TheNubination

Literally died looking at it. :P I think we can all agree the graphical designers in this game do an amazing job. It's like a bob ross painting! Whats your most favourite looking map or even ship?

I meant more going through AA bubbles like zipping away from them when a halland or two pop up under you or pre-dropping to avoid some dmg and get more speed at the same time. Despite my dislike for Elazer Im sure he can chip in with even more details but those are my general opinions at least.

Haku speed gives the ability to maximize potential with skill. This includes dodging heavy flack and that can amount to far more than a 7.5% increase or what ever in health (but only for the flack ofcs). AA takes time to wind up, that is reduced too with more speed. Ability to maximize attack runs is slightly increased too. You lose out on if you're targeting single average AA ships on which you wont get many attack runs anyway or especially if you're dropping on a line of ships parallel to each other like I I I <- because you'll run out of boost and you'd rather want health. But heavy AA bubbles, flack in general, multiple runs against things Yamato, all this is beneficial.

The Haku is used by some like mentioned, but its like making a pretty good upgrade into barely passable. Henris is just, like I dont even, no comment. Luckily I dont play him. I like some of the buffs though, some UUs were direct downgrades in the past, lol. At least my Kleber will suck a little bit less now in any gunfight.

Cause WG is super biased against sub players and loves all other players, thats why Subs have been nerfed and changed so much and why they have "insane" bonuses to XP gain as per "Flamu" while having the lowest requirements for damage for their respective sub achievement logos.

Yoshino is one of the objectively worst ships in the game. Its very old and just hasn't really kept up with the powercreep. But Id get Yoshino. Its the most fun cruiser I have even though Im terrible with it and it is a terrible ship. Its super versatile. You can play it to meme for torps, you can go sniper/lighthouse build, you can go more tanky and peek around corners since your conning tower is pretty low and in the middle of the ship so its easy to peak with guns. Yoshino i fun, if you dont mind losing.

Really saddened to see the Haku UU nerf. I know a lot of players are really good with it but Im not and I already feel like Im running out of steam with it. Got it pretty recently too thinking something that hasnt been nerfed in several years wont be nerfed now. I think Id rather have the standard upgrade after the nerf so there go 19k points. Others will probably still keep it. I doubt any consumer protection laws govern in-game currency but changing something after so many years would break some if it wasnt in-game currency. Not that us gamers would ever do anything about it anyway. Haku has been nerfed so much with AP bombs, terribly slow rocket aim for already terrible rockets and now this. I know its a strong CV in some CB situations but we dont even get to play CVs in CBs anymore. On random its a below average CV for normal players.

Dont think this deserves its own topic but could we do a reversed rank at least once? I'd love to play some VI in gold and let the people in Bronze try out some X as well.

Even your basic understanding of good and bad is so alien to me there's no point in taking this discussion any further. If I remember correctly the average player was hitting 48% WR according to supplied statistics. If you're saying that 1/3 are hitting 50% winrates then that means that good (i.e. better than average) players far outnumber the bad players (worse than 50% winrate) and that the bad players play far more games per account than the good players. There's so much wrong with this picture that I feel you're first of all pulling numbers out of your [edited], secondly you classify players completely wrongly and thirdly you still don't understand the point. I'm not saying that the majority of players would be 35/65% ratios but what I am saying is that the closer it is to fewer being close to 50% and more being close to the outlying extremes, the worse balanced a ship class is. You pulled that bell curve out of your [edited]too, I am certain you put in random [edited][edited]numbers because there isn't even close to say 5% of the population (thousands of players) that has 70 or 80% winrates respectively, it's closer to 10-100 players in total numbers. It would look like that but with the lines being much, much closer to each other, only diverging a little bit more towards the absolute end. This is the last time Im going to tell you that the impact of this is negligible. You're a [edited]idiot, I'll take the ban for pointing that out. So many years you've spent arguing something you don't understand. So many browny points from people that simply hate the gameplay that CVs bring. Arguing about a game you supposedly dont care about. Nonsense. There's a reason why despite being a beta tester your arguments have gone nowhere and the game has developed completely irrespective and contrary to your opinions on what good balance is.

I dont have any. Gib plz : (

First of all, if it cannot happen then its never an issue and then there is no issue with CVs. Or any other class. That of course would be the most ridiculous thing ever and that's because it can happen. There are two factors influencing this kind of spread. First of all the skill ceiling and skill floor, as mentioned so many times already. It is the ability to utilize anything however powered that proportionally affects its ACTUAL as opposed to theoretical max potential. Secondly, any "overpowered" vessel would with an average skill ceiling and skill floor have a linearly increasing winratio for any who is more skilled as they would be able to utilize this overpowered-ness better and multiply their advantages. This in comparison to other classes. This all a simplification, as skill-ceilings can have different breakpoints for different aspects of any say class and power may be utilized differently (say, support power may compound advantages of other classes differently). So point 1. You're wrong about your assumptions about what is and isnt possible. If the skill ceiling was very high with very low breakpoints and the skill floor was very high then you'd have a lot of players that simply never could reach the basic skill set needed to operate the class while others would excel at it at great numbers leading to 35-65% ratios becoming more common and that would be a concern. This would of course be compounded by how overpowered a class was. Then and only then would all your years of bitching and whining been justified. Point 2. It's not happening to the CVs as there is no linear increase (of concern, meaning anything large) the more skilled the player gets in comparison to other classes - except at the very top. This top however, as has been explained now too many times is irrelevant precisely because this small minorities impact on balancing overall is so tiny it does not factor in when looking at the bigger picture and the experience for the average player over hundreds of games. Overall the class is probably slightly overpowered with a similar skill ceiling and skill floor as others up to a certain point where the skill ceiling starts opening up for some advanced maneuvers and overall situational awareness that apparently only very few people can achieve. You've done that, congratulations, but its not relevant. And that's both kind of amazing and kind of sad.

Just tell me if you understand this sentence and if so what you agree or disagree about it:

You and I haven't mentioned match influence for several posts. You were talking about how the distribution of win-rates vs loss-rates has to be equal on both ends. I'll move on since your disability doesn't allow you to. Obviously skill floors and skill ceilings have an impact on match influence, thats in fact at the core of YOUR argument. That the skill ceiling is higher for CVs and that in fact it can almost be broken out of at some extreme point of skill and that these players then have an extreme influence on matches. You don't even understand what you're arguing for anymore. Anyway, that's all true, but because these players represent such a small amount of individuals their impact overall on balancing the game is irrelevant. If the breakpoint was earlier, or in other words if very few players averaged 50% winrates in CVs and very many players were in the 35% or 65% ranges, that's when it would be a thing of concern. The closer to this reality the more concern, the closer to our actual reality, the more irrelevant you are.

Are you autistic and narcissistic? The example doesn't have to match reality for the point which the example attempts to illustrate to be true. Those numbers can be tweaked in any direction to match a plausible reality once you accept that it's a skill floor vs skill ceiling issue and that statistics dont have to match each other at ends. Im probably a bit autistic in some regards so I can understand how things need to be clear and straightforward, but I do think its your narcissism here that wont let us progress further.

I know your narcissism makes it difficult for your to accept that you were wrong but I made a hyperbolic example to illustrate to lay person how this is a skill ceiling vs skill floor issue and that the statistics do not need to parallel each other in both ends. Not that it would matter in terms of balancing, as explained, because there's not enough of an impact to be supported in the other end of the scale as there is not one in the winning side. Regardless, enjoy your irrelevancy.

You outlined nothing, you just don't understand what you're taking about. In one group of players (players generally losing) you may have a bunch of 40% or so winraters while in an other group of players (players generally winning) you could just as easily have very many with 51% winrates and just a few with 90% winrates. This is so simple, if you don't understand this then you're just too stupid for your own ego. Now Im not saying that this is the case , Im saying that this could be the case and that you made a faulty assumption. It happens, move on. I.e. accept you're irrelevant and play CBs or stop crying. It wouldn't change anything if very few players were at the bottom of 15% winrates either, the point is that CVs increase in skill and impact relatively equally to other classes up to breakpoint that very few hit. I.e. they are nothing special. The Bellcurve simply can't handle anything outrageous in the other direction because there isn't anything outrageous in the winnig direction due to how in line the CV impact is with other classes overall. Look this is what we're dealing with on a very rough basis except the part to the right is enhancing the difference some 50 times to make it visually apparent. And because the number of games this impacts is very, very, very, very very low, it doesnt matter and never will matter, ever. Except for browny points on the forums.It doesnt even matter in CBs because you'd supposed to recruit those very good CV players and then that would equal itself out as well, as their impact would cancel out each other.

It doesn't necessarily scale in both directions. Higher Skill Ceileing =/= Higher skill floor. Meaning there can be a lot of people that hover around 45% rather than dumping down to 30% or less. I haven't checked this, you can go and check if you want, I assume if you don't reply on this you were wrong, if you do you guessed right. Regardless, you're guessing based on not understanding how statistics works and faulty assumptions. And again, no, those extreme players at the top of the pyramid don't matter in the greater scope of things because their impact on the game is negligible. They don't matter in terms of "balancing" as the only balancing feature is number of games and they are so few and the breakpoint where CVs become unbalanced so high that up to that point CVs scale well within the broader community of good players. This is not a linear equation, at a certain breakpoint (obviously dynamic depending on the player) CVs start being (statistically at least) exceedingly strong. But that breakpoint is "broken" by so few players, its irrelevant.

I called you a sociopath once for saying you play CVs to be toxic even though you find them to be a toxic class, until WG fixes them or something. That was a joke, mostly. But maybe you're just a narcissist. The way you like to fly your own colors, the way you think the game should be balanced around you and that small minority like you, the way you like to stomp and keep stomping while bitching about those who let you stomp while getting likes for it because you crap on the " protected class. " Or maybe we just find different things entertaining, I like to shitpost too but I don't like things that easy for me. Plus I'd get bored of owning noobs in game so hard at some point. ________ That player, all things averaged out, would be somewhere at the 1% of the playerbase. Again, mostly irrelevant. And his stats on average would probably be more 55/60, again all things equal. Meaning the impact of his CV play / ceiling breaking would be smaller than yours and considerably so, to balance out for the fact that there are slightly more of them like him than like you. It's now a fallacy, where is the fallacy? This is a game based on mass appeal, with a randomized matchmaker with the only balancing feature being number of games. There is no fallacy, you're all outliers, irrelevant to matchmaking, stick to the CB you dont care about.

FIrst of all there were outliers that reached a higher WR than the highest CV winrate in the last thread with BBs but I believe you argued he was in active or something so you were the "best" player. But you don't care about how the game evolves, right? That's why you're still arguing about the same crap you've been for half a decade soon, while having your feels hurt when someone suggests someone is better than you. Secondly, yes, things average out. But what YOU don't understand is that only 100 players or 0.01% of the playerbase ever achieve anything substantially "huge" with CVs. The rest of the playerbase don't. Meaning there is nothing to balance because for 99.9(9)% of the playerbase the CVs are balanced. And even as I mentioned for that 10%-0.01% the winrate difference is small enough to be negligeble. Or in other words, to break the skill ceiling and achieve anything of the type you're supposedly "not caring about anymore" but still posting about, you need to be part of a very small minority of players, wheras even very good players achieve only negligibly higher results in CVs compared to other classes and thus its nothing to be concerned about, because you and your 99 friends are irrelevant to matchmaking. Show me how much you dont care.

I dont care, negrate me.

He's a dude with an over inflated sense of ego who thinks he knows anything about game designing anything more complicated than a casual mobile game and he has an army of CV haters to support him. If the topic was turned around and he argued for something unpopular he'd be shouted down in every thread. The basic premise that games should be balanced around the pro scene is easy to pull crowds with but has been completely and thoroughly rejected in recent years. The fact that he keeps sticking to this shows either ignorance or the folly of pride. The problem here in general is that the game has a pro scene yet is completely ultra-casual in other aspects of matchmaking. It does lead to a rift, because if things had proper matchmaking then players would be matched not only on their ELO but also on ELO's between classes as there is obvious elements of interdependence there that can be put out of play with lopsided balancing. But it isn't this game balances itself out ONLY over averages, meaning over thousands and thousands of games. And in that regard, it is well balanced. People take it too seriously, I take it too seriously sometimes but at its core its neither here nor there and that is the fault of WG and its desire to keep as short queue times as possible and give everyone a chance to stomp a game or two. _________________ To give Elazer some credit, I can imagine playing a CV as well as he does, constantly stomping games, stomping them harder than a generally equally good BB player would at his level and feeling something is wrong. But overall he has no place in Random Matchmaking and it will always feel off due to the way its set up without any form of internal rating system to balance it out. His place is in CBs, which if I remember correctly he's told me he doesn't play anymore. So thats that.

We've been through this. Their WR averages out down towards the average player, their winrate is only 2.5-5% (meaning a grand total of 1.25-2.5%) higher among the top 10% of players and only among the top 100 players or rather 0.01% of the playerbase, do they achieve anything "huge". But keep running around in circles expecting the game to be balanced around you. In addition to that there are plenty of outliers in either direction. That's not a huge margin, never will be. It means 10% of the playerbase have an on average 2%~ higher winrate with a certain class or 0.2% impact on general matchmaking. Even if it was 250% higher at 5% the impact would be 0.5% on an overall match. This is the extent of influence this nonsense has on the balancing of the game. Overall we found out in the last thread that the game is far more balanced, that the wows-stats.org numbers are brutally overinflated (as to what represents a good, very good or unicum player) with winrates overall of 55% or higher being progressively rare to extremely rare and essentially irrelevant to matchmaking. Even I thought it would be more relevant as I assume that the good players would play a lot more and have a lot more smurf accounts boosting up those account stats but no, there's plenty of so called potatoes with very many games.

I HADNT BOUGHT DUBS B4 BUT THIS GOT ME OVER. SHIP IS REALLY COOL GUYS RATE 4/5. BOUGHT THE 50k DUBS DEAL!!

What ever debates have raged in these 195 pages, feels hurt, "facts" shattered, achktuallys pulled, one thing remains true when you play a sub. It doesnt mean they are / aren't unbalanced or OP or anything else. It just means you gotta take a shower.

We already have mutings, as shown in the previous thread 15% of players are constantly muted, 20% more are more muted than not. So the argument that communication is paramount to the reduction of toxicity is moot. Let us mute people! If WG wants to actually avoid escalating flame wars this is a good idea. If not, well then nothing makes sense. Yes / No?