Jump to content

Garrcia

Members
  • Content Сount

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4588
  • Clan

    [SPTR]

Community Reputation

21 Neutral

About Garrcia

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

340 profile views
  1. Garrcia

    Matchmaking - was this a fair match?

    Say for the sake of argument in this case of 24 players the only disparity is the two CV players - short of bouncing both I do not see how this works. If you only bonce one of the CV players then the other 22 will now have to wait for a CV player to arrive that some MM scheme considers equal to the one CV player that remained with the 23 players in that that particular game pod. Ergo to minimize the waiting both CV players would have to be bounced and replaced by two other players (CV or otherwise).
  2. Garrcia

    Why would anyone play a khab over groz?

    I would liken it to MtG The Khaba is like a weenie deck - it has one trick and is fairly strait forward to play. Against the right opponents it can perform amazingly, but get caught in poor circumstances and it falters. The Groz is more like a Red/Blue deck - it has some counters, and it can dish out the damage. It is trickier to play and while more general purpose you can trick yourself up switching up playstyles mid game.
  3. Garrcia

    STOP SHOOTING

    With the travel time of torps, baring some kind of close in ambush, the ship about to eat some fish may have been fairly healthy when the fish went in the water.
  4. Garrcia

    Does WG hate skill?

    Does wargamming hate skill, I dunno. Does wargamming have an incentive to act in a way that retains the most players rather than a subset (in this case those who regularly hit rank 1 / 30+ wins at typhoon), yes. Should it be like that, given that by all measures wargamming seems to be a for profit enterprise (with no other specific priorities), makes sense to me. Does this piss off the crowd I would describe as Randian, it certainly seems so.
  5. I'll offer three reasons: 1) You are busy with some task but can have something on a screen and pay some attention to it. 2) You enjoy watching play at a competitive level that you may not be at (for me StarCraft 2, and that I will never be at). 3) To see new content /games and use that information to inform purchases / plan for releases (for me in recent times understand the mechanics of the 2.2 patch for Stellaris).
  6. So if I have this correct, you are mad that destroyers: 1) Do less damage, but that damage is harder to heal. I will note that the hit rate of torps is ~4-6%, which is probably close to the rate at which players better than me at BB gunnery generate cits; and that the case of random ship eats 4 torps in one salvo is roughly the same as random ship eating four cits in one volley - the driver of said random ship put themselves in a bad spot. I will also note that the highest average damage DD (Khaba to the best of my knowledge) principally generates damage from main batteries and fires. 2) That destroyers have a role in the meta of the game that requires some reality bending capabilities, and that some ships have capabilities bent in the direction of less capable (e.g. secondaries). I will note that no one is arguing the opposite, in that DDs as implemented are 100% spot on to the reality of the 1920s - 1940s. Rather the argument is that what makes them interesting to play in how this game is set up. 3) That destroyers as implemented somehow ruin the game because at the end of the day it is basically designed as rock - paper - scissors (with CVs as super rock, sometimes they crush you, sometimes they just sit there) and that it should either be some binary dynamic or that CVs should fill the role DDs are in and DDs should be [blank] and have no functional role in the meta. 4) That other ships capabilities are fine because you can cherry pick examples from history that represent special circumstances (e.g. at the battle of Cape Matapan the Warspite was able to get within 4km of the Italian forces undetected before opening fire at a range that, in this game, would ensure a high main battery hit rate). Hrrmmm, getting with in 4km of a target undetected...where have I seen that complaint leveled towards ships as presented in WoWs. EDIT - I also do not care if anyone wants to present as a defense that "I am a CR main" so my complaints hold more water than the OP. I guess I am a DD main by merritt of that being my most played class, but that does not mean that my thoughts on BB vs CR match ups somehow hold more water in that I am presumably unbiased. I will say that I find DD play can at times be very frustrating, at times very boring, and at times very interesting. And by frustrating I do not mean "radar is OP and sux', rather that some games the reds (or at least enough of them) are sufficiently better than me and render my play less effective.
  7. Which is why, tier for tier, BBs always have lower average damage compared to DDs?? And the poor RU DDs that have to rely on guns perform so poorly in comparison to their DD kin.
  8. (Note - some stuff removed contrasting WoWs to team shooters) I think it is safe to say that, like or not, the majority of people playing WoWs recognize that some aspects of ship performance (torp reloads, main battery accuracy, etc) are distorted from a spot on sim for the sake of balance (recognizing that there are differing opinions on how well balanced the game is). The quote above hits the head on the nail for me. With how DDs are portrayed in the game they are very high variance in terms of influence on a game. While they have many tools to be the "rogues" of the game a DD will generally need two conditions to dish out substantial damage. First poor screening on the part of the reds (this arguably is the skill at playing factor where more skilled players can find the gaps they can exploit); however it is also dependent on complacency on the part of the reds, namely that a ship(s) will leave/put themselves in positions where multiple torps are going are going to smack them. Which also leads to, in my impression, the ability for DDs to launch large numbers of torps in the game is to address two issues. First how to, in theory, balance the damage most DDs can generate in a game. Second to keep the game fluid by punishing players who trade mobility for island humping or bow camping.
  9. Garrcia

    RU DD High Damage

    I think not. At T8 - T10 the gun caliber is not enough to make a difference and the hit to the fire chance is not worth the exchange. SE is a decent investment as gunnery is accurate enough to get tagged by CR/BB fire and gives a cushion if you get caught at close range to knife fighting DD.
  10. Garrcia

    Goodbye lootboxes?

    1099 S forms have no particular relationship to gambling. My point, which you chose not to quote, is that my concern (remote as it may be) is that a slippery slope from blind boxes = gambling leads to anything earned in a game = actual taxable income.
  11. Garrcia

    Goodbye lootboxes?

    1) The US federal definition of gambling in the presumably relevant statute from 2006 matters since the FTC is a part of the US federal government 2) This does not matter since, as I recall, those findings were in the Netherlands (which so far as I know has no jurisdiction over the the FTC) As for do loot boxes qualify as gambling as related to the relevant law, my opinion does not matter. What does matter is what portions of existing law will gaming companies will be willing to through enough lawyers and lobbyists at to get a favorable ruling. I will offer as a personal opinion that I do not want to see federal regulation on loot boxes where my concern is that then there is the potential for the cash value of the contents to be formalized, which by extension could formalize a cash value for all things in the game (e.g. silver earned in a match), which some enterprising pol could look at and try to tax as effectively a source of income. Personally I do not want to get a bajillion 1099 S forms for playing video games.
  12. Garrcia

    Steel for the Scrubs!

    I offer as: Rebuttle - Ranked can require a substantial time input and clan battles requires time (at specific times) along with a clan that can field enough for team; so while there is certainly a meritocracy element to those modes (i.e. not all players can rank out quickly, not all clans will make the highest league) there are some people who cannot allocate the time for those modes. I.e. - I can see the unable, I am less willing to go along with the "unwilling" . Agreement - The above being said, steel rewards for what amounts to grinding, holding some reservation for what is needed for various steps that award steel, probably should be tempered relative to what a player can earn in one year of ranked/CB. My thoughts - what strikes me as reasonable is for a series of events like this to cap out at around 10k steel, so that if you got some steel from the other modes you can get a ship. What I find worrying is the concept that a big chunk of the steel being discussed here is for a pay wall campaign, which sets a precedent business model wise I find troubling.
  13. Garrcia

    If BB's are going to be impotent vs DD's..

    Because counter does not necessarily equate to sinkify; just edging said DD out of caps / effective torpedo range can render the DD functionally ineffective. As for the end of the game DD vs CR that really depends on point totals and which side has what caps. If the CR is up on points and caps it is unlikely that the DD will come out ahead just trading caps, so you have to either hope to get torpedo hits or engage in a gunnery dual (without smoke as it would break the DDs LOS in the mono - a - mono case).
  14. Garrcia

    Should good players give advice?

    If you're talking about solicited advice - e.g. watch these videos and tell me how to improve my play in [ship, class, tier, etc], then arguably there is already an implication that advice will be accepted to some degree. I imagine that this issue comes up with unsolicited advance - e.g. I post radar sux and someone responds with know the ranges of radar on various ships. Unsolicited advice is always going to be a crap shoot as to its acceptance if for no other reason that it could be perceived more as telling someone what to do rather than offering to help. So, my advice on advice is when it is unsolicited, i.e. a response in a random complaint thread, is just offer it up and leave it be (as in avoid the temptation to return to argue the point). If it even only helps one player then it has achieved its value as advice.
  15. Garrcia

    WG enough bending the knee to DD!

    While I will grant that there is the use of torps in blind fire / area denial, another major factor is that with how torps are handled in the game they are substantially easier to dodge than main battery gun fire. I think the argument that torps = BB main guns for damage output on a routine basis is not true. The Khaba has a very high average damage in general; in my case I would guess that 95+% of my total damage over all the Khaba games I have played comes from main guns and fires (which are caused by main guns), which includes probably 70-75% of those games when it had access to 10km torps. It is true that both torps and BB main guns can, in the right situations, deal high levels of alpha. I think the difference is the right situation is harder to come by in a DD, and that main guns (regardless of mounting ship) can more reliably deliver steady tho not eye popping levels of damage relative to ship born torps.
×