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

Adding reward without reducing risk?

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles

This was in response I had in another thread where many players were discussing their issue with how there is a noticeable imbalance between expectations, and the reward to go with the risk of playing a DD as it is "expected". (like spotting AND capping). I received a few PMs suggesting I make it into a thread itself. It was noted by many that focusing on objectives, and winning took exponentially more effort to net them anywhere near equal rewards as other players of different ships, main perpetrator  being BBs, who are just sitting back and sniping focusing on damage. The obvious issue here is already just that, obvious. The highest hit point, highest armor class is profiting from sitting back and sniping...

:::::
Well the problem stems from Wargaming having double standards when it comes to their own balance path.

They claim the game is supposed to be Rock-Paper-Scissors (their own words) and then contradict that very statement by adding in MM limits for only 1 ship type and not the other 2 that are a part of that RPS circle. They also contradict that design by having only one hard counter in the game (radar).

Lets take realism out of the argument entirely for a moment because no-one honest with themselves wants that, I don't care what ship you prefer.
How about we discuss it as gaming in general. Which archetype (class/type/etc) is expected and supposed to be, in every other game to be at the forefront of pushes? Which archetype (class/type/etc) is expected and supposed to be the primary "capper" in a game that has capture points?

Well that would be any class that embodies the "tank". A tank in gaming is actually defined by an archetype that has the highest coded, binary attributes designed for survivability, ergo Effective Hit points.... armor....self heals... even a combination of above.

Which archetype in WoWs, embodies that? Battleships. The problem right now is that archetype embodies the combination of more than just a "tank" in gaming but other attributes never been attempted because even a partial combination is certainly overpowered on paper already. We are seeing attributes akin to ..... Burst damage....Sniper...etc

The problem this game faces, is that it is NOT being balanced in a direction based on objective fact (Statistics/metrics), nor has it been for a long time. Balance changes, unfortunately for years, have been purely on emotion constructed from vocal minorities combined with developer bias. There is no dev to playerbase honesty. Unfortunately, accurate statistics, or rather the ability to filter out bias and skew, is not simple for everyone nor is it an obvious requirement... when it is most certainly a requirement. To simplify... If say a new USN CL was released... and it showed to be over performing in the first month according to the obvious server statistics, but still suffered from a small sample size. Is this justification for a nerf? What about if there are lots of forum threads complaining about it being overpowered? Nope. It is not. You see there are far more complexities to statistics and how they relate to something overperforming/underperforming objectively.

How about we take a look at one statistic alone that is actually reflected of something objectively overperforming?  Battleship accuracy.
If you take a look at any T10 BB server statistic for MBH which is "Main battery hit rate", and compare it to the MBH to T10 cruisers... see the difference? Only a mere 5-7%.  Don't see a problem there? That is okay. I will explain it, because this is the root of all balance issues in game right now. This is the cause for the "cascade" and perpetrated by the developers own favoritism for their "cash cow" ship type. H
How about the average achievable max range for your T10 BBs compared to T10 cruisers? It is around a 6-10 KM difference. 
Would you also agree that not only in personal experience but a large sample size of evidence available that the majority of BBs, and the high tier BB meta involves "sniping" or "back camping" for the most part?  Yes. Clearly.
So why is the accuracy gap for cruisers and Battleships so small? Because Battleship accuracy is overpowered. This overperformance is reinforced by the Burst damage difference as well, which is king in PVP btw.

It doesn't matter that Cruisers have a higher RoF, the short distance to target combined with having far more access to heightened velocities (Hindy, Moskva, Zao)... the average accuracy statistics should be night and day between BBs and cruisers. This is also reinforced that the targets are generally going to be in motion. Thus this should increase the difficulty in hitting a target in relation to distance to target and as that distance increases. 

So.... how do we make the game more balanced and give DDs at the very least, a feeling of more reward for their risk? Well its not a question of taking away risk, I certainly wouldn't want that. It is a question of expected duty. If there was less reliance on "caps" and more of an expected duty for "Spotting" and "Flanking" to defeat the very archetype they are ***MEANT** to counter (See Rock-Paper-Scissors).... well...the reward is already there.

If you nerf Battleship accuracy by a large amount, even if you buff them against fires at the same time, you will inherently shift the meta and the path of least resistance for your average BB player. No longer will it be efficient, no longer will it be profitable to back camp, nor snipe from long ranges. No longer will they see the damage and kills pile up from simply sitting at ranges where only opposing players of the same archetype have any chance of real retaliation. They will now be forced to play more aggressive. Which also means cruiser players have less fear of being sniped for 50%+ Hp just for being anywhere not behind an island, from extreme ranges. Whilst this also gives DDs more of a meta shift of being able to hunt BBs at the same time performing the "spotter" role, it also gives cruisers a little more "room to play with" when it comes to the hunting of those very DDs. Such a meta shift would also give BBs a more natural protection from things like CVs... because being more aggressive..also equates to being closer to allies...which also equates to more congested AA

Edited by zarth12
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,541
[HINON]
Members
10,787 posts

So many flaws in your argument. For one you should not rely on rps an argument as that model for balance was tossed out not long after open beta. Battleships sitting and sniping from long range all game are generally going to not top the scoreboard and instead just rack up crazy ammo costs. You also do not have access to the statistical data the devs use for balance. They often say it takes at least 2 months after a ship release for the stats to settle down. 

Edited by RipNuN2
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles
3 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

So many flaws in your argument. For one you should not rely on rps an argument as that model for balance was tossed out not long after open beta. Battleships sitting and sniping from long range all game are generally going to not top the scoreboard and instead just rack up crazy ammo costs.

1.) Wargaming devs themselves stated the game is RPS in the last Q&A. So you are factually wrong there.

2.) Clearly Battleships sniping from long range are doing enough to top scoreboards otherwise their server statistics would show different. I also refer you to the hours and hours of TY/Twitch medium for more documented proof of just how easy it is the reach the tops of the scoreboards doing just that. I lastly refer you to path of least resistance. If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't do it.

So where are those flaws again?

Edited by zarth12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,536
[WORX]
Members
3,867 posts
14,967 battles

@zarth12

 

 

Just a courtesy for people who don;t have much time reading your in dept manifesto, I just dont have time to read/comprehend/evaluate and then formulate a equal response to your post. Respectfully request a summery/quick over view or your points and argument.  I thank you very much :Smile_great:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles
42 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

@zarth12

 

 

Just a courtesy for people who don;t have much time reading your in dept manifesto, I just dont have time to read/comprehend/evaluate and then formulate a equal response to your post. Respectfully request a summery/quick over view or your points and argument.  I thank you very much :Smile_great:

That may prove a little difficult but here you go.

- Devs stated in last Q&A that the game is supposed to be Rock-Paper-Scissors.
- Devs made contradictory statements to that in same Q&A by limiting DDs in MM (See limiting Rock but not paper nor scissors)
- Battleship accuracy has been objectively overpowered (over-performing) for a very long time and is the root cause of most balance issues that have existed since end of 2015/start of 2016. This caused a cascade.
- Most people do not know how to discern skewed and bias statistics from objective ones, nor do they know how to filter data to remove those bias and skew, nor see the missing variables.
-For the large range difference average from BB of same tier to Cruiser of same tier, and the accuracy difficulty increase that should come with firing at longer ranges with slower shells on average, combined with BB back camp meta... the difference in Main Battery Accuracy statistics that everyone has access to should have a MUCH larger gap between BB and Cruisers. (if it was balanced)
- Battleship accuracy overperforming cascades into cruisers getting sniped for 50%+ of their hp if they do not hide behind a rock, which also made DDs "seem" uncounterable on caps, (hence radar being added when DDs were not the issue).

- Nerf BB accuracy a lot (not max range) but buff them against fires. Force the path of least resistance, and the meta for BBs to shift to a more aggressive state, which shifts cruisers to having a little more potential to hunt DDs, and releases some pressure of DDs to be the expected party for capping and instead be expected to spot AND hunt what they are meant to counter in Rock-Paper-Scissors (Battleships). Battleships being more aggressive also increases their odds of survival against CVs due to more congested AA bubbles.

( yes yes I know. Inc downvotes from White-Knights riding on WG coat-tails and BB mains)

Edited by zarth12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,634
[TASH]
Members
5,090 posts
9,545 battles

So let me get this straight.

You downvote people who are disagreeing with you.

I'm no white knight riding WG's coat-tails nor a BB main, but I find the fact you downvote people who are trying to correct your argument quite immature.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
403
[POP]
Members
1,274 posts
8,730 battles
1 hour ago, zarth12 said:

How about we take a look at one statistic alone that is actually reflected of something objectively overperforming?  Battleship accuracy.
If you take a look at any T10 BB server statistic for MBH which is "Main battery hit rate", and compare it to the MBH to T10 cruisers... see the difference? Only a mere 5-7%.  Don't see a problem there? That is okay. I will explain it, because this is the root of all balance issues in game right now. This is the cause for the "cascade" and perpetrated by the developers own favoritism for their "cash cow" ship type. H
How about the average achievable max range for your T10 BBs compared to T10 cruisers? It is around a 6-10 KM difference. 
Would you also agree that not only in personal experience but a large sample size of evidence available that the majority of BBs, and the high tier BB meta involves "sniping" or "back camping" for the most part?  Yes. Clearly.
So why is the accuracy gap for cruisers and Battleships so small? Because Battleship accuracy is overpowered. This overperformance is reinforced by the Burst damage difference as well, which is king in PVP btw.
 

This is a claim that you cannot make. 

Yes, we know the BB and cruiser MBH.

But there is a critical bit of information missing. The range at which those hits occur (actually, there's another critical bit missing too... glance vs. pen). 

Your assumption than all fire is at max or nearly max range (or even average range across all lines) is completely unsupportable. One battleship brawling at close range will completely skew the MBH percentage. For example, if your methodology was true, then I should have the same MBH in my T8 BBs. But I don't. My North Carolina has 25% and my Bismark is 30%. A limited sample to be sure, but why is the Bismark so much higher? 

One clue may be in survival rate. Because in that stat, the Bis and the NC are completely opposite with 25% and 30% respectively. 

What that implies is that I tend to push harder with the Bismark, get closer and thus get more hits with the main guns (and, of course, allowing secondaries to fire, which is a non-issue on the NC). 

The other issues is that of glancing shots. As far as I'm aware (and provide evidence if I am wrong), glancing shots are not counted as a hit. They aren't counted as ribbons for sure. That means, that a cruiser likely gets many more physical impacts, but, depending on the target, many more of those impacts don't actually do any damage. Considering how many glancing shots I get when firing AP in the Baltimore, I would suspect that I could add another 5-10% to the MBH if you count glances... and for the purposes of accuracy, you have to count them. They are hits, just not damaging ones. 

Now, as it happens, I agree with you that BBs should be more involved in pushing. I think that BBs should be tanking, protecting the lighter ships... or at least being able to get more hits at closer ranges while enemy ships light up the cruisers with them.

But I totally disagree that you can use MBH to support your assertion without a lot of caveats and significantly more data. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
484 posts
2,928 battles

If this game is RPS, then muh CVs are the cave trolls with massive wooden clubs that damage all but a few ships and their immediate vicinity. By the way, radar is as much a hard counter as HE is, there is as much counterplay to radar as HE (baiting radar, quick escape, and DC and heal timing and pointing damage saturated ship portions towards the enemy), and I am fine with the reds camping when I am in a CA, as they are XP piñatas. You also overestimate the camping BB problem, most BBs on the NA servers push when they feel safe, and others do to terrorize the enemies, but that requires no triple torpedoboat divisions waiting for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,851
[SBS]
Members
3,982 posts
2,408 battles

I tend to agree with your overall assessment.  To me, the root cause of game imbalance is BBs are low risk, high reward ships, where as the other ships are high risk and at best equal rewards.  I don't object to that per se.  I think its fine if BBs are easier to play as long as it doesn't come at too high of cost for the other ship types.   WG hasn't done a good job on that particular balance.  That's where we agree.

There are a couple of points I'm not sure I agree with.

32 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

1.) Wargaming devs themselves stated the game is RPS in the last Q&A. So you are factually wrong there.

Actually, its the WG devs that are closer to being wrong.  The game is not RPS, certainly not in a strict sense.  I don't believe the devs mean RPS in the strict sense.  In fact, I think they mean RPS in the loosest sense.  I also believe there are translation issues and possibly problems with the devs articulating their true meaning because English isn't their first langue. 

26 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

- Devs made contradictory statements to that in same Q&A by limiting DDs in MM (See limiting Rock but not paper nor scissors)

The idea that you can't limit one class/type in a RPS is flawed because it assumes there would need to be a 1 to 1 ratio for proper balance.  With balance being subjective we certainly can't assign any given ratio as being correct/proper for game balance.    

41 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

- Nerf BB accuracy a lot (not max range)...

 That's only one possible solution.  It wouldn't be popular so it might be good to think of other ways to achieve the same outcome.  In the other thread I suggested using XP to help shape the meta.  Reduce XP for actions far from the objectives.  Increase XP the closer you get to objectives.  I'm not saying my idea is better, I am looking for ways to address balance that might be more palatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[ARRGG]
Members
4,863 posts
8,168 battles
1 hour ago, zarth12 said:

This was in response I had in another thread where many players were discussing their issue with how there is a noticeable imbalance between expectations, and the reward to go with the risk of playing a DD as it is "expected". (like spotting AND capping). I received a few PMs suggesting I make it into a thread itself. It was noted by many that focusing on objectives, and winning took exponentially more effort to net them anywhere near equal rewards as other players of different ships, main perpetrator  being BBs, who are just sitting back and sniping focusing on damage. The obvious issue here is already just that, obvious. The highest hit point, highest armor class is profiting from sitting back and sniping...

:::::
Well the problem stems from Wargaming having double standards when it comes to their own balance path.

They claim the game is supposed to be Rock-Paper-Scissors (their own words) and then contradict that very statement by adding in MM limits for only 1 ship type and not the other 2 that are a part of that RPS circle. They also contradict that design by having only one hard counter in the game (radar).

Lets take realism out of the argument entirely for a moment because no-one honest with themselves wants that, I don't care what ship you prefer.
How about we discuss it as gaming in general. Which archetype (class/type/etc) is expected and supposed to be, in every other game to be at the forefront of pushes? Which archetype (class/type/etc) is expected and supposed to be the primary "capper" in a game that has capture points?

Well that would be any class that embodies the "tank". A tank in gaming is actually defined by an archetype that has the highest coded, binary attributes designed for survivability, ergo Effective Hit points.... armor....self heals... even a combination of above.

Which archetype in WoWs, embodies that? Battleships. The problem right now is that archetype embodies the combination of more than just a "tank" in gaming but other attributes never been attempted because even a partial combination is certainly overpowered on paper already. We are seeing attributes akin to ..... Burst damage....Sniper...etc

The problem this game faces, is that it is NOT being balanced in a direction based on objective fact (Statistics/metrics), nor has it been for a long time. Balance changes, unfortunately for years, have been purely on emotion constructed from vocal minorities combined with developer bias. There is no dev to playerbase honesty. Unfortunately, accurate statistics, or rather the ability to filter out bias and skew, is not simple for everyone nor is it an obvious requirement... when it is most certainly a requirement. To simplify... If say a new USN CL was released... and it showed to be over performing in the first month according to the obvious server statistics, but still suffered from a small sample size. Is this justification for a nerf? What about if there are lots of forum threads complaining about it being overpowered? Nope. It is not. You see there are far more complexities to statistics and how they relate to something overperforming/underperforming objectively.

How about we take a look at one statistic alone that is actually reflected of something objectively overperforming?  Battleship accuracy.
If you take a look at any T10 BB server statistic for MBH which is "Main battery hit rate", and compare it to the MBH to T10 cruisers... see the difference? Only a mere 5-7%.  Don't see a problem there? That is okay. I will explain it, because this is the root of all balance issues in game right now. This is the cause for the "cascade" and perpetrated by the developers own favoritism for their "cash cow" ship type. H
How about the average achievable max range for your T10 BBs compared to T10 cruisers? It is around a 6-10 KM difference. 
Would you also agree that not only in personal experience but a large sample size of evidence available that the majority of BBs, and the high tier BB meta involves "sniping" or "back camping" for the most part?  Yes. Clearly.
So why is the accuracy gap for cruisers and Battleships so small? Because Battleship accuracy is overpowered. This overperformance is reinforced by the Burst damage difference as well, which is king in PVP btw.

It doesn't matter that Cruisers have a higher RoF, the short distance to target combined with having far more access to heightened velocities (Hindy, Moskva, Zao)... the average accuracy statistics should be night and day between BBs and cruisers. This is also reinforced that the targets are generally going to be in motion. Thus this should increase the difficulty in hitting a target in relation to distance to target and as that distance increases. 

So.... how do we make the game more balanced and give DDs at the very least, a feeling of more reward for their risk? Well its not a question of taking away risk, I certainly wouldn't want that. It is a question of expected duty. If there was less reliance on "caps" and more of an expected duty for "Spotting" and "Flanking" to defeat the very archetype they are ***MEANT** to counter (See Rock-Paper-Scissors).... well...the reward is already there.

If you nerf Battleship accuracy by a large amount, even if you buff them against fires at the same time, you will inherently shift the meta and the path of least resistance for your average BB player. No longer will it be efficient, no longer will it be profitable to back camp, nor snipe from long ranges. No longer will they see the damage and kills pile up from simply sitting at ranges where only opposing players of the same archetype have any chance of real retaliation. They will now be forced to play more aggressive. Which also means cruiser players have less fear of being sniped for 50%+ Hp just for being anywhere not behind an island, from extreme ranges. Whilst this also gives DDs more of a meta shift of being able to hunt BBs at the same time performing the "spotter" role, it also gives cruisers a little more "room to play with" when it comes to the hunting of those very DDs. Such a meta shift would also give BBs a more natural protection from things like CVs... because being more aggressive..also equates to being closer to allies...which also equates to more congested AA

If let’s say a Cruiser is using the hack WASD when fired upon by a B.B. at 21 k, most likely you’ll get a miss or minimal damage , why? Because I suspect the game algorithm says so, on the flip side if sailing straight broadside  no evasive maneuvers the Cruiser will take serious damage Or deleted  there are in game counters that I see many players do not use, some of these counters takes teamwork, If I cap right away in my Panasian DD I need support because my deep water Torps do not work on DDs and more often than not I get into a knife fight in cap the team  fails to rerturn  fire and I’m sunk ... balance is not a simple thing you have to work at it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,536
[WORX]
Members
3,867 posts
14,967 battles
39 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

Devs stated in last Q&A that the game is supposed to be Rock-Paper-Scissors.
- Devs made contradictory statements to that in same Q&A by limiting DDs in MM (See limiting Rock but not paper nor scissors)

They do run the game I mean their opinion changes very often, nothing we can do there really

41 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

Battleship accuracy has been objectively overpowered (over-performing) for a very long time and is the root cause of most balance issues that have existed since end of 2015/start of 2016. This caused a cascade.

Nice History of screw ups and I agree with you

42 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

- Most people do not know how to discern skewed and bias statistics from objective ones, nor do they know how to filter data to remove those bias and skew, nor see the missing variables.

Nothing you can do there, I mean its all about how it "feels" rather then whats actually there. For example: the majority are predicting the game is going to be broken with the new IJN DD Asashio. I would argue with facts their lobbying for any type of relief (your rock-paper-scissors analogy) has really thrown balance off between the relationship of the ship classes.

 

47 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

For the large range difference average from BB of same tier to Cruiser of same tier, and the accuracy difficulty increase that should come with firing at longer ranges with slower shells on average, combined with BB back camp meta... the difference in Main Battery Accuracy statistics that everyone has access to should have a MUCH larger gap between BB and Cruisers. (if it was balanced)
- Battleship accuracy overperforming cascades into cruisers getting sniped for 50%+ of their hp if they do not hide behind a rock, which also made DDs "seem" uncounterable on caps, (hence radar being added when DDs were not the issue).

That is a balance issue, I agree on the over performing part. I think its more unbalanced at tier X. It all comes down to how the data/stats are interpreted or even if they are even looking at the stats for all servers or just RU. Radar has been a DMG to the game in a sense, the jobs of cruisers has be given to the BBs especially in the high tiers. What ends up happening is what you stated a reduced option for cruiser players 

56 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

- Nerf BB accuracy a lot (not max range) but buff them against fires

NO NO NO Bad Idea I disagree and agree. I agree in the BB accuracy however, I disagree in BUFFING them against fires. I would argue Arsonist is a hard skill to achieve behind liquidator. The only reason why its remotely possible was the NURF to damage control and the insane HP heal of the Brits. I do advocate a return back to basics, what do that mean ? A more defined and set role for each class ships, that means a BB should not do a cruisers job by say having radar. IF we can achieve those principles back I think this game can improve. But then my question to you @zarth12

Where do we go from here ?

Well I added my view points and I thank you for the condensed version of the Manifesto. Let me know what you think... Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles
32 minutes ago, OgreMkV said:

This is a claim that you cannot make. 

Yes, we know the BB and cruiser MBH.

But there is a critical bit of information missing. The range at which those hits occur (actually, there's another critical bit missing too... glance vs. pen). 

Your assumption than all fire is at max or nearly max range (or even average range across all lines) is completely unsupportable. One battleship brawling at close range will completely skew the MBH percentage. For example, if your methodology was true, then I should have the same MBH in my T8 BBs. But I don't. My North Carolina has 25% and my Bismark is 30%. A limited sample to be sure, but why is the Bismark so much higher? 

One clue may be in survival rate. Because in that stat, the Bis and the NC are completely opposite with 25% and 30% respectively. 

What that implies is that I tend to push harder with the Bismark, get closer and thus get more hits with the main guns (and, of course, allowing secondaries to fire, which is a non-issue on the NC). 

The other issues is that of glancing shots. As far as I'm aware (and provide evidence if I am wrong), glancing shots are not counted as a hit. They aren't counted as ribbons for sure. That means, that a cruiser likely gets many more physical impacts, but, depending on the target, many more of those impacts don't actually do any damage. Considering how many glancing shots I get when firing AP in the Baltimore, I would suspect that I could add another 5-10% to the MBH if you count glances... and for the purposes of accuracy, you have to count them. They are hits, just not damaging ones. 

Now, as it happens, I agree with you that BBs should be more involved in pushing. I think that BBs should be tanking, protecting the lighter ships... or at least being able to get more hits at closer ranges while enemy ships light up the cruisers with them.

But I totally disagree that you can use MBH to support your assertion without a lot of caveats and significantly more data. 

It is a claim that can most certainly be made. There is evidence supporting it.

- hours and hours of YT/Twitch showcasing the majority of play for BBs. Which includes evidence of not just the recorder, but all BBs in the match and their relative positioning.
- Paper stats, Range limitations.
- Glance vs pen are meaningless. A hit is a hit. The claim was **Accuracy**

Just as you are trying to downplay and claim I am *assuming* all fire from battleships as at max range, it is actually you that are using flawed reasoning. Just as any relative shots taken less than that max range, it can just as easily be correlated that those same shots taken from a cruiser... are also bein taken from the same difference percentage of their own max range.

Too many logical fallacies to count. I will not respond to the rest of your post as it is a Red herring, and moving the goal posts. Not even on topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles
30 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I tend to agree with your overall assessment.  To me, the root cause of game imbalance is BBs are low risk, high reward ships, where as the other ships are high risk and at best equal rewards.  I don't object to that per se.  I think its fine if BBs are easier to play as long as it doesn't come at too high of cost for the other ship types.   WG hasn't done a good job on that particular balance.  That's where we agree.

There are a couple of points I'm not sure I agree with.

Actually, its the WG devs that are closer to being wrong.  The game is not RPS, certainly not in a strict sense.  I don't believe the devs mean RPS in the strict sense.  In fact, I think they mean RPS in the loosest sense.  I also believe there are translation issues and possibly problems with the devs articulating their true meaning because English isn't their first langue. 

The idea that you can't limit one class/type in a RPS is flawed because it assumes there would need to be a 1 to 1 ratio for proper balance.  With balance being subjective we certainly can't assign any given ratio as being correct/proper for game balance.    

 That's only one possible solution.  It wouldn't be popular so it might be good to think of other ways to achieve the same outcome.  In the other thread I suggested using XP to help shape the meta.  Reduce XP for actions far from the objectives.  Increase XP the closer you get to objectives.  I'm not saying my idea is better, I am looking for ways to address balance that might be more palatable.

1.) These are the devs own statement on what they "claim" the balance path is supposed to be. They clearly stated in exact wording, "Rock-Paper-Scissors". Not my words, the devs. It is very, very difficult to miss-translate something like that, I am talking about 1 in a million chance.

2.)  Incorrect. First off balance is NOT subjective. Balance and evidence of such can be ascertained by objective evidence, ergo objective fact. Subjective equates to emotion, and baseless whining is in that realm. You cannot limit any one class/type in Rock Paper Scissors, otherwise it is not Rock-Paper-Scissors.     If there is ***actual*** objective evidence showing that a single class/type is over performing in a way that would suggest a limit is needed, then the solution in said environment would be to either nerf said class/type or buff its direct counter. Speaking of which, I wonder why the lower populated ship type/ ship type with less matches played is getting limited and not the overpopulated cash cow BBs?

3.) Wrong again. That line of thinking is why the game is in the predicament it is in. " Lets add Radar because DDs are free-roaming because Battleship accuracy is overpowered since we just buffed it and cruisers are getting slaughtered". That is an "alternative" solution for you.  My solution targets the root cause. It removes that dev favoritism and double standard.

 

Edited by zarth12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles
19 minutes ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

If let’s say a Cruiser is using the hack WASD when fired upon by a B.B. at 21 k, most likely you’ll get a miss or minimal damage , why? Because I suspect the game algorithm says so, on the flip side if sailing straight broadside  no evasive maneuvers the Cruiser will take serious damage Or deleted  there are in game counters that I see many players do not use, some of these counters takes teamwork, If I cap right away in my Panasian DD I need support because my deep water Torps do not work on DDs and more often than not I get into a knife fight in cap the team  fails to rerturn  fire and I’m sunk ... balance is not a simple thing you have to work at it

A.) there is no "algorithm" like you say, there is no "dodge" dice roll like some RPGs.

B.) The theory and experienced noted is subjective. I base my OP on the objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles
17 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

They do run the game I mean their opinion changes very often, nothing we can do there really

Nice History of screw ups and I agree with you

Nothing you can do there, I mean its all about how it "feels" rather then whats actually there. For example: the majority are predicting the game is going to be broken with the new IJN DD Asashio. I would argue with facts their lobbying for any type of relief (your rock-paper-scissors analogy) has really thrown balance off between the relationship of the ship classes.

 

That is a balance issue, I agree on the over performing part. I think its more unbalanced at tier X. It all comes down to how the data/stats are interpreted or even if they are even looking at the stats for all servers or just RU. Radar has been a DMG to the game in a sense, the jobs of cruisers has be given to the BBs especially in the high tiers. What ends up happening is what you stated a reduced option for cruiser players 

NO NO NO Bad Idea I disagree and agree. I agree in the BB accuracy however, I disagree in BUFFING them against fires. I would argue Arsonist is a hard skill to achieve behind liquidator. The only reason why its remotely possible was the NURF to damage control and the insane HP heal of the Brits. I do advocate a return back to basics, what do that mean ? A more defined and set role for each class ships, that means a BB should not do a cruisers job by say having radar. IF we can achieve those principles back I think this game can improve. But then my question to you @zarth12

Where do we go from here ?

Well I added my view points and I thank you for the condensed version of the Manifesto. Let me know what you think... Cheers!

1.) Exactly, regarding the hype train and vocal minority. We need the game to be balanced on factual data, minus the skew and bias... and less dev favoritism. They can only make so many premium BBs, and tech tree ones. The short term cash cow is nothing compared to a long lasting stable game.

2.) Yes, at lower tiers the issue is less apparent because of the much lower max range, and range difference between the ship types is also a smaller gap

3.) The reason for buffing fires is to reiterate the Rock-Paper-Scissors environment. At the moment, Battleships will claim that if they do push up (with my accuracy nerf), they will get burned down by 5 cruisers who don't really have to use skillful aim. Well both sides of that have a justification. For one, any ship getting focused by 3 or more should go down in seconds, I don't care. At the same time, if we are going cut out the double-standards, we have to stay true to it otherwise risk being a hypocrite ourselves. Thus making BBs a little tankier against the ship type they are **supposed to** counter, makes perfect sense, especially since we are talking about taking away just about all of their snipe potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
403
[POP]
Members
1,274 posts
8,730 battles
15 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

It is a claim that can most certainly be made. There is evidence supporting it.

- hours and hours of YT/Twitch showcasing the majority of play for BBs. Which includes evidence of not just the recorder, but all BBs in the match and their relative positioning.
- Paper stats, Range limitations.
- Glance vs pen are meaningless. A hit is a hit. The claim was **Accuracy**

Just as you are trying to downplay and claim I am *assuming* all fire from battleships as at max range, it is actually you that are using flawed reasoning. Just as any relative shots taken less than that max range, it can just as easily be correlated that those same shots taken from a cruiser... are also bein taken from the same difference percentage of their own max range.

Too many logical fallacies to count. I will not respond to the rest of your post as it is a Red herring, and moving the goal posts. Not even on topic

Um... wow.

In other words, you are perfectly happy using flawed reasoning, ignoring relevant data, and a conclusion that is sketchy at best.

And you attack those that point out these issues. 

"- hours and hours of YT/Twitch showcasing the majority of play for BBs. Which includes evidence of not just the recorder, but all BBs in the match and their relative positioning."
OK, good. let's see the statistical analysis of this data, broken out by range groups, say 1-5km, 5-10 km, 10-15km, 15-20km, and 20+ km. 

"- Paper stats, Range limitations."
Try again. Make it meaningful this time. 

"- Glance vs pen are meaningless. A hit is a hit. The claim was **Accuracy**"
Which is EXACTLY what I said. However, you have to provide evidence that the stat MBH includes glances. It may and may not. My statement was both a statement and a question. If MBH includes glances, then you're good. But I don't think that it does because of the reasons I listed. If it does not, then the entire MBH percentage when discussing accuracy is completely meaningless. 

"ust as you are trying to downplay and claim I am *assuming* all fire from battleships as at max range"
Nope. I am using exactly what you said. "How about the average achievable max range for your T10 BBs compared to T10 cruisers? It is around a 6-10 KM difference. "

As to the rest, you don't see to know what a logical fallacy is, nor what a red herring is. As for moving goal posts... that's a fallacy that YOU would do when one of your arguments is defeated. The person you're arguing with cannot "move the goalposts". 


So, try again, without the insults and try actually reading what people wrote for understanding and then providing evidence to support your claims. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,370
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles

Inevitably this thread will get locked like all the others. Deservedly so.

 

How long will it go before the hammer falls I wonder... my guess is 8 pages. Any takers?

Edited by Kombat_W0MBAT
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,541
[HINON]
Members
10,787 posts
14 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

Inevitably this thread will get locked like all the others. Deservedly so.

 

How long will it go before the hammer falls I wonder... my guess is 8 pages. Any takers?

 

Hmm maybe 5. WG's office is 2 timezones earlier now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles
33 minutes ago, OgreMkV said:

Um... wow.

In other words, you are perfectly happy using flawed reasoning, ignoring relevant data, and a conclusion that is sketchy at best.

And you attack those that point out these issues. 

"- hours and hours of YT/Twitch showcasing the majority of play for BBs. Which includes evidence of not just the recorder, but all BBs in the match and their relative positioning."
OK, good. let's see the statistical analysis of this data, broken out by range groups, say 1-5km, 5-10 km, 10-15km, 15-20km, and 20+ km. 

"- Paper stats, Range limitations."
Try again. Make it meaningful this time. 

"- Glance vs pen are meaningless. A hit is a hit. The claim was **Accuracy**"
Which is EXACTLY what I said. However, you have to provide evidence that the stat MBH includes glances. It may and may not. My statement was both a statement and a question. If MBH includes glances, then you're good. But I don't think that it does because of the reasons I listed. If it does not, then the entire MBH percentage when discussing accuracy is completely meaningless. 

"ust as you are trying to downplay and claim I am *assuming* all fire from battleships as at max range"
Nope. I am using exactly what you said. "How about the average achievable max range for your T10 BBs compared to T10 cruisers? It is around a 6-10 KM difference. "

As to the rest, you don't see to know what a logical fallacy is, nor what a red herring is. As for moving goal posts... that's a fallacy that YOU would do when one of your arguments is defeated. The person you're arguing with cannot "move the goalposts". 


So, try again, without the insults and try actually reading what people wrote for understanding and then providing evidence to support your claims. 

 

- You have yet to point out any flawed reasoning. You have yet to point out any relevant data. The only thing you have managed to express is an attitude directly attributed to the definition of "troll". Which by the way is against forum rules.

- You also failed to point out any "attack", quoted or otherwise. Refuting =/= attacking. Welcome to debate.  So now you have stooped to putting words in my mouth which relates to the defined above.

- Claims I ignore data, but does the same. Reiterating the "troll" definition above.

- MBH counts all hits. It is hit ratio. Hit ratio is defined by hits vs total shots fired. It is binary.

- Again, It really isn't that difficult to comprehend.   Just as you can argue, albeit in a way that makes YOU look benighted to statistical averages, that the statistics include shots taken from short range as well.... so does the statistics include shots in the same way for other ship types used in comparison. In retrospect, obviously the MBH stat for BBs includes shots, in its large sample size, taken from close range. Even point blank range. Are those the majority, obviously not. So does the same with cruisers (sample size includes close range shots as well), whos MBH stat was used as comparison to showcase the imbalance due to a gap not being a large as it should be in relation.

Edited by zarth12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles
3 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

 

Hmm maybe 5. WG's office is 2 timezones earlier now.

Spoken true like two individuals who are showcase inability to actual debate much less argue in any intellectual way. Perhaps my ignore list will increase today.

Edited by zarth12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,370
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles
4 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

Hmm maybe 5. WG's office is 2 timezones earlier now.

OP's antics are old and boring. The only reason this thread won't die a natural death is because he'll continue beating it like the dead horse it is. 

 

1 minute ago, zarth12 said:

Spoken true like two individuals who are showcase inability to actual debate much less argue in any intellectual way. Perhaps my ignore list will increase today.

Come on now, you're not even being original. You can do better than that. 

And I'll believe that you've put me on your ignore list when you stop responding to me. Until then, your "threats" will have as much merit as everything else you spew on this forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
403
[POP]
Members
1,274 posts
8,730 battles
1 minute ago, zarth12 said:

- You have yet to point out any flawed reasoning. You have yet to point out any relevant data. The only thing you have managed to express is an attitude directly attributed to the definition of "troll". Which by the way is against forum rules.

- You also failed to point out any "attack", quoted or otherwise. Refuting =/= attacking. Welcome to debate.  So now you have stooped to putting words in my mouth which relates to the defined above.

- Claims I ignore data, but does the same. Reiterating the "troll" definition above.

- MBH counts all hits. It is hit ratio. Hit ratio is defined by hits vs total shots fired. It is binary.

-

Sigh... so you have no idea what I'm talking about. You aren't interested in a statistical analysis of any claimed actual data. And you cannot provide evidence that the metric you are using does what you think it does. 

1) You made a statement. I used that statement in my argument. You have yet to refute that statement or explain it further. 
2) I have specifically requested the data that you claimed to have. That data, BTW, would fully support or refute your argument, if...
3) The MBH percentage is what you say it is. I have made this statement very clear twice now. IF MBH is what you think it is, then you have some evidence to support your claim. IF it is not what you think it is, then it's a meaningless data point. You have yet to provide the evidence that I requested (twice now) to support your interpretation of MBH. Saying it's so again and again doesn't make it so. 

I can only assume you are making judgements based on qualitative observations since there is no quantitative data nor analysis in your discussion. 

What's hilarious about all is that I bloody agree with you to your main point. But I know, for a fact, that you cannot make a STATISTICAL claim like you have without proper evidence. Maybe you have that evidence, but since I've asked for it several times and you have done nothing but insult me, I can only assume you don't have that evidence. 

Since you need to spend some time looking up logical fallacies and not just throwing words about, I would also suggest you look up "troll". Hint, it's not someone who disagrees with you and asks for evidence of your claim, despite what you seem to think. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
403
[POP]
Members
1,274 posts
8,730 battles
9 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

Spoken true like two individuals who are showcase inability to actual debate much less argue in any intellectual way. Perhaps my ignore list will increase today.

I really hope that it does.

Then we'll have some more evidence about you ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
567 posts
80 battles

Even if you nerfed accuracy, I'd still snipe. I don't get hit by endless walls of torps because 3/4 of every match has 4+ DD's per side. I will also snipe for the same reason a stay at max range in my cruisers and snipe, and the same reason in Skyrim I played a fireball throwing archer / mage: perspective 

The further back you are, the wider your peripheral vision of the battlefield and the more information you can consume about the current state of the battle. This information is critical in making tactical decisions and forecasting. Which in a BB is more important than any other ship type because of their limited speed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,676 battles
40 minutes ago, OgreMkV said:

Sigh... so you have no idea what I'm talking about. You aren't interested in a statistical analysis of any claimed actual data. And you cannot provide evidence that the metric you are using does what you think it does. 

1) You made a statement. I used that statement in my argument. You have yet to refute that statement or explain it further. 
2) I have specifically requested the data that you claimed to have. That data, BTW, would fully support or refute your argument, if...
3) The MBH percentage is what you say it is. I have made this statement very clear twice now. IF MBH is what you think it is, then you have some evidence to support your claim. IF it is not what you think it is, then it's a meaningless data point. You have yet to provide the evidence that I requested (twice now) to support your interpretation of MBH. Saying it's so again and again doesn't make it so. 

I can only assume you are making judgements based on qualitative observations since there is no quantitative data nor analysis in your discussion. 

What's hilarious about all is that I bloody agree with you to your main point. But I know, for a fact, that you cannot make a STATISTICAL claim like you have without proper evidence. Maybe you have that evidence, but since I've asked for it several times and you have done nothing but insult me, I can only assume you don't have that evidence. 

Since you need to spend some time looking up logical fallacies and not just throwing words about, I would also suggest you look up "troll". Hint, it's not someone who disagrees with you and asks for evidence of your claim, despite what you seem to think. 
 

lol... So trolling it is.

I will leave you with this:

Source Cited: https://na.warships.today/vehicles
See MBH between BB and Cruiser at relative tier

Source Citedhttp://www.wowstats.org/ships/
average are a little different due to some sample size difference
Using leaderboards of each site. Accurate averages were achieved showing an even smaller gap in MBH (even larger imbalance) by removing skew and outliers, Ie: players will <50 Battles per ship, and players with a <50% solo play rate. Data was taken using large sample sizes from top and bottom.



Source Cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier
Source Cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness
Source Cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)
Source Cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination

 

Source Cited: http://wowsft.com/shipStatComparison
Comparing accurate ship statistics, including sigma, dispersion, and dispersion per m/km and plot a line comparison for the data set. Set: Shot average@km variance.
EX: (YAM) 0km <I----I---I---------II-I-----------II-----IIIIII-----II----III--IIIIIII---III>26.63km   <vs> (ZAO) 0km <I--III-----III-----III-----IIII---IIIIIIIII--I--III-I>16.23km
 




and... why you are now ignored.

Source Cited: Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity
Source Cited: Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
Source Cited: Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position
Source Cited: Proving too much – using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used to reach an additional, undesirable conclusion
Source Cited: Special pleading – a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
Source Cited: Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument.
Source Cited: Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Source Cited: Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.
Source Cited: Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous

 

 

Have a wonderful day sir,
<mic drop>

 

Edited by zarth12
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×