General CV related discussions.

[Lordcrafty]

On 4/24/2021 at 10:12 PM, Pukovnik7 said:

It is easy to say "stop complaining", but fact is that MM is crap. No matter whether we win or lose, I hate it when it is obvious from the start how the match will end. Playing a game with a predetermined outcome is simply boring, I would be playing COOP if I wanted that.

even if games are predetermined your skill is still the defining factor, the one constant between games. If you get better then more games will be "predetermined" in your favor.

[Pukovnik7]

3 hours ago, Lordcrafty said:

even if games are predetermined your skill is still the defining factor, the one constant between games. If you get better then more games will be "predetermined" in your favor.

This is a team game. Even in a DD - which is probably the single class with most influence on the game - if majority of your team is absolute crap, you can't do much. You'll get hunted down.

3 hours ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

it is never obvious how a match would and dude if you are good enough there is always a chance to make a lost game victory 
except in some cases where it doesnt realy matters what you do but still lose cuz you already lost 10 ships
if you realy dont believe me here is an example:
all i had to do is farm the BB's untill i clear the flank and yes i got less base exp cuz farming bb's doesnt giving much base exp 

When I'm playing a destroyer, maybe. But as I said, this is a team game, and something like a battleship - or even a cruiser - cannot really survive, much less influence a match, without support. Luckily, DD players do tend to be better than average, so that "without support" part does not happen often.

 

But both of you are basically saying, "don't complain, if you are good enough, you can carry your team to victory". Which is a crap argument, because:

1) That depends on there being no similarly good (or better) players on the enemy team, in which case MM is still garbage and you are basically sealclubbing.

2) This is a team game. If I wanted a singleplayer experience, I would be playing something else.

[Kyorinn]

1 dakika önce, Pukovnik7 dedi:

But both of you are basically saying, "don't complain, if you are good enough, you can carry your team to victory". Which is a crap argument, because:

1) That depends on there being no similarly good (or better) players on the enemy team, in which case MM is still garbage and you are basically sealclubbing.

do you seriously think that t10 players are actualy good or knows how to play game so you cant carry them?

if you think like that pls just stop wasting my time here already

[Kyorinn]

4 dakika önce, Pukovnik7 dedi:

But both of you are basically saying, "don't complain, if you are good enough, you can carry your team to victory". Which is a crap argument, because:

1) That depends on there being no similarly good (or better) players on the enemy team, in which case MM is still garbage and you are basically sealclubbing.

2) This is a team game. If I wanted a singleplayer experience, I would be playing something else.

i realy dont understand why are you trying to deffend that you cant carry your teams either you are not a bad player your recent solo stats tells everything to me like if you dont believe me go and check it yourself you are doing realy great which shows you can carry the game by yourself

[Pukovnik7]

1 hour ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

i realy dont understand why are you trying to deffend that you cant carry your teams either you are not a bad player your recent solo stats tells everything to me like if you dont believe me go and check it yourself you are doing realy great which shows you can carry the game by yourself

I am not saying I am a bad player for my tier. I am saying that I like challenge and teamwork.

Which is probably why I am playing Operations more and more as of lately as opposed to Random...

1 hour ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

do you seriously think that t10 players are actualy good or knows how to play game so you cant carry them?

if you think like that pls just stop wasting my time here already

I would like to think that T8 players are better than T3...

[Kyorinn]

1 dakika önce, Pukovnik7 dedi:

I would like to think that T8 players are better than T3...

than you are going to get dissapointed 
atleast low tiers are bad because they are learning the game t8 players are even worse there are players with 2k games %40 wr which learns nothing from their mistakes

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

I would like to think that T8 players are better than T3...

I would like to think so too, but experience tells me it is the same dudes.

They just gave them bigger clubs... (and even bigger at T10).

 

Do you know where the thing "Derpitz" comes from? 

Well it was on sale a few years ago, you'd see Tirpitz 4, 5, 6 even 8 in a match. 

And guess how good they were... 

[Pukovnik7]

6 hours ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

than you are going to get dissapointed 
atleast low tiers are bad because they are learning the game t8 players are even worse there are players with 2k games %40 wr which learns nothing from their mistakes

 

4 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I would like to think so too, but experience tells me it is the same dudes.

They just gave them bigger clubs... (and even bigger at T10).

 

Do you know where the thing "Derpitz" comes from? 

Well it was on sale a few years ago, you'd see Tirpitz 4, 5, 6 even 8 in a match. 

And guess how good they were... 

So the difference comes down to maps, ships and bots? Because I have seen a lot of complaints that high-tier matches are static, but at low tier at least it is not unusual to find cruisers nose-to-nose. Though TBF I have often seen human players spawn-camp even at Tier 1. It is often only bots that do the pushing. So maybe because there are more bots at T1 and 2, it leads to - on average - better games than at higher tiers where there are more human players?

 

I mean, I like pushing and getting in close (even in a battleship), and at least with bots I know I will have some support around...

[159Hunter]

6 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

 

So the difference comes down to maps, ships and bots? Because I have seen a lot of complaints that high-tier matches are static, but at low tier at least it is not unusual to find cruisers nose-to-nose.

No the difference originates in WG: 

- giving more and more range at higher tiers

- forcing ppl to higher tiers prematurely to complete missions

- luring ppl to high tiers with freemiums

- refusing to educate the playerbase (the more potent the ship, the more you will misabuse its potential if you are clueless)

- adding more HE spammers of death

- adding more overmatching BB calibres

...

[BLUB__BLUB]

11 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

So the difference comes down to maps, ships and bots?

Not really, though maps and ships certainly have an effect.

 

11 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Because I have seen a lot of complaints that high-tier matches are static, but at low tier at least it is not unusual to find cruisers nose-to-nose.

Because they HAVE to get close. They do not have range. 

In the higher tiers, they have the range, and they think "F-you, I'll wait until I see something to shoot".

Apparently it is too hard to understand, te service cost stays the same - sunk or survived. 

 

11 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Though TBF I have often seen human players spawn-camp even at Tier 1. It is often only bots that do the pushing.

Well... it is bad, when B0ts have to take the lead... eh...

 

11 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

So maybe because there are more bots at T1 and 2, it leads to - on average - better games than at higher tiers where there are more human players?

That is why some people wish they got b0ts instead of some players...

 

11 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

I mean, I like pushing and getting in close (even in a battleship), and at least with bots I know I will have some support around...

Indeed. I usually div up with clanmates. 

Mostly they are much better than the bots, not sure if I am... 

[Kyorinn]

4 saat önce, 159Hunter dedi:

No the difference originates in WG: 

- giving more and more range at higher tiers

- forcing ppl to higher tiers prematurely to complete missions

- luring ppl to high tiers with freemiums

- refusing to educate the playerbase (the more potent the ship, the more you will misabuse its potential if you are clueless)

- adding more HE spammers of death

- adding more overmatching BB calibres

...

range is not the problem but others are.........yeah

[Lordcrafty]

14 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

but at low tier at least it is not unusual to find cruisers nose-to-nose.

yup, that's a completely stupid thing to do in a cruiser at those tiers though, it's all the new players that have 0 clue how to play. If you find that sort of behaviour at T10 it's usually from those players that can counteract the match impact of an SU singlehandedly by dying in the opening minutes.

[Pukovnik7]

2 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Because they HAVE to get close. They do not have range. 

In the higher tiers, they have the range, and they think "F-you, I'll wait until I see something to shoot".

Apparently it is too hard to understand, te service cost stays the same - sunk or survived. 

True, though from playing Operations, it does not seem that even Tier VI has to be static. Granted, I use Dunkerque for ops and dispersion in that thing is... eh. But in Operations, I often see maneuvers - ambushes, outflanking, brawling. Might have something to do with the fact that objective is behind the other team (or else behind your own), as opposed as being in the middle.

[Lordcrafty]

11 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

True, though from playing Operations, it does not seem that even Tier VI has to be static. Granted, I use Dunkerque for ops and dispersion in that thing is... eh. But in Operations, I often see maneuvers - ambushes, outflanking, brawling. Might have something to do with the fact that objective is behind the other team (or else behind your own), as opposed as being in the middle.

I think it would be best for me to simply say this to you: You don't understand how the game works or how it plays so you have no clue what strategy looks like in WoWs you're applying your own imagination of what strategy in this game looks like and of course you're only going to see it in gamemodes like co-op or operations where people can do whatever they want or where there are certain unique strategies which work every time by design because the AIs have set pathfinding and spawns.

[Pukovnik7]

32 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

I think it would be best for me to simply say this to you: You don't understand how the game works or how it plays so you have no clue what strategy looks like in WoWs you're applying your own imagination of what strategy in this game looks like and of course you're only going to see it in gamemodes like co-op or operations where people can do whatever they want or where there are certain unique strategies which work every time by design because the AIs have set pathfinding and spawns.

Yes, because "not moving from spawn point for 30 minutes" is the best strategy ever. 

[Lordcrafty]

5 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Yes, because "not moving from spawn point for 30 minutes" is the best strategy ever. 

no, putting yourself into a situation where you can't escape and are forced to trade away HP is just a terrible strategy for a cruiser, you need to conserve your HP in heal-less cruisers and you do that by using islands to stay stealth or disengage and playing from range where you can bounce shells with your belt armour. Bow in low tier cruisers are food.

[Lordcrafty]

7 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Yes, because "not moving from spawn point for 30 minutes" is the best strategy ever. 

if it's possible for you to deal effective damage whilst not moving from spawn it is, hence why CVs are OP.


In most cases of course it isn't possible which is why you need to find positions where you can simultaneously limit the damage you take (so that you can stay in the game to have impact for longer) whilst dealing the most effective damage possible.

[Pukovnik7]

7 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

no, putting yourself into a situation where you can't escape and are forced to trade away HP is just a terrible strategy for a cruiser, you need to conserve your HP in heal-less cruisers and you do that by using islands to stay stealth or disengage and playing from range where you can bounce shells with your belt armour. Bow in low tier cruisers are food.

That is what the islands are for. They can provide concealment for approach, for ambushes, and for escape. But careful play does not mean passive play. Passive playing of the kind I am complaining about is just retarded. Unfortunately, it appears at Tier I and later on presence of CVs likely reinforces it.

 

There is a difference between playing at range and positions that allow you to disengage, and playing at or even outside extremes of your own gun range.

9 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

if it's possible for you to deal effective damage whilst not moving from spawn it is, hence why CVs are OP.

And should be removed, or at least limited so that you can have no-CV matches.

[BLUB__BLUB]

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

True, though from playing Operations, it does not seem that even Tier VI has to be static. Granted, I use Dunkerque for ops and dispersion in that thing is... eh. But in Operations, I often see maneuvers - ambushes, outflanking, brawling. Might have something to do with the fact that objective is behind the other team (or else behind your own), as opposed as being in the middle.

Could be. But one thing is certain, if the enemy is stationary, nobody (with a brain) is gonna look for them. 

I have seen games where the whole reds were hiding behind a fat island. And we had two caps. Kills were equal. 

What you do at such a point is take a position where you can shoot, defend cap,. and not get shot yourself (at least not from all sides...). 

The reds needed to come out, else they'd lose. Guess what. Here comes my team....   

One or two at a time, they charged in to the enemy.... 

 

Tactics in this game depends entirely on what the enemy do - or what they DO NOT do. 

And often they end because nobody does anything at all. What you should do then is chose position. 

You should try to get the upper had - only one ship has a shot at you (preferable none) and you are able to shoot whatever is where you want to push.

Or you sit somewheere that they can't see you but you can shoot them if they try to push. Or where you can kite away, meanwhile setting fires. 

 

But, usually, nothing happens... then, first one is fed up with it, YOLOs in, gets shot to bits, and it becomes a ROFLSTOMP.

 

[Pikkozoikum]

On 4/26/2021 at 8:13 AM, Camperdown said:

I hunt torp DDs and they do get surprised by me. If you run no risk of being surprised, you are behind your fatties and thus are much less useful.

Well, I kill CVs in my BB or even destroy DDs with my secondaries. But that is a skill gap thing or just mistakes ^^

That applies on every case ^^

It was about, that games with classes often have classes, where one side can't do damage in return.

 

[Pikkozoikum]

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

That is what the islands are for. They can provide concealment for approach, for ambushes, and for escape. But careful play does not mean passive play. Passive playing of the kind I am complaining about is just retarded. Unfortunately, it appears at Tier I and later on presence of CVs likely reinforces it.

That's actually a funny thing. There was lately often the opinion, that Dead eye makes brawling/secondary builds useless. Before that it was the HE-Spam. Those make it probably worse, but the real reason for passive plays are the gun ranges. Higher tiers have higher ranges.

 

If someone goes to close, a player can expect, that someone over the map still can shoot him. The only way to avoide massive focus and cross fire is:

-Hiding behind islands

-Sitting at the borders

-Sitting on high distances

 

I remember the passive and long range plays, since I started wows. Guess 4 years ago. When I started with T8, I immediatly went back to T6-T7, because the T10s just were sitting on high ranges.

[Pukovnik7]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

 That's actually a funny thing. There was lately often the opinion, that Dead eye makes brawling/secondary builds useless. Before that it was the HE-Spam. Those make it probably worse, but the real reason for passive plays are the gun ranges. Higher tiers have higher ranges.

 

If someone goes to close, a player can expect, that someone over the map still can shoot him. The only way to avoide massive focus and cross fire is:

 -Hiding behind islands

-Sitting at the borders

-Sitting on high distances

 

I remember the passive and long range plays, since I started wows. Guess 4 years ago. When I started with T8, I immediatly went back to T6-T7, because the T10s just were sitting on high ranges.

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Could be. But one thing is certain, if the enemy is stationary, nobody (with a brain) is gonna look for them. 

I have seen games where the whole reds were hiding behind a fat island. And we had two caps. Kills were equal. 

 What you do at such a point is take a position where you can shoot, defend cap,. and not get shot yourself (at least not from all sides...). 

The reds needed to come out, else they'd lose. Guess what. Here comes my team....   

One or two at a time, they charged in to the enemy.... 

 

Tactics in this game depends entirely on what the enemy do - or what they DO NOT do. 

And often they end because nobody does anything at all. What you should do then is chose position. 

You should try to get the upper had - only one ship has a shot at you (preferable none) and you are able to shoot whatever is where you want to push.

Or you sit somewheere that they can't see you but you can shoot them if they try to push. Or where you can kite away, meanwhile setting fires. 

 

But, usually, nothing happens... then, first one is fed up with it, YOLOs in, gets shot to bits, and it becomes a ROFLSTOMP.

 

I think, as I mentioned, that islands might be the key here. All my favourite maps are ones with tall and dense islands... which have the effect of removing precisely the kind of focus fire that you mention. Massive gun ranges would not be that much of a problem if islands were dense enough to make any long-range opportunities fleeting.

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

I think, as I mentioned, that islands might be the key here. All my favourite maps are ones with tall and dense islands... which have the effect of removing precisely the kind of focus fire that you mention. Massive gun ranges would not be that much of a problem if islands were dense enough to make any long-range opportunities fleeting.

Well yes, but having so many dense/high islands... also means you have no occasion to hide & shoot.

Because somebody will sneak up around the rear, and blap you. 

[DFens_666]

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

I think, as I mentioned, that islands might be the key here. All my favourite maps are ones with tall and dense islands... which have the effect of removing precisely the kind of focus fire that you mention. Massive gun ranges would not be that much of a problem if islands were dense enough to make any long-range opportunities fleeting.

 

Yes, hightier maps are definetely a problem when it comes to camping. But having less range wouldnt certainly not hurt. Many bad BB players will answer, after you ask them why they sit so far in the back: "Because i can". So even if you would change the maps, people would still camp in the back... Playing aggressively is just way too hard for the average player.

[geschlittert]

3 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Playing aggressively is just way too hard for the average player.

Not only for those. Aggressive BB gameplay is an art mastered by very few - and i dont claim to be one of them