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

DDs are NOT dead!

122 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,480
[GOB]
Members
2,060 posts

I'm in no way a Unicum DD player but I have learned how to play with the Cvs and Radars and can still have games like this.  I think it's because I learned POST Cv changes etc.    I seem to have the most fun now above T8 and in DDs and BBs.  I have good games in CAs but not as consistently.  Here's the last game I played this morning.

There is still plenty of fun in DDs. Don't give up!

 

Untisdsdsdtled.png

  • Cool 12
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,480
[GOB]
Members
2,060 posts
1 minute ago, Varknyn12 said:

What a remarkable sample size you have

LOL YOU WIN!!  The first Lame reply always using " Statistics " to pee on someones post.  You people are so sad.  When it's you it's I'M GREAT...anything that makes your arguments look silly " Lacks sufficient evidence"

DO you know how lame that makes you look?

Feel free to wallow in your misery and poo poo anything positive, but  know. People see right through it and actually laugh at you.

How's that for a sample?

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 4
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,887
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,654 posts
5 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

What a remarkable sample size you have

At least he has a sample, which is more than you have provided. Do you want more data?

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20200404/na_week/average_class_u.html

Now collect the DD play data for each month in the 12 months before the rework and for the past 12 months and run a Kruskal-Wallis test to determine if median DD play has changed significantly.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


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

At least he has a sample, which is more than you have provided. Do you want more data?

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20200404/na_week/average_class_u.html

Now collect the DD play data for each month in the 12 months before the rework and for the past 12 months and run a Kruskal-Wallis test to determine if median DD play has changed significantly.

1.) The data you provided confirms: DDs are the lowest performing ship type. High tier DDs are performing below the bottom end of the balance range, i.e. factually underpowered.

2.) It is always amusing when people try to pretend to be more educated than they really are.  You should probably learn what a Kruskal-Wallis test is before posting terminology that you do not understand.
Simply put, the Kruskal-Wallis test would be worthless for determining balance observations and changes in median between separate samples. For one, deviations between two samples and the median variables has nothing to do with stochastic dominance. Secondly, when observing balance and deviations one would require the Gaussian distribution to formulate the bell curve which relegates sample bias.

3.) The median performance for DD play is already provided in maple, so clearly you are showing how benighted you are yet again. Additionally, one can view this same median for samples in different quarters which include legacy data, and 2 month samples which do not. For the 2 month samples, you can continue to go back and back into the past via the link at the bottom of the page (which you clearly didn't even know about).

 

Quote

image.thumb.png.c5aa68e53aa9a7fcaf99f8ffa80804f5.png

 

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Cool 4
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts
48 minutes ago, Col_Nasty said:

I'm in no way a Unicum DD player but I have learned how to play with the Cvs and Radars and can still have games like this.  I think it's because I learned POST Cv changes etc.    I seem to have the most fun now above T8 and in DDs and BBs.  I have good games in CAs but not as consistently.  Here's the last game I played this morning.

There is still plenty of fun in DDs. Don't give up!

 

Untisdsdsdtled.png

Dd never were dead it was just the whinning that grew

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
36 posts
7,093 battles
11 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

2.) It is always amusing when people try to pretend to be more educated than they really are.  You should probably learn what a Kruskal-Wallis test is before posting terminology that you do not understand.

rofl.  what a freaking wanker.

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,280
[PVE]
Members
4,264 posts
18,653 battles
47 minutes ago, Col_Nasty said:

I'm in no way a Unicum DD player but I have learned how to play with the Cvs and Radars and can still have games like this.  I think it's because I learned POST Cv changes etc.    I seem to have the most fun now above T8 and in DDs and BBs.  I have good games in CAs but not as consistently.  Here's the last game I played this morning.

There is still plenty of fun in DDs. Don't give up!

 

Untisdsdsdtled.png

Cool beans !  I am glad you broke the code to DD's in Randoms !!!  :cap_like:

The down side for me, is that the time required to "get GuD" simply,  isn't available.......  I'd be dead long before I could ever solve that Gordian Knot to any level of personal satisfaction or ever, finding fun in doing so.......   Well done and I am jealous..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,590
Members
6,621 posts
20,657 battles
46 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

What a remarkable sample size you have

kek.

See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[WOLF8]
Members
48 posts
696 battles

DD's are not dead. DD's are just harder to play because there are more cv games. I'm also no unicum and it takes too much effort to play DDs well compared to other classes.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,887
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,654 posts
16 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

The data you provided confirms: DDs are the lowest performing ship type.

You can collect 12 DD-play averages, one per month, for the year before and the year after the rework. While this is still a relatively small data set, you can then use a nonparametric test to assess whether there are any significant changes in DD play and performance, presumably due to the rework. If you wish, you can collect much more data and then use a parametric test for more confidence. However, since you are only replying with an opinion I can see that you quite likely will do neither.

Since you claim to know so much about the game, perhaps you can tell us why DDs might performing lower than other ship types. Is it because the game is generally "unbalanced"? Is it because the reworked CVs have completely destroyed DD gameplay? Or, might it be a condition inherent on the ship type itself? Could it perhaps be that DDs farm less damage in games because they have smaller guns, tend to be spotted and taken out when trying to cap early in the game, or tend to spend a considerable time spotting while cruisers and BBs are raining down fire. Or, maybe it's because many DDs have a main weapon that is slow loading and easily avoided by ships with the proper skills, modules, and consumables? Can you think of any other things that may be causing what seems to be a discrepancy in DD-caused damage versus the damage caused by other ship types?

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,590
Members
6,621 posts
20,657 battles

In all seriousness, the game still revolves around DD play, and probably always will.

Just played this game. On paper using ranked players... this "probably" looked like a blowout. Four rank ones and 3 ranks fives against 2 under rank ten.....

Good DD play>almost anything.

dW1LhlV.png

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[WOLF8]
Members
48 posts
696 battles
3 minutes ago, Waxing_Gibbous said:

In all seriousness, the game still revolves around DD play, and probably always will.

Just played this game. On paper using ranked players... this "probably" looked like a blowout. Four rank ones and 3 ranks fives against 2 under rank ten.....

Good DD play>almost anything.

dW1LhlV.png

I agree that good DD play matters. However,  using ranks to determine which team is more likely to win is extremely flawed. Ranks don't really mean anything when people can just spam battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
298
[LANCE]
Members
793 posts
5,906 battles
1 hour ago, Col_Nasty said:

I'm in no way a Unicum DD player but I have learned how to play with the Cvs and Radars and can still have games like this.  I think it's because I learned POST Cv changes etc.    I seem to have the most fun now above T8 and in DDs and BBs.  I have good games in CAs but not as consistently.  Here's the last game I played this morning.

There is still plenty of fun in DDs. Don't give up!

 

Untisdsdsdtled.png

Well done mate! Good game! :cap_like:

 

See what I did there! Instead of blabbing on about stats/factual data differences/confirmation bias and all the other chuff just give the OP a WP for a game he did well in!

Stay safe all!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,590
Members
6,621 posts
20,657 battles
4 minutes ago, gamer_60 said:

I agree that good DD play matters. However,  using ranks to determine which team is more likely to win is extremely flawed. Ranks don't really mean anything when people can just spam battles.

That's actually not true. Is it a direct correlation? no. Is it an indicator? Yes. Especially when the numbers are so heavily weighted. I spammed battles and couldn't do it. It isn't that easy as spamming battles. Trust me.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
 
 
 
 
2
 Advanced issues found
 
🤓
3
6 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

1.) You can collect 12 DD-play averages, one per month, for the year before and the year after the rework. While this is still a relatively small data set, you can then use a nonparametric test to assess whether there are any significant changes in DD play and performance, presumably due to the rework. If you wish, you can collect much more data and then use a parametric test for more confidence. However, since you are only replying with an opinion I can see that you quite likely will do neither.

2.) Since you claim to know so much about the game, perhaps you can tell us why DDs might performing lower than other ship types. Is it because the game is generally "unbalanced"? Is it because the reworked CVs have completely destroyed DD gameplay? Or, might it be a condition inherent on the ship type itself? Could it perhaps be that DDs farm less damage in games because they have smaller guns, tend to be spotted and taken out when trying to cap early in the game, or tend to spend a considerable time spotting while cruisers and BBs are raining down fire. Or, maybe it's because many DDs have a main weapon that is slow loading and easily avoided by ships with the proper skills, modules, and consumables? Can you think of any other things that may be causing what seems to be a discrepancy in DD-caused damage versus the damage caused by other ship types?

1.) Please continue to amuse me with this charade of you pretending to know anything about data science. "parametric test"? I will leave this one be so I don't embarrass you a second time around.

2.) DDs are underpowered at high tiers according to the data. The CV rework and the changes that were included in the implementation of that rework (like the massive flooding nerf), also saw DD performance decline. Both in median and each of the subsets based on performance of owners organized in brackets. The win conditions set forth by WG and the ruleset are what determine not only the baseline but the contextual evidence for which the data must be compared to observing balance and which metrics have the most impact. Combat effectiveness and Survivability have the most direct impact on the win conditions and ruleset.

Win conditions are as seen here: https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Game_Modes
and a major part of the ruleset being that it is YOLO, or no respawns allowed. This further substantiates combat effectiveness and survivability as the primary metrics for determining performance in regards to balance. Thus, any ship/type which is weaker in those primary metrics is underpowered already in the design. 

  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[STURM]
Members
708 posts
5,746 battles
19 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

You can collect 12 DD-play averages, one per month, for the year before and the year after the rework. While this is still a relatively small data set, you can then use a nonparametric test to assess whether there are any significant changes in DD play and performance, presumably due to the rework. If you wish, you can collect much more data and then use a parametric test for more confidence. However, since you are only replying with an opinion I can see that you quite likely will do neither.

Since you claim to know so much about the game, perhaps you can tell us why DDs might performing lower than other ship types. Is it because the game is generally "unbalanced"? Is it because the reworked CVs have completely destroyed DD gameplay? Or, might it be a condition inherent on the ship type itself? Could it perhaps be that DDs farm less damage in games because they have smaller guns, tend to be spotted and taken out when trying to cap early in the game, or tend to spend a considerable time spotting while cruisers and BBs are raining down fire. Or, maybe it's because many DDs have a main weapon that is slow loading and easily avoided by ships with the proper skills, modules, and consumables? Can you think of any other things that may be causing what seems to be a discrepancy in DD-caused damage versus the damage caused by other ship types?

Dude, don't engage with this guy.

This is the guy who said that BBs should be nerfed by giving them all RU BB style DCP consumable and stuck his hands in his ears when people pointed out that would be a buff.

This is the guy who has repeatedly said that pure damage and K/D ratio are the best measures of a ship's effectiveness.

This is the guy who claims spotting and capping is meaningless because they can't be measured, and that WR is a biased metric because....

I actually don't know on that last one. He evades giving even the slightest hint of why he thinks WR doesn't matter, instead just throwing around accusations that people are using fallacies against him.

Just put him on ignore, you won't miss anything.

Edited by Muninn77
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,453
[WOLFG]
Members
29,075 posts
8,322 battles
32 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

1.) The data you provided confirms: DDs are the lowest performing ship type. High tier DDs are performing below the bottom end of the balance range, i.e. factually underpowered.

2.) It is always amusing when people try to pretend to be more educated than they really are.  You should probably learn what a Kruskal-Wallis test is before posting terminology that you do not understand.
Simply put, the Kruskal-Wallis test would be worthless for determining balance observations and changes in median between separate samples. For one, deviations between two samples and the median variables has nothing to do with stochastic dominance. Secondly, when observing balance and deviations one would require the Gaussian distribution to formulate the bell curve which relegates sample bias.

3.) The median performance for DD play is already provided in maple, so clearly you are showing how benighted you are yet again. Additionally, one can view this same median for samples in different quarters which include legacy data, and 2 month samples which do not. For the 2 month samples, you can continue to go back and back into the past via the link at the bottom of the page (which you clearly didn't even know about).

 

 

So where do we find the data that indicates which class is the most fun to play?

Oh, and BTW, could you maybe spring for a thesaurus? The data clearly shows you overuse certain words a lot.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,453
[WOLFG]
Members
29,075 posts
8,322 battles
1 minute ago, Muninn77 said:

Dude, don't engage with this guy.

This is the guy who said that BBs should be nerfed by giving them all RU BB style DCP consumable and stuck his hands in his ears when people pointed out that would be a buff.

This is the guy who has repeatedly said that pure damage and K/D ratio are the best measures of a ship's effectiveness.

This is the guy who claims spotting and capping is meaningless because they can't be measured, and that WR is a biased metric because....

I actually don't know on that last one. He evades giving even the slightest hint of why he thinks WR doesn't matter, instead just throwing around accusations that people are using fallacies against him.

You can tell when you've really flustered him. Keep pressing on issues he tries to avoid, and he puts you on ignore lol.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,887
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,654 posts
5 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

You can tell when you've really flustered him. Keep pressing on issues he tries to avoid, and he puts you on ignore lol.

LOL, so that's why I can no longer quote him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[STURM]
Members
708 posts
5,746 battles
6 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

You can tell when you've really flustered him. Keep pressing on issues he tries to avoid, and he puts you on ignore lol.

I'd call getting on his ignore list a mark of honor, but it's far too inclusive a club for that.

...how long do you think his list is, anyways? With how he's outspoken and thin-skinned at the same time, I'd call 100 a low estimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles
13 minutes ago, Muninn77 said:

Dude, don't engage with this guy.

This is the guy who said that BBs should be nerfed by giving them all RU BB style DCP consumable and stuck his hands in his ears when people pointed out that would be a buff.

This is the guy who has repeatedly said that pure damage and K/D ratio are the best measures of a ship's effectiveness.

This is the guy who claims spotting and capping is meaningless because they can't be measured, and that WR is a biased metric because....

I actually don't know on that last one. He evades giving even the slightest hint of why he thinks WR doesn't matter, instead just throwing around accusations that people are using fallacies against him.

Just put him on ignore, you won't miss anything.

That sure is a bunch of logical fallacies.

1.) So if we gave BBs 2 base charges of the limited DCP currently on Russian BBs, it would be a buff? Please continue.
2.) Feel free to point out exactly which win conditions and which part of the ruleset are not directly affected by a ships combat effectiveness and survivability
3.) another Straw Man here. I never made that claim about spotting and capping being meaningless. Additionally, Capping is measurable.. WR is a biased metric, inherent bias to be exact and it cannot be ruled out by increasing the sample size. Additionally it has unquantifiable dependencies with unqualifiable weight. The game would have to be 1v1 and SBMM for Win rate to be indicative of ship/type performance.

But please continue to amuse me.

Edited by Varknyn12
  • Funny 1
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
804
[WOLFC]
Members
1,669 posts
9,497 battles
1 hour ago, Col_Nasty said:

 

I'm in no way a Unicum DD player but I have learned how to play with the Cvs and Radars and can still have games like this.  I think it's because I learned POST Cv changes etc.

 

This is a big part of it. People don’t like change and many players got spoiled by the rarity of CVs prior to the rework.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,676
[SALVO]
Members
4,463 posts
3,825 battles
1 hour ago, Varknyn12 said:

The data you provided confirms: DDs are the lowest performing ship type. High tier DDs are performing below the bottom end of the balance range, i.e. factually underpowered.

Lol. Had a game this week. Tier 4 smokeless DD with 3 CV per side, you can guess how it went. I managed to outlive any other DD in the match and be alive by the time we secured the game (finally died while farming dmg from a CV). It was one of the most entertaining matches I had this week, very unusual, interesting. 

I don't care about your "low performing ship type" nor your "balance". DDs are still fun as monkeys and very much alive in my rotation.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,554
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,994 posts
20,713 battles
2 hours ago, Col_Nasty said:

I'm in no way a Unicum DD player but I have learned how to play with the Cvs and Radars and can still have games like this.  I think it's because I learned POST Cv changes etc.    I seem to have the most fun now above T8 and in DDs and BBs.  I have good games in CAs but not as consistently.  Here's the last game I played this morning.

There is still plenty of fun in DDs. Don't give up!

 

Untisdsdsdtled.png

Which torps are you using?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×