The duality of the WoWS community.

[GandalfTehGray]

I feel that T4 cvs are just a pain to play in general after the got rid of the way to strong double torp drop. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

Just now, Admiral_Karasu said:

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.

 @LittleWhiteMouse did do some of the "work" with her examination of AA after the CV re-work.
And @Sailor_Moon has done her fair share of examining main-guns and AA guns, too.

To properly answer your question would involve researching ship performance specifications before/after the CV re-work and making comparisons.
I figure most of the information is there in the Dev-Blogs and the Change-Logs. 
But, some may have become lost as new published specifications over-wrote old specifications on the ship wiki pages?
Anyway, it would be a "labor of love".
How much love do you have to spare @Admiral_Karasu?  🙂 

[Itwastuesday]

13 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

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. 

Planes are fast and there's no gun bloom or lines of fire involved. It's not the same at all. You can choose to be as safe or as risky as you like. It's not at all like a Kleber popping up your forehead when you drive a destroyer. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

Planes are fast and there's no gun bloom or lines of fire involved. It's not the same at all. You can choose to be as safe or as risky as you like. It's not at all like a Kleber popping up your forehead when you drive a destroyer. 

The anticipation of "the other guy's" actions begins once the match starts and ends when the match is over.
I feel that good play is not over-powered.

I used to go out and play billiards/pool in bars. 
I'd sometimes play people who were better than I was and was willing to bet on the game with the "stake" being a beer or drink of the winner's choice.
If I lost, then I had just paid an acceptable price for a lesson in how to play the game better.
If I won, then the lessons that I'd previously paid-for were beginning to pay a dividend.
(For the curious, I lost more often than I won.  But, I feel it was a worthwhile endeavor on my part.)

[Admiral_Karasu]

34 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

 @LittleWhiteMouse did do some of the "work" with her examination of AA after the CV re-work.
And @Sailor_Moon has done her fair share of examining main-guns and AA guns, too.

To properly answer your question would involve researching ship performance specifications before/after the CV re-work and making comparisons.
I figure most of the information is there in the Dev-Blogs and the Change-Logs. 
But, some may have become lost as new published specifications over-wrote old specifications on the ship wiki pages?
Anyway, it would be a "labor of love".
How much love do you have to spare @Admiral_Karasu?  🙂 

I should say, specifically, I meant did they revamp the game mechanics to accommodate the reworked CV's to replace the RTS CV's, or did they just sledgehammer a square peg into a round hole?

They've done plenty of stats adjustments, but that's more like fine tuning. If they make significant changes to the game, that ain't going to be anywhere enough to make things go smoothly.

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

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

...

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."
 

Let's see bad design =  a stalled population>?  Hmmmm?  Symptom of a bad design?  Stalled population?  Poor retention?  Farming new players?  Weapon systems asymmetry?  Games of chance sales mechanics versus paying for first world new content???  That's what I am seeing???  It's what we discuss in several Innovation classes at the masters/graduate levels?  Red Ocean game struggling to financially keep afloat?  (NPI)

Since you want suggestions, no one will listen to, try this on for size:  an Axis and Allies mode in the Atlantic...for both, PVP and PVE.   Or, let's try this:  Atlantic and Caribbean anti-shipping missions.  Those U-boats in use.  

Here's another thought:  PT and E-Boats against DD screens and Aircraft on Island congested maps.....  With these:

Wooooo.....  that's a lot of pew-pew on a canoe !   Now that ^^^^ would be a hoot to play !!!

Bad design symptoms>?  When sooooo many of us are "not playing Randoms?"  Ah why:  because........it's a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad experience (day)  [Voist, 1972] .   For me and everyone that plays nightly no less....

Oh good Lord.  Management???!!!  Management is when potentially great corporations get so full of themselves, they implode with "yes men;"   because, Leadership is too serious and too difficult and is too "First Person and Fiduciary" for those not brave enough to step up and lead.....  BE, KNOW and Do is a tough mantra to live by... 

I have that merit badge: coming from Leader based teams to starting another career in Management chaos...  sigh.

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I should say, specifically, I meant did they revamp the game mechanics to accommodate the reworked CV's to replace the RTS CV's, or did they just sledgehammer a square peg into a round hole?

They've done plenty of stats adjustments, but that's more like fine tuning. If they make significant changes to the game, that ain't going to be anywhere enough to make things go smoothly.

By definition, the CV re-work "revamped" the game mechanics.

It caused a massive change for CV player's user-interface.
The re-work all but eliminated cross-drops of torpedoes.
The re-work prevented one CV player from using more than one squadron at a time.
And etc. & etc.

The AA output of ships was something that many claim was reduced.
Others point out that Flak-burst AA is automated and shoots where it anticipates a plane "will be" along a predicted flight-path.
If the CV players maneuver their planes well enough, then the planes won't be at the predicted air-space and the flak will miss.
The continuous AA damage cannot be avoided, though, in my understanding.

Comparison of plane HP and AA output may be useful for comparision (before/after the re-work).

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Asym said:

Let's see bad design =  a stalled population>?  Hmmmm?  Symptom of a bad design?  Stalled population?  Poor retention?  Farming new players?  Weapon systems asymmetry?  Games of chance sales mechanics versus paying for first world new content???  That's what I am seeing???  It's what we discuss in several Innovation classes at the masters/graduate levels?  Red Ocean game struggling to financially keep afloat?  (NPI)

Since you want suggestions, no one will listen to, try this on for size:  an Axis and Allies mode in the Atlantic...for both, PVP and PVE.   Or, let's try this:  Atlantic and Caribbean anti-shipping missions.  Those U-boats in use.  

Here's another thought:  PT and E-Boats against DD screens and Aircraft on Island congested maps.....  With these:

Wooooo.....  that's a lot of pew-pew on a canoe !   Now that ^^^^ would be a hoot to play !!!

Bad design symptoms>?  When sooooo many of us are "not playing Randoms?"  Ah why:  because........it's a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad experience (day)  [Voist, 1972] .   For me and everyone that plays nightly no less....

Oh good Lord.  Management???!!!  Management is when potentially great corporations get so full of themselves, they implode with "yes men;"   because, Leadership is too serious and too difficult and is too "First Person and Fiduciary" for those not brave enough to step up and lead.....  BE, KNOW and Do is a tough mantra to live by... 

I have that merit badge: coming from Leader based teams to starting another career in Management chaos...  sigh.

Well, at least we teased/dragged a couple of possible solution suggestions from you, to introduce new ship variety and scenario variety into the game.  🙂 

When you're not pontificating about the figurative sky falling at eight (film at eleven), there are some intelligent ideas in your brain just waiting to pop-out, eh?  🙂 

[Admiral_Karasu]

Just now, Wolfswetpaws said:

By definition, the CV re-work "revamped" the game mechanics.

It caused a massive change for CV player's user-interface.
The re-work all but eliminated cross-drops of torpedoes.
The re-work prevented one CV player from using more than one squadron at a time.
And etc. & etc.

The AA output of ships was something that many claim was reduced.
Others point out that Flak-burst AA is automated and shoots where it anticipates a plane "will be" along a predicted flight-path.
If the CV players maneuver their planes well enough, then the planes won't be at the predicted air-space and the flak will miss.
The continuous AA damage cannot be avoided, though, in my understanding.

Comparison of plane HP and AA output may be useful for comparision (before/after the re-work).

Yes, by definition it was a CV rework, but what about the game mechanics apart from that? If they changed anything that altered the game balance without making the appropriate adjustments to other aspects of the game mechanics, the result is a different game play experience, not just for the CV players, but for everyone else.

I'm in the 'everyone else' category and I claim that the game play experience deteriorated as a result of the CV rework. The AA appears to have been nerfed, but that wouldn't have been a problem except they also turned the CV's into floating plane factories as well.

[Asym]

11 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I should say, specifically, I meant did they revamp the game mechanics to accommodate the reworked CV's to replace the RTS CV's, or did they just sledgehammer a square peg into a round hole?

They've done plenty of stats adjustments, but that's more like fine tuning. If they make significant changes to the game, that ain't going to be anywhere enough to make things go smoothly.

Yes !  Remember when several streamers posted videos showing the absolute carnage of "groups of surface ships" being "blind fired on" by torpedo planes !!!  Not even aiming and decimating ships everywhere !

The entire game battlespace changed with the introduction of the New Carriers at Update 8.0.  A major, and profound, paradigm shift and a portent, a whisper of ill intent, of the end of an game era....  Most of us left PVP there or the Cruiser Line split with the introduction of Radar.

I remember being able to "aim" my AA where I wanted it....  And yes, the ETS carriers, IMO, were much better....

But, I'm just a simple old horse soldier........what do I know.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Just now, Admiral_Karasu said:

Yes, by definition it was a CV rework, but what about the game mechanics apart from that? If they changed anything that altered the game balance without making the appropriate adjustments to other aspects of the game mechanics, the result is a different game play experience, not just for the CV players, but for everyone else.

I'm in the 'everyone else' category and I claim that the game play experience deteriorated as a result of the CV rework. The AA appears to have been nerfed, but that wouldn't have been a problem except they also turned the CV's into floating plane factories as well.

After the CV re-work, it became very difficult to sink a ship in one aerial attack.

Before the CV re-work, during the RTS CV era, I could use multiple squadrons to attack a ship simultaneously with a good chance of severely damaging or even sinking the targeted ship (including massive ships like CV's and BB's).

While situational awareness has remained necessary before and after the CV re-work, a lapse in situational awareness is much less costly to a player after the CV re-work, in my opinion.  🙂 

[Admiral_Karasu]

Immediately after the rework, the CV's were way OP. To WG's credit, they did make some adjustments. However, when you consider the 'plane factory' issue in conjunction with the AA nerfs, that gives the CV's a double buff there.

I'd rather be sunk in one attack and be free to head to port than suffer an frustration five plus minutes of constant waves of attacks. Furthermore, even if I were sunk, I might have been able to shoot down a couple of the planes, so there would have been fewer left.

[Asym]

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Well, at least we teased/dragged a couple of possible solution suggestions from you, to introduce new ship variety and scenario variety into the game.  🙂 

When you're not pontificating about the figurative sky falling at eight (film at eleven), there are some intelligent ideas in your brain just waiting to pop-out, eh?  🙂 

I have a BS degree in Television Production and that "film at 11" actually means something to me......!!!  Even met some of the "great" personalities of TV news at the end of Network news domination.   BTW, who had the largest and most powerful television network in the early 1980's....  Here's a hint:  it's not the Vatican...   Where every TV production major wanted to intern at???   Were you born yet>>>???

Back to the subject at hand:  for the last time - the sky isn't falling and this game isn't ending. 

It has imploded into a mature, frozen population of people whom will refuse to leave....  Say, 6,000 or so in NA.  Seven years from now, if we come back to this forum, the same game names of those still living will be here, saying the same things....  The game isn't dying - it's condensing into a core of players whom won't leave what they invested in....  Not the first game to do this !

And yes, coming from SIMs that were 1:1 representations of real terrain, with real world physics, there are a lot of "good ideas" we could implement.....   And, many of us have suggested those ideas to our host over the years (for free no less - cause, they couldn't ever afford many of us...) 

The silence is deafening.  Why?  Because, all of the actual "creative talent" for this game went away at the Divorce.  There's no one to create it anymore and some of the ideas simply would require new game engines and software.....  That, no one can afford.  And, here we are:  History - repeating itself for the n^th time...

So, here we are again Wolfie  --  a good conversation - where you get to make fun of me; and , in the end, I am right....

[Wolfswetpaws]

36 minutes ago, Asym said:

I remember being able to "aim" my AA where I wanted it.... 

I do, too.
Essentially it was directing our AA to fire upon a squadron of planes the same way we use the CNTL+mouseclick method to direct our secondary battery guns onto a ship.

Nowadays the AA direction is done with looking towards either the port or starboard of our ship and pressing the "o" key to cause a temporary increase in AA output.

[Wolfswetpaws]

40 minutes ago, Asym said:

But, I'm just a simple old horse soldier........what do I know.

If you continue to keep tellling us what you know, then we'll know it, too, eh?

[Wolfswetpaws]

20 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Immediately after the rework, the CV's were way OP. To WG's credit, they did make some adjustments. However, when you consider the 'plane factory' issue in conjunction with the AA nerfs, that gives the CV's a double buff there.

I'd rather be sunk in one attack and be free to head to port than suffer an frustration five plus minutes of constant waves of attacks. Furthermore, even if I were sunk, I might have been able to shoot down a couple of the planes, so there would have been fewer left.

The "plane factory" argument fails to "do the math", I feel.

The match is only 20 minutes long and if a CV player gets their squadron wiped-out it can take a while until the reserve planes are un-packed from storage or flown-in from support bases.
Some CV's have longer "regeneration" times than others, but the bottom line is that a mistake by a CV player can significantly reduce or eliminate their ability to launch effective squadrons for some time, possibly not recovering before the end of the battle.

Now, being "de-planed" may differ from RTS CV era (where de-planed meant a total lost of planes entirely) to the re-worked era where it may only mean that the squadron strength is unable to perform a strike before being swatted from the sky (even if one or two planes can be launched, they won't get through the available AA and thus are still nearly as useless, except perhaps for spotting purposes).

But, while it may not seem like it to those being attacked by a CV, the CV player is going to notice squadron diminishment and feel the loss of strike capability.  
Might be a matter of perspectives, I feel.

[Nevermore135]

17 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Essentially it was directing our AA to fire upon a squadron of planes the same way we use the CNTL+mouseclick method to direct our secondary battery guns onto a ship.

Nowadays the AA direction is done with looking towards either the port or starboard of our ship and pressing the "o" key to cause a temporary increase in AA output.

And this changed for good reason. In the old RTS system each CV could field and attack with multiple squadrons simultaneously, so having your AA guns focus your DPS on one squad actually involved some tactical consideration. With the current CVs only fielding one active squadron at a time, the old mechanic would have simply been a mindless “click for more damage” affair the vast majority of the time.

Edited May 20 by Nevermore135

[Asym]

23 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

While situational awareness has remained necessary before and after the CV re-work, a lapse in situational awareness is much less costly to a player after the CV re-work, in my opinion.  🙂 

Really?  It cost me less how? 

We lost dozens of older, financially secure players.  We lost an entire gaming clan whom decided not to join this game.....  But, you don't know that....  I stayed to see what else was gonna happen and guess what, this game made the same mistakes several other games made...  Heck, in the old forum I presented 1:1 examples of the Skill Tree changes...

And, here we are today a shell of what could have been.

I wonder what HSF, AL, Loony Tunes, Transformers, Black or other content clones we'll see next......versus.......suggested content that would make this game more fun to play......  Our Whales have stopped spending and are now thinking about spending less here..........and, that isn't a good sign mate.  i.e.  for the several I know, this is the first Dockyard they didn't "buy out" immediately.......

"Boy, I say Boy !  They didn't buy out the dockyard immediately...."  Foghorn Leghorn  (Loony Tunes, ARR....)

I wonder, how many Scharnhorsts I need in Port??? 

[Wolfswetpaws]

29 minutes ago, Asym said:

I have a BS degree in Television Production and that "film at 11" actually means something to me......!!!  Even met some of the "great" personalities of TV news at the end of Network news domination.   BTW, who had the largest and most powerful television network in the early 1980's....  Here's a hint:  it's not the Vatican...   Where every TV production major wanted to intern at???   Were you born yet>>>???

 

Cool.

Some of our interests are different/diverse and some overlap.

I can say that I was on Television, once upon a time, when a reporter's interviewing of my opinion about a proposed fuel-tax was shared later during a newscast by the Ohio television station.

I was born before the 1980's.  But your reference is vague enough to discourage me from guessing which network you say you were involved with.

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 minutes ago, Asym said:

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

While situational awareness has remained necessary before and after the CV re-work, a lapse in situational awareness is much less costly to a player after the CV re-work, in my opinion.  🙂 

Really?  It cost me less how? 

Literally less damage per aerial strike is possible, when compared with an RTS CV era strike with a full squadron.

The exceptions to this seem to be the Russian CV's, which use their entire squadron per attack.
But, to be fair, they only get one squadron to use at a time, just as all other re-worked CV's.
RTS CV's could and did attack with 3 or more squadrons (depending on the CV in question).
RTS CV's could "delete" a ship from the map and send it back to port.
Re-worked CV's require multiple aerial attacks over a period of time, to sink a full-health ship.  It's math.  🙂 

Edited May 20 by Wolfswetpaws

[Asym]

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Cool.

Some of our interests are different/diverse and some overlap.

I can say that I was on Television, once upon a time, when a reporter's interviewing of my opinion about a proposed fuel-tax was shared later during a newscast by the Ohio television station.

I was born before the 1980's.  But your reference is vague enough to discourage me from guessing which network you say you were involved with.

Here's a hint: since the Vatican was kind of hard to get an internship at.....  Although, my wife's great Uncle was a Cardinal at the Vatican, I don't speak Italian, so.... 

South Carolina; a married couple whom created the largest; most powerful;  had the best and most advanced state of the art tv production equipment; was the most seen TV productions in History and not a single Country had the broadcasting power or market penetration they did.... 

And, no one remembers them and some have never heard about them.  Even Ted Turner was jealous (I know because I asked him....)  Now there's a clue !!!

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, Asym said:

Now there's a clue !!!

I reiterate my previous response.  "... vague ...".

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

4 hours ago, Itwastuesday said:

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. 

Sure, that happens, but if Shima had skill and experience, he would play it safer if he doesn't know where the Småland is. Its harder to just ignore all game mode BS designed exclusively for DDs to push into shit and die.

 

4 hours ago, Type_93 said:

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. 

Caps sure, you could wait a bit with caps in 3 cap dom mode, problem is that youre team is usually mirroring youre movements, if you hold back they will hold back even further and you will have serious problem taking back enemy Caps where they have gotten a footing alone when you're team is back in base.

Buffs are harder to wait around with since they are on a timer and then they are gone, so either you push in and die or youre team will scold you for throwing the game, and if you die and got the buff they will call you noob for suicide. Most Arms race buffs you dont even see the radar cruisers until its to late, because they sit behind islands while youre buff is out in open water, and not every game has a couple of gun boats you can hide behind, they usually sit a bit back in smoke and wait for you to spot.

 

 

How about WG implemented a game mode that forced cruisers or BB players to play as suicidal as all game modes enforce on DDs. Then we would have a massive out cry. How about that toxic gas circle from PUBG that makes the outer borders on the map shink inwards and forcing all those BB players to actually take part in the fight and use their massive HP and Heals. 

[Aethervox]

'... new game engines and software ....'

1 hour ago, Asym said:

That, no one can afford.

Incorrect here, Asym, Victor Kisilyi has 'plenty of money'. He's the owner. He's responsible.

"The buck stops here" 😁 (the saying goes).

Edited May 20 by Aethervox

[Admiral_Karasu]

48 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The "plane factory" argument fails to "do the math", I feel.

The match is only 20 minutes long and if a CV player gets their squadron wiped-out it can take a while until the reserve planes are un-packed from storage or flown-in from support bases.
Some CV's have longer "regeneration" times than others, but the bottom line is that a mistake by a CV player can significantly reduce or eliminate their ability to launch effective squadrons for some time, possibly not recovering before the end of the battle.

Now, being "de-planed" may differ from RTS CV era (where de-planed meant a total lost of planes entirely) to the re-worked era where it may only mean that the squadron strength is unable to perform a strike before being swatted from the sky (even if one or two planes can be launched, they won't get through the available AA and thus are still nearly as useless, except perhaps for spotting purposes).

But, while it may not seem like it to those being attacked by a CV, the CV player is going to notice squadron diminishment and feel the loss of strike capability.  
Might be a matter of perspectives, I feel.

Let's agree that this is one of those life's precious "let's agree not to agree" moments then.