Saltface

While it is funny as hell how you describe it, suits your name, I guess (I am speculating) that they will distribute the HP randomly among your launchers, some will be stronger some weaker. But still, your version is way funnier to read than my technical crap.

You want to prevent simultaneous destruction, so you make it easier to destroy one module and harder to destroy another. Ouch. What a demonstration of poor thinking. So, if I am lucky while sailing a torpedo boat, I would get weaker AA mounts (useless anyway) since they would "randomly" lose HP points and stronger Torpedo tubes? Or, what if a section of the ship has only 2 torpedo tubes, like on most torpedo boats? With your solution you make sure that one torpedo tube will be destroyed for sure by "randomly" giving it less HP points. If they had the same HP points they would not pass, "at first" as you said, the threshold of destruction and none would have been destroyed. And if losing both my torpedo tubes simultaneously looks weird, doesn't losing one with one shot due to randomized less HP look weird as well? You don't want simultaneous destruction of modules? Fine. Implement a counter. One module gets destroyed each time. Next shot received, one more module goes off. And so on and so forth. To use your own words "constant firing in a certain part of the ship at first wouldn't have destroyed anything here, but then at a certain point all AA mounts/secondary mounts/torpedo tubes would be destroyed simultaneously one after the other" RNG is not the solution for everything. Thinking is.

Once upon a time in a kingdom far far away.... Shrek comes to mind... There was the paper class that could win over the stone class who could win over the scissors class who could win over the paper class. Every class was good against one and bad against the other. Then came the class fluid things and trans class things and no class things and half this and half that things. Result, things got so confused and confusing. Fact is that both new classes, CVs and Subs, are here to stay. It took four odd years for CVs to be somewhat balanced. Still, I think, some things need to be done. e.g. Malta vs Cruisers...uhmmm unfair. And if anyone wants to compare Malta to a BB that can blap a cruiser, I will remind you that a BB must see you being broadside to blap you. It needs an error on your side. The Malta can just fly and find you where ever you are, take half of your HP pool, come back and take the rest. End of the game for you in two minutes and you did not even leave spawn. This is not good design. As I see it, some tweaks to the power of CV strikes and change the spotting to only mini map spotting would bring a level of balance that will make the CVs a part of the game that is tolerable. On the other hand, I think balancing Subs should be more easy and shouldn't take as long. They are clumsy and slow and they need to expose their hull to danger in order to play the game (well somehow). What they have going is the non detect-ability. Make them detectable by hydro at full hydro range when submerged. Currently, they are detected by hydro only at 2Km if submerged. This is stupid. I will be detected in my DD if closer than 2Km even behind an island with no hydro. Not to mention Radar. Let them be detected by Radar when at periscope depth. This way, a sub player will have to properly play the game, not spam torps and pings from impunity. I do think that "traditionalist" players have two classes to hate. This is not good. CVs need great skill to play well. When a skillful player has a CV the impact is great. I can accept that. All hail the Good Players. Just don't let (by means of poor design of the class and class interaction) any potato noob have similar impact in a CV. I am a very bad CV player. BAD. However, being a DD player myself, I ll sniff out all DDs for my team to kill in the first 5 minutes of the game. I ll provide so much spotting that I will impact the game even though I am VERY BAD. Not the same with subs. They do not require similar skill as CVs do and they have high impact because they can be invisible. If you balance this, then, a good player in a sub can be devastating while a moron will just lose his hull early in game. Again, all hail the good player. Like with the other high impact class. DDs. A good DD is devastating, a dumb one is first blood and food for pixel sharks. This will be fine. Food for thought?

why do you say the S word. You are summoning the Moonchild.

give the benefit of the doubt

OK here we go. First thing you did not play badly. (surprise) So, what comes your way are a few remarks and a few tips. Game start. You keep your flank. This is good. Your fire and forget torps are not bad. However, you could go mor to the east to get on the flank/broadside of northbound BBs. @ min 3:30 you take out the Izyaslav (why didn't he shoot back, most probably to torp you - dumb choice) and you take no damage. If you had been more to the east, you could have better torpedo launch solutions. Launching bow in targets has the least probability of success. I know your torps are short range and you have to take advantage of the advance of the red ship. But try to achieve a 45% angle of attack. (Clemson is no torp boat - ambush and short rush works better - get in torp - smoke and disengage - but thats what you had). Your team was stupidly amassed behind some stupid rocks. You should have tried to give more vision as well. At the 5 minute mark you launch at out of range targets. Maybe you could have waited a bit longer. They were rushing you after all. You continue and your next two launches are out of range. You have taken very little damage till now and we are 6 min 40 in the game. This is where I think you did not play well. You retreated and gave full map control to the red team. I know you were alone. But you could put more pressure to the reds and keep them south of island in C6. You were doing it successfully till then. After you retreat, before the 7 minute mark your team loses ALL vision. And you are way back to give any help. You should have stayed, despite the pressure close to the north border at the 6 line. But, at that point it was a lost match already. You did not play bad. Most probably you could not win this game for your team. You could have done a few things better. Next three points on your captain go for SE.

You do notice my fervor. I you missed it, just count the bumps

@Herbstnebel1975 You said you want a fair chance to win. Fine. But you actually do. You play on the same maps, with the same ships, with the same RNG and the same MM as everybody else. Looks like your chance is the same as everybody's else. Seems fair to me. Your chance of winning is now only predicated by your ability to win. Unless, you are suggesting that the outcome should be the same and not only the opportunity. I read carefully your posts. You mentioned at some point that "WG offers you a team infested with players who don't even know the difference between up and down" and "with NOOB fuso, 2 yolo DD's". Right? Let me ask you this now. How many times did WG stack the cards in your favor and the red team had all the potatoes? How many times was the Fuso on the red team a noob and how many times did the red DD yolo? I 'll take a wild guess. Equal times. MM sucks. True. But is sucks both ways. You get as much crap as anyone else. Given that the crap is equally dealt, what else remains to tilt the scale? What makes the difference between Loss and Win? You and your ability, skill and desire to win. You might be good but you quit easy. Or you might not be so good afterall. Who knows? WoWs is not a lottery game. You don't win as much as everybody else. If you play better than the others you will win more than the others. As simple as that. And you have to be consistent at it as well. You also said that one should have the option of quitting. The answer is simple. No. In a solo activity, quit all you want. But, when you participate in a team event you may not quit in the middle. Nor you can (or have the option to) not perform at you best. But if your sense of self is so important and your feelings are so important, how do you get any pride out of deciding not to continue doing your best even if odds are against you? Losing and being a loser are two distinct things. Quitters are losers. One last thing. Your WR drop is normal. No magic to it. It is part of the learning curve mechanic. Two versions. A simple one and a bit more complex one. This is you. So, get your act together, stop whining like a lil b1tch, play the best you can, enjoy the game and get better at it. One way is not finding excuses to justify yourself when you suck at it.

make sure you show up, and you will get your brawl. But you aint sailing that GZ of yours

Rather impressive. Thank you for pointing out that Italian DDs, the most unsuccessful line in the game, have similar statistics to subs. When a ship has the biggest part of her battles played by a small number of players you know that this ship has a small following. Passionate yes. But small. Read numbers as you want. Understand what you want out of them. It is really not important what you say or what you play. You can have your opinion and I can have mine. I did not convince you. You did not convince me. So what? However, when you say things that are borderline stupid, don't be surprised when people think that you don't really understand what you are writing. But here we see that you really do not know what you speak about. I don't have a narrative. I don't like or hate Subs. I don't care about them. I actually find them boring. I don't like or hate any class. I simply prefer playing DDs because this is what I find fun and enjoying. I am not a class (any class) apologist like you. My "cheap" attempt is mathematically sound. I read the numbers and I can somehow have a good understanding. When a very small number of players has more than 50% of all battles, then, we cannot speak of a class that is appealing to the general playerbase. This line of your text shows that reality for you is what you make up with your imagination. This is the first Sub thread that I participate. You cannot be aware of my views about subs. Because I have never expressed them. Funny enough, I did not even express them in this thread. Nevertheless, your twisted intellect confuses your imagination with reality. I made one statement "Subs are not popular they have a fanatic following" - I show numbers to support my statement. I also add that "Success of the class can be seen after a period that the class will mature in game. I suggest we wait before we come to conclusions." Post No. 23 of this thread. Sorry, but you are delusional. Most probably you did not take your pills today. Get lost now. You are boring.

I presented numbers. You avoid to answer. You also fall in the same trap of a false analogy. You present one of the least popular lines, Italian DDs, to justify what? I stated that 729 players have played 68.45% of ALL battles played in that ship. This is a fact. A quantitative fact. Numbers say that subs have a small following but a fanatic one. They are not popular, they have very fanatic people playing them. Now, math contradicts your feelings. You can like subs. This is OK. I like DDs. But, you cannot claim that it is a popular class. On the contrary it is a controversial class. Many hate it, few love it. But no matter how you feel numbers trump your feelings.

I wish maplesyrup was up and running. What would be interesting is to see how many CV aficionados have switched to sub play. Or what qualitative similarity these two classes have. I am too lazy to make a complete data set of submarines. I went through all the data, and did the analysis of one sub. But the trend is there. A few people like subs very much. But they do not appeal to the big mass of the playerbase. Also, mathematics is a science. And a hard one at that. I really dislike how some people on the forum just look at numbers as if they are prices on the supermarket shelves and just draw arbitrary conclusions with arrogance. Like pigeons that play chess.

I think that you are presenting a false analogy. You are comparing how many players chose to play Submarines vs how many players chose to play a specific ship from the newly introduced lines. Technically, this is wrong. While your statement that "none of the three new lines have more battles than the submarines" is true, it does not reflect the popularity of submarines. Comparing the subs with the T10 PANAM Cruisers or alt IJN CLs (not so popular lines) is rather disingenuous. Why don't you compare how many battles were played with submarines during this period in contrast to how many battles have been played with other classes? Aren't you trying to establish the popularity of the class? Why don't you factor in the novelty factor? This is supposed to be additional salt and pepper making the "new" thing so much more tasty? And, if subs are so popular why don't we see them more often? There are 12 slots in a random game per side. What you should compare, if you want to have an answer of some validity, is how many ships of each class are in the line waiting to get in battle. This reflects popularity of class. What players want to play. You need to compare % of players entering games with a specific class compared to % of players entering the game with other class of ship. Or even better, willing to enter a game with a class. Now, lets have a look at the stats of Submarines. Let us see what other things might be revealed. A look at U-2501 (the most popular submarine till now - 201,720 battles after 04/10/2022 - roughly 1,000 battles a day) reveals that: 10 players ONLY are responsible for 7.31% of ALL battles and that the top 100 players (in battles played) are responsible for 24.63% of ALL games played. This draws a different picture than the one you want to present. It clearly indicates that a few players are spamming exclusively submarine battles and nothing else, augmenting the numbers but, by no means, reflect popularity of the class. Furthermore, a total of only 729 players have played over 80 battles in U2501. They have 68.45% of all battles played in that ship. This indicates that the class, while not popular, has fanatic lovers. Aficionados you may say. A few people really liking the class and spamming battles does not make the class popular. This is what the numbers say. To conclude, your presented arguments are not valid from a mathematics point of view. The numbers I just presented show another picture. You may like submarines. This is fine.You might also want submarines to be popular. But your wishes do not make facts. It does not look like subs have found a big following. Numbers show that subs have a small but fanatic following. Success of the class can be seen after a period that the class will mature in game. I suggest we wait before we come to conclusions. Data drawn from WoWs Stats and Numbers on 28/04/2023.

Signals

I wanted to say, why bring tone if you can bring Delaware Planes every 3 minutes if I am not wrong vs stronger hitting planes every 1:30?

oh yes LOL They bring their big boyz with za big gunz I bring my small lil thingy with many fish. Self Respect all the way.

I don't think any clan with self respect would field the Tone I will play Benham during the first week.

@MementoMori_6030 I think that these restrictions are pointing to the correct direction. OFC we will see what happens and how successful this CB season is after the end. Till then we can only speculate. My comments are below General restrictions: No aircraft carriers or submarines - WG understands that these two classes do not belong in the competitive mode (at least) - This is a nice one No more than two Tier IX ships per team - Good restriction - or else it would be a TIX season. No limits on number of battleships per team - For one week, they said they want to see what the impact on more BBs in the lineup would do. So, they are testing it for one week. After one week the limit will change to no more than one battleship per team - see above No more than three mercenaries per Division - logical - it is three now, a few seasons ago it was only two if I well remember So, I guess the general restrictions are OK. Nothing special. Just enough to give the tone of the event. T8/T9, one BB and no subs or carriers. This is the gist of the matter. Restrictions on specific ships: 1. Ships that have an alternative version (such as Black or Collaboration versions) are included in restrictions by default when the original is restricted, but not listed separately. 2. Limited the number of Cherbourg, Brest, Carnot and Schroder. One team may not have more than two of these ships in total. 3. Limited the number of Le Fantasque, Le Terrible, Kiev, Mogador, Nebraska, Delaware and Kearsarge. One team may not have more than two of these ships in total. 4. Limited the number of Kidd, Loyang, Cossack, Akizuki, Benham, Kitakaze, Nebraska, Delaware and Kearsarge. One team may not have more than two of these ships in total. 5. Limited the number of Massachusetts, Lenin, P. Rupprecht, Nebraska, Delaware and Kearsarge. One team may not have more than one of these ships in total. 6. Limited the number of Alaska, Kronstadt, Nebraska, Delaware and Kearsarge. One team may not have more than one of these ships in total. 7. Musashi and Georgia are not allowed. I numbered them so we can have a more structured approach. The easy ones first. 1 is easy. Close the door for rule bending. 7. is easy as well. These two ships (while in normal Randoms perform at the "normal level") in CB environment would wreck havoc. Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Remember how they allowed for one week Hybrids in the previous CB season? Well, they got their feedback. I speculate that they realize that the impact of a Hybrid in the CB games is so big that they want to balance it. So, if you field a Delaware you cannot also have an Alaska or a Rupprecht in your lineup.. Well, I can understand it. You get a Hybrid, you really have to give up many other ships. This is not a random game.(12X12) this is 6X6. The impact of a hybrid in this format must be moderated. Now to answer your question. I will not claim that the game is balanced. There are real problems. e.g. two classes are broken (subs and CVs). And a lot more that we all know and discuss in this forum. However, the game is balanced around random battles. The CB format is different. If you would balance the ships for CB there would be an imbalance in Randoms. So, as the game is balanced for Randoms you have to adapt the lineups for CB. After all, only two ships are banned. Can you imagine during the first week (no limit BBs) a lineup of 3 Delaware and Massa, Alaska and Benham? Every 1 minute and half three Delaware would drop one ship and provide endless spotting. Massa |alaska and Benham can hold back any push. It would be the Meta lineup. I am sure that we can find a few more like this. I see it with a positive eye. They DO listen (ok I am being optimistic here but WTH let me enjoy a bit) and do not introduce subs and CV in CBs, and they are trying to take into consideration player feedback concerning Hybrids. Let us see where this one goes. After a long time, I am excited with a CB season starting.

We know you are a Flat Earther. Did you just call @lup3sa "funboi" twice? And who are the others like him? Either you state that you do not know what it means and apologise, or, you need to accept that you clearly intended to type it like this. Of course you can go the coward way and run like a lil sh1t and edit it. But, screenshots are taken.

Keep it clean guys. No Hentai please.

I am bumping this one to the top Training Room Battle Free for all, Silver ships only, T5-10, all Maps Time Sunday, 30 April 2023 20:00 - 23:00 in 5 days

I say you should not leave your spawn flank. You spawned East, stay East. Instead you abandoned your flank and also stayed out of the battle. You sailed from east to west on the C line and you did not get into the D line until no one was left on the red team. You stayed OUT of the battle pretending you are a sniper in a Micasa. You did not even get in secondary range. T2 and T3 do not have a big difference. You did not angle, you sailed like a total potato FULL broadside to the entire map. You are lucky you was playing against potatoes and they did not punish you. Nothing would ever get in your secondaries. You was so far away from battle that there was no possibility for anything to get in your secondary range. And, you did not even pay attention to the game as you left unpunished twice a Dresden in the C cap that was broadside to you. The Dresden eventually caped C. You shot your guns a total of 20 times. 29 shells landed. You did 23,596 damage and you had 84,000 potential damage. 0 battle impact and very bad shooting. you fired 10 times at a BEACHED Bellerophon - You did 9,000 Damage !! Your aim is perfect - He was BEACHED FFS and you could not do damage. All this while you left your Indefatigable alone (low HP) to fight a Von Der Tann. You ignored your teammate next to you to shoot at a BEACHED BB that all your team was shooting at. Either a coward or very bad situational awareness. You only took 4K damage, you did not do your HP in damage. Only 84K potential. Dude, no one shot at you because you did not participate. At the end you was in a 5 VS 1 fight. Well done my brave captain. I doubt you was Top 2. I take the risk to call you a liar. Please prove me wrong by posting the end screen. Your team killed 12 ships and Caped 3 caps. Sorry NO WAY you came top 2 with your punny damage and no caps. One V25 had a Kraken and the other V25 had 4 kills. These are T2s and killed a few T3s. Not to mention the Caps. At least these two were better in score than you. I would agree with you but then we would both be wrong. Your statement is equivalent to "the Earth is Flat" Your minimap replay render is here. Have a look. Also, I will not let the following go without an answer. Your battle perception is that of an amoeba. Dont bring it up as it does not paint you in favorable colors. The replay shows otherwise. Red team went right in the heat of the battle. Nobody was sniping as your team was in the caps with the red team brawling. At the third minute of the game ALL the red ships were above the G line and all your team (except you and an Indefatigable) below the D line. This alone is a corroboration of your amoeba like battle understanding. Because you stayed out of battle and your team did all the carrying. I think any more specific and we go in the quantum world.

@Aethervoxx I watched your game. Only general comments. You are not a sniper. You stayed way way back so you had no impact in battle. Your first shot was taken @ the 3:30 mark in the game after you had reached from the east flank to mid centre way up north to have any significance in the game. We had to wait until almost 5 minutes in the game for the first shot to be fired at you. And till then, there was hardly anyone from the Red team left on map. At the end of the game you had a totally insignificant fight with another battleship. But your damage was tragically low. Your shooting needs to be worked on. You had zero participation in the battle, you did not support/abandoned your flank (that's how that Von Der Tann went through). This can be seen from you very low damage and very low potential damage. And, dude, your shooting is atrocious. You really need to work on that. Next time stay on the flank you spawned and don't stay so back. If you had stayed on your flank, or go between B and C in the three island complex, you could have engaged way earlier a Dresden and the Von der Tann and create a crossfire on the Bellerophon. Dude, really, try to work on the basics. You really lack in that domain.