• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Garrcia

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Garrcia

Recent Profile Visitors

110 profile views
  1. Aren't Okhotnik owners contracturally obligated to post sped up replays (like 5:1 or 10:1 speed) with yakity sax playing.
  2. Using torps that avoid DDs will make it harder to flush the red DDs out of smoke.
  3. Because it would still have all those aspects - with multiple loadouts your clan picks (with some limits) the ships and classes (CV or CA/CL in seventh slot). It still would come down to teamwork, tactics, reading the map, raw pew-pew ability. If clans can pick any ships and the limits are 1:2:2:2 or 0:2:3:2 then the balance of classes present does not change vs predesigned groups.
  4. If it is a battle for the best of the best then why not take as many potential differences out. For example go to a different extreme where WG makes 10 premade 7 ship loadouts (some with CVs) that will give them the benefit of the doubt and say are otherwise balanced (or at least have known strengths and weakness like no CV but AA heavy). They will have preset modules and captain skills (and maybe some other modifiers like more or less planes for a CV). Further have all loadouts follow either the 1:2:2:2 or 0:2:3:2 pattern in the OP. If the objective it for those that want it "a true test of skill" then the use of any given players main class/ship should not be relevant. If all teams are given nominally similar resources then is it not a better measure of skill in that the more skillful team will better exploit those resources.
  5. I say this as an exceedingly middle of the pack Khaba driver: I personally believe its biggest weakness is that it is a DD, in as much as if there are only 2 DD's on each side (or worse 3 on the reds due to the MM +/-1 # of DD balance) and the DD's on the reds are all stealthy then your team can suffer from a distinct disadvantage in the spotting arena.
  6. I think with the paucity of T10 CV drivers, the (as I percieve it) case of the Hak>Midway(?), and that if CV parity for a given battle is enforced (i.e. both teams have one) then I can see not having them regardless of other tweaks. I personally think if there is a cap on BB's then there should be a cap on DD's as well. I say this even with my only T10's being DD's. the closest tech cruiser is T9 and the closest BB is T8.
  7. Rather than argue if some kind of skill basis being added to the MM system is a good / bad/ or neutral thing maybe think about it from another angle. Clearly WG could use any system they want to measure skill, e.g. something rediculous like karma * # of battles any any Russian ship (because we need to through in russian bias somehow). Clearly WG is aware, be it in the WoWs or WoT communities, that there is some argument that has merit that a skill factor in MM would have some value (e.g. less blow outs). I am willing to believe that WG has modeled some potential skill based systems for MM, and that regardless of how much or how little that alter the typical time in queue, for whatever reasons they have rejected them. Be it because they do not like the various skill evaluations, they want typical match times shorter than 20 min, or that the time in queue for some or all players is extended to what they consider unacceptable, if they have not implemented it yet, then I doubt it will ever come to pass.
  8. A little more broadly defined for "damage farming" as negative term (1) The match is still in question (2) The ratio of damage to time to influence heavily favors damage (two examples - chasing a wounded BB that is retiring from the caps, CV or DD carrier sniping to the exclusion of hitting early game targets near the caps), clearly this has a degree of subjective. I will add for "kill stealing" as a negative term if you apply a salvo out of proportion to sealing the kill, if there are more appropriate salvos inbound, and there are other threats in range. Example - dropping all 10 torps off a fletcher towards a BB with ~3k health and three fires it cannot put out in time.
  9. Based on a Fletcher game I was in yesterday (Premium account, ~175000 silver, ~33k dmg, ~50k spotting dmg) then that indicates that the spotting reward is in the neighborhood of ~1.4 silver per damage. The unknowns are: is the reward linear, does class play a roll (both DDs in this case), does tier play a roll (both T9 ships in this case). Also, this only compairing one match with one other match; that being said as a basic model I think it is decent.
  10. The small sliver of exception is that WoWs does have the collector factor for new ships - some people will want them because they like ships in general or some specific nation, etc. That being said I think the above is spot on; to use an analogy from WoW (the other one) in vanilla you had the tier 1-3 sets, and with each expansion new gear/gear sets come along so it can feed into the sense of better gear = more power = improvement. Baring some kind of "stat squish" as what the other WoW did at one point (where they normalized all the gear to a lower power curve) this will be an issue until forever (give or take)
  11. My understanding is that part of the rational for the change was that when the newTM CV mechanics are released soonTM that manual drops will be gone in general (no idea what would replace them).
  12. Contrasting the Conqueror to the Hak damage total also would need the extra layer of damage done vs damage repaired, where I believe for the Hak the ratio leans much more to done given its capacity (in my experience) to achieve more insta-gib strikes.
  13. My understanding is that pens can occur if a DD is hit on its long axis (i.e. bow on or stern on) or to a Khaba. I see it as, basically, something that penalizes a DD for being overly predictable (full disclaimer which I excel at).
  14. I do not see that as invalidating the core idea of [win no matter what] - [games where you* influenced the outcome] - [loose no matter what] * - generic you Building on this it asks the more granular question of how can a given person alter the base 33 - 33 - 33 model. Clearly "skill" as it is loosely defined* can alter the model, as can gravitating to ships that are more OP for their circumstance (e.g. I would argue the Zuiho in the current all autodrop T5 environment is still at the higher end of the power curve given its restricted MM (nothing higher than T6, and then rarely) and the generally poor AA at T4). Further all those effects would be interrelated so it would take a boat the size of the GK (or FdG, which ever is T10) full of data to hope to tease out some meaningful analysis. The question, particularly as it relates to extreme high / low win rates is are you skewing more of the middle 33 to wins, or are you having your influence range eat into the win/lose regardless ranges. Numerically is it something like 33 - 13(influence and lose) - 20 (influence and win) - 33 or something like change it to 23 - 33 - 43. * - to be clear I believe there are skill gradients, rather as seen in the roughly 1000000000 other threads on that topic generally there is a wide concept of what constitutes skill for influencing a match.
  15. Is not a yolo by any other name still a yolo...when it exposes its broadside does it not get citatdelled.