SuperSSL

I, too, am intrigued to know what this new "meta" is. mfw I'm a BB unicum.

Artillery is a specific thing in WoT, not a generic term.

You're missing the point. Artillery is the CV of WoT. Aside from that, I wish there were as many HE spamming ships as people claimed. It would mean there were more targets when playing BB, but as it is the game is filled with other BBs, carriers, subs.

Exactly. WG can have research coming out of their ears for all it matters. None of it will be relevant to what people are taking issue with in the here-and-now.

Naturally. WG has been working on nerfing the game economy for some time and they succeeded. The separation of bonuses, far from being a mere quality of life enhancement, simply allows WG to more easily tweak the individual distribution of each type of bonus.

Another day where @Ensign_Cthulhu tries to spin a bad decision by WG as something the players asked for, another day ending in "Y".

I doubt it. There's no way this "research" could have included the practical form subs have actually taken in the game, especially with the most recent patches. I'm sure many if not most players would be receptive to the concept of subs in World of Warships. But the implementation we have now? I'd be very surprised if any research supported that in any way.

If subs could shotgun every ship in a match, they'd be overpowered. The fact that they can't doesn't make getting shotgunned with no counterplay less frustrating. This seems to be a concept WG struggles (or refuses) to grasp. It's the same problem we've already been dealing with from carriers. A ship can ruin the match for a subset of players while remaining balanced from the 1000-foot view. Balance does not equal good design. There is more to the story.

An interesting take for sure. If one were to interpret "interesting" as "cherry picking only the details that support a position". This is Smolensk all over again. You remember that ship, right? I assume you've probably played it at every level of competition. Players maintained that it was terrible to play against, and were repeatedly met with the same argument: it was balanced for a T10 cruiser so there was nothing wrong with the design; indeed it was impossible for anything to be wrong with the design because it was performing as intended. But sure enough, it eventually got hit with multiple passive nerfs in a relatively short span of time; the IFHE rework, the commander skill rework, plus the addition of various cruiser-killing ships and ship lines that could deal with it more effectively. As a result, the Smolensk became much weaker and saw a commensurate drop in popularity. We're seeing the exact same thing play out with subs. A vehicle that is mechanically easy to play, annoying to play against, and which offers limited opportunities for counterplay. The Smolensk serves as an object lesson and a warning against stubbornly clinging to a strict definition of balance as the ultimate yardstick for good game design. If WG is actually monitoring subs as you claim, then the time to act on the problem is now. And, no, I'm not going to trust your opinion as a skilled player, either. I trust arguments that are rooted in facts, not attempts to argue from authority.

Is that what he's doing? Where is your evidence? More importantly, what does this have to do with the substance of his claims/arguments?

Then there's no reason for you to be commenting on the subject here, is there?

It's just an ad hominem. Could be poisoning the well in some cases, which is a more specific form. Yup. Which is still fallacious reasoning.

Yup. The pace of the game is so slow compared to an FPS or RTS that not paying attention is pretty much always player error, and a big one at that. Ironically, categorically rejecting an argument based on who made it is in fact a real fallacy. But maybe we don't tell him that.

The absolute value of any given WR is modulated by the overall population, but WR is absolutely reflective of relative player skill, as defined by the ability to convert wins. Team differences average out over time and are not a meaningful contributor to WR differences between players. And yes, solo ship WR would be used.

Wow...that is...wow. Thanks for the laugh, I guess. I'm not here to die on a hill for Flamu. I don't particularly care about his reputation and neither does he. The main point is that trying to dismiss something purely based on who it comes from is an emotional reaction. It's essentially a personal attack, which I think are supposed to be against the rules on this forum.