General CV related discussions.

[redraven]

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Bull, I got back in a month ago and everything is exactly the same outside of CVs.

Than you are playing absolutely no attention what so ever.
Just the most rcent cahnge is IFHE (a skill that didnt even exist when you played in CBT) and HE shells penetration was drasticly changed.
A bit older change is the ships detecability when firing was changed. And how the interact with smoke.

These are 2 overall game mechanics that changed while you were not here. Of course you be ignorant about these but it wont chnage the fact that there were changes. 
Not to mention how individual ships can shifts the game as well. (see smolenks stalingrad RU bbs and whatnot).

[Yosha_AtaIante]

The level of mitigation possible depends solely on the skill of the CV player. 

You can use techniques as I do quite often to play around average to better CV players but as soon as I would meet someone like El2a, joatricks, steveraptor for example only them misplaying would give me any chance. 

 

A CV is only as powerful as the misplay of the enemy ship and the enemy ship is only spared with this rule if the CV player isn't one of the best of the best. 

 

@Sunleader

Plays with me so frequently and knows exactly what I do to deal with most CVs easily and successfully while for example playing DD myself. 

He can mimick all the little tricks techniques and hints I thought him and what does happen? 

He dies in 2minutes and 25 seconds 

 

[Alfa_Tau]

7 minutes ago, Yoshanai said:

The level of mitigation possible depends solely on the skill of the CV player. 

You can use techniques as I do quite often to play around average to better CV players but as soon as I would meet someone like El2a, joatricks, steveraptor for example only them misplaying would give me any chance. 

 

A CV is only as powerful as the misplay of the enemy ship and the enemy ship is only spared with this rule if the CV player isn't one of the best of the best. 

 

@Sunleader

Plays with me so frequently and knows exactly what I do to deal with most CVs easily and successfully while for example playing DD myself. 

He can mimick all the little tricks techniques and hints I thought him and what does happen? 

He dies in 2minutes and 25 seconds 

 

Just for curiosity:

was this a training battle? 

which CV where u sailing? 

Thanks

 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

2 minutes ago, Alfa_Tau said:

Just for curiosity:

was this a training battle? 

Yes 

Midway 

[Figment]

38 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Then if you want a rework you may as well start with RTS and work your way up from there. Other far better CV players than me have suggested this and come up with some good suggestions, but they were ignored sadly

Nothing changed in that regards since WoT beta tbh. Heavy tank and BB users in particular have ruined a lot of balance with their whining. Hell, people made the Omaha out to be horrible and got it buffed, while at the time I was doing 52K damage on average with it at 70+% WR, while I'm IMO a slightly above average to good player.

38 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

No, im just not completely blind to reality like you are. I play with and against CV's so i know what its like to attack players and be attacked in both regards and with CV's unless you mess up or fail to dodge flak properly, there is little to no counterplay at all.

I do as well do both but clearly our experiences differ. My CV game can be improved greatly still, but there's a lot of players not doing that they could be doing to mitigate damage. Most of them don't play CVs and it shows. I don't base my position on being able to roflstomp the average idiot in this game consistently though. Skilled play vs unskilled play is not representative of balance.

38 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

By a ship i couldn't see, spot, target, shoot at or kill. While he gets free reign over how much damage he does to me based on how good he is. Yes great fun, just like the weegee employee i was able to slap about in his kremlin while i was in my midway.

How is that different from a DD torping you from the safety of an island and outside of detection range? Honestly, it's selective bias of negative experiences here. Some damage you'll accept, some you won't out of ideological principle and emotion, rather than fairness.

 

Free reign is a hyperbole. There is RNG (which can be mitigated to a degree by the skill of the player, sure), but the measure is also about how good you are relative to your target.

 

I've never seen devs or employees as representative of good players in any game. In fact, usualy you'll notice just how poor they master their own game. I don't know what this anecdotal evidence is here to illustrate. You're essentially stating "look I killed a lone cruiser of a player with questional pedigree". It's not indicative of anything.

38 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

No, but i would like ships with good AA or actual AA ships to perform their role without the need of 3+ players to do so. DFAA actually used to scatter drops while also providing a boost meaning you had to engage brain more than usual, unless you can no choice (lack of time for example).

Agreed and the scatter/bloom effect was pretty powerful and a decent balancing mechanism. But that doesn't mean the argument you can work together is irrelevant to handling the current situation. Again, I never said it was ideal, just that we're dealing with situational arguments here.

 

Still, an AA cruiser should not be impervious to attacks by a carrier even if they should be more effective. It could just force CVs to drop torps more quickly for instance, or as you said, with worsened RNG.

38 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

No, but you don't seem to understand why they are broken and why the vast majority of decent players and even players who aren't so good despise them, they can interact with surface ships in a way no other ship in the game can.

 

I dont mind CV's (i wouldn't play them nor would my fav ship be one either not in this game btw), but to say they are fine is wrong in everyway, subs most likely won't be any different as well, unless weegee makes some major changes to them. But like CV's will most likely be another class that will be impossible to balance at all or properly.

I have a pretty good idea what can be done to reform them, we might disagree on the details and extent, but that bad players despise things that kill them should be a given (particularly things they feel they can't fight directly, whether justified or not). They should also be ignored aside from training and raising them.

 

Hell, players should probably be forced to experience other types of play as well, because one trick ponies aren't doing anyone any favours. I'd have put timers on ships, perhaps even classes (much like the orders), so everyone gets more varied gameplay experiences and there's more variety in game. Such restrictions would last at least till they reached a certain amount of game time with each class and easing the restrictions accordingly till a player earned the right to see them gone entirely. Alternatively, class progression could have been done like the tiering in Warthunder. Where you need to rise through the tiers with matches somewhat evenly spread over units of that tier (just not so slow as in Warthunder). Gaijinn made some other balancing errors though and their lack of proper tutorials is even worse since the game is far less forgiving than HP based games and positioning and angle control is everything there (plus easily getting a 17 killstreak in an AA unit against tanks because players are so bad and it's so easy to pen with at high RoF is just fricking ridiculous).

 

Player freedom has gone too far in many games, in the sense that dumping anyone of any skill level into any game and never holding their hands for a while just makes a horrible experience for everyone else (hence why I think high tier premiums are a bad idea unless players already have multiple same tier ships of that class). It's not a good gameplay experience for anyone and the result is forum whining and illogical panic balancing.

 

 

With regards to subs, I think we can agree. Posted my thoughts on that last week in the sub thread with what my expectations for balancing were. As is, the mechanics seem designed to be abused, downsides are too small, ease of getting high damage hits too great and damage dodging too easy.

[AndyHill]

4 hours ago, ca12nag3 said:

Also I looked into the stats, they are not unusually sticking out. It is some BBs who stick out in terms of DMG,average xp and win rate. So unless you got some cold hard numbers I think that you have no idea how to deal with CVs. I have died by CVs I destroyed plenty of them. I played every ship type in the game. It helps you see what they can do and what their weakness is. 

 

Also hiding your stats isn't becoming. I bet you lurk through others plenty.

If you can't see carrier stats sticking out, I suggest glasses. They are among the best in damage and kills, but their survival, spotting and cap defence are like from another game - which in fact they are - and only their caping and tanking are pretty bad (because they rarely move forward and almost never get shot at.

 

However, their OPness is not the main issue. The main issue is that in a game of ships there are planes that can crab all over the ships, playing with completely different rules (as in no limitations the ships need to work with), doing nothing but disrupting the actual gameplay for everyone else. That needs to stop.

 

And yes I do lurk other people's stats, which is why I rather don't give them the same opportunity myself. But since I already did so yesterday, I can open them up for a few hours right now if you really want to take a look.

[AndyHill]

2 hours ago, Figment said:

I think you mistake fear with skill in many of these players though you're correct to mention fear: they take more precautions out of fear of dieing quickly.

(Referring to high tier battles) No. As I mentioned, I can see the statistics of almost everyone I play with and against, their global winrate, average damage and number of games played as well as their ship-specific performance. The average team at high tiers is like from a different world compared to low tiers - and funnily enough, in the cases where both teams are really bad, the gameplay actually looks a lot like what we see in low tiers. Of course at low tiers that's because most people haven't had the chance to learn, whereas at high tiers it's more commonly people who never will.

2 hours ago, Figment said:

You're saying you don't look at it as a dueling thing, but then immediately state you're looking at your own positioning and damage dealing, rather than how you can manipulate the moves of their team and force strategic errors (RTS). I'll gladly sacrifice some health or even my ship if it means i put enemy ships into a bad position strategically. That's not about my damage output, that's about my team's superior positioning and damage output. That's a large part of what the role of the CV should be IMO: flock herding. Currently it's far more.

I simply assumed the things you mentioned as self-evidentto anyone with reasonable amount of experience in the game. Also such considerations are a part of any team based game, not an RTS thing. As far as flock herding goes, that just a huge no-no. Flocking takes away most of the real tactical options in the game and needs to be avoided at all costs since it promotes dull low-IQ gameplay. ships need to have the ability to make moves in relation to their own team's positions as well as the enemy's, that's the very core of the game.

2 hours ago, Figment said:

And I don't understand why you think I'm talking about disengaging from the aircraft. I'm talking about disengaging from any surface ship fights in a controlled manner so you can deal with the aircraft in a controlled manner. The amount of distance between ships is hardly of relevance here, what matters is your positioning with respect to those ships (how open are you to their attacks) when those aircraft engage. It is a mistake if you leave yourself (fully) open to both attacks at the same time.

If you are in an aggressive position like a good player should be, you are vulnerable to enemy ships. Ships have to take risks to be effective, that's the main point of the game; positioning yourself so that you are effective, yet not dead. Planes, however, have virtually no limitations in their attack vectors and they can basically create a crossfire for free. Disengaging from the enemy fleet in such a situation is pure fantasy. When you see my planes coming you have something like 15 to 20 seconds to go dark, turn around and flee. Stalingrads, Thunderers and the likes reload at about 20 seconds, you won't make a 180 in that time and you can't even dream about getting unspotted because the planes are coming for you. All you can do is just eat whatever the planes have coming for you. When I'm in a carrier and looking for vulnerable targets, I'm looking for the ships that are pushing the tempo, finding useful locations and being aggressive. That's just terrible design that promotes passive gameplay and punishes people for playing properly.

2 hours ago, Figment said:

If balancing is off that's not your fault, nor is it the players. But that's a balancing argument, not a gameplay/class argument. CVs using their strengths in a proper way is not the problem, but this is what you're suggesting with this argument. Being too effective by balancing issues is.

That's not really a balancing issue, it's the core design of carriers. I'm almost certain (although proving negative can be challenging outside of mathematics) that with the current design it's impossible to balance carriers to be useful and "balanced" at the same time.

2 hours ago, Figment said:

There are absolutely issues with the design of the CVs, but your conclusion that removing them is required is silly since it is based on assumptions about what any design would be like.

I can not come up with any kind of an implamentation for planes that wouldn't detract from the general ship to ship core gameplay of the game. And I have tried. If you want to get started in a discussion on what carriers should be like, it needs to start with an answer to the question I posted earlier: why do we need to have planes in a ship game? What is their purpose? Once I understand that, I can try to figure out if there's a design that can achieve the goal. Right now I can't come up with any way the planes could make the game better, so I can't really comment on design before I understand what the point is to begin with.

2 hours ago, Figment said:

The positive thing is carriers can support ships that have little to no defense against other ships in their current engagement. The main issue IMO is range, attack rate and striking power.

This isn't it. Every single ship in the game can do that, we don't need planes for it. Actually, planes can turn fights where one side earned the win and should have won into losses. The beauty of the game is in figuring out your moves several minutes ahead, guesstimating what the reds do and how you will beat them. Planes are an unknowable factor in the equation,  they simply appear pretty much anytime anywhere without any of the limitations ships have. 

 

Also remember, that when I say that the things carriers are able to do are completely unfair and their overall influence on the game is devastatingly negative, it's a somewhat experienced and skilled carrier player saying that the things I do to other people in my carrier are unfair, and terrible for the game.

[Figment]

31 minutes ago, redraven said:

Than you are playing absolutely no attention what so ever.
Just the most rcent cahnge is IFHE (a skill that didnt even exist when you played in CBT) and HE shells penetration was drasticly changed.
A bit older change is the ships detecability when firing was changed. And how the interact with smoke.

These are 2 overall game mechanics that changed while you were not here. Of course you be ignorant about these but it wont chnage the fact that there were changes. 
Not to mention how individual ships can shifts the game as well. (see smolenks stalingrad RU bbs and whatnot).

Angling, leading and dodging is barely changed in effectiveness, just need to know the ships and what shells they'll use (same applies to new shell types) when and know when a broadside can be risked and when not. That's all a very small learning curve. Ships didn't suddenly start bunnyhopping, change speed massively or got citadels in their bows and you're still not having to aim under water with HE. It's the same game with some balance tweaks.

 

Gameplay wise British ship's AP shells being fired a little bit higher due to shorter fuse and bounce made a huge difference once figured out (HE alone is not good on British as some people like to suggest). For instance, AP fired at German ships needs to be aimed at the top of the hull for more consistent damage, rather than the torp belt... Not all that massive a tweak and comes down more to unit weakpoint knowledge than a fundamental shift in gameplay ("lead aim, fire, hit for damage").

Fog is no different in essence. It's been tweaked, but that's not something new to get used to. Was there for torp belt changes, saw hydro and radar introduction. Ship firing detection tweaks are also rather old, but doesn't really impact gameplay. DD, cruiser and BB variations all come down to combinations or specialties in playstyles that mostly already existed (speed firing of French ships is a new mode, but really still HE death from above so deal with it the same way as all other HE...). Those are all minor adjustments easily remedied with slightly different movement paths and patterns for specific ships. And sure, you need to learn them and the opponents again hence I'm not at all alarmed by any initial drop in WR. I'm already seeing it steadily go back up after a few weeks of playing again. Had the same thing with WoT when encountering tanks I hadn't studied weakspots off or FV's alpha damage beyond my expectations. Did it change the game? No. Tweaked strategies chosen when faced with certain units? Yes.

 

 

Really, the only massive change for me was the CVs, didn't expect multiple duo torp runs from a single squadron in my first matches upon returning. Caused me to get out the Ryujo and Langley of the mothballs. Adjusted to that quickly. Torp launch distance, torp speed and torp activation didn't really change, but alternating speeds of aircraft did. Frequency, spread and number of torps in a single run did. Amount of aircraft in the sky at anyone time did. Fighter mechanics changed (dropping, but not attaching to a ship sadly. I used to aid low AA ships with fighters in beta, the new mechanic of dropping is rather poor and in my view reduces the AA experience for surface ships.

 

The other biggish change was new ships with different (but essentially similar and same principles) lay-outs and firing arcs/mechanics. Getting used to ships like the Novik with extremely long travel time and firing arcs you can't keep in view while aiming so adjusting your aim is harder. DDs without fog isn't a huge difference, but inconveniences some situations and seems a rather arbitrary choice given the earlier ships. Cruisers with fog are just to be addressed as bigger DDs that are easier to spot and lead on really.

 

 

 

But the players are equally stupid. So essentially, same old, same old. ;)

[Figment]

33 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

I simply assumed the things you mentioned as self-evidentto anyone with reasonable amount of experience in the game. Also such considerations are a part of any team based game, not an RTS thing. As far as flock herding goes, that just a huge no-no. Flocking takes away most of the real tactical options in the game and needs to be avoided at all costs since it promotes dull low-IQ gameplay. ships need to have the ability to make moves in relation to their own team's positions as well as the enemy's, that's the very core of the game.

Think we'll continue to disagree on this. The RTS element in team games is different from the FPS element. Particularly when we're talking about rock-paper-scissors gameplay like in WoWs (where yes, a scissor can kill a rock, but it should be with great difficulty).

 

There's a place for solo ships (hit and run types), but support ships like AA cruisers should be rewarded for staying near other ships. Teams should be rewarded for working together, otherwise we should just do a one on one game where each ship is equal to another. hence why the anecdote mentioned by someone else of "I killed that ship in two and a half minutes in a one on one situation where I placed the opposite ship in a disadvantage from the get go" is something I barely see as evidence of anything, since this isn't a solo game.

33 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

If you are in an aggressive position like a good player should be, you are vulnerable to enemy ships. Ships have to take risks to be effective, that's the main point of the game; positioning yourself so that you are effective, yet not dead. Planes, however, have virtually no limitations in their attack vectors and they can basically create a crossfire for free. Disengaging from the enemy fleet in such a situation is pure fantasy. When you see my planes coming you have something like 15 to 20 seconds to go dark, turn around and flee. Stalingrads, Thunderers and the likes reload at about 20 seconds, you won't make a 180 in that time and you can't even dream about getting unspotted because the planes are coming for you. All you can do is just eat whatever the planes have coming for you. When I'm in a carrier and looking for vulnerable targets, I'm looking for the ships that are pushing the tempo, finding useful locations and being aggressive. That's just terrible design that promotes passive gameplay and punishes people for playing properly.

That completely depends on the map and whether you're engaging those ships head on, in the vicinity of islands or on open sea. You say you have 15-20 seconds to make that decision, but that's not true if you anticipate an attack. That's like saying you can only start avoiding a torp run (when you know a DD is heading your way or in an area with an obvious ambush position), by starting your turn when you spot the DD or torps. You make your turn before you reach the point where the optimal torp run would be and try to aim your turrets where you predict the DD will show up thinking you're an easy target to torp. Or go after the torp while he's reloading.

 

Similarly, if you know air might come after you, you should have taken that into account in your positioning. It's not like your mind resets after an earlier air strike either and you forget that a CV has your number.

 

Can air come from all directions, not always. You can control what direction they're coming from. A torp run will not come from a direction with a lot of cruisers in between. But if you show a "weak" side, you'll manipulate the CV player to come from that side. That makes your defensive move more predictable for you. In principle you should try to align that defensive move with other evasive action you'd take anyway. is that easy or always possible? No. But if you don't do this ever you'll always be easy food. Aircraft also have a bit more of an issue with islands. If you put an island between you and torp planes and are within the activation zone, they'll have to come around. Provides more AA cover time for you and allies and/or forces a bad angle. Of course like you said earlier, the CV might pick a different target instead. So warn them, because you know just as well as I do which player that'd be.

 

What you're doing is not terrible design. It's team support. What's terrible is when it's too effective. If there's little you or anyone can do against ships that are "positioned well" (like someone firing over islands from safety and out of sight, out of detection range), then camping and non-aggressive gameplay is encouraged as well. Flushing out stationary units is for instance a good thing. Helping weak units against heavy units is a good thing. Spotting for units is also a good thing to not end up with endless cat and mouse chases and draws, but the effectiveness of spotting from outside the AA area is something we can put up for debate.

Spotting by air could also be like this:

Spotted from outside AA area -> on map with direction indicator (not speed indication)

Spotted from inside AA area -> visible to all in range

That way there's basic assistance, but also risk for full assistance and a way to deal with being spotted by CVs. This would help DDs a lot. What would also help DDs is making strikes on small targets harder by increasing the targeted area and spread. But those are tweaks. Spotting is something I think could use some work in this game anyway.  And I for one wouldn't mind an increased spotting range either. Caps with CVs based primarily on their low spotting range despite being the largest ships around is silly.

 

Another thing I've noticed is that CVs don't get punished for fires and flooding as much anymore as they used to in the old setup, I don't think that's a boon to the game. Flooding should slow them down, fire should make them more visible, deal damage to aircraft on deck and if the fire is at the front end of the deck, stop take-offs.

 

There's loads of things you could do with CVs that are currently not done.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, Alfa_Tau said:

hello 

for sure you are a good player but this sentence is very generic and only applies in specific conditions.

I'm not THAT good, but "only in certain conditions" is true. 

Let me make it clear though, I can kill off a Friesland (t9) with Ark Royal (t6 with T4 planes...), no problem. 

 

1 hour ago, Alfa_Tau said:

There are no way a CV can kill a ship IF the "target" is clustered with other friendly. Yes CV can be able to push through the AA Bubble but at what cost and to achieve what?? 

That is the question indeed. But the thing is indeed "at what cost"and "to achieve what"?

Ask yourself: If he is clustered... is he still a main target... or is he not? 

Sure I can hit him, but indeed at what cost. 

 

Say that Friesland, if he is in the middle of a bunch of others, what is his priority? 

He is no danger, he is not spotting, and he is not capping. he is no more important than the others around him.

So.. then he is just a meagre XP thingy with no importance. I'll go look for that fat BB elsewhere...

But if they stay clustered... I'll come back and throw in some torps from a bit of distance...

 

1 hour ago, Alfa_Tau said:

As I said there are some circustances in which the above is true. 

1. Isolated ship is Always a good target; no AA bubble allow more than 1 strike and the damage can be really significant. 

2 low HP ships: The trade can be very advantageous : few planes to murder a DD for example. This is one of the few cases where I consider losing even a full squadron (depending on enemy ship, situatiion in game etc)

3. a ship that is camping behind a island and can only partially use AA. 

1. Isolated ships are indeed piñatas. But... why would I (want to) for example kill that AFK BB that is floating at enemy base...

2. You'll not lose a full squad on a DD unless he has friends. And if he has friends, he is not the problem. He might BECOME the problem.. but unlikely.

3. Wel... if the planes are spotted, AA will GO THROUGH MOUNTAIN. So, that is not exactly right. 

But, sometimes you can indeed get that ship easier. Remember that there is also the thing, where will your planes end up after the attack. 

 

1 hour ago, Alfa_Tau said:

The above are some cases, and there are Others. But we should stop feeding false legends and exagerating facts. 

Thanks

These ARE the facts. And there are some people that think they are different. 

But - and you have realized very well that these things are conditions - a CV can indeed kill every ship.

Provided that... he wants/needs it, in the first place.

 

---

 

17 hours ago, Figment said:

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.

So? That's a general statistic, for all the ships played. Also... I usually play in weekend... and you have no idea how old I am...

 

If you want to talk CV, well then better use this site: https://wows-numbers.com/player/552033702,BLUB__BLUB/?type=solo and https://wows-numbers.com/player/500575344,Figment/?type=solo

It will show that my WR (after 42 games) in Ryujo is 64.29% and yours is 62.16%.... (37 games) in solo games. You have no division games at all. 

i'm no unicum, just kinda savvy and IMO "plenty good enough" as I usually do better (dmg/xp/position) than the red CV. But I'm no unicum, far from it.

If you want unicum: https://wows-numbers.com/player/526953200,El2aZeR/

 

17 hours 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.

I see total 58 games in T4 Langley (sealclubbing...) and 37 in Ryujo. You're not that savvy. 

 

17 hours ago, Figment said:

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.

No you don't perform better, you just think you do because you don't know the relevant stats. Want CV? You only played two. 

Your best CV is Ryujo and I outperformed you by 2% (solo). Also... 526 battles in Ark Royal has taught me how much teamplay there is to be expected.

BTW that's 99 battles in a 3-man-division with Ark Royal, WR almost 70%. Yes WR gets better when you work together. 

It shows the difference between teamwork and no-teamwork.

 

17 hours ago, Figment said:

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.

That is what you think and very well might be true if you have experience and play at T4.

yes you can kill the Cv at T4. Me and my divvy did that a few times, when he started the grind for Moskva last week.

We had to go from T1... so yes we went through T4. and killed some CVs. Because... they are also seals, and get clubbed.

 

But after the BS there is good as well:

17 hours ago, Figment said:

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.

The thing is, yes you CAN kill any ship, but would you want to? Nothing new.  

It was also pointed out that too much time wasted on a DD, means that DD did good for his team.

 

17 hours ago, Figment said:

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.

Difference is that if the CV is alive he'll spawn new planes. Dead DD doesn't spawn torps and don't cap and don't spot.

 

17 hours ago, Figment said:

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?

Yes it is a good thing to do (but should be rewarded more). However most players hate it, as they are the victim.

 

17 hours ago, Figment said:

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.

Well some can't do it. Then again... some can't even torp a parked BB from 5 km. 

[Capra76]

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

why do we need to have planes in a ship game?

 

This ^^^^^^^^^^

[AndyHill]

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Think we'll continue to disagree on this. The RTS element in team games is different from the FPS element.

RTS is literally a term used to describe a specific style of game (one where you control units from a top-down view in real-time) and since the first implementation of the carriers was taken away, there's none of that left in WoWS. Tactical elements are common for most game types and not exclusively for RTS.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

There's a place for solo ships (hit and run types), but support ships like AA cruisers should be rewarded for staying near other ships. Teams should be rewarded for working together, otherwise we should just do a one on one game where each ship is equal to another.

Ships should be equal to each other with diffrent advantages and disadvantages, that's basic good game design. The cruisers that have AA happen to often be good at killing DDs and controlling caps, which means they should push to the front, not hang back with other ships. Also hanging back with other ships is so pointless and simple that the role would be better filled with AI driven escort ships.

 

Teams are rewarded for working together. Thankfully working together in this game is much, MUCH more complicated and diverse a thing than "blob up". At least when carriers are not around messing things up. Looking for firing angles to create crossfires and mutual support with your teammates is a much better (and even in carrier games still more useful) way to do teamwork than huddling together and cowering in fear of one ship.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Similarly, if you know air might come after you, you should have taken that into account in your positioning. It's not like your mind resets after an earlier air strike either and you forget that a CV has your number.

This is exactly why I said earlier that the best way to avoid carriers' attention is to be as useless a target as possible. You can not predict when carriers are coming for you - that's one of the terrible design elements - so you can only assume that the carrier is coming for you anytime anywhere. And that breaks the game where a major gameplay element is trying to figure out what people are going to be doing during the next few moments. Planes - with basically no limitations to their movement - are an unknowable element and can't be accounted for effectively.

 

When people start playing this game, everything seems random to them. Torps appear out of nowhere and kill you. The devastating volleys coming out of nowhere hit your broadside and kill you instantly. Planes appear out of nowhere and bomb you to death. With experience and accumulating skill, slowly but surely things start to form patterns. People learn to anticipate torpedoes and follow red ships movements to keep their broadside safe. For a good, experienced game WoWS is a beautiful web of cause-effect relationships and fluid movement of fleets, where they anticipate everyone's moves and try to stay ahead of them. With the exception of planes that still appear out of nowhere and bomb you to death with nothing you can - or should - do. That's how and why they hurt the game so much.

 

Of course in reality you shouldn't play against the carrier, you should play against the 11 other ships, thus making you a prime target and vulnerable to the carrier. There's a reason why successful and experienced players, especially successful and experienced carrier players, keep telling others that they're a terrible design. It's not because they don't know how to make them hard targets for carriers, it's just that in most cases you shouldn't do that, because you make yourself less useful in total. And that's why carriers are so bad for the game. They punish you for playing properly. 

 

Also I noticed you still didn't comment on why there should be planes in a ship game in the first place. It would be much easier to continue the discussion if I understood your idea of what kind of a specific gameplay purpose you think planes should fulfill in the game.

[Figment]

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

RTS is literally a term used to describe a specific style of game (one where you control units from a top-down view in real-time) and since the first implementation of the carriers was taken away, there's none of that left in WoWS. Tactical elements are common for most game types and not exclusively for RTS.

Sir, I'm talking about the real time strategic elements in game balancing mechanics, not the game category.

 

Just because the units are individually player controlled doesn't mean it's not got RTS balancing and mechanics, where a FPS elements are based more around direct engagement elements.

 

 

You're talking again of individual ships. I'm talking about the team. A scout tank in WoT will not be an equal to a heavy tank. Ever. It's not its role to be an equal. It's not its role to go one on one. It's one cog in the team. Same for CVs, just in a different role and implementation (which again, needs work).

 

 

 

You speak of a lemming style blob, where I'm thinking of small groups of 3-4 ships who can spread out and form up as required. That's not a blob. Besides, if you don't assume you're targeted or potentially targeted if people spotted you before or should expect you to pop up somewhere, then you're not playing this game right, tbh. You can make an educated guess that you might get the drop on someone, but as long as I'm spotted, at any point in the game in the vicinity where I am at that point, then I will assume something is going to come after me and plan accordingly.

 

With aircraft you can derive a few things about the CV's thought process:

 

1. Current CV location and proximity (returning route, acting in (self-)defense or offense?)

2. Current CV priority target (type of aircraft used at that time, combined with some info from below)

3. CV priority region (initial movement from ship, proximity to ship location, in game time spend, status of objectives)

4. CV focus (recurring air movement from ship)
5. CV brains (who did they target so far and how efficient was the path they used, how many runs, planes left, angle of attack?)

6. CV fighter drops (are they defensively or offensively oriented, or balanced?)

7. Friendly ship positions, health and numbers (who would I target?)

8. Friendly types of ships remaining (killing scouts like DDs highest priority)

 

Combine the above and you've got a pretty good idea what your ranking is on the priority list and when you should act. Which allows you to take some calculated risks. So no, it's not entirely impossible to know when to prepare for air attacks... These attacks don't come out of the blue as you yourself have argued.

 

This has little to do with making yourself irrelevant to avoid getting fired on. Assume you'll be fired on, just take precautions when you can to ensure it's not going to matter much. And no, it's no guarantee of anything and it shouldn't be.

 

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

Also I noticed you still didn't comment on why there should be planes in a ship game in the first place. It would be much easier to continue the discussion if I understood your idea of what kind of a specific gameplay purpose you think planes should fulfill in the game.

I actually did comment on what role I think they should have, though it wasn't an extensive comment.

 

Primary roles should be local assistance where there's a shortage of it and fleet manipulation.

 

Thing is of course, they're jack of all trades. That means in normal game balancing that they shouldn't be great at anything. Problem is, they're good at most things.

 

- Fire support against BBs (deliver and thereby amplify local firepower against big ships to off-set more nimble ships lighter firepower. Be poor against small ships: wider torp spreads than ship torps, that threaten BBs more than cruisers/DDs, so if you get hit by a torp as cruiser or DD, it'll be one torp, not three. Rockets should cover a much wider area than a small circle (basically opposite of a dive bomb attack. Targeting is too accurate as is).

- AA support (around the ship while sailing in the fleet and with fighter escorts (assignable as in beta))

- Gain time for other ships to get somewhere (reset caps, but at half or third rate upon hit as a ship would)

- Spotting assistance, fleet direction towards the enemy (see earlier suggestion on map spotting - current spotting is too powerful and easy IMO)
- Herding (flush out campers, scatter/bring chaos to enemy formations through harassment attacks, force small groups of ships to cooperate, note that you thought of it as forming massive blobs. That would be an excessive form. Nothing should be powerful enough to promote lemming trains)

- Sub hunting (when they're added this should probably be a big role for CVs, particularly for dive and rocket bombers)

 

 

Did you take a look at the balancing proposals I made though? I mean, to me the current and previous CV gameplays weren't holy and will never be holy (too many flaws, too much unintended gameplay consequences).

[ca12nag3]

4 hours ago, AndyHill said:

If you can't see carrier stats sticking out, I suggest glasses. They are among the best in damage and kills, but their survival, spotting and cap defence are like from another game - which in fact they are - and only their caping and tanking are pretty bad (because they rarely move forward and almost never get shot at.

 

However, their OPness is not the main issue. The main issue is that in a game of ships there are planes that can crab all over the ships, playing with completely different rules (as in no limitations the ships need to work with), doing nothing but disrupting the actual gameplay for everyone else. That needs to stop.

 

And yes I do lurk other people's stats, which is why I rather don't give them the same opportunity myself. But since I already did so yesterday, I can open them up for a few hours right now if you really want to take a look.

Your stats are obvious. You play the obvious. As for people that moan and have high win rate. And looking at the AA heavy ships you do have you can see that either you were lucky and no CV was in the game, or the CV went widely around you. Yet your mid/lower AA ships do have higher AA kills. Seeing they get attacked frequently.

 

But then again you lurk in T5/6/8 with premiums mostly. your most battles on the Des and Udi have virtually no Air kills. And that is strikingly odd. 3.45 and 0.57 on average and they are heavy on AA. So it looks like you love yourself a noob stomp and "play it safe"  style.

 

 

[Alfa_Tau]

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

This is exactly why I said earlier that the best way to avoid carriers' attention is to be as useless a target as possible.

this is valid not only for CV. Assume a Cruiser has two targets in range, which one will he choose? the one who is (for example) trying to cap or denying a cap or the one sitting more far away and playing more passive? 

Compared to the "old" RTS now CV can control ONLY one group (and this is something that many players struggle to realize) and therefore can directly influence only a part of the map. As a consequence the CV player, like all others,   must make a choice (which do not necessarily is the best). 

someone will choose to stop an aggressive players, someone will go for easy damage, and someone else will just provide spotting all over the enemy fleet.

For me the biggest downsize of the actual system is the absence of confrontation between CV . Which in the old RTS was much more frequent. 

 

 

 

[ca12nag3]

2 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I'm not THAT good, but "only in certain conditions" is true. 

Let me make it clear though, I can kill off a Friesland (t9) with Ark Royal (t6 with T4 planes...), no problem. 

 

That is the question indeed. But the thing is indeed "at what cost"and "to achieve what"?

Ask yourself: If he is clustered... is he still a main target... or is he not? 

Sure I can hit him, but indeed at what cost. 

 

Say that Friesland, if he is in the middle of a bunch of others, what is his priority? 

He is no danger, he is not spotting, and he is not capping. he is no more important than the others around him.

So.. then he is just a meagre XP thingy with no importance. I'll go look for that fat BB elsewhere...

But if they stay clustered... I'll come back and throw in some torps from a bit of distance...

 

1. Isolated ships are indeed piñatas. But... why would I (want to) for example kill that AFK BB that is floating at enemy base...

2. You'll not lose a full squad on a DD unless he has friends. And if he has friends, he is not the problem. He might BECOME the problem.. but unlikely.

3. Wel... if the planes are spotted, AA will GO THROUGH MOUNTAIN. So, that is not exactly right. 

But, sometimes you can indeed get that ship easier. Remember that there is also the thing, where will your planes end up after the attack. 

 

These ARE the facts. And there are some people that think they are different. 

But - and you have realized very well that these things are conditions - a CV can indeed kill every ship.

Provided that... he wants/needs it, in the first place.

 

---

 

So? That's a general statistic, for all the ships played. Also... I usually play in weekend... and you have no idea how old I am...

 

If you want to talk CV, well then better use this site: https://wows-numbers.com/player/552033702,BLUB__BLUB/?type=solo and https://wows-numbers.com/player/500575344,Figment/?type=solo

It will show that my WR (after 42 games) in Ryujo is 64.29% and yours is 62.16%.... (37 games) in solo games. You have no division games at all. 

i'm no unicum, just kinda savvy and IMO "plenty good enough" as I usually do better (dmg/xp/position) than the red CV. But I'm no unicum, far from it.

If you want unicum: https://wows-numbers.com/player/526953200,El2aZeR/

 

I see total 58 games in T4 Langley (sealclubbing...) and 37 in Ryujo. You're not that savvy. 

 

No you don't perform better, you just think you do because you don't know the relevant stats. Want CV? You only played two. 

Your best CV is Ryujo and I outperformed you by 2% (solo). Also... 526 battles in Ark Royal has taught me how much teamplay there is to be expected.

BTW that's 99 battles in a 3-man-division with Ark Royal, WR almost 70%. Yes WR gets better when you work together. 

It shows the difference between teamwork and no-teamwork.

 

That is what you think and very well might be true if you have experience and play at T4.

yes you can kill the Cv at T4. Me and my divvy did that a few times, when he started the grind for Moskva last week.

We had to go from T1... so yes we went through T4. and killed some CVs. Because... they are also seals, and get clubbed.

 

But after the BS there is good as well:

The thing is, yes you CAN kill any ship, but would you want to? Nothing new.  

It was also pointed out that too much time wasted on a DD, means that DD did good for his team.

 

Difference is that if the CV is alive he'll spawn new planes. Dead DD doesn't spawn torps and don't cap and don't spot.

 

Yes it is a good thing to do (but should be rewarded more). However most players hate it, as they are the victim.

 

Well some can't do it. Then again... some can't even torp a parked BB from 5 km. 

You can kill a Friesland with a t6 CV? So you killed an utter noob or someone with barely any HP left and you then go here and say you can do it what? How many times?

I got lucky and detonated a Smolensk with my Shokaku once. Does that mean I can do it all the time?

What are you saying?

I tell you cause I play Friesland a lot that its detectable range is 2.3km by air, turned off AA you will not see him until that range. 2.3 km is to close to aim in with any flight unless he is sailing away and you are exactly at the right angle. Meaning that when you get within 2.3 km he turns on his AA and focusses you on the flank you are approaching. And bye-bye aeroplanes. 

 

[ca12nag3]

1 minute ago, Alfa_Tau said:

this is valid not only for CV. Assume a Cruiser has two targets in range, which one will he choose? the one who is (for example) trying to cap or denying a cap or the one sitting more far away and playing more passive? 

Compared to the "old" RTS now CV can control ONLY one group (and this is something that many players struggle to realize) and therefore can directly influence only a part of the map. As a consequence the CV player, like all others,   must make a choice (which do not necessarily is the best). 

someone will choose to stop an aggressive players, someone will go for easy damage, and someone else will just provide spotting all over the enemy fleet.

For me the biggest downsize of the actual system is the absence of confrontation between CV . Which in the old RTS was much more frequent. 

 

 

 

It is also funny that when you are on one side of the map with both your CV and planes, and this guy starts swearing at you for AA cover. Meaning I would have to fly across the map over Minos and Des Ms to get there in 1 straight line, taking me about ...30/45 seconds. By then the enemy CV has already unleashed his attack and goes F back to the carrier. I get there and do what? Drop 1 flight of fighters, providing the idiot is not too close to enemy ships that just mow them out of the sky. And they last for only 60 seconds.

And he wants me to repeat this, when I can do it 9 times total. Just for him...

Then at the end of the game the dude calls me all kinds of names himself and the likeminded all kudo me down. Due to their own incompetence. 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

3 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

It is also funny that when you are on one side of the map with both your CV and planes, and this guy starts swearing at you for AA cover. Meaning I would have to fly across the map over Minos and Des Ms to get there in 1 straight line, taking me about ...30/45 seconds. By then the enemy CV has already unleashed his attack and goes F back to the carrier. I get there and do what? Drop 1 flight of fighters, providing the idiot is not too close to enemy ships that just mow them out of the sky. And they last for only 60 seconds.

And he wants me to repeat this, when I can do it 9 times total. Just for him...

Then at the end of the game the dude calls me all kinds of names himself and the likeminded all kudo me down. Due to their own incompetence. 

I will tell you a secret and this is not a troll post and it works 100% of the time. 

 

After one requests AA support just use the quick command for Wilco! 

And if he asks again type in chat "On my way" but never actually go there.

He won't even notice. 

[AndyHill]

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Sir, I'm talking about the real time strategic elements in game balancing mechanics, not the game category.

 

Just because the units are individually player controlled doesn't mean it's not got RTS balancing and mechanics, where a FPS elements are based more around direct engagement elements.

There are no specific RTS and FPS game design elements, just generic game design elements applied to different game types. Also, RTS specific elements would by necessity be focused on real-time interfaces, since the other design stuff in them is inherited from an older game type, turn based strategies. Most importantly I'm not really sure I understand what it is you wish to achieve with this classification.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

You're talking again of individual ships. I'm talking about the team. A scout tank in WoT will not be an equal to a heavy tank. Ever. It's not its role to be an equal. It's not its role to go one on one. It's one cog in the team. Same for CVs, just in a different role and implementation (which again, needs work).

No, I'm talking about individual ships as part of a team. That's what WoWS pretty much is. Also, a scout tank is supposed to be equal to a heavy, just with different strengths and weaknesses.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

You speak of a lemming style blob, where I'm thinking of small groups of 3-4 ships who can spread out and form up as required.

And when they spread out, even the rather minimal AA support they could give each other no longer works.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

That's not a blob. Besides, if you don't assume you're targeted or potentially targeted if people spotted you before or should expect you to pop up somewhere, then you're not playing this game right, tbh. You can make an educated guess that you might get the drop on someone, but as long as I'm spotted, at any point in the game in the vicinity where I am at that point, then I will assume something is going to come after me and plan accordingly.

I don't quite understand what you are going for, but as far as spotting goes, if you want to achieve a surprise of course you can't get spotted. And carriers naturally pretty much destroy any such attempts by just existing.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Combine the above and you've got a pretty good idea what your ranking is on the priority list and when you should act. Which allows you to take some calculated risks. So no, it's not entirely impossible to know when to prepare for air attacks... These attacks don't come out of the blue as you yourself have argued.

They do, but more importantly the best way of making you the number one target is to play aggressively and go into useful locations. Any decent carrier will prioritize based on that. Also due to the massive speed difference between ships and planes, any real maneuvers necessary to mitigate damage from carriers take so much time that to be able to react effectively and in time, you need to be far away from any surface threats. The thing is, the actions you need to take to mitigate carrier damage also make you less effective in total.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

I actually did comment on what role I think they should have, though it wasn't an extensive comment.

 

Primary roles should be local assistance where there's a shortage of it and fleet manipulation.

Ok, this is a bit vague still, but I guess it's progress. Can you elaborate a bit further on how these things can't be done by ships (I kind of think they can if I've understood correctly) and why they are important gameplay elements.

[AndyHill]

28 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

Your stats are obvious. You play the obvious. As for people that moan and have high win rate. And looking at the AA heavy ships you do have you can see that either you were lucky and no CV was in the game, or the CV went widely around you. Yet your mid/lower AA ships do have higher AA kills. Seeing they get attacked frequently.

 

But then again you lurk in T5/6/8 with premiums mostly. your most battles on the Des and Udi have virtually no Air kills. And that is strikingly odd. 3.45 and 0.57 on average and they are heavy on AA. So it looks like you love yourself a noob stomp and "play it safe"  style.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but I'm thinking I see a pattern with your statistics reading. Anyway, whatever style I'm playing seems to be producing infinitely better results than whatever you do currently, so if you want pointers just ask.

[AndyHill]

16 minutes ago, Alfa_Tau said:

this is valid not only for CV.

(Target selection based on usefulness)

The massive difference here is that to be useful for the team, ships need to take risks, which usually means going forward where the action is. To have an effect on red ships that are way forward, green ships also need to go forward and take risks. This results in regular gameplay of WoWS and whoever is better at it wins the game.

 

Planes, on the other hand don't need to take risks. They just pick the target they want and strike. They have an absolutely unparallelled ability to project power wherever and whenever it is most required with nothing the opponent can do - except not be in a useful location.

[BLUB__BLUB]

11 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

You can kill a Friesland with a t6 CV? So you killed an utter noob or someone with barely any HP left and you then go here and say you can do it what? How many times?

So far, well three. one from full HP (torps - and yes he was stupid), one half-HP (he was smart... but not enough) and one "kill secured". 

And it doesn't matter if they were noob or not - you said it wasn't possible. I also damaged many more. 

BTW I'm only one or maybe two levels above noob myself... so... 

 

11 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

I got lucky and detonated a Smolensk with my Shokaku once. Does that mean I can do it all the time?

Well Shokaku (or Hakuryu) AP-bombs vs Smolensk... if you pay enough sheep to RNGesus you might get lucky.

Not that you can't hit Smoll, but well, AP bombs and that thing don't seem to work together.

I usually use torps. Much better. T8 (or T10) torps vs Smolly is good. Kaga likes Smolly. 

 

11 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

What are you saying?

I tell you cause I play Friesland a lot that its detectable range is 2.3km by air, turned off AA you will not see him until that range. 2.3 km is to close to aim in with any flight unless he is sailing away and you are exactly at the right angle. Meaning that when you get within 2.3 km he turns on his AA and focusses you on the flank you are approaching. And bye-bye aeroplanes. 

Yes that tactic works. BTW 2-2.5km is the range most DDs get spotted with AA off. 

The reason I only got 3 so far is because usually I don't go hunt them, other ships are better equipped to do so.

 

Usually though I know sort of where he is. If I fly there I'm already on the attack, all I have to do is click once. 

Also the smart thing to do is wait until he is spotted, and then plan an attack. 

The smartest way though is to spot HIM, and use F3, let the team spam him to death.

Do not spill precious planes on a scrawny DD that might bite. One set of fighters is usually enough... 

[AndyHill]

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Another thing I've noticed is that CVs don't get punished for fires and flooding as much anymore as they used to in the old setup, I don't think that's a boon to the game. Flooding should slow them down, fire should make them more visible, deal damage to aircraft on deck and if the fire is at the front end of the deck, stop take-offs.

I forgot to reply to this earlier even though I meant to, so here goes. 

 

The reasoning for making carriers immune to DoTs is to reduce carrier sniping. Carriers are the masters of stacking DoTs and if they were vulnerable to it, they could and would fight each other more, leading to situations where one side has a massively influential ship and the other doesn't. A lot like in the RTS days. This is basically what WG themselves had to say about the subject during the rework.

[ca12nag3]

16 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but I'm thinking I see a pattern with your statistics reading. Anyway, whatever style I'm playing seems to be producing infinitely better results than whatever you do currently, so if you want pointers just ask.

 

Well there is a difference in how I read stats but also how I play and what I expect.

 

First off, I play for fun and team play. Second I care nothing for win rate or dmg dealt or any of that. 

 

Meaning that while you complain about something that you feel is overpowered, it is because you want what? 100% win rate? In BBs? Because you play a lot of lower tier premium junk. Fully decked out against noobs. Not challenging.

[AndyHill]

7 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

First off, I play for fun and team play. Second I care nothing for win rate or dmg dealt or any of that. 

Funnily enough, so do I. Note that I was happy to have my stats hidden, it was you who brought them up. A good tip for fun and teamplay: winning is fun and your temamates like it a lot when you carry them to victory.

11 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

Meaning that while you complain about something that you feel is overpowered, it is because you want what? 100% win rate?

It is because I want to have a balanced, enjoyable game. And once again, carriers being overpowered is just icing on the cake. The real problem is their ability to ruin the games by being able to dump all over everyone without counterplay and the way they spot everything, ruining any attempts at concealment plays.