Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

366 Excellent

About MrPetticoat

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,299 profile views
  1. Well I mean I don't know how one could possible conclude a ship being "one of the most powerful ships in the game" while putting the stats aside. The performance stats are not a magical number from thin air. If a DD in your match, on the other team kills you, one of your team mates, and caps a point. That positive performance is all included in the large swath of performance stats. Performance stats are also where balance conclusions can be drawn, logically. When I say logically, I am saying so under the assumption that the intended result is a successful, and balanced game. If the intended result is the worst balance seen in gaming for at least 10 years, well... result is achieved. This causation is further observed in the game having a population that is even smaller then some hard core mil-sim games available today, made by smaller studios, and WoWs is an arcade game which should automatically give it an edge in accessibility to the masses. The solution is easy. Structure is important. Pick a balance model and stick with it. They are a "model" for a reason. Rock-Paper-Scissors is the most proven successful model, but they don't have to use it. They simply need to pick one. If picking one involves upsetting the BB players in the short term. So what? If the balance is based on FACTS and not OPINION, who cares. The game will benefit massively in the long run. It is their fault for letting the appeasement and blatant favoritism go on for this long. I mean look at how they are making balance changes right now, and their reasoning behind them. Nerfing Yue Yang simple because it performs better than the other **DDs**. Buffing USN BBs up to T9 simple because they perform lower than some other **BBs** in their respective tiers. If that reasoning even holds ANY merit, they will have to nerf and buff ships every single patch simply because there will ALWAYS be a ship that is the highest performer within it's ship type. I didn't realize this game ONLY involved interactions between ships of the same type. I must be playing a different game, because these balance reasons are based a perceived environment where DDs are ONLY fighting other DDs, CAs are ONLY fighting other CAs, and BBs are ONLY fighting other BBs.
  2. MrPetticoat

    Steel and Stalingrad - What’s the right answer?

    As for the last part. I whole-heartedly agree. If Wargaming is essentially going to say, "Well too bad, you can't play the Mage or Knight class until you compete, win, and earn a bunch of steel in Ranked/CB"... well then the "Mage" and "Knight" should ONLY be playable in the modes that accrue the same steel that was used to purchase them. Otherwise, competitive rewards should ONLY be cosmetic, and ALL ships should be available to the entire community, whether by XP or Wallet, as it HOW the F2P business model works.
  3. MrPetticoat

    Mejash's Video: Let's Talk about Steel

    A.) CBs and Ranked were poorly designed from the get-go. If participation and retention is an issue, gating a larger carrot isn't the intelligent corrective measure, it is the ignorant one. Fix the enjoyment of the competitive modes themselves, and fix the balance based off factual data for once and not the whims of subjectivity, and you will naturally have participation and retention. Notice how the most successful games these days and all games created in the past few years ALL have purely cosmetic rewards for their competitive modes, yet have participation and retention FAR higher than ALL WG titles put together. Gating completely unique ships, like Stalingrad, and Burg, behind a competitive currency is akin to another game saying "well sorry but you can't play the Knight or Mage class until you compete and win in our competitive arena". That is because it doesn't work, and that is how you completely destroy your revenue stream. B.) Yes, there should be significant rewards for competitive modes, but not until #1 above is addressed. This can easily be unique camos. No, not like the premium camos you can get for each ship with dubs. I am talking about something similar to the animation, design, and even sound effects of Space Camo or Halloween camos. I am pretty sure you would even find far less outrage from your playerbase, and even your whales(without which there would be no game), if you made Legendary Upgrades ONLY unlockable by Steel/CB/Ranked. Legendary upgrade can be comparable to "Gear" in other games, of which is plausible even if it walks the fine line.
  4. MrPetticoat

    WG's nerf priorities is abit wth, but justified

    The nerfs are not justified. DDs are and have been the lowest performing ship since the game was playable at any stage. Yue Yang performs well, but being the "highest performer" .... WITHIN a ship type is absolutely zero basis for balance changes. There will always be a highest performer within a ship type, and even based on their claimed reasoning for the nerf they further prove their hypocrisy. Where are the nerfs to the highest performing CA and BBs? Also, Yue Yang is performing lower than quite a few T8-10 CAs and BBs. That means there they are beyond any sensible reasoning for nerfing it. Conqueror, just like when it came out before it received the first nerf it got, was not overperforming "within the BB ship type". It simply ended up, in design, to be the best BB at killing other BBs. It has bad accuracy, and is great at doing HE damage an starting fires. It is also hard to citadel, this already makes it better against other BBs more so than DDs and CAs. It is common knowledge that WG favors BBs, they have catered to them since 2015, so it isn't surprising that a BB which has a "little" internal countering power, even though still less deadly internally compared to DDs, is going to get nerfed. Just as it wouldn't surprise me if later it receives buffs that make it specifically better against Cruisers and DDs and even weaker against BBs. Yes, the Conqueror deserved a nerf, but going by any sensible and logical conclusion one could gain from the data, the evidence, it is hardly most overpowered BB, and BBs as a ship type need nerfs anyway.
  5. MrPetticoat

    Steel and Stalingrad - What’s the right answer?

    - Isn't normal, not for years and years and years. As is defined by the most popular games of the past half-decade. This form of gating that is. Because XP and FXP are actually a form of gating, but in line with the fundamentals of a F2P model. Steel for unique Ships, is not. - WoT is far from successful. - Ships =/= gear. Ships = Classes/Archetypes. Name a single game alive today that gated a class unlock behind a competitive mode( non wg title)
  6. MrPetticoat

    Steel and Stalingrad - What’s the right answer?

    Yawn, more fallacies. 1.) World of Warcraft did have gear for both, and wasn't competitively gated until later and then it was made more and more and more available. (AKA they learned) 2.) Incorrect yet again. You do not "equip" sets of ships. Gear is akin to upgrades and your captain. Ships are only comparable to classes/archetypes. Where as "DD" would be the archetype", and the Classes (different DDs) are comparable to sub-classes in other games, or even talent trees (in World of Warcraft). You don't play a "sword" in a RPG... you play the Knight and equip a "sword". You aren't flying around as this magical sentient sword. 3.) Gating classes/archetypes behind competitive does kill games. Even gating gear isn't done anymore, as shown in the most successful games in the market to this day.
  7. MrPetticoat

    Steel and Stalingrad - What’s the right answer?

    All fallacious. 1.) World of Warcraft is an MMORPG, and far from the top in the market. It also has dedicated PVE, separate from PVP. It had and has PVE gear and PVP gear. For most of its life it has had BiS PVP gear, for simply doing PVP, and vice versa for PVE. Over time they have made the gear far less competitive gated.. more..and more. 2.) Gear =/= Ships. Ships = Class/Archetype. Gear in WoWs is more akin to upgrades. Like if WG made you get legendary upgrades with Steel. Making unique ships rewards would be akin to World of Warcraft saying "Well you gotta do a lot of Arena and do well for you to be able to play the Rogue, and Mage class". The game would not be around or they would have changed it. Not overstated at all. Your logical fallacies are useless against me.
  8. BBs are factually overperforming, according to the data. The logical action ANY other game company takes when something is overperforming is to NERF it. DDs are factually underperforming, according to the data. The logical action ANY other game company takes when something is underperforming is to BUFF it.
  9. - Game was far more balanced in testing, even when they tried a top-down balance model (when BBs were unprofitable and cost a lot). Which we STILL have portions of STILL in the game today (BBs and CVs are still kings but lack the economic, MM and progression balancing factors).. mixed with Rock-Paper-Scissors. Main reason why balance is so completely broken. They need to pick a balance model and stick with it. - DDs sank exponentially more tonnage than BBs in real life. - There are singular DDs that have achieved more in combat than any singular BB - All of the data, aka evidence, shows DDs are and have been the lowest performing ship type in the game since the game was even playable. BBs are actually overperforming, given Cruisers are the median.
  10. MrPetticoat

    Steel and Stalingrad - What’s the right answer?

    1.) Unique ships should NEVER be rewards gated behind a competitive mode, period. Every other game company that tried the same were either forced to remove the gate, or died out completely. WoWs has a VERY small population considering it is an arcade game, it is even smaller than the pop of some hardcore mil-sims made by even smaller studios. Competitive rewards should be PURELY cosmetic. A Super bowl ring does not give the wearer unique sticky hands for better catching, A Super bowl ring does not give the wearer unique running and tackling power. If player *participation* is an issue, the issue is with the playability and enjoyment from the MODE itself, the MAPS themselves, and the RULES therein.... NOT the carrot. The MOST successful games in the market today, all of which are FAR more successful than any WG title combined, all offer PURELY COSMETIC rewards for competitive. 2.) As it works in ANY F2P modeled game. The biggest money spenders are also going in the same group that has the least amount of time to spend. Those with more time to spend, and less money not only available, but also removed from necessity due to time to play, will also be those with more time to devote to be competitive, and successfully competitive. The "Collector" type, is also a portion of these whales. These are the individuals who simply want all ships. Stalingrad or #Stalingate made WG completely lose the confidence of their investors, the whales. Why invest in a game company that is making all of the same mistakes from a decade ago, from games that had individuals who invested in them, and were never able to get that money back when the game died out. The best solution would obviously get rid of the whole steel system to begin with. It should have never happened involving unique ships. Imagine you are playing an RPG and the game company says .."Well you can't play the knight class until you are successful in competitive, and do well to unlock it". The game wouldn't be around for long. The compromise, to put out the fire so to speak, is to make STEEL as available as COAL, or merge the two currencies into one, and simply give the most successful teams/players from competitive unique camos.....on the level of Halloween/Space camos.. with animated effects and sounds.
  11. lol. The stupid train just keeps running. More anti-truth balancing. Making secondaries more efficient = Buffing the overpowered ship type even more and making the lowest performing ship type since beta even weaker. Nerfing flooding (More manageable) = nerfing the lowest performing ship type since beta, even more Remember the blatant lies that was proven as such: "Making Radar adhere to Line of Sight cannot work with the game engine". Yet they somehow tested it internally. "It failed"? How does making something adhere to Line of sight, fail? It simply makes radar adhere to the SAME rules as the rest of the game. It cannot fail since we have shells adhering to LoS, Torps adhering to LoS, everything. What a joke. Additionally. Further nerfs to the Conqueror. Just like the first nerfs it received. Simply nerfing it because it does better against other BBs and less so against non-BBs. So DDs like that which are generally only good against DDs and weak against everything else, is par the course and ok, but can't have a single ship like that for WGs favorite ship type. Zero performance metrics showing Conq specifically (by itself) needed a nerf since it was released, all performance metrics showing ALL top tier BBs needing nerfs and DDs needing buffs. Thank You wargaming for continuing to remind us large whales why we stopped spending money and now play so little.
  12. MrPetticoat

    AP Bombs are WAY too OP...

    lol. Watch AP bombs get addressed and not DD performance which has been the lowest of all ship types since beta.. It is almost like, "can't have anything that hurts BBs in game".
  13. MrPetticoat

    Gamescom Q&A (and yes also subs and CV rework)

    1.) I smell a Straw Man. I never claimed balancing was nerfs only. 2.) Radar is a skill void and game breaking hard counter that was the answer to NOTHING. It has and had zero justification. DDs were and are the lowest performing ship type since beta. Torpedoes have never had anything higher than a single digit hit rate. There is zero evidence an environment with smoke, but no radar, was a balance issue.
  14. MrPetticoat

    The Stalingrad

    1.) The ignorance is spewing. Money is a quantitative equivocation for effort. It was earned in some way. It evidence of effort in capital, economic scale, global scale. Capital is factually equivalent to MORE effort then you can ever claim in game for anything that was not purchased with said capital. 2.) Sorry, but you can not equivocate hours of playing a game as the same economic worth as hours worked at a job. More logical fallacies. "I should get paid for watching movies at the theater". You are consuming media, interacting with media. Business is business. You sure do like to make fallacious statements. Apple, Amazon, Boeing, Home Depot, McDonalds.... all completely different businesses. Yet all up there as powerhouses in the market. WoWs is first and foremost an arcade game, yet has the population smaller then many hardcore pure mil-sim games.
  15. Still failed to address the points made. Proof by assertion and white-knighting do not work on me.