General CV related discussions.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

Its funny right? I also didnt know the playerbase was responsible for creating a stupidly broken tier IV carrier. Guess we were also the creators of lackbuster AA at that tier. /s

Well, at least before the reeework a Yubari could ruin a CV's day... or even two CVs' day if there was a battle with two CVs per team... I managed it quite often to fully deplete a Langley and/or Hosho of all it's planes when they were stupid enough to go after me... doesn't work this way anymore. CV wants Yubari dead, it is dead.. he just has to throw planes at it 'til it sinks...

And considering the good AA was one of the main selling points for Yubari... *sadface*

[Yosha_AtaIante]

6 hours ago, Europizza said:

Its funny right? I also didnt know the playerbase was responsible for creating a stupidly broken tier IV carrier. Guess we were also the creators of lackbuster AA at that tier. /s

It was. Everyone was complaining about T4 CVs being not powerful and boring making new players turn away from T4 CVs. It was all over reddit and in the old CV discussion topic and even had its own topics created for that specific issue until WG addressed the "being boring and powerless" issue by giving Hosho better torps which were later "nerfed" with slower plane return speed. 

 

Remember that most posters here always talk about themselves as the playerbase and the representative of said playerbase. So why not take responsibility for once when the playerbase messes up? 

You can obviously disagree that's fine or distance yourself from it but saying it didn't happen is kind of wrong. 

[steveraptor]

15 minutes ago, Yoshanai said:

It was. Everyone was complaining about T4 CVs being not powerful and boring making new players turn away from T4 CVs. It was all over reddit and in the old CV discussion topic and even had its own topics created for that specific issue until WG addressed the "being boring and powerless" issue by giving Hosho better torps which were later "nerfed" with slower plane return speed. 

 

Remember that most posters here always talk about themselves as the playerbase and the representative of said playerbase. So why not take responsibility for once when the playerbase messes up? 

You can obviously disagree that's fine or distance yourself from it but saying it didn't happen is kind of wrong. 

Because its much easier to point fingers at others than oneself.

[Figment]

Tbh, CV's were (except from matchmaker tiering) pretty reasonable in beta on the same tiering. So were DDs. It's been BB cry after BB cry that changed things.

 

 

Thing is, no matter how much you tweak the system, bad players will always whine about fighting something they can't physically engage directly and immediately (they can defend and wear the CV down, but that's not how they see it, they just feel they're being harassed without any way to cope with it because they are simply that bad a player they don't have the situational awareness or teamwork to deal with it). Hell, I can manage just fine with an Arkansas B in tier IV and that literally has no fricking air defenses at all! I barely ever got sunk in it then and I still barely get sunk in it now despite it being a sluggish sob to turn around. And I'm not even that fricking good (my aim is somewhat poor IMO and I get overconfident at times since you're usualy up against unskilled players where I don't check player winrates with mods. I'd rather be pleasently surprised I get outplayed).

 

Most players don't plan their routes but want to be able to play a ship with a turning circle the size of the US state they're named after without having to do any work for it. But it just doesn't work that way, you plan your route, you know what you'll do when aircraft pop in from a specific side (which you control by suggesting you're leaving it open on purpose), then you steer into the torp planes, change speed (usualy down) and take maybe one hit if you're late. This was actually easier in beta, because you'd only have a few aircraft at a time to deal with. Even if they'd try to come at you from two sides at once you could mess up their timing. Just have to know what that CV is doing and why. And most people don't know this, don't develop counter strategies and in fact don't develop anything but rage. I don't really feel sorry for those people tbh.

 

Did some CV players get insane scores? Yeah. IMO still mostly because the rest of the playerbase was and is so fricking bad and obsessed with bulky battleships and so ignorant about the weaknesses and limitations of aircraft, while they think they ought to be invincible and therefore don't need to play smart at all. I'm sure that if you put all the pixels spend on whining about CVs, DDs and torps you could make a direct connection to the moon and back. Maybe do a little circle around the globe first. But that doesn't make their whine more valid.

[AndyHill]

51 minutes ago, Figment said:

players will always whine about fighting something they can't physically engage directly and immediately

It's baffling, isn't it? Why would people not enjoy getting constantly spotted and crabbed on without any chance of counterplay at all? They should just be thankful for such a vibrant and engaging experience that is pretty much unrivaled in other similar games.

[Palachinka]

I hope wargaming doesnt listen to the whiners. I dont play CVs but I wish they were present in every match, they make the game more dynamic and add another layer to the experience. 

 

As a DD main they ruin my battle sometimes but good, that is what they are supposed to do and I have to adapt to it. 

 

Whiners killed artillery in WOT and I havent played since the nerf and that was even easier you just had to hide behind a rock. Wargaming please please ignore people who whine because if you listen to them the game always suffers. They complain and then leave anyway because they just cant play these games.

 

Its funny how people with 2k+ battles are saying its fine, even a bit weak and weekend tester knows better.

 

[gabberworld]

2 minutes ago, Palachinka said:

I think devs should no longer listen to the community

 

[Palachinka]

Devs should never listen to the community - design by committee creates mediocre products. You either have somebody who knows how to do it or you dont and you are better off not getting involved in this industry. Once you start adjusting to the communities wishes it can only end in disaster and always does.

[CptBarney]

7 minutes ago, Palachinka said:

Devs should never listen to the community - design by committee creates mediocre products. You either have somebody who knows how to do it or you dont and you are better off not getting involved in this industry. Once you start adjusting to the communities wishes it can only end in disaster and always does.

Yeah no, artillery is and forever will be a terrible game mechanic that enforced static gameplay the complete opposite to what you are suggesting, also various people who knew the game inside and out presented well written in-depth critisms and ideas to fix RTS CV's, weegee even said they were fine but still changed them. Oh and they gave a middle finger to that feedback as well.

 

You need to learn to take in community feedback along with your own (from your company) otherwise ignoring one or the other leads to disaster or puts you into a far worse position. You need to learn to balance intentions, ignoring feedback completely is idiotic while taking every suggestion from the community is just as bad.

 

As long as the feedback is well written, back by facts and examples and well thought-out i don't see why it should be ignored, even if it doesn't 100% fit with whatever you are doing you can take bits or large parts of it and mold it into something new.

[Captaindanz]

14 minutes ago, Palachinka said:

Devs should never listen to the community - design by committee creates mediocre products. You either have somebody who knows how to do it or you dont and you are better off not getting involved in this industry. Once you start adjusting to the communities wishes it can only end in disaster and always does.

They should listen to the experienced players that actually know a thing or two about the game.
For example DD players that always rush into a cap nose in and after getting killed whining about radars being op, seems like those are the sort of players WG are listening to...

[Figment]

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

It's baffling, isn't it? Why would people not enjoy getting constantly spotted and crabbed on without any chance of counterplay at all? They should just be thankful for such a vibrant and engaging experience that is pretty much unrivaled in other similar games.

Aside from you ignoring that you can dodge and mitigate damage taken and that you can sail up to a CV and kill it (counterplay) even if this takes time and survival skills, sure.

 

 

Just like getting shot by battleships and cruisers from ranges beyond your own, by ships you can't see because you were spotted by an invisible DD "has no chance of counterplay" (at that point in time)? ;) Except from trying to find and kill the DD (with teammates, oh CV please help with spotting this DD! Convenient, not?), running away or finding cover.

 

Or cruisers firing HE at an arc from behind a rock which you can't counter (at that point in time) without first sailing up to a specific angle. So try to avoid getting in that position (not a counter, but awareness).

 

Or how do you counter short range torps? Firing back won't stop the torps, it might cause some damage, but that's still you getting outplayed situationally without anything you can do but attempt to dodge. Primary counter is not getting yourself in that position and situation.

 

Or DDs being fired at by ships making use of the radar of another ship? What's the counter for hydro / radar? Running away once detected and too late? Or... Expecting that they might use it and running away in advance? Is that a counter or defensive damage mitigation?

 

Or DDs firing torps from smoke, invisibility or from behind an island timing their launches, which you "can't counter" aside from... not being in that position, baiting torps, expecting torps and dodging torps you can't see yet but assume fired, staying away from smoke, using hydro or radar - provided you have it or work with another ship that can detect torps or DDs? That's defensive counters too. But using your (team's) AA optimally is just something people aren't aware of and don't care to figure out. THEIR FAULT, but they can't accept that because most people are incapable or unwilling of self-critique.

 

 

 

A CV has virtually no defense once spotted (aside from being too distant or behind an object), because its damage output is flight time and outlining dependent. Hence why the only chance a CV has in endgame is if there's sufficient distance between it and enemies to get multiple sorties out. Which is a positioning thing (and not always possible if the enemy herded the remaining enemies well). It would be silly for a CV to complain about this situation occuring. Yet all the other situations are complained about, usualy by BB-primary users.

 

 

The above quote is a completely situational complaint which you can apply to ANY class of ship in this game in specific situations. Ships always have an advantage over another, CVs just avoid direct confrontation constantly and thus will often be the last one standing. But I still usualy have a higher damage output with cruisers, DDs and BBs than with a CV. In fact it is easier to dodge aircraft fire than it is to dodge shells because of speed and getting a map warning 10km and half a minute ahead of the strike.

 

With CVs it's just more noticeable because the delivery method is different from shells and changes trajectory more. I'm sorry that I don't have a lot of empathy for people who can't play the game well, can't accept a rock hitting their scissors and rather than cope, learn and look to work together with AA cruisers, blame the game.

 

 

 

I understand where you're coming from, but it's a shortsighted argument because it selectively ignores that every class of ship has such advantages where the opponent cannot counter them and as such this is a complaint that stems from people with a rather limited and biased view of the whole. As such, they should be heard, so they can be taught to improve their game, but ultimately their arguments should be ignored because they're not very valid and hypocritical.

[Figment]

33 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Yeah no, artillery is and forever will be a terrible game mechanic that enforced static gameplay the complete opposite to what you are suggesting,

Artillery promotes dynamic gameplay as keep moving makes aiming artillery very hard and static targets are ideal for slow targetting and reloading artillery units. The more stationary the game, the better for artillery.

 

The problem here is you confuse consequence with cause. In static games artillery rule and everyone became afraid of the hard hitting things, feeling they couldn't do something about it but stand still like a deer in the headlights of a car. Exactly what they should not be doing.

 

 

 

Spotting mechanics enforced static gameplay because any tank spotted is immediately seen by everyone and all non-arti players fire at you and have a much higher chance of hitting. That causes people to try to control angles and always keep specific cover in front of them, while standing still and hoping an ally or you spots enemies before you are spotted. This means that artillery gets all the time they need to get an angle on the predictable camping spots on the map.

 

 

 

 

Sounds like you barely played artillery if at all tbh. Like most WoT and WoWs players ignore classes that don't directly appeal to them and thereby ignoring the lessons. :/ Otherwise you'd know the typical spots to sit for optimal artillery coverage and thus where you'd be aiming and what routes are hard to control and hit for artillery. Honestly I barely ever got hit by artillery, mostly because I controlled the scouting part of the game, keep popping up elsewhere and would not give artillery time to focus. If I played something slow and heavy I would take routes that would avoid artillery angles and force enemies to break cover and make a mistake. But what's so funny as arti in WoT is that if you fire and miss, the enemy goes into hiding so you get to reload and refocus (!) rather than see it as an opportunity to make a move. Arti misses me? That's 30s or more no arti fire so one threat less to think about.

 

But what a lot of players do is once they break cover, they stop in the middle of the field to keep their angle optimal towards the units they SEE. Most players aren't situational aware and ignore both artillery and flanking units. They also don't take the risk of trying to overtake an enemy to get to their side or rear, forcing them to choose to turn their turret to you and get flanked by your allies, or get flanked by you.

 

 

 

 

 

However, I agree you shouldn't ignore community feedback, but in some cases, the answer is a (forced) tutorial for new players where they are shown what the consequences of their (lack of) actions are. Like becoming primary arti food if you stand still.

[BLUB__BLUB]

31 minutes ago, Figment said:

But using your (team's) AA optimally is just something people aren't aware of and don't care to figure out.

Well, you are correct there - except that random players do not have teamplay. Divisions do. 

But for the random pleb, this is just no option at all. But maybe you already know, depending on teammates...

 

31 minutes ago, Figment said:

you can sail up to a CV and kill it (counterplay) even if this takes time and survival skills, sure.

No offence but I'd like to see you try. 75% of games that I play CV they do not even have a chance to try.

In the rest, maybe 5% are successful to even get near. And then I kill them anyway most of the time.

It means my team potatoed enough for any reds to get through, also means I potatoed not to notice it,

and then after that I have to potato more or get (very) unlucky. 

 

31 minutes ago, Figment said:

In fact it is easier to dodge aircraft fire than it is to dodge shells because of speed and getting a map warning 10km and half a minute ahead of the strike.

Not really unless the CV-player is a huge pleb. CV can turn at last moment or pick different target. 

Maybe you have a 10 second warning that the reciever of airborne presents is YOU. But no longer. 

And yes there are ways to mitigate damage, but none to escape. 

 

I play CVs often enough and I'm quite savvy with them. But I'm not "very good" and really no unicum. 

Buit really if CV wants a ship dead, it is dead. Even if that ship is Smolensk and the CV is T8. 

And not much he can do about it except postpone the inevitable. 

 

But, what is TRUE: most players could do A LOT more against CV, except the usual whine.

If they did, a lot more CV-players would not play them anymore. 

Because at T8 and T10 (and even T6) you need A LOT of damage to break even in a CV. 

[CptBarney]

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

Artillery promotes dynamic gameplay as keep moving makes aiming artillery very hard and static targets are ideal for slow targetting and reloading artillery units. The more stationary the game, the better for artillery.

It really doesn't, hitting a target on the move was just as easy as a static target as long as they didn't move, otherwise you would have to shift to another part of the map to hit the more stationary targets as they would normally be behind cover where you couldn't hit them, Also to hit targets they need to be spotted so if your team couldnt do that then good luck, some maps had it easier others didn't city maps where bad for arty due to the huge amount of cover and small predictable place for arty to be in, open maps the complete opposite.

 

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

The problem here is you confuse consequence with cause. In static games artillery rule and everyone became afraid of the hard hitting things, feeling they couldn't do something about it but stand still like a deer in the headlights of a car. Exactly what they should not be doing.

Not really, since i remember games being static as hell when there was more than 2+ artillery, especially in open maps where you could get hit from any angle unless you where behind solid cover.

 

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

 

Spotting mechanics enforced static gameplay because any tank spotted is immediately seen by everyone and all non-arti players fire at you and have a much higher chance of hitting. That causes people to try to control angles and always keep specific cover in front of them, while standing still and hoping an ally or you spots enemies before you are spotted. This means that artillery gets all the time they need to get an angle on the predictable camping spots on the map.

 

Both enforce static gameplay, but at least with spotting a tank needs to have direct line of sight against you and if your playing a something with armour or something very fast that could be mitigated, plus using terrain and map awareness also allowed you to beat that, the only exception would be in tanks with horrible camo and poor armour and maps like komarin where admitedly was a campfest.

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

 

Sounds like you barely played artillery. Like most WoT players. :/ Otherwise you'd know the typical spots to sit for optimal artillery coverage and thus where you'd be aiming and what routes are hard to control and hit for artillery.

I'd rather you not assume what i havent and havent played, also the rest of the post is basic common sense you can apply this to tanks as well, knowing where the best chokepoints where and which routes and sides of the map to control to get better angles on the enemy. Even if you knew the above you would eventually have to cross parts of the map that highly advantageous for artillery players far less for yourself.

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

Honestly I barely ever got hit by artillery, mostly because I controlled the scouting part of the game, keep popping up elsewhere and would not give artillery time to focus. If I played something slow and heavy I would take routes that would avoid artillery angles and force enemies to break cover and make a mistake.

Same, but i remember the times i got hit by arty and having most or half of your HP removed which at times cost me matches or prevented me from actually pushing forward. Otherwise yes artillery hits weren't the norm since most artillery players were bad anyways.

 

Also you kinda just proved my point by saying you have to go to certain parts of the map to avoid artillery shooting at you therefore employing static gameplay.

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

But what a lot of players do is once they break cover, they stop in the middle of the field to keep their angle optimal towards the units they SEE. Most players aren't situational aware and ignore both artillery and flanking units. They also don't take the risk of trying to overtake an enemy to get to their side or rear, forcing them to choose to turn their turret to you and get flanked by your allies, or get flanked by you.

Yes, but what has that got to do with artillery being a broken mechanic? Even if they kept their front to you and where trying to move from cover to cover they would still get blapped, basically like CV's really. Also that scenario demonstrates how much artillery used to interfere with direct engagements since you are then forced to do something in scenario that wouldn't be needed if there wasn't something that clicked at you from the back of the map.

 

Also artillery is seldom in a position to shoot at in such situations similar to CV's basically.

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

 

 

 

However, I agree you shouldn't ignore community feedback, but in some cases, the answer is a tutorial.

If the tutorials aren't outdated, non-existant or basic as hell sure.

[AndyHill]

16 minutes ago, Figment said:

Aside from you ignoring that you can dodge and mitigate damage taken and that you can sail up to a CV and kill it (counterplay) even if this takes time and survival skills, sure.

Usually the best you can do is try to mitigate a bomber or a torpedo run if you aren't in contact with the enemy fleet, nothing you can do against rockets. Most of the time it's all about just hoping that the carrier sucks. And usually it's easier to fly by flapping your arms than get close to a carrier. And when you do, you'll find out that they are basically invulnerable to HE and even AP at least at longer ranges. I've easily won a staring contest with a Wooster in my Midway and quite a few times I've rushed the red fleet in CB in the hopes that they'll waste their ammo on me and take pressure off my teammates. Have you even played high tier battles? (Well since I can check I did, and apparently the answer is no, which does explain quite a bit.)

22 minutes ago, Figment said:

Just like getting shot by battleships and cruisers from ranges beyond your own, by ships you can't see because you were spotted by an invisible DD "has no chance of counterplay" (at that point in time)? ;) Except from trying to find and kill the DD (with teammates, oh CV please help with spotting this DD! Convenient, not?), running away or finding cover.

Emphasis mine. You are talking about a relatively complicated form of teamplay in which case you can also assume that your teammates are hunting down the spotter and helping you - or the comparison isn't valid. There are situations where running away and finding cover is useful. You can't run from planes and there is virtually no cover from their attacks, though.

25 minutes ago, Figment said:

Or cruisers firing HE at an arc from behind a rock which you can't counter (at that point in time) without first sailing up to a specific angle. So try to avoid getting in that position (not a counter, but awareness).

Not a possible situation, unless the cruiser has teammates to help him (or a very temporary and situational one with assistance of radar).

25 minutes ago, Figment said:

Or how do you counter short range torps? Firing back won't stop the torps, it might cause some damage, but that's still you getting outplayed situationally without anything you can do but attempt to dodge. Primary counter is not getting yourself in that position and situation.

Short range torps are an incredibly risky tool to play with and if someone gets me with those I probably made a mistake and he outplayed me, well done to him and gg.

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

Or DDs being fired at by ships making use of the radar of another ship? What's the counter for hydro / radar? Running away once detected and too late? Or... Expecting that they might use it and running away in advance? Is that a counter or defensive damage mitigation?

You need to know or guess where the radars are, bait them, keep them spotted, torp them or even shoot them when they are vulnerable. Or just keep terrain between you and the shooters and sneak a cap in plain sight. Radars are dangerous for DDs, but as long as they are about evenly matched, they give the best DD players a chance to shine. CVs on the other hand are a skill equalizer that basically punish you for playing well. 

33 minutes ago, Figment said:

Or DDs firing torps from smoke, invisibility or from behind an island timing their launches, which you "can't counter" aside from... not being in that position, baiting torps, expecting torps and dodging torps you can't see yet but assume fired, staying away from smoke, using hydro or radar - provided you have it or work with another ship that can detect torps or DDs? That's defensive counters too. But using your (team's) AA optimally is just something people aren't aware of and don't care to figure out. THEIR FAULT, but they can't accept that because most people are incapable or unwilling of self-critique.

Why on Earth would a DD fire torps from a smoke or behind an island? You dodge torps by figuring out where and when they are likely to come from and then change direction. Preferably while pushing towards objectives and forcing the said DDs away from them. That's pretty basic stuff. AA doesn't help much to begin with and I guess you imply blobbing, which is in general a bad tactic compared to creating crossfires - and a bunch of ships a few km from each other is a very inviting and unmaneuverable target for those torps you seem to dread so much.

36 minutes ago, Figment said:

A CV has virtually no defense once spotted (aside from being too distant or behind an object), because its damage output is flight time and outlining dependent. Hence why the only chance a CV has in endgame is if there's sufficient distance between it and enemies to get multiple sorties out. Which is a positioning thing (and not always possible if the enemy herded the remaining enemies well). It would be silly for a CV to complain about this situation occuring. Yet all the other situations are complained about, usualy by BB-primary users.

You are simply completely mistaken. First of all, a CV is as fast as or faster (when you get to reasonably high tiers) than the ships chasing it, so there's usually little reason for them to get spotted. They are also just about invulnerable to HE and highly resistant to AP while being able to provide brutal DPM at the kind of ranges you can spot him from.

39 minutes ago, Figment said:

The above quote is a completely situational complaint which you can apply to ANY class of ship in this game in specific situations. Ships always have an advantage over another, CVs just avoid direct confrontation constantly and thus will often be the last one standing.

Now here is the real difference. Your examples were all very situational, whereas the carriers' ability to crab all over everybody from the start to the end of a battle is not. They can do their own thing without any interaction with their team and there's nothing their victims can do. There is no fair interaction between surface ships and carriers except in the rare situations where the CV gets actually run down when the game is already over. It is possible - to an extent - to reduce damage from torpedoes or bombs by maneuvering, unless of course you happen to be the sort of player that gets close to objectives and the enemy, in which case trying to dodge air attacks is the worst thing you can do.

45 minutes ago, Figment said:

With CVs it's just more noticeable because the delivery method is different from shells and changes trajectory more. I'm sorry that I don't have a lot of empathy for people who can't play the game well, can't accept a rock hitting their scissors and rather than cope, learn and look to work together with AA cruisers, blame the game.

What is paper in this case?

46 minutes ago, Figment said:

I understand where you're coming from, but it's a shortsighted argument because it selectively ignores that every class of ship has such advantages where the opponent cannot counter them and as such this is a complaint that stems from people with a rather limited and biased view of the whole. As such, they should be heard, so they can be taught to improve their game, but ultimately their arguments should be ignored because they're not very valid and hypocritical.

What is the advantage ships have against planes?

 

Also as a bonus question; what do you think are the advantages for having planes in the game? What good do they offer to the gameplay?

[redraven]

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Aside from you ignoring that you can dodge and mitigate damage taken and that you can sail up to a CV and kill it (counterplay) even if this takes time and survival skills, sure.

 

 

Just like getting shot by battleships and cruisers from ranges beyond your own, by ships you can't see because you were spotted by an invisible DD "has no chance of counterplay" (at that point in time)? ;) Except from trying to find and kill the DD (with teammates, oh CV please help with spotting this DD! Convenient, not?), running away or finding cover.

 

Or cruisers firing HE at an arc from behind a rock which you can't counter (at that point in time) without first sailing up to a specific angle. So try to avoid getting in that position (not a counter, but awareness).

 

Or how do you counter short range torps? Firing back won't stop the torps, it might cause some damage, but that's still you getting outplayed situationally without anything you can do but attempt to dodge. Primary counter is not getting yourself in that position and situation.

 

Or DDs being fired at by ships making use of the radar of another ship? What's the counter for hydro / radar? Running away once detected and too late? Or... Expecting that they might use it and running away in advance? Is that a counter or defensive damage mitigation?

 

Or DDs firing torps from smoke, invisibility or from behind an island timing their launches, which you "can't counter" aside from... not being in that position, baiting torps, expecting torps and dodging torps you can't see yet but assume fired, staying away from smoke, using hydro or radar - provided you have it or work with another ship that can detect torps or DDs? That's defensive counters too. But using your (team's) AA optimally is just something people aren't aware of and don't care to figure out. THEIR FAULT, but they can't accept that because most people are incapable or unwilling of self-critique.

 

 

 

A CV has virtually no defense once spotted (aside from being too distant or behind an object), because its damage output is flight time and outlining dependent. Hence why the only chance a CV has in endgame is if there's sufficient distance between it and enemies to get multiple sorties out. Which is a positioning thing (and not always possible if the enemy herded the remaining enemies well). It would be silly for a CV to complain about this situation occuring. Yet all the other situations are complained about, usualy by BB-primary users.

 

 

The above quote is a completely situational complaint which you can apply to ANY class of ship in this game in specific situations. Ships always have an advantage over another, CVs just avoid direct confrontation constantly and thus will often be the last one standing. But I still usualy have a higher damage output with cruisers, DDs and BBs than with a CV. In fact it is easier to dodge aircraft fire than it is to dodge shells because of speed and getting a map warning 10km and half a minute ahead of the strike.

 

With CVs it's just more noticeable because the delivery method is different from shells and changes trajectory more. I'm sorry that I don't have a lot of empathy for people who can't play the game well, can't accept a rock hitting their scissors and rather than cope, learn and look to work together with AA cruisers, blame the game.

 

 

 

I understand where you're coming from, but it's a shortsighted argument because it selectively ignores that every class of ship has such advantages where the opponent cannot counter them and as such this is a complaint that stems from people with a rather limited and biased view of the whole. As such, they should be heard, so they can be taught to improve their game, but ultimately their arguments should be ignored because they're not very valid and hypocritical.

You are so un-f&#@ing-believably .. whats even the right word? I guess just wrong at everything you are saying.

Your points about arty are also worth as mutch as the paper is wipe my arse with. Arty is directly responsible for static gameplay in wot. But at least there are maps which provide cover against them. In wows there is no cover from a cv.

@AndyHill have already demolished all of your examples. Im just posting because you are so insufferably bad with your reasoning.

[ca12nag3]

On 3/11/2020 at 12:08 AM, Isoruku_Yamamoto said:

As for actual constructiveness, you can learn to counterplay CVs. 

Ironically my advice would be to start playing CVs, it will teach you a lot about how to deal with them

That is the best advice, play the ships you find difficult to take on to see their weaknesses yourself. For CVs it is particular the drop patterns and how ships react to it and what makes it difficult for yourself. That is the way to counter a CV.

By just blurting out " I do not know what to do"  and " sticking to other ships is stupid" yet you die vs the enemy CV plenty of times means you probably do something that triggers the enemy CV to come after you.

I play CV myself and I can tell you if you are in a BB and you are alone on the flank of the map, you die. That is as simple as it gets. If not from me carpet bombing you, it is that another player who gives you the finishing blow. Because that is just stupid. Also going upfront very far without any AA cover makes you a potentially dangerous player for our DD's. I will target you just to make sure your secondaries " if in a kurf for example"  won't get a chance to take out our DD's.

 

Good CV players btw won't just go for the kill on things, they first measure up what the other team does and plays accordingly.

[ca12nag3]

 

 

 

1

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

Also as a bonus question; what do you think are the advantages for having planes in the game? What good do they offer to the gameplay?

 

Your question is as relevant as no other. I remember when Radar was a novelty. Shimas dominated the game. And Cv's actually were capable of insta deleting ships with multiple planes. And they did not regenerate.

They offer immersion as a gameplay element and there are dedicated CV players out there. Any element in the game is an element that kind of existed since the start. CVs, DDs, Cruisers and BBs.

 

I am not saying CVs should be in the game, but they are since the start. And if you don't like it. Well, maybe the game is not for you? Just wondering.

[AndyHill]

24 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

They offer immersion as a gameplay element and there are dedicated CV players out there. Any element in the game is an element that kind of existed since the start. CVs, DDs, Cruisers and BBs.

 

I am not saying CVs should be in the game, but they are since the start. And if you don't like it. Well, maybe the game is not for you? Just wondering.

Immersion is a very difficult to quantify measure, unless you're talking about the purely technological definition used in virtual reality research - in which case it would be defined by the size and resolution of your display , framerate and sound quality. What makes it hard to define as an experience based measure is that for example for me carriers detract massively from immersion, because for me immersion in this game comes from careful planning, positioning and outplaying the reds or at least competing with them, none of which is possible with carriers. They simply do whatever they want regardless of everything, they're an absolutely horrific element for a competitive multiplayer game.

 

Do you think it would detract from your immersion if carriers were an off-map unit visible in the distance, flying massive air fleets at each other with AAA blazing away, huge explosions and the likes (think Michael Bay on steroids), but they would only go after each other and not player units? 

 

Other than that I can only read "carriers have always been there", which is unfortunately a well-known argumentation fallacy known as "no ought from is" - especially not applicable in this case, since WG themselves not much more than a year ago already made a gigantic rework removing the RTS carriers and replacing them with something completely different. Unfortunately they failed to fix the actual issues, so the only logical choice left is another massive rework or removal of carriers.

[Figment]

Okay, sorry if I sound a bit defense, but let me please point this out:

Redraven:  51% WR

Blub_Blub: 49% WR

Cpt_Barney: 54% WR

 

I'm beating you all by at least 3.5% to 8% WR. Used to have 60.4% WR, but I'm rusty after just getting back from 3 years of absence and aged a bit so slower reflexes I guess, down a bit with aiming. Game is just as simple to play, just tweaked and need to get used to some new ships. Bad teams are on both sides, so it can NEVER be an argument to why you lose. Why you win is a more interesting question.

 

 

 

If you all know the game so much better than me, then why aren't you doing better? If you're so good at analysing the game, you should have no issue exploiting its mechanics. This is a serious question, not a dig at you. I'm not an incredible player aiming wise, but I know how to exploit game mechanics to my advantage and how to teamplay and that's putting my WR way up. Please don't tell me you know better, because it just says Dunning-Kruger to me if you assume so.

 

I mean, if you start of by saying there's no coordination in randoms, then you must be a part of that problem. Please allow me to explain, because this is an attitude issue: as you assume you can't coordinate by experiencing less than stellar cooperation in the past, you've come to not expect it, so you don't look for it, so you don't do it. That's the gist of it. The first thing I do when I start a match is set an us vs them mentality and try to bond with the remainder. Once you got a bit of a chat going and people like you, they will cooperate.

 

ALL OF YOU ARE IN CLANS. ALL OF YOU SHOULD HAVE NO ISSUE FINDING DIVISIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO KNOW YOU INTRINSICALLY. I AM NOT IN A CLAN. I WORK ALONE. I PERFORM BETTER THAN YOU.

 

This is not me telling you're less worthy, it's me telling you you can do better. Please don't tell me there's no coop in randoms, because your stats should beat mine simply for being in a clan as I should not be able to find teamwork to aid me, yet I do virtually every match. I don't care if it's from a 43% or a 65% WR player, I just ask people to target ships and they do it. I warn people of incoming air and they react to it. I ask people to go on dual torp runs and they join in seeing the benefit of teamwork. There is teamwork to be found, you're just not looking for it.

 

I play solo virtually always. I just look at this game from a RTS pov whereas the majority of players look at it from a FPS pov. I know teamwork is valuable so it's the first thing I stimulate.

 

This is also why I ensure there's at least one person scouting in WoT (usualy me) even if I'm in a heavy tank and it ups my winrate there over 54% as well (used to be 58%, but my aim and reflexes are getting worse with age I think since my hitrate is down a bit).

 

 

 

You ask me to sail up to a CV and kill it... I have killed at least twelve since coming back last month, so I don't really understand the question. You talk about 75% of the situations... but I only had issues when two CVs came for me at once (as it should when two players target you). Otherwise it's ensure you point towards torp and rocket bombers and show side to other bombers to dodge at least half damage. I mean all you need is sufficient starting HP and otherwise, why SHOULD you expect to win if you're at a huge HP disadvantage? They are entitled to winning an engagement just as much as you are. Most the time by the end of the match they ought to be largely out of aircraft so the squadrons should be smaller. If anything you should have the advantage.

 

 

As for wanting any ship dead... That's not true in all situations, particularly near the end of a match. But if a CV player does that, and spends all his air on it, he'll be useless for the rest of the match. So how's that different from a suicide run on a hydro-cruiser with a DD? If you WANT him dead it's very possible (you'll have to think about it), but he'll be dead even if it costs you your life. Is it worth it? Depends. But this is no argument. You're saying that if a CV wants to take himself out of the game by obsessing over one unit, he can. So what? That just leaves everyone else free. Sounds like a sacrifice worth making for that AA cruiser. I regularly do that in my Cleveland and its got a 60%ish WR because of me defending my team and deliberately baiting CVs. Does my Cleveland die at times? Sure? And? Should I be impervious? Should DDs not die to BBs? Should BBs not die to cruisers?

In fact, if that CV could NOT kill that cruiser, regardless of resources spent, then balance is off. Like when a lower tier CV faces two tier higher AA ships. That's a much bigger balancing issue.

[Figment]

3 hours ago, CptBarney said:

It really doesn't, hitting a target on the move was just as easy as a static target as long as they didn't move, otherwise you would have to shift to another part of the map to hit the more stationary targets as they would normally be behind cover where you couldn't hit them, Also to hit targets they need to be spotted so if your team couldnt do that then good luck, some maps had it easier others didn't city maps where bad for arty due to the huge amount of cover and small predictable place for arty to be in, open maps the complete opposite.

 

Not really, since i remember games being static as hell when there was more than 2+ artillery, especially in open maps where you could get hit from any angle unless you where behind solid cover.

 

Both enforce static gameplay, but at least with spotting a tank needs to have direct line of sight against you and if your playing a something with armour or something very fast that could be mitigated, plus using terrain and map awareness also allowed you to beat that, the only exception would be in tanks with horrible camo and poor armour and maps like komarin where admitedly was a campfest.

I'd rather you not assume what i havent and havent played, also the rest of the post is basic common sense you can apply this to tanks as well, knowing where the best chokepoints where and which routes and sides of the map to control to get better angles on the enemy. Even if you knew the above you would eventually have to cross parts of the map that highly advantageous for artillery players far less for yourself.

Same, but i remember the times i got hit by arty and having most or half of your HP removed which at times cost me matches or prevented me from actually pushing forward. Otherwise yes artillery hits weren't the norm since most artillery players were bad anyways.

 

Also you kinda just proved my point by saying you have to go to certain parts of the map to avoid artillery shooting at you therefore employing static gameplay.

Yes, but what has that got to do with artillery being a broken mechanic? Even if they kept their front to you and where trying to move from cover to cover they would still get blapped, basically like CV's really. Also that scenario demonstrates how much artillery used to interfere with direct engagements since you are then forced to do something in scenario that wouldn't be needed if there wasn't something that clicked at you from the back of the map.

 

Also artillery is seldom in a position to shoot at in such situations similar to CV's basically.

If the tutorials aren't outdated, non-existant or basic as hell sure.

And again, yes, more artillery meant bad players lacking insight in arti (and let's face it, most did not play arti, like most don't play CV outt of principle) were more afraid of heavy damage they get when spotted while standing still, by assuming the reason they got shot was arti whenever they stood still to aim and inched forward and got spotted, allowing that to come true (!). Why? Because players first instincts tell them to seek shelter and double down on that policy when something big is in front of them. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. That wasn't the fault of artillery, but the fault of players being too dumb to wipe their arse. And you clearly lack those analytics as well and believe anything these people will say. But without spotting, arti wouldn't fire at all. And since most players didn't play arti and arti had limited starting positions, the hardest to shoot points were rarely used as players often moved up to the point where they'd meet enemies. It's a bit more complex than that, but let's just say my arti performed better by finding non conventional spots aiming for typical camp zones.

 

If you want to screw over artillery though, zig zag, start when you noticed them firing, then move orthogonal to their aiming direction and speed up in order to keep them refocusing. Only the SU-18 had little issues with that, but it had limited  ammo, so meh. This isn't static. It's finding hills and slopes a lot of players didn't understand or thought risky at first glance. And trust me on this, map knowledge among players is LOW. They usualy just do the same things every match. I didn't proof your point, you just didn't understand it because I'm talking about movement hull down. But even when arti was nerfed to doing near no damage, people STILL complained because of the concept of not seeing something at that point to fire back at.

 

Even if the high tier AT vehicles were far more devastating to gameplay with high alpha damage and relatively short reload. And let me remind people, arti requires line of fire and sight, it's just not the same one you use. Most people cannot work with that information due to poor map knowledge from an artillery point of view by not playing it.

 

 

 

Tutorials are very important but not high on the list of things to develop since the mid '90s... It's highly underappreciated because of the instant gratification and lack of attentionspan assumption rampant among developers. Also it costs money to make and the profits aren't directly verifiable. It's a very sad thing to have noticed. The 90s had great tutorials at times, but like manuals... they're gone.

[Figment]

4 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Usually the best you can do is try to mitigate a bomber or a torpedo run if you aren't in contact with the enemy fleet, nothing you can do against rockets.

 

Most of the time it's all about just hoping that the carrier sucks. And usually it's easier to fly by flapping your arms than get close to a carrier. And when you do, you'll find out that they are basically invulnerable to HE and even AP at least at longer ranges.

Rockets: don't show your side. Swerve within the last mile. Can't ensure a dodge, but dodges part.

 

 

 

Got 13 capital hits on a Hosho with a Nürnberg AP. Aim lower I guess?

 

The only ship I had issues with that is British high arc AP shells. But those bounce of everything or deal vritually no damage per shot anyway so that's not CV specific. With any BBs you deal 6-30K per salvo... :/ Really sounds like you aim too high.

 

 

Your responses seem to not understand the premise of the point made. A counter isn't always instantaneous. You completely fail to understand this perspective and that's why you get frustrated. Aircraft damage delivery is MUCH slower and inconsistent than it is for ANY other class of ship. Immediate retaliation would be incredibly imbalanced. Your points fail to counter because they don't address the point made, but what you perceive as the point made (you compare direct risk for instance). That isn't the type of balance here. It's damage delivery over time, at a very slow pace. When you spot a CV, your damage output per second will be, should be, much greater than it can dish out per second. As I said earlier, it depends how alive you are at this point and if you don't go into tunnel vision and ignore (some of) the aircraft coming at you in your hurry to kill.

 

 

You ask for paper: next to AA (combined of multiple ships sailing together negating the damage output of a CV almost completely if they do well) it's ANY ship getting a shot on the CV. That shouldn't be possible instantly or a CV can never get more than a few K damage output. If your team is however slow and scared then it'll take a lot longer to get to the CV, if you can get to it at all. That's a teamplay positioning issue, not a balance issue.

[Lootboxer]

24 minutes ago, Figment said:

Rockets: don't show your side. 

It depends on cv and rockets. With USA hvar it's true but tits are completely different and are better served with a length of a ship. Ijn rockets can be used at any angle really.  You are very right about team play and attitude. You will get random team and you have to work with human material that mm has allocated. No matter how good or bad. Better encourage than swear. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

9 hours ago, Yoshanai said:

It was. Everyone was complaining about T4 CVs being not powerful and boring making new players turn away from T4 CVs. It was all over reddit and in the old CV discussion topic and even had its own topics created for that specific issue until WG addressed the "being boring and powerless" issue by giving Hosho better torps which were later "nerfed" with slower plane return speed. 

 

Remember that most posters here always talk about themselves as the playerbase and the representative of said playerbase. So why not take responsibility for once when the playerbase messes up? 

You can obviously disagree that's fine or distance yourself from it but saying it didn't happen is kind of wrong. 

It's weird that you suggest the player base can mess up the game without access to it's code mate, it's nonsense. My sarcasm isn't about denying this community complaining about the tier IV carriers back then and currently, because they were and are complaining with good reason. Those carriers were in a bad place then and are in a bad place now. Both the work and responsibility of WG, not players complaining.

[AndyHill]

49 minutes ago, Figment said:

Rockets: don't show your side. Swerve within the last mile. Can't ensure a dodge, but dodges part.

Doesn't work unless the carrier is bad. 

50 minutes ago, Figment said:

Got 13 capital hits on a Hosho with a Nürnberg AP. Aim lower I guess?

Good job. Now do that consistently on a Hakuryu with a Hindenburg. 

52 minutes ago, Figment said:

Your responses seem to not understand the premise of the point made. A counter isn't always instantaneous. You completely fail to understand this perspective and that's why you get frustrated. Aircraft damage delivery is MUCH slower and inconsistent than it is for ANY other class of ship. Immediate retaliation would be incredibly imbalanced. Your points fail to counter because they don't address the point made, but what you perceive as the point made (you compare direct risk for instance). That isn't the type of balance here. It's damage delivery over time, at a very slow pace. When you spot a CV, your damage output per second will be, should be, much greater than it can dish out per second. As I said earlier, it depends how alive you are at this point and if you don't go into tunnel vision and ignore (some of) the aircraft coming at you in your hurry to kill.

No. Your entire point is completely flawed if you think a ship can shoot a carrier to retaliate. In reality that almost never happens and when it happens, the game has almost certainly been decided a long time ago. Until that point, carriers do whatever they want wherever they want and it's of little use to a ship that was bombed into oblivion without a chance for counter if one of his teammates gets a consolation kill at the end of the game. That is not counterplay at all. Of the 225 Midway games I've played I've survived 182 - and there are quite a few fatal cases of death by greed & stupidity in there.

 

Also, aircraft delivery is easily the most consistent way of doing damage in the game. The first flight starts at 0 seconds and they keep coming and coming and coming, the carrier sits safely far away without having to risk anything whereas you have nowhere to hide and nowhere to run and every time the planes come anywhere near you are spotted and shot at by everything on the red team that can point its guns at you. Carriers also have very decent DPM and are among the best damage dealers in the entire game as a whole.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

You ask for paper: next to AA (combined of multiple ships sailing together negating the damage output of a CV almost completely if they do well) it's ANY ship getting a shot on the CV. That shouldn't be possible instantly or a CV can never get more than a few K damage output. If your team is however slow and scared then it'll take a lot longer to get to the CV, if you can get to it at all. That's a teamplay positioning issue, not a balance issue.

(Paper as in counter to rock, which was CV in a previous example). Multiple ships is usually a very ineffective formation against anything else than a carrier and since carrier is just one of 12 red ships, that is usually a bad idea. Furthermore, a blob can not completely stop a determined carrier attack, the engagement is completely in the hands of the CV player - he can ignore you and go for an easier (or more important target since blobs tend to not be that) target if he thinks he can get better investment on his planes elsewhere. Also his planes are a somewhat renewable resource he will use to deal damage and get kills and at best you can hope to shoot down some of his planes when the carrier takes away your ship's hitpoints. It's also incredibly unlikely that your blob will ever get to take a shot at the carrier.

 

So no, AA is not paper. In fact the effect of AA in the game is relatively minor.

 

If you really want to know an effective strategy against carriers, it's actually quite simple. Just go into the most useless location on the map. A decent carrier knows where he doesn't want red ships to go and strikes there. Usually that's in the front lines where ships get hit and lose their AA and if they try to maneuver to avoid planes, they'll get smacked by all the greens who also went to the front.

 

1 hour ago, Figment said:

If you all know the game so much better than me, then why aren't you doing better? If you're so good at analysing the game, you should have no issue exploiting its mechanics. This is a serious question, not a dig at you. I'm not an incredible player aiming wise, but I know how to exploit game mechanics to my advantage and how to teamplay and that's putting my WR way up. Please don't tell me you know better, because it just says Dunning-Kruger to me if you assume so.

This wasn't aimed at me, but it's an interesting and perhaps important point. I find it kind of funny when you talk about DK, when your own comments are a clear indication that you have no experience in high tier gameplay and your own stats prove it. At least Blub and Red have had their WR take a hit in such high tier ships that you have never even played one. Your own experience of about 2k battles is just not very much, which is perfectly fine, but you don't seem to take it into account while going a bit dunning-kruger on a few other people.

 

Now I have to commend you on taking your time to reach higher tiers, I'm not accusing you of seal clubbing or anything. This game would be a better place (or at least the high tiers) if people didn't rush or buy their way to high tiers. So well done, good job you're doind things right. Just keep in mind that almost all of your experience is from tiers where the gameplay is basically a chaotic melee and where you can actually get your hands on a carrier more often than almost-never.

 

Statistics don't counter valid arguments, but you have a very good point about people telling others in vague terms how to for example play against carriers - at which point it's useful to go and see how their tactics actually materialize into measurable results. Because I'm such a decent person, I decided to reveal my own stats for a few hours just for you to enjoy, now you can tell me as well how much better you know carriers and their counter tactics.