Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1,389 Superb

About Wasaboi

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,286 profile views
  1. Wasaboi

    Hatred of CVs and why it is silly

    1.) CVs are the highest performing type in the game. Performing well above the balance range. This means the data clearly shows CVs need a LARGE nerf. 2.) CVs are a low/no risk in a game WITHOUT respawns. That is ultimately game breaking. 3.) if OWSF was so broken that WG had to implement smoke changes and the bloom system, then why are CVs allowed to be OWSF to the maximum?
  2. Wasaboi

    PSA- The Marceau Sucks

    No it is not. But it is High risk and Low reward. You see here is the primary issue. WG thinks that tacking on a few km of better detectability and some crap torpedoes that will rarely if ever have a use makes up for Marceau having 1/4 the firepower as Colbert. This is not even counting that Marceau has WEAKER ballistics, 0.1s LONGER reload, and 2.4km LESS base range (which again is amusing because they are the same guns)... I mean even Colbert at a baseline is a fairly weak ship. It is more of a "meme" ship as it offers no competitive value, especially at tier 10. It is more like a tier 8 forced to be at tier 10. Now take that underpowered platform and then strip it of a lot of its already weakened strengths and you get Marceau. Just because Marceau can counter DDs in ....certain... situations does not make it a feasible boat. Being situational at countering the already lowest performing ship type, the same ship type, isn't really a high standard. That is about as low of a standard as you can get.
  3. Wasaboi

    My Sub Skepticism has changed, thanks WG

    Actually, given proper reading comprehension, I did claim that the game has a lot of elements of risk vs reward, just as it has a ruleset where risk vs reward is paramount. I clearly stated that there are parts of the game that do not follow risk vs reward, hence the premise of imbalance / broken game WG does not dictate what is defined as balanced gameplay. What is or isn't balanced is observed through the data and proper analysis of that data and substantiated further with contextual evidence. WG can "claim" BBs and CVs are not overperforming, but at this very moment the data... the win conditions.. and the ruleset would ALL refute that claim 100%. It doesn't matter if it is an e-sports game or not. Facts do not care about feelings.
  4. Wasaboi

    My Sub Skepticism has changed, thanks WG

    1.) I never made that claim. That is a straw man. I clearly have shown there are many elements in the game which are dictated by risk vs reward. You listing off the two actually overpowered ship types, clearly confirmed by performance data, only serves to support my premise. 2.) Battleships are overperforming 3.) Either the game needs to be completely balanced on risk vs reward, not at all, or the ruleset needs to be changed (i.e. adding a respawn system). Only one answer at a time is correct.
  5. Wasaboi

    We Need Ship Subclassification Now

    Except they don't have more in common with battleships in game. Lets take Stalingrad for example: All of its strengths are in between that of a Cruiser and BB for that era and tier. Its EHP and armor? Still in between that of a Cruiser and BB for that tier. How about maneuverability? Still in between What about Citadel placement? Some normal Cruisers have much better. Concealment? Worse than BBs for no logical justification Range? Still in between the average for Cruisers and BBs of the same tier etc Also, people have trouble understanding this outside the box. BBs are high tiers are factually overperforming. WG has allowed them to be that way since 2015 and even buffed them/nerfed anything that countered them throughout the years. If Super Cruisers got moved to BB designation they would most certainly be buffed largely.
  6. Wasaboi

    My Sub Skepticism has changed, thanks WG

    I already provided you key facts about mechanics that prove risk vs reward is dictated in a lot of the design in the game. You can keep twisting and dodging the argument all you want and moving the goal posts. I am still waiting:
  7. Wasaboi

    My Sub Skepticism has changed, thanks WG

    Fundamentals and facts substantiated by evidence do not care about intent, nor can they be defined by an entity like WG. WG has the power and can have the "intent" to purposefully create a broken game. Their intent does not have any effect on the fact that it is broken nor can they alter said definition when evidence exists.
  8. Wasaboi

    My Sub Skepticism has changed, thanks WG

    Again more fallacies. You should also probably learn what an appeal to authority is. It doesn't matter if WG claims "1+1=4", it does not make them any less factually incorrect. If you have evidence to provide or a counter argument that does not involve repeating already refuted assertions, please present it. I have adhered to the burden of proof.
  9. Wasaboi

    We Need Ship Subclassification Now

    Except the attributes and performance metrics refute that notion. Battleships are overperforming according to the data. The primary factor of this is overpowered accuracy and concealment. If you say.. place the Stalingrad in BB slot... which essentially has nerfed BB attributes.... you change nothing except for maybe some CB comps. The performance will remain the same and it will just be as it is now, performing less than the other BBs of the same tier (remember to account for sample bias)
  10. Wasaboi

    DD Experience

    A DD having to rely on another ship for AA support is automatically a broken game. Think about it. Which ship type has the least combat effectiveness in game right now? DDs Which ship type has the lowest effective range in game right now? DDs So if anything Non-DDs should have to rely on DDs for AA. A DD having to sit next to a BB that is 18km from the nearest enemy? That is cute, the BB can sit there and contribute to the match because it has the effective range to do so, whilst the DD sits there and picks its nose for no reward. That is why DDs in game should have the highest and most effective AA across the board. BBs should have the least.
  11. Wasaboi

    My Sub Skepticism has changed, thanks WG

    That doesn't even make sense. What ship type has the highest combat and survivability performance according to the metrics? CVs, and well above the balance range. Their on-paper DPS and what more or little they have has nothing to do with Risk vs Reward. They are still able to effectively interact with enemy players and attribute offensive capability without ever risking the mother. It is not more complicated. We clearly just went over two instances of imbalance. Facts do not care about feelings and they do not care what WG agrees or disagrees with nor what they believe. Nice appeal to authority though. I adhered to the burden of proof and provided evidence as well.
  12. Wasaboi

    My Sub Skepticism has changed, thanks WG

    More logical fallacies Which(non-CV) ship type again has the same effective range as CVs? Oh thats right, none. I see you also clearly ignored the part about OWSF. The part about a DD torpedoing from stealth was already refuted above as well. I also never claimed that a Cruiser firing from behind an island is balanced. Quit the contrary. It should not be allowed but it is still nothing compared to the imbalance of CVs. Citation: http://gamestudies.org/1101/articles/williams_nesbitt_eidels_elliott Citation: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/119298/Analysis_McMillen_On_Risk__Reward_In_Video_Games.php Citation: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130243/the_importance_of_risk_in_basic_.php?print=1
  13. Wasaboi

    My Sub Skepticism has changed, thanks WG

    Incorrect. You clearly do not know what the "bloom" mechanic is nor what OWSF is. It is not based on any realism but gameplay balance. In a game without a respawn system, risk vs reward must be adhered to otherwise there is NO balance at all. A CV does not have to risk its ship at all when it is driving its planes around and attacking, damaging, and killing other ships. A DD has to risk its ship to do any of those, whether by revealing itself or by at the very least being in the effective weapon range of more than 50% of the enemy team. CVs are able to OWSF to an extreme. WG themselves even stated OWSF is broken. Listing off little tidbits about what single attributes a type has is meaningless and fallacious. Why are 8km Zao torps more dangerous than 20km? Risk vs Reward. Even though torps in general are underpowered in game, it still follows this fundamental. Why are ships less accurate at 15km than they are at 5km? Risk vs Reward Why is it typically easier to penetrate armor at 5km compared to 15km? Risk vs Reward. Why is it easier for your target to dodge your shells at 20km compared to 10km? Risk vs Reward This is an arcade game, you are correct on that point, which is why the fundamental of Risk vs Reward must be adhered to. It is like building a foundation before building a house. If you forgo the foundation, your house will not be stable and will sink into the ground. What if you build a concrete slab for 50 or even 75% of the house? The remaining without a foundation still undermines the structural integrity of the entire house. Ergo CVs.
  14. Wasaboi

    DD Experience

    Winner Winner Chicken Dinner
  15. Wasaboi

    CV's making the game ultra dull

    Everything is unlimited and yet ONLY CVs can OWSF, which WG themselves claimed was broken when they gave everyone else the bloom mechanic, and even then those ships never had the effective range of CVs. Additionally, no ship in the game can spot without risking their own ship.