CV Skill Gap as Big as Ever

[WaveRider]

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That's the rub, isnt it?

It's not fun just waiting.

I once had a game in my Friesland where the enemy had radar cruisers and a Paolo Emilio...but no planes.

My captain was new and didn't have concealment expert yet...and I knew my flank would die to the Yolo Emilio...so the first half of the game was spotting for my battleships and big ships...while playing positioning cat and mouse with the Emilio to prevent him from Yoloing.

Neither of us were spotted (the fight was RPF only as both of us had it equipped) until he got bored and YOLOed into my hydro and died.

I then resumed spotting.

With the game finally in hand I GOT BORED and picked a fight with a ship that sunk me in garbage time.

DDs in a spotting heavy environment can be boring. Welcome to not having every game be set up for you to dominate.

It's a skill issue if you are playing DD and have trouble with spotting.

@Daniel_Allan_Clark I appreciate you stating that you have had games where you pretty much had nothing to do but spot and got bored. I also appreciate your statement regarding the enemy falling foul to one of the many mechanics that I previously pointed out. I also appreciate you indicating you were then so bored you broke from your task of helping your team - to pick a fight in which you died in 'garbage time'.

Your post above supports everything I have stated previously.

May I ask why when you had killed the enemy you did not continue to use your advantage to help your team win?

Edited December 21, 2023 by WaveRider

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, WaveRider said:

@Daniel_Allan_Clark I appreciate you stating that you have had games where you pretty much had nothing to do but spot and got bored. I also appreciate your statement regarding the enemy falling foul to one of the many mechanics that I previously pointed out. I also appreciate you indicating you were then so bored you broke from your task of helping your team - to pick a fight in which you died in 'garbage time'.

Your post above supports everything I have stated previously.

May I ask why when you had killed the enemy you did not continue to use your advantage to help your team win?

I did.

I only picked the fight after we had already won and my team didn't need my spotting anymore.

I wanted to fire my guns more than a few times in the match and I thought he wouldnt shoot at me rather than another ship.

I was wrong. Didn't really matter though because we won a minute later.

[WaveRider]

Just now, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I did.

I only picked the fight after we had already won and my team didn't need my spotting anymore.

I wanted to fire my guns more than a few times in the match and I thought he wouldnt shoot at me rather than another ship.

I was wrong. Didn't really matter though because we won a minute later.

That's good to hear. <O

So to recap what I've been saying: The DD is a powerful ship should she survive to the end game; there are many in game mechanics that make it difficult to survive by spotting you; if you are spotted you tend to die quickly; the DD has the worst survival stats across all servers.

Even you, a player using skill and outplaying the enemy (DD) and having no aircraft to worry about, still died like 'garbage' when spotted. I would suggest your previous skill didn't all of a sudden drain from your body - you were just commanding a ship that was not as forgiving. <O

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, WaveRider said:

That's good to hear. <O

So to recap what I've been saying: The DD is a powerful ship should she survive to the end game; there are many in game mechanics that make it difficult to survive by spotting you; if you are spotted you tend to die quickly; the DD has the worst survival stats across all servers.

Even you, a player using skill and outplaying the enemy (DD) and having no aircraft to worry about, still died like 'garbage' when spotted. I would suggest your previous skill didn't all of a sudden drain from your body - you were just commanding a ship that was not as forgiving. <O

 

That's a really skewed way of looking at things.

I've also died in the first two minutes to a Vermont salvo in my Midway while maneuvering.

He had his CV spot me, and made a good shot.

It's entirely possible to snipe the enemy CV early on if you get some teamwork going...

It's just rare to have that in randoms.

 

[WaveRider]

Just now, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That's a really skewed way of looking at things.

I've also died in the first two minutes to a Vermont salvo in my Midway while maneuvering.

He had his CV spot me, and made a good shot.

It's entirely possible to snipe the enemy CV early on if you get some teamwork going...

It's just rare to have that in randoms.

 

Skewed way of looking at things? Daniel, you provided the details my friend.

 

After reading that you also died in the first 2 minutes in your Midway, I was going to ask how often does that happen compared to how often and how fast you die in a DD if spotted - but then you indicate later in your post getting sniped in your CV rarely happens.

I am sure that many things 'can' happen in games, that is why it is usually better to look at a large amount of games and the general happenings and outcomes to get a better feel. Your own posts regarding your experience has tended to support what I've been saying as far as I can see.

 

However, as we have strayed a little way off the original post topic, maybe we should get back to that(?) I guess on that subject my reply to mashed68 around 45mins ago stands. 

 

Appreciate the discussion, thank you <O

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

7 minutes ago, WaveRider said:

After reading that you also died in the first 2 minutes in your Midway, I was going to ask how often does that happen compared to how often and how fast you die in a DD if spotted - but then you indicate later in your post getting sniped in your CV rarely happens.

They both happen about equally.

I don't play very aggressively at high tier with DDs...and I play very aggressively at lower tier with CVs...primarily because of the difference in weapon lethality and hit points available.

So, dying early happens rarely for me in any ship.

It's a skill issue.

Can you adapt your play style to the environment / battle you are faced?

Edited December 21, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[WaveRider]

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

They both happen about equally.

I don't play very aggressively at high tier with DDs...and I play very aggressively at lower tier with CVs...primarily because of the difference in weapon lethality and hit points available.

So, dying early happens rarely for me in any ship.

It's a skill issue.

Can you adapt your play style to the environment / battle you are faced?

Apologies but you seem to be contradicting yourself a little:

You state the occurrence happens equally because of the skill you have - 'it is a skill issue'. Yet you also include the fact that the mechanics in game allow you approach playing the ships very differently because of the game mechanics (and the 'weapon lethality and hit points available').

So again, you are supporting my earlier statement that it is not the skill level that changes within a player who plays the different type ships - their skill level remains the same whatever ship they play. It is indeed the mechanics and specific ship types themselves that have an impact and therefore the reason you find yourself playing differently.

And if you are now agreeing that the different mechanics in game have an effect in how a player needs to play - then it cannot be down to skill alone - as if it were, then you could play exactly the same for each ship type and have exactly the same outcome. Yet the only way you get your equal outcome is by playing differently. <O 

[Helstrem]

13 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

Our team..Ranger 148 games played, 30k avg damage in CV. Red team Serov CV Main 4500 games played 76k avg damage in CV.  Ours ends up with no kills and #8 in the lineup. Theirs 3 kills and #1. The game's outcome was decided before it even started. The only class where one ship has so much sway in the game. Back to the rework days they claimed they wanted to address the skill gap in CVs. They failed. Just another broken aspect of a broken class that only serves to piss people off. 

The fix wasn't to make skill not a thing.  It was to make CV skill differential less of a decisive factor in deciding the outcome of a match.  In the RTS days if you had a unicum CV player and they did not, 99% chance you were winning.  Now it is, perhaps, a 75% chance of you winning.  If the proposed CV changes go through maybe it'll be about a 65% chance, which is about what a unicum in a DD brings to the table.

[WaveRider]

9 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

The fix wasn't to make skill not a thing.  It was to make CV skill differential less of a decisive factor in deciding the outcome of a match.  In the RTS days if you had a unicum CV player and they did not, 99% chance you were winning.  Now it is, perhaps, a 75% chance of you winning.  If the proposed CV changes go through maybe it'll be about a 65% chance, which is about what a unicum in a DD brings to the table.

I think this is a good point, as essentially how can you make a person's skill different - you can't really. But you can affect the mechanics and therefore make the outcome different (even when the person uses the same amount of skill).

It is the difference in the mechanics and how they affect the gameplay for the different ship types that is the thing that WG has to try and balance in a 'whatever ship type you play, you should have equal chance in contributing and having fun' manner.

I hope any changes being suggested have the ability to level the outcome (whatever the ship type) to the player using the same skill. My only caveat is the ships have to be fun to play as well (there can still be fun play even in a challenging game (say differing tier levels etc)). <O  

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by WaveRider

[Helstrem]

20 minutes ago, WaveRider said:

I think this is a good point, as essentially how can you make a person's skill different - you can't really. But you can affect the mechanics and therefore make the outcome different (even when the person uses the same amount of skill).

It is the difference in the mechanics and how they affect the gameplay for the different ship types that is the thing that WG has to try and balance in a 'whatever ship type you play, you should have equal chance in contributing and having fun' manner.

I hope any changes being suggested have the ability to level the outcome (whatever the ship type) to the player using the same skill. My only caveat is the ships have to be fun to play as well (there can still be fun play even in a challenging game (say differing tier levels etc)). <O  

 

It won't level it.  It has never been level between ship types, as that famous graph Flamu used to love to display showed WG is well aware of it.  DDs and CVs have, by far, the largest influence on match outcome.  BBs have the least influence on match outcome.  RTS CVs had way too much influence and had to be redone for a number of reasons, including that one.

[WaveRider]

14 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

It won't level it.  It has never been level between ship types, as that famous graph Flamu used to love to display showed WG is well aware of it.  DDs and CVs have, by far, the largest influence on match outcome.  BBs have the least influence on match outcome.  RTS CVs had way too much influence and had to be redone for a number of reasons, including that one.

I believe it can be levelled, but possibly not in the way you are referring.

For me I want to be able to play any ship type and have equal fun and a feeling I contributed to the game. Most of the time this equates to having the ability to live long enough to do so. 

I agree at the moment the way a CV can contribute is significant - throughout the game. I agree a DD has to work harder to survive in order to play a bigger role at the end game. I think Cruisers need to survive to bring their strengths to play...and so on.

There is nothing wrong in the gameplay being different to get that same feeling of contributing to the team - but it is wrong if the mechanics don't allow this to happen in a balanced way.

 

I'm hoping the CV changes will allow their unique/enjoyable gameplay to continue, without having a detrimental effect to another ship type having the same opportunity. Likewise, as I don't think the balance is massively bad in game at the moment - I would prefer smaller changes that I believe will be less likely to damage my enjoyment of CV play too! As I say, a balanced level approach, not to the mechanics and individual flavour of the game, but rather in the ability to contribute/rewards/enjoyment.

 

Thank you.<O

Edited December 21, 2023 by WaveRider

[Helstrem]

@WaveRider

I absolutely don't want it leveled.  I agree that it can go too far out of whack, as RTS CVs demonstrated, but everything ground down to bland pablum to make it all equal is just as bad.  I am quite comfortable with DDs being riskier, but having more potential game impact than BBs as they do now.

[WaveRider]

1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

@WaveRider

I absolutely don't want it leveled.  I agree that it can go too far out of whack, as RTS CVs demonstrated, but everything ground down to bland pablum to make it all equal is just as bad.  I am quite comfortable with DDs being riskier, but having more potential game impact than BBs as they do now.

That's is where we differ then. As I want my level of skill to have as much opportunity in any ship to shine; just with the challenge of differing gameplay. Can I play it riskier, of course - but again if I play risky (or stupidly) - why should one ship allow you to get away with it more than another? (especially when the mechanics are so influential).

But there's no harm in a difference of opinion; appreciate your input, thank you. <O

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, WaveRider said:

Apologies but you seem to be contradicting yourself a little:

You state the occurrence happens equally because of the skill you have - 'it is a skill issue'. Yet you also include the fact that the mechanics in game allow you approach playing the ships very differently because of the game mechanics (and the 'weapon lethality and hit points available').

Not really. I'm oversimplifying it because the whole concept is pretty deep to go into.

At high tiers, getting spotted in range of battleship or heavy cruiser guns by a CV is death within a very short time...minute or two at most.

At low tiers, enemy battleships and heavy cruisers aren't as accurate or high damage output...and my CV DPM is high enough against light cruisers that I might and have closed to brawl with confidence that I would win with my CV hull and planes (so long as I avoid torpedoes).

Similarly, low tier DDs can be played much more aggressively than high tier DDs...the lethality of weapons that can counter you is much higher at higher tiers and the consequences of getting spotted are more dire.

Now, both DDs and CVs require different positional strategies based on their own strengths and weaknesses...so directly comparing the two (as you want to do) is not practically useful and further goes against the core design of the game...which is that classes are NOT similar in terms of performance, game impact, and strengths and weaknesses.

1 hour ago, WaveRider said:

So again, you are supporting my earlier statement that it is not the skill level that changes within a player who plays the different type ships - their skill level remains the same whatever ship they play. It is indeed the mechanics and specific ship types themselves that have an impact and therefore the reason you find yourself playing differently.

Now it is YOU oversimplifying here.

I'm pretty good with CVs and DDs and BBs...not so good with cruisers. I disagree with the idea that skill level is the same regardless of ship. That is clearly not true.

Heck, my skill level in Lexington is different than Pobeda.

I do agree it's the mechanics and ship types that have an impact...but I also maintain that the skill of how to handles THOSE SPECIFIC MECHANICS AND CONTEXT matters a lot more than you want to admit.

Each ship plays differently. That means each ship has specific skills required.

1 hour ago, WaveRider said:

And if you are now agreeing that the different mechanics in game have an effect in how a player needs to play - then it cannot be down to skill alone - as if it were, then you could play exactly the same for each ship type and have exactly the same outcome. Yet the only way you get your equal outcome is by playing differently. <O 

I'm not saying it's skill alone...I'm saying it's not just class mechanics...skill is also important.

There are plenty of ways you can use different inputs to get the same result.

1+4=5

2+3=5

1+1+3=5

Etc.

[Helstrem]

1 minute ago, WaveRider said:

That's is where we differ then. As I want my level of skill to have as much opportunity in any ship to shine; just with the challenge of differing gameplay. Can I play it riskier, of course - but again if I play risky (or stupidly) - why should one ship allow you to get away with it more than another? (especially when the mechanics are so influential).

But there's no harm in a difference of opinion; appreciate your input, thank you. <O

The only way to have it be fully equal is to have all the stats be uniform and the ships just to be different skins for those uniform stats.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 minutes ago, WaveRider said:

That's is where we differ then. As I want my level of skill to have as much opportunity in any ship to shine; just with the challenge of differing gameplay. Can I play it riskier, of course - but again if I play risky (or stupidly) - why should one ship allow you to get away with it more than another? (especially when the mechanics are so influential).

But there's no harm in a difference of opinion; appreciate your input, thank you. <O

If this is what you want...WG has been pretty clear it's not the direction they want this game going.

The choice of what to do next with that information is yours.

I don't think WG is interested in actually balancing this game even close to your ideal stated here.

[WaveRider]

7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Not really. I'm oversimplifying it because the whole concept is pretty deep to go into.

At high tiers, getting spotted in range of battleship or heavy cruiser guns by a CV is death within a very short time...minute or two at most.

At low tiers, enemy battleships and heavy cruisers aren't as accurate or high damage output...and my CV DPM is high enough against light cruisers that I might and have closed to brawl with confidence that I would win with my CV hull and planes (so long as I avoid torpedoes).

Similarly, low tier DDs can be played much more aggressively than high tier DDs...the lethality of weapons that can counter you is much higher at higher tiers and the consequences of getting spotted are more dire.

Now, both DDs and CVs require different positional strategies based on their own strengths and weaknesses...so directly comparing the two (as you want to do) is not practically useful and further goes against the core design of the game...which is that classes are NOT similar in terms of performance, game impact, and strengths and weaknesses.

Now it is YOU oversimplifying here.

I'm pretty good with CVs and DDs and BBs...not so good with cruisers. I disagree with the idea that skill level is the same regardless of ship. That is clearly not true.

Heck, my skill level in Lexington is different than Pobeda.

I do agree it's the mechanics and ship types that have an impact...but I also maintain that the skill of how to handles THOSE SPECIFIC MECHANICS AND CONTEXT matters a lot more than you want to admit.

Each ship plays differently. That means each ship has specific skills required.

I'm not saying it's skill alone...I'm saying it's not just class mechanics...skill is also important.

There are plenty of ways you can use different inputs to get the same result.

1+4=5

2+3=5

1+1+3=5

Etc.

I am not oversimplifying it, I reviewed what you stated about your high tier DD play and low tier CV play - looked at your own results in your most played ship types in those categories and found a 15% difference in survivability.

Considering you are the same person, with the same skill and you state it is a skill thing and that you play differently (taking into account the mechanics in game) - 15% does not seem to indicate a skill thing only. <O

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, WaveRider said:

I am not oversimplifying it, I reviewed what you stated about your high tier DD play and low tier CV play - looked at your own results in your most played ship types in those categories and found a 15% difference in survivability.

Considering you are the same person, with the same skill and you state it is a skill thing and that you play differently (taking into account the mechanics in game) - 15% does not seem to indicate a skill thing only. <O

Only the matches survived metric?

Yep, oversimplifying it.

I've already told you I will sometimes throw my ship away to get damage or fun in a win. That behavior won't be covered by your assessment.

If you want to start assuming bad faith in this conversation...then it is over. You don't win anything here by that kind of behavior. Got to WG Discord...they encourage it there.

[Asym]

14 minutes ago, WaveRider said:

I believe it can be levelled, but possibly not in the way you are referring.

For me I want to be able to play any ship type and have equal fun and a feeling I contributed to the game. Most of the time this equates to having the ability to live long enough to do so. 

I agree at the moment the way a CV can contribute is significant - throughout the game. I agree a DD has to work harder to survive in order to play a bigger role at the end game. I think Cruisers need to survive to bring their strengths to play...and so on.

There is nothing wrong in the gameplay being different to get that same feeling of contributing to the team - but it is wrong if the mechanics don't allow this to happen in a balanced way.

I'm hoping the CV changes will allow their unique/enjoyable gameplay to continue, without having a detrimental effect to another ship type having the same opportunity. Likewise, as I don't think the balance is massively bad in game at the moment - I would prefer smaller changes that I believe will be less likely to damage my enjoyment of CV play too! As I say, a balanced level approach, not to the mechanics and individual flavour of the game, but rather in the ability to contribute/rewards/enjoyment.

Thank you.<O

Ah, if we only really knew what our host intended.  As I said a few days ago, the Hosts on Twitter were simply uncomfortable even talking about these changes.  They "parsed" their answers and were as nervous as a cat in a dog pound...  And no, I am sure they've done live feeds before.  It was the topic they were afraid to even "touch the operative question:  why do this?"   IMO, what we are seeing is a "compromise" to a select group of players whom really, really want to introduce Carriers into KOTS and upper level competitive play....  The RTS carriers simply would have been "One SHip to Rule Them All (OSTRTA" for sure.  Update 8.0 carriers the same.  Changes 2,3,4 the same and absolute NO.  This change is an attempt to compromise a small segment of the game community for inclusion.  I am afraid, even with these changes, the Carrier will be the ship to determine whom wins a KOTS or other competitive match.....

Think about this:  our host wants to degrade a ship they want to sell???  I don't think so.....it's much more involved than that.....much more.  And, as Occam alluded to:  the fewest assumptions is usually where the solution is.... 

[WaveRider]

11 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

The only way to have it be fully equal is to have all the stats be uniform and the ships just to be different skins for those uniform stats.

Incorrect, if I am correct in thinking you are indicating all ships being essentially the same. Indeed you can ensure different ship types get different rewards for the things their ships are stronger in - you could even give them more rewards for pulling off something their ship is less capable of doing. But to do those things they do usually have to be around long enough to have a chance of accomplishing those things.

As I have only stated I want a comparable reward/contribution/enjoyment from the game, no matter the ship type, as long as I play equally skilfully with each type - that does not need any type of stats needing to be uniform.

That has to do with the equal opportunity of working hard and getting the same results for doing so.

[WaveRider]

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Only the matches survived metric?

Yep, oversimplifying it.

I've already told you I will sometimes throw my ship away to get damage or fun in a win. That behavior won't be covered by your assessment.

If you want to start assuming bad faith in this conversation...then it is over. You don't win anything here by that kind of behavior. Got to WG Discord...they encourage it there.

I don't believe I have assumed bad faith, you literally said you had equal results - but you haven't. Yes I am fully aware there can be nuances - but for someone that indicated they played the game in different ways to get the best out of their ships at the level they played it, for the type they were playing - 15% is a big difference.

Why is indicating that bad faith?

[WaveRider]

6 minutes ago, Asym said:

Ah, if we only really knew what our host intended.  As I said a few days ago, the Hosts on Twitter were simply uncomfortable even talking about these changes.  They "parsed" their answers and were as nervous as a cat in a dog pound...  And no, I am sure they've done live feeds before.  It was the topic they were afraid to even "touch the operative question:  why do this?"   IMO, what we are seeing is a "compromise" to a select group of players whom really, really want to introduce Carriers into KOTS and upper level competitive play....  The RTS carriers simply would have been "One SHip to Rule Them All (OSTRTA" for sure.  Update 8.0 carriers the same.  Changes 2,3,4 the same and absolute NO.  This change is an attempt to compromise a small segment of the game community for inclusion.  I am afraid, even with these changes, the Carrier will be the ship to determine whom wins a KOTS or other competitive match.....

Think about this:  our host wants to degrade a ship they want to sell???  I don't think so.....it's much more involved than that.....much more.  And, as Occam alluded to:  the fewest assumptions is usually where the solution is.... 

I enjoy a good chat about the gameplay and what might improve it.

I have my opinion about certain things and if I am challenged, then I consider that fair and I will try to explain why I think the way I do. I also think it fair to provide the evidence as to why; you might not like the answer, but if it is factual then maybe it is worth considering it is a valid point?

I understand there may be disagreement, even with facts provided. It's all good. <O

 

As for the 'why do this?'...money I would think. I don't even mind the introduction of new ships or changes - the more variety the more the game survives. But I do think if the introduction of things aren't balanced well, then that could lead to an opposite effect on the game. 🙁 Will they get it right straight away - I doubt it, but I hope they manage to keep a reasonable balance for all types of players. <O

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

17 minutes ago, WaveRider said:

I don't believe I have assumed bad faith, you literally said you had equal results - but you haven't. Yes I am fully aware there can be nuances - but for someone that indicated they played the game in different ways to get the best out of their ships at the level they played it, for the type they were playing - 15% is a big difference.

Why is indicating that bad faith?

My response was that I die EARLY in a match an equivalent amount of times in DDs and CVs.

Why are you using a metric of total survival in a match, which is not the same thing...and claiming that is proof against what I claimed?

You appear to be assuming that I am engaging in the conversation in bad faith and trying to pick a fight by claiming my assertion (equal death rate in the EARLY GAME in both CVs and DDs) is a lie based on data that is not the same.

That's not a good faith conversation argument.

[WaveRider]

30 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If this is what you want...WG has been pretty clear it's not the direction they want this game going.

The choice of what to do next with that information is yours.

I don't think WG is interested in actually balancing this game even close to your ideal stated here.

Missed this post, apologies. <O

Of course it is every players choice to make, on the information provided. I ask myself is doing something of benefit to me when balanced with the investment. For me, at the moment, the answer is yes when it comes to playing this game.

Does it mean I think everything is perfect? No.  Do I have ideas and wishes? Yes.

Does it matter whether my wishes will ever come about? For me, no. I've made plenty of wishes that haven't come about, won't stop me from making more lol 🙂

Talking of which, I'm going to sign off for tonight and end by wishing you a good day sir. I have enjoyed discussing the issue (if a little removed from the OP) <O

[WaveRider]

Just now, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

My response was that I die EARLY in a match an equivalent amount of times in DDs and CVs.

Why are you using a metric of total survival in a match, which is not the same thing...and claiming that is proof against what I claimed?

You appear to be assuming that I am engaging in the conversation in bad faith and trying to pick a fight by claiming my assertion (equal death rate in the EARLY GAME in both CVs and DDs) is a lie based on data that is not the same.

That's not a good faith conversation argument.

Please read my posts, I have not mentioned you have engaged in bad faith. Neither am I trying to pick a fight.

I am really glad I posted my last post wishing you well before reading this one.

We can disagree, we can present evidence - we may never see eye to eye on a subject, but that shouldn't bother either of us? I still wish you well. However, I am not sure why presenting you with the details you yourself have provided, whether in your posts or own experiences - is considered an attack?

 

For example, you have now added the bit where you 'die early' in a match (to your original die equally statement). Well if that is the case how does that change anything I have said - when put alongside your original statement of playing very aggressively in low tier CVs conservatively and high tier DDs conservatively. That indicates that you die early even when playing non-aggressively compared to aggressively. 

Now why would that be unless more than skill is involved; which has been my point. <O

 

Definitely signing off now and genuinely wishing you well sir <O