Phlogistoned

Players
  • Content count

    593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

3 Followers

About Phlogistoned

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Phlogistoned

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

112 profile views
  1. Hehe. Made me laugh! * Refusal to rework CVs * Increased amount of gimmicks. * Not dealing with T8 BB meta * Not compensating DDs for introducing radar * Not compensating torp boats for hydro on BBs ... And so on. The news about the British BBs sounds right in line with this, and No, It does not feel good right now. I know I'm out for the time being. I still visit the forum, but haven't played for a few weeks now.
  2. Striking power is only one aspect of CVs. I've assumed this scenario a few times before, but here goes again; * Random battles. * Both teams have 11 ships per team decided so far. No CVs yet. * You get to pick a ship for your team. Assume that the player of the ship knows what he's doing. * Mirror MM is _not_ in effect. In fact, if you pick a CV, the enemy team doesn't get to pick a CV. At T8, do you pick a Shokaku or not? At T10, do you pick a Hakuryu or not? Why/why not?
  3. "Struggling"? Really? They are just not as strong as the IJN ones. But still incredibly strong. Let's remove IJN CVs and say you get a choice between a Midway and any other (non-IJN CV) ship on your team. Do you pick the Midway or not?
  4. First: Thanks for being lucid and reasonable. I've discussed this a few times with other CV players, and by this point in the conversation they are usually raging incoherently. Yes, I do see the mirror MM as a bit of a coverup for CVs being OP. Nice wording, by the way. I used the jets vs. biplanes analogy before. By always having another CV (jet) to worry about, you ensure that he doesn't devote all his time to swatting ships (biplanes). And I do not see why a CV has to be a massive powerhouse. It should be sufficient if it were as big a powerhouse as any other non-CV ship. A Shima is _not_ as big a powerhouse as a CV. Let's pick teams. You want the Shima or the Hakuryu for your team? Fine, I'll take the Hakuryu then. No? When it's not an issue if you or the enemy gets a CV extra, or if one of the CV players is a total potato (or just potatoes that match), then CVs are balanced. Right now, an extra CV on one side will most likely decide the game. Same with a potato CV. ... so they aren't balanced. Yes, well... when one unit requires the coordinated effort of other units to take down, it's usually a clear sign that that unit is stronger than the other units. And we're not even talking about taking the CV down, we're talking about making the CV's attack so painful to the CV, so he instead chooses another target. But he still _can_ strike. And if he does, he will still strike hard. It doesn't matter that it requires more skill to play CV than <insert other class here>. Just as it doesn't matter that it requires more skill to pilot a jet than a biplane. It's still OP.
  5. You mean silver T8 CCs, and torpedo DDs, I hope. Buffing CVs is a mistake. CVs are not struggling like silver T8 cruisers and many torpedo boats are.
  6. Yes, well, the point I was trying to illustrate that it is possible to know that something is OP without being skilled in playing it yourself. As long as you got that point, then it's all good. It doesn't have to be an exact analogy to the WOWs world. The problem with moving the argument to the WOWs dimension is that the mirror MM and/or team composition/and/or battle type will always serve to cloud things up. Even if we explicitly state that the enemy has a CV and you don't, it will be hard to agree on situations (1v1 or 12v12? Which map?) and odds ("if they teamplay then"... "Teamplay in randoms? Yeah, sure.") And so on. I didn't want to go there. And it wasn't necessary to make the point.
  7. The first part is a stupid argument. Go start up some flight simulator. Set it up so you fly a biplane and the robot enemies fly jets with missiles. See if you are able to decide whether jets with missiles are more powerful than biplanes with machine guns. If you are able to tell, you now know that it is indeed possible to know that CVs are OP without having played them. As for easy to play, no. I do not think they are easy to play. In fact, I hold skilled CV players in the highest regard. However, difficulty to play is _not relevant_. To revert to the flight simulator: That a fighter jet is more demanding to play than a biplane, doesn't make it any less OP compared to the other.
  8. I would start by looking at ways to make CV interaction with other ships less frustrating. This would involve making changes to mechanics that in themselves are frustrating and/or don't make any sense. There are a lot of them, and not all of them affect CVs directly. After that, I would look at balancing them versus other ships. The reason for the priority order is that balancing is less of an issue if there is little/no frustration involved in being defeated/sunk/shot down. I.e. attacking the frustrating mechanics attacks both problems at once, but note that it won't _fix_ the balancing problem. With that said, onto the changes. * AA is completely automated. This leads to RNG deciding the power of a strike, and is frustrating for both attacker and defender. The logical thing to do, is to make AA skill based. Manning the AA guns would be one way to do it. Unfortunately the game is usually hectic enough that it's hard enough to get time to assign squads as priority target. This is due to CVs striking the ships that are pushing, and leads me to the next mechanic. * CVs make gameplay more passive since they strike the ships that are pushing. So. Keep CVs from attacking pushing targets by implementing incentives to strike the ships in the back instead. One possible mechanic is the _real-life factor_ that kept CVs from surface battles in the first place - poor IFF on he pilots' part. Make the frontline ships of both teams lose their color. If they are within, say, 10kms of a ship from the other team, they are dispayed as grey. This should make CVs attack the enemies camping in the back instead. Yes, yes. There are numerous scenarios where this breaks down, plus it can be a frustrating mechanic on its own, and the 10km range was picked out of thin air, but I think this _TYPE_ of mechanic is worth discussing. I.e. a mechanic that incentivizes strikes on passive targets rather than pushing targets. This also works well with making skill-based AA more viable. If you're in the back, there's a bigger chance you actually have the time to manually control the AA. * Make AA auras visible in some way. Make it show from which ship the AA is most intense. If you're controlling the plane, you should have the same information that a pilot would have. The logical ther option is that you should *not* control the plane, and all drops should be automated, but I don't think we want that. Then we have more direct balancing measures; * Single-seaters such as fighters shouldn't scout surface stuff, only planes. This nerfs CVs spotting ability most, but also other ships' spotting ability, plus it buffs torpedo boat DDs and their torps. I think this change could be tried without much other changes at all. * Rule: You should always see if something shoots at you. This inclues ships shooting at planes, so no more magical 'Hmmm. My planes drop out of the sky for no reason, oh there's an Atlanta there.'. This overrides the 'single seaters should not scout'-rule. If you're gtting shot at, you should know from where it's coming. * This means AA from smoke has to go. (On a tangent - let's not discuss this here, but smoke and smoke-firing main guns is another stupid mechanic that I would have a thorough look at.) Possible other changes that are not thought through and/or I'm too tired to write about * Fighter strafing... I haven't played CV enough to know if it's a good mechanic or not. I can only say that it is gamey and not realistic, and thus probably bad in a game that depicts realistic objects. I don't know what to do with it if it should be changed. Remove for planes, but allow strafing of ships? Replace with another mechanic? * Such as CAP - combat air patrol that will on it own pounce any bombers within a radius, instead of just circling, waiting to get strafed. :) Additional changes that may not be entirely thought out, but would be interesting to discuss - although probably best in another thread. * Make captain skills more like real skills. Remove stuff that can't be explained by skill, such as the 'WD40' Expert Marksman turret turning ability. * Make skills for 'officers' instead of just the captain. Chief (Engine), Main armament, Anti-air, Radio, Radar, Damage control, and so on. * Make RPF based on actual typing of messages in chat. * (I suggested this elsewhere) Make firing solution a gradual thing, instead of an on/off thing. Smoke reduces the firing solution by some amount, instead of blocking it entirely. Firing your main guns should make you more visible = improve firing solution of ships aiming at you. Etc. etc. it's all in the original post. * Make cap circles related to somethin on the map. A port, an airfield, etc. Not just empty patch of ocean. Cap by having a ship hit land near the objective and transfer a landing party of marines. Let other ships subdue cap defenses to cap faster (land defenses only, so not another 'Bastion' mode). Enemies reset cap by bombarding the landing party before defenses are defeated.
  9. I'm guessing you mean 'overhaul', and I agree. Yeah. Sorry. I got bored by the long reload times.
  10. So, if they are balanced as you say, why do they have mirror match making?
  11. In random battles? No. The effect of a lone CV and a lone torpedo boat are _not_ the same. A torpedo boat has to come close to be effective, risking detection by radar or float planes. If it stays away, you actually have a chance avoid the entire volley by out-thinking him and maneuvering. And torp boats are generally not the fastest, so if you have a cruiser and push in the direction the torps came from, you may actually catch him. In short, you can fight back. Moreover, the torps themselves can be spotted by float planes, teammates and hydro. This is not useful against CV torps. Or, arguably, even the planes. That is not at all similar to a CV. If he drops you, you're gonna hurt. Maybe even die. You can maneuver all you want, but his planes are faster, and he drops so close to you, so you will get hit. You also cannot hunt the planes since they are faster than any boat, and AA is not skill based. (Captain skills don't count). So no way to fight back. That it is boring is subjective, true, but they are in fact the least played class. So no need to dismiss it. No, it doesn't keep the ship itself 'in check', but the number of ruined games in check. I think you're already familiar with the arguments. But check my reply to Culiacan_Mexico, below, if you aren't. 1. Best skill multiplier (check the stats of the players with the best win rates). And this despite mirror MM. 2. Best spotters 3. Best damage dealers 4. Can deal damage while remaining unspotted (Yes. Stealth fire was NOT removed for CVs.) 5. Decides when he wants to risk his planes. .. and so on. I don't think it's that hard to see why they are OP. Even WG themselves confirm this by enforcing mirror MM for CVs. If they were like any other ship, it wouldn't be required. They also make other ships passive, which is bad design. And this is due to both their very nature, and due to some frustrating design decisions by WG. CVs play an entirely different game, in a dimension that the other ships don't play in. Instead of being just a single ship, they are many entities. This opens a can of worms right there. In addition to the ship itself, they have mobile torpedo launchers and bomb dispensers (called torpedo bombers and dive bombers in game). These are faster than any ship in game, so they can change their angle of attack very quickly. This usually leaves you a choice between being deleted by CV or BB. Not only are these launchers faster than any other ship in the game, they also move in a completely different dimension. A dimension that cannot be targeted by normal means. Instead you have to rely on a mechanism that - over time - will randomly diminish the number of planes coming your way. Provided that the planes comply to your wishes and fly into special areas where this mechanism is at work. And finally, even though the launchers/dispensers move in this other dimension, they manage to be the best spotters. So.. They can shoot and spot into our dimension, but other surface ships have absolutely zero way of actively shooting into, or otherwise actively affecting their dimension. Intensely frustrating and deeply flawed if you ask me. That's a new one. I'm actually only up to T9. Is that what you mean by sealclubbing? Or is it my 479 battles in Tirpitz you're referring to?
  12. Pick on me instead then. I, too, think CVs are really badly designed and would rather not have them in the game. They are OP as hell, and the only thing keeping them somewhat in check are: * Mirror matchmaking * Really boring gameplay, so very small playerbase to recruit from. * High skill threshold * High skill threshold plus boring gameplay, means you're required to really _grind_ something that is inherently boring to begin with, reducing number of skilled players. If you want to attack me for having few games in CVs, please do note that that argument is invalid. (And I really don't know why everyone uses it) If you're a biplane pilot, you don't have to be a genius to recognize that jet fighters are massively OP compared to biplanes. That the jets are boring to fly and require massive amounts of training to use properly, does not make them any less OP. So, now please attack my 60+% WR.
  13. It looks like I actually quit playing. I haven't played since I posted, and it feels like such a relief. I guess the design problems with the game are just so stressful, and this short break due to the aiming problems with Fuso was all it took to break the habit. Too bad I have a lot of doubloons on my account... Don't know if I should call it sunk cost, or risk picking it up again...
  14. Ok, I wouldn't know. I haven't played for a few days now. Got a bit too frustrated.