Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Lert

Some thoughts about what 'OP' means

74 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

32,544
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,151 posts
18,994 battles

Overpowered, yes. But when is something overpowered? The word gets thrown around a lot on this forum. But I want to illustrate two particular examples.

Example the first, Smolensk:

 

Ppfpf8c.jpg

By winrate Smolensk is not OP. In fact, she's right smack in the middle of the pack. Sure her average damage is a bit high, but since that's mostly fire damage which can be healed back her functional 'quality' damage is likely considerably lower. And yet, for a ship that doesn't seem to be able to win more than its tier / classmates, she's the poster child for perceived OP-ness. Why is that? Probably because she can be very annoying to fight. Keeping up a constant stream of HE out to 19km with the right build is very intimidating to face, no matter what ship you're in, even if that HE stream doesn't do much. Her soft armor is also part of it I think, she's very trollish to say the least. You can't citadel a broadside Smolensk with a Yamato at ranges closer than 10km, for example. And that just 'feels' wrong. And yet, for such an annoying and trollish ship, nothing about her actual cold-hard-numbers performance indicates she's OP.

Does this mean all the complaining about her is unfounded? Well, exaggerated, sure, IMO. But not unfounded. An annoying ship is simply that, annoying. It leads to frustration, anger, raging.

Example the second, Bajie / Izumo:

These are functionally the same ship. Bajie has a bit more range and .1 better sigma at the expense of ROF and turret traverse. One could make an argument that this makes her a stronger ship, but .1 sigma really isn't very noticable, and the long range only comes into play when you play her as a back line sniper. Still, Bajie has been called OP by people and Izumo has the reputation of sucking balls. How come two functionally near identical ships have such a broad spectrum of reputations? IMO that's simply because Bajie doesn't have the baggage that Izumo has. Izumo once sucked balls, but hasn't in a long time. However, the reputation sticks. Bajie doesn't have that problem. Bajie is also a premium, so doesn't have a stock hull and fire control to burn through. Plus, as a premium she can take any captain and doesn't need a dedicated one.

All in all this leads to Bajie having higher performance numbers than Izumo, though some of that might be Izumo's legacy from when she sucked. But does that make Bajie OP, compared to functionally the near same ship, sucking?

My point in this thread:

'OP' gets thrown around a lot, but its often a matter of interpretation and subjectivity. If something is annoying to play against, it's easy to call it OP and demand a nerf, even if based on its cold, hard numbers it doesn't need one. Does that mean the ship shouldn't be nerfed?

Well, that's a difficult question, I think. Surely anything that makes the game less annoying should be welcomed, I wholeheartedly agree with that. But if you nerf a ship that isn't overperforming, it starts underperforming. Do we want that?

 

  • Cool 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,149
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,708 posts

A lot of the time, ''OP' can translate as 'it sank me'.

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,544
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,151 posts
18,994 battles
6 minutes ago, Zaydin said:

A lot of the time, ''OP' can translate as 'it sank me'.

For individual threads, yes. Not so much pervasive ones.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
840
[-K-]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
2,344 posts
12,384 battles

Any CV I do well in is OP. But good points Lert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
449 posts
11,839 battles

I would argue "OP" is often misused with the intention of saying "Easy to do well in compared to other ships of equal tier and class".

Smolensk vs Colbert is often a good comparison for this point of view, where the latter is much stronger in the hands of a good player, but the requirements to do well in the former are much lower. The same could be said about Smolensk vs DM/Worcester/Minotaur. It's not a matter of Smolensk over performing, just a matter of it requiring less skill to perform on a similar level to the other ships, which is not necessarily akin to it being overpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
976
[KAPPA]
Members
3,110 posts
8,239 battles

BBs don't like having their paint scratched, so of course they'll get upset when you key their BB 16 times every 3.56 seconds!

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
792 posts

Im just here to do this *pets Lert and leaves a upvote in his bowl for him*

Mission accomplished Im out of here.

Edited by JToney3449

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,375
[-KIA-]
Members
3,471 posts
14,825 battles

Personnally I call a ship OP when:

-it's very easy to perform really well in the ship without having to work hard

-It has too many gimmicks/tool, more than she should have

 

For example Des Moines (and to an extent Salem), Worcester and Smolensk enter in the first category

Georgia, Kremlin enter in the second category

Belfast enter in both category

 

 

Edited by AlcatrazNC
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
806
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
930 posts
10,175 battles

@Lert consider this: CVs being called OP is the exact same thing as the Izumo being considered weak. It's the perception of the past bleeding over from pre-rework and the early rework era of the Flying Shimakaze. In some Anti-CV threads, it's not unusual for the accusers to refer to things that haven't been true or even possible since RTS went away.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,346
[BBICT]
Members
3,878 posts
4,240 battles

Hi Lert missed ya guy. Maybe we need a new term other than OP? How about OA, for Over Annoying ? :Smile_trollface: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,624 posts
4 hours ago, Lert said:

But if you nerf a ship that isn't overperforming, it starts underperforming. Do we want that?

it's happening, just read the 9.2 bulletin (Smolensk & Colbert deck armor nerfed to 16 mm, unseen in WoWS), your post is unnecessary, or better too late...

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,624 posts

OP: and yes, many want that, because they just care about themselves, fairness is not a factor. This game has been tainted with an unacceptable nerf because of massive anti Smolensk hysteria in the Forum. Regrettable, and telling about the players base...

Edited by loco_max

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[CLRN]
Members
598 posts
122 battles
4 hours ago, Lert said:

-snip-

 

the biggest mistake while balancig the ship is looking at avrg stats of all players. you can not balance a ship like that. because there are always gonna be players who would make the most broken OP ship look balance by performing terrible in it. since 95% of playerbase are exactly that kind of players, the famous spreadsheets "doesnt" show that she is OP. 

you need to look at the max potential of a ship to balance. which means top performing players in that ship. we all have access to top 100 players in smolensk on wows-numbers. just go check the stats of top players in smolensk and compare them with the stats of top players in other tier 10 cruisers. and tell me once more that she is not overperforming. 

 

another point is that smolensk providing cancer gameplay. and WG itself acknowledged that before introducing british CLs. their statement was that rapid HE firing cruisers with smoke is extremly unfun to play against and thats why they are not good for the game. because of that they removed HE from british CLs. but for some reason, smolensk has the second best HE DPM in the game while having smoke and stupidly long range with very good shell arcs. Having a mino with HE was not ok but somehow having the smolensk in game is perfectly fine...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
5 hours ago, Lert said:

But when is something overpowered?

In a rare time I actually prefer Wargaming's Definition, where the performance of particular player's, not server averages, is improved in a particular ship(s) vs. an ostensibly similar ship(s). So for example, does Player 1 perform with X WR, Y Average Damage, and Z Average Frags in say Belfast, is that performance in those, and other, metrics noticably higher than that same person, Player 1's, performance in Helena, Fiji, Schors, ect. Likewise is Player 1's performance in Nikolai noticeably higher than in Wyoming, Orion, and Kaiser. And by looking at individual players across a range of performance levels overall, that is, players that are in the Top 2%, bottom 2%, and middle 2%, do you notice a trend that regardless of player skill (overall), they perform better by comparison to similar ships in a particular ship? If a trend is established then I think it can be considered at that point if a ship is overpowered or not.

So looking at Smolensk, for example, looking at the top 3 players by WR in it:

https://wows-numbers.com/player/504102934,ColiaSolo/

https://wows-numbers.com/player/504714961,Reis_pt/

https://wows-numbers.com/player/549207544,ShandooDes/

There *is* a trend that appears to exist, that they are performing overall better in the Smolensk than comparable other TX ships such as Mino, Worcestor, and the like. Damage more than anything seems to be much higher, as is average frags, among other factors. WR's are a bit speckled, Reis's is higher, Colia's is not, and ShandooDes is WAY higher than similar Cruisers (although they are all over 80% WR so the differences between them decrease in meaning, hence why I always take WR with a grain of salt). There is a distinct trend however, if you do the same in most cases, of individuals performing better in particular ships, tend wise, than others.

So the serverwide average can say whatever you want, if you, a particular player, plays this ship, there is a statistical norm that suggests you will play *better* in it than you do with other similar ships. If you say average X average damage per match in the Worcester, you will do X+some number in the Smolensk because the data *heavily* implies this reality.

To me, that is an overpowered ship. Now that is *very* different than say, you doing better in X ship than Y ship (with both being similar) as that just applies to you, not every other player playing it. I do better in Mino than Worcestor, noticeably, but there isn't a trend across hundreds of players of such a huge difference in performance; it varies much greater. That's the difference between a player jiving with a particular ship and a ship being outright overpowered.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,491
[-K-]
Members
8,349 posts
14,149 battles

Wait, since when has Bajie been considered OP? :Smile_amazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[WOLFC]
Members
1,886 posts
9,954 battles
 
 
 
 
 
3
55 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

the biggest mistake while balancig the ship is looking at avrg stats of all players. you can not balance a ship like that. because there are always gonna be players who would make the most broken OP ship look balance by performing terrible in it.

 

Your definition of overpowered is what is it like when the unicum play it.

Other people's definition is "It can't be beaten, to the point where its existence warps gameplay".

 

Lert's point is OP is not an objective term.

 


To your point, I would say a good game developer doesn't balance a game based on what the unicum do - there are not enough of them providing enough revenue to justify that approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[TASC]
Members
411 posts
9,649 battles

OP, so much to unpack. 

1st on person has said that look at  how the op players do in a ship vs other at that tier. ok but that doesn't work like you think it would. how do i know? i have 2 graf Spees with different stats in them. they are the same ship but i play one better than the other. the same for my ARP kongos and myokos. i have them all and i have dogs and champs. i have set them up the same, i have set them up differently aand still i do better because of paint? i have no idea. 

so small sample size doesn't work well. and we know what over all avg says. so how about this

no ship is OP. there are OP players who do well in most ships and really do well in a few. sometimes that is a new  ship that people haven't worked out how to kill yet. examples

belfast- that ranked season was hard for me. i was playing DDs and the belfast hurt me lots. then i worked out how to counter them and went hunting them. i haave my own and i don't do well in it. 

the MO money - it didn't do much but make credits, i still don't know why making an in game currency was so bad. why is it bad to have enough silver to buy and equip a new ship when you earn the XP to unlock it? i hear so many of my clan mates complain about not having the $ to get the ship they just unlocked. i make as much in other premium ships so i don't see the problem. 

the kami sisters, wow as much fun as they are my WR stinks in them. it might be me ( lol ) it is sneaky and low detection with fast torp reload. can you have a good match in it? oh yes. will you die if a gun boat finds you ? yep and fast too. 

so to close i don't feel that any ship that has been in the game is OP and all should be returned as the player makes the difference the ship just makes it easier or harder to do some things. a true Over Powered thing would be WG saying " give us $ every month and you will get cammo that has all shells hit for max damage " or something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,125 posts
7,989 battles

It's hard to define "over powered" as it's so subjective.  This is even more complicated once you factor in different skill floors and ceilings and the effect they can have on a ship.  Is a ship over powered because it has a really low skill floor and allows the average player to perform above their otherwise natural ability?  Perhaps, but what about the opposite scenario?  Is a ship that's difficult to play but has an incredibly high skill celling over powered because it has unmatched potential in the hands of skilled players?   

Then we get into the subjective measures and the impact on gameplay.  A hypothetical ship that detonated at the start of every game and instantly ended the battle with a 45% chance of victory would statistically be under powered, but it would also be the most problematic "nerf worthy" ship in the entire game.  A ship doesn't need to be strictly over powered to have negative impact on gameplay in such a way that it necessitates changing.  *(Anecdotally I didn't think the Conqueror was OP at the time, but I still supported its citadel being raised as a matter of principle)



There will always be a grey area as there will never be a unified understanding of balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
4 minutes ago, yashma said:

It's hard to define "over powered" as it's so subjective.  

It really isn't; it's very quantifiable. If a plurality of players in Ship X perform better than Ships Y and Z that are ostensibly similar in abilities (at least on paper) on a per-player basis, and said trend is noticed over a wide range of players, not just 1 particular group or player, then it can be at least suggested with a degree of certainty, that the ship is over-powered. Likewise you could take it to the next step and execute some experiments where the same player plays against the same other player readily in different ships, including the suspected over powered one, and quantify differences in performance and if a noticeable uptick is noticed, and conducted with a satisfactory number of players (say, n=20), it can be concluded that it is in fact a performance booster.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,639
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,663 posts
14,756 battles

I don't know about overpowered these days, but I feel I know bad ship/game design when I see it...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,654
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,736 posts

In my experience across quite a few MMOs and MMO-like games, OP just means "I cannot faceroll this unit type or character class with my favorite unit type or character class, therefore this thing is unfair and needs to be nerfed hard."   Watched it in the old Tribes games, in WoW, in SWTOR, in City if Heroes/Villains, etc, etc, etc. 

If players said things like "Smolensk is annoying to play against, and here's why", I'd have some sympathy for them.  But they don't, they rant and spew about how "overpowered" and "broken" it is because they don't have the rational analytical tools or the objectivity or the vocabulary, so mainly I tune out their garbage posts. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,125 posts
7,989 battles
7 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

It really isn't; it's very quantifiable. If a plurality of players in Ship X perform better than Ships Y and Z that are ostensibly similar in abilities (at least on paper) on a per-player basis, and said trend is noticed over a wide range of players, not just 1 particular group or player, then it can be at least suggested with a degree of certainty, that the ship is over-powered. Likewise you could take it to the next step and execute some experiments where the same player plays against the same other player readily in different ships, including the suspected over powered one, and quantify differences in performance and if a noticeable uptick is noticed, and conducted with a satisfactory number of players (say, n=20), it can be concluded that it is in fact a performance booster.

But even then, there is still a degree of subjectivity involved as there is not one unified statistical metric to assess balance (damage, win rate, k/d, caps, plane kills, various survivability metrics, team play metrics etc), as well as universally agreed upon accepted deviation from the expected mean.  This can also be complicated by differences in skill curves.  *Is a hypothetical ship that is statistically deemed under performing in the hands of bad players, balanced for average players, and over performing for good players an all around balanced ship?

Then there are questions of specific gameplay scenarios.  A ship can be all around statistically balanced, but still game breaking over powered in specific situations.  Some may feel as long as a ship's strengths and weaknesses balance out overall anything goes, but others may argue even being situationally over powered is an egregious enough offense to warrant balance changes.  

WG has said they more or less use the same metric you have outline above, and it still produces controversial balancing outcomes (The Slava was actually deemed under performing in testing while the Smolensk is considered fire).  I will be the first to say the community is way too  quick to condemn anything they don't like as being over powered, but I'm also critical of the notion that balance can be objectively measured by server stats alone.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×