Jump to content
Forum Shutdown - July 28, 2023 Read more... ×
Forum Shutdown - July 28, 2023 Read more... ×


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1,305 Superb


About awildseaking

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Birthday 07/28/1993
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,479 profile views
  1. awildseaking

    Kept my mind sorta open on mines....

    FTFY Is this a joke? The only way depth charges "counter" a minefield is by placing yourself in a minefield. The "counter", or lack thereof, is to not enter the minefield.
  2. awildseaking

    Chieftain has a really good put about subs here

    This same argument has been offered for: Arty in WoT. Despite claims of arty popularity and profitability for the game, the introduction of artillery in 2012 and subsequent buffs to it over the course of the game's history correspond with massive decreases in player population across all server clusters. While arty apologists claimed it made WG money, reality told a different story. The last artillery were added to the game in 2013 and no new artillery pieces or premium artillery have been added to the game since. WG took approximately 10 years since the introduction of artillery to nerf it to the point of effectively removing it from the game. While it was too little too late, the sky did not fall and there was an increase in player population after arty was nerfed to its current state. CVs in WoWS. CVs have been controversial since OB. WG added very few premium carriers over the years and is still relatively reluctant to do so. WG also refused to add any new tech trees until the CV rework went live in 2019. British CVs came in 2019, Germans in 2020, and Soviets in 2021.The first They remain the least played class in the game, even more than subs. Everyone knows that the two least popular and most toxic classes in the game are not money makers. WG continues forcing them upon us because of sunk cost fallacy and hubris. They hate us for disliking all their years of hard work. The CV rework took 3 years, required follow up reworks, and is still an abject failure by WG's own stated objectives. Subs took 4 years, including live testing on the public server (a first). Both classes remain incredibly unpolished and unbalanced with extreme lack of counterplay. Their effect on the game is so negative that WG can't put them in CBs and Ranked. All their special game modes filter CVs as well. They know we have CV/sub fatigue. I will be shocked if WG ever adds another sub tree to this game. IJN subs seemed like a shoo-in, but the past few years have certainly called it into question. If there's already enough work done we might get whatever has already been completed, but if you think we're ever going to see Surcouf, Italians, tech tree Soviets (yes they had subs), and so forth, you can join everyone waiting for odd tiered CVs, Akagi, etc. I wouldn't hold your breath. WG has held out for years, but they cannot ignore reality forever. Course correction is most likely underway. None of the sub premiums are popular. The newness factor of the tech trees has worn off. We still aren't playing subs and never will.
  3. awildseaking

    Tier Requirements

    The problem with this logic is that WG wasn't having problems with new players skipping to high tiers. The controversies of yesteryear hardly seem controversial given how insane WG has become, but remember when they added the first T9 premium and sold Jean Bart for cash? I don't remember exactly when that happened, but it was before 2020. We'll never have exact proof, but I can say with 99% confidence more people have quit from poor match quality than have joined because of paying to skip to high tiers. Across the pond with WoT, WG was paralyzed by fear. They wouldn't nerf artillery and kept buffing it after every rework. WG finally caved and nerfed arty into oblivion. Not only did the sky not fall, but server populations immediately increased. Spreadsheet only goes so far. Server population is in dire enough straits that its time for some leaps of faith on behalf of the community that has stayed here since CB/OB.
  4. awildseaking

    Rebalancing Old Trees First

    I look at stability the exact opposite way. The primary reason I stopped whaling 4 years ago is because I am not perfectly fine and satisfied with no need to push or grind. With rare exceptions, WG keeps introducing new ships that you have to grind to stay competitive. This doesn't always mean the T10/super, but could be a stop along the way in a tech tree, coal/steel/RP ship, etc. There's no point in buying or grinding for a balanced, never mind underpowered, ship. I'm also strongly disincentivized from investing any time or money because the hot thing today becomes the power crept forgotten thing tomorrow. WoT went through this cycle as well. People used to complain about OP premium tanks like the T26E5 in 2016. Now it's the worst performing T8 heavy in the entire game with ZERO changes made to it. Until I can be confident that WG prioritizes game balance above all other considerations, I will never return to whaling. I will buy yearly premium and that's it. Also, WoWS+ is in the pipeline. WG hasn't announced it, but I promise you they will. WG was forced to consider monthly subscriptions on top of premium because their existing monetization was based around sales of tanks. Once they stopped caring about game balance, sales plummeted. WG is pursuing aggressive monetization because they have dug themselves into a hole. At this point, if they abandoned every side project and only addressed game balance, they would probably shut down within a year. When you're in a hole, stop digging. There's no painless way to get out. WG will have to face the consequences of their own actions. That's why I said do it now while there's still a chance.
  5. Yesterday, I finally decided to do something I've only done once: I reset a tech tree. This is only the second time I've ever done so because I like to keep ships that I enjoy, but I wanted a bit of RP for Siegfried and I was only one tree reset away. I don't play nearly as much as I used to, so instead of picking the Harugumo tree and FXPing to grind RP, I picked a tree where I didn't need the T10 on hand. Gearing won't be relevant ever again, so I chose the USN DD tree. I had played Nicholas a bit over the past year for Ranked and messed around a bit in randoms since I had it in my port, but I haven't played Sampson, Wickes, Clemson, Farragut, Mahan, or Benson since 2015. These ships have aged like milk. I don't see any point in discussing T2-4, but the balance from T5-8 had me wondering: why do these ships feel so dated? The answer is because they are. I checked the changelogs and was quite surprised. For all four of these ships, none have received buffs since August of 2018; that was a concealment buff for Mahan. The other three go back to 2017 back when the Yamamoto campaign was first added. Functionally, these ships are identical today to how they were at launch. I'm sure someone will try to split hairs on the C hull integration and global DFAA changes, but those aren't buffs and you know it. I'm talking about the more serious limitations of these ships. 3.4 to 2.7 sec rudder shift was not the reason these ships struggle in 2023. The primary issues are: Unjustifiable torpedo ranges given the lack of concealment, health and gun DPM. 2015 torpedo speeds. 55kt at T7-8 is an insult. Poor ballistics for ships that are forced to play more as gunboats. Outdated smoke mechanics that haven't been relevant since launch. I don't want to deep dive into the specifics, so if you disagree with my opinion, leave it at that. The real reason I'm bringing this up is because of where WoWS is and what WG can do to change course. Across the pond, WoT had a similar phase back in early 2017. WG buffed artillery beyond recognition, killed light tanks, gave up on balancing and removed significant numbers of tanks that they felt couldn't be improved, and ruined matchmaking by forcing everyone except T9-10 players to be bottom tier the majority of the time. Similar to what WG has done with WoWS, they foolishly pushed forward with unpopular updates over a 3-4 year period that killed the game and committed it to a path of decline for no good reason. WG hasn't completely undone the damage to WoT and at this point never will, but there was a brief stint where someone at WG changed the focus away from new content and redirected it towards fixing existing content. One of the only successful tech tree wide buffs was for the Leopard 1 tree. The Leopards had been a joke for years. Now they're regarded as some of the best tanks in the game. They're incredibly popular with the community and aren't overpowered in the slightest. Since they're tech tree, everyone can get them. If you had to poll WoT players about favorability for different updates over the years, I guarantee you the Leopard tree rework ranks as one of the best patches in the history of the game. WoT aside, revisiting this many outdated ships that I haven't touched since 2015 was very eye opening. I could feel how constrained I was. My health pools were low. The ships were slower than their competitors. The role they used to fill no longer is needed. They can't compete with the power creep. Out-bursted and gunned by French DDs, out-torped by Europeans, out-traded by Germans and Soviets. USN DDs at these tiers are "jack of no trades, master of none." I'm not saying these ships should get radical buffs, but every time I read devblogs, I always find myself asking "why?" There is no apparent logic or focus in how ships are buffed or nerfed. Blog 448 was a pretty good lineup of buffs for underperforming ships, but I still have to ask why. Why is the focus towards unpopular Italian DDs? Why make non-buffs like improving Mutsuki's torpedo reload by 8 seconds? Why look at Mutsuki and Fubuki, but not Minekaze, Hatsuharu, Shiratsuyu, Kagerou, Yuugumo and Shima? I can't make heads or tails of what the thought process is. There's no consistency or logic. Keep in mind this was the first devblog in what seems like years that actually buffed some ships from the original tech trees. I think WG should adopt a system that will provide some consistency, expectations and accountability with us. Commit to re-balancing every single tech tree in release order. Start with the original USN and IJN trees and work your way up to today. I promise you that if you just play these ships a little bit, you'll find something you can buff. These old trees are some of the worst performers tier for tier and have been since launch. It's one thing that many of them are underpowered. It's another thing that new ships get gimmicks like super saturation, heals, and funny buttons that allow them to dumpster and tank in ways that no amount of player input can replicate in older ships. Game balance is only going to get harder with time. Trust me, WoT is FUBAR. WoWS may already be there. Start now while there's still some hope.
  6. awildseaking

    Is this game worth playing anymore?

    Dying is a loaded buzzword, but I apply a consistent definition of dying to games. The inflection point where a game suddenly stops growing and never reverses trend is when I consider it dying. This occurred in late 2019 after the CV rework. Since then, concurrent population continues to decrease despite WG disinfo to the contrary. We're reaching 2015 levels of popularity with no signs of reversal in sight, especially as WG foolishly pushes forward with more subs, superships and CVs.
  7. awildseaking

    New Locking On Mechanic

    It sounds like they're just talking about the visual lock and not the dispersion. If my reading is correct, this doesn't affect gameplay. It just means that if someone goes dark for a second and reappears that you don't have to re-lock. If this is the case, good improvement. Now fix the dispersion bugs with lock on and terrain.
  8. awildseaking

    Culture Shift WG - Negative

    Unfortunately, this will fall upon deaf ears because several years ago, something even worse happened. The corporate culture at WG turned against us. "The customer is always right" hasn't applied here in years. I've played less and less both WoT and WoWS with each successive update being worse than the previous. I've always played other games, but my playtime with anything WG is at historic lows. One of the games I'm playing, Darktide, is a night and day comparison. I'm not going to call Fat Shark a bastion of best practice, but they royally screwed up launch. In response, they did the following. Please note that these changes occurred within two MONTHS of launch when major problems were identified. CEO publicly apologized to the entire community and acknowledged the game did not meet our standards. Suspended ALL additions to the cash shop until major issues were rectified. Suspended all work on console ports until major issues were rectified. Implemented major features that were promised for launch and were missing. Fixed overwhelming majority of technical issues in rather short time. Became more actively engaged with community updates. There have been communications and updates on a weekly basis for the past 4 months. I don't just mean updates as in "we're working on XYZ." I mean content. Balance, weapons, level redesign, etc. The funny thing about Darktide is that outside of the technical issues with crashes, I felt most people were overreacting to the problems. I love the core game and I can't wait to see where it will go over the next few years. Fat Shark would have been well within their rights to say "we think you're overreacting" and objectively, they wouldn't be wrong, but guess what? One of the things we say in customer service is "being technically correct is the worst type of correct." Being right COMPLETELY misses the point that the customer wants something that you aren't giving them. It's one thing when that customer has unreasonable expectations and is a fringe minority that won't listen to fact or reason. It's another thing when that customer is the majority of the playerbase, already likes the existing product, and wants you to revert unncessary changes. If WG rolled back updates or temporarily removed ships involved with the CV rework, supers and subs, would the game become unplayable? Of course not. Remember how long it took just to deal with that unnecessary captain skill rework and Deadeye? Over half a year. The CV rework remains unaddressed and it has been four YEARS. Sub live testing started 2 years ago. There are still known artillery issues from CB/OB that haven't been touched, like how lock-on dispersion [edited] the bed when islands are involved. The last time I saw anything remotely resembling an appropriate response was the apology from the CC exodus. I didn't believe WG was turning a new leaf and called a spade a spade. It's sad how many people believed their lies. Across the pond with WoT, what did WG do in response to criticism about their latest P2W schemes and content updates that NOBODY asked for and >90% of community disapproves of? Publish a "briefing" explaining how we're wrong and simply don't understand their masterful vision. Ring any bells? Every single time we complain about WoWS, responses are always on the defensive. Feedback goes through so many layers and filters that I doubt anyone with authority knows how we really feel. If you want to know just how dented WG really is, skill4ltu has been a godsend of feedback. He has repeatedly taken surveys from anyone willing to take the time to provide answers. The surveys aren't short like WG's fake feedback collection where answering anything other than the WG approved response ends the survey. It usually takes 15-20 minutes to fill out and skill has posted multiple 30-40 minute long videos after all the data has been collected. He has tried to share this feedback repeatedly with WG, so far to no effect. Why does such a critical function of the developer fall upon the players? Look back at the history of all of WG's games and you will see this same attitude. Slow responses, no transparency, and constantly inventing new updates that are supposedly for our own good. Some individual vehicle balance issues took years to resolve. Entire classes have taken over a decade. If this all sounds and feels absurd, that's because it is. This behavior is NOT NORMAL. Play other games some more and you'll soon find out. The objective reality is that WG is an incompetent developer and publisher with a serious attitude problem in their corporate culture. Culture is set at the top and I fear they'll fail before real change can occur.
  9. Aren't the first and certainly won't be the last, but even if you quit playing, still show up for feedback. This is a war of attrition between us and WG. They're convinced they know what's best and that we don't matter. Nothing you say or do will matter in the short term, but we're playing the long game here. It took over 10 years, but across the pond with WoT, WG finally nerfed artillery to an acceptable level. They've once again found themselves in hot water over dumb proposed changes (what else is new?) but at least on the subject of arty, case is closed and issue is resolved. People who don't see the potential for that to happen here are naive. We already know the effect of CVs and subs. They make people quit in larger numbers than they bring in. They lead to fewer players like me whaling. WG has decided their strategy is to draw down the game and milk what remains. That's their choice to make and I respect it, but we also know where it leads. At some point, they won't have a choice. People like us are all that will be left. We can make them an offer they can't refuse. Keep telling them at every feedback opportunity possible that you do not like how overtuned subs and CVs are and want counterplay options. Don't expect radical change today, this week, this month, or even this year, but don't give up hope either. We can win.
  10. awildseaking

    This is just too much WG! Ridiculous!

    Use your brain for a sec and ask yourself why queue dumps are necessary in the first place. Hint: it has something to do with outdated MM rules.
  11. awildseaking

    Game development - Who's in charge?

    The problem is nobody gets feedback. It's not that one of us is more important; none of us are.
  12. I don't want more strategic weapons in the game. It's already getting boring enough having fewer ships that can take positions on the map, take damage, be shot back at, etc. The game feels empty.
  13. Still laughing at this. If there's anything to glean from this ridiculous thought experiment, it is yet another reminder that CVs and subs are asymmetric strategic weapons. They exist outside of the weapon triangle and cannot be directly countered. Their actual real world counters were purpose built. Do you really want to play a slower, weaker DD that still can't deal with shotgunning, sub spotting and CVs? What's next, CVLs and literal cargo ships? Subs and CVs don't belong in standard gameplay. No amount of mental gymnastics will change this.
  14. awildseaking

    Why I am OK with stomps

    This is a false dilemma. Irrespective of your reasons for doing so, the choice is not between purely random and SBMM. There are many degrees in-between. Matter of fact, we are currently in one of those degrees as MM is not truly random and WG has placed multiple restrictions and features that affect the algorithm. Some of those examples include: Nation balancing (dividing ships of the same class by nation) Mirror MM (if one team gets a T10 BB, your team must get a T10 BB as well) Forced distribution of tiers (algorithm will force you into mid, same, -1 and -2 games if you get too many +1/+2 games) Anchor div abuse that forces more +2 games I have said for years that these systems, while well designed for 2016/17 when they were first implemented, are not adequate in 2023 and have not been adequate for years. These four examples in particular are directly responsible for the increase in blowouts seen today. Here's how: Nation balancing only considers the nation and class of ship, so according to MM, it is balanced to give one team PR and DM while the other team gets Austin and Worcester. You can't talk about nation balancing without considering the lack of ship classification as well. CLs, CAs and CBs are all considered "Cruisers" for the algorithm even though they are nothing alike. The deficiencies in this example are obvious: the other team has no armor, is effectively down a BB, has one fewer radar, no 10 km radar, no ability to push, and significantly less health. Most nations have a split tree or unique premiums that don't fit the past notion of nation balancing. There's no functional similarity between Gearing, Somers and F Sherman, nor is there any similarity between Moskva, A Nevsky, Smolensk and Petro. The problem becomes more evident as you examine each nation and tech tree. Mirror MM: If MM is struggling to make a match because of an unmatched lone player at a given tier, mirror MM restricts the algorithm from placing them into a game that is more favorable in terms of tiering but may not have a mirror match. This is because of the TOPS/ACES system. If you aren't familiar with how it works, you may want to revisit the news article from when MM was reworked in 2017. Top tiers are considered inflexible, but bottom tier +2 are not. Ex. T7 Surrey doesn't have a mirror match with another T7 cruiser. MM is more likely to place it into a T9 match because it becomes interchangeable with a different ship class at the same tier. You might get one more cruiser and the other team gets an extra T7 DD or BB. The result is an upward pressure to uptier. Forced distributions are very similar to the 3/5/7 MM templates in WoT. It may sound counter-intuitive to say that a system that forces the algorithm to make you top tier sometimes reduces the overall instances where you are top tier, but it's not as counter intuitive as you may think. If you haven't picked up on it yet, the problems mentioned here can generally be described as inflexibility. These MM conditions and rules limit what the algorithm can do. If MM has to consider at all times prior tier distributions and give you a downtier, the end result can be a system where players who aren't eligible yet are pulled into uptiers as the same/lower tier pool decreases, waiting for its forced downtier. The end result is that you receive your guaranteed downtier, but you receive fewer downtiers than you would have without such a restriction in place. Anchor div abuse is a real head scratcher. Every time I bring it up, there are a few people who mistake it for faildivs. Anchor divs are an intentional exploit where you milk the algorithm to give two of your ships a mid or top tier game. Its most infamous implementation was the 8/9/9 CV/double Musashi setup. The CV would spot the enemy CV, which had to be T8 as the algorithm could not consider alternatives. T8 CVs are infamous for being the last tier without armored flight decks, so the two Musashis can pop spotters and overmatch the CV from 30km+. It was hilariously effective and WG selectively enforced the rules to ban players who did this. However, the current staff seem to consider other uses of this exploit as valid. If you report players for anchoring, you will be ignored. It has become increasingly pervasive and common. I can't remember the last time I played where I didn't see at least one anchor div. It is not unusual to see 2 or 3 separate anchor divs in the same game. I don't care as much about the exploit aspect as I do about the effect on tiering. I am convinced that anchor divs create upward pressure and force more uptiers than is normal. The lone ship a tier down (the anchor) has mirror MM applied to it, so MM is already trying to create at least a +1 game. It usually seems to produce a +2. Anchor divs have existed since CB. I remember years ago seeing the MM punish the anchor div by matching it against another div. Ex. T7/8/8 anchor div uptiered another T7/8/8 anchor div into a T10 match, thus defeating the purpose of anchoring. I expect most of you have connected the dots, but in case you're still wondering how all this leads to blowouts, here's a summary. MM is making more games 2 tiers apart. MM cannot balance by role or function, only these arbitrary proxies. MM gives coordinated cheaters an edge. This means that the same ships from 6 years ago are effectively weaker, fighting stronger opponents and on weaker teams that lack the necessary components to put up a real fight. Until WG extensively reviews and updates these four aspects of the algorithm, I expect the problem will continue to worsen. The system is outdated. It's time for change.
  15. awildseaking

    Which line design was your biggest deception?

    This x100. So many failed trees with fake ships that are real in name only. I might catch some flak for this but I think this all started with the RN BB tree. Warspite had been in the game for a few years before and is still a beloved ship. I was expecting a whole tree of Warspites, only to receive a watered down version with gimmicky AP shells, superheals, and more broadly, a bag of gimmicks that added confusion and noise to the matchmaker and overall feel of the game. I'm not an anti paper ship zealot, but this tree disappointed a lot of people. Iron Duke, QE and KGV are all real, but none of them played like standard BBs. It may seem like old drama, but there was a lot of disappointment that KGV was T7 and Monarch was T8 when KGV is widely considered to be both objectively superior as is and that KGV wouldn't be the same tier as its contemporaries of the era. It didn't stop there either. RN CA and CL both felt the same way. Actually, the entire Italian and British navies have felt like gimmicky jokes in this game with the exception of the RN DDs.