General CV related discussions.

[Pikkozoikum]

6 minutes ago, arkashiks said:

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?

Hm, with full AA Yoshino I actually deleted full squadrons now and then. Though FDR mostly will get out 1 strike at least. Once I did 26k damage to a FDR with one Flak barrage, that was funny :3

 

 

[AndyHill]

59 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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.

Yes you do. People shoot the target they can hurt, not the one they can't. Also in reality.

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Why do we have passive plays even without CVs then?

Because pushing is harder than defending and very risky, since vulnerable targets tend to get concentrated by everyone who can shoot at them. You have to look beyond binary choices, those rarely exist in anything. Simply reducing factors that make the meta passive does not necessarily make it hyperaggressive all of a sudden, just less passive.

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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.

Submarines are too slow to flank, they will congregate near objectives, where enemy ships need to push into them - if they dare. Thus far submarines have been pretty much like slow, extreme concealment zero gunpower ambush-based DDs and that doesn't sound like something that would encourage more aggression.

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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

Attacking is more difficult in pretty much any combat game I've tried, because it is so in reality, for very simple logical reasons. What causes more passive or more aggressive play is precisely the point, since the core design is what it is, basically inevitably so.

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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.

So that's why you'd send the healers or DPS dudes to rush in first in those other games?

[Pikkozoikum]

51 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Yes you do. People shoot the target they can hurt, not the one they can't. Also in reality.

But that's the thing. In this game you can hurt every target. In real life you might not be able to hurt every target

In real Life, you wouldn't have the same concept. I mean would you attack a Tank with a knife? I would really not go for the reality comparison ;)

In this game, everyone can hurt everyone. Even a DD with 100mm guns can destroy a BB.

 

And as I said, in reality and in other combat games, you don't have always that. In other games you have the concept of tanks, or the 1vs1 concept. Here you have only ships, some have large HP pools, but they are slow and take more damage

 

55 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Because pushing is harder than defending and very risky, since vulnerable targets tend to get concentrated by everyone who can shoot at them. You have to look beyond binary choices, those rarely exist in anything. Simply reducing factors that make the meta passive does not necessarily make it hyperaggressive all of a sudden, just less passive.

I was describing, that the passive gameplay comes from the way how this game is designed. Not because of CVs. That would be a binary choice btw...

The game is designed, that one target, that reveals itself, gets focused by many ships. This leads to a passive gameplay.

In Steel Ocean it was a bit less passive, because there was no Detection warning, nobody knew, when he was detected, but also there you would let your friendly bb a bit closer, so they shoot him instead of you ;P

 

Remove CVs and you will still see passive plays. As I said, it's how the game is designed.

In case of even teams, that team, which have some "Smart" players, who think, it's too passive, they will die first ^^

 

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

Submarines are too slow to flank, they will congregate near objectives, where enemy ships need to push into them - if they dare. Thus far submarines have been pretty much like slow, extreme concealment zero gunpower ambush-based DDs and that doesn't sound like something that would encourage more aggression.

slow, extreme concealment zero gunpower ambush-based DDs and short-ranged.

If a Submarine is around a cap, he might be able to torp ~6-8 km further. A DD in a cap might torp 10-12 km.
Which one allowes you to stay closer to a cap?

 

And that ambushing is actually a joke, at least, when I palyed the test. The sonar pings always annouce the attack and even the direction. As BB I will probably prefer Submarines over DDs as enemy, but that's hard to predict, since they will still change.

 

But the thing is, as soon oyu know the positon of a submarine, you can just move away from it and you say, they won't go for flanks ,so he can even push over flanks without a threat

 

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

Attacking is more difficult in pretty much any combat game I've tried, because it is so in reality, for very simple logical reasons. What causes more passive or more aggressive play is precisely the point, since the core design is what it is, basically inevitably so.

Wouldn't say by default, that attacking is more difficult, it always depends on the conditions. In a game it also depends on how a developer designs it, they could give buffs for attacking for example, then it's easier.

 

As I said, the reason for passive plays is how the game is designed. Because of the priorizing of targets in a sluggish team game. A CV can cause more passive play, but also a BB or a DD can cause more passive play. That's the point

 

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

So that's why you'd send the healers or DPS dudes to rush in first in those other games?

That question is quite unrelated to the topic? Don't even know, what you want tell me with that. But I try it again:

 

In other games you have real tanks, that can rush in solo. (those have skills like immunities, and healers in the back, who heal them up)

In this game you can't do that, you probably get melted in a "tank BB". (Assuming, that the teams are balanced and not a stomp)

 

I was pointing out, that in some games, you don't have passive plays, because they don't have the game design like in this game. This game has a game design, that favors passive plays.

Ships, that push in, get focused down by the enemy team. And even if the full enemy team decides to push in together, there will be one ship, that is the closest and easiest target, and that will get melted first.

 

That doesn't mean, pushes never work, but they mostly work only, if the advantage is already on their side.

 

 

[AndyHill]

27 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

In this game, everyone can hurt everyone. Even a DD with 100mm guns can destroy a BB.

If they can see them, if there are no obstacles in the way. And the same in reality. It's common that the one getting spotted is close to the enemy and potentially attacking. This is especially true in games like WoWS where everyone has ranged weapons.

29 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I was describing, that the passive gameplay comes from the way how this game is designed. Not because of CVs. That would be a binary choice btw...

The game is designed, that one target, that reveals itself, gets focused by many ships. This leads to a passive gameplay.

In Steel Ocean it was a bit less passive, because there was no Detection warning, nobody knew, when he was detected, but also there you would let your friendly bb a bit closer, so they shoot him instead of you ;P

You still get passive plays without CVs, but you get more passive play with them. Not binary. Was there some kind of protection for pushing or how did the not knowing protect the people pushing?

 

As for the submarines, I anticipate them becoming something like minefields to avoid - one more reason to hang back - but that remains to be seen.

32 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Wouldn't say by default, that attacking is more difficult, it always depends on the conditions. In a game it also depends on how a developer designs it, they could give buffs for attacking for example, then it's easier.

 

As I said, the reason for passive plays is how the game is designed. Because of the priorizing of targets in a sluggish team game. A CV can cause more passive play, but also a BB or a DD can cause more passive play. That's the point

Attacking is by default more difficult in general (and especially in this game) unless conditions favor the attacker. In reality for example as a rule of thumb you want 3:1 odds for a ground assault to have a good chance of success.

 

In WoWS these favorable conditions are basically cover and concealment, which work against battleships and destroyers, but not against carriers. 

37 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That question is quite unrelated to the topic? Don't even know, what you want tell me with that. But I try it again:

 

In other games you have real tanks, that can rush in solo. (those have skills like immunities, and healers in the back, who heal them up)

In this game you can't do that, you probably get melted in a "tank BB". (Assuming, that the teams are balanced and not a stomp)

 

I was pointing out, that in some games, you don't have passive plays, because they don't have the game design like in this game. This game has a game design, that favors passive plays.

Ships, that push in, get focused down by the enemy team. And even if the full enemy team decides to push in together, there will be one ship, that is the closest and easiest target, and that will get melted first.

Tanks as a special class and healers helping them are one way to mitigate the intrinsic problem of pushing into an enemy and getting focused. In WoWS that role is given to concealment and cover, so anything that negates those makes the meta more passive.

[Kyorinn]

12 saat önce, Pikkozoikum dedi:

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

it makes positioning impossible aswell.....

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

it makes positioning impossible aswell.....

Yes, the ambush positions :P
Though my Yoshino still can go in all the position no matter if CV or no CV. I mean, it's more difficult, obviously, but it's also more difficult, if there are DDs around. Pls remove DDs :3

[Kyorinn]

19 dakika önce, Pikkozoikum dedi:

Yes, the ambush positions :P

its not the ambush positions its the positions you have to be for win a game but hey if the cv is there the game is being like:"survive untill your cv kill's the entire enemy team"

[BLUB__BLUB]

13 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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

"will NOT cause damage to ships, but INDICATE where the rockets will land..." 

[SodaBubbles]

I'd just like to take a moment and thank the developers for putting this toxic mechanic in the game, watching DDs quit in Ranked because of it, eating torps in the middle of an otherwise enjoyable brawl with a fellow BB, and losing because the devs permit CV players with just 40 games in CVs and a 40% win rate in CVs to get into a T8 CV and play it in Ranked.

 

I don't know what kind of mind thinks that CVs are fun for the other players, I am just glad I don't have it. 

 

[Pukovnik7]

15 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"

 

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? ^^

 

Since I regularly push in a BB... quite often, and with myself on the receiving end. And that is where we come back to map design: pushing will only happen if there is sufficient cover present. I will often criss-cross half the map before even attempting to push, all because I am looking for proper islands that would enable doing so. And even then, pushing will often turn into a ping-pong engage-disengage dance.

 

But carriers make it far worse, because it is almost impossible to get into a proper pushing position when you are being constantly spotted.

[Nibenay78]

7 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Since I regularly push in a BB... quite often, and with myself on the receiving end. And that is where we come back to map design: pushing will only happen if there is sufficient cover present. I will often criss-cross half the map before even attempting to push, all because I am looking for proper islands that would enable doing so. And even then, pushing will often turn into a ping-pong engage-disengage dance.

 

But carriers make it far worse, because it is almost impossible to get into a proper pushing position when you are being constantly spotted.

That goes for most ships really. Any attempts at a bit daring play is usually punished very badly since everyone and their CV knows where you are...or he might just pop up the moment you're at the point of no return, but REALLY need to be hidden another 20 seconds...

 

Then it's time to use the ingame placebo called "report player"! 

[BLUB__BLUB]

29 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

Then it's time to use the ingame placebo called "report player"! 

When you play CVs, you are at zero points all the time. 

PLACEBO doesn't even tell what it is... because even with a placebo, SOMETHING MIGHT happen. 

 

[Nibenay78]

47 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

When you play CVs, you are at zero points all the time. 

PLACEBO doesn't even tell what it is... because even with a placebo, SOMETHING MIGHT happen. 

 

It is placebo - just like all the other placebo effects - I feel better even if nothing truly changed 

[BLUB__BLUB]

28 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

It is placebo - just like all the other placebo effects - I feel better even if nothing truly changed 

AH, but that's where you are wrong. You are trying to GIVE the CV-player a MEDICINE. 

So, the placebo is given (and injected/swallowed) by YOU to the CV-player. 

 

But, FOR YOU it is not a placebo, as YOU are not taking/being given any medicine (placebo).

For you it is just VENTILATING. Which always helps and safeguards your sanity.

 

 

[Nibenay78]

5 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

AH, but that's where you are wrong. You are trying to GIVE the CV-player a MEDICINE. 

So, the placebo is given (and injected/swallowed) by YOU to the CV-player. 

 

But, FOR YOU it is not a placebo, as YOU are not taking/being given any medicine (placebo).

For you it is just VENTILATING. Which always helps and safeguards your sanity.

 

 

no no, you see the treatment is to press report. It makes me feel better! (probably regression towards the mean).

 

But given there is a rocket nerf coming, any nerf is welcome...

A pity since playing against CV was more fun and immersive when they had rarer but potentially massive damage strikes.

And could be deplaned reliably.

[BLUB__BLUB]

20 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

no no, you see the treatment is to press report. It makes me feel better! (probably regression towards the mean).

That is just YOU venting, the "pill" (AKA the placebo) is supposed to be shoved up the behind of the CV-player. 
 

But if you MUST have a placebo, you already have it. It is called "Def AA". You press the button, the placebo arrives. 

It even looks like it is really working, some planes get shot down. Nevertheless, it doesn't work. 
Because IF you shoot down all the planes, that means the CV-player is potat, and he'd never have hit you anyway. 

 

20 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

But given there is a rocket nerf coming, any nerf is welcome...

It is not a nerf... it is just that you will now get a free show of how he is gonna hit you.

 

20 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

A pity since playing against CV was more fun and immersive when they had rarer but potentially massive damage strikes.

And could be deplaned reliably.

True. Risk vs reward. Now they have low risk. But those "mega dev-strike superkills" are also gone. 

It is like going from THIS 

 

To THIS:                              

 

[Pikkozoikum]

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Since I regularly push in a BB... quite often, and with myself on the receiving end. And that is where we come back to map design: pushing will only happen if there is sufficient cover present. I will often criss-cross half the map before even attempting to push, all because I am looking for proper islands that would enable doing so. And even then, pushing will often turn into a ping-pong engage-disengage dance.

 

But carriers make it far worse, because it is almost impossible to get into a proper pushing position when you are being constantly spotted.

So, if you would have an DD more on your side instead of a CV, that would make the push easier?

 

A push works mostly only, if the enemy is in a worse position. I would rather push into a cruiser+bb+CV, than into cruiser+bb+dd as an example. But there are also towns of example, were you never push, because of the game design.

 

That's my point. there game design itself makes it passive.

It's like you have a game with 12 sniper vs 12 sniper. Would you go into close combat as default gameplay? 3-5 sniper will fire at you, while you actually have long range and could stay in cover.

That also doesn't mean, that a sniper can't go for a push, there will be opportunities for that, but that's not the point of how the general game design actually is.

 

I have far more trouble with a DD covering the flank, than a CV

[Pukovnik7]

6 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

So, if you would have an DD more on your side instead of a CV, that would make the push easier?

 

A push works mostly only, if the enemy is in a worse position. I would rather push into a cruiser+bb+CV, than into cruiser+bb+dd as an example. But there are also towns of example, were you never push, because of the game design.

 

That's my point. there game design itself makes it passive.

It's like you have a game with 12 sniper vs 12 sniper. Would you go into close combat as default gameplay? 3-5 sniper will fire at you, while you actually have long range and could stay in cover.

That also doesn't mean, that a sniper can't go for a push, there will be opportunities for that, but that's not the point of how the general game design actually is.

 

I have far more trouble with a DD covering the flank, than a CV

Not necessarily. A well-timed push or a flanking maneuver can turn around a losing match. In fact, when you are winning, you don't push - you play defensively. And I'd definitely rather push into a cruiser+bb+dd than a cruiser+bb+cv. In fact, I have - in a destroyer - had several non-CV games where I single-handedly turned what was a certain defeat into a victory, by slipping past the enemy and capping. A well-done BB push can achieve the same (there are several examples on Youtube - look them up). But presence of a CV removes a lot of offensive options.

 

As for your sniper-vs-sniper analogy, that is where map design comes in. Yes, nobody will push when the entire enemy fleet can easily focus you. That is why tall islands are so important for good games: they enable pushing by enabling threat management.

[Pikkozoikum]

26 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Not necessarily. A well-timed push or a flanking maneuver can turn around a losing match. In fact, when you are winning, you don't push - you play defensively. And I'd definitely rather push into a cruiser+bb+dd than a cruiser+bb+cv. In fact, I have - in a destroyer - had several non-CV games where I single-handedly turned what was a certain defeat into a victory, by slipping past the enemy and capping. A well-done BB push can achieve the same (there are several examples on Youtube - look them up). But presence of a CV removes a lot of offensive options.

 

As for your sniper-vs-sniper analogy, that is where map design comes in. Yes, nobody will push when the entire enemy fleet can easily focus you. That is why tall islands are so important for good games: they enable pushing by enabling threat management.

The thing is, I don't talk about the scenarios, but about how the game is generally designed. No matter if there are Islands, DDs, CVs, open Ocean.

 

The game is designed with slow ships and long ranges and a mentally, that the easiest target would be probably focused.

The easiest targets can be actually every ship, there are no real tanks. It's mostly the ship, that is closest.

 

In a perfect coordination, you still could make good plans about how to push and play agressive by sharing HP, but that mostly won't happend in randoms ^^

 

33 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

But presence of a CV removes a lot of offensive options.

I don't agree here. It can be the opposite. When a CV helps me in a BB to get the enemy DD, then I can be more aggresive.

On the other hand ,yes a CV can make more passive play, but not because it's a CV itself, just because how the game is designed itself.

 

The enemy can have 2 CVs, if you have on your side 3 bbs, 2 dds and 1 cruiser and the enemy only 2 bbs and 2 cruisers. You still will play that aggressive, beacuse those 2 CVs don't add HP to the pool

But you wouldn't push by default, if you would remove those 2 cvs and add 2 DDs.

 

It's the basic concept of how the frontlines are build up.

 

If the teams are somewhat balanced, then it's mostly the  case

That

A DD denies a BB push

A BB denies a Cruiser push

A Cruiser (and other DDs) denies a DD push

 

Just going with the theory, in reality it often comes different. So the theory is, that the variety of ships denies pushes and aggressive plays.

 

I often play more aggressive, when no DD is around, no matter if they have a CV or not ^^

 

 

[Pukovnik7]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The thing is, I don't talk about the scenarios, but about how the game is generally designed. No matter if there are Islands, DDs, CVs, open Ocean.

 

The game is designed with slow ships and long ranges and a mentally, that the easiest target would be probably focused.

The easiest targets can be actually every ship, there are no real tanks. It's mostly the ship, that is closest.

 

In a perfect coordination, you still could make good plans about how to push and play agressive by sharing HP, but that mostly won't happend in randoms ^^

Which, again, is why islands are so important. And yes, presence of islands, DDs and CVs matters. A lot. If there are good islands around, you can push because effective ranges are limited. If it is open water or else open ocean, it will be long-range slugfest. If DDs are present, push requires support of your own DDs; if CVs are present, then push is very dangerous due to a combination of damage and info saturation which a good CV produces. Closest ship is not always the easiest target - it is easier to hit a New Mexico at 20k than Dunkerque at 10k or a DD at 5k. It may get focused anyway, but that will allow farther-off ships to engage unmolested... which can be a lethal mistake.

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I don't agree here. It can be the opposite. When a CV helps me in a BB to get the enemy DD, then I can be more aggresive.

On the other hand ,yes a CV can make more passive play, but not because it's a CV itself, just because how the game is designed itself.

 

The enemy can have 2 CVs, if you have on your side 3 bbs, 2 dds and 1 cruiser and the enemy only 2 bbs and 2 cruisers. You still will play that aggressive, beacuse those 2 CVs don't add HP to the pool

But you wouldn't push by default, if you would remove those 2 cvs and add 2 DDs.

 

It's the basic concept of how the frontlines are build up.

 

If the teams are somewhat balanced, then it's mostly the  case

That

A DD denies a BB push

A BB denies a Cruiser push

A Cruiser (and other DDs) denies a DD push

 

Just going with the theory, in reality it often comes different. So the theory is, that the variety of ships denies pushes and aggressive plays.

 

I often play more aggressive, when no DD is around, no matter if they have a CV or not ^^

A CV - or two CVs - does change playstyle to a far more passive one. It reduces or even removes the fog of war, which means that you cannot sneak up on the enemy. It forces ships to group together, which can lead to a very passive game. Of course, it is not only CVs - but as I have pointed out, aggressive plays require exploiting the terrain, and CVs significantly reduce the impact of the terrain.

 

DDs can be countered - follow your own DD. He spots enemy DDs for you and helps you neutralize them, you blow up cruisers that would be a threat to him. If a destroyer-cruiser-battleship group moves together from the spawn onwards, most of the problems are gone. Fast battleships at higher tiers can keep up with destroyers and cruisers, but even low-tier whales can still profit from simply staying with lighter ships. Light units provide scouting and protection, battleship provides fire support, damage sponge and a fall-back point. I have done it at all tiers where I play battleships... and it works. But it requires islands for cover, because you can't exactly tank when you are being focus-fired.

 

And at high tiers, I'd say that constant HE spam is a greater problem than anything else.

 

EDIT: I think we may be missing on a simple solution here. Buff battleship AAA. If battleships can create a no-fly zone around themselves, then pushing becomes viable strategy again. In fact, battleships and cruisers would be forced to push because CVs would delete unsupported destroyers. But this still means that island question should be addressed as well.

[Pikkozoikum]

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

And yes, presence of islands, DDs and CVs matters.

It doesn't matter, because I'm not talking about that. I was talking about how the game is designed. It's very hard to explain, what I mean.

For my point, I want make, these stuff doesn't matter.

 

It's like I'm saying. The basic gameplay of scissor, paper, rock is, that you have to pick one of these and beat the enemy, while one is beating one and beaten by another.

If you say now "But I use only rock all the time" - Then yes, you can do that, but that doesn't matter for the general game design. ^^

 

I try to point out the passive play, and it's because of how the basic game design is. As soon someone overextends, he will get beaten. Thus the passive play is the way to go.

 

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

A CV - or two CVs - does change playstyle to a far more passive one. It reduces or even removes the fog of war, which means that you cannot sneak up on the enemy.

For that example, you wouldn't sneak up, you would just beat them :P This should point out the oppsite of passive play even with 2 CVs.

 

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

aggressive plays require exploiting the terrain,

And why does it need that? Because of how the game is designed in genereal (even without CV). That's what I tryed to point out. The Game is designd in a way, that it leads to passive plays by default. Only when you are in a better position, you can go aggressive.

 

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

DDs can be countered - follow your own DD. He spots enemy DDs for you and helps you neutralize them, you blow up cruisers that would be a threat to him.

Assuming, that skill doesn't matte,r then your DD will get blown up, as I tryed to expalin, the passive play is favored.

Because your DD would push too far and focused down by the enemy and just by math (skill excluded, we assume, that everyone has same skill). The own aggressive DD is closer to the enemy and easier focused down. While the passive DD, who is a bit closer to his allies, will survive, because further away.

 

(Consider, that is a very mathematical and theoretical View to explain the the basic design. The Reality can be completlly different)

 

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

DDs can be countered - follow your own DD. He spots enemy DDs for you and helps you neutralize them, you blow up cruisers that would be a threat to him. If a destroyer-cruiser-battleship group moves together from the spawn onwards, most of the problems are gone. Fast battleships at higher tiers can keep up with destroyers and cruisers, but even low-tier whales can still profit from simply staying with lighter ships. Light units provide scouting and protection, battleship provides fire support, damage sponge and a fall-back point. I have done it at all tiers where I play battleships... and it works. But it requires islands for cover, because you can't exactly tank when you are being focus-fired.

I was trying to explain, why we have passive play, which is primarly caused by the game design itself. To point that out, you need more neutral examples. When your team is in advantage by default, then they can obvioulsy more aggressive. If one side has only unicums and the other only 30% WR players, then you can mess around with any statement^^

 

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

And at high tiers, I'd say that constant HE spam is a greater problem than anything else.

Well HE is part of it, but it's the gun range on high tiers, that makes it so passive. A yamato can shoot over half the map. As I said, it'S the game design of getting focused down. It doesn't matter, who is focusing. It can be 5 Yamatos, 5 Des Moines, or 3 CVs (and 2 something to get the 5) ^^

 

4 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

EDIT: I think we may be missing on a simple solution here. Buff battleship AAA. If battleships can create a no-fly zone around themselves, then pushing becomes viable strategy again. In fact, battleships and cruisers would be forced to push because CVs would delete unsupported destroyers. But this still means that island question should be addressed as well.

It would make sense to have the best AA on BBs, since they have the most guns, though I think it would be just too much AA. One Solution I would like: Give every BB the crawling smoke. The italians get the best smoke and other nations way weaker. Thus the Italians are still special with SAP and a better smoke.

The smoke would not only help against CVs, but also against any other gun fire. A BB could engage and disengage in case of a fail, but also it wouldn't make a BB insane tanky or mess around with damage or anything

 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I try to point out the passive play, and it's because of how the basic game design is. As soon someone overextends, he will get beaten. Thus the passive play is the way to go.

 

Except the game isn't team deathmatch but typically domination, meaning that pushing and holding an objective is of significant value.

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It doesn't matter, because I'm not talking about that. I was talking about how the game is designed. It's very hard to explain, what I mean.

For my point, I want make, these stuff doesn't matter.

 

It's like I'm saying. The basic gameplay of scissor, paper, rock is, that you have to pick one of these and beat the enemy, while one is beating one and beaten by another.

If you say now "But I use only rock all the time" - Then yes, you can do that, but that doesn't matter for the general game design. ^^

The point about passive gameplay is valid. 

 

But the point about "rock" is where you are wrong. And it DOES matter. 

Those that pass the skill gap, suddenly do not have a rock. They have the whole mountain.

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Except the game isn't team deathmatch but typically domination, meaning that pushing and holding an objective is of significant value.

I think that what he means is, if the game design is such that both will fail,

then the objective is no longer important - it is just a matter of who fails harder. 

[AndyHill]

4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

As soon someone overextends, he will get beaten.

What should happen to someone who overextends, then?