Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

17 Neutral

About Junpei_MT

  • Rank
  • Birthday September 18
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

386 profile views
  1. Junpei_MT

    I'm done putting up with invisible DDs

    Spotting mechanics and invisible ships are a core part of this game, whether you like it or not OP. The rest of us have learned to live with the strengths and drawbacks of the system, and I suggest you either take the time to better understand it at lower tiers or, as you said, find a different game.
  2. Junpei_MT

    Hot Fix article in WOWS News

    I've been waiting for this kind of article to surface for three years. Glad it's finally here
  3. Junpei_MT


    A CV learning how to avoid and negate submarine damage is vastly different and far simpler than most surface ships. To avoid subs, you simply have to position in an intelligent way, recognize when you are being pinged/torped/pursued, and then focus your efforts on evasion and taking down the sub. For a surface ship, to dodge the homing torps is a much more difficult task, especially at high tiers and especially when dodging the submarine while engaging other enemies. It's not simply a question of "Just Damage Control", because that's exploitable by the sub, and potentially fatal. It's not simply a question of "Outrange their torps", because unless you're in a full retreat relying on torps to range out is a great way to go back to port. Depth charges are a joke to me, and ASW planes seem to be their best counter. I understand that you might not grasp the frustration of playing against homing citadel torpedoes in frontline DDs and sluggish BBs, seeing as how you are a self-admitted CV main with not enough battles to have extensive high tier experience, but do try to understand that the general anger and frustration towards subs is not a result of players simply being unwilling to change. Rather, the mechanics that aid subs are both incredibly easy to use and stupidly unfun to play against.
  4. Junpei_MT


    Reasons, Incentives, same end result. Point is/was that there are logical and reasonable trains of thought that can lead a thoroughly anti-sub player to still play them as currently implemented. For parallels, look at Petro in KOTS and CVs in CBs. As for not playing to make a dent in WG's data, that in my opinion is a noble yet naïve and foolish thought. I do not honestly believe any individual or small group refusing to play will do anything to affect the addition of submarines to the game. Only by hemorrhaging players at higher rates than WG expects to churn through for an extended period of time with expressly stated distaste of the submarine game mechanic will substantially delay or halt their addition, and I also doubt that the community will take such pointed action in the required numbers to make a difference. Too many people simply don't care. If you want to stop playing and pat yourself on the back for making a difference, good for you. You're helping your own health and well-being much more than the health of the game by doing so. Of note, I myself have severely cut down my involvement with WOWS, taking a long break this year and only playing at most a dozen games a week. Do I think I made a difference in WG's data? Hell no. I did it for myself, not for WG.
  5. Junpei_MT


    A couple of great points there. First, on positioning. Rewarding good positioning and foresight with damage is a core feature of this game, and it applies to subs too. As players get good at positioning their subs (and positioning against subs), we'll get a clearer picture of how much of a punishing factor subs have in the right hands. However, I fear that good submarine positioning will boil down to either "somewhere in front of the enemy's push", similar to any other kiting ship in the game, or "somewhere within line of sight of bow-in targets". Imo, not too complex in the majority of situations, which will significantly broaden the range of players who can achieve the punish damage through even the most basic of intelligent positioning. This will require a lot more playtesting and familiarizing to determine, though, at least for me personally. Second, on player skill. This is probably why WG is ""testing"" subs by implementing them en mass on live servers in their flagship and primary game mode. While players grow accustomed to fighting with and against subs, WG will collect data on how every range of player interacts with subs, from the "Plays to see big guns go boom" to the "Plays only to secure top PR leaderboard position". Unfortunately, and what I fear WG will be unable to tease out of the data, there are complications with this. I expect a large portion of the player base to do the equivalent of "Sailing broadside to a BB within spanking range" when fighting against submarines. MM discrepancies, skill discrepancies, random game factors (the 11 other ships in the match, detonation mechanic, game state, etc.), and more will all have conflicting effects on the raw data (player numbers, avg. damage, win rate, etc.). I severely question WG's ability to correctly tease out the underlying influences and attribute the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of submarines to the correct and most important factors.
  6. Junpei_MT


    This is the important part to me. The rest of your post I generally agree with, as OP's damage wasn't exceptional by any metric. PQ's videos are fantastic, and his most recent sub video is no exception. Determining why ships dominate, how easy it is for them to do so, and whether or not this damage is achieved "fairly" is what I want to emphasize. Getting a 50k chunk BB salvo across the map feels "fair" because of the immense amount of skill and luck usually required to pull off that kind of damage. Doing so consistently is a feat of great skill. Everyone doing it consistently is a red flag for potential imbalance, although it would require in-depth analysis (are players just being stupid, or is it the fault of a single ship/game mechanic). For submarines, what will be most interesting and important to look at is how they change average random battle gameplay and player decision making, the change in population (class specific, server specific, and game mode specific), and how "fairly" they achieve their damage. If submarines achieve damage comparable or greater to the other classes with relative ease and consistency, that raises a red flag for me regarding their balance. Good discussion so far, looking at your follow-up now :)
  7. Junpei_MT


    The emphasis is on the ease of achievement and the frequency of similar results. While 23km Dev Strikes do happen, they are usually few and far between as they require incredible dispersion (luck/RNG factor), precise aim, knowledgeable target selection, and a distracted/immobile/incompetent target. With homing submarine torps, so far all accounts point to "just launch torps and ping him a few times" for similar if not greater results. The homing factor also plays into this a great deal, many magnitudes greater than the lock-on aim mechanic.
  8. Junpei_MT


    That's not the logical conclusion to that train of reasoning. There is large incentive to play submarines right now, even for those who are most adamantly against the addition. Such reasons might include: 1) WG is going to add submarines regardless of any data, feedback, whining, or pleading that comes from the community. Therefore, I might as well familiarize myself with them now so I can learn how to play them effectively/counter them effectively in game. 2) I want to understand the current iteration of submarines through first-hand experience before drawing (or jumping to) any conclusions and providing my feedback. 3) Wow I got this cool new thing, it would be a waste to not use and abuse this cool new thing while I have it especially if I think it will be going away or changing soon. You see this same disparity in competitive modes all the time; people complain about the most overpowered new feature/ship while still using and abusing it to its fullest extent. It's completely reasonable to simultaneously despise and exploit an imbalanced system if you have no direct control over fixing or improving the perceived imbalance, yet don't want to just walk away completely. Furthermore, this is why I despise WG's "Data Only" or "Data above all else" approach to analyzing game performance and health. Their conclusions are often aided by large amounts of confirmation bias, and the "why are these numbers the way they are" is very often seemingly attributed to incorrect, illogical, or ignorant causes. "People play the submarines, therefore they have positive experience with them" is an asinine approach. I could ramble on, but I think my point of view is clear.
  9. Only looking at RoF is a poor way to evaluate ship performance. I wouldn't even call any user data on Goliath usable, as it is less than three months old and people are still working out both the best way to play it and the best way to play against it. I do not have a Goliath, and as such will be omitting it to not make myself look like a fool. Bearing that in mind, I will address the following: 1. You may have noted them, but you have obviously failed to take them into account when considering their effect on gameplay and actual DPM vs theoretical maximum DPM. 2. ? 3. While almost every map is littered with islands, only cruisers with high shell arcs (ultralight DPM monsters or USN cruisers) and spotting utility (radar, hydro, etc) want to be playing on the front lines hunkered down next to islands. This is not a strength of the Zao or the Venezia. Additionally, any and every ship in the game should be played by making use of islands; some are just better when closer. 4. While it is true you can open water gunboat in anything, certain ships are much more effective at it than others. Specifically, I would rather open water against any top tier BB while in a Zao instead of in a DM. 5. I never mentioned the Moskva, and I do not know what you are disagreeing with. 6 and 7. While RoF is a factor of DPM, Actual DPM shrinks at range much faster for a DM than for a Zao or Venezia. First, beyond 16km the DM has 0 DPM without a spotter plane or module. Second, a 11s shell travel time at 15 km gives your opponent ample opportunity to maneuver, go dark, get behind an island, etc. Third, both dispersion and penetration at range hurt the DM much more than the Zao or the Venezia. Thus, while DM might throw out three or four salvos in the time it takes Zao or Venezia to fire once, well aimed shots from Zao or Ven will often deal more raw alpha than the DM over that same period of time. As an aside, the DM is almost always only utilizing 2/3 of its firepower while sitting nose on. I have found it rare to be able to sit in a position and freely farm with all three turrets for any substantial length of time. 8. Average RoF (10s for zao, 15s for Ven) base would be too powerful, as they are ships that can more easily realize their theoretical DPM thanks to the properties of their ships and their ballistics. Please quote in sections next time so I can see which parts of my post you are responding to.
  10. What all three of these cruisers have in common is their open water survivability: Zao with low detection, high range, and top tier concealment, Venezia with her speed and "get out of jail free" smokescreens, and Goliath with her high heal potential. The roles of the other ships you listed (DM, Worcester, Smol) are as high-dpm gunships, and MUST use islands, smokescreens, and somewhat limited good positioning to properly realize their DPM. The USN ships get a side of utility in the form of radar, Def AA, and Hydro, which makes them more objective-focused and fleet-oriented, while the Smol's smoke lets it be versatile. If you tried to play a Zao as an island-camping heavy close support gunship, lurking around islands next to caps, you would be severely limiting its usefulness and ignoring its strengths. While a Venezia can provide that close support thanks to its speed and SAP, its presence is temporary due to its lack of support in the form of radar and its long reload. When you do play these three to their strengths, as open water flank or support ships, your actual DPM, fleet utility, and value as a CA is as great as that of a Worcester; not in raw HE DPM per se, but in positioning, map control, and flank support. The other factor which supports the long reload of traditional heavy cruisers are their gun ballistics. Venezia, Goliath, and Zao can comfortably hit targets at mid to long range, and therefore provide consistency and solid actual DPM. The ballistic traits of the DM and Worcester as well as their benefits, utility, and drawbacks are no secret, and have been described and gone over many many times. The drawbacks of range, shell velocity, ranged pen, high arcs, shell travel time, and lower alpha potential make their guns more useful the closer you get, and therefore suited to a very different playstyle than that of a long ranged kiter. Ven, Goliath, and Zao do not need insanely high DPM to be effective, nor would a scenario where they had that DPM be fair, balanced, or fun to play against.
  11. Junpei_MT

    Random Toxicity: How do YOU do it?

    Instead of just ignoring chat, I would take their whinging and moaning as suggestions instead of as words of wisdom. Ultimately, it is up to you to play your own ship, and you are the one who decides how to do it best. On the other hand, if you're constantly being called a lemming, look at how you play and see if you're leaving one side of the map to follow the team to the complete opposite side. If you're being called a camper and you have positioned your BB 10km behind the CV while shooting at max range, then there might be some truth to that.
  12. Junpei_MT

    PT Boats ??

    As a fun one-off ship in either an April Fools game mode or a Halloween type game mode, sure! In random battles, heck no. Matchmaker stress, game balance, and ship class interactions are already topics that WOWS has struggled with, and adding yet another class of ships to the game would only further increase these problems.
  13. Junpei_MT

    Is Wargaming Biased Against Germans?

    In the top tier navy too? Plus, the game is an arcade game before it's a historical presentation.