fnord_disc

An error occurred You have reached your quota of negative votes for the day

Ah, it's been a while since I got a -1. Last time was for a troll post, though, and this time I spoke the truth :-/

CVs are medicine for this game. They are the the most important class for the game's design and continue to do nothing but good, because they force teamplay and foresight. Destroyers do the same to a lesser degree and were hit by the nerfhammer so now it's up to the carriers to force people to cooperate and think about what the hell they're doing on the goddamn map. I don't want a game where everyone can yolo down a flank and expect decent results. I want mistakes to be punished by <100XP and <40% WR and for this the existence of carriers is vital. Battleships are my most-played class right now, and games without carriers are the worst games I'm in because everyone's brains shut down and go derpmode. Without carriers, or with nerfed carriers, I will stop playing again, just like I did when the IJN temporarily go the long approach in CBT.

Introduction I believe that the current map design in World of Warships is one-sided and flawed. Almost all maps work by the same principle, which I will explain. I believe it is vital that the game design is expanded with more complex maps to enrich the player's experience. I will also provide an example for this. Maps Right Now Almost all maps share certain characteristics. They have reflectional symmetry. They contain several different "lanes" that players can use to meet the enemy. The lanes that the player can use are reciprocal - they behave similarly regardless of the direction the player chooses. The following maps all play in a very similar way. I have colored the lanes that I personally see in these maps. Red means that visibility and maneuverability is poor, green means it is good. This doesn't mean that attacking through a green lane is a good idea: attacking through the yellow lane on Big Race is insane and suicidal, but that's because it's the central lane, not because it makes evasive action difficult. These colors were chosen very quickly and should not be taken as important judgments. If you disagree with a color, please don't exaggerate the problem. What all these maps share is their reflectional symmetry. Even Hotspot is essential just a reflectionally symmetric map. They have different skins and island sizes, but their gameplay is broadly the same. Here is an illustration of reflectional symmetry together with some example lanes. Some maps are inclined in some fashion, but all maps are like this, and they are mostly directionless. The sides have a very similar time maneuvering their side of the lane. Symmetry is important to guarantee a fair match for both teams. Who wants to spawn on the sucker side and have a much harder game? What about Solomon Islands and Strait? Strait is essentially two open maps that are initially separate but receive reflectionally symmetric lanes along the y-axis as the game goes on. Strait can for all intents and purposes be treated like the other maps. Lanes were defined by me as ways to confront the enemy - being able to traverse your side of the island block doesn't make it a lane because you're only heading towards your allies, and after that horizontally towards the enemy along the green lanes. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Wargaming has done an interesting job with this map. The placement of the two islands means that controlling the center from the top is vastly easier than from the bottom, and the top is far easier to control from the bottom than from the top. This is because the islands make evasion very difficult for one side only, and large islands beyond capture point C limit maneuvers at the top additionally. These lanes are not reciprocal. Traversing them in one direction is easier than it is in the other direction, and exerting control on the capture points is easier in certain directions. Other Symmetries There are other ways of balancing maps than reflectional symmetry. The most prominent of these by far is rotational symmetry. How could this be translated into the game? By building on what Wargaming did for Solomon Islands. The red areas are some kind of difficult island-ish terrain. It doesn't matter. In this example, the bottom team would have a much easier time capturing and controlling A, but it would put them on the far side of an island chain. The top team experiences the same at C, and B is contested by whoever is crazy enough to deal with the islands to their left and right. This map is rotationally symmetrical, balanced, and implements the lanes given in the previous image. If the game is going to succeed, it needs more variation in its maps. Breaking away from reflectional symmetry is of paramount importance, and the speed with which Wargaming releases new maps shows that they are aware of it. But most maps in this game are the same in terms of gameplay.

You are certified incompetent. I'm going to stop reading your posts now. I'm wasting my time talking to an ignoramus.

You don't have any games in Shokaku, not now, not in the CBT! Stop lying and cough up that replay.

I think the way you try to dodge carriers is completely wrong. Your explanation is so confused and wonky I can see no other reason. Please link me a replay of you getting attacked by carrier planes.

Planes have to fly straight for a short distance even before entering the circle because the have a finite turning circle. They also lose altitude once the attack begins. If you pay attention to the minimap and the height of the icon above the water, you can probably get your reaction time even higher than those 9s I estimated. The only people you will be able to touch with IJN carriers using such attack dynamics are the worst 5-10% that don't understand anything at all. No other class in the game is restricted to attacking bad players. All other classes can attack competent players with good results, and carriers will be totally ineffectual against them. Great game design. edit: No, it's not. You clearly don't understand carriers or dodging carrier planes. Turning radius is much less important than rudder shift.

You're not serious, right?

How does that matter? It doesn't matter how you position your planes before the attack with this change, because after 9 seconds the target can change his position in whatever way he wants! You can have the perfect attack run lined up, but once the target sees you are committed, he can turn rudder over, go to half engine, bleed speed, and everything will miss. Then he can do the same thing with the next squadron. Unless the target is completely retarded and blind, everything will miss. Admiral_noodle: 0 games in carriers ironhammer500: 0 games in carriers You have no idea what you're talking about or what this change means you armchair pilots. We do. You should trust the judgment of those more qualified than you.

Anvil strikes are not possible with nine seconds commitment. I'm sorry. If you think it is, play IJN carriers and I'll play battleships and laugh at you. That's a 180° rudder change, so I can dodge the first spread and still have perfect maneuverability for the second spread.

Go back to school.

He's still thinking the planes might be teleporting themselves from the circle edge to the drop point. You know, it being Halloween and stuff.

Seriously now. This is school math. New torpedo range is 4 kilometers, the distance from the drop point is a little less than half of that. Let's go with 1.8 kilometers. Tools used: a ruler. Hiryuu's torpedo bombers travelled 10 ingame kilometers in 32.7s. Training room. That corresponds to 306 m/s. Before you convert the speed listed in the game, please remember than ships, planes and shells are accelerated in the game. In any case, Hiryuu's 111kn planes would travel to the drop point in 6s, compared to about 2.5s right now. If you played carriers, you would know this is realistic. Look, its even more than what I told you. Funny how this goes. edit: And 3.5s torpedo arming time so 9.5s and I gave you 9s on a rough estimate.

From the port. Are we playing the same game? I just want to make sure. I'm playing World of Warships, it's F2P with some premium elements. You can download it at http://worldofwarships.eu/. It has potential, but the balancing is pretty bad. Not sure if I can recommend it. What game are you playing?

Are you crazy? Nobody can hit anything with nine seconds preparation unless the target sails straight for nine seconds. Anybody can dodge those, even on reaction times without looking at the minimap. Why am I arguing with you? You have no idea how this works. Play CVs for 50 games and come back, until then your opinion is worthless.

That's not how it works. 330/140*100-100=135% increase, a little more than double.

You have no idea what you're talking about. What counts is the distance from the edge to the drop point because it determines how long the planes have to fly straight without intervention from the player. It's about twice as long. Coupled with the slower torpedoes, this means that players have about twice the amount of time to dodge torpedoes, and it was easy to dodge them until Tier 7-ish even now. This makes Tier 4-7 IJN carriers completely unplayable because once you give the attack order, it takes 8.5s+ until the torpedoes arm and can strike the target. NINE SECONDS. In that time, my Nagato brings the rudder over 180° and is parallel to the torpedoes. Yeah, great balancing. It makes low-tier carriers unplayable and if you had any idea how carriers work you would agree.

The C cap is DD paradise but A is relatively open and can cover B... Dunno...

Both those changes are really good. Islands of Ice now doesn't discourage going into the middle so much and Two Brothers encourages you to not go to the map edge. What about the new maps?

Screenshot of new maps please :-)

The torpedoes are also 17% slower...

I don't even.

Oh man, that mayfly long approach is back? [edited] what. I don't understand how anybody can be so bad at balancing a game. Not even World of Tanks is balanced this badly, and that game is legendary for its poor game balance.

It has to be pointed out that the increased arming time is offset by the lower speed, so the distance from the ship is similar 41kn * 3s = 123 kn*s 35kn * 3.5s = 122.5 kn*s You can convert this linearly to distance in meters yourself, but the gist is that the arming distance is the same. The torpedoes are just slower passing through it. Can someone explain these variables to me? I assume the first variable is the distance that fighters follow my bombers. The third is probably an AA fire inaccuracy buff/nerf, but what are #2 and #4?