Jump to content

KnyxUDL

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    311
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    137

Community Reputation

104 Valued poster

About KnyxUDL

Recent Profile Visitors

93 profile views
  1. KnyxUDL

    Large Cruisers Legendary mods? 8.0

    It isn't misleading. Yes Sigma favors stalingrad but sigma is relative to the calculation of % chance of deviation for each shell. In other words RNG. Dispersion/m is most certainly more important than max dispersion, and exactly why BBs are proven to have overpowered accuracy despite lower MBH values compared to cruisers. Max dispersion is assigned to the maximum deviation per shell @ max range. So when comparing X ship to Y ship, when the two have DIFFERENT max ranges, dispersion/m is how you can logically compare the two, otherwise you are just being fallacious when making comparisons without it. Comparing the Stalingrad vs the Burg. The Stalingrad obviously has less max range. By knowing dispersion per meter or even per km, you can create a controlled environment where BOTH are firing at the same range, and compare accuracy. This makes max dispersion the actual value that is misleading. If I shoot a pistol and a rifle at a target at 10 yards and both show the same precision, does that make the pistol and rifle equal in regards to accuracy at any given range? Nope. Does the comparison even really tell you any pertinent information? Nope again. With knowing dispersion/m, we can conclude that actually Stalingrad and Burg are actually VERY close dispersion (~ 8% difference ONLY as a matter of fact) Yet I still highlighted the Stalingrad as being superior, due to the Sigma... and even that the blatant double-standard is still there. The Stalingrad adheres to a balance model and the rules therein regarding attribute weight, and trade-offs. The Burg, like just about every high tier BB, does not and exists above reproach giving little to no reason to purchase the Stalingrad over the Burg, as the Burg is a clearly and in many cases VASTLY superior ship in most categories.
  2. KnyxUDL

    Battleships shells vs destroyers

    I agree with you. I also never claimed that there aren't people that simply do not want balance. I actually agree with you completely there. There are most certainly those with extreme bias, but I also think that type of thinking is enabled by the devs. Appeasing that portion of the community is most certainly bad for business. Think about it in terms of the F2P model, because WoWs is a F2P model. Who keeps the game running? Who keeps the lights on? Who generates the most revenue for WG? The whales. Who are most likely to be whales? Ship collectors. Those who primarily interested in enjoying the game from just about ALL angles, playing ALL ships. If the developers show clear favoritism towards BBs and CVs, and make the other ships weaker.. or basically required to fight each other for scraps.. whales are now finding a large portion of their investment not only lacking enjoyment but worth as well. If WG makes all ships have EQUAL weight in a role designed for killing/doing damage, like RPS, the Whales and any would-be whale are going to be enticed to keep the wallet open/open it up to begin with. Perhaps you are correct that Wargaming did see some sort of evidence that balancing the game objectively threatened revenue, however what we have access to and the trends of other games simply do not support that. That is my primary point on that matter. If a certain balance model is what the vast majority of games use, including the large amount that are MORE successful than any WG title, it is extremely unlikely making this game unbalanced and chaotic rather than structured around proven game development business strategies nets more revenue and success. What Wargaming is doing is certainly experimental, but also akin to contradictory to proven standards. I guess a good analogy is Staphylococcus and Penicillin. We know that if you apply Penicillin, a fungi, to Staph (a bacteria) it inhibits growth. That is why it was discovered as and now used as an antibiotic. What WG is doing is comparable to forgoing Penicillin and throwing other bacteria at Staph and claiming success. But what really happens is you either get two infections instead of one, or a much bigger infection.
  3. KnyxUDL

    Battleships shells vs destroyers

    I understand the psychological aspect, but I do not agree that "enjoyment of the playerbase" and "Balance" are mutually exclusive. In fact, if Wargaming balanced the game objectively, based on the data for once, and adhered to a single balance model, would in affect, cause enjoyment for the majority. Quick kills, easy mode, bottom-feeding skill floor ships.. do not offer longevity. When a game creates low skill floor archetypes (ship types in WoWs), they are supposed to be first and foremost to 1.) get a players foot in the door, and 2.) offer a simplistic playstyle for the type of gamer least likely to stick with a single game for long. Making the low skill floor ship type(s) also have the highest performance is contradictory to balance, because LOW risk is meant to always offer LOW reward... not high reward. Making them easy to play AND easy to perform well in AND give them the ability to perform BETTER than the other ships only offers eventual boredom. Like using all the cheat codes in a single player game That is why Rock-Paper-Scissors is the most successful balance model. Each archetype has a role, and primary enjoyment will ALWAYS be centered around doing damage and killing opponents. Rock-Paper-Scissors gives EACH archetype a role with EQUAL weight. A balance model that is built around reliable incoming TTK vs reliable outgoing TTK, or Risk vs Reward. It causes enjoyment due to rewarding based on risk, this psychologically has been proven to be paramount for enjoyment and a fundamental of game design. When reward is given absent risk, your game is doomed to fail or be extremely limited to a niche when it doesn't have to be. Ever notice how WoWs an arcade game has a SMALLER population then some fully hardcore military sim games on STEAM made by tiny studios in comparison? Reward being given absent relative risk, is why CVs are game-breakingly overpowered, pre and post rework.
  4. KnyxUDL

    Large Cruisers Legendary mods? 8.0

    Ahh okay, sorry for mistaking your position. What do you mean by LM? Legendary Module? Are you talking about for the Mosvka?
  5. KnyxUDL

    Battleships shells vs destroyers

    The game was BUILT on Rock-Paper-Scissors. It still has Rock-Paper-Scissors elements. Rock-Paper-Scissors is a balance model. WG even made a video advertising the game as adhering to the Rock-Paper-Scissors balance model, and they even claimed with their OWN words that the game is Rock-Paper-Scissors in multiple dev interviews, one even being in 2018. In RPS, where DDs are meant to counter BBs, or the ship with the WEAKEST survival attributes is supposed to counter the ship with the STRONGEST survival attributes, then the former must be balanced with the STRONGEST offensive attributes. That is how balance works in RPS. Now if the game is NOT supposed to be Rock-Paper-Scissors. Anyone can feel free to chime in exactly which balance model it is supposed to be, because currently... there are elements of not only Rock-Paper-Scissors now, but Top-down balance model AS WELL. An example of a top-down balance model. CVs would be the APEX predator, BBs would counter CAs and DDs, CAs would counter DDs, and DDs would be for support and the primary ship for players to play to farm XP+Credits. This is because in a top-down, the power weight is just that top-down, but the economic, MM and progression weight is down-up. This would be akin to 1 MM limit for CV. 2 MM limit for BBs, 3 for CAs, and unlimited for DDs. This would be akin to costing 1 mil or more XP per tier of CV/BB. This would be akin to playing a single match in a CV/BB, even if played very well, would still net a maintenance COST of million(s) for credits. Where as on the other hands, making credits and XP would be highest, at the bottom.. DDs... where even poor performance is rewarded. A game cannot have multiple balance models, where the subjects of each balance model interact. A game that does only offers the worst balance in gaming history, which is why every other game company adhered to one and one alone.
  6. KnyxUDL

    Battleships shells vs destroyers

    1.) Wargaming does not dictate what is or isn't balanced anymore than they can claim "20,000" is higher than "40,000". So them relying on Win rate, which is NOT a performance metric therefore void of logical conclusions based on balance, is admittance to their ineptitude. They can "claim" X is underperforming/overperforming because Y win rate. They might as well be nerfing/buffing based on a dice roll. 2.) Performance metrics are as follows, rooted in the very definition of the term. The exact metrics relative to the exact attributes and mechanics that are subject to "balance changes" themselves. Average damage, Average kills, survival rate, potential damage, K/D, XP/match, MBH. Even spot damage, just like Win rate, is not a performance metric, as it is not independent or PURELY dependent on the subject 3.) Repeating this logical fallacy, just because others claim it, does not make any less factually incorrect. "Damage? they were never meant to be super damage dealers". "Frags/KD their scouts, once again, not their thing. " - Still waiting on someone who makes that claim to enlighten everyone in WHICH specific balance model then, do all ships adhere to. 4.) The site I cited is far more accurate than wows-numbers, and it is pulled from the SAME API. The difference is, Maple is organized in quarters, and offers MORE stats for observation. 5.) Your stats are irrelevant. It is silly to think that your subjective experience, a sample size of one, has ANY weight on objective fact. Also just in case it isn't blatantly obvious to you, because it is to me, that WoWs numbers is inaccurate. I give you the following;
  7. KnyxUDL

    Battleships shells vs destroyers

    1.) I see claims. Absent evidence. I would suggest not using terminology that you clearly do not understand. "inciting unrest"? Yes. People fear what they dont understand, and clearly as shown in your post just now, fear is fuel to uncontrollable emotions. 2.)Thank for for further reiterating yet again that you do not understand what balance is. But feel free to fill everyone in on what balance model exactly ALL ships adhere to? We will wait. 3.)Another claim, Yet the data doesn't really support it. By your own claim, DDs are lacking in survivability because of primarily other DDs. If that was the case, DD performance would be within the balance range, as the surviving DDs would have far less risk, and be able to perform uninhibited. This causes a wash in metrics. Here is my "false logic" adhering to the burden of proof, pouring salt on the wound of your incoherent argument.
  8. KnyxUDL

    Battleships shells vs destroyers

    Great work reiterating what is broken with the game, and your lack of knowledge as to what balance entails.
  9. KnyxUDL

    Let’s make Azuma available for Coal

    I take offense to that :P I don't wear cokebottles for glasses. I was lucky enough to have LASIK. My white room does have padding though, so not all is bad
  10. KnyxUDL

    Battleships shells vs destroyers

    Win rate is NOT a performance metric. Claiming so is the same as claiming correlation equals causation. DDs are the lowest performing ship type, and have been since beta. Performance is rooted in the very definition. The game is not 1v1, and Win rate has a vast number of unquantifiable dependencies whose even weight is incalculable as well. There has yet to be a game with a SINGLE patch note that states "We have lowered/increased the Win rate for X". Win rate equating to independent performance of the subject is further refuted by the very fact that buffs AND nerfs have occurred MULTIPLE times in this very game WITHOUT any change at all to the win rate of the ship that was changed, buffs and nerfs to ACTUAL performance attributes
  11. KnyxUDL

    Battleships shells vs destroyers

    They haven't really gotten nerfs. They actually have gotten net buffs and large ones. Like citadel lowering
  12. KnyxUDL

    Battleships shells vs destroyers

    1.) BBs as a ship type are overperforming and have yet to be balanced. In fact, even when the data concluded a nerf was needed, BBs got most of their citadels lowered/more released with lowered citadels. 2.) DDs are the lowest performing ship and have been since beta. 3.) A DD cannot just "rush you" and automatically win. You still have secondaries. YOU also have/had the choice to equip RPF, Vigilance, Spotting upgrade, etc. If your BB has a plane, YOU should have saved it. YOU, not the DD, has the longest range in the game, the MOST HP and ARMOR, AND the MOST damage second only to CVs. If you got in range of a DD where he could rush you in point blank, and the result is you sunk not him, YOU have completely failed as a player. Imagine the "complaining" that would ensue if BBs were actually balanced for Risk vs Reward for once.
  13. I simply refuse to be acquiescent and a milksop in the face of illogical and ignorant balancing, as well as double-standards. Acquiescence is how we got to this point. Acquiescence in not enough educating. Acquiescence in too many not willing to be educated. Acquiescence in too many refusing to speak up. Acquiescence in too many feeding WG revenue when WG continues making the wrong decision.
  14. Also consider that it doesn't look like she even equipped RPF which works on CVs in the new rework, and functions centered on the squadron you are flying. A super high speed squadron that doesn't care about islands with RPF that functions as if the plane squadron is the ship.... 1.) If the game is going to continue to move into a direction where DDs are going to be operating a majority of a match spotted regardless, than concealment has even LESS weight. This means DDs should be given LARGE buffs to their ability to dodge incoming fire and FAR more potent torpedoes, as they won't be coming from stealth anyway. 2.) CVs are still the lowest RISK ship type in the game. Unless that risk is greatly increased, they should have the lowest average damage in the game as well. That can be solved by either nerfing not only their damage per hit, bombs..rockets..torps... OR by making all ships have Monstrous AA
  15. Why play them when you can play <insert T9-10 BB here>? Minotaur is a floating citadel, but it is also probably one of the MOST balanced ships in the game. Why? Because not only do the performance metrics have it pretty much within the median range, but it makes the same proper trade-offs that most other cruisers and ALL DDs make in regards to strengths <-> weaknesses. Des Moines and Hinden are good baselines here. Minotaur essentially sacrifices HP, Armor, Citadel protection, range and burst damage for DPM potential, better heal, and a few km better concealment. The Khaba sacrifices pretty much the same but inversely. Rudder shift/Turning, utility and a few km of concealment is sacrificed for more HP, armor, and speed. Now, existing without proper balancing trade-offs you have BBs. The BBs at top tiers do not really sacrifice anything except for *some* Maneuverability. Burst damage is KING in PVP, hands down. Why play a ship that has to get within 15km or so, and has to take significant time to kill a target, and is easily dev struck when you can play a BB that STILL has Cruiser level Concealment, with big BB guns, highest burst damage potential in the game, most pen (IE: Most reliable damage), Highest armor, highest HP pool, highest torp protection, that can blap targets whilst unspotted from 20k and out. No Brainer.
×