Hmm..... A ..."Flamu" video out. On the latest Q&A.

[Ocsimano18]

3 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

What's unclear or confusing about simple sentences like:

 

Reload time increased from 3.2 seconds to 3.4 seconds ? Or Reduced the duration of Surveilance radar from 30 seconds to 27 seconds ?

 

You have a problem understanding those ?

A lot of players don't speak fluent English. I had a non fluent speaker mate who interpreted "high rate of fire" as "high fire chance" on Plymouth, thinking it was the next HE & Smoke cruiser. Also I had an experienced mate fluent in English who bought a black ship because of the extra doubloons he expected to get by playing her.

[Hugh_Ruka]

16 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

A lot of players don't speak fluent English. I had a non fluent speaker mate who interpreted "high rate of fire" as "high fire chance" on Plymouth, thinking it was the next HE & Smoke cruiser. Also I had an experienced mate fluent in English who bought a black ship because of the extra doubloons he expected to get by playing her.

But that is not a problem of WGs making. They cannot be required to teach English to everybody involved with the game. I mean they are trying to keep the information up in quite a lot of languages.

 

So that's a non-argument.

[Hugh_Ruka]

21 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

Yes, and the optimal ships are quite different depending on the player numbers. Tirpitz is a star one on one, but mediocre otherwise. Pommern is a star 3 vs 3, mediocre otherwise. Non utility cruisers suck in 7 vs 7 but are kind of balanced in 12 vs 12. Also gunboat DDs dominate 7 vs 7, while torp DDs need 12 vs 12 to be in a BB rich environment. The balancing is far from being perfect, but WG is not lying in this case.

While this actually confirms the validity of that argument, it also undermines it. The argument made was too simple about a 12v12 setup disregarding ship types/abilities etc.

 

So there's no reason things would not work in 15v15 as well as they work in 12v12. The main problem would be the tanks ... with up to 12v12 there's a theoretical limit on the incoming DPS. With 15v15 this changes ...

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 30 Minuten, Ocsimano18 sagte:

Yes, and the optimal ships are quite different depending on the player numbers. Tirpitz is a star one on one, but mediocre otherwise. Pommern is a star 3 vs 3, mediocre otherwise. Non utility cruisers suck in 7 vs 7 but are kind of balanced in 12 vs 12. Also gunboat DDs dominate 7 vs 7, while torp DDs need 12 vs 12 to be in a BB rich environment. The balancing is far from being perfect, but WG is not lying in this case.

The optimal number of CV in any game mode is 0, that's for sure.

[Ocsimano18]

9 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

While this actually confirms the validity of that argument, it also undermines it. The argument made was too simple about a 12v12 setup disregarding ship types/abilities etc.

 

So there's no reason things would not work in 15v15 as well as they work in 12v12. The main problem would be the tanks ... with up to 12v12 there's a theoretical limit on the incoming DPS. With 15v15 this changes ...

Flamu also said that the servers could not handle 15 vs 15. It seems to be a typical BS from Flamu. The servers were able to handle 12 vs 12 five years ago, so they can probably handle 15 vs 15 with current hardware. Also, would you really like to play 15 vs 15 with more chance of yoloing noobs in your team? That would just increase blowouts.

[quickr]

Saying that ships are balanced for 12v12 and then playing things like 1v1 ranked, 3v3 brawls, 6v6-8v8 clan battles, 9v9 kots and every other variant when there is not enough players online in 3 in the morning tells me WG is talking out of their arses. Simplest way WG could prove their point would be to test 15v15 in a separate game mode. If they can test all sorts of illogical things (subs in ranked ) surely it would be a no issue testing 15v15. Right?

[ghostbuster_]

Once again, the bullsh.ting department, only department in WG, which is actually doing better job than the art department, was at it's best in that Q&A. 

 

Well done bullsh.ting department. Well done.

I really would like to have a very "nice" and "pleasant" conversation with the people who are performing really well in that department and tell them what i think of their work in a very "kind" way.

[Hugh_Ruka]

5 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

Flamu also said that the servers could not handle 15 vs 15. It seems to be a typical BS from Flamu. The servers were able to handle 12 vs 12 five years ago, so they can probably handle 15 vs 15 with current hardware. Also, would you really like to play 15 vs 15 with more chance of yoloing noobs in your team? That would just increase blowouts.

Well for one thing Flamu has no clue what he's talking about here. The "SERVER" in this case should not refer to the hardware. Moving to a new HW platform these days is easy and I don't think they are running on Physical hosts anymore anyway. It's more the architecture of the server "SOFTWARE" that is the question. And given WGs inability to fix the client in many cases (Port being the heaviest resource hog while nothings actually happening there as an example) I'd be willing to bet the server software architecture is not really up to par to handle f.e. 15v15 ...

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 6 Minuten, Ocsimano18 sagte:

with current hardware.

With current hardware, there should be no problems with entire fleets battling each other. But somehow I doubt that the current servers feature even remotely current hardware.

[SirTogII]

Fairly clear it was just a click bait video from a stream where he was just trying to egg the dumber part of his audience on. Strawman arguments and conscious misinterpretations. Both boring and disappointing. Not that WG should not be criticised for questionable decisions but hard to take the guy seriously after crap like this. 

[Lootboxer]

5 minutes ago, SirTogII said:

Strawman arguments

Yep. Lots of it.

But funny that you've mentioned it as it was mainly on WG side in those "unswers".

[Ocsimano18]

3 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

Yep. Lots of it.

But funny that you've mentioned it as it was mainly on WG side in those "unswers".

No wonder, Flamu and WG make an inseparable pair... 

[RossijskijAxisFlot]

9 ore fa, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor ha scritto:

A waste of talent. He should be in charge of Wargaming's PR.

Flamu as head of PR to playerbase: "go f*ck yourselves you potatos and disgusting whales ! hello ?! f*cking imbecilles"

[Prophecy82]

5 minutes ago, AxisMarine said:

Flamu as head of PR to playerbase: "go f*ck yourselves you potatos and disgusting whales ! hello ?! f*cking imbecilles"

 

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, quickr said:

Flamu is a smart guy, he truly mastered the art of sensationalism. His presentations are always overdramatic cos that's what brings his viewers in.

He is not saying anything we already don't know.

You missing the point. It is Wg who is the main act.  

 

 

[ghostbuster_]

52 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Well for one thing Flamu has no clue what he's talking about here. The "SERVER" in this case should not refer to the hardware. Moving to a new HW platform these days is easy and I don't think they are running on Physical hosts anymore anyway. It's more the architecture of the server "SOFTWARE" that is the question. And given WGs inability to fix the client in many cases (Port being the heaviest resource hog while nothings actually happening there as an example) I'd be willing to bet the server software architecture is not really up to par to handle f.e. 15v15 ...

well you are focusing on the wrong thing here. it doesnt matter what flamu says or thinks. the thing you have to focus on here is the ridiculous answers of WG. 

 

besides some of the comments of flamu were really on point. like that one about WG claiming that they have no communication issues despite  apoligizing for having bad communication after every fiasco. 

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, SirTogII said:

Fairly clear it was just a click bait video from a stream where he was just trying to egg the dumber part of his audience on. Strawman arguments and conscious misinterpretations.

enlighten us. what misinterpretations for example? 

Quote

Both boring and disappointing. Not that WG should not be criticised for questionable decisions but hard to take the guy seriously after crap like this. 

crap like what? besides why the f do people focus on flamus comments. those are his thoughts. he reads the questions and the given answers by WG. dont you have your own thoughts? cant you interpretate yourself? leave the things flamu said aside and focus on the bullsh.t answers of WG. Jesus this playerbase... 

 

btw. people gotta be really butthurt by flamu for some reason. did he call you potato or something? 

 

 

[Onsterfelijke]

I like Flamu but lately is a bit over the top with his comments (some of of those he is right) I think he should chill a bit like the old times and just report the facts (without the theatrics)

 

The more then 12 vs 12 is already reported by WoWS that the hardware couldn't handle it with the current engine (software) so when there is a engine upgrade i think they can handle more players after that.

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

Vor 35 Minuten, AxisMarine sagte:

Flamu as head of PR to playerbase: "go f*ck yourselves you potatos and disgusting whales ! hello ?! f*cking imbecilles"

Oh he can be very friendly, diplomatic and manipulative if he wants to.

Like during fundraising drives when he wants to finance another stash of booze, or a trip abroad, or an engagement ring or some such.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Ocsimano18 said:

Yes, and the optimal ships are quite different depending on the player numbers. Tirpitz is a star one on one, but mediocre otherwise. Pommern is a star 3 vs 3, mediocre otherwise. Non utility cruisers suck in 7 vs 7 but are kind of balanced in 12 vs 12. Also gunboat DDs dominate 7 vs 7, while torp DDs need 12 vs 12 to be in a BB rich environment. .

 Ermm... just nope.  While what you are saying is kinda interesting, on its own merit. it isn't the point. I repeat it to you they claim that 12v12 is on what and for what ships are balanced and that's why they won't expand the current rooster with the and for arrival of subs.

As an explanation, it is pure and immense BS. 

1 hour ago, Ocsimano18 said:

 The balancing is far from being perfect, ...

The whole wows is based on the concept of "imbalanced balancing"

1 hour ago, Ocsimano18 said:

 ..... but WG is not lying in this case.

Yes they do. And they do that by insulting us.

 

Sajnalom.

 

[Gvozdika]

Irrespective of what you think of him - I find him unnecessarily caustic and snarky personally - he does have a point(s).

 

- WG wheel out the 'communication issues' argument whenever they get caught out for a questionable business practice. Just look at every drama and WG's response to it - it's publicly available.

 

- WG use the 'feedback is important to us' statement but then insist on doing the seeming opposite of what a good chunk of that feedback says. Usually blamed on 'communication issues' when it blows up in their faces. 

 

- WG answers about statistics are ambiguous and intentionally vague. 'A ship is removed because it is too popular' actually means 'we released ANOTHER broken ship that is overperforming'. Again! Fancy that! Usually blamed on communication difficulties....

 

My takeaway is play the game; enjoy the bits you enjoy - but plainly take everything WG or it's sockpuppets say with a metric tonne of salt. 

 

[Andrewbassg]

14 minutes ago, Gvozdika said:

My takeaway is play the game; enjoy the bits you enjoy - but plainly take everything WG or it's sockpuppets say with a metric tonne of salt. 

My personal recommendation is Calcium oxide (CaO), commonly known as quicklime. 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

WarGaming employee openly lying instead of ignoring the questions they don't want to answer. 

 

Nothing new to see here, though sad that they never tried playing their own game Lulu

[MannequinSkywalker]

There are a lot of straw man arguments in this thread and created mostly by Flamu haters or non-likers. You need to focus on his points not on him. If you don't agree with what he's saying then say you don't agree and explain why. My opinion on his video is zero because i won't spend 1 hour of my life watching a worthless monologue of Flamu and not because of his opinions are worthless but because WG is known for topping the charts when it comes to BS. I couldn't care less if Flamu criticizes why WG said there would never be missiles in the game but later they decided to implement. Hence, i don't find Flamu (or anyone else for that matter) trying to comment on WG statements time worthy because WG is not time worthy. 

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

Vor 2 Stunden, Hugh_Ruka sagte:

But that is not a problem of WGs making.

Their writing and translations from Russian have always been needlessly confusing and at times utter rubbish because they are too cheap to hire writers / translators of average competence.