Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About GinNoKatana

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. GinNoKatana

    WoWSLauncher update problems

    I had the same thing. I couldn't even shut this off. ctrl + alt + delete would not respond. I had to shut my PC down cold. Couldn't find a repair function in the launcher, maybe I'm blind. Redownloaded, same issue. When trying to uninstall, which I need to do to reinstall, it sends my Windows into Scandisk before it lets me boot normally again after trying to delete the remaining game files manually without being able to do so. Either my harddrive is crap, or this game has gotten some serious issues with the last patches, which it had not had before... I'm gonna go with the later though, for I could reproduce the exact same behavior twice in a row. Won't try a third time because I hate it when software messes up my PC being it on the hardware or software side.
  2. GinNoKatana

    The main problems of the game

    Until I throw a torpedo your mug.
  3. GinNoKatana

    IBUKI tierIX need Up

    I have not done the math, but I guess that high tier games are not plus/minus 0 games. What I mean is: Playing good is only a viable option for a few players to maintain a postitive economy at higher tiers, for for every hit you make someone else takes one. And this is most likely even emphasized by higher tier games producing a negative average outcome in silver accross all players. Can't all be as good as you are. If all were good, noone would be.
  4. GinNoKatana

    The reason why CV is OP and RNG is a big part of this game

    I have not read all your posts in detail, but generally, I think I agree with your points. (From my point of view most people on this board don't understand how to interpret statistics well - note: my point of view could be wrong, I do not maintain to represent the "holy truth". In this sense, I feel, what the opening posts states, to be often overlooked when interpreting CV players' stats.) In addition to this quote above, I'd want to add, however, that you should take into account that other ships most of the time run the risk of being shot at when they themselves are attacking. _________________ Far from it. There are certain tendencies I could observe in players' behavior. The following posts actually hit it quite well concerning my own personal observations: My main attempt to contribute here is to offer a way to explain this behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma I would not want my (read: the game I play) game to be statistically balanced around this problem as it will lead to this problem: _________________ Alternatively, they could maybe smoothe the torp count progression over the Mutsuki towards the Fubuki a bit. Or instead scale torp damage according to hp incease of other ships over all.
  5. GinNoKatana


    I don't know. Didn't he write somewhere that he played DDs? Those stats look like completly viable average DD stats to me. That he beats you in base capture points would strengthen this point, I guess.
  6. GinNoKatana

    About the balance in WoWs

    If you're trying to convince me that "objectivity" exists as something percievable for human beings, then I appreciate the effort, but please don't waste it. That's not going to happen. Too much (useful) follow up thought is built for me on the assumption that the closest we can get is probably best called "inter-subjectivity". But now we're really getting off topic into philosophical areas, which I, too, think discussing here would be of little value. Just let me say that inter-subjectivity is often easier reached when agreeing on measurable and sensually percievable things (in contrast to abstact ones), as for example agreeing to be standing next to a tree when standing next to a tree. The possibility still exists for the people agreeing on the tree's existance to be hallucinating, but assuming so wouldn't be useful for most follow-up thoughts. Based on the data and reasoning you provide, I would agree, that the Furutaka's firepower seems worse than those ships' you compared her to. I don't have direct access to the data anymore, so I cannot check it, but doesn't she also have better stats in other areas than the Omaha/Murmansk? If designing different ships to be different, one would assume that in most cases, their firepower will not be identical, so asymmetrical relations are to be expected when looking at singled out areas such as what you call "power projection." Assuming the Furutaka has other relative benefits instead, the consensus that she is plain worse or even just "bad," which also are two different things, is far less likely to be reached. This is also shown by the people defending her. Her relatively high caliber guns could also come with benefits not visually expressed in the numbers shown to us - possibly in regards to the armor system, which I have yet to understand. Remember that the statement I criticized was: "No, it's objectively bad, which is why they're buffing it in a way they haven't buffed anything before." Now, how can it be "objectively" bad, if it cannot even be inter-subjectively "bad," well not even neccessarily "inter-subjectively 'worse'" than those other ships she is compared to?
  7. GinNoKatana

    About the balance in WoWs

    Which, I may have heard somewhere, was infinite on the other hand. And thank god, I'm not alone anymore. Oh, to add an argument from the humanities to that technical math talk, of which I only understand half (could be a language barrier or my math classes being relatively far in the past or a combination of both): Considering humans as "constants" is really weird to me, as to me humans appear very multifacetted, constantly changing and, thus, better be understood as a sum of many occuring processes instead of "constants". IJN DDs don't have primary targets then... xD I'd be ok with the state DDs are in if their repair costs would be "balanced."
  8. GinNoKatana

    About the balance in WoWs

    This is bad... real bad... and exactly what I was afraid of... I wish I could read Russian to see for myself. I must admit, i have never understood, just by looking at them and by the limited experience I have with them what cruisers are there for except for supporting BBs and CVs against DDs, other cruisers and aircraft. I also believe that most BB players I see don't play their ships well as most of the time I only see them avoiding close quarter combat though that's where they could one-shot cruisers and DDs and two-shot badly angled BBs. But I don't consider myself a good BB player, either, so what do I know. In general, I agree that from a game design perspective something in the larger picture could be "wrong" with this game. I am sorry if the way I think and write offends you. I have trained and been trained for many years now to obtain very specialized knowledge. This has also highly influenced the way I think as well as speak and write. I will not change it when expressing my thoughts on internet forums, just so you feel less offended. Please ignore my posts in the future if that is a problem for you. Now talking about "non-arguments," attacking my person instead of attacking my arguments (which I claim actually are arguments), would be a "non-argument". Just calling them "non-arguments" is also a "non-argument". Wow, you must really be an expert in this field. Also when you're trying to argue based on "objectivity" I am afraid that I don't "know exactly what [you were] saying" as I don't use that concept and cannot follow it. Unconvering a tautology, which, when used in discussins to argue in favor of something, is commonly acknowledged as a fallacy, is a fair way of arguing and not just unfairly using "semantics" meaninglessly to my advantage. That would actually apply to the person who uses a tautology in a discussion in the first place. Sorry for that. EDIT: I forgot to answer your question regarding "objectivity". The problem starts with your premise as "preferences" are based on subjective evaluations, opinions and individual goals. That aside, your premise could be stated as longer range = higher preference. Based on this premise you ask me if I would subjectively agree if a higher range would be preferable, or in short if I prefer the preferable. Oh, is that another tutology, I see here? If 5 = 3+1, would you objectively agree that 3+1 = 5? And if you do, what meaning does the concept of "objecitvity" exactly hold?
  9. I thought this should maybe be discussed in a seperate thread. Based on my experience as well as theoretical thought, I have come to the conclusion that especially the punishment system in this game (not being able to play the ship as long as the match still continues and losing quite significant amounts of silver in higher tiers) may be partially responsible for a very passive playstyle, which I have observed in mid to higher tiers. This passive playstyle in which players seem to be more afraid of being hit than actively trying to achieve anything else, is not only very boring in my opinion, but also contraproductive towards the win conditions of the game. While high repair costs of higher tiers are a problem in and of themselves, I would suggest to either make ships playable again as soon as you leave the match despite them having got sunk or make it possible for us to buy the same ship multiple times.
  10. GinNoKatana

    About the balance in WoWs

    There is no "objectivity" as far as humans and current, mostly agreed on philosophical and scientific assumptions are concerned. We all only percieve and interpete those perceptions subjectively. So I am afraid I cannot let you argue on the basis of "objectivity," for you are either non-human or don't know what objectively "is" and what "is not." Also you need to decide if the Furutaka is getting buffed bacause it's bad or if it's bad because it gets buffed. Stating both and validating the one with the other AND vice versa does not work convincingly as you're only producing a circular tautology. I generally would agree with your sentiment here. I also think that WG's reward (and especially the punishment) system supports "bad" play.
  11. GinNoKatana

    About the balance in WoWs

    Seriously, yes. I give up. The idea that larger sample sizes balance out statistical anomalie is something that scientists using statistics always "hope" to be true. And here is the funny thing: "statistically" it "probably" is. But we never know, and we have no indicators for this wether or not it applies, especially not if talking about one specific, single statistic. I am sorry, but you say you "can't convince" me. Yah, you never bring any arguments, only statements: - "If you use enough samples over a longer period then those variables tend to balance out." because... ? - "Statistics say Zao is the better ship, and I agree." because... ? Which statistics "say" that Zao is the better ship, and by using which method to interpret those data do you come to that conclusion? It is not impossible to convince me of something, but without arguments, it probably, statistically is. because...? Yes, and I would argue also more could be gained by comparing the performances, tournament and casual plays of the top players in any ship between ships. This way we get a better approximation of what each ship is "capable" of. Ships should be balanced around their "potential" rather than their average performance, the masses produce with them. Some ships have higher skills caps than others, and that's ok. Some ships have a more difficult skill curve, and that's ok. Average player performance data will not show this. Although maybe acutally "balanced", but more difficult to play, average data will show those more difficult ships to be worse, while this may just reflect their difficulty and not the results those ships can produce in the right hands.
  12. GinNoKatana

    About the balance in WoWs

    Oh dear. Useful in the context of the topic of this thread: ship balancing. But if you're saying, those data aren't actually useful for anything at all, I would tend to agree.
  13. GinNoKatana

    About the balance in WoWs

    The bad day argument always stands: Some people have more bad days than others, but if prepared for tournaments they could tend to be at the top of their performance. Your approach doesn't tackle this problem, either. It's not solvable as far as I can tell - with neither approach. Comparing statistical average performance of players playing casually and without the constant intention of giving their best, doesn't lead to useful data at all, but you can convince me otherwise. I have yet to hear one plausible argument though why this data is useful for anything really. Those are only snapshots, too, but of a different kind.
  14. GinNoKatana

    About the balance in WoWs

    No, there is not, which is what I wrote. If you have never played against well coordinated players, good for you. While I agree that getting rid of the IJN bomber loadouts will probably be a good thing, I believe people tend to overestimate CVs in general, and often forget that the CVs advantage to attack independently from his ship's position also comes with a disadvantage of there being two ways to kill a CV: sink the ship or effiencently destroy his planes.
  15. GinNoKatana

    About the balance in WoWs

    I have been several times in situation where I couldn't do anything as IJN mid tier CV because the enemy aa was strong, well teched, well placed, cooldowns were not wasted, and players knew how to dodge. As a CV player your ability to attack can be completly denied in my experiences. This can never happen with a battleship. You can always shoot at stuff or close in first and then shoot at stuff.