Concurrent games, each one only lasted 8 mins

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

2 hours ago, ItsEyeJasper said:

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

... that sky scourge loving weeb.

 

@Zuihou_Kai_Ni

[CSS_modding_1]

On 1/8/2023 at 12:57 PM, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

DDs are under a lot of pressure at the moment, Supershits with burst fire, everybody and their brother featuring radar, including DDs and BBs (can't wait for subs with radar), casual spotting by planes, getting murdered by submersible scum.

Then add BBs who rather sail to the A line, Cruisers who feinted at supporting but then instead proceed to ineffectually hide behind islands.

 

And then you get games with the only DD on your flank is an Elbing and the other spotter of choice is an incompetent CV....

so now u have comments too on the team play 

wen i sad it i am a idiot and dont now how to play 

and this is exactly wat i ment 

(Then add BBs who rather sail to the A line, Cruisers who feinted at supporting but then instead proceed to ineffectually hide behind islands.)

and u say im a bad player and it has nothing to do with teams who play bad 

its my foult i have to hide too behind islands 

wen i dont i get killed by a cruising bb 

so wen i say i want to make an effort to  win and try to cap becouse no one try

suddenly im bad 

sure 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

24 minutes ago, CSS_modding_1 said:

...

This is it:

 

 

[Figment]

28 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

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

I did. And what you wrote implied things. Not so much what I think what you wrote, but in relation to what was written before and you responded to, it IMPLIES THINGS. What you wrote is meaningless banter out of context of what you replied to.

 

That you don't understand the full implications of what you write is your problem. That you unintentionally imply something means you're just not carefully phrasing things and not conditioning your statements well.

28 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

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

You don't seem to understand that a bigger potential positive impact from a single player also means a greater potential negative impact.

 

Being able to carry more easily is because you take care of 1/6th of the team instead of 1/12th. However, if you lose a ship, you also have to compensate for 1/6th of your team, rather than 1/12th.

 

If you lose your DD(s), you'll have lost most your spotting capacity however. That impact will be felt harder.

28 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

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.

Except that it is. Imperfect, yet it is.

 

 

 

Why do you think it's rewarded less however?

 

 

You honestly want to argue those values are assigned arbitrarily? That a scout gets a greater reward for scouting damage than a non-scout? Truly, is that your argument? Because you imply it's all arbitrary then that suggests there's no actual design to it. It's not arbitrary, it's designed to complement the roles of the ships. That there are situational abuses of the system like damage farming as the damage value is taken out of context of the match is down to a simplification of the contribution that type of ship is supposed to be making. However, when it also correlates directly to a team's win chances (which it does and which is what was argued), then you can't say it's arbitrary.

28 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

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

In response to: "Losing a DD is harder to compensate for than losing a cruiser or BB"

 

"Other classes can compensate [theoretically, for the loss of a DD, hence it's not worse]" is your argument in context. Otherwise it's just random filler BS and not an argument. ERGO since this is supposed to be a counter argument, you argue that the aforementioned case isn't the case. Thus that it is NOT worse than losing another class of unit. Being able to compensate in some cases doesn't mean you can always do so or that it's as easy to compensate for, which was the argument you had to prove and you made no case for. So either you don't have an argument, or you implied what I said you did.

 

Choose.

 

 

 

FFS man, you're being so obtuse. What you wrote has a context, reason to be there and it's related to what others wrote. Hence you imply things. All the time. You are just not smart enough to comprehend what an implication is apparently.

28 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

5. No idea what you mean.

I know.

28 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

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

Where did I argue it changed? And whether or not it did, what has that to do with anything? You said something in a specific context replying to other people, implying things you continue to fail to grasp you implied (yet you clearly know you implied it in context, for that's why you made a statement in response in the first place). That also did not change. It also didn't make you less wrong. Mostly because it seems you didn't understand what you were replying to.

 

Again, you replied to a quantitative statement (more chance than) with a qualitative statement (there is a chance) to argue that the quantities are equal. You didn't understand that's what you did and you continue not to since you still don't recognise that you were responding to a quantitative statement rather than a qualitative statement. Your response is only logical if it was said that you can never compensate with other classes, which nobody said. People were speaking about certain relative chance rates. You speak about the mere existence of chance and due to not even doing so carefully speak in absolutes.

 

You are the one who doesn't get it and misinterprets.

28 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

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.

What you don't get is that when you write things in response to others it has a context. Since you often don't understand the thing you respond to in the first place, it's not weird that you don't understand what you're implying either.z

 

28 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

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.

Want to know where you can stick that statement?

[ColonelPete]

28 minutes ago, Figment said:

1. I did. And what you wrote implied things. Not so much what I think what you wrote, but in relation to what was written before and you responded to, it IMPLIES THINGS. What you wrote is meaningless banter out of context of what you replied to.That you don't understand the full implications of what you write is your problem. That you unintentionally imply something means you're just not carefully phrasing things and not conditioning your statements well.
2. You don't seem to understand that a bigger potential positive impact from a single player also means a greater potential negative impact.Being able to carry more easily is because you take care of 1/6th of the team instead of 1/12th. However, if you lose a ship, you also have to compensate for 1/6th of your team, rather than 1/12th.If you lose your DD(s), you'll have lost most your spotting capacity however. That impact will be felt harder.
3. Except that it is. Imperfect, yet it is. Why do you think it's rewarded less however? You honestly want to argue those values are assigned arbitrarily? That a scout gets a greater reward for scouting damage than a non-scout? Truly, is that your argument? Because you imply it's all arbitrary then that suggests there's no actual design to it. It's not arbitrary, it's designed to complement the roles of the ships. That there are situational abuses of the system like damage farming as the damage value is taken out of context of the match is down to a simplification of the contribution that type of ship is supposed to be making. However, when it also correlates directly to a team's win chances (which it does and which is what was argued), then you can't say it's arbitrary.
4. In response to: "Losing a DD is harder to compensate for than losing a cruiser or BB" "Other classes can compensate [theoretically, for the loss of a DD, hence it's not worse]" is your argument in context. Otherwise it's just random filler BS and not an argument. ERGO since this is supposed to be a counter argument, you argue that the aforementioned case isn't the case. Thus that it is NOT worse than losing another class of unit. Being able to compensate in some cases doesn't mean you can always do so or that it's as easy to compensate for, which was the argument you had to prove and you made no case for. So either you don't have an argument, or you implied what I said you did. Choose. FFS man, you're being so obtuse. What you wrote has a context, reason to be there and it's related to what others wrote. Hence you imply things. All the time. You are just not smart enough to comprehend what an implication is apparently.
5. I know.
6. Where did I argue it changed? And whether or not it did, what has that to do with anything? You said something in a specific context replying to other people, implying things you continue to fail to grasp you implied (yet you clearly know you implied it in context, for that's why you made a statement in response in the first place). That also did not change. It also didn't make you less wrong. Mostly because it seems you didn't understand what you were replying to.Again, you replied to a quantitative statement (more chance than) with a qualitative statement (there is a chance) to argue that the quantities are equal. You didn't understand that's what you did and you continue not to since you still don't recognise that you were responding to a quantitative statement rather than a qualitative statement. Your response is only logical if it was said that you can never compensate with other classes, which nobody said. People were speaking about certain relative chance rates. You speak about the mere existence of chance and due to not even doing so carefully speak in absolutes. You are the one who doesn't get it and misinterprets.
7. What you don't get is that when you write things in response to others it has a context. Since you often don't understand the thing you respond to in the first place, it's not weird that you don't understand what you're implying either.z
8. Want to know where you can stick that statement?

1. You deny it and insists on continuing to use your interpretation.
2. Where did I write that a single player cannot have a bigger negative impact? Why would you claim that I did not understand that? Stop making things up!
3. If the same actions get different rewards, then the rewards are arbitrary.
4. That is not the original statement I replied to....
5. When you know, why write it? Should forum users write gibberish to compensate for a lack of arguments?
6. You claimed I lowered the bar. That is change. I did not change my statement.
7. What you do not get is that you interpret things in a way they were not written. If you give words a different meaning than they have, then statments change completly from what they originally meant. That is a least a sign for an active imagination or worse a sign of ill intent.
8. I leave that to your active imagination.

[Nibenay78]

7 hours ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

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

Until you meet a semi competent cv player or his cruiser friend..

Plus when you check 60%+ are actually non-strike planes after all...

[Hugh_Ruka]

8 hours ago, Seraphice said:

As someone who plays DDs myself, the game is most certainly not focused on being able to kill DDs.

It is interesting that the vast majority of your DD experience is from division play ... I mean Grozovoi solo winrate 36%, 2div 83%, 3div 85% as an example ... similar picture with many other DDs (some of them you never played solo). So your experience playing DDs is vastly skewed in this discussion unfortunately. Your high tier DD play is almost exclusively division played.

 

Yes you are still better at DDs than I am f.e., but your view is definitely biased by the division play experience.

[Seraphice]

11 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

It is interesting that the vast majority of your DD experience is from division play ... I mean Grozovoi solo winrate 36%, 2div 83%, 3div 85% as an example ... similar picture with many other DDs (some of them you never played solo). So your experience playing DDs is vastly skewed in this discussion unfortunately. Your high tier DD play is almost exclusively division played.

 

Yes you are still better at DDs than I am f.e., but your view is definitely biased by the division play experience.

I don't have an issue using my stats to justify a point, but let's take an actual look at my stats, instead of cherry picking ones that work in your favour:

Here is the overall solo stats

 

 

It's true - I like to play in divs with friends. I love to chat with friends while playing the game, what can I say. Doesn't make my point invalid.

Fair seas captain!
~Sera
 

[Bainsmit_steel]

I am sorry but playing in unicum division and solo is two entirely different experience WR rate vise.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

14 minutes ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

I am sorry but playing in unicum division and solo is two entirely different experience WR rate vise.

Well to bad for you him and myself can perform solo just as well as we do in divisions. Somehow we just don't have the same problems the majority of people point out in this topic. It might have to do with us playing as Sera explained in detail, carefully picking our fights and correct predictions and match reading as to what the enemy could be doing and where they are before we see them.

 

@Karkong_the_Impaler

you pinged me? What is it you want me to comment on?

If its spotting of CVs then RTS was far worse as there you could use empty bomber planes who outrun every fighter plane to spot on multiple places of the map at once and that doesn't include the 4 other squadrons flying around all over the place and spotting. And the empty bomber planes could be in the air for unlimited amounts of time.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

13 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

It is interesting that the vast majority of your DD experience is from division play ... I mean Grozovoi solo winrate 36%, 2div 83%, 3div 85% as an example ... similar picture with many other DDs (some of them you never played solo). So your experience playing DDs is vastly skewed in this discussion unfortunately. Your high tier DD play is almost exclusively division played.

 

Yes you are still better at DDs than I am f.e., but your view is definitely biased by the division play experience.

I share seras opinions on DD play and look, my most played solo ships include 2 classic DDs and it just seems that I'm doing quite well despite all the radar, CVs and subs. Just maybe Sera has a point?

[Hugh_Ruka]

2 hours ago, Seraphice said:

I don't have an issue using my stats to justify a point, but let's take an actual look at my stats, instead of cherry picking ones that work in your favour:

Here is the overall solo stats

 

 

It's true - I like to play in divs with friends. I love to chat with friends while playing the game, what can I say. Doesn't make my point invalid.

Fair seas captain!
~Sera
 

I was not cherry picking. I had to take ships where you had some significant number of games. Anything below 10 games total in all options (solo + div2 + div3) is insufficient for analysis :-( You have low amount of DD games unfortunately.

 

My main point was that your game profile is heavily skewed towards divisions. It is visible on the jump in WR and you have never played some of the DDs solo. So your experience is biased towards division play. You might not realize but there's a huge difference if you can count on a BB or cruiser to pre-aim and prepare to hit targets you spot or hit the ones that are shooting you to playing solo and having to pray for a team mate to cover you. The approach is vastly different in many cases and maps.

 

Also yes you may like to play DDs, but it is your least played surface class by a wide margin (like 30% of CA or BB). That again is a point to note when taking into account your opinions on DDs. Same as nobody will listen to me when I talk about how to play cruisers or BBs, I have played basically no games with those classes.

[Hugh_Ruka]

1 hour ago, Zuihou_Kai_Ni said:

I share seras opinions on DD play and look, my most played solo ships include 2 classic DDs and it just seems that I'm doing quite well despite all the radar, CVs and subs. Just maybe Sera has a point?

Good, you at least have the stats to back up your opinion (at least solo Shima and Gearing, the other DDs are mostly average), Sera does not. The question is now, those are the 2 oldest DDs, so when did you acquire those stats ? But that is cherry picking as Sera mentioned :-)

 

When did you last play a Gearing game ? I can find a few (very good) Shima games in the timeframe wows-numbers has recorded.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

25 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Good, you at least have the stats to back up your opinion (at least solo Shima and Gearing, the other DDs are mostly average), Sera does not. The question is now, those are the 2 oldest DDs, so when did you acquire those stats ? But that is cherry picking as Sera mentioned :-)

 

When did you last play a Gearing game ? I can find a few (very good) Shima games in the timeframe wows-numbers has recorded.

Just look at the most recent stats. the last gearing game was a month ago.

you also have to understand that some stats are highly outdated 

you can clearly see that Sera and me are great players. We do not need to play solo just to prove this point to you but when we play solo and the most recent stats are usually the best indicator of the current state of skill we have success and thats what you appear to not want to accept.

 

Also playing with friends is more important value of time in this game anyway. Div don't take away our abilities in the game.

 

Thats also why you see little amounts of people even getting above 65% div winrates even though it supposedly is so easy. 

[Bainsmit_steel]

1 hour ago, Zuihou_Kai_Ni said:

Well to bad for you him and myself can perform solo just as well as we do in divisions. Somehow we just don't have the same problems the majority of people point out in this topic. It might have to do with us playing as Sera explained in detail, carefully picking our fights and correct predictions and match reading as to what the enemy could be doing and where they are before we see them.

 

I applaud you you are one of the rare pro players in WoWS.  Interestingly such comments usually comes from people which play divisions much. One thing is truth not all players are the same one are better then another in every game that is for sure. So there will be few percent of players even in WoWS which can perform great in both categories you are one of them.

 

Sadly the best thing would be that this game has some elo system and that do not mix divisions with solo players but for that this game is too small.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

3 minutes ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

I applaud you and interestingly such comments usually comes from people which play divisions much. One thing is truth not all players are the same one are better then another in every game that is for sure.

 

Sadly the best thing would be that this game has some elo system and that do not mix divisions with solo players but for that this game is too small.

That is not an excuse. The game does not need to be made easier for the ones who don't want to improve at it. The game should be difficult to reward good players. Bad players can get rewarded too by getting better and no, ELO system would mean that players like me won't find matches. Do you not understand how little the amount of players is that are as good?it would take hours to match 12 vs 12

[Bainsmit_steel]

1 minute ago, Zuihou_Kai_Ni said:

That is not an excuse. The game does not need to be made easier for the ones who don't want to improve at it. The game should be difficult to reward good players. Bad players can get rewarded too by getting better and no, ELO system would mean that players like me won't find matches. Do you not understand how little the amount of players is that are as good?it would take hours to match 12 vs 12

I do understand read my last sentence quote " but for that this game is too small" ergo I meant waiting ques would be too long.

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

On 1/8/2023 at 3:02 PM, Schelfie said:

Try playing Co-Op now in Battleships with al those random guys with their torpedo spamming machinegun DD's and CA's coming to gather missions and snowflakes and ruining the experience for the regular Co-Op players.

Im one of the guilty ones. When it comes to missions with kills, torp hits or fires you can never go wrong by taking Kleber, Mogador and Marceau into Co-Op. You will finish the missions in 10% of the time it would take you to do the same in Randoms. A Kleber can yolo rush enemy team at 50+ knots and kill 2-3-4 of them scoring multiple torp hits and fires and be done/dead in 3-4 min, then directly to port and start a new game in one of the other 2, rinse and repeat and all missions done! 

 

Dont hate the player .... hate the game ... (or game developer, they set it up like this)

[Ymustihaveaname]

17 minutes ago, Zuihou_Kai_Ni said:

ELO system would mean that players like me won't find matches. Do you not understand how little the amount of players is that are as good?it would take hours to match 12 vs 12

Would it need to be anywhere like that hard a MM? Even just swapping pairs of ships matched once the 12 v 12 is formed, ie if it has one 45% and one 55% Shima swap them to try and balance the overall team average WR to as close as possible, this would not be perfect as some classes have more impact (CVs...) and good or bad three ship divs could not be swapped individually Divs but would narrow the spread?

[Yosha_AtaIante]

1 minute ago, Ymustihaveaname said:

Would it need to be anywhere like that hard a MM? Even just swapping pairs of ships matched once the 12 v 12 is formed, ie if it has one 45% and one 55% Shima swap them to try and balance the overall team average WR to as close as possible, this would not be perfect as some classes have more impact (CVs...) and good or bad three ship divs could not be swapped individually Divs but would narrow the spread?

I really don't like discussing what ifs and could bes.

Even if we come up with the perfect system its not up to us to implement and im sure WG would know best due to their analytik tools how to do it. They choose not to on purpose. Its their decision and we have to live with that 

[Seraphice]

4 hours ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

I am sorry but playing in unicum division and solo is two entirely different experience WR rate vise.

Solo WR for DDs is still unicum, solo PR for DDs is still super unicum.

My opinion on how best to play is not fact, but there's probably some truth to what I said

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[WingedHussar_Adler]

19 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

Until you meet a semi competent cv player or his cruiser friend..

Plus when you check 60%+ are actually non-strike planes after all...

his cruiser friend is real problem.....as AAA is not skill based but pasive thing superunicum can not outplayit easily 

[Figment]

When high WR player's stats are put in question publically regarding their "actual competence".

 

[Hugh_Ruka]

3 hours ago, Zuihou_Kai_Ni said:

Thats also why you see little amounts of people even getting above 65% div winrates even though it supposedly is so easy. 

You see that's an interesting argument. On one hand, we can see that certain players (Sera f.e.) drastically improve their winrate when playing divisions (I think that is true for most players with exceptions like me:-)). On the other hand, they refuse to acknowledge that playing solo is more difficult and certain situations that are manageable in a div are not manageable in solo play.

[Hugh_Ruka]

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

When high WR player's stats are put in question publically regarding their "actual competence".

 

There are high WR stats players that achieved them in tier 2 and similar ... should we not analyze where the WR is in relevant parts of the game being discussed or should we just take high WR as a proof regardless ?