Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
woppy101

Any point playing Battleships anymore

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
550 posts
9,062 battles

Is there any point playing battleships anymore when the majority of the [edited] hideaway at the back afraid to get hit?

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
563 posts
3,382 battles

I take it that this topic is referring to the vid made by NoZoup the other day:

You need to turn the reasoning behind your question on its head.

Cruisers especially hang back because you as a BB can blow them up.
That hardly makes BBs irrelevant - your presence is obviously effective at discouraging cruisers from getting too close.
Unless you are suggesting that cruisers should get close, so that you can "rightfully blow them up", which is a ridiculous expectation.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,081 posts
17,414 battles
30 minutes ago, woppy101 said:

Is there any point playing battleships anymore when the majority of the [edited] hideaway at the back afraid to get hit?

Sounds like Battleships are too good if everyone are that affraid of BB guns.

Also BBs have the most range, so following your reasoning there would be no point playing other classes than BBs (and CVs:Smile_hiding:)

 

I've recenltly started playing more BBs, not less.

Too many COVID19 permaweekend glue sniffers around.

Need a class that can push against inferior numbers with high firepower and live through it.

JB and Bourgogne can do that. Not much else.

Too much stuff around that kills DDs too fast. Cruisers bar DM / Salem have too little impact. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
563 posts
3,382 battles
1 minute ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

Sounds like Battleships are too good if everyone are that affraid of BB guns.

Also BBs have the most range, so following your reasoning there would be no point playing other classes than BBs (and CVs:Smile_hiding:)

 

I've recenltly started playing more BBs, not less.

Too much stuff around that kills DDs too fast. Cruisers bar DM / Salem have too little impact. 

 

Yeah, very much agree.
I like all classes myself, BBs no exception (actually my most played class as of now).
Claiming that BBs are pointless is just nonsense however, and just general whining.
When in a BB I'm always looking for (as well as every other BB) careless broadside cruisers than I can potentially devstrike, while as a cruiser I work to make sure that situations like that won't happen.
Nothing new here.
 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,212 posts
17,562 battles

There's no point playing Battleships anymore, because....

 

Everyone's got bigger guns. (have they?)

 

Everyone's got more armour (you sure about that?)

 

No-one supports you (can't hear you from back there, matey)

 

CVs are such a pest (sound of distant hollow laughter from DD captains)

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
563 posts
3,382 battles
48 minutes ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

 

Cruisers bar DM / Salem have too little impact. 

 

Yeah, this is a pet peeve of mine in regards to cruisers.
Got a good win rate (but low damage) in my DDs, where I can influence games heavily by just generally playing it safe and not dying early, even if it means foregoing damage dealt.
Cruisers on the other hand (especially non-radar cruisers) I feel like I'm shoe horned into the usual HE spam at range (perhaps because my first "serious" attempt at cruisers was the french line which cranks this playstyle up to 11, but still..) - which of course yields decent damage, but the win rate obviously suffers.
Radar seems to be the tool for the job where you can actually be useful.
Shame that this is a tool that is so powerful compared to the other consumables (perhaps bar smoke) and where you either have it, or you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[F_M_B]
Beta Tester
1,033 posts
6,240 battles
52 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

I take it that this topic is referring to the vid made by NoZoup the other day:

You need to turn the reasoning behind your question on its head.

Cruisers especially hang back because you as a BB can blow them up.
That hardly makes BBs irrelevant - your presence is obviously effective at discouraging cruisers from getting too close.
Unless you are suggesting that cruisers should get close, so that you can "rightfully blow them up", which is a ridiculous expectation.

 

You mean: as BB I scare cruisers, so they stay back?

If I play my BB a little closer to the frontline, the enemy cruisers will stay back even more.

If the enemy cruisers stay back even more, there is no risk for my DDs to get radar by enemy cruisers.

If there is no risk of radar, my DDs can cap and attack enemy DDs.

If the enemy DDs are dead and my team holds all caps, we win more likely.

 

So, you want to say, as BB I can create something like TEAMPLAY and influence my winrate in a positive way? Or the other way round, if I play bad as a BB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,647 posts
19,740 battles

Well, cruisers hang back because BBs hang back, afraid to get their paint scratched.

Passive play is ALWAYS caused by passive/ camping in the back BB chicken.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,058 posts
14,868 battles

If everyone is passive, you can move freely. When you cannot move freely, then it looks like somebody on the enemy team is not passive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
563 posts
3,382 battles

Passive play is kind of the natural equilibrium outcome (at higher tiers) though, because first of all, people have generally learned that yoloing into a cap = bad, and thus play more carefully (like they should).
But because there is a lack of coordination when you play in randoms, it is more difficult take the gameplay to the next level to exploit that passive and camping playstyle, since that often requires a coordinated effort to break the equilibrium, which is camping.
I don't really see this gameplay changing too much in the future, as it's kind of "hard-wired" due to how one individual alone cannot meaningfully change an equilibrium on his own, and mostly will get punished for doing so if the other players aren't coordinated.

Add in coordination though (like a unicum division that has the level of coordination), and a flank can fall pretty quickly and outright win the game very early, even though it only took 3 out of 12 players to have the required coordination.

This is because the situation described above is basic game theory in a nutshell.
The t10 meta is a Nash equilibrium, which in this case means that individual actors (or captains in this example) find it in their best interest to play cautiously ("because the enemy camps, I need to be careful myself or I'll get blown up"), even though the team collectively would gain from coordination ("if everyone coordinates on supporting a push at the same time, the enemy will be overrun at the cap").
I'm not necessarily saying that playing cautiously ("camping") is bad - given no coordination, it's often a very rational way of playing.

This is also why I personally use the F-keys a lot in random games and use the chat as needed.
My individual stats aren't great, but the win rate has gone up a lot lately even though I'm solo-queuing.
Every little action that can influence that equilibrium gives the team as a collective a huge advantage over the other, even if its not obvious at first. :Smile_Default:

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,936 posts
13,542 battles
5 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

Passive play is kind of the natural equilibrium outcome (at higher tiers) though, because first of all, people have generally learned that yoloing into a cap = bad, and thus play more carefully (like they should).
But because there is a lack of coordination when you play in randoms, it is more difficult take the gameplay to the next level to exploit that passive and camping playstyle, since that often requires a coordinated effort to break the equilibrium, which is camping.
I don't really see this gameplay changing too much in the future, as it's kind of "hard-wired" due to how one individual alone cannot meaningfully change an equilibrium on his own, and mostly will get punished for doing so if the other players aren't coordinated.

Add in coordination though (like a unicum division that has the level of coordination), and a flank can fall pretty quickly and outright win the game very early, even though it only took 3 out of 12 players to have the required coordination.

This is because the situation described above is basic game theory in a nutshell.
The t10 meta is a Nash equilibrium, which in this case means that individual actors (or captains in this example) find it in their best interest to play cautiously ("because the enemy camps, I need to be careful myself or I'll get blown up"), even though the team collectively would gain from coordination ("if everyone coordinates on supporting a push at the same time, the enemy will be overrun at the cap").
I'm not necessarily saying that playing cautiously ("camping") is bad - given no coordination, it's often a very rational way of playing.

This is also why I personally use the F-keys a lot in random games and use the chat as needed.
My individual stats aren't great, but the win rate has gone up a lot lately even though I'm solo-queuing.
Every little action that can influence that equilibrium gives the team as a collective a huge advantage over the other, even if its not obvious at first. :Smile_Default:

 

+1 just by referencing Game Theory mate.

Prisoner's dilemma is also aplicable. Players will more often than not simply choose to save their skin and do their thing rather than cooperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWAMP]
Players
563 posts
3,382 battles
12 minutes ago, Taliesn said:

 

+1 just by referencing Game Theory mate.

Prisoner's dilemma is also aplicable. Players will more often than not simply choose to save their skin and do their thing rather than cooperate.

Cheers!
I thought I'd bring it up, since I usually don't see it brought up on the forums, even though the situations people complain about are very predictable from a game theory vantage point.

Yeah, the prisoner's dilemma is very applicable, especially in the "saving your star"-mechanic that happens in ranked play.
It's rational to play for damage farming from an individual standpoint ("I might keep my star"), even though the team collectively loses on it (11/12 might lose a star, and you too are likely to lose yours since everyone else is likely to have the same mindset).
People often bark up the wrong tree here when they complain about players following this logic.
WG is more to blame, since they are instituting a mechanic where the prisoner's dilemma can exist.
Take the "save your star"-mechanic away, and the prisoner's dilemma is much less likely to exist.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,936 posts
13,542 battles
23 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

Cheers!
I thought I'd bring it up, since I usually don't see it brought up on the forums, even though the situations people complain about are very predictable from a game theory vantage point.

Yeah, the prisoner's dilemma is very applicable, especially in the "saving your star"-mechanic that happens in ranked play.
It's rational to play for damage farming from an individual standpoint ("I might keep my star"), even though the team collectively loses on it (11/12 might lose a star, and you too are likely to lose yours since everyone else is likely to have the same mindset).
People often bark up the wrong tree here when they complain about players following this logic.
WG is more to blame, since they are instituting a mechanic where the prisoner's dilemma can exist.
Take the "save your star"-mechanic away, and the prisoner's dilemma is much less likely to exist.

 

It is at play in every single game.

 

The DD players knows he should get into the caps and spot for cruisers and BBs but thinks the cruiser will turn back and not help him with the enemy DD or focus the fat BB at the back, so fück it.

The cruiser player knows he should support the DD in front and use the cruiser's radar/hydro in front of the BB but thinks the BB will stay at the back, the DD will smoke itself and he'll be alone to be insta-blapped by 3 enemy BBs, so fück it.

The BB player knows he should support the cruiser and use the thread of his BB's guns but thinks the cruiser will turn tail in 5 seconds and go unspotted, just like the DD, and he'll be left alone to be focused by half the enemy team, so fück it.

 

The CV player is above Nash, Game Theory or indeed any kind of equilibrium.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,183 posts
11,239 battles

Next time, 

Please try to be a little kinder towards the people you're talking to. 

Being constructive and showing respect to others are among the rules of this forum. 

This topic will be locked. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×