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

Whining about CVs :)

133 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SV3]
Players
197 posts
6,810 battles

Well this is my first ever thread in a forum and I should probably be sleeping instead.

I love this game and would like to thank all the people working hard on it to make it fun.

Recently I´ve been growing weary with some parts of it... Its not that CVs are always strong in game. But rather that a good cv player can impact the game so much if he faces a less skilled cv player. As a DD main I find myself in the position of being really restricted when this happens, and its frustrating. The feeling of making a difference in the game is awesome. But when my cv gets outplayed I loose my influence in the game. Sure I could try to research the Grozovoi or buy a Kidd... Still I really like the stealthy torp DDs and radars, hydro, spotter planes etc I can live with and calculate my moves accordingly. Against a CV I can´t always find a solution other than playing passively and loosing the game slowly. Part of the problem is the only one CV rule at higher tiers. Still more CVs would probably make the game unplayable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,696 posts
13,135 battles
3 hours ago, Systergummi said:

Part of the problem is the only one CV rule at higher tiers.

 

No it isn't.

Contrary to popular belief CVs don't scale well in numbers without sufficient skill to back it up due to the nature of CV play and mechanics. An outstanding CV player has no problems trouncing two who are "only" good alone.

And before you state your disbelief, I've been there and done that. Playing against two CV players of inferior skill level is almost no different than playing against one, even if your teammate is afk. And ofc if your teammate isn't afk your advantage rises even higher regardless of how bad your teammate is.

On the other hand you create situations in which two good CV players can be put on one team and two bad ones on the other, increasing the amount of influence the former can have to the extreme.

(Among other problems which I won't elaborate on right now.)

 

CVs are dominant in current play due to little part of their own. To list just a few factors that benefit skilled CV players extremely:

- players are unaccustomed to having CVs in a match

- players do not use counters to CVs that are widely available and extremely effective

- players tend to have a solo play mentality

- average skill is so low that if it were a hole you fell into you'd die of old age before hitting the ground

- BB overpopulation has pushed the primary CV counter (AA cruisers) into a bad position

- current meta revolves around camping

 

Having a good CV player against a bad one initially only means one side gets a spotting advantage. That's not insubstantial but can be overcome. Literally everything else is served up to the skilled CV player on a silver platter by either his own or the enemy team.

 

If you find yourself with a bad CV and realize he's getting smashed your own team needs to start applying pressure immediately (if it is not already doing so). Playing passive only gives the enemy CV time to fly more strikes, set said strikes up perfectly and otherwise probe and whittle down your defenses one by one. The more time you give him, the bigger his advantage gets.

Too bad that this requires people to put their big, heavily armored and armed ships in harms way, something the average player is simply unwilling to do. Instead he will camp at the edge of the map then complain about how overpowered CVs are when aircraft inevitably come for him.

As a DD the best you can do is to encourage teammates to move closer to objectives by laying smoke for them, then use their AA cover to take it and scout ahead. Of course if they don't want to, well, sucks for you. On the other hand, do you honestly believe that you should have even the slightest chance of winning a match when a good majority of the team doesn't want to play the objective in this team game?

 

Don't bother with Grozo or Kidd if you think you will be able to sail around alone without need to worry about aircraft. It's incredibly easy to put them into binds that will get them killed as a same tier CV if you know how to.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,871 posts
11,296 battles

Also two high tier CVs who know what they are doing basically means anything on the map can be an easy one shot with zero the end user can do about it.

 

Try calculating the potential alpha of two Haku , that's not even including the potential DoT damage :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SV3]
Players
197 posts
6,810 battles
2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

If you find yourself with a bad CV and realize he's getting smashed your own team needs to start applying pressure immediately (if it is not already doing so). Playing passive only gives the enemy CV time to fly more strikes, set said strikes up perfectly and otherwise probe and whittle down your defenses one by one. The more time you give him, the bigger his advantage gets.

Too bad that this requires people to put their big, heavily armored and armed ships in harms way, something the average player is simply unwilling to do. Instead he will camp at the edge of the map then complain about how overpowered CVs are when aircraft inevitably come for him.

As a DD the best you can do is to encourage teammates to move closer to objectives by laying smoke for them, then use their AA cover to take it and scout ahead. Of course if they don't want to, well, sucks for you. On the other hand, do you honestly believe that you should have even the slightest chance of winning a match when a good majority of the team doesn't want to play the objective in this team game?

Its just that I can cope with the whole no team playing thing. But when you add CVs to the mix it hampers me to the point of it not being even remotely fun anymore. My impact is more or less dependent on my team playing as a team, whilst the CVs is based on his skill alone. The counter to a good CV is "teamplay". Also called huddeling in groups and slowly creeping forward... That is just soooooooo boooooooring to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAIN]
Community Contributor
879 posts
10,790 battles
9 minutes ago, Systergummi said:

Its just that I can cope with the whole no team playing thing. But when you add CVs to the mix it hampers me to the point of it not being even remotely fun anymore. My impact is more or less dependent on my team playing as a team, whilst the CVs is based on his skill alone. The counter to a good CV is "teamplay". Also called huddeling in groups and slowly creeping forward... That is just soooooooo boooooooring to me.

 

yeah, but on a 12 vs 12 game some teamplay can be nice :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,696 posts
13,135 battles
6 hours ago, Systergummi said:

My impact is more or less dependent on my team playing as a team, whilst the CVs is based on his skill alone.

 

Utterly untrue. CVs are ironically the most team dependent class in the game due to their fundamental inability to contest objectives despite their high match influence. If your team is bad there is literally nothing you can do to win the game in a CV.

I've had plenty of matches in which I lost despite killing up to 2/3rds of the enemy team myself.

 

You can accelerate pushes by denying the enemy vision and providing it to your own team yourself. And, as I stated previously, taking things slow only plays into the hands of the enemy CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,562 posts
9,106 battles
20 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Utterly untrue. CVs are ironically the most team dependent class in the game due to their fundamental inability to contest objectives despite their high match influence. If your team is bad there is literally nothing you can do to win the game in a CV.

I've had plenty of matches in which I lost despite killing up to 2/3rds of the enemy team myself.

 

You can accelerate pushes by denying the enemy vision and providing it to your own team yourself. And, as I stated previously, taking things slow only plays into the hands of the enemy CV.

 

And now, coming from the mouth (or in this case, fingers) of a much less experienced and less good player that uses CVs: this quoted opinion is 100% true.

 

A CV is nothing more than a force multiplier.
I've played and lost air battles against vastly better CV players, and my team still won effortlessly.
I've dominated the skies to a point that I would have uninstalled the game in shame had I been the other team's CV, and my team got absolutely spanked in battle.

 

Of course there are issues with CVs and AA, deep ones.
But to blame everything on CVs being OP i laughable, and the tell tale sign that someone hasn't played CV themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
745 posts
12,486 battles
10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

No it isn't.

Contrary to popular belief CVs don't scale well in numbers without sufficient skill to back it up due to the nature of CV play and mechanics. An outstanding CV player has no problems trouncing two who are "only" good alone.

So ie. CV scale better than other ships with skill.

10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

CVs are dominant in current play due to little part of their own.

So ie. CV scale worse than other with skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,870 posts
5,153 battles
13 hours ago, Systergummi said:

But rather that a good cv player can impact the game so much if he faces a less skilled cv player.

 

He has a point if u focus on this statement and combine it with:

 

10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

- players are unaccustomed to having CVs in a match

- players tend to have a solo play mentality

- current meta revolves around camping

 

I had a really really bad streak yesterday, where as I had every round a T10 CV in the game and seriously every time the enemy CV was awesome (checked WR - in ranges from 65 to 90% WR!) while my best was, if i recall, a 51% guy?. And every single time I told my team right at the start, that we are up against a VERY dangerous CV. Whats the stuff that I see? A Mogami rushing alone in the cap - I scream to him, to stop this, CV will kill him. Not even 30 sec later he got send to port - by CV. Next round all the BBs wander off in different directions. Was fun seeing Bismark, Tirpitz and Izumo getting deleted one by one with each wave of the CV. Another round - 3 BBs (2x T10 + T9) circle the map into enemy spawn, hunting that CV. A shima leading them. The CV again had fun deleting them.

 

What I dont understand: why does this keep happening? Its like you would watch a traincrossing and people just keep walking ahead of incoming trains, piling up dead bodys next to the track. Just to see 5 mins later more ppl walking carelessly ahead of the next incoming train. How can you not change your playstyle when there is a CV around? Why do you put yourself into positions, where its the easiest thing on earth to delete you? This must be a constant thing for those guys i decribed in my examples from yesterday - so why the eff do they keep on doing it? There were ppl with 2000 to 8000 games among them (ye I had fun checking those ppls stats) - then I wonder, how often have they been deleted from CVs cuz they played stupid? If you´d guess hundreds of times - I wouldnt even say thats unlikely. So how come ppl cant learn? Its totaly beyond me.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,696 posts
13,135 battles
6 minutes ago, Namolis said:

So ie. CV scale worse than other with skill.

 

It's nice to see you're incapable of understanding simple statements, even when their meaning are explicitly clear.

 

"An outstanding CV player has no problems trouncing two who are "only" good." -> CVs scale a lot better against themselves with skill compared to every other class due to the nature of their mechanics and play.

"CVs are dominant in current play due to little part of their own." -> CVs scale even better when general enemy average player skill is low and the current meta is playing into their hands. When that is not the case CVs will have a hard time regardless of their own skill or how bad the enemy CV is, the most extreme example of which can be seen in the competitive side of WoWs.

 

Seriously, what is there not to understand? Is it truly that hard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
745 posts
12,486 battles
1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

I had a really really bad streak yesterday, where as I had every round a T10 CV in the game and seriously every time the enemy CV was awesome (checked WR - in ranges from 65 to 90% WR!) while my best was, if i recall, a 51% guy?. And every single time I told my team right at the start, that we are up against a VERY dangerous CV. Whats the stuff that I see? A Mogami rushing alone in the cap - I scream to him, to stop this, CV will kill him. Not even 30 sec later he got send to port - by CV. Next round all the BBs wander off in different directions. Was fun seeing Bismark, Tirpitz and Izumo getting deleted one by one with each wave of the CV. Another round - 3 BBs (2x T10 + T9) circle the map into enemy spawn, hunting that CV. A shima leading them. The CV again had fun deleting them.

 

What I dont understand: why does this keep happening? Its like you would watch a traincrossing and people just keep walking ahead of incoming trains, piling up dead bodys next to the track. Just to see 5 mins later more ppl walking carelessly ahead of the next incoming train. How can you not change your playstyle when there is a CV around? Why do you put yourself into positions, where its the easiest thing on earth to delete you? This must be a constant thing for those guys i decribed in my examples from yesterday - so why the eff do they keep on doing it? There were ppl with 2000 to 8000 games among them (ye I had fun checking those ppls stats) - then I wonder, how often have they been deleted from CVs cuz they played stupid? If you´d guess hundreds of times - I wouldnt even say thats unlikely. So how come ppl cant learn? Its totaly beyond me.

It could be that those players were potatoes (in all honesty that might be the most likely explaination), or it could be that some of them realized the danger in giving the enemy CV time to work his magic, and felt the need to push early and hard. (...which is still, in itself, an uphill battle considering that defending is easier than attacking. And riddled with problems - there are more "wrong" than "right" ways of pushing. But better than sitting around and waiting for the enemy CV to finish the game for them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,870 posts
5,153 battles
4 minutes ago, Namolis said:

It could be that those players were potatoes (in all honesty that might be the most likely explaination)

 

Judging by their stats, this is obviously the explanation for what I had to witness. But you know, this goes hand in hand. You are not a potato out of coincidence, so to say, rather there are reasons, why they are potatoes. And how those guys handled the presence of a CV is one of those reasons.

 

7 minutes ago, Namolis said:

it could be that some of them realized the danger in giving the enemy CV time to work his magic, and felt the need to push early and hard. (...which is still, in itself, an uphill battle considering that defending is easier than attacking. And riddled with problems - there are more "wrong" than "right" ways of pushing. But better than sitting around and waiting for the enemy CV to finish the game for them.)

 

Oh yea I agree. This was the least stupid of the three examples, and I gotta say - we actually won that round despite all the odds. The map was trap and the three stooges BBs went to A and from there into the enemy spawn. Needless to say the CV did make his way behind C, so they would have never caught him. Also, a Montana-Division was in B, blocking the rest of our fleet from helping them. If they would have focused B first, I would have happily provided AA for them (me = Moskva). But I had no chance then to hide behind B. Luckily, that round we had a decent CV and he understood, that the enemy CV has only 1 place left to go in that situation. So he actually spotted him for us guys in the south to shoot him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
745 posts
12,486 battles
44 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

It's nice to see you're incapable of understanding simple statements, even when their meaning are explicitly clear.

 

"An outstanding CV player has no problems trouncing two who are "only" good." -> CVs scale a lot better against themselves with skill compared to every other class due to the nature of their mechanics and play.

"CVs are dominant in current play due to little part of their own." -> CVs scale even better when general enemy average player skill is low and the current meta is playing into their hands. When that is not the case CVs will have a hard time regardless of their own skill or how bad the enemy CV is, the most extreme example of which can be seen in the competitive side of WoWs.

 

Seriously, what is there not to understand? Is it truly that hard?

I'm just baffled by the amount of doublethink and bending over backwards you do to accomodate the opinion that CVs are completely fine and super fun to play against. You have in the past conceided to me that you agree CV have more net influence over the match than other classes. You didn't think that was a problem (I do), but we didn't disagree on the facts of it.

 

Here the OP is exactly the same: "CV has higher skill ceiling and more potential influence. That sucks". Your response is "yes, but no, but yes" (again with the oddball "It's not CVs who are superior, it's just everyone else who are inferior" line of yours). Fact is: we have the players that we do. I am not perfect. You are not perfect. The average Joe is not perfect. If all it takes for CVs to shine in a match is that people make mistakes, then guess what: that will happen every single game. One person can say "the ocean is rising" and another "the ship is sinking" and be describing the same thing. One person can say that "Average players are ok, but Stranges123 is very good", or one can say that "Average players are $hit, but Strangers123 is ok" - and it will be just two ways of phrasing the same reality. In this case, the game's meta is the way that it is for a reason. The more you fan out (up to a point at least), the harder it is for enemy ships to angle against all enemies... but the easier it is for the CV to strike. This means that all things being equal, there is no way around a superior CV giving his team greater total influence, even if the 150k damage that the CV did doesn't alone seem to tip the scales. The truth is that the superior CV just gave his team the freedom to play the way they wanted and outplay the enemy.

 

Props for at least putting some tips at the end of your post though. Though if your team is on the clock and the enemy team isn't, then I'd say it's at least 80% your team will lose. In WoWS defending is easier than attacking.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,696 posts
13,135 battles
27 minutes ago, Namolis said:

I'm just baffled by the amount of doublethink and bending over backwards you do to accomodate the opinion that CVs are completely fine and super fun to play against.

 

Wat.

 

First of all, things don't have to be fun to play against. In fact, it is often entirely undesirable to have fun when losing. Mechanics have to be fun to play with, end of story, what they do to the target is mostly irrelevant. That is a design principle of all games.

Second, your dream of each fundamentally different class having even close to the same amount of potential match influence is utterly idiotic and goes not only against fundamental game design principles, as demonstrated by literally every successful PvP title that utilizes such a class system out there, but against natural law itself. Diversity and equality are on opposite ends of a spectrum. You cannot have both. Deal with it.

And third, yes, CVs have more potential match influence than any other class. CVs are however excessively dominant in the current meta far beyond their initial match influence due to factors that are outside of their control, several of which I have outlined above.

Get it now? Or is it still too difficult? Need some pictures maybe?

 

If you want to balance a game around the lowest possible denominator then you may as well not balance it at all. Both have the same outcome.

Players will make mistakes, yes. That is precisely why CVs as a class, and in fact PvP games in general, work even if they were balanced perfectly. The side that makes less mistakes will usually win. There is nothing wrong with that. On the contrary it is precisely what a good balancing system will aim for.

 

27 minutes ago, Namolis said:

Though if your team is on the clock and the enemy team isn't, then I'd say it's at least 80% your team will lose. In WoWS defending is easier than attacking.

 

Better than losing guaranteed.

And if you honestly believe you should still have equal chances of winning despite one of your teammates being utterly useless then I have some bad news for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,870 posts
5,153 battles
17 minutes ago, Namolis said:

Fact is: we have the players that we do. I am not perfect. You are not perfect. The average Joe is not perfect. If all it takes for CVs to shine in a match is that people make mistakes, then guess what: that will happen every single game.

 

I just had to quote this for truth and make it bold. Ive come across many discussion in this forum, where ppl will bend the reality, by either projecting enemy team as perfect or their teammates as perfect or vice versa (whatever did suit their agenda at that moment) to prove a point - not at all limited to CV-discussion. All this talk about a perfect world where every player will make the perfect decission every time is really futile, cuz it just dont happen. It was basicly what I was trying to say, you just found the better words to describe it :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TENGO]
Players
1,457 posts
8,205 battles
53 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

And if you honestly believe you should still have equal chances of winning despite one of your teammates being utterly useless then I have some bad news for you.

I think, El2a, what ppl have problems with isn't "equal chances", but rather "fair chances" and how much the difference in skill in 1/12 of a team utterly disrupts that fairness.

 

You are absolutely right if you state that, when opposed with a superior carrier, a coherent agressive push where let's say two parts of the fleet support each other can balance the scales.

I will never deny that, cause it is true. As you said yourself, competetive proves it.

 

At the same time, you can not deny that you are asking the impossible here. Agressive, coherent play, in the current meta, in randoms? No offense, but that almost sounds like a cruel joke. The random player is a braindead monkey, and you know it very well.

 

How can any of us change that? You must have had (many) games yourself where you asked/begged/yelled one or more teammates to do x/go y/... and got replied with comatose silence or the ultimate respons "stfu noob".

 

 

 

This is why I hate a comment like:

53 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

And if you honestly believe you should still have equal chances of winning despite one of your teammates being utterly useless then I have some bad news for you.

Most likely most people on the superior carrier's team will also be utterly useless. They just had the luck of having said carrier. Nothing more.

 

 

 

In the end, that is what makes people (including me), angry. Seeing let's say you in an essex on the enemy team, and mr potatohead who first gathers all his planes and then tries to snipe the red cv, in the friendly team, you know there is just nothing to be done, unless by  utter chance the skill difference between most or even all other ships than the cvs are as different. (which can happen, as per your description of you losing in carrier)

 

But it removes every bit of personal influence. You talked about game development - well, putting the outcome of a game in pure chance is extremely bad game development. It's the same reason why detonations are hated.

 

 

The fact that a hugely influential carrier can only be countered by teamplay, in a game that knows no teamplay only makes people who are aware of that feel absolutely powerless, gloomy and angry.

 

(Only to get to full fletched depression once they realize how this game and its playerbase continues to "develop", stimulating less and less teamplay, creating more & more autonomous "islandships" etc)

 

 

---

Also, I quite respect the fact that you keep arguing this well & polite, given that you most likely must have had this discussion dozens of times.

 

 

2 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

I would have uninstalled the game in shame had I been the other team's CV,


I wish more ppl had your way of thinking.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
745 posts
12,486 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Wat.

 

First of all, things don't have to be fun to play against. In fact, it is often entirely undesirable to have fun when losing. They have to be fun to play with, end of story. That is a design principle of all PvP games.

Second, your dream of each fundamentally different class having even close to the same amount of potential match influence is utterly idiotic and goes not only against fundamental game design principles, as demonstrated by literally every successful PvP title that utilizes such a class system out there, but against natural law itself. Diversity and equality are on opposite ends of a spectrum. You cannot have both. Deal with it.

And third, yes, CVs have more potential match influence than any other class. CVs are however excessively dominant in the current meta far beyond their initial match influence due to factors that are outside of their control, several of which I have outlined above.

Get it now?

 

If you want to balance a game around the lowest possible denominator then you may as well not balance it at all. Both have the same outcome.

 

 

Better than losing guaranteed.

And if you honestly believe you should still have equal chances of winning despite one of your teammates being utterly useless then I have some bad news for you.

Obviously, I disagree with most of this. Excecpt the last part - if one player is useless, then yes it will tip the scales. What I object to is the degree to which it does if it happens to be the CV.

 

1. It is not only desirable to have at least some fun even while losing, it is vital to the game's health. The average player will lose 50% of matches. If 50% of matches are totally not fun at all, then players will stop playng. Everybody wants to win, but it won't always happen - and if frustration and anger is all you are left with half of the time, then why bother playing at all? Most players will find better things to do with their free time. This is why ranked is such a cancerous and horrible game mode.

 

In the same vein, it is vital for fun that ships (in this case) are not only fun to play, but - if not outright fun, then at least tolerable - to play against.
 

Spoiler

 

Let me give you a little anecdote on this which has nothing to do with CVs per se. Last night I played a game in my GK. On my team was another player in a Yamato. Most of the team was south, while he and (i believe) two other ships were north. Unfortunately, he was being spotted (we later learned by a very diciplined Shima), and a Hindenburg and a Conqueror (and possibly a DM) was burning him to crisp from behind an island, while he was desperatly going full reverse to get away. He felt abandoned by the team and accused me of camping - which I not only thought was unfair, but I thought he was the one camping instead so we started fighting in chat.

 

Thankfully; after the match we chatted a bit - calmed down, compared notes (turns out we had about the same "total distance travelled") and made up. Clearly he wasn't a bad person, but the situation had been very rage-inducing. Which I totally understand - he was being hurt (complete with this game's *flash-bang-shake-flame-"problem-solve...-ship-is-on-fire!"-effects*) with no way of shooting back. In conclusion: that game had not been fun for him (even if we actually ended up winning - and even if his contribution may have been quite significant in that he tied up three valuable ships for a long time), but thankfully it is rare that you are being killed like that with no way of getting back. I doubt he would want to play the game if every game was like that.

 

 

2. "Utterly idiotic." Right.

 

Why do any games bother make balance changes at all then? Could it be that even if perfect, mathematically zero discrepency is obviously never going to happen; it is very much possible to strive towards minimizing it as much as possible?

 

Or let me ask you this: would you accept a politician who wanted to disband the police because "you can never stop ALL crime anyway"? Would you buy a car from a manufacturer who omits all safety features because "you can never stop ALL injuries"?

 

Diversity can and do coexist with balance. StarCraft is a good example - the three races play very differently, but they are largely balanced against each other. Not perfectly of course - any single point on the number line has measure zero after all, so you will never hit your target exactly - but very close.

 

3. You are just begging the question. "The current meta" is just another way of saying "the game as it is now". Or just "the game". In which, we agree, CVs have greater total influence. Your excuses for why this isn't really a problem and should be ignored are only interesting if you genuinely believe they are about to correct themselveses. They haven't for as long as I've been playing, so I doubt they ever will.

 

CVs also increase their power and influence as the match progresses, since blobs lose ships and/or cohersion under fire, objectives become time critical, forcing ships to peel off and AAA gets a workover by RN battleships - all making the CVs job easier - but perhaps that wasn't what you were aiming at.

 

1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

I just had to quote this for truth and make it bold. Ive come across many discussion in this forum, where ppl will bend the reality, by either proceting enemy team as perfect or their teammates as perfect or vice versa (whatever did suit their agenda at that moment) to prove a point - not at all limited to CV-discussion. All this talk about a perfect world where every player will make the perfect decission every time is really futile, cuz it just dont happen. It was basicly what I was trying to say, you just found the better words to describe it :)

Thank you for the kind words :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SV3]
Players
197 posts
6,810 battles

Thx guys for a Nice discusion without to much salt in it. Today was a lot better than yesterday when it came to cv play. I even had a good game in my torp-reload Yugomo. I also maxed out the AA on every dd i have, Khaba can get 70. I still retain the same opinion that high tier CVs can have to much influence on a game if the oppsition is not up to par. And will easily nullify a DD-players game impact. If a team has a bad cruiser, DD or BB it won't matter to much, as long as someone else picks up the slack. But with only one CV in the team that persons contribution can't be replaced so easily. I had a t7 game today that was easily won due to our team having the only dd, and no CVs around, leading to passive play on the enemies part.

Mabe part of the problem is that CVs are not present in all games? If they were, people would probably play better against them. One game today we had Minotaurs at 2 caps. Poor cv had no way of spotting me. And I could help with smoke. So teamwork ? and yes it works... but its randoms. So I cant count on that happening to often.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,696 posts
13,135 battles
56 minutes ago, PzychoPanzer said:

I think, El2a, what ppl have problems with isn't "equal chances", but rather "fair chances" and how much the difference in skill in 1/12 of a team utterly disrupts that fairness.

 

Thoroughly inevitable if you plan on developing a class based game in which each class is supposed to have fundamentally different roles and playstyles, as demonstrated by literally every other game out there that employs such a system. To remedy this would require you to remove at least two, if not three out of four classes from the game. Or take WG's approach of giving up balance entirely, instead choosing to make the most played class overpowered while [edited]-ing on everyone else.

Now ask yourself, do you really want that?

 

56 minutes ago, PzychoPanzer said:

The fact that a hugely influential carrier can only be countered by teamplay, in a game that knows no teamplay only makes people who are aware of that feel absolutely powerless, gloomy and angry.

 

Well, you could also play one of the various AA cruisers. Too bad that these are among the most difficult ships to play in the current meta.

 

45 minutes ago, Namolis said:

1. It is not only desirable to have at least some fun even while losing, it is vital to the game's health.

 

Which is precisely why some of the most "toxic" games are also among the most popular.

Oh wait, I in fact can't think of any popular game in which it is even remotely fun to lose.

In a PvP game losing doesn't need to be fun, neither in video games nor in competitive sports. In fact, depending on what type of game you want to develop losing needs to be frustrating as all out so that the player has an incentive to get better. Using the various game mechanics needs to be fun, getting targeted by them does not.

 

45 minutes ago, Namolis said:

Why do any games bother make balance changes at all then?

 

Because balance does not mean having each class have the same amount of potential influence in any of these games.

Your little off topic anecdotes don't do you any favors as you have fundamentally failed to understand how balance in such a game actually works. You probably don't even realize they cement my arguments perfectly while completely undermining yours.

 

45 minutes ago, Namolis said:

StarCraft is a good example - the three races play very differently, but they are largely balanced against each other.

 

Ahahahahaha, no.

The races share the same basic principles. Fundamental basics such as economy, macro and micro are all the same, it's how the races do it that is different. They all play on the same level field, they're not as completely different as people make them out to be. Playing any race for a prolonged period of time will enable you to play any other with little difficulty as well. You may need to learn some strats, timings, unit compositions and abilities if you want to play at a higher level, but no one needs to tell you how to mine minerals/gas, expand, increase your supply or even just make and control units.

That is not the case in WoWs nor any other game which employs fundamentally different classes. Playing BBs for a long time will not tell you how to play DDs. Playing cruisers will not tell you how to play CVs. At best three classes share the same basic control scheme and that is it, with another one being completely different in every way.

And even in StarCraft no race has the same chance to win depending on the game time (early, mid and late game), because the system is explicitly balanced around it not being the case.

 

45 minutes ago, Namolis said:

Your excuses for why this isn't really a problem and should be ignored are only interesting if you genuinely believe they are about to correct themselveses.

 

Causes are neither excuses nor are they only relevant in one specific context. Addressing issues such as this requires you to identify the cause, then dealing with them in an appropriate manner. You don't fix BB overpopulation by nerfing CVs, for example. Whether or not the developer holds interest in doing so is completely irrelevant, causes remain the same regardless of whether they do or not.

 

 

Honestly, when the guys teaching me game design said that it will make me see how little players actually understand it and make me want to rage at their stupidity I thought they were joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TENGO]
Players
1,457 posts
8,205 battles
37 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

WG's approach of giving up balance entirely, instead choosing to make the most played class overpowered while [edited]-ing on everyone else.

I think you know well enough it's the last thing I want. The type of selfsufficient ship I referred to is exemplified by the Missouri, which has extremely good anti air, anti cruiser & anti dd capacities, which is retarded.

 

37 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

To remedy this would require you to remove at least two, if not three out of four classes from the game.

This one I don't understand. Yes, dds are powerful e.g., but they are (most of the time) not 1 per team, unlike CV, so the skill difference will not be that vast. They have counters too. Same goes for most classes.

 

37 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Well, you could also play one of the various AA cruisers. Too bad that these are among the most difficult ships to play in the current meta.

I didn't mean "counter to cv" as the 1 on 1 when a carrier strikes it's target, but counter as in countering the cv from determining win or loss of the whole game.

 

And yea, playing AA cruisers, especially high tiers where the most powerful carriers are, is for a big part bs because of huge maps & bb meta. But who gives about the unterboats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
745 posts
12,486 battles
44 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Which is precisely why some of the most "toxic" games are also among the most popular.

Oh wait, I in fact can't think of any popular game in which it is even remotely fun to lose.

In a PvP game losing doesn't need to be fun, neither in video games nor in competitive sports. In fact, depending on what type of game you want to develop losing needs to be frustrating as all out so that the player has an incentive to get better. Using the various game mechanics needs to be fun, getting targeted by them does not.

Toxicity is a measure of two things: 1) frustration and 2) time invested. Frustrated players are quick to anger. Players with more time invested into a community will not want to throw it away so easily by being seen as a [edited].

 

I only need name one such game: WoWS. I have plenty of fun games where we utlimately lost. I would have preferred to win ofc, but for whatever reason we didn't - but at least I played well. I can't really change what others do (much). And I have plenty of matches I hated where we still won for that matter.

 

Does that mean I'm not competetive or that I claim to be a gracious loser? No. I'm actually a pretty horrible loser. But my enjoyment of the game is more tied to myself and my own experience than to what teammates I luck out with that day. I once had a game with 9 kills and 2k base xp that we still lost. I still remember enjoying that game immensely. If you feel different, then I guess that is just (another) way we are not the same.

 

Losing in and of itself isn't expected to be fun. The journy there cannot be only painful. I didn't sign up for 20 minutes of constant misory when I pressed "play".

44 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Because balance does not mean having each class have the same amount of potential influence in any of these games.

I realize that English is not your first language, so I'll give you a pass. But that is precicely what it means.
 
balance /ˈbal(ə)ns/                 noun          a situation in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,870 posts
5,153 battles
37 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Or take WG's approach of giving up balance entirely, instead choosing to make the most played class overpowered while [edited]-ing on everyone else.

 

Are we not there already? BBs that have better concealment then Cruisers, better turningcircle, nearly same speed. Those would bee the disadvantages a BB should have against Cruiser. Oh wait - it used to be like this, but its been watered down more and more until we are left with total absurd things like Moskva vs Conqueror (concealment) or Conqueror vs Zao (Fire potential) or Missouri vs any Radar Cruiser or...

 

43 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Because balance does not mean having each class have the same amount of potential influence in any of these games.

 

Sorry, but balancing means exactly this. If balancing doesnt stand for this in your opinion - then what does it stand for?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,562 posts
9,106 battles
34 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Ahahahahaha, no.

The races share the same basic principles. Fundamental basics such as economy, macro and micro are all the same, it's how the races do it that is different.

 

Furthermore, and even more importantly, it's not the factions that should be questionned when talking about class balance, much like it's not in-game countries in wows that are questionned, but the units within such factions.

 

For example, the marine unit for Terrans is vastly more important and influencial than the niche counterunit that is the firebat.
Meaning that units within a roster of units don't have the same influence.
Meaning that using Star Craft as an example of same-influence asymmetrical balancing is 100% counterproductive.

 

And to further compare units with wows, a scout unit in Star Craft is billions of times more influencial to the match than single basic soldier, much like a good CV scouting in wows is influencial.
So can we stop pretending that everything having the same influence on the match is a thing that can happen? Please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×