Jump to content

Sbane12

Members
  • Content Сount

    565
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    168

Community Reputation

215 Valued poster

About Sbane12

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

242 profile views
  1. Sbane12

    Forum Observations

    The conclusions that "are" drawn can differ. But both are not subjective. Another analogy would be the generic shape of the earth. Given the data and evidence. One conclusion is that the earth is spherical, or rounded in some way. Another conclusions is that it is flat. Obviously, the "is flat" conclusions is factually incorrect. It is subjective, incorrect, and versus an objective fact. if BB damage average on all servers is at 80k, Cruisers are at 65k, and DDs are at 40k. If You claim DDs are the "Highest damage" and I claim DDs are the "lowest damage". Both claims are not subjective. Only one. As one is opinion, the other is fact. There has yet to be any evidence Wargaming has access to any pertinent data we do not, much less anything that would be enough to alter any logical conclusions.
  2. Sbane12

    Steel for the Scrubs!

    Battles played says otherwise. Was also available for Coal. With so few Salem and Musashi... behold the power of statistics. Not much money at all.
  3. Sbane12

    Forum Observations

    There is a large difference. Subjectivity vs Objectivity. For example. Lets say Wargaming claims "In our opinion, Cruisers do too much HE damage". That is a subjective claim. Lets also say that the data shows that, factually, Cruisers are not overperforming in damage, nor in any metric. That is an objective fact. Now let's say Wargaming nerfs Cruiser HE damage but does not buff them in another area. This is a net nerf to the overall performance to something that was not overperforming. This makes it an illogical and a decision opposite to fact.... or rather anti-truth. Wargaming does this a lot. Whether or not something is balanced IS NOT decided by Wargaming, it is concluded from performance and values therein perpetrated from design elements as well as changes made by Wargaming... yes, but they do not dictate which conclusions can be drawn from effect, merely alter cause. You can put purple food coloring in your water, but when the water turns to purple in color.. you cannot then claim the water is "blue" Secondly, proper business practices are easily observed. Wargaming is not the only business in the world, nor are they the only game company. There are many, far more successful game companies. There are many, far more successful games produced from other companies. If, in the history of business related to gaming shows every single other game dying out from a set of bad decisions, and Wargaming starts making them (like Steel, Stalingrad, and Burg).... things that NONE of the more successful games do... it is by fact.. a bad business decision. So they are not only called out on it, but evidence can be cited to prove such. No need for appealing to authority.
  4. Sbane12

    Steel for the Scrubs!

    Looks like the loss of whales across all servers is starting to finally demand action from shareholders. That is why, as a game company, you don't use unique classes as competitively gated rewards
  5. Sbane12

    BB AP v. DD Armor. What’s the big deal?

    - No one is asking for that ability. - The so called "weakest" boat actually sunk exponentially more tonnage in wars than the so called "Strongest" boat, and costs ~1/20th. Try again.
  6. Sbane12

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

    A Cult HQ Janitor? Wooo. Impressive title. Does the Flat Earth Society reach people from around the "globe"?
  7. Sbane12

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

    Except where the "rogue class" is underpowered, has the only hard counter in the game against it, and has the offensive capability as well as restrictions that is only intended for the Knight class in balanced games. We also have the "knight class" in WoWs, with the offensive capability of a "sniper" or "Mage" and all of the survivability of the "Knight" in other games. Too many different balance models, in complete conflict is the root cause of such broken balance in WoWs. WG needs to pick one balance model, stick to it, adhere to the rulesets therein, and tune ships accordingly.
  8. Sbane12

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

    Awww. So you not only became a member of the Flat Earth Society, but were also promoted? Cool. What is your title?
  9. Sbane12

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

    They do damage that is a percentage of max health, not currently available health.
  10. Sbane12

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

    Ohhh. You also think that the Earth is the center of the universe? Good for you. Whatever "floats your boat".
  11. Sbane12

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

    Yes we know that you think 1+1=5. This is probably not the best place to continuously promote said beliefs. I would suggest The Flat Earth Society, or maybe even some Common Core forums.
  12. Sbane12

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

    Yes, Contrary to the belief you and many others on here hold, emotion and opinion =/= evidence. Let me help you.
  13. All of the power does not come from the code unless the game is completely automated. You were playing the game and not watching some bot play, correct? If you were in secondary range and having issues it sounds like an extreme player error issue.
  14. Clearly I was not too quick. Objectivity > Subjectivity. Clearly there were other underlying factors, that made you completely unable to perform even with an overpowered ship type. Skill has to be a major part of it. Who knows... maybe you spend most of your time in the CAs and DDs at ranges far less than 75% of your max range in those ships, and spent most of your time at 100% of your max range in your BB.
  15. Sbane12

    BB AP v. DD Armor. What’s the big deal?

    Of course, because all of the evidence shows completely otherwise. Just like "torpedo soup", and the proliferation of Hydro, introduction of Radar, DD nerfs..... all done subjectively by WG... with all of the data completely contradicting said decisions. It is completely anti-truth. How can torpedoes be dangerous at all if they can only hit 6 to 8 out of every **100** launched, with a cooldown of MULTIPLE minutes, and when the majority of ships in game even get a damage reduction against them. How can they be so deadly and dangerous when all of the data shows them as one of the LOWEST causes of damage server wide, for ALL servers. Making any other conclusions then that torpedoes and DDs need buffs, even since the game was in beta, is the SAME as claiming the "world is flat". Lowest performing ship type since the game was playable in any fashion. The devs need to pick a SINGLE balance model and stick with it. If the game is going to be Rock-Paper-Scissors, then DDs and BBs need to be balanced based on Incoming TTK vs Outgoing TTK. BBs are attributed as the most EHP and Armor, thus they have the longest incoming TTK, this means balance mandates that they also have the longest outgoing TTK, either by lowest burst damage or very unreliable burst damage. Where as on the other hand, DDs have the SHORTEST incoming TTK, balance mandates they have the shortest outgoing TTK. This means high and reliably burst damage, but also means handicapped by gaps in between the execution of that burst damage. Currently, the mix of balance models have created the most broken balance seen in gaming for years and years and years. You literally have BBs with the offensive reliability that DDs should have, also with the longest range in the game.
×