Capra76

it's late. I'm tired, do you mind if we come back to this tommorow?

Er, no. Very small sample sizes can work if the effect you are measuring is very large relative to the null hypothesis (i.e.: this gun isn't loaded ----> bang ----> ouch -----> that hypothesis was wasn't it) but with something like autism-MMR where the effect is small (in fact so small that no properly conducted study can detect it) you need very large sample sizes to detect an effect that you can be confident is anything other than random chance. Also (and a bit O/T here) when looking at risks you need to look at both sides of the equation, which is to say you need to weigh the risk of the intervention (uncertain, below detectability thresholds) against the risk of non-intervention (deafness/brain damage/death) that occurs at an at least measurable frequency.

Playing 3,000 games badly and buying about 30 premium ships just to troll the forum until we all get bored and ignore him, I don't think so either.

It's a bit sad really, he's got the best CV player in the game plus other very good players (and potatoes like me) telling him what to do and instead he choses to view the advice given as some kind of conspiracy theory designed to distract him from the ultimate goal of comitting pointless suicide against low tier DD in return for a thimblefull of XP. He is David Icke and I claim my £5.

I'm absolutedly delighted to see that ............... so long as you're on the red team. Beastofwar v El2aZer in a CV v CV battle.

Okay, so that's 4 secondary hits for, if you're lucky, about 2,000 damage against a T6 DD and in return you've lost 50,000 health plus shortly after your ship to the enemy cruiser and the only reason you got that was because the friendly Fubuki came back and tried to save your ing worthless a*** (oh and btw, his ability to read the situation is why he's a good player and you're not). I think I see where the problem lies.

A bit O/T but this is probably your biggest mistake, to get somewhat good you need to be playing all classes, if you only have a few hundred games in BB/CA then you don't really understand their strengths and weaknesses or the tactics the players are likely to adopt, if you can learn that then it's information you can use against them when you are playing DD.

Whining about players playing in division when I've already told you that you can filter for solo games only.

Fair enough, I'm happy to play co-op, the shorter games mean that the XP gain isn't that much worse over time than in random, the only issue is you can't really use XP modifiers (signals, camo), in terms of credits I can just about break even at T8 so anything below that ends up being profitable enough and it does have the benefit that I can retrain the captain and grind the modules at the same time.

You know you can filter out the divisions and just look at the solo stats and guess what, if you do that they're still far better players than you are.

The dark purple stats on the stats sites say they're right.

I think the argument is that you're not doing your best to win if you're taking a ship out that's less good than it could be although it does vary from ship to ship, a few examples: Fletcher has Mk 16 torpedoes locked behind the B hull, so 25% HP gone and some of the best torpedoes in the game as well, stock you're more or less on a par with Mahan; KGV - 10% HP and 1.5 kn speed, manageable; Hatsuharu/Fubuki - good luck with those 6 km torpedoes; Gadjah Mada - slight torpedo buff and more HP, manageable stock; Ernst Gaede - only gets hydro with B hull; Fuso - 12,200 HP and the old A hull was literally unplayable with about 12km range (fixed now). Also, the odds are that if you're using a stock ship the odds are you've got a captain that's still in retraining and are thus missing mandatory skills so: no priority target, last stand or concealment expert on a DD; no IFHE or DE on a CL; no fire prevention, BoS or survivability expert () on a BB. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm happy enough retraining and grinding modules in co-op for lower tiers and have enough FXP saved up for higher tiers.

Well I suppose if you're bad enough to take stock ships into random battle then you are going to lose a lot of the time, but that's as much down to the player as the ship itself.

More to the point, why would you want to play to lose?

But then of course there'll be 45% WR BB players whining about "DD not doing their jobs" from 10 km+ behind the front line.

Maybe make them dual-role, otherwise why bother using them?

Did I say I thought that was fine? Please point to any post on the forum where I've said that I thought the CV reworkd was fine or that CV have any place in the game. And if you do think that I think it's fine there is no helping you.

The forum permits WoWS replay files as an upload, he can share it with everyone.

Well, possibly immediately after 0.8.0 went live when CV players were learning the basics this would've been true, but it's not a strong argument,

One thing I notice he doesn't mention is understanding why certain ships are overperforming instead of just taking the statistics and saying O/P -------> NERF!!!!!!!!!! So in the case of the Yue Yang I'm guessing that (since it's just a cloned Gearing) the problem is that the PA smokes are too powerful compared to the US ones, but instead of fixing that specific problem they butchered the gun DPM and increased the torpedo reload at the same time and buffed Gearing with the type 16 torpedoes as well. Did they not know what the problem was? If they did why hit it in a way that ignores the core problem and just makes it a boat. Interestingly AFAIK YY was the only PA that got hit with the nerf bat so I'm curious why that one was overperforming so much and everything else wasn't.

Seems to be the way WG is taking the game, balancing through boredom.

What's rewarded in game is damage and kills, a 50% win bonus is scant consolation if you're nuked 3 minutes into the game and sent back to port with 250 XP. And why should a low risk, low reward (to others) class expect to have the same influence on the game as one that risks instant death throughout the game?

Could be particularly useful if T8-10 are going to take full penetration damage from BB AP shells, rather than angle and risk this simply sail broadside on and vary throttle. Also some of the lower tier ships have very slow turret rotation and we don't know what the turret arcs are going to be like so hard maneouvering in those ships is going to hurt damage output badly.

But they can strike anywhere on the map without accuracy penalty so that lack of tankiness really doesn't mean anything when they can sit behind hard cover all game. Vision controls caps as much as anything else and CV excel at that. Early game yes, late game, with the action on the other side of the map, why shouldn't you take a CV into a cap? Also, in terms of balance, you're forgetting the other side of the equation, what do they offer back to the other ships in the game in return for the costs they impose upon them?

In a post, after my original post, and nowhere in my reply to that did I mention DD. Or I simply grabbed a random-ish cross section of the older destroyers for statistics comparision purposes, nowhere do I make any comment about how I think the ships play. You're drawing an awful lot of conclusions from a one line semi-serious post about what happens if you balance a class around movement then introduce mechanics to remove that movement. Will 406 mm AP or even 203 mm fuze on 65 mm armour? I suppose BB could spam HE at it and get citadels that way, but then my point was more about potential damage output rather than survivability. @Excavatus If my previous post was inflamatory why is this allowed to stand?