Jump to content


WoWS Community Contributors
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

37,068 Superb

About LittleWhiteMouse

  • Rank
  • Birthday February 14
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Realm of Chaos

Recent Profile Visitors

338,081 profile views
  1. LittleWhiteMouse

    Mouse Presents: Screenshot Theatre

    New computer. GeForce filters on live play.
  2. LittleWhiteMouse

    Black Friday Ship Predictions!

    The cynic in me says California Black (because ugh). The hopeful part of me wants Haida Black (because yay!)
  3. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Halland is B-R-O-K-E-N

    I'm appreciative of anyone that puts the time in. When you post stuff like that, would you mind tagging me? I like to keep archives of stuff like that. If nothing else, they're great as a later resource showing a time stamp of what was at a given patch.
  4. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Halland is B-R-O-K-E-N

    I have better than that. I have a brand new rig with dazzling LEDs that are keeping me entertained while I slowly reinstall everything. It will take a while to get everything moved over.
  5. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Halland is B-R-O-K-E-N

    Did someone call? So here's something I've been putting together while my dying rig keeps me from being able to play at the moment. These are the approximate AA values of the ships (with ranges) divided into large caliber, medium caliber and small caliber AA mounts but with the accuracy applied to filter through the obfuscation provided in port. I then totaled the AA DPS then calculated the approximate maximum bonus provided by Focus Fire (FF) after its setup time, the bonuses for Defensive AA Fire (DFAA) and then the combination of DFAA + FF. I'm still working on all of the other bonuses that could be applied, like Basic Fire Training (BFT), signals, etc. But if I'm going to go that far, I want the exact values and not the ones I've neatly rounded in the first few columns. So what can we take away from this? Well, Halland has a lot of potential AA DPS. She's about the equivalent of USS Salem, the tier X American reward cruiser, performing better with just baseline AA DPS levels and only slightly worse when both are using FF + DFAA (cruisers have a more effective focus fire coefficient of 1.5 vs 1.35 for DDs). She almost puts out as much firepower with DFAA + FF as Minotaur does with FF. However, we need to take a step back a bit because there's information missing here. You cannot guarantee that most cruisers will even take DFAA anymore. Given the choice between Hydroacoustic Search and DFAA, the former gets picked. Those ships marked with an asterix (*) are those who always have access to DFAA. Anyone else on those lists has to choose between two (or more) consumables so it's not always guaranteed. Thus Halland gets a bit of a boost in this regard -- she's ALWAYS going to be tricked out with DFAA. And provided you don't catch her unawares, she's going to have FF ready. But there's more to it than that. As a gunship, Halland is far more likely to be using BFT than any of the cruisers with the exception of Smolensk and Colbert (they also boast destroyer-caliber weapons). This further improves the expected values Halland is spitting out -- up to 1,093 or so (the exact value will probably be +/- 10dps given possible rounding errors). Finally, you have to consider how Halland's AA works. She's not like a cruiser -- carriers don't always get to know well in advance where this little monster is. She can ambush carriers squadrons, getting some early bites in on squadrons before the CV can react. This runs contrary to cruisers which are easier to line up upon. This means that Halland is more likely to be attacking aircraft that don't benefit from the damage reduction of an ongoing attack run, making her DPS about 50% more effective than cruisers. In these brief intervals, that means she's hitting as hard as Puerto Rico or Goliath would against ships making an attack run. Of course, this falls away if the CV knows (roughly) where Halland is and can take steps to mitigate this. But still, it's more likely for the Swede to punch harder than her DPS would otherwise suggest. And this is excluding all sorts of other factors like long range, the odds of her having a captain built specifically for this role, flak explosions, etc. Halland has a well deserved reputation for having strong AA power. The reasons why are complicated and go beyond just the in-port DPS numbers.
  6. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Stop projecting. You have little to no understanding of my motivations. You rabble roused -- that's the net sum of all you were trying to (and have) accomplished. That was identified early and you've since gone back and tried to frame it as this was your goal all the time. That skirts very close to going against the terms of service of the forums, so be careful what you admit. It's fortunate that some good discussion were had among select members that can do more than hide behind words like "truth" so this thread ended up having something of value in it. We simply do not have factual data to back claims of balance one way or another -- not to the depth to make assertions of truth. The post you made is little different than a novice battleship player complaining that torpedoes from destroyers are patently unfair. You have almost no experience in carriers. And while your experiences playing against them as a surface ship player has all kinds of merit, your assertions about the other side of the equation are woefully ignorant. And like your attempts to figure out what I value, your guesses about CV game play are way off and are formed by baseless assumptions that simply fit your narrative.
  7. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

  8. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Yup. I've had the privilege of being able to see some of their stuff they look at. They include things not only like the number of games survived (% survivability) but the amount of time a ship stays alive when they are sunk. They can (and do) monitor everything. How much weight they put on each, however, they didn't say. Excessive games won seems to be a big red flag, but there's a bias there in my saying so based on what I've gleaned in the limited conversations and examples I have so far seen.
  9. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    The same thing almost killed my enjoyment in Wargaming products. Back in 2013, I got into World of Tanks. I failed my way through tier 5, not understanding anything that was going on. I re-arranged the ammo on my hotbar so I couldn't even tell you if I was firing AP or HE shells most of the time. I thought "spotting" that everyone was telling me to do meant to be the first to light up enemy vehicles, so I'd YOLO straight towards the Reds and die predictably fast. When I unlocked my first tier 6, I lost credits on the first game I ever played. I kept losing credits with each and every match (yes, I sucked that hard and not in the sexy way). I almost quit. But thankfully, I found a solution to my problems.
  10. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Wargaming doesn't balance by looking at "average" win rates. Average win rates in CVs are contentious anyway, especially as it was a two-horse town with mirror-matchmaking that flattened averages. To get around this, Wargaming looks at how a given player at a certain skill level performs in X-ship versus how they perform in Y-ship.
  11. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    If someone comes to me, imploring me to devote time and resources to a task that's going to disrupt not just my experience but that of everyone around me, and their motivation for doing so is "spite", yeah I'm going to hesitate. This goes double if there are holes in the methodology and reasoning. I love experimenting for the simple sake of satisfying curiousity. But let's not kid ourselves here. Proving a hypothesis or collecting data is a distant consideration in this proposal of his. The primary aim is to cause havoc. If any science gets done, that's just a happy accident.
  12. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    You're not far off about that unicum thing. The problem with catering to high-skill players is that without a large enough player base to always guarantee there's a healthy supply of n00bs for other new-fish to play against, highly skilled player act as gate keepers of a sort. If someone is expected to be X-good at the game in order to stand a fighting chance then you're going to chase away a lot of potential players as they hit the wall of veterans that countered them at every turn. The mechanics in World of Warships have been deliberately baked to mitigate the influence of skill. You can see it in multiple layers: RNG of dispersion. You can aim perfectly and still miss, giving that little broadsiding potato a chance to get away. Module Damage Mechanics. How many licks does it take to get into the center of a tootsie pop? There are convoluted mechanics under the hood to prevent you from being able to reliably snipe off main battery turrets with any form of predictability. HE Shells & Fires. Can't aim? Don't understand ricochet mechanics? Don't worry, HE has you covered. Now you can always be guaranteed to do at least some damage. With select ships, this ends up being a lot of damage, much to the consternation of people who try and angle. Most things about CVs. They're pretty user-friendly. Even enemy AA power isn't a serious hurdle to your enjoyment. Thus including these accessibility measures ensures that even the skilled players have to treat novices with a bit of respect. It also lets new players sail around, shoot stuff, score some damage and maybe kill a ship, encouraging them to stick around and play some more (and maybe buy something). Wargaming is exceedingly conscientious about keeping their game as accessible as possible and they can (and will) step over the wants of unicum players for the sake of appealing to more of the masses.
  13. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    They do make adjustments based on feels. The problem is that your feels contradict joe-bob's feels and joe-bob's feels are different again from my feels. So who do they listen to? It doesn't matter even if they followed a majority feels -- a large number of people will be displeased and vocal about it. What they tend to do is balance for numbers, add what quality-of-life changes they can that won't directly affect the numbers they've attained and call the job done. Rarely, we will see ships like Haida where they try something a bit daring.
  14. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    You're not wrong. From a surface ship player's perspective, the faults of CVs are many. The most egregious failure is that the UI is of very little help in explaining what's going on when a surface ship's AA engages planes. It's too damn easy for planes to sneak up on a surface ship. Focus fire is a cumbersome mechanic. All plane kills are reported by the same ribbon, providing no differentiation between shooting down useless fighters and spotter planes and more precious assets like rockets, bombers and torpedo planes. Finally, surface ships have no way of knowing how "healthy" the CV's reserves are. Like enemy ship HP, the reserves of an enemy CV should be something that's easily tracked . Next up on my list of cardinal CV sins: Concealment and spotting are two very powerful tools, with select ships being balanced around their ability to provide vision control. Aircraft carriers trivialize concealment and spotting mechanics -- though this often comes at the expense of dealing direct damage for themselves. Still, it's not difficult for them to provide vision where needed. This has less impact in Randoms where you can light up targets all you like; there's no guarantee that your allies will shoot at them (Random Battles is Random Battles after all). However in more competitive game modes, this is game-changing. AA power is a convoluted mess. "Halland has better AA than Großer Kurfürst!" But look at what the port tells you: Halland has 144 dps at 6km and 347 dps at 4km. On paper, Großer Kurfürst has 144 dps at 6km, 326dps at 4km and 126dps at 2km. Looks pretty comparable right? Trade a little mid-range AA DPS for better up-close protection. If only. Once you factor in accuracy: Großer Kurfürst actually deals 108dps at 6km, 245dps at 4km and 88dps at 2km. It's not even a contest that Halland is better. The average player won't know this. This is before we even get into the issue that there's no true dedicated AA ships in the game right now. Some of the Pan European DDs get close. Some American cruisers do too. However historical AA ships like Atlanta? Nope. No, they suck at AA now. I could go on... fighters, CV survivability, rockets, etc...
  15. LittleWhiteMouse

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    BIngo. The CV rework was, frankly, a disaster. Shoehorning it in on the live server in Random Battles at the expense of the player experience meant that the devs gave themselves no time to figure things out. The end result was compromise where all they could manage to make work was having carriers perform at a reasonable level in a single game mode. Co-Op Battles - They don't last long enough and carriers struggle to do enough damage to be relevant. PVE Scenarios - Carriers are too powerful. It's the perfect storm of low-AA targets + lots of time to make them die. The scripted deployment of ships is easy to exploit. And where terrain and distance limits surface ships, carriers have no such qualms. Ranked Battles - The smaller team rosters make CVs too powerful as it limits AA and greatly punishes destroyers. Clan Battles - As per Ranked Battles but to an even greater extreme where available AA power has to be considered, further reducing the number of competitive ships and leading to even greater homogenization of rosters. Most destroyers aren't considered viable. High End Competitive - As per Clan Battles but to an even further extreme, all but eliminating dynamic play. Wargaming had to focus on making things work for Random Battles because the test was coming at the expense of Random Battle game play -- the core experience of the game. When development time ran overlong, compromises occurred. AA power was one such casualty. Balance in other game modes was similarly lackluster. No surprises there.