Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About eliastion

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,394 profile views
  1. eliastion

    Cv future patc

    This is precisely why you take the top 10% rather than the top 100 or top 1000 players - that's how you control for the population size. With the smaller sample the stats are more volatile (if you had a top 10% of 100, then a single outlier can skew the whole thing, by himself being 1/10 of the 100) but once the 10% sample encompasses hundreds of players, this problem diminishes. More importantly, what we were shown wasn't just the results for the top 10% - it was the overall curve across all percentiles. And that is precisely how you analyze such data in a way that makes the size of the population basically irrelevant. What's more, even setting aside you being wrong in the first place, your claims about the statistic actually contradict your conclusions. You repeatedly claim that CVs are extremely influential. However, if it was true that the post-rework relatively low impact is merely the effect of the larger player population, the obvious conclusion would be that CVs actually aren't imbalanced at all. They are (and in the dying days of RTS were even more so) vastly less popular than any other class, after all. If you were right that bigger population = lower average results among top 10%, then the "power of CVs" could be easily explained as nothing but the effect of the low population. After all, imagine how high the stats of the top 10% of the other classes would have risen if they were played by just as few people! Fortunately (for your claims of CVs influence) this is a moot point because you're completely wrong in your claim about the tremendous impact of population size
  2. eliastion


    An asymmetric PvP game mode with bots as targets/charge to be protected could be fun if done right - but I just don't see this as a working permanent mode. Not in WoWs as it is, not with these player numbers either. And wanting it to have even more players than Standard Battles!? Forget it. Some parts of your idea might pop up in some limited time even mode for the change of peace. But other than that? Doesn't seem viable.
  3. eliastion

    Cv future patc

    You know, when not talking statistics (even in the very post I took this snippet from), you actually sound like you have brain - so I'm willing to assume that you actually do have a working one. Therefore, let me implore you - please, for the love of God, steer clear from talking about anything statistic-related because it's almost physically painful to see you disgrace yourself by SHOUTING WITH CAPSLOCK about things you fail to understand even on a very basic level.
  4. eliastion

    CV top emblem-- be fair

    Yeah, I'll fix it right away, thx Oh, a mysterious data set nobody will ever see? No, sorry, this just sounds pretty unconvincing when you've just been proven wrong based on the data source you seemed to be using (it looked like Maple Syrup as well, right?) and then bring up a mysterious data set that shows something else?... That's one of the flimsiest argument I've ever seen. It's not great even when WG use it (and they actually DO have better data sets to back their claims) - and completely worthless coming from you. Sorry but your personal belief doesn't yet count for facts. Even if your assumption from the previous point was true, your logic here is faulty as well. We're talking theory here to point out the hole in your reasoning, so the example consists of two theoretical ships that have the same maximum potential but one of them has some weaknesses of the variety that surface when you make mistakes and are negligible when you don't. Maximum potential is therefore the same and yet one ship is clearly weaker and is going to perform worse. So no, drop in performance doesn't have to be something other than the result of a ship getting weaker. Even if your assumption (that you try presenting as a fact) were true. Well, that would be a significant factor at the very beginning of the rework yes. We're half a year removed from that, though. Well, if that happened then this means that the emblems need to be adjusted to keep the difficulty of acquiring them in line with other classes. Non sequitur. So... players in Haku and Midway have no experience despite rework being out for half a year and despite the fact that we're not comparing ALL stats but a sub-set from shorter period? Bold statemant. But let's leave that aside and assume that Audacious is indeed crap, kept at current performance level only by virtue of being the new toy acquired by the experienced players that really wanted that new CV. It is a fact that ships tend to have inflated stats in the first months after release, until the playerbase at large "catches up" to those who sprint towards the ship (usually more experienced and knowing what they want). You're literally arguing that t10 CVs overall are actually weaker than they seem looking at stats (after all, your argument is that 1/3 of them have inflated stats compared to actual power). Still, all the available stats suggest that CV emblems are by far the hardest to acquire, proving the OP right in the core of his message about the fairness of requirements between classes (although the message itself could've certainly be delivered in a more developed manner).
  5. eliastion

    CV top emblem-- be fair

    So all that talk about reworked CVs being weak or weaker than RTS ones can go right out. "High tier CVs" means nothing when you don't make sure that the structure of the games played (how many for each tier) is similar. And in fact we know AS A FACT that it's different - it simply can't be the same when you don't even have ships at half the tiers anymore! Not to mention that we're in a thread about the top tier emblem, so only t10 counts (and not just because t10 deals the most damage - lower tier battles literally just don't count towards it). But let's do a little bit of analysis on the last bi-monthly stats (there were some changes last two months but let's opt for a bigger sample rather than for maximum uniformity here). So, two months (data for 29.06 and 26.01 repsectively) WR t10 RTS: 50,85 t10 new: 51,01 Avg. damage t10 RTS: 104788 t10 new: 96905 kills/match t10 RTS: 1,44 t10 new: 1,11 aircraft/match t10 RTS: 26,31 t10 new: 6,13 base capture t10 RTS: 0,45 t10 new: 0,52 base defense: t10 RTS: 5,42 t10 new: 13,78 survival rate: t10 RTS: 74,64 t10 new: 77,43 spot damage: t10 RTS: 85281 t10 new: 74278 The post-rework t10 carriers (the ones relevant to this thread) win over their RTS counterparts in the following categories: - WR - base defense - base capture - survival rate Only problem is - WR actually means only one thing: the data for post-rework CVs is actually a sample of higher quality players, because the global WR of all CVs on t10 is 50% and can't be any other due to strict mirroring. Although the difference in WR is pretty small, so let's assume that the section of t10 CV playerbase accounted for in both data sets is comparable and the new CV stats are NOT significantly inflated - so we don't need to control for that (and how would we even go around that) and can stick to comparing stats at face value. Now, we have better defense and better capture. It seems that the new CVs are better at, or at least more eager to play objective. It seems clear that the new CVs decap much more - and yes, that is a definite advantage of the new model. The planes are fast, and while the new CVs don't have the devstriking alpha of the old ones, it's much easier to deal at least a tiny bit of damage. And swiftly delivered, hard to stop tiny bit of damage is precisely what base defense is all about. As for base defense capture, I included is as a bot of a joke (and, hey, that's another stat where new CVs win, supporting your argument of them being stronger ). Of course, the difference here isn't that big and the stat itself doesn't matter much for CVs. Well, anyway, it seems that the new CVs decide to visit caps a bit more often than the old ones. CV cap new meta! The last stat where the new CVs win is survival rate. Not by a huge margin but they do - most likely thanks to the OP auto-consumables that reload in a blink, combined with very respectable auto AA - CV sniping wasn't very viable near the end of the RTS CV era, now it's even less, since you can't just force damage con and then burn/flood them to death. And now let's look at where the RTS CVs had better stats, shall we? RTS t10 CVs won in: average damage (8% more) ship kills (30% more) aircraft kills (329% more, not exactly surprising, considering how the whole system departed from CV vs CV air control battle) spotting damage (15% more) So here, @El2aZeR, look at these stats again and do tell me again how "all that talk about reworked CVs being weak or weaker than RTS ones can go right out." Perhaps this might be true for t8 (new t8 CVs seem to fare better than what was happening to RTS ones) and lower (frankly, I couldn't be bothered to check up on t4 and t6 stats on this occasion) but the only tier relevant to this thread? Stats contradict you completely.
  6. eliastion

    CV top emblem-- be fair

    @El2aZeR I must say - I never expected you, of all people, vehemently claiming that stats show something while repeatedly having the stats clearly proving him wrong rubbed right into your face The sample sizes of post-rework CV games are decently big already. The post-rework CVs are getting nerfed repeatedly and deal less and less damage. And the relation between average damage and emblems for silver t10 from around the top and bottom are as follows: DD: - easy mode: Khaba and Harugumo need to deal ~107% and ~110% of their average damage respectively - hard mode: the second worst in absolute damage Gearing needs around ~142% -super-hard mode: the worst, Z-52, really sucks in damage - you'd need ~160% of the ship's average damage for the top emblem CL/CA: - easy mode: Henri needs ~116% of average damage - hard mode: third worst (Worcester) in average damage need ~136% - super-hard mode: second worst in average damage (DM) and THE worst (Minotaur) are a bit behind, requiring ~144% and ~148% respectively BB: - easy mode: Conqueror needs to HE-spam enemies for only ~108% of ship's global average damage - hard mode: third worst (well, middle of the pack for silvers) Yamato asks for ~126% of ship's average damage to get you the top emblem - super-hard mode: Montana with ~133% and Kurfurst with ~136% are the two that need you to perform the best (compared to average ship's damage) to get that top emblem CV: - easy mode: Audacious needs ~140% of ship's average damage for top emblem - hard mode: Haku demands ~157% - super-hard mode (well, not that much worse than hard in this case): you need to clock ~162% average Midway's damage for top emblem To sum it up: - the % of ship's average damage needed for the top emblem in the BEST scoring (in average damage) CV is comparable to the bottom of the damage-dealing barrel in other classes - there three t10 ships where you need to outperform the average damage by the biggest margin are: 1. Midway 2. Z-52 3. Hakuryu Two out of three CV's make it into the "top" 3. - all cruisers need lower % of ship's average damage for top emblem when compared to Haku and Midway - all BBs need lower % of ship's average damage for top emblem when compared to literally any post-rework carrier. And there are good reasons to expect that CV average damage stats are actually inflated compared to the current state of the game. And of course the "average damage" alone might not be the best stat to gauge how hard it is to get the emblems in their respective classes - so I tried to avoid "explaining" the metric like this - but I doubt these stats should just be ignored by plucking fingers in your ears and singing "lalala". Oh, one more fun stat: - the average damage for top 50% players of each ship: DDs: 4/8 silver ships above top emblem treshold Cruisers: 2/7 silver ships above top emblem threshold BBs: 2/5 silver ships above top emblem threshold CVs: 0/3 ships above top emblem threshold - the average damage for top 25% players of each ship: DDs: 5/8 above threshold Cruisers: 5/7 above threshold BBs: 3/5 above threshold CVs: 1/3 above threshold (Haku cleared the bar by 244 points of average damage - I wonder what would the result be without the first week) ...so yeah. I'm pretty damn sure that OP does have a point when it comes to whether the difficulty of obtaining the top emblem for CVs and other classes are aligned with each other. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the emblems are mostly irrelevant, because - the ones that could just barely be said to be based on overall performance (get near the top of your team and win) are grindable over any number of battles, so if you play enough, you will probably get them unless you're AFK every match - the ones that keep the running toll over 100 battles are all about grinding damage, and it's not even % damage but just the raw numbers that come out ridiculous if you play a ship like Harugumo or Conqueror and simply spam HE all day long. So, yes. Emblems are pretty worthless anyway AND you can't even show them as small pins next to your "self-designed" patch (to annoy people with BOTH ), you need to either stick to completely pre-defined emblem or forget they exist. Still, when someone brings up the fact that CV emblems aren't in line with the others in terms of difficulty - all the data seems to pretty decisively show that to be true.
  7. eliastion

    Developer Bulletin 0.8.6

    You might debate the balance but claiming that damaging without killing "does nothing useful" is clearly a false statement and your very own example shows it clearly. Just see what happened in the scenario you described: You got attacked by a midway, you made all his planes go red and he just recalled them, avoiding losses. Right? Let me point you back to the important part: he recalled them. Forcing the enemy to disengage is a useful effect. You can dispute exactly how useful it is (it really depends on the situation, CV reserves and positioning of participants of the battle - it can range from negligible to game-deciding) but it's most definitely there.
  8. eliastion

    Developer Bulletin 0.8.6

    The thing is that (if it actually does that, I'm doubtful) actually tries to address one of the core problems - the lack of influence from the ship over how effective the AA is. Positioning is extremely important but the direct confrontation itself is CV player fighting against automated system. The recent changes in AA go in the wrong direction, however. While some RNG was taken out of the picture in 8.5, what was affected more was the CV player's ability to mitigate plane losses by proper plane management. What surface ship players often saw as RNG deciding whether they shoot down planes or not was actually - more often than not - the effect of CV player doing things right or not. Yes, with EXTREME bad luck you could lose a plane early (without flying into flak, that is) but in reality it worked more like this: 1. Squadron starts taking damage, it spreads among the planes 2. Squadron is battered 3. Planes start to drop 4. Squadron is wiped out very quickly If the CV player wanted to conserve planes (and knew how to) the surface ships only noticed (but often didn't pay attention enough to notice) that the squadron only attacked once, max. two times (talking about tX with squadrons sometimes as big as 6x2 Haku TB squadrons) - and that they didn't shoot many, if any, planes. If CV player was reckless or played badly, the planes were blowing up from Flak or got wiped by keeping up the attack for too long. For the surface ship it might look like "then I shot down nothing, now a squadron was wiped, it's all RNG" but that's actually not the case - the problem is that the surface ship has limited influence over what's going on and it makes it harder to perceive the difference in effects as being caused by the other player's skill (or lack of it). It's just tempting to assume that if you don't really control it, then it's outside human control and decided by a "die roll". This also causes the surface ship players (unless they play CVs as well) to underestimate their impact on the fight against planes even further - the PERCEIVED influence over surface-to-planes engagement ends up being even lower than the (already quite moderate) actual influence, further deepening the feeling of frustration of surface-ship-only players. But nerfing CVs to the ground and taking away their interaction as well isn't really addressing the actual problems... it's just making CVs less attractive to play. TL/DR: RNG was never a problem. The problem is that surface ships' perceived influence over the course of AA engagement is almost nil. It's actually much higher but that "much higher" isn't very high either. But lowering the interactivity from CV side as well does not solve the problem here.
  9. eliastion

    WG screwing Overchicken Dude

    While I could probably agree due to SE being too strong in the first place, talking about "plain fact" in this case is based on a simplistic assumption that more % increase over base SE bonus directly translates to more advantage. This ignores two aspects: 1. Unique captains are the more powerful the more relevant their improved skills are. Imagine if - everything else being constant - SE was changed so that it would provide +1hp/tier base and +6/tier for the unique captain. that's +500% improvement! But in fact it would be a tremendous nerf to the captain in question. 2. The differences between bonuses given by pre-buff and post-buff SE are basically irrelevant. What really matters is the underlying plane hp. In the current state of the game they are probably going to fluctuate quite a bit - and only when they stabilize can you really start talking about the impact of standard/unique commander's SE. The actual % increase should be calculated compared to plane base hp, not SE base bonus. There's a good chance that hp will be buffed a bit - and that, yes, THAT will be a hit, to both SE in general and the captains that are special because of it in particular.
  10. eliastion

    A new concept: Flagship of the Fleet

    Imagine t6 Akizuki
  11. 1. It kinda always was 2. It very, VERY was by the time we got a free respec to adjust the builds
  12. eliastion

    Update - Ranked Sprint Fix & More

    This is stupid. I won't talk here about the state of AA after the last patch, the very idea of balancing AA by buffing SE is completely misguided! SE wasn't weak. I would dare to say that it was a must-have of any full-point CV build! Buffing a skill that's already pretty much a no-brainer is a stupid thing to do. When you buff a specific skill, you do it because the SKILL is too weak and people just aren't taking it. If the problem is low plane hp then what should be buffed is - surprise surprise - plane hp, not a skill that boosts it! Making no-brainer skills even more mandatory is just making the game worse, simple as that. Although there is a skill that definitely needs some help after 8.5 - Adrenaline Rush. The CV-specific effects need to be re-designed or - if that's not possible - removed. Right now it's a noob trap (as the effects are extremely weak despite not looking like that to people who don't know how squadron hp works) AND a skill that works really erratically (the bonus appears and disappears as one plane after the other gets damaged and then destroyed).
  13. eliastion

    torpedo bomber heal/ adrenaline rush issue in 8.5

    It literally has a special, completely separate bonus applicable ONLY to CVs. You can't get a skill to be much more intended for CVs unless you remove bonuses for non-CVs. Let me break this down so that things get easier to understand: Skill very clearly intended for CVs: Adrenaline Rush. -0.2% to reload times of all types of armament for each 1% of total health lost. +0.2% Squadron speed for each 1% of total health lost. You can see that it's intended for CVs because it explicitly mentions squadrons as beneficents of the skill - with squadrons being a CV-exclusive mechanic, the bonus mentioned is likewise CV-exclusive, clearly indicating the intention by developers to make aforementioned skill usable by the class in question. A plane in the skill icon can also be interpreted as an extra visual hint, although by itself it's less obvious considering that there are skills focused on fighter consumable that also feature a plane sylvette Skill NOT intended for CVs looks like this (example): Expert Loader -50% to reload time when the shell type is switched. Notice lack of mention of carriers, planes or any mechanics relevant to carriers. This shows that the skill is not intended for carrier use as it does not provide any benefit. Of course, there is also gray area: skills with effects technically applicable to CVs (referring to mechanics common between CVs and other classes) but providing only very limited benefit. These skills can be argued as "not intended for CVs" in the same way Survivability Expert isn't intended for battleships or manual secondaries for ships with only token secondary armament. Adrenaline Rush, however, is NOT in the grey area - it's a skill that's explicitly intended for CV use as well and, therefore, it not being usable in that context is clearly things not working as they should. Plus, of course, all that said - even if AR was (as you insist contrary to all evidence) NOT intended to be used by CVs, an answer that claims that it's still useful, the notion being based on false premise about the backing mechanic - that would still be an incredibly bad answer.
  14. eliastion

    torpedo bomber heal/ adrenaline rush issue in 8.5

    I might be old fashioned, but when the response to two issues brushes off one issue (heal being useless) AND relies on obviously false information to dismiss the other (since planes shot down are NOT counted towards maximum squadron health), this seems enough to conclude that the answer as a whole is pretty damn useless. Translation: 2.1 CVs no longer can manage their loses by disengaging (that, might I remind you, actually isn't a magical "now all my planes are back" since you need to actually safely disengage first and then get a new squadron from your hull to the battlefield - assuming you actually have the planes to take off immediately since disengaged planes take quite some time to return as well) 2.2. Heal no longer works 2.3. AR no longer works The point of heal is - like on surface ships - for it to actually have a viable effect. Whether you believe that planes should have this consumable is irrelevant - the point is that it no longer really works. Also, it's the CV version of a consumable that on some nations prints a new ship, so it printing a new squadron seems consistent with that concept behind the "healing" consumables. The point of AR is - like on surface ships - for it to actually provide some benefits when losing health. Whether you believe that CVs should be affected by this skill is, again, irrelevant. There is the bonus explicitly applicable to planes there - and it's becoming a mechanic that's both useless (the bonuses become negligible) and extremely wonky (by taking more and more damage you're alternating between that tiny bonus and lack of bonus - previously it was possible to see squadron hp% go UP due to taking damage - but these were small upwards twitches overshadowed by the overal deteriorating hp of remaining planes; not anymore - now it's basically guaranteed that your hp% goes down as the plane gets damaged and then jumps back to 100% when it gets shot down).
  15. eliastion

    Update 0.8.5: Rogue Wave

    The total squadron hp% (that AR is based on) is currently calculated as follows: Remaining hp of planes in the squadron/(max hp of a plane * number of planes remaining in the squadron) And it's actually hard to imagine it working any other way after the patch because the squadron gets smaller with each strike and there is no difference between squadron being smaller to begin with, squadron losing planes and squadron being smaller after performing a couple attacks. A squadron that has 6 out of 12 planes left looks, to all the players including the operator, exactly the same regardless of whether it a) performed enough strikes already that the other planes went home b) lost enough planes that only 6 are left c) took of with only 6 planes due to earlier losses d) some combination of the above It would be strange, counter-intuitive and, plainly speaking, a bad mechanic to have a squadron perform vastly different between these scenarios when there's literally no visual cue even for the owner as to the actual state of the squadron. It would be even stranger to see AR kick in for any situation where the squadron is incomplete - rather than a mechanic that improves your performance when you take damage, it would feel like a nasty hack for those who know how to abuse game mechanics (especially since after the patch there is much less drawback in squadron shortening - damage doesn't spread over planes anyway, a bigger squadron is more susceptible to flak AND you might actually get a serious speed boost just by dropping some ordinance into the sea? Drop 2/12 torps after takeoff and you are already faster with AR than with same skill tier Improved Engines. Anyway, I doubt there would be no notice if they planned to change the way total hp of a squadron is calculated. More likely than not, the devs simply forgot that AR exists (or applies to planes) and that's it. The skill now is going to be a mix of useless and hilarious (slight, barely noticeable, speed increase - and drop down to normal when plane dies; slight speed increase - and drop again). So... rather than a repair, it's a consumable that - depending on exact values - becomes a short-term godmode or a waste of consumable slot that does almost nothing? Oh, how fun it sounds. </sarcasm>