El2aZeR

No, you are either too lazy or not skilled enough to adapt to the change and refuse to admit it. Either way git gud.

For you maybe lol.

Die dispersion an sich wurde nicht verändert. Was sich geändert hat ist der Anflugwinkel. Bei HVAR style Raketen kriegt man somit weniger Trefferfläche was sich negativ auf die Genauigkeit auswirkt. Zudem wurde die Raketengeschwindigkeit deutlich höher geschraubt, was verhindert, dass ein manövrierendes Schiff durch drifting mehr Treffer kassiert. Bei den Tims allerdings wurde der Angriffswinkel so verändert, dass man jetzt mehr Trefferfläche an größeren Schiffen hat und die Raketen primär auf das Deck anstatt auf den Gürtel einschlagen. Heißt generell bessere performance gegen dicke Pötte, absolut nutzlos gegen kleine.

A typical loss rate would be about 5 per squad, so it should be around 20. Sounds like a lot, is however fairly inconsequential.

Wunderbar wie ihr zeigt, dass ihr keine Ahnung habt worüber ihr redet und nur rumweinen wollt. Die Zeit zum Raketeneinschlag beim Ziel ist bei den Deutschen komplett gleich geblieben. Das ist schon seit PTS bekannt. Somit muss man genauso viel vorhalten wie vorher und man hat zumindest durch den Delay an sich keinerlei performance Verlust. (0:37 falls timestamp nicht funktioniert)

Typically 3-4 squads.

Do enlighten us what the counters to CVs are then. But wait, you said that CVs are counters to skilled play. Naturally that means they have none then?

Rocket dispersion was not changed. Rocket attack angle however was. That results in worse accuracy overall.

I didn't misunderstand you at all. You're just failing to cross the finish line on that train of thought. Lets pick up your example. You have now given Eugen less DPM and more tankiness than Hipper as a balancing measure. How will you confirm whether that has worked or not? By watching the performance of a skilled player who knows how to make that trade off work or by watching the performance of an average player who fails in both ships regardless? Lets assume now that the trade off as described above has worked out. This means a skilled player in a Hipper will perform equally as a skilled player in a Eugen. Aka based on skilled play Hipper and Eugen are balanced against each other. An average player in a Eugen however will perhaps perform worse than an average player in a Hipper because the additional tankiness will not offset the incompetence of the average player, meaning both will die about as fast. Hipper will then perform better due to superior DPM over roughly equal lifespans, meaning in average play it would appear that Eugen is underpowered compared to Hipper. This is ofc utter nonsense. Again, balancing around stats in a vacuum is synonymous with balancing around skilled play as only skilled play can display statistical changes to its potential. Yes. They also use arbitrary and hilariously flawed metrics such as popularity as balancing factors. Needless to say WG shouldn't be trusted when it comes to balancing.

Except they do. Only skilled play can determine whether what you've envisioned as a mechanic works as intended, can be exploited and/or is overpowered or not. Average play does not necessarily do that. This is why balancing in a vacuum is in fact balancing around skilled play. And this is why the average player holds no relevance in balancing. Basic example: Smaland is generally acknowledged as overpowered even by WG as they have since removed it from sale. Now was it overpowered because of what skilled players could pull off with it, or was it busted because the average player was completely worthless in the ship as in pretty much any DD?

Sure, the most successful multiplayer titles in the world are memes. Got it. And again, those numbers are from this year, not from release. As for it just being a popular developer, that has little to do with the actual popularity and longevity of a game quite frankly as they can still massively fail if the end product is sub-par. Artifact from Valve would be an example that comes to mind immediately. Funny, all articles I can find on the viewership of the La Liga say that it is growing. And weirdly enough the very "meme" games you're panning are all also on the rise and have been for quite some time. Didn't you say that going for top level balance kills games? Reality does not support your narrative. The irony is that a school team does in fact play under the same rules as Barca assuming the club is serious and the players are not physically limited in some way (age, disabilities, etc.). Now guess what those rules were "balanced" around? Besides, you seem to imply that balancing around the top level makes any game completely inaccessible for the average player. This is ofc laughably untrue. For someone with a supposed background in game development your understanding of it seems rather feeble.

Concurrent users across all servers is typically ~100k during peak season, with EU being the most populous one usually peaking at around 30k. Off season tends to reduce that number by 30-40%. That makes WoWs fairly popular but far from reaching a top placement when you have games that peak in the millions. For example StarCraft 2, a game balanced purely around professional play and generally considered kinda dead compared to the heavy weights in the industry, had almost 300k people playing competitive 1vs1 ladder in the current season.

It was a comment about the state of competitive video games, all of whom are balanced around the top level, not being dead unlike what the other guy would suggest. Obviously in WoWs WG balances around whatever makes them the most money. Except that doesn't happen thanks to last attack damage resistance.

Your fixation on stats is quite interesting given your insistence on your own not meaning anything.

I found that a 50% CV player is actually more alike to a 45% surface ship player. Utterly useless. The reason why they do not drag the team down as much and as such achieve better WRs is because they don't die in the first 5 minutes. A 55% surface ship player is typically tactically worthless. Being above average in this game doesn't mean much given that "average" means "practically afk". Potential DPM is worthless as a metric. If it were actually worth anything then DDs and cruisers would easily outdamage BBs since their theoretical DPM is much higher, yet they clearly do not. Fact is in practical damage potential CVs are the best damage dealers in the game by far. In no successful multiplayer game do the best players of a class believe that it is broken and needs to be removed - except this one. Likewise your listed supposedly "hated" mechanics are generally accepted in high level play. This is because such mechanics are hated due to a lack of skill amongst the average playerbase, while CVs are hated even at the highest level because they are both mechanically broken and overpowered. Your analogy is at best disingenuous as always.

Completely beside the point. Fact remains statistical success and being actually skilled are two entirely different things in WoWs. Not because of MM, not because it is not a 1vs1, not because it has RNG elements, but purely because of skill distribution within the playerbase and in case of CVs playing an overpowered class.

Again, statistical success and being actually skilled are two entirely different things due to reasons explained above among other things.

They did. Spamming high tier ships has never been cheaper in the history of the game. It is far too forgiving. If you cannot sustain constant T10 play, git gud.

Statistical results in CVs must be seen relatively as CVs scale much harder with skill due to their vastly superior match influence. Typically playing a CV at the same skill level as a surface ship will result in a statistical difference of 5-10% either upwards or downwards depending on where you look on the spectrum. This means that a 60% CV "unicum" is usually only as good as a 50-55% surface ship player. And yes, that makes them pretty terrible. It is no different compared to RTS, with which reworked CVs are equivalent in match influence, where just knowing how to manual drop and strafe instantly made a player a unicum statistically, but that didn't make them a good CV player. It is a pretty obvious concept.

Yes, obviously.

A terrible CV player who barely rates as unicum on wows-numbers but believes he is one of the best CV players and constantly complains about CVs being too weak. His audience comprises primarily of likeminded players to no one's surprise.

Cleve war T6, net T7. Nur mal so nebenbei.

Die können viel lustigeren Kram als nur das. Hier, guck mal: