Are some players using CV's to rig ranked?

[RUSSIANBlAS]

Just now, AgarwaenME said:

 

WIthout going into how you love to use no true scotsman fallacies. And how you don't understand what "meta" means..

 

Any good ANYTHING can change the way a game plays out. A "good", low vis, DD can entirely negate a flank too. As can a "good" BB deny flanking attempts, or a "good" CA cover a cap, neutering multiple DDs.

 

And you can just as easily twist it around "without CVs you leave some ships able to spot with impunity, making counter play impossible".

 

Just actually look at how CW battles plays out, which is usually EXTREMELY static. The lack of a CV to spot means almost nothing, while CVs in a battle would be fairly easily neutered by organized use of AAA. Indeed the lack of even the possibility means that ships gets to be set up to entirely ignore AAA and thus people (like you) gets so used to never caring about them to the point where even a semi capable CV will be effective against you.

 

Though at least you've progressed from the raw nonsense of every whiny newbie "better CV means automatic win omg omgomg!!" and try to be slightly more reasonable.. I guess that's something.

Thanks for replying with more than “Nonsense”...

 

Maybe next time you can progress to something more than just mudslinging?

 

Cool conversation bro 

[BeauNidl3]

15 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

Utter nonsense.

 

Even more ridiculously so as you first claim it's so overwhelming in unorganised play, and then refer to organised play as evidence.

 

/And reasons for no CVs in CW is similar to reasons for only one BB being allowed. 7v7 play is very different from 12v12.

So surely in Ranked 7v7 their influence is overwhelming if a good player vs a lousy one. 

[RUSSIANBlAS]

6 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

So surely in Ranked 7v7 their influence is overwhelming if a good player vs a lousy one. 

Nonsense!!!

 

And something about Scottish people...

 

 

[AgarwaenME]

4 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Thanks for replying with more than “Nonsense”...

 

Maybe next time you can progress to something more than just mudslinging?

 

Cool conversation bro 

 

You get called on your nonsense, cry that you get called on it. Then (maybe) realising that not everyone falls for such blanket statements you actually try to justify it by being slightly more reasonable, using arguments that more or less prove your earlier blanket statement wrong.

 

SO ye..

 

Actual mud slinging is just throwing out memes about CVs like you did, not pointing out they're nonsense. So maybe next time try to take a measured approach from the start and you won't have to have your BS called out like this.

[AgarwaenME]

6 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

So surely in Ranked 7v7 their influence is overwhelming if a good player vs a lousy one. 

 

Nice going ignoring the fallacy in his original post there, and how this comment was about how this was entirely contradictory to itself and instead try to quote mine  

 

However that still doesn't make games autowins with a better CV, it, again, was merely to point out how he used two entirely contradicting things to attempt to prove something.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

1 minute ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

You get called on your nonsense, cry that you get called on it. Then (maybe) realising that not everyone falls for such blanket statements you actually try to justify it by being slightly more reasonable, using arguments that more or less prove your earlier blanket statement wrong.

 

SO ye..

 

Actual mud slinging is just throwing out memes about CVs like you did, not pointing out they're nonsense. So maybe next time try to take a measured approach from the start and you won't have to have your BS called out like this.

Called out? If you want to call it that then have a medal or something.

 

Just my own experience from encountering CVs vs games without CVs.

 

Maybe if you had a sensible discussion instead of NONSENSE then we might actually have an adult conservation?

 

 

[AgarwaenME]

3 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Nonsense!!!

 

And something about Scottish people...

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

Going "a good CV does this"

 

or 

 

"The best CV always wins, so the team that just won had the best CV so that proves the best CV always wins the game".

 

The simplest fallacy people use to protect their biases.

[AgarwaenME]

Just now, Negativvv said:

Called out? If you want to call it that then have a medal or something.

 

Just my own experience from encountering CVs vs games without CVs.

 

Maybe if you had a sensible discussion instead of NONSENSE then we might actually have an adult conservation?

 

 

 

Sensible isn't making statements like you did. Adult conversations isn't making statements like you did.

 

And how can you say it's about games with vs those without, when the statement was about games WITH CVs, not those without? How can a game without a CV be decided by the better CV? Here's a hint, it can't. 

 

So, maybe if you said something that wasn't nonsense, would people not call it nonsense. Try that next time.

[__Helmut_Kohl__]

39 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

Utter nonsense.

 

Even more ridiculously so as you first claim it's so overwhelming in unorganised play, and then refer to organised play as evidence.

 

/And reasons for no CVs in CW is similar to reasons for only one BB being allowed. 7v7 play is very different from 12v12.

 

WG have stated that they excluded CVs from CW because of their influence, just like Negativvv said. I think it was in the Waterline video. 

 

Also your attitude is not helping. 

[AgarwaenME]

Just now, _Helmut_Kohl_ said:

 

WG have stated that they excluded CVs from CW because of their influence, just like Negativvv said. I think it was in the Waterline video. 

 

Also your attitude is not helping. 

 

Except not in the least in the way he said.. (also, by that token BBs would be just as bad since they hardcapped them to just one).

 

As for attitude, again, when someone makes blanket statements that aren't in the least true, then they're the one with an attitude problem. (just like ignoring fallacies and biases and attacking someone for arguing against a clan mate shows a poor attitude too).

[RUSSIANBlAS]

3 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

Sensible isn't making statements like you did. Adult conversations isn't making statements like you did.

 

And how can you say it's about games with vs those without, when the statement was about games WITH CVs, not those without? How can a game without a CV be decided by the better CV? Here's a hint, it can't. 

 

So, maybe if you said something that wasn't nonsense, would people not call it nonsense. Try that next time.

Your argument is actually no more valid than mine. Possibly more abusive.

 

Unless someone wants to go look at the WRs of Ranked CVs on a large scale then it's just opinions...

[AgarwaenME]

To address the topic more clearly, since it's so hard to have any thread mentioning CVs without someone coming around to troll and turn it into another anti-CV trollfest..

 

Having one player (by lack of skill or intention) try to throw the game in a 7v7 would be basicly just as effective no matter the ship. The only reason for people attempting it with CVs is the lack of them in the queue and the way MM works. Ie, it's not about CVs, it's about players.

[__Helmut_Kohl__]

Just now, AgarwaenME said:

 

Except not in the least in the way he said.. (also, by that token BBs would be just as bad since they hardcapped them to just one).

 

As for attitude, again, when someone makes blanket statements that aren't in the least true, then they're the one with an attitude problem. (just like ignoring fallacies and biases and attacking someone for arguing against a clan mate shows a poor attitude too).

 

I would tell you the same if he wasn't in my clan. Your tone prevents any productive discussion. 

[AgarwaenME]

1 minute ago, Negativvv said:

Your argument is actually no more valid than mine. Possibly more abusive.

 

Unless someone wants to go look at the WRs of Ranked CVs on a large scale then it's just opinions...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

 

"I'm just as right about whatever I claim until someone proves me wrong".

[Commander_Cornflakes]

Go to some other thread with your "discussion", you are deviating too far away from this threads theme.

[AgarwaenME]

Just now, _Helmut_Kohl_ said:

 

I would tell you the same if he wasn't in my clan. Your tone prevents any productive discussion. 

 

Sure you would.

 

If you want "productive discussion" you would be arguing against people who just throw out blanket claims against a class of ship in a thread that's actually about people trying to fix matches and would do so just as easily if MM allowed them to easily match up BBs, DDs or CAs. "productive discussion" isn't to threadjack a thread about this to be about "omg CVs are so op in randoms".

[BeauNidl3]

10 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

To address the topic more clearly, since it's so hard to have any thread mentioning CVs without someone coming around to troll and turn it into another anti-CV trollfest..

 

Having one player (by lack of skill or intention) try to throw the game in a 7v7 would be basicly just as effective no matter the ship. The only reason for people attempting it with CVs is the lack of them in the queue and the way MM works. Ie, it's not about CVs, it's about players.

 

I disagree, a Cruiser, DD or BB screwing up (intentionally or incompetence, makes no difference) can be recovered, A CV with the large presence on the battlefield it brings being intentionally crap or utterly bad is more than likely going to lead to a loss. With the relatively low number of CV's in the game it's quite possible to deliberately manipulate who you're very likely to meet if collusion is going on.

The huge influence of CV's in 7v7 is not just something you can brush aside especially if the driver goes out of his way to be useless. 

[__Helmut_Kohl__]

4 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

Sure you would.

 

If you want "productive discussion" you would be arguing against people who just throw out blanket claims against a class of ship in a thread that's actually about people trying to fix matches and would do so just as easily if MM allowed them to easily match up BBs, DDs or CAs. "productive discussion" isn't to threadjack a thread about this to be about "omg CVs are so op in randoms".

 

No I just don't like it when a statement starts with an insult like that. 

[RUSSIANBlAS]

I'm not anti CV, I just find the huge variance they have on games a little jarring.

 

Still though enough off topic "nonsense".

 

Sorry folks 

[robihr]

for perfect way to rig the games with CV you need 3 accounts. you get all of them to rank 10 and then abuse irrevocable ranks. you boost 2 accounts to rank 5 with third. then out of that 2 accounts you boost 1 to rank 1. every time 1 star is lost on second account, you boost it with third account.

 

so yeah it is possible to do that. but it requires 3 accounts with t10 CV and 2-3 computers with different IP. so only question is are you desperate enough to do it?

[albinbino]

Probably not true, simply rewards reaching rank 1 are pretty low, and definitely not worth of rigging work that would involve more persons. With such pathetic rewards, biggest incentive to play Ranked is for prestige. 

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

So surely in Ranked 7v7 their influence is overwhelming if a good player vs a lousy one. 

 

On the other hand ranked is supposed to be a competitive gamemode where you should coordinate with your teammates to win. If you get stomped by a lone CV you deserve to lose even more than in randoms.

Then again knowing how ranked works nowadays I can see why that doesn't happen either. Which is really sad considering what ranked is supposed to represent.

[BeauNidl3]

22 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

On the other hand ranked is supposed to be a competitive gamemode where you should coordinate with your teammates to win. If you get stomped by a lone CV you deserve to lose even more than in randoms.

Then again knowing how ranked works nowadays I can see why that doesn't happen either. Which is really sad considering what ranked is supposed to represent.

 

Not forgetting that short of hitting escape if you see a CV in the queue (if you get time for that, sometimes it's instant you get a game) it's impossible to predict if you need Hydro or DefAA.

 

Additionally by the nature of the random teams, counting on meaningful teamplay and AA defence is laughable, far too many play in a "save a star" mode rather than for a win so selfish play is routine rather than an exception.

[El2aZeR]

16 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

far too many play in a "save a star" mode rather than for a win so selfish play is routine rather than an exception.

 

You know what's funny? I played CV to rank 1 a single time before that was a thing and, lo and behold, everyone at least tried to pull their weight. They used chat or the minimap to communicate, they tried to play in a supportive way and in return you felt compelled to do the same. Because if the team loses, you lose. We were all sitting in the same boat.

And while I breezed through earlier ranks in my CV, easily murdering 4-5 out of 7 players every match, towards the end CV play became more alike to competitive with spotting taking precedence rather than pure alpha strike as everyone was running at least a partial AA build + DFAA and supported each other. My impact on the match as a CV was thus much diminished, in many games I won I felt like I did barely anything at all.

 

Letting the top earner keep a star was quite possibly the worst decision WG has ever made in regards to ranked. I knew immediately I wouldn't play ranked again when that came out.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

4 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

The huge influence of CV's in 7v7 is not just something you can brush aside especially if the driver goes out of his way to be useless. 

To be fair, some CV players don't have to go out of their way to be useless. I am just saying.