Submarine Survey 2.0 - The questions that really matter

[NewHorizons_1]

5 minutes ago, Siagor said:

Can't see the pic. 

! Daily limit : 9

[Nibenay78]

On 5/15/2022 at 12:12 PM, ziratulbihac said:

I am a new player coming from WoT

 

I must say, that submarines are annoying because it is very difficult to deal with something that is practically invisible 

 

However, I must say, that idea is great and it needs to be worked on

 

1. More options for ships to detect and deal with subs

2. More power / less survivability to the subs

 

Subs must be powerful yet easy to deal with, you can't have both... 

 

@ziratulbihac Since you played a bit WoT and have interest in the subject, you might have seen this guy before. This was WGs response on people wanting subs years ago. 

His arguments are still valid.

 

 

 

[Obidav]

Another poll wargambling will ignore.

[Fastmotion]

I see first time that topic and the poll questions and results.

I think it would sound tou cruel if i said that all the questions, answers, and the topic are faulty. Or how to say.

In this forum and i nthe Facebook peopel can put Likes to the posts and do you think that those likes differ somehow from the answers peopel give to polls?

No, the likes and the poll results are the same thing.

You can make in some countries a poll which asks "do you agree that pork, Subs and the word War are used mostly by uneducated people?". And billions answer Yes/Like because nobody wants to be uneducated or go to jail.

I can go through the poll mistakes later and i hope that you take it positively. This is how a constructive method works- there should be critics always in everything.

[Dutchy_2019]

5 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

I see first time that topic and the poll questions and results.

I think it would sound tou cruel if i said that all the questions, answers, and the topic are faulty. Or how to say.

In this forum and i nthe Facebook peopel can put Likes to the posts and do you think that those likes differ somehow from the answers peopel give to polls?

No, the likes and the poll results are the same thing.

You can make in some countries a poll which asks "do you agree that pork, Subs and the word War are used mostly by uneducated people?". And billions answer Yes/Like because nobody wants to be uneducated or go to jail.

I can go through the poll mistakes later and i hope that you take it positively. This is how a constructive method works- there should be critics always in everything.

 

The sheer arrogance of you to sit here and judge everyone is getting VERY annoying. You are constantly shifting standards in argumentation,  using one fallacy after another and whenever cornered declares the argument that does not suit you invalid because proper maths, argumentation and use of language is in your opinion irrelevant. A person who basically ignores the opinion and arguments of many FAR MORE experienced and frankly better players, simply because they do not agree with his viewpoint.

 

The WG in-game poll (which this poll is a direct response to) seemed to be almost as biased and flawed the other way around (to get the poll results in favour of submarines). Even the testing seems to be set up this way - to hide massive flaws in the design of submarines by letting them be played by people who should NEVER be playing them, simply because they lack experience and understanding of the game.

 

If someone can easily average 150k in subs, there is something seriously flawed in the design. If some other good players are having the same results. If their WinRates in subs are substantially higher than in ANY other class, there is something seriously flawed with the design.

[Fastmotion]

6 minutes ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

 

The WG in-game poll (which this poll is a direct response to) seemed to be almost as biased and flawed the other way around (to get the poll results in favour of submarines).

Can you say where can i see that WG's poll? I could look and comment it. But my first feeling is that it probably is professional and adequate.

 

This poll here is defenitely totally faulty but i am not sure if your hive benefits if i go futher and show all the mistakes in it. Maybe better to avoid to do it because it just makes your sufferings even bigger.

 

Your other opinions were something i don't agree either. But i think it is pointless to explain. Let's just respect that people have different opinions.

[JohnMac79]

13 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Can you say where can i see that WG's poll? I could look and comment it. But my first feeling is that it probably is professional and adequate.

 

Every poll WG have ever done is nothing but trying to validate what they have already decided to do, whether you like it or not.

 

They just hope you will agree with them, and if you dont, they do what they want anyway. WG dont care about peoples opinions, not even the ones that agree with them. Which means you too.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

26 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

 But i think it is pointless to explain. Let's just respect that people have different opinions.

 

It's not pointless to explain. You are just intellectually incapable of explaining, and you know that, which is why you pick such a cheap escape phrase.

[Fastmotion]

10 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

It's not pointless to explain. You are just intellectually incapable of explaining, and you know that, which is why you pick such a cheap escape phrase.

I can prove by an example in this post that i can explain. And your assumption that i can't becomes invalid.

 

42 minutes ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

If someone can easily average 150k in subs, there is something seriously flawed in the design.

 

You say about someone. Do you mean someone rare? Someone who is less than 1% from the population? In that case you should ignore such rare case and not conclude anything.

If you think by someone like everyone then you are wrong because most people don't do 150k dmg. How can you prove anything with a rare example?

Also, there are many ships where someones can do 150k damage. Many BBs for example. Do you think that if someone rarely makes 150 dmg with BBs then something is wrong with the universe and the game? I don't see any problems with the universe and the game.

 

You mention game design. What do you mean by that? Do you mean by that term the satisfactory feeling that you and your hive gets every day? Or what do you mean by design? Software modelling or what? I believe you misused that term.

 

You couldn't convince with the rare 150k damage anything. We all have made such amount with different ships both easily and not easily. Does it prove that something is wrong with the game? No.

 

[Siagor]

6 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

...and billions answer Yes/Like because nobody wants to be uneducated or go to jail.

 

That's how it goes in your Russia, not here in Europe.

 

Go away, you KGB propaganda troll.

[Nibenay78]

21 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I can prove by an example in this post that i can explain. And your assumption that i can't becomes invalid.

 

 

You say about someone. Do you mean someone rare? Someone who is less than 1% from the population? In that case you should ignore such rare case and not conclude anything.

If you think by someone like everyone then you are wrong because most people don't do 150k dmg. How can you prove anything with a rare example?

Also, there are many ships where someones can do 150k damage. Many BBs for example. Do you think that if someone rarely makes 150 dmg with BBs then something is wrong with the universe and the game? I don't see any problems with the universe and the game.

 

You mention game design. What do you mean by that? Do you mean by that term the satisfactory feeling that you and your hive gets every day? Or what do you mean by design? Software modelling or what? I believe you misused that term.

 

You couldn't convince with the rare 150k damage anything. We all have made such amount with different ships both easily and not easily. Does it prove that something is wrong with the game? No.

 

Average - clearly is a complex and difficult mathematical term for some.

[Fastmotion]

5 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

Average - clearly is a complex and difficult mathematical term for some.

You can remove that term or replace with some other term- the results doesnt change.

 

It was his term by the way. But i don't still see any value in that term. You can erase it or replace- the result is still that his statement is invalid.

The same is with his other opinions. But i repeat that i don't think there is any point to debunk those. Let him have the opinions that his hive allows and i have my opinions.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

1 hour ago, Fastmotion said:

I can prove by an example in this post that i can explain. And your assumption that i can't becomes invalid.

 

You're not explaining. You are expressing doubts about another player's explanation. That is not the same as explaining something yourself.

 

I can however explain something.

 

You are bad at this game. You have been struggling for more than a year and you never got above 45% winrate for about 5000 games. You lost a lot. One might even say, whatever impact you could potentially have on the outcome of a battle, you forfeit. i am not judging that. I can understand this is frustrating, cause you get outplayed a lot. Getting killed about 2.5 times for every kill that you did, that can not have been a satisfying, joyful experience.

 

Now here comes submarines. Suddenly there is this class that works for you. In subs you finally have 50% winrate. That feels good, that gives you some sort of confirmation.

 

But then again, one doesn't need to be a psychologist to see how this biases your views on submarines. You simply want them to stay, cause they are the only class you can perform in on at least an average level. Again, I can understand that from an empathic point of view. But it also means, you are not objective. In fact you are highly defensive about submarines, cause you feel threatened by the sound arguments you read and cannot disprove. You feel threatened, cause you sense the remote chance they could get nerfed hard, which might again drive your results down to 45%.

 

I'm not gonna expect you to go along and confirm I'm right. In fact, I expect you to get even more defensive and say all this is wrong and all the other people here are wrong. I don't mind. But deep inside you know I'm right. You should maybe think, if your personal sentiments for a class are worth ruining a game for all those team mates that carried you for the last year, when you struggled. That would be mature.

[Spellfire40]

Since they will stay because WG sunk too much money in their development:

 

All ships that are limited to deep charges should have permanent sonar that gives them 4km sonar autodetect on subs if at full speed and 5 km at half speed or less (not actuall speed but selected speed.

Subs should at most have a speed of 25 kn and bleed speed extremly on turns so no speeddrifting subs outruning a speedbosted DD that turns.

DDs/Light cruisers  taking the risk geting shreded to pieces while hunting subs should get FULL exp for any damage done to them from other sources for their spoting.

 

Perhaps a more fun mechanic: Scrap pings exept fur sub vs sub combat and instad  give them low damage decently fast reloading torps that you can either fire normally or aim like a shell to a point nearer at wich the torp will circle for the remainder of its range giving it some utillity locking down areas for a short time.

 

[Fastmotion]

13 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

You're not explaining. You are expressing doubts about an other players explanation. That is not the same as explaining something yourself.

 

Seems like you don't agree with my response but you didn't provide any proof and anything. So, you are expressing you opinion without any proof. That doesn't count. Can you add some additional proofs to the 150 dmg opinion. Or, can you show which my explanations where wrong about the 150. For example tell following:

 

1) say that most players do 150 dmg with subs. and provide some evidence. If you manage to do that then you supported his statements and i have lost my opposing statement.

2) say that i am wrong if i said that other ships can do 150 dmg as well. Prove that other ships cannot do 150 dmg and you proved that he was right and i was wrong.

3) prove that it is wise to remove ships that make sometimes 150 dmg. For example give evidence that game would become better if we remove BBs and DDs that do such damage and you won the argumentation.

 

So, can you provide any support to his 150 dmg opinion or can you show that my response about that matter was wrong? If you can't do that then in adequate world it means that i won the debate. In adequate situations if one says that "2+2 is 5" and then one responds and shows that "2+2 is 4" and not 5, and then you come and don't prove anything but just say that the person who showed that 2+2 is 4 is wrong- then your such opinion is worthless. You must somehow show that 2+2 is not 4 or give additional evidence that 2+2 is 5. Otherwise you wrong and lost. Nobody in the adequate world would join your opinion.

 

Do you agree?

 

Secondly your opinion is that i express doupts. Well if you like that term more then fine. Can you respond to the doupts? If you can't then those "doupts" are considered as truth. You can show that they are not true by doing exmples 1 and 2 that i gave. Go and try those points and i respond again.

 

After you do that i comment your other opinions. If you fail to give an adequate response then in an adequate world it means that you lost in your opinion. But in some illusionary world you can still declare yourself winner of cause.

 

[HMS_Kilinowski]

20 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Seems like you don't agree with my response but you didn't provide any proof and anything. So, you are expressing you opinion without any proof. That doesn't count. Can you add some additional proofs to the 150 dmg opinion. Or, can you show which my explanations where wrong about the 150. For example tell following:

 

1) say that most players do 150 dmg with subs. and provide some evidence. If you manage to do that then you supported his statements and i have lost my opposing statement.

 

 

You're way below average. Your best BB game is 132k, your best CV game is 145k, your best cruiser game is 125k, your best DD game is 180k, all over more than 5000 battles. But in submarines you do your new damage record of 185k after just 323 games. Why is that? Have you suddenly become a genius after 5000 battles? Are you suddenly that brilliant in submarines, after not being brilliant for 5000 games in any other class? Or is it just that you are playing a broken class and won't admit it, cause it flatters your ego?

[HMS_Kilinowski]

double post. pls delete.

[Nibenay78]

11 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

You can remove that term or replace with some other term- the results doesnt change.

 

It was his term by the way. But i don't still see any value in that term. You can erase it or replace- the result is still that his statement is invalid.

The same is with his other opinions. But i repeat that i don't think there is any point to debunk those. Let him have the opinions that his hive allows and i have my opinions.

The result changes.

It's easy to get a game with 150k.

It's exceptionally hard to reach 150k average.

 

Yes we have our opinions, most of yours either simply manipulation of other's statements - or simply nonsensical arguments.

[Fastmotion]

12 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

18 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

The result changes.

It's easy to get a game with 150k.

It's exceptionally hard to reach 150k average.

 

Yes we have our opinions, most of yours either simply manipulation of other's statements - or simply nonsensical arguments.

 

 

He said:

Quote

If someone can easily average 150k in subs, there is something seriously flawed in the design.

Can you now use as you wish your word Average in his statement? And then provide the proof to his statement or debunk my statements about the 150k topic.

 

So, with your understanding of his word Average his statement would say that:

Sub players can easily make average 150k damage and acerage means arounds 150 +- 50, so they make most games arounds 150 but little bit less battles 200 dmg and some 100dmg. Do you agree that his word Average means the range 100-200 and the statement means thatit is easy to get that range of damage? If yes, then i provided counter arguments to that idea. Can you debunk those arguments there? If you can't/won't debunk then my arguments are correct and his statement is wrong. It is not right that people make easily 100-200 damage in the game with Subs because you don't see that subs are in TOP 3 so often and other ships make similar amount of damage and in my opinion even more often. Should we then conclude that all ships who make such damage prove that the game has some kind of mistakes, as he calls those design mistakes? I provided 2-example counter arguments for you above. Go and use them or add yours.

 

 

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

24 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

 

He said:

Can you now use as you wish your word Average in his statement? And then provide the proof to his statement or debunk my statements about the 150k topic.

 

So, with your understanding of his word Average his statement would say that:

Sub players can easily make average 150k damage and acerage means arounds 150 +- 50, so they make most games arounds 150 but little bit less battles 200 dmg and some 100dmg. Do you agree that his word Average means the range 100-200 and the statement means thatit is easy to get that range of damage? If yes, then i provided counter arguments to that idea. Can you debunk those arguments there? If you can't/won't debunk then my arguments are correct and his statement is wrong. It is not right that people make easily 100-200 damage in the game with Subs because you don't see that subs are in TOP 3 so often and other ships make similar amount of damage and in my opinion even more often. Should we then conclude that all ships who make such damage prove that the game has some kind of mistakes, as he calls those design mistakes? I provided 2-example counter arguments for you above. Go and use them or add yours.

 

 

Average means add all the damage numbers up, then divide by the number of battles. It's not rocket surgery. 😒

[Nibenay78]

14 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Sub players can easily make average 150k damage and acerage means arounds 150 +- 50, so they make most games arounds 150 but little bit less battles 200 dmg and some 100dmg. Do you agree that his word Average means the range 100-200 and the statement means thatit is easy to get that range of damage?

the variation (which you claim being +- 50) is unknown. Average is a single number. The range may or may not be 100-200k. It could be 0-300k for that matter. 

 

While pure numbers may not explain whats going it, a massive difference between classes is worth considering if there are issues in balancing.

 

regardless of balancing - submarines are boring to play and boring to play against. No amount of balancing will change this - except for people who enjoy killing others without any sort of fair play. The kind that cheats on their friends in boardgames...

[Fastmotion]

7 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

the variation (which you claim being +- 50) is unknown. Average is a single number. The range may or may not be 100-200k. It could be 0-300k for that matter. 

 

While pure numbers may not explain whats going it, a massive difference between classes is worth considering if there are issues in balancing.

 

regardless of balancing - submarines are boring to play and boring to play against. No amount of balancing will change this - except for people who enjoy killing others without any sort of fair play. The kind that cheats on their friends in boardgames...

If you use in his sentence the range 0-300 then his sentence becomes totally invalid because he states then that all ships who make damage between 0-300 are evil and breaks the game design. So, if you decide to choose the range of 0-300 then it is obvious that you and him are wrong and have lost the argumentation.

 

Secondly you mention that pure numbers may not explain something. That statement proves that stats are irrelevant and also proves that his statements with number 150 is invalid.

 

I repeat: can you provide any adequate proof to his statement or debunk mine that proved that he and you are wrong?

[Nibenay78]

Just now, Fastmotion said:

If you use in his sentence the range 0-300 then his sentence becomes totally invalid because he states then that all ships who make damage between 0-300 are evil and breaks the game design. So, if you decide to choose the range of 0-300 then it is obvious that you and him are wrong and have lost the argumentation.

it's not about the range. It's about average.

 

I understand this is a concept you do not understand.

[Fastmotion]

2 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

it's not about the range. It's about average.

 

I understand this is a concept you do not understand.

We already went though many ways with that Average term. You provided sufficent examples like 0-300 and i provided others. I proved that his statement is still wrong no matter how you interpret his term.

[Nibenay78]

Just now, Fastmotion said:

We already went though many ways with that Average term. You provided sufficent examples like 0-300 and i provided others. I proved that his statement is still wrong no matter how you interpret his term.

We already agreed that you are a manipulating liar. Your statements are misleading no matter how you interpret them.