Not really sure if xcom is the best example you could use for drop rate.
Given that I've seen 95% chances miss far more often than 2% chances.
World of Warships
- Thread starter Gamesguy
- Start date
- PC
Given that I've seen 95% chances miss far more often than 2% chances.
HolyDragoon
Call Gespenst!
- Location
- Portugal
What better example to teach you how seemingly favorable odds can end up screwing you.
Night
Widow Null
- Location
- Hoff
First: This is an important lesson about 95% not being a sure thing.
Second: The fact you don't understand statistics makes you in the target market, would you like to buy a lootbox?
No not really.
Secondly, I understand statistics perfectly fine. I also understand that video games are not a good example of anything involving rng. Given that the devs can manipulate them.
Avalanche
Atypical Netizen
- Location
- Australia
I hate this particular piece of bullshit in particular. I don't see anything wrong with the rest of your post, but this particular smug little lie triggers the hell out of me.
This was never promised. The specific reply read that guns larger than Yamatos would not be considered except in circumstances where the planned ship had less guns than Yamato and they gave the example of H-44 with its planned 8 guns.
Nothing against the rest of your post but this self serving lie needs to be put down, and put down properly.
Modern XCOM straight-up lies to you about the probabilities on every difficulty except the highest, to make the game feel better to play. Of course, they're not legally bound to show you the correct hit chances. Which is why making companies publish accurate drop rates is important.
Do either you or @Night have the original source for this one? This is the first time I've heard it phrased that way, but I don't think I've even seen the original for myself.
Night
Widow Null
- Location
- Hoff
I kind of doubt this for the simple reason that they had, in the same Q&A series and even I think the same question, indicated they had no interest in ships over 80000-ish tons, which people at the time noted included the Tillmans and some of the Super Yamato studies but specifically excluded H-43 and H-44. At various other points they specifically pooh-poohed the idea of ever doing H-44 on the grounds that while they might include paper designs, they were at least ships that could have been built, but H-44 was flatly impossible. They also indicated that only H-39 and H-41 were on the table as top-tier German ships and that, at absolute worst, they were willing to break their promises on a one-time basis and bring in H-42 if H-41 was simply not playable. They would not have used H-44 as an example at the time.
People then later called them out for breaking the promises about displacement with Conqueror.
It was a pre-release Q&A series. The questions were asked and answered in a forum for speculation that no longer exists. I made an attempt, but found nothing, and doubt it's there to be found.
Last edited:
Avalanche
Atypical Netizen
- Location
- Australia
It was a very old QA thing on the WG forums. I found the original post ages ago, but I can't find it anymore. If Night is right and that forum is deleted, that's pretty annoying, cause I'll basically have to bow to the incorrect public consensus about the whole issue since I can't source the original answer anymore.
Can you give us anything to work with? the name of the thread when it was created? anything?
EDIT:
Would this by chance be the Q&A you're looking for?
FAQ round up from the NA forum - Questions and Answers
FAQ round up from the NA forum - posted in Questions and Answers: I just grabbed all the questions already asked on the NA forum, and added the answers as well, just so WG doesnt have to double post too much Before I start, a lot of posts use hull classification codes: BB: Battleship CB...
web.archive.org
Last edited:
Avalanche
Atypical Netizen
- Location
- Australia
Nope, I googled it, found a WG forum thread, Ctrl+f'd "460mm" read the original answer about guns larger than Yamato, and closed the tab feeling all smug and superior about it.
I tried that last night and found diddly.
I presume anyone wanting to find the source of the alleged promise not to include guns larger than 460mm will have the same problems as me.
EDIT: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/411030147756589056/883927735200804874/unknown.png
Found this here I suppose, but I'm fairly sure this isn't where I originally found it: Developer Q&A #1 - Developer's Deck
Last edited:
That's even further back than I was expecting. I don't understand why anyone expects them to stick to a vision from pre-alpha, regardless of the exact wording.
Some people just want any sort of ammunition that they can use against wg.
SaltyWaffles
I am dissapoint, son
- Pronouns
- He/Him
"good enough for me", you say, and with that statement you forfeit your right to complain about what you yourself call predatory and unhealthy practices.
You being willing to accept "good enough for me" is how they keep getting away with this shit.
It's like saying that as long as cigarette companies put warning labels on their cigarette cartons, making and selling cigarettes is fine. No, it isn't, it's addictive cancer sticks designed to maximize profit off of slowly killing people and burdening our health care system even further.
The point is that, from a game design standpoint, it's ridiculous to put in guns bigger than Yamato's. It just makes balancing the game and making it fun harder, and it creates a precedent where the sky is the limit on gun caliber. As reminder, the Yamato-class' 18.1" guns were already enormous IRL, and they were uniquely enormous--no one else went beyond 16" guns, because it was just plain unnecessary.
Yamato is at Tier 10. Its guns are uniquely large, and that is a core part of its identity and playstyle--its gunpower is more potent than any other's, and it can overmatch armor that no other guns could. In exchange, it was worse with brawling, its AA was much poorer than normal, and it was a big target.
But then they reworked carriers into the monstrosity they are now, nerfed all existing AA into the dirt, introduced bigger guns into the game, and increasingly encouraged "stay in the back and snipe" playstyles with battleships, so...?
Putting in 20" guns into the game when, IRL, every other battleship that even began construction used 16" guns at most (excepting the Yamato-class) just makes little sense. It'd be like introducing a Tier 10 premium carrier that got jet aircraft...just...why? Either it is understandably overpowered, or it's balanced by virtue of being impractical or just really niche/circumstantially effective.
It's putting in an ill-thought-out gimmick into the game without regard to how it will be yet another step towards a balance hell in the long term (just like WoWs is right now).
Last edited:
Avalanche
Atypical Netizen
- Location
- Australia
None of your following points support this premise.
EDIT: I don't really understand what you mean tbh. If you are suggesting a creep towards overmatching the next armour plate threshold of 38mm, which needs 544mm guns or greater, then that hasn't happened yet, but it would be amusing to see. The threshold after that is the 50mm german weather decks, and that's even further out of reach.
Last edited:
- Location
- Void of Observation
Shikishima's (and Incomparable's) guns haven't been a matter of contention for years, @SaltyWaffles. The overmatch potential and massive alpha of those guns are nice aspects but their are tools that only experienced players can fully make use of, offer advantages that are very much matched with their downsides, and for Shikishima as a whole, a fitting feature for her status as a Steel-sold ship - highly skill dependent with a skill ceiling to match. By that metric they are, gameplay wise, reasonable additions to the game. They have no overt balancing problems and your concerns are a mismash of fluff mixed into gameplay concerns.
Like I've been saying for the past few pages - your understanding of the game's current state is so clearly lacking I really recommend you go play the current update before speaking further.
WoWS has been - and I hope will be - a game where playing it is something one can do with not a single payment and as such help themselves to quite literally years worth of free content with a nary a care, and that's the most important thing to me. I don't care much for the moralizing crusade the western press and community have against 'gambling' mechanics et all because my experience and the people around me have attested to is that they are more concerned with the ability to choose whether to pay money for a game (ergo, the non-existence of P2W mechanics) than the existence of lootboxes in themselves. And that WG has promised to always offer to sell ships seperately from lootboxes; fantastic, that's just what I wanted!
If you really want to go after people for lootboxes, then I suggest you start with the community at large, not me, because if anything their willingness to continously buy lootboxes is a major reason why Wargaming keeps bringing them back.
Like I've been saying for the past few pages - your understanding of the game's current state is so clearly lacking I really recommend you go play the current update before speaking further.
Don't try to de-platform me just because I disagree with you on what is 'predatory', that's just rude.
WoWS has been - and I hope will be - a game where playing it is something one can do with not a single payment and as such help themselves to quite literally years worth of free content with a nary a care, and that's the most important thing to me. I don't care much for the moralizing crusade the western press and community have against 'gambling' mechanics et all because my experience and the people around me have attested to is that they are more concerned with the ability to choose whether to pay money for a game (ergo, the non-existence of P2W mechanics) than the existence of lootboxes in themselves. And that WG has promised to always offer to sell ships seperately from lootboxes; fantastic, that's just what I wanted!
If you really want to go after people for lootboxes, then I suggest you start with the community at large, not me, because if anything their willingness to continously buy lootboxes is a major reason why Wargaming keeps bringing them back.
Last edited:
Hmm. Blaming the playerbase, which likely includes those vulnerable to gambling addictions, over the supplier of such things (when WG does not even need to sell the damned things, they are making a tidy profit anyway). Not a good look imo.
- Location
- Void of Observation
I'm not 'blaming' anyone, save for my persistent frustration with the idiocy at large in the community. I've said it before that the rise of gambling mechanics in games have been inevitable for the past few years and short of worldwide regulation they are not going away, and my stance on gambling is of one of complete indifference. The major boycotts of various games have not really impacted their implementation in many different ways because its clear its profitable. People will gamble, and outside of the gaming community at large saying such things are the devil's ruin its been an accepted vice in many societies for a while now. I rather we have alternatives and limits to the gambling we go through than meaninglessly agitate for their removal.
The Last One
Here because reasons
On another note, I just had the most hilarious battle grinding up my Rhein. It was me, an enemy Langley and the entire rest of the battle was bots. Felt kind of bad for that Langley, though, not only did he lose, he wasn't the top scorer on his team.
- Location
- Void of Observation
The new Soviet CVs have been put off NDA, with footage from my clan lead here, especially on Pobeda and Chkakov:
As mentioned, the main traits of these carriers are their single flight single strike schtick, RATO takeoff boost and relatively large alpha potential offset by poor speed and health per plane and the lack of heals of any sort. All the ships in this line feature long range rockets, torpedoes and skip bombs, with the premium Chkakov differentiated by the replacement of her rockets with divebombers that have a Lowenhardt/Graf Zeppelin style reticle. So far, the verdict on them is that they are decent carriers with a high skill floor, requiring very good angles of attack and positioning to be able to make full use of the line without deplaning yourself quickly - A lot of streamers who weren't used to carriers have so far been spotted suffering in them during the current showcase period, for instance - while demanding aggressive carrier play and handling to avoid being hurt too much by the poor speed.
For Chkakov herself compared to her T8 stablemates, she's considered to be on the higher side of things, on par with Kaga although lacking in competitive potential, despite the last minute nerf to her divebombers (due to their tendency to two-shot DDs). In any case, I will be definitely getting her once the doubloon coupon reset, I'm really liking how well one can cycle through her planes (specially her divebombers) aggressively. If you like CVs and you are comfortable with your skills with them, I say that they are definitely a good addition to your port.
As mentioned, the main traits of these carriers are their single flight single strike schtick, RATO takeoff boost and relatively large alpha potential offset by poor speed and health per plane and the lack of heals of any sort. All the ships in this line feature long range rockets, torpedoes and skip bombs, with the premium Chkakov differentiated by the replacement of her rockets with divebombers that have a Lowenhardt/Graf Zeppelin style reticle. So far, the verdict on them is that they are decent carriers with a high skill floor, requiring very good angles of attack and positioning to be able to make full use of the line without deplaning yourself quickly - A lot of streamers who weren't used to carriers have so far been spotted suffering in them during the current showcase period, for instance - while demanding aggressive carrier play and handling to avoid being hurt too much by the poor speed.
For Chkakov herself compared to her T8 stablemates, she's considered to be on the higher side of things, on par with Kaga although lacking in competitive potential, despite the last minute nerf to her divebombers (due to their tendency to two-shot DDs). In any case, I will be definitely getting her once the doubloon coupon reset, I'm really liking how well one can cycle through her planes (specially her divebombers) aggressively. If you like CVs and you are comfortable with your skills with them, I say that they are definitely a good addition to your port.
Last edited:
I think it is still an utter shame that there are no Essex class carriers in WoWs, given they were arguably the most important single class of ships in all of WWII and played a decisive role in so many naval engagements. Seriously, introducing one with high-tier planes to make it a bit of a glass cannon as a T10 premium or giving it some more modest planes and making it T8 seems like a no-brainer to me.
Skywalker_T-65
Writer with too many ideas.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- Plural/They/He/Her
Essex *was* in the game. Before the whole, y'know, rework.
- Location
- Void of Observation
WG's been talking 'support CVs' with those existing models for a while now, since around the start of the year or before, and in their most recent set of QnAs they've confirmed they are in development, although held back by, as always, submarine development.
TBH I'm actually quite confused how they would go about with support CVs. ASW? Smoke layers? Airlaunched repair parties or more dedicated (and useful) fighter squads?
Smaller squads but they can replenish aircraft more quickly?
Rather than three types of squads, they focus on a single type? Say dive bombers?
Heavier and longer-ranged aa firepower?
They've been in development since 2019 or even late 2018, with apparently zero progress. In all that time, I'm not sure WG has come any closer to figuring out what they'd do.