fnord_disc

Stochastics are the most misunderstood part of mathematics. About 90% of the population thinks they understand probabilities and perhaps 10% actually do.

Anybody who owns a Gremy is so experienced by now that they can get to 55% legitimately without the help of an overpowered ship.

Mags are generally not worth it because their hitzone is lower in the water. The videos on citadels should still be accurate. Sometimes it's just not possible to citadel someone at certain ranges. It depends. You can't citadel all enemy ships at any range.

I think the zones are a good idea. edit As for the computational complexity... right now the damage is calculated from the distance and a lookup table. The lookup table would have to be made bigger and they'd have to make it 2D for both angle and distance... It's not very complex, honestly. Should make hardly a difference for the server.

I still remember all the promises about "Japanese ordnance".

Sounds like a big nerf carousel is about to begin.

"500ms brain lag means I need slow torpedoes. Actually no planes at all pls."

Hold on, let me verify this extremely interesting information using the game's integrated model viewe——

I'm not seeing anything like that.

They're slower, so they need longer to traverse the same distance that they needed until now. current 41kn * 3s = 123 kn*s patch 35kn * 3.5s = 122.5 kn*s I forgot the WoWs scaling factor, but IIRC it's 3 or something, so this gives an arming distance for ~200m both now and in the future, the torpedoes are just much slower. edit distance = speed * time when theres no acceleration... should be obvious...

Arming time is time, not distance.

Those are nerfed.

That video is a perfect example of why people think AA is too weak. They don't abuse it. The ship moving down is probably a Cleveland decked out with all AA abilities/upgrades and activating the AA fire ability. Correctly done, that gives 36*5*1.5*1.1=300 DPS at 7.2 km. Bogue TBs have 970 health = 3.2s per plane on average. The first plane dies at 00:07s in the video and it goes until 00:24s. Five planes (one survivor escapes) die in those 17s = 3.4s per plane. It's completely normal behavior. AA is basically overpowered if you abuse the options that you have.

It's incredibly unlikely that the Third Reich would have named a cruiser after von Bülow. Even at the time he was seen as a mildly competent figure at best, and public opinion of him did not improve over the years. To be honest, I can't think of a German chancellor other than Bismarck who would have been used for cruisers or battleships at the time. Caprivi left industrial and beaurocratic legacy but no vision, Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst was a liberal and didn't do much, Bülow was all talk and not very competent, Bethman-Hollweg was weak, wavering and constantly yanked around by others. To me, the most likely namesake would have been Ludendorff or Falkenhayn.

Well, I never doubted that, but I'm pretty sure you don't have your ship properly upgraded for AA anyway. I never said "Midway planes die like flies against a Montana". I said that there are plenty of situations in this game - at other tiers - right now where AA is very powerful, even overpowered, but you refuse to properly read and distinguish. You just ramble on and on about Midway, but Midway is one carrier and there are eleven others. You're the most unscientific person I've met in a long time.

No. I've tried to explain to you that it depends on the ship's AA and the relative tiers. I even gave you example calculations using the actual, ingame DPS values with and without captain's skills. You just don't care about the truth, do you? Just keep living in your pipe dream.

It works exactly like that if you use all the AA upgrades, the captain skills, and if you manually select each target as soon as the last target is dead. Oh, yeah, of course it's random. It used to be strictly DPS-based, now it's randomized, but the average time it takes is the same. It's just an averaged chance to kill planes based on the DPS values. It doesn't change anything. Probabilities average out to constant values.

It really depends on the ships and how the tiers are relative to each other. AA can be anywhere between totally OP and completely useless. You can estimate the strength of AA fire yourself with the port data. Upgraded New York has the following AA: 40 DPS @ 2.1km 36 DPS @ 3.5km 20 DPS @ 2.0km These stack, so at 2.0 the ship has 96 DPS. The ranges and DPS can all be improved significantly with upgrades and skills, but let's use these values. A T5 Zuihou torpedo bomber has 990 durability, so it would take the AA about 10s on average (it's statistical) to shoot down a plane and 40s to shoot down a squadron. If the squadron is manually marked (+50% DPS) and the upgrades are used (+44% range, +10% DPS), then the AA is +65% as powerful and shoots down a plane every 6 seconds, on average, at much longer range. That only gives time for one attack run and a bit of maneuvering before the planes drop down, so even with the current system I can't really chill above the ships. This was an equal tier example. It very rapidly scales in both directions. Being top tier in a carrier gives you near immunity, being bottom tier is almost pointless. Iowa has, without upgrades: 60 @ 2.1 200 @ 2.1 137 @ 3.5 79 @ 3.5 60 @ 5.0 Upgraded with range and skills this gives Iowa 450 DPS at a market target starting at 5km and another 429 at 3km. I'm counting the 5km bubble with the 3.5 bubbles here because it simplifies my example, so in reality Iowa would be slightly stronger. Hiryu's bombers have 1439 durability with the captain's skill, so the large bubble would need about 3 seconds to kill a plane and this doubles as I get to the drop point. Hiryu's planes fly about 300m per second, so just from the 5km bubble edge to the 3km bubble edge, ~2 planes die. In the 3 km bubble, planes die every 1.5s, so from the 3km edge to the 500m drop point, ~5 planes die. All that was rounded down. That means that, from the 5km to the drop point, an entire double squadron of Hiryu torpedo bombers will be reduced to 1 bomber, on average, with a calculation that always rounded down. This is also pretty much what always happens to me when I try it. Japanese air-launched torpedoes have 2km range, but there's no point in dropping from there. 42kn is too slow to hit anything from 2km. Now, you can say, "Hah! Don't attack Iowas from two tiers below!". Absolutely. I agree. I would never do it unless the Iowa caps. But AA has extremely harsh scaling and saying it is useless is in defiance of reality. It really depends on which planes attack which ship. Before you accuse me of cherry-picking examples, I know that there are plenty of ships that need 10-20s even at the same tier to shoot down anything and that being top tier as carrier gives you a free pass over everything. But that's not the whole story.

Colorado chews through your planes quite rapidly if the player dodges and keeps you in the 3.5km envelope. Regardles; the fact remains that I can't judge the risk to my planes without sending them in and testing the enemy player. That's just gambling, not risk/reward.

I don't really think this can work. AA chews up torpedo bombers really quickly on the middle tiers right now, and attacking a furball of enemies is plane suicide even on TX. The AA bubble is enormously large. Improving AA would force carriers to drop their load on the first approach, regardless of whether the target dodges or not, because flying out of the bubble would kill all planes. That's basically a raw damage nerf. Carriers don't run out of planes at high tiers, no, but they still lose all or most planes on attack even now. AA is really scary when there is more than one ship around or the enemy dodges your planes. I once lost all 8 of my torpedo bombers trying to attack an Iowa with Hiryu and not a single torpedo was in the water. He was sailing straight. In my opinion even now the risk to your bombers is very large and improving AA would force me to use XVM-ish mods to know which players are weak and don't attempt to dodge. Otherwise I'd lose all my planes without getting a good attack off. Risk/reward relies on the player being able to judge the risk before experiencing it. In a battleship, a destroyer, or a cruiser, I can look at the map and the enemies that are spotted, the terrain etc, and I can make an educated guess whether it's a good engagement or not and I can escape with my life if it isn't. That's not really possible with planes because the AA bubble is 5-7km large, depending on skills and upgrades, but the drop point is <1km from the ship. Flying through buffed AA for 6km only to find out that the enemy is very good and dodges most of has nothing to do with risk/reward, it's jusg gambling on the enemy's skill level.

You say carriers are low-risk, high-reward. Nerfing them would make them low-risk, low-reward. Why should I play that? I don't really care about the danger I'm in, but I care about my ability to impact the course of the game. Nerfing a carrier's damage potential even more makes them completely pointless. It would make more sense to think about a way to add danger to carriers rather than a way to make them pointless.

Yes, it's awkward game design, but it doesn't make the class unbalanced. Whether or not a class can be retaliated against has nothing do with the balance of the different classes. It's important to distinguish dubious design decision from actual balance problems. The average damage and win rates for most carriers are not impressive. They upset a lot of players, but only because they were designed around a concept they don't like, and not because they are too powerful as a class. You can argue that a class shouldn't upset tons of players just for being there. This line of argument naturally leads to the demand that carriers be changed. I agree that carriers as a class are flawed, but for a different reason. Carriers right now are a big frustration generator for bad players, because they don't understand how they can minimize the damage from carriers, how they can dodge planes or position themselves in a way that discourages carrier attack in the first place. Carriers feed on bad players and 80% of the damage carriers deal is against the bottom 25% of players by my estimate. I don't think a class should be that selective in its targets. It makes the game frustrating to play for those people, but a carrier has no other choice. Hitting good players might deal 5-10k damage to them, but if the carrier keeps doing this, the damage over the course of the match will be awful, and the contribution to the team won't be very high. If you want to advance up the line, sink ships and help your team, the only way you can do it is by culling all the bad players from the enemy team and eventually that will make them stop playing. Carriers combine the highest alpha potential with the largest gradient in terms of target skill. Bad players are blasted to the moon while good players hardly notice that there are carriers in the game. This I think is the big problem with carriers.

Depends on the relative tier of the ships (AA strength, type of ship, maneuverability). For the most part, no, they can't be entirely avoided. Why should they? If you dodge well at lower tiers where the bombers are slow, you can get down to 1-2 hits taken even in a battleship for 5-10k damage. That's from an IJN squadron attack of course, if you get hit by USN torpedo bombers, it's your own fault. Then the planes fly back, refuel, come back, all that takes 2 minutes+. A battleship fires every 30s = 4 salvos every 2m. A dodged carrier is the damage/time equivalent of two overpenetrations (2x 1.25k) by a battleship. So you couldn't dodge it. And? So what? You can't completely avoid a battleship salvo either, you can only wriggle and angle, but a couple of stray shells with always hit. That the battleship is at very low risk of eventually dying as well isn't important in my opinion.

Some things with this post are correct, some things are not, and it annoys me greatly that you think the entirety is true. True. There is nothing selfish about trying to win. The entire team wins, not just the carrier. However, I agree that carriers are set apart from the other ships and that isn't really very good. Choose your words better. The average damage is not much higher than battleships at their tier. You can quote leaderboards and player stats of people abusing divisions all you want. They are statistical outliers, and as a class carriers perform not significantly better than battleships. So, top 10 damage dealt has 7 carriers. And? What's the problem with that? There must be tons of people who never get above 10k damage or the average damage stats weren't so mediocre. The only carriers that overperform are Midway and Essex. Only Midway/Essex. I can dodge torpedo bombers all day at lower tiers. No, that's not the definition of "overpowered". Are we speaking the same language? Why should you be able to fire back at someone who can hit you? You can't shoot invisible destroyers launching torpedoes at you, you can't hit a Yamato in your cruiser from 25km, and it can hit you. Being able to hit someone or not doesn't mean anything. Game design isn't a matter of "okay, let's put two ships on this giant [edited]map and they have to have 50% win chance against each other". We're not in 40 AD Rome, in the Colosseum, duelling ourselves in front of Caligula. That you personally want to duel every sucker on the map is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the game. It's not how the game works, has ever worked, or will ever work. Carrier gameplay is flawed and individual carriers are too strong, but your inability to comprehend basic features of this game and game design as a whole makes it a waste of time to talk to you.

If that is the limit of your intellect, I pity you.