Jump to content

Muninn77

Members
  • Content Сount

    499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4272
  • Clan

    [STURM]

Community Reputation

242 Valued poster

About Muninn77

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,232 profile views
  1. Muninn77

    The Gun Bloom Bug

    Maybe for BBs, but for most destroyers and many of the smaller cruisers, this is a huge boost. Personally, I'm over the moon about this change, since my two favorite ships are the Daring and the Cossack, and those two can pop smoke like tic-tacs.
  2. No. What the law states is that in situations like the game, (limited troops with no reinforcements) the advantage is heavily towards whoever gets first blood, as not only does one team lose some offensive power, but they lose a body and the other team can focus fire more efficiently. Basically, if you imagine two teams of two identical ships, all dealing damage at the same rate, who would win? A team that focuses fire against target or one that shoots both enemies at the same time? Problem is, you've overlooked ranked. Blowouts are just as common there, and in the vast majority of cases, there is no voice communication between team members, and never between more than two. (Not to mention, this is the current example of skill based MM in the game, so it's the one that most closely resembles what you are proposing.)
  3. As I've said before, the fact that the Kings of the Sea competition, ranked and clan battles still having a large number of one sided games despite the skill levels of those games being much more level than most random battles is the evidence. In addition, we have very solid theory in why that is, in the form of Lanchester's square law. And I'll say this again too: If you have a different theory on why those games still have many blowouts, please present it. Until you do, you are simply being contrary with no underlying facts to back it up.
  4. We seem to be coming at this from two separate angles. I'm talking about increasing the overall quality of matches, regardless of the players involved, I.E., less blowouts and closer games. Skill based MM wouldn't make much of a difference there. You seem to just want less variation between skill levels of players in a given match. And, fair enough, skill based MM would do that, but all the evidence we have points to this barely making a difference in the number of one sided, frustrating games. Besides, we already have a ranked season going on pretty consistently. And they tend to be the single most hated game mode.
  5. Okay, now that my power's back, I can actually respond. While I do agree that losing a game due to having sub-par players on your team is immensely frustrating, all the evidence we have still points to skill based MM not reducing the quality of one sided games, nor do I think it's even the best way of improving gameplay. First off, WG need to invest in some freaking tutorials. I sincerely think that many of the bad plays people make are from sincere ignorance, since this game seems to enjoy not giving people information. As a veteran player, it is honestly super frustrating to have to go to a third party site to find basic information about my ship, like torp flooding chance or AP shell penetration. As a newbie? Basic things like armor angling are left unexplained, and someone wondering why they get blown up everytime the fire a broadside like in the movies isn't gonna want to do research to get into a game. Second, a better solution to YOLO rushing idiots in game would be to change the format of randoms so that losing a ship isn't quite as devastating. A limited respawn system might do well, as might a more objective based mode. Either way, eliminating the square law as a factor as much as possible would greatly lessen the impact of those players, as well as improve the quality of games between equal teams. And I have two final quick notes. First off, your use of sport comparisons are flawed. In pretty much every competitive team game, if my team scores a goal, your team doesn't lose any offensive or defensive power. A better way to think of it is a basketball or soccer game where every time one team scores, the other has to field one less player. Hence, even if both teams are made up of equivalent players, it will become a rout very quick. Two, your league idea would drastically hurt some players who just enjoy the lower tier gameplay, or who are just grinding a new line. What happens when a 60% WR player tries to grind a line, and there are very few or no other players at his skill level at tier 4?
  6. Muninn77

    Best DD line for knife fighting?

    Considering Daring is my favorite ship, and Haida is in my top 5, perhaps I should take a closer look at the Clemson.
  7. I can think of three reasons why you might not have gotten it. 1. It was a co-op battle. 2. It was last patch or earlier, as the achievement was added in this patch. (My money's on this.) 3. The achievement is bugged. (Also possible, as it is very new.) In that case, send in the replay to support. You'll get your flags, and WG will get another data point on the bug.
  8. The point most people are making is that they won't reduce. And I'm not sure why you're showing me Jingle's video, it's not like I claimed close games never happen. As for your arguments against Lanchester's square law... 1. Even unspotted ships or ships behind cover are still deployed in the game, and have influence. What the wiki was talking about was reinforcement, or basicly respawns. It's why one of the best ways to prevent blowouts would be some sort of re-spawn system. And if a ship is so far from the battle that it has no influence and might as well be sunk, that tends to lead to a blowout. 2. I'm not sure what your point is here. Sure, I can get a double strike, but blowouts are much more common than that achievement, so it's not like there's any significant correlation between the two. The square law is talking about getting more than one kill per "action" or trigger pull. Torps (and guns, but that's so rare I've never seen it ever) can get more than one kill per salvo, but that's both super rare and not enough to discount the law, considering most trigger pulls don't result in a kill. 3. Casualties do accumulate over time in this game. That section is saying "this law doesn't apply when one side significantly diminishes the other without the other getting a chance to strike back, or both sides kill each other mutually on a large scale." 4. This goes back to the last point I made. All those ships you mentioned do put out a fearsom number of shells, but compare them to a machine gun vs infantry. No ship in the game has the ability to remove such large numbers of ships with as much regularity as a machine gun against infantry. The only way that could happen is if single torpedoes from one spread hit many DDs and sank them all instantly. And while I have seen that happen, it doesn't happen in every blowout game, so we can rule that out as a leading cause of blowouts. 5. There is a reason it specifies equivalent unit. So, for example, if I'm in my Daring, I don't have to kill the enemy Kremlin to drastically influence the match, I can just kill the Gearing. Then I can help my BB kill the other BB, then the two of us can go help that cruiser, and it just snowballs from there. So, yeah, the square law, while not the end-all-be-all, (just like in real life) has a huge influence over the game, and that's honestly a problem that needs solving, far more than the MM. And let me ask you a question then: If Lanchester's square law does not apply, then how do you explain how blowouts are just as common in modes where the players are equal, or nearly equal, such as Kings of the Sea and clan battles? And why wouldn't that reason prevent skill based MM in randoms from affecting blowouts? And as a P.S., I'm not saying this to attack you. I actually respect you for providing an argument, unlike so many on the fourms these days.
  9. I already gave reasons in my last response to you. We already have many examples that show blowouts are just as common even when player skill is as close to equal as a system can get it. Kings of the Sea, ranked and clan battles all show this. We also have a very sound theory as to why that is: Lanchester's square law. If you want to have a discussion on skill based MM, you need to either provide a counterpoint to those, preferably with some examples to back it up, or provide a reason for skill based MM other than to prevent one sided battles.
  10. This. This here is why people are getting so sick of hearing about skill based MM so much. Blowouts like that will still happen with basically the same frequency, even if MM divides up the players by skill perfectly. (Assuming that's possible, considering the multitude of different ways to look at player skill, each with thier own flaws.) Because of Lanchester's square law, the team that gets an early leg up has more ships to tank and shoot with, letting them get the next kill easier, and snowballing from there. This is why blowouts happen frequently regardless of if players are of equal skill (Kings of the Sea tournament, clan battles) or not. (Randoms) I wouldn't be opposed to a permanent ranked mode, something like Hearthstone or LoL does, that takes the no re-spawn, 12v12 mode and does away with save a star. Then randoms could become a different game mode, with re-spawns or something, that makes games closer on average. I'm not sure if the game has the population to sustain that, but either way, WG should at least look at changing up randoms. However, all these threads about how skill based MM would be some sort of cure-all are basically just spam at this point, considering they never bring anything new to the table, nor do they ever address the arguments that point to skill not really being a factor in blowouts. (It is in who will win, not the quality of the win.)
  11. Well good luck: 1. Getting the word out to enough people to make this worthwhile for them to participate. 2. Getting enough people to donate resources to make this appealing for people to play, OR convincing enough people to play in a mode that dosn't advance or reward them in any way. 3. Figuring out how to judge a player's skill. Do you go by WR? If so, is it overall or by ship? What do you do if someone's stats are hidden? Ect, ect. 4. Actually organizing this. You would need people who oversee every match, divide teams up by whatever metric you use for skill, kick people who start griefing, and more. Not to mention the struggles of getting 24 people to communicate online at the same time. Do all that, and... you'll still have tons of those blowout matches you hate so much, since that's a function of the "no re-spawns" nature of random.
  12. Muninn77

    So I came back

    So, you complain that people don't discuss things on the forums, and then you start complaining that people discussed and analyzed the evidence that you put forwards? You really should be less blatant about hypocritically using complaints about how hard it is to have a discussion to shut down discussions.
  13. Muninn77

    Benson Question

    It's only avalible on the C-hull, and you have to swap out speed boost for it.
  14. Muninn77

    says flooding but it was fire

    It looks like the Tirpitz hit you with torpedoes and the flooding got you, but then the fire you set on the Tirpitz killed him. On the personal score screen, (the one that shows your ribbons) it says what destroyed your ship, and on the dropdown on the detailed damage report screen, it says who killed the ships you damaged and how.
  15. Well, that's a bit disappointing. WG really should have made that information clear in-game, but that could apply to almost everything they do. Thanks for setting me straight on that, I never got either origanal tier 10 CV, so I had no idea what the status of the personal missions were.
×