Jump to content

Steeltrap

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    2,155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    486

Community Reputation

412 Renowned

7 Followers

About Steeltrap

  • Rank
    Voice of Reason
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

828 profile views
  1. Steeltrap

    MVR needs nerfing

    p.s. I know, I really ought to have better things to do. What can I say? Covid is making many of us rather silly.
  2. Steeltrap

    MVR needs nerfing

    Against my better judgement, but I can't resist. 35+ years of reading naval military history (yes, I suspect I'm the same age or older than many people's parents around here) and I need to look up a powder monkey? I'd have found "brass monkey" more amusing and potentially useful for what ought to be obvious reasons, LOL. The first book on naval history I owned is "Famous Sea Battles" by David Howarth, published 1981. I chose it as the reward for an academic prize at school that same year. Apart from being informative, it has another distinguishing characteristic: it features some amusingly incorrect illustrations, such as "Sinking of the Scharhorst at the Falkland Islands by C.E.Turner" (I'm looking at it now). The problem? The painting is of the WW2 Scharnhorst, not the WW1 armoured cruiser with 8.2" main guns. I suspect the result of the battle would have been radically different if the WW2 twins were present instead of their WW1 namesakes LOL. I haven't looked, but it's possible that error is pointed out somewhere online. It's not the only one. Clearly the copy editor wasn't exactly on their game, but it does make for something of a collectors' item. As for the rest? You are so right, the irony IS ironic. Not for the reason you suggested, however. Of COURSE I know we chose our own. I was there. OF COURSE mine is patently absurd and hyperbolic. THAT WAS THE JOKE, both on ME and, of course, anyone so wrapped up in taking everything deathly seriously to the point they'd think that label could be serious. Really? You think I expect people to believe I'm the voice of reason because I say so? It became something of a joke at the time, exactly as it was meant to be. Was also a way of dispelling tension during discussions because suggesting it was in any way proof of anything during a discussion was so ridiculous nearly everyone involved in a discussion when I deployed it couldn't help but laugh. Sometimes it was a "I accept your point, but am doing so obtusely by appearing to hide behind this ridiculous title", others it was "I'm the Voice of Reason around here, you need to calm down". It also served as something of a filter, but that's another matter. I hope you're well over the age of 40 to be taking yourself so seriously, let alone this place LOL. Cheers
  3. Steeltrap

    MVR needs nerfing

    Nice to see threads about CVs haven't changed since Beta and early release, LOL. Only the names that match the stereotypes have. I could explain my full history with this game, plus my broader experience with WG generally, and confirm I've not posted in this forum for many years (indeed I have only one account, tied to my WoT one from 2010) but it hardly matters. I'd have thought the fact I've >2k posts, Alpha Tester tag and, by the way, am "The Voice of Reason" in this forum (it says so, right?) may have given some clues to the more observant, yet (again with fidelity to the stereotypes I mentioned) the primary point of interest was my battle count. 🤣 As an aside, has anyone seen the movie "Moneybal"l? How many pro games did the fat analyst play? Clearly he couldn't have understood anything without playing, right? I used to use such stats as were available (hardly a surprise given my real life occupation). Iin WoT I was rather famous for that regarding the two hottest topics (matchmaking and arty) on the NA server which is where I started, there being no server in Asia back then. I certainly used such stats as were available then to support arguments, but it made absolutely no difference to those firmly in the grip of motivated reasoning (look it up if you're not familiar). Interesting that WG has never wanted to provide any officially sanctioned stats site for all those years. I don't know if there are reliable server stats any more, and don't really care, as I've got what I came for (I must say the barrage of email notifications has been rather astounding, so I'm turning it off). Have fun, kids, and try to play nice together.
  4. Steeltrap

    MVR needs nerfing

    Perfect example of motivated reasoning. I played from Alpha testing through to release. CVs were absurdly OP in beta, and of course in release. The statistics so obviously proved it. Yet CV players denied it constantly. Didn't matter that CVs in every tier topped the charts for av damage, av exp and av win rate. Hell, some of them even beat most of the ships one tier higher in all those elements. Nope, totally a coincidence. Within the context of that Flamu video, tell me the specific points he makes based on what he's seeing that are objectively false? First 5 minutes, for example, shows a Des Moines near a Thunderer near a MVR. Planes fly though Flamu's Halland AA, the DM's and Thunderer's and MVR's and drops on the Thunderer. If THAT collection of AA isn't enough to stop a drop, WTF can? Are CV players that brain dead that they need not even consider the flak potential of their targets? Apparently. Then goes on to trash the DM over and over. At the end the screen shows a total of ~260 planes destroyed. Yet the CVs were 2 of the last 4 ships alive, still carrying out strikes. What's it take to de-plane them? Is that even possible? He also calculated he'd need to fire uninterrupted for 11 minutes non-stop and never missing to kill an MVR with Halland's HE. He started 3 fires on the MVR for a total of 0 damage, so rapidly does the damacon reload. The funniest part? One can argue quite reasonably that FDR is even worse. They're a dreadful design. They were in Beta, they were in the first version, they are now. The never WILL be balanced because they break so many constraints other ships have to obey.. Asia is a server with a CV fetish in particular. Not especially surprising both for some cultural but also playing temperament (if a whole team could win by sitting out of sight and not shot at, they would). I find it especially hilarious people play and passionately defend a class where WG stated clearly that part of the purpose of the re-work was to lessen the importance of skill between CV players and generally. A class reworked in part so as to lessen the importance of skill. You'd almost hope most people would avoid out of a sense of self-worth following that, LMAO. But. hey, this is just my opinion. I'm sure if WG ever offered a "no CV" game option on the live server nobody would play it. 🤣
  5. LMAO. 2 CV games? No, 1 CV games are bad enough. Don't accept that? OK, in reply to your video, I offer this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFTkdm4-tiY CVs are garbage. I played from Alpha through release. They were OP garbage in Beta, OP on release (and the statistical evidence at the time proved it beyond any doubt), and still garbage that will never fit in with the rest of the game. But, hey, for the people who like playing them, many of whom end up with better stats in them than any other class they play which I'm sure is a coincidence and nothing to do with the class itself, I'm sure you'll disagree. Just as all the CV mains disagreed years ago in the face of evidence, right up to when WG 'nerfed' them and then re-worked them entirely. As an aside, imagine playing a class where WG themselves said one of the primary objectives of the re-work was to lessen the significance of skill differences between CV players. As I said, LMAO.
  6. Steeltrap

    Is there something wrong with MM?

    Just the inevitable consequence of not addressing the proportionality aspect of MM. Wrote about it in Alpha and beta, and god knows how often in WoT. WG largely doesn't care how often you're bottom tier; for all we know, they think it 'inspires' people to spend money to get to tier 9 where worst case is being middle tier. Don't expect them to change it; they've shown no history of doing so, other than changing the queue display in WoT years back to stop people getting top tier 'too often'. Funny, isn't it? You can get bottom tier 60+% of your battles and that's fine, but they have a view on what constitutes top tier 'too often'. Nice to know one can pop back to the forum just for lols ever 6 months and know MM will remain a topic.
  7. Steeltrap

    Everyone on this goddamn server is such a coward

    WoT was supposed to introduce a system for rewarding 'damage sponge' behaviour. They dumped it presumably because it would have some effect on their economy or (possibly) game play, and when I say economy I include the amount of exp earned. Of course one also has to factor in the capacity to exploit, given their are groups of people known to cheat blatantly. As far back as Alpha I know we kicked around ideas like CONTRACTING circles where, were you outside of them, you'd start to LOSE health or exp/cr; i.e. eventually everyone gets squeezed into a fight. Doesn't mean you couldn't 'camp/snipe' at the statm, but sooner or later you won't be able to. Other ideas revolve around the economy. If you wanted to increase the intensity of combat and people's willingness to engage, the obvious thing to do would be make the repair costs scale with the time at which you suffered the damage but allow it to be mitigated to a degree by damage done. In some sense that's what happens now (you do damage you earn cr, you take damage you get a repair bill) but what ISN'T done is any kind of 'encouragement' to do/take damage within the context of a 20 minute game. At its extreme, double the repair costs for every point of damage taken within a 5 minute period; 5,000 damage taken in the period 16-20 minutes will cost you 4 times what that damage would cost taken in 0-5 minutes. Can pretty much promise THAT would get people pushing. But then you have to ask if all ships are equally capable of pushing (I'd imagine German BBs would suddenly be very popular) AND if turning the game into a YOLO slugfest would necessarily make for a better game playing experience. Regardless, hardly a surprise to find this thread here after months away (and one on CV balance, lol). Cheers
  8. Steeltrap

    Why is War Gaming so bad at balancing aircraft carriers

    Struggling to balance CVs in the game? Wish we'd seen that coming.
  9. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    Entirely agree about wishing stats were better and available, but they'll never make that sort of stuff public for a host of understandable reasons (even if I don't agree with some of them, lol).
  10. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    Indulge me for a moment. Where did I say "everyone was bottom tiered most of the time"? I didn't. Secondly, it's NOT a binary system. Take this scenario: Team A has: 5 x tier 8 5 x tier 7 2 x tier 6. Team B has: 4 x tier 8 7 x tier 7 1 x tier 6. So, how many are playing as top tier? 9 How many are playing as bottom tier? 3 How binary does that look to you? Have you ever seen such a roster? I have. My point is, and always has been, that people ought not to be bottom tier more than they are top tier in the playing life of a vessel over a reasonable period of games. That is entirely possible at the moment, and I contend it would make for a 'fairer' and 'better' system were it not. Is that a terrible thing? Apparently. Secondly, don't call me a liar. It's entirely unnecessary, and if you stoop to personal abuse of that kind it does nothing to further your argument, and is against the forum rules (not that I'm about to report it). I'm delighted to hear you're a student. I work as a business consultant on process/control design and improvement, and have done so for 15+ years in many of the largest financial institutions in this country. I'm delighted to hear you're studying, but if you think that means you're inherently correct or I'll defer to you on those grounds you're mistaken. Besides which, where did I "bash" WG? All I said was that their MM system could be better. You claimed you didn't care, but your further behaviour opens that to question. Is this forum so lame people can't have a discussion over MM and how it might be improved without others getting upset and bringing out personal abuse? Sad. Cheers
  11. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    Hence my comments on the misapplication of 'anecdotal'. My premise is the best solution IMO is that it DOES manage distribution, and accepting anything less is poor. Cheers, g'night.
  12. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    If you're saying my assertion that MM doesn't handle the distribution aspects as I claimed is false despite evidence to the contrary (I said I could only find the last WoT ones, but I had WoWS in the past), by definition you're saying your default position is it does. Reading without comprehension is rather pointless. Anyway, 2320 here and I'm going to bed. Cheers
  13. Steeltrap

    How can u enjoy this cowardice meta

    No excuse for not giving someone who does your job for you (i.e. identifying cheats/griefers) the courtesy of a meaningful reply. By all means put limits all over it ("if you go brag about this on the forum you'll be banned for a month") but not telling what was done is poor from a whole load of customer interaction perspectives. It certainly might be expected to discourage repeat efforts, doubly so when the replay system still isn't standard (did they fix that, or do you have to stuff around as you did in the past?),
  14. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    I ignored B simply because all experience points to the fact WG will never do it. Given it does generate some hostility for some players, if they won't do it then the least they CAN do is make sure you don't get hosed in a particular ship or tier absolutely any more than the basic eligibility of battles suggests you ought to. Hence proposing A as a partial limitation of the aggravation caused to those who don't like that they don't have (and probably never will have) a way of avoiding B (other than co-op which gives pants returns). Incidentally, isn't saying "everyone ought to view B as a challenge" limiting? ;-p
  15. Steeltrap

    MatchMaker - A Novel Idea

    So you believe MM provides balanced distribution of battles from the available ones both at a 'total tier' AND 'ship within tier' level? Pity you didn't say simply that. Not sure why you think it does, especially when you've got no data to support it (and WG has never says it does, which I'd certainly do if I were they), but whatever.
×