Jump to content

Shishiro_Botan

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7509
  • Clan

    [NADO]

Community Reputation

36 Neutral

About Shishiro_Botan

Recent Profile Visitors

541 profile views
  1. Right, like how I'm having "Venezia" Syndrome this season. Something something 4 Venezia + 2 Stalingrad, 5 Venezia 1 Halland, 4 Venezia 1 DM 1 Mino.... You get the idea. It's less prevalent here on NA as teams are a bit more creative, but I played a few games in ASIA this season and holy mother cow it's absolute cancer. Every [edited]team is running 3+ Venezia.
  2. Shishiro_Botan

    Your next coveted ship?

    Yoshino or Agir I think.
  3. Shishiro_Botan

    A Major Problem With Clan Battles

    No? Pretty sure big e-sport games add new mechanics all the time. Meta shifts in LOL by the will of Riot. Dota 2 just implemented the one of the weirdest additions to the game, Outposts. World of Warships isn't an e-sports game because Wargaming doesn't particularly care for it to be. It wasn't designed for e-sports since the beginning, nor has Wargaming show interest in turning it into an esports title. Unlike World of Tanks.
  4. Shishiro_Botan

    Carriers so cool in clan battles guys!

    Sad to say but at this point it's a bit too late no? Ran into 3 BB comps yesterday, won all of them. The one that brought a Kremlin and double Venezia + Halland flank gave us a bit of work, other than that it wasn't even close. The iron curtain is back. 3+ Stalingrad comp in like every Typhoon/Hurricane team we faced, except -KIA- I think. Guess I'll just get my steel and be done with it.
  5. Winrate is the first and foremost factor taken into consideration when considering balancing. It is the only measurement of how something is good/bad at achieving the end game goal. Your refutal arguments are weak and lacking evidence to show how Winrate isn't, exception in your imagination. Your 3 citations does not touch the topic of Winrate, hence completely irrelevant to the discussion. Please find better sources to rebute my argument.
  6. The refutation does not stand in the first place. Your argument and evidence/citation does not refute the importance of Winrate. Simple.
  7. Like I said, nothing you have quoted/Cited has downplayed the role of Winrate, only using very generic methods that have very skewed case studies, which may or may not fit the game model of World of Warships. Therefore, I don't see how it's a rebutal to my argument. Please try harder.
  8. Enjoyment can easily be measured through the data. In the first link you've provided. First paragraph. However, since it usually rests on a lot of assumptions and sometimes complex calculations, we cannot reliably assume that this great-in-theory system will actually do great on practice when we release it to millions of players. Second link. Nothing in particular about PVP or Winrate. Mostly talking about economics balancing. Third link. Literally not a single "data" word mentioned in the whole section, except in the comments. Talks about commonly used, very genenric balancing methods and reasonings. Let me read that again. Enjoyment can easily be measured through the data. Hmmmmm.......... Okay stop right there. I believe there isn't any point continuing this discussion.
  9. I have just realized, what you have described to me is 100% balance by spreadsheet. Ooof. Also, More logical fallacies, and absent a coherent argument. No sir, I've stated my ideas very clearly, and like I said if you can't understand then there's no point continuing the discussion. I don't care if 100 million people find win rate relevant, facts do not care about the feelings of the mob. You're not balancing stats for them to somehow work out beautifully balanced. No, that is the art of statistics, sure, but that's not the point. You're balancing games for people to play, enjoy, and hopefully spend money on. How do you do that when you "do not care about the feelings of the mob"? ??? Using "hard balance points" and "soft balance points" (assume the stats are relevant, which I seriously doubt) are irrelevant because they do not, in any shape or form, take account for player performance, how much [insert name here] is being played, or how they perform in different skill gaps.
  10. I don't care if 100 million people find win rate relevant, facts do not care about the feelings of the mob. Ooookay. Well, glad you're not on a video game balance team. If you think you can somehow achieve "true balance" in a video game, that's just delusional. Also, please provide your credentials as a Data Analyst so I know I'm not talking a to 50yo making up stuff in his basement.
  11. I agree. Like I said, Video Game balance, not "true balance". If something is winning a lot and being played a lot, chances are it's due for a nerf because those playing against it aren't winning. If you're losing a lot to something you see a lot, you're probably not having a lot of fun. Thus, those OverPerforming [insert names here] should be nerfed for the sake of player experience. Of course, there will be [insert names here] that aren't necessarily winning games but are cancer to play against(and being played a lot), in which case the problem falls under game mechanics design, not balancing. Nerfing/buffing too much is also a tool. Having a "stale meta" doesn't generate much player enthusiasm.
  12. To determine if a ship is OP, you should look at the hard stats: ................ See, this is the problem with people using statistics to over-think game balances. No sane Dev in League of Legends, or Dota 2, or HoS, or Starcraft, or almost any other competitive games would use this line of logic as to determine whether or not they should nerf/buff a hero. X hero has 0.1 second better attack animation and 5 higher starting damage but 5 less movement speed and 0 starting armor, but Y hero has 100 more HP and 9 starting armor with a high STR gain and a strong lvl 1 skill. Did I mention X has a pretty broken ult? Nerf X, because apparently a broken ult is worse than bullying enemy on laning stage. NO, that's not how that line of logic goes....! Like I said, winrate is not indicative of many things but it's a strong sign of something needing attention to. A hero with 60+ winrate and 80% Ban/Pick rate at a tournament should and will be nerfed, it doesn't matter if it has x stat worse or y stat better, that only comes into consideration as to how to balance, not why. I was mentioning Daring as the OP ship. Not the Pan EU DD line.
  13. Shishiro_Botan

    DD help

    Royal Navy DDs are good at mid tiers(5-6), and great/best at top tier(8-10). With the exception of T8 Lightning being a bit more challenging to play, others in the line are pretty easy to handle. Play around caps, trade with other DD(but avoid getting focused) and spot their torps, and farm BBs with your short smoke whenever you get the chance. Jutland is a personal favorite. As of others, gun boats(Soviet/French/Harugumo line) are generally harder to play. US, German, and Pan Asian DDs are mostly torp DDs now with similar roles, good but aren't very consistant. Shimakaze is great if you like that kind of style. Oh and Pan EU DDs.... They are strong, but requires a lot of understanding and experience with DDs in general to be effective.
  14. I would love to see your credentials as a Data Analyst, honestly. Winrate is not indicative of a lot of things, I agree. However, I've yet to find a player that do not value winrate, hence the flaw in your argument. Winrate may just seem like a number in a big spreadsheet, but it's (arguably) what most players play for. If a ships wins more, it's natural to assume that more people are willing to play it(unless popularity says otherwise). Unless you provide a poll where people value their damage, potential, kill per game, spotting, etc more than how much they win... I don't have a problem considering WR(with relevance to popularity) as the first indicative number to look at when balancing. Because the analogy is flawed. In which case, the first thing to do is balance all BBs (mechanics change), and then consider individual nerfs/buffs, in this case, the Montana. You are intentionally performing the actions in reverse order, which is incredibly mind baffling. If DDs are weak, implement a mechanics change/buff. Nerf the Daring later, simple as that. Such as: Nerf all radar range by 1km(radar mechanics nerf), planes doesn't have shared vision(air spotting mechanics nerf) My claim of Daring being OP is under the assumption of current mechanics, of course.
  15. Hahaha. Very funny. Documentations for what? These links do not, in any shape or form, rebute my argument, except maybe in your own imagination. It merely points out that there are many factors affecting winrate, without rebuting the effectiveness of using winrate as a metric for balancing. Because, as almost always, the end game objective is to: Win. If you can not recognize that, I believe the lack of intellectual capability means continuing this discussion is futile.
×