Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
bubbleboy264

Asashio is probably the worst idea WG has come up with since the Belfast

241 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BOTES] awildseaking 256
1,409 posts
5,158 battles
9 minutes ago, Dianeces said:

No they're not, check again. 

Yes they are, check again.

T10: Shima and Gearing tied.

T9: Yuugumo at the bottom.

T8: Ognevoi at the bottom, Kagerou in close second and nobody else is even close.

T7: Mahan at the bottom, Akatsuki in close second and nobody else is even close.

T6: Fubuki at the bottom.

T5: Podvoisky at the bottom, NIcholas in close second and Mutsuki in close third.

The only exceptions are the new tech tree, and as I explained previously, being played by fewer players means the playerbase is typically better than average.

8 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

No they arent. Gearing is last at tier 10. Yuugumo is last at tier 9. Ognevoi is last at tier 8.  Mahan is last at tier 7. Fubuki i last at tier 6 and Podoiskvy is last at tier 5. IJN DDs are last in winrate over the past 2 weeks in 2 tiers.


Quit pretending that a .05% difference in WR is equivalent to not being at the bottom. That's why you people started using relative positions in the first place. It serves your agenda because on a week to week basis, you can get an unusual result and then use relative terms to make it sound like IJN DD aren't underpowered when there is minor variation.

Being the worst doesn't mean being the worst every single week. We're talking averages here. Of course they're going to do a bit better one week when fewer people play or certain people play.

Really, think about how stupid you sound when you're claiming that a one week outlier somehow invalidates a trend that has existed since launch. IJN DD suck. They've always sucked and they've only gotten worse with time, which isn't surprising in the slightest because they've been nerfed more than any other tree. Shimakaze 20km torp walls a problem? Nerfbat but we won't dare touch the Gearing's 16.5km torpedoes that were always harder to dodge.

Edited by awildseaking
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CMFRT] Avalon304 132
In AlfaTesters
436 posts
1,376 battles
6 minutes ago, awildseaking said:

Yes they are, check again.

T10: Shima and Gearing tied.

T9: Yuugumo at the bottom.

T8: Ognevoi at the bottom, Kagerou in close second and nobody else is even close.

T7: Mahan at the bottom, Akatsuki in close second and nobody else is even close.

T6: Fubuki at the bottom.

T5: Podvoisky at the bottom, NIcholas in close second and Mutsuki in close third.

The only exceptions are the new tech tree, and as I explained previously, being played by fewer players means the playerbase is typically better than average.


Quit pretending that a .05% difference in WR is equivalent to not being at the bottom. That's why you people started using relative positions in the first place. It serves your agenda because on a week to week basis, you can get an unusual result and then use relative terms to make it sound like IJN DD aren't underpowered when there is minor variation.

Being the worst doesn't mean being the worst every single week. We're talking averages here. Of course they're going to do a bit better one week when fewer people play or certain people play.

Words have meanings. You said "dead last". Your statement was wrong. Factually wrong. But you can sort by damage or xp or torpedo hit rate or K/D or survival and find that IJN Dds arent actually last in many categories.

 

IJN DDs are fine.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOTES] awildseaking 256
1,409 posts
5,158 battles
2 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

Words have meanings. You said "dead last". Your statement was wrong. Factually wrong.

IJN DDs are fine.

You're a troll. You're playing semantics on purpose to prove a point. My statement is not factually wrong. It is periodically wrong when you cherrypick. The general trend supports my claim. Do you know why I started with the 2 week timeframe? Because the original post used the 2 week timeframe with only solo results. I never claimed that the last 2 weeks are indicative of a trend or that only the past 2 weeks should be considered. I was merely proving that all else held constant, using solo filters bias results by lowering the performance of VMF DD in a pitiful attempt to make IJN DD look better than they are.

HAHA EVERYONE LOOK AT THE ONE TIME HE WAS WRONG UNDER THIS VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IS NOT GENERALLY APPLICABLE, THAT MEANS HE IS WRONG 100% OF THE TIME IJN DD ARE BALANS TOVARISH

Edited by awildseaking
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CMFRT] Avalon304 132
In AlfaTesters
436 posts
1,376 battles
Just now, awildseaking said:

You're a troll. You're playing semantics on purpose to prove a point. My statement is not factually wrong. It is periodically wrong when you cherrypick. The general trend supports my claim.

"Dead last" does not mean "2nd to last". You are factually wrong. The past 2 weeks is a good representation of recent trends in the game and generally encompasses an entire patch cycle.

 

IJN DDs are fine. Despite everyone insisting that they arent.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOTES] awildseaking 256
1,409 posts
5,158 battles
12 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

"Dead last" does not mean "2nd to last". You are factually wrong. The past 2 weeks is a good representation of recent trends in the game and generally encompasses an entire patch cycle.

IJN DDs are fine. Despite everyone insisting that they arent.

Stop posting anytime. The past 2 weeks are not a good representation of anything because it can easily be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to ship balance, such as events, frequency of play, and player progression. Check 1 week instead of 2 weeks and the results are all over the place. Outliers and cherrypicks are not indicative of trends.

Ex. in general, ship performance worsens with time, all else held constant, because the playerbase grows and thus worsens. Remember when everyone was crying about Conqueror because the super unicums were timing their heals better and landing 10k HE salvos, resulting in absurd win rates? Now everyone starts playing it and the numbers go down. Incidentally, when you filter out the solo shitters, Montana is the top dog in division play for randoms. Montana nerf when?

Would you argue that ARP Myoukou is better than ARP Nachi even though they're the same ship? That's essentially the argument you're making here about IJN DD. You think that you can just ignore facts you don't like and harp on about how they aren't technically dead last in every tier all the time without any exceptions. Are you familiar with the phrase, "There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians?" If you know what you're doing, you can make the stats say anything you want. Have you ever noticed how in a wide variety of issues, people have wildly differing opinions about what constitutes a fact? That's because most people aren't educated nor qualified enough to understand the context behind a tidbit of data.

IJN DD have never been good and they haven't gotten better except for ships that fit the meta, like Akizuki and 10cm Harekaze, or blatantly overpowered premiums like the old Minekaze clones.

Edited by awildseaking
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CMFRT] Avalon304 132
In AlfaTesters
436 posts
1,376 battles

lol. 2 weeks are a near perfect representation. 3 weeks would be even better, as thats a full patch cycle.

 

Numbers NORMALIZE over time. The IJN DDs have had plenty of time to normalize. Thats what happened with Conqueror, it game out had high stats and then nomralized down after time and battles were accumulated. These ships arent new.

 

No its not the same argument. Because the tier 10 DDs (or any DDs at any tier) arent the same ship.

 

Youre delusional. IJN DDs are fine.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOTES] awildseaking 256
1,409 posts
5,158 battles
15 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

lol. 2 weeks are a near perfect representation. 3 weeks would be even better, as thats a full patch cycle.

Numbers NORMALIZE over time. The IJN DDs have had plenty of time to normalize. Thats what happened with Conqueror, it game out had high stats and then nomralized down after time and battles were accumulated. These ships arent new.

No its not the same argument. Because the tier 10 DDs (or any DDs at any tier) arent the same ship.

Youre delusional. IJN DDs are fine.

Until you understand why your premise is flawed, you'll just keep repeating this awful argument.

You do not seem to grasp how a highly selective and short time period can extremely influence results. Ex. in the past week, Grozovoi has been played 1,733 times with a 48.47% WR. In the past two weeks, it has been played 4,713 times with a 49.88% WR. Since it was introduced (no nerfs have been applied, only buffs), it has been played 107,232 times with a 50.25% WR. Did Grozovoi suddenly become terrible?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Normalization does not mean what you think it means. Conqueror performance has worsened with time for two reasons. First, RP cooldown was increased. Second, more people are playing it.

You completely missed the point of the ARP comparison. The point was that a series of identical ships can vary wildly in performance based solely on who was playing it. In this case, we can in fact go back to the two ARP events and determine how people acquired these ships. Incidentally, Myoukou was originally the hardest to earn. Both Myoukou and Takao became easier to earn in the second round of the event when Ashigara, Haguro and Nachi were released. It is no mere coincidence that Nachi required less exp to earn than Haguro. Both could be earned by playing T5 ships, while Ashigara and Myoukou could only be earned with T7 or higher. The difficulty of acquiring each ship correlates with the average performance of each ship. Conveniently, tech tree Myoukou and the ARP variants by extension have not been changed since the events.

I normally hate when people invoke this, but your argument has been a classic example of dunning kruger. You have no idea what you're talking about, nor are you familiar with my background in statistics. Nonetheless, you prattle on while proving that you are fully incapable of comprehending what I am saying.

Edited by awildseaking
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CRMSN] Cobraclutch 1,061
4,601 posts
2,815 battles
8 hours ago, awildseaking said:

Interesting that you decided to filter by solo. If you adjust the settings for all pvp, IJN DD are dead last at every tier.

You must have intentionally done this to bias the results because the default setting is all pvp, not solo. For those who don't understand why this makes a difference, look at how much VMF DD suffer in solo. This is because VMF DD are not really DD, but DD leaders. They play like CLs and don't fare as well solo in pubs because they can't contest caps and typically farm damage or fight DD from the second line. Solo can screw you over by making you the only DD or giving you unfavorable matchups, so most people take VMF DD into divs where they can guarantee their team comp and excel.

When IJN DD aren't dead last, it's because of tech tree stinkers. It's no surprise why Podvoisky is the worst performing T5 DD overall. Nicholas has always been rough on new players because most of them don't have 10 pt captains. USN DD are extremely sensitive to having or not having CE at lower tiers because they can't stealth torp with it, never mind without. Mahan has also been rough because it doesn't play like any of the USN DD. T7 Hatsuharu was always worse than Mahan. Gearing is the shitter's swan song and far less stupid proof than Shimakaze. Look at how much better the Yueyang performs despite being nearly identical and debatably worse. The same effect can be observed with Hatsuharu at T6. It isn't better than Fubuki; fewer shitters play it.

I filter by Solo because that is what the mass majority of the players do in this game. 

 

Play Solo random

 

Why would i provide stats that allow divisions to skew the results of how the ship do in a majority of the situations its played in. 

Not providing 2 week / solo stats is essentially skewing the results. 

These are the solo GP for 2 week / solo

In the last 2 weeks the Gearing and Shima has been played a total of 76 228 times 

34,744 GP for Gearing

41,484 time for Shima. 

 

These are the stats for 2 week / 2 ship

3,511 for Gearing 

3,342 for Shima

6853 Total for 2 man division 

 

These are the stats for 2 week / 3 ship

3,613 for Gearing

2,866 for Shima

 

 6479  total for 3 man division

 

So lets say we take both 2 ship and 3 ship and determine how much that represents the total games for the Shima and Gearing in that last 2 weeks. 

The divisioned GP for the Shima account for 15% of the total GP for the last 2 weeks. 

The divisioned GP for the Gearing account for 20% of the total GP for the last 2 weeks. 

The combine divisined GP for the Gearing and Shima account for 17.5% of the total GP of both ship for the last 2 weeks. 

So what you are essentially saying, is that by providing the stats that 85% of the Shima players play there games as (solo) and 80% of the Gearing players play there games as (solo) 

I am skewing the stats? I think its the other way around my friend, allowing the WR of the 15/20% segments of the GP GREATLY skews the actual win rate and performance the majority of those ship captains actually experience. 

The bottom line is the majority of players play the game a solo players, should attention be brought into how a ship performs in a division? 

Sure

But the base line balance of ship classes should be determined based off of how that ship performs for the majority of the players play(which includes Purple, blue, green, orange and red SOLO players), not a small segment. 

When players talk about IJN DD's being "Nerfed into the ground" They aren't speaking about how the ships perform in divisions, they are speaking about how those ships perform in the same situation 80-90% most other ships are played in. 

Solo 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[APOC-] Show_Me_Your_Cits 786
2,485 posts
6,502 battles
23 hours ago, WickedRecluse said:

Not really. I mean, it has absolute crap guns, and considering it's torps can only hit BB's and CV's, then CA's and DD's should have no problem taking care of it. Also, 20KM is a heck of a shot, the likelihood that any of those torps hit is very very low, let alone more than 1 one of them. Furthermore, the likelihood that those torps remain unspotted for all 20KM is even less likely. I think you people keep looking at this ship strictly from a 1v1 perspective, in which case, against a CV or BB would likely win 9 times out of 10. This is likely why so many random matches are such crap, you people focus too much on yourselves instead of your team. 

-CAs and DDs can take care of it, sure... If it even gets spotted. And with the lowest detection in its matchmaking bracket, plus zero incentive to get closer than 12km due to radar, garbage guns and torps that can only hit BBs.... Odds are pretty high that that's not going to happen. 

-Were you around in the days of Torpedo Soup? 20km might be a heck of a shot, but not when all the player did was just pick a spot so far beyond their target render range that they can't see anything but land masses and just dumps torps in random directions every time the reload finishes. Then it's just blind luck and skilless spam play.

-The torps remaining unspotted for most of, if not all of their travel is actually pretty high. Things with hydro probably won't be running it unless they know there's a threat that requires it nearby, CVs are almost non-existant, and while spotter planes are annoying, both them and other ships are hampered by the fact that the detection range is miniscule on these torps. A CA or DD would have to basically run over them to spot them, and same for a plane. 

-I'm looking at this ship from a meta game perspective. This ship has good concealment, map border range torps, garbage guns, and no AA. It has zero, absolutely zero incentive to play as a team ship. It's not going to spot, because it's firing from beyond render range, it's not going to cap, because it can't win in a cap fight against anything larger than a pool noodle, it's not going to offer team support via smoke or AA because it's going to be too far out and the AA is garbage, and the second the last BB dies it is effectively mission killed besides being a ship that can attempt to take a cap if it's close enough.

-Since this is a high tier premium and a lot of newer players tend to make the mistake of buying shiny T8 ships they don't know how to use, I imagine we will see a lot of "Well I have 20km range so I'm going to use it" type players too, which hurt are almost as bad as an AFK. 

My point is it's a bad design that rewards spam play and discourages team play as it sits now. It also punishes anyone who wanders into the path of randomly launched torpedoes, regardless of skilled play or not on their part. Ninja torp Shima died for a reason. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOTES] awildseaking 256
1,409 posts
5,158 battles
4 hours ago, Cobraclutch said:

I filter by Solo because that is what the mass majority of the players do in this game. 

Play Solo random

Why would i provide stats that allow divisions to skew the results of how the ship do in a majority of the situations its played in. 

Not providing 2 week / solo stats is essentially skewing the results. 

These are the solo GP for 2 week / solo

In the last 2 weeks the Gearing and Shima has been played a total of 76 228 times 

34,744 GP for Gearing

41,484 time for Shima. 

 

These are the stats for 2 week / 2 ship

3,511 for Gearing 

3,342 for Shima

6853 Total for 2 man division 

 

These are the stats for 2 week / 3 ship

3,613 for Gearing

2,866 for Shima

 

 6479  total for 3 man division

 

So lets say we take both 2 ship and 3 ship and determine how much that represents the total games for the Shima and Gearing in that last 2 weeks. 

The divisioned GP for the Shima account for 15% of the total GP for the last 2 weeks. 

The divisioned GP for the Gearing account for 20% of the total GP for the last 2 weeks. 

The combine divisined GP for the Gearing and Shima account for 17.5% of the total GP of both ship for the last 2 weeks. 

So what you are essentially saying, is that by providing the stats that 85% of the Shima players play there games as (solo) and 80% of the Gearing players play there games as (solo) 

I am skewing the stats? I think its the other way around my friend, allowing the WR of the 15/20% segments of the GP GREATLY skews the actual win rate and performance the majority of those ship captains actually experience. 

The bottom line is the majority of players play the game a solo players, should attention be brought into how a ship performs in a division? 

Sure

But the base line balance of ship classes should be determined based off of how that ship performs for the majority of the players play(which includes Purple, blue, green, orange and red SOLO players), not a small segment. 

When players talk about IJN DD's being "Nerfed into the ground" They aren't speaking about how the ships perform in divisions, they are speaking about how those ships perform in the same situation 80-90% most other ships are played in. 

Solo

Like I said, keep cherrypicking. You have decided that solo is more representative for an arbitrary reason; your flawed belief that divs skew stats upwards. Meanwhile, you conveniently ignore that solo skews stats downwards and call it a day. You have no internal logic and have failed to make an argument.

You must understand that any argument involving performance metrics is at best a proxy of ship capability. Some ships are harder to use. Others are older and played by more people who are typically worse. The only manner by which you can objectively discuss balance is by examining the literal changes to a ship. IJN DD have lost the following over the past 2 years:

  1. OWSF, which they depended on more than any other DD tree. No compensation received.
  2. Alpha and fire chance, which made DoT easier. Meaningless DPM buff that is actively countered by slow turret traverse and poor arcs. Also serves as an indirect survivability nerf.
  3. Torpedo detection range, which they depended on most due to poor gunnery, mobility, range, low torpedo volume, and long torpedo reloads.
  4. TRB/Smoke combo on Shiratsuyu. Shira was balanced and this pattern should have been extended to Kagerou and Yuugumo.

The only buff that has made any difference is adding 12km torpedoes to Yuugumo in response to radar spam. This has brought Yuugumo closer to parity, but it is still the worst performing T9 DD. Kagerou and related premium clones would greatly benefit from having 12km as well. You could include the partial un-nerfs of IJN torpedo detection range, but this has merely shifted IJN DD from worst to slightly less worst.

These nerfs have been extremely frustrating for one reason only; no other DDs have received significant nerfs. WG sees no problem with Gearing's 16.5km ninja torps or Fletcher spamming, but thinks old Fubuki and current Shimakaze are overpowered. For the longest time, both when Kagerou was at T9 and before Yuugumo received 12km torps, Fletcher had more range, lower torpedo detection range, faster reloads, and a larger volume of fire. WG was busy nerfing Shima while Khab was dominating across the board and still had 2x5 10km torps that were harder to dodge than Shima's torps. Khab nerfs have been lipservice at best; anyone who has Khab knows that the rudder shift nerf was pointless because you didn't need CSM1 in the first place. This is why so many people are frustrated. WG claims that IJN torp spam was a problem but saw no issue with objectively superior torp spam from the other DD trees.

Objectivity aside, your assumption about excluding div play is incorrect because you assume, with no facts to support it, that solo play best represents ship capability. When I want to see how buffs and nerfs affect a ship, I only consider div stats. I do this because divs still include terrible players, but they also encompass the best players. That's where all your 60-70% WR players come from. Only the best players should be considered because a terrible player will make an overpowered ship look bad. If you aren't good enough to benefit from buffs or be limited by nerfs, you can't tell if they make a difference or not.

In general, IJN DD are dead last when played by the best players. This trend is consistent across all servers. Frankly, it doesn't matter that ships perform better in divs. What matters is the magnitude of that difference, ie which ships are more capable of affecting the game. In that regard, naturally IJN DD do better than in solo. However, they only gain a few percentage points in performance. Shima is around 53~54% WR in 3 ship divs across all servers while every other DD is in the 56-60% range. Yes, that includes Gearing. Comparative analysis is important because it directly contradicts your claim. You say Gearing is worse than Shima because solo players do worse in it. I have already explained why this is the case from a gameplay perspective. Lo and behold, I am not just a preachy unicum stat shaming. When better players use Gearing, they do so well that it is clearly anything but the worst.

tl;dr shitters don't matter

Here's some extra salt in the wound; even WG doesn't agree with you.

image.thumb.png.22b7f72b07ce6b5202142e01ab27f98f.png

Edited by awildseaking
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
322 posts
On 2/16/2018 at 2:28 AM, Avalon304 said:

lol. 2 weeks are a near perfect representation. 3 weeks would be even better, as thats a full patch cycle.

 

Numbers NORMALIZE over time. The IJN DDs have had plenty of time to normalize. Thats what happened with Conqueror, it game out had high stats and then nomralized down after time and battles were accumulated. These ships arent new.

 

No its not the same argument. Because the tier 10 DDs (or any DDs at any tier) arent the same ship.

 

Youre delusional. IJN DDs are fine.

 

CE653008-8509-48CE-8721-CAF7D75B9DEF.gif

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229 posts
32 battles
On 2/16/2018 at 2:11 AM, Avalon304 said:

Words have meanings. You said "dead last". Your statement was wrong. Factually wrong. But you can sort by damage or xp or torpedo hit rate or K/D or survival and find that IJN Dds arent actually last in many categories.

 

IJN DDs are fine.

This is beating a dead horse at this point - every IJN destroyer tier 6-9 sucks, and every USN destroyer except the tier 4, 5, and 9 sucks, and it's been that way since CBT.  You can deny it all you like, but the only destroyers that ever consistently performed as good or better than their same-tier peers of other classes were the Russian ones.

Edited by TheSeventhSeeker
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
632 posts
4,523 battles
On 2/13/2018 at 6:07 PM, Cruiser_Fiume said:

You're going to get downvoted into oblivion because you called LWM out (and there is a certain very vocal subset of this forum who fancies themselves her champions), 

Wish this wasn't true, but it is. I have nothing against LWM, and don't mean to imply otherwise - but there are a few people here on the forums who you have to be very careful about criticizing or their "followers" (for lack of a better term) will PM you to death and downvote every post you write in every thread.

Been the victim of that more than a few times (luckily for me, I couldn't care less).

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229 posts
32 battles
28 minutes ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

... by page seven of this thread

 

 

Spoiler

CDA4736A-2F45-4812-9C54-D0B6F1E27030.gif

 

If only they kept the CBT forum archive, so I could look back and count how many times I've discussed the DD problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
322 posts
14 minutes ago, TheSeventhSeeker said:

If only they kept the CBT forum archive, so I could look back and count how many times I've discussed the DD problem.

Hehe, you’ll probably need a calculator, because the sky is ....

 

8745AD1E-C307-400A-9DE0-7C20E711D197.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×