General Submarines related discussions

[Deckeru_Maiku]

1 hour ago, YabbaCoe said:

in the same way, as we have a General discussion thread for CV

and it has the same purpose as the CV thread now, right? Trashcan with ignorable posts and dump for any critcal Sub threads that might come up after they get forced into random battles, right?

[mtm78]

5 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

dump for any critcal Sub threads that might come up after they get forced into random battles, right

 

I've done the math

 

The answer is 100% yes. 

[Pikkozoikum]

12 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I'll sink subs with a CV, maybe that will help... 

My experience against CVs in a SS is so far, that the CV can't do much in most cases, except depleting DivCap and forcing a SS to dive. Which has an effect, but won't destroy it directly

But if you want annoy a submarine, place a fighter over the submarine with the direction he is moving, so he has to move below the fighters for a long time.

[AndyHill]

So this thread is already heading towards thousands of pages in several chapters just like the Other One, because just about everyone hates subs. WG already know it, yet subs are marching on towards inevitable full release. I don't think I've ever seen such contempt not only towards your playerbase, but also towards your own game by any other company ever.

[arttuperkunas]

21 hours ago, Europizza said:

It's simple. Notice how everyone at WG is pointing to other mysterious sources where they get input how well things are received? It's the spreadsheet of statistical data they get from sales, server data and user data. Statistical data is funny in a way that you can filter it in a specific way and reach conclusions that confirm pre set goals. So my guess is that WG is not only bad at designing gameplay, but also pretty bad at interpreting data unbiased ^^

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)

 

[mtm78]

1 minute ago, arttuperkunas said:

There is an old Finnish saying: vale, emävale, tilasto.

To loosely translate into English: lie, gross lie, statistic.

 

On average, a person has less then two arms!

Also, less then one testicle!

 

Also just this -> Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Wikipedia

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, YabbaCoe said:

Commanders!

 

I decided to rename this thread in the same way, as we have a General discussion thread for CV.

Mostly because originally this thread was for TST, while it has been used for General Submarine discussions for some time already.

Thanks for understanding

Yup, understood. Subs in random matches soon (tm) confirmed.

[arttuperkunas]

1 minute ago, mtm78 said:

 

On average, a person has less then two arms!

Also, less then one testicle!

 

Also just this -> Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Wikipedia

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

[mtm78]

6 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

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

 

If you read the whole wiki page it's not actually from Twain he just popularized it in the States. As mentioned there, I also always assumed it was most definitely British since it fits my mental image of how they are capable of putting complex ideas in quite simple sentences. 

[arttuperkunas]

11 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

If you read the whole wiki page it's not actually from Twain he just popularized it in the States. As mentioned there, I also always assumed it was most definitely British since it fits my mental image of how they are capable of putting complex ideas in quite simple sentences. 

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.

[lovelacebeer]

Just leaving this here as it shows the power of asking the right questions to get the data you desire. 
 

 

[arttuperkunas]

3 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Just leaving this here as it shows the power of asking the right questions to get the data you desire. 
 

 

"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.

[mtm78]

4 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Just leaving this here as it shows the power of asking the right questions to get the data you desire. 

 

The best quote from that:

 

Quote

q) Is that really how they do it?
a) Well not the reputable one's but there aren't many of those

 

edit

Damn got beaten to it :D

1 minute ago, arttuperkunas said:

"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.

[Pikkozoikum]

36 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

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)

 

WG just should show more often their data. They did that once in a stream and it was interesting to see. But also, this addresses only a quite small audience. So many players won't even care about those data

 

[arttuperkunas]

Just now, Pikkozoikum said:

WG just should show more often their data. They did that once in a stream and it was interesting to see. But also, this addresses only a quite small audience. So many players won't even care about those data

 

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.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

WG just should show more often their data. They did that once in a stream and it was interesting to see. But also, this addresses only a quite small audience. So many players won't even care about those data

 

Nobody should have to be interested in that data and it's interpretation as customers are playing what presumably should be a game made according to the developers best abilities. Too bad those abilities mostly concern spreadsheets and biased data readouts instead of making legendary gameplay.

[Pikkozoikum]

5 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

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.

They showed some pretty good data, I don't know the exact parameters, but it was something WR depending. That you could see, how much better does a high WR player in ship x vs other ships. Maybe I can find that, but I doubt it, because I have no clue, how I could find that stream

[arttuperkunas]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

They showed some pretty good data, I don't know the exact parameters, but it was something WR depending. That you could see, how much better does a high WR player in ship x vs other ships. Maybe I can find that, but I doubt it, because I have no clue, how I could find that stream

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.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, arttuperkunas said:

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.

but it showed a graphic for every single 1%. It's hard to find, but I'm searching it rn

[Pikkozoikum]

9 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

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.

 

 

should be this one, but need to watch it, just posting it^^

[KratosTheUnforgiving]

We don't what subs in the game, like we don't want Sub_O making decisions for this clusterf.. of a company.

[mtm78]

3 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

WG just should show more often their data. They did that once in a stream and it was interesting to see.

 

Timestamp around 11:50 -> graph which uses account win rate to differentiate.

 

Again, statistics are very hard to actually make sense of, here it's nonsensical to use account win rate over say win rate of players in that particular ship with battles over ~100 ( or 50 if that already seems meaningful to you ). Yes you have a smaller dataset then, but it's actually giving more insight in the ship balance then using account wr for people who might play a single battle in a ship, don't like it and never look at it again. By including them WG seemingly shows they don't care about the ship balance as much as they do about player impression. Which is bad, imo. 

 

I can remember watching Flamu's stream analyze some of the graphs given and overall consensus on usefulness was low. 

[nX79]

Oh I had so beautiful ranked matches in a BB. I had to test it against subs....and surprise surprise....total shitshow. Got pinged..waited until the homing torps came by...dmg con..dodged the rocket torps....got pinged again...inbetween torped by a CV..fire from a DD...dmg con on cooldown...our DDs couldn't move in because of spotting sub....got pinged again..homing torps...citadel hits..ship down.

 

It was fun....thx WG..really...thx. 

 

no clue how you think this will work, really, no idea. 

 

And no idea why to talk positive about the game mechanics anymore...CVs are annoying as hell from time..but this is the cream of the crap.

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

36 minutes ago, nX79 said:

Oh I had so beautiful ranked matches in a BB. I had to test it against subs....and surprise surprise....total shitshow. Got pinged..waited until the homing torps came by...dmg con..dodged the rocket torps....got pinged again...inbetween torped by a CV..fire from a DD...dmg con on cooldown...our DDs couldn't move in because of spotting sub....got pinged again..homing torps...citadel hits..ship down.

 

It was fun....thx WG..really...thx. 

 

no clue how you think this will work, really, no idea. 

 

And no idea why to talk positive about the game mechanics anymore...CVs are annoying as hell from time..but this is the cream of the crap.

 

 

You are complaining, that multiple ships were able to sink you?

 

What if you would have another enemy DD instead of the Sub, and it would cause a flood? You would have DCP'ed that as well and everything would be the same.

 

It does't matter, if you need DCP to counter huge dmg amounts from a sub or DCP Floods and Fires from another ship instead. For every submarine you have one less surface ship, that could cause fires and floods

 

Also BBs can dodge homing torpedos. But you could also show the Replay, if you want.

 

[nX79]

aha.....and they give me citadel torp hits?