eliastion

Regardless of how (un)balanced the reworked CVs are going to be, your post makes one thing very, VERY clear: you have no idea whatsoever how the reworked CVs are going to work. Nevermind trying it out, you - as you yourself admit at the very beginning - haven't even really observed the gameplay in videos. Which brings us to the main point. What gives you the idea that your opinion has any value whatsoever, considering that you're well aware that you're commenting on and postulating changes to something you have virtually no idea about? If you played the game on test server (preferably both normal ships and CVs) and got to know basic mechanics, checked out the basic mechanics of the CV gameplay, you might've been able to contribute something to the topic of CVs and their rework. As it is, however, your whole opening post is utterly pointless and absolutely worthless. Because you're just rambling about something you know nothing about. Just what's the point of polluting the Forum with your uninformed opinions? And it would be one thing if you just complained in one of the CV-related threads, it's ok to express your dissatisfaction even if the basis for it is somewhat flimsy - but you're apparently too important for that, your "insight" for some reason deserves a brand new thread?...

There's absolutely no reason to introduce mechanisms like these. To put it simply: Why it is not needed: Right now hitting the ally makes you pink for a couple matches. There are no real consequences unless you do that again - it's just a warning that also gets you mirrored damage that does nothing if you're not damaging allies. If harming an ally was just an accident, you'll be green again before you know it. Why it is harmful: If you give the victim the option to "forgive" the perpetrator, then the torper will become active in chat, trying to pressure the victim into "dropping the charges". What's more, if the consequences require an action, you'll get many people "pardoned" just because the victim didn't bother or was out of reports. This will also mean that the consequences for one-off offense would need to be harsher. This, in turn, opens the door for ill-spirited teammates venting their frustration by reporting people over minor damage (a couple unlucky shells that didn't do much damage but ARE team damage - and can be treated more harshly than a full torpedo salvo just because the first victim was angry and reported while the other went off to the next match). To put it simply, including player input here simply increases toxicity and creates - limited but still - field for abuses. What's more, currently a single mistake goes basically unpunished - if you reduce the number of people flagged for teamkilling by requiring some action from the victim, you need to up the penalty so that it's actually punished even at one-time offense (otherwise criminally careless torp spammers will be slipping through the system even more easily than they do right now) meaning that one misclick gets you a noticeable penalty - making things more frustrating on the side of people who normally play cautiously but just happened to mess up one time. All things considered, any solutions where victim's action is an important part of the system in the "only make pink if reported" or "give them the forgive button" are basically costly (in terms of player experience and levels of chat toxicity) solutions to a problem that simply doesn't exist. Right now the concept is good enough. You seriously damage or kill an ally: you become pink. If you do that often enough to suffer real consequences then you are a problem and you're right to be punished. If you're not normally dangerous to your own team then the only problem you'll face for an accident is seeing your name in pink for a couple matches.

Actually, you do (and rightfully so, especially considering the abuse potential). There was the idea to introduce the rule you're talking about but people got angry and WG - unlike themselves - quickly backtracked and the change never made it to live server afaik.

And you were right. No, they are very clear-cut. The person torps from behind. At worst you're straight-up torping your allies. At best: you're limiting their options, possibly taking away their ability to attack the enemy or to avoid some other danger. And in the first example you've given - do you seriously expect someone performing such a delicate, dangerous but high-reward maneuver as point-blank torping of an enemy BB to have extra attention to spare and realize that someone far behind him decided to send max-range torps in that general direction? There are people with perfect situational awareness but 99% players under such circumstances have their hands full with the ENEMY threats, not "friendly" threats in the opposite direction. Now, as a (very) experienced and (reasonably) good DD captain, let me enlighten you a bit: yes, there are situations when I find myself launching torps that can possibly endanger allies depending on their behavior. It happens. Sometimes it's an oversight but sometimes it's a conscious decision. I consider it very unlikely for the ally to make a maneuver that would put them in danger and the torping opportunity seems worth that tiny risk - so I take the gamble and the torps hit the water. Or maybe the situation is just so desperate that my torps need to be there because "ally killed by my torps" and "me doing nothing" in that particular situation are basically just as bad (because, for example, the time is running out, we're far behind on points and we either kill the last enemy that still has too much hp to die without eating torps or we've lost). Once again: I take my chance because I deem it worth it. Now, the thing is, usually I'm right - either the effect is good or at least no bad consequences materialize. I almost never end up torping an ally. ALMOST. Because sometimes, for example, they do perform that maneuver I deemed exceedingly unlikely, not worth holding my fire. I don't know why they do that, I don't know their thought processes, I don't even have all the information they have at the moment they make the decision. It might be that they had a good plan I didn't predict. Or perhaps the decision is just stupid no matter what and I happened to have a dumb teammate that did something dumb that ended up even more tragically due to my torps. I don't know any of that - but I do know that the torps were my responsibility and by launching them I limited y ally's options... and ultimately gotten them killed. It's simple as that. Whether the victim did something stupid or not, the responsibility is mine. Sure, they could've avoided the danger (sometimes by doing nothing instead of what they did) but the one who put them in this danger was me. Own up to and take "credit" for your friendly kills - or, if you can't, then just make sure there's not even a theoretical chance of hitting an ally before you torp.

I happened to even vote this one if I remember correctly - it has a nice feel to it with the palette etc. As for propaganda... Well, personally I'm one of the people who believe that if swastikas and Rising Sun are banned then so should the hammer and sickle (although I'd prefer all of them to appear since the basic game is supposed to have historical decoration) - but I'm willing to compromise and a small Lenin hanging on the funnel of Leningrad seems somewhat ok ...the one thing that worries me is that they might use exactly the same camo for Minsk. I hope they notice the peculiarity and make the Minsk version without Lenin to distinguish the ship with very particular namesake and one without it.

So make it harder to control your ship properly, making sure even more CV players play the airport simulator. Brilliant.

@El2aZeR Hey, I wanted to ask you, as one of the CV experts that's also understandably interested in the rework - what are your thoughts on USN vs IJN CVs in this iteration? "On paper" the USN CVs (well, at the very least Midway) seem vastly superior since the most reliable and easiest to use weapon (rockets) is just plain better and its delivery faster. I mean, sure, rockets seem like anti-DD weapon but the meta of the game seems to be such that if you shut down enemy DDs, the match is half-won already (and I'm talking "shutting down", not even "killing"). IJN advantage seems to be... I'm not sure where, really? Torp bombers might seem better but USN drops more (even if weaker) torps, making dodging harder, so it seems like a tie between the nations. Dive bombers carry AP bombs that can potentially deal lots of AP damage but USN bombs don't really need citadels since they just deal reliable HE bomb damage... From your playtasting... errm, playtesting experience - how does it seem in practice? Is there any real reason to pick IJN CVs over USN ones, or is it just pointless self-punishment looking for an additional challenge?

How is reduced scaling of plane hp and AA a buff to CVs - since that's what the patch notes are implying? When you make the progression less drastic than it was, it's a - nerf for CVs that are top tier in the battle - buff for CVs that are bottom tier in the battle - tradeoff for CVs that are middle tier in the battle Most notably, t10 CVs are always top tier so a change that makes AA and plane hp scaling slower means a nerf to all t10 CVs On unrelated note - I didn't participate in previous PT parts but wanted to check thing out this time and, damn, these controls for CVs are bad even by old CV controls standards. Why the hell can't I turn off the auto-turning towards my crosshair (that's not very visible anyway)? I don't want my ships turning by themselves - why would I want my planes to do so just because I forgot to press right mouse button while not looking absolutely straight ahead? And don't get me started on dive bombers drop reticle that lies to you before you start the attack run and then gives almost no option for adjustment afterwards. Oh, and then there's the fact that I can't control my f*cking ship so if I get torped, I'm not allowed to try any evasive maneuvers unless I order the planes to return to ship first...

I can say from my perspective - sometimes there is some mission I want done but am not very keen on doing that in Randoms. There are many possibilities: - "victory" missions when I don't have much time or drive to play seriously - "secondary hits" missions while I don't really like BBs (and 500 secondary hits won't be done in 1-2 battles, even in Bismarck, especially if you want to play normally and not be too much of a burden on your team) - knocking off snowflakes from all the high-tier ships I own, not all of them properly configured or with proper captains, some of them absolutely hated by me (and the two often come together - why keep a high-point captain on a ship I won't be willingly going back to) - damage while sailing specific nation's ship (it's easy to score lots of damage in coop even if you don't really play the nation in question normally) etc. - some other grind mission that pops up while I can't really focus on playing (need to put my attention elsewhere/am tired/might be needed at moments notice so can't start a new battle) Basically, coop can be played with poorly configured ships I don't like and it requires like half or a quarter the brain - I could watch TV at the same time and still perform well in coop. Not to mention that even if I do sometimes manage to mess up spectacularly, it rarely puts the team at a disadvantage - the usual effect is that the rest of the team gets more prey to divide among themselves once I'm out of the picture. There are times when these qualities have extra value - and then I pick coop.

Thing is, his performance doesn't only affect himself. Not to mention that, while WoWs is a (relatively) slow game, making it (relatively) friendly for people with various disabilities, we're still talking a multiplayer game where you play with - and against - real people. You can't really lower the difficulty level to account for really serious disabilities - at some point you should just ask a problem "with a problem this severe, is multiplayer gaming against human opponents really for me?" Then again, he has 54 premium ships. I probably shouldn't complain too much about the patron who literally funds my fun

Huh? a) I characterize it as a gun that lands its projectile exactly or very close to where I aim (although just one projectile is a sh*t basis for drawing conclusions about the actual characteristics of the gun). b) I call it a good gun. Or, if you want to use the technical terms you brought up in the opening post of this thread: accurate and precise. Now, what exactly did you mean to ask me and for what purpose?

The pattern is actually quite improbable. It is, however, not impossible - I'll give you that. If it does occur, however, it will be the the effects of low precision, NOT of low accuracy. In fact, the better the sigma of your guns, the less likely you are to see a tight grouping off target, so the better the sigma, the lower the chance of getting the "low accuracy, high precision" pattern. Also, you need to understand that reproducing certain pattern by sheer coincidence doesn't mean that the guns are indeed not accurate (and/or not precise). The patterns you show are just a visualization, that's all. The accuracy and precision, on the other hand, are the properties of the gun. To explain the difference clearly: it's perfectly plausible to roll a well-balanced 6-sided die 10 times and only roll ones, twos, threes and fours (no five or six). The results will be indistinguishable from 10 rolls of a 4-sided die - but it doesn't mean that the die you rolled actually had only 4 sides. It just means that (due to low sample size and lack of luck) you reproduced - by chance - a pattern that's more characteristic for 4-sided rather than 6-sided dice.

So... you'd prefer there to be no compensation or something? You write a post about how bad of a time you had, with emphasis on every single word - but it's not like they can identify the problem, hop into their time machine and resolve the issue before it affected anyone, you know.

If that is so then the additional appeal is a nice bonus that doesn't make the skill OP. Although I do think there would be a couple people who would actually take the skill with this bonus while they wouldn't without. I mean, there most definitely are people who normally rack their brains over whether to take Vigilance or not on certain ships, to the point where they are close to leaving the decision to a coin toss. For someone like that even the slightest additional utility could be something that makes the decision easier.

You know, it's a bit like getting run over while crossing the street on green light. Sure, it's the car driver's fault but it doesn't mean that I'm not going to try and avoid it. And vigilance is still a skill some people take on certain ships - so it's not like people would be taking it just for the extra safety measure against allies torping them from behind - it would be but a small bonus on top of the improved torp-spotting capabilities.

YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU YOURSELF ARE WRITING FFS. Or, at the very least, fail to connect it with WoWs mechanics. Look at these pictures. In WoWs the only way to get the effect depicted in B and D is to aim off the target (unless you talk a single strange salvo where all the randomness conspired to create a "fake" pattern, but then again - a gun with poor precision can also generate a tight grouping once every blue moon). As long as you aim straight, you're going to end up with something that looks like either A or C. Because both dispersion and sigma deal with precision. There is no in-game mechanism that can introduce systematic error - the only way for it to occur is to include the player as part of the system and then you have: - the player's conscious decision of what to shoot at (selecting the target) that would be the equivalent of aiming a real-life gun - the players "mechanical" aiming skill determines accuracy (most notably there are players that tend to aim too high and have their shells go over the target or too low and end up splashing a lot of shells harmlessly into the water) - the game randomization mechanic that throws the shells off the aiming point, determining the precision - finally (if the player is capable of noticing the problem) you'd have the player re-adjusting the aiming point (after, say noticing that most of the shells went over the target) which would be the equivalent of readjustment of the sights in real-life shooting (which is how you improve gun's accuracy when you notice that by aiming at some point you get groupings that are reasonably tight but off the point where you meant to put your bullets) Let me repeat it once again: World of Warships does NOT have mechanics affecting accuracy of the gun itself. If you point at a specific place, the grouping will always be centered around that point. If you had a gun with REALLY bad dispersion but also ridiculously awesome sigma, all the shells would end up (due to the ridiculous sigma) almost exactly where you put your cross-hairs and NOT in a super-tight grouping somewhere else. And making the dispersion wider - even if you were to increase it to 10 or 20 km - would only loosen the grouping, NOT put its center anywhere else than the cross-hair indicates. Unless you incorporate the player (whose failure at aiming can be considered a systematic error, especially when we're talking about a single salvo where all the shells are aimed the same way) into the system, the accuracy of guns in WoWs is always perfect.

Yes, aiming is player's job. Accuracy is determined by the player. Precision is determined by dispersion and sigma. If all your shells fall in one place that's farr off what you wanted to hit then it's you who screwed up, not your guns being inaccurate. There is no mechanic in WoWs that would introduce systematic error into your gun performance.

No. Sorry, but according to the explanation of "precision" and "accuracy" you yourself provided, both dispersion and sigma deal with precision. The only thing that affects accuracy is the player's ability to aim.

Watch the replay before commenting......OP was still visible when all shots were fired at him. Also, it's a bit of a side note but the functionality in question has long been incorporated into vanilla (although it's a circle rather than a cross).

Well, I'll take a fair mess that doesn't discriminate over a systematized abuse of everyone who happens to be a little better than the average.

Programmer here. When someone mentions "machine learning" and "neural networks" the way you do, it almost always means: "I have no idea whatsoever but I heard that computers can do magical things nowadays so it will work out." It won't. Your answer has about the same value as "a computer algorithm would be deciding that" or something equally useless. You can "teach" a computer to help you interpret data but you still need to get an idea what kind of data you want to feed the system and where you're going to be getting that data from so that the system has something reliable and meaningful to work with in the first place. In this case there's, among others, the obvious problem that the system using the neural network (the MM) would be actively corrupting almost all the data the neural network might be using (currently the easiest way to predict an outcome of the match is to look up players' winrate; but you can't have your network use winrate as one of the input values because the system's stated goal is to make everyone's winrate 50%, both globally and for each ship separately - in case the system works as intended, WR would basically become random noise). And, of course, the above is still only referring to technical problems, while the more fundamental one is: a system that matches players in a way that ensures equal chances of victory is a very bad idea that would hurt the game by driving away a big portion of the playerbase, as it happened in early days of Armored Warfare. People just don't enjoy being "rewarded" for good play with worse teammates further down the line - and that's what it boils down to: if you're good, you're going to be given potatoes to carry until the point where your WR is successfully brought down to 50%. If you're a potato, you're going to be assigned carriers until your WR stabilizes around 50%. The very concept is harmful, even if you managed to overcome all the technical problems.

WG doesn't normally compensate the losses suffered by particular players - most likely there will be some token compensation (most likely a little premium time plus maybe a little bit of something extra) for all EU players who logged in within the affected period.

This is a TERRIBLE idea because the effect you get is rewarding potatoes (they are guaranteed to get good players to carry them) and punishing good players (as long as you somehow keep winning, the game will assign you progressively worse teams). Sorry, I feel like the random teams I get are bad enough. If the game starts purposefully giving me braindead teammates, I would quit - and I wouldn't be the only one. In fact, there's a WoT-like game called Armored Warfare (actually, at launch, it was vastly superior to WoT in many ways - that latter then got better and closed the gap significantly by adopting a lot of AW's features) and they flirted with a system like this when they were starting - it was a disaster the title never fully recovered from (it drove away many players in the crucial early "playerbase-acquiting" phase of the game's life cycle). Also, there's the additional issue of purely technical nature: how would you determine who's carry-capable? At the start you could look at old stats but after implementing the system everybody's winrate would be strongly gravitating towards 50%, making the most important stat useless. You'd be left with things like damage done and other such things, but they vary wildly between ships and between different playstyles for ships - a DD that does a lot of spotting and screening won't have as much damage as one focusing on that, but that doesn't mean being less useful for the team. Also, while we're at the matter of ships - would the "skill measure" be global for a player? Ship class specific? Ship-specific? If global - it won't be fair because people have their preferences and can be great at some ships and not nearly as good with others, so a good DD player trying a BB would end up a big burden on the team because he can carry in a DD but lacks experience and skill with BBs. If you try going ship-specific, you're going to face the issue of often very tiny number of matches to base the skill assessment on. If you try to take the middle ground (class-based) you basically combine the problems - Shima and Khaba playstyles, for example, are vastly different and a player can be much better in one than the other. And unless someone plays a lot and does so with all the classes, the sample sizes for the less played classes can be pretty small for some players.

Oh, yes, the two have absolutely nothing in common, as we know. Or rather - if a ship is good for an average player then the ship is good, sorry to burst your bubble. Now, it would be different if you claimed that Khaba's players are NOT average. Now, that would be a reason to question reliability of stats... but if you want to dispute the stats from this angle then it's your job to explain: why do you believe that Khaba playerbase would be better than that of the other DDs. With a gap this big there should be some very strong factors shaping an elite playerbase around the ship. These are irrelevant though - they could explain why Khaba's stats are low. But they aren't low, they are notably high. If anything, you're now supporting the position "Khaba is such an awesome ship in her specialty that she's very successful despite the fact that meta doesn't favor her playstyle". I'm pretty sure that's not the point you were trying to make, though. So, now you're saying that Khaba has a different playstyle than most other DDs (hardly anyone questioned that) and is a pure gunboat (literally nobody questioned that). And you're saying that it works for her because she stays alive and keeps doing things while most DDs end up dying. I'm sorry to say but you're not exactly painting a picture where Khaba is a weak ship - being relatively easy to play reasonably well isn't a reason for buffs, you know? Making an in-depth analysis to pick just specific players and compare performance with different ships is only needed for ships that are relatively new or when you have some other reasons to suspect the playerbase to be significantly different compared to the average. And as for "good players" - you assume that the game is/should be balanced around - and basically only for - the very best players. This is a pretty ridiculous notion. It's not a good thing to have a ship that scales too well and achieves too much impact, yes (which is one of the problems with CVs and one of the reasons for the rework) but the skill level balancing is done around normally varies between "kinda poor" to "reasonably competent" player - because that's the area on the skill curve where the most of the playerbase is concentrated. Ships aren't balanced for AFK bots but neither are they for super-unicums. And yes, there is some "freedom" there in that certain ships (or even branches) tend to have varying skill floors and ceilings - and these are usually loosely tied together so that "easy" ships tend to scale less dramatically than the "hard" ships. This is generally tied to how punishing the ships are - because fragility is the usual price for high impact. But just belonging to the category of "more forgiving" rather than "more impactful" doesn't make a ship weak.

Harugumo just isn't as good a ship as many seem to believe, though. Harugumo has DPM of a light cruiser but the handling is terribad, the speed mediocre, concealment bad and survivability seems good (lots of hp) but that's not really the case when compared to Khaba - no armor, no speed to make her harder to hit, but she still has the same vulnerability to BB AP. Harugumo's guns don't work all that well at long range (severely limiting the effective DPM unless she gets closer) and the torps are nice (effectively 2x6 if needed, as long as you have consumable charges) but the reload time is scary. The DPM (with improved pen that makes it relatively consistent) is crazy but the price you pay for it is equally scary - it's certainly a ship that can be loved for her quirks but she's not OP as some (mostly those that only got to know her by seeing her 10 barrels spewing insane amounts of fire in their direction) would like to believe. Her place in the stats seems pretty adequate in light of (my perception of) her qualities. She'd be OP. At least if we're talking the final concealment (remember, Khaba usually skips concealment module). The only real problem with Khaba lies with matchmaking - as you mentioned, especially if you're the only DD, it feels like you're screwing your own team by the very fact that you're sitting in the only DD slot (and even 2v2 DD isn't optimal either, in fact - ideally you'd want 3+ DD per side). The best solution would be to simply introduce a hidden MM rule that requires at least one other DD in the team to place the Khaba in a match... but WG isn't exactly eager to meddle with their MM like this, so we can only dream.