Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Beards'.
Found 2 results
Hello Folks!!! Welcome to the Brotherhood of Beards!!! We are a chilled, fun group that enjoy having fun in the game. We are always looking to improve and grow - while having fun, being respectful to our fellow players and having fun!!! We have a Sunday Showcase day thats always streamed by the clan streamers - its a great insight to clan life and how we are :) Our Community currently has BOBS and BOBS2 in the EU server for Warships. We also have a NA clan - and a World of Tanks clan as well!!! All we ask if that you active, you have a positive outlook in game, you like to just chill out and have fun. Beard is not needed for application, but coming on our TS and joining the Discord would be great to fully immerse your self in Community Life :) We can Provide our Discord and TS Details on request if you'd like to pop along for chat Now with Recruitment Vid!!!
th3freakie posted a topic in Aircraft CarriersHello. My name’s th3freakie and I’ve been playing World of Warships (WoWS) ever since WarGaming allowed us to buy our way into the Closed Beta with a Gremyashchy. I’m not the best of players nor the most experienced, but I’d still like to think of myself as a long-time committed casual. I’m also first and foremost a fan of Strategy Games. The recent announcement of changes to AA, Captain Skills and Carrier Loadouts has caused quite a lot of discussion over the topic of Carrier Gameplay and air power as a game mechanic in WoWS. As someone who first fell in love with this game by playing CVs, I figured I’d share some of my views on the topic, and hopefully nudge the game’s course just a tiny bit closer to perfection. So, in this post I’ll talk about different game philosophies that can be applied to the way CVs are executed, and how I think WG is currently using the wrong one. Which is another way of saying all of you crying over CV being OP or UP are completely and utterly wrong and WG should listen to me and only me. Carriers are special – how? Carriers in WoWS have their own mechanics, camera mode, and set of controls. It’s not hard to understand why. The rise of naval air power was a crucial development in the time period covered by the vehicles in WoWS, and leaving it entirely out would deprive the simulation of elements which were absolutely essential. AA would mean nothing, sheer pure size would be an even greater advantage that it is now, and so would stealth. Making a modern naval warfare game without air power would be a poor experience, so WG had to find a way to make it work. Yet the specificity and of air power made it hard to handle with the basic game mechanics that have been evolving around what was first introduced in World of Tanks. Players couldn’t control only the CV itself, as it wouldn’t have enough impact on the game, but they couldn’t control the individual airplanes either, since they’d have too much of an advantage over everyone else. Unlike in their previous games, WG was now faced with the challenge of using vehicles not as the player character himself, but as tools of the player. So the idea of making CV gameplay an entirely different genre was quite a brilliant one. It solved the Air Power problem in a balanced manner and attracted fans of different genres to the game. This worked on me well enough that my most played class in the beta was precisely CVs (which at start were only available in the USN tech tree). I wasn’t particularly good at it, partially out of noobness and partially out of preference for Air Superiority, but I had fun anyway. Carriers are a problem now – why? Reading the forum, this is easy to answer. Carriers are completely overpowered and, at the same time, are also so broken that they are useless, and also there’s not enough of them around. Simple, right? Now some of this is naturally the age-old issue of Rock complaining about Paper, and some of it is legitimate grievances about specific mechanics and changes, but taking a step back and looking at it with some temporal perspective, we see the arguments against carriers are getting louder and the number of carriers is getting smaller. There are two apparently contradictory trends here that don’t seem to make much sense. I am convinced that they do make sense, though, and have the same root: the conceptual divergence between the Strategy Game Carriers are, and the Action Game developers have been treating it as. Now what are strategy games about? Let’s nick Wikipedia for brevity’s sake: “a video game genre that focuses on skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory. It emphasizes strategic, tactical, and sometimes logistical challenges. Many games also offer economic challenges and exploration.” Does Carrier gameplay fit the bill? You have to plan ahead which airplanes to bring, where you are going to send them and in what order to fly them. You have to choose which targets you’ll attack with your limited and slow-reloading squadrons, and where you’re going to sail your huge and fragile base. So yes, a strategy game indeed. A top-down, old-school 2D RTS with very few units under your control, no resource gathering, unpredictable friendlies and kind of a slow pace, but that’s still a strategy game. Yet the development of Carrier gameplay has been moving away from the Strategy genre, with the introduction of manual torpedo drops, then manual dive bombs, and now manual strafing. This is, of course, following the book of good game developing, giving the players more options, abilities, actions. It shows WG is paying attention and trying to do something about Carriers. It just so happens, unfortunately, that those abilities I mentioned are not characteristic of a Strategy Game, but of an Action Game. Once again stealing from Wikipedia, we’re talking about a genre that “emphasizes physical challenges, including hand–eye coordination and reaction-time.”. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, of course, it is what most of WoWS consists of, after all, but it is a different type of game, requiring different skills and attracting different people or mindsets. The problem here being, Action Game abilities in a Strategy Game run contrary to the natural balance of Strategic decisions, because they make the outcome of decisions based on an extra, mechanical or otherwise physical, test. They do not present choices, since not using them is clearly sub-optimal. They instead present further actions or tests you must complete to get the pre-determined desired effect. What ends up happening is that the game developers have to choose between having a failure to pass the test mean no results at all, rendering the strategy meaningless and without effect, or have failure still produce some results – which then means passing it will be so important as to again overshadow the Strategic decisions. The plain obvious example I’m thinking of, and you’ve all guessed by now, are manual torpedo drops. They make torpedo bombers quite possibly impossible to balance. You can make torpedoes weak, in which case the only way to affect the battle is to ace the manual drop and get 6 hits, meaning only (rare) excellent players will be fulfilling the CV’s role. You can make torpedoes strong, in which case good players will win games by themselves and CV’s will be the only relevant factor. If you try to find a middle-ground, most likely that will only cause you to suffer both problems at once. Yet this is also true of the more recent manual straffing, currently absolutely devastating when done right and absolutely crippling to self when done wrong. It turned the decision about how many fighter squadrons to deploy and where rather meaningless when compared with the mechanical skill at executing straffing properly, which is now the main decisive factor. “That’s exaggerating”, you say. “Aren’t you’re forgetting the strategic element is still there when you decide where and when to use this fantastic/useless abilities”, you retort. “What an excellent and well-groomed beard you have, th3freakie, mind sharing the secret?” you implore. And I say “Maybe, no, and yes”. Maybe it’s exaggeration to say no sort of balance can be achieved, but it is certainly harder and more contentious, and never full. You’ll most likely swing wildly between UP and OP, alternatively dealing with a lack of CVs and having those that do play captained only by amazing god-like players and hard-heads who like playing it even if they don’t play it so well, or dealing instead with an overabundance of CVs, including min-maxing stat-padders who learn to 1-shot a BB every 3 minutes and won’t do anything else. And I’m not forgetting the strategic element – it’s certainly still there in CVs, just as it is in BBs and CAs and DDs when they chose which flank to take, which target to prioritize and whether they’ll cap or chase after the enemy CV. Yet the strategic element is taking second-place to the action element, and that doesn’t work well for CVs. Of course you can just assume Carrier gameplay as an Action game first and Strategy second, but then you’re just left with a weird 2D top-down Action game with weird controls. You might even say that’s what Carriers seem to be heading to. But who’s going to want to play that? Finally, you got to use those minutes right after the morning bath. Your beard and skin will be smooth and wet. I like to first brush it (or comb, I recommend brush) and then apply some beard oil. You apply the oil to your skin first, then spread it indirectly to the skin. Also you’ll be doing yourself a favor by regularly going to a local barber who can do some hot towel razor shaves. It’s good maintenance and feels amazing. So what can be done about it? Now, I don’t have an obvious cure for this. It’s not going to be a nerf to AA here, a buff to torpedo arming distance there or a tweak to chance of starting a fire with dive bombs. The best solution I can put forward is the super generic advice to bring back the Strategy. Scrap manual drops/straffing and give the players choices on how to do things – choices, not mechanical skill checks. What bombs/torpedos/ammo to load? What formation to use? Which combat doctrines to utilize? Which aircraft to send up? How much fuel to put in them (combined with a time limit to be flying)? Maybe even allow players to call reinforcements from outside the map, but at a price. Make the choice between Air Superiority and Sea Attack meaningful by making the former worth something, for example by rewarding spotting and escorting. Then scale damage done, fire chance, flood chance, etc, in accordance to average results. You’ll be able to do so without completely overpowering talented players, but still rewarding good strategists. You might even find that torps and dive bombers need to hit harder. Or, you know, get some actual professional advice and hire someone who knows Strategy games. Why are you even listening to me past the 3rd paragraph? I eagerly await the rotten tomatoes thrown by my fellow CV captains aghast at the suggestion of removing player choices and the rotten thrown by my fellow BB captains shocked at the concept of harder-hitting aircraft.