Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Garrcia

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

270 profile views
  1. For the Fletcher I am not sure it is wise to try and force opportunities to get into position to attack the reds from off angle - i.e. try to flank or get behind them; this is particularly so in games where the reds have lotsa detection (e.g. radar, CV, German hydro). Personally in the early stages I think focusing more on cap control (with in reason, keep your options to boogie out when needed) and keeping the reds spotted and using torps for area denial makes more sense. Wait for the later game when tactical options should open up to look for opportunities to rack up big damage numbers. As for the Udaloi, I think it is safe to say there are different options (long range gunboat, DD hunter, etc.). And, as stated earlier, be careful when hoping around between different ships - driving your Omaha like your Khaba sends you to port quickly (or so I've heard).
  2. Rant - ships not fighting

    Sure at a certain level survival rate is about risks, but it should be viewed in conjunction with other stats - e.g. low survival & low damage is taking foolish risks, while high survival & low damage is not taking enough risks. For myself I think relative to other performance metrics my survival rate is a little high, so I try to make bolder moves (unfortunately for me I have not come close to mastering the line between bold and wth dude). As for belittling I suggest just keep in mind that is part (in my limited observation) of the hyper-randian play book.
  3. It is perfectly valid to use the analysis of analogous systems to predict behavior in a specific system (for example studies on the effect of whatever on brain chemistry in mice being used as an analog for humans). In this case arguing that WoT is not useful as a model for WoWs I would agree that it is incumbent on the person asserting that to demonstrate it. It is fair to day that model only addresses the overall frequency of blow outs (which would have to be precisely defined, e.g. the game finishes in under 8 minutes and one team looses as least four more ships (or tanks for WoT) than the other team) and not the impact of any given line up for a specific match, generally described as a skill disparity. To the notion of skill disparity playing a significant role in every blow out I find it hard to agree that it is a primary factor given that, if you roughly figure: 136000 person hours played per day on the NA server say 70% of that is pvp so 95200 person hours in that format so roughly 12000 pvp matches per day. If roughly 1/6 are blow outs that is 2000 blow outs per day given one team does the blowing out, and for the sake of argument we'll say on average (if skill is the primary driver) that on average half that team is high skill (purple on ye olde stats websites) that is ~12000 person hours per day of highly skill player time in blow outs, if we allow that for highly skilled players the rate of blow out match rate is 1/3 (i.e. they blow out the other team twice as much as average) With roughly 10000 active players in NA and the purple stats being ~10% of those that means of the roughly 1000 high skill players for them to be the principle root cause of blow outs they would have to each play on average 12 hours per day.
  4. Wrong Answers Only: 02

    Sd.Kfz. 234
  5. Well, to take this back to the OP, which is should there be an exclusive reward for performing sufficiently well in some kind of tournament I am personally indifferent. To the question of what would motivate WG to either make rewards exclusive or ultimately available to all has nothing to do with how much or little they value said tournaments. Rather from WG's perspective they will focus on what will retain the most players, so to that end they need to balance availability of certain items on a curve. Take the Stalingrad as an example - it will roll out in what, 0.7.8, so lets call that September for the sake of argument. Figure that ~10% of the population will have the steel on hand to buy it on release, so at a base level for that crowd the motivation is how long do they have access to a hard to obtain ship. However, to keep this crowd motivated to play there has to be a continuous stream of rewards that they will functionally have access to before most of the players (be it skins, ships, commanders, etc.). Figure that ~80% of the population will ultimately want a Stalingrad (if for no other reason that it is perceived as being OP). So for this crowd WG has two motivations. First what should the median time be to acquire a Stalingrad that will lead to the fewest players quitting in frustration that they do not have one. This part gets a little tricky as it is hard to predict how much extra effort any one person will invest in trying to obtain some steel by staying in CB/RB a little longer than they might have prior to this system. Second is that they presumably want to increase participation through the whole of CB / RB seasons with more tangible rewards for sticking it out. Taking myself as an example the last few RB seasons I have played a game or two to get whatever baseline flags I had access to and then did not bother. If, however there was some amount of steel at say ranks 5, 2, and 1 then I might be motivated to try and hit at least rank 5. Finally figure that ~10% of the population does not care. To wrap this back to the idea of exclusivity a system like the arsenal delivers what is probably the least worst compromise for WG. The high intensity players who put in the time to do well* at the various tournaments can get rewards that have a window of functional exclusivity. * - I do not want to rehash for the 15 billionth time any kind of debate about players who do well.
  6. I do not think that the devs of this or any game are specifically interested in having mechanisms in place in the game so players can demonstrate their skill (or lack thereof) as a mechanism in and of itself. Devs do want mechanisms that will keep you playing their game for either the potential revenue that any given player brings (e.g you may buy the occasional premium time, or you maybe a whale and buy everything under the sun). And even if you never pay for any part of the game they still want to maximize their player base to keep the game as healthy as possible. I think this will always lead to a balance where exclusive rewards will ultimately have limited, if any, exclusivity (e.g. the out roar over the alabama when it was initially proposed as a reward for STs) , or become increasingly cosmetic. I think that balance will always drive a company to make rewards that seem powerful, in this case something like the Black, as widely available as possible as it ultimately retains more players who have something to slowly work towards vs the presumably smaller number of players who earned said ship by merit of skill (for want of a better term) who quit in anger.
  7. It is a nudge system, though it can certainly be argued as to how well/poorly it is implemented. Regardless of how this system is implemented, nudge systems, from my limited knowledge, are typically more effective than not in guiding behavior.
  8. As a subset of DDs getting knocked out early when DDs generally poor (relatively at least) at gunnery engage in knife fights with DDs that are good a gunnery (e.g. a shima decides to duke it out with a Z52). Alternatively when (early in the match) said same DDs decide to take some pot shots at cruisers long enough to get popped themselves.
  9. If I understand your questions: You will need to set your campaign missions from whatever you have now (the science of victory or whatever) to the ones offered for this French campaign; that may require deselecting current campaign missions if they are not complete and you do not want to wait. As for the rest it sounds like there will be one star missions (any ship), two star missions (French ship) and three star (French BB or premium) with something like 4-7 stars for the end mission of each stage.
  10. WG could also be motivated to change the lines as the current VO from Seagal is somewhere around atrocious.
  11. True - though if your goal is to level through the T6 ship to get to the T7 ship it may be the faster option to rely on operations.
  12. Even with the best dodging a shima spotted for a couple of minutes still faces a risk of being sunk with any rapid fire CA/L, RU DDs, and decent (aim wise) BB skippers. Using smoke then locks you down in the smoke if you are avoiding being spotted by planes. The long ranges are dependent on that ship having AFT spec'ed, which is not a given (especially as I am given to understand that with the impact of RN BBs on the meta more BBs have turned to survival focused builds). It is also presumes that enough of your side will move up to be with in say 14 - 15 km of the reds so your scouting from 8 - 9 km is worth while - if your side decides to sit at 18 - 20km out then scouting from 12 - 14km is not all that useful; additionally at this range I believe (again as I understand it) most shima torps will be useless since the shorter range options are popular. And, on the subject of torps they are less dangerous when the reds have a good idea where they are coming from (or better for the reds if the red planes can spot the torps as well). If all the DDs blob up for AA protection then you concede challenging the map on a broader front. Or, and this may just be booze talking, you could hope that the green CV captain is sufficiently up to snuff to keep the red planes from being able to spot and/or strike at will. EDIT - of course you can duck back into an AA umbrella, which puts more distance between you and the reds, making your capacity to spot and torp less meaningful.
  13. You have to take out the air detection range of the shima from that 6km (plus a little buffer) to keep all planes away (fighters included) so that it is not spotted. It does little good to be under enough of an AA umbrella to deter air strikes if the other reds can shoot at the ship because it is spotted.
  14. So, the well played shima has to give up it's primary role (using stealth to scout* and torp in from the flanks), in which case it has relegated itself to a very unoptimal roll as some kind of weak AA platform. * - a shima "scouting" 3km ahead of the rest of its team is not really scouting, other than a little bit more warning for torps.