Jump to content

Gothik_Knight

Members
  • Content Сount

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3838

Community Reputation

34 Neutral

About Gothik_Knight

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

365 profile views
  1. Gothik_Knight

    Possible Solution to Radar

    I honestly get slightly more depressed every time I see people make this argument about "Objective arguments win, subjectivity has no bearing on anything." Objectively speaking, that argument is completely and obviously false. For example, you say the thread topic has been "Objectively proven", but by what measure do you consider that to be so? The weight that we give to any particular information is completely subjective. The thread topic is "possible solution to Radar".. how is that even something that could be objectively proven in the first place? I mean.. I guess someone mentioned something that could possibly be construed as a "solution" to radar.. but if Radar was the problem, it would be easy enough to just remove it from the game and then we could all be happy in gamer Utopia, right? Except people forget that Radar is the intended solution to a problem that existed before. In essence, even the "topic of this thread", which has been "objectively proven" has been proven false because it insists that radar is the problem, which it is not.. and further suggests that a possible solution to the not-a-problem is something.. wait.. no.. the O.P. didn't actually even give any possible solutions.. Thus making the "topic of the thread" Objectively False, at least from my point of view. :p Honestly, I got a little off topic there because the idea that the "topic of the thread" has been "objectively proven" is so completely ridiculous.. My point for the first paragraph was going to be that, even if we choose to look at that graph and not base our opinions off of any of the other clutter here, the graph doesn't give the information to make a objective opinion on the state of DD's in the game today. This is because that graph shows experience at tier 10. That's all it shows. Objectively speaking, the only thing that graph can tell you is how experience of tier X DD's relates to experience of other ship classes at tier X. If we go on in the thread, people then "assume" that those ships aren't winning because winning gives an experience boost, but that's still an assumption. If you have a DD and cruiser, both of whom spend the entire fight actually shooting away at the enemy and trying to do as much damage as possible, the Cruiser will probably get more than twice as many ribbons and the vast majority of their ribbons will be for things that get lots of XP, like causing damage to enemy ships. Now factor in that doing damage is basically a cruiser's one and only job, while the DD is expected to scout, provide smoke cover, cap points and other things which will pull them out of the fight, but are crucial for winning a match, and I think it's clear why experience earned and W/L ratio can actually have a huge gap. Now let's finish up the "objective" look at that graph and notice that the "radar ships" aren't even the ones that got the jump in xp when DD's dropped. In fact, CA's initially dropped about as much XP as DD's did, but they crawled there way back to be about even with BB's.. IMO, this probably means that CA's and BB's are about where the mark should be. CV's are too high and DD's are too low.. but none of that really has much bearing on whether radar is OP or not. So while the graph might be seen as evidence, to call it objective proof is just wrong. Now while thinking about the problems with using the graph and calling it "objective proof", I realized that some people seem to be making this assumption that "poor DD performance means that radar is over-powered", This argument shouldn't be made because for many reasons. First is that there could be many reasons that DD's don't perform well.. the people making this argument first have to prove that DD performance is bad, then have to prove that radar has had a significant impact on making DD performance bad. Moreover, the actual measure of radar's impact on the game should be the performance of ships using radar compared to similar ships not using radar. Although I would argue that ships not using radar basically either aren't using one of their consumables, or they're using a consumable that just doesn't have any impact on anything (has anybody ever felt like a catapult fighter won them the game?) Never fear though. Despite some people's assertions to the opposite, I think WG is thinking seriously about how to fix the DD problem.. and I think the CV changes are actually a big part of that. WG says they intend on having CV's with fewer squadrons in the air, which means CV's won't be dedicating squadrons to spotting DD's. They also said they intend to remove or diminish the CV's Anti-aircraft capability. That means that CA's will have to decide between anti-aircraft builds and anti-destroyer builds. My hope is that those two Nerfs will help destroyers a lot.
  2. different people have different methods of learning. Some people could learn to play a ship, or against a ship, by reading about it or looking at it's stats, others may need to watch videos on it, or play it themselves. For some people playing the ship might actually be a hindrance because "I couldn't do this" becomes "The ship can't do this", and "I was able to do this" becomes "This is what the ship does" (as opposed to, "the ship is situationally able to do this".) As for me personally, playing a ship helps me remember it's stats because it causes me to look at those stats on a regular basis. by playing the Cleveland for example, I know that it has a 9km radar range, so playing against the Cleveland, especially in DD, I'll have this fact in mind. From playing the Bayern I remember that it has some kinda weird weak spots, which might effect where I choose to shoot enemy Bayerns. However, I first focus on how the ship I'm playing is supposed to be played.
  3. Gothik_Knight

    Possible Solution to Radar

    As a cruiser player (although I enjoy DD's too) I can tell you that USN CA/CL's are going to hide behind islands whether radar is involved or not. I mean I learned to hide behind islands when I was playing the Cleveland VI and the lesson literally got pounded into the Pensacola. If radar didn't go through islands, then it wouldn't be used. If radar is to be used at all, then it needs to be designed to work on the ships it's meant to be used with. Furthermore, how are DD players complaining about cruisers using islands for cover, when the DD's are using those same islands for cover? If there's an island between you and him, then there's also an island between him and you. It's as much your fault as it is his. People can't shoot the cruiser, but the cruiser can't shoot you. Anyone who CAN shoot you, CAN be shot at. If you can be shot at by multiple people who can't be shot at by your team, then why are you there in the first place? Personally, I think the crux of the problem is that many DD players rely too much on being invisible, so much so in fact, that they get themselves into bad situations (like multiple enemies having firing lines on them) without any plan on how to deal with those situations when they go south. This isn't to say it's the DD's fault, surely the rest of your team has a role to play in making sure the enemy team isn't able to focus too much fire on any one ship. Also, playing a radar ship is only "skill-less" if the DD's you're hunting also lack skill. In most matches I can work my way behind an island that's near a cap point and I can hit my radar button knowing that I'll see something because I already saw the point was being capped.. which is because the DD "skillfully" hit their engine boost and zipped off to a cap trying to take it before anyone else could get there to put up a fight, and if someone else DID happen to get there, they were going to launch a spread of lolpedoes and "skillfully" hit their smoke so that no one could shoot at them, buying them time to either cap the point or run away. If a DD gets caught by Radar, 9 times out of 10 it's because they did something that let the radar ship know they were in the area. If that DD then gets targeted by the radar ship's friends it's because the DD was sitting someplace where the friends had line of fire to him AND DD's team wasn't keeping those ships occupied. If the DD can't respond to the radar ship being behind an island, it's because the DD chose to be someplace where the radar ship can keep an island between them and any retaliation. To be clear, many DD players ALREADY weren't rushing points.. the cost of losing that rush, no matter what the reason, doesn't usually outweigh the benefit gained from it, as a concerted push from the enemy team could cost both the point and the rushing DD, but if the enemy team wasn't pushing that point then the DD is not participating in the fight and also didn't really need to rush the point in order to cap it. Instead, DD players were already learning to provide smoke cover for their allies and try to spot while their team as a whole pushes into a point. Adding (more) radar to the mix makes things harder on the DD, but it doesn't make things impossible. If you're a DD player, you KNOW which islands the Radar ships are likely hiding behind and what their radar range is, so you can work with your team to catch the radar ship and/or any of his allies that might have been able to shoot at you if you had gone into radar range. Keep in mind that radar is actually a solution. People say they or their friends will leave because of radar. I have friends who have left the game because of stealth-fire/ torpedoes. Rush-capping and stealth capping might be fun for DD players, but it's not fun for players who lose cap points and even matches and never had an opportunity to even see the enemy, let alone fight them. Making the matches longer doesn't necessarily make the matches less fun, if it did, you DD players should be happy about radar.. it would mean you could rush a point with a radar ship near it and get out of the match even quicker than before.
  4. Gothik_Knight

    Day six as a new player

    Hello and welcome! Yeah, tier 4 is where I generally start to feel a grind. I don't think it's bad at tier 4 or 5 though and those are fun tiers to play in anyway. Anyway, hope you have fun in the game. I'll hop in your channel and check it out.
  5. Gothik_Knight

    loyalty switch trigger?

    I'm not sure it's a performance requirement, as I don't perform particularly well. With that said, I do notice that I seem to get these after matches in which I feel like I'm doing a lot of fighting and/or the rest of my team seems to be hanging back not doing much. If there is a performance measure, I feel like it might be more about how often your shooting at the enemy (or getting shot at) rather than how often you actually hit, how much damage is done and things like that. I feel like it's more about how active you are rather than how good you are.
  6. Gothik_Knight

    How to pronounce Worcester

    Meh. Seriously if you guys want other people to start pronouncing things a certain way, then you should start spelling them that way.. that's what spelling is for. As for me, I was born and raised about 10 miles south of Baltimore, Maryland. That said, I'm certainly not going to give anyone flack for not pronouncing it Bawl'mer, Merlin. I'm not going to correct you if you ask for an ambulance instead of an amblance. and if you happen to get thirsty while walking down the streets of Belair I'd be happy to get you a glass of water from the sink, even though you might not know that we're really in Blair and I'm getting Worter from the zinc. Don't even get me started on Patapsco. Don't like it? Tough, hon. P.S. There's a Worcester county in Maryland. Technically the guides say it should be pronounced Wuss-ter, but I've always pronounced it wor-chester.
  7. Gothik_Knight

    Kantai Collection Discussion Thread Kai

    Uhmm.. shouldn't the frogs be dead BEFORE you dissect them? Also, I'm guessing there's still no English/American version of this game? What the heck is the point to region locking games anyway?
×