Concurrent games, each one only lasted 8 mins

[Dutchy_2019]

14 hours ago, Seraphice said:

The amount of radar DDs and BBs is rather limited - Ragnar and Smaland are not very common as they are not as easy to obtain and radar Yueyang is also not a very popular pick.
For BBs there is practically still only missouri (with only 9.5km) and Borodino.
CV spotting has only become less effective since their rework (e.g. with plane speed nerf).

Most of what is being described is more down to player actions.
Has the game sped up since its launch? Undoubtably; There are more ships with higher DPM, and such now than there were before.
 

As someone who likes to play DD quite a lot, I have to disagree with the statement that playing DD is "a survival horror"

There are certainly situations where you can get caught and die early. There is no mistaking that, but I recognise that in all of those situations, if I had played my cards right, such a thing would not have happened.
Playing around the tools that the enemy has and playing with the tools you and your team have available is crucial, even if you cant always rely on teammates to make the right decisions.

 

The thing is, you are a well above average player - and as such you are a relative rarity.

You might also have taken the right approach more or less from the start, and have plenty of competent players around you that can teach you / give you tips.

 

All of this does NOT hold true for the massive majority of the players in any way, shape or form. And especially at the higher end, the environment is far too unforgiving to learn what you need to survive. 

 

With the massive amount of new and just bad players, this, especially in higher tiers, can and will quickly lead to a lot of one-sided games, if only because of snow-balling. A see boat-loads of players simply do stupid stuff, the hiding behind the islands, lemming-train or blob in a corner, or the 1 or 10 line push. Or the exact opposite, yolo in. 

And yes, I think a number of the recent design decisions (including the WG implementation of submarines as well as CV spotting (especially CV fighter spotting), has made this even worse; with a massive problem being:

 

* (a) WG having no clue how the average player will experience things, and how he or she has to deal with it (outside some statistics); prime example is the standard response to players complaining about the implementation of homing torps or CV attacks. Pretty much all of those responses seem to completely ignore that the 'advise' might sound nice in theory, but usually is given in a complete vacuüm, as describing a one-vs-one situation, rather than a PvP environment with multiple players who already have a very hard time dealing with all the sensory / information input of the game - with multiple ships shooting at you, or you having to take multiple ships into account. The VAST majority have NOT grown with the game (so they are massively behind the learning curve), do NOT have the experience, cannot invest the time, or simply do not have the capability to deal with all that. Note that it took forever to at least partiall fix the T4 CV hell that was there in 2019 - Double or Triple CV games with an OP Hosho and Hermes; first of all, it is an indictment of the game devs that they created the circumstances to have that happen in the first place, and an absulute disgrace that it took them so long to actually do something about it. The way complaints by non-CV players were dismissed was just an outright insult to the playerbase.

 

* (b) unwarranted dismissal of many valid arguments with the notion of 'well, those are old people who are simply unwilling to change'. The collective wisdom and experience of all those players IMHO is likely to mean these players will probably know the game better (as a collective) than the DEVS and WG actually do - both as far as mechanics (and especially the interaction of mechanics) go and as far as how things will affect game-play / the game experience as a whole. To me, the dismissal of criticism by that argument is simply proof of incompetence / unwillingness to listen by the one using it. I see it way too commonly used as a pre-emptive shifting of the blame away from the individuals wanting to force change top down, especially when said change is doomed to fail or have a massive negative impact, which is predictable (for various reasons). When predictably the implemented change fails for reasons often already pointed out by those 'unwilling to change' the scape goat is already there.

 

* (c) Many of the new players not knowing better, and simply thinking that them 'dying early to .....' is just 'part of the game' rather than actually being the result of mistakes they make. It is sad / aggravating/ horrifying to see newer players come in in a twitch chat / game chat / forum and think they are doing really well when averaging 40k damage in a T9 BB or 15k in a T8 cruiser, simply because they do not know better. 

 

Ultimately you can always blame the players, but:

 

- The actions of those players are at least in part the DIRECT response of design decisions made by WG; many of us are familiar with the disaster that was Dead Eye, where WG Devs completely misjudged how the player-base as a whole would react to that skill. That was an honest mistake (because the skill by itself was not too bad). It took way too long to get that fixed, however.

- WG does EVERYTHING IT CAN to push players to higher tiers. Combined with the game being very deceptive in looking like a quite simple game, but it being anything but, that is a recipe for disaster. Rather than slowing player progress down, and in doing so forcing them to at least learn simply by doing, the game has been designed to do the exact opposite.

- The lack of good tutorials and explanation videos, or them being hard to find.

 

Of course there is also the irony of newer players trying to 'play like the pro's' while not having the skill set to actually do it.

[Figment]

5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

That is why there is hydro. And yes, radar can be good for scouting.

 

While losing a ship is always bad, a team usually loses more firepower when losing a BB or CA, than a DD.

Blind firepower is however useless. And having a target in the first place is more important than having theoretical Alpha/DPS. That enemy may get concealed by the other DDs smoke... You're thinking way too simplistic here.

Quote

And losing a radar CA early in the game can as or even be more desastrous as you lose DPM and cruical spotting.

It is relevant but not critical. Cruisers are relatively easy kills when they make a tactical mistake (even if they're unaware of it), so killing an enemy cruiser in return, even in a single volley from a BB is relatively likely.

Quote

And yes, when the teamwork option is compromised, being a good spotting and surviving DD does not do much, as your team is unable or unwilling to take out important targets.

Teamwork means you need all classes, not just one.

Regardless, teamwork that's unwitting is often done by firing at ships that have been spotted for you. So removing the most consistent spotters removes a lot of taken for granted teamwork.

[159Hunter]

19 hours ago, Seraphice said:

We've done several tests with CV spotting now but for now there is nothing in the near future about this that I'm aware of, though we've certainly not forgotten.

This was tested, though I can't share any details on the results I'm afraid

You know that CVs are a sensitive subject for this community.

It would help if you communicate more openly on the mechanics you've tested, accepted/rejected and why.

[ColonelPete]

8 hours ago, Figment said:

It is relevant but not critical. Cruisers are relatively easy kills when they make a tactical mistake (even if they're unaware of it), so killing an enemy cruiser in return, even in a single volley from a BB is relatively likely.

If it is that simple, why it is not the fault of the remaining players on the team if they do not manage that? That is what I was saying the whole time! 

8 hours ago, Figment said:

Blind firepower is however useless. And having a target in the first place is more important than having theoretical Alpha/DPS. That enemy may get concealed by the other DDs smoke... You're thinking way too simplistic here.

 

Regardless, teamwork that's unwitting is often done by firing at ships that have been spotted for you. So removing the most consistent spotters removes a lot of taken for granted teamwork.

Not simplistic, just unlikely. If the enemy is that good and staying hidden and your team is clueless to react properly, the enemy is just better. That is hardly the fault of the DD.

 

If that where the case, why are crucial targets ignored that often? Why do so many players focus on BB that would be spotted without the help of the DD anyway?

 

Reading all these arguments, one would expect DD to have a much higher winrating than other classes, they do not.

[Seraphice]

13 hours ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

How less effective has plane spotting gotten by speed nerf? Planes still outfly any DD in the game and can just circle around them and keep them perma spotted since DD AA with minor exeptions (Småland, Halland Gronigen) cant do anything against planes and CV doesnt even have to waste his time to keep him permaspotted since he can just throw out a portable radar anywhere on the map .... fighterplanes which has a waird similarity to Spotter planes... Also how effective has said speed nerf gotten since the increasing numbers of Super-CVs where you in every other game face a CV with planes flying 300-400 knots. Also thanks for creating a CV specially for dumping rockets on DDs (Malta) with those massive rocket strikes with .... for some strange reason .... shorten machine gun delay .... hmmm. Soon we will also have a ton of players playing the new US BB hybrid lines so the servers will be flooded with planes that spot.

I didn't say they were bad at spotting, I'm saying its less now than when they were originally reworked.
Also SuperCV tactical squadrons aren't great at spotting considering their horrible maneuverability and lack of fighters.

 

 

13 hours ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

I have to disagree. Playing a DD has quite a lot of "Jump Scares" just like a survival horror. Stealth radaring Russian cruisers, CV planes popping out from nowhere to spot you, Radar AND Hydro popping up out of nowhere from a ship sitting behind an island. Radars on BBs, Radars on cruisers, Radars on DDs, Subs popping up out of nowhere, Subs permaspotting you and since Radio Location works just as well as a compass on the north pole its even hard to know what direction the sub is when the marker keeps swinging back and forth like its drunk. Planes from hybridships like Tone and Kearsarge

There's no RU CAs/CLs that have stealth radar except chapayev. And if you're finding yourself in situations where you very often are caught by radar or even hydro, then your positioning is not great most of the time. Sure you will have cases where the radar catches you when you cant expect it, but that shouldn't be happening in the vast majority of cases.
As I pointed out, Radar on BBs and DDs is very uncommon.

 

13 hours ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

How do you "Play your cards right" in Arms race? Suicide in collecting the middle boosters and die first 2 minutes or just give them for free to enemy team which will then win because they get all boosters? Which is "right"? I really wanna know. You took a game that in Randoms already finish in 7-8 min steamrolls and threw in boosters for the game to be over even faster? How do I "play my hands right" when I get radared by an unspotted ship and second later I get hosed down by half the enemy team? How do I "play my hands right" when I see a Annapolis at 10.9 km, second later he has me in his radar and before my DD even started to turn he have killed me from full HP with his little cute F-button "gimmick"? Its not that easy to just "play around". And please dont fool ourselves, teammates Never make the right decision.

Odd then that it is not something that often happens to me.
Playing carefully and making sure you analyse the situation is important. if you're in a shimakaze and the enemy team has 2 smalands you should probably be careful.
If you're in a daring and the enemy team has 2 elbings you can be pretty aggressive, If the enemy has a stealth radar you probably want to make sure to play it very safe until you know where it is, etc.

If you're just running in with no regard for what the enemy team could possibly bring to counter you, then yes, you can get radared before you can turn away, and yes you can die in a very short time. It's part of the game - playing around the tools that the enemy team has.

 

8 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

The thing is, you are a well above average player - and as such you are a relative rarity.

You might also have taken the right approach more or less from the start, and have plenty of competent players around you that can teach you / give you tips.

I do have to say that I believe you should take a look at situations from an "what is objectively correct" standpoint rather than "what is reasonable for the average player" in such situations. Let me explain.
In most interactions it's important that we view things in the optimal scenario. A scenario where the daring knows how to use its AP. If we assume that the daring doesn't know to use AP, then suddenly the daring might not win against 2 Elbings, as opposed to where he does, and he walks away with 2 kills.
If you want to learn what to do to avoid making mistakes you have to assume that "the perfect play" exists and try to follow it as closely as possible.
Now obviously there is a lot of nuance to that and figuring out what the correct play is is not always an easy task, but it is necessary to find out the objectively correct way to deal with a situation. Always easier in hindsight, so review your own plays.

 

 

3 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

You know that CVs are a sensitive subject for this community.

It would help if you communicate more openly on the mechanics you've tested, accepted/rejected and why.

Right now none of the test proposals have been accepted as they are, or we would have already implemented them. When we have more information to share on the topic we'll let you know.
Additionally all the CV tests we performed are announced on our devblog: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

 

[Figment]

2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

If it is that simple, why it is not the fault of the remaining players on the team if they do not manage that? That is what I was saying the whole time! 

No, that's not what you were saying. Because you don't (want to) understand leverage and relative leverage (for the sake of winning an argument?).

2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Not simplistic, just unlikely. If the enemy is that good and staying hidden and your team is clueless to react properly, the enemy is just better. That is hardly the fault of the DD.

No, the team dependent units are often not in a position anymore to do anything about it when you have an enemy team able to press a cap with less DPS targeting them than is targeting their enemies. They get pushed away. Often because of lacking skill, sure, but in many cases it's the only way to stay alive and do something for the team as the threats are closing in from multiple directions due to a numerical disadvantage.

There's only so much you can do and DDs are responsible.

 

Yesterday for instance a Shima decided to stay behind our BBs on Two Brothers and kept falling back faster than our BB could. Basically it was like playing without a DD on that flank the whole match.

 

I was forced to take my Gouden Leeuw to scout (!) with a Benham supported by three TIX/TX BBs and a Gouden Leeuw in front of me. Falling back was not an option as it would compromise our other flank with a crossfire. I didn't last too long as my optimal position would at the time be 14-18km from the front and as the Benham could push freely it was just 8km with BBs at 13. Obviously the Shima died uselessly once he was the last one remaining with a couple torps damage to his name.

 

We had such a scouting disadvantage that the Benham could torp freely at all of us with no risk to itself, while their BBs could fire freely without any chance for me for instance to go dark and heal up as there was no buffer between me and their DD spotter..

 

I really don't understand how you can't understand that the lack of a scout will create a massive strength gap between two sides.

2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

If that where the case, why are crucial targets ignored that often? Why do so many players focus on BB that would be spotted without the help of the DD anyway?

Why do people fire at the full health thing that's large enough they can hit it with their abysmal sniper BB leading skills you ask? Beats me. I focus on priority targets.

2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Reading all these arguments, one would expect DD to have a much higher winrating than other classes, they do not.

If you want to progress fast and reliable in Ranked, you bring a DD.

[Hugh_Ruka]

10 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

I didn't say they were bad at spotting, I'm saying its less now than when they were originally reworked.
Also SuperCV tactical squadrons aren't great at spotting considering their horrible maneuverability and lack of fighters.

 

 

There's no RU CAs/CLs that have stealth radar except chapayev. And if you're finding yourself in situations where you very often are caught by radar or even hydro, then your positioning is not great most of the time. Sure you will have cases where the radar catches you when you cant expect it, but that shouldn't be happening in the vast majority of cases.
As I pointed out, Radar on BBs and DDs is very uncommon.

 

You know it is odd that the best approach to minimize risk against a DD is the worst to minimize the risk against a radar threat (like a cruiser) ? When approaching a cap you generally want to stay hidden, best behind an island. But that also prevents you from spotting the approaching cruiser (and for some strange reason, radar in this game goes through islands). On the other hand, when expecting a radar cruiser, you want to stay in the open so you have the best field of view to spot the threat early.

 

Those 2 requirements go against each other, but you have very rarely a game without both these days. So it is up to pure luck (or lack of) what combination of both you get on your flank.

 

Also 12km radar is much easier to use from behind an island as you have MORE islands at your disposal to hide behind as the radar threat. Petro and Stalingrad are very common, 12km radar and very resilient cruisers that are very difficult to dispatch. So your earlier argument about cruisers being easily devstruck holds maybe for a Mino or a stupid DM player.

 

Quote

In most interactions it's important that we view things in the optimal scenario. A scenario where the daring knows how to use its AP. If we assume that the daring doesn't know to use AP, then suddenly the daring might not win against 2 Elbings, as opposed to where he does, and he walks away with 2 kills.

Are you for real ? IIRC both Elbing and Daring have enhanced ricochet angles. 2 Elbings will simply trash a single Daring because he cannot angle against both of them enough. All of them have smoke with Daring having the short straw here as his will run out first and is then spotted by one of them while the other farms him from smoke. Daring has the worse ballistics, Elbings just need to open the scissors on the Daring and get away from him. So no matter how skilled the AP usage is, the raw numbers speak against the Daring unless the Elbings are terminally stupid.

 

Oh wait, you meant taking the 2 Elbings one by one ? I thought you were talking about optimal scenarios .... oh wait, optimal for your side of the argument only ? And this can go on an on.

 

The optimal scenario that cannot be reached by vast majority of the players is not worth discussing because it is simply pointless. You (WG) have been told this again and again but you fail to understand. The skilled players will be BETTER no matter the individual ship balancing because they are better by way of out of game capabilities. In the meantime, the average players suffer (and with them the good ones as well as they have to pull more weight in the match). Dutchy_2019 was completely correct on this.

[Kruzenstern]

29 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

I do have to say that I believe you should take a look at situations from an "what is objectively correct" standpoint rather than "what is reasonable for the average player" in such situations. Let me explain.
In most interactions it's important that we view things in the optimal scenario. A scenario where the daring knows how to use its AP. If we assume that the daring doesn't know to use AP, then suddenly the daring might not win against 2 Elbings, as opposed to where he does, and he walks away with 2 kills.
If you want to learn what to do to avoid making mistakes you have to assume that "the perfect play" exists and try to follow it as closely as possible.
Now obviously there is a lot of nuance to that and figuring out what the correct play is is not always an easy task, but it is necessary to find out the objectively correct way to deal with a situation. Always easier in hindsight, so review your own plays.

And with that you merrily ignore that the vast majority of the playerbase would be intellectually overwhelmed by just reading these words, much less acting like they suggest. You should be realistic in your assumptions, not idealistic. WG obviously has no problem with being realistic over idealistic when it comes to monetization.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

@Atalante

@El2aZeR

I summon thee

 

 

 

[Nibenay78]

On 1/8/2023 at 11:54 PM, Wulf_Ace said:

FUN TIMEEEEE

 

got AA def expert, enemy CV lost 35 planes to kill me. amazing. 

 

They all died so fast....

 

And how many of those were strike planes?

And of those strike planes how many dropped their load first?

[Nibenay78]

23 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

@Atalante

@El2aZeR

I summon thee

 

 

 

"There are no planes attacking our DDs!"

[WingedHussar_Adler]

Smalan, Haland, Ragnar laughs while eating 50 strike planes with minor dmg

[ColonelPete]

3 hours ago, Figment said:

No, that's not what you were saying. Because you don't (want to) understand leverage and relative leverage (for the sake of winning an argument?).

No, the team dependent units are often not in a position anymore to do anything about it when you have an enemy team able to press a cap with less DPS targeting them than is targeting their enemies. They get pushed away. Often because of lacking skill, sure, but in many cases it's the only way to stay alive and do something for the team as the threats are closing in from multiple directions due to a numerical disadvantage.

There's only so much you can do and DDs are responsible.

 

Yesterday for instance a Shima decided to stay behind our BBs on Two Brothers and kept falling back faster than our BB could. Basically it was like playing without a DD on that flank the whole match.

 

I was forced to take my Gouden Leeuw to scout (!) with a Benham supported by three TIX/TX BBs and a Gouden Leeuw in front of me. Falling back was not an option as it would compromise our other flank with a crossfire. I didn't last too long as my optimal position would at the time be 14-18km from the front and as the Benham could push freely it was just 8km with BBs at 13. Obviously the Shima died uselessly once he was the last one remaining with a couple torps damage to his name.

 

We had such a scouting disadvantage that the Benham could torp freely at all of us with no risk to itself, while their BBs could fire freely without any chance for me for instance to go dark and heal up as there was no buffer between me and their DD spotter..

 

I really don't understand how you can't understand that the lack of a scout will create a massive strength gap between two sides.

Why do people fire at the full health thing that's large enough they can hit it with their abysmal sniper BB leading skills you ask? Beats me. I focus on priority targets.

If you want to progress fast and reliable in Ranked, you bring a DD.

It is funny how you ignore what other people write when it fits your argument.

 

And I never said it is not challenging to compensate for lost DD. I said that other classes can compensate and that is a fact, it happenes often enough.

 

Ranked performance is different to Random, which is wht Ranked does not say a lot about Random stats. And there are many players who rank out fine in CA, BB and CV.

[Figment]

Just now, ColonelPete said:

It is funny how you ignore what other people write when it fits your argument.

Irony. You re-interpret people's statements constantly. :/ I don't ignore, I disagree with you and your wildly oversimplified and twisted interpretations of what other people said. You do this a lot btw in other discussions as well. Maybe try not being a kettle when you falsely try to call out a pot.

Just now, ColonelPete said:

And I never said it is not challenging to compensate for lost DD. I said that other classes can compensate and that is a fact, it happenes often enough.

Sure and you can also compensate for losing a CV, that doesn't mean that the odds of doing so wildly differ for losing an arbitrary BB or cruiser versus losing a DD or CV (subs are a whole more complex thing and it says fairly little if you lose one IMO as they either do well or do meh anyway depending on the actions of teams on both sides).

Just now, ColonelPete said:

Ranked performance is different to Random, which is wht Ranked does not say a lot about Random stats. And there are many players who rank out fine in CA, BB and CV.

Ranked is a microcosm of what happens in Randoms. In Ranked the effect is far more immediately felt, but the effect is mostly the same unless the map is really small like in Brawls. I also do fine in other ships, but you're completely blind if you didn't notice that it's far easier to get top score and lose fewer stars with DDs than it is with other classes of ships.

 

It's funny that you seem to imply I stated that you can't rank out fine with other ships, whereas I clearly and very nuanced stated that it's more effective (fast and reliable) to use a DD in Ranked. The reason is because of the exp system and because the side that wins the DD duels wins the match most of the time. So if you're a good player, then being in a DD gives a greater guarantee that the DD is not wasted early and the enemy DD die first, after which your side has greater leverage over the cap zones, ambush and stealth attacks as well as overall spotting proficiency.
 

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

3 hours ago, Seraphice said:

I didn't say they were bad at spotting, I'm saying its less now than when they were originally reworked.
Also SuperCV tactical squadrons aren't great at spotting considering their horrible maneuverability and lack of fighters.

 

 

How is it less when all you did was nerfing the speed some? There are still an ever increasing number of new CVs, new CV lines, Premium CVs with special ability to kill DDs... New Super CVs. 3 Hybrid ships in the game right now that has planes that can circle around DDs with no end and soon 3 more Hybrids.....

How is that less?

 

And Super CVs also has fighters/portable radars to drop with their regular squads to then return after initial strike 10 sec later with supersonic squads. There is plenty of videos on YT of players doing great with the superfast squads just by breaking right before they spot the DD.

 

3 hours ago, Seraphice said:

There's no RU CAs/CLs that have stealth radar except chapayev. And if you're finding yourself in situations where you very often are caught by radar or even hydro, then your positioning is not great most of the time. Sure you will have cases where the radar catches you when you cant expect it, but that shouldn't be happening in the vast majority of cases.
As I pointed out, Radar on BBs and DDs is very uncommon.

 

Just because it doesn't say stealth radar in that stats it doesn't mean its literary the same thing in the actual combat. If you are heading in one direction in your DD and you spot a Russian cruiser or Des Moines or Annapolis for that matter you can't even start to turn your bad rudder before you are in their effective radar coverage and then your lit during turning where you lose speed and then its just a Hail Mary if you manage to survive until you go dark. For US cruisers thats about 40-50 seconds of shelling and if its an Annapolis you are already dead.

 

And it's not radars on BBs and DDs am talking about, they and the fact that you keep on throwing radars out on any ship class as a "gimmick" (looking forward to regular radars on subs soon .... fall of 2023 maybe?) is just a part of the whole "everything in this game needs to have a thing to spot/counter DD/Dev strike DDs" problem.

 

3 hours ago, Seraphice said:

Odd then that it is not something that often happens to me.
Playing carefully and making sure you analyse the situation is important. if you're in a shimakaze and the enemy team has 2 smalands you should probably be careful.
If you're in a daring and the enemy team has 2 elbings you can be pretty aggressive, If the enemy has a stealth radar you probably want to make sure to play it very safe until you know where it is, etc.

If you're just running in with no regard for what the enemy team could possibly bring to counter you, then yes, you can get radared before you can turn away, and yes you can die in a very short time. It's part of the game - playing around the tools that the enemy team has.

 

What never happens to you? You dont need to suicide in for buffs in Arms race or just give them for free to enemy team? What do you then do in Arms race when playing a DD?

 

Yes, im quite good at analyzing the game and situation but its hard to "play around" things that you can't foresee, like unspotted radar cruisers popping up out of nowhere, radars popping thru islands from unspotted ships (happens a lot near cap zones ... the zones DDs NEED to take), airplanes Everywhere at all times, subs that Sometimes get "lit" by your Radio Location and sometimes not ......? But here the kicker... you never know when......etc etc etc etc. 

 

It was one thing when it was just the stupidity of 3 cap dom mode whene you could delay pushing the caps until most od the defenders leave, but then you had to put Arms race into regular rotation?! A game mode that forces DDs to suicide in for middle buffs or lose the game for their team with abuse and reports as a bonus. EVERYONE on each team has their guns trained on the middle buffs at the start of the game and they all just wait for the fish (DDs) to enter the barrel.

 

So how do one "play around the tools the enemy has" in 3 cap dome mode or Arms race where ALL the tools are focused around the caps and buffs? I guess I "Just dodge". Or just crap on the team and go out on a flank for pure selfish damage farming.

 

3 hours ago, Seraphice said:

Right now none of the test proposals have been accepted as they are, or we would have already implemented them. When we have more information to share on the topic we'll let you know.
Additionally all the CV tests we performed are announced on our devblog: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/

 

Yeah ... were not holding our breath. Its just sad that after all these years and all your spreadsheets and "testing" CV class is still just hilarious broken. Are fighter's consumables fighters or spotting aircraft? Maybe just rename them "portabel radars"?

 

 

[ColonelPete]

26 minutes ago, Figment said:

Irony. You re-interpret people's statements constantly. :/ I don't ignore, I disagree with you and your wildly oversimplified and twisted interpretations of what other people said. You do this a lot btw in other discussions as well. Maybe try not being a kettle when you falsely try to call out a pot.

Sure and you can also compensate for losing a CV, that doesn't mean that the odds of doing so wildly differ for losing an arbitrary BB or cruiser versus losing a DD or CV (subs are a whole more complex thing and it says fairly little if you lose one IMO as they either do well or do meh anyway depending on the actions of teams on both sides).

Ranked is a microcosm of what happens in Randoms. In Ranked the effect is far more immediately felt, but the effect is mostly the same unless the map is really small like in Brawls. I also do fine in other ships, but you're completely blind if you didn't notice that it's far easier to get top score and lose fewer stars with DDs than it is with other classes of ships.

 

It's funny that you seem to imply I stated that you can't rank out fine with other ships, whereas I clearly and very nuanced stated that it's more effective (fast and reliable) to use a DD in Ranked. The reason is because of the exp system and because the side that wins the DD duels wins the match most of the time. So if you're a good player, then being in a DD gives a greater guarantee that the DD is not wasted early and the enemy DD die first, after which your side has greater leverage over the cap zones, ambush and stealth attacks as well as overall spotting proficiency.
 

And still you claim I did not write stuff I wrote...

 

Ranked has different dynamics. And I did not write anything about the XP system as this has nothing to do with winning the match.

 

And no, I did not imply anything. Just stick to the words I wrote.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

all forum cryers and ability to get TX ship with 100 games (boxes) are directly responisble for hordes of sub 45% WR players that basicaly decide which side will win, aka which side has more of them....today it is normal to have 0 player on your team that is over 50% wr.

 

all the crying about clases, skills, mechanics-----, all crying about anything that neds any kind of skill has brought us to this moment in time that games last 5 minutes,....startting with EPIC MEGA DRAMA back in the days about shima 20 km torps

 

you wanted it - enjoy it now

[Seraphice]

4 minutes ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

How is it less when all you did was nerfing the speed some? There are still an ever increasing number of new CVs, new CV lines, Premium CVs with special ability to kill DDs... New Super CVs. 3 Hybrid ships in the game right now that has planes that can circle around DDs with no end and soon 3 more Hybrids.....

Introducing more CVs into the game does not really raise the CV population by much. It only increases the variety of CVs you face.

 

5 minutes ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

Just because it doesn't say stealth radar in that stats it doesn't mean its literary the same thing in the actual combat. If you are heading in one direction in your DD and you spot a Russian cruiser or Des Moines or Annapolis for that matter you can't even start to turn your bad rudder before you are in their effective radar coverage and then your lit during turning where you lose speed and then its just a Hail Mary if you manage to survive until you go dark. For US cruisers thats about 40-50 seconds of shelling and if its an Annapolis you are already dead.

Then if you're running into them, isn't that a sign that you misplayed?

 

6 minutes ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

And it's not radars on BBs and DDs am talking about, they and the fact that you keep on throwing radars out on any ship class as a "gimmick" (looking forward to regular radars on subs soon .... fall of 2023 maybe?) is just a part of the whole "everything in this game needs to have a thing to spot/counter DD/Dev strike DDs" problem.

As someone who plays DDs myself, the game is most certainly not focused on being able to kill DDs.
DDs still have a very large battle influence, once of the largest in the game even, and that's certainly not because they're weak. Of course as a result killing DDs is important, but the game is not centered around that aspect only.

 

9 minutes ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

But here the kicker... you never know when......etc etc etc etc. 

The minimap can provide a very large amount of information about the state of the battle including (previous) position of enemy ships and planes, as well as how the battle is going to progress.
 

10 minutes ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

So how do one "play around the tools the enemy has" in 3 cap dome mode or Arms race where ALL the tools are focused around the caps and buffs? I guess I "Just dodge". Or just crap on the team and go out on a flank for pure selfish damage farming.

Not every game has 3 radars and not every game those ships will be in position to counter you, let alone do anything to you. Even from experience that just isn't the case.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[ItsEyeJasper]

2 hours ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

@Atalante

@El2aZeR

I summon thee

 

 

 

Lol ya tagged the wrong Atlante.  He changed his name again. 

 

[Figment]

44 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

And still you claim I did not write stuff I wrote... [...] And no, I did not imply anything. Just stick to the words I wrote.

I'm quite convinced that you often have no concept of what you imply when you write something, as the assumptions and claims you make act well beyond the narrow scope you move the goalposts back to.

44 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Ranked has different dynamics. And I did not write anything about the XP system as this has nothing to do with winning the match.

Ranked dynamics are pretty much the same as Ranked, but with numerical advantages and leverage sizes being different due to the number of players representing a higher percentage of enemy power (in all shapes and forms) each. Meaning a single kill has more effect on the battle than in Randoms.

 

You didn't write anything about the XP system (you didn't need to...), I did for the obvious reason that you disputed the DDs relative effectiveness in ranking in Ranked with respect to other classes. DD's are extra suitable for Ranked as they're likelier to gain the most exp while having a near guaranteed match carrying impact when handled by a good player. A good player in other classes (save perhaps CV) is more likely to still be strongly dependent on the capacity of others to spot enemies as long as the other side has DDs.

 

Where you falsely claimed the argument made by others was that "the loss of DDs can't be overcome", by stating "other classes can compensate too". Which isn't a counterargument at all, since nobody said they can't. They said it's just harder to do so. People were talking about the rate at which a deficiency is likely to overcome. Leverage is no guarantee of a win, it's an increase in the likeliness of a positive outcome occuring.

 

 

You completely failed to understand that (or didn't want to) and instead interpreted people to have stated that "it's never possible", hence you lowered your evidence bar to only needing to prove that it's possible to compensate. But that falls short to proving it's likely that you can compensate, rather than that there's a chance you can compensate. We're talking about the size of the chance, you're talking about whether there's a chance at all... You either didn't get that or conveniently interpreted it into an extreme claim (true/false) position (strawman).

[shlimo]

5 hours ago, Seraphice said:

There's no RU CAs/CLs that have stealth radar except chapayev.

Are you sure about that?

[Seraphice]

9 minutes ago, shlimo said:

Are you sure about that?

Considering that Tallinn's radar is extremely short duration and the ship doesnt have the best capabilities to deal with a DD herself, and the fact that Ochakov radar is short range, and the ship is not very common, Chapayev is the most relevant one.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Figment said:

I'm quite convinced that you often have no concept of what you imply when you write something, as the assumptions and claims you make act well beyond the narrow scope you move the goalposts back to.

Ranked dynamics are pretty much the same as Ranked, but with numerical advantages and leverage sizes being different due to the number of players representing a higher percentage of enemy power (in all shapes and forms) each. Meaning a single kill has more effect on the battle than in Randoms.

 

You didn't write anything about the XP system (you didn't need to...), I did for the obvious reason that you disputed the DDs relative effectiveness in ranking in Ranked with respect to other classes. DD's are extra suitable for Ranked as they're likelier to gain the most exp while having a near guaranteed match carrying impact when handled by a good player. A good player in other classes (save perhaps CV) is more likely to still be strongly dependent on the capacity of others to spot enemies as long as the other side has DDs.

 

Where you falsely claimed the argument made by others was that "the loss of DDs can't be overcome", by stating "other classes can compensate too". Which isn't a counterargument at all, since nobody said they can't. They said it's just harder to do so. People were talking about the rate at which a deficiency is likely to overcome. Leverage is no guarantee of a win, it's an increase in the likeliness of a positive outcome occuring.

 

 

You completely failed to understand that (or didn't want to) and instead interpreted people to have stated that "it's never possible", hence you lowered your evidence bar to only needing to prove that it's possible to compensate. But that falls short to proving it's likely that you can compensate, rather than that there's a chance you can compensate. We're talking about the size of the chance, you're talking about whether there's a chance at all... You either didn't get that or conveniently interpreted it into an extreme claim (true/false) position (strawman).

What I imply and when, is up to me, not you. Anything else is your interpretation and you are not good at it.

 

Ranked has different dynamics as player skill is even a more dominant factor.

The effectivness of DD to gain XP and save a star have nothing to do with their effectivness to win a match, as stars and XP do not win matches. They are an arbitrary reward from WG.

 

And I never claimed others argumented the loss of DD cannot be overcome. And therefore there was no need for a counterargument for that, unless one makes it all up

 

And since my argument did not change, I did not lower any "bar".

 

 

[Figment]

18 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

What I imply and when, is up to me, not you. Anything else is your interpretation and you are not good at it.

You're kidding, right?

 

When you communicate, YOU are responsible to design the message such that it is transmitted clearly to the receiver. What you're implying now is that you're not just terrible at that, but that you don't care and the receiver should somehow just "know" what you imply. That's not how communication works. 

Quote

Ranked has different dynamics as player skill is even a more dominant factor.

A single player has more influence because there are fewer players, but that doesn't change the essential mechanics and interactions (dynamics) of ships. It just means there's less far away influence to "local" battles. Beyond that it's exactly the same as Randoms on a smaller scale, so I have to disagree with you there on the dynamics bit.

Quote

The effectivness of DD to gain XP and save a star have nothing to do with their effectivness to win a match, as stars and XP do not win matches. They are an arbitrary reward from WG.

They are a representation of the influence they had in a match. DDs have more things to draw on to influence matches even at low damage counts to still rate high in exp. Particularly in spotting exp. That you opt to ignore information that you either don't understand for what it represents or isn't convenient to your argument doesn't mean one shouldn't consider why DDs get such high rewards assigned by WG.

 

 

And no. It's not "arbitrary".

Quote

And I never claimed others argumented the loss of DD cannot be overcome. And therefore there was no need for a counterargument for that, unless one makes it all up

You implied it with your "counterargument" that other units can compensate. Why else mention something nobody contested other than the efficacy of such compensation being lower than that of a DD compensating for the loss of a cruiser of BB? Your response to the suggestion that it's worse to lose a DD than other units is that "it's possible to compensate", suggesting that we stated it was not.

 

 

 

Several times. If you didn't want to imply it, consider your phrasing more carefully.

 

 

Do note you basically just argued you made no arguments at all and made random irrelevant statements to throw us off.

Quote

And since my argument did not change, I did not lower any "bar".

That's not the bar by which you determine if you lowered the bar. You just arbitrarily raised the bar for determining what lowering the bar means. Changing an argument or not changing it has absolutely no influence on whether a bar is raised or lowered... A bar is a quality assessment of the argument, has nothing to do on whether or not or how often it changes...

 

 

 

YOUR ARGUMENT IMPLIED THAT ALL YOU NEEDED TO DO TO SHOW US WRONG, WAS TO PROVE THAT COMPENSATION IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE, AT ALL. Whereas you would have had to show that it's equally likely or more likely, in order to counter argue against a statement regarding an amount of influence. Hence you lowered the bar for yourself to have a "sufficient" argument with a very weak one that didn't disprove anything.

 

It's like when we say "there's a 90% chance of rain today due to the amount of moisture and pressure etc etc", all you'd have to do that it's equally or more likely to be sunny is saying "but if the sun breaks through at all it is sunny, therefore it doesn't matter how moist the sky is and you might as well say it's going to be sunny today".

 

 

You really don't get it, do you?

[ColonelPete]

21 minutes ago, Figment said:

1. You're kidding, right? When you communicate, YOU are responsible to design the message such that it is transmitted clearly to the receiver. What you're implying now is that you're not just terrible at that, but that you don't care and the receiver should somehow just "know" what you imply. That's not how communication works. 
2. A single player has more influence because there are fewer players, but that doesn't change the essential mechanics and interactions (dynamics) of ships. It just means there's less far away influence to "local" battles. Beyond that it's exactly the same as Randoms on a smaller scale, so I have to disagree with you there on the dynamics bit.
3. They are a representation of the influence they had in a match. DDs have more things to draw on to influence matches even at low damage counts to still rate high in exp. Particularly in spotting exp. That you opt to ignore information that you either don't understand for what it represents or isn't convenient to your argument doesn't mean one shouldn't consider why DDs get such high rewards assigned by WG. And no. It's not "arbitrary".
4. You implied it with your "counterargument" that other units can compensate. Why else mention something nobody contested other than the efficacy of such compensation being lower than that of a DD compensating for the loss of a cruiser of BB? Your response to the suggestion that it's worse to lose a DD than other units is that "it's possible to compensate", suggesting that we stated it was not. Several times. If you didn't want to imply it, consider your phrasing more carefully.
5. Do note you basically just argued you made no arguments at all and made random irrelevant statements to throw us off.
6. That's not the bar by which you determine if you lowered the bar. You just arbitrarily raised the bar for determining what lowering the bar means. Changing an argument or not changing it has absolutely no influence on whether a bar is raised or lowered... A bar is a quality assessment of the argument, has nothing to do on whether or not or how often it changes...YOUR ARGUMENT IMPLIED THAT ALL YOU NEEDED TO DO TO SHOW US WRONG, WAS TO PROVE THAT COMPENSATION IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE. Whereas you would have had to show that it's equally likely or more likely to counter argue. Hence you lowered the bar for yourself to have a "sufficient" argument with a very weak one that didn't disprove anything. You really don't get it, do you?

1-6: Read what I wrote, do not "read" what you think I wrote.

2. It does not change the mechanics, but the dynamics. The carry factor gets bigger with skill, which compensates ship losses better.

3. WG set the rewards. If XP were a representation of match influence then baseline camping BB with no kills should never reach high Base XP values, but they do sometimes. Some people farm XP and by throwing themselves into batte at the ened of the match, when they cannot change the outcome anymore. Also every class and ship has different rewards and modifiers for specific actions --> Some ships/class gain more XP for the same action. So no, XP are not a representation of match influence.

4. I did not imply anything, I WROTE that other classes can compensate.

5. No idea what you mean.

6. I did not imply anything, I WROTE that other classes can compensate. That did not change.

 

Yes, I do not get the need of certain people to interpret my words in a way I did not write them, just to prove me wrong. If you cannot do that with fact based arguments and instead have to rely on imagination and feelings, do yourself a favour and do not start an argument with me.