Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
murder_0ne

Serious lack of fire chance with Daring

85 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

343
[LZ1]
Members
259 posts
5,752 battles

The screenshot is pretty typical of what I've been experiencing. 170+ hits, all HE mind you, and only 3 fires. This is *with* DE and both flags and without IFHE. Basically maximum fire chance. I see people getting 1-2 DOZEN fires per game. I'm getting four or less. Usually two or so. And this is with a Daring set up for maximum ROF with guns, not torp focused etc. Based on the number of hits I should have 19-20 fires (179 hits x 11% fire chance). But I'm ending up with THREE? Yes I understand that it's possible to shoot targets that are already on fire and you won't light additional fires and also existing fire location on targets but frankly I don't think that's the issue here as I'm well aware of these factors and I optimize my target selection/prosecution to avoid that exact issue.

shot-20.03.28_00.30.20-0378.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles

WG is actually testing a Daring nerf right now (which means it will go live FYI), completely ignoring the fact that the data clearly shows the Daring as being one of the VERY FEW Tier 10 DDs actually performing balanced (most are underperforming).

  • Cool 1
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
343
[LZ1]
Members
259 posts
5,752 battles
3 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

WG is actually testing a Daring nerf right now (which means it will go live FYI), completely ignoring the fact that the data clearly shows the Daring as being one of the VERY FEW Tier 10 DDs actually performing balanced (most are underperforming).

I wasn't aware of this. What is it? Daring is one of my favorite DDs and my first T10. This sounds very disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,375
[-KIA-]
Members
3,473 posts
14,831 battles

RNG is still RNG.

 

Even with Smolensk there were game where I struggled to set fire after around 60 shells hit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,375
[-KIA-]
Members
3,473 posts
14,831 battles
5 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

WG is actually testing a Daring nerf right now

 

Source ? 

 

I haven't saw anything that looks like a Daring nerf. IFHE rework buffed Daring and the .1 or .3 sec nerf she received is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
372
[Y0L0W]
Members
507 posts
16,723 battles
24 minutes ago, murder_0ne said:

The screenshot is pretty typical of what I've been experiencing. 170+ hits, all HE mind you, and only 3 fires. This is *with* DE and both flags and without IFHE. Basically maximum fire chance. I see people getting 1-2 DOZEN fires per game. I'm getting four or less. Usually two or so. And this is with a Daring set up for maximum ROF with guns, not torp focused etc. Based on the number of hits I should have 19-20 fires (179 hits x 11% fire chance). But I'm ending up with THREE? Yes I understand that it's possible to shoot targets that are already on fire and you won't light additional fires and also existing fire location on targets but frankly I don't think that's the issue here as I'm well aware of these factors and I optimize my target selection/prosecution to avoid that exact issue.

shot-20.03.28_00.30.20-0378.jpg

Keep in mind that on top of your fire chance there will be a fire de-buff on the ships you are shooting. You may also have been shooting an area that was already on fire.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
728 posts
4,671 battles

Well first of all, that 11% fire chance is not really 11%. Remember, tier 10 ships have a 50% reduction for getting set on fire. Not only that, but fire prevention is a thing. 

Also, the number of fires / the number of hits =/= fire chance. You might be shooting AP, or be hitting a section of ship that is already on fire. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
343
[LZ1]
Members
259 posts
5,752 battles
16 minutes ago, Bortt said:

Keep in mind that on top of your fire chance there will be a fire de-buff on the ships you are shooting. You may also have been shooting an area that was already on fire.

Re-read my post. I specifically mention on fire areas etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
343
[LZ1]
Members
259 posts
5,752 battles
17 minutes ago, PotatoMD said:

Well first of all, that 11% fire chance is not really 11%. Remember, tier 10 ships have a 50% reduction for getting set on fire. Not only that, but fire prevention is a thing. 

Also, the number of fires / the number of hits =/= fire chance. You might be shooting AP, or be hitting a section of ship that is already on fire. 

Wait, what? T10 has a 50% reduction in being set on fire? Since when? My GK and Conqueror burn like they are made of magnesium and napalm. Also, read my post. Not shooting any AP and very aware of picking targets not already on fire/areas of ships not on fire. But good point with respect to fire prevention etc. But back to the first point: T10 have 50% fire reduction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
27 minutes ago, AlcatrazNC said:

 

Source ? 

 

I haven't saw anything that looks like a Daring nerf. IFHE rework buffed Daring and the .1 or .3 sec nerf she received is nothing.

 

Quote

 

British destroyer Daring, Tier X:

  • Main battery reload time increased from 2.6 to 2.7 s;
  • Torpedo tubes reload time increased from 122 to 124 s.
     

 

 

A nerf is a nerf. The ship is factually balanced, and in actuality, WG claiming the Daring requires ANY nerf is the same as admitting ALL Tier 10 BBs are overpowered and 90% of Tier 10 Cruisers are overpowered and require nerfs as well. The Data is VERY clear on this.

 

 

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
553
[OO7]
Members
481 posts
27,249 battles
55 minutes ago, murder_0ne said:

Basically maximum fire chance. I see people getting 1-2 DOZEN fires per game. I'm getting four or less.

You didn't get that many hits. Daring has the highest dd fire chance at t10. If you get 400 or so hits you'll have around 10+ fires typically 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[STURM]
Members
708 posts
5,744 battles
15 minutes ago, murder_0ne said:

Thanks man! Explains everything. Next time I'll look up stuff on the wiki.

In addition, there are other way to fail to set a fire. The Fire Prevention skill and slot 2 module both provide a reduction to the chance of any shell.

The biggest factor, however, is that there are some situations where a shell has no chance to set a fire. The two most universal are the active time of the DCP preventing all fires, and the shell hitting a spot that is already on fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,636 posts
4,999 battles
1 hour ago, Varknyn12 said:

WG is actually testing a Daring nerf right now (which means it will go live FYI), completely ignoring the fact that the data clearly shows the Daring as being one of the VERY FEW Tier 10 DDs actually performing balanced (most are underperforming).

Because your private definition of performance is biased bollocks that is intended to push an agenda, not produce balance.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12 posts
640 battles
1 hour ago, Varknyn12 said:

WG is actually testing a Daring nerf right now (which means it will go live FYI), completely ignoring the fact that the data clearly shows the Daring as being one of the VERY FEW Tier 10 DDs actually performing balanced (most are underperforming).

Can you provide a source to the data that says the Daring is performing balanced, instead of overperfoming?

Seriously, her overall win rate is less than .1% lower than the Kremlin, and she's average at worst in all other stats compared to other DDs.

And those are lifetime stats, they don't take into account that she benefited from the IFHE rework, unlike her peers.

Edited by EdgeAlchemist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
485 posts
15,274 battles
2 hours ago, murder_0ne said:

The screenshot is pretty typical of what I've been experiencing. 170+ hits, all HE mind you, and only 3 fires. This is *with* DE and both flags and without IFHE. Basically maximum fire chance. I see people getting 1-2 DOZEN fires per game. I'm getting four or less. Usually two or so. And this is with a Daring set up for maximum ROF with guns, not torp focused etc. Based on the number of hits I should have 19-20 fires (179 hits x 11% fire chance). But I'm ending up with THREE? Yes I understand that it's possible to shoot targets that are already on fire and you won't light additional fires and also existing fire location on targets but frankly I don't think that's the issue here as I'm well aware of these factors and I optimize my target selection/prosecution to avoid that exact issue.

shot-20.03.28_00.30.20-0378.jpg

Prime example of not understanding how the fire chance is calculated.  Looking just at your numbers alone and ignoring things like Ships having a baked in fire reduction % based on what tier they are. Example, T10 ships have a 50% reduction in being set on fire.  So your 11% fire chance on Daring is now 5.5%.  That on top of the target area of the ship being on fire or not.  The captain skills of the ship you are shooting.  Is he set up for anti fire build?  If yes then your fire chance reduces even more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,636 posts
4,999 battles
38 minutes ago, EdgeAlchemist said:

Can you provide a source to the data that says the Daring is performing balanced, instead of overperfoming?

Seriously, her overall win rate is less than .1% lower than the Kremlin, and she's average at worst in all other stats compared to other DDs.

And those are lifetime stats, they don't take into account that she benefited from the IFHE rework, unlike her peers.

Per Vark the only metric that really affects a battle's outcome is damage and survival rate tells the story of how much risk a ship has to take to do its job.  He is obsessed that DDs are high risk (because they have poor survival rates) and low reward (because they average less damage) as contrasted to BBs and CVs.  He claims that win rate is a 100% fake stat, that concealment, spotting and such are meaningless because they cannot be narrowed down to a simple number.  His goal is to get the game rebalanced so that DDs keep all their current abilities, but have buffs to survivabilty and damage dealing until they match BBs on those numbers.  Facts such as DDs being the #1 predator of DDs and thus the type is largely responsible for the type's poor survival rate go right over his head.  If he were to get his way the game would be reduced to a DD feeding frenzy as no other ship type would stand a reasonable chance against them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12 posts
640 battles
19 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Per Vark the only metric that really affects a battle's outcome is damage and survival rate tells the story of how much risk a ship has to take to do its job.  He is obsessed that DDs are high risk (because they have poor survival rates) and low reward (because they average less damage) as contrasted to BBs and CVs.  He claims that win rate is a 100% fake stat, that concealment, spotting and such are meaningless because they cannot be narrowed down to a simple number.  His goal is to get the game rebalanced so that DDs keep all their current abilities, but have buffs to survivabilty and damage dealing until they match BBs on those numbers.  Facts such as DDs being the #1 predator of DDs and thus the type is largely responsible for the type's poor survival rate go right over his head.  If he were to get his way the game would be reduced to a DD feeding frenzy as no other ship type would stand a reasonable chance against them.

Wow, really? 

I'd call him obsessed with numbers to the point of missing the picture they paint, but I can't, since he's throwing most of those out the window too.

Now I understand how he can call ships with 48% WR like the Montanna and Yamato "overpowered."

Seriously, how do you have over 7K games and not understand that A: you play the game to win, not farm damage, and B: you don't play DDs for the huge damage numbers, you play them because they have the most influence on a match?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,913
[NH]
Members
1,769 posts
2 hours ago, Varknyn12 said:

 

 

A nerf is a nerf. The ship is factually balanced, and in actuality, WG claiming the Daring requires ANY nerf is the same as admitting ALL Tier 10 BBs are overpowered and 90% of Tier 10 Cruisers are overpowered and require nerfs as well. The Data is VERY clear on this.

 

 

 

As soon as I start really getting into the Daring they nerf it. They will likely start chip nerfing ships every patch now so that people wont get up in arms. I think the Daring is better than their precious cash cow that is the EU DDs. They dont like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
1 hour ago, EdgeAlchemist said:

Can you provide a source to the data that says the Daring is performing balanced, instead of overperfoming?

Seriously, her overall win rate is less than .1% lower than the Kremlin, and she's average at worst in all other stats compared to other DDs.

And those are lifetime stats, they don't take into account that she benefited from the IFHE rework, unlike her peers.

2 Month sample: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20200328/na_2month/average_ship_u.html

Quarters: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/index.html|

Win rate is not a performance metric. Balance conclusions cannot be drawn from it. Correlation does not equal causation and WR has an inherent bias which cannot be ruled out by increasing the sample size.


The primary performance metrics are dictated by the win conditions of the primary game mode.image.thumb.png.44a71175c9ad9aab02b8feaf6b104f56.png

Thus the primary performance metrics, as in the metrics which have the most impact on match result are as follows:
Damage, Killing, and Surviving.  (Average Damage, Average Kills, and Survival Rate.)
Arguably (potential damage) is also a primary performance metric as it has a direct relationship to survival.

Any ship that is not designed to perform in at least 2 of those areas is factually underpowered from the gate. The data and above contextual evidence completely refutes any notion that DDs have the most impact on a match.

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,636 posts
4,999 battles
1 hour ago, EdgeAlchemist said:

Wow, really? 

I'd call him obsessed with numbers to the point of missing the picture they paint, but I can't, since he's throwing most of those out the window too.

Now I understand how he can call ships with 48% WR like the Montanna and Yamato "overpowered."

Seriously, how do you have over 7K games and not understand that A: you play the game to win, not farm damage, and B: you don't play DDs for the huge damage numbers, you play them because they have the most influence on a match?

He long ago put me on ignore because I simply wouldn't bow to his "expert" opinion and kept calling him on his nonsense.  I still respond to some of his posts so that other players are aware of where he is coming from.

In the post right above this one he does his usual "post a bunch of stats without explanation" response to a request to support his argument.  The problem is that when you push him to be more specific he just starts arbitrarily declaring the numbers that don't agree with his position to be invalid.  Win rate, for example, he simply claims is meaningless noise.  He has no explanation as to why some ships have very much higher win rates after millions of matches, something that ought to be statistically impossible if the statistic was truly meaningless.  He says that spotting damage doesn't count because it requires a second ship to accomplish.  He claims that the only win rate that would be valid is the win rate produced by a 1 vs 1, but when it is pointed out that due to ship type mechanics those results will never tell you anything real about how the ships are balanced in the actual game he ignores it.   Everything that doesn't support his position of DD weakness is fake data and only the stats where DDs don't perform well are real data, hence he always claims BBs are over performing.

He also flat out lies at times, such as claiming that BBs have buffed maneuverability so that they can dodge torpedoes easier when in actuality BB's turn radius were nerfed compared to reality to make them easier to hit with torpedoes.  It isn't evenly applied, but as an example the real, built in steel Yamato could turn in something like 680 meters while in WoWS it turns in 900 meters.  I  was playing the game when the nerf happened.  I was never able to challenge him on that lie because he already had me on ignore when I first saw him make it.  I imagine he might try to save face by claiming he is talking about acceleration and deceleration, which is true, but that is true for every ship in the game to facilitate 20 minute matches.  Singling out BBs for that is disingenuous at best.

Edited by Helstrem
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12 posts
640 battles
10 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

He long ago put me on ignore because I simply wouldn't bow to his "expert" opinion and kept calling him on his nonsense.  I still respond to some of his posts so that other players are aware of where he is coming from.

In the post right above this one he does his usual "post a bunch of stats without explanation" response to a request to support his argument.  The problem is that when you push him to be more specific he just starts arbitrarily declaring the numbers that don't agree with his position to be invalid.  Win rate, for example, he simply claims is meaningless noise.  He has no explanation as to why some ships have very much higher win rates after millions of matches, something that ought to be statistically impossible if the statistic was truly meaningless.  He says that spotting damage doesn't count because it requires a second ship to accomplish.  He claims that the only win rate that would be valid is the win rate produced by a 1 vs 1, but when it is pointed out that due to ship type mechanics those results will never tell you anything real about how the ships are balanced in the actual game he ignores it.   Everything that doesn't support his position of DD weakness is fake data and only the stats where DDs don't perform well are real data, hence he always claims BBs are over performing.

He also flat out lies at times, such as claiming that BBs have buffed maneuverability so that they can dodge torpedoes easier when in actuality BB's turn radius were nerfed compared to reality to make them easier to hit with torpedoes.  It isn't evenly applied, but as an example the real, built in steel Yamato could turn in something like 680 meters while in WoWS it turns in 900 meters.  I  was playing the game when the nerf happened.  I was never able to challenge him on that lie because he already had me on ignore when I first saw him make it.  I imagine he might try to save face by claiming he is talking about acceleration and deceleration, which is true, but that is true for every ship in the game to facilitate 20 minute matches.  Singling out BBs for that is disingenuous at best.

Yeah, I can see that he started with a position and looked for statistics to fit it, instead of the other way around.

In that post alone he didn't acknowledge:

1. What that bias in WR even is, just that it totally exists, trust him.

2. That vision control is one of the primary pillars of game play, something that DDs are (arguably) the best at.

3. That looking at just damage totals is inherently flawed in several way since not all damage is equal. (Fire vs citadel, 10K to a BB vs 10K to a DD, it goes on and on...)

4. That K/D is a dump stat, since you can lead the team to victory with no kills and you can completely throw the game by trying to secure kills.

5. That in standard mode points only really serve to prevent the game from dragging out. Most of the time when a team wins on points, it's because they have a huge advantage in ship numbers, and 9 out of 10 times vision control played a huge part in that, if not more.

6. That in domination mode sinking ships is not the main way to get points, controlling the caps are. And that's the destroyer's job, making them extremely influential in that mode.

And more that I probably missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
36 minutes ago, EdgeAlchemist said:

Yeah, I can see that he started with a position and looked for statistics to fit it, instead of the other way around.

In that post alone he didn't acknowledge:

1. What that bias in WR even is, just that it totally exists, trust him.

2. That vision control is one of the primary pillars of game play, something that DDs are (arguably) the best at.

3. That looking at just damage totals is inherently flawed in several way since not all damage is equal. (Fire vs citadel, 10K to a BB vs 10K to a DD, it goes on and on...)

4. That K/D is a dump stat, since you can lead the team to victory with no kills and you can completely throw the game by trying to secure kills.

5. That in standard mode points only really serve to prevent the game from dragging out. Most of the time when a team wins on points, it's because they have a huge advantage in ship numbers, and 9 out of 10 times vision control played a huge part in that, if not more.

6. That in domination mode sinking ships is not the main way to get points, controlling the caps are. And that's the destroyer's job, making them extremely influential in that mode.

And more that I probably missed.

I see. You seem to be very confused. Clearly you are under the belief that logical fallacies, like proof by assertion, remove refutation. 
Hate to break it to you, they do not.

1.) This is you admitting you don't even understand the fundamentals of statistics and data science. You don't even know what "bias" is.

2.) Except they are not. CVs are the best at vision control, no contest. Additionally, even without CVs, DDs do not hold exclusivity to "vision" and the control of such. Radar and Hydro also say hello here as they ignore a ruleset of the game environment of which normal vision does not. Lastly, "vision control" as in requiring a causal relationship, does just that. Require two parties (one being non-DD) to make valid use of in any situation resulting in a "carry", since DDs are by fact, weaker in baseline attributes. If the enactment of said performance requires multiple parties, specifically a ship type different from the subject, it is no longer the sole performance of the subject being observed.

3.) It is not flawed. Damage and Killing have a causal relationship. You have cause and effect reversed. If the game was balanced based on risk vs reward, as is the proper way, the slowest effective incoming TTK ship types would NOT have the fastest effective outgoing TTK as they do now in-game. The amount of hit points available per team is also finite. Add in all of the EHP together, which includes all repair parties being used at maximum effectiveness, there is still a maximum amount of damage which can be sustained by a single ship, and by a single team. This is also why Kills are taking into account as a primary performance metric alongside Damage, this solves any discrepancy as to the resulting effectiveness of said damage. "Kill-Steals" are an outlier, and awash with even a decent sample size as every subject is a party to them.

4.) It is not a dump stat. I cited the win conditions for a match. 90% of the win conditions have direct basis on Killing, Surviving, and Damage. What you listed as a scenario is certainly possible, but as proven through the data and contextual evidence, a low occurance. Just as I can claim that an AFK shima can win >50% of its games.

5.) Clearly math is difficult for you. Obviously most matches are decided by points, and most of the points are dictated by kills. Again, proof was cited. You are even contradicting yourself here. "huge advantage in ship numbers"... which is caused by what? Damage:Kills.   "Vision control played a huge part in that", an unquantifiable and undocumented claim absent any evidence as to its weight. It is also dependent, as "playing a part" again, requiring more than one party, thus not indicative of the performance of a sole subject ship type (e.g. DDs)

6.) This is just more proof by assertion. Repeating something that was refuted via the cited evidence above.

 

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,636 posts
4,999 battles
54 minutes ago, EdgeAlchemist said:

Yeah, I can see that he started with a position and looked for statistics to fit it, instead of the other way around.

In that post alone he didn't acknowledge:

1. What that bias in WR even is, just that it totally exists, trust him.

2. That vision control is one of the primary pillars of game play, something that DDs are (arguably) the best at.

3. That looking at just damage totals is inherently flawed in several way since not all damage is equal. (Fire vs citadel, 10K to a BB vs 10K to a DD, it goes on and on...)

4. That K/D is a dump stat, since you can lead the team to victory with no kills and you can completely throw the game by trying to secure kills.

5. That in standard mode points only really serve to prevent the game from dragging out. Most of the time when a team wins on points, it's because they have a huge advantage in ship numbers, and 9 out of 10 times vision control played a huge part in that, if not more.

6. That in domination mode sinking ships is not the main way to get points, controlling the caps are. And that's the destroyer's job, making them extremely influential in that mode.

And more that I probably missed.

 

20 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

I see. You seem to be very confused. Clearly you are under the belief that logical fallacies, like proof by assertion, remove refutation. 
Hate to break it to you, they do not.

1.) This is you admitting you don't even understand the fundamentals of statistics and data science. You don't even know what "bias" is.

2.) Except they are not. CVs are the best at vision control, no contest. Additionally, even without CVs, DDs do not hold exclusivity to "vision" and the control of such. Radar and Hydro also say hello here as they ignore a ruleset of the game environment of which normal vision does not. Lastly, "vision control" as in requiring a causal relationship, does just that. Require two parties (one being non-DD) to make valid use of in any situation resulting in a "carry", since DDs are by fact, weaker in baseline attributes. If the enactment of said performance requires multiple parties, specifically a ship type different from the subject, it is no longer the sole performance of the subject being observed.

3.) It is not flawed. Damage and Killing have a causal relationship. You have cause and effect reversed. If the game was balanced based on risk vs reward, as is the proper way, the slowest effective incoming TTK ship types would NOT have the fastest effective outgoing TTK as they do now in-game. The amount of hit points available per team is also finite. Add in all of the EHP together, which includes all repair parties being used at maximum effectiveness, there is still a maximum amount of damage which can be sustained by a single ship, and by a single team. This is also why Kills are taking into account as a primary performance metric alongside Damage, this solves any discrepancy as to the resulting effectiveness of said damage. "Kill-Steals" are an outlier, and awash with even a decent sample size as every subject is a party to them.

4.) It is not a dump stat. I cited the win conditions for a match. 90% of the win conditions have direct basis on Killing, Surviving, and Damage. What you listed as a scenario is certainly possible, but as proven through the data and contextual evidence, a low occurance. Just as I can claim that an AFK shima can win >50% of its games.

5.) Clearly math is difficult for you. Obviously most matches are decided by points, and most of the points are dictated by kills. Again, proof was cited. You are even contradicting yourself here. "huge advantage in ship numbers"... which is caused by what? Damage:Kills.   "Vision control played a huge part in that", an unquantifiable and undocumented claim absent any evidence as to its weight. It is also dependent, as "playing a part" again, requiring more than one party, thus not indicative of the performance of a sole subject ship type (e.g. DDs)

6.) This is just more proof by assertion. Repeating something that was refuted via the cited evidence above.

 

And there are the responses I said he would give, which he didn't see because he has me on ignore. (I don't know if he saw my post when you quoted it, not sure how ignore works because I don't put even the worst offenders on ignore.) 

1) Throws out the "You don't know what X is" and doesn't bother explaining what X is so we aren't even able to be sure he understands what X is.

2) Claims spotting doesn't matter.  That all ships can spot so DDs don't actually have an advantage here even when it is blatantly obvious that hydro's range is not sufficient to be a significant spotting source, that radar's up time is insufficient to be a significant spotting source, that the low detection ranges of DDs gives a self evident and permanent spotting tool to DDs.  Overstates CV spotting advantages, though in this he is closest to correct of his points.  Finally tosses out the "It doesn't count because multiple ships have to be involved.  It is funny how a DD's torp salvo that forces a cruiser to turn and show broadside to a BB who then deletes it counts for the BB in his mind, even though it never would have happened if the BB were 1 vs 1 with the cruiser.

3) Completely devalues everything DDs bring to the table from spotting, to area denial, to cap securing to fleet protection and lasers in on the things DDs don't excel at, things which magically happen to be the only stats that count in his mind.  Again ignores that DD survival is low largely due to other DDs either killing DDs directly or simply keeping them spotted while they, and their team, focus fire on the DD that put himself in a bad spot.

4) Ignores your argument to rant his unsupported claims again.

5) Insults you because you don't agree with him and again devalues DD contributions in areas they are strong in so that he can maintain his whining.

6) Claims you are committing a proof by assertion fallacy by.....committing a proof by assertion fallacy, in this case trying to hide it by claiming random data he posted supports his position when it makes no such distinctions.  He really loves to post raw data and then say it supports him without ever explaining which portion of the data or why supports him.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×