Even a grind master can't keep up with the amount of missions WG throws at us with so many conflicting tasks

[Hugh_Ruka]

17 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Seems WG should make a better effort of making it worth our time to try and complete the multitude of missions that several simultaneously ongoing time gated events thrust at us. This just gets getting more complicated and maybe it's actually even good if some of the missions are carefully hidden in nested web arcticles and what nots.

How to make it all worth it for us? Maybe WG should introduce some special Grind Master Flag & Patch Award?

There are no more new events that are not heavily time gated ... that's the main problem I see. I can play a few games a week, sometimes not even that. I don't bother with any event now because they expire before I can complete them anyway. A new Campaign would be nice ...

[Asym]

20 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I'm not so keen on this game any more that I'd be willing to whip out a notebook and a pen to work out the various diagrams for myself.

I was going to start another 400 match survey and realized that it would take me three more months this time around because I am playing so much less now.

And, as my wife said the other night:  why waste your time. 

Some of us actually Value Stream Mapped and flow charted and created logic models and every other "let's draw this process to illustrate what' actually going on" so.........it would be a waste of time because:  no  one  is  listening  nor  cares   at  this  corporation.....  (and, they simply can't afford us in reality.....their loss mate, their loss.....)

Here's a sample of one I started a while back for a class....errrr....lecture.....errr.....discussion with colleagues I had.....

BTW, the No Lift part was from another project that centered on Nurses Lifting patients and why Nursing are the second highest injury profession that involves skeletal/muscular injuries in the US....    I never really got a chance to work on this LM more than creating a shell as an example....  Please forgive the arrows;  it was a template I was using and.......

Edited October 29, 2023 by Asym

[Admiral_Karasu]

49 minutes ago, Asym said:

I was going to start another 400 match survey and realized that it would take me three more months this time around because I am playing so much less now.

And, as my wife said the other night:  why waste your time. 

Some of us actually Value Stream Mapped and flow charted and created logic models and every other "let's draw this process to illustrate what' actually going on" so.........it would be a waste of time because:  no  one  is  listening  nor  cares   at  this  corporation.....  (and, they simply can't afford us in reality.....their loss mate, their loss.....)

Here's a sample of one I started a while back for a class....errrr....lecture.....errr.....discussion with colleagues I had.....

BTW, the No Lift part was from another project that centered on Nurses Lifting patients and why Nursing are the second highest injury profession that involves skeletal/muscular injuries in the US....    I never really got a chance to work on this LM more than creating a shell as an example....  Please forgive the arrows;  it was a template I was using and.......

I'll pretend to understand what all this means but...

Overall, I don't think the strategic dimension matters in what is a single battle type game, meaning any strategic considerations are effectively null, so you are left with the tactical uses of the weapon, e.g. the CV's in battle.

The way I see it, your two points under Needs Assessment need to be true for the CV's to playable as well as complimentary to the tactical game play experience.

As for the Desired Results section...

1. Yes... the CV's need to be able to make DMG in order to be a desirable class, if you want to have them as a desirable class in which case you would need to have a balancing mechanism that throttles that DMG to prevent them from becoming OP (as they historically were) to maintain game play balance.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by 'unique DMG values'.

3. Three is debatable, because I remember the RTS CV era well enough to realize that that implementation of the CV's was based on the acceptance that the CV's operated dimensionally separate from the other three classes (the same would logically apply to any other dimensionally unique class). Fitting into the tactical mix never was the case with them, though, IMO. Being OP I see as a separate consideration.

4. Highly debatable, because of the impact that even a single CV can have on the battle does produce a decisive effect on the tactics both in terms of spotting, DMG impact and combat interaction.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

54 minutes ago, Asym said:

Here's a sample

Your needs analysis issues box is built on false assumptions. 

Warships (and armies, on land) were an instrument of strategic power projection long before air power ever had a meaningful thing to say about it. But that's an element that WOWS doesn't touch on at all, because it was never intended to. 

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I'll pretend to understand what all this means but...

Overall, I don't think the strategic dimension matters in what is a single battle type game, meaning any strategic considerations are effectively null, so you are left with the tactical uses of the weapon, e.g. the CV's in battle.

The way I see it, your two points under Needs Assessment need to be true for the CV's to playable as well as complimentary to the tactical game play experience.

As for the Desired Results section...

1. Yes... the CV's need to be able to make DMG in order to be a desirable class, if you want to have them as a desirable class in which case you would need to have a balancing mechanism that throttles that DMG to prevent them from becoming OP (as they historically were) to maintain game play balance.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by 'unique DMG values'.

3. Three is debatable, because I remember the RTS CV era well enough to realize that that implementation of the CV's was based on the acceptance that the CV's operated dimensionally separate from the other three classes (the same would logically apply to any other dimensionally unique class). Fitting into the tactical mix never was the case with them, though, IMO. Being OP I see as a separate consideration.

4. Highly debatable, because of the impact that even a single CV can have on the battle does produce a decisive effect on the tactics both in terms of spotting, DMG impact and combat interaction.

Oh-Kay, first off:  all of us come from "different environments".....  Some of us pour concrete and some are doctors or Lawyers - the point is "our perspectives are all different and some of us simply were employed in one career or another to "figure stuff out...."  What I see and have experienced is not the same as you or the Ensign....  We have to take "perspective with a grain of salt" and allow some "grace" in the difference we share.... 

Having spent decades in the Military make what I think "strategic" is is based on how the Army defines that word....  Carriers IRL are strategic weapons systems - just as the Battleships were in the early 20th century.  The US sends "Carrier Battle Groups" whenever there is a Power Projection requirement; which, is a "Political Statement" in the absence of threats or, as earlier described by those much smarter:  "a solution to a political dilemma when words fail...." (the Carry a BIG Stick process....)

In the game, Carriers are strategic.........  How>?  Because, they can do something no one else can do in surface combatants:  "see the battlespace outside of LOS..." and do so faster without being seen !  Spotting alone is that skill......  And, the reason they aren't in KOTS......they would destroy all of the "cover based tactics" and could not be stopped.....  Without cover, as in the land war definition of cover" (since we really are WoTs on water) KOTS simply wouldn't function at all as it is.......

On small maps, Carriers are OP and only AA can change that.  Our host has no desire to make AA a human aimed and controlled speciality with AA dedicated ships.  Or, ASW ships either.  Remember, small maps.....

Unique damage values:  if spotting makes them strategic, spotting should have a hard and defined "reward system..."  And, if we really want to play the Carrier game, Air Superiority as a game carrier function should be that goal and be rewarded !   At issue then, is that once Air Superiority is achieved, how do we keep Carriers from being the "determining factor in winning or losing a match>?"  One ship to rule them all simply won't work.....   Doubt this?  Where are the US CAG's right now IRL?  Where were they in History in WW2.......get Air Superiority and you win the war....or, game.   That is the dilemma.

That's the "dissimilar weapons" discussion some of us have had for years !  A lot of games face this situation.  Can Carriers and Subs "fit" the game play without changing the gameplay so much in that a single, Barney level player, could simply not be defeated?

#4 is spot on my friend.   What can be "seen" can be hit and what can be hit can be killed......  Detection is life.  Detection is what makes or breaks warfare...  I have taught Asymmetrical combat operations........observation is life in a 360 degree combat environment.  Spotting "determines tactics" - do you see anyone in the Real World that doesn't spend huge amounts of money and time and training to "seeking out the enemy and determining their locations and strengths?"  Look at it this way:  even if we had really effective AA in the game, don't you think you'd kind of notice the icon pop up on the map even if 100% of the planes were killed?  "Ah, there  they are...."  And that, is why Carriers are not in KOTS at the moment:  because, resistance if futile.

It's a game that has simply "run out of" stuff to do and sell.....  We have neutered carriers and subs that makes no sense IRT History....  is it fun is the operative question and is that fun, that is making money for our host, sufficient to create better and more advanced content???  Or, are we at an end.....where they can't afford anything other than clones of clones of clones??  Who knows;  but, for many, that won't be sufficient to stay....

Edited October 29, 2023 by Asym

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Your needs analysis issues box is built on false assumptions. 

Warships (and armies, on land) were an instrument of strategic power projection long before air power ever had a meaningful thing to say about it. But that's an element that WOWS doesn't touch on at all, because it was never intended to. 

I'm supposed to be casting Gould Hollow Points instead of typing so I'll keep this short.

I created that template for another discussion way back when;  and,  never really used it because Update 8.0 simply killed the clan discussion we were having.....

Some of us want to have an educated discussion outside of the game....  Notice, it was never competed....only used as a discussion point.

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

19 minutes ago, Asym said:

...

On small maps, Carriers are OP and only AA can change that.  Our host has no desire to make AA a human aimed and controlled speciality with AA dedicated ships.  Or, ASW ships either.  Remember, small maps.....

Unique damage values:  if spotting makes them strategic, spotting should have a hard and defined "reward system..."  And, if we really want to play the Carrier game, Air Superiority as a game carrier function should be that goal and be rewarded !   At issue then, is that once Air Superiority is achieved, how do we keep Carriers from being the "determining factor in winning or losing a match>?"  One ship to rule them all simply won't work.....   Doubt this?  Where are the US CAG's right now IRL?  Where were they in History in WW2.......get Air Superiority and you win the war....or, game.   That is the dilemma.

That's the "dissimilar weapons" discussion some of us have had for years !  A lot of games face this situation.  Can Carriers and Subs "fit" the game play without changing the gameplay so much in that a single, Barney level player, could simply not be defeated?

#4 is spot on my friend.   What can be "seen" can be hit and what can be hit can be killed......  Detection is life.  Detection is what makes or breaks warfare...  I have taught Asymmetrical combat operations........observation is life in a 360 degree combat environment.  Spotting "determines tactics" - do you see anyone in the Real World that doesn't spend huge amounts of money and time and training to "seeking out the enemy and determining their locations and strengths?"  Look at it this way:  even if we had really effective AA in the game, don't you think you'd kind of notice the icon pop up on the map even if 100% of the planes were killed?  "Ah, there  they are...."  And that, is why Carriers are not in KOTS at the moment:  because, resistance if futile.

It's a game that has simply "run out of" stuff to do and sell.....  We have neutered carriers and subs that makes no sense IRT History....  is it fun is the operative question and is that fun, that is making money for our host, sufficient to create better and more advanced content???  Or, are we at an end.....where they can't afford anything other than clones of clones of clones??  Who knows;  but, for many, that won't be sufficient to stay....

On the subject of AA... it was better before the CV rework. I typically had several full AA build cruisers, the Kutuzov was my weapon of choice back then. If there's a tie in with anything realistic, though, ship AA wouldn't be the most effective counter to the CV's. Again, RTS CV's were, despite people having had issues with them, still the superior mode of implementation for WoWS.

It's been very effectively proven, yes, that without air superiority you cannot win a battle, or an offensive, in any post-WW2 environment (or post mid-WW2 environment, to be exact), whether on land or at sea.

Yes.. the arrival of the copy paste clones seems to be where WG is focusing now in terms of game development and content provision.. in addition to copy paste missions. They have, IMHO, painted themselves in the corner with the CV rework and the subsequent sub implementation.  The operative mode for a game should be that it is suitably challenging and fun to play, so game play balance is the key here, with enough realism to keep it 'relevant' if you know what I mean, and enough balancing to keep it as a playable game rather than making it into a simulated real world combat environment.

Generally speaking, I want more of the simulated real world elements in this game to allow for better immersion, but I also except WG to do a better job with the game balancing, specifically intra-class balancing, to improve on the shoddy excuse of a balance we are currently having in WoWS. There's been talk, for instance, of overhauling the spotting mechanism at least to some extent, but nothing's materialised yet.

Technically speaking, we are slightly adrift here and passing through the Off-topic Shallows.

[Yedwy]

On 10/29/2023 at 3:00 PM, Asym said:

Some of us actually Value Stream Mapped and flow charted and created logic models and every other "let's draw this process to illustrate what' actually going on" so.........it would be a waste of time because:  no  one  is  listening  nor  cares   at  this  corporation.....  (and, they simply can't afford us in reality.....their loss mate, their loss.....)Here's a sample of one I started a while back for a class....errrr....lecture.....errr.....discussion with colleagues I had.....

BTW, the No Lift part was from another project that centered on Nurses Lifting patients and why Nursing are the second highest injury profession that involves skeletal/muscular injuries in the US....    I never really got a chance to work on this LM more than creating a shell as an example....  Please forgive the arrows;  it was a template I was using and.......

I fully agree with your analysis, CVs give a different layer of play,  effectively making "projection of power" (weather damage or spotting) anywhere on the map without need to spend much time in relocating a ship there one can easily call it strategic in a tactical situation...

 

OFF TOPIC - yeah lifting patients can be a source of injuries all right, I got my nurses roller boards to cut down on the lifting part and taught them how to roll patients with a sheet without need to lift them when we were turning people un ventilators in COVID ICU and it decreased the injury rate alot

[Asym]

4 hours ago, Yedwy said:

I fully agree with your analysis, CVs give a different layer of play,  effectively making "projection of power" (weather damage or spotting) anywhere on the map without need to spend much time in relocating a ship there one can easily call it strategic in a tactical situation...

OFF TOPIC - yeah lifting patients can be a source of injuries all right, I got my nurses roller boards to cut down on the lifting part and taught them how to roll patients with a sheet without need to lift them when we were turning people un ventilators in COVID ICU and it decreased the injury rate alot

OFF TOPIC:  Well, a while back,  several close friends said can you create something "visual" for our executives that illustrates how patient weight and size isn't getting smaller and lighter....at the same time Nurses/EMT's were getting hurt all of the time....  This was 20+ years ago, even before the VA's patient lifting reforms...   So, I helped a private hospital "illustrate" the costs of broken Nurses/EMT's and they "changed direction" after the process mappings and logic model were briefed....  They saw the future and then, soon there after, the VA came out with their "lifting paradigm shift" that corporate hospitals in many States took up (thank GoD.......so many broken for life Nurses....yikes)