Jump to content

zarth12

Members
  • Content count

    1,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6510
  • Clan

    [-TAB-]

Community Reputation

228 Valued poster

About zarth12

  • Rank
    Ensign
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

506 profile views
  1. DD's high tier game is bad

    Well maybe you or others find fewer DDs in the current environment more enjoyable, in reflection of natural human response to difficulty. More DDs, in turn is more competition, more difficult. Some people play for the challenge, some don't. What also needs to be kept in mind is that environment encompasses more than just DD, and it also encompasses the mass amount of imbalances the game faces, contradictions... double-standards. I bet if - the ability for DDs and Cruisers to skillfully dodge fire was increased (like a BB and Cruiser shell velocity nerf) - Concealment... and the mechanic of invisibility went away almost completely.... - If all of these DDs purely made to be better at killing other DDs were made to counter BBs instead...... the stigma people have of more DDs in a match equates to something bad just because it is more "difficult" would go away, while the balance of the game would certainly be on a correct track, rather than an incorrect one.
  2. DD's high tier game is bad

    What is or isn't concerning to you is irrelevant. What is relevant is that is not a coherent argument.
  3. Possible Solution to Radar

    Further reiterating how broken the balance is. OWSF was removed completely instead of simply nerfing its use on specific ships that abused it. The bloom effect nerfed DDs more than any other ship type, and yet they were not the ship type capable of abusing OWSF due to low and unreliable output. Still a nerf against the lowest performing ship type. The second part is fallacious. As what makes a "good" DD captain is quite subjective. The requirements for a DD captain to have ANY possible impact on a match in a Radar environment is to play passively, in a ship that even when played aggressively still impacts the match lower than the rest of the ship types, and does so even less when played passively. A ship with the shortest effective range. Again, the attribute that is required for balancing the equation for having the input of lowest TTK, is also the output of the lowest TTK. Lowest quantitative survivability requires highest quantitative output in shortest period of time. That is how balance works. "It will pass, it always does". 3 years and counting, DDs still lowest performing ship. Looks like something glued the pendulum, and that something is called dev bias and anti-truth balance changes.
  4. Possible Solution to Radar

    If it was "magnitudes more difficult" to counter, the performance metrics for DDs when it was around and Radar was not, would show this. They do not. There is ZERO deviation to suggest that. So... nice ignorant hyperbole. Again, the "pro radar" crowd likes to claim the fallacious stance of "L2P and Adapt". It is also hypocritical to take this stance as if somehow it was a logical solution, it would also be the same logical solution to things like OWSF, old shima torps, old BB accuracy... etc.. when clearly their standards are ... double sided. Seems more like people have a problem with evidence, with facts. They, like you, think opinion holds weight in a discussion about something that is proven objectively. There is word that this essentially defines and that word is "Ignorance".
  5. Possible Solution to Radar

    Again, LoS is a fundamental ruleset of the game environment. There is no "WG sets the rules". It is about standards. Wargaming simply has double-standards, and favoritism towards a certain archetype, and the opposite towards another. If it wasn't game-breaking, or comparable to cheating.... torps... shells....ships...would all ignore it... Taking your own analogy for example. Des Moines behind an island pops radar which reveals me without LoS. He just pressed a single button and ignored the same part of the environment that blocks everything else, and is balanced around blocking everything else. Not only that, his team mates also get to share in that "cheating", and zero skilled action was committed. Fixing Radar to be LoS is very easy. I could do it in 5 minutes or less. This is not something that you need C++ knowledge for lol. LoS checks are very simple one-liners, and assured acquisition most certainly has one that even tells it to IGNORE LoS.
  6. DD's high tier game is bad

    Sure, everyone has what they like and don't like. However, what is easier/harder for you isn't necessarily relative to what balance should be like. Difficulty correlates with skill. There in lies part of the problem with the bias of the devs and how most people don't understand skill floor+ceiling. For one, more difficulty also means more engaging. That is one reason why Battleships are definitely going to be more stale compared to DDs. Difficulty is a good thing, and people need to stop this double standard where they claim skill is an important aspect, or as if they have skill themselves, and then complain about difficulty. Difficulty is terms of skill is also different from balance issues. Difficulty is a subjective dictation, and everyone's view on it the specifics of such in each context is going to be different. Balance issues are something that can be proven-disproven objectively. Through data analytics, statistics, etc. As I said before. If DDs are supposed to have neutered killing effectiveness (like single digit hit rate super easy to dodge torps, like lowest survivability but not highest reliable burst damage) for the sake of being a long game support ship, capper, spotter, etc.... that is perfectly okay. However, if you introduce a hard counter that counters that support role, even if indirectly, balance dictates that you HAVE TO buff their killing effectiveness back to equal levels of the other ship types. It is called logic, and justification. Take a healer in some other game, it is a support class, if devs to introduce a debuff that blocks all healing and be balanced at the same time... there HAS TO BE justification. Either the healing **performance** of this archetype has to be so high that a counter is needed, or they have the ability to perform at killing on a generally equal basis with the other archetype. DDs have never even had close to a performance level that would justify such a counter. If DDs are meant to have a much higher risk of complete death in the first half of the match, they must have the potential for the highest output (performance) in the shortest period of time as well. That is how balance works. Instead we see an archetype with the lowest survivability rate, and the only performance it even does well in is specifically traited to the "long-game". That is contradictory to balance, just like making a Sniper+Tank If the game truly is meant for some backwards fleet arrangement as the norm where BBs are the most populated and there are only a few DDs in each match.... guess what logic would dictate that DDs better be the most powerful (performance wise), and simply limited (MM wise) in their amount per match. Welcome to Balance. Where as the same Rock-Paper-Scissors balance model that the DEVS THEMSELVES are constantly claiming is in play for WoWs, the goal would be ALL archetypes in EQUAL numbers per match with EQUAL effectiveness. If DDs are just meant to be "high skill floor", well that dictation automatically requires "High skill ceiling"... as opposed to low skill floor+ceiling BBs. Further proof of the broken state the game is in and has been in, take a look at the leaderboards. This is generally the best way to notate skill floor vs skill ceiling performance levels. If the game was balanced... BBs would have a noticeably higher performance than the other ship types in the bottom part of the skill pool (the least skilled half of the population), where as the performance for the top of the Leaderboards they would be noticeably weaker compared to DDs. Well that isn't the case. The top chunk of players for DDs are still behind in performance compared to the top players of BBs. That is simply the sacrifices you have to make for any sort of balance if you want to have different archetypes with different skill floors. Eventually, the skill brackets will get to a point where the harder ship has more glaring output compared to the easier archetype which in turn alienates a part of the community.
  7. DD's high tier game is bad

    Ahh I see where I messed up and made all my numbers a little lower. Premiums.
  8. DD's high tier game is bad

    T8 - 10 spread would probably be better numbers to use. As the topic includes the issue of Radar and this is not only the "end-game" MM spread, but also where Radar is most available.
  9. Possible Solution to Radar

    If only that were true. DDs have neutered killing effectiveness, far weaker than the other ship types. Beyond capping (the long game), they don't have the DPM nor do they have burst damage that anywhere as dangerous as BB sniping. If Torps had say... 20% hit rate... instead of the current 6-8%... Maybe there would be *some* justification for Radar. If DDs had an average damage per match that is relative in balance for the sacrifice given to have the lowest survivability attributes like ANY other game....Maybe there would be *some* justification for Radar. You know, like how you can name all other games with the squishiest class also having the highest reliable burst damage. However, you are correct that it isn't just Radar. In a broad stroke it is dev bias and favoritism which also causes victims due to that favoritism. We need objectivity in balancing. As the DD population sunk, instead of buffing DDs to be a balanced contender or nerfing BBs which were and are showing as overpowered, they continued down a path that represents a game where one DD on each side eventually becomes commonplace, and the game is built around BB vs CA and CA vs BB engagements, further making the game more stale.
  10. DD's high tier game is bad

    Might as well ignore him. Another individual keen on ignoring evidence, and think subjective experience has any weight on objective claims. Unless he is playing at a tier spread (lower tiers) where very few ships in that tier spread have radar available anyway (which would be fallacious in how he presented the statement), he is being dishonest. It is all about statistical probability. Cruisers actually have the highest population, highest games played per week now. They actually managed to squeeze above BBs for the first time in the games life, just a short time ago. At the highest MM spread for example, you have roughly 13 cruisers that can be plucked with Radar available. The Cruisers with the most games played in recent samples are Cruisers with Radar-available, and it is a large gap in most cases between those Cruisers and the games played by Radar-less Cruisers (Hindenburg being the only exception). Additionally, DDs are the second lowest played ship type (CVs being lowest). Their amount of games per week compared to cruisers makes it statistically (highly) improbable for a 6v6 DD MM plucking What he is claiming is akin to giving one person a pair of dice, and another person 5 pairs of dice and claiming the person with 2 pairs of dice as a higher chance of getting two fives.
  11. Possible Solution to Radar

    I don't think so. Most likely "sweeping dirt under the rug" action because the issue is so game breaking, but the higher ups refuse to fix it.
  12. DD's high tier game is bad

    That is because one side of the argument presents a subjective claim as an objective one, and then attacks objective arguments when they are refuted, or presents a subjective claim and thinks it has weight on something that is proven/dis-proven objectively. Examples: - A "DDs are fine and would be overpowered without radar. I have no problem getting kills and winning" -Response "The evidence shows DDs are not fine, are the lowest performing ship type since the game was playable, and Radar is game-breaking." <cites evidence> - A " No, you just need to L2P, Adapt." and proceeds to move the goal posts or ignore the evidence entirely. Presents no evidence of their own. That is what these threads pretty much become. People that think their experience has weight in a argument that can be proven mathematically. People that think their experience, their opinion are a higher truth and not the evidence, not the facts that refute them. People that believe one standard applies to one portion of the community, but not to them, or not to the rest of the community (L2P and Adapt as a solution to proven imbalances like Radar but not the expected solution to OWSF, Old Shima Torps, old BB accuracy, time-before-radar, etc). That is why I like to use the "world is flat" description for the fanaticism of these users. You could fly them into space, force them to look at the shape of the earth from orbit, and they would still claim the world is flat.
  13. Possible Solution to Radar

    It is the biggest issue. Line of Sight is a fundamental rule of the game environment. If it wasn't, why don't torps go through islands? Shells? Ships? Making Radar a destroyable module doesn't solve anything. You can't destroy a module through an island. You don't get to auto spot the radar user to fire at them anyway. Their team mates still get to auto spot you because of the radar user.
  14. Possible Solution to Radar

    Nerfing shell velocity (or increasing drag) for ALL BBs and Cruisers solves this issue with a MUCH simpler change. Cruisers claim that they cannot reliably hunt DDs, and claim they need Radar to even ignore LoS because if they *expose* themselves they are likely to get killed within a few salvoes from 1-3 BBs back sniping. At least these are the ones being somewhat honest in their issues. Cruisers cannot reliably hunt DDs, or rather expose themselves long enough to effectively hunt DDs... NOT because of how strong DDs are.... even the evidence confirms this as DDs are the LOWEST performing ship type since the game was playable. It is because BBs are TOO accurate for their damage and range. Their survival attributes even further compound this imbalance. BBs have been TOO accurate since 2015, when all ships received an accuracy buff, however because of how WG wrote the change and how it scaled it actually buffed BBs the most BY FAR. By finding a way to make BBs less accurate, Cruisers are less at risk from an overpowered sniper tank doing crazy burst damage as well from half way across the map. Nerfing accuracy just for BBs would certainly solve this, but changing shell velocity is a far more intuitive change. It gives the availability of more skilled input to the recipient of incoming fire rather than the aggressor. It would make dodging far more available, it would add more skilled weight to maneuverability. However, just nerfing velocity for BBs would not be enough, because DDs are still the lowest performer... NOT Cruisers.... so logic dictates they are most in need of buffs first and foremost. Instead of the potential of creating a cascade with complex buffs and additions to DDs, by lowering Cruiser shell velocity as well across the board you also give DDs more skill weight in maneuverability and less dependency on concealment with the potential for making DDs more viable without increasing offensive capability. The difference in shell velocities between specific ships would STILL remain the same, as the velocity nerf for both BBs and Cruisers would be the same flat amount. For Example, Moskva would still have higher shell velocity compared to Des Moines, the difference would remain the same. Even BBs would benefit a little, whilst their sniping capability would be reduced, even Cruisers firing at BBs would miss more then current as long as the BB stays mobile. With those changes, Radar could be nerfed/removed, as Concealment would no longer be such a heavy weighted "make or break" dependency for DDs, and Concealment for ALL ships could be nerfed (including DDs). Some imbalances there would have to be addressed as well. For example, there is no logical nor justified reasoning that ANY BB should have better concealment than a Cruiser. We need to stop the double-standards, we need objectivity from the devs, and BBs need to stop getting a free pass in Rock-Paper-Scissors.
  15. They are indeed lowest skill floor, but are also overperforming and seemingly immune to normal balancing *wink wink*(have been since 2015). So obviously claiming they take "zero" skill is hyperbole. BBs just take very little.
×