Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'op'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 45 results

  1. Admiral_R4z3r

    Ist HE OP?

    Hallo liebe Mitkapitäne und Kapitösen 😉 Ich möchte hier einmal eine sinnvolle Diskussion bzgl. der Frage anstoßen, ob HE zu stark /OP ist. Lesen wir uns dazu doch einmal die Definition durch: Overpowered (often abbreviated to OP) is a common term referring to a perceived lack of game balance. It is often used when describing a specific class in an RPG, a specific faction in strategic games, or a specific tactic, ability, weapon or unit in various games. For something to be deemed overpowered, it is either the best choice in a disproportionate number of situations (marginalising other choices) and/or excessively hard to counter by the opponent compared to the effort required to use it. (Quelle: Wikipedia EN) Nach dieser Definition ist HE zweifelsohne OP, da es in den meisten Spielsituationen die beste Wahl ist (abgesehen von AP auf Breitseite, was bei guten Spielern eher selten vorkommt). Des Weiteren existiert kein wirkliches Counterplay. Ist HE also OP? Meiner Einschätzung nach, ist HE erst durch den exzessiven Gebrauch von IFHE (meist als Must Have) so stark geworden. Im Zusammenspiel mit High-DPM-Schiffen (+Conqueror allerdings hier ohne IFHE) ergibt das eine etwas zu starke Kombination. Daher bin ich der Meinung, dass HE aktuell nahezu OP ist. WG sollte daher überlegen, ob es eventuell eine bessere Möglichkeit des Counterplay geben sollte.
  2. Well hello there fellow forumites. Another CV GC thread. To be more precise though an inquiry on what could be a reasonable way to a) rebalance premiumships while b) making sure that at the same time the player base doesn't get alienated. Primarily this thread was inspired by @Verblonde and @Tyrendian89. Also tagging @MrConway in the hope he find something that will help his colleagues resolve the upcoming issues at hand. And while this thread revolves primarily about the Giulio Cesare, it's aimed at being repeatable with other OP premiums. So. Where to start? With a few assumptions! Assuming that the mentioned TESTING (!) of putting a premium back into the game one tier higher ends with a balanced premium. Basically finding a version of the GC at T6 that is... Keep in mind though: This is all still in discussion and - according to Mr Conway, testing GC at T6 won't start before 0.8.1 Assuming that AFTER GC at T6 is balanced and fun WG wants to actually pull through with bringing a premium ships from one tier to a tier higher. Becaus remember: For those that missed it: The "if it happens" part is the relevant one! Further assumptions might follow down the post. Ok, the dreaded idea takes place somewhere down the road! What now? Talking about the two options that are available: Accepting the 'new' GC (then at T6) OR Getting a refund for her T5 dubloon value. And I see (in dozen posts) that - even acknowledging that OP ships must be rebalanced nerfed - neither of these options looks appealing to players. A lot of forumites, redditors or discord discussions revolved around: Getting cash as refund, not wanting to lose a T5 ship (rather nerfing at T5 than rebalancing her at T6), enjoying fighting T7 enemies more than T8 enemies, and so on. You know the common problems players uttered with the two mentioned options. Yeah, yeah, it's all a clown fiesta. We're stuck with something we don't want. Well, this post got me thinkging: Now, I'm not going to reiterate all that has been said (or thought) following this quite, so let me summarize it: It was WGs error that these OP ships found their way into the game in the first place, yet we all want a balanced game (Huh ... maybe that's another assumption I should add). But since it was WG's error it's not the players that should be held responsible for it Most players I've seen so far don't like the dubloon option because dubloons have been devalued rebalanced. WG is aware of that WG has been generous in the past regarding compensation for silver ships, so I see at least a chance that the same is possible for premium ships This one is specifically geared towards the GC: Nerfing her at T5 would gimp her too much Ok, with this in mind, let's think about two possible actions a player has on day X: 1. Accpeting the rebalanced GC at T6: Since most players complained about not having a T5 when they accept the T6 GC, my proposal on this one is rather simple. Give the player TWO ships. The rebalanced GC at T6 (with all the balance and fun WG deems acceptable) AND a (heavily) nerfed GC remaining at T5, that still fulfills her role as a roamer that rewards angling. My take on a nerfed T5 GC would be a +2km concealment nerf, a fire chance nerf from 35% (iirc) to 27%, an AP DMG nerf by 15%, a 3s reload nerf, a turret traverse nerf. Slap a special camo on - to immediately identify her as the T5 version - and rename her to "nerfed Mortadella" (or something more ... fitting like ... I don't know ... Giulio Cesare pre-WWII). Slap some goodies on top and I don't see an issue with that. 2. Declining the rebalanced GC at T6: This one is a bit more tricky since a pure dubloon refund will not cut the crepes. The very least I'd offer would be the nerfed T5 GC + her dubloon value as refund + some goodies on top. Or one of the options given here: Apologies verblonde for altering your quote a bit to match my option 2 (italic font). NOTE: While afterwards the 'new' T6 GC would be available in the shop, the 'old' T5 GC would ONLY be available for those that had her prior to her rebalancing. Creating - yet another - oportunity for ship collectors to distinguish themselves from the masses. As mentioned here: Conclusion: Does this look 'greedy'. I don't know? I tried to be somewhat reasonable, based on what I read from other forumites. I didn't ask for a night with Alena and Dasha coupled with a metric ton of finest Colombian blow, 20kg's of Vodka and Caviar (each) and a chance to whip Putin. For every GC owner. So, you tell me! Tell me what you think? What would you see fit. Especially given the fact that - no matter if a GC at T6 might or might not become reality - WG/Lesta is pushing towards rebalancing OP premiums. Which ... as much as it annoys me to see some favourite ships go, IS BETTER for the long term health of the game. So there might be a few more ships (My guess would be: Belfast, Gremy, Kamikaze sisters, Imperator) that will be rebalanced one way or another. And since cold hard cash is OUT as a possible refund option: We might as well aim for a more achievable solution. To bring a bit of reason in: WG gave away dozens of GCs as a welcome back gift. Sure this in and of itself was botched till kingdom come, but do you really think WG will send players money that never bought this ship in the first place? I highly, highly doubt that. Why should WG do this? Pretty simple. As said above. They botched up. If they manage however to keep players at bay and even bring players to accept to nerf OP ships with a reasonable token of appreciation, then I can see players living with the nerf of a few selected ships and the outlook of having a future where premium ships are frequently nerfed and buffed. Maybe on a more sensilbe basis than silver ships. But overall closer to a balanced approach than the heavy handed OP's we have now. Bascially adhering to a system outlined here: Also a route like the above mentioned is the only that I see fit to avoid setting nasty precedents. Anyways. I've talked ofr long enough, and it's getting late. Let me know what you think. And try to keep it civil!
  3. Shoot_Him_____

    Stalingrad OP

    This ship is way overpowered. Everytime we are up against 1-2 in CB they are very difficult to defeat. with 72K hit points it is really a BB more than a cruiser. I have broadsided them in a BB with little effect. WOWs need to either MM with Stalin's on both sides or reduce its abilities. Makes the games very repetitive and quite frankly boring. Who agrees something needs to be done?
  4. Zdravím, (osobní názor) chtěl bych upozornit na jeden z největších problémů jinak skvělé hry, a to jsou Torpéda. Proč má proboha 1 torpédo tak šíleně velké DMG? A neřešme prosím realitu, tohle je hra, která by měla mít vyvážené všechny stránky tak, aby se hrálo pohodlně všem v jakékoliv lodi. Necítím se ve férové pozici, když se dokážu vyhnout 4 torpédům z 5 a to jedno jediné, co mě trefí, mi sebere +- 60% HP a okamžitý flooding. Netuším, jestli se to týká všech torpéd ze všech lodí, ale mám pocit, že je to vždy stejné. (pro mě) Ideální by bylo snížit torpédům DMG minimálně na polovinu, protože hlavní třída lodí, která je používá, jsou Torpédoborce, a ty mají všechna esa v rukávu (rychlost, kamufláž, kouřová clona). Řeším lodě po tier 5, netuším, jak to vypadá na vyšších tierech, ale zde pro mě hra byla dnes těžce nehratelná. Myšlenka torpéd mi nevadí, pokud by to nevypadalo, jako arty ve WoT před nerfem. Tam už to WG po několika letech nadávání hráčů došlo, a nemám s tím, jak to teď vypadá, problém, kdy se to vyřeší zde? Hru beru jako více odpočinkovou a méně akční, oproti WoT, což je super, ale tahle stránka věci to hrozně moc kazí. Jinak je to OK počin a se hrou jsem spokojený.
  5. Blue_sonic98

    Nerf graff zeppelin

    My Scharnhorst got rekt by a graff zeppelin in the beginning of the match I was going to stick with my teammates and a Nagato was near me and the graff zeppelin chose to attack me she did 19k damage on me by her big dive bombers squad and then destroyed me by her torpedo bombers I went to port when I checked the results of the battle it was a surprise for me: That graff zeppelin won a ton of achievements *edited*
  6. Jack_Geary

    OP AP Bombs

    I was in a random battle when a Midway bombed me from full health to 0 health with AP bombs in a Tirptiz. I know it wasn't my magazine since I had the flag that made that impossible. Is this just the game being stupid or what? When I asked on Chat the player said he had AP bombs. If its normal than the game mechanics needs to be looked at as its way OP. No aircraft should be able to bomb a BB in 1 shot from 100% health to 0%
  7. Muppeteer

    Defence of naval station

    Had forgotten that if you defend the circle until the timer runs out you get a friendly cv instead of an unfriendly enemy one spawning. Since I was playing cv im not sure I appreciate having less planes to shoot down (wiped every plane that launched before fighters had to reload, then that was it). Maybe enemy should get a zuiho or something ;)
  8. Iroks

    Midway i jego bomby AP

    Poniżej przedstawie wam jak to wygląda obecnie z midwayem który lata na bombach AP. Jestem osobą która nie miała możliwości grać enterprise, przy okazji nie znalazłem nigdzie pełnego wykazu za ile mniej więcej wchodzi. Mam nadzieję że pomoże to też innym osobom zdecydować czy chcą się w to bawić czy nie. Skrócona wersja brzmi: Jak trafi się celnie i przeciwnik nie ma def aa to krazki wyparowują. Moskwa wygrała nagrodę zbierania najwiekszych buł od nowego midwaya. Niszczarki są kompletną stratą czasu za wyjątkiem fletchera który może ładnie zebrać, shima jest kolejnym celem wartym uwagi tak jak udałoj. Warto wspomnieć o wielkości celownika, nagradza on bardzo za celne ręczne rzucanie, jednak nagradza też za automat. W szczególności automat jest dużo lepszą opcją podczas ataku przy włączonym deff aa gdzie jest on lekko dwa razy mniejszy od ręcznego. Jak to dziadostwo uniknąć? Tak samo jak torpedy, ostry skręt w dowolną stronę, szczególnie gdy mamy ciasny promień skrętu/moduł na przestawienie steru. Zawsze trzeba pamiętać by ustawiać się do nich prostopadle to dostanie się max ze dwie bomby, naprawi i popłynie dalej pałować przeciwnika. Później trafi to na EU i reddita, ale jak ktoś chce darmowe punkty internetu to może to sam przetłumaczyć i wrzucić. Spis treści: 1. Pancki t10 2. Krążki t10 3. Pancki t9 4. Krążki t9 5. Niszczary t9-10 6. Celownik
  9. Hey @ all Da man sich hier bei fast jedem Heulthread irgendwelche Statistiken reinziehen darf, hier mal ein paar Dinge zur Auswertung: Damage: Damage kann nicht als alleiniger Wert über die Qualität eines Schiffes aussagen. Dafür müssen nämlich auch der HP-Pool der potentiellen „Opfer“ dieser Schiffsklasse und das quantitative Verhältnis der beiden zueinander eingerechnet werden. Beispiel: 5DDs vs. 2BBs und 1CV (Rest der Teams ist für die Betrachtung obsolet) Damit kann der DMG der DDs im Optimalfall (DDs greifen nur ihre Lieblingsopfer an) maximal bei dem HP-POOL der 3 Schiffe geteilt durch 5 liegen. Ergo hat der reine DMG-Wert keine Aussagekraft über die Qualität eines DD. Winrate: Winrate sagt etwas über die Qualität eines Schiffes aus. Dies muss allerdings in Relation zu den potentiellen Gegnern gesetzt werden. Bei CVs darf es nur mit gleichstufigen verglichen werden! Spieleranzahl: Die Spieleranzahl sagt maximal etwas über die Beliebtheit des Schiffes und/oder des Baums aus. Es können aber nicht zwangsläufig Rückschlüsse über die Qualität gezogen werden. Beispiel Ibuki: Kein besonders gutes Schiff, aber danach kommt die Zao ;-) Seht ihr das auch so, oder bin ich hier absolut auf dem Holzweg und alle sollten optimaler weise gleiche Stats haben??
  10. Jack_Geary

    2 new japanese DDs

    Wargaming, what have you done. The 2 new Japanese DD's are way overpowered. How come they can destroy an Atago with just guns when the Atago is bow on in less than 1 minute? What a joke. People will just get them now as they are to OP. Even your early testers said they was OP. Sort it out and stop making ships OP.
  11. WG nerf this broken ship FLINT! Its stupid and you *Edited know it! Just nerf it already!
  12. Varden_997

    GZ test I

    Drodzy panowie z WG, ja rozumiem, że pierwotna wersja Grafa była czymś, co się nie nadawało do użytku, ale kto był taki mądry i wypuścił coś takiego do testów?! W przeciwnym teamie spotkany Graf, gdzie kapitanem był stereotypowy ten_którego_skilla_nie_wolno_oceniać, nie umiejący używać nawet ALT-a. Co z tego, skoro jego pojedyncza eskadra fighterów mająca 10-11 samolotów (nie byłem w stanie policzyć) za głupim związaniem fighterów powodowała natychmiastowe wyparowanie połowy mojej. Bez fałszywej skromności, graczem na CV kiepskim nie jestem, ale kiedy wykończyłem zapas jego fighterów (łącznie wypuścił około 30) ostały mi się jedynie 4. I koleś nie użył ani razu alta! Do tego bez użycia alta za pomocą DB zdewastował trzy nasze BB w trzech atakach, a mi przy rozbiciu i połową eskadr (atak altem dwoma pozostałymi myśliwcami) wbił 20k, a potem wykończył z pomocniczej -_- Podsumujmy, wyszedł okręt, który mając za sterami tego_którego_skilla_nie_wolno_oceniać, może: - Zestrzelić gigantyczną ilość samolotów, a przynajmniej wrogie myśliwce zwyczajnie na nie klikając. Z altem po prostu by skasował moje eskadry. - Kompletnie niszczyć BB i CV autodropem. Wyobrażam sobie, co to robi na manualu. - Obronić się przed atakiem z powietrza oraz deskami. Pierwszy raz to napiszę, ale #nerfCV! Garść screenów jako materiał dowodowy:
  13. There was a time where other classes pervaded the games in numbers that were simply too large to manage. Carriers and destroyers both have had their day of dominance. There are things that pervade the class, the developers, and the community at large that makes it so that battleships are such a problem where carriers and destroyers never were. The Battleship Class The problem with battleships has escalated to the point where event the most virulent defendants of the status quo can't even pretend that there isn't a problem anymore. Admittedly this was like waiting until we have to start rowing to work before we start cutting down on coal power plants, but progress is progress. Wargaming's slow and iterative changes to the class could most charitably be seen as a way to not cause the class collapse formerly seen in the carrier class and uncharitably seen as the development team having some perverse sexual attraction to battleships (glass houses, I know) but the change is welcome regardless. Carriers and battleships both can be played without employing different tactical considerations depending on targets and both essentially exist outside of the hard counter system that means that most cruisers are incredibly weak towards battleships and that destroyers are incredibly weak towards cruisers but that battleships aren't particularly weak towards destroyers. Even in the context of 'anti-battleship' cruiser lines like the French or Russians, the damage that the cruiser does to the battleship could be returned with interest with just a few lucky shots should the circumstances conspire towards it and the same could be said about carriers if the matchmaker was particularly vindictive that day. Many similar issues exists as, depending on the game circumstance, explicitly AA based cruisers could be ripped to pieces by carriers. There is a battleship plague problem however and not a carrier plague. Whilst this could simply be traced back to the fact that battleships are easy to play whilst carriers aren't, the problem is often more difficult than that and solving the issue by introducing artificial difficulty to the battleship class as an equivalent to the lags and UI errors of the CV class will fail to address the core of the issue. By making the interclass interaction more similar to that between carriers, destroyers and the other classes, battleships would be able to be brought in line. Whether or not this is desirable however is another matter. Currently, Wargaming's approach to re-balancing battleships is very much focused on how battleships interact with the other classes. The spotter plane nerf meant that they did not have the 5 minute resistance to torpedoes that the twin catapult fighters once offered. The changes to smoke mechanics meant that they would not be able to ambush cruisers and destroyers as easily. Among the changes closest to the top of the priority list was the ability of battleships to cause catastrophic damage to destroyers and their ability to use just one ammunition type for close to any circumstance. War Gaming has also stated that they objected to the excessive survivability of battleships. The issue has been raised multiple times and the changes that are being made are slow but there. This might be controversial but I do not see the ability for battleships to one-shot destroyers, never have to switch ammunition type, or even survive better than the other classes as the primary cause of the problem we see. I think the remaining issue with battleships can't be solved by changing the ways that battleships interact with other classes as much as it would likely need to come down to the options that other ships have in dealing with battleships. Whilst this may sound pedantic, it very much is and I don't know why you thought it was possible to read something written by me that doesn't collapse into pedantic arguments over terms that ultimately just ends with me declaring victory over whoever I was arguing with despite the fact that everyone who gets stuck in an internet argument has already lost. Anyways, on to the main topic. Carriers, destroyers & the Problem of Choice Wargaming largely depends on the classes to balance each other and this has led to endless grief for everyone involved. Apart from battleships. Obviously. Destroyers, battleships, and carriers all depart from the general template and have benefits that are essentially technically exclusive to them. At their worst, the game degraded into cheese tactics beyond comparison. The Shimakaze's wall of death is remembered to this day, the wall that dooms even the most agile of destroyers and covered the maps from border to border. Then of course there was the Hakuryuu with her quintuple Kamikaze attack, the name not coming from the fact that you could use her planes to commit suicide against enemy ships as much as from the fact that her torpedo bombers carried the payload of five Kamikaze class destroyers. There were various eventual nerfs to those ships, but even whilst it lasted they were not nearly as ubiquitous as battleships are as a class in the present day and that is largely due to the fact that conditional population control mechanics are built into the game to manage the numbers of carriers and destroyers in such a way that battleships simply aren't. The Lesson No One Learned Battleship players, more so than players of any other ship class, are fundamentally selfish and are encouraged to be selfish thanks to the game mechanics. This might not be a revelation to most, but the selfishness of the battleship and the way that game mechanics works makes it so that it promotes battleships. For those unfamiliar with game theory, it could be best simplified as a way to predict the actions of selfish and perfectly rational agents. Humans aren't perfectly rational, but over a large amount of time and with the smallest level of self awareness the actions of even an online game like World of Warships could be approximated as rational. Players can observe their own results and apply what they've learn, and so players will slowly move towards the state of maximum profit for minimum effort. Players without the imagination to do this could always just copy the tactic of players that do. When discussing the balance between battleships and other classes, the topic does often steer towards the things that other classes outdo battleship in. Destroyers are far stealthier than battleships, could go the entire game without being spotted, and could carry games on literally 1 point of HP. Cruisers have significantly better DPM, tools like radar, defensive fire, hydroacoustics, smoke screens, and a plethora of other things that could be employed for the team's benefit. Carriers have unparalleled reconnaissance abilities and the ability to herd the entire enemy fleet. Next to all of that, it may superficially seem like better armor and more health would be a small thing. This however is just an obfuscation of the issue. I would like to make one last note. When I look at battleships, I can't help but see the very worst parts of carrier gameplay back when full strike carriers were still a thing. Facing another full strike carrier is rare, but when it happens it was quite memorable. I grinded through the Lexington in full strike configuration back when she still had that. I faced another strike Lexington on Northern Lights one battle. We all but ignored each other, flying our bombers past each other to bomb the enemy into oblivion. It was a constant damage race and that game I won by a sliver. If I had lost that match, I would likely have blamed the team for their failings and posted a screenshot online so I could have a laugh about it. I managed 170k that match in a tier X game but I did essentially nothing to protect the team from the enemy. I didn't scout in order to maximize my cycle time and I didn't communicate with the allied team whatsoever. When writing this, I couldn't help but think back to what I did back then and how much it reminded me of the things I wrote here. Battleships reaped the benefits of cruisers, destroyers, and carriers. I reaped the benefit of my team staying in between the enemy and myself and used them as an expendable shield to farm damage. The game is ultimately selfish and comes down to how much players can personally get from the game and changing a few values on a few ships will not change that.
  14. Gonzo56

    T10 Minotaur ist zu "overpowered"

    Hatte kürzlich ein Duell mit großer Kurfürst gegen Minotaur, dieses Schiff war getarnt und schoss aus seiner nicht-Sichtbarkeit raus und dennoch blieb er unsichtbar, ich konnte mich mit dem großen Kurfürst nicht wehren. Woran liegt das? Selbst mit der Hindenburg nicht... Er hat mich aus 10km Entfernung mit Tops abgeschossen und getroffen. Da ich die selben Tops habe sind diese schon nach 6km ausgelaufen, mir sind schon mehrere Sachen aufgefallen und frage mich nun sind die Englischen Schiffe bevorteilt worden? Denn wenn sie bevorteilt wären, bräuchte ich kein Geld mehr ausgeben und könnte die deutschen Schiffe den Papierkorb verweisen. Das gleiche ist auch bei dem Schiff "Neptune". Wenn ein Schiff aus einer Unsichtbarkeit heraus schießt, sollte es danach klar erkennbar sein, so dass man sich wehren kann, ansonsten stecke ich keine einzige Dublone mehr rein, dann könnte ich auch Geld in den Gulli schmeißen.
  15. ^a picture speaks a 1000 words so it has the same turret layout as the yamato and similer speed for its tier it may as well be fireing 18 inch guns at its opponents damage wise. for example a NC hits a nagato as hard as a yamato hits an iowa. anyone else enjoying the NC as much as i am currently its a fine ship? play it like a mini yamato and it handles itself rather well in most matchups the NC repair is almost 100k cheeper than the yammas too to repair if you get sunk t10 ships need good captains, seing people in tier 10 with 3 point captains really grinds my gears
  16. Mangrey

    Burn it all

    So after watching this: how can Wg still think that fire aint OP as f**k, it makes the intire game stall. (It motivates camping) Mang
  17. Butterdoll

    operation Hermes needs rebalance

    This operation needs some rebalance asap. Please remove all non essential bots on the green team, leave only the bb. that operation with those bots it's like rush hour. too many ships on the green team 7 plus 1 is more than sufficient.
  18. Aquí mi contribución para mejorar el juego. Los misiles SSM tendrían que ser munición HE con un buen daño alfa, tener 360 grados de y distancia mínima de lanzamiento. Una vez realizado este debería poder guiarse, con algún grado de dificultad, con los cursores del teclado. A ver cuanto tardais en sacar cruceros clase Kara y demás. ..... ..... ..... Fuera ahora cachondeo, me parece de VERGÜENZA que wargaming lo haya vuelto a hacer. Supuestamente el juego cubre desde principios del s. XX hasta la segunda guerra mundial y veo en la descripción de los cruceros rusos que a partir de cierto tier son barcos botados ( o no) en los años 50. Deberíais dejar la línea rusa/soviética para el servidor RU y dejar al resto del mundo en paz. Me entran muchas ganas de probar las mecánicas del juego anti team-killer o de comprarme un ordenador nuevo y dedicarme al BFG.
  19. Was ist OP? Sicher greift der eine oder andere voreilig in die Tasten, um seine Meinung mitzuteilen. In der Gaming-Sprache ist OP ein Soft-Kriterium, ohne wirklich definierte Grenzen, ab wann ein Gegenstand unter diese Bezeichnung fällt und wann nicht. Mathematische Grenzwerte, die eine Bestimmung erheblich vereinfachen würde, ab wann ein Gegenstand so einzustufen ist, fehlt. Stattdessen muss erstmals eine Weich-Definierung zu, wie: „Als OP gilt ein Gegenstand, der mehr Stärken als Schwächen aufweist und dessen Bekämpfung nur in bestimmten Situationen und Szenarien möglich ist.“ Das sträuben sich bei mir schon die Haare, die ich nicht mehr habe, da das schon ziemlich schwabbelig definiert ist. Um eine Diskussion möglichst sachlich zu halten, verzichte ich auf Namen von Gegenständen. Um Schiffe miteinander zu vergleichen, habe ich mir vor allem auch die rohen Schiffwerte, wie HealthPool, Schaden pro Minute, Topspeed und die anderen Werte durch gegangen. Das Interessante dabei ist, dass die vergleichenden Schiffe gar nicht so weit in den Werten auseinander klafften. Dennoch erzeugen die sehr ähnliche Statswerte absolut abweichende Spieleergebnisse. Welches sind die Faktoren, die ein Fahrzeug besser als das andere auszeichnen und die Spieler bessere Ergebnisse „erfahren lassen“ – die rohen Stats des Schiffes sind es nicht?
  20. Hallo liebe Käptns, Wie viele von uns wahrscheinlich schon alle wissen, gibt Wargaming wenig bzw einen feu*** Dre*** auf unsere Diskussionen im Forum. Sie treffen ihre Entscheidungen, basierend auf kalte, harte Fakten in Form von Zahlen und Statistiken. Hier finden wir Zahlen und Statistiken aus der WOWS Beta. Die Gründe, warum Wargaming die IJN CVs verändert haben: (Credits gehen an ezydomo, er hat hier großartige Arbeit geleistet! Originalthread: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/27867-snapshot-stats-of-the-eu-server/) Kurzversion auf Deutsch für alle: ******************************************************************************************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************************************************************************************** IJN CVs sind mit Abstand die beste Klasse/Nation, vor den USN CVs und vor alle anderen Schiffsklassen/Nationen. Eindeutig zu sehen ab Beginn T4 bis T8 durch die roten Linien. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************************************************************************************** Eine andere statistische Grafik (auch von ezydomo, Originalthread: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/28778-the-good-the-bad-and-the-mediocre-per-tier/) X-Achse ist die Gewinnhäufigkeit. Y-Achse der durchschnittliche Schade. D.h. wenn ein Schiff in rechten oberen Quadranten sich befindet, ist es sehr gut im Vergleich zu allen anderen Schiffen. IJN Cvs, von Hosho, Zuiho, Ryujo, Hiryu bis Shokaku, sind alle rechts oben. Schaut genau nach und ihr findet sie allesamt oben rechts. Wenn sich IJN Cvs sich beschweren, dass USN CVs sie outperformen, dann fühlt euch bitte so frei und sucht nach Namen wie Langley, Bogue, Independence (Tipp: sie sind alle in dem Kreis, wo auch die meisten anderen Schiffe/Klassen sich befinden, also innerhalb der normalen Parameter sich performen. Manche sind sogar schlechter, wie die Bogue, die sich links unten befindet (d.h. Winrate niedrig, Dmg auch niedrig)) Zusammenfassung: Wargaming hat mit diesen gewonnenen Daten aus der Beta gearbeitet und haben sich entschieden, die IJN CVs anzupassen, damit sie gerade im Low-Tier Bereich nicht mehr so hervorstechen, sondern sich wie andere Schiffe schadensmäßig & siegesmäßig zu verhalten, besonders wie die USN CVs. So, nun lass uns die Flammenwerfer, Railguns, und was alles sonst noch im Arsenal ist, bereit machen, und lasst den Flame-War beginnen --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S.: Das sind allesamt nur kalte Daten Fakten. Nummer & Statistiken. Nicht beeinflusst wie bei Forendiskussionen durch die persönliche Meinungen des einen oder durch seine/ihre Lieblingsschiffe/Nationen. Viel Spaß beim interpretieren der Statistiken! P.P.S.: Buffed.de hat die Statistiken auch gut zusammengefasst und interpretiert: http://www.buffed.de/World-of-Warships-Spiel-42981/Specials/World-of-warships-statistik-overpowerd-Erfahrungspunkte-Flugzeugtraeger-1169585/ Zitat von Buffed:
  21. Ici vous pouvez parler du Worcester, poster vos meilleurs résultats , faire vos retours , donner votre ressenti , vous insultez sur les différents builds ou éléments à mettre en place dessus... Je referais un truc propre un peu dans l'esprit de cet excellent sujet: En attendant voici déjà l'excellent guide fait par @OhMyDoge sur son nouveau bébé adoré ^^ J'invites ceux qui sont intéressés par ce navire à consulter la présentation/tuto avant de partir faire n''importe quoi avec (pensez à vos compagnons d'armes) Je mettrais de nouveau en place un classement un peu débile si çà vous intéresse en attendant voilà déjà quelques éléments pour se faire une idée de la bête: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAY3FZb_d-ZGVJmviCia5mw Le classement !!!! Notice_Me_Senpoi [UTW] - The first - 266K, Kraken -11 citas
  22. gekkehenkie50

    Does the Cleveland need a buff?

    In my opinion the Cleveland is now underpowered, in the CBT it was fine, escorting bbs, providing AA support, spaming HE (only OP when the bbs did not know what they were doing), hunting destoryers. Well now the cleveland can: provide AA support, escort bbs, shoot ships at a range of around 10km-. Yeah, thats it, the Clevelands effective range is around 10km, otherwise even a Yamato can dogde your shells. Now the IJN cruiser is in everywat better, better guns, has torpedoes, maybe its AA is a bit less, but thats all. Who agrees that the Cleveland needs a buff? Please vote in the poll above.
  23. DeathByTorpedo

    Ze Conquerer

    Hey WG, wie lange dauert's noch, bis ihr genug Daten zusammen habt?
  24. Okay, da jetzt sogar einige sagen, "DBs sind OP!!!111elf", man aber TBs locker ausweichen kann, obwohl die doch allgemein als Inkarnation des Antichristen gelten... Daneben immer mal abwechselnd Smoke, HE, Radar, CVs oder sonst was als OP gelten... Verstopfen immer mehr Threads von Kevin, Mandy und Co. den Gameplay Bereich! Da es doch sehr mühselig wird, hätte ich die Frage, ob sich das Forum endlich, ENDLICH mal einigen könnte, was denn OP ist! Muss man den Leuten denn in Trölf Milliarden verschiedenen Threads immer folgendes schreiben: "Eigentlich alles in WoWs lässt sich folgendermaßen erklären: Idealzustand - funktionierendes Teamplay Istzustand - mangelndes Teamplay" So long, der Aliph.
  25. Siema! I started to make a very simple statistic about correlation of victories/losses related to which team has higher tier carrier/carriers in their team. So rules for this data are very simple to understand: 1) Draws are marked as losses to the table (excluded if both teams had highest tier carrier on equal tier, see rule 2) 2) Battles where both team has highest tier carrier on same tier are excluded from the table 3) Battles without carriers are excluded from the table, also games other than 12v12 ships are excluded (too random) 4) Only regular PvP battles - all standard and domination battles are included. Some battles are played solo, some are played in a division of 2-3 players. No "fail platooning" or other tricks will be used, I like to play as well as my skills allow me and as much for fun solo or with my gaming friends (they vary in winrates between 46-62% and might some time play CVs aswell but none are "dedicated" CV players). I am an OK player myself with 55% winrate currently so I don´t influence to the outcome in a team of 12 random players that much. "Tier" means highest tier in the battle, not the highest tier carrier in the match. For example: if my team has a destroyer on tier 6, and a carrier on tier 4, but enemy does not have carrier at all, "Tier" is 6 in the table and "Allied CV higher" is marked as 1. If enemy has a tier 6 and a tier 5 carrier and my team has a tier 5 and 5 carrier, "Enemy CV higher" is marked as 1. And so on. Very simple to understand. I will update every 50 battles from now on and also update the correlation rate to the bottom of the first post as well with every update. I will also take a screenshot from every battle result to my hard drive which fullfils the condition of other team having a higher tier carrier, but I will not include them to this thread. I can host them by request. Date Tier Enemy CV higher Allied CV higher Result (0 = loss, 1 = victory, draws are losses) 23.7 6 1 0 23.7 6 1 0 23.7 6 1 1 23.7 6 1 1 23.7 7 1 1 23.7 6 1 1 23.7 7 1 1 23.7 7 1 1 23.7 8 1 0 23.7 8 1 0 23.7 10 1 0 23.7 9 1 1 23.7 6 1 1 23.7 6 1 1 23.7 6 1 1 23.7 6 1 1 23.7 6 1 1 23.7 6 1 1 24.7 7 1 1 24.7 6 1 0 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 7 1 0 24.7 9 1 1 24.7 9 1 1 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 6 1 0 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 6 1 1 24.7 6 1 0 25.7 6 1 1 25.7 6 1 0 25.7 7 1 0 25.7 10 1 1 25.7 10 1 0 26.7 9 1 0 26.7 9 1 1 26.7 6 1 1 26.7 8 1 0 26.7 7 1 1 26.7 7 1 0 26.7 7 1 1 26.7 8 1 1 26.7 6 1 1 26.7 6 1 0 Current correlation between having higher tier carrier in team and getting a victory is: 0.74 = 74.0%. Last updated on 26.7.2015, 50 battles now that have followed all rules.
×