General CV related discussions.

[UnterSeeBot]

47 minutes ago, Europizza said:

oo bad you are deepening your dishonesty instead of actually making a decent point. I love a good debate, but I hate gaslighting.

 

47 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Stop farting in our general direction ^^

 

this is not a nice way to have a discussion, with such accusations, pesonal attacks, really? What have I done to you? This actually makes me quite sad.

Besides, what would a discussion be like if we agreed on everything?

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

More like you're putting your ignorance on the subject on blatant display.

I am being civil, and looking for common ground where possible, but I can sense this conversation won't go very far I can see, and that you are not receptive/  I am not disagreeing with you for the sake of it, are you?

47 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Perhaps' you were lying about islands. Nope. You defenitely were.

islands still provide cover to ships that use them, complicating CV attacks. Yes, it is true in many circumstances island campers overstay their welcome, and become accessible targets because they are immobile, once spotted and/or flanked. The old saying about not fighting a battle on a lee shore, holds true in WOWS/. Islands are a double edged sword for those that use them.

47 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Smoke does not counter a carrier attack. It deflects it.

 

47 minutes ago, Europizza said:

It is, yet again, not a counter of any sorts, it mitigates damage.

I think you are too concerned with semantics, deflecting with word play. Mitigation, deflection, anything that reduces the ability of an enemy to hit and dmg your ship is, in my definition, a defensive counter. Call it what you like. I won't accuse you of lying, gaslighting or farting.

 

 

[El2aZeR]

25 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

I am being civil, and looking for common ground where possible, but I can sense this conversation won't go very far I can see, and that you are not receptive/  I am not disagreeing with you for the sake of it, are you?

 

Perhaps we are not being very receptive of your blatantly wrong opinion because we know for a fact that it is blatantly wrong?

Ever thought about that?

 

25 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

islands still provide cover to ships that use them, complicating CV attacks.

 

Again, wrong. Islands provide an avenue for CVs to approach unopposed, attack with even fewer plane losses and/or get even more attacks through than usual. There is very little, if anything that islands complicate.

[UnterSeeBot]

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

2 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

I agree with you on this.

 

Funny, you literally stated previously that you do not.

15 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

every other counter to incoming fire is valid for incoming air squadron attacks and vice versa

2 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

CVs are certainly not under the same limitations as surface ships.

There is no contradiction.

CVs are not subject to all the same gameplay mechanics as others, battleship AP shells cannot be defeated by AA, for example, or CVs have very short duration fires and floods, for another, CV air squadron spotting does not work the same way as for surface ships. I think we can agree on this, can't we?

But the mechanics which are baked into the game to avoid/mitigate (defensive counters in my jargon) dmg are the same for all ships, whether they are on the recieving end of AP shells or AP rockets, HE bombs or a HE salvo from Conqueror. (excepting AA ofc!)

4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Perhaps we are not being very receptive of your blatantly wrong opinion because we know for a fact that it is blatantly wrong?

 

I am not entirely certain that you want a conversation where somebody might imply a different view to your own. 

[Bainsmit_steel]

I relay think that language  of El2aZeR is not acceptable...who is right or who is wrong that can be discussed about...insulting and bad language is not even if it comes from a good CV player like he is so i am wondering where are moderators?

 

[DeviousDave02]

1 minute ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

I relay think that language  of El2aZeR is not acceptable...who is right or who is wrong that can be discussed about...insulting and bad language is not even if it comes from a good CV player like he is so i am wondering where are moderators?

 

They don't come here... at least in a moderator role  (joking)

 

This thread is pretty much the radioactive waste pit that WarGambling constructed so that they can shovel any and all CV related discussions into so that the WarGaming community staff members who wander the forums and impressionable new players dipping their toes into the forums don't encounter walls upon walls of..

 

"CV BROWKEN"

"REMOVE CV"

"KILL ALL CV"

"NUKE CV FROM ORBIT"

"FIX CV PLEASE"

"CV OP"

"NERF CV"

 

style threads  x1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to the power of whatever the forums server upper maximum for new threads limit is and become scared that CV isn't working as intended or disolusioned into not spending money (the horror).

 

Basically:

Because your staring at the thread equivalent of insanity.

[Excavatus]

13 minutes ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

I relay think that language  of El2aZeR is not acceptable...who is right or who is wrong that can be discussed about...insulting and bad language is not even if it comes from a good CV player like he is so i am wondering where are moderators?

 

If you think someone is breaking the forum rules, please report that post instead of posting a message about it. 

Because discussing moderation is itself a rule violation. 

And please do not forget, attacking a person is a violation, attacking an idea even though how vicious that attack is.. not.. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

3 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

 

this is not a nice way to have a discussion, with such accusations, pesonal attacks, really? What have I done to you? 

besides, what would a discussion be like if we agreed on everything?

 

I think you are too concerned with semantics, deflecting with word play. Mitigation, deflection, anything that reduces the ability of an enemy to hit and dmg your ship is, in my definition, a defensive counter. Call it what you like. I won't accuse you of lying, gaslighting or farting.

 

 

I apologise for the farting joke, a geste in poor taste i guess. I am debating your points and am indeed saying you were gaslighting the discourse in your reply to me, which you were as far as I'm concerned.

 

So what I get from this so far is that you catagorise every and any passive defenses like dodging, angling, using smoke and hiding as a 'defensive counter', a term you made up and which was shown to be in inaccurate term for what you are talking about, yet you remain firm in your defenition. Well, all what remains in that case is that we agree to disagree then.

[Pikkozoikum]

55 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Kinda depends on the radar ship. Point is, you can force the DD to be less influential.

Same with AA-ships, playing Hayate without smoke or Halland makes CV also a difference in influence.

 

57 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

CVs?

what you mean? Recently I played mostly Shikishima, Harugumo, Hayate, and IJN BB grind T5->T7. A few Kaga games.

 

59 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Implying that >81% Solo would be fine, while >84% is not

Implying that a drop in WR shows, that the Influence from RTS to Rework dropped.... If the Influence would be same or stronger, than the WR would be higher, that's the point of influence, having the power to win a game ^^

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Still wont change, that any surface ship would stop at ~70ish % solo WR because the ship is incapable of carrying more.

Don't get me wrong, never said the CV is not most flexible class and thus has the most influence. I just said, there will be always a most influencing ship. And I'm saying, the CV is now better than before.

It's a difference, when the Top 5% have same WR overall like other ships - also below some silver ships. Especially if you consider in the top-list are people, who played like 100 games after Rework-release to pump up their statistics. Those are not relevant for the current state, those just used the early release to get higher stats. I mean when we talk about RTS, we don't go with Beta-state without strafing and 5 TBs + 3 DBs setups :D

So I would actually assume, that the top 5% CV stats are actually higher than they should be.

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Here an example:

Erazer has 81% Solo WR with Enty. if i would play with him, doing exactly what his teammates do on average, id also get 81% WR in any ship. If i play better, id get higher WR. If i play in a division without a CV, i can roughly expect 80% WR. So adding a SU CV player already grants me more than 2 other surface ships in my division.

[PARAZ] Muchas_Gracias

80

1 353

96.25%

Maybe you paly with his Stalingrad? :3 There are some 80%+ WR players on some ships. If there are more 80%+ CVs, then it might be, because of that stat push after release, Guess same counts for Stalin here with his 96% in 80 battles.

I would say, that's overall not a good example. Enterprise is for a reason not any longer in sale. Let him play a Midway, Hakuryu or Audacious and div up.

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

But it shows the huge skillgap CVs still have today.

I disagree, that their is still the huge skill gap, because the skill gap refered not just to the difference of skill of a player vs skill of another player. The Skill gap issue back then refered to the combination of the huge influnece, that has one CV over another. A good CV player could deny a bad CV player. That is way more influnece then having just a better player in general.

So when talking about the skill gap, then it's the skill gap - influnece relation. The skill gap is the same, but the influnece dropped. A drop in influende doesn't mean, that there is not still influnece. But it'S more like

CV RTS influence 10, CV rework influnece 8, DD influnece 6, Cruiser influnece 5 and BB influence 4.

Just as example. It's way easier to play against CVs, for me at least, some players seem to have still big issues with 5k torp hits on a BB :3

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

rocket science how to dodge flak.

Not sure why this is important, it's one mechanic of the AA beside cont. DPS and burst. The main dmg comes from the cont. DPS, I assume. Kinda similar to pre Rework, just without the dice rolling.

If you would remove the Flak explosion, I would assume that CVs would have more influence.

 

[UnterSeeBot]

7 minutes ago, Europizza said:

gaslighting

this is a rather serious accusation where I live. I prefer to be accused of farting (which I shall now do!)

Quote

Gaslighting induces cognitive dissonance in the victim, "often quite emotionally charged cognitive dissonance",^[11] and makes the victim question their own thinking, perception, and reality testing, and thereby tends to evoke in them low self-esteem and disturbing ideas and affects, and may facilitate development of confusion, anxiety, depression, and in some extreme cases, even psychosis.^[1]:33–34 After the victim loses confidence in their mental capacities and develops a sense of learned helplessness,^[12] they become more susceptible to the victimizer's control.^[1]:34 Victims tend to be people with less power and authority

Somebody challenging your thinking, making you doubt something you hold to be true, does not by itself meet the definition of gaslighting. if it were so, life would be miserable indeed, everytime you had an argument.

here is a list I borrow from Wikipedia of indicators of possible gaslighting (I doubt it is comprehensive)

 

Quote

 

As described by Patricia Evans, seven "warning signs" of gaslighting are the observed abuser's:^[23]

1. Withholding information from the victim;
2. Countering information to fit the abuser's perspective;
3. Discounting information;
4. Using verbal abuse, usually in the form of jokes;
5. Blocking and diverting the victim's attention from outside sources;
6. Trivializing ("minimising") the victim's worth; and,
7. Undermining the victim by gradually weakening them and their thought processes.

 

My bold.

[Pikkozoikum]

17 minutes ago, DeviousDave02 said:

This thread is pretty much the radioactive waste pit that WarGambling constructed so that they can shovel any and all CV related discussions into so that the WarGaming community staff members who wander the forums and impressionable new players dipping their toes into the forums don't encounter walls upon walls of..

Guess there is this effect, that you will get all the negative posts about CVs in this thread, though if I'm not wrong, every forum has the rule, that multi threads are not wished and often refering to the main thread? ^^

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

13 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

I prefer to be accused of farting (which I shall now do!)

I like it. 

13 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Somebody challenging your thinking, making you doubt somehting you hold to be true

Lets be honest here, that is not what you did in reply #4097. It's okay though, I'm a big boy ^^

[UnterSeeBot]

25 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

If you think someone is breaking the forum rules, please report that post instead of posting a message about it. 

Because discussing moderation is itself a rule violation. 

And please do not forget, attacking a person is a violation, attacking an idea even though how vicious that attack is.. not.. 

You have a double hat on this thread. But I think me and @Europizza can sort things out with a farting competition and a box of matches.

[Bainsmit_steel]

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

If you think someone is breaking the forum rules, please report that post instead of posting a message about it. 

Because discussing moderation is itself a rule violation. 

And please do not forget, attacking a person is a violation, attacking an idea even though how vicious that attack is.. not.. 

Ok as you imply that my message broke the rule by all means delete it......btw I did report it...before i worte a message..

 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, LoveZeppelin said:

But the mechanics which are baked into the game to avoid/mitigate (defensive counters in my jargon) dmg are the same for all ships, whether they are on the recieving end of AP shells or AP rockets, HE bombs or a HE salvo from Conqueror. (excepting AA ofc!)

 

Which, again, is laughably wrong as the methods with which the ordinance is delivered is completely different and vastly in favor of CVs.

 

1 hour ago, LoveZeppelin said:

I am not entirely certain that you want a conversation where somebody might imply a different view to your own. 

 

Given that you have so far blatantly ignored every instance where you have been wrong and continue to demonstrate a poor level of knowledge about CV play, I can see why you'd forgo actual arguments in favor of ad hominems.

 

55 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Same with AA-ships, playing Hayate without smoke or Halland makes CV also a difference in influence.

 

Extremely laughable given that both are easy targets that can be destroyed while losing a negligible amount of planes.

How much AA/concealment/whatever other characteristic a target has matters little due to CVs being broken.

 

55 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If the Influence would be same or stronger, than the WR would be higher, that's the point of influence, having the power to win a game

 

Please keep ignoring everything else that may play into that when it comes to low single digit differences in percentage.

 

55 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's a difference, when the Top 5% have same WR overall like other ships

 

Again using top 5% is completely meaningless as it doesn't account for playerbase distribution.

Number of players over 100k average damage in RTS Midway: 1234 out of 2274, 54% of the playerbase
Number of players over 100k average damage in rework Midway: 1246 out of 5096, 24% of the playerbase

 

The number of skilled players hasn't changed, the number of total players however has. This is why percentages are completely worthless for comparisons.

But we've already explained that to you several times. At this point one can only imagine that you're being deliberately dishonest.

 

55 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Maybe you paly with his Stalingrad?

 

Of which one was played solo. Also implying 80 matches is a sufficient sample size.

How you think you would be able to get away with this blatant lie is beyond me.

 

55 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I disagree, that their is still the huge skill gap, because the skill gap refered not just to the difference of skill of a player vs skill of another player. The Skill gap issue back then refered to the combination of the huge influnece, that has one CV over another. A good CV player could deny a bad CV player. That is way more influnece then having just a better player in general.

 

There is no longer any need to deny a bad CV player because a bad CV player will fail by themselves, leading to the very same outcome.

In fact, bad CV players fail even harder in the rework than in RTS while skilled players perform more or less the same. So in reality the skill gap has actually increased.

 

55 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Kinda similar to pre Rework, just without the dice rolling.

 

Except, you know, said dice rolling could ever only roll in your favor.

[WarDax]

1 hour ago, DeviousDave02 said:

This thread is pretty much the radioactive waste pit that WarGambling constructed so that they can shovel any and all CV related discussions into so that the WarGaming community staff members who wander the forums and impressionable new players dipping their toes into the forums don't encounter walls upon walls of..

So maybe making new threads will work better you think? I have a feeling that would indeed cause some shoveling.

 

I still don't seem to have an answer to my question about matchmaking actually putting up fewer CV's in sessions since 0.9.8? I still have that impression, but I must admit to not playing so many T8 and above random battles lately so I might just be wrong.

[El2aZeR]

22 minutes ago, WarDax said:

So maybe making new threads will work better you think? I have a feeling that would indeed cause some shoveling.

 

They'll just get closed and deleted. Don't bother.

[DeviousDave02]

27 minutes ago, WarDax said:

So maybe making new threads will work better you think? I have a feeling that would indeed cause some shoveling.

Possibly, although they did try that after the last CV mega containment thread reached critical mass at some 500 plus pages and was locked which resulted in dozens of threads about roughly the same thing clogging up the forum (much to the mods annoyance).

 

So while letting everyone go mad and make a dozen 'Kill CV's with fire' threads would be a bad idea what could work (IMO) is keeping this thread for General CV complaints, arguments and discussions (hence it's name) and having another stickied CV thread SOLELY for CV ideas.

This would be where ideas can be posted for WarGaming staff to look at and possibly actually respond to. Where they can give opinions about ideas posted, say it's already been tried, say it might/won't work etc. with off topic comments that aren't ideas being removed by mods to prevent the usual clutter that plagues any topic with CV in the title.

 

The problem I have always had with this thread is that any ideas that do crop up tend to get buried within a day, sometimes even an hour due to the random breakouts of flame wars and pro-CV/anti-CV verbal artillery duels that can last for pages before El2aZeR appears and hits the offending party with a Enterprise shaped sledgehammer for saying something questionable.

 

 

 

 

[Excavatus]

18 minutes ago, DeviousDave02 said:

having another stickied CV thread SOLELY for CV ideas.

It won't work.. 

Every idea about the CV, in a seperate topic or in the main one, 

just turns into same old discussion.. 

 

we have 3 sides.. 

1) hates the CV and wants it to be removed or nerfed into oblivion, 

2) loves the CV because thats the only class they can have more than %50 WR, and defends it as it is completely balanced and have many counters againts it. 

3) actual CV players who knows CVs are broken and impossible to balance in this form... and just having fun dealing judgement from above at the same time :) 

 

oh and another class actually.. surface captains who thinks in general CVs are not that bad to play against... Thats the people I really don't understand :D

[UnderDuress]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

[PARAZ] Muchas_Gracias

80

1 353

96.25%

Maybe you paly with his Stalingrad? :3 There are some 80%+ WR players on some ships....

I don’t understand why you post stuff like this here, or the rest of odd stuff you do. The only people in this thread tends to be knowledgeable about game mechanics. If you post it out in the wild you might catch a few gullible people who don’t know the difference between solo stats and divisioned stats and whatnot, but what’s the point doing it here?

 

[Pikkozoikum]

6 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

we have 3 sides.. 

That's a very personal view? ;)
Could be also

 

1) CV haters, who are not interested in any improvement and also didn't liked RTS-CV

2) RTS-lovers, who never wanted this design, no matter if it's good or bad.

3) CV players, who prefer the new version with what ever reason

4) Allrounder, who know, how to play against CV, since they also played CV and maybe also remember, how the RTS was

 

 

13 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

oh and another class actually.. surface captains who thinks in general CVs are not that bad to play against... Thats the people I really don't understand :D

Because not everyone sits in a stationary DM against AP bomber or a straight moving DD with AA on and no A and D keys :3

 

[UnterSeeBot]

19 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

 

we have 3 sides.. 

1) hates the CV and wants it to be removed or nerfed into oblivion, 

2) loves the CV because thats the only class they can have more than %50 WR, and defends it as it is completely balanced and have many counters againts it. 

3) actual CV players who knows CVs are broken and impossible to balance in this form... and just having fun dealing judgement from above at the same time :) 

 

oh and another class actually.. surface captains who thinks in general CVs are not that bad to play against... Thats the people I really don't understand :D

this is not quite fair.

narrowly categorizing commentators can only render discussion even more rigid, unbending and ideological within the obscure world of WOWS CV threads. It prejudices the way comments are interpreted, and favours minima/maxima positions.

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

4) Allrounder, who know, how to play against CV, since they also played CV and maybe also remember, how the RTS was

 

thankyou. 4) bis, also wants CVs removed for obscure reasons that nobody here is interested in. To be treated with suspicion!

[Excavatus]

Claiming that there is a counter against CVs, and it is really ok to play against CVs.. is just.. ignorance If you ask me.. 

The problem is, the general stats shows CVs are ok.. ish... but It does not change the fact that CVs can have more influence on the game than the all other ships combined in a given match :) 

a lot of people not knowing how to play a class does not make that class balanced... 

[UnterSeeBot]

7 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

Claiming that there is a counter against CVs, and it is really ok to play against CVs.. is just.. ignorance If you ask me.. 

 

ok, back to semantics. 

what do you mean by a "counter"?

Do you have an example?

Does a counter have to be absolute, or partial?

 

let's create a level playing field for this topic, define the terms.

 

I won't call anyone ignorant because they dislike playing against CVs, least of all a moderator. Likewise I'd appreciate it if such terms are not used because you don't understand or accept another player's view. I understand that many many players hate having to play against CVs. Me too in certain circumstances. But I am also, very often, perfectly comfortable with the presence of CVs when I am commanding a cruiser/bb/dd.

[CptBarney]

23 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

oh and another class actually.. surface captains who thinks in general CVs are not that bad to play against... Thats the people I really don't understand :D

prob's peeps who want to play a really weird version of ww2 naval wars.

guess they will have to wait till warthunder puts in alaska and other supercruisers and battlecruisers or UA:D once the campaign comes out and is more fleshed out.

[arquata2019_]

Proprio ora, CptBarney ha scritto:

prob's peeps who want to play a really weird version of ww2 naval wars.

guess they will have to wait till warthunder puts in alaska and other supercruisers and battlecruisers or UA:D once the campaign comes out and is more fleshed out.

if you want actually (not 100% and  not biased game) a game you can get bsm or bsp (battlestation midway and battlestations pacific)