Various Complaints

[nerderklaus]

The game has some nice things going for it, but obviously other areas still need work... Lets go through some.

 

Secondaries The mechanic in it's current state is broken, in particular when someone in range is low HP. There can be the craziest hit and miss streaks to mess up a lot of situation. I would suggest the following rework to fix it. Make the hits reliable, but slow down the rate of fire to compensate for how insane that would be with current secondary values. Change the tier 5 perk to add an active effect similar to defensive AA for the secondaries. It should be pretty powerful, because it is expensive and often you don't use secondary even when playing aggressive

 

Smoke Generator Camping allows way to many cheap points which is a problem for the complete beginner as much as a (truly*) good player who wants to carry. The problem is how it forced you to even get in proxy spotting range when you get close so that more or less a single DD has far too much potencial to stop a push, even worse than a hulldown T95 with depressed gun in a WOT corridor. The camoflage against nearby enemies needs to be nerfed, f.e. change it to only undo the penalty off shooting on camo or reduce it in other ways or give BBs a higher proxy spot range against DDs. In particular for BBs it's troublesome, because even if they decide to take two torps to push the RNG still might make the two following salvos draw a circle around that DD, even at ranges like 5km which is completely retarded

 

BB Accuracy RNG is far too powerful there. Having two properly aimed salvos in row doing nothing at short ranges or the basecamper hitting half his salvos consistently at 20km or someone getting two salvos with almost no spread at 15km in row simply can do far too much. In some situations just one very lucky or unlucky salvo can decide a game. That is unacceptable and makes the eSports rumor sound like an April Fools prank.

 

Power Creep At tier 7 the IJN/USN lines have a retarded jump in generation that makes it far too easy to penetrate lower tier battleships and even makes for some stupid situations against higher tier BB (f.e. citadelling bow on 30° angled Tirpitz at 7km). That tier leap simply grants too much presents when different tiers fight against each other. Things like a New Mexico fighting a New York is much better balanced. The other big issue is that tier 10 get far too much in comparison to tier 9 and in particular +2 MM as tier 8 is very broken. This needs to be adjusted better so that in some areas you don't have you game broken as hard by getting in the wrong matchup.

 

Noob Bonus Obviously something has changed there in the last patch. Before that I did some stuff like grinding my Königsberg. Killing Clevelands in 2-3 salvo from the side made roughly half the damage in my estimation and I had a couple of games with more citadells than regular hits before the patch. However, lately I am often getting not a single citadell at 100% unangled sides at less than 10km in situations far easier than others where I would have gotten consistent citadells before the patch. It's not that the shots go off too far. They simply don't citadell. This usually happens against CA and it happens to me when with BB and CA. A look in profiles usually shows 45% players, but oddly in exactly the same situations someone with more wins than losses dies like before. Just before writing that some tomato in his Atago could take 5 salvos to the center of the side of an unangled Atago at 5-7 km. This would not have been possible. I know that there is the BB dispersion, but it was never extreme enough to make very bad player get away with taking 5 salvos to unangled side at such ranges. Like yesterday a 42% Colorado even hit 6 shells with three citadells at 20km on me. I would be happen with three shells of a salvo hitting on such a range when I shoot... Way too much broken things happen when shootings the sides of a bad player at easy ranges lately. That happens far too often to be coincedence and a drastic drop over night during patchday neither looks like coincedence. I mean I literally saw things like people hitting full salvos on bow on DDs at 7km which obviously is out of the player's hands and I experienced three salvos dispersing around a oneshottable DD who inteded to suicide rush me in a straight line. That simply is marxist gambling and not a video game. WTF is that? "Ohh the PZK carebear tard showing the enemy the broadside. We need to compensate for that making him take more damage than someone who dares to use his rudders"... Whenever possible I zomed into ships when such stuff happened and looked for hit decals which clearly showed areas that gave me citadells in the past. The only other explanation on this would be unannounced changes on armor layouts of some ships, but I doubt it, because the odd stuff happens most often against Cleveland... Oddly, this thing somehow could become one of my top2 most killed ships next to Atago so I was in such situations more than once. "It's just a game"... But jumping into the volcano has the same consequences for everyone in a fair game which is the principle that should carry over when a 45% player exposes unangled sides at ranges like 5 or 10km.

 

Edit: Not to forget the winrate manipulations which obviously has increased in the current patch as my results are going down despite of doing more and doing it earlier than before while oddly the basecamper BBs suddenly are being carried by MM to winrate increases...

 

BB Camping in the Base 100% of the battle's Duration Something needs to be done about that. Getting a game where you just can camp somewhere instead of playing, because all your BB camp in the base is going way too retarded lately. I mean I understand that you can get games in which you are severely restricted by such teams so that the battle is closer to playing against the own team than playing against the other team, but it probably will not happen all the time. A function with heavy credits losses and XP losses (lose XP that already is on the ship) should be added for people who deny their own team like this. In the current way of the game you need either some activity from the DD or a CV AND allways at least a certain impact by the BB. The basecamper BBs literally grief battles apart and thereby are the number one issue in randoms. On top of that it's not fair to ban bot users while such behaviour is tolerate, because their teams will feel the same when confronted with either one. Anyway, I suspect that it might be a bot which could be the door to making the randoms more enjoyable for the vast majority of people who even play. Motivation to play DD is completely gone as long as every second game I light up ships, but instead of shooting them my dreamteam is busy driving towards the corner... I personally suspect most DD suicides are out of frustration about such things...

[PzAbteilung]

i have done matches with 40k dmg made woth secondaries, 20k dmg from shoots, and other 20k from the fires they set.

Off course to get those numbers u must be in the mood, not confortably shooting from sencond line

[Robustius]

 Noob Bonus Obviously something has changed there in the last patch. Before that I did some stuff like grinding my Königsberg. Killing Clevelands in 2-3 salvo from the side made roughly half the damage in my estimation and I had a couple of games with more citadells than regular hits before the patch. However, lately I am often getting not a single citadell at 100% unangled sides at less than 10km in situations far easier than others where I would have gotten consistent citadells before the patch. It's not that the shots go off too far. They simply don't citadell. This usually happens against CA and it happens to me when with BB and CA. A look in profiles usually shows 45% players, but oddly in exactly the same situations someone with more wins than losses dies like before. Just before writing that some tomato in his Atago could take 5 salvos to the center of the side of an unangled Atago at 5-7 km. This would not have been possible. I know that there is the BB dispersion, but it was never extreme enough to make very bad player get away with taking 5 salvos to unangled side at such ranges. Like yesterday a 42% Colorado even hit 6 shells with three citadells at 20km on me. I would be happen with three shells of a salvo hitting on such a range when I shoot... Way too much broken things happen when shootings the sides of a bad player at easy ranges lately. That happens far too often to be coincedence and a drastic drop over night during patchday neither looks like coincedence. I mean I literally saw things like people hitting full salvos on bow on DDs at 7km which obviously is out of the player's hands and I experienced three salvos dispersing around a oneshottable DD who inteded to suicide rush me in a straight line. That simply is marxist gambling and not a video game. WTF is that? "Ohh the PZK carebear tard showing the enemy the broadside. We need to compensate for that making him take more damage than someone who dares to use his rudders.

 

+1

 

I have the same experience.

 

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

 

+1

 

I have the same experience.

 

 

Yeah I aswell and almost always against Clevelands and Yorcks and always in situations where they are on very low health which leads me to believe that the Cleveland might have gotten a dispersion bonus in general or that low health cruisers incur increased dispersion on their attackers in general, however it just might be RNG variance...

[nerderklaus]

The Clevelands and the Atagos feel different. Oddly, they are probably my most killed ships so I obviously have some experience there. The odd thing is it's usually bad players when that happens (f.e. not switching to HE on a low reload ships when they get a chance to citadell). In particular at the moment it's annoying when deciding to take some shots, because getting kills for the cartoon captain takes longer when half the team waits for the killsteal. The strange thing is a Myoko oddly gets citadelled as often as before and that doing it to these is similar to the Atagos.

 

The usual thing is finding the unangled side of a Cleveland at 8-12km which I usually considered free points, aiming in a way that usually would have given 1-2 citadells for a BB or 2-5 citadells with a CA and bang... Only bounced on the edge, maximum spread shots and minimal damage shots -.-

 

i have done matches with 40k dmg made woth secondaries, 20k dmg from shoots, and other 20k from the fires they set.

Off course to get those numbers u must be in the mood, not confortably shooting from sencond line

 

 

One minute constant secondary fire on a BB while playing tirpitz, 1000-3000 secondary damge usually... Not much, but the extreme spread is telling something. The other extreme thing that fire luck can do a load, f.e. getting one fire early and a second one, if the guy repairs or getting it early with the secondary when the repair is on cooldown. Such stuff simply can make results from the same situation differ too much. Part of a game in my oppinion is actions dictating their consequences, not dicerolls.

[Admiral_noodle]

Hmm. Problem with "noob bonus". This would require the code to lookup your stats every time a shot landed on your ship. This would be very taxing extra I/o for a server that really doesn't need it.

 

I've not noticed much difference post patch. I've had my share of deleting cruisers and being deleted or not in mine.

 

However I do think different ships behave very differently. Some are citadels if they show their side. Others, like Nurnberg seem resilient except to plunging fire which they always die to.

 

I always seem to score citadels vs. Reversing targets. It crossed my mind that there may be something in game which makes a reversing ship easier to hit. But I can't say for sure obviously.

 

Noobs are more likely to do "dumb" things, so perhaps when this occurs you are more likely to look up and find a bad player. You need to look up all the citadel successes as well as the failures. Even then you'll need a sample size around at least a thousand to show any correlation between win rate and chance of citadel...

[Tyrendian89]

secondaries: discussed to death already (when I say this I don't mean they're not valid complaints, I just mean I don't feel the need to comment on them here)

smoke: discussed to death already, and also going to be changed significantly with the introduction of Radar

BB accuracy: discussed to death already

huge power jump in BBs from T6 to T7? lolwut? you might want to actually play the Colorado and the Nagato before you make that kind of claims... they are sometimes even considered weaker than their predecessors, especially the Colorado because it can't compensate its bad accuracy with loads of shells like the NewMex can. Sure, the 16"ers are better at penetrating BB armour than the 14"ers, but against well-angled targets both are going to bounce most of the time, and against Cruisers and Destroyers it doesn't matter at all - the rather minuscule increase in citadel damage doesn't compensate for losing 33% of your shells. As for the T10s, yes there is a significant power jump in pretty much every line there, but there bloody well should be since those are the pinnacle of your achievements in this game - imagine if those weren't worth it...

Noob Bonus: oh hey look another self-pronounced Pro complaining about he can't reliably pwn noobs...

win rate manipulation: no. just no.

BB camping: yes... I've recently seen a few Shimas like that as well, which will only get worse with Radar coming probably...

[nerderklaus]

Hmm. Problem with "noob bonus". This would require the code to lookup your stats every time a shot landed on your ship. This would be very taxing extra I/o for a server that really doesn't need it.

 

I've not noticed much difference post patch. I've had my share of deleting cruisers and being deleted or not in mine.

 

However I do think different ships behave very differently. Some are citadels if they show their side. Others, like Nurnberg seem resilient except to plunging fire which they always die to.

 

I always seem to score citadels vs. Reversing targets. It crossed my mind that there may be something in game which makes a reversing ship easier to hit. But I can't say for sure obviously.

 

Noobs are more likely to do "dumb" things, so perhaps when this occurs you are more likely to look up and find a bad player. You need to look up all the citadel successes as well as the failures. Even then you'll need a sample size around at least a thousand to show any correlation between win rate and chance of citadel...

 

Well, it's rather easy to check such things based on which target has been selected and then do things more unfair than an x22 in CSGO with the results of a salvo based on which target was selected. Frankly, there is a lot of far more sophisticated code than such things in the game, f.e. the optimization to handle huge maps.

 

In case of CA a BB usually got citadells when hitting their side rather low and central in the past. Some have wider and/or higher citadells, but there is some zone that used to work against all CA for BB at ranges where shots still hit straight on.

 

With the reversing it's probably larger distance giving the extra-arc to get through the deck down to the citadell instead of failing somewhere in between or it's lower spread and thereby less manouverability during reverse or the combination.

 

Don't even try the scientific stuff. You would not have brought that up, if you would understand it, because repetition of the experiment in older versions would be essential for a represenatative comparison. That's like experiments with medicine without checking any blood samples.

 

The MM probably has the same fundament as WOT. Oddly, the people with extremely high stats usually don't believe 60%+ winrate solo-only. The games already have a lot of mechanics to give unfair, free rewards to bad players which are stolen from everyone beyond them like Robin Hood the scumbag. Even if things like the BB RNG would be unbiased, the wide range of different possibilities on exactly the same salvo (positions+orientations+vectors of both ships and the same point of aiming)... I mean I had situations where the same shot twice had results like 25k and 5k...

 

Well, ofcourse the bad players do more retarded actions like not switching to AP when it has a high chance to citadell (CA), unangled sides at point blank ranges, base camper BB and such stuff, but they should get the same consequences someone else would get with acting like this.

 

Talking about observations. When I check my stat pages everything except for winrate and survival goes up with roughly playing similar ships over an extended period of time. Basicly the opposite of numbers that would be printed by a basecamper BB (high survival, low damage, 45% winrate when there should be less than 20%).

[nerderklaus]

huge power jump in BBs from T6 to T7? lolwut? you might want to actually play the Colorado and the Nagato before you make that kind of claims... they are sometimes even considered weaker than their predecessors, especially the Colorado because it can't compensate its bad accuracy with loads of shells like the NewMex can. Sure, the 16"ers are better at penetrating BB armour than the 14"ers, but against well-angled targets both are going to bounce most of the time, and against Cruisers and Destroyers it doesn't matter at all - the rather minuscule increase in citadel damage doesn't compensate for losing 33% of your shells. As for the T10s, yes there is a significant power jump in pretty much every line there, but there bloody well should be since those are the pinnacle of your achievements in this game - imagine if those weren't worth it...

Noob Bonus: oh hey look another self-pronounced Pro complaining about he can't reliably pwn noobs...

win rate manipulation: no. just no.

BB camping: yes... I've recently seen a few Shimas like that as well, which will only get worse with Radar coming probably...

 

Colorados usually get relative good grouping compared to what used to be there and on top of that you got things like rangemod issues. You can simply stay outside of a New Mexico's range and do save damage based on differences of upgrades and that is where too much penetration really gets troublesome. Like in WOT this class certainly is unusually sensitive to power creeping. Such things wouldn't be as critical, if the MM would be limited to +/- 1, but oddly WG doesn't want to do that. Not even in WOT where the player pool might even allow +/- 0 (exceptions on LTs).

 

Why do the 100% useless players have winrates like 45% instead of very low ones? People that are as useful as an AFK player until the game is pre-determined. Basicly the same impact as an intentional teamkill at the beginning of the battle (-1 ship). Why are such winrates so close to 50% instead of 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% being there? That is much more significant than progressive ad hominem.

 

In case of the Shima it's the retarded design. I mean for me it's the least desired tier 10, because most of it seems to be do the one spread, wait eternities and do some save spotting while reloading torps here and there. It's not like some other ships that are made to constantly be active. Probably most of them simply can't figure that scouting between torps would be useful. Such thinking wouldn't be a surprise in WG's games. On top of that the unprecedented [edited]who act like "not camping, tactical gameplay, bobfloplobfap" (conclusions a healthy brain would not make) are overrepresented in WG games and you get your WOT effect that a lot of people just die up the one line without getting better or even getting worse than they were when grinding their lowtiers. You don't want to know how often I cycled between hightiers and lowtiers in WOT with getting more skilled teams in the lowtiers...

[Admiral_noodle]

Well believe what you will. I don't believe there is a noob bonus. Don't try the "wouldn't understand the scientific stuff" though. You have no idea what I do or do not know. for the record I work in IT on some pretty complex stuff and have a degree in physics. No I do not work in the gaming industry. But a "noob bonus" would seem ridiculous anyway, because it would give an improving player a bad experience (bad things happen as they get better) which would seriously upset people as they got better. Pointless coding is pointless.

[nerderklaus]

Well believe what you will. I don't believe there is a noob bonus. Don't try the "wouldn't understand the scientific stuff" though. You have no idea what I do or do not know. for the record I work in IT on some pretty complex stuff and have a degree in physics. No I do not work in the gaming industry. But a "noob bonus" would seem ridiculous anyway, because it would give an improving player a bad experience (bad things happen as they get better) which would seriously upset people as they got better. Pointless coding is pointless.

 

Frankly, the point where the own goal happened was talking about doing something with a large sample when being unable to retrieve the comparison sample from an older version. This is the way how you would research how much that has been alterered recently. It usually works different than research, at least in practical fields. I used to be in a mentoring program that aimed on building the connection so that the graduate gets into research. BTW with the degrees that will most likely limit you on research jobs you really should get the PhD.

[_x_Acheron_x_]

alpha game is still alpha.

[Ictogan]

So please tell me how I still manage to kill a lot of cruisers in a single salvo when playing BBs even though I have good stats. Shouldn't your "noob bonus" prevent that?

[Admiral_noodle]

 

Frankly, the point where the own goal happened was talking about doing something with a large sample when being unable to retrieve the comparison sample from an older version. This is the way how you would research how much that has been alterered recently. It usually works different than research, at least in practical fields. I used to be in a mentoring program that aimed on building the connection so that the graduate gets into research. BTW with the degrees that will most likely limit you on research jobs you really should get the PhD.

 

Yeah. Only I don't want a research job. I work in commercial sector. More money my PhD didn't happen because lack of money...

 

and I understand to see if there is a change in 0.5.3 that's what you'd do, and you can't now. However you can still do a "is there a noob bonus in 0.5.3" test. Theoretically. 

 

I still think a noob bonus would be an awful mistake by WG anyway, for the case of the improving player - as mentioned earlier. 

[BrokenSaint_]

Nice feedback (yet i don't remember Devs asking for it, or the Forum to have a "Feedback" subforum...) and it seems a nice discussion to be evolving. The best feedback, is really the negative feedback. Not the feedback that tries to be "politically correct", but the feedback that is honest and true, based on subjective facts, rather than personal preferences. That can give something to think about, on another level anyway.

 

I wanted to say something else, if it's not obvious already. Since the OP mentions  "eSports rumor", i think that to reach that point there are some prerequisites. Like, money, a hardcore fanbase and audience that also supports that game, eager players to participate and not just a few. Let me know what else am i missing. What makes a game reach  eSports and be succesfull at it? I think it's the fairness. Blade and Soul, the popular Asian MMO had (has?) one of the most popular  eSports events. The reason is the Arena PvP. There is a uniqueness here though. In BnS Arena PvP is under the same terms for both players. What armor you wear does not matter, what weapon and enchantment you have do not matter. That makes a fair fight. Thus, the winner is really a winner of skill. Much like chess. You begin a fight with the same terms on both sides. The victor here, can be proud of his victory, exactly because he defeated someone while playing on the same terms.

 

It's almost philosophical i know, demanding for some but yet, i felt compelled to mention this...twist of reality. I don't know if it is also mentioned in "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, but chess is the most fair game i can think of. In this era a Dev goes to create a game as the status quo tells him to. Rock ,paper, scissors. I really don't know why we have decided to forget history, facts, data from the age of dinosaurs even.. Well, there is proof they existed, sry. Anyway, BnS is an example i think that proves that a videogame can be played competitively under equal terms. Also the following some MOBA's have here i believe comes from that too, players compete on equal terms. In MOBA's they have the same champions/gods to choose from, the shop to choose again from the same weapons and so on. Equality is something we do understand really and we have an ethical understanding and attachment to it. Every rule has exception ofc. The exception imo, is created if the company is "too big to fail", money always bends the rules of the game you see. Hearthstone is a perfect example of an unfair game, yet it's so popular, famous and competitive scene big enough for anyone to envy. They have the money and power, they have a following of passive consumers, success i guess.

 

So, my questions regarding these Devs are, why don't you have "Feedback" subforum? Why do you continue this buisnes model, players of "have" and players of "have nots"? What do you consider fair? Why don't you make polls? Why don't you make surveys? I find it really odd, for anyone who produces any kind of product, to not want to collect data about it. Evolve it that is, through costumer data collection. Evolve here means making it even better. There's always room for improvement.

 

Well, i could go on but it's already too long for anyone to read and stay interested. Cheers, gl

[Seikin]

The Clevelands and the Atagos feel different. Oddly, they are probably my most killed ships so I obviously have some experience there. The odd thing is it's usually bad players when that happens (f.e. not switching to HE on a low reload ships when they get a chance to citadell). In particular at the moment it's annoying when deciding to take some shots, because getting kills for the cartoon captain takes longer when half the team waits for the killsteal. The strange thing is a Myoko oddly gets citadelled as often as before and that doing it to these is similar to the Atagos.

 

The usual thing is finding the unangled side of a Cleveland at 8-12km which I usually considered free points, aiming in a way that usually would have given 1-2 citadells for a BB or 2-5 citadells with a CA and bang... Only bounced on the edge, maximum spread shots and minimal damage shots -.-

 

 

 

One minute constant secondary fire on a BB while playing tirpitz, 1000-3000 secondary damge usually... Not much, but the extreme spread is telling something. The other extreme thing that fire luck can do a load, f.e. getting one fire early and a second one, if the guy repairs or getting it early with the secondary when the repair is on cooldown. Such stuff simply can make results from the same situation differ too much. Part of a game in my oppinion is actions dictating their consequences, not dicerolls.

 

Clevelands do have their citadels in odd places though. But Atago's. I've noticed odd things there. I don't think I've ever scored a citadel on an Atago - and just hardly seem to do any damage in general to them at all (when playing BB). Maybe over-penetrating every time?   I see people complaining about 'paper-armoured cruisers' as if that's a bad thing. I'm starting to think that at higher tiers, with over-pen's, that it may actually be a good thing.​

[nerderklaus]

So please tell me how I still manage to kill a lot of cruisers in a single salvo when playing BBs even though I have good stats. Shouldn't your "noob bonus" prevent that?

 

Then tell me why things like the edge of the horizontal part of the reticle to the bow of a moving cleveland ~10km, perfectly unangled, going straight at full speed suddenly doesn't work like it used to do anymore despite of seemingly no changes being there... Obviously this didn't work for all ships, but most ships with flat trajectories used to hit this way. It's basicly like clicking on a link. There is no mechanical failure possible on such inputs.

[nerderklaus]

 

Yeah. Only I don't want a research job. I work in commercial sector. More money my PhD didn't happen because lack of money...

 

and I understand to see if there is a change in 0.5.3 that's what you'd do, and you can't now. However you can still do a "is there a noob bonus in 0.5.3" test. Theoretically. 

 

I still think a noob bonus would be an awful mistake by WG anyway, for the case of the improving player - as mentioned earlier. 

 

Well, problem is without that way of researching whether there is or isn't a change it can't proof that there was such a change, but at the same time this denies the proof for no such changes being there. OK, there are various illegal ways to get that goal, but this game at pub level is not worth so much trouble.

 

Coding, bad memories... I have some experience in the field without certain limits though. However, reading out a value via target selection and putting an IF into the RNG based on that value really is basic level coding.

 

To think or not to think? To WG or not to WG?

[nerderklaus]

I wanted to say something else, if it's not obvious already. Since the OP mentions  "eSports rumor", i think that to reach that point there are some prerequisites. Like, money, a hardcore fanbase and audience that also supports that game, eager players to participate and not just a few. Let me know what else am i missing. What makes a game reach  eSports and be succesfull at it? I think it's the fairness. Blade and Soul, the popular Asian MMO had (has?) one of the most popular  eSports events. The reason is the Arena PvP. There is a uniqueness here though. In BnS Arena PvP is under the same terms for both players. What armor you wear does not matter, what weapon and enchantment you have do not matter. That makes a fair fight. Thus, the winner is really a winner of skill. Much like chess. You begin a fight with the same terms on both sides. The victor here, can be proud of his victory, exactly because he defeated someone while playing on the same terms.

 

It's almost philosophical i know, demanding for some but yet, i felt compelled to mention this...twist of reality. I don't know if it is also mentioned in "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, but chess is the most fair game i can think of. In this era a Dev goes to create a game as the status quo tells him to. Rock ,paper, scissors. I really don't know why we have decided to forget history, facts, data from the age of dinosaurs even.. Well, there is proof they existed, sry. Anyway, BnS is an example i think that proves that a videogame can be played competitively under equal terms. Also the following some MOBA's have here i believe comes from that too, players compete on equal terms. In MOBA's they have the same champions/gods to choose from, the shop to choose again from the same weapons and so on. Equality is something we do understand really and we have an ethical understanding and attachment to it. Every rule has exception ofc. The exception imo, is created if the company is "too big to fail", money always bends the rules of the game you see. Hearthstone is a perfect example of an unfair game, yet it's so popular, famous and competitive scene big enough for anyone to envy. They have the money and power, they have a following of passive consumers, success i guess.

 

So, my questions regarding these Devs are, why don't you have "Feedback" subforum? Why do you continue this buisnes model, players of "have" and players of "have nots"? What do you consider fair? Why don't you make polls? Why don't you make surveys? I find it really odd, for anyone who produces any kind of product, to not want to collect data about it. Evolve it that is, through costumer data collection. Evolve here means making it even better. There's always room for improvement.

 

Well, i could go on but it's already too long for anyone to read and stay interested. Cheers, gl

 

It's hard to say with the eSports. Different games came there on different ways, f.e. Dota 2 established itself during the start of it's closed beta when there obviously was trouble with the playerbase or Painkiller which was selected simply because it was the most suitable game for what was intended to be the biggest competition until then or there are cases like SC2 that literally had that status purchased. In my oppinion WOT and WOWS both disqualify themselves from eSports with too much RNG and that is before looking for other NoGos.

 

Even opportunitiy obviously is essential for creditibility in eSports. Obviously getting rid of any RNGs is one important thing to get there (the damage RNGs from WOT or RNGs like the MM in LOL SoloQ). The other big thing is that unlockables need to be irrelevant to performance in such circumstances. This means a hat in Dota 2 is OK, but not things like a massively buffed premium ship that was sold once and never again could be. After this you get some conflicts with balancing. I mean it's kinda odd how the least popular character often turns out strong out of the blue or just the way how that happens frequently in certain F2P games that force character unlocks. Obviously, there is a business conflict of interest, but smarter designs can bypass the issue (f,e. Dota 2 vs LOL).

 

Still you got some x-factors left like the tiny bits that seem no big deal until they have added up to something major.

[nerderklaus]

 

Clevelands do have their citadels in odd places though. But Atago's. I've noticed odd things there. I don't think I've ever scored a citadel on an Atago - and just hardly seem to do any damage in general to them at all (when playing BB). Maybe over-penetrating every time?   I see people complaining about 'paper-armoured cruisers' as if that's a bad thing. I'm starting to think that at higher tiers, with over-pen's, that it may actually be a good thing.​

 

Atago is one of the more trollish ones. I had situations where (lets say) the server screwed me big time on easy shots and in other situations I just had some really odd multi-citas on long ranges which I thought I did not earn to hit. Cleveland however used to be a rather easy one to citadell. It has a pretty wide citadel, but I don't know how high it is to be honest. When I grinded the Königsberg aiming for the center of it's side usually gave me multiple citadels per salvo.

[Ictogan]

 

Then tell me why things like the edge of the horizontal part of the reticle to the bow of a moving cleveland ~10km, perfectly unangled, going straight at full speed suddenly doesn't work like it used to do anymore despite of seemingly no changes being there... Obviously this didn't work for all ships, but most ships with flat trajectories used to hit this way. It's basicly like clicking on a link. There is no mechanical failure possible on such inputs.

Putting the reticle on the bow of a moving Cleveland never really worked for me. At 10km I would assume that the shells take about 7-8s to arrive at the target(wouldn't have to estimate it with in game alternative interface) and it's going at ~30kts, so I'd be aiming somewhere around the 12th tick on the crosshair. As a rule of thumb I assume that one tick on the crosshair is the distance a ship at 20kts travels in one second.

[nerderklaus]

Putting the reticle on the bow of a moving Cleveland never really worked for me. At 10km I would assume that the shells take about 7-8s to arrive at the target(wouldn't have to estimate it with in game alternative interface) and it's going at ~30kts, so I'd be aiming somewhere around the 12th tick on the crosshair. As a rule of thumb I assume that one tick on the crosshair is the distance a ship at 20kts travels in one second.

 

I talk about that wide default reticle that has kind of an indicator for lead and the edge of this roughly corresponds to 10km cruise, unangled at 10km with relatively flat shooting guns such as Tirpitz or Atago.

 

Edit: Right after writing I just had such a BS situation even in a Cruiser... Yorck (POV) vs Murmank, same salvo twice in row, as described with some more lead due to lower shell velocity... 1st Salvo 18k, 2nd Salvo 0.6k... Took the game  to keep going straight as he did, because he shoot HE and well... This difference is just retarded the range of results for the same salvo from removing most HP (or oneshot with noob bonus) to something that is neglectable in the second salvo... Even as a cruiser... It even was such a nice situation with paralel course and me further ahead so that I hit in a nice angle and he wouldn't have got that in case of switching to AP while this even denied his torps completely.

[EsaTuunanen]

However I do think different ships behave very differently. Some are citadels if they show their side. Others, like Nurnberg seem resilient except to plunging fire which they always die to.

Nürnberg takes citadel hits just fine from 130mm AP when hitting near water line.

Sinked one from smoke cloud couple days ago when player in it kept sailing slowly with side nicely visible at 7km range.

[Slargmann]

tl;dr: "I like playing BBs and everything that doesn't facilitate playing BBs is evil and needs to be nerfed."

 

This thread starter is a prime example of how WG is a mirror of life, in that you can grind your way to a degree despite being relatively thick the same way someone with a 45% WR will eventually find themselves at tier 10 as long as they are tenacious enough.

[nerderklaus]

It's more like the last last person is the kind of people that cause the downfall in the current Western society. Unable to accomplish things by himself, but entitling itself to have others harassed with denied opportunities while demanding unearned income. Ingame this would be translate to predicting benefits from the normalization via RNG compared to properly designed non-random game mechanics or other cheap tricks like free results from rock, paper, scissors when MM denied the other team the part of the circle that is responsible for the counter which could be a random BB camping in the respawn instead of doing what it is supposed to do or one team losing all their DDs within 90 seconds or generally being owned by the power creep like the usual experience of getting in a tier 10 battle as a tier 8 teamed up with tier 10 that play worse than the tier 8 player did in his first 10 games - your usual experience in WG's communities...

 

A lack of thought in the post is there as well, f.e. my version of the secondaries balancing secondary upgrades better due to linear scaling compared to diminishing returns for something that already is a bit on the weak side of things.