El2aZeR

And you honestly believe the amount matters? Really? Perhaps I should rephrase. What matters is consistency. At that point even just a single player is enough. If an outlier consistently shows up, that is not a dismissable coincidence anymore. Other classes have no issues with filling their top 100 with skilled players obviously. Sheer numbers alone will practically assure that.

Ah, so you meant a graph. Plotting average graphs doesn't exactly work like that in relation with how WG calculates match influence. Yup, which is why live testing is inevitably needed at some point. And when that happens you need to decide whether it is an exploit that needs to be fixed or it is working as intended. Basic example was stutter stepping around Lurker shots in SC. The devs never imagined that was possible, but they kept it because it added depth and skill to the gameplay. Or just take the slingshot mechanic. You do realize you're contradicting yourself heavily here? Assuming they don't do anything else all day, wouldn't that mean this is simply the highest possible potential and is as such relevant? Statistical anomalies can be dismissed because they're inconsistent. If multiple players can consistently perform at a high level that is not a statistical anomaly anymore.

No. Not anymore. Ironically the only thing that can beat skilled reworked CV players is their own team. Even if said complete picture would be inaccurate? For a rather extreme example: https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/102507-the-true-power-of-divisions/ Ofc division data also includes bad players divisioning and thus skewing overall stats downwards. And ofc we'd be missing players who literally only play in divs. But personally I believe solo stats give a better indication of overall performance. Actually I just realized that would depend on how these averages are calculated. If e.g. you calculated the average of all CVs then put them together percentage of premium ships becomes very relevant. (E.g. all CV premiums get 2000 exp, tech tree CVs only get 1000, so you'd get an average of 1400.) However if it is calculated by battles played the amount of premium CVs becomes negligible due to the low amount of battles played in them. (5 battles in each premium CV earning 2000 exp, 20 battles played in each tech tree CV earning 1000, so average would be about 1142.) Seems obvious in hindsight. It's early in the morning alright. Gonna need some caffeine. I was under the impression that maplesyrup uses base exp?

Wouldn't that mean maplesyrup provides more accurate data considering divisions can even make weak players look like unicums in terms of WR? As far as modifiers go, CVs were buffed to have literally the same base exp modifier as BBs. And while you're likely right with the percentage of premium ships, BBs are vastly more popular and as such will most likely outnumber CV premium ships in number of battles played relatively speaking. So technically BBs are more likely to earn more due to their premium ships than CVs are. In-ing-deed. Some of whom are in this very thread. Should be obvious as to who.

Except it does. That was my entire point. In balance playerskill is irrelevant because you assume that whatever mechanic you're designing will be used to its full potential. Hence why bad player stats are irrelevant while skilled player stats are the balancing benchmark. Honestly you've lost me on this one. What lines? As for your doubts for "average" players, it can in fact be proven. As I explained time and time again, just a quick look into the top 100 list maplesyrup provides will show a tremendous difference in stats when you compare between CVs and other classes, meaning that the CV playerbase isn't capable of filling even 100 slots with truly skilled players. Likewise CV average stats are down, but top player stats have not changed much (if at all). Therefore the potential of CVs remains the same as before. This means one of the following is true: - CVs have become harder to play - Average player skill is down the drain Given that the rework was marketed towards players who have either never played CVs or even this game before it isn't hard to conclude that the latter is true.

Wanna know what else is PvP game design? Counterplay options. Too bad reworked CVs have none. Ah, and here I thought statistics are irrelevant?

Oh. Must have missed/forgotten that. Nevermind then.

Wasn't that an April Fools' joke? The one where they presented some gigantic heat rays, UFOs and combat dolphins?

No need for concerns. Just remember how speshul this playerbase is.

What is the saying? "Actions speak louder than words." And they actually did that, you know? Until they realized they're ruining their investment in the rework with it. Also flak is only supposed to punish bad players. It's a basic skill check.

Use http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html . Nerfs for everyone, buffs for E both directly based on her "average performance" and relatively speaking. There was also a reddit post fairly recently (aka like a month ago or so) that showed Enterprise is hilariously ahead in avg WR by a ridiculous margin across all servers. Can't find it for the life of me tho. Ah yes, now I remember. Which btw inherently creates an issue with how reworked CVs compare to RTS ones since e.g. the player skill distribution is vastly different, so reworked CVs will inevitably be shown as weaker since average skill is lower. And well, that still doesn't say what group is weighted more or whether they are weighted equally.

Or all data in general. If I remember correctly they only told us that they take bad and good player stats into account. They have not told us how such data is weighted. They did actually state that she is too strong, you know? Something that has in fact gradually shown in her stats as other skilled players have started playing her. Your dataset is outdated.

So you're telling me E was pulled from the store because of how bad players performed in her? Oh please. Again, irrelevant. Ah, but they left out plenty of info, didn't they? Including how said data is weighted.

I think you are well aware of how laughable it is to take WG statements for granted.

A development that is actually fairly recent relatively speaking. So both statements are actually true. If the average player overperforms in a ship, so will a top player. Not all balancing changes however are based around average performance.

A claim that can in fact be backed up by simple facts. E.g. when YY was nerfed, was it on the basis of the majority?

Except in the history of this game a negligible amount of balancing changes have been based around the majority of players.

While perhaps true, that will inevitably lead to failure. As Enterprise handily proves. Thus it is irrelevant to a balancing discussion.

Which proves my point. If player skill is irrelevant you balance around how mechanics are intended to be used. Hence why top player skill is representative while average stats are largely irrelevant. As for the top 5%, that is because the amount of skilled players is smaller than 5%. Rather obvious when you consider how and why balancing changes have happened in this game. Also funny that you bring up SC, a game that is in fact only balanced around pro players.

No it is not, because top player performance represents the balancing benchmark contrary to popular belief. Because when it comes to balance player skill is irrelevant.

Except I am. My performance proves that Shokaku is capable of such performance. As such how bad everyone else is is irrelevant.

In lieu of such numbers you could also simply pay attention to various sources. For example: Who complains the most about flak? Bad CV players. Is there evidence out there that proves flak can be dodged no matter the concentration? Yes, there is. To name a few things. As such it isn't hard to extrapolate against what kind of players flak is effective against. No, primarily due to the lack of information given on sample size and time stamps along with intentionally withheld information such as leaving out the impact of the rework on previous CV players. Can't actually find the topic tho. Gonna guess it got closed and subsequently deleted. Except there was no such thing as "untouchable auto-win-AA ships" in 0.8.5 and 0.8.6. Ah, so a larger sample size is required? Well then. Oh, look. Shokaku is actually stronger than before now. It is not smart to lie when information is both publicly available and very recent. How about you be factual and say that it is impossible to avoid rockets from good CV players barring RNG? In fact why don't you stick to your previous statements of player skill being irrelevant? If both sides play perfectly as the inherent mechanics would insinuate, damage to the DD is inevitable. Stop being intellectually dishonest and jump from one narrative to another. Bomb aiming penalty no longer applies when maneuvering. A plane is more maneuverable than a ship. Do the math.

And there lies one of the issues with CVs, no? CVs can consistently all over surface ships while other classes require a mixture of luck, skill and misplay. Thank you for making my point. If you had bothered to check actual facts you'd know that bad players are actually worse than before. However the end result is the same, aka bad CV players still lose all their planes for no/little gain. As such this does not represent an improvement when compared to the previous situation. In fact because fighters were more limited in capabilities than flak it could even be regarded as worse than before.

Except as previously explained the number itself is irrelevant because the players who take damage from flak are as well. Thus it holds no relevancy to any balancing discussion, hence why flak is useless. You could ofc say that flak is not useless based on its performance against incompetent players but, again, that holds no relevancy to balancing. Flying in a completely straight line with no prediction whatsoever. Except it isn't. Bad players that would previously lose all their aircraft to fighters/AA still lose all their planes. As such the end result is the same as before. Aka the rework has failed in that regard. - Just explained that personal opinions are irrelevant - Immediately makes a claim based on personal opinion Remember, if you want people to stop calling you intellectually dishonest, how about you stop being intellectually dishonest? This is a blatant lie when you look at the facts. Skilled players perform the same as before while bad players fail even harder. I have written a detailed analysis of why that presentation doesn't show the full picture and outright withholds information. Whether you label it as a "differing opinion" is the actually irrelevant thing here. Although ironically if the presentation is to be believed then the rework is most definitely a failure right now considering current playernumbers in relation to the percentages given. "Personal attacks", as you call them, are simple facts that expose the true motivation of the person in question. Though I suppose the discussion indeed becomes less interesting because the credibility of said person no longer exists at that point. Isn't that right Mr. "CVs unplayable, demand refund"? Yeah, "3-5k dmg to cruiser with heavy plane losses" isn't a thing though you know? Try "all their HP with laughable losses", for example: Wanna know what else shouldn't exist in a team game? A class that is completely isolated and independent from and whose sole purpose is to do nothing but grief everyone else.

Again, how is that relevant? Sure seems difficult to stay on topic indeed.