Beta Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About Loran_Battle

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Netherlands
  • Portal profile Loran_Battle

Recent Profile Visitors

571 profile views
  1. Ah so... you love CVs then. Cause last I checked WW2 was the end of the BB class and the rise of the CV in the pacific theater?
  2. AW was from a russian company. It was Obsidian that was developing it and all of their ideas were shut down by their russian overlords, because they wanted a pure WoT clone. Therefore the game died. So we never saw a western made game like this. If obsidian was given free reign to make the game THEY wanted, I'm sure they would've had a succes. I've played that game since the very early beginning (closed beta/alpha or something). And it was clear they had some cool ideas. But slowly the game became more unbalanced because the russian publshers forced obsidian to introduce tier 9-10 before they could balance it properly. Then they shut down all the things that made the game different from WoT. So now it is purely a WoT clone. Only the PvE is kinda what seperates it and why I sometimes play it for a few games.
  3. Nah, we know how this will go. No real rewards for the first two seasons, but then retroactively those who did good in those first 2 seasons and do good in the 3rd will receive the Musashi. I would play a cruiser only mode. I feel this would actually be very fun.
  4. I do find it quite hilarious that this is WG basically admitting their game balance is utter [expletif]. But I do not think this will change much. WG is very good at compartmentalizing. If left hand says "we do this because game balance is bad", right hand says "let us make the game balance even worse!" Even more hilarious is that they basically made clan battles, the supposedly competitive mode, as easy as can be. They give tier X ships for free, they remove CVs, only 1 BB per side. It is like a chess competition, where they go "ok, we removed the queen, and we put a limit of 1 on all the other pieces." Why? Because the worse chess players need to have a chance to win in a competitive mode versus better players. Oh yeah, I sense some "everybody is equal" old russian style ideology here. Quoted for truth.
  5. You have not really read what I said I feel. Let me reiterate the most important part in my post I DO NOT STOP PRESSING WASD KEYS EVER. Also, you have more players around you, use them as early warning systems. I'm not talking camping in the back, but following the DDs and CA/CLs into battle works like a charm. They generally spot torps and DDs for you. And I feel like people like you for some reason think that you should not be damaged ever by anything but another BB. See how many cries there are about BB players that get damaged by whatever source: torps, HE, fire, flooding, etc. etc. I'm extremely frustrated that some people cannot understand that other classes also need to do some damage. As for KD ratios, I have no idea about what the stats were a year ago, but I cannot remember ever seeing stats provided that proved DDs were leading that far. Again, in my honest opinion, the problem here is the playerbase refusing to understand that they can also NOT sail in a straight line for minutes at a time. Cause even fired at you from 5-6km range, those torps still take 20-40 seconds to get to you. In which time if you simply turn or change speed, you will have evaded them. Ok one last tip. Bow front. Don't go full broadside to the enemy team. Always angle in and only angle out in so far you need to fire most of your guns at a target. As soon as you do that, you turn back in again. It really is that easy. AND lastly, you need to realise that sometimes you just take a few torps. And sometimes you get a full broadside of torps, it happens, you made a mistake or the enemy DD predicted your movements very well. That does not make them OP. Please tell me how good IJN DDs are currently doing statswise? No actually, please don't, cause I'm going to bed and don't want to argue about this anymore, since I already know we will never see eye to eye on this.
  6. I keep wondering why it is I never had much trouble with DDs. Then again I don't have much trouble with CVs either, but people keep telling me they get deleted by a single strike from a CV 2 tiers lower. I dunno man, guess it is just me. But I will bite on the "How a BB driver knows when he's detected at what point the DD is dropping bla bla.". How about this: step 1: am I spotted (oh look there is a nice symbol on my screen telling me that for free!) step 2: look at minimap and playerlist (or rather remember from when you looked at it earlier) step 3: were there DDs near? are there stealth torp DDs in the line-up? step 4: ASSSUME torps are heading your way and change speed direction. Then again it is VERY rare for me to sail without pressing WASD keys for longer than 30 second periods. Also (#1): BBs should get deleted by DDs. If they are not allowed, then CAs shouldn't be deleted by BBs either! Also (#2): It is not like there is a BB overpopulation and the population of DDs is fast dwindling along with cruisers. But I guess you also kinda missed the point of this thread. USN DDs actually are much better torpedo boats then the IJN DDs, even though the latter are supposed to have that role. Then again, I have a feeling I am probably just talking into air here.
  7. Yes, this. So much this. I was kinda expecting them to go 9v9, since that was the tournament setup. That seemed to work quite well. I've been watching those games for reference and to learn for future clan wars. tbh and to pitch in with Jack on the post above yours. I feel like WG is just completely stuck in a certain way of thinking that they just cannot get out of. Or there is some higher up manager that has a certain view that he imposes on the game (basically only his vision counts...). 7v7 works for ranked I guess, so therefore all competitive modes need to be 7v7? Ah well, I guess we are still in the beta testing fase, so a lot might change. I don't have much hope, because that "testing" arguement has been used all too often... Also, people, please try not to attack Conway directly here. At least he is responding... And these are not HIS opinions specific. It is the company line he has to represent.
  8. Shhhh, you're not supposed to talk about this. According to the devs "the IJN DDs have received buffs to compensate for the massive torp nerfs of the past". Those "buffs" are: increased turret traverse and reload time. Also the torp reload consumable I guess (instead of smoke, cause you don't need smoke...) Also it is a close kept super sikrit that the fletcher and gearing actually have better torps. But it is all fine. BTW, we mostly have the BB players to thank for this. You should've seen the forum 1 year ago. It was "torps are OP" in about 10% of all the topics. No matter how often people said "use WASD". Cause those are clearly hacks (not kidding, I have been reported for dodging torpedoes in my BB on multiple occasions with someone in chat telling me I was cheating because he didn't hit a single torp on me).
  9. How else can you do a competitive gamemode if your company only caters to the lowest common denominator? Monkeys need to be able to play competitive as well! No matter how bad they are. Hell, even a cat walking over a keyboard should be able to play against the best human player and win. Just normal WG party line.
  10. Sorry Jack, but yes, this was a very serious proposal... I think it even made into some patch notes in CBT. But the forum exploded and they "reconsidered". Don't remember exactly, I mostly repressed that episode. It was then though that I realised the WG devs have absolutely no clue how to play CVs and I don't believe them when they say they have dedicated CV player devs. I believe that was my first warning I got on this forum and I almost left the game because of that. And I don't even play CVs that much. I guess we will see with these clan battles. I do find it funny that they basically acknowledged that BBs are massively imbalanced vs cruisers. But only in competitive
  11. You played only 25 random games btw. I was wondering with the 685 battles @95% winrate. Nobody can do that in randoms. I also have no clue what you are really asking, even though I most definitely speak dutch (sorry, I am not about to type dutch, this is an english forum). As Stewie above says, you have account level or ranked stars. I do not know which you mean, though looking through your stats, you have not played ranked. What stars are you therefore talking about? Now for the kicker... you do realise you have been playing against bots for most of your games right?
  12. Looks like someone has never learned about this little thing called statistics in school. We see that a lot actually on online game forums... Winrate over a large amount of battles DOES indicate skill. Period. Scientifically proven yadayada. Say you have a 70% winrate over 4k battles or so... I'm not super well versed in stats and you cannot really make it this simple, but let me do some math... (high school math btw, so anyone with a better understanding might correct me I guess, but it is just to illustrate the point. Also because I am bored, and what better to combat that boredom with some math!) proposition 1: 70% winrate = 70% chance to win in any battle (since it was acquired over a long period of time). Let me just calculate this. Say it is 50/50 chance to win. For someone to win 70% of battles with that chance over 4k battles, the chance of that happening is... P(x= (0,7*4000) = (4000 nCr 0,7*4000) * 0,5^(0,7*4000) * 0,5^(0,3*4000) = 0 (Aww, my calculator cannot go beyond 1x10^-99 % chance) Let us try 1000 battles then P(x= (0,7*1000) = (1000 nCr 0,7*1000) * 0,5^(0,7*1000) * 0,5^(0,3*1000) = 5x10^-36 % (yup, thats a 0,000000000000000000000000000000000005 % chance, I couldn't resist typing that out). Let us try 100 battles then P(x= (0,7*100) = (100 nCr 0,7*100) * 0,5^(0,7*100) * 0,5^(0,3*100) = 0,0023% Thus even at a low number of 100 battles it is only 0,0023% chance that if stats are "luck" with 50/50 chance that someone wins 70 battles of those 100 (thus having 70% winrate). Let us do something else. What is the chance that someone gets a 60-80% winrate over 1000 battles with a 50/50 chance... (switching to what I type in on my calc) binomcdf(1000,0.5,800) - binomcdf(1000,0.5,600) = 9x10^-9 % (0.000000009% chance). Actually if you do 60-70% chance, that number doesn't even change! Disclaimer, not quite sure if you could simply do it this way Chance of getting between 55% and 60% is about 0,07%. Just for fun I did another calculation for someone winning more than 60 battles (on my calculator 1-binomcdf(100,0.5,60)) ... this yielded the stunning 1,76% chance of someone having at least a 60% winrate over 100 battles. So I did it for winning at least 600 battles out of 1000, guess what... the chance becomes 0,00000001%. All luck, no skill! As for losing streaks. I don't have the statistical background to do a simple calculation on that. I can however tell you that you have a 0,1% chance of losing 10 games in a row with a 50% winrate. So the more battles you play, the more likely it will happen at some point. Now let us use a 40% winrate player... yup, the chance becomes 0,6%. To point out something Marv above says. Your stats on those 3 BBs... I'll calculate the chance of you getting those stats, based on 49.6% winrate Orion: 12 battles, 3 won = 5.6% chance Konig: 26 battles, 8 won = 2.5% chance Iron Duke: 22 battles, 9 won = 12,2% chance I guess you were unlucky on the Konig, or you were doing something wrong. Remember this is the chance you get exactly those stats. If you change is to "win at least 3 battles out of 12", the chance becomes about 20%. So over 12 battles you have about 20% chance to win 0, 1, 2 or 3 battles. See how low numbers vs high numbers in statistics work? if I do 30 out of 120, the chance becomes 0,0000031%. That means if you play 120 games in your Orion, your winrate would be significantly higher on it. Another interesting thing using my own stats. So I have a 70,17% winrate apparently. The Tirpitz is my "top ship". It has 159 battles with 114 won (about 72%!). The chance of this happening is 6,4%. Let me now calculate what the chances are of me winning between 65% and 75% with any ship over 159 battles... It is a whopping 83,5% chance! Now please tell me how stats are pure luck again?
  13. sounds fun for the CV dedicated players... I do kinda understand. Especially with 7v7. But I feel this will create other problems. That basically means that the captain/ship build don't have to include anti-CV roles and you can go full tank and anti-DD builds. Hmmmmmmm
  14. In my opinion, next to the BB ovepopulation, the protected tier 4 MM is messing up tier 5-6 a lot and by extension tier 8 (cause the tier 7s get pulled in with the 5-6s). But you probably know this. That is in part what I mean by the MM being garbage. Fair distribution is needed. But we won't get it. They can't even do that in WoT.
  15. Yeah... If only it was... But let us face it. The MM in this game is garbage. I for one am really damn tired being bottom tier about 50+% of the time. And a lot of those being the ONLY bottom tier as well. I'm talking mostly tier 5-6 and 8 here. Though this weekend my division had two games in tier 7 ships where we were the only ships in a near full tier 9 game... Funny thing is, we generally still have to carry the game. Best one yesterday was a game in my QE, where I actually had to tank for my team, cause the 3 bismarck/tirpitz players on my team consistently ran away from the enemies and were 5km further away than me. the lonely 3 tier 6 ships basically carried the tier 8 game. It is not about being able to face them, it is truly about the frustration it creates. At the same time I don't really enjoy shooting enemies two tiers lower than me. I feel they have no chance. I'm sorry, but I really do feel +1/-1 would be a lot better, and much easier to balance!