General CV related discussions.

[Kyorinn]

22 saat önce, BLUB__BLUB dedi:

True, in normal games. However seems nowadays we get no more normal games. 

Everything is either a lemmingtrain, a ROFLSTOMP, or some campfest. 

or the games are less than 10min so i had to find new techniques to get my average damage

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

or the games are less than 10min so i had to find new techniques to get my average damage

Yes, that too. I tried to find something to prevent it, but well. 

You just cannot fix stupid, there is nothing I can do. 

Seems I need better method of doing damage as well. 

[Pikkozoikum]

On 5/3/2021 at 4:57 PM, Bearwall said:

There's a reason for things becoming a campfest. It's not exactly rocketscience. It will become worse when subs are introduced.

It's the game design, itself and has nothing to do with CV or submarines, even if you remove DDs and maybe even Cruiser it will be the same. Simply because if someone pushes, he will get focused, because he is in reach for everyone and an easy target.

 

It's like there is a open place, and the enemy has 5 sniper in camping position and your team has also 5 sniper. It's a random match, so the coordination is not that good, who wants to be the first, who enters the open place? :)

 

[Pukovnik7]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's the game design, itself and has nothing to do with CV or submarines, even if you remove DDs and maybe even Cruiser it will be the same. Simply because if someone pushes, he will get focused, because he is in reach for everyone and an easy target.

 

It's like there is a open place, and the enemy has 5 sniper in camping position and your team has also 5 sniper. It's a random match, so the coordination is not that good, who wants to be the first, who enters the open place? :)

 

I'd say it is rather due to a combination of game design and map design... I have seen maps where teams push by default, and all of them have one thing in common: dense, tall islands. If islands are set up in such a way as to remove the possibility of focus fire, then it is far more likely that teams will actually push. But if islands are low and/or dispersed enough, then yeah... you get what you describe in the post.

[Pikkozoikum]

21 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

I'd say it is rather due to a combination of game design and map design... I have seen maps where teams push by default, and all of them have one thing in common: dense, tall islands. If islands are set up in such a way as to remove the possibility of focus fire, then it is far more likely that teams will actually push. But if islands are low and/or dispersed enough, then yeah... you get what you describe in the post.

Even then there is the rule that always applies: Focus the easiest target.

 

You have a big island, that the other side can't shoot, if the BB decides to push and taking the lead, everyone will focus.

 

I'm not saying, that a push won't happen inthis game, but those happen mostly only, if one side is outnumbering the other and has the upper hand. But that happens also with CVs and with Submarines then

 

[Pukovnik7]

45 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Even then there is the rule that always applies: Focus the easiest target.

 

You have a big island, that the other side can't shoot, if the BB decides to push and taking the lead, everyone will focus.

 

I'm not saying, that a push won't happen inthis game, but those happen mostly only, if one side is outnumbering the other and has the upper hand. But that happens also with CVs and with Submarines then

 

Except that map is precisely the example of an open terrain map that is not conductive to pushing... though I have seen pushes happen there, mostly by hugging the island.

[AndyHill]

4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

You have a big island, that the other side can't shoot, if the BB decides to push and taking the lead, everyone will focus.

 

I'm not saying, that a push won't happen inthis game, but those happen mostly only, if one side is outnumbering the other and has the upper hand. But that happens also with CVs and with Submarines then

If that BB is unspotted he's fine and can disengage. It looks more like that DD can keep him lit, though, in which case the BB made a miscalculation and is now paying for it - as it should be.

 

Pushing is not an either-or -thing. There are a number of factors one needs to guesstimate before making a choice on the appropriate level of aggression. The most important factors are concealment and cover (basically the ability to control the situation with intelligent positioning), both of which are much less of a thing when carriers are in play.

[AndyHill]

On another note; one thing I've noticed throughout the years is that after a lot of talk about how carriers create a more challenging environment, the argument for carriers ends up being that they actually take skill out of the game and that's somehow a good thing. I happened on Ahskance's stream just as he too basically said just that. If some of you guys agree with that can I just ask why and what's left of the game if making good tactical moves is not an option? Loud sounds and neat explosions?

 

Here's the clip: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1011222192?t=01h12m30s

 

[Kyorinn]

13 dakika önce, Pukovnik7 dedi:

Read what I wrote again. What is dense about these islands? Unless you are going down the center strait, which is just suicide.

 

Don't accuse others of something you are guilty of.

instead of arguing have you ever wondered why everyone here disagrees with you?

[Kyorinn]

10 saat önce, Pikkozoikum dedi:

It's the game design, itself and has nothing to do with CV or submarines, even if you remove DDs and maybe even Cruiser it will be the same. Simply because if someone pushes, he will get focused, because he is in reach for everyone and an easy target.

 

It's like there is a open place, and the enemy has 5 sniper in camping position and your team has also 5 sniper. It's a random match, so the coordination is not that good, who wants to be the first, who enters the open place? :)

 

it has something to do with CV's and submarines cuz if they are in the game they make everything worse and they make impossible to do any tactical moves 

[Nov_A]

1 hour ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

it has something to do with CV's and submarines cuz if they are in the game they make everything worse and they make impossible to do any tactical moves 

Not like the game is gucci and balanced when there is no CV.

[Lootboxer]

1 hour ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

it has something to do with CV's and submarines cuz if they are in the game they make everything worse and they make impossible to do any tactical moves 

This. You can't sneak on your enemy's broadsides. Can't position yourself safely in the middle. Trying to flank is a bad idea. Playing on the edge of the concealment doesn't work either. Finally you often can't even run away to heal if you are low hp. But potatoes like it, no nasty surprises, clear vision, lots of inteligentne data  and less torps from those little sneaky dd .

And since those are the target customers things are going this way more and more. 

[Bearwall]

5 hours ago, Nov_A said:

Not like the game is gucci and balanced when there is no CV.

I don't even think it's a question about balance anymore. You can have ships like the Smolensk - decidedly unbalanced and OP ships, and still be able to counter and punish mistakes made by those playing them. There is no counter to the CV, the CV players req no skill and will never get punished for mistakes. At the same time the CV is actively ruining the ability of others to play the game and forcing them to camp harder - thus the frustration.

[BLUB__BLUB]

Well this will be a mess with FDR.... imagine dakkadakka mnachineguns the size of 4x Currywurst... LMAO. 

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/147

[Pikkozoikum]

11 hours ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

it has something to do with CV's and submarines cuz if they are in the game they make everything worse and they make impossible to do any tactical moves 

It makes stealthy ambushes less likely, if you mean that.

[Pikkozoikum]

15 hours ago, AndyHill said:

If that BB is unspotted he's fine and can disengage. It looks more like that DD can keep him lit, though, in which case the BB made a miscalculation and is now paying for it - as it should be.

 

Pushing is not an either-or -thing. There are a number of factors one needs to guesstimate before making a choice on the appropriate level of aggression. The most important factors are concealment and cover (basically the ability to control the situation with intelligent positioning), both of which are much less of a thing when carriers are in play.

That really doesn't matter, I don't talk about the scenario itself, who does mistakes and who not. I talk about, how this game is designed, and it is designed:

 

-The easiest target gets focused.

 

In my example, it would be a pushing BB.

 

This example should make clear, why we have so much passive play. Because of the game design of "the easiest target gets focused"

 

So it doesn't matter if someone makes a mistake or not, this rule will always apply, and that makes the passive play, because nobody wants to be in the frontline and getting nuked in less of 1 min.

 

How often do you have seen a pushing BB gets rekt immediatly? ^^

 

[Pikkozoikum]

2 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well this will be a mess with FDR.... imagine dakkadakka mnachineguns the size of 4x Currywurst... LMAO. 

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/147

 

 

I like the new rocket attack with MG-strafing :3

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

When I do 100k damage to 1 single ship, most ships would be severely handicapped. Right? 

[Pikkozoikum]

18 minutes ago, Europizza said:

When I do 100k damage to 1 single ship, most ships would be severely handicapped. Right? 

I would actutally change aircraft HP and AA damage. Maybe reducing it by 50 to 80%. and then let AA damage count as normal damage. I would be more rewarding

 

Well and 100k damage with main guns or with passive armament? :D

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

39 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Well and 100k damage with main guns or with passive armament? :D

Wut. Are you saying there's no counter to carrier attacks? 

 

100k damage, 22 plane kills of which 7 spotters (fighters lol), so 15 bombers, that's not even a visible dent. That FDR wasn't harmed in any meaningful way. I had an 80k plane damage earlier with 15 planes killed, god knows which ones were lolispotters.

 

But he kept me spotted for everyone else to shoot at ofc. Because balans: he hardly damages me but gets me killed by just hovering over me endlessly, I do 100k damage to him and he doesn't flinch. Totally great design. Right :D

[AndyHill]

3 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That really doesn't matter, I don't talk about the scenario itself, who does mistakes and who not. I talk about, how this game is designed, and it is designed:

-The easiest target gets focused.

In my example, it would be a pushing BB.

This example should make clear, why we have so much passive play. Because of the game design of "the easiest target gets focused"

Of course it matters, because that's how the game works. And focusing the easiest target is not really a part of this game's design, it's an implicit rule in basically every combat game of any kind as well as reality. Of course everyone shoots the target they can kill, not the one they can't hurt. That's always going to be the case and there is no way around it, so it's a moot point.

 

What actually matters is the incentive for pushing. Basically this game usually has objectives near the front lines, which makes people push forwards. Then again, aggressive ambush positions are also usually near the action where you can create crossfires. Then it's all about stuff that enables people to push and tilts the risk/reward ratio more in favor of the latter. Best examples of this are probably concealment and cover in the forms of islands that help you maneuver so that you can control the amount of incoming fire or disengage if things get too hot. Incidentally, carriers destroy both of these since you can get spotted anytime anywhere and hugging islands - which is usually necessary when making aggressive plays - is like a dinner bell to a carrier.

 

It is true that in this game as in reality, pushing is harder than defending. That's why stuff like Thunderers, Smolensks, carriers, deadeye, castrated secondaries and with all probability sooner or even sooner submarines are so harmful to the meta. They are all things that make pushing even more dangerous than it would be otherwise and/or camping more profitable and powerful.

[Pikkozoikum]

3 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Wut. Are you saying there's no counter to carrier attacks? 

No idea what you are refering to?  You say, that you did 100k damage to planes, and 100k damage against a single ship would have a big impact, thus you compare 100k AA damage with 100k main gun damage.

 

So I was asking you, are you doing 100k damage on a single ships with main armament, or with a passive DoT? That is the difference to show, that the comparison of these damage types is quite weird ^^

 

No idea, how you come up with that assumption, that I'm saying, tehre is no counter to carrier attacks xD

 

 

7 minutes ago, Europizza said:

100k damage, 22 plane kills, that's not even a visible dent. That FDR wasn't harmed in any meaningful way.

Again, 100k damage with main armament like Main battery, torpedos etc, or with a passive dot Aura? :P

 

100k damage with main battery != 100k damage with AA

[Pikkozoikum]

51 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Of course it matters,

It doesn't matter for the statement. I made up this specific example to show/explain, why we have passive play. It doesn't matter, if that bb could play different, that's not part of the example or statement.

 

51 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

so it's a moot point. 

It's not a moot point, it's the reason, why we have passive play, and people don't understand that. We had passive plays even 4 years ago. I remember that, when I got my first 8 and wen into T10 matches, where everyone was range sniping me from the back, while I still had a more aggressive playstyle, which did not work out in T10 matches.

 

It's the priority targeting in this game.

- 5 km DD in front of you and 20 km BB on distance -> DD gets focused

- 14 km BB and 18 km DD -> BB gets focused (as long there is no other reason for that prioirty like 5% DD)

 

And in other combat games you don't have that always, it depends on the game. In some games you have, in others not. Also not in Reality, Reality is way more complex.

 

 

51 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

What actually matters is the incentive for pushing. Basically this game usually has objectives near the front lines, which makes people push forwards. Then again, aggressive ambush positions are also usually near the action where you can create crossfires. Then it's all about stuff that enables people to push and tilts the risk/reward ratio more in favor of the latter. Best examples of this are probably concealment and cover in the forms of islands that help you maneuver so that you can control the amount of incoming fire or disengage if things get too hot. Incidentally, carriers destroy both of these since you can get spotted anytime anywhere and hugging islands - which is usually necessary when making aggressive plays - is like a dinner bell to a carrier.

Why do we have passive plays even without CVs then? Ships which rely on Concleament have to play more cautious obvioulsy. But that's something that happens, when you add more types of ships. Remove CV and DD and look how the meta changes then ;)

 

51 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

harmful to the meta

It changes the meta. Also it doesn't make pushing harder. Acutally I would expect the opposite.

 

A submarine is technically same like a DD, but with the difference of better concleament, but worse speed. So having a submarine on a flank or a DD doesn't make much difference, those are both ships, that can deny a push with torpedos.

But then a DD can actually counter a submarine, and if a submarine pushes in, he will get rekted by a DD, though we also have to wait for the next test, since the subs get a big change.

 

But I really don't understand this fear of meta change, especially with submarines. When I played BB against subs, they are kinda the same threat like a DD, except that DDs are so much faster and don't annouce their attacks with sonar pings.

 

Also a DD can threat at high distances like 12-16 km or even further. A submarines will proaply around 6-12 km. No idea how they design high tiers.

But that would also lead to a closer combat, since an enemy DD won't cause a threat on long distance.

 

 

 

I should make clear: The reason for passive play is not the CV, not HE spam, not Submarines, it's the game design itself.
A CV can cause passiveplay, HE can cause passive play, Submarines can cause it. But everything else, too. Because it's the general game design

 

Other games have that often less because of "real tanks" like tanks with immunity shields or healers, who heal them, or it's more a duel-game, where it doesn'T matter, who goes in first.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

11 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

No idea what you are refering to?  You say, that you did 100k damage to planes, and 100k damage against a single ship would have a big impact, thus you compare 100k AA damage with 100k main gun damage.

 

So I was asking you, are you doing 100k damage on a single ships with main armament, or with a passive DoT? That is the difference to show, that the comparison of these damage types is quite weird ^^

 

No idea, how you come up with that assumption, that I'm saying, tehre is no counter to carrier attacks xD

 

 

Again, 100k damage with main armament like Main battery, torpedos etc, or with a passive dot Aura? :P

 

100k damage with main battery != 100k damage with AA

  I'm not making an assumption, it's called a question.

 

The point: 100k plane damage didn't make a dent in it's strike and spotting ability in any meaningfull way. 100k damage made no difference. The way the damage is applied is irrelevant, as this little exercise is not about skill, but the influence of damage on the functionality of a ship receiving that damage. Let me humor you and point out that 100k secondary damage applied to 1 single ship can sink many ships out there or bring them on the verge of being sent to port, seriously limiting it's options to participate in the battle.

 

Your 'point', if it even is one, is moot. Again. But who's counting.

[arkashiks]

This is not normal, you literally cannot do anything even in fully AA spec Moskva with def AA

 

Any plans to get FDR fixed or AA buffed?