Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

161 Valued poster

About KnyxUDL

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

231 profile views
  1. It was proven, and additional evidence was provided. "baseless claims". There you go again throwing terminology around that you don't even understand. Might as well be spamming "The world is flat" over and over. Luckily proof by assertion only has one reward. Ignore button.
  2. Using terminology that you don't understand only further provides evidentiary support proving your benightedness. You were found wanting.
  3. 1.) Fire duration change was not global. There is no designation in game for "Super Cruiser", nor "Light Cruiser" nor "Heavy Cruiser". There is only Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship and CV. The rest of the changes you offers as fallacious analogies were Global, because they effected all ships. 2.) Stalingrad and Kron do not have "battleship" caliber guns, they also do not share a SINGLE strength that is equal with Battleships of the same tier. All of the strengths of both Stalingrad and Kron are LESS than battleships, and yet now have full battleships fire duration to add to concealment levels worse than most BBs? 3.) The data completely refuted any justification for said change. The intelligent solution would have been no change. 4.) You can disagree with anything you'd like. I couldn't care less either if you jump on the bandwagon of uncontrollable emotion and immature individuals on here that get refuted and claim "trolling".
  4. I did provide evidence.. and here is even more Less emotion, more logic.
  5. You refuted nothing. I just proved that they do not balance ships based on the data. No need to straw man. I clearly ended with "I don't know" the specific as to how they determine their "claims" for balance. The only thing that IS known, and proven, is that they do not do so based on the data nor any balance model. "Wargaming will not know..." - Using the vast majority of past balance changes, there is very little they do know. What balance requires, is certainly one of them. Analyzing data, is certainly another
  6. Likewise. Try less emotion and more logic.
  7. KnyxUDL

    Flint or Stalingrad?

    Or go Bourgogne. Complete upgrade from the Stalingrad. Might as well be a T8-9 vs T10 comparison.
  8. Must have changed within a few hours. Was being falsely advertised for days, including this morning. Still waiting for Steel refund.
  9. Clearly you are the one who doesn't. 1.) If the game was ONLY DDs fighting DDs, or in other words... matches ONLY consisted of ships of the SAME type fighting amongst themselves... THEN and only then could you balance based off internal performance within the ship type. In WoWs, ALL ship types interact, therefore the balance range must include ALL ship types and how they perform compared to the tightest cluster of performing types. By your (and WGs) logic, If ALL t10 dds but the Shima were averaging 10k damage per match and 0.2 kills, but the Shima was averaging 12k and 0.3 kills, the Shima is overpowered. Even if another ship type is averaging performance 5x higher in every regard.... that is laughable at best. 2.) Risk vs Reward is paramount and a fundamental for ALL balance. Simply put, CVs are the lowest risk ship type in the game, followed by BBs, thus if the game had ANY sense of balance and was balanced objectively based on the data, CVs and BBs would average the LOWEST as far as killing, damage, etc... even though they would retain highest survival rates (effect of risk). DDs would be completely opposite. Also note that just because something is/should be LOWEST or HIGHEST does not equate to some massive gap either. Exhibit A: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/index.html Exhibit B: https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27041/game-balance Exhibit C: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134768/understanding_balance_in_video_.php?print=1 Exhibit D: http://gamestudies.org/1101/articles/williams_nesbitt_eidels_elliott Exhibit E: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130243/the_importance_of_risk_in_basic_.php?print=1 So now, Wargaming on average, does NOT make balance changes based on data. In fact, the changes are so opposite and disconnected from the data, they are more likely making them based on nothing more than subjective whims. Whether that be from the vocal minority whining about something, OR WG employees who actually play the game feel (like nerfing something because it killed them) I don't know.
  10. KnyxUDL

    This is a Freaking Disaster

    If you think that picture means anything, you have failed at math. Sample size of one.
  11. 1.) "underperforming compared to their peers" - I did not realize that the game required you to ONLY fight and interact with your peers. Reiterating something akin to "The world is flat" just because WG states it, isn't going to somehow make it correct. 2.) The performance data had nothing to do with radar changes, and they still failed in said change. 3.) "Any number...." and yet almost every patch with nerfs and buffs are contradictory to said data.
  12. They were refuted therefore making said justification void. "Significant advantages". Subjective at best. Balance is based on and proven through objective fact. The data, which disproves said justification. Moskva already had an "advantage". DPM, Accuracy (Hello Legendary mod and velocity), and Hydro. Oh yea and the data that shows most T10 BBs overperforming for years and not receiving a nerf? What you described is not false advertising. However, it can be classified as a bait and switch, IF they had planned on lessening the requirements to get it all along and were simply dishonest at the start. The ship received a change, obviously that made it of lesser value (no matter how much), the shop where you can purchase the Stalingrad is STILL advertising the old fire duration. Additionally the change to the ship was planned all along, even before they started selling the Steel packages, and made sure to not make that information public.
  13. ahahaha That is a very good joke. Feel free to cite the last time a balance change was based on data. I will wait.
  14. Size of the change is meaningless. Principle is. Zero justification for said change. Should we expect them to just nerf and buff with absolutely zero reasoning? When is the line drawn? 16s increase? 20s increase? 30? Bait and switch. Not illegal in context here, but would cause massive loss in buyer confidence. on top of it all, still falsely advertising the ship even after the unjustified change
  15. DDs as a ship type have been in a bad place for years according to the data. This change is just an exasperation of WG taking consistent actions completely opposite from balance. Like a jug that you constantly drip water into, eventually it will overfill, and spill everywhere