Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

68 Good

About DukeTestudo

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I missed that the RAN had Battles and Darings. So, okay that makes sense. The problem with HMCS St. Laurent is that the class really weren't meant for anti-surface warfare, and so their weapons fit is pretty wimpy for the World of Warships game design. It's kind of like the USS Spruance pre-VLS - the strength of the ship was the quality of the sensors, not in her weapons fit. Like, only 2 x 3" guns and tubes for ASW torps only is hard to make work at any high tier. (Ignoring the ASW mortars, though, if subs make it into the main game....) HMCS Algonquin has the 8 torpedo tubes and 4.7" guns, but has 2 less tubes than Haida, 4 less tubes than Cossack - so you'd have to buff her guns depending on which Tier you tried to put her in. But that would give you a Tier VII or Tier VIII option. Okay, you've sold me. My biggest concern was the high tier stuff - but you can paper over Tier VII or Tier VIII, and use the Battle/Darings at Tier IX/X. Though I wonder how you would balance a Daring with creeping smoke and hydro...
  2. I've always wondered how well Haida sold, because I always felt the ship was marketed as "this is the one RCN ship that people outside of Canada might have heard of - this is the pride of the RCN of WW2. You want her, don't you? Especially if you're Canadian?" I never felt that they were pushing her utility or her quality (though I'm really glad she turned out pretty well, though the recent IFHE nerf hurt her) - it was the appeal to history and pride. That's why I'm wondering about it. Back in Alpha, I thought that's how they would introduce something like HMCS Haida into the game when the time came, putting it into the RN tree.
  3. Continuing the use of creeping smoke and hydro would be interesting -- but the main problem is that the Commonwealth navies don't have the ship classes to fill even a destroyer line, even on paper. What classes they do have are all essentially British designs, and nothing that would work above Tier 8. (Like, WG could probably come up with something, and I know historical accuracy isn't the number one priority here... but at least for the RCN, the focus during the timeframe of WoWs was always ASW -- nobody ever contemplated the RCN buying RN Battle class destroyers, for example, AFAIK. Maybe there are paper studies for the other Commonwealth navies. ) I think the best we can hope for is a few more Premiums, and given WG's focus right now, it might be a while before we see another one. (I'm guessing HMAS Perth and HMCS Haida didn't sell like gangbusters.)
  4. One advantage of doing another Tribal is that since they already have the Haida model, it's relatively quick to build a variant and put up on sale, as opposed to modelling something new from the ground up. (Look at all the clones of the Cleveland, the Kongos, etc.) I suppose you could create some variety by giving a new Canadian Tribal the 4 x 2 4.7" armament layout, similar to Cossack - or maybe really mess with people and put the 4 x 2 4" armament that Cayuga and Athabaskan II launched with. (Japanese gunboat DD style game play with the sonar and creeping smoke? That could be fun. :) ) I would love an additional Canadian warship, but they haven't given much love to the Commonwealth line in a long while now. It's probably some sort of special mission. (Heck, it might be the mission that was announced on the home page today.) Guess we'll find out Friday.
  5. DukeTestudo

    I said it, now Flambass says it...

    There are people who play co-op just as competitively as people who play randoms. The only real difference is that the calibre of opponent is lower (though, depending on the scenario and/or the way the battle plays out, you can face situations just as challenging as their random counterparts.) What you really want is that people play every random battle seriously, to their best of their abilities, always aiming to improve their capabilities. And that's never going to happen because this is just a video game, and everybody defines fun in their own way. And that's true of any hobby.
  6. DukeTestudo

    I said it, now Flambass says it...

    And remember - sometimes people play games for reasons other than to win - they know they aren't good, but they have no interest in getting better. Hell, whenever I end up matched with somebody who I recognize has a certain type of YouTube channel (this is both for WoT and WoWs) the thought that goes through my head is "Are you going to play up to your skill level and help us win, or are you going to play for the lols and we're going to have to carry you?" Edited to add: All that being said, I enjoy the crazy You Tube videos as much as the next person. The point I'm making is that when people match in, not everybody will be going in with the desire to play to the top of their skill level, learn from their mistakes, and focus on winning for the team. People play games for a lot of reasons.
  7. DukeTestudo

    I said it, now Flambass says it...

    "When your hobby is your job, you never feel like you're working" - whoever uses that phrase has obviously never looked into the eyes of a streamer who's been playing the same game year after year after year, when it's obvious they're done with the game, but they can't stop because it's what powers them economically. It's like a musician who has to perform the same 5 or 10 songs over and over again -- they may be the most wonderful songs ever, but, once you've played them ten thousand times, you start hearing every little flaw, every little imperfection. I don't care how good any game is - nothing can withstand that level of scrutiny. Now, I honestly don't think WG is all that bad - they've made some massively bad decisions IMHO, but, if WoWs was really that bad, none of us would be wasting time talking about it - we would have just gone on to new games and that would be that. (Though if submarines ever make it into the core game... though that's a rant for a different time.) But, in general, I don't think there's a game out there that emphasizes what "good players" want over the broader audience except if there's a healthy competitive scene - and those games usually understand the trade off that design choices that increase skill floor also tend to shrink your audience. The steeper the skill curve, the more skill is rewarded, but the less people who want to climb that hill. See DotA.) It doesn't help that the WoWs core conceit inherently has a lower skill floor than most other games. Skill, at the scale of WoWs and for the type of primary gameplay and abstraction thereof (naval surface gun combat in the first half of the 20th Century) isn't as rewarded as you would get in many other games, or even something like WoT. So, even if WoWs did want to optimize for the 'good players', I'm not sure what they could do that would both be skill based, and also fun. (Like, yeah, you could increase skill floor by forcing you to calculate a bit of super-elevation as well as lead when you fire your guns - but that's not fun. I don't want to be an arty specialist, I want to put the reticle on target and pull the trigger.) So, in other words, I know people have millions of suggestion as to how to make the game better (Hell, I've got one or three thousand) - but most of them feel like nibbles around the edges, nothing that would make fundamental and radical shift in game quality and game audience. Now, there is a certain inherent validity to personal opinion when it comes to video games - in the end, you decide what makes you want to play a game, and what makes you to not want to play a game (buff British 120mm HE pen, PLEASE :) ). But honestly, whenever I see changes presented as "do this one thing and everything will be magical again", most of the time I just shake my head and go back to playing the game. And if they're really angry about it, I just hope they find something else to do that brings them more satisfaction - because, in the end, it's a video game. All the caveats about economic survival notwithstanding - if playing a video game makes you that miserable, you need to change games or do something else. At the very least take a long break. It's video games, damnit, it should never make you miserable.
  8. I guess that's the crux of the argument - does 1.2km make that big difference when you get a 12% DPM boost from MBM3 in slot6? Based on what you're saying, it should push the 10km range band out to 11.2km, and you'll start seeing the 10-15% drop off in the 12 to 13.2km range band. And on the flip side, you'll see the full effect of the DPM bonus from 10km in. So, based on what you're saying, it feels like the DM question amplified - at what point do you leave the safety of your rock and close the range? I agree with you about the drop-off, BTW, but I wouldn't have said it was that bad until you reached about 15km out. That's one of the reasons why I always took MBM3 before I had the UU - I didn't think the range boost was worth it, because at 18+km, I feel like I would be lucky to just hit the ocean. :) I think this might be a part of the 'ranked vs clan vs random' balancing part of it - I agree with you in clan battles that DD's have gotten good at respecting radar ranges, at least once you get out of Squall. I feel like Ranked seems 50/50. Random is hopeless. :) And don't forget they've removed the radar penalty, a fully kitted out DM has almost a 50s radar window now, 9 salvoes of fire with MBM3 -- and 44s of where everybody else on their team gets to shoot at you as well. So yeah, a DD has a bigger cushion if it spots the DM -- but if the DM is hidden behind a rock, or if the DD makes a mistake and comes within radar range anyway -- it's going to get hurt a lot more. I'm not saying nothing will change - what I am saying is that everybody else is claiming this is a flat out nerf, and, I'm not 100% sure it is. I think the situations where the DM excels will change, because that's the goal of WG - playstyle changes. But there are enough positives that, even given the concerns above, I still think you can make the DM work, you'll just have to do it a bit differently. Because in the end, DMs still spend most matches doing mostly one of two things - firing as quickly as possible (concealment irrelevant) or hiding behind a rock and looping shells over the best they can (concealment irrelevant.) Now, I know there will be times where that extra 1.2km of visibility will get you killed or prevent you from springing an ambush -- but will that outweigh the amount of extra stuff you can do with the longer radar and the extra DPM within 10-11km? That's the question to me, and I'm still not sure it's a net negative. Edited to add: I suppose the real test will be what happens in things like clan battles and KoTS. Even with the power of the Soviet cruisers, there are still a ton of DMs being played. If they disappear from the competitive modes, we'll know what the player base and meta have decided.
  9. Apologies, that obviously wasn't my intent. In my experience, most people who refer to wows-numbers.com immediately look at win rate and then go "win rate is under 50%, therefore not overpowered" and in my haste to write something down, I should have read your post more carefully. I'm guessing you're aware of this, but honestly, I don't think wows-numbers.com data is good enough to really draw any conclusions other than maybe suggesting ships that are definitely OP or complete garbage - but I don't think it's good enough to look at ships that are average and say they're not OP. The problem is, OP is a very fluid definition. I mean, the obvious version of OP is when a ship can do everything extremely well. But, case in point, Smolensk doesn't actually rank all that high on wows-numbers.com on the NA server - but I think everybody would agree the ship is OP, at least in certain circumstances. And that's the point I was trying to make... just because the numbers are average doesn't mean everything is okay. WG obviously sees something in their data, compared their design documents, and they're willing to try and do this, spending time, money and goodwill, even though they know a part of the playerbase is going to argue strongly against it. (Which, to be fair, may be the best sign that they do need to make the change - players aren't going to argue against a change that is perceived to improve something weak, they're going to argue against a change that they perceive as being strong.) As to what WG want UU to be doing? I think it really is as straightforward as WG has presented - they want UU to be an option, not an obvious reward, something that you have to think about. I remember that being advertised as the original intent way back when -- so this feels to me like a typical balancing process -- they designed some stuff, the meta changed or their premises are no longer true or they decided they want to try and offer different alternatives, or they just plain made a mistake, and so they're going back to try again. I said earlier, I agree with you that I think I would prefer UU to just be a reward for having done the Tier X grind and then some... but I can also appreciate what they're trying to do here, and I enjoy the game enough that I can live with it. And in this specific case, I do think they've achieved their goal - I do think there's an interesting choice here to be made with DM. So, while concerned, I'm not going to commit to support or not support until I've had a chance to play it. After all, it is just data - if it turns out it is a nightmare, they just revert the change. Wouldn't be the first time... or thousandth time... a game has done that. And as the why they just don't dump their data? This is speculation, but informed speculation - I don't work for WG, and I'm not a professional computer game developer, but I do work as a developer, I've done systems design, I've had to take enormous amounts of feedback and data and try to distill it into a course of action (and then deal with all the feedback afterward.) I think the problem here (as it is with most online games) is probably the amount of data and the context of the data. If I were instrumenting WoWs, I would sample tens of thousands of games and looking at massive numbers of stats - not just what gets surfaced, like average damage and frags. I would be looking at average range of engagements, average speed of ships during the game, average speed of ships during phases of a game, positional heat maps (how far have you traveled and where you traveled), target selection criteria (how often you change targets, how often your target is obstructed), average hit rate, predicted hit rate. Then I would create aggregate data for all the ships in the match to create heatmaps and totals by class and ship type. And then I would aggregate that across all ships across the matchmaking spread. And THEN I would take all of that data, and then mash it against data from EU and RU, and then have a fight with their data analysts over which trend is actually the most important one, since the meta is different on all three servers, and so everything gets skewed accordingly. In other words, the decision could be well justified -- but to justify it requires a 50 page presentation where the audience has to be familiar not only with the data, but with the instrumentation used to collect that data, as well with parts of the game engine itself. And no company is going to publicly expose anything that might give their competitors an edge - even revealing "we examined 10,000 matches over the space of 48 hours" can give a competitor useful marketing data. And after all that, the final decision might (and should) still be a gut call, open to interpretation and argument. Thus, releasing the data behind the decision has nothing but negatives. It's probably not easily summarized, and for every single person who would read and understand it in the context it was meant to be in, hundreds of people would leap to conclusions, and the arguments would happen anyway, especially if it turns out the final decision is still a 50/50 guess. (There's a reason why the term "Monday Morning Quarterback" is in the lexicon.) If you want a smaller example of this, look at LittleWhiteMouse's reviews - those are really damned well researched, with all the nuance, data and explanation you could ask for -- and still enough people leap to conclusions and argue with her and discount her work anyway that she removed the 'Angry You Tuber' graphics from her reviews, and I swear whenever I see her posting in the forums, it seems to be a never ending quset of her trying to point out "No, I didn't actually say this - please read the review or my previous post more carefully." So after all that text - that's all IMHO. :) It is speculation -- it's quite possible they just throw darts at a dart board in Minsk, and so they can't justify anything, they're just making this crap up as they go along. And certainly, they're definitely cases, both documented and speculative, of some of the stupidity within the halls of WG (to be fair, as with any company the size of WG). But given some of the peeks into the industry you see at places like GDC and Wargaming's own gaming conference in the Czech Republic, I do think there's logic somewhere. Now, whether you want to believe that -- everybody has to decide that on their own. *shrug*
  10. And that's exactly the point - it can't be an across the board nerf if it actually makes the DM stronger for some players. The change will make the DM play differently -- and, even then, thinking about it some more, I'm not sure how much difference it makes. 10% concealment is only 1.2km, and the DM couldn't radar from stealth anyway. I think the situation where losing that 1.2km makes a difference will happen less often than the difference that extra 12% in DPM makes, because in the end the DM is about shooting things, as quickly as possible. I guess what I'm trying to say is I kind of see your point -- but, I don't think there's a clear cut case of "this change is horrible, undo it immediately." You may not like the change, and you've articulated well why you don't like the change. And, as I said, I'm nervous about the change myself, if for different reasons. But, I think it's interesting enough that we should at least try it on a PTS, or maybe even a live patch, before we pass judgement.
  11. There are way more numbers than what is available at wows_numbers.com, more to life than simply win rate. The point WG is trying to make is if everybody thinks you need Enhanced Propulsion to succeed, it's not doing what they want the UU to be doing. THAT's the problem - almost every Des Moines driver I know says get the EP mod, especially for competitive game modes. It's not optional right now. In terms of the actual mechanics of the upgrade -- the concern I have with this is going the other way -- everybody's been focusing on what you're losing. I'm wondering about what you're getting in return, which I don't think anybody in the thread has mentioned. Having Slot 6 open means you've got all the main armament options again, and the radar penalty is gone. You get better maneuver, AND a 12% DPM buff or 18km gun range AND better vision? Loss of concealment always hurts, but, this is a Des Moines -- most of the time, your effective concealment is the max range of your guns anyway. Because, if you're not firing, you're not fulfilling the main role of the Des Moines -- killing ships by raining 8" death every 6 seconds on them. And it's not like the stock concealment of a Des Moines is terrible -- you're not a Moskava, for example. In other words -- I'm a little concerned this is actually something of a buff. Because if you have a player who knows how to position well (and thus rendering concealment mostly irrelevant), you're giving that player the ability to accelerate quickly to change position, extra rudder shift for wiggling, the ability to use radar to it's full potential, AND you've given them extra gun performance. The trade off is that you're even less likely to try open ocean flanking moves -- which is the type of thing you're not supposed to be doing solo in a Des Moines anyway. This change raises the skill floor of a Des Moines -- but it also raises the skill ceiling as well. And so, every Des Moines driver might still say "this is not an optional upgrade." I'm not that great a Des Moines player (I'm too aggressive for the current WoWs meta in general) -- but I'll certainly try a concealment of around 12km for 12% more DPM and a radar that runs for 48s.
  12. DukeTestudo

    ST, soviet cruisers branch split

    There's no high horse here. It's simply acknowledging that there's no such thing as a perfect product, and it's up to each person to decide what they're willing to put up with. I don't rage about WoWs because I don't rage about games. They're freaking games. There are plenty of things happening in the world right now that are way more worthy of emotion then whether or not a tech tree is split or whether a ship got an extra .2 sigma or whatever. In the end, nothing requires me to engage with the mechanics I don't like, and I'm always prepared to simply walk away and go play something else. I've been playing video games since the 1980s - if you don't like what the way your game is evolving, you go to the next one. There's always another game. It's also acknowledging that nothing created comes for free. Now, if you don't think WoWs is worth paying for, or if it's turned into something you don't like, then God bless. There are plenty of other games out there. But if you think WoWs isn't worth paying for but still spend hundreds of hours playing the game responsibly and do actually have the ability to toss the developers a few bucks? At that point, you're not establishing a moral high ground, you're just being selfish.
  13. DukeTestudo

    ST, soviet cruisers branch split

    Everybody has to determine what their time and money is worth, and whether something is worth compensating the creators for. But if nobody pays for the game, then there's no game.
  14. DukeTestudo

    IFHE All Night Long

    First rule of providing information -- you can never control how people use that information. LWM was (and has pretty much always been) up-front about the limitations of the information she provides. Any experienced player should know that advice they get concerning this game from anybody needs to be seasoned with the salt of their own experience and meshed with their play style and goals. Any beginner player who's coming across this thread won't really know or care about the subtle differences -- all they need is some guideposts to get started. The IFHE guide was never meant to be exhaustive. It was meant to be the starting point of your own determinations, or, if you just need a quick "do I need to take advantage of the respec now?" answer. Anybody who's serious about playing better is going to play several dozen games or so and decide for themselves where they want IFHE in the long run anyway. If after all the disclaimers LWM has laid down, people still take the guide as gospel -- there's nothing she can do about it, except not post the information in the first place. And that would make the community as a whole much poorer.
  15. DukeTestudo

    Twitch Stream Code

    Yeah, I think the code expired. (Had the stream queued up too, and then got called away on a work emergency. Bummer.)