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

Helpful Knowledge for the Community and WG

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles

WARNING VERY LONG READ
WARNING VERY LONG READ
WARNING VERY LONG READ


This will be organized with spoilers and a summarizing title above the Spoiler for organization. The primary topic of this discussion is balance, and education both the community and Wargaming themselves in how to better the game, and in a way appeal to better sensibility. Hopefully this will spark some objectivity as the game desperately needs it. I will also include some links to cite my sources at the bottom for anything that needs to satisfy the burden of proof. I know this thread will upset many, but my only suggestion is to keep emotion out of it and try to gain some knowledge. Just as you can better yourself in the game by gaining knowledge and experience, you can do so here as well.



-PREFACE-

Spoiler

This thread is to address the balance issues that plague this game. WG most certainly does a great job pumping out content, with beautiful models and effects. Even the CV rework is visually “pretty”, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. They certainly get an “A” grade in that department. In the balance department, unfortunately they get an “F-“. From making changes completely opposite any logical conclusion that can be drawn from performance data, to nerfing certain ships game-wide simply because they perform well in CB, and then not even touching what makes them excel in CB. It has been going on for years, and the bias is certainly obvious. I am not sure what it is going to take, but it is usually not a good sign when your arcade game has LOWER population than some hardcore military simulation games on Steam made by much smaller studios. That automatically makes the “but but Warships niche” excuse worthless. This game could obviously be so much better. As someone who plays all ship types, a large whale, I want the game to succeed. I want balance, absent the bias, absent the favouritism from powers that be. That includes the equal viability of ALL ships and ship types. You simply cannot balance simply based on the claims of the vocal minority. Humans are just that, Human. There is no device attached to our brain that forces honesty, objectivity. Let the data do that for you, and learn how data analytics work, including the fundamentals of statistics. Don’t claim to balance based on the data, data we clearly have access to, and then make changes opposite to what that data tells us. We are your customers.

 

 

 

-STATISTICS AND BALANCE MEASUREMENTS-
 

Spoiler

First I am going to start off with a little lesson. I believe most in this community are not knowledgeable, but there are some that desire to be. Most probably even look at server metrics and don’t even understand really what they are looking at, so they take it at face value. A good example of this are the same individuals that claim that balance conclusions can be drawn from Win rate. “X ship has high win rate thus it must be overpowered” and vice versa. This is simply admitting that they have no understanding of what they speak.

Win Rate is not a performance metric, therefore you cannot make balance conclusions based on it. There are mass amounts of unquantifiable (maybe NASA super computer can) dependencies for WR and each of their weight alone is unknown. The ability of the specific variable in question (EX: the specific ship), is actually less than average in how much weight in has on the outcome (Win/Loss). This is partially due to lack of controlled environment (No Skill based/SWAP MM). Something else that decreases this weight is the more different variables that exist in the same action time. Where as a large sample of 1v1 battles involving the specific ship type would offer a Win Rate that was more weighted with the actual balance of the ship, the each player that exists above 1v1 that exist in each sample decrease the weight of that specific ships balance.
  Correlation does not equal causation. You cannot name a single game with a single patch note that claims “We nerfed/buff Win rate directly by X amount”. That is because it is not directly indicative of performance, unlike the metric of which represents the very attribute/mechanic that gets changed. Inversely, If you say nerf Asashio’s guns for example, there is nothing to support that it’s win rate would change even though you DID nerf it’s performance. Lastly here, *cough* Wargaming, you cannot balance simply based on internal performance within a ship type. There is no primary game mode where DDs ONLY face other DDs, CA face ONLY CAs, and BBs face ONLY BBs.

There will always be the “best” DD, just as there will always be the “best” Cruiser, just as there will always be the “Fastest swimmer”.
  Say if CVs were showing as performing 10-20% under the median range for balance AKA underpowered (just an example), and of those CVs the Hakuryu is the CV underperforming by 10%. It is the top performing CV? Yes, but it is still factually underpowered. It is still performing 10% below the range for balance. Well now if you take that previous statement and replace “CVs” with “DDs” and replace “Hakuryu” with “Yue  Yang” … you now have an accurate representation of just another example of making a change for the sake of “balance” and those making said changes not even understanding what “balance” is and how it is determined.
One more good example is balancing an entire ship type/class for the sake of a single game mode. If a ship is performing well in say, “Clan Battles”, but not the rest of the game, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the incorrect action to take is nerf that Ship type/Class UNLESS it involves nerfing specifically what makes it perform so well in “Clan Battles” at the same time you compensate it with a BUFF in another area so that it doesn’t become weak in the modes where it wasn’t overpowered.


 



-BALANCE MODELS AND DOUBLE STANDARDS-

Spoiler

In PVP gaming, to create or even determine balance you first have to have the guidelines of what and how the interactions take place. This is what is called the "Balance Model”. There are many forms of balance models. There is Rock-Paper-Scissors. This is the model the game was marketed on, originally designed to be, and still has elements of. WG even made a video about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n8LKx59p6E

 

Rock-Paper-Scissors is not some direct mirror or to be taken into some direct literal translation of the game that you play with your hands. Rock-Paper-Scissors can just as well be made up of Soft Counters as it can be made up of Hard Counters. With a Soft Counter, you have a built in advantage over a specific opponent, and equal skill vs equal skill… the one with the Soft Counter will win. With a hard counter, you have a much larger advantage, to where you can and will win even with inferior skill. However this does not mean a completely automated win in PVP games. A Hard counter in a PVE environment is an automated win, but in a PVP environment, a hard counter does have a chance to still be overcome *with* a substantial skill gap. That is because a PVP environment is ever evolving, chaotic even, and less binary. With WoWs, in a Rock-Paper-Scissors model, CVs would be the odd-duck out. This means that for them to exist, they would need to (at most) soft counter all, and be soft countered by all. Where-as BBs would counter CAs, CAs would counter DDs, and DDs would counter BBs. We have counters like this in game right now, you know… the elements of RPS that still exist in game. We have things like Hydro…. Radar…. Vigilance….Spotting upgrade…even catapult plane situations. The issue is it is NOT a fluid interaction nor is it equal. Even if you completely disregard their overpowered accuracy that needs correcting, BBs have ample pen and burst damage to defeat Cruisers even, quite able of killing at least one in an outnumbered situation. Cruisers are also quite capable of defeating DDs. They have the most utility, they have Hydro, they have Radar, they for the most part have the manoeuvrability. They have the perfect combination of burst damage and DPM. Forgoing the presence of any other ships, if a Cruiser pushes into a cap where a DD is present, the Cruiser should win 9/10. With even a decent bet at winning 1 vs 2.
What about a DD? Whilst the balance model is certainly equal and there is a semblance of balance at the lower tiers, at the top tiers there is not. You have Battleships where Wargaming saw fit to completely ignore the sacrifices the lower tier BBs made for certain attributes, the same sacrifices that the Cruisers AND DDs make at the top tiers as well. You have BBs that have good enough manueverability to easily dodge torpedoes, can still take things like vigilance, and even one with access to hydro. You have BBs with the ability to pretty much one-shot DDs with HE for IMMENSELY less skill investment than it would take for that DD to land enough torps to do similar damage to that BB, and there are even a lot of DDs that won’t even one shot that same BB even if all of their torps land. BBs are still offered the same access to spotting and assured acquisition. If a BB pushes into a cap where a DD is present, again forgoing any other ships in the match, the BB still has FULL advantage. It wasn’t always this way.

 

It was certainly more balanced around launch, sure the game had other issues, but balance in this regard was NOT one of them. Since then, Wargaming has completely devalued and has seen fit to nerf, at every turn, ambush style offense. Well you have an almost entire ship type built on that style, yet did not see fit to rework nor compensate them. That is why you see that when Wargaming releases a DD that is LESS built on ambush, less reliant on ambush style killing, it actually performs well. Of course you will see a lot of people, complaining and attempting to claim that these DDs are actually overpowered. Again, that is simply because they are completely lacking knowledge necessary to make logical conclusions. If you leave a ship type underpowered for the entirety of your game’s life thus far, and start releasing new content (new ships) of that type that actually perform on equal footing with the OTHER ship types, it is going to *appear* that something is broken because you are so use to an anaemic opponent. Wargaming also instigates and actually supports this naïve and ignorant line of thinking. You saw this with the Khaba nerfs. The evidence simply supported that the Khaba was performing well in line with the OTHER ship types yet it was nerfed. Just as the Haragumo and Kita are now.

 

How about double-standards?  These are what will ultimately kill this game. These are exactly why we are in the dire situation we are in now. DDs mostly at the mercy of Cruisers, and Cruisers themselves are operating under the guidelines of the Rock-Paper-Scissors balance model. Whilst the interaction between Battleship and Cruiser is also operating in that guideline, Battleships are above reproach and void of any real counter and DD are void of a specific victim of which they hold the advantage. Rock-Paper-Scissors is really a continuous circle/triangle. Otherwise it is not rock-paper-scissors. Rock-Paper-Scissors is NOT BB>CA>DD. RPS would be BB>CA>DD>BB. How about another balance model type?  Top-Down/Flagship/Food-Chain. All names used for it. In a Top-Down balance model you have 1-2 archetypes at the top and then another below them that they feed on, and another below that one that all above feed on. The economics, progression, and MM qualities go in reverse. In WoWs, that would translate to BB+CV feeding on CA+DD. CA feeding on DD. And DD simply being support, generally prey for all.  So this is VERY similar to what we are seeing in game right now, and the data supports it, minus a few outliers.
The problem is, where are those required economic, progression, and MM qualities that go in reverse?

 

Why don’t BBs/CVs require like a million or more XP per tier (at top tiers) to research and like 50 million credits to purchase? Why doesn’t it COST a million or more credits each match in a BB/CV even when played well with premium status an all related signals/camo?  Why aren’t BBs just as MM limited as CVs?  That is not balance. That is not adhering to the guidelines, the structure of the balance model. If it was top-down, you should literally have to farm a bunch of games in a DD to be able to afford a single game in a BB/CV you own, and that is with premium status and signals and camos.






Why not stick to Rock-Paper-Scissors then shall we? It is, after all, the MOST proven and MOST successful balance model used in gaming to this date. This is an arcade game, NOT a sim. Whilst I am sure BB players and certain Cruiser players enjoy the benefits they get from a top-down system, I highly doubt they would enjoy the REQUIRED drawbacks noted above that WG has yet to implement.

Now, you will see certain people on here naively claim that DDs have weaker combat performance purposefully because they are kings of support “functionality”, or meant to cap and spot primarily. Well if this was the case, Capping would need to have a higher impact on match outcome. Kills/Deaths would need to removed from directly effecting match points, as they currently do. Even without directly effecting match points, damage and therefore killing is STILL more impactful regardless (you can’t cap/defend a cap when you are dead). Additionally, the claim that DDs are superior in this regard is also a farce because it directly relatives to combat ability anyway. If a Cruiser pushes into a cap where a DD is present, the Cruiser again… has the advantage.. AND Cruisers can still capture points. If a BB pushes into a cap where a Cruiser/DD is present.. the BB still has the advantage.. AND BBs can still capture points. So again, it is all about “having your cake and eating it too”, for the current system to even have a semblance of balance the necessary drawbacks must be implemented. If DDs are not going to have reliably combat effectiveness that equally off-sets their survival attributes and survival performance (like every other game does), then they should be the ONLY ship type that can capture points, just as caps should be the ONLY way to generate/effect match points. If All DDs are dead… well you will just have to eliminate the entire enemy team to win or wait for time-out. Sound enjoyable?

Well now that we have established how important balance models are. How about determining what is balance with those guidelines? Trends.. Statistics.. Organized into metrics or specified measurement. How would one “observe” what “good” balance looks like in WoWs with the Rock-Paper-Scissors model? Well you would have roughly all ships having pretty equal population (games played), with difficulty of ship itself (skill floor) generating slightly lower popularity. You would also have performance indicative of intended prey. All ship types should most of their power in killing their counter and a little power In countering themselves, but no more and no less in this regard. For example, if DDs are meant to counter BBs, well BBs have the HIGHEST health and armor of all ship This means DDs highest average damage per match, BBs second with Cruisers and CVs being the lowest. That is how a balanced environment would be observed.
  But then it probably begs the question of HOW does WG reach an environment where a DDs do the MOST reliable damage overall, but still be weaker against ship types with LOWER health pool and LOWER armor??? (See one possible solution in next section)

 



- DISCREPENCIES / DOUBLE STANDARDS / SOLUTIONS -
 

Spoiler

Well one of many potential answers to that question, is already present in the game. Torpedoes. Deep Water Torpedoes to be specific. If ALL DDs were essentially given two torp options. Option (1) would be very fast moving, very high damage, very stealthy, and very long range DWT similar to Asashio. Option (2) would be slow moving, easily detected, short range non-DWT torpedoes. DDs would have great torpedoes specifically designed and restricted to the killing of BBs and CVs, but still have the option to have torpedoes for killing DDs in desperation (internal countering).  One of the many reasons WHY DDs perform so poorly is not limited to their offensive capabilities being weak, but it is also that MOST of their offensive capabilities have been designed by WG to be better at killing OTHER DDs and yet are WEAK against non-DDs. If WG fixes that, it would already put the game onto a path of sensible and logical balance.

DDs countering the highest survival attribute type is going to require them to be naturally taking away all of that health and armor, BBs will be countering Cruisers which have less health and armor. Cruisers will be countering those with the least amount of health and armor, thus need the least amount of offensive capability and the MOST utility. What else is required to achieve that? How can you make BBs do less damage when they have the BIGGEST guns?
  That is simply. Accuracy. BBs have been over performing in the accuracy department since 4th quarter 2015 when an accuracy buff hit the game that was implemented in a way that disproportionately buffed BB accuracy (buff to dispersion per meter across the board and BBs have longest range). Yes if you look at paper stats, BBs most certainly have the biggest MAX dispersion and overall worst sigma. That doesn’t matter, paper stats do not matter when you have access to relative performance metrics for the entire server. What matters is dispersion per meter, and max dispersion should NEVER be taken out of context from maximum available range.

Take a look at the Yamato.
  It has a maximum dispersion of 275 meters with a max range of 26.63km. Well we know that 1 km is just 1,000 meters. Yamato has ONLY 1  meter of dispersion per 96 meters of range. How about the Hindenburg? 156 meters max dispersion for 17.8km max range. That is 1 meter of dispersion for every 114 meters of range. The difference is minimal. 16% difference dispersion per meter and yet Yamato has 32% MORE max range. Well we know Yamato has massively more penetration. How about damage potential? The Yamato has 133,200 burst damage potential in a single salvo. The Hindenburg has 70,800. Burst damage in PVP is KING, and always has been in any game. Yamato has 47% MORE burst damage potential.

Only 16% worse dispersion per meter but 32% MORE max range, immensely more penetration and 47% MORE burst damage potential. You can do this for just about every comparison between the two types.
 Conclusion:  even on paper the accuracy is overpowered…
That is why you don’t take anything at face value, and Cherry Picking is fallacious.

So BBs should be *weak* against DDs, and strong against cruisers, but not too strong in a way that generates over-performance. Soft Counters are ALWAYS a better option as it allows *SKILL* of the players to be more impactful. BBs are already designed with the attributes to keep them from dying fast to any Cruiser. Just because a DD or 2 or a Cruiser or 2 are able to “burn” down your BB in 2 minutes, you will find many in the community that benightedly claim it is the DD/Cruiser that is overpowered, but the fact that the same BB could sink that Cruiser/DD in less than 1 minute from farther range, is perfectly acceptable…….. BBs have the attributes to already require less skilful input in survival time, so they should at the very least, be forced to still *risk* something even when attacking their natural prey. A nerf to accuracy and concealment across the board for ALL BBs in the top tiers is what would solve this. BBs would have to get closer, essentially in the range to risk more return fire to achieve the same accuracy and therefore damage they do now. Since it inherently requires more risk, the effect of such would make their performance values actually BALANCE out over time.

Adhering to those Standards are important, as is adhering to all standards. Double-Standards are bad. Here are some examples of double-standards in other areas that exist in WoWs:

- Sacrifices for gains
Compared to other Cruisers:
 Minotaur has less HP and armor, a bad citadel, and shorter range FOR more concealment and fast reload.

Compared to other DDS: Khaba has less concealment, weaker turning, and weaker torps , for more EHP and armor

Compared to other Cruisers: Moskva/Kron/Stalin have less concealment, weaker turning, weaker DPM and generally bad citadel for longer range, more HP and armor.

How about Battleships? They don’t really sacrifice anything.
A Minotaur has to sacrifice a lot just to get a few km better detection range (concealment). Yet we have BBs with near to, equal to, and even better concealment than some Cruisers. They sacrifice NOTHING. There is absolutely zero logical reason why the Moskva/Stalin/Kron have WORSE concealment than ANY single BB, period. Going by the same Standard, The Moskva/Staling/Kron should have a base concealment of 16km and the Stealthiest BB (Conq) should have a base concealment of at least 17km with all other BBs even higher. That is being generous too. We need to get rid of the double-standards, the bias, the favouritism. Balancing the accuracy and concealment of BBs is NOT going to affect them too weak against their intended prey as they still have more range, more HP, more armor and MORE burst damage. If they start to fall beyond acceptable performance levels after these changes? Simply apply small buffs to their defence against fires (like a DCP buff).


 



-RISK VS REWARD VS BALANCE-
 

Spoiler

Risk vs Reward directly translates into Input vs Output.  As The risk increases, as long as the input of skill also rises, so shall the reliability of the output. In gaming where respawn mechanics are the norm, the "Reward" of this ratio equates to potential. In WoWs, and other "YOLO" environments where there is no respawn mechanic, "Reward" now equates reliability as well.

The most enjoyable and skillful game is going to be one where ALL archetypes have equal skill floor and ceiling. But you will never be able to make a game that isn't boring if everything in the game has the SAME RISK, and therefore the SAME REWARD.  Don't get confused here though. Low Risk should ALWAYS equate to Low Reward. High risk should always equate to High reward.   When Low risk generates High reward, balance is broken. When High risk generates low reward, balance is broken.
BBs and CVs are a good example of LOW risk ship types, with CVs actually being the very lowest. This rework even manages to LOWER that risk even further. Yet it fails to address that CVs are also HIGH reward. All the rework does it switch the damage model. From VERY high potential burst damage, to half sustainable damage and half burst damage.
It also makes it so RPF now functions on CVs, and the plane squadron you are currently flying (if you have RPF on your captain) will essentially give you a tracking indicator just as if you were playing a normal ship with RPF active.... except you are in a plane that goes faster than multiple ships combined and when your planes die, you can respawn them....
BBs are also HIGH reward, but we addressed that above in earlier sections multiple times already.

There is absolute NO way I can see this game having balance that exists where CVs are in the game AND made for anti-ship interactions. Either CVs will be overpowered or AA will be overpowered. It will sway like a pendulum. The ONLY way I can see balance existing is to remove the primary focus of CVs to be anti-ship, and rework the entire objective system to then be centered around CVs. Make the objective circles in matches (made for capping) be islands themselves in some fashion. Make CVs be the ONLY ship that can capture points. Greatly reduce the amount of anti-ship attack aircraft they have access to, and the power of them. Make the primary aircraft launched by a CV be some type that would make sense for capping an island (like airborne troop transport of some kind) escorted by fighters. Thus the main interaction and gameplay by CVs will primarily be capping objectives, killing the other CVs capping squadrons with your capping squadrons, and then ship AA can be made generally weak. Ships can influence the interaction by getting within AA range of these Objective islands and assisting their CV in taking the objective, or simply protecting it. This even makes more sense from a historical standpoint than these magical circles in the middle of the sea.

 



Thank You for reading. If you have any suggestions that would solve a lot of the issues brought up in this thread, they are welcome.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 8
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88
[RLGN]
Beta Testers
100 posts
1,810 battles

oh cool, what are the better options for a WW1 WW2 Naval game?

I wish someone would make a decent reboot of Harpoon.

 

Edited by Soulcaller
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[WOLF1]
Members
2,360 posts
7 minutes ago, Soulcaller said:

oh cool, what are the better options for a WW1 WW2 Naval game?

I wish someone would make a decent reboot of Harpoon.

 

Harpoon is a cool game, miss that

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,056
[WOLF1]
Members
4,006 posts
6 minutes ago, Soulcaller said:

oh cool, what are the better options for a WW1 WW2 Naval game?

I wish someone would make a decent reboot of Harpoon.

(Decent reboot of Harpoon, but not a WWI/II game, really)

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/483/details/Command:.Modern.Air.Naval.Operations.Wargame.of.the.Year.Edition

Also avail on Steam.

It's not a WWI/II game, but Harpoon wasn't, either.  

However, there are WWII scenarios around, and there's a very interesting scenario with The Final Countdown in it.  Try Nimitz + Tomcats fighting off Kido Butai.  Gets real busy, just on numbers alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88
[RLGN]
Beta Testers
100 posts
1,810 battles
7 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

(Decent reboot of Harpoon, but not a WWI/II game, really)

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/483/details/Command:.Modern.Air.Naval.Operations.Wargame.of.the.Year.Edition

Also avail on Steam.

It's not a WWI/II game, but Harpoon wasn't, either.  

However, there are WWII scenarios around, and there's a very interesting scenario with The Final Countdown in it.  Try Nimitz + Tomcats fighting off Kido Butai.  Gets real busy, just on numbers alone.

 

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
938
[UDEAD]
[UDEAD]
Beta Testers
1,219 posts
11,899 battles

Wow, I guess no one at WG, a game developer that has been raking in money for a decade now, has ever thought of any of the things you just wrote about.  I guess you believe that NONE of the development staff or coding department has ever pondered these questions or the multitude of ways to address them.  Because your  ... "basic"  analysis fo balance in this game is nothing new, it's been brought up and discarded at meetings more times than your battle count before you chose to hide your stats.

Speaking of your game experience, how many battles do you actually have in this game?  What tier ships do you play in randoms?  Have you ever played all the way to Rank 1 in a ranked battle season?  Have you ever participated in Clan Battles, possibly made it to Gale, Storm or higher?  How well do you play CV's?

Before your ideas to rebalance a game from the ground up can be taken seriously ( by myself at least )you need to show some understanding and competency at the game to have any credibility in your quest.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[UDEAD]
Supertester
118 posts
14,424 battles

Wow I read because it said helpful.... Nothing was helpful.  Im not sure if youre a bad troll or literally have no understanding of the game.  Either way you need to have the ability to play the game confidently.  Hiding stats (which you do) doenst show confidence and displays that you need to work on other things (like making yourself better) before suggesting an overall game change.  A for effort tho.  I wish this effort was put into trying to make yourself better in game instead of wasting that time you could have been playing making this forum post.  Maybe try that and you might like the results.  There I solved all of your problems for you.  Youre welcome.

-Strips 

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,056
[WOLF1]
Members
4,006 posts

Oh, another amateur game designer who took a couple courses, and now knows all there is to know...

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[UDEAD]
Beta Testers
25 posts
7,059 battles

Ah yes. Main board balance screeds that slam 1 kind of ship specifically. You know what this always sounds like?

"Dear Developer,

Right now Paper is incredibly overpowered and makes one of the other classes totally un-fun and a terrible experience. It needs to be nerfed for the good of the game. Scissors are just about right, though.

Signed, Rock."

 

Congrats. You have re-created exactly the same meritless balance whining that has existed on forums since the dawn of time. Good work.

 

PS. I play DDs more than any other class, especially in clan battles. Just wanted to forestall the inevitable "bias because you only play that class!" retort.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,795
Alpha Tester
7,112 posts
3,722 battles

Summary:

DDs are super underpowered.

Battleships are literally the devil

CVs are almost the devil.

Cruisers are almost iwin against DDs.

Evidence:

DDs don't do the most damage.

Why you can't argue:

WR is a meaningless stat only idiots use

Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

Anyone who disagrees with me, which obviously means their wrong, is clearly using this logical fallacy I just found on Wiki.

I'm totally not the troll I sound like on yet another account that sackrides DDs.

 

 

 

That about sums it up. :popcorn:

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[UDEAD]
Supertester
118 posts
14,424 battles
12 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

Summary:

DDs are super underpowered.

Battleships are literally the devil

CVs are almost the devil.

Cruisers are almost iwin against DDs.

Evidence:

DDs don't do the most damage.

Why you can't argue:

WR is a meaningless stat only idiots use

Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

Anyone who disagrees with me, which obviously means their wrong, is clearly using this logical fallacy I just found on Wiki.

I'm totally not the troll I sound like on yet another account that sackrides DDs.

 

 

 

That about sums it up. :popcorn:

I think that's what hes going for there.  You basically summed up in probably 10 seconds of typing what took him 3 hours to come up with.  Again the time he wasted coming up with this stuff could have been better used trying to better himself in game somehow.  If he just wants to float around and look at the pretty ships he should probably just move his mouse around in port or just sail by himself for hours in the training room.  Or maybe try Microsoft boat sim.  Idk.  I hate post like this because instead of bettering himself and realize hes wrong and trying to learn like the rest of us did hes of the mindset that it doesn't work for him so it must be changed.  Screw the thousands of players who get it.  No it doesn't work must be broken.  Like how do you get anywhere in life thinking that way.  That's like driving on the right side of the road and not liking it.  So you then think....  Hey, in other places they drive on the left side of the road.  So you then start driving on the left side of the road while everyone else is still driving on the right side because they do it some where else...….  This has been a short glimpse into the mind of this player.

Edited by BobbyBeushea
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,477
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
8,012 posts
6,980 battles
2 hours ago, KnyxUDL said:

Take a look at the Yamato.  It has a maximum dispersion of 275 meters with a max range of 26.63km. Well we know that 1 km is just 1,000 meters. Yamato has ONLY 1  meter of dispersion per 96 meters of range. How about the Hindenburg? 156 meters max dispersion for 17.8km max range. That is 1 meter of dispersion for every 114 meters of range. The difference is minimal. 16% difference dispersion per meter and yet Yamato has 32% MORE max range. Well we know Yamato has massively more penetration. How about damage potential? The Yamato has 133,200 burst damage potential in a single salvo. The Hindenburg has 70,800. Burst damage in PVP is KING, and always has been in any game. Yamato has 47% MORE burst damage potential.

This part here is quite telling if you ask me. You treat dispersion like it was a one dimensional stat, like range or Alpha damage. This is clearly flawed.

Accuracy of a ship is a three-dimensional stat. We got vertical dispersion, horizontal dispersion and then the deviation of the shells to land closer to the center (aka the sigma). Now calculating latter is a difficult task to do, although it is obvious that Cruisers have a better sigma than Battleships in all but a few cases, which either involve Yamato or a Cruiser with an artificially low sigma, like Graf Spee or Atlanta. We shall keep this clear accuracy difference in mind for now, and move to the dispersions.

Knowing some basic geometry, we will see that this is actually the case:

v4-728px-Calculate-the-Area-of-an-Ellips

Vertical dispersion is not included in public sources, unfortunately, but it goes without saying that an increase in both vertical and horizontal dispersion would result in a more than one dimensional increase. So say that we have this 13% more dispersion both vertically and horizontally, btw that 13% will be debunked later, we are talking a 27.7% increase in surface area in which the shells can hit.

 

Even funnier is how you appearantly do not understand how dispersion curves work. I shall leave a nice table for you here, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N3J2SIkED_rny9I8tYXrDwhZRkp3jX8eXWw8HnxiLqo/edit#gid=0

Shall we get some actually representative data? We'll be sticking to Yamato vs Hindenburg, and get horizontal dispersion difference at 2km, 10km, 15km and 20km.

Range Yamato [m] Hindenburg [m] Difference [%]
2km 98.4 46.8 52.5
10km 156 102 34.6
15km 192 136.5 28.1
20km 228 171 25

So yeah, the 13% you are trying to propagate here, it's not true.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,748
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,291 posts
1 hour ago, BobbyBeushea said:

Wow I read because it said helpful.... Nothing was helpful.  Im not sure if youre a bad troll or literally have no understanding of the game.

They're both, and also an alt-account / sockpuppet for a user who has several to get around forum bans and ignore lists.  They like to spam massive blocks of "stats" that don't support their assertions and claims, and then when called on it launch into a tirade about the other person being a "flat earther who hates math and science" and other such childish personal attacks. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,748
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,291 posts
46 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

Summary:

DDs are super underpowered.

Battleships are literally the devil

CVs are almost the devil.

Cruisers are almost iwin against DDs.

Evidence:

DDs don't do the most damage.

Why you can't argue:

WR is a meaningless stat only idiots use

Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

Anyone who disagrees with me, which obviously means their wrong, is clearly using this logical fallacy I just found on Wiki.

I'm totally not the troll I sound like on yet another account that sackrides DDs.

 

 

 

That about sums it up. :popcorn:

Yeap, that about sums it up. 

:Smile_popcorn:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[UDEAD]
Supertester
118 posts
14,424 battles
4 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

They're both, and also an alt-account / sockpuppet for a user who has several to get around forum bans and ignore lists.  They like to spam massive blocks of "stats" that don't support their assertions and claims, and then when called on it launch into a tirade about the other person being a "flat earther who hates math and science" and other such childish personal attacks. 

So most of his post sound like this.

Dear players,  

I am bad.  So I am on the forums to tell you that I don't think I should be bad.

 

Sincerely,

A Gods Gift to ships 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
638
[NOBS]
Members
1,083 posts
8,074 battles

I'm just putting this out there, the only boat I've seen that is truely op is the graf Zeppelin. 

With that said, I've seen players with above normal playing ability make ever boat appear op. This game is less about the "tool" and more about the "operator".

It's impossible to balance player ability without destroying the entire game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
Members
21,173 posts
5,686 battles
1 hour ago, Madwolf05 said:

Cruisers are almost iwin against DDs.

I'm totally not the troll I sound like on yet another account that sackrides DDs

It's ironic, because zarth12 is a cruiser main.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,134
[HINON]
Members
10,336 posts
33 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

It's ironic, because zarth12 is a cruiser main.

Not all that ironic as he attacks BBs as OP as they are his nemesis so he uses DDs as a foil to attack BBs because there isnt a cruiser mafia but he knows he might be able to sir up the DD mafia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,208
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,786 posts
13,647 battles

Apparently not even a wall of text this size can hide your bias.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,413
[NGAGE]
Members
2,873 posts
7,782 battles
Quote

Win Rate is not a performance metric, therefore you cannot make balance conclusions based on it

The number of people that don't think winrate correlates with meaningful things is astounding to me. So you are saying two ships that have close to the same stats but 5% different winrates are equally balanced?

And please, RPS is not a good balance model. As much as people complain about it, WoWS has a really good balance model. Very few things in this game hard counter other ships which is great for gameplay. The idea of intentionally making a game more RPS like is... uh, weird to me.

The reason I like playing WoWS is nearly precisely because the way the game is balanced nearly no ship hard counters another class. I am reasonably confident in winning the majority of 1v1s against a worse player regardless of class, particularly at higher tiers.

Quote

Well if this was the case, Capping would need to have a higher impact on match outcome

I mean, maybe you haven't played much WoWS but capping does have a major impact on winning games.  Capping and vision have a huge impact on winning or losing games. But I guess since you've decided that winrate doesn't matter already (?) you basically have thrown out by definition the ability to influence a game without causing damage or getting kills.

 

The reason that destroyers have less damage has nothing to do with some inherent weakness in the class. It has to do with how mistakes in a destroyer normally result in instant death. They do not in cruisers and even less so in battleships. The easier it is to survive misplays the more inflated stats will become (because you are alive longer).

If WG balances destroyers based on the average potato who sails into a cap, smokes, sits broadside in smoke and dies - on a regular basis - and tries to have average damage parity with the other classes,  destroyers will become absurdly overpowered in the hands of above average players. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,370
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles
2 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

If WG balances destroyers based on the average potato who sails into a cap, smokes, sits broadside in smoke and dies - on a regular basis - and tries to have average damage parity with the other classes,  destroyers will become absurdly overpowered in the hands of above average players. 

Unfortunate that so few understand this. 

Fortunate that the devs have more understanding of game balance than the OP. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,748
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,291 posts
13 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

The number of people that don't think winrate correlates with meaningful things is astounding to me. So you are saying two ships that have close to the same stats but 5% different winrates are equally balanced?

And please, RPS is not a good balance model. As much as people complain about it, WoWS has a really good balance model. Very few things in this game hard counter other ships which is great for gameplay. The idea of intentionally making a game more RPS like is... uh, weird to me.

The reason I like playing WoWS is nearly precisely because the way the game is balanced nearly no ship hard counters another class. I am reasonably confident in winning the majority of 1v1s against a worse player regardless of class, particularly at higher tiers.

I mean, maybe you haven't played much WoWS but capping does have a major impact on winning games.  Capping and vision have a huge impact on winning or losing games. But I guess since you've decided that winrate doesn't matter already (?) you basically have thrown out by definition the ability to influence a game without causing damage or getting kills.

 

The reason that destroyers have less damage has nothing to do with some inherent weakness in the class. It has to do with how mistakes in a destroyer normally result in instant death. They do not in cruisers and even less so in battleships. The easier it is to survive misplays the more inflated stats will become (because you are alive longer).

If WG balances destroyers based on the average potato who sails into a cap, smokes, sits broadside in smoke and dies - on a regular basis - and tries to have average damage parity with the other classes,  destroyers will become absurdly overpowered in the hands of above average players. 

 

You know, it's funny, pushing RPS and "hard counters", and pushing damage and kills as the only meaningful balance metrics, seem to be DD partisan talking points, almost as if they're reading from a pamphlet.

 

As for how to play DDs, that's a funny story too.  Because I have a hard time remembering to not "play like a potato" with sitting sideways in smoke near a cap or chokepoint or whatever, but I guess my saving grace is that I always make sure I have escape route to behind something solid right there nearby.    And yet I find it hilariously easy to rack up damage and survive battles in a DD, and have no idea why anyone would think the little murderbotes are underpowered or that WG treats them poorly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
Members
21,173 posts
5,686 battles
8 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

As for how to play DDs, that's a funny story too.  Because I have a hard time remembering to not "play like a potato" with sitting sideways in smoke near a cap or chokepoint or whatever, but I guess my saving grace is that I always make sure I have escape route to behind something solid right there nearby.  

I think that seriously playing DDs later in my "career" is helpful. I've seen (and killed) plenty of DDs foing that sort of thing, and the forums have drummed into my head to (mostly) avoid the most obvious mistakes.

Quote

  And yet I find it hilariously easy to rack up damage and survive battles in a DD

I won't go that far, but I will say that it's about as easy as any of my other ships, provided my damage "goals" are realistic. I also find that I need to plan ahead appreciably more than driving a BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
673
[-K-]
WoWS Wiki Editor, WoWS Community Contributors
2,052 posts
9,363 battles
14 hours ago, KnyxUDL said:

From making changes completely opposite any logical conclusion that can be drawn from performance data...

I quit reading right here, because we do not and never will have access the the performance data that the developers see.  To make this assertion undermines your entire argument.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×