Jump to content

bubbleboy264

Members
  • Content Сount

    445
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6535
  • Clan

    [WOLF4]

Community Reputation

361 Excellent

3 Followers

About bubbleboy264

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Baltimore
  • Interests
    Interesting things that interest me.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,145 profile views
  1. Would like to clear something up. I'm not saying they shouldn't use statistics/spreadsheet type stuff at all, it is very important and useful. But it should not be the only metric used when deciding whether to nerf/buff something. Play testing/feedback should play a big role as well.
  2. And they wonder why we criticize them for being so out of touch...
  3. Of course. I mean just look at this: (WR difference between UU equipped ships and those without it) minus (WR difference between players using UU and not using UU but owning it) gives us our actual UU WR difference Because of the nuances above, as well as the facts that player account WR has more impact on battle performance than the WR on a particular ship, we consider the results of up to +2% acceptable. For example: X DES MOINES: ships WR difference (6,7%) - Players WR difference (3,9%) = +2,8% difference. Above the acceptable 2%, which means the upgrade is too strong. X SHIMAKAZE: ships WR difference (-0,1%) - Players WR difference (-0.1%) = 0% difference. Acceptable. X GEARING: ships WR difference (1,5%) - Players WR difference (0,3%) = +1,2% difference. Fully acceptable. What? The Gearing and Shima upgrades are objectively trash, but since the data is "acceptable" they don't get buffed, and the DM upgrade is OP because it is slightly higher than the "acceptable" win rate difference, then though the Kremlin is still in the game... Have they considered that ship win rate can easily be skewed/manipulated based on the player population that is using said ships? It's why very rare ships often have super high win rates even though they actually aren't that good, because only the best players have them. Have they considered that this might happen with Ultimate upgrades too? Of course not, because the spreadsheet rules all...
  4. Not surprised, but to see how openly they try to justify their ridiculous logic with this is just mind boggling. Do they actually play their game?
  5. Recent devblog: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/30 You need to see this for yourself, they are just right out saying that they aren't balancing them based on testing/player feedback, just with win rates/other useless spreadsheet data. No wonder game balance is such a mess right now, when this is WG's attitude. Just look at this: UU's popularity should not be significantly above 65% - if it is, that's a sign that the UU is becoming a no-brainer instead of being an alternative. UU's popularity should not be significantly lower than 40% - if it is, that's a sign that the UU doesn't offer an interesting enough alternative to the existing upgrades. The UU should not make the relative WR worse (in this case it becomes a downgrade, not a sidegrade). The target WR limit is +2%, as was explained above. Each UU case should be reviewed individually before the suggestion of a final version This sounds good in theory, but it practice it just leads to incredibly stupid balance decisions based on data that can easily be skewed and unrepresentative (for example, a legendary mod can have a higher win rate than it normally would due to only better/more experienced players using them). They don't take into account how strong or weak the upgrades actually are through player testing/feedback, they just look at the sekrit documents and say "look tovarish! Des Moines legendary is too popular! Therefore it must be OP! Bring in the nerf hammer comrade, da this is good game balance taktik." This spreadsheet nonsense leads to stupid nerfs like the Henri speed nerf all the time, and yet they still refuse to nerf the [edited]Kremlin. WG balance department, please stop this. Edit: Would like to clear something up. I am not saying that statistics/spreadsheet type stuff should not be used at all when deciding whether to nerf/buff something. Stats are very important and useful, but they should not be the main/only metric used. Play testing/feedback should play a big role as well. I just think the framing they use in the devblog is really dumb for example.
  6. I've had the Khaba for a long time, and have always loved it, even though I have only been able to play the current version, and never got to experience the original OP monster that it was. However in the current meta the Khaba is woefully underpowered. I just recently got the Kleber, and it is pretty much just a much better version of the Khaba in every way. You are much faster, much stealthier (even with the concealment nerf), have better range even without AFT, have amazing super AP that can delete cruisers from 10km away, have hilariously fun French F3 torpedoes that can demolish ships caught off guard, have French DD damage saturation, have great handling, and the absurdly strong main battery reload as well, along with great fire chance and shell velocity. What does the Khaba have in comparison? Well you do have better sustained DPM, although the reload booster more than makes up for this. You have the sekrit documents 50mm plating, although you take full BB AP pens to compensate, and can easily be blapped for 15k a salvo if you aren't careful. You do have a heal and more health, which is a significant advantage, although French damage saturation and speed really diminishes this advantage. You have much better turret traverse, but worse firing angles. And if you get in a point blank knife-fight the torpedoes hit very hard and are very stealthy, but are also incredibly slow and have terrible range, so they are still pretty much useless. You have better AA, but it is still trash, and even more so with the CV rework. The Khaba has also been crippled by the nerfs, especially the rudder shift nerf, forcing you to use the rudder mod, so your concealment is horrid at 9.7km, in comparison to the Kleber's bad but still very useable 7.8. You are also much slower and easier to hit, and have worse range even with AFT. The Kbaba has just frankly been power creeped into irrelevancy, which is why you almost never see it used anymore. I can still do very well in it, and still find it fun to play, but now that I have the Kleber it is easy to see how sorry a state the ship is in. The Khaba needs significant buffs to really be competitive again. The first thing I would do is undo the ridiculous rudder shift nerf, so that you can actually run concealment and be actually maneuverable. I would also give it back its 10km torpedoes, so it can actually use them once in a while. These alone would go a long way to making the Khaba competitive again. I would also make it not eat full BB AP pens anymore, and think a slight range increase would also work. It should not go back to its original broken state, but the Khaba really needs some work, as it has been both powercreeped by the Kleber and nerfed too much by WG as well. The Khaba is not an example of Russian bias (looking at you, Kremlin), and it needs some love.
  7. I am able to play it in full-screen windowed with super low settings now and it is fairly stable but I still get massive lag spikes at times and load into battles after they have started. I have also had several critical error crashes where I had to quit the game and relaunch. My computer is a 2017 iMac, pretty sure it is high Sierra, I can send the full list of stats later. The game is at least playable for me now, but is certainly not ideal. The graphics in many places are also worse for some reason than they used to be for me, the lighting on gun barrels is messed up and there are other graphical glitches as well (minimap/icon flickering, etc), but I am able to play, so there's that. Thank you for responding to all of us, it is just so frustrating at times trying to play this game. Also I am using WGC, not the old launcher.
  8. Hey, i just reinstalled and played WoWs again, haven’t played it in over a year due to all of the bugs and crashes. I was able to play 1 round fine but my 2nd round the game completely crashed. Was wondering if this would ever be fixed, it apparently is not. I ran the 64 bit client, but it still didn’t work. Just absurd
  9. It’s not working at all for me, I don’t know what to do. Should I just wait more?
  10. Does your FPS suck? I got the game to work sort of, but the frame rate is complete trash now, 30 max, usually around 10 or so, when it used to average 70-80 on low settings. This game used to work fine, but it’s just gradually gotten worse/more unstable, for now it’s still unplayable for me, the FPS is just too bad. Why can’t WG actually fix their damn game
  11. Mojave. My Mac is late 2017, i5, 8 GB RAM, it should be able to handle wows, and it used to easily
  12. Well, I can play a battle, but the FPS, in MIN GRAPHICS, is complete TRASH. I used to be able to get over 70 plus FPS average with my settings, but with this it’s 35 max, and regularly dips below 10. Game is pretty much still unplayable. I’m using the beta WGC/wrapper. As usual, u screwed it up WG
  13. I downloaded the beta Game Center and am now downloading the game through it, will update when it’s finished. I just want this game to be playable again, is that too much to ask
  14. I used to play this game a ton, I did very well, grinder up and got 6 tier 10s, but they game is unplayable now. Fingers crossed 8.3 finally adds working 64 bit client and fixes everything, but I don’t have high hopes
  15. Thanks for replying and relating feedback, we used to never get any attention/posts from devs or moderators, I hope that the game will be fully fixed and playable at some point, for now I am gonna wait and see
×