ranked Ranked with CVs - Why again?

[Noray]

There is one thing I do not understand.

Why do we have another Season of Ranked with Carriers.

 

WG obviously knows something is wrong with the DD/Carrier-Interaction. Otherwise they would not publicize their plans to adjust those ships in several ways (changing the attack plane reticle, reducing air visibility of DDs, and so on...)

If they know that they have to adjust those values (which is a fact) why would they introduce another competitive Season of ranked with Carriers? 

It makes no sense whatsoever to introduce a competitive Game Mode (or Season) if you know the Balance of whole Ship-Classes (not talking about individual ships here) is totally off!

 

Now let's get started with OP Carriers or OP Ships in general.

Someone with a WG Tag just noted that you would not ban individual ships from Game Modes (f.e. Ranked) and even asked why you would do such a thing...

Well, the colleagues working at World of Tanks did JUST THAT. They banned several Reward Vehicles from Ranked Game Modes because they are too strong. So please do not tell us that this would not be an option.

[Beastofwar]

Listen...i am an AVERAGE player, just like the MASS of all players in the game.

 

These are my results for my Enterprise....

 

 

Clearly can be seen it is not "overpowered" in the hands of the AVERAGE PLAYER or the MASSES and not overpowered compared to other CV or even other ships.   And balanced for the average player ....IS....balance.

 

What some "unicums" do with it ? That is annoying but inconsequential and statistical insignificant.

 

If i were you i would be complaining about Saipans instead....

[CptBarney]

@Beastofwar

How many battles doe?

[Noray]

13 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

Listen...i am an AVERAGE player, just like the MASS of all players in the game.

 

These are my results for my Enterprise....

 

 

Clearly can be seen it is not "overpowered" in the hands of the AVERAGE PLAYER or the MASSES and not overpowered compared to other CV or even other ships.   And balanced for the average player ....IS....balance.

 

What some "unicums" do with it ? That is annoying but inconsequential and statistical insignificant.

 

If i were you i would be complaining about Saipans instead.....my best performing CV, and not only mine....

 

Thank you for proofing my point here.

If the Mass of the players are Winning more Battles than losing with a Class/Ship, there is something wrong.

Because with statistics in mind and all equal it should be 50/50

[Procrastes]

Having carriers in the field more or less rules out the Orkan as a valid DD choice, as I see it. You have no AA, no smoke, and no hope.

Too bad; she could have been a good ship for this ranked season, otherwise.

[Beastofwar]

5 minutes ago, Noray said:

 

Because with statistics in mind it should be 50/50

 

I think that doesn't go for a(ny) ship type a player is most proficient with. That is very logic.

 

In shown list there a score of ships under 50 % too ofcourse........

[DFens_666]

21 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

Clearly can be seen it is not "overpowered" in the hands of the AVERAGE PLAYER or the MASSES and not overpowered compared to other CV or even other ships.   And balanced for the average player ....IS....balance. What some "unicums" do with it ? That is annoying but inconsequential and statistical insignificant. 

 

You know GZ got "balanced" that way in the past? Community "showed" WG how underpowered it is by playing like garbage (essentially just yoloing in at the start of the battle, and yes, ive seen it too) -> WG thinks its garbage, gets buffed to insane levels = happy = game becomes crap.

 

So what you are suggesting, if we get enough average players to play like crap with a ship, we can get ship buffed because the average shows its bad. If you balance by the top players, you can see what the ship is capable of and that it was matters the most.

If a ship performs well for good players, and not for bad players, then it just means the ship/line has a higher skill floor than others. If you balance by average, you wont know the outcome it will produce in good hands. 2 examples are Italian Cruisers and CVs.

Italian Cruisers are considered to be bad by most players, thus they dont play them, or play them badly. In good hands, they perform really well, some (are)/were borderline OP/broken. What that means is, that they should have gotten a buff, while in reality, they were already too strong. And yes, i dont consider the midtier ones to be bad at all. If you dont know about armor models and where to shoot, ofc they suck. That shows, people only learn how to spam HE because the results were too good. And also it produced Venezia, which just was ridiculous prior to nerfs (lets see what happens after the nerfs).

CVs kinda same, where topplayers overperform to such a degree, that they are better than top players in any other class/ship. Average players are often still better in CVs than in other classes, while bad players fail harder than they ever used to do during RTS CV times. CVs are just an even more broken concept than italian CAs. Atleast the latter can be balanced.

[HaachamaShipping]

19 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

Listen...i am an AVERAGE player, just like the MASS of all players in the game.

 

These are my results for my Enterprise....

 

 

Clearly can be seen it is not "overpowered" in the hands of the AVERAGE PLAYER or the MASSES and not overpowered compared to other CV or even other ships.   And balanced for the average player ....IS....balance.

 

What some "unicums" do with it ? That is annoying but inconsequential and statistical insignificant.

 

If i were you i would be complaining about Saipans instead....

Ah yeah, because WR for a mirrormatched class says all about a class being OP or not.

[El2aZeR]

22 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

Clearly can be seen it is not "overpowered" in the hands of the AVERAGE PLAYER or the MASSES and not overpowered compared to other CV or even other ships.

 

There is just one issue with your narrative.

You are a below average Enterprise player as the average WR for Enterprise last week was 59.35% in EU. For the last two months it was 62.18%.

[Beastofwar]

7 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

There is just one issue with your narrative.

You are a below average Enterprise player as the average WR for Enterprise last week was 59.35% in EU.

 

Just a screenshot of my current screen dude.....and it says ALL SEASONS which ofcourse has nothing to do with "last weeks results"

 

It is excellent in showing relative power of that tug in my hands.....and that was my point. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

[El2aZeR]

3 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

Just a screenshot of my current screen dude.....and it says ALL SEASONS which ofcourse has nothing to do with "last weeks results"

 

This is ofc assuming you actually play Enterprise regularly to this day, which will normalize your results to your actual average performance.

If you haven't bothered to play Enterprise for a long time then that ofc means your stats and experience in Enterprise can be automatically discarded as it is no longer up to date.

 

So really it doesn't matter how you twist it.

[DFens_666]

3 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

Just a screenshot of my current screen dude.....and it says ALL SEASONS which ofcourse has nothing to do with "last weeks results"

 

It is excellent in showing relative power of that tug in my hands.....and that was my point. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

Lex could be 3 games (2w/1l), GZ could be 5 games (3w/2l) and Enterprise could be 100 games, or vice versa - without the amount of games, it doesnt mean anything.

Could be small sample size for any of those.

[Noray]

3 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

Just a screenshot of my current screen dude.....and it says ALL SEASONS which ofcourse has nothing to do with "last weeks results"

 

It is excellent in showing relative power of that tug in my hands.....and that was my point. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

You twist your words.

Now you are trying to make the point "in your hands", in your previous post you talked about that you represent the masses of the players.

Sorry dude, your logic is just crap.

[quickr]

It's gonna be fun ranked, I can already tell... fun, fun, fun.....

 

 

[Beastofwar]

11 minutes ago, Noray said:

You twist your words.

Now you are trying to make the point "in your hands", in your previous post you talked about that you represent the masses of the players.

Sorry dude, your logic is just crap.

 

I say i am an average player. The ones trying to marginalize me agree. So there is no confusion here.

 

As - now established - average player the Enterprise does worse then a whole score ( the top list isn't even in the picture ) of other ships, but above all other CV.

 

Now, if not distracted by the above average percentages ( that can be casued by a number of things ) they do prove an average player like me does better in other CV. So my opinion that the Enterprise is nothing so special that it should be banned has a fundation.

[Miragetank90]

1 minute ago, Beastofwar said:

Now, if not distracted by the above average percentages ( that can be casued by a number of things ) they do prove an average player like me does better in other CV.

 

No, it doesn't, because no one can see how many battles you've played in each.

 

Those numbers in your screenshot mean squat. 

[ReimuHakurei]

Vor 3 Minuten, Beastofwar sagte:

 

I say i am an average player. The ones trying to marginalize me agree. So there is no confusion here.

 

As - now established - average player the Enterprise does worse then a whole score ( the top list isn't even in the picture ) of other ships, but above all other CV.

 

Now, if not distracted by the above average percentages ( that can be casued by a number of things ) they do prove an average player like me does better in other CV.

And you will just ignore El2a pointing out to you that your performance in Enterprise in fact remains still that of below average and thus can't possibly represent the current state of active average Enterprise players? 

 

How many players does it take to disagree with you until you get the point? 

 

[Noray]

3 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

I say i am an average player. The ones trying to marginalize me agree. So there is no confusion here.

 

As - now established - average player the Enterprise does worse then a whole score ( the top list isn't even in the picture ) of other ships, but above all other CV.

 

Now, if not distracted by the above average percentages ( that can be casued by a number of things ) they do prove an average player like me does better in other CV. So my opinion that the Enterprise is nothing so special that it should be banned has a fundation.

 

Just now, Miragetank90 said:

 

No, it doesn't, because no one can see how many battles you've played in each.

 

Those numbers in your screenshot mean squat. 

 

And i am not talking about specific CVs here.

The Main problem is the CV / DD Interaction

[El2aZeR]

12 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

As - now established - average player the Enterprise does worse then a whole score ( the top list isn't even in the picture ) of other ships, but above all other CV.

 

Enterprise was the highest WR ship last sprint with a 59.33% average WR. Not just the highest WR CV, the highest WR ship in general. This was followed by Massachusetts B with 56.85%. This was also the highest WR difference between two ships following each other on the board.

Enterprise was also the highest WR ship in 1vs1 sprint 10 with a 69.34% average WR. This was followed by Alabama ST with 66.67%. This was among the highest WR differentials between two ships following each other as well.

 

Even average stats thus point towards Enterprise being overpowered not just compared to other CVs at her tier but compared to all ships in general.

[lossi_2018]

How many people have Enterprise?

 

 

[Beastofwar]

2 minutes ago, Noray said:

 

The Main problem is the CV / DD Interaction

 

So you meant why now before the coming nerfs ? Then i may agree.

 

I just attacked a Lightning and needed 3.2 km to line up a hard hitting attack on it. ( it had it's AA on ) With 1.6 ( minimum ) km air detectibilty after the changes/nerfs that will become very difficult. So i guess winds of change are coming, but they are not here yet now.

[DFens_666]

2 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

How many people have Enterprise?

 

 

Currently individual players on EU server (probably some more i guess due to hidden stats)

[Noray]

3 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

So you meant why now before the coming nerfs ? Then i may agree.

 

I just attacked a Lightning and needed 3.2 km to line up a hard hitting attack on it. ( it had it's AA on ) With 1.6 ( minimum ) km air detectibilty after the changes/nerfs that will become very difficult. So i guess winds of change are coming, but they are not here yet now.

 

This is exactly my point.

If they add CVs to ranked battles now, with a whole lot of changes in the pipeline they could aswell add submarines to T6 Clanwars...

[zweigelt]

36 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

There is just one issue with your narrative.

You are a below average Enterprise player as the average WR for Enterprise last week was 59.35% in EU. For the last two months it was 62.18%.

Yes, but the reason for the high Winrate is that the tomatos can't buy the ship since a long time, so only the players with a lot of experience are able to play it.

[El2aZeR]

20 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

I just attacked a Lightning and needed 3.2 km to line up a hard hitting attack on it.

 

Enterprise can line up an accurate attack from as little as 2km if you execute it correctly.

Standard attack distance for an accurate attack with most T8 rocket planes is 2.5 - 3km depending on boost saved up and move direction of the target.

 

15 minutes ago, zweigelt said:

Yes, but the reason for the high Winrate is that the tomatos can't buy the ship since a long time, so only the players with a lot of experience are able to play it.

 

Assuming that this is true, that changes the point.... how exactly?