arttuperkunas

This will really take away the competitive edge from the 3 remaining Colbert players.

That's not the issue. What some people choose to do in their chat/private messages is their own business. The conclusions I draw stem from WG's reactions. a. ask politely, use their own communication channels, let them do things in their own time -> nothing happens b. make a stink, involve outside media outlets, connect PEGI, set the social media channels on fire -> the company listens This is a very unfortunate dynamic, but apparently this is how things need to be handled with WG.

Playing hardball is the only feedback WG listens to. That’s what all of this has taught us. Welcome to Russia.

You can kind of crunch those numbers yourself on... Maplesyrup I think? You can see the WR divided by player percentiles and ships, e.g. how well the top 10% performs in ship x vs ship y. I know @ColonelPete at least ought to know the link to that.

Show their data? I very seriously doubt they would ever show their raw data to anyone, and if they did, what could you do with it? What they might show is their conclusions, or a summary of findings. That's a very different thing than showing raw data, and it has already passed through several filters of bullship on the way. In any case, there really is no such thing as "data", it's something that has to be collected, compiled, constructed. And the real magic in statistical analysis is how it is compiled, what assumptions and premises go into it. And that's the part that a. Wargaming will never tell you openly and (I fear) b. never carry out competently.

"Not the reputable ones, no, but there aren't many of those" That made me laugh out loud, thanks for the link. I actually sometimes commission "spontaneous" surveys as a part of my job, so this strikes close to home.

Outrageous, you expect me to read a full wiki page before forming an opinion and holding forth on it on an online forum? That kind of talk has no place here.

Interesting! I suspect this idiom has been translated into Finnish from Twainish. Will remember that.

There is an old Finnish saying: vale, emävale, tilasto. To loosely translate into English: lie, gross lie, statistic. Anyone with even a rudimentary background in interpreting empirical data knows that the answers you get out of a dataset will depend on a. whether the dataset is good (i.e. whether it was collected with the correct premises, and whether the correct variables have been controlled for) b. what quesitons you ask the data To exaggerate only slightly, you can get a dataset to tell you anything you want, if you tweak it enough, and if the data is bad enough. WG not "understanding" this is a combination of bad faith (they know, but just want a handy justification) and quite possibly hubris (they don't want to know better because this supports their aims). Allow me to illustrate the WG "data process": (credit to xkcd)

Same. Mind you, IMO the quality of teams and play is lower than previous seasons... As a prime example, we are already in the top group of Storm and going upwards, and I don't think we'd have any chance of that in a "normal" season. I reckon lots of top clans are sitting this one out, or given it a half hearted effort.

It's much easier to understand when you realise that the WG Balancing Department (TM) is probably run by people like him, who can argue that a square is a circle without breaking a sweat.

This is some legendary level logical conniptions we are witnessing.

I don't mean lack of practice in depth charging, I meant lack of practice in charging subs without getting deleted by face-torps.

I'm honestly not sure? I'm withholding judgment, as it might be that us DD drivers have problems with insta-surfacing, face-torping subs due to inexperience rather than class imbalance. Maybe it's easy to avoid these strikes by circling around, when one has enough experience? That said, I hadn't considered that this might just be purposefully taking out counterplay, I guess it makes a nasty kind of sense from that point of view.

I mostly ignore subs, because a. most sub players are very bad, and therefore not high value targets b. subs usually don't present a huge threat that has to be dealt with immediately, unlike being stuck for example in a knife fight with a DD, or having a hydro cruiser push you. The danger they present is more insidious/constant c. it's quite difficult to deal with subs in a DD; do I want to either throw away half of my time in that match, or potentially my entire boat just to chase a low priority target? I would imagine that good sub play revolves around finding useful firing positions without making yourself into big enough a threat to get focused/chased down and killed.

While I'm always willing to believe the worst of WG, I don't get this particular instance at all. Like, being able to murder ships at point blank range seems entirely unnecessary for the sub concept they've introduced, it doesn't really mesh with any of their other gameplay.

Sure, I will accept your points as a matter of course; you've clearly played much more subs than I have. That said, my main problem - and this is not a philosophical, but practical problem - is a. It's very hard to deal with subs that don't over-extend until the late game, as getting on top of an enemy ship if they have any kind of support is very hard or downright suicidal.

Pretty much everyone had severe problems with magnetic detonators; homing torpedoes were also not exactly an unqualified success (one or two U-boats managed to sink themselves, and there were enough near misses that they were not well favoured by skipper).

I don't get why there is no arming distance. There is, as I understand it, really no balance reason (and definitely no historical reason) that they have basically zero arming distance. Subs are not supposed to be fighting surface ships at point blank range, and I don't think that's the kind of gameplay even WG in their infinite wisdom wanted. If anything, they should have a long arming distance to emphasise their own gameplay slot (stealthy snipers/ambushers).

I think this "discussion" is mostly @Pikkozoikum telling us how subs are a perfectly balanced class with no exploits. Funnily enough, as I recall, he/she/it used to do that with CVs previously.

Subs will probably be manageable in randoms. The main problem (imo) is it will lead to an even campier meta, as subs are just one more game mechanic that punishes pushing.

Is the interaction between subs and any class satisfactory right now? What are your opinions? Here are mine, for what it's worth: DD-Sub: I play DD almost exclusively in ranked, so this is where most of my experiences are. DDs are supposed to hunt/raep subs. They don't, unless the sub player has over extended or is otherwise very bad. As a DD, I am more afraid of subs than subs are of me, because subs can spot me with impunity (including in smoke), and except for the late game I will never have the opportunity to depth charge them unless they criminally misplay and/or I am willing to throw my ship away just for the chance of getting into firing position. Even then, a competent sub player can surface while I am making my attack run, and devastate me with a full salvo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it this is the only "safe" way to depth charge a sub: a. No other enemies around that can fire on the DD while he is getting into depth charging position b. Sub must be at around 90 degree angle; if you approach from the front (and you will, in normal situations, be approaching from the front), he can kill you with front mounted torps c. Sub must be spotted for long enough to land the DCs accurately That said, if you do win the lottery and get to depth charge a submarine, the extent of the skill involved is slowing down and pressing "G", and there's basically nothing the sub can do about it. Not very engaging gameplay. Cruiser-Sub: My understanding is that cruisers are more or less helpless against subs. They have very short duration DCP, so Subs will get those pings to stick, they are less maneuvrable than DDs so hard to dodge, and they have worse depth charges and have even greater problems getting into firing position without getting deleted. BB-Sub: This interaction is the weirdest of all. At range, massed BBs can pretty easily delete or at least damage a sub (IF they have ASW bombs) - which is hardly a satisfactory interaction, and certainly has nothing to do with skill. Otherwise, BBs are pretty much food to subs, especially those that lack ASW capability. CV-Sub: There is basically no interaction. Subs are in the front line, CVs are in the back, so they rarely meet each other. And when they do, the CV can't really do anything to the sub if it dives, and the sub has a lot of trouble doing anything to the CV because of the way DCP eliminates pings. In summary, in one way or another there is IMO no interesting gameplay to be had in any of these interactions.

Update: I very seldom give credit to WG, because they seldom deserve it, but I have to admit that this season of CBs got a LOT better after the Ruyjo and the EL ban and the limit on smoke cruisers to only 2 per team. We've actually been having fun, running Ranger-Warspite-2xHuanghe-OtherCruiser-2xT-61. Occasionally run into double ranger, but that does not seem to be a popular choice. We'll see if they ban or restrict something else. Izmail might be a candidate, as pretty much EVERY team (except us) is running it.

Edited my earlier post; I think the API for ranked stats is broken (i.e. it also shows me as having played no ranked battles, which is ?unfortunately? not true)

(edited;nvm, ranked stats are broken I think)