CV Rework Discussion

[veslingr]

1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

 

No it is not, because top player performance represents the balancing benchmark contrary to popular belief.

Because when it comes to balance player skill is irrelevant.

i agree player skill is irrelevant, and disagree the balance ship in regard top 5% players. Even if we look top 5% players in whole classes you are not in first pages....if we folow your logic, CVs underperfomr in top 5% players in t8 bracket becasue other players in other classes have better resaults.

[Sunleader]

40 minutes ago, veslingr said:

by playing in team....i almost do not die to cv...ever....why?....ussualy with 2 mates playing in a team..and no, you will not hurtm me hard with 3 AAA on watch....you hunt monkeys siting on A1, or sailing solo who are mostly ussles and canon fooder.

 

Which Effectively Means. You Admit. That JUST TO SURVIVE against a CV you need 3 Players.

See Mate. I always love these Statements. Because it means you need 3 People in a Division to actually even Defend yourself against a CV. :)

But at this Point you have done 0 Damage to that CV.

 

(And Honestly said. You can be 5 People and I would not Care. The Reason you will get less Bombed is because your a Less Juicy Target than whoever went forward alone and the CV will instead just kill that Guy. You are Still a Zebra Facing a Lion. Your just the Lucky Zebra which wasnt Seperated from the herd and thus Surviving because the other Zebra is the Lions Snack for that Attack).

 

 

Not that this is Relevant to what I said.

Because you See.

I just went ahead Playing my GZ.

I wasnt Supposed to. But while Helping my Friend Grind. I am watching this Topic in the Background.

So I pulled my Friend who doesnt actually have T8 yet into a T8 Battle with me.

 

And Apparently.

The Enemy Triple Division was pretty Helpless.

 

[Padds01]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Except as previously explained the number itself is irrelevant because the players who take damage from flak are as well.

Thus it holds no relevancy to any balancing discussion, hence why flak is useless.

 

You could ofc say that flak is not useless based on its performance against incompetent players but, again, that holds no relevancy to balancing.

where did they say that?

 

because i have never ever seen anyone do it that way, even competitive games like starcraft have to balance across all skill levels and even across different regions, i find it a little hard to believe an arcadey casual grind based game would go to such extremes, usually the very outliers (the extremely good and bad) are simply pruned out of the data before balance even starts.

 

think about it if they balanced it for you no one else would be able to play anything and the game would close pretty fast. it looks to me they balance pretty much against and for the average, does it look different to you?

[El2aZeR]

Just now, veslingr said:

i agree player skill is irrelevant, and disagree the balance ship in regard top 5% players. Even if we look top 5% players in whole classes you are not in first pages....if we folow your logic, CVs underperfomr in top 5% players in t8 bracket becasue other players in other classes have better resaults.

 

Which proves my point.

If player skill is irrelevant you balance around how mechanics are intended to be used. Hence why top player skill is representative while average stats are largely irrelevant.

 

As for the top 5%, that is because the amount of skilled players is smaller than 5%.

 

4 minutes ago, Padds01 said:

where did they say that?

 

Rather obvious when you consider how and why balancing changes have happened in this game.

 

Also funny that you bring up SC, a game that is in fact only balanced around pro players.

[veslingr]

11 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

Which Effectively Means. You Admit. That JUST TO SURVIVE against a CV you need 3 Players.

See Mate. I always love these Statements. Because it means you need 3 People in a Division to actually even Defend yourself against a CV. :)

But at this Point you have done 0 Damage to that CV.

 

(And Honestly said. You can be 5 People and I would not Care. The Reason you will get less Bombed is because your a Less Juicy Target than whoever went forward alone and the CV will instead just kill that Guy. You are Still a Zebra Facing a Lion. Your just the Lucky Zebra which wasnt Seperated from the herd and thus Surviving because the other Zebra is the Lions Snack for that Attack).

 

 

Not that this is Relevant to what I said.

Because you See.

I just went ahead Playing my GZ.

I wasnt Supposed to. But while Helping my Friend Grind. I am watching this Topic in the Background.

So I pulled my Friend who doesnt actually have T8 yet into a T8 Battle with me.

 

And Apparently.

The Enemy Triple Division was pretty Helpless.

 

1 vs 1 nobody can beat CV

3 man play together = passive wins over cv. 

 

And I said 3 man play together. Beeing in division means crap if they are separated and playing solo

[veslingr]

7 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Which proves my point.

If player skill is irrelevant you balance around how mechanics are intended to be used. Hence why top player skill is representative while average stats are largely irrelevant.

 

As for the top 5%, that is because the amount of skilled players is smaller than 5%.

 

 

Rather obvious when you consider how and why balancing changes have happened in this game.

 

Also funny that you bring up SC, a game that is in fact only balanced around pro players.

Player skill is irrelevant. Average performance of ship is what they look regardless what skill is sitting behind it. 

 

And average performance of top t8 cv is 3k DPM

[El2aZeR]

2 minutes ago, veslingr said:

Player skill is irrelevant. Average performance of ship is what they look regardless what skill is sitting behind it. 

 

While perhaps true, that will inevitably lead to failure.

As Enterprise handily proves.

 

Thus it is irrelevant to a balancing discussion.

[veslingr]

Just now, El2aZeR said:

 

While perhaps true, that will inevitably lead to failure.

As Enterprise handily proves.

 

Thus it is irrelevant to a balancing discussion.

I could agree it could lead to failure but only relevant thing is how WG sees it. And how majority of player feels playing game. Balance will always be around majority of players. 

[Sunleader]

12 minutes ago, veslingr said:

1 vs 1 nobody can beat CV

3 man play together = passive wins over cv. 

 

And I said 3 man play together. Beeing in division means crap if they are separated and playing solo

 

And that is the Very Definition of Massively Overpowered.

Because 1 CV Equals a Full Division of 3 Players working together. JUST TO SURVIVE HIM.

 

How about we Change this ?

I think it should made so that you need 3 CVs Attacking a Battleship at once to Actually Strike it.

 

Would you think thats Fair ?

Think that would be Fun Gameplay for the CV ?

 

[El2aZeR]

5 minutes ago, veslingr said:

I could agree it could lead to failure but only relevant thing is how WG sees it. And how majority of player feels playing game. Balance will always be around majority of players. 

 

Except in the history of this game a negligible amount of balancing changes have been based around the majority of players.

[1MajorKoenig]

3 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Except in the history of this game a negligible amount of balancing changes have been based around the majority of players.

 

That’s another claim. WG even showed how they review data and how they try to use them. 

[El2aZeR]

Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

That’s another claim. WG even showed how they review data and how they try to use them. 

 

A claim that can in fact be backed up by simple facts.

E.g. when YY was nerfed, was it on the basis of the majority?

[veslingr]

4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Except in the history of this game a negligible amount of balancing changes have been based around the majority of players.

i do not see it that way, just the opposite, i see they are "easing" this game, make it less complex to accommodate majority of player base, not top 5% of them. If your statement would be correct we would not be seen this dumbing down of the game. 

 

also when they "balance" ship it is ussualy the one that is statisticly better/worse than average of class.....and not how top players perform in it. 

[veslingr]

11 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

And that is the Very Definition of Massively Overpowered.

Because 1 CV Equals a Full Division of 3 Players working together. JUST TO SURVIVE HIM.

 

How about we Change this ?

I think it should made so that you need 3 CVs Attacking a Battleship at once to Actually Strike it.

 

Would you think thats Fair ?

Think that would be Fun Gameplay for the CV ?

 

if you would balance CV around 1 vs 1 it would lead to totally uselessness, because if 2 ships were in 10 km radius cv would not be able to touch them. 

As this is MMOG type of play i like that team wins or team loses around team play and not around 1vs1.

 

stats of CVs as they are now do not show any sigh of beeing OP, they do not top any stats column that would proove that. 

 

And regarding gampeplay i really do not see why in 1 vs 1 CV should be stooped by passive comander skill. If any t8 ship can do dmg to t10 ship so should CV. 

 

you can disagree here, and it is ok, we do not need to agree on this one.

[1MajorKoenig]

3 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

A claim that can in fact be backed up by simple facts.

E.g. when YY was nerfed, was it on the basis of the majority?

 

I think you are well aware of how WG makes these decisions. 

[El2aZeR]

Just now, veslingr said:

If your statement would be correct we would not be seen this dumbing down of the game.

 

A development that is actually fairly recent relatively speaking.

So both statements are actually true.

 

2 minutes ago, veslingr said:

also when they "balance" ship it is ussualy the one that is statisticly better/worse than average of class.....and not how top players perform in it. 

 

If the average player overperforms in a ship, so will a top player.

Not all balancing changes however are based around average performance.

[El2aZeR]

1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I think you are well aware of how WG makes these decisions. 

 

I think you are well aware of how laughable it is to take WG statements for granted.

[veslingr]

1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

 

A development that is actually fairly recent relatively speaking.

So both statements are actually true.

 

 

If the average player overperforms in a ship, so will a top player.

Not all balancing changes however are based around average performance.

sometime that is the truth, but many time it is not, because average player can not utilize what ship have. he has no skill to do it. You show how you rekt with AP from Big E, but the truth is that most can ot even hit ship with it not to mention hit citadels with it.

 

as you prove with your stats in Shokaku vs average stat. Average player just do not have skill to produce 100 k from it, it can squeez 50 k tops.

 

we can see that average player in case of Shokaku does not overperforms, old shokaku had better avrage stats than new one, while on other hand you as top player have totaly different perspective where new Shokaku ismore potent than old one. Clear proof that average player view of ship does not correlate with yours. 

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

 

I think you are well aware of how laughable it is to take WG statements for granted.

 

While you can’t believe everything obviously plus the fact that things sometimes magically change (“No Subs”) I don’t see why I shouldn’t believe the tools and procedures they showed us which they use to make balancing decisions. 

 

[Yedwy]

The reason CV balance is F-ed up is simple, El2aZeR is 100% right IMHO, they balance them by the "spreadsheet" and the majority of the sample are people that dont know what WASD keys are for when you fly the planes let alone what squad shortening means and executing any kind of slingshot is SF for them... Just remember all those BBs that DCP the first fire while under focus of 3 HE spamming cruisers and all those DDs that sail into the cap and smoke up in front of a Desmo and it all becomes clear, its the same people...

[El2aZeR]

1 minute ago, veslingr said:

sometime that is the truth, but many time it is not, because average player can not utilize what ship have. he has no skill to do it. You show how you rekt with AP from Big E, but the truth is that most can ot even hit ship with it not to mention hit citadels with it.

 

So you're telling me E was pulled from the store because of how bad players performed in her? Oh please.

 

6 minutes ago, veslingr said:

Clear proof that average player view of ship does not correlate with yours. 

 

Again, irrelevant.

 

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

While you can’t believe everything obviously plus the fact that things sometimes magically change (“No Subs”) I don’t see why I shouldn’t believe the tools and procedures they showed us which they use to make balancing decisions. 

 

Ah, but they left out plenty of info, didn't they?

Including how said data is weighted.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

The reason CV balance is F-ed up is simple, El2aZeR is 100% right IMHO, they balance them by the "spreadsheet" and the majority of the sample are people that dont know what WASD keys are for when you fly the planes let alone what squad shortening means and executing any kind of slingshot is SF novel of epic saga for them... Just remember all those BBs that DCP the first fire while under focus of 3 HE spamming cruisers and all those DDs that sail into the cap and smoke up in front of a Desmo and it all becomes clear, its the same people...

 

Even if that would be true - what is WG doing different on cruisers and destroyers? Or aren’t they equally bad balanced in your opinion?

[1MajorKoenig]

3 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Ah, but they left out plenty of info, didn't they?

Including how said data is weighted.

 

I can only assume you are talking about their “influence”-KPI? No they did not disclose the weighting, just the input values. Arguably there won’t be a weighting everyone agrees 100% anyway so. 

 

However that is only one of the mechanisms - another one being comparing ships to other ships of the same players. 

[veslingr]

9 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

So you're telling me E was pulled from the store because of how bad players performed in her? Oh please.

 

well it was not pulled out of shop because players were over performing in it. look at her stats....sitting strongly in middle. 

 

 

[Sunleader]

11 minutes ago, veslingr said:

if you would balance CV around 1 vs 1 it would lead to totally uselessness, because if 2 ships were in 10 km radius cv would not be able to touch them. 

As this is MMOG type of play i like that team wins or team loses around team play and not around 1vs1.

 

stats of CVs as they are now do not show any sigh of beeing OP, they do not top any stats column that would proove that. 

 

And regarding gampeplay i really do not see why in 1 vs 1 CV should be stooped by passive comander skill. If any t8 ship can do dmg to t10 ship so should CV. 

 

you can disagree here, and it is ok, we do not need to agree on this one.

 

Not Really.

In 0.8.5 it was Actually Working extremely Good.

If Enemy Stayed Together CV could not really Attack them Properly.

BUT They could not really Attack the CV either.

 

So what happened was the Same Situation that ALL other Ships have as well. If no Good Opportunity was there. A CV either had to take the Risk of having his Squadron Deleted. Just like Ships have to take the Risk of being Deleted.

Or had to Wait for a Better Chance when Someone of the Enemy Team makes a Mistake.

 

And That was actually Fair.

 

 

Sorry. But the Current Situation is not Fair. The Current Situation is something that is Generally Enjoyed by People with no Real Life which have an Inferiority Complex and due to that need to be the King of Someone in a Game.

And this is Generally something that Everyone but the King Hates.

 

Thats why since the Update. WG has Gained about a Thousand CV Players Happily Sealclubbing People in Low Tier CVs. But at the same Time have lost 3 Thousand other Players which decided. Yeah Screw this. I am not Playing Fodder for some PEEEEEP which can just PEEEEEP me over and over again with nothing I can do about it.

 

 

And No. We Clearly dont Agree. But right now. Beyond T4 the CVs are not Happy either.

Because as I explained above. With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.

If your a CV in T8 then you HAVE TO carry the Match. And there these Players which just want to be Godmode without any Skill. Have a problem.

The Enemy has one of these Godmode Ships as well. And so they keep losing like Crazy and dont Play.

 

Thats why you got Twice as many Low Tier CVs which cannot Block each other. Than you got High Tier CVs which end up in a Direct Competition for Victory.