II'm sick of your respawns!

[maybe__baby]

II'm sick of your respawns!
I just want to play, not this dibilism.
EVERY fight I have this kind of nonsense and different variations.
I am very dissatisfied with the work of the people who are responsible for the respawns.

 

explain to these people about specularity and what it is! let them buy a set for kindergarten and cut out circles and squares according to the rulers, that everything was SYMMETRIC!

[ColonelPete]

There are no respawns in this game.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Have I missed something in the WG articles that I never bother to even glance through any more?

[PaxtonQuigly]

1 hour ago, maybe__baby said:

this kind of nonsense

Excuse my ignorance but what nonsense?

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

Can't say. I believe he talks about symmetry and - I'm guessing here - he wants better symmetry. I don't know what exactly, it's either the maps (which are symmetric, in a way), spawnpoints (which are mostly symmetric, too) or the matchmaking (which at least mirrors tiers and classes, so one can argue it's symmetric... too). Or maybe he is whining about all the things above?

 

@maybe__baby please elaborate. If the language is an issue, I recommend deepl.com

[LiveWire___]

1 hour ago, maybe__baby said:

II'm sick of your respawns!

 

What?

 

1 hour ago, maybe__baby said:

dibilism

 

This isn't a word. I checked. 

 

1 hour ago, maybe__baby said:

I am very dissatisfied with the work of the people who are responsible for the respawns

 

What?

 

1 hour ago, maybe__baby said:

specularity

 

In the context of seismic migration, specularity is defined as the cosine of the angle made by the surface normal vector and the angle bisector of the angle defined by the directions of the incident and diffracted rays.^[3] For a purely specular seismic event the value of specularity should be equal to unity, as the angle between the surface normal vector and the angle bisector should be zero, according to Snell's Law. For a diffractive seismic event, the specularity can be sub-unitary. During the seismic migration, one can filter each seismic event according to the value of specularity, in order to enhance the contribution of diffractions in the seismic image. Alternatively, the events can be separated in different sub-images according to the value of specularity to produce a specularity gather.

 

WHAT?

 

1 hour ago, maybe__baby said:

 them buy a set for kindergarten and cut out circles and squares according to the rulers, that everything was SYMMETRIC!

 

What?

 

The?

 

Hell?

 

Are?

 

You?

 

Talking?

 

About?

 

 

I'm a man who prides myself on my facilities with the written word.

 

For example, I'm anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.

 

But this post you have made, if it has any meaning whatsoever, has so completely and totally confused me as to make me question the very nature of life, the universe, and, indeed, my own sanity.

 

Please, oh please, will you explain what on earth you're talking about? 

 

Otherwise I'm going to have to seek professional help. 

[maybe__baby]

19 minutes ago, LiveWire___ said:

 

What?

 

 

This isn't a word. I checked.

 

 

What?

 

 

In the context of seismic migration, specularity is defined as the cosine of the angle made by the surface normal vector and the angle bisector of the angle defined by the directions of the incident and diffracted rays.^[3] For a purely specular seismic event the value of specularity should be equal to unity, as the angle between the surface normal vector and the angle bisector should be zero, according to Snell's Law. For a diffractive seismic event, the specularity can be sub-unitary. During the seismic migration, one can filter each seismic event according to the value of specularity, in order to enhance the contribution of diffractions in the seismic image. Alternatively, the events can be separated in different sub-images according to the value of specularity to produce a specularity gather.

 

WHAT?

 

 

What?

 

The?

 

Hell?

 

Are?

 

You?

 

Talking?

 

About?

 

 

I'm a man who prides myself on my facilities with the written word.

 

For example, I'm anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.

 

But this post you have made, if it has any meaning whatsoever, has so completely and totally confused me as to make me question the very nature of life, the universe, and, indeed, my own sanity.

 

Please, oh please, will you explain what on earth you're talking about?

 

Otherwise I'm going to have to seek professional help.

who needs it - he will understand!
Are you a wargaming worker and are responsible for the placement of ships on the map and the matchmaker?
Most likely no.

 

if you are really interested, I leave you a replay of this fight, you can watch it and answer a rhetorical question for yourself; why should I be interested in playing alone on a cruiser of level 9 against a crowd consisting of a battleship of 10, well, there are little things that were originally laid down. ??

20230211_235142_PHSC109-Johan-de-Witt_44_Path_warrior.wowsreplay

 

or another "masterpiece". tell me how, after a couple of minutes of battle, 3 out of 4 destroyers will end up at one point on the map? where the hell is the symmetry?

20230212_000818_PHSC109-Johan-de-Witt_15_NE_north.wowsreplay

[LiveWire___]

3 minutes ago, maybe__baby said:

who needs it - he will understand!
Are you a wargaming worker and are responsible for the placement of ships on the map and the matchmaker?
Most likely no.

 

You know, there's another guy on here who talks like you. 

 

I dare not invoke his name, though. 

[ColonelPete]

8 minutes ago, maybe__baby said:

who needs it - he will understand!

We do not need it. You are the one wanting an answer. It helps making yourself understood.

But feel free to continue to be frustrated

[Karasu_Browarszky]

47 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Can't say. I believe he talks about symmetry and - I'm guessing here - he wants better symmetry. I don't know what exactly, it's either the maps (which are symmetric, in a way), spawnpoints (which are mostly symmetric, too) or the matchmaking (which at least mirrors tiers and classes, so one can argue it's symmetric... too). Or maybe he is whining about all the things above?

 

@maybe__baby please elaborate. If the language is an issue, I recommend deepl.com

 

Symmetry is bad... really bad.

[_3856794_561538473_]

[KillStealBoss]

3 hours ago, maybe__baby said:

respawns

There's no respawn in this game. Just spawn. 

[_Keiban_]

some spawns are indeed, suboptimal...

 

The Lemmingtrain is basically pre-programmed...

[HMS_Kilinowski]

Come on guys, stop getting in the OP's face. No need to be pedantic about language. You boil it down to what he's trying to say, he imo has a valid point.

The spawns on many maps do not reflect best practice. On most maps, an even split between what usually is referred to as A+C, makes most sense. Spawning only 3 ships on the flanks and 6 ships in the middle, is prone to trigger weak-minded players into forming a lemmingtrain.

Especially divisions usually hate spawning in the middle. Both flanks usually have a symmetric ship composition, which requires the division to split up, unless they want to deliberately weaken a flank and risk crossfires later.

 

I would like to see less ships in the middle, on some maps none at all. I would like to see divisions spawning on either flank, cause the whole point of division play is to play together and not split up

 

[hellhound666]

a couple of unnecessary letters have hit the pillars of the community really hard ...

[MementoMori_6030]

*Adds another name to the magic scroll of ignorance...*

[Karasu_Browarszky]

7 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Come on guys, stop getting in the OP's face. No need to be pedantic about language. You boil it down to what he's trying to say, he imo has a valid point.

The spawns on many maps do not reflect best practice. On most maps, an even split between what usually is referred to as A+C, makes most sense. Spawning only 3 ships on the flanks and 6 ships in the middle, is prone to trigger weak-minded players into forming a lemmingtrain.

Especially divisions usually hate spawning in the middle. Both flanks usually have a symmetric ship composition, which requires the division to split up, unless they want to deliberately weaken a flank and risk crossfires later.

 

I would like to see less ships in the middle, on some maps none at all. I would like to see divisions spawning on either flank, cause the whole point of division play is to play together and not split up

 

 

Yeah... for the most part the spawn pattern is awful, except for the operations which is kind of funny. I think it's probably due to the maps having the cap zones why they've done that, but it really is a suboptimal solution even for those. The thing is, for the standard battles you need to have a spread, for the domination mode you may benefit more from the two flank approach, but the spawn pattern is the same for both. And most of the time it makes zero sense which ships get to spawn where, you just have to be thankful you don't spawn on an island.

[MrWastee]

.... an english speaking forum.... for the european server...............

i mean, woat u guys expect?! perfect grammar, syntax and intonation on every corner? not that i do support the approach chosen, changes nothing about i can see pretty clearly what he means ^^ (really not too hard imho...; and expect some native speaker to go whee on my very own interpretation of his mothertongue ):

 

spawn points on matchstart of 4, 5, 3, leaving the east flank on 3 ships with a good chance for a lemmingtrain down the A cap or the carousel/clash in general. imo aKa bad design!

[Bland_42]

About spawns, an historical question to veterans... because I'm curious.

Back in the day, WG ever tested a single spawn point for every team?

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, Bland_42 said:

About spawns, an historical question to veterans... because I'm curious.

Back in the day, WG ever tested a single spawn point for every team?

Not that I know of. I seriously doubt that would be better.

[Bland_42]

1 minuto fa, ColonelPete ha scritto:

Not that I know of. I seriously doubt that would be better.

Me too have doubts about it, honestly.

If the players would have a brain and deploy a tactic at match start, probably a single point would be better.

But considering WoWs playerbase...

 

[ReverendFlashback]

It annoys me too when playing destroyers. Last time was just yesterday, where I was matched against a Kitakaze in Akizuki on my flank. (Also Armsrace)

I somehow managed to even kill it, but that was all I could do because I died in the process.

Would be really nice to have even tier ships on the flanks at least.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

59 minutes ago, Bland_42 said:

About spawns, an historical question to veterans... because I'm curious.

Back in the day, WG ever tested a single spawn point for every team?

 

Never seen any other type of spawning as far as I can remember. If I had a choice, the team would spawn in line ahead instead of line abreast. The operations offer the best spawn formation in the whole game.

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Bland_42 said:

Me too have doubts about it, honestly.

If the players would have a brain and deploy a tactic at match start, probably a single point would be better.

But considering WoWs playerbase...

 

It would not be better. Ships would need longer to get to the flanks and visible ships would need even longer.

45 minutes ago, ReverendFlashback said:

It annoys me too when playing destroyers. Last time was just yesterday, where I was matched against a Kitakaze in Akizuki on my flank. (Also Armsrace)

I somehow managed to even kill it, but that was all I could do because I died in the process.

Would be really nice to have even tier ships on the flanks at least.

These two ships are pretty close. Considering the differences in player skill in this game, this should not be an issue.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

3 hours ago, ReverendFlashback said:

It annoys me too when playing destroyers. Last time was just yesterday, where I was matched against a Kitakaze in Akizuki on my flank. (Also Armsrace)

I somehow managed to even kill it, but that was all I could do because I died in the process.

Would be really nice to have even tier ships on the flanks at least.

 

The spawn topic is not an extension of the even tier MM. On the contrary, It would be pretty boring, if you never meet a challenge of having to play against a +1 opponent. Also there is way more to winning a flank than being on a same tier ship. With some support, I can easily outspot a Kitakaze in a Kagero. Although the Kagero is hopelessly outgunned by the Kitakaze, the spotting advantage can render the Kitakaze useless and perma-spotted. When the Kita then smokes up out of desperation and tries to at least get some XP by spamming from smoke, the Kagero can torp the smoke and end the Kita, that is, if the Kita hasn't been damaged sufficiently for the Kagero to kill it with guns.

Just an example, but it really comes down to the factors and playing to the strengths of one's own ship.

 

3 hours ago, Bland_42 said:

About spawns, an historical question to veterans... because I'm curious.

Back in the day, WG ever tested a single spawn point for every team?

 

No. They do so on Ranked, which us already enough to highlight the painful weakness of such a spawn.

 

2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

It would not be better. Ships would need longer to get to the flanks and visible ships would need even longer.

 

Tho that is true, dragging out battles is certainly not the first downside that comes to my mind. If your team spawns as a blob, how big are your chances that you could talk casual players into leaving the blob? They already manage to abandon their flank to form a blob on the far side, as is.