Saltface

Good that you clarified because I was ready to answer to you. Maybe you should clarify in your opening post because many will understand that you want to exclude poor performance players from randoms. Regards

Perfect, DD players need challenges or else we get bored.

Here is the one million credit question: Are these players exclusively on your team? Second Question: You sport a very healthy 56% plus WR. If what you are saying is true Then your high performance must have a great deal of luck involved. You might even not deserve it at all. Actually, you might even be a bad player for all I know. You have been carried 56% of the games. (before you jump on me please be advised that I am not suggesting you are a bad player OK?) So, are you as good as your WR suggests or you are the result of a malfunctioning MM that just placed you in the wining team most of the time? (56% of the times in the case in hand) Yes, the MM is random. Yes you may end up on the bad team. Many times. BUT You will end up on the bad team as many times as you will end up on the good team (over a significant amount of battles so we have some sort of proper stats) THEREFORE It is your skill that matters at the end. When I was sporting a very healthy (sarcastic voice tone) 42% WR my friends told me that I can influence only four out of ten games. Three I will lose no matter what and the other three I ll win no matter what. It is how I perform in those four games that will actually show how good or bad I am. I did the math. I could win only 1.2 out of 4. And oops .... I was a bad player. Actually, I was a net deficit for my team. my generic answer is 100% It is random. And you are a good player. Not just lucky. Please, don't underestimate your efforts and skill (or of the other players that have managed to boast a good performance). Regards Saltface

Wondering why something that will be most of the time out of range of all (most of the times) ships needs Armour? I would also say that - that bow will be saturated fast so who cares....I don't think she will get cit'd so easy with all the other armour of her scheme. Think about it, Slava is going to shoot you at over 20K - well within her range - with railguns and you will have to shoot back at the limit of your range with max dispersion (not railgun dispersion). Nah..she is OK

sorry for the double post but.....I do not pose a false dilemma....I said "Gameplay trumps realism." So, it is not all or nothing. It is "when we have a conflict or interest between realism and gameplay, gameplay will have precedence" In our case Radar and Hydro ... No false dilemma my friend.

@heypotato First, I wish to express my surprise that we are holding an actual discussion in the forum ... congratulations my friend. 1. CVs, you had a good exchange of arguments with @GarrusBrutus and other knowledgeable friends. My opinion is that I can tolerate them in randoms (1 per side) but they break the game in ranked and CB. It will be an endless discussion with no result. Its OK. We can disagree. 2. Radar and Hydro. I totally see your point of view. (its not only my scientific education but also my naval career that hurts me) However, if Radar would not go through mountains it should have a longer range and longer duration or else it would be really useless. Balancing purposes. That would be a disaster for any DD. You get caught in radar and you have to sail 4, 5 ,6 K to get out? You are sunk. So, it is a trade off. Unrealistic, not intuitive and many more words that my poor brains don't know. But, it is like that. If my radar would just "extend my line of sight" it should last longer and reach further, or else it would have no functionality. Radar range is 8 to 12 KM and duration from 20 to 40 seconds. And goes through rock. LOL If you make it LOS then what? My thoughts. Anyway, be well and thank you for a proper conversation. Regards Saltface

DD players don't whine. We play the toughest class and thats it. No whining....just play and sink them. Full disclosure: Nothing is a "problem" for a DD player. Nope not CVs, not Radar, not Hydro...... uhmmmm...I am a DD main...lol....post rework as well....so my opinion counts

@heypotato Hi there, This is an arcade game. Gameplay trumps realism. In this game we have torpedoes that load in 1 minutes time, guns with endless ammo, squadrons of aircraft that take of from a Nurnberg (e.g) and land on the catapult (irrespective of weather), ships that with the press of a button can stop flooding and fire, their crew never dies and their performance is the same irrespective of how many hits their ship has suffered, fire is irrelevant..business as usual not to mention that some ships have a 3D printer and print a new self just for fun.... I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Now, as your torpedoes (a DD main you said?) load in one minute and you have an endless number on your DD why do you make a fuss about another mechanic (radar) that is not realistic. Cherry picking? You cant play against Radar and Hydro and you want to change it? It is not realistic. Nothing in this game is realistic except the 3d design of the ships. You can complain about radar all you want. You can say "I don't like it". I m OK with that. But, when you start with "realism" I call BS. Nothing is realistic and you want to apply realism on the issue you cant handle. You see I didn't whine about CVs. I called out your double standards. Either realism across the board (instead I could use the word intuitive game play) or arcade across the board. FFS I saw so many DDs and Cruisers sailing aft and launching depth bombs. As you can imagine they all exploded under their rudder, screws, hydro dome, hull....you name it Realism my buttocks. Do you know what a depth bomb exploding under your hull will do? If you can launch depth bombs and let them explode under your ship and no harm done, then Radar goes through rock and hydro as well....and, not to forget....if you are 2K distance no mater if there is an island between you ....you are detected...EYES see through islands....and RADAR and HYDRO. ARCADE not SIMULATION

Yes, all mounted and look at this one 50K more damage insignificant earnings, the same actually So this is it. 500K credits on a good game.

I think this is what a good Narai game will pay now at best (I had quite a few signals on) Is it worth it? You be the judges. Also in spoiler what the Sub mode pays out. Make your comparisons.

A few scattered thoughts about Subs and the new game mode. 1. In terms of game economy the new mode pays out very well. Both XP and Credits. 2. Some cruisers are just perfect for the mode, as if the mode was designed for them. Others (like Nurnberg) should not even consider playing one game. 3. Subs are not the decisive class (carry potential is very situational), they are a gimmick (for now). Very easy to counter and not able to rack up damage. However, they are a novelty, making them a tad attractive for now. 4. DDs are not fun to play (take it from a DD main) - either its boring or silly. 5. I wouldn't play a BB in that game mode. Plain silly. (well, unless you are doing a mission or something) My preliminary opinion (based on feeling of the game not facts!!! so it is purely subjective and open to any criticism) Subs are fun in their own game mode. Subs as a class have a lot to wish for in terms of balance. We have a lot of way to go to reach some balance. The game mode is attractive (a mix of bots and players), something like a hybrid random and coop. I like it. Its OK. But separate. I insist. I can't see how we can balance all 5 classes to fit in randoms. But maybe I am wrong. We will see. Now, as the game economy is very lucrative in sub mode, I think that once Players realize this they will slowly slowly come towards the Sub Game Mode. More human players and the gameplay will be better and offer better statistics for WG to analyze.

I agree with part of your statement. Bold letters. Absolutely true. However, I can still voice my concerns. And I guess there are a few more players that voice their concerns.

@_Warfarin_ Each one of your statements alone are valid. Each and every one. I am not sure about pertinence. However, dear friend, I believe that this one is frightening: Do you really believe that the players that really love the game and enjoy it either way (in contrast to only play for recreation and relax) are enough to keep it running? I think the game not being fun should be one of your concerns. This is a very nice statement. It could be good for a motivation speech, lets say, for schoolkids. For adults that are looking some gaming recreation...uhmmm...I don't think is befitting. Our game has two main types of players. Competitive and Casual. Casual players (because of their numbers) maintain the game financially. If they stop finding the game fun we will not have a game to be competitive in. That's my opinion. And as you well know, we all have one. (opinion! you dirty minds)

I once met an Ant. A most formidable Ant. Armored, well trained, disciplined. Had followed all the tactics and strategy courses in his ant colony. Had worked well. He had become "GitGud" Actually, he was the one: What a formidable fighter. You could see the air of knowledge, the aura of a seasoned "gitgud" fighter. You could feel the presence of a unicum. And then I just stepped on it and squashed it flat. Rhetorically I asked: Never got an answer. I think the fact that the ant was squashed had something to do with this silence. I think the Ant would be better off investing in the current meta instead of gitgud in a non meta compatible way ... but it wouldn't be fun. So Saltface will say, this season was not fun.

go to the armory and spend your sub tokens you got the tokens 1 per day for free from WG (if you logged in these days you should have 7)

A friend of mine opened the following thread in the US server. (linked with his permission) He presented a game in his Enterprise and asked "how could he be countered?" Straight forward. I was hoping for a popcorn soapbup but I got a rather interesting discussion instead with a tad of popcorn LOL I would like to know what you think about what they think. Does that make sense? This is not a CV rant. Please don't turn it into one. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/218699-how-would-you-counter-play-me/

Dear Diary,

Flak is predictable. Don't take my word for that. I don't play CV. But, we have so many competent CV players in the forum. Why don't you ask them to tell you how you can predict the flak?

Excuse me? You are of such bad faith that I actually cant believe it. You have been shown evidence upon evidence and you just move the goalposts? You are intellectually dishonest. I refuse to discuss with you anymore because you are an insult to my intelligence.

is this counterplay? Allow me to refer you to the post of @HMS_Kilinowski. I know it is long to read but it answers clearly the counterplay issue. can you tell me which class is missing? DD (it was a rhetorical question) can you tell me why? Because they have been rendered obsolete in this meta. can you tell me what is the meta that has developed in CW? Hak + Stalin + Venzia - Almost exclusively. So it is not only the DDs that have disappeared but all other ships except Stalingrad and Venezia. What happened? We have CVs in CW. Now I will say that you did not read what I wrote above. And I suspect you did not even see the video that I refereed in my post.

Your observation is correct. However, the point the OP of the US forum that posted the battle was to bait the readers to present a counterplay for CV. In one of the following posts the OP showed a series of vid replays from almost all CVs. Down tier, up tier, same tier. Same question. What is the counterplay? He got no answer. Just "you are too good so we don't care" Then he showed a vid of a Super Unicum DD trying to survive the attacks of a mediocre (if not bad) CV player. It was nightmarish. He clearly showed that a CV does what it wants and the only thing a Super Unicum surface ship player can do is just hope CV picks another target. What answer he got? "You survived didn't you?" This is what buggers me. Players want equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. People consider that a player that is clearly bellow average should be able to stop in his tracks any Super Unicum in a surface ship. You see, the problem with this way of thinking is that it renders skill useless. No matter how good you are any one in a CV, no matter how bad he is, can just ruin your game casually. It doesn't matter if you put in more work to learn to play or to think how to do things so you have better results. They just want to have the same results without the effort because reasons

I was fascinated by the intellectual honesty of some and the opposite by a few others. All what you said above was clearly debunked. Yet miraculous as it seems nothing mattered. Argument, then here you go, here is the answer. No, new argument. New counter argument and Nooooooo move the goal posts now. New game. New argument. And when finally a video showing/debunking everything popped up the most dishonest answer of all popped up. "What do you want? You survived" What also surprised me is that the guys on one argument (losing side) don't know the trick of trolling a post so it derails and gets locked.

qed

Correct, you will notice in my post there is a superscript. I was rewriting Q4 in the way you suggested and I deleted that part. But I forgot to remove the superscript. But, you could ask then (very rightfully) --------- I will technically disagree with you. To illustrate I will just ask what "partly" or "sometimes" means? Each one has a different value in thought. Ambiguity of results? --------- Again, I will technically disagree. Please check item 1 on my list. The poll does not oblige (lead) the responder to answer in a specific way. I will use an example to illustrate. The following is a very leading question: Q. How do you rate Saltface as a player? a. very bad b. bad c. bellow average d. average e. he's OK This is a leading question. There is no way for anyone to answer "Saltface is above average", the only answers acceptable portray Saltface as a bad player or bellow the threshold of average. When the results come in, Saltface will be at best "OK". The poll restricted (led) the results to only negative. That's bias. Anyway, enough said, there is no need to continue this discussion because it is rather academic and of no interest (MHO) to most of the forumites.

So, if I understand correctly, you are stating that the poll has loaded questions or leading questions. Actually your concerns are about questions No. 4 and No. 5. Lets have a look at Q4, shall we? "Is the game currently in the worst state you have ever seen it?" Does it imply it is so (worst state)? Grammatically it does not. If the poll said "The game is in the worst state ever. Do you agree?" you could be on to something. Don't forget that English is not the mother language of most of us (not mine at least). Any way. The question has no actual value since we can only find out if the respondents consider the game to be or not to be in its worse state. Rather trivial piece of info. IMHO Q4 is not loaded or leading. Its poorly phrased and has nothing to offer but it does not guide the reader1. Here are two examples to help you better understand the distinction of loaded and leading: Loaded question: Where is your favorite place to drink alcohol? Here it implies the reader is an alcohol drinker. It defines a priori something to be a fact when we have absolutely nothing to support the veracity of this statement. It loads the question by attributing to the reader characteristics that we know diddly about.. Leading question: How would you rate our exceptional customer service? Here it implies the reader considers the service "exceptional". In my view calling Q4 leading is a bit too much. Poorly formulated? Yes. Biased? No. Now lets move on to Q5. Well it is just fine. Not well written but also not biased. It has an error as Ops are not included in the question and "none of the above" is missing. But this is not bias. It is a mistake (item No. 3 on my list). Furthermore, Q5 doesn't enlighten us in any way. We can only find out about the comparative level of frustration between game modes. Not important. The poll is not biased. It could have been written in a better way, but in all fairness, it is not biased. The poll does not oblige the "interviewee" to answer "the game is in the worst state ever" or anything else for that matter. Unless, you consider bias the fact that the OP is asking: "Are you frustrated as I am?" I am sorry, but "Are you frustrated as I am?" is not a Bias. It is a very valid question. Why the OP had to make a thread poll to ask one question eludes my ability to understand. I am sure he must have his reasons. But it takes a long way to call the poll biased. Uhmmmm....Polls MUST be black and white, or else you open the door to the ambiguity of results and their interpretation. Which is a bad bad thing for polls. A well designed poll is Black and White and takes yes or no for an answer. If you need to write an essay it is not a poll. Should a complex issue be at hand you could (and should) find another way to gather the information you want to find out. How about interviews? Or a very long, elaborate and complex questionnaire distributed to a normalized representative sample of people? It also works. And I repeat again, the Poll is not biased. I don't understand why I should answer five questions instead of this one "Are you frustrated as I am?" But who cares?