<50%, like yours) while at the same time reaching high ranks (like you) is indicative of a selfish playstyle. You're just as bad at logic arguments as you are playing this game. Players like you clearly show the imperfection of the current ranked matches and I can only hope Wargaming fixes the star system to avoid further rewarding such behaviour.
  11. Oh boy, this is such a surprise. Somehow I recognized your name and had to look at my blacklist and, lo and behold, you're one of the two people I have chat banned (after 2800 matches). So obviously you're something special. Remember the ranked match where you verbally harassed me the whole team of being noobs or bad players with all kinds of swearwords in ALL CAPS? Or don't you remember this because that happens too often? Turned out that you had the least amount of points in that match. Looking up your ranked stats I can easily see why, e.g. 11 matches in an Atago and only one single kill. I just wanted to inform you that today I have reached rank 1 with a 62.5% winrate, while you're repelled from the top (rank5-2) bracket with a <50% winrate. Hopefully this will make you quit ranked matches because from my experience you only make them worse for everyone on your team. If not, have fun failing.
  12. CosMoe

    Ranked Season suggestion

    Irrevocable ranks pump below-average players towards ranks where neither they nor their team will have fun playing. One suggestion that should be discussed is to give the best player on the winning team 2 stars while the worst player on the winning team stays the same (which is not a punishment but an incentive to play better). This would also reward the players who contributed most to the win and reduce the amount of players who get carried towards ranks above their skill level.
  13. CosMoe

    Dragon Flags

    I have received 50 Dragon flags after logging in today. However, there must be a bug because I have 2700 random matches and 870 ranked matches and had 1 tier10 in port since months and another tier10 since yesterday and thus should be receiving 250 (or even 300) flags. Anyone else receiving fewer flags than expected?
  14. Getting almost 28k Commander XP for my relatively new Mahan captain: Almost 4.2k free XP is also nice. (3-day Premium bonus, ranked camo, all the flags)
  15. CosMoe

    Flint bugs

    Hello, two observations on the new ranked reward ship: The default (premium) camo does not give the -3% detectability bonus (you can see that when you switch to the normal camo). Maybe also the -4% enemy accuracy does not work. Re-checked: Works as intended, it's just that selecting (and not yet equipping) a new camo does not remove the bonus of the equipped camo. The Defensive Fire AA consumable only boosts the long- and mid-range AA mounts, but does not increase the damage of the short-range AA. I am also not sure if the Defensive Fire consumable panics enemy bombers, or if it only does not panic them when at max range (when the AA range upgrade is mounted, bombers at 7km range are attacked but any torps dropped seem normal and not extra-wide spread after using the consumable). The Defensive Fire AA consumable also has no charges, which means it can be used as often as possible after cooldown.
×