General CV related discussions.

[DFens_666]

4 hours ago, Figment said:

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4185896944,Langley/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard

Look at the people playing these ships the most.

 

The fast majority of people with high winrates havn't played more than 20-30 battles with the Langley, with just a few exceptions per page who played over 30 battles in the high winrates or overall. If you look at those who played hundreds and hundreds of battles though, WR is a huge mixed bag. A lot of the people who play a lot of CV at tier IV seem to even have worse WR than their average WR and are actually undermining their own stats by playing them (obviously not true for all). 

 

So it seems those people just enjoy it for some other reason than WR.

 

Well, if you look at the wrong ship?

Noone would play Langley for statpadding, when you have a perfectly OP CV called Hosho:

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4185896656,Hosho/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard

[BLUB__BLUB]

12 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Well, if you look at the wrong ship?

Noone would play Langley for statpadding, when you have a perfectly OP CV called Hosho:

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4185896656,Hosho/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard

Never underestimated the power of stupid. I have talked to some that took Langley... 

Reason being, they did have a spare US 10-pointer... 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

21 hours ago, AndyHill said:

So what happens now if there are hordes of carriers waiting for a game? If they're patient enough, will they get a game regardless as long as carriers match up? Are the T4 clubbers playing hordes of 2v2 CV battles or do they just wait forever?

Recently I had a couple of very interesting battles at T4 when tons of CVs were in the queue... took about 1:30 minutes or so for the MM to sort it out and then I got a battle with 8 or 9 ships per side (in random!!!) of which two were CVs. Oh the fun that came from this... ^^

 

[Figment]

14 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Well, if you look at the wrong ship?

Noone would play Langley for statpadding, when you have a perfectly OP CV called Hosho:

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4185896656,Hosho/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard

The argument looks to be true for the Hosho.

 

Question remains why people still play 10x the amount of Langley matches needed to move on though (clearly not enough interest to play it for thousands of matches, in contrast to the Hosho). The argument was made for CV in general though, so why do people play the Hermes and Langley?

 

 

People playing the Hermes a lot don't seem to be doing that well either:

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4081039312,Hermes/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard

So would the conclusion be that of the three CV, there's one that's imba (in comparison to the other CV) and therefore it's used more? Because we seem to miss data that suggests either the Langley or Hermes would be as dominant if the Hosho went missing (it's possible though and the data would be skewed highly in favour of Hermes if it was that much better than the Langley).

 

Alternatively, if the Hosho was better balanced to the other two ships, wouldn't it make it less interesting as a stat padder as the average stat would be closer to 50%?

 

 

 

Based on one ship you could argue that the same stat padding argument for people playing tier 4 applies to BBs, but I wouldn't exactly want to argue that:

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4293866960,Imperator-Nikolai-I/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard

[DFens_666]

7 minutes ago, Figment said:

Question remains why people still play 10x the amount of Langley matches needed to move on though (clearly not enough interest to play it for thousands of matches, in contrast to the Hosho). The argument was made for CV in general though, so why do people play the Hermes and Langley? 

 

Weirdos?

Most battles played with DRESDEN !!!

 

You will always have players playing huge amount of games with a specific ship regardless how strong it is or how well they play with it. But if you find very strong ships, you will find more people who are really good with it who play it all the time (Hosho / Nikolai) for statpadding or maybe they just think they are awesome when they can win and dominate others with OP ships.

Truth is however, if you wanna statpad you gonna do it with the best ship available, and thats clearly Hosho. I have played neither Langley nor Hermes since the rework, because why would i when i have Hosho?

[Lootboxer]

2 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Never underestimated the power of stupid. I have talked to some that took Langley... 

Reason being, they did have a spare US 10-pointer... 

That's why I got her last week. As freexped first time after total failure of my first 1 game long attempt after rework I wanted to try her now with a bit of skill developed and since I've had a spare captain hanging around....   Well, let's say it's not Hosho but still a good one. Very good one. 1000x better than Hermes which is a fools option now

[Figment]

16 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Oops I forgot this part completely. Reducing the carriers' ability to do damage and making their planes more vulnerable would absolutely force them to be more careful as well as give them less impact in the battle. However, it wouldn't make the influence any good instead of just less bad and this change is not feasible, since potatoes are already running out of planes early in the game.

I don't really care about what potatoes do, because they screw up for the team regardless what unit they have.

 

If the CV is less dominant, a potato screwing up would have less impact on the outcome of the battle as well, so I see that as a good aspect.

 

The "less bad" influence is at least a compromise I think those who like the concept of having CVs (and let's be realistic here, they're going to be in game in some format, no matter what) and those who are in other ships should be able to accept. These groups need to accept the existence of the other group as well.

 

From a WG perspective, one of the positives is that it attracts people from outside the group with a purely naval interest. So it brings in players and money (which is also good for the playerbase in general).

 

From a gameplay perspective the most positive contribution is both the dealing with (HE) spamming campers behind cover of fog and islands (which I don't find particularly challenging or fun gameplay for the recipient end), though the scouting should be limited and temporary and dismissable due to being in AA range (where it seems constant these days from too far away). The other net positive I find the defensive threat mitigation from flank implosions (outnumbered players (due to some untimely deaths or poor distribution of bad players) being able to call on a form of cavalry for some help is good for the 'responsible' players who took it on them to defend high priority sides in such situations. Leaving them without any help isn't exactly 'sportive' either and other ships usualy can't rush to their assistance in a timely manner.

 

But as such the role should IMO be assistance in a modest manner, where today it's as some here would say "crapping all over" lone-rambo style. Like a DD benefitting in combat with a cruiser from a BB outside of that cruiser's range, a CV should do much the same, but with significantly less powerful, but more flexible, strikes. They shouldn't be hunting the DDs though (which is the main issue IMO), at most very temporarily exposing them. A CV should be highly vulnerable to attack once discovered though and this is simply not the case. Non-dedicated spotter aircraft should not be as good in spotting, but they are now way more effective.

 

 

Btw, I wouldn't mind CVs not be able to anchor too close too islands, if only with their nose (lest aircraft would fly straight into walls) nor if they introduced bigger shallow areas around islands. That should reduce the amount of island humping for larger ships like CVs.

[BLUB__BLUB]

30 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

That's why I got her last week. As freexped first time after total failure of my first 1 game long attempt after rework I wanted to try her now with a bit of skill developed and since I've had a spare captain hanging around....   Well, let's say it's not Hosho but still a good one. Very good one. 1000x better than Hermes which is a fools option now

If I have to assist a teammate in T4 with a CV, I always take Hermes. One torp, but hey.

It's good enough and IMO much more fun. I grinded them all when they still had one torp. 

But I mean, they take a 10-pointer that still has last stand and such... 

[thisismalacoda]

Roosevelt seems like another well designed masterpiece. Bomb squad lost exactly one plane vs Thunderer with 'Defensive AA' active. That's about as close to effing immune to countermeasures as it gets.

 

I wish I knew if they had a plan for CV and are too inept to execute it, or if the suits dictate them 'class popularity has to stay above 5%' and the 15+ months shitshow is just collateral.

[AndyHill]

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

I don't really care about what potatoes do, because they screw up for the team regardless what unit they have.

If you want to look at things from the realism perspective, any reduction in carriers' ability is never going to happen. WG have stated that carriers will be balanced according to popularity and they are not very popular at the moment. Carriers will always remain powerful enough so that people will be enticed to play them.

33 minutes ago, Figment said:

The "less bad" influence is at least a compromise I think those who like the concept of having CVs (and let's be realistic here, they're going to be in game in some format, no matter what) and those who are in other ships should be able to accept. These groups need to accept the existence of the other group as well.

They need to accept ships in a ship game, not planes. People who like planes can go play a plane game. Also, we don't make the calls, we can only tell WG what we think they should do and they already once removed carriers because they thought they were problematic and since they still are, removing them again would be the logical thing to do. Not to say that it's likely, but all we can do is put pressure on them to do the right thing.

38 minutes ago, Figment said:

From a WG perspective, one of the positives is that it attracts people from outside the group with a purely naval interest. So it brings in players and money (which is also good for the playerbase in general).

It also chases players away. I know several people who have left or stopped playing, because they were fed up with carriers and I know why people hate them so much, so it's probably a somewhat common thing as well. WG also have a dedicated plane game for people who prefer that kind of gameplay.

43 minutes ago, Figment said:

From a gameplay perspective the most positive contribution is both the dealing with (HE) spamming campers behind cover of fog and islands

Except this doesn't really happen. Especially smokes with ships in them are usually not very good targets to go for and thus the carrier is likely to go elsewhere. Smolensk, Minotaur, Kutu and the likes get completely screwed by carriers if they get spotted in an aggressive location, but once they're spamming in smoke, almost any other target becomes more lucrative. Island spamming still continues, because that's basically the only choice for some ships in most situations.

51 minutes ago, Figment said:

The other net positive I find the defensive threat mitigation from flank implosions (outnumbered players (due to some untimely deaths or poor distribution of bad players) being able to call on a form of cavalry for some help is good for the 'responsible' players who took it on them to defend high priority sides in such situations. Leaving them without any help isn't exactly 'sportive' either and other ships usualy can't rush to their assistance in a timely manner.

You have to see both sides of it. In this example one team won a side fair and square and then got screwed over by a unit that didn't have to position or play well. Not getting caught overextending on an imploding flank is a skill. Except for somewhat exceptional situations it's possible to read the game and recognize ship about to hit the fan early enough to turn around, kite and crossfire at the advancing enemy once they stomp the flank. That's WoWS. Bad situations happen to everyone, but you just learn and move on and hopefully do better next time. A get out of jail for free -card isn't needed and doesn't improve the game.

57 minutes ago, Figment said:

But as such the role should IMO be assistance in a modest manner, where today it's as some here would say "crapping all over" lone-rambo style. Like a DD benefitting in combat with a cruiser from a BB outside of that cruiser's range, a CV should do much the same, but with significantly less powerful, but more flexible, strikes.

Flexibility is actually more of a problem than the carriers' absolute power. Their flexibility makes them an unknowable tactical element that can't really be accounted for except by abandoning most aggressive options.

 

When a DD benefits from the assistance of a BB when fighting a cruiser both the DD and BB have made at least some good choices in positioning and the cruiser bad ones, so that despite a situation where a DD has to face a cruiser in combat, its teammate can help it and turn the tide of the fight. Carrier just happens, regardless of everything. The cruiser might have snuck around islands and popped up within spotting range of the DD in a beautiful ambush or the DD might have screwed up badly and sailed into spotting range.

 

If there's a BB to help the DD, it's something the cruiser should have either outright seen or at least taken into account since he didn't know where it was and perhaps the DD played aggressive, because he calculated intelligently that he had help in case something goes wrong. Carrier just happens and punishes good play and rewards bad play in situations where it turns the tide in a fight where one side deserved to have an advantage. That reduces tactical variety and punishes aggressive play and risk taking. 

 

Anyway, as I said earlier, I won't go into specific examples without redords or something like that so that we can evaluate the entire situation from start to finish. This is important, however: since your arguments are about commercial viability and what WG will or won't do regardless of gameplay impact, do you now feel that from a purely gameplay perspective, carriers can be fixed by for example a balance patch reducing some damage and frequency of attacks per sortie and range limitations or is it perhaps time to remove for a more comprehensive redesign and balancing?

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Question remains why people still play 10x the amount of Langley matches needed to move on though (clearly not enough interest to play it for thousands of matches, in contrast to the Hosho). The argument was made for CV in general though, so why do people play the Hermes and Langley?

Here are some examples of unnamed Langley players from the list, I think it's not that hard to figure out why they like Langleying so much. Herpes doesn't seem to be very popular.

Spoiler

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

At least one person seems to have found his niche in Hermes:

 

Spoiler

 

[Miragetank90]

22 minutes ago, thisismalacoda said:

Roosevelt seems like another well designed masterpiece. Bomb squad lost exactly one plane vs Thunderer with 'Defensive AA' active. That's about as close to effing immune to countermeasures as it gets.

 

I wish I knew if they had a plan for CV and are too inept to execute it, or if the suits dictate them 'class popularity has to stay above 5%' and the 15+ months shitshow is just collateral.

 

FDR in this iteration is not looking good, tbh. Damage-wise it trails far behind Midway and the others. 

 

The planes are tanky(?) but that's about it, as far as I gather. In the end, that's not helping FDR much. Gonna be changes. 

[thisismalacoda]

Yea, I obviously didn't plan to give a well rounded assessment. I was just spotted like 7 of the first 9 minutes of the match unable to get rid of the planes, while my teams CV marvelled at the many confusing letters his keyboard was offering, unsure which one to press.

Vor 3 Minuten, Miragetank90 sagte:

 

FDR in this iteration is not looking good, tbh. Damage-wise it trails far behind Midway and the others. 

 

The planes are tanky(?) but that's about it, as far as I gather. In the end, that's not helping FDR much. Gonna be changes. 

 

[Figment]

A lot of what you're saying here is subjective. A side that won fair and square might just have had awesome RNG (triple cit hit or so, which is to a large extend, luck because skill cannot guarantee cit hits, just increase the likeliness with optimal aim). This might feel great to the one side, but is it enjoyable for the losing side who just lost an ally out of nowhere? Having a chance to fight back against overwhelming odds is ALWAYS a good thing. Those players in a bad situation are entitled to a gun game as much as the side winning is. You're being dramatic about how their fight is ruined, when it just remains a bit more challenging. Besides, you deny the fact a CV player (in a properly designed game) would have positioned their ship in the right position to be able to provide that cover. Depending on how many sorties can be done and the flight time, as well as to what units they can actually help counter and in what way, that may well mean putting their CV at risk to the dangers of that side imploding.

 

I can't shake the feeling you can't get away from the current in game damage numbers when imagining these scenarios either. Your reference to a get out of jail free card is really not understanding what the balance and contribution in this scenario would be. I'm not talking about tens of thousands of damage per strike. I'm not talking about a CV singlehandedly taking over defense of that side without consequences for the side (which is what you're suggesting by refering to that Monopoly card). That's a very unfair representation of the scenario, meant to dismiss it as an option.

 

No, I'm talking about a CV requiring time to overcome even one enemy, so if it is rushed it stands no chance at all to get away. It should be dependent on allies to block access to the CV and once that blockade is gone, it should be in massive danger from fast surface ships. Cruisers and DDs should have a relatively simple time to close in without taking too much damage.

 

In that sense a CV would have a damage over time role by having such a slow damage delivery rate that closing in ten km shouldn't really be much trouble with negligible damage dealt by the CV.

 

 

This may not be a positive thing in your eyes, because you can't get over the part where aircraft exist. In that sense your approach on the discussion is so biased, that no positive could ever be defined. :/ I think you know that and I think you don't mind this, because ultimately, your goal is to have them removed, not altered and accepted. No matter how fair they'd be. 

 

Btw, when people leave due to a bad execution of a design, doesn't mean the concept or unit type is wrong. I've seen a lot of horrible executions of things that could have easily been properly implemented over the decades that drove off players en mass from various games. Neither Artillery or CVs have not actually been that bad in comparison, overall populations have been fairly stable (slow natural decline where other games might see drastic population emigrations over night).

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Anyway, as I said earlier, I won't go into specific examples without redords or something like that so that we can evaluate the entire situation from start to finish. This is important, however: since your arguments are about commercial viability and what WG will or won't do regardless of gameplay impact, do you now feel that from a purely gameplay perspective, carriers can be fixed by for example a balance patch reducing some damage and frequency of attacks per sortie and range limitations or is it perhaps time to remove for a more comprehensive redesign and balancing?

Depends on how fast they can code, test, balance and implement. Would love to see some playtests where players could have made some balance modifications.

 

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

When a DD benefits from the assistance of a BB when fighting a cruiser both the DD and BB have made at least some good choices in positioning and the cruiser bad ones, so that despite a situation where a DD has to face a cruiser in combat, its teammate can help it and turn the tide of the fight. Carrier just happens, regardless of everything. The cruiser might have snuck around islands and popped up within spotting range of the DD in a beautiful ambush or the DD might have screwed up badly and sailed into spotting range.

 

If there's a BB to help the DD, it's something the cruiser should have either outright seen or at least taken into account since he didn't know where it was and perhaps the DD played aggressive, because he calculated intelligently that he had help in case something goes wrong. Carrier just happens and punishes good play and rewards bad play in situations where it turns the tide in a fight where one side deserved to have an advantage. That reduces tactical variety and punishes aggressive play and risk taking.

If a CV has demonstrated to have been in range, it can be taken into account as a potential complication. Besides, it's a circumstance that can be planned for.

 

Your second situation makes the BB more of a Deus ex Machina, since at least you'd see the CV's aircraft coming from miles away. The BB you only realise is there when it fired shells (depending on captain skills, when they hit or when they are fired). The BB's shells can't be fought off easily by that cruiser, but the aircraft could, especially if you have an AA upgrade like a fighter or increased AA DPS. If anything, the CV situation should be easier to take into account for the cruiser.

 

Aircraft torps are easier to predict than DD torps (just their release can be launched from too close - which is why I'd prefer that attack to have been locked in earlier like in the old system and not abortable so the ship under attack has time to formulate a counterplan as a CV would have to extrapolate on a target's moves more if they can't time their salvo wrt activation time and angle till the very last moment).

[BLUB__BLUB]

25 minutes ago, Figment said:

No, I'm talking about a CV requiring time to overcome even one enemy, so if it is rushed it stands no chance at all to get away. It should be dependent on allies to block access to the CV and once that blockade is gone, it should be in massive danger from fast surface ships. Cruisers and DDs should have a relatively simple time to close in without taking too much damage.

 

In that sense a CV would have a damage over time role by having such a slow damage delivery rate that closing in ten km shouldn't really be much trouble with negligible damage dealt by the CV.

But such a thing is already happening. I can defend myself from one DD,  if I spot him in time (or go spot him after noticing I have one DD "missing"). 

If it is a DD and a cruiser, I am in trouble and I have to fight them HARD or they'll get me. If there's some BBs following them, I'm dead fro sure, because they'll BLAP me as soon as spotted.

I'm not an average CV player... not an unicum either. But they CAN get me, and sometimes they do. 

 

On the other hand, my DD-divvy usually goes for caps, but when they're all ours (or impossible/taken care of) he goes for the CV. 

And he usually gets him, too. This is because I help him (where is it...) with my CV. And it only gets ruined for two things:

1. The game ends before he kills the CV;

2. A BB blaps the red CV before my divvy DD can get him. 

 

If the average CV gets a DD+ any teammate going after him, well... he's dead. 

 

[AndyHill]

51 minutes ago, Figment said:

A lot of what you're saying here is subjective. A side that won fair and square might just have had awesome RNG

RNG is a different discussion, but "fair and square" is by definition fair and square.

52 minutes ago, Figment said:

This might feel great to the one side, but is it enjoyable for the losing side who just lost an ally out of nowhere?

At least they'll know they felt fair and square, they learned something and can go on knowing they are less likely to screw up next time. Someone loses every single time and in all of your examples somebody suffers. 

55 minutes ago, Figment said:

You're being dramatic about how their fight is ruined, when it just remains a bit more challenging.

This is so blatantly untrue that it's not frankly even amusing anymore. When a carrier spots someone or bombs someone to heck in a completely unfair way his fight with someone else is ruined. 

56 minutes ago, Figment said:

I can't shake the feeling you can't get away from the current in game damage numbers when imagining these scenarios either.

Funnily enough, that's all I've got to go with since you haven't provided any kind of numbers for your scenario.

57 minutes ago, Figment said:

No, I'm talking about a CV requiring time to overcome even one enemy, so if it is rushed it stands no chance at all to get away.

Doing damage doesn't have anything to do with getting away, that's done by looking at the map and WASD.

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

This may not be a positive thing in your eyes, because you can't get over the part where aircraft exist. In that sense your approach on the discussion is so biased, that no positive could ever be defined. :/ I think you know that and I think you don't mind this, because ultimately, your goal is to have them removed, not altered and accepted. No matter how fair they'd be. 

No, my approach on the discussion is based on experience and understanding. You really need to stop imagining things about others and accept that both your argumentation and understanding of the game are lacking. I simply want carriers to either become a positive influence to the game or be taken away. For example I'm happy that you asked what squad shortening was rather than continue with a false assumption (even though asking revealed lack of knowledge in the basics of carrier operations). But for example a while back you tried to argue against someone with actual experience of clan wars that the low number of ships at T10 was a major factor in CW, when the fact that there are about 40 of them was the easiest thing in the world to check. For someone who started the discussion by shoving Dunning Kruger at more experienced players, you really need to have a more critical view on your own argumentation and level of understanding.

 

Just a note on the discussion: I am constantly getting completely lost on what we're talking about, real life, some hypothetical ideal scenario or something else, so just to make things simpler, I'm always going to assume that we're talking about the way thing are now, unless specifically referred to a somewhat well-defined alternative scenario.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Btw, when people leave due to a bad execution of a design, doesn't mean the concept or unit type is wrong. I've seen a lot of horrible executions of things that could have easily been properly implemented over the decades that drove off players en mass from various games. Neither Artillery or CVs have not actually been that bad in comparison, overall populations have been fairly stable (slow natural decline where other games might see drastic population emigrations over night).

What does the concept or unit type being wrong matter if the execution is bad if it's the execution being bad that does the damage? As far as population levels, try comparing to the first few years of Tanks. Ships got a running head start because of how much more famous WG was at that time, but that is in turn going to become an extra chellenge, when that massive initial population all start to get bored of the game at about the same time and look elsewhere (which is perfectly natural for all games).

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Depends on how fast they can code, test, balance and implement. Would love to see some playtests where players could have made some balance modifications.

Actually no. We're at initial conceptual design stage; programming, prototyping, testing and balancing are later stages of development. Last time they revealed that something was going on (and apparently had a playable prototype to show) I think it was the better part of a year before release, so the work must have started way before that. So we'd likely be looking at an unknown schedule in the range of year or probably more if the problem is solvable. When they last tried, it took them presumably way over a year, it was horrific on release and 14 months later we have what we have now. Still ok to leave the class as is so that hopefully a year or more from now we have something workable to start balancing on live?

1 hour ago, Figment said:

If a CV has demonstrated to have been in range, it can be taken into account as a potential complication. Besides, it's a circumstance that can be planned for.

And the planning includes playing super passively, because an attack can be expected anytime anywhere. And that is bad for the game.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Your second situation makes the BB more of a Deus ex Machina, since at least you'd see the CV's aircraft coming from miles away. The BB you only realise is there when it fired shells (depending on captain skills, when they hit or when they are fired). The BB's shells can't be fought off easily by that cruiser, but the aircraft could, especially if you have an AA upgrade like a fighter or increased AA DPS. If anything, the CV situation should be easier to take into account for the cruiser.

Battleships can typically be spotted at maybe 13-16km depending a lot on the ship and build and they move usually at about 30kts+ max, planes are spotted at 9-10km (again depending) and they move at 160-200kts. Do the math. Anywa, any made up anecdotal examples are pretty useless anyway due to reasons I've stated before, I'm not going to go into it any further.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Aircraft torps are easier to predict than DD torps (just their release can be launched from too close - which is why I'd prefer that attack to have been locked in earlier like in the old system and not abortable so the ship under attack has time to formulate a counterplan as a CV would have to extrapolate on a target's moves more if they can't time their salvo wrt activation time and angle till the very last moment).

Aircraft torps are about as easy to predict as a DD yolo-rush, except that a yolo-rushing DD outplayed you and did something right - and you should've figured out he was coming a long time before you see him, carrier just attacked for free. Stealth torps can be predicted, if you know how DDs are likely to play and what they're thinking. They're supposed to be unpredictable, because that's the only way a stealth torping ship can beat another ship. And the fact that stealth torp ships do the least damage of all ships on average indicates that they're not actually that unpredictable.

[Lootboxer]

This topic looks like epen contest with who will put bigger wall of text wins

[CptBarney]

58 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

This topic looks like epen contest with who will put bigger wall of text wins

Seems like it atm lol. Great wall of Text will probs be constructed at the end of this year by tis rate.

 

@Miragetank90 You think they might buff the mighty wheelchair to actually do some damage den?

 

Gib yorkie. 'w'

[Miragetank90]

21 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

 

@Miragetank90 You think they might buff the mighty wheelchair to actually do some damage den?

 

 

I think they'll have to. It's just first test iteration anyway. 

 

I'm always eagerly scanning the latest on the Supertest changes for FDR news. 

[CptBarney]

5 minutes ago, Miragetank90 said:

 

I think they'll have to. It's just first test iteration anyway. 

 

I'm always eagerly scanning the latest on the Supertest changes for FDR news. 

 

They should add this for rockets. With 400 knots speed

 

And dis one for teh bombz.

 

 

200 knot speed would be vereh balans.

[Miragetank90]

3 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

 

 

 

Looks like a UFO sighting waiting to happen xD

[El2aZeR]

57 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

And dis one for teh bombz.

 

 

We had those once. During better times.

 

 

[CptBarney]

7 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

We had those once. During better times.

 

 

Oh wow never knew weegee had these in the game, god the UI looks so different back then as well. I was going to pick the first plane he showed, but thought the fat rocket one was funnier.

Well lets see piejin and games lab will have carriers in their games. And with werid planes too. 'w'

[Figment]

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

RNG is a different discussion, but "fair and square" is by definition fair and square.

At least they'll know they felt fair and square, they learned something and can go on knowing they are less likely to screw up next time. Someone loses every single time and in all of your examples somebody suffers. 

No it's not. What's fair and square is defined by playing within the game's rules. You're talking about the emotion of teamwork interfering in duels/local groups fighting. This is a team game, all team members have a right to "interfere" using the tools at their disposal as predefined by the game. Everything they do within the confines of the rules is fair and square

 

That even includes border surfing and other "features" / "exploits". One may opt to have gentlemen's rules, but you can opt out of those.

 

But... Somebody suffers? This is what I mean by you being dramatic.

 

In your example nobody is allowed to come to the aid of someone in a desperate situation to try and keep the side alive in the name of teamwork. Suffering? For making the fight more even? You sure you know what fair and square is? In your scenario, that player who is just doing his job defending there loses with little to no chance to being ganged up upon. Emotionally, that's not per definition "fair and square", that could be considered bullying. The experience for the defending unit who has nobody come to his or her aid is not fun, or of fair. Especially not if it was due to a RNG fluke that caused excessive damage. Note that you're talking about feelings as well. Your argument is subjective as it is emotional.

 

Sending in the cavalry is fair, no matter what shape or form it has.

 

 

Do you complain if in Mario Kart someone shoots you right before the finish line after you've been in front all match?

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

This is so blatantly untrue that it's not frankly even amusing anymore. When a carrier spots someone or bombs someone to heck in a completely unfair way his fight with someone else is ruined. 

Funnily enough, that's all I've got to go with since you haven't provided any kind of numbers for your scenario.

[...]

Just a note on the discussion: I am constantly getting completely lost on what we're talking about, real life, some hypothetical ideal scenario or something else, so just to make things simpler, I'm always going to assume that we're talking about the way thing are now, unless specifically referred to a somewhat well-defined alternative scenario.

 

Define unfair first.

 

You seem to constantly forget that it's the CV's fight too because this is a team effort, not a duel. Again, I'm looking at this from a team perspective, you look at it as a collection of individuals. You don't even recognise that the CV is part of the team! You see the CV as an outsider. This is your main issue with the concept of CVs, your intolerance of aircraft. And I think it blocks any reasonable compromise.

 

I've provided a lot of indicators to how the damage would be reduced in multiple ways (the setup I've been discussing all the time here, DPS would be significantly lowered and the contribution of a CV would largely be in spotting and intel gathering and engaging larger ships, though with more limitations than today). So argueing from the current Midway bombs is... Well. Unfair to me. That you're lost on what we're talking about shouldn't be my problem, it's my responsibility to provide information in a reasonable fashion and your responsibility to keep track of it for yourself. Of course communication errors will occur especially since neither of us is very concise, which is fair enough, but to reset the convo every post back to the current discussion and draw conclusions about an entirely different design... That's like drawing conclusions about a Ford GT based on your experiences with a Fiat Panda.

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Doing damage doesn't have anything to do with getting away, that's done by looking at the map and WASD.

I was talking about how much damage a CV can put out on a ship closing in on it depending on their respective starting positions and course. Currently there's an attack every few seconds for the pursueing cruiser or DD to deal with and they have to get closer to get in spotting range. So if it takes X seconds to close in, when does the CV get into range/view? How many attacks at what damage can a CV do in that time? If a CV is moving away, it creates time to make more attacks. So if it is closer to the front and is easier to spot, it'll take less time to start engaging a CV for damage.

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

[1] No, my approach on the discussion is based on experience and understanding. You really need to stop imagining things about others and accept that both your argumentation and understanding of the game are lacking. I simply want carriers to either become a positive influence to the game or be taken away. For example I'm happy that you asked what squad shortening was rather than continue with a false assumption (even though asking revealed lack of knowledge in the basics of carrier operations).

 

[2] But for example a while back you tried to argue against someone with actual experience of clan wars that the low number of ships at T10 was a major factor in CW, when the fact that there are about 40 of them was the easiest thing in the world to check. For someone who started the discussion by shoving Dunning Kruger at more experienced players, you really need to have a more critical view on your own argumentation and level of understanding.

I think you need to come to terms that my views are based on a different appreciation of experiences. I'm accepting of taking aircraft damage, you're not. My experience is per definition going to be more positive and recepting of CVs I do not envision T10 CV damage as a standard for new design, you do.

 

The concept of squadron shortening is clear, just not familiar with the terminology used as I havn't frequented WoWs communities in ages. I'd have used reduction. Thought shortening was in reference to flight time. I understood you were talking about reducing the AA effect by not reducing the squadron's stay in an AA bubble, but considering we were talking about flight time before, it did not occur to me you meant reducing your squadron size. It makes sense, but it's an exploit that could easily be fixed by having them fly along for the full ride (or in one wave) instead of sending them home. That's an abuseable design issue really. I don't typically do that btw, as I prefer not to use exploits. Not complaining when someone does though, it's a dev fault for allowing it.

 

As for the CW, the 40 ships to chose from is today's situation. I was talking about when there were only a few lines available as past CW were talked about... Remember when there were just a few nations to pick from? The other thing I said was that of those 40 ships, they're not all equals, so it's not like you can just pick any for a pro-contest. That's like saying the IS-8 used to be equal to the T34 because they were on the same tier (was grinding the damn T34 while the IS-8 has bugged spaced armour). The 'optimal' choice for a group combination - with or without CVs - is going to be copied in any CWs.

 

For someone talking about not making assumptions, you seem to make a lot. Maybe it's the quantity of text to take in, but you're misrepresenting my posts.

 

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

What does the concept or unit type being wrong matter if the execution is bad if it's the execution being bad that does the damage?

Uhm... I've seen people leave over a concept introduced in a game because it was literally not possible to out damage the replenishing shielding with the main offensive unit of one empire, while the damage output per player was far too high. It came out of testing unchanged (could have been WG, but it was SOE that implemented it). As a consequence a third of the in game population (which had been rising till then) quit within weeks of their introduction.

 

Had there been no shielding or at least not so strong shielding in combination with massive firepower (and loads of people using them), they'd been completely accepted. Instead, people hated them and even the heavily nerfed, fastly more balanced versions (still a little too powerful), were hated as people just saw the thing they disliked all those years before (yes it took that long to balance them because the dev team was removed).

 

You seem to be doing the same: judge every future version on the basis of the current version. That's emotional, not rational.

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Actually no. We're at initial conceptual design stage; programming, prototyping, testing and balancing are later stages of development.

Yeah and my comment was that I'd like to see WG accept some balancing by players in those later stages? Because I'm not convinced WG does better than players due to the way they interpret data. Every concept we'd come up with here still needs to be balanced.

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

And the planning includes playing super passively, because an attack can be expected anytime anywhere. And that is bad for the game.

The more passive you'd play the stronger the CV;s impact on the match would be. It's the opposite of what you should do.

 

It provides a turning point raid option. And that's good for the game. High risk, high reward.

 

 

A lot of players in WoT think it's better to stand still than to move when facing artillery. The last thing artillery wants is for you to keep moving.

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Battleships can typically be spotted at maybe 13-16km depending a lot on the ship and build and they move usually at about 30kts+ max, planes are spotted at 9-10km (again depending) and they move at 160-200kts. Do the math.

Planes fire within a range of 1-4 km and BBs from 10-25km... Shells travel faster than aircraft... So... that BB will take less time to attack with less warning if not spotted while firing from outside that 13-16km range or from behind an island. In the case of aircraft you can shoot them down as they're within range, the BB is out of your range. Rocket planes will do 0-4K damage in a salvo (not counting fire), BBs will regularly do 0-30K per salvo (did 48 against Yamato once with Amagi, but that's not normal). BBs fire every 30ish seconds or so, it'll take half a minute or more to get an attack lined up most the time. DPS isn't necessarily large for CVs, depends on the type of aircraft and the bomb damage hardcoded as possible.

So if we're looking at a new model where CV's are assistential, what's the math where the damage and frequency is a third to two thirds lower, hit rate smaller and the air gets weaker over time? Who does the cruiser have a better chance against?

 

What if rockets have a double sized shape for their aim compared to now for same damage, but lower frequency and one pass per sortie while only dropped spotter aircraft pass visual intel on DDs to other players (3 spotters total)? What's the new math against DDs? Still unfair?

 

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

They're supposed to be unpredictable, because that's the only way a stealth torping ship can beat another ship. [1] And the fact that stealth torp ships do the least damage of all ships on average indicates that they're not actually that unpredictable. [2]

[1] Ehr no.

[2] More to do with beta BB players whining than with them being spotted by aircraft tbh.

[AndyHill]

56 minutes ago, Figment said:

No it's not. What's fair and square is defined by playing within the game's rules. You're talking about the emotion of teamwork interfering in duels/local groups fighting.

Rules can be unfair (like for example one immortal unit attacking anyone anywhere anytime), which is a fixable issue in design or afterwards. The carrier's actions can't be considered explicitly unfair (same with border humping) within the game rules, since he is operating according to the said rules, but the tules themselves can and should be questioned.

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Sending in the cavalry is fair, no matter what shape or form it has.

So, how about that nuclear bomb? One time use per match, given to the team that loses the first ship so that it evens things out, kills everything within a 15km radius so that it can be used to defend a flank that is being overrun. No, I don't want to go any further in stupid analogies, but also no, any form of "cavalry" to the rescue is not fine and good by default.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

it's my responsibility to provide information in a reasonable fashion

Yes, please do that. Also, until you can come up with a design we can evaluate and study, I will only discuss the current implementation. For me the problem specifically is that when at least I think we're talking about carriers right now and something is demonstratably wrong it's ok, because in some other design things might be better. And then we talk about potential designs and somehow we kind of get back to carriers are kind of ok anyway, which is a bit hard for me to follow.

 

A common answer to all the suggestions you've given on range and DPS: Yes, as before, they would make the situation more bearable, but still not as good as simply removing carriers (until a better design can be implemented). If you want to know my opinion on a design you think would be optimal, you need to provide one first - and I would be definitely interested in seeing one. But until there is one, there isn't one and I will always assume we're talking about the current implementation.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

I think you need to come to terms that my views are based on a different appreciation of experiences. I'm accepting of taking aircraft damage, you're not. 

Different views are what is interesting in discussions anyway. That's why I'm interested in your views, perhaps there is something I'm missing, perhaps there isn't it's especially interesting in such a clear cut case where there's a nearly invulnerable unit in play with near unlimited capability of striking all over the map without counterplay. To me (and many others) simply accepting something like that is a rather alien concept, so it's intriguing to hear different opinions. 

1 hour ago, Figment said:

The more passive you'd play the stronger the CV;s impact on the match would be. It's the opposite of what you should do.

Except that this isn't at all how the game actually works. Remember the clan wars thing? Carriers are excellent at stopping aggression and making the game passive. Your team has a carrier too, so the power department evens out.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

if not spotted

(Referring to an anecdotal experience) But it was spotted for five minutes. This is the problem with made up anecdotal stuff, the situation is always whatever whoever is making the argument wants to. We really need replays to look at if we want to get anywhere with these specific examples.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

As for the CW, the 40 ships to chose from is today's situation. I was talking about when there were only a few lines available as past CW were talked about...

I'm kind of ok with going round in circles, going through analogies and other stuff, but this is so easy to check and so blatantly false that it kind of irks me a bit. Your reply was specifically to the current season's situation, which was referenced in my post as the current situation and demonstrated with the use of a screenshot someone else provided of the current situation.

 

[Palachinka]

I play DDs and CVs are perfectly fine. People complaining are either self-entitled or cant understand that this is a team game, not a duel game.