mtm78

During the WoWs xvm debate I already advocated for WG to replace XVM with a WG performance indicator visible in game. Even if it were 'gunmarks' like on WoT, anything which would give some indication of skill without causing people to quit battles or suicide. There already are some 1. see a DD at tier 5 or higher with no cammo -> likely a below average player ( or a drunk good one which forgot to apply his cammo ). 2. have entire team decide on a cap B + C to see your top tier BB go to A -> likely a below average player 3. having a DD spend the entire game in the second or third line spamming torps endangering his allies -> without a doubt the worst scum in the game, should be banned 4. having a DD ignore cap zone's during a domination match -> without a doubt a terrible player But yeah, what would the additional info give? I stopped using XVM even while it was still working, there are still 3rd party programs which give statistics on a secondary screen for players in your current battle but I am not using those either. It was basically redundant and useless info. Redundant since it should be very apparent from in game actions what skill level a player has. And useless, because knowing that someone is bad doesn't do you much good. Knowing someone is good on the other hand, should indicate something: listen to their advice in battle, support them when they ask you for it and so on. But, someone who is good is almost always also clearly recognisable, though not right at the start off a battle. The issue actually isn't stat whores the issue is terrible players. And especially terrible players who think it's 'statistics' which make them terrible players, not realizing those statistics are a cumulation of their in game actions which are already clearly visible to everyone.

No. Negative and lengthy feedback does not correspond directly with the GNB event debacle for instance. People 'claim' that the whining and trolling helped, but I don't agree. It's the amount of feedback and the quality, not the excessive negativity which forces something. In fact, excessive negativity can drown the valid points. With 'Lengthy and negative' feedback I mean a well argumented negative review of anything new on the PT. A negative review is not: omg this is crap WG you're nuts! A negative review could be: A 'lengthy' negative review would be the above, together with replays with time indexes, screenshots, correlated data by players over multiple matches to support their earlier made claims. Imo they are a bit more flexible, yes PT shows intended direction, and yes PT tests are also deployment tests ( though this was for instance more applicable when the packaging system was changed ). So yes, they want radar to have a shorter cooldown, the concept is there. But I don't believe that they won't listen to feedback, even if it's 'only' in adjustments to how big certain game mechanical changes will be. Also, as we don't know the development roadmap, there might be implications with a current change for a future planned change/addition, and developers might seem to ignore feedback only because they already are working on the next step which would justify the formerly badly received change to a game mechanic. Wait you were sober last session ....

Since when does radar spot torpedo's?

Sorry but no, I am part of SGWA and that will be my team, but thanks very much for the offer. I did see some people asking for other teams to train against, this is something which would actually be a great thing for SGWA. We might not have much experience and need to develop proper tactics, but we should be able to be a nice sparring partner for some teams here Send me a pm if you want to train with/against us

Which is exactly why I want as many people as possible to play on the PT and to comment on the changes ( please, take note of actually playing PT, I don't think dev's will take the feedback seriously if the PT isn't being played enough to correlate with the amount of negative feedback ). Lengthy and negative feedback is just feedback, feedback being negative isn't per definition a bad thing! Raging, well imo it doesn't help, but I'm prone to rage at things sometimes myself so ye And "Lengthy", if lengthy implies well argumented and objective feedback, that is exactly what should ( and does ) influence the developers.

The question should be: can the developers correct their collected statistics with this alternate behavior in mind? I trust they are aware of the difference in play styles between the two servers and will be able to interpret the statistics accordingly. Also, there might not be much choice, we can test ships on live but we can't test new mechanics only applicable to ST members or contributors. But but but, damage whoring and inducing salt on BB captains is the most enjoyable part of DD play And you can't tell USN DD's to just cap zone's, who will screen the main fleet from those pesky IJN DD's then? VMF Destroyer Leaders can screen for torpedo's but will never catch an enemy DD with his pants down ( they will stay concealed unless cornered ).

ST has not enough people to generate accurate statistical performance indicators. That is why there is a PT server. It is not just deployment tests, the mechanics being tested are not finalized and only a public test attracts enough players to get accurate indicators. Remember, Lesta likes to balance on statistics rather then opinionated feedback ( even if given in an as much unbiased manner possible ). If we could test everything on ST, why do you think new ship lines are being tested on live server by ST and contributors? See above. There have been more things which were in a PT but which didn't make it into live. USN DD's rely on offensive smoke, IJN only uses smoke ( which is countered by radar ) defensively. So yes, imo, USN DD's would be hit harder. ---------------------------- In general, radar does force teamwork, and I like teamwork as part of the meta. But, PT testing should point out if this is feasible or not. If radar causes teams to coordinate more and employ a more tactical approach that wouldn't be a bad thing imo. What it should absolutely not do, is make a single radar cruiser enough to shut down an entire area/cap zone.

I suppose you're not volunteering to get on all fours It's a PT, play it and give feedback. If the feedback and statistics indicate it unwise, I don't expect it to hit live. I mean, isn't that the intent of a PT server?

UK PT boats during WWII, it's a nice watch and I do agree it looks 'slick' but they have no place in WoWs.

Well that is my interpretation, as they state they will not buff BB's by changing current fire mechanics. That should be a clear indication that the LOW amount of damage BB's actually take from fires currently is working as intended, so no need to change a skill which would change this balance. Now, they might rework the skill to be less ambiguous in it's description, that is a very valid scenario as your comment on that is imo true. edit: also this doesn't mean the skill can't be changed de facto, just that it won't be changed so it buffs BB's survivability higher then it currently is. If the skill is really useless, and this can be seen though the skill not being used, they might drop it for a new skill perhaps ( speculation.. ).

WG's assessment on this isn't done by the amount of people using a skill, but by the amount of damage inflicted to BB's.

Nah, come on the answer was quite ambiguous Which is why I made the phun ( I hope the was clearly indicating it was a jest! ) But I did get the meaning, as I strangely already knew -> so I kinda knew what you meant even while it read different. Guess every time I met you in game you were in a cruiser. Also, disclaimer: I am not native English so maybe it wasn't ambiguous and in that case, my apologies

Back in CBT, you researched Yamato from Amagi, there was no Izumo... I got Yamato there without ever having to touch this ship.. yet I see people doing so well in it ( at times, server stats aren't that bad without a reason I guess ) and I wonder what I keep doing wrong. I can only push from a direction where I won't get in a cross fire, as I need to stay bow on ( and the thing is hidious at turning... never bothered with engine upgrade thought, 0.8kts and better acceleration didn't seem worth it.. but maybe I should.. not sure ). That limits the amount off plays so much that it feels like a lottery, if team does something which allows me to use my ship bow on to push into enemy main force, I have a decent game ( same with defending, as long as the main enemy force or rather most if not all of them, are in a 90 degree cone to the front ). But every time that doesn't happen I am struggling the entire game to make good use of the strengths of the ship. Also, and this might sound weird, my hitratio on ALL my ships is still going down after my main screen broke and I am forced to play on my old 1680x1050, I am quite sure this influences my BB play the most due to the far fewer shell fired ( so hit ratio counts more ).

I am a bit sad, I tried to get a team together in time but since we're not even at the stage of having trained together I think it wouldn't be wise to sign up. I do thank OMNI for this tournament, and I hope we ( SGWA + friends ) can/will participate in such events in the future. I/we will be preparing for it ( and watching you guys on twitch! ). GL to all the people entering, may the best team win!

Omg... can you not read or what? Carnotzet, on 10 August 2016 - 04:57 PM, said: 4. A very brief summary Battleships are played. Battleships survive. Battleships inflict damage. Battleships are a good and useful class. If we were to buff them, by increasing their survivability (especially against fires and HE shells), they would be overpowered. Our game would become World of Battleships. And that is bad. 35.1% popularity, we can live with that. But it is bordering on being too much. So, if we were to follow players' suggestions, we would have to nerf them in another way. If they had a better survivability, we would have to nerf their damage for example, and according to our experience, such change would not be well received by players. That is why we do not plan to make any considerable changes to battleship balance or to fire mechanics.

No they don't. The fire has a max duration, and a new fires can of course be started when the previous one dies out ( or it would mean BB's gain invincibility against fires after a single fire.. which would be ludicrous ).

I was in division with him, it was one of his first games, so no this wasn't an 'epeen single game' game it was just one off his first games ( I think it was the second, not sure ). And you would probably think the same about the ship right after your second game if you get those results ;) I do think his enthusiasm has dropped a bit since Also, his later posts clearly indicates he agrees with your assessment about the AAA capabilities

That pretty much sums up damage and durability, but what I was touching upon is influence on a battle. I just feel that while it's not ( yet ) reflected in my own performance, it should be possible to play NO with a higher utility rate then Hipper. I see DD's avoiding the flank I am on, which alone can be helpful, and in domination mode on some maps NO can help deny a capzone ( never alone, but with proper support the radar is very useful ). Frankly in Hipper I rarely even engage DD's. The AP overpen damage is bad, and the HE damage is terrible ( 500hp hits back to back yesterday on a stationary DD for instance... 500hp per shell hit! If I were in an Atago or Mogami, that DD would be dead in two salvo's but with Hipper it just waited for repair and gtfo'd I might need to l2p Hipster though

Manage your damage control and repair party, aka 'l2p'. Also..

I actually bought NO because I was struggeling with Hipster and I kind of like playing it, even while my damage is quite low. It gives a much higher feeling of utility in the game, with a CE captain and radar I can affect cap rushes, and with 9.7km detection range I can usually disengage from unfavorable confrontations. In short, it plays a lot like an IJN CA but then with radar. It just doesn't have those glorious IJN HE shells

Meh, mixed opinion about this, I would like to be able to check if a ship has an area with low armor which I can deal more damage to with my gunboat HE shells for instance. Yes, it will be very hard hitting them in game, but it's still an aimpoint. Also, being able to look up other ships only gives people more information, and more information about the game mechanics ( armor mechanics ) is only good.

ironhammer, it's very very simple. WG made public the damage distributions and fire is very low on that list. WG has made public that BB's are currently already the class which does the most damage and highest survival rate ( not sure if CV's are not surviving more, but ok ). You can complain/whine all you want, it doesn't change the FACTS. And sadly this has been pointed out to you multiple times already, you just seem to not understand how damage statistics work or you're being a troll and you are ignoring the facts because they don't match with your opinion. I would hope it's the first, but if you keep it up the only viable choice will be the latter. Please, give up.

You must be meeting more potato's then me, in all my hipper class games I might have had five enemy cruisers which showed broadside and didn't turn after the first few citadels from the initial salvo. And frankly, most of the times I don't even meet other cruisers willing to show me a broadside

ST flag bonus is there for a reason, if you want those 'benefits' apply to ST and come test with us.

Nono, he said mostly cruisers with capital ships, aka more food for bb's and less counters