El2aZeR

Just be prepared for the CG in episode 3. It looks awful. Was hoping for a more regular zombie apocalypse show, especially considering Highschool of the Dead will never get finished (author died a year ago). I think that and Gakkou Gurashi are the only two shows of the genre. Honestly kinda weird when you think about it, I guess zombies aren't as popular in Japan?

Pretty much. It stands to reason that if neither team is camping the results should become much more even than if one team is camping while the other is not. It is unlikely that literally everyone on both teams are camping, the DDs at least are usually willing to play the objective (whether they'll be smart about it is another story tho). And when the majority of both teams are camping the individual player can have much more impact by doing so. This will inevitably result in landslide victories as gained advantages just pile up for the winning team with the enemy team unwilling to contest it. Thus if one team has a higher number and/or more skilled players willing to play the objective (or just more luck), which is extremely likely to happen since MM doesn't factor in player skill, it eventually results in the huge disparity in map control and loss ratio that we're seeing. With pretty much every game in high tiers being extremely campy that'd mean the majority of those matches will inevitably result in landslide victories/losses. You could ofc very well be right in it just being the natural course a match takes or it could be a combination of both. It's too early to draw conclusions after all.

Pretty much. I consider the "surprise" factor to be of no value, while you believe it is an essential feeling to a stomp. Guess we just gotta agree to disagree here. The first (and so far only) game I played today was also the first game in which neither side just camped in the back, ultimately resulting in a 7 to 11 loss ratio and 18:12 match time. This is a very early theory drawn from preliminary data, but so far it's possible that one-sided games (and what I would perceive as a stomp) are simply symptoms of the camping meta. And it's not hard to imagine why, if a team gains an initial advantage and moves to expand it, the opposing camping team will do nothing against that, thus leading to landslide victories. What would be interesting here is data from low-mid tier matches where the meta is far more dynamic. If the results are the same then we can disprove said theory, if it is not then there might be something more to it.

Nah, she's been in the game since... Well, always afaik. She appears in the tutorial after all. Though with the recent addition of UR rarity with Sandy Kai we may see our first construction/drop/research UR ship with the next CN event. Chances are that's going to be Bismarck, they have assets ready to go for her after all.

Actually bow and stern hits get reduced by half as well beyond the initial hit dealing ~ 17k damage due to damage saturation. Thus it is literally impossible for a Yamato to take full damage from an IJN torpedo. BBs with low value torp belts should aim to take torpedoes on the bow if their goal is reduced damage. If they want reduced flooding chances belt hits are better.

I see something else entirely being the issue tbh.

Funny, because of torp bulge penetrations they scrapped the entire mechanic sans torps despite the other aspects working fine? They couldn't have just excluded torp bulges/spaced armor from being affected? Brilliant WG sledgehammer balans as always.

5 torps deal approx. 60k damage at most. That's not enough to kill a Yamato. And you have to be especially stupid to get hit by 5 Shima torps.

The problem with using time as the only relevant statistic is that it can easily become fudged by the map and player behavior. Bigger maps or maps with a lot of island cover can easily make you go the initial 6 minutes without enemy contact, thus prolonging a match despite it becoming unwinnable after one side early in the game. Likewise a team can misposition so hard that they were never capable of winning the match but trade kills for long enough to go over any defined time mark. That was the case in the last match displayed e.g. Thus it is ultimately necessary to factor in other statistics.

I don't see how this buff is going to change anything considering it's just reverting a nerf and IJN torp DDs were already sub-par before. It's a welcome change, but it doesn't address the fundamental problem.

Added additional data. Stomp definition is still subjective but this should allow you to form your own picture. (Also accidentally tagged a non stompy game as a stompy one.)

Personally I would define a stomp as an early ingame situation where a side becomes completely incapable of winning barring huge mistakes from the other team, thus necessitating fluidity of statistics used. E.g. game 2 in the list above could've easily turned into a stomp had the enemy team not charged my camping team one by one and died accordingly. In the end they were 50 points away from winning but we took the match via eliminating their last ship. Perhaps it's better to use the term "one-sided" instead of "stomp", but in my eyes there is no real difference. An unwinnable match remains unwinnable whether it takes 6 minutes or 15. Though to satisfy all involved, maybe we could introduce a definition for "stomp" but at the same time record whether a match was one-sided or not. After all if you introduce a definition for the former (say, won/lost before the 10 minute mark or sth along those lines) it doesn't necessarily always line up with the latter.

Good point, have been added. Thankfully still have replays enabled so I didn't have to do that from memory. Though tbh I'm already seeing one particular pattern. Probably not. Such a definition won't work anyway. After all a game dragging on because you have to hunt down the enemies that keep running away is still a stomp despite lasting longer and potentially lose more ships. Or taking all caps but having to spend minutes upon minutes clearing out camping enemies. (Or me potentially fudging the result by intentionally letting teammates die to get more time to farm. ) Thus I'm relying on my own judgement whether a game was actually winnable based on - number of ships sunk on both teams - caps and map control - match time passed the weight of which have to be decided on a per match basis rather than a fixed definition due to the nature of the game. It's definitely not a perfect solution , but I like to think I'm at least halfway qualified to judge whether I'm experiencing a stomp or not. Though everyone else could start to record their experiences too and contrast them to mine, thus netting us a more conclusive result overall. It's honestly the only "perfect" solution I can think of if you don't want to trust my expertise alone as, again, fixed definitions aren't the way to go either.

Started an Excel table to record how many games I play were stomps vs. non stomps. Gonna do this for a while, though here are the preliminary results for this day: Do keep in mind that it's gonna take a while until this becomes anywhere near conclusive, but the results just for today don't make me very hopeful.

If that's the way you want to go...

Something you see pretty much every day. Says the right guy.

Here's an idea: Replace radar with reload booster.

Regardless of how you feel about it skill-based MM is an impossibility with current player numbers. You either end up with something that's extremely similar to what we're facing now or alternatively highly ranked players will have to wait ages in queue. The former is a waste of time and manpower, the latter will lose you customers.

Probably our fault. Skilled CV players brought it up, so WG automatically turned deaf to the issue. On behalf of all of us, I'm so sorry.

Reworked CVs honestly look to be more of a threat to DDs than they currently are imo. I mean... Half HP gone with only 2 hits, no counterplay options available. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And while spotting has become less globally (from a single CV), it has become far more oppressive locally. That's a trade, not a nerf. If WG holds on to their plans of wanting multiple CVs in a match, global spotting too will harshly increase. Though ofc everything is still up for change, but then again the last time WG balanced according to community feedback we got the GZ, a true marvel of supreme balans.

And I guess a unicum CV can be just as easily neutralized by another unicum CV or just an AA cruiser or two? What's the difference? Ironically to "project power" a CV often needs to endanger himself nowadays due to a mass of ships that have an AA range equivalent or longer than their air detection. He can also only do so in short bursts every few minutes due to an inherent slow rate of fire unlike regular ships who stay dangerous a long time after firing their first salvo. A CV can really only be present at 2 places at once with TBs and DBs respectively regarding striking ability. This is a significant step up compared to a surface ship which obviously can only be in one place, but again, a surface ship will stay. A CV will need at least 3 minutes to rearm, often longer. A CV cannot disengage from an unfavorable fight assuming proper use of the DFAA consumable. Your planes will get wiped out period. There is no alternative. By simply letting planes approach before using DFAA you deny him any hope of saving even a single aircraft. Heck, bots do it in operations, which makes them more intelligent than even most players of top clans I've seen. I'm talking big names here, OM, AAO, among others, all of which revert to total potatoes when it comes to dealing with CVs and use DFAA on everything from fighters to empty strike craft. Target selection is heavily dependent on enemy action and strike efficiency. All the range in the world doesn't help if all of your targets are protected or need you to fly hilariously long paths that will make you sit out for half the match before you can strike again. Just by presenting unfavorable drop angles or long exposure to AA via e.g. using island cover is often enough to make a (smart) CV to reconsider. And normally CVs cannot contest caps, which is a pretty big deal in an objective-based game. All of these are factors that can be easily exploited if you know how. Bringing these up shows a fundamental lack of understanding how CVs play, which isn't exactly uncommon among the playerbase. I play surface ships, too. I have no issues playing against CVs regardless of what class I play. A unicum CV can be everywhere from completely dominating to completely worthless, depending entirely on enemy action. The inherent mechanics to countering CVs themselves denies the CV any input, CV player skill is thus completely irrelevant. All the power is in the hands of the surface ship players and in the great majority of cases they are complete and utter failures at handling it. Also did you take note about what I said about CVs and caps above? Well, it has become an extremely regular occurrence for me to take caps in a CV. If I can do things that would normally be considered impossible, is that another indication that CVs are somehow broken? Hardly, the average player has simply regressed so far that I can get away with such plays. Which shouldn't really be surprising considering a situation like this has become an extremely regular sight nowadays. No single mechanic is responsible for stomps and catastrophic losses. Almost everything comes down to general average player skill, nothing more, nothing less.

On a serious note, I'm actually pretty sure you can play WoWs (sans CVs ofc) with one hand if you have a mouse with at least four additional buttons mapped to the speed and rudder keys.

Sure, but they are enabled to do so due to the average player being abysmal, not because they are inherently broken (though they do have plenty of problems). The potential match influence a CV has is directly influenced by both composition and skill of the enemy team, so when most of the playerbase forgoes AA and is completely abysmal it is only natural that CVs dominate. That does however not mean they cannot be counterplayed or are inherently broken as exceptions such as the one above prove. Two AA cruisers with sufficient skill and decent positioning will shut a CV out of the match indefinitely until they are dealt with by the other team. The problem however is that it's rare to find even a single such cruiser player, which in itself translates to a problem with, again, average player skill, not CVs. And likewise do you need that when the enemy has an exceptionally skilled DD player while your own are all potatoes. Or just a good div. In the end this is a problem with general average player skill and not one particular class or mechanic. And it's going to stay that way unless you address the actual core problem. Removing the old mechanics and building new ones on the same flawed fundamentals will do absolutely nothing, that's why e.g. the CV rework will inevitably fail at addressing the skill gap (which we all know it was never meant to do anyway regardless of what WG has said publicly). When you have an asymmetric role distribution over several classes it's inevitable that some become more powerful than others which will translate into better carrying potential, especially when these are even further divided into sub-classes. E.g. a DM is inevitably better at carrying games than, say, a Henry. Unless you plan on sacrificing diversity, in this case making Henry pretty much identical to DM, it's going to stay that way. Yes, most ships do not have Worcester levels of AA, but that's a problem with how WG has handled AA as a mechanic, not with CVs.

.....wait, so you own an extra PC just to surf porn? Man, I wish I had that kind of money.