This is so sad.......

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

RTS CV's job was to gain air-supremacy by destroying the opposing team's CV's squadrons, and thus win the "vision control" aspect of the game.
Sinking opposing ships was useful and did happen, by various means.
But the early-game objective was to de-plane the opposing CV so your team could have their way with the other team without them being able to have the luxury of deciding when to fire and while being seen without being able to see what's spotting them.

The fact that this was the meta in the last days of the RTS CVs was actively HATED by WG staff...despite it being the most team oriented and historical use of the planes and hulls.

WG wants ALL ships to be perceived purely by their damage output capabilities, and not their team support capabilities...because that makes reward calculations easier to model and calculate.

It's an astonishing level of lazy and incompetent that WG can and should be mocked for at every opportunity.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Yes, and when I was on my AA build cruiser, part of my job was trying to figure out where the planes might come and give them a lot of flak before they got to do too much damage.

👍

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The fact that this was the meta in the last days of the RTS CVs was actively HATED by WG staff...despite it being the most team oriented and historical use of the planes and hulls.

WG wants ALL ships to be perceived purely by their damage output capabilities, and not their team support capabilities...because that makes reward calculations easier to model and calculate.

It's an astonishing level of lazy and incompetent that WG can and should be mocked for at every opportunity.

Source or quote you can cite?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Source or quote you can cite?

Actions of WG staff at the time...

I don't put much stock in WG staff quotes. Been lied to too many times.

[Wolfswetpaws]

26 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Actions of WG staff at the time...

I don't put much stock in WG staff quotes. Been lied to too many times.

So, your memory or personal experience, essentially.
Thanks for responding to my question.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

8 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So, your memory or personal experience, essentially.
Thanks for responding to my question.

Basically.

I'm not sure that it's the current view of WG staff.

[SunkCostFallacy]

23 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

No matter what WG does... The complainers' are never content...

Yet, they play on... The definition of hypocrisy 🤣

 

Ok ... I'm a bit late to this thread, but I have to have a look at this particular statement.

It is demonstrably true that with virtually anything (it doesn't have to be games, it could be anything) you will find someone who will complain about it. That's just a fact ... and there are two ways of looking at it:

No matter how good something is, some whiner will complain because some people just like to complain.

OR

No matter how good you think something is, because human beings are extremely variable in their perceptions, someone else may see flaws in things that you have no issue with.

I look at it from the second school of thought.

I'll illustrate with a (hopefully) non-controversial example: Being born and having lived all my life in Australia ... I find the idea of living somewhere where it frequently gets way below zero degrees celsius as very unpleasant. However people who were born and live in a country where it rarely (if ever) gets hot may well find the idea of living somewhere where the temperature exceeds 40 celsius as very unpleasant.

Both are actually viable because unpleasant is a subjective evaluation ... it's a purely personal perception of something. And that extends itself to people complaining about a video game.

What one person thinks is a good change to a video game, another person may think is terrible. All because they are expressing their personal opinions based on their personal perceptions.

As for calling it hypocrisy ... I'd say that's pretty much over the top.  I am quite sure that WG will reach a point with WoWS that I no longer consider it worth playing. The thing is ... it's more likely to be the result of incremental changes. A whole bunch of little irritants and poor decisions (IN MY OPINION) will finally be capped off with something and I'll walk away.

"The straw that broke the camel's back" is an idiom which has been around for a long time for a good reason. So commenting about that series of incremental changes while still playing the game doesn't make anyone a hypocrite ... it just means that they haven't reached breaking point yet.

 

 

[WES_HoundDog]

Ok so this stuff was long time ago and my memory might be wrong or faulty.   But what i remember was is the enemy CV was going to be deplaned it was basically reliant on your teams cv to strafe them into oblivion.    Your own ships AA was more for damage mitigation when a strike was performed since the squadrons dropped all ordinance based on the number of planes left.

I've seen posts videos and what have you about the power of stacked drops but i don't recall that happening much at least to me as it may have been easier to maneuver your ship to mitigate damage (turned away from torp drops, ect) due to plane speed or what have you.   Also stacking attacks was the best way to get strafe bombed.   The bigger problem was cross drops but with some AA mitigation CV's were still cancer,  but not stage 4.

[clammboy]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

So, your memory or personal experience, essentially.
Thanks for responding to my question.

You are true gentlemen very well done.

[Navalpride33]

17 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If people move on, the game dies...and WG loses a business.

That's not good.

Apparently, you dont know how WG and their revenue streams work.. WOWS can die and it should die.

This idea the players have any power is distorted thinking on your part. As proof, how many times over the years people saying publicly "wallet closed" yet, WOWS/WG is still here...

 

Second example, players' have been leaving for years and yet the game is still here...

 

All i'm saying.. Come to the land of the living and reality. Its better then living in fallacy.

Edited March 16 by Navalpride33

[Navalpride33]

9 hours ago, Aethervox said:

Incorrect. The Devs have done what their management Overlords have told them to do & guess where the 'flow' is coming from in the pyramid? The owner 😁.

Well.. 50/50...

Players complained about flooding...

• Flooding nerfed in 0.8 series. Making liquidator achievement the thing of the past. 

Subs are to OP (even-though its more or less the players' ability to adapt were under-powered).

• Subs were nerfed this year.

We wanted night battles..

• It was implemented on a few maps... Boy it didn't last long.

BBs are so weak

• Made their AP extremely lethal
• Lowered their cidatel to below the waterline.

These are just a few examples... I know, there's some other changes made by grassroots efforts which were successful in changing the game. THATs documented in the old forums... My old brain cant remember everything we've ask for.

Yeah, there were some WTH WG moments as well.

 

[Navalpride33]

1 hour ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

As for calling it hypocrisy ... I'd say that's pretty much over the top. 

Not as this moment and time... Some, in youtube land (players' playing WOWS) where being hypocrites in a sense...Creating Rage for views. At the same time, receiving WOWS perks for being CC.

Now some my argue its their right to be honest.. I also have to sense to point out.. IF all your content is focused on bad press on a game but you get the perks to play it... While not having anything positive to say about the game thats giving you Income views on youtube AND in game perks.

Then, why play the game?

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, WES_HoundDog said:

Ok so this stuff was long time ago and my memory might be wrong or faulty.   But what i remember was is the enemy CV was going to be deplaned it was basically reliant on your teams cv to strafe them into oblivion.    Your own ships AA was more for damage mitigation when a strike was performed since the squadrons dropped all ordinance based on the number of planes left.

I've seen posts videos and what have you about the power of stacked drops but i don't recall that happening much at least to me as it may have been easier to maneuver your ship to mitigate damage (turned away from torp drops, ect) due to plane speed or what have you.   Also stacking attacks was the best way to get strafe bombed.   The bigger problem was cross drops but with some AA mitigation CV's were still cancer,  but not stage 4.

During the RTS CV era, I had the Zuiho and the Ryujo.

When I wanted a ship properly attacked, I'd assign every squadron I had available and would perform a cross-drop of torpedoes with a bomb-strike.

I'd coordinate the squadron's movements so that they would approach a ship from 3 sides, port, starboard and usually the bow.
The bombers would approach from bow-on, while the torpedo planes did the cross-drop, AND I would arrange for them to make their attack simultaneously or at least as close to that as humanly possible.

If the squadrons were relatively healthy and not missing too many planes (causing gaps in their torpedo drops) then the intended target was going to feel some damage, and possibly get sunk.

If the red-team CV had an "air superiority" load-out and had mostly fighter-squadrons, they stood a good chance of thwarting my attack if they could be in the right place at the right time.  They could assign one fighter group to attack each of my ordnance dropping groups and my fighter group, too (if I was uptiered).

It was common practice to attempt to "lure" the red-team's planes into the AA bubbles of my teammate's ships, to help my fighter-planes do their jobs.
Of course, savvy CV players would be doing the same sort of shenannigans and trying to de-plane my CV, too.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

40 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Apparently, you dont know how WG and their revenue streams work.. WOWS can die and it should die.

This idea the players have any power is distorted thinking on your part. As proof, how many times over the years people saying publicly "wallet closed" yet, WOWS/WG is still here...

 

Second example, players' have been leaving for years and yet the game is still here...

 

All i'm saying.. Come to the land of the living and reality. Its better then living in fallacy.

I'm not sure you are arguing with me...or just some caricature from your own head.

If players have no power, then by definition anything that happens in the game is the developers fault...

...and blaming people for complaining is to actively try to white wash the responsibility of the developer to address the complaints.

12 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Not as this moment and time... Some, in youtube land (players' playing WOWS) where being hypocrites in a sense...Creating Rage for views. At the same time, receiving WOWS perks for being CC.

Now some my argue its their right to be honest.. I also have to sense to point out.. IF all your content is focused on bad press on a game but you get the perks to play it... While not having anything positive to say about the game thats giving you Income views on youtube AND in game perks.

Then, why play the game?

 

WG staff have been far more hypocritical in their communications.

Why defend them? They are perfectly capable to do that for themselves.

You get nothing by blaming the customers.

Edited March 16 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[SunkCostFallacy]

16 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Not as this moment and time... Some, in youtube land (players' playing WOWS) where being hypocrites in a sense...Creating Rage for views. At the same time, receiving WOWS perks for being CC.

Now some my argue its their right to be honest.. I also have to sense to point out.. IF all your content is focused on bad press on a game but you get the perks to play it... While not having anything positive to say about the game thats giving you Income views on youtube AND in game perks.

Then, why play the game?

 

But that's very different to what you wrote.

If you'd specified that you were talking about content creators (which is a STUPID phrase ... I'm creating content just typing this response, but it's the current usage so I guess I'll have to endure it) who only post rage bait, I'd not have replied to your post in the first place.

Truthfully though, I can't comment very much on youtubers/twitchers who do WoWS stuff ... I watch them infrequently. Once in a blue moon I might check out a video if I want some input on how to play/equip a specific ship and set up it's captain ... but more likely I'll ask here where I'm going to get better info.

 

[Navalpride33]

3 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I'm not sure you are arguing with me...or just some caricature from your own head.

If players have no power, then by definition anything that happens in the game is the developers fault...

...and blaming people for complaining is to actively try to white wash the responsibility of the developer to address the complaints.

WG staff have been far more hypocritical in their communications.

Why defend them? They are perfectly capable to do that for themselves.

You get nothing by blaming the customers.

Unfortunately, Im an unbiased observer since 2017. As mentioned in the original post you captioned.

The fault is 50/50... Lets not mention the changes made to Co-op, it made Co-op mains very mad as well.. But it that case its their fault.

I dont want anything from anyone (except for a Benham if anyone wants to donate for the CV and BB tears campaign).

Both DEVS and the vocal minority of the players' base are at fault for the current state of WOWS..

The DEVS are killing their own game with the initiative of ignoring tiers 1-3 and just caring for upper tiers..

 

 

[Navalpride33]

2 minutes ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

But that's very different to what you wrote.

At the same time... I can go into different avenues of WG and player based having double faced standards.

I wished I didn't have to go into more line by line events (on both sides).. My ol brain is not as sharp anymore 🤣.

Rest assured as an ol salty.. As long as I'm still around.. Il bring them up in due time 😈

[Verytis]

Just gonna chime in on submarines and ranked.

 

We had submarine balance changes recently, so naturally there'll be an influx of people trying out the changes. Their number should thin within a week or so. I've seen barely any CVs in gold last season, and subs were so rare I could count with my fingers. I really don't expect their numbers to remain a major issue.

Also, one really shouldn't trash talk while in bronze league. Everyone's gotta start somewhere. And if you think other bronze league players are beneath you, you should be able to climb up the leagues easily.

It is still early in the season, so both good and bad players are having a mixer in bronze atm. Great time to ride up the leagues alongside the good ones if you can play well.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

15 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

The fault is 50/50

The fault can't be 50/50 if you claim that the players have no power.

It's illogical.

If the players have no power, then the developer has all the power...and therefore all the responsibility for things that happen.

[Navalpride33]

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The fault can't be 50/50 if you claim that the players have no power.

It's illogical.

If the players have no power, then the developer has all the power...and therefore all the responsibility for things that happen.

Though players do not have power as you pointed out.. Its logical to point out as I did, they're exceptions.

Its illogical to conclude only one party is at fault when as I pointed out.. The vocal minority is to blame as well.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

7 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Though players do not have power as you pointed out.. Its logical to point out as I did, they're exceptions.

Its illogical to conclude only one party is at fault when as I pointed out.. The vocal minority is to blame as well.

I do not accept that powerless people can be held to any sort of blame.

That is incredibly toxic behavior.

Essentially victim blaming.

Nope, not accepting that line of thinking.

Besides, putting aside the morals of it...it's practically USELESS to be blaming powerless customers...except to excuse those who actually have the power to make things right.

Blaming the customers actively sets the game back, as it allows the company to continue to ignore the issues with the game.

[Aethervox]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

During the RTS CV era, I had the Zuiho and the Ryujo.

When I wanted a ship properly attacked, I'd assign every squadron I had available and would perform a cross-drop of torpedoes with a bomb-strike.

I'd coordinate the squadron's movements so that they would approach a ship from 3 sides, port, starboard and usually the bow.
The bombers would approach from bow-on, while the torpedo planes did the cross-drop, AND I would arrange for them to make their attack simultaneously or at least as close to that as humanly possible.

If the squadrons were relatively healthy and not missing too many planes (causing gaps in their torpedo drops) then the intended target was going to feel some damage, and possibly get sunk.

If the red-team CV had an "air superiority" load-out and had mostly fighter-squadrons, they stood a good chance of thwarting my attack if they could be in the right place at the right time.  They could assign one fighter group to attack each of my ordnance dropping groups and my fighter group, too (if I was uptiered).

It was common practice to attempt to "lure" the red-team's planes into the AA bubbles of my teammate's ships, to help my fighter-planes do their jobs.
Of course, savvy CV players would be doing the same sort of shenannigans and trying to de-plane my CV, too.

Your post here, Wolfie, imho, is informative to how RTS CV play was. A lot of planning to co-ordinate a multi-squad plane attack &, conversely, what a fighter load-out CV tried to do. Imho, this play, as someone stated earlier, promoted 'team play' what with the AA ships, etc. It took, certainly, far more brain thinking, than the reworked dreck CVs we now have. Team work & team play, well, we see that in clans & in divisions &, to a degree, on made up random MM teams.

Me, I've become a WoWS ship class 'purist'. I won't play 'Flubs' nor reworked CVs. On principle.

Edited March 16 by Aethervox

[Admiral_Karasu]

7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

During the RTS CV era, I had the Zuiho and the Ryujo.

When I wanted a ship properly attacked, I'd assign every squadron I had available and would perform a cross-drop of torpedoes with a bomb-strike.

I'd coordinate the squadron's movements so that they would approach a ship from 3 sides, port, starboard and usually the bow.
The bombers would approach from bow-on, while the torpedo planes did the cross-drop, AND I would arrange for them to make their attack simultaneously or at least as close to that as humanly possible.

If the squadrons were relatively healthy and not missing too many planes (causing gaps in their torpedo drops) then the intended target was going to feel some damage, and possibly get sunk.

If the red-team CV had an "air superiority" load-out and had mostly fighter-squadrons, they stood a good chance of thwarting my attack if they could be in the right place at the right time.  They could assign one fighter group to attack each of my ordnance dropping groups and my fighter group, too (if I was uptiered).

It was common practice to attempt to "lure" the red-team's planes into the AA bubbles of my teammate's ships, to help my fighter-planes do their jobs.
Of course, savvy CV players would be doing the same sort of shenannigans and trying to de-plane my CV, too.

Would you say the CV game play during the RTS carrier era was a) more challenging, b) more fun; or c) both more challenging and more fun?

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Aethervox said:

Your post here, Wolfie, imho, is informative to how RTS CV play was. A lot of planning to co-ordinate a multi-squad plane attack &, conversely, what a fighter load-out CV tried to do. Imho, this play, as someone stated earlier, promoted 'team play' what with the AA ships, etc.

Thanks for saying so.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Would you say the CV game play during the RTS carrier era was a) more challenging, b) more fun; or c) both more challenging and more fun?

C