The duality of the WoWS community.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Well ....I think we need to differentiate between "combat" and griefing 

Being a cruiser main.........yeah don't think that applies.

 

My line of arguments (reductio ad absurdum)  was about how damaging  this line of "reasoning" could be. And actually is. 

Yep.

Of course, even cruisers can 'grief' the enemy team.

I find most people who use the term griefing when describing CV and sub play are not applying the definition in equivalent ways to the other classes.

Plus, they usually fundamentally misunderstand the way WG designed the game.

[Andrewbassg]

24 minutes ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

You implying I play CV's and am salty ... etc ?

Then why make such absurd points? Defending Cv's is already impossible by honest means and arguments ( not your fault, Wedgie made sure of that) why pour napalm  on fire?

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

52 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

The triangle mafia war itself is ever increasingly dangerous. Various overpowered gunboats make short work of each other let alone lesser destroyers, many torpedo boats now carry ftl torps perfect for nailing other destroyers... The reason for games consistently to have 4 desteoyers dead by 5 minutes is because the class has been pushed to a meta where they just assassinate each other. 

Well, the fact that the whole game is designed for a specific class (Destroyers) to get killed/suicide at start doesn't help either.

1. Youre the "scout", you need to be up front in harms way to screen torps, screen enemy DDs (radars/hydro etc), enemy subs etc for the crying Yamato player and the rest of youre team sitting stationary on 10-line.
2. Lets design a game mode called "Destroyer Killbox" ..... sorry .... "3 cap domination mode" where DDs push into Killboxes .... sorry "Caps" at start otherwise their team looses or they get reported by the Yamato players.
3. Lets design a game mode called "Ambush DDs" .... sorry .... "Airship escort" where the DDs will need to stay in a small Target .... sorry a small circle to push an airship along a predictable route that the enemy team has full access to....
4. Lets design a game mode called "DDs suicide in record time" .... sorry ... "Arms race" where we force DDs to play like tards to get early buffs located on the map in the middle so entire enemy team can kill them in 1 second
5. Hey, lets give every ship and class and their grandmother planes that they can fly around and spot DDs with and then lets also give DDs Foook all AA! ! Just for the fun of it.

When I play a DD I give Zero foooks about enemy gunboat DDs, its the stoopid/BS game modes that kills most DD players.

When I play DD and I get BS Arms race (that I didnt choose to play) and I spawn on the "so fun" flank where the Arms race buff spawn in the middle of the map right out in open water with no concealment or islands or anything, I really just wanna leave the game/rage quit and jump into another. 

Because you know that either you suicide in for the BS buff and you have probably 10% chance of surviving, but then you usually dont even get the buff, the guy that died 2 min in got it. Or you ignore it and then suddenly youre in sheit creek without a paddle.

[Andrewbassg]

24 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Of course, even cruisers can 'grief' the enemy team.

Those are mostly derived from playstyle differences also inherent and differing weaknesses . But....

 

24 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I find most people who use the term griefing when describing CV and sub play are not applying the definition in equivalent ways to the other classes.

...the problem is not he differing playstyles, but their non participation in the survival game, more so in case of Cv's. And that is a BIG problem, compounded by Wedgie's attitude towards those classes, by bestowing upon them various, wholly unjustifiable advantages.

Edited May 20 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

6 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

..the problem is not he differing playstyles, but their non participation in the survival game, more so in case of Cv's. And that is a BIG problem, compounded by Wedgie's attitude towards those classes, by bestowing upon them various, wholly unjustifiable advantages.

Indeed.

CVs hulls being far away is a feature, not a bug...but WGs insistence on making the hulls incredibly survivable is just asinine game design.

Subs being encouraged to play from distance instead of up close risky is also asinine game design.

[Itwastuesday]

10 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Because you know that either you suicide in for the BS buff and you have probably 10% chance of surviving, but then you usually dont even get the buff, the guy that died 2 min in got it. Or you ignore it and then suddenly youre in sheit creek without a paddle.

Hate arms race too. It's just a worse snipecenter. 

I think the destroyer-counter-destroyer thing is a problem tho. Let's say I'm that Yamato. I see Shimakaze on my side. Smålånd on the red team. My oracular powers tell me that Shimakaze will be dead in 4 and our flank blind and likely in retreat, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. The few shells I can potentially land on Smålånd doesn't make up for the power disparity. If I devstrike his supporting cruiser (if such a thing ever exists) nothing changes, shima still dead even if friendly Yoshino lands a few shells somehow from his Yoshino position. 

[Type_93]

20 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Well, the fact that the whole game is designed for a specific class (Destroyers) to get killed/suicide at start doesn't help either.

1. Youre the "scout", you need to be up front in harms way to screen torps, screen enemy DDs (radars/hydro etc), enemy subs etc for the crying Yamato player and the rest of youre team sitting stationary on 10-line.
2. Lets design a game mode called "Destroyer Killbox" ..... sorry .... "3 cap domination mode" where DDs push into Killboxes .... sorry "Caps" at start otherwise their team looses or they get reported by the Yamato players.
3. Lets design a game mode called "Ambush DDs" .... sorry .... "Airship escort" where the DDs will need to stay in a small Target .... sorry a small circle to push an airship along a predictable route that the enemy team has full access to....
4. Lets design a game mode called "DDs suicide in record time" .... sorry ... "Arms race" where we force DDs to play like tards to get early buffs located on the map in the middle so entire enemy team can kill them in 1 second
5. Hey, lets give every ship and class and their grandmother planes that they can fly around and spot DDs with and then lets also give DDs Foook all AA! ! Just for the fun of it.

When I play a DD I give Zero foooks about enemy gunboat DDs, its the stoopid/BS game modes that kills most DD players.

When I play DD and I get BS Arms race (that I didnt choose to play) and I spawn on the "so fun" flank where the Arms race buff spawn in the middle of the map right out in open water with no concealment or islands or anything, I really just wanna leave the game/rage quit and jump into another. 

Because you know that either you suicide in for the BS buff and you have probably 10% chance of surviving, but then you usually dont even get the buff, the guy that died 2 min in got it. Or you ignore it and then suddenly youre in sheit creek without a paddle.

If you’re capping or trying to grab buffs right off the bat, you’re doing it wrong. As a DD main I never cap untill I know where radar/hydro boats are. I do t mind spotting other DDs, you just have to put yourself in a favorable position to either run from or shadow the gun boats. 

[desmo_2]

7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Have you considered "re-defining what is a *win*"?

I've adjusted my standards to not feel upset about a win/loss outcome.
Do I continue to strive to play well?  Sure.
That said, I don't lose sleep over the outcomes derived from a situation in which I don't have authority (let alone control) over 23 other people whose behavior may or may not be depended upon.
  🙂 

Instead, my "wins" are derived from the things I can control.

I adopted this mentality a couple of years ago, and it has truly changed my enjoyment of the game.

I have played excellent games and lost due to inept team mates, but was more perturbed by the next game where I screwed up, got deleted early, and my team won.  The win obviously still matters, but has much less control over my game satisfaction.  Moron team mates still annoy me, but to a much less level than before.

12 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Cruisers don't counter DDs. Not even radar cruisers.

Radar is a limited duration, limited number, limited range consumable. It is as much a counter to DDs as defAA is a counter to planes.

DDs are the next best counter to DDs...but if the enemy has the better concealment DDs...your team is at a massive fundamental disadvantage since the enemy team can spot from safety while your team cannot.

I don't understand how you can believe this.  When I play a cruiser, I consider one of my top priorities to be pursuing destroyers that are pushing toward my battleships or carriers.  Of course I am at spotting disadvantage, but when I begin chasing a destroyer they typically make a mistake to get spotted, smoke up which allows me to push within their concealment range, or they bug out entirely.  Sometimes I'll get walloped by a well placed torpedo spread or get smashed by a supporting red battleship, but typically I can hunt down the destroyer.  They sure as heck don't stand an fight toe to toe.

Destroyers are certainly a viable counter to other destroyers, but a DD vs. DD fight can be costly even to the victor.  That usually IS a toe to toe fight, and not one I want to seek out unless I have support from my team mates (and we know how iffy that can be).

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Technically, every class is a 'griefing' class...and the game as designed is for you to 'grief' the enemy team.

 

Well, technically IMHO no, as I was saying earlier. You cannot 'grief' with a class for which there are effective counter measures and/or counter tactics (measures being preferable as in the case of a BB vs DD). You only get to grief if you are playing a class for which there are none or not very effective ones.

Also, the spotting advantage of the CV's and subs places you at a constant disadvantage when playing against them.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

10 minutes ago, desmo_2 said:

I don't understand how you can believe this.  When I play a cruiser, I consider one of my top priorities to be pursuing destroyers that are pushing toward my battleships or carriers.  Of course I am at spotting disadvantage, but when I begin chasing a destroyer they typically make a mistake to get spotted, smoke up which allows me to push within their concealment range, or they bug out entirely.  Sometimes I'll get walloped by a well placed torpedo spread or get smashed by a supporting red battleship, but typically I can hunt down the destroyer.  They sure as heck don't stand an fight toe to toe.

Destroyers are certainly a viable counter to other destroyers, but a DD vs. DD fight can be costly even to the victor.  That usually IS a toe to toe fight, and not one I want to seek out unless I have support from my team mates (and we know how iffy that can be).

I believe it based on my experience in game.

If I don't want to be engaged by a cruiser, I as the DD have the power to avoid the engagement (planes being absent) entirely.

I as the DD hold the initiative of that engagement almost all the time. If he killed me, it's because I knowingly took the risk.

If that's the case, a cruiser cannot 'counter' a DD. You can't even engage a DD unless he lets you (most do it out of stupidity).

A DD vs DD fight starts way before you spot each other.

I once had a brilliant Friesland vs Paolo Emilio fight where we didn't even spot each other for 10 minutes, but we danced about...him trying to prevent me from spotting for my BBs, and me trying to track him down and prevent the YOLO.

No guns fired at all. Just positioning. We didn't even spot each other...but both of us had RPF.

Eventually, his patience broke first...he dived in, and I used my hydro to get him killed before he could DevStrike on of my BBs.

After that kill, there were no other DDs left on the enemy team....so I motored forward and just sat spotting. Boring but really effective.

At the end, I knowingly engaged an enemy cruiser just to fire the guns for a bit because we had already won and I was bored.

Folks saying DD play is exciting or high stakes are playing too aggressively, IMO.

The most exciting class to play is light cruiser...IMO.

Edited May 20 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Andrewbassg]

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I believe it based on my experience in game.

If I don't want to be engaged by a cruiser, I as the DD have the power to avoid the engagement (planes being absent) entirely.

I as the DD hold the initiative of that engagement almost all the time. If he killed me, it's because I knowingly took the risk.

If that's the case, a cruiser cannot 'counter' a DD. You can't even engage a DD unless he lets you (most do it out of stupidity).

A DD vs DD fight starts way before you spot each other.

I once had a brilliant Friesland vs Paolo Emilio fight where we didn't even spot each other for 10 minutes, but we danced about...him trying to prevent me from spotting for my BBs, and me trying to track him down and prevent the YOLO.

No guns fired at all. Just positioning. We didn't even spot each other...but both of us had RPF.

Eventually, his patience broke first...he dived in, and I used my hydro to get him killed before he could DevStrike on of my BBs.

Yes. That's the true meaning of counter. Being able to neuter capabilities and actions.

Everything else is counterplay. And those derive from strengths, weaknesses, capabilities and situations. Tho should be noted that counterplay is defensive by definition, even if results in sinking/win.

Edited May 20 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 hours ago, GandalfTehGray said:

They are bad for pvp as designed. 

A CV/Sub only and then a combined one would be how I would have implemented both classes into the game. A set of historically based operations for US/IJN subs and then basically the pacific campaign for CVs. 

 

Are they historically in the time frame of the game? Yes, but it doesn't mean they actually add to the experience in pvp. 

If you believe @Asym, then PVP is badly designed, period.

I say, Submarines and CV's have been re-worked and/or nerfed many times, due to some players whining better than winning.
"Change my mind", eh?

This arcade game is not a simulation.  It's a marketing tug-on-the-heartstrings endeavor.
And the endeavor is happy to collaborate with similar and dissimilar products in an effort to gain revenues.

The 20 minute battle duration is a limitation of the game design. 
The maps are small, and thus another limitation.

I assert that if WOWs became an accurate simulation, then 20 minutes wouldn't be long enough to play a game.
But, a simulation game would take too long (to play) and the player-base would walk away as @Asym often & openly discusses doing.

6 hours ago, Asym said:

Gosh Wolfie, I feel bad for you.  In a game controlled by ill conceived everything dominated by RNG, it meant to insure you have no control.....ever.  It simply makes for faster games which equals more revenue with no effort....

That's hard to "belong to" and many of us have "just said no...."

I wish you well since you accept M = P.....

Random Number Generation is a stand-in or "understudy" for the various phenomena that real-life tosses-in to make things "interesting".
Ships aren't "perfect", even when new.  
Guns and other ordnance do not always hit the target, let alone hit the targeted spot within an impact zone the size of a dime.  MK-14 torpedoes proved that hits could be achieved and "duds" could be the result, until the situation was resolved and better triggers were utilized later in WW-II.

Stuff may not be functioning perfectly 100% of the time.
The North Carolina's propellor shaft problems were not something to advertize to the opposing forces. 
But, they affected ship operations and planning.

You feel bad for me?
Well, gee, thanks.

Sure.  The game has plenty of "Alice in Wonderland" stuff going on. 
In the past I've writtten about stuff that I felt was less-than-ideal, too.
I've also written posts intended to help people learn and cope with both the game environment and the player-to-player interactions.

I've read a lot of people's complaints over the years I've been on the old forum and here on DevStrike!
There are times when I'm reminded of the following excerpt from a conversation I had with one of my cousins, "Management doesn't want to hear about problems, management wants to hear about solutions.  So, if you bring-up a problem, be sure to have a solution."
 

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 hours ago, Yedwy said:

get griefed by

If a red-team ship hits your green-team ship, that's not griefing.  That's them doing their job.
Same would be true if roles were reversed.
Each player on each team is trying to sink the players on the opposite team.  It's their job.

Edited May 20 by Wolfswetpaws

[Andrewbassg]

21 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The most exciting class to play is light cruiser...IMO.

I would make mandatory for folks to play RNCl's. Teach da Beegees game like no tomorrow.....

[Itwastuesday]

27 minutes ago, desmo_2 said:

I don't understand how you can believe this.  When I play a cruiser, I consider one of my top priorities to be pursuing destroyers that are pushing toward my battleships or carriers.  

This is when your targeted counter goes up to 5 and your least worry is if your frickin' battleships and carrier will survive the triangle encounter, also pushing toward him puts you the closest to the enemy team in your soft-skinned xp pinata. 

Sometimes a cruiser counters and chases the destroyer. It happens when the battleship squadron has drank too much drain cleaner and everybody involved is a few brain cells short. This scenario - your own team absolutely incapable of shooting anything - is the only time when a cruiser is a problem for me. Otherwise, the class is just trash. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Itwastuesday said:

Carrying a game in destroyer can be harrowing, doubly so if planes fly at you in 30 second intervals. Outside of scum classes, they're the strongest and most important and their supposed counter doesn't really function these days. 

Carrying a game in carrier is pretty chill though, even in harder games. 

While I do often give +1 to people who do the right thing no matter what they play as I believe playing correctly should be encouraged, I am not impressed by the carrier carry. 

IMO the problem with carrier design is that the execution involved is so simplistic and boring that the only way it can be fun if it's overpowered. Though at least they have made some attempts to make more lead time based cv armaments (rocket delay, long arming time torpedoes, skip bombs), just not enough. 

The other day I was watching @Lord_Zath's Twitch stream.
He's participating in a fundraising effort.
And the rules of the fundraising allow people who make donations to change which lines of ships (from brand-new accounts) each fundraiser must play.
I was thoroughly enjoying watching him learn how to play British CV's.  (Thanks to a contributor named "DJ"!)
 @Lord_Zath was very much outside of his "comfort zone", in my opinion, while playing the Tier-4 Hermes.

Now, eventually, another contributor to the fundraising rescued @Lord_Zath from having to play CV's and he then spent the remainder of the Twitch stream playing ship types he was much more familiar & comfortable with.
The changes in his demeanor were observable, to me.

Now, @Lord_Zath is a seasoned player and teaches other people how to become better.
But, there are ship types that he doesn't play as often as other ship types.
So, seeing someone who has a thorough grasp of the game from one perspective (typically DD's/Cruisers/BB's) get a dose of play from another perspective was, for me, wonderfully entertaining.
Suddenly, playing a CV wasn't so easy and required more effort than a witty quip of dialogue.

I'm not writing this to "name & shame". 
I'm sincerely glad to have seen @Lord_Zath demonstrably improve his CV play via in-game experiences.
And he did so by "walking a mile in the other guy's shoes", so to speak.

My point is that what seems "easy" to others isn't always "easy" for someone else.
Playing a CV well is an intense effort of multi-tasking & time management, for me. 
There's always pressure to get more done, sooner & faster.

But, when I want to "chill" or enjoy a meal while playing World of Warships, I sail the battleship Kansas.  🙂 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Frostbow said:

22 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Buying into the "rock, paper, scissors" concept was a foolish endeavor to begin with, in my opinion

I understand you, but it was Wargaming to begin with, that created that concept. It was a best fit concept, if I may say so. There is effective counter play. 

22 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

In real warfare the professionals talk about logistics more than "glory" and strive to ensure their side has a 3-to-1 advantage (at least) when attacking.
Fighting "fair" is not required. 

I know. However this is a game and not real warfare. 

From what I've heard, here & there over the years, CV's have been in this game since "Day 1".

So, if that's true, then "rock, paper, scissors" never really existed, because there was a fourth "thing"?

As for "counter-play"?  Well, I was playing a CV this weekend in randoms and was in some interesting contests during the battle with a Le Fantasque player who knew how to maneuver.  I did get a couple of torpeodo hits, but didn't sink them.  Long story short, their team sunk my team and the Le Fantasque player sunk me after traveling a lot of distance to get close enough for us to engage in close-quarters action.
Honestly, it was fun and I complimented them as a Worthy Adversary.  We exchanged some admiration of each other's skill in all-chat, during the match, too.  Good game and good sportsmanship.

The point is that some claim there is no "counter-play", but with the right intuition or knowledge gained from experience, players can "read" the situations and use their available options to best effect.
I wasn't sunk by their torpedo salvos, even though one or two did hit my hull, because I "just dodged" most of them.
Again, fun and interesting contest.  Well worth my "price of admission", so to speak.
And, I imagine it's the sort of thing that all of us look for in some shape or another in this game.  (A good time.)
 🙂 

[Itwastuesday]

8 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

My point is that what seems "easy" to others isn't always "easy" for someone else.
Playing a CV well is an intense effort of multi-tasking & time management, for me. 
There's always pressure to get more done, sooner & faster.

But, when I want to "chill" or enjoy a meal while playing World of Warships, I sail the battleship Kansas.  🙂 

It's not so much about it being easy or not, rather it's that you're in no danger personally and don't have to play positioning, angling, torpedo/gun/plane dodging or dpm knifefight game which the destroyer has to. You have to perform, but time is the only pressure. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

8 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

From what I've heard, here & there over the years, CV's have been in this game since "Day 1".

RTS CV's...

[Wolfswetpaws]

5 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

RTS CV's...

Which were, arguably at least, the more credible threat (unless & until they were "de-planed" through attrition).
I played RTS CV's Zuiho and Ryujo.

[Wolfswetpaws]

19 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

It's not so much about it being easy or not, rather it's that you're in no danger personally and don't have to play positioning, angling, torpedo/gun/plane dodging or dpm knifefight game which the destroyer has to. You have to perform, but time is the only pressure. 

If a BB player sails in the back of the map, and potential targets are barely within range and likely to be missed due to gun projectile dispersion, then is that player being effective?
I say "no".

It's the same for CV's. 
The good CV players sail as close to the action as possible (without getting detected, ideally) so they can reduce the flight-time-to-target for their planes and thus sortie more strikes per game.
A CV player that parks their hull in a corner of the map is less effective, and thus is bringing-down the effectiveness of their team (in theory, because some players "carry harder", eh?).
The risk is that they may be discovered/detected and fired-upon until their hull is sunk.
Same risks that other ships are supposed to take (getting detected and fired upon and perhaps sunk).

[Admiral_Karasu]

14 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Which were, arguably at least, the more credible threat (unless & until they were "de-planed" through attrition).
I played RTS CV's Zuiho and Ryujo.

The question, though, you would need to ask yourself is what other changes do you know that WG made to the game play mechanics in connection to the changes they made to CV's in the CV rework?

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

The question, though, you would need to ask yourself is what other changes do you know that WG made to the game play mechanics in connection to the changes they made to CV's in the CV rework?

That would require a deep-dive into the Dev-Blogs, I think.
 

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

That would require a deep-dive into the Dev-Blogs, I think.
 

If you ever fancied binge diving into them, go for it. Though, I sort of having a hunch you'd draw a blank for your efforts. At least I can't remember any significant changes to the game balance being introduced with the CV rework. Meaning, in other words, that beginning January 2019, the CV's and the three other classes were playing a different game but sharing the same battle.

[ArIskandir]

7 hours ago, MnemonScarlet said:

You should have a much harder time of killing your betters' is the point of PvP. The base idea is, if you're better, you're supposed to win against the guy who is worse more way often. He shouldn't get a leg up on you with some special class or anything. He should just be wheat under your scythe, and if he wants to beat you more, he has to get on your level in skill. That's the point of playing against other people, and why the gameloop is so entertaining, cause of the challenge of improving and beating better people. I mean, I don't need to tell you this, IIRC this is what you liked about the game.

1. Even if this Game is PvP, it has some built-in mechanics designed to 'equalize' the playing field: RNG, Asymmetries, Tier difference... That's what You are signing up to and implicitly accepting when You play this Game. Everybody knows this but some seems to be bothered only when the asymmetry screw them but conveniently forgets when the asymmetry helps them. 

2. At the core of PvP lies uncertainty, any given day any player has the chance to beat the other. There shouldn't be such bitterness if a weaker player Best You, that's being a petty sore loser.   

3. Different ship types require different skill sets, that's why there are very good BB players that also are terrible DD players, and nobody blinks about that. Why not applying the same courtesy to a CV or Sub player? Why the different moral standard? ... Snobery. 

 

Why is it any different if a good player spanks You using a BS mechanic or a Bad player does? The BS mechanic is the same, your disgust should be the same regardless of the skill of your opponents... The issue is the BS mechanic, but not apparently for some people. What rubs me the wrong way is the entitlement and snobish behaviors of such people.