|
Atomizer posted:Lol wrong, those are terrible examples. Hippopotamus is from ancient Greek to Latin to English, and the Latin plural is Hippopotami. I've never even heard "syllabuses;" every instructor I've known has said "syllabi." Part of this all may have to do with us being from different regions, but again, you can say whatever the gently caress you want and still be wrong. There's a difference between a living language and components lifted directly from another language. You can totally modify your language, but that doesn't change the rules of the other language. If you're speaking English with unmodified (i.e. not English derivatives) foreign words, you're technically speaking both languages. That's the point; if you're speaking something from a second language, and someone recognizes that you've made a mistake in terms of style, spelling, inflection, conjugation, etc., you shouldn't be offended when they correct you. I hope this has cleared up the misunderstanding; in the future, however, please keep your posts on-topic. Dude, guess what. You can use both. The ones I mentioned are just far more common in current use, which illustrates my point of how applying English verb tenses to words taken from other languages is one of the many forms the process of language evolution can take. Also, fuckin' lol at "technically speaking both languages". No, you're speaking English, which has the remarkable capacity to borrow words from other languages and then modify them over time. BTW, you're the one who started this whole derail with your pedantic data/datum correction, so in the future I suggest you take your own advice re: keeping your posts on topic.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
The only thing worse than English is Latin grammar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
if it weren't for artillery making it absolutely necessary to hug impassable rock walls or buildings or have one nearby wherever you go almost every map in the game would instantly be much better
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Prav posted:The only thing worse than English is Latin grammar. I disagree, pubbies, wargaming, goons, and artillery are all worse than either of those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Prav posted:playing lakeville correctly doesn't make it a good map. poo poo, i'd go so far as to say it makes it worse. This basically. Lakeville (or any other map where they've lazily made the majority of the terrain inaccessible due to water and/or mountains) being bad is one thing, but it's totally playable (and winnable) if the team knows what they're doing. McGavin posted:Dude, guess what. You can use both. The ones I mentioned are just far more common in current use, which illustrates my point of how applying English verb tenses to words taken from other languages is one of the many forms the process of language evolution can take. Also, fuckin' lol at "technically speaking both languages". No, you're speaking English, which has the remarkable capacity to borrow words from other languages and then modify them over time. BTW, you're the one who started this whole derail with your pedantic data/datum correction, so in the future I suggest you take your own advice re: keeping your posts on topic. Indeed, you can use both, which is what I've been saying. I do disagree about the commonality of your examples, and we've been discussing nouns, not verbs, but that's all beside the point. And you certainly can be speaking two languages at a time, see Spanglish or creole languages for examples. And I did kind of start this with the "data" thing, but remember I was responding something relevant to the thread; you're the one who drew it out and made a post entirely unrelated to the topic. All of my posts have had something to do with the rest of the thread. So I guess it's cool that this is one of your obsessions or whatever, but let's keep it out of the thread. I'll be on TS later today if you want to discuss it further. Prav posted:The only thing worse than English is Latin grammar. gently caress yes, this. If not for loving Latin grammar we wouldn't have had this whole McGavin derail.  Lol sorry, sorry! I couldn't help myself! :iamafag:Pornographic Memory posted:if it weren't for artillery making it absolutely necessary to hug impassable rock walls or buildings or have one nearby wherever you go almost every map in the game would instantly be much better The first thing I look for when the match loads is whether or not there's any arty. Those matches with no arty are usually so much better regardless of the map.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
WayAbvPar posted:That lovely slog used to be a lot worse, though. There was ONE corner to fight at, and that was it. Now there are 3-4. The big problem still remains, however- it is suicidal and tactically useless to be anywhere near the middle of the map. If they made it less of a deathtrap and gave it more access to the bases, it would balance the whole map a lot better. Pornographic Memory posted:if it weren't for artillery making it absolutely necessary to hug impassable rock walls or buildings or have one nearby wherever you go almost every map in the game would instantly be much better
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
I like one shotting tier 7's in my O-I. This is all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
You should play more artillery. You would get a much better feel for what sort of shots they can hit, where they set up, how to move to frustrate the everloving poo poo out them, etc. You would also realize that the safest place you can be most of the time is where an arty player is aiming. I don't mind being targeted by arty as much as others seem to. I understand how to make myself hard to hit, and if they are spending time trying to time a shot on me, they aren't raining death on my retarded pubbie teammates or the players better than me on the team who will actually help us win.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
WayAbvPar posted:You should play more artillery. You would get a much better feel for what sort of shots they can hit, where they set up, how to move to frustrate the everloving poo poo out them, etc. You would also realize that the safest place you can be most of the time is where an arty player is aiming. I don't mind being targeted by arty as much as others seem to. I understand how to make myself hard to hit, and if they are spending time trying to time a shot on me, they aren't raining death on my retarded pubbie teammates or the players better than me on the team who will actually help us win. My problem is arty loading an AP round and one-shotting my T9 TD T30 from 1750 HP to zero when I turn a corner to push down a city road. My problem is any slow rear end tank that cant get to cover fast enough and/or dodge out in the open because it moves too slowly to do so. Am I supposed to kill everything that comes into my sight from my cover but then hide like a scared little girl once there is nothing left to shoot at because the enemy team has arty? I have played plenty of games as arty and I loving hate it because it is so RNG based. I know how it works. I know how to do my best to avoid it and I loving hate that I have to do it. I should not be constantly under threat of instant death or my tank, at a minimum, losing 2 crew members and three critical parts at a whim from an activity that has no possible recourse. I am being forced to hide behind rocks and buildings because otherwise someone who is safely hiding on the other side of the map can instantly destroy my tank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Why on Earth does Wargaming think it's a good idea to limit maps by battle tier so extensively?? Yes, less variety, that's what we want. I guess WG really wants to push the 'tier X endgame" meta and anyone who enjoys playing lower tiers and doesn't want to bother grinding is punished by having fewer maps to play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Why on Earth does Wargaming think it's a good idea to limit maps by battle tier so extensively?? Yes, less variety, that's what we want. I guess WG really wants to push the 'tier X endgame" meta and anyone who enjoys playing lower tiers and doesn't want to bother grinding is punished by having fewer maps to play. Don't bother trying to find reasoning in what WG does. There is none to be found.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Arty isnt just bad because it's RNG dependent, it's also bad because it punishes people trying to push from a static position, and the best way to mitigate the RNG (i.e. optimal play) is to stay in the static position. Being one-shot by artillery due to luck isn't nearly as frustrating because you sat your rear end down in a field for a minute to take potshots, what's frustrating is seeing a very temporary weakness in their lines, pulling out to take advantage of it, and getting tracked for 1/3 of your hitpoints. Incidentally, the Waffle E-100 and other high-alpha TDs contribute to this, but at least you can get a reasonable idea of where they are and if they can't one-shot you as the battle develops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Which server side crosshair mod do you guys use? I've always used Jimbo's but while he hasn't updated to 9.10 it got me wondering if there is anything better out there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Why on Earth does Wargaming think it's a good idea to limit maps by battle tier so extensively?? Yes, less variety, that's what we want. I guess WG really wants to push the 'tier X endgame" meta and anyone who enjoys playing lower tiers and doesn't want to bother grinding is punished by having fewer maps to play. Two main factors: first, they want to offer new players a smaller client so potential customers don't have to download 16 gigs just to try the game (is the babby client available yet or is it still coming KTTS?). Second they don't want these new players to quit because the game demands that they learn a hundred different things at once just to achieve basic competency - and having to learn at least the broad strokes of all the different maps is a pretty big thing in this context. Us long-time players we dgaf about either of these things of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
It would be smarter if they expanded the map selection also based on how many battles you've played, so someone with 5k battles could play a tier 5 battle on a tier 8 map, while also offering a bit of shielding to newer players from tricked out 4-skill crews in Churchills or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
I suspect that there's something funny (read: really stupid) about how the MM does map selection and WG really ought to unfuck that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Prav posted:I suspect that there's something funny (read: really stupid) about how the MM does map selection and WG really ought to unfuck that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
I wonder what the worst malinovka-streak is. With a peak concurrency of like 500k-1m over five years someone's going to have gotten really unlucky at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:My problem is my full HP BatChat going full speed through a field/down a road/whatever getting one-shot. How do I dodge that? Sometimes arty does get lucky, such as in the situations you mentioned: hitting a fast moving target, penning with AP and one-shotting, etc. Most of the time they don't get those results, but you remember when they do and forget the other times (kind of like when a bird shits on your car.) Arty in WoT is an incredibly poorly-thought-out mechanic; low risk, high reward, and like a slot machine with the results. Unfortunately, while loading AP in most arty is stupid, eventually they hit the jackpot. Subyng posted:Why on Earth does Wargaming think it's a good idea to limit maps by battle tier so extensively?? Yes, less variety, that's what we want. I guess WG really wants to push the 'tier X endgame" meta and anyone who enjoys playing lower tiers and doesn't want to bother grinding is punished by having fewer maps to play. In other games (such as the MOBAs I used to play) they let you filter the game types you want to play. The downside is that the more restrictive your selections are, the longer you have to wait in the MM queue. I think that's a fair tradeoff though, since you know this going into it. It could certainly work for WoT, where you could filter out certain maps and the presence of artillery based on whatever tank you're driving. I would absolutely wait longer for a good matchup as opposed to getting in a terrible one instantaneously. Wargaming is under the impression that they're obligated to deliver low wait time for their free game. Quick battles are apparently more desirable than good ones. Control Volume posted:Arty isnt just bad because it's RNG dependent, it's also bad because it punishes people trying to push from a static position, and the best way to mitigate the RNG (i.e. optimal play) is to stay in the static position. Being one-shot by artillery due to luck isn't nearly as frustrating because you sat your rear end down in a field for a minute to take potshots, what's frustrating is seeing a very temporary weakness in their lines, pulling out to take advantage of it, and getting tracked for 1/3 of your hitpoints. I've thought about an adjustment to arty whereby in strategic view, they could no longer see actual tanks and instead they're replaced by generic icons like the class ones. They could still see targets, but not make out their facing and positions. Consequently, arty would be able to hit stationary targets, but have a much more difficult time against mobile ones. This would reward dynamic gameplay, which is the intention. Thoughts? Gapey Joe Stalin posted:Which server side crosshair mod do you guys use? I've always used Jimbo's but while he hasn't updated to 9.10 it got me wondering if there is anything better out there. I use the generic one in OMC Modpack. It doesn't really have a unique name. Prav posted:Two main factors: first, they want to offer new players a smaller client so potential customers don't have to download 16 gigs just to try the game (is the babby client available yet or is it still coming KTTS?). Second they don't want these new players to quit because the game demands that they learn a hundred different things at once just to achieve basic competency - and having to learn at least the broad strokes of all the different maps is a pretty big thing in this context. I'm totally OK with limiting the information new players are presented with. They should definitely limit maps by experience and not tier, and I still think the map filtering solution described above would work. I think Wargaming would pretty quickly learn which maps and battle setups players actually prefer if given the choice. Bort Bortles posted:What? No. Getting Malinovka 7 out of 8 matches is completely random, why do you ask? Oh yeah, this is another thing. Even though there are like 30 maps, they limit the ones in rotation to a handful due to ~resource issues~. Like they can't figure out how to load a map from storage into memory, then unload it after the battle's over to make space for a new one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I've thought about an adjustment to arty whereby in strategic view, they could no longer see actual tanks and instead they're replaced by generic icons like the class ones. They could still see targets, but not make out their facing and positions. Consequently, arty would be able to hit stationary targets, but have a much more difficult time against mobile ones. This would reward dynamic gameplay, which is the intention. Thoughts? I think there would be sweeping gameplay tweeks to all of the class if something like this would happen. The game needs changes and I got this burning feeling the devs are slowly starting realise this. Or I could be totally wrong, which is probably the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Also, it looks like the guy who does the really cool sixth sense duration mod (audio tone for nine seconds after sixth activates) might have packed it in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Mesadoram posted:I think there would be sweeping gameplay tweeks to all of the class if something like this would happen. The game needs changes and I got this burning feeling the devs are slowly starting realise this. Well I think that with this adjustment you don't have to touch anything else. That's the beauty: arty is still effective at dislodging campers but less worthwhile against mobile targets, so you don't really have to touch anything else. Or do you mean Wargaming would refuse to do something like this without simultaneously tweaking everything else, because :WargamingLogic:? Also, anyone got a writeup of the Jap HT line? I've tried to avoid all the in-development chat because I don't really care how the non-finalized vehicles worked. I actually had the tier 1 in my garage, the tier 2 looks like a slow, unarmored PoS with the bloopy 57 mm, and the same for the tier 3 but it gets a decent 47 mm (the Chi-Ha gun.) The tier 4 is along the same lines, but the tier 5 is a 100 tonne trollbox with a couple of howitzers or the Chi-Nu gun and I guess reasonable armor for a tier 5 HT. They appear to continue along the same lines: more weight & armor, roflcannons, and big engines but no speed. So I mean I could start all the way at tier 1, even though I have enough free XP to get the 10 (I grind pretty much everything, so might as well do this.) The line only starts to look "interesting" at tier 5 however. I prefer fast tanks so I'll probably hate this whole experience, but....  Gapey Joe Stalin posted:Also, it looks like the guy who does the really cool sixth sense duration mod (audio tone for nine seconds after sixth activates) might have packed it in. When I updated OMC Modpack, the 10-second 6th sound was still among the active mods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Anyone had a chance to see if the tier six Japanese heavy is a decent replacement for the KV-2?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:Well I think that with this adjustment you don't have to touch anything else. That's the beauty: arty is still effective at dislodging campers but less worthwhile against mobile targets, so you don't really have to touch anything else. Or do you mean Wargaming would refuse to do something like this without simultaneously tweaking everything else, because :WargamingLogic:? I think AW scared them a little bit, US population is not growing at a substantial rate and many of the players constantly complain at how the end game is getting stale. I've heard whispers of a few devs expressing key changes to the way thanks behave in battle (like AW). Don't know if they are true, but it is still food for thought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:Wargaming is under the impression that they're obligated to deliver low wait time for their free game. Quick battles are apparently more desirable than good ones. They're absolutely correct on this one, once queue times start climbing over 30 seconds most people, especially the less hardcore (whose money is just as good, mind), just opt to do something else with their time. Even if they swear up and down that they'll happily wait 5+ minutes for a good match.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Prav posted:They're absolutely correct on this one, once queue times start climbing over 30 seconds most people, especially the less hardcore (whose money is just as good, mind), just opt to do something else with their time. Even if they swear up and down that they'll happily wait 5+ minutes for a good match. That's why the filter system (both the proposed one and ones implemented in other games) would be optional. Don't want to wait? Don't touch the filters then. Willing to wait for a no-arty match? Filter away!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
The other problem is that if these filters were common knowledge, I'm pretty sure a large percentage of the player base would turn off artillery. Artillery players would throw up a stink, there would be 8+ arty every battle if you didn't turn them off, causing more players to turn them off...
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Most dedicated arty players are 47% and below anyway so who really gives a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
 KV-2 gun versus O-I gun. pun pundit posted:The other problem is that if these filters were common knowledge, I'm pretty sure a large percentage of the player base would turn off artillery. Artillery players would throw up a stink, there would be 8+ arty every battle if you didn't turn them off, causing more players to turn them off... Not seeing a problem here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
pun pundit posted:The other problem is that if these filters were common knowledge, I'm pretty sure a large percentage of the player base would turn off artillery. Artillery players would throw up a stink, there would be 8+ arty every battle if you didn't turn them off, causing more players to turn them off... But that's kind of the point. Arty is generally unpopular, so given the choice many players would turn it off. This would not only signal to Wargaming just how much their playerbase hates arty, but also would allow players to get into matches they actually desire. I think that the non-arty matches would become faster to match up (which is good) and arty players might indeed complain. Given, however, that the numbers would indicate a preference against arty, Wargaming would be under no obligation to side with them; their options would be to play a different vehicle, or play a different game. Also, to the best of my knowledge arty is still limited to 5 per side anyway, and amusingly enough, addressing the arty issue in the first place could've simply been done by limiting the number per battle. Instead, in typical Wargaming fashion they chose to nerf the entire class of vehicles (which had the effect of suppressing arty numbers for a while.) Don't get me wrong, I have and play a few arty pieces. I don't mind them or the people who play them with me (Dandy, etc.) but they make certain map/vehicle combinations unfun (and this is a game, after all, so fun is the point.) I'd be happy to play arty on non-city maps, for example, but less happy to drive a slow TD on an open map with 5 enemy SPGs. That's why the filter system wouldn't be so much about arty as it would be about managing appropriate vehicle deployments. Compare it to CW, where you get to choose which vehicles you take on specific maps. If an intelligent human player can make a determination that certain vehicle types are not ideal on certain maps, why do those logical conclusions have to be ignored when it comes to random battles? The answer is "because Wargaming" but that's beside the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:
That's a relief. Cheers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Prav posted:They're absolutely correct on this one, once queue times start climbing over 30 seconds most people, especially the less hardcore (whose money is just as good, mind), just opt to do something else with their time. Even if they swear up and down that they'll happily wait 5+ minutes for a good match. I don't think there are a lot of people that get pissed at a 30 second queue time. I think going over a minute is the magic gently caress this thing benchmark. Majority of people are not going to be like gently caress I want my 18 second queues instead of my 42 second queues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
I would pay money to filter out maps I hate. I would also pay money to not have to play with artillery. I would be happy to wait up to a minute to get into a match in order to utilize either feature while also paying for it. Hellsau posted:
Atomizer posted:Well I think that with this adjustment you don't have to touch anything else. That's the beauty: arty is still effective at dislodging campers but less worthwhile against mobile targets, so you don't really have to touch anything else. Or do you mean Wargaming would refuse to do something like this without simultaneously tweaking everything else, because :WargamingLogic:? My proposal - to double Arty RoF but halve (preferable more than halve) their damage helps the major issue that I see and experience (this may not be a universal opinion): instant death or losing the majority of my tank's HP pool from an invisible attack that comes from safely behind enemy lines whose attack I cannot reciprocate. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:I don't think there are a lot of people that get pissed at a 30 second queue time. I think going over a minute is the magic gently caress this thing benchmark. Majority of people are not going to be like gently caress I want my 18 second queues instead of my 42 second queues. I know some people are just impatient, but others are far more reasonable. It's just that we get a little nervous or unsure if we think the MM isn't working or whatever. "Is the queue long because there aren't enough other players at the tier I want to play? Or are the cryptic MM criteria just preventing it from assembling the 'right' match?" Removing the tiers from the queue display was another boneheaded move by Wargaming, even though I know why they did it. But then you get into situations like the one I was just in: I sat in the queue in a tier 1, and dropped out after a minute of waiting. I had no idea of knowing if there were just not enough tier 1s in the queue to make a full match, and I was going to get dumped into a 7v7 with all tier 2s except me. The waiting wasn't the problem; the uncertainty was. If they had a filter system in place with estimated wait times, users could make educated decisions about how heavily they were willing to filter out potential MM setups (and thus wait for their preferred matchup.) Bort Bortles posted:I dont think arty prevents camping - it causes it. I camp when the enemy team has arty because if I move out of cover and get spotted, and especially if I get tracked, I'm hosed. I cant try to flank, I cant take advantage of an open flank, I cant get get into a risky but should-be-safe-from-guns-because-of-how-the-enemy-tanks-are-positioned this time around, I cant move out of cover because I may get hit by arty. I am loving sick and tired of winning a flank and dying because I did well and decided to move out of my mostly-safe-from-arty position to try to kill more tanks/flank a straggler/whatever. That's right, but the "goal" was for arty to prevent camping. It's just that they're still pretty good at hitting moving targets, which consequently encourages camping. Couple that with the no-risk gameplay and there's no reason for arty not to just hang back and fire at spotted targets. They nerfed aim time & shell velocity at one point, but it's not enough to make it impossible to hit moving targets. I'm OK with arty's RoF & aim time as-is or better; they just need to reduce shell velocity so it's very difficult to hit tanks that are, you know, driving forward, and only punishes campers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
 This reminds me of another other suggestion for arty - remove the magical skyview and make it so you instead get a dotted line that goes from your barrel to where the shell will land. Allies can see this line and help you make sure the shot lands. Otherwise it is a crapshoot. edit: welp, just quit the game after one battle because I am also sick and tired of the one-shot bullshit that happens to me all the loving time. E-100 just one-shot my SP1C for 880 with AP with a gun that does 750 avg 
AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
I dunno I think if artillery was forced to play that way it'd be too funny to be mad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
lol, no loving way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Playing the T7 owns right now. lovely tier 2 weebmobiles are easily ventilated by 12.7mm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
Snapshot meta is real.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 05:02
|
|