Jump to content

zarth12

Members
  • Content count

    575
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6286
  • Clan

    [-UCS-]

Community Reputation

99 Good

About zarth12

Recent Profile Visitors

344 profile views
  1. Submarine Watch - Update

    Well you are probably correct, but some of their decisions hurt their own revenue stream. I have no problem admitting I am probably one of the larger whales in NA, and close friends with a bunch that are of a similar status. We view games like this as a sort of pseudo investment as well. We have experience from many games of the past with similar models. We have seen what makes games suffer, sometimes even die out, and what simply blocks them from flourishing. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt one of the largest poor decisions Wargaming has made (and they made it in WoT as well quite a few times), is creating a completely unique ship type and stuffing it behind gated content. I am obviously talking about Stalingrad. Other game companies that did this found out very quick in a very painful ($$) fashion that people like me who do spend money, don't stand for it. Stuff that is generally cosmetic is okay.... Like Black... Flint...etc. You know... *common sense* rewards. Well me and the other large whales that I know, all decided we would not spend another penny on anything Wargaming until the "Stalingrad" issue was rectified. Obviously it made an impact. It only took..what...a month? Before they made that generalized public statement to try and appease us and those like us. "there will be other ways to obtain Stalingrad etc etc". Unfortunately until those "ways" are there, in official live patch notes... our wallets will be locked up tight. If those "ways" are still gated like CW... well our wallets will continue to stay locked. What makes it even worse is they had ships in the pipeline that were perfect candidates for a CW reward. (Musashi, Salem, etc) Perhaps its time to replace their accountants?
  2. Submarine Watch - Update

    Well if you asked me if I think subs have a place in the game, I would say they *could* but at the current time it wouldn't be *healthy* There are far more pressing issues that are in desperate need of fixing. You see I am a huge supporter of games being balanced *Objectively* and *Logically*. Wargaming can be quite the antithesis to that. Things that plague the game that *SHOULD* most certainly have been solved well before any new ships are introduced, even so before most of the ships we have in game already were released. Examples of these "things" are: - Radar going through islands (very simple fix despite the lies Wargaming claims) - Contradictory statements by devs in their own Q&A about Rock-Paper-Scissors - BB accuracy being overpowered since mere months after launch - BB AP Double dipping on DDs.
  3. Submarine Watch - Update

    Those are examples of "strategic campaigns" correct, but your subjective idea as to what "tactical" means is flawed. Strategy is the long game, it is the overall picture. Tactics are buildings blocks of the overall strategy. So first and foremost, Submarines were used a lot in *Naval Combat*. Lets say I come up with the strategy to disrupt naval supply lines. That is the strategy. The way in which the Submarines achieve that strategy, is by utilizing tactics. Now there can be good just as there can be "bad" tactics, or rather "failed". The Submarine that sunk the Indianapolis was on patrol. The strategy was to screen those waters to protect assets closer to land, and inland. The tactic was HOW the Submarine not only detected but the way in which it sank her. These are just 2 of MANY submarine examples in WWII.
  4. Submarine Watch - Update

    His original statement was "Naval Combat". When a submarine attacks ANY Warship, is by definition, "Naval Combat". He also clearly had no understanding of the difference between "strategy", and "tactics". That is what was called out. If you are subjectively narrowing down the requirement for what you think makes up a "Naval Battle", which by your definition is "Ships firing back and forth at each other", then no. Submarines were typically not present in this engagements. The next part doesn't even make sense. For one, DDs complain about BBs because of a glitch that is taking Wargaming immensely long to fix, suspiciously enough. BB AP is double dipping a lot of times on DDs. Not only that there is verifiable and statistical proof that BB accuracy is and has been overpowered since 2015. Not hard to put 2 and 2 together when Wargaming has openly catered to BBs, and BB are the only ship type not really present in the RPS balance... yet the other ship types are.. ($$$) Secondly, DDs were not the biggest threat to subs in WWII, nor did they sink the most subs. CVs would be a far bigger threat. Depth Charges? Hah. I raise you aircraft dropped Sonar Buoys, and torps.
  5. Submarine Watch - Update

    It is funny watching people post blatantly false information. Interesting according that the top NAVAL COMBAT related sinkings in WW2 had Submarine based torpedoes in the top 5. Submarines in WWII most certainly had a role in Naval Combat. I even cite an example: USS Indianapolis. She was moving and maintaining a speed much much faster than 15 knots. You clearly do not even understand the difference between "strategy", and "tactical". Even more so, failed to issue the correct form of that terminology in that statement which would be "Strategical".
  6. A cruiser can do more by simply camping near the caps, with less risk in early game. Early game caps are not as important as picks, because caps can always be retaken like nothing if you have superior numbers A BB can delete one to even a few enemy ships without ever being in range of any enemy ships save for other BBs early game.. This is also thanks to overpowered accuracy.
  7. That is not entirely correct and a common misconception. BBs have the highest carry potential in the first half. DDs have the highest carry potential in the second half. It also find it funny that the poll only confirms what the vocal minority tries to deny. BBs are overpowered and need a nerf. A low skill floor archetype has more carry potential than archetype with higher skill floor. Sorry but that equation does not compute for balance.
  8. That's just dev favoritism for you. I find it funny that they tried to claim "but muh statistics" to justify the nerf and yet they only manage to prove they don't know anything about statistics... you know things like skew....outliers....bias.... Win rate is the most easy to skew metric, along with play rate. Performance based metrics are always king.
  9. and yet I provided evidence and cited sources that clearly show, factually, accuracy and precision are completely synonymous. So you all can virtual high five each other with passive aggressive attempts at insulting, and even attempts at red herrings, it does not change that there is a big difference between truth and what you three claim.
  10. What is even more funny is watching you both post blatantly false information. 1.) Nothing is more bloated than BB main batteries. Cruiser main batteries to a lesser extent. BB main batteries were extremely inaccurate. After action reports all confirm this. 2.) There were multiple cases where single torps disabled ships, took them completely out of combat, or even outright sank them. In game all 3 would equate to a kill. 3.) Secondaries on BBs and cruisers were more accurate than their Main batteries, but still less accurate in real life than they are in game. Just because the same base weapon system was used as a secondary on a BB, that is also a main battery on a DD does not mean both share equal accuracy in real work performance. There was a difference, and DD main batteries were more accurate. After action reports all confirm this. 4.) and yet after action reports show that even after a BB main battery shell "over penned" a DD, it did not outright sink her, and there are examples of said DD still able to move on her own power. Example: Leyte 5.) Radar was not better in real life. It was on all the time but easily destroyable, malfunctioned all the time, and was very unreliable for fire control. It was only reliable for basic surface contact acquisition beyond human visuals. After action reports also confirm this. Example: Solomons 6.) Accuracy and Precision are the same, no matter what subjective argument the troll tried to make with targets anyone can make in MS paint. Accuracy and precision are synonymous, an simply two words that mean the same but have different origin. I like to deal in facts, and not writing a book filled with made up images where anyone can put what they want. Proof: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/accuracy Proof: https://www.google.com/search?ei=8aL9WpGBCZG6jwOLr6PIDA&q=Accuracy&oq=Accuracy&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1l2j0l8.120926.202525.0.202762.22.15.0.0.0.0.453.921.2-2j0j1.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..19.3.920...0i20i264k1.0.oak3gExDjgo 7.) Naval artillery was very inaccurate (and therefore imprecise) at the timeline where WoWs has any relevance as well as leading up to then. This troll will probably like to start quoting some propaganda live fire testing results from the Iowa. Typical logical fallacies. Not only is a live fire test, just a test in a controlled environment, but easily manipulated. Secondly, when Iowa was made it was leaps and bounds more accurate than all other Battleships it could ever face, as well as the ones that came before it, and yet still extremely inaccurate when we are talking about hit rate. You see here we are talking about factual and provable information. After action reports for the engagements with USS Washington, SD, Bismark, Kongo...etc..etc all show a single digit hit rate for Battleship main batteries. That is by very definition very inaccurate (and therefore imprecise). 8.) Lastly here we have the falsehoods about DDs being defensive, just something he is good at. Losing any merit he "thinks" he has. DDs were not only the most offensive ship type in WWII second only to Subs, but the ratio of DDs to BBs was massive. DDs carried out solo strikes, duo strikes, they escorted, and even performed land bombardments. For all ships sunk and for what reason in WWII. Aircraft based torpedoes were the number 1 cause, Sub and DDs are still in the top 5. Main battery, and even secondary batteries from a BB... sorry.... not even top 10.
  11. I find it extremely amusing when people try to make the realism argument and state "but but but torpedoes didn't have reloads in real life"... and its usually a BB player. I'm like oh yea? Guess what else? - Radar didn't go through islands, and was quite unreliable for anything other than surface contact acquisition. It was also easily destroyable, very fragile, and even malfunctioned a lot - A single torpedo can take a ship completely out of action even if it didn't sink it. In WoWs, that would obviously be emulated as outright sinking. - BB main batteries were a fraction of a fraction as accurate as they are in game. BB main battery accuracy are the most bloated by far in game in comparison to real work recorded performance in action. Have fun with that 6% hit rate you back campers, and for most of you that is probably even pushing it. - To even have a semblance of the economic and industrial requirements emulated in game, have fun with that 1 BB limit per team and almost unlimited amount of DDs.
  12. This is a good one. Well definitely Radio waves going through islands. Having devs that contradict themselves is a good one too. Open catering to the BB crowd by the devs since a mere few months after launch to present is up there too.
  13. Kronstadt - FXP Ship?

    Its all moot until it is in the patch notes. They could very well make it a reward for a different gated content. I don't understand why common sense is so uncommon. They literally had prime examples of perfect CW rewards in the pipeline already. Musashi.....Salem.. They are so benighted, and their revenue is certainly suffering for it.
  14. Kronstadt - FXP Ship?

    Well I mean they already have Stalingrad slated for a CW reward, which means a completely unique ship for gated content. This I also something other game companies learned is a big no no almost a decade ago. This is also why me and a bunch of other very large whales have completely shut out wallets to WG until it changes ..as in a general ungated method of acquiring is in official patch notes.
  15. See, someone gets it. I say considering a fix for Radar is so simple, torps should all go through islands until it is fixed.
×