Long Time Player, Very Frustrated

[Unlooky]

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is an assumption. We don't actually know it's true, we only suspect it is.

Until it is proven otherwise, pointing out that it may not be true is pointless and pedantic.

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Why tier 10?

It's not in any way different in terms of balancing or equitable setup, as far as I can tell.

It is. The game is centered around Tier 10 play and no other tier comes close in terms of balance and gameplay diversity.

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

...as if the other classes are balanced. They are not.

The reality is that KoTS wants a particular meta...and CVs and subs don't allow that meta.

There is imbalance between the classes, but CVs and subs are quite literally the gun in a rock paper scissors game. And yes, KoTS is centered around a clan battle esque meta in a 9v9 format and further restrictions. CVs and subs do not serve to make the game more interesting, which should be evident to anyone who has played against them. 

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Another interesting assumption...that is wrong. There are people who play only tier 1. Also, the ships DO have distinguishing factors from each other.

It's somewhat interesting hearing you defend KotS for banning excessive feature disparity...and then abhorring tier 1, that takes the idea to its logical conclusion.

Again, pointing out that yes, there are weirdos who only play tier 1 is extremely pedantic. KoTS bans or restricts overperforming ships. It does not attempt to turn the game into the cookie cutter mosh pit of Tier 1. In fact, it's because of the bans and restrictions that you can see more variety in team compositions and lineups. 

 

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Ha.

If KotS teams weren't afraid of gimmicks...then they wouldnt be afraid of CVs and subs.

Except actions here speak louder than words. KotS teams ARE afraid of planes and subs, because they know those gimmicks would change the game they love.

Perhaps it's time we do some honest self reflection on KotS?

The only reason it doesn't have CVs and subs is that those who play in it don't like how the meta would change. This is a valid concern, mind you...but let's not pretend that somehow the current version of KotS is somehow some sort of perfect game mode.

 ??????

How many players actually enjoy playing against CVs and Subs, as surface ships?

Its a thoroughly unenjoyable experience, again, which should be obvious to anyone who plays surface ships. There's a difference between a gimmick and a mechanic which literally completely breaks how the different classes interact.

The current version of KoTS is designed to be as fair as possible in a competitive format while still permitting for diverse strategies. I'm curious as to what critique you have of the format.  

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

55 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Until it is proven otherwise, pointing out that it may not be true is pointless and pedantic.

Pedantic, perhaps. Pointless? Not at all.

Merely establishing the bounds of our knowledge.

56 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

It is. The game is centered around Tier 10 play and no other tier comes close in terms of balance and gameplay diversity.

It is not.

Tier 10 is actually quite poorly balanced, as every new line tier 10 is released OP to incentivize early access sales.

So tier 10 is actually the LEAST well balanced of the higher tiers, it would seem.

57 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

There is imbalance between the classes, but CVs and subs are quite literally the gun in a rock paper scissors game. And yes, KoTS is centered around a clan battle esque meta in a 9v9 format and further restrictions. CVs and subs do not serve to make the game more interesting, which should be evident to anyone who has played against them. 

Rock / Paper / Scissors has NEVER been the game balancing principle of this game.

The 9v9 format of KotS has a specific meta, for sure. Whether that is 'interesting' is something within the eye of the beholder. I find watching it about as exciting as watching paint dry.

To each their own.

59 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Again, pointing out that yes, there are weirdos who only play tier 1 is extremely pedantic. KoTS bans or restricts overperforming ships. It does not attempt to turn the game into the cookie cutter mosh pit of Tier 1. In fact, it's because of the bans and restrictions that you can see more variety in team compositions and lineups. 

Tier 1 players are 'weirdos' but KoTS players aren't?

There is no logical consistency in your definition of 'weirdo' except perhaps 'me vs them'.

Not really persuasive arguments as all it tells me is what YOU like. Not what the community at large likes.

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

??????

How many players actually enjoy playing against CVs and Subs, as surface ships?

Its a thoroughly unenjoyable experience, again, which should be obvious to anyone who plays surface ships. There's a difference between a gimmick and a mechanic which literally completely breaks how the different classes interact.

The current version of KoTS is designed to be as fair as possible in a competitive format while still permitting for diverse strategies. I'm curious as to what critique you have of the format.  

Apparently KoTS players don't enjoy playing against CVs and subs as surface ships...because that would mess up the meta of the game they like to play. This isn't a bad thing or a slight against KoTS players. Just seems to be a fact. KoTS players find playing against CVs and subs to not be fun.

I have no interest in a critique of KoTS format. It's a competition run by and participated in by a closed clique. Even if I had good ideas, I have every expectation that they would be ignored in favor of sheltered elites view of the game...and rightly so, because why should those involved take any input from the outside world?

After all, KotS really isn't important to anyone except that small minority who actually compete in it. For most of the rest of the game population...its a humorous afterthought. The competitive scene in World of Warships is largely viewed as a joke.

[Unlooky]

3 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Pedantic, perhaps. Pointless? Not at all.

Merely establishing the bounds of our knowledge.

A pointless remark. Unless you have decisive evidence or a well founded argument for suspicion, there was no point to such a remark.

 

5 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

It is not.

Tier 10 is actually quite poorly balanced, as every new line tier 10 is released OP to incentivize early access sales.

So tier 10 is actually the LEAST well balanced of the higher tiers, it would seem.

Which tier 10? The most recent tier 10 releases, off the top of my head, (Bungo, Gdansk, Castilla, San Martin) all are well within the power levels of a tier 10. The last truly OP tier 10 tree release was St. Vincent. Going back further, I can think of more ships that released in a poor state than an overpowered state. The only other OP releases I can think of are MvR and Venezia, both of which might as well be ancient history at this point. There have been more weak releases than not. 

11 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Rock / Paper / Scissors has NEVER been the game balancing principle of this game.

The 9v9 format of KotS has a specific meta, for sure. Whether that is 'interesting' is something within the eye of the beholder. I find watching it about as exciting as watching paint dry.

To each their own.

Rock Paper Scissors is a gross oversimplification but a rough and semi functional description of the game's mechanics. Of course it's not interesting to watch, World of Warships is incredibly boring to watch at a high level of play. 

 

13 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Tier 1 players are 'weirdos' but KoTS players aren't?

There is no logical consistency in your definition of 'weirdo' except perhaps 'me vs them'.

Not really persuasive arguments as all it tells me is what YOU like. Not what the community at large likes.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the "community at large" plays tier 1 at an equal amount to tier 10? Try queueing for tier 1 right now, tell me how long it takes for you to find a game. Back when I grinded low tiers, I literally could not play random battles in tier 1 because of the queue time and was forced to select co op.

By DESIGN, tier 1 is made to be incredibly basic: No consumables, no class distinctions, and minimal differences between ships. For all intents and purposes, it is a tutorial stage. It is quite objectively the worst tier in the game. 

Imagine getting into a game just to play it's tutorial over and over again. These players are anomalies and not the norm. 

I do not have the numbers necessary to be absolutely sure, but based off queue times, the most played tiers are either 8 or 10. They're the only tiers where I get matches consisting of ships purely of the same tier. 

20 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Apparently KoTS players don't enjoy playing against CVs and subs as surface ships...because that would mess up the meta of the game they like to play. This isn't a bad thing or a slight against KoTS players. Just seems to be a fact. KoTS players find playing against CVs and subs to not be fun.

I have no interest in a critique of KoTS format. It's a competition run by and participated in by a closed clique. Even if I had good ideas, I have every expectation that they would be ignored in favor of sheltered elites view of the game...and rightly so, because why should those involved take any input from the outside world?

After all, KotS really isn't important to anyone except that small minority who actually compete in it. For most of the rest of the game population...its a humorous afterthought. The competitive scene in World of Warships is largely viewed as a joke.

That's not exclusive to KoTS players. Very few players in World of Warships like playing against CVs or subs as surface ships. 

Regardless, you are correct in that most players of WoWs are indifferent to KoTS. Never claimed otherwise. The vast majority of WoWs players are also abysmal at the game and have no interest in improving themselves or seeing the game played at the highest level. 

I didn't bring up KoTS first in this thread however, and I still have no clue why it was originally mentioned (some sort of "gotcha" because CVs and subs aren't allowed in it?) 

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

How many players actually enjoy playing against CVs and Subs, as surface ships?

I do.  🙂 

[BOBTHEBALL]

16 hours ago, Frostbow said:

There you go with another overgeneralization again. Saying a ship is bad despite players having good statistics with it is self-contradictory. 

There you go not being able to understand this simple explanation. Players can have good stats in bad ships, it's plain and simple. There's nothing really to debate about here.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Unlooky said:

A pointless remark. Unless you have decisive evidence or a well founded argument for suspicion, there was no point to such a remark.

Why?

Because you disagree that we don't actually know?

Despite the fact that we don't?

My friend, you are not a representative of WG. There is no need to attempt to maintain a sales pitch here.

1 minute ago, Unlooky said:

Which tier 10? The most recent tier 10 releases, off the top of my head, (Bungo, Gdansk, Castilla, San Martin) all are well within the power levels of a tier 10. The last truly OP tier 10 tree release was St. Vincent. Going back further, I can think of more ships that released in a poor state than an overpowered state. The only other OP releases I can think of are MvR and Venezia, both of which might as well be ancient history at this point. There have been more weak releases than not. 

Eagle, Audacious, Naughtimov, MvR, Sekiryu, United States...in other words all of the new CV line tier 10s have been nerfed after release. For some of them, MULTIPLE TIMES.

That's not very balanced.

Battleships, first changes after release:

Conqueror...nerfed.

St. Vincent...nerfed.

Republique....nerfed.

Kremlin...nerfed.

Vermont...buffed.

Louisiana...nerfed.

Schlieffen...nerfed.

Cristoforo Colombo...buffed, but had been nerfed by a global change.

So, of all the recent battleship tier 10s...only Vermont was not nerfed in their next changes after release.

Cruisers:

Yodo...buffed

Goliath...buffed

Petropavlosk...nerfed

Nevsky...buffed

Jinan...buffed

Venezia...nerfed

Cruisers at least look to release in somewhat of a more balanced state.

Destroyers:

Elbing...buffed

Kleber...nerfed

Most of the tier 10 DDs released lately are either very new or haven't been changed...so DDs also seem to release in a balanced way.

Subs:

Major changes haven't ceased yet so this whole class can not be considered balanced in any way yet. This is to be expected as the whole class gimmick has undergone major revisions in terms of vision over the last three years.

The point though is that CVs and BBs are almost ALWAYS released OP at tier 10. This creates imbalance and means the idea that 'tier 10 is the most balanced tier' can safely be assumed to just be advertising copy...or, in more blue collar terms...bull.

20 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Rock Paper Scissors is a gross oversimplification but a rough and semi functional description of the game's mechanics. Of course it's not interesting to watch, World of Warships is incredibly boring to watch at a high level of play. 

No, its not even a rough description of the games mechanics.

It's a phrase thrown out by a CM off the top of his head one day that has no basis in fact but sounds good.

CVs were in the game from the beginning...how can the game be based on RPS principles with four classes?

This is just more advertising copy. Don't fall for it.

Just because someone at WG said something does NOT make it true.

22 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Are you seriously trying to argue that the "community at large" plays tier 1 at an equal amount to tier 10?

No.

But how many games of tier 1 are played compared to KoTS games per year?

22 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

By DESIGN, tier 1 is made to be incredibly basic: No consumables, no class distinctions, and minimal differences between ships. For all intents and purposes, it is a tutorial stage. It is quite objectively the worst tier in the game.

Sounds like you are describing KoTS too...basic. Reduced classes (even restricting one of the classes from the beginning), attempts at keeping differences between ships to a minimum.

It's a medieval joust. It has its place.

Some people think jousting is interesting. Some don't.

Some people think KoTS games are objectively awful to watch.

24 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

I do not have the numbers necessary to be absolutely sure, but based off queue times, the most played tiers are either 8 or 10. They're the only tiers where I get matches consisting of ships purely of the same tier.

This may also be because the rewards are better for tiers 8-10.

I get matches of ships purely of the same tier at all tiers. The likelihood of that happening for me does not show any difference based on battle tier.

26 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

The vast majority of WoWs players are also abysmal at the game and have no interest in improving themselves or seeing the game played at the highest level. 

I could be pedantic and point out that KoTS is a fundamentally different game than World of Warships at this point. It can not be the 'highest level' of the game...because it isn't the game.

Clan Battles is probably the best representation of high level play...but it's still a joke.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

19 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I do.  🙂 

I do too.

[RX160S_Byarlant_Custom]

Lmao

[BOBTHEBALL]

34 minutes ago, RX160S_Byarlant_Custom said:

Lmao

Ong Nephew, ong.

[Unlooky]

49 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Eagle, Audacious, Naughtimov, MvR, Sekiryu, United States...in other words all of the new CV line tier 10s have been nerfed after release. For some of them, MULTIPLE TIMES.

That's not very balanced.

 

Interesting how all of them are from the same class? Almost like the class as a whole is overpowered? For the sake of argument we could discuss this. Super CVs are a different beast altogether, and do not get early access events like other tech tree CVs. You couldn't pay for early access to the US and Eagle. Audacious and Nakhimov both received relatively minor nerfs 2 years and 1 year after they were released respectively. MvR is the only ship here where you could truly argue they pulled a bait and switch with the balance changes (as I acknowledged in my original post.) 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Battleships, first changes after release:

Conqueror...nerfed.

St. Vincent...nerfed.

Republique....nerfed.

Kremlin...nerfed.

Vermont...buffed.

Louisiana...nerfed.

Schlieffen...nerfed.

Cristoforo Colombo...buffed, but had been nerfed by a global change.

So, of all the recent battleship tier 10s...only Vermont was not nerfed in their next changes after release.

Conqueror and Kremlin are fair points to make for your argument. I will add the caveat that both of these releases were quite some time ago and are not really representative of modern releases.

République has not been nerfed since it's release.

One could hardly call Schlieffen and Colombo overpowered on their release. Schlieffen was too effective against destroyers, not in general, which is what they sought to correct with that change. Colombo was never really overpowered. A global nerf does not count as a nerf to a ship by the way.

I would argue Louisiana's nerf falls under the same category as Schlieffen, too effective against destroyers but not overall an absurdly powerful ship. 

Vincent was and still is overpowered (as I mentioned.)

 

If we were to go chronologically from update 0.11.0 (2 years), the following surface ships have been added to WoWs:

 

Jinan

A. Regolo

St. Vincent

San Martin

Louisiana

Castilla

Gdansk

Bungo

 

both Regolo and Jinan have been buffed, St. Vincent and Louisiana nerfed, and Castilla, Gdansk, and Bungo are untouched. 

 Two underpowered ships, two overpowered, and 3 average strength ships does not really support the "overpowered Tier 10 early access cash grab" theory. 

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

No.

But how many games of tier 1 are played compared to KoTS games per year?

Battles played are the most important metric now? How many people watch those battles compared to KoTS battles? 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Sounds like you are describing KoTS too...basic. Reduced classes (even restricting one of the classes from the beginning), attempts at keeping differences between ships to a minimum.

It's a medieval joust. It has its place.

Some people think jousting is interesting. Some don't.

Some people think KoTS games are objectively awful to watch.

How is that attempting to "keep differences between ships to a minimum?" If that's what you truly think after seeing those restrictions I'm sorry but you don't understand the restrictions at all. The restrictions are against ships too strong for the format, not ships "too different." 

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I could be pedantic and point out that KoTS is a fundamentally different game than World of Warships at this point. It can not be the 'highest level' of the game...because it isn't the game.

Clan Battles is probably the best representation of high level play...but it's still a joke.

How so? It's a player designed ruleset centered around the core gameplay of WoWs (The three surface classes.) If anything, it's an extension of clan battles that allows for more players and more consistent restrictions. Many of the CB restrictions mirror KoTS, and KoTS doesn't have worry about making the restrictions accessible the way WG must with CB. 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Why?

Because you disagree that we don't actually know?

Despite the fact that we don't?

My friend, you are not a representative of WG. There is no need to attempt to maintain a sales pitch here.

We know what has been explained before in technical videos. There is no reasonable suspicion or evidence as to why or how such information is false. You can theorize all you want, but I'd prefer if you didn't attempt to correct me over your own theories. 

[Frostbow]

2 hours ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

There you go not being able to understand this simple explanation. Players can have good stats in bad ships, it's plain and simple. There's nothing really to debate about here.

I understand your simple explanation, Bob, but there lies the fundamental flaw of your explanation. Your simple explanation simply overgeneralizes things. If you want to label a ship is bad and such, you need to account other factors. Simply ascribing it to player performance like what you've done (which I highly suspect narrows your view, because you've marketed yourself here as someone who offers help or advice which is like preaching to the choir) is like looking at a pair of trees and omitting where the trees are, how big the forest is, the terrain, and the current season, among others. 

[Verytis]

16 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

If you are playing Wooster and have a ton a spotting then either 1. you are doing something wrong  2.  It was one of those super weird games  3.  All your teammates are dead and you have somehow have lived.

In other words, being it Wooster or Austin should be the last ship trying to spot.  I tend to play my terrain abusing CL like overgrown DDs....  if I'm spotted, I try to get unspotted.

...and trust me when I say these ships were hurt by the change.  I've had 200k+ games where I barely crack 2k.  It would have been over 2.5k before. 

Gunboat DDs were also big losers.

In the absence of a DD, you generally send the ship with next-best concealment to handle spotting. While there are increasing cases of CAs with strong concealment like Napoli, it is still part of the CL's job. Neglecting it can potentially cost your team wins.

This also explains my long question to how San Martin got released with a large CA rudder. Apparently no one uses the CL manoeuvrability. People just want an island humping sack of hp.

16 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

More points for spotting wasn't directly the problem but WG reduced other parts of the formula to compensate.  Fair enough, but they reduce parts that represent a greater contribution towards victory than 100% spotting.  Spotting is necessary but on it's own doesn't do much to getting opposing units off the board, and that's the primary path to victory.  In other words, spotting now gets too much credit and actual damage that reduces opponent combat power is now not getting enough. 

Additionally, WG's motives for this change are highly suspect.  Considering the sub multiply was changed to a nutty amount at the same time, it seems rather coincidental that this change was done for any reason other than that new pet class.

I really don't think there is an inherent problem with a 50/50 split between spotter and dmg dealer.

However upon further examination I realise the problem likely lies in the case of multiple spotters.

According to the wiki, spotting is rewarded in full to all spotters. This is obviously a case for rewards duplication, where 1 ship farming from cover can reward multiple ships with full spotting dmg. It is not a case of 100% extra rewards for spotting, but potentially magnitudes more. This skews the xp gain towards dmg dealing ships that operate in open water, where they can potential earn double from both dmg dealing and spotting.

This can explain your experience for island camping CLs. Possibly your gunboat DDs too, depending on how much camping you do.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Verytis said:

According to the wiki, spotting is rewarded in full to all spotters. This is obviously a case for rewards duplication, where 1 ship farming from cover can reward multiple ships with full spotting dmg. It is not a case of 100% extra rewards for spotting, but potentially magnitudes more. This skews the xp gain towards dmg dealing ships that operate in open water, where they can potential earn double from both dmg dealing and spotting.

This can explain your experience for island camping CLs. Possibly your gunboat DDs too, depending on how much camping you do.

Umm... the way the wiki-quote is worded, I'm not sure a ship can spot for itself and get "Damage on Spotting" reward(s).

Examples suggested for case-study examination:   
Last ship on a team,
or,
the only ship on the team that is both spotting and causing damage to the target.

This might be interesting to clarify.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 hours ago, Unlooky said:

How so? It's a player designed ruleset centered around the core gameplay of WoWs (The three surface classes.) If anything, it's an extension of clan battles that allows for more players and more consistent restrictions. Many of the CB restrictions mirror KoTS, and KoTS doesn't have worry about making the restrictions accessible the way WG must with CB

Except the core gameplay of WoWs has always been four classes...

5 hours ago, Unlooky said:

We know what has been explained before in technical videos. There is no reasonable suspicion or evidence as to why or how such information is false. You can theorize all you want, but I'd prefer if you didn't attempt to correct me over your own theories. 

All of those technical videos are what is known in the industry as advertising copy. They are essentially just commercials, and WG is under no obligation to be strictly truthful with them.

There is AMPLE reason to be suspicious of WG advertising copy based on past behavior.

I'd rather trust what I observe than what comes out of the mouth of a WG advertisement.

46 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Umm... the way the wiki-quote is worded, I'm not sure a ship can spot for itself and get "Damage on Spotting" reward(s).

Examples suggested for case-study examination:   
Last ship on a team,
or,
the only ship on the team that is both spotting and causing damage to the target.

This might be interesting to clarify.

CVs don't get spotting damage for ships they damage themselves.

[ArIskandir]

10 hours ago, Unlooky said:

How many players actually enjoy playing against CVs and Subs, as surface ships?

Its a thoroughly unenjoyable experience, again, which should be obvious to anyone who plays surface ships.

I enjoyed playing against Subs and CVs a lot. They offer a different experience where countering them is more "cerebral" than "mechanical", in a way they are a call back to the "thinking man's" game... Some problems can't be solved by just pushing for contact and applying "superior firepower", I find it refreshing to have situations forcing a roundabout way to its solution. 

They also produce a radical change in the meta of battles, which imo is a big positive as it introduces further variation to the game. The trick is to keep balance having both regular surface only matches and matches with Sub/CVs, which is probably the hardest part to achieve. 

[Asym]

16 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

They also produce a radical change in the meta of battles, which imo is a big positive as it introduces further variation to the game. The trick is to keep balance having both regular surface only matches and matches with Sub/CVs, which is probably the hardest part to achieve. 

I understand, for the point of discussion, that adding Dissimilar weapons creates change....  A Paradigm shift that rocked the game at Update 8.0 and still, today, is a hot mess....  There is no upside to creating a meta that can't be overcome.....none.

You can't "balance" a dissimilar weapon.  That's illogical.  It take an exponential technology to balance them.  IRL, missiles made planes obsolete with in LOS.  Anti-ship missiles are now almost exclusively over the horizon...  Technology made Submarines obsolete within the Horizon...

So, here we are.....  Talking about "balance" as if that is possible and, it simply isn't !  A nice thought, but......not possible.

And, since balance isn't possible......the game is and will be stalled till the older players start to leave and then.........ghost town.  A fond memory of a once great game....that, will have 3-6K players for decades.....  whom simply won't give up what they "spent" thousands on.   That is what I have "experienced" these past 20 years.....not, what I think....

 

[Asym]

9 hours ago, Unlooky said:

...

I didn't bring up KoTS first in this thread however, and I still have no clue why it was originally mentioned (some sort of "gotcha" because CVs and subs aren't allowed in it?) 

I'm pretty sure I did and have been discussing since Update 8.0.

The thread title is "Long Time Player, Very Frustrated".....  It is a "gotcha" and, a contradiction of intent....  KOTS is streamed for weeks and weeks as the quintessential version of this game.  Entire sales promotions center around KOTS: 'the best of the best" ad nauseam...   

Now, you evade the reality of the paradox....  What is good for the goose is good for the gander ! 

The reality is: Carriers and Subs simply would "eliminate KOTS" completely.  

The first year if and I say IF implemented, would completely destroy the Meta that resembles World of Tanks gameplay: which, is nothing more than a Bounding Overwatch; where, the overwatch ships use terrain/cover to provide fire support to the Bounding ships....(sniping). 

A very good Carrier driver in KOTS would unravel the entire meta.....  One player in One ship, at game start, would determine the gameplay.  And, if you doubt that, you simply don't understand just how important Spotting is.   Ask yourself, why we never see the "Open Ocean" map in KOTS........the answer is obvious and the conclusion Inevitable....

[ArIskandir]

10 hours ago, Unlooky said:

The game is centered around Tier 10 play and no other tier comes close in terms of balance and gameplay diversity.

While there's no denying the game is centered on T10 for monetary purposes, I strongly disagree on T10 having the best balance and diversity. Imo that would be T8. 

In terms of balance, T10 as a whole is ridiculously overweighted on offensive power, there's no proper balance between offensive and defensive values... Meaning a T10 ship is less survivable than a T8 ship within its own environment. There's an underlaying design flaw making most ships bloated, clumsy pools of HP... Where most T8 ships are nimble enough to actually dodge and avoid damage, T10 ships are doomed to "tank" damage, this becomes a huge problem for example when trying to balance and counter CVs and Subs, "just dodge" is a thing at T8, but almost an impossibility for most ships at T10. And don't get me started on CVs and Subs... At T8 they are for the most part balanced, at T10 is where they become really ludicrous. But not just them, most T10 ships are ludicrous in some way... To call the tier "balanced" is disingenous, and if you ask me, just falling face first on the underlaying behaviorist design of the game. 

I think there's no need for addressing the Diversity claim between a tier that mostly engages against itself and a tier with a 5 tier spread of potential pairings.

[Verytis]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Umm... the way the wiki-quote is worded, I'm not sure a ship can spot for itself and get "Damage on Spotting" reward(s).

Examples suggested for case-study examination:   
Last ship on a team,
or,
the only ship on the team that is both spotting and causing damage to the target.

This might be interesting to clarify.

You're not getting spotting dmg for your own dmg dealing.

You're getting it because of some island camper or 20km sniper.

 

Nothing says you can't gun and spot at the same time, assuming you don't die.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

42 minutes ago, Asym said:

I understand, for the point of discussion, that adding Dissimilar weapons creates change....  A Paradigm shift that rocked the game at Update 8.0 and still, today, is a hot mess....  There is no upside to creating a meta that can't be overcome.....none.

You can't "balance" a dissimilar weapon.  That's illogical.  It take an exponential technology to balance them.  IRL, missiles made planes obsolete with in LOS.  Anti-ship missiles are now almost exclusively over the horizon...  Technology made Submarines obsolete within the Horizon...

So, here we are.....  Talking about "balance" as if that is possible and, it simply isn't !  A nice thought, but......not possible.

And, since balance isn't possible......the game is and will be stalled till the older players start to leave and then.........ghost town.  A fond memory of a once great game....that, will have 3-6K players for decades.....  whom simply won't give up what they "spent" thousands on.   That is what I have "experienced" these past 20 years.....not, what I think....

 

I would also add that WG has no intention to actually balance the game in terms of providing balanced ship performance.

Their goal is to balance the attraction of players to play certain ships to provide a balanced matchmaker input and the right profit level.

None of the classes are balanced against each other. There are clear instances where WG intends for ships to just die when confronted with specific enemy mechanics...etc.

WG intentionally sells performance enhancing items as a means to make profit, competitive balance be damned.

This is why the competitive scene in world of warships is a joke, and always has been.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

26 minutes ago, Asym said:

I'm pretty sure I did and have been discussing since Update 8.0.

The thread title is "Long Time Player, Very Frustrated".....  It is a "gotcha" and, a contradiction of intent....  KOTS is streamed for weeks and weeks as the quintessential version of this game.  Entire sales promotions center around KOTS: 'the best of the best" ad nauseam...   

Now, you evade the reality of the paradox....  What is good for the goose is good for the gander ! 

The reality is: Carriers and Subs simply would "eliminate KOTS" completely.  

The first year if and I say IF implemented, would completely destroy the Meta that resembles World of Tanks gameplay: which, is nothing more than a Bounding Overwatch; where, the overwatch ships use terrain/cover to provide fire support to the Bounding ships....(sniping). 

A very good Carrier driver in KOTS would unravel the entire meta.....  One player in One ship, at game start, would determine the gameplay.  And, if you doubt that, you simply don't understand just how important Spotting is.   Ask yourself, why we never see the "Open Ocean" map in KOTS........the answer is obvious and the conclusion Inevitable....

Indeed.

KoTS is not world of warships.

[Gillhunter]

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

I enjoyed playing against Subs and CVs a lot. They offer a different experience where countering them is more "cerebral" than "mechanical", in a way they are a call back to the "thinking man's" game... Some problems can't be solved by just pushing for contact and applying "superior firepower", I find it refreshing to have situations forcing a roundabout way to its solution. 

They also produce a radical change in the meta of battles, which imo is a big positive as it introduces further variation to the game. The trick is to keep balance having both regular surface only matches and matches with Sub/CVs, which is probably the hardest part to achieve. 

Does that mean that KOTS is the non-thinking man's game?

Has WOWs been able to balance matches with Sub/CVs? Me thinks not.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 minutes ago, Gillhunter said:

Does that mean that KOTS is the non-thinking man's game?

Has WOWs been able to balance matches with Sub/CVs? Me thinks not.

The game has never been balanced...and it never will be. WG isn't interested in the game being balanced.

The game has never been the thinking man's action game...the thinking man long ago understood the casino business model.

[Gillhunter]

7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The game has never been balanced...and it never will be. WG isn't interested in the game being balanced.

The game has never been the thinking man's action game...the thinking man long ago understood the casino business model.

I would agree the game has never been balanced, but it's been more balanced than it is currently. Certainly it's not a high priority for WOWs.

I would disagree to a degree your second statement. The games my grandsons play require no thinking, just a capable rig and fast reflexes. 

[Type_93]

11 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The game has never been balanced...and it never will be

Holycrap! We actually almost agree on something!