Culiacan_Mexico
-
Content Сount
2,844 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Battles
14993
Everything posted by Culiacan_Mexico
-
The Shima Meta. It really didn't matter what your stats were at the time... it just wasn't the game meta many wanted. I was a 43% win rate player overall at the time and as you might suspect I was covered in red. Below is my only surviving stats from that meta (not that good). My CV stats are horrible, so I am not really in a place to tell a experience CV player how to use his ship... in general. Now I can make some general observation: "Dude, do you think it is a good idea to let all your plane get strafed?" Someone who has bad stats in DDs can make the point that a DD player who goes out and dies a lot within the first few minutes of the game may want to reconsider. Fubuki Games Played 164 Win Rate 53.66% Damage 37,780 Experiance 1,155 K/D 2.4 Kills 0.8 WTR 1,403
-
Your comment implies that radar somehow makes the game the opposite of dumb-down. In what way?
-
Stat basing is weird. I mean without context how much does it really show? Take a look at this guys stats in the Fubuki. What kind of loser has a 41% win rate in Fubuki? Fubuki Tier 6 DD Games Played 31 Win Rate 41.94%
-
I believe that is true.
-
It might be, but it is hard for me to say. I think I am biased because the fewer DDs means, in general, a more open game with varied options. Just a better game for me. The current averages seem to be about 2-3 DDs per side, so a soft cap (3) would seem to be a workable concept.
-
copy-paste of "mouses-angry-youtuber-reviews-of-ijn-destroyers"
Culiacan_Mexico replied to Prospect_b's topic in General Discussion
Sub_Octavian they are competitive, but, as I said many times, they have become more skill-dependent. Yes, many players adapted, and it's nice to see even well-performing Akatsukis in Ranked. However, large number of players seem to play in old style, lowering ships avg. stats. -
Yes, I believe some are. Just to add on: WG stated that there data shows the team with more DDs does not have an enhanced change of victory. WG says.
-
Why not?
-
Balanced? Would not there actually have to be an actual benchmark to measure against? Some actual goal or purpose that radar is suppose to achieve; and then you measure results and compare them with stated goals. Radar seems to have none of this, but instead seems to be just a gimmick thrown out there. Like a turd thrown into a punch bowl... maybe the results are balanced, as I guess it depends what you want to happen. WG admitting things or just simple self reflection is not their strength. If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there. Georgy Zhukov
-
Aircraft Carriers - Short and Medium Term CV Solutions
Culiacan_Mexico replied to Widar_Thule's topic in General Discussion
You put a lot of thought into this, and also had some interesting ideas. Well done. -
From what I have read on this thread from those stating they are good DD players, radars effects on them is very limited. This I agree with. I mean WG claims that one team having five radars and the other having zero radars in no way effects the outcome of the game. I find that statement questionable. Obviously if they had gave it thought, they would have added mirrored MM.
-
Agreed. For what purpose? What is the goal of reducing the amount of bad players in DDs? It can not be because they are over played nor that the have too much influence (remember we are talking about reducing the number of bad players). If introducing radar changed the meta from a static one to a more mobile one, that is a good goal, but that is not the result. What is the goal, with regards to the meta, of adding more radar?
-
Back in the day of The Shima, I was grinding their 8 DDs, and while I am sure I must have been sunk by these walls at least one time, I didn't recall it happening. The Shina meta wasn't really an issue for me. Not a problem for me... isn't a very strong arguement with regards to overall game meta.
-
I haven't said that, but... "git gud" can come in many forms. Some people pop into a thread yell "git gud" then run away because they are a little bit juvenile; while some say it repeatedly because they get a certain amount of joy in getting a reaction out of people, both groups should just be ignored. Another possibility is this: WG is not removing radar and the chancing of it be 'adjusted' anytime soon is virtually nil, so the only truly good option is "git gud". It isn't about what is fair or reasonable, but just about what is. "...grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
-
An EASY way to fix radar problems
Culiacan_Mexico replied to callumwaw's topic in General Discussion
The anti-radar consumable will have a shorter activation time compared to US radar allowing British DDs a short period of time to counter radar, and it will have a range surround the DD just like smoke. In fact, it will be a special anti-radar smoke that now blocks radar. -
An EASY way to fix radar problems
Culiacan_Mexico replied to callumwaw's topic in General Discussion
I kind of wonder, the soon to be released "defensive British DDs" (what ever that means) stats look less than interesting in the current meta. This being WG and all of that, what if they are thinking... anti-radar consumable? They slap it on at the last minute with little testing. -
Poll: Is it time to change the number of DDs in Ops
Culiacan_Mexico replied to Xanta99's topic in General Discussion
Now you are just being silly. -
Poll: Is it time to change the number of DDs in Ops
Culiacan_Mexico replied to Xanta99's topic in General Discussion
That would not be good, my ears could not stand the whine. -
An EASY way to fix radar problems
Culiacan_Mexico replied to callumwaw's topic in General Discussion
I agree. Cruisers being unable to maneuver effectively, due to the in balance in BB vs CA, is detrimental to overall game play. -
Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"
Culiacan_Mexico replied to Deamon93's topic in General Discussion
"Upon returning to the Rosyth naval base, Royal Navy personnel thoroughly inspected the ship and found much of her equipment to be unserviceable. It appeared to the inspectors that the main battery turrets had not been rotated while the ship was in Soviet service, and were jammed on the centreline. As a result of her poor condition, she was sold for scrap." -
The pinnacle of balance - Novorossiysk (a.k.a. Giulio Cesare)
Culiacan_Mexico replied to wilkatis_LV's topic in General Discussion
I particularly like this part. Very good data. -
An EASY way to fix radar problems
Culiacan_Mexico replied to callumwaw's topic in General Discussion
DD numbers are below 50% of what the once were, which is not necessarily bad, but I think the way they have done it is flawed. DDs are now far more difficult to play than the once were, but there overall effectiveness in than hands of an above average player is still just as potent (in random games). Perhaps more so. On average there are +2 DD per side, which generally mean when I start scouting or screening on my side of the map or area, it is just me vs the one other DD player. 1 vs 1 personal skill starts to play a very large role, which creates an in balance. A similar but more pronounced example is with CVs in which you often start the game and wonder which side got the good CV player. This is not conducive to beginning players. I think WG would have been better off not making DDs so 'difficult to play', while at the sometime reducing the overall impact of DDs on the game. Easier game play would allow more beginners to stay around while at the same time lessen the impact better players have on the game. -
An EASY way to fix radar problems
Culiacan_Mexico replied to callumwaw's topic in General Discussion
1. I am still not convince the current increase in radar is permanent. Perhaps there will be a small increase over what was there before US CL were released but not much. 2. I fear WG has planned along to add another gimmick to the game... counter radar. I am personally against that. I do agree 'money' may be the driving force behind all of this. 3. As for changing radar, I am uncertain. Cruisers are being balanced to either stay at long range or hide behind island, any change to radar is going to twist that balance; and considering WG past efforts in this area... it would be concerning. Personally, I don't like radar, I don't like what it does to overall game play (enhanced passivity), but if they levels of radar return to something 'normal' as expected, I am not sure radical change is called for. As a DD you can work around it most of the time, especially if you have some team help. -
An EASY way to fix radar problems
Culiacan_Mexico replied to callumwaw's topic in General Discussion
Spotting balance? Then should not cruiser concealment get nerfed so that they don't have a spotting balance over BBs? My belief is that while I can not see ships behind island that shot at me, the answer is not to change the game, but to live with it...git good... I believe is the correct response. Radar, by WGs own statements, was to counter the Shima swarm and to reduce DDs at high tier (both ideas I agreed with), but it failed to work as intended and both had to be directly address by WG. After adding radar, WG has still failed to address long term smoke, and has added even more...PA DD, with at time, nearly continuous smoke. Just to note: radar is not everywhere, at all tiers, all the time, so it is the answer to nothing, and actually creates more issues. WG needs to directly address smoke. IMO -
An EASY way to fix radar problems
Culiacan_Mexico replied to callumwaw's topic in General Discussion
1. Compared to attacking a DD in cap with short range hydro... doesn't even compare. 2. Strawman. 3. Hydro introduction almost three years ago. Were you there? Just to add on: A quote from the time period, "...Hydro search is supposed to aid in killing DDs, but the range on it puts you in the "can't dodge anything anymore" range, making it useless as a tool..." What he posted was completely untrue, but it was fairly common complaint. Using short range hydro during that time period was difficult but very effective... it you enjoyed risk reward. Sadly most players are completely uninterested in that, but instead want to play it very safe. ----------------------------------- "...7-8KM range hydro-acoustics wouldn't really break the destroyer as a class, but it would make a cruiser a slightly more effective destroyer hunter..." ----------------------------------- "So, I'd suggest something like this: yes, increase the radius of the sonar aura, let's say up to 8 km to show DDs in-game and up to 10 or 12 km for the DDs to pop on minimap..." ------------------------------ Just to note: this game play, aggressive cruiser attacks using hydro against DDs is no longer viable in the current meta. Balance things? Define this balance you speak of? DDs are already the least played of the three main types of ships, with the lowest average damage, and the worst survivability. What balance are you seeking?
