General CV related discussions.

[Camperdown]

4 hours ago, AndyHill said:

What should happen to someone who overextends, then?

Btw it also happens that teams underextend (camp). I have been accused of overextending several times when I was simply in the right place but got no support from my camping team 

[Pukovnik7]

9 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. ^^

 

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 your "basic gameplay of rock, paper, scissors" is precisely one of the main problems with CVs. If battleships are rock, cruiser scissors and destroyers paper, then CVs are a multimegaton thermonuclear warhead. They have no counter, because they have an essentially infinitely regenerating HP pool, and even the two classes which are supposed to counter them... aren't really effective at the job, because AAA is not really effective, and HE damage gradually reduces AAA power of the battleship anyway.

 

Increase battleships' AAA firepower, remove the CVs aircraft regeneration... and suddenly CVs have to hunt YOLOing DDs and CLs, and these have to stay close to battleships in order to survive... which then forces them to actually play with the team instead of suiciding early in the game. And if CVs take too many risks, they get permanently deplaned - and if that happens, then DDs can use it to scout and cap more aggressively in the late game. Of course, this still removes much of the DDs potential, but a proper CV player will keep an eye on caps anyway, which means that the sneak-past-and-cap-under-enemy's-noses approach - which can be extremely powerful if done properly - isn't really that viable in a CV game. And a good CV player would be rewarded for patience and teamplay because he would have to rely on his team to remove the AAA umbrella with HE damage and enable major air strikes.

 

And this would enable more active gameplay - especially for battleships - because DDs wouldn't have to hide all the time, and battleships would have a scouting screen with them. And if battleships have to stay with DDs for objectives to be done, then they will be forced to push.

9 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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.

 

No, it wouldn't. You would think that way, but what happens is that everybody gets terrified of constant spotting and HE spam and doesn't move anywhere, but just stays in the spawn and lobs HE at distances where they can't hit crap. At least at low tiers battleships are so inaccurate that they have to get stuck in if they want to provide anything other than fireworks... but at high tiers, you have Thunderers and Montanas hanging out with CVs at the edge of the map, and not doing anything useful until the reaper comes for them. Now, this is not just a CV problem... but when you combine constant spotting via CVs + map design that allows focus fire + overpowerful HE, then pushing becomes almost impossible.

 

To be fair, it isn't just CVs, it is interaction of various factors, all of which have a mutually reinforcing effect. But CVs are a big part of it. And they don't just remove "sneaking up", they negate the possibility of tactical positioning because - again, constant spotting.

9 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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.

 

And I have pointed out, multiple times, that a) terrain is part of the problem, likely even greater than the CVs, and b) there is a difference between "passive play" and "spawn camping".

10 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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.

And that is true. Which means that, ironically, passive play by DDs can lead to more aggressive play by the team, as they don't lose their scouting component.

10 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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^^

 

And I was explaining why map design is so important for determining how aggressive plays will be.

10 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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) ^^

 

Which again brings us to map design... map can help constrain long-range engagement options, which then enables pushing and brawling.

9 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

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

Smoke wouldn't have the same effect. It isn't just about protecting battleships from CVs, it is about protecting all the ships. Also, smoke doesn't really protect from CVs, and in fact - unless you are a very small target - places you into a greater danger, because both CVs and DDs can simply blind-torp you, and you will never see it coming. In a DD, I only use smoke for disengaging, and when capping - but only when I know where enemy DDs are and where I can expect torpedoes from. It does provide a measure of protection from air strikes, but I have to question how effective it would be at protecting a 250-meter, 70k ton battleship.

[El2aZeR]

7 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

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. 

 

Which makes absolutely no sense given that the game simply isn't designed as described.

Meaning that it is just a complete failure of understanding of understanding both game design and WoWs on a fundamental level.

[BLUB__BLUB]

38 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Which makes absolutely no sense given that the game simply isn't designed as described.

Meaning that it is just a complete failure of understanding of understanding both game design and WoWs on a fundamental level.

Well, TBH there are few that can make any sense of WeeGee gamedesign. 

Very often "working as intended" is heard, and I can't help but think that maybe that is true.

We probably have some idea of how the game is SUPPOSED to work (or SHOULD work.._),

but alas, often it does not work that way at all. How can we be 100% sure ANYONE knows? 

 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

How can we be 100% sure ANYONE knows? 

 

Domination is not a gamemode WG came up with. By design it forces pushes if one desires to win. Defending an objective, aka "camping", is only successful after it has been taken, which in turn forces the opposing party to push. That's how it works in any other game and it is how it works in WoWs. To insinuate that WoWs is inherently designed to facilitate camping is thus extremely laughable at best.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Domination is not a gamemode WG came up with. By design it forces pushes if one desires to win. Defending an objective, aka "camping", is only successful after it has been taken, which in turn forces the opposing party to push. That's how it works in any other game and it is how it works in WoWs.

There is a difference in how something SHOULD work, and really does...

I AGREE that is what it is meant to be. But... 

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

To insinuate that WoWs is inherently designed to facilitate camping is thus extremely laughable at best.

That depends how you perceive "design". Yes the game mode is designed as you say. 

However they seem determined to negate the design/re-design and screw it up as much as possible after that. 

Which is in itself laughable, sort of. 

 

Now, think of this - indeed the game mode is not something WG came up with. They did not design it...

However they did design the ships and the mechanics...  -->  I can see why he blames WeeGee design. 

[Raptor_Leader]

There's a question I've been asking myself for some time: How can a ship hidden in a smoke use its aa against my planes, when I can't see it? How can he see a small plane in the sky through the smoke when, on the contrary, I am unable to see a big ship? 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, Raptor_Leader said:

There's a question I've been asking myself for some time: How can a ship hidden in a smoke use its aa against my planes, when I can't see it? How can he see a small plane in the sky through the smoke when, on the contrary, I am unable to see a big ship? 

Only if your planes are spotted by somebody else. If he is in smoke, then HE is not spotting your planes. 

However mind your planes have a 9-10km spotting range, or so. So that is probably somebody else spotting.

Note, it happened to me as well, and pretty bad. I wanted to dump some torps on a Shima in smoke. 

And I knew the cruisers at ~7 km would spot me, but hey, it is a Shima. 

Found out an unspotted Wooster had crept into the smoke with him. Guess how that ended...  

 

[Pikkozoikum]

8 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Except your "basic gameplay of rock, paper, scissors" is precisely one of the main problems with CVs. If battleships are rock, cruiser scissors and destroyers paper, then CVs are a multimegaton thermonuclear warhead. They have no counter, because they have an essentially infinitely regenerating HP pool, and even the two classes which are supposed to counter them... aren't really effective at the job, because AAA is not really effective, and HE damage gradually reduces AAA power of the battleship anyway.

Huh, my example about rock paper scissor was not about CVs or any ship type? The example was about, that I tryed to point out about what I talk -> about the game design.

I could also go with league of legends or any other game.

 

8 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Increase battleships' AAA firepower, remove the CVs aircraft regeneration...

That sounds imbalanced, double nerf for the CV in a very heavy way. I don't mind the idea itself, but then it needs something in return.

 

8 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

and suddenly CVs have to hunt YOLOing DDs and CLs, and these have to stay close to battleships in order to survive...

Cls are supposed to be the best AA platforms, and DDs are quite hard to hunt for some CVs.

 

Also many people are crying about passive play, and having BBs as the no-fly zone, would just cause, that people stay further away. As I said, I don't mind the idea, but that will be the feedback you will get^^

 

Though I do that as DD already, but instead of using a BB as AA cover, I use cruisers and smoke them up, that works often quite good

 

8 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

No, it wouldn't

Yes, I would, because I do/did that :P If my flank is heavily outnumbering the enemy, then I push more aggressive to get the good shots on the cruisers, no matter if there is a CV or not. Because a CV has range, he can strike me no matter if I'm 20km away for 15km away.

So pushing is a logically way to win faster the flank

 

8 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

And I have pointed out, multiple times, that a) terrain is part of the problem, likely even greater than the CVs, and b) there is a difference between "passive play" and "spawn camping".

And I tryed to point out ,that this is not the issue and that is not what I'm talking about. I try it again

 

The game is designed in a way, that passive play favors

-a large team game (12vs12)

-with slow, inflexible ships

-with long gun ranges (tryed the sniper example)

 

That means, as soon 1 ship is in a wrong position, it will get rekt by 2-5 enemy players. It doesn't matter, if there is a CV, an Island, or open Ocean. I talk about the general game design.

I'm not saying, you can play around this passive game design. You can of course, but this doesn't change the basic game design and because of this basic game design we have passive play

because it's not like in an RPG, where we say "Okay, the tank is tanking, he uses shield spells and his big shield and armor", in wows it's more the question "Who wants to be the first, who get shot"

And nobody wants to be the first - though often enough it happens, that someone thinks "Okay, I'm a BB, I gonna push and tank" and then all the other team mates think, "Nope it's too dangerous, we get farmend and flanked", then it happens ,tht the BB gets farmed down :3 

 

8 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

And that is true. Which means that, ironically, passive play by DDs can lead to more aggressive play by the team, as they don't lose their scouting component.

No, the other team doesn't play more aggressive. all ships are in their camping passive position, but the difference is, that the aggressive DD is closer to the passive DD and the passive enemy team ^^
That's why DDs often die so fast
 

 

8 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

And I was explaining why map design is so important for determining how aggressive plays will be.

Yes, you can play more aggressive using the islands, but I was trying to point out what the base game design is. You can use your islands, but as soon you show up, everyone in reach will fire and focus you down ^^

This game consists of
DDs, that stay hidden
DDs- that are very fast and shoot on high range
Cruisers, that hide behind islands
Cruisers, that stay on long range
BBs, stay in the third row
BBs, that use islands

Mostly all of that is passive or leads to passive play

A cruiser behind and island close the a cap seems aggressive, but he is hiding behind an island and doesn't take any shots, so the rest of the team has to stay far in the back to not get blown up ^^

That's the classic missconception in this game, when I play Yoshino on 16-20km range and get pinged by the DM hiding behind an island.

 

 

8 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Which again brings us to map design... map can help constrain long-range engagement options, which then enables pushing and brawling.

To really remove the passive play design just by Map design, you would need a labyrinth of huge islands, which we don't have. But it would only end up like a Storm. In a Storm scenario people have to play aggressive

 

8 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Smoke wouldn't have the same effect. It isn't just about protecting battleships from CVs, it is about protecting all the ships. Also, smoke doesn't really protect from CVs, and in fact - unless you are a very small target - places you into a greater danger, because both CVs and DDs can simply blind-torp you, and you will never see it coming. In a DD, I only use smoke for disengaging, and when capping - but only when I know where enemy DDs are and where I can expect torpedoes from. It does provide a measure of protection from air strikes, but I have to question how effective it would be at protecting a 250-meter, 70k ton battleship.

Eh, it's not about to make ships OP, The Smoke would help to retreat and escape, if a push fails, because that is the biggest issue. Once a BB is in a bad position, this ship will get destroyed. With a smoke a BB could always disengage at least once. So it would be a great help. You might watch the Potatoquality videos about italian BBs. He mentioned the possibility of aggrressive plays with these ships,

The blind torp statement I don't understand... shall we remove now all smokes, because you can blind torp? ;P
That doesn't make a smoke bad ^^

You say it "I only use smoke for disengaging" -> I think that is what aggressive BBs need ;)
A tool, that helps with aggressive pushes or even more: to get out of an agressive push

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

3 hours ago, Raptor_Leader said:

There's a question I've been asking myself for some time: How can a ship hidden in a smoke use its aa against my planes, when I can't see it? How can he see a small plane in the sky through the smoke when, on the contrary, I am unable to see a big ship? 

As said earlier, your planes are spotted someone else.
Realistically it would only work, if the AA is supported by radar, which some late war ships had. I think some ships like Iowa, but not 100% sure about that

[Lootboxer]

9 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Increase battleships' AAA firepower, remove the CVs aircraft regeneration... and suddenly CVs have to hunt YOLOing DDs and CLs, and these have to stay close to battleships in order to survive... which then forces them to actually play with the team instead of suiciding early in the game. And if CVs take too many risks, they get permanently deplaned - and if that happens, then DDs can use it to scout and cap more aggressively in the late game. Of course, this still removes much of the DDs potential, but a proper CV player will keep an eye on caps anyway, which means that the sneak-past-and-cap-under-enemy's-noses approach - which can be extremely powerful if done properly - isn't really that viable in a CV game. And a good CV player would be rewarded for patience and teamplay because he would have to rely on his team to remove the AAA umbrella with HE damage and enable major air strikes.

 

And this would enable more active gameplay - especially for battleships - because DDs wouldn't have to hide all the time, and battleships would have a scouting screen with them. And if battleships have to stay with DDs for objectives to be done, then they will be forced to push.

But they wouldn't push. And cruisers and dds would have to do what? Hang out with campers 20 km away from enemy? Welcome in a 20km shima and assashio world, as rest would be totally useless. Cruisers should be main AA ships, with AA buffed to pre rework level, covering capping and scouting dds and if bbs want AA cover then they have to go and follow team as if they decide to snipe from map border CVs should be able to farm them with impunity. 

What you are proposing would make game even campier then niw, and wouldn't stop dds from yoloing quite the opposite, to get XP and silver they'd need to go solo trying to get some damage and fun. 

[El2aZeR]

6 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

However they did design the ships and the mechanics...  -->  I can see why he blames WeeGee design.

 

Most ships are typically ineffective at long range fighting.

And in fact there are mechanics in place that make it extremely ineffective. See below.

 

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The game is designed in a way, that passive play favors

-a large team game (12vs12)

-with slow, inflexible ships

-with long gun ranges (tryed the sniper example)

 

You know what negates that?

Cover and concealment.

You know what destroys cover and concealment?

CVs.

 

As such there is only one mechanic that actually is designed to favor passive play.

[Pukovnik7]

6 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Huh, my example about rock paper scissor was not about CVs or any ship type? The example was about, that I tryed to point out about what I talk -> about the game design.

 I could also go with league of legends or any other game.

And my point is that CVs do not fit into current game design. They have no reliable counter, and due to combination of practical invulnerability, ability to ignore terrain and ability to quickly cover distances, they dictate behaviour in a way that no other class does.

6 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That sounds imbalanced, double nerf for the CV in a very heavy way. I don't mind the idea itself, but then it needs something in return.

 

CVs are so unbalanced that they need a heavy nerf. And you are forgetting several things: First, that AAA gets destroyed by HE and fires. Second, even such nerfed CVs would still have massive advantages in positioning, reconnaissance and so on. Third, CVs would still force destroyers to play far more carefully - and in fact would force them to escort battleships. But why would destroyers hang out with battleships if latter only serve to attract planes and serve no defensive purpose?

6 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Cls are supposed to be the best AA platforms, and DDs are quite hard to hunt for some CVs.

 

Also many people are crying about passive play, and having BBs as the no-fly zone, would just cause, that people stay further away. As I said, I don't mind the idea, but that will be the feedback you will get^^

 

Though I do that as DD already, but instead of using a BB as AA cover, I use cruisers and smoke them up, that works often quite good

Yeah, but the idea here is to force BBs to push by forcing them to escort DDs. Though, as usual, it is questionable whether it will work.

6 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Yes, I would, because I do/did that :P If my flank is heavily outnumbering the enemy, then I push more aggressive to get the good shots on the cruisers, no matter if there is a CV or not. Because a CV has range, he can strike me no matter if I'm 20km away for 15km away.

So pushing is a logically way to win faster the flank

Except CV allows basically permanent spotting, and permanent threat. That alone is not enough, but when you combine with the fact that many maps have either flat or distanced islands which allow ships to easily get focused... can't hide, can't cover, can't run. Of course nobody will push.

6 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

And I tryed to point out ,that this is not the issue and that is not what I'm talking about. I try it again

 

The game is designed in a way, that passive play favors

-a large team game (12vs12)

-with slow, inflexible ships

-with long gun ranges (tryed the sniper example)

 

That means, as soon 1 ship is in a wrong position, it will get rekt by 2-5 enemy players. It doesn't matter, if there is a CV, an Island, or open Ocean. I talk about the general game design.

I'm not saying, you can play around this passive game design. You can of course, but this doesn't change the basic game design and because of this basic game design we have passive play

because it's not like in an RPG, where we say "Okay, the tank is tanking, he uses shield spells and his big shield and armor", in wows it's more the question "Who wants to be the first, who get shot"

And nobody wants to be the first - though often enough it happens, that someone thinks "Okay, I'm a BB, I gonna push and tank" and then all the other team mates think, "Nope it's too dangerous, we get farmend and flanked", then it happens ,tht the BB gets farmed down :3 

It matters, and it matters a lot. While you are not technically wrong, you are forgetting the interaction of various elements.

 

1) Presence of a CV means that there is a constant threat, and any mistakes can be punished extremely harshly. There is no room for misplay, and this has a psychological effect of making players more passive.

2) Many maps being open and/or with flat islands means that it is very easy for ships to get focus-fired, and very difficult to find cover. Such islands could still offer concealment, but CVs can easily spot ships and make concealment useless.

3) HE is simply too strong - it deals too much damage, and also makes it easy to damage-farm from long range because it ignores armour and angling.

 

And all these factors reinforce each other to make the game more passive. CVs can spot ships, making concealment useless. That would not be such a problem, if islands could offer cover - but on many maps that is not the case, meaning that getting spotted leads to instant death. And the unholy power of HE means that it doesn't matter where you hit, you are causing massive damage - which removes any reason for getting in closer while also negating a lot of the value of proper positioning. And God help you if you get attacked by a CV while fighting another ship.

6 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Yes, you can play more aggressive using the islands, but I was trying to point out what the base game design is. You can use your islands, but as soon you show up, everyone in reach will fire and focus you down ^^

Not if islands provide cover. Actual cover, not just concealment.

6 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

To really remove the passive play design just by Map design, you would need a labyrinth of huge islands, which we don't have. But it would only end up like a Storm. In a Storm scenario people have to play aggressive

 

Not necessarily huge, just very tall. And yeah, that is what I was getting at.

6 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Eh, it's not about to make ships OP, The Smoke would help to retreat and escape, if a push fails, because that is the biggest issue. Once a BB is in a bad position, this ship will get destroyed. With a smoke a BB could always disengage at least once. So it would be a great help. You might watch the Potatoquality videos about italian BBs. He mentioned the possibility of aggrressive plays with these ships,

The blind torp statement I don't understand... shall we remove now all smokes, because you can blind torp? ;P
That doesn't make a smoke bad ^^

You say it "I only use smoke for disengaging" -> I think that is what aggressive BBs need ;)
A tool, that helps with aggressive pushes or even more: to get out of an agressive push

Yes, smoke would really help an aggressive battleship survive. But you also need good AA and good secondaries to fully make use of a brawling ship, and smoke would actually be far more useful against surface ships than against aircraft.

5 hours ago, DariusJacek said:

But they wouldn't push. And cruisers and dds would have to do what? Hang out with campers 20 km away from enemy? Welcome in a 20km shima and assashio world, as rest would be totally useless. Cruisers should be main AA ships, with AA buffed to pre rework level, covering capping and scouting dds and if bbs want AA cover then they have to go and follow team as if they decide to snipe from map border CVs should be able to farm them with impunity. 

What you are proposing would make game even campier then niw, and wouldn't stop dds from yoloing quite the opposite, to get XP and silver they'd need to go solo trying to get some damage and fun. 

Read the rest of what I wrote... CVs are far from the only problem, it is an interaction of elements.

 

EDIT: That being said...

CV can be a problem all in and by itself...

[AndyHill]

11 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

1) Presence of a CV means that there is a constant threat, and any mistakes can be punished extremely harshly. There is no room for misplay, and this has a psychological effect of making players more passive.

Not only that, but especially when within effective range of enemy ships, anything that works against ships is usually a misplay against planes and vice versa. This creates an actual screwed if you do, screwed if you don't -situation when trying to be aggressive in a carrier game.

[Pukovnik7]

6 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Not only that, but especially when within effective range of enemy ships, anything that works against ships is usually a misplay against planes and vice versa. This creates an actual screwed if you do, screwed if you don't -situation when trying to be aggressive in a carrier game.

That is part of what I meant by the factors reinforcing each other... if you can hide behind an island while dealing with planes, that is okayish... but when you are a) attacked by planes, b) spotted by planes and c) in range of half-a-dozen enemy ships? Yeah, expect a quick death.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Most ships are typically ineffective at long range fighting.

And in fact there are mechanics in place that make it extremely ineffective. See below.

True, and you know it and I know it. 

However when in game 90% seems to have missed that memo.

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

You know what negates that?

Cover and concealment.

You know what destroys cover and concealment?

CVs.

 

As such there is only one mechanic that actually is designed to favor passive play.

 spread the word. I doubt if it will help, but well, anyway. 

[Pukovnik7]

In general, the team with better CV wins... and that is the main problem with CVs specifically.

[Pikkozoikum]

17 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

In general, the team with better CV wins... and that is the main problem with CVs specifically.

That's a weird statement, because there are a lot bad CV players. So what you mostly get is one bad CV player and one less bad CV player. I doubt, that those players are the carries. Even the best CV players have "only" 80% WR. So even if you get the best of the best, there are still 20% of their games loses.

But you said "in general" and not "in case of super unicums" ^^

 

Sadly I have no statistic about that, would be interesting to see

[Miscommunication_dept]

8 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That's a weird statement, because there are a lot bad CV players. So what you mostly get is one bad CV player and one less bad CV player. I doubt, that those players are the carries. Even the best CV players have "only" 80% WR. So even if you get the best of the best, there are still 20% of their games loses.

But you said "in general" and not "in case of super unicums" ^^

 

Sadly I have no statistic about that, would be interesting to see

Do you not see a problem with this?

 

Other classes have no where near this impact.

[Pikkozoikum]

On 5/7/2021 at 8:33 PM, Pukovnik7 said:

And my point is that CVs do not fit into current game design. They have no reliable counter, and due to combination of practical invulnerability, ability to ignore terrain and ability to quickly cover distances, they dictate behaviour in a way that no other class does.

CVs are so unbalanced that they need a heavy nerf. And you are forgetting several things: First, that AAA gets destroyed by HE and fires. Second, even such nerfed CVs would still have massive advantages in positioning, reconnaissance and so on. Third, CVs would still force destroyers to play far more carefully - and in fact would force them to escort battleships. But why would destroyers hang out with battleships if latter only serve to attract planes and serve no defensive purpose?

Yeah, but the idea here is to force BBs to push by forcing them to escort DDs. Though, as usual, it is questionable whether it will work.

Except CV allows basically permanent spotting, and permanent threat. That alone is not enough, but when you combine with the fact that many maps have either flat or distanced islands which allow ships to easily get focused... can't hide, can't cover, can't run. Of course nobody will push.

It matters, and it matters a lot. While you are not technically wrong, you are forgetting the interaction of various elements.

 

1) Presence of a CV means that there is a constant threat, and any mistakes can be punished extremely harshly. There is no room for misplay, and this has a psychological effect of making players more passive.

2) Many maps being open and/or with flat islands means that it is very easy for ships to get focus-fired, and very difficult to find cover. Such islands could still offer concealment, but CVs can easily spot ships and make concealment useless.

3) HE is simply too strong - it deals too much damage, and also makes it easy to damage-farm from long range because it ignores armour and angling.

 

And all these factors reinforce each other to make the game more passive. CVs can spot ships, making concealment useless. That would not be such a problem, if islands could offer cover - but on many maps that is not the case, meaning that getting spotted leads to instant death. And the unholy power of HE means that it doesn't matter where you hit, you are causing massive damage - which removes any reason for getting in closer while also negating a lot of the value of proper positioning. And God help you if you get attacked by a CV while fighting another ship.

Not if islands provide cover. Actual cover, not just concealment.

Not necessarily huge, just very tall. And yeah, that is what I was getting at.

Yes, smoke would really help an aggressive battleship survive. But you also need good AA and good secondaries to fully make use of a brawling ship, and smoke would actually be far more useful against surface ships than against aircraft.

 

 

I was just talking about the general game design. It's designed around being passive until one side overcomes with an advantage, only then it will be aggressive.

I got recently a very good example:

 

I had to turn away. and stay "passive" on range

 

-The major reason was the enemy DD, taking torpedos for free is not good.

-There was also HE shells from a Des Moines.

-AP shells from the Montana.

-Also a CV, though the CV didn't made me play passive at all

 

Orginially it was about passive play.

Some said, it's because of dead eye - clearly I didn't play passive here because of dead eye

Some said, because it's an HE Spam meta - all enemy ships there existed since release of Warships (Though I agree with Thunderer as a problem)

Some said, it's the CV - No, he didn't make me play passive

 

Why did I had to play passive? Because how the game is designed. A battleship is not a tank, that can just activate a shield of immunity and charge into the enemy. A battle ships is vulernable and very easy to hit, to burn down, or taking torp hits.

 

The game is designed around a team, that builds a front line, and if you push into that frontline, you will take all the damage and sink. And to avoide sinking, you play passive and try to damage them slowly down. I'm not sure, how to explain it further, what I mean.

 

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

4 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Do you not see a problem with this?

 

Other classes have no where near this impact.

Yes and no. It's obviously not good, if one ship has more impact than another. But with no many ships and ship types, you will never get a balanced game.

If you remove CVs, then another class and ship will be the most impactful.

I see it like that: It's way easier to play against the reworked CV than against the RTS CV, so it's an improvement overall.

But I also mentioned a lot here, that the CV needs improvments and a minor rework, I suggested a lot, though many people see only black and white and thus there are only CV hater and CV apologists v_v

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

though many people see only black and white and thus there are only CV hater and CV apologists v_v

What a very black and white thing to say 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

 

If you remove CVs, then another class and ship will be the most impactful.

No other class of ships needs to be limited to 1 per side because of its influence except carriers. 

[Pukovnik7]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I was just talking about the general game design. It's designed around being passive until one side overcomes with an advantage, only then it will be aggressive.

I got recently a very good example:

 

I had to turn away. and stay "passive" on range

 

-The major reason was the enemy DD, taking torpedos for free is not good.

-There was also HE shells from a Des Moines.

-AP shells from the Montana.

-Also a CV, though the CV didn't made me play passive at all

 

Orginially it was about passive play.

Some said, it's because of dead eye - clearly I didn't play passive here because of dead eye

Some said, because it's an HE Spam meta - all enemy ships there existed since release of Warships (Though I agree with Thunderer as a problem)

Some said, it's the CV - No, he didn't make me play passive

 

Why did I had to play passive? Because how the game is designed. A battleship is not a tank, that can just activate a shield of immunity and charge into the enemy. A battle ships is vulernable and very easy to hit, to burn down, or taking torp hits.

 

The game is designed around a team, that builds a front line, and if you push into that frontline, you will take all the damage and sink. And to avoide sinking, you play passive and try to damage them slowly down. I'm not sure, how to explain it further, what I mean.

 

 

 

And as I have been saying the whole time, game needs elements that will mitigate these factors:

1) Using islands to block some of the enemy fire (doesn't work if the enemy can fire over the islands anyway - so we need more maps with tall, dense islands)

2) Using angling to mitigate the effect of the enemy fire hitting the ship (doesn't work due to HE damage mechanics - so remove those)

3) Better secondaries to make destroyers more cautious and push engagement out to longer range (but secondaries as they are have trouble hitting battleships, nevermind destroyers)

4) Better AA to push out CV planes to engage from longer range (AA right now is useless)

 

I am generally a very aggressive player (which is probably part of the reason for my 45% win rate in a BB), so I'm rather closely acquintated with all the difficulties involved in pushing. At least at low tiers you have battleships missing each other from two clicks out... but a Vanguard can delete an enemy battleship from 15 kilometers. When you combine that with all the points I have noted previously... yeah.

 

But pushing, when done properly, can work even at a high tier:

 

[AndyHill]

10 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I had to turn away. and stay "passive" on range

 

-The major reason was the enemy DD, taking torpedos for free is not good.

-There was also HE shells from a Des Moines.

-AP shells from the Montana.

-Also a CV, though the CV didn't made me play passive at all

Why is that Kleber hugging you like he wanted to drop a smoke?