General CV related discussions.

[Excavatus]

1 hour ago, POIfection said:

I was in my Indianapolis the other day (short and unenjoyable affair) and a Shokaku literally one shot-ed me with AP bombs. I had 0 chance of detonation as was carrying magazine flag. It was noted as a Dev Strike.

 

10/10 for realism. 

0/10 for enjoyability.

 

Poi

 

shokaku cannot oneshot an indi from full hp. 
It is imposibble with the current mechanics. 

 

Shokaku AP damage, 

 

3 bombs per drop, 

3 citas make 22.8K damage.. 

 

Indi HP 

 

 

2 minutes ago, VenividiviciNL said:

Fair enough your explanation, but still...... The toxicity/salt is pretty high, even to my opinion yours as you are defending yourselves, like some other people. It is getting too personal, despite the good intentions of EVERYONE.

 

To my opinion we are getting into the same dark environment as in World of Tanks (no wonder that general chat was closed for that matter), but we all want to play a fair game with CV's and Subs if they are BALANCED.

 

At the moment they are not and people like me get angry and frustated as it depends on skills, map awareness and tactics. And that is with these 2 classes currently NOT the case.

 

I do not mind when a company is making money on me, but they are not listening to the input of their playerbase. It is all about spreadsheets, but you know what: spreadsheets can be manipulated.......

 

Sorry to bother you again on this topic, but I am loosing faith of the good intentions of WeeGee, like many more people in WoWs if you look at their criticism on several issues.

I'm not gonna in again CV discussions :) 

I've explained why we have this topic.. and why we need it..

 

basically, 

people like to talk about CVs, 

They usually talk about same things over and over again, 

So we need to keep the forum clean.. 

 

Things you've mentioned are a subject of a different discussion 

 

[Bortasqu]

Post taken from "Saturation to CV's":

 

There is no counterplay to CV's at the moment. Even if you have defensive AA active the CV can still kill you with little losses.

People think CV counterplay is fine becouse they faced a glue eater CV player that didn't push 1 button when they striked and lost all of their planes.

 

I got striked today by a Midway in my absolutely full AA build Des Moines, I had sector on full green and my defensive AA active.

 

I shot down 1 plane. Even a monkey should understand something is wrong.

[Figment]

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

I have to admit that I missed the whole point of the post, since besides misunderstanding the basic definition of what rules are, I'm almost certain that you understood pretty well what I meant. Just as a reminder, here's a typical definition for what rules are: "an accepted principle or instruction that states the way things are or should be done, and tells you what you are allowed or are not allowed to do" or "Rules may be defined as statements and directions that must be followed within a given game in order for it to be played correctly. They are often fixed as "rulesets," created by the game designer and agreed upon by the players. The interactions between rules create the formal system underlying any given game."

 

And yes, rules for the shotgunner and sniper are exactly same, for ships and planes they are not (notably movement and respawning are very different). And the bad thing is that since planes completely defy the limitations to movement and they can strike pretty much with impunity, they are a badly disruptive element in the game.

That's not true.

 

Sniper rules are "you can fire over this distance". Shotgun rules are "You can not fire over this distance", that's down to their bloom and range parameters, as well as damage per projectile and number of projectiles. A shotgun user therefore has to travel to an object, whereas a sniper is suggested to stay away from an object. They both follow ballistic rules, but these rules are defined differently due to the specifications of the delivery method being different. You just argue they're the same because they both are point and click. Sniper and shotgun users may move similarly in that they can jump, move back and forward and to the side, but that's where their similarities end. They interact very differently and do things the other cannot do because of the tools at their disposal (your parameters). You simply cannot do certain things and therefore the rules you're bound to are different from those for others.

 

If one has a grenade and the other does not, this also means they follow different rules (grenade = timed weapon or upon hitting a surface, AoE, bouncing). The tool is a lot different and makes for indirect gameplay. Yet it's available in pretty much every FPS. You arbitrarily ruled out mortars or grenades, mostly because you personally don't like them as they can do things other units without access to those cannot do.

 

You're not talking about game rules that are the same for everyone (which would be things like hp, module damage, fires, flooding, etc), you're talking about rules of engagement for specific units: units capabilities. Those can be defined far more freely without breaking your rules. CVs follow the exact same rules as I pointed out earlier and in a way their ammunition does as well:

They deal hp and module damage by hitting you with a projectile. End.

 

The difference is that their ammunition is smart and can be destroyed.

 

 

But yes, I know what you actually wanted to set as a rule, but you didn't do. What you actually wanted to define as a rule is that the fired projectile is not allowed to be a smart projectile that can change course from the moment it left its point of origin and has to follow either a ballastic line (shell) or straight line (torpedo), where you define the point of origin as a fixed position on a ship sailing at sea level. Whether the projectile is piercing or has an area of effect is of less interest to you as what you really want is to define limited attack vectors and angles.

 

But you didn't actually establish this as a rule (nor why this should be a rule) and therefore CVs follow all your rules. You failed to grasp your own definitions and their limitations. Worse, you failed to grasp that game design is about more than just changing some parameters. Parameters on their own don't define capabilities. It's the interaction between capabilities and environment that sets the capabilities of a unit in a given circumstance. In game the rules therefore continuously change, because the circumstances in which you operate change and therefore your capabilities and effectiveness as a unit.

 

Mechanisms are not rules. Parameters are not rules. Their combination define your capabilities and as long as something isn't deemed illegal, it's all fair game. CV's don't break any in-game rules as the rules were made for them by attributing them with predefined capabilities, handing them an environment and calling it a day without balancing it out proper by off-setting those capabilities with incapabilities.

 

 

 

Which is actually where we agree and hence why we should be focusing on what the incapabilities should be in order to be constructive. Complete removal of aircraft based units is not an option, hence we're passed that argument. Whether you like it or not.

 

 

The reason I refered to the chess rules is because the rules of the game determine the means the player has to achieve the goals set by the game. In our case it's the rules for the team as an entirety. You look at rules from a separate unit perspective, not a team perspective. From a team perspective it's fine to be left with the CV last and have it win the match by utilising its capabilities, regardless of how they're defined or what those are. The Queen in chess is OP as hell compared to pawns, but it doesn't matter because both sides have the same capabilities within the team. This is also true in WoWs and WoT. Lose the Queen without taking the opponent's queen and you'll be disadvantaged and will tend to lose the game. In itself the presence of a queen therefore doesn't matter, it's how you use it that matters.

 

What you're talking about though, is that each separate unit should be able to have an equal amount of influence on the outcome of the match. You want all to be as important as the queen. You however neglect that the rules are defined by setting winning conditions and susequently describe what each INDIVIDUAL unit can do. Nowhere does it say the capabilities of each individual unit should be equal or even similar. Rules state how you're allowed to use each individual unit where special rules can apply to specific units. Hence as the CV is part of the team and the other team has one as well, it doesn't matter what it can do with respect to other units, everything it can do are the rules set for that unit within the team from a rules point of view.

 

What you want though, is that the rules for each unit are designed such that direct engagement is nearly always possible and equal (save for range for some reason which you tried to get out of by saying it's just a parameter, rather than a key unit rule). Range determines what a unit can and cannot do. It's a rule for that unit, period. Assymetry in rules by assigning different 'parameters' and methods to work with (which goes back to gladiatoral combat) aren't recognised as different rules by you. But that's mostly because you're convenient in what you define as rules.

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Well there's also the part where people (and me) have tried for years to come up with something workable. Limitations and such will probably make the problem less bad, but why have a problem in the first place when it's so easy to just remove it? This is why it's so important to understand why we need to have planes in a ship game to begin with.

 

Let's try it this way; when you are in a carrier-free game, what do you think is missing? What do you think is worse than in a carrier game?

I was referring to the abilities of real aircraft carriers here, not the game implementation. Anyway, it's not very important since historical/reality arguments are not very interesting to begin with.

 

You keep pointing at it always being a problem, but why would it have to be definede as a problem if it is properly designed? You havn't given a reason for why it can't be properly designed and thus not a problem. All you've done is state that you've been unable to find a proper solution. People didn't invent propelled flight till the early 20th century (not counting balloons). So if you said in the 16th century "I havn't been able to figure it out, so it's not possible", how much credence should I give that statement?

 

Besides, it's only defined as a problem because you basically want to define a problem as any engagement that's not directly coming from the direction of the opposite ship. In that sense there won't be a solution to your problem, no, but that doesn't mean everyone else defines this as a problem at all. It's just one element and one that can be mitigated even today to a large degree by positioning wrt environment and allies and with a proper limitation on the use of aircraft this would be even more predictable, weaker, less omnipresent and thus fastly easier to deal with.

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Let's try it this way; when you are in a carrier-free game, what do you think is missing? What do you think is worse than in a carrier game?

Depends on the matchmaking. I don't mind some battles where certain classes have an advantage, but every match the same advantages would lead to what you see in CW with everyone using the same setups. It gets boring. I don't mind battles without CVs, but it immediately means that once you're outgunned on a side, there's no help coming, because no surface ship can travel that fast. It also means that when you're in a disadvantaged position as either teammates have died suddenly (multi-capital hit from unseen enemy, or magazine explosion for instance) and you're left alone to defend priority targets, you can't expect any help to off-set the advantages of the enemy players. A CV can mitigate this to some degree, most other ships cannot. Do we want a situation where games end really fast because of the mistakes of one or two players, while those that are doing their job get punished for the mistakes or bad luck of some of their allies?

 

Without CV's, it also means good players have to work with lacking intel, or no intel at all in many circumstances. If the other side does still have intel, this is an uneven match that's going to be very one sided. CVs being present throughout most the match ensure that everyone has at least some intel to work with (and of course this depends on the implementation) and therefore can perform better by utilising that intel optimally. WIthout you're basically reducing strategic play to play around opportunistic situation and reactions to surprises and in some cases to slaughter. Just look at what happens if one side loses DDs quickly. The match is over very fast due to removing intel from the BBs who can't even see what they're fighting anymore and therefore cannot fight back without exposing themselves to even greater threats like when a single BB has to try and spot instead. That isn't a measure of skill anymore, it's slaughter and these games end very quickly and it punishes good players a lot. Which I'll remind you, is something you say you dislike.


Now, the counter argument I expect is that if this is the situation that the enemy team earned it then. Did it? Or was it handed a win because of the rules set for each ship by their individual special capabilities (including spotting and range parameters) and limitations and can they exploit it to victory? How's that any different from a CV exploiting its special abilities if the final situation favours it? I'm guessing because it is naturally inclined to already be in a favourable position, because it isn't forced to stay close to the action. This is an issue that can actually be solved with range limitations for aircraft (CV would have to be closer to the action thus in bigger danger of being DD attacked or bombarded) and visibility of the unit.

 

 

What I also miss in many matches is cruiser escorts doing what they're supposed to be doing: screening vulnerable targets. These units would have to be rebalanced to become equals to offensive cruisers. And then you just have offensive cruisers left and less variety of gameplay. When there's a CV in play, you'll see cruisers stick closer together and more intuitive teamwork out of mutual interest.

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

I was referring to the abilities of real aircraft carriers here, not the game implementation. Anyway, it's not very important since historical/reality arguments are not very interesting to begin with.

I think we can leave this part of the discussion here. Real has little to do with in game. If aircraft would be limited to 15km fuel range to create balance, why not? It's a game.

 

 

Not sure if you ever played Advance Wars style turn-based strategy games? I presume you've played C&C type games. Note that what we're doing here is ensure that each type of unit can be fought off. Hence a bigger role IMO for AA cruisers.

[POIfection]

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

shokaku cannot oneshot an indi from full hp. 
It is imposibble with the current mechanics. 

 

Shokaku AP damage, 

 

3 bombs per drop, 

3 citas make 22.8K damage.. 

 

Indi HP 

 

 

I'm not gonna in again CV discussions :) 

I've explained why we have this topic.. and why we need it..

 

basically, 

people like to talk about CVs, 

They usually talk about same things over and over again, 

So we need to keep the forum clean.. 

 

Things you've mentioned are a subject of a different discussion 

 

Maybe a shell hit me at the same time .. defo had full health when he dropped and was not showing any decent angle to anything.

[CptBarney]

58 minutes ago, POIfection said:

Maybe a shell hit me at the same time .. defo had full health when he dropped and was not showing any decent angle to anything.

Could of hit you and then all 3 bombs connected and citadelled you making it look like it was a one-shot. did anyone actually shoot you? because you can get bugs were even if object A cant do X amount of damage that doesnt mean the game engine won't give a middle finger and go above that value whatsoever.

 

Plus with de-sync this doesn't help.

[Andrewbassg]

I just participated in a survey about AA. It seems that maybe, just maybe WG will start to listen.

[AndyHill]

45 minutes ago, Figment said:

Mechanisms are not rules. Parameters are not rules. Their combination define your capabilities and as long as something isn't deemed illegal, it's all fair game. CV's don't break any in-game rules as the rules were made for them by attributing them with predefined capabilities, handing them an environment and calling it a day without balancing it out proper by off-setting those capabilities with incapabilities.

I honestly don't understand your point anymore, you want to go to enormous lengths to talka about semantics and fudge things. I posted the definitions of rules that are somewhat generally accepted, I'm not making this crap up. I am going to make this very simple. The only important thing about the whole thing was Planes do not follow the same movement and respawning rules imposed on ships (ships can only move on water and only have one life), which makes them very disruptive to the game as a whole. You keep telling me about game design when everything you say implies near total lack of understanding of the basic terms and since that's not even interesting I will simply skip everything about snipers and grenades from now on. You don't have to trust me on common definitions for rules either, you can just google them if you wish to. 

53 minutes ago, Figment said:

Parameters are not rules.

Ok I lied, I can't stop myself. Is the range of the sniper's and shotgunner's weapon a rule or a parameter?

58 minutes ago, Figment said:

You keep pointing at it always being a problem, but why would it have to be definede as a problem if it is properly designed? You havn't given a reason for why it can't be properly designed and thus not a problem. All you've done is state that you've been unable to find a proper solution. People didn't invent propelled flight till the early 20th century (not counting balloons). So if you said in the 16th century "I havn't been able to figure it out, so it's not possible", how much credence should I give that statement?

 

Besides, it's only defined as a problem because you basically want to define a problem as any engagement that's not directly coming from the direction of the opposite ship. In that sense there won't be a solution to your problem, no, but that doesn't mean everyone else defines this as a problem at all. It's just one element and one that can be mitigated even today to a large degree by positioning wrt environment and allies and with a proper limitation on the use of aircraft this would be even more predictable, weaker, less omnipresent and thus fastly easier to deal with.

I said it has always been a problem, because since the start of the game it has been a problem to have a unit that can fly anywhere, attack anyone anytime without any of the limitations applied to other players. Not because people in the 16th century didn't have powered flight. I'm also stating that that is a dangerous design element and categorically bad, unless proven otherwise on a case-by-case basis. You don't have to rely on just me, though, WG themselves spent sizable resources and undoubtedly money because they thought carriers were a problem for the game. Also whether or not something is fixample is completely irrelevant to it being a problem or not. Your mitigation was already basically refuted. It works badly and in most cases you'r ebetter off not even trying to play against one ship, but the whole team.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

CVs being present throughout most the match ensure that everyone has at least some intel to work with (and of course this depends on the implementation) and therefore can perform better by utilising that intel optimally.

I picked this out separately just to clarify something; didn't you state at some point that carriers should be more vulnerable to fires and floods (or more vulnerable in total) or was it someone else? Because that would directly imply significant increase in situations where one team has a carrier and the other does not.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

I don't mind some battles where certain classes have an advantage, but every match the same advantages would lead to what you see in CW with everyone using the same setups.

CWs currently have extremely limited lineups, because carrier spotting turns organized, teamplay-heavy environments into one-dimensional shoot'em ups, where only long range performance (and the ability to duck into smoke at a moment's notice) matters and everything else does not. There were favorite ships and best lineups, but they were more diverse before carriers were allowed.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Now, the counter argument I expect is that if this is the situation that the enemy team earned it then. Did it? Or was it handed a win because of the rules set for each ship by their individual special capabilities (including spotting and range parameters) and limitations and can they exploit it to victory? How's that any different from a CV exploiting its special abilities if the final situation favours it?

The bolded part can be translated as "playing the game". Yes, by the very definition if you are better at playing the game, you deserve to win. The difference is that every other ship has to take significant risks and play better than their opposing numbers. Carriers just pick a target and murder it. Or more importantly, spot everything everywhere any time, making the bolded part thing less interesting and diverse for everyone else.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Not sure if you ever played Advance Wars style turn-based strategy games? I presume you've played C&C type games. Note that what we're doing here is ensure that each type of unit can be fought off. Hence a bigger role IMO for AA cruisers.

Advance wars no, RTS games yes, a bit, but I'm more into the million hours for a move -turn based stuff.

 

To be continued, I separated one point to a different post, because I think it's the actually interesting one. I won't mind if you ignore everything in this one.

[AndyHill]

4 hours ago, Figment said:

Without CV's, it also means good players have to work with lacking intel, or no intel at all in many circumstances. If the other side does still have intel, this is an uneven match that's going to be very one sided. CVs being present throughout most the match ensure that everyone has at least some intel to work with (and of course this depends on the implementation) and therefore can perform better by utilising that intel optimally. WIthout you're basically reducing strategic play to play around opportunistic situation and reactions to surprises and in some cases to slaughter.

This is where I can directly tell that you are either inexperienced or not very good at the game. The situations with limited intel are precisely where this game separates hawks and pigeons, they are the core of the game. The ability to read the game, figure out what's going to happen next by utilizing whatever info is available and by getting inside the opponents' heads and taking calculated risks accordingly. An average or bad player gets scared and overwhelmed in a situation like that, whereas a unicorn just gets that greedy grin on his face and it's go-time. That is the very core of the game - there is almost zero micro, no 360-no-scope headshots, this game is all about outplaying your opponents by positioning and making plays. Basically what I read above is that when going gets tough, you feel like a passenger reacting to things and you want to use a carrier as a crutch so that nobody else gets to be in the driver's seat, either. I don't know why you bring up a completely one sided example, but it's actually no different. Good players will still be better in adverse situations.

 

And don't take that as an insult, English isn't my native language either and I don't think I got the tone I wanted. I'm actually pretty happy, because I think at least after all of these posts we have actually have reached an understanding on where our opinions actually differ. I want there to be fairly minimal amounts of information available and I want players to have to earn that, because limited information situations and the ability make plays utilizing the enemy's lack of information is where WoWS happens. It would be interesting to find out if other experienced players or even unicorns feel the same way or if it's just me.

 

You seem to want plentiful and constant information (without having to work very hard for it) so that there are few possibilities for nasty surprises. And that's understandable if you don't feel enough in control in difficult situations. I'm thinking you might come to see my point of view better when you get more experience.

 

Anyway, without going into who is actually right or wrong, can you at least see now why I think carriers are so bad for the game, purely from my perspective?

[redraven]

4 hours ago, AndyHill said:

This is where I can directly tell that you are either inexperienced or not very good at the game. The situations with limited intel are precisely where this game separates hawks and pigeons, they are the core of the game. The ability to read the game, figure out what's going to happen next by utilizing whatever info is available and by getting inside the opponents' heads and taking calculated risks accordingly. An average or bad player gets scared and overwhelmed in a situation like that, whereas a unicorn just gets that greedy grin on his face and it's go-time. That is the very core of the game - there is almost zero micro, no 360-no-scope headshots, this game is all about outplaying your opponents by positioning and making plays. Basically what I read above is that when going gets tough, you feel like a passenger reacting to things and you want to use a carrier as a crutch so that nobody else gets to be in the driver's seat, either. I don't know why you bring up a completely one sided example, but it's actually no different. Good players will still be better in adverse situations.

 

And don't take that as an insult, English isn't my native language either and I don't think I got the tone I wanted. I'm actually pretty happy, because I think at least after all of these posts we have actually have reached an understanding on where our opinions actually differ. I want there to be fairly minimal amounts of information available and I want players to have to earn that, because limited information situations and the ability make plays utilizing the enemy's lack of information is where WoWS happens. It would be interesting to find out if other experienced players or even unicorns feel the same way or if it's just me.

 

You seem to want plentiful and constant information (without having to work very hard for it) so that there are few possibilities for nasty surprises. And that's understandable if you don't feel enough in control in difficult situations. I'm thinking you might come to see my point of view better when you get more experience.

 

Anyway, without going into who is actually right or wrong, can you at least see now why I think carriers are so bad for the game, purely from my perspective?

Wg do you see this crap?
Hire this guy as a developer! I demand it! He actually knows what he is talking about.

[Datz68]

Hi all,

It is more than one year from CV rework? Is it done? Should I start play CVs?

Trolling question: is Shinomone with his two machine guns balanced against CVs already?

[RepSrb]

39 minutes ago, Admirality said:

Hi all,

It is more than one year from CV rework? Is it done? Should I start play CVs?

Trolling question: is Shinomone with his two machine guns balanced against CVs already?

dd spoting range could be further reduced to 1.5km ,making them untargetable unless spotted by something else.

look, keep continus damage automatic but let flak be manual control.

[Miragetank90]

10 hours ago, CptBarney said:

 

Has anyone faced the new cv's yet? and if so what do you think of them so far?

 

The tier 8(Parsefal?) was attacking me in Lenin with torpedoes, but they were so slow, I really didn't have to do much to dodge. I think I ate 1 torp, out of 3 drops total that game, with 3 torps each. I was in the open manoeuvring and varying speeds. 

[Bonelesmos]

DD,s are unplayable when a CV is in game , especialy french and european DD's....   best to leave batlle and get as fast as you can to port

Spotting range should be reduced , AA increased , and while were at it , make plane damage affect CV damage ...   1 plane 1000 HP...?

 

 

[Andrewbassg]

 

 

Apparently I wasn't alone. This is from reddit.

 

 

[Hawker_gb]

Yesterday very good player in Graf Zeppelin attacks my Musashi whole game.

It was funny to see after his torpedo strike my health bar barely drops.

I didnt bother to evade torps at all because other ships pose so much risk more then pathetic GZ.

 

Ah yes,he broke my rudder once.

[redraven]

1 hour ago, Hawker_gb said:

Yesterday very good player in Graf Zeppelin attacks my Musashi whole game.

It was funny to see after his torpedo strike my health bar barely drops.

I didnt bother to evade torps at all because other ships pose so much risk more then pathetic GZ.

 

Ah yes,he broke my rudder once.

Bear in my that yamato/ mushashi have the best torp protection in th game with a whopping 56%.
If he is attacking you with torps he was really not doing a good job, or was out of options and you posed the least problem for his planes.

[Nov_A]

22 hours ago, CptBarney said:

 

---

Has anyone faced the new cv's yet? and if so what do you think of them so far?

 

Met a forum moderator with his test Weser.

[Figment]

On 5/15/2020 at 6:15 PM, AndyHill said:

Ok I lied, I can't stop myself. Is the range of the sniper's and shotgunner's weapon a rule or a parameter?

 

Is the movement options a chess piece is assigned a rule of chess "or a set of parameters that apply to that unit"?

 

It's both.

 

Parameters are part of the rules set for an individual unit.

 

Each unit follows its own set of rules.

 

Units cannot act outside those norms.

 

Look at football games: 11 units on the field per side, but only one has special abilities that forego the "no arms and hands" rule that applies to all other players. Would the game be better without goal keepers? By your definition, goalkeepers are unfair, because they stop normal units from scoring by doing things that other units can't do to stop them. How was it balanced? Well, those special rules are strictly limited to a rectangular area. In fact, even more specific rules and abilities (defensive) are set for the even smaller rectangle that only apply to that one unit.

 

Not all units have to follow the same rules to be in the same game and add to it.

 

The parameters set for CVs mean they can fly their aircraft over hills (like shells can go over hills). In that sense, the shell trajectories turn rate parameter is set to 0. So in your view, planes only have a different parameter setting. Oh wait, you said they follow different rules. No, they don't, they just have a different setting giving them a specific ability that others might or might not have. In this case, it's an unique ability that provides a high range of flexibility. And yes it comes at a potential cost. And as said before, a cost can be set too cheap, or too expensive. That's what balancing is.

"It's only a different parameter" is not understanding what a parameter does to a unit: it provides it abilities, rules, particularly in conjunction with other parameters and abilities.

 

 

 

What they need to do is perform a trade-off that makes combat between these units fair and balanced. That allows a skilled player to get close enough to optimize their own strengths against this unit.

 

 

Provided that's the intention anyway, obviously this would not be the case for an endboss. Usualy, though not always, it's the target for a player controlled unit. In this case it's clearly possible to take out the player quite swiftly under specific circumstances in which the CV can barely fight back. Currently they can avoid conflict too easily, but for the most part, that is down to detection range and distancing ability (striking range). The optional attack vectors are important, but not thát important for balancing.

 

Again, the circumstances in which you can engage a CV are set too narrow in comparison to the abilities to strike for a CV. Again, that's why there's need for balancing (IMO easier to spot and forcedly closer to the front to get into a more dangerous area by reducing the distance aircraft can travel, immediately stimulating protective and offensive plays). Once CVs are closer to danger and attacks probably have a slightly higher failrate (particularly against units currently lacking AA power to deplete aircraft hp pools), most your issues with CV balancing are gone. Regardless of the attack vectors those aircraft might have. Attack vectors is one of the few advantages it would still have and having an advantage is fine, just as long as there aren't too many and one or three rounds of engagement don't end the battle between full health opponents.

 

Hence why I don't think it's useful to keep pointing at current and previous design to argument your case that it's not possible. All you can point out with that is where it's currently flawed and what the current unit parameters work in conjunction with and are up against currently to establish what it can and can't do in the current game environment. And we've established those issues ages ago. So unless there's something new to add, it's pointless to keep talking about them. If you were going to say "in conjunction with this and this new parameter, it's not going to work if RNG is set to Y (or some such)" then we''ve got a discussion worth having. Otherwise, it's just looking for an excuse to stop looking for an answer.

 

And yes, null vectors are often an answer in algebra, but that doesn't mean it's got to be the only one.

I've given you plenty reasons for having CVs to warrant their presence. Whether you agree with them or not in terms of "enough reason" is pure subjectivity. I mean, your argument of would we miss it is easy to turn around: would we really miss battleships as a class in a game? No. We would not. Tier II matches show that it can still be fun and challenging, even makes it easier for new players. Some ships can't even deal decent damage to BBs period while being able to lose high percentages of hp in a single salvo to the same BB. Does that mean that BBs should be removed? No. Does the same apply to DDs and cruisers? Could we live without them period? Sure. We could just have one class or even one unit and there'd still be a game to play and I'm sure some players would find it more fun even because they'd deal with less types of threats and just get their heads around it easier. But you'd lose the variety and challenge, as well as a lot of complementary teamwork inducing elements.

[ThePopesHolyFinger]

On 5/14/2020 at 10:39 PM, steveraptor said:

A CV that has useless torps, meh dive bombers and rockets which are only good against cruisers, then yeah they need to be effective at what they do.

Des Moines is an AA cruiser, yet one flight of rocket planes can do that damage? God help the game if WG introduce AP rockets.

[Figment]

On 5/15/2020 at 6:15 PM, AndyHill said:

This is where I can directly tell that you are either inexperienced or not very good at the game. The situations with limited intel are precisely where this game separates hawks and pigeons, they are the core of the game. The ability to read the game, figure out what's going to happen next by utilizing whatever info is available and by getting inside the opponents' heads and taking calculated risks accordingly. An average or bad player gets scared and overwhelmed in a situation like that, whereas a unicorn just gets that greedy grin on his face and it's go-time. That is the very core of the game - there is almost zero micro, no 360-no-scope headshots, this game is all about outplaying your opponents by positioning and making plays. Basically what I read above is that when going gets tough, you feel like a passenger reacting to things and you want to use a carrier as a crutch so that nobody else gets to be in the driver's seat, either. I don't know why you bring up a completely one sided example, but it's actually no different. Good players will still be better in adverse situations.

 

And don't take that as an insult, English isn't my native language either and I don't think I got the tone I wanted. I'm actually pretty happy, because I think at least after all of these posts we have actually have reached an understanding on where our opinions actually differ. I want there to be fairly minimal amounts of information available and I want players to have to earn that, because limited information situations and the ability make plays utilizing the enemy's lack of information is where WoWS happens. It would be interesting to find out if other experienced players or even unicorns feel the same way or if it's just me.

See, this is actually an arrogant post because you are making a very cheap character attack by misconstrueing what I said.

 

Why do you think I'm the one prioritising reducing the enemy's intel sources in every match and getting fellow players to target DDs and cruisers first and target CVs over everything else when viable? I know that you can force an enemy to be blind and use intel advantages over them.

 

When I'm left in the position of next to no intel, I'll bait and lure to try to get intel, but if they can spot me while being targeted from outside spotting range, there's little I can do but close in (and get peppered if there's no cover), or run for cover and hope they'll expose themselves one by one while closing in or hunting the spotter. But it's a very uneven situation, not unwinnable in all circumstances, but not necessarily fair either. If they're smart players and make good use of their spotter they won't need to expose themselves much.

 

I'll also use intel about being seen to guestimate the location of enemy DDs (if you use an island to break view, you know the vector at which it is at and min-max distance at which that DD must have been due to the spotting range of your ship and the spotting range towards that ship). But that's not enough information to fire back, while the other has ample information to fire on you. If they're smart, they're going to obsolete that intel asap. Me personally as the DD, I'd use it as a faint and draft a new plan of attack if I was sure I'd have been spotted or even let the other know I was aware of their presence or they could have realized my attack vector. So please don't tell me I don't know what I'm doing.

 

 

 

f however, as a DD, I don't need to risk anything in a won situation, then I won't, because the win is more important (responsibility to the team to win over personal gratification of another kill). The other side though has to track me down to kill me. Just running off doesn't take skill either.

 

If I were you, I would now conclude you dislike risks when playing a DD, because you hate an additional teamwork method of getting intel on you based on what you just said. That'd be a cheapshot though.

 

 

 

 

What I said is that some ships and maps will not give you the ability to acquire the intel you need in all situations, while providing the enemy with full striking capacity. Take for instance a situation with 6 BBs on each side and two cruisers and one or two DDs in late night matches. The first thing you do is get a bit closer with your BBs, kill off the DDs and cruisers and then sit back and see the enemy BBs sunk by being targeted by three ships at once, without them being able to fire back efficiently at all. Is that fun gameplay? It's bloody riskless and therefore boring.

 

In another situation, when a ship doesn't need and doesn't want to be found and it outruns you, there's no fighting back. No matter how unicorn you are you won't overtake a DD with say a Colorado unless it's already cornered, which would require the both of you to be fighting on the same side of the map in the first place. In those situations having a CV which survived through its own skills (while that not being a natural consequence from being out of range of combat all match) could be a way of balancing out the intel to some degree to allow for retaliation by allowing the BB to fire on target outside of its own spotting range. Even if it is likely to miss. That's a form of teamwork and interdependency and that's something I'm always in favour of in team games. That said, if the CV is already dead, fair game, the other team removed all the spotting options. So GG then. Nothing wrong with the option of having that advantage, just that it's a bit easy to get intel advantage right now in games without CVs. You specifically asked what a CV would bring to such matches and I inform you on what it would bring and then you punish me for it by drawing conclusions about my character. Sounds like a setup.

You though, prefer to make the game so you never need to rely as little as possible on others being around. Your comments about solo players "being the good players that get punished by CV" and your negative reaction to promoting working in small groups says a lot about you wanting to design the game around your own prefered playstyle where you can solo your ship through any situation. Don't take this the wrong way, but this is a very typical FPS-gamer attitude where the self is more important than the team, even within the team effort you'll look at individual contributions rather than complementary game design - which is why I'm talking about RTS design, because I want to promote teamwork in a team game through interdependency.

 

In fact, this may have to do with me being a PlanetSide player (PS2 sucks in comparison). In that game most vehicle units had gunner positions which had to be filled by other players. Without them your DPS could be 0. It made gaming very social and team efforts because you HAD to work together. This is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about herding role for CVs: stimulating players to stick together in small groups of 2-3 players (not lemming rushes) to optimize their AA, with solo play optional (particularly in areas where a CV can't reach), but riskier. Hence my major solution direction is reducing striking range because this should create the option to play solo on parts of the map (I also think there should be at most one CV per match btw to ensure there's at least one side not covered or that players have to cover the middle as well to protect a CV that's there and has limited escorts).
 

On 5/15/2020 at 6:15 PM, AndyHill said:

You seem to want plentiful and constant information (without having to work very hard for it) so that there are few possibilities for nasty surprises. And that's understandable if you don't feel enough in control in difficult situations. I'm thinking you might come to see my point of view better when you get more experience.

 

Anyway, without going into who is actually right or wrong, can you at least see now why I think carriers are so bad for the game, purely from my perspective?

I described a possible role for the CV in which it can be used as an intel equaliser and to ensure there's intel early on in the game so good players can use this to device strategies. You conclude I want "cheap" intel at all times handed to me for free, further you conclude I am lazy, I require a certain degree of control to be handed to me and some more. These are false assumptions you made which I do take as insulting. No, I have been talking about team efforts and this being a good role for CVs to provide, while I've also been talking about limiting their power to do so compared to now constantly. If I wanted optimal intel handed to me, I'd not change their range and I'd not force them nearer to the frontline. You're drawing conclusions while using very selective intel.

 

 

 

As I stated earlier I look up difficult situations: I take ships to their extremes and in difficult spots to see what they can do and learn how to beat the odds, especially while they're still stock to also know the limits of the stock ships I'm facing. If I was a lazy player, I'd not be doing that... So why you ignore that tidbit of information about my personal playstyle and experience gathering, but then take a generalized comment about spotting capacity out of context and project it on me personally, I don't know. What you responded to was a design option statement about how it could and would be used. I never said anything about whether I personally want or need that.

 

 

 

If one side has a DD or other spotting capable units (like a fog cruiser) and the other does not have spotters, in that case I can see a CV perform an equalising role by bringing spotting power to a side that structurally lacks it to even out the odds, but I also mentioned in other posts that the spotting mechanics might differ, could be challenged (killing spotter aircraft for instance). Having no intel on one side and lots on the other simply isn't fair gaming. A challenge certainly and it's a challenge I'll gladly take, but if it creates an enjoyable game for the average player is something I question given the amount of ZOMG I GOTZ TORPED/AIRCAVED posts.

 

Ideally I'd have a game that's designed for the top 20% of brainy players, but we're in a casual arcade game where some mitigation needs to take place for the average player who can't even decide whether it's wise to all go one side or go up against six units alone without cover or range and then show a broadside while sailing in a straight line with a light cruiser... What I'm saying is that this isn't our game to design for ourselves, that's the major designer flaw, to design for yourself based on your own capabilities.

 

It's everyone's game. Don't design it for yourself, which is exactly what you're doing btw.

[AndyHill]

I find the entire meta discussion about the discussion pointless so I will simply bypass all of that. Just one not-even-that-important correction

57 minutes ago, Figment said:

Hence why I don't think it's useful to keep pointing at current and previous design to argument your case that it's not possible.

You keep ignoring how that argument is just icing on the cake. The other reasons are that that neither I nor anyone else - though we have tried for years - has managed to come up with a way to turn carriers into something positive for the game. The fact that all of the experimental implementations (two out of basically infinite possibilites) have proven disastrous.

 

The very straight forward main thing is that to change my (and many others' I assume) mind about carriers, you simply need to show how carriers actually 1) are or 2) can be turned into something that's positive for the game. It doesn't matter at all if there's a theoretical solution to the problem if nobody can ever come up with one. Of course ideas about making the carrier problem less bad aren't worthless (or wouldn't be if WG's balancing policy wouldn't prevent their implementation), but I don't see very much value in them when there is a simple (and already tried and tested) solution that removes the problem completely.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

I've given you plenty reasons for having CVs to warrant their presence. Whether you agree with them or not in terms of "enough reason" is pure subjectivity.

What I've got so far is "because they exist", which is not a zero argument, but in a game like this needs to have a gameplay justification, same for "variety", which again is a positive attribute and desirable, unless it's variety of negative kind (like game crashes and disconnects adding variety to the game) and then some vaguely defined cases, where it's supposedly good for one ship to get screwed over by a carrier for the benefit of another ship.

 

If If you feel that you have some specific cases where carrier planes are the only real solution, I'm of course interested in them. Preferably if you have a recording from a battle where you can show how a carrier proved to be a good thing for the game or would have if there had been one in the game. Other than that it's probably a lot of work to come up with a situation detailed enough to be conclusive evidence for the carriers' positive impact. 

1 hour ago, Figment said:

I mean, your argument of would we miss it is easy to turn around: would we really miss battleships as a class in a game?

Except that it specifically can not. As I said before, I have no problem with carriers themselves, just the planes. It might sound like nitpicking and to an extent it is, since everyone knows that carriers without planes isn't really a feasible design, but it specifically invalidates the "what about removing ship class x or y, then"-style of argumentation and emphasizes the critical and significant difference that sets carriers apart from every other class and makes them so destructive for the game. 

1 hour ago, Figment said:

But you'd lose the variety and challenge, as well as a lot of complementary teamwork inducing elements.

Except that this has basically been proven false by the latest CW season. When carriers were introduced to the environment, where the best players perform the most complementary teamwork possible in the game, variety went out of the window. Everything else except for long range firepower (and the ability to duck quickly into savemybutt-smokes) matters. The gameplay became so one dimensional and boring, that everyone is basically fed up with CW and some of the best clans have protested visibly against their inclusion in CW with some even contemplating a clan wars system of their own so that they can play the fun and varied games even if WG insist on keeping carriers in. Not to mention that due to a vote by the best players in the game the organizers of the most prestigious tournament banned carriers from the tournament for a number of reasons.

 

Their negative impact on tactical variety can be negated by nerfs and design changes (or could be if WG would consider implementing something like that), but until the variety with carriers is actually greater than without, why have them at all?

[Dominik_Tirpitz]

On 5/15/2020 at 1:41 PM, CptBarney said:

Has anyone faced the new cv's yet? and if so what do you think of them so far?

Played against Manfred von Richthofen yesterday. I saw a 20k rocket strike on a Cleveland, but nothing special apart from that, only planes melting really fast. That CV player wasn't that bad at all, but was still pretty far down xp wise

[Figment]

20 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

You keep ignoring how that argument is just icing on the cake. The other reasons are that that neither I nor anyone else - though we have tried for years - has managed to come up with a way to turn carriers into something positive for the game. The fact that all of the experimental implementations (two out of basically infinite possibilites) have proven disastrous.

 

The very straight forward main thing is that to change my (and many others' I assume) mind about carriers, you simply need to show how carriers actually 1) are or 2) can be turned into something that's positive for the game. It doesn't matter at all if there's a theoretical solution to the problem if nobody can ever come up with one. Of course ideas about making the carrier problem less bad aren't worthless (or wouldn't be if WG's balancing policy wouldn't prevent their implementation), but I don't see very much value in them when there is a simple (and already tried and tested) solution that removes the problem completely.

It's only a solution when you have no personal stake in them or goals you want to reach. That's subjective. Objectively you can state that with or without them there's a game possible, you could state that the current game would be better without the tried formats, but that's about it. You can't actively judge systems that haven't been designed yet until you know at least what restrictions and abilities would be in place, so you can build scenarios. Most the time you can tell if a design like this works or not from the definition of the system before it's even tested tbh. Again, the argument about the 16th century peops is that they couldn't envision a way in which planes would exist.

 

I agree with you with regards to WG, but hey. I'm not here to acknowledge their problems, I'm here to solve a design issue in hopes that they'd pick it up (and get annoyed by people inflating the design issues because of personal unit preferences - particularly BB only users are annoying people, their motivation to be here and play the game both are personal power).

20 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

If you feel that you have some specific cases where carrier planes are the only real solution, I'm of course interested in them. Preferably if you have a recording from a battle where you can show how a carrier proved to be a good thing for the game or would have if there had been one in the game. Other than that it's probably a lot of work to come up with a situation detailed enough to be conclusive evidence for the carriers' positive impact. 

I prefer there to be alternatives. The "only real solution" is extremely narrowly defined and can be used to deny the need of any class of ship in this game.

 

You can't show that "only real solution" for BBs either. BBs as a class exist because nations used to have a need to out firepower and out armour rival nations. Not because of game balance reasons.

20 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Except that it specifically can not. As I said before, I have no problem with carriers themselves, just the planes. It might sound like nitpicking and to an extent it is, since everyone knows that carriers without planes isn't really a feasible design, but it specifically invalidates the "what about removing ship class x or y, then"-style of argumentation and emphasizes the critical and significant difference that sets carriers apart from every other class and makes them so destructive for the game. 

The thing is, you treat each individual ability of the CV as standalone destructive, whereas it is the excessive combination of boons that makes them rather dominant in matches (still beatable, but dominant nevertheless. The fact that they're beatable though means they can be balanced further by imposing restrictions on them).

 

Your call for need is essentially boils down to a question of "Do we as developers/players want it or not? Does it add a wow factor? Does it add something different and fun?".

 

Your question of need is flawed, in that it doesn't require an answer that can be objectively validated.

 

Besides, you dismissed the argument I made about it stimulating teamwork and coordinated play (herding and dispersing role), from what I can tell because you personally don't want staying-close-together-teamwork to be stimulated (stronger together need creation) as you'd consider that punishment of solo players. There's only a need for this depending on whether your goal as game designer is to stimulate social bonding. From what I've experienced in PlanetSide, this is extremely worthwhile. Being dependent on another beyond being a good team of individuals by complimenting each other's weaknesses and strengths is something I desire in a good game. You prefer individual independent gaming within the context of a team. Where there are differences you accept these as a difference in weaknesses and strengths as an individual style while facing an opponent with a different choice in style.

 

That's a huge design objective difference.

20 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Except that this has basically been proven false by the latest CW season. When carriers were introduced to the environment, where the best players perform the most complementary teamwork possible in the game, variety went out of the window. Everything else except for long range firepower (and the ability to duck quickly into savemybutt-smokes) matters. The gameplay became so one dimensional and boring, that everyone is basically fed up with CW and some of the best clans have protested visibly against their inclusion in CW with some even contemplating a clan wars system of their own so that they can play the fun and varied games even if WG insist on keeping carriers in. Not to mention that due to a vote by the best players in the game the organizers of the most prestigious tournament banned carriers from the tournament for a number of reasons.

 

Their negative impact on tactical variety can be negated by nerfs and design changes (or could be if WG would consider implementing something like that), but until the variety with carriers is actually greater than without, why have them at all?

This is current CV design discussion...

 

It's irrelevant outside of pointing out flaws with THIS design and flaws to avoid with a new design.

 

But you're not using it for that, you're using it to draw conclusions about any and all potential new designs that you haven't even defined yet.

[AndyHill]

I don't think there's any point in discussing specific situations without recordings of such things happening, because we can't know what lead to the said situation in the first place and we can just decide that the carrier impact was positive or negative. Most of your examples seem to be about situations where one side has won the match already and then the carrier turns the situation around in the other team's favor. Won games ticking down the last seconds is not a problem unless it's way too common. What matters is what lead to that situation to happen in the first place. Was it interesting, tactical and all that. I'll demonstrate my thoughts with one example:

17 minutes ago, Figment said:

No matter how unicorn you are you won't overtake a DD with say a Colorado unless it's already cornered, which would require the both of you to be fighting on the same side of the map in the first place. In those situations having a CV which survived through its own skills (while that not being a natural consequence from being out of range of combat all match) could be a way of balancing out the intel to some degree to allow for retaliation by allowing the BB to fire on target outside of its own spotting range. Even if it is likely to miss. That's a form of teamwork and interdependency and that's something I'm always in favour of in team games. That said, if the CV is already dead, fair game, the other team removed all the spotting options.

A few questions; first of all, why isn't it one of your team's DDs that's hunting down the red DD? Why do we need specifically planes for that? Also how is the carrier interdependent of the battleship? Why would it need the BB to fire desperate volleys when it can just blab the DD out of existence itself? And how is it fair that a DD that spent all of his smokes for smoking friendlies, has 10 kills, 6 solo caps and 400k damage as well as 300k spotting and 3M tanking and is now running away desperately to win the game for his team (note how problematic frontloading these examples with biased assumptions is) now gets blabbed out of existence just because a carrier knows how to steer his planes towards him and click? This is why if we want to talk about specific situations, we need the whole story with all the details to evaluate it properly.

 

Also when making assumptions about my interest and view on teamwork, do remember that I have been the tactician for a team in clan wars for hundreds if not closer to a thousand battles, whereas you not only haven't even tried, but also don't appear to have any interest in them even though they truly are the epitome of teamwork in this game if KoTS isn't taken into account.

[747BeerDrop]

Leo_Apollo11 has kindly posted the latest WoWs "Ship Class Popularity" graph,

which includes CV`s, here: