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

The Nightmare Players T8 to T10 NON CV Players Faced

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

33
[ENDO]
Members
81 posts

I think this tells the horror of the Hakuru that we have faced. In just a few short days, the top 52 players were in 5,663 matches.

https://na.wows-numbers.com/ship/4179605200,Hakuryu/

Look at the average planes destroyed: Less than 10 and the max was less then 70. Those planes destroyed are likely your fighter planes off to protect your ship. Ships were not so lucky on plane kills.

 

 

Edited by mrkimba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,307
[INTEL]
Members
9,253 posts
26,921 battles

So glad I skipped that week. After a couple of Randoms, skipping this week too. The amount of clutter from planes makes the battlespace feel crowded and hard to read, and the darker red of the planes makes them harder to see. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[ENDO]
Members
81 posts

It was, and to make it worse, the torpedoes avoided all forms of detection until it hit or barely missed your ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[CAFE]
Members
1,478 posts
11,668 battles
6 minutes ago, mrkimba said:

I think this tells the horror of the Hakuru that we have faced. In just a few short days, the top 52 players were in 5,663 matches.

https://na.wows-numbers.com/ship/4179605200,Hakuryu/

Look at the average planes destroyed: Less than 10 and the max was less then 70.

 

Um you are reading that wrong... That is the average planes the CV killed in each game. Considering how CVs dont have fighters, how do you expect them to reach massive numbers with the fighter consumable if the enemy CV is not going after them?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[ENDO]
Members
81 posts

Sorry, just edited my post, I believe those are the fighters defending the ships as you said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[ENDO]
Members
81 posts

Also remember, at that time, the CV had the best AA than all non CVs combined as well as no chance of setting a fire or flood lasting more than 20 seconds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
350
[WOLF2]
Members
1,163 posts
8,240 battles

Yep.  That one ship was exploited pretty quickly. 99% of all threads lamented that one ship.  The whole problem with the broken CV rollout was.... that one ship.

WG could have removed T10 to fix that one ship, but in their infinite potato development wisdom, decided to flip the switch on all of the CVs, which dialed back that one ship to manageable proportions, but castrated the rest of the tiers.

For those that didn't face that one ship, the CVs were present, and could be a bit of an annoyance, but they were wholly manageable.    

 

Not being a CV evangelist here, other than me not playing CVs prior to 8.0.    Part of their intended audience were players like me - and for a brief time, I enjoyed learning the new mechanics (still at T4).   I'll still play them for a bit, but with the swing over to strong AA, the gimped T4 play is even more futile.    I'm sure part of their intended audience will simply drop the line.    I'll wait for the hotfix-hotfix and make a determination.    If I abandon, it's only been a little skin off my back at T4.

I can imagine the devs trying to explain to their management why CV population exploded week one, and disappeared week two.

Edited by DiddleDum
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
827
Beta Testers
4,292 posts
1 minute ago, RA6E_ said:

Nightmare?    If a BB would be sitting there with same stats... would anyone have even yawned?  

TBH everyone here was also losing their minds back when the Conqueror launched boosting to the top of the damage charts and only calmed down a bit on it when it's heal CD got nerfed several weeks later -- but were still not satisfied for a long while anyway.

It's not really so hard to get this community pitchforks raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
347 posts
4,284 battles

Yeah... I pretty much stopped the T4 grind, after the hot fix. Couldn't do anything with those planes. Which is just as well, rather shoot them down, anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[HATE]
Members
105 posts
9,856 battles
38 minutes ago, RA6E_ said:

Nightmare?    If a BB would be sitting there with same stats... would anyone have even yawned?  

 

Lets compare to -  Bourgogne

 

https://na.wows-numbers.com/ship/3760142160,Bourgogne/

 

 

the Difference is the people at the top of that list are all at the top of many lists. there wasn't unskilled players eclipsing 300k who had previously never seen 200k. the cv rework in its current state is still not good, but it is at least possible to play randoms. the dd play is not fun still.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,173
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
11,030 posts
8,002 battles
50 minutes ago, RA6E_ said:

Nightmare?    If a BB would be sitting there with same stats... would anyone have even yawned?  

 

Lets compare to -  Bourgogne

 

https://na.wows-numbers.com/ship/3760142160,Bourgogne/

 

 

What about the Bourgogne? I don’t see a bunch of 400+k max damage games, I don’t see a bunch of people averaging over 200k. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
64 posts
3,645 battles

As a DD player, I agree  DiddleDum is right.  Really the only 2 things wrong with 0.8.0 were 1) Hakuryu being op; and 2) they put 3 CVs on each team.

Fixing those 2 things would have been enough.

Last night I was in a battle without CV.  It was brutal for non-DD players.  At the end my team won and our top 2 finishers were a Jutland and Kagero (me).   That battle reminds me how OP the DDs are in general.

 

Edited by slider37
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[FATE]
Members
332 posts
8,607 battles
1 hour ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

What about the Bourgogne? I don’t see a bunch of 400+k max damage games, I don’t see a bunch of people averaging over 200k. 

So max damage is the metric that matters, and not Average Damage?  Yeah, the fact that it is outperforming the next closest by 30%, and nearly double the Montana, ahhh, that's no big deal.  It's just not big games.

I suppose Stalingrad isn't an outlier either, its only rocking a 60% win rate, compared to 51% of the next closest cruiser.

Edited by Paul_Revere735

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[WMD]
Members
422 posts
6,190 battles
1 minute ago, Paul_Revere735 said:

So max damage is the metric that matters, and not Average Damage?  Yeah, the fact that it is outperforming the next closest by 30%, and nearly double the Montana, ahhh, that's no big deal.  It's just not big games.

I'm sure those numbers have nothing to do with the fact that only people who play competative can get it...  I can assure you that if average players had Bourgogne I and people like me would be dragging those averages down.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,173
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
11,030 posts
8,002 battles
1 minute ago, Paul_Revere735 said:

So max damage is the metric that matters, and not Average Damage?  Yeah, the fact that it is outperforming the next closest by 30%, and nearly double the Montana, ahhh, that's no big deal.  It's just not big games.

Apparently you missed the part where I said:

Quote

I don’t see a bunch of people averaging over 200k. 

Everyone expects the bourgone to be performing better, it requires a ton of steel to get. All the potatos with steel wasted it on the stalingrad instead. So its a bunch of good players just like the ones breaking 200k in the Hak. Just in the hak they are doing 50-100k more than they are in the bourgone. So yeah the hak was even worse because they were having more bigger games than they could have in any other ship and not by an insignificant amount.

 

Everyone I have encountered so far who defended the hak being that op was doing it for selfish reasons because they needed the hak to be that OP so they could put up half decent numbers, I hope you are not one of those people and actually care about the future of the game. If CVs are simply better than everything else how long are you going to have surface ships to farm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
848 posts
5,229 battles
3 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

If CVs are simply better than everything else how long are you going to have surface ships to farm?

What CV's were OP besides the Hak ? And how is a CV not a surface ship? do they move under the surface ? where can I get one of those ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[NSEW]
Members
708 posts
9,056 battles
2 hours ago, Hydra_360ci said:

Yeah... I pretty much stopped the T4 grind, after the hot fix. Couldn't do anything with those planes. Which is just as well, rather shoot them down, anyways.

Really? "anything"? You couldn't spot the whole map? You couldn't keep the DD's spotted from going dark? You couldn't get 1 torpedo to hit one ship? Or rockets? 

I find this very hard to believe. I too have tried the CV line post 0.8.  I will not go as far as saying that it is my newly favourite class. However, it certainly has a different feel from  playing the rest of the classes still (what WG presumably tried to avoid with such changes). Yes, I have sunk few ships post 0.8. hotfix. Even with my beginners luck without tutorials or researching how to play CV better (like other class ships I have approached before).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,173
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
11,030 posts
8,002 battles
1 minute ago, khorender_1 said:

What CV's were OP besides the Hak ? And how is a CV not a surface ship? do they move under the surface ? where can I get one of those ?

This thread is about the Hak, and the player I was responding to was trying to defend it being OP.

 

When you play your CV do you spend most of your looking at your CV or speeding around the map in planes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[FATE]
Members
332 posts
8,607 battles
11 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

This thread is about the Hak, and the player I was responding to was trying to defend it being OP.

 

When you play your CV do you spend most of your looking at your CV or speeding around the map in planes?

No, I wasn't defending the Hak being OP.  Merely calling out the hypocrisy of decrying one ship for overperforming, whether in the hands of a "lesser player" or not, overperforming its peers is overperforming its peers.

I would like to hear your explanation of that contradiction.  So your issue with Hakuryu is because "lesser players" were having big games in it.  Yet you just said "All the potatos with steel wasted it on the stalingrad" yet it is outperforming it's peers by a 9% winrate... in the hands of the same potatoes you are decrying in the Hakuryu.  Furthermore, there are significantly more games in Stalingrad than the Bon Jovi, making it more statistically accurate at its overperformance.

So which side of the fence are you on?  Because you're trying to play both sides of it, and it's not working.  Or is it you just have an issue with CVs?  You can't in the same  thread say the Hak was OP and the Stalin isn't, when both are/were overperforming by a large margin, sailed by "potatoes."

In half the battles as Stalin, Hak led Midway by 4% winrate, and 30k average damage.  Stalin leads Wooster by 9% winrate, and 33k damage.  Driven by the same potatoes.  But you're cool with that one, just not the CV.  And us potatoes had dare not discuss the unicum playtoy.

Edited by Paul_Revere735

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[SFOR]
Members
933 posts
6,592 battles
15 minutes ago, khorender_1 said:

What CV's were OP besides the Hak ? And how is a CV not a surface ship? do they move under the surface ? where can I get one of those ?

I went from the good ship the Hosho to the Ryujo. Where i found i could achieve with my skils something like above 60% wr and 50k average damage in the tier 4, which i think is not OP to my standarts at tier 4. In the Ryujo i was getting an average damage around 90K damage which can be just a little too much for a tier 6.  In fact imo the nerf to the aim in the torpedo squadrons was a nerf that i agree. I agree that should bring more skill to the torpedo squadron and to make it more diificult to make a cross drop. However for WG that wans't good enough and decided to f-u-c-k all carriers with the AA tweaks. It seems that they don't have any idea how the Langley and the Ranger were bad before the hotfix.

Edited by _no_one_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,173
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
11,030 posts
8,002 battles
1 minute ago, Paul_Revere735 said:

No, I wasn't defending the Hak being OP.  Merely calling out the hypocrisy of decrying one ship for overperforming, whether in the hands of a "lesser player" or not, overperforming its peers is overperforming its peers.

I would like to hear your explanation of that contradiction.  So your issue with Hakuryu is because "lesser players" were having big games in it.  Yet you just said "All the potatos with steel wasted it on the stalingrad" yet it is outperforming it's peers by a 9% winrate... in the hands of the same potatoes you are decrying in the Hakuryu.  Furthermore, there are significantly more games in Stalingrad than the Bon Jovi, making it more statistically accurate at its overperformance.

So which side of the fence are you on?  Because you're trying to play both sides of it, and it's not working.  Or is it you just have an issue with CVs?  You can't in the same  thread say the Hak was OP and the Stalin isn't, when both are/were overperforming by a large margin, sailed by "potatoes."

You really need to go back and read what I actually said, instead of trying to inject your thoughts between the lines of what I wrote. Please quote me where I said anything about the how balanced the stalingrad is.

 

You are comparing ships that perform above average because the players playing the ships dont represent the average population to a ship that was dramatically over performing at the top end. There were multiple MULTIPLE games over 500k in less than 1 week. THERE IS NO OTHER SHIP IN THE GAME THAT HAS DONE 500k, EVER, LET ALONE MULTIPLE TIMES.

 

The average performance of average players in the hak was not especially unbalanced for a CV, which is why I supported a flooding chance nerf because the CVs that were doing really well were stacking perma floods which is not something I observed with average hak players. Did WG go too far with the hotfix? Maybe, they had a big issue with the hak and maybe they panicked. They can still roll back some of the changes but thats no reason to revert the hak to how it was.

 

Further more just because I think the Hak had a balance issue does not mean I dont think the game has other balance issues. However the Hak was the worst by far and so it got balanced first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[FATE]
Members
332 posts
8,607 battles
25 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

You really need to go back and read what I actually said, instead of trying to inject your thoughts between the lines of what I wrote. Please quote me where I said anything about the how balanced the stalingrad is.

 

You are comparing ships that perform above average because the players playing the ships dont represent the average population to a ship that was dramatically over performing at the top end. There were multiple MULTIPLE games over 500k in less than 1 week. THERE IS NO OTHER SHIP IN THE GAME THAT HAS DONE 500k, EVER, LET ALONE MULTIPLE TIMES.

 

The average performance of average players in the hak was not especially unbalanced for a CV, which is why I supported a flooding chance nerf because the CVs that were doing really well were stacking perma floods which is not something I observed with average hak players. Did WG go too far with the hotfix? Maybe, they had a big issue with the hak and maybe they panicked. They can still roll back some of the changes but thats no reason to revert the hak to how it was.

 

Further more just because I think the Hak had a balance issue does not mean I dont think the game has other balance issues. However the Hak was the worst by far and so it got balanced first.

Don't get me wrong, I love ya Zim, played this game with you for a long time, nothing but respect.  If I attributed someone else's post to you on accident I apologize.

That said, we both know that 550k game didn't come from some average CV player.  There were 8 that broke 400k.  I won't for a second defend that the Hak didn't need a serious adjustment.  Nonetheless, we are talking about a ship in the hands of a very elite few people.  That's a very similiar situation to the Bon Jovi, with the exception that was bought for steel and not credits.

The average damage tells me without looking up names, when I see the ship, what I can expect.  Statistically Hak wasn't overperforming by nearly the margin that other ships are.  It's mechanics were being exploited and that was the problem.  Not going to lie, I tried it, broke my personal best damage by about 40k.

My point with all of this, if a ship is overperforming its peers by a large margin, it should be fixed.  As much as the Hak was holding other players hostage due to its damage output and mechanics relative to its peers, Bon Jovi and Stalingrad does the same thing.  To say the Stalingrad was picked up by potatoes and still does what it does (I know I do my best to drag that average way down lol) there are some pretty insane people playing it.

Stalingrad max damage is at 345k right now. Bourgone 371k.  With some pretty insane WR of the top players.  If the Hakuryu headlines aren't attributed to the people who were making them, then the mentioned CB and BB shouldn't be either.

Edited by Paul_Revere735

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×