Is the patch today the CV changes?

[ArIskandir]

2 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Im an avid chess player, my late father turned me into that actual "thinking mans game". For me WOW has been like chess from start 2015 (even considering the chess like minimap). Even tho youre only in control of ONE piece you can see what the other pieces are doing and you move around and you out-think you're opponent. This also goes back to my military background on how to setup an attack or ambush on an enemy force. This has always intrigued me as a student of war and history.

But then you face CVs and Subs! Which in chess term would be like telling you're opponent you're next 3-4 steps of strategy, because anything you try and do in WOW will get spoiled by a 30% CV guy just stumbling upon you're flanking/ambush behind island etc etc etc. 

I'm also a chess fan, that's why I think you are starting from a faulty expectative. As you well say, in chess there's no uncertainty on the data, the variable lies on the potential different play options of your opponent, that makes chess higly predictable. I've always equated WoWS to a Wargame, the data is often incomplete and unreliable, there's a 'fog of war' and lot of things happening outside of your direct control. Cvs and Subs increase the level of uncertainty in the game, I see you dislike that and would prefer a more predictable, calculated environment... like chess. 

I'm a bit baffled by your analogy of CVs "telling your opponent your next 3-4 steps" as in chess your moves are in fact always open and in plain sight of your opponent. In chess your opponent always can 'tell' your next moves (assuming some chess proficiency) and it is up to you to 'mask' your true intentions by 'flooding' your opponent in options so he can't discern your true objective... that analogy fits for the "always spotted" CV scenario on WoWS. Being spotted just takes the game to another level (much like real warfare) where 'deception' is not just hiding your actual forces (which is not always possible in the face of modern intelligence gathering) but hiding your intention. 

2 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

And playing against a CV guy in chess would be like if he didn't like the smart play you just made he would just sweep the board like a aggro child and if you said "You cant do that" he would respond "I can do that because im a CV players so I can spot you and strike you wherever I like and you have zero counterplay".

Another faulty analogy (thus vain expectations). In the chess example indicated, you are assuming a basic simetry... both of you playing the same 'game', the same set of pieces, on the same level, which is wrong... the direct interaction is not simmetrical, your are not the 'chess player', you are a single piece, say a pawn going against a queen... in single combat, piece by piece you'll get screwed 100% of the time, that's the game's rules.

Either in chess or WoWS, the individual pieces have different value and 'power'. In WoWS you decide which piece you play and RNG assigns your place in the relative power scale but the interaction rules are clear from the start... the CV can spot you and strike you at will, much like a queen in chess can move in every direction any number of squares, both are arbitrary rules made to increse the complexity of the game 'problems'. 

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I politely disagree.

Im an avid chess player, my late father turned me into that actual "thinking mans game". For me WOW has been like chess from start 2015 (even considering the chess like minimap). Even tho youre only in control of ONE piece you can see what the other pieces are doing and you move around and you out-think you're opponent. This also goes back to my military background on how to setup an attack or ambush on an enemy force. This has always intrigued me as a student of war and history.

But then you face CVs and Subs! Which in chess term would be like telling you're opponent you're next 3-4 steps of strategy, because anything you try and do in WOW will get spoiled by a 30% CV guy just stumbling upon you're flanking/ambush behind island etc etc etc. 

And playing against a CV guy in chess would be like if he didn't like the smart play you just made he would just sweep the board like a aggro child and if you said "You cant do that" he would respond "I can do that because im a CV players so I can spot you and strike you wherever I like and you have zero counterplay".

Imho CVs and subs bring NOTHING to this game except grief and un-balance. WG themselves has been trying to balance CVs for 9 YEARS and still failing, which says a lot.

This game would be great if there was no CV and subs and I will tell you why.

1. DDs are enough spotters, but they aren't "God mode" like CVs and Subs and like some 30% BB babies out these who thinks "DDs are OP" because they cant do any WASD hacks for 20 min.
2. Unlike CVs and Subs DDs has plenty of counterplay (but can still perform spotting mission). We have enemy DDs, radar thru islands, hydro thru islands etc etc .
3. IF Subs and CVs actually got deleted from this game the cruisers and BBs would actually for ONCE value the DDs on their team and actually push in and support them in game modes like 3 cap dom mode, Arms Race, Airships etc etc, and not just take them for granted and sit on 10-line Screaming "Intelligence data" all game. If DDs was the only thing spotting and they died, BBs would have nothing to shoot at!!! Which means no more BB camping, everyone push in and help .... you know like this "team based" game is supposed to be.
4. More communication between different surface classes DDs and BBs.
5. Right now DDs are the most expendable class there is. No ones cares if they die going for a buff in Arms race .... you have you're CV guy flying planes all game. You will probably loose (because you have no DDs) but at least you have spotting so you can break that 100 K damage wall in youre Yamato loss.....
6. A "Chess guy" like me could finally actually use my brain and skill to muster perfect flanking maneuver's and ambushes on enemy forces without them getting ruined by broken plane spotting. 

I play Chess, too.
In Chess, all the pieces are visible.
In Chess, only one piece can be moved per turn.

In WOWs, there is a "fog of war".
In WOWs, all pieces move simultaneously, and independently.

Something Chess and WOWs have in common though.
Each "piece" or "ship" has capabilities, and it is best if they work together in order to win a match.  🙂 
 

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Im not sure but is it still possible to do those massive range strikes with some CVs when flying over tall island?

Hmmm....  how shall I put this...?

If a ship has decided to hug an island and make themselves a sitting duck, then I don't mind striking them when I play any ship and that includes playing a CV.
It merely becomes a question of which squadron type to use and from which vector to approach.
But, for sake of an example to discuss, let us imagine a battleship has beached itself.
It is possible to fly over the island and drop bombs upon the battleship.
Planes climb over islands.

If an island is tall enough, it may block AA so that planes can approach without exposure to flak until the last moments before dropping their ordnance.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

46 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I play Chess, too.
In Chess, all the pieces are visible.
In Chess, only one piece can be moved per turn.

In WOWs, there is a "fog of war".
In WOWs, all pieces move simultaneously, and independently.

Something Chess and WOWs have in common though.
Each "piece" or "ship" has capabilities, and it is best if they work together in order to win a match.  🙂 
 

Also in chess, the individual pieces have VASTLY different capabilities.

If you are sailing around in your pawn, and a Queen DevStrikes you using her superior abilities...that is still chess. Plus, the queen pretty much affects a lot of the board if played well while not moving itself...

Oldschools analogy works more for checkers...where the checker and the kinged checker have different capabilities, but the disparity is not so great.

Edited Friday at 09:09 PM by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I play Chess, too.
In Chess, all the pieces are visible.
In Chess, only one piece can be moved per turn.

In WOWs, there is a "fog of war".
In WOWs, all pieces move simultaneously, and independently.

Something Chess and WOWs have in common though.
Each "piece" or "ship" has capabilities, and it is best if they work together in order to win a match.  🙂 
 

I don't think that you really understood what I was saying but that's cool. 

[Unlooky]

I didn't know people unironically defended CVs and the Ocean map until I saw this thread.

 

It's made even funnier by these being the same people who complain about stale and passive gameplay when these are two MASSIVE contributing factors to that. 

Edited Friday at 10:58 PM by Unlooky

[Wolfswetpaws]

13 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I don't think that you really understood what I was saying but that's cool. 

I read your words carefully.
 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

48 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

I didn't know people unironically defended CVs and the Ocean map until I saw this thread.

 

It's made even funnier by these being the same people who complain about stale and passive gameplay when these are two MASSIVE contributing factors to that. 

Stale and passive gameplay is present with or without Ocean map and CVs.

Therefore Ocean map and CVs are not the root cause of stale or passive gameplay.

Contributing factors? Potentially...but don't make the mistake of oversimplifying other people's opinions in order to dismiss them.

[Unlooky]

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Stale and passive gameplay is present with or without Ocean map and CVs.

Therefore Ocean map and CVs are not the root cause of stale or passive gameplay.

Contributing factors? Potentially...but don't make the mistake of oversimplifying other people's opinions in order to dismiss them.

Poor map design (lack of islands) and CVs cause passive and stale games. 

This isn't rocket science. Islands allow players to play much more aggressively by providing both soft and hard cover to close the distance or play in positions that otherwise would be impossible without a smoke. 

As others have demonstrated in this thread, CVs negate that by griefing anyone who attempts to use islands to their advantage in positioning. 

Aggressive play without islands is near impossible.

A match without the two aforementioned factors may begin passively, but becomes much more active into the mid and late game. 

With both, it's pretty much a snoozefest the entire match.  

[ArIskandir]

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

I didn't know people unironically defended CVs and the Ocean map until I saw this thread.

Sometimes it feels like a curse to be able to judge something without an emotional connection... imagine being able to appreciate the positive aspects of even the most abject failures. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

12 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Poor map design (lack of islands) and CVs cause passive and stale games. 

Poor map design, yes.

CVs, no. (Not a root cause anyway)

We have passive and stale games without CVs in them. That's the meta.

12 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

This isn't rocket science. Islands allow players to play much more aggressively by providing both soft and hard cover to close the distance or play in positions that otherwise would be impossible without a smoke.

The over-accuracy of the guns is a contributing factor a lot of folks miss. Islands are less important to allowing aggression at lower tiers.

The sad reality is that tier 10 and 11 has too much damage capability.

12 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

As others have demonstrated in this thread, CVs negate that by griefing anyone who attempts to use islands to their advantage in positioning.

CVs do the same thing on maps without islands.

Plus, using terminology like 'griefing' incorrectly shows that your position isn't a logical one, but an emotional one.

The issue is not the existence of planes, but how concealment itself is broken.

12 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Aggressive play without islands is near impossible.

You need to play lower tiers. Aggressive play is most deterred by high damage output capability...and a broken concealment system.

The static nature of the CAPs is another factor making things stale.

Edited Saturday at 12:08 AM by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

I didn't know people unironically defended CVs and the Ocean map until I saw this thread.

Maybe it's time you broadened your world of warships reading beyond Discord and Reddit.

[ArIskandir]

20 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Poor map design (lack of islands) and CVs cause passive and stale games. 

Open water and CVs change the game's focus, terrain control becomes meaningless as the new focus is 'force concentration'. Imo, it is the inhability of players to adapt to the new paradigm what causes the indecisive, passive behavior... not the new paradigm per se. I've always thought a CB style engagement (highly coordinated) played on Ocean would produce very interesting developments.

Edited Saturday at 12:12 AM by ArIskandir

[Unlooky]

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Poor map design, yes.

CVs, no. (Not a root cause anyway)

We have passive and stale games without CVs in them. That's the meta.

We have passive games without CVs, and we have even more passive games with CVs.

Is it purely a coincidence that Asia, the server infamous for having the highest CV population, has also a reputation for the most passive play?

11 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The over-accuracy of the guns is a contributing factor a lot of folks miss. Islands are less important to allowing aggression at lower tiers.

The sad reality is that tier 10 and 11 has too much damage capability.

More RNG is not a good game mechanic. Not sure why you think it is. A lower damage capability would allow for even more poor plays to go unpunished such as a poorly timed turnout or overeager push. Islands and terrain are what transform a suicidal push into an impactful and game winning play. 

16 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

CVs do the same thing on maps without islands.

Plus, using terminology like 'griefing' incorrectly shows that your position isn't a logical one, but an emotional one.

The issue is not the existence of planes, but how concealment itself is broken.

I'll call it whatever the hell I want to since you clearly understood the meaning. You and others have literally said it yourselves in this very thread. Islands allow for CV players to do grief ships at islands with even more ease. Ships parked at islands are typically in a fully angled position or unspotted altogether. CVs negate both of these. Yes CVs grief ships in general, but they are almost purposefully designed to grief ships playing around islands. 

The concealment system is fine until you throw in the two cancer classes. Both are extremely capable as spotters while having significantly less vulnerabilities compared to the "main" classes. 

21 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

You need to play lower tiers. Aggressive play is most deterred by high damage output capability...and a broken concealment system.

The static nature of the CAPs is another factor making things stale.

I have played low tiers, even recently, and I still find them EXTRAORDINARILY boring. The matches are extremely slow due to ships being slower, and damage output across the board is significantly lower by design, allowing for beginners to survive making mistakes. 

The only time concealment is broken is when some weirdo with 24k battles in his Kamikaze decides to go clubbing against the no CE sixty battle destroyer captain. 

22 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Maybe it's time you broadened your world of warships reading beyond Discord and Reddit.

I'm quite curious as to exactly what WoWs communities you have found outside of either. If these are the types of opinions popular in those sites, then they almost certainly are not worth using. This site already fulfills my need of geriatrics with questionable takes, I don't really need another. 

[Unlooky]

22 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Open water and CVs change the game's focus, terrain control becomes meaningless as the new focus is 'force concentration'. Imo, it is the inhability of players to adapt to the new paradigm what causes the indecisive, passive behavior... not the new paradigm per se. I've always thought a CB style engagement (highly coordinated) played on Ocean would produce very interesting developments.

It almost certainly just become two walls of smoke with radar cruisers inside ready to stop any ideas of aggressive play facing each other, and the winner being whichever team had the better blind torpedo salvoes. This is basically how open areas are played in competitive, so we have a pretty good idea. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

11 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

We have passive games without CVs, and we have even more passive games with CVs.

Is it purely a coincidence that Asia, the server infamous for having the highest CV population, has also a reputation for the most passive play?

CVs contribute to passive play by providing more spotting.

It's the additional spotting that is the issue, NOT that the spotting is provided by planes.

The root cause is that concealment is broken.

As for Asia server: Correlation is not causation.

13 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

More RNG is not a good game mechanic. Not sure why you think it is. A lower damage capability would allow for even more poor plays to go unpunished such as a poorly timed turnout or overeager push. Islands and terrain are what transform a suicidal push into an impactful and game winning play. 

RNG is related to accuracy...which is not what I was talking about.

Aggressive plays are inherently risky, and if risk can be punished more heavily, that punishes dynamic or more risk heavy play.

14 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

I have played low tiers, even recently, and I still find them EXTRAORDINARILY boring. The matches are extremely slow due to ships being slower, and damage output across the board is significantly lower by design, allowing for beginners to survive making mistakes. 

Gameplay being slow is not the same as being active or dynamic.

Sure, tier 10 is fast...but it's also more passive.

Speed and aggression are separate concepts.

16 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

The only time concealment is broken is when some weirdo with 24k battles in his Kamikaze decides to go clubbing against the no CE sixty battle destroyer captain.

Same problems occur at tier 10, and with lots of other ship matchups.

This issue has nothing to do with planes...

[ArIskandir]

19 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

It almost certainly just become two walls of smoke with radar cruisers inside ready to stop any ideas of aggressive play facing each other, and the winner being whichever team had the better blind torpedo salvoes. This is basically how open areas are played in competitive, so we have a pretty good idea. 

Makes sense. It would need to be down to T6 (no radar) in order to make it less campy (in theory), possibly also limit the number of smoke DDs. 

[Unlooky]

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

CVs contribute to passive play by providing more spotting.

It's the additional spotting that is the issue, NOT that the spotting is provided by planes.

The root cause is that concealment is broken.

As for Asia server: Correlation is not causation.

You're going to pretend the "crossfire on demand" capability of CVs isn't a huge turnoff to any sort of active gameplay?

Lol.

14 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

RNG is related to accuracy...which is not what I was talking about.

Aggressive plays are inherently risky, and if risk can be punished more heavily, that punishes dynamic or more risk heavy play.

Accuracy in World of Warships is RNG, to varying factors depending on how accurate a ship is. To claim they are totally separate ideas is not possible.

The reward of a risky play also increases the more damage output there is to support it. A Des Moines yoloing an island has the potential to be a game winning play. A Pensacola, not nearly to the same degree. 

34 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Gameplay being slow is not the same as being active or dynamic.

Sure, tier 10 is fast...but it's also more passive.

Speed and aggression are separate concepts.

 Low tier is neither fast nor dynamic. You cannot call a tier where it takes half the match to change flanks "dynamic." 

Tier 10 is more passive in the beginning of matches because of the higher damage and because players are better. Playing defensively is inherently stronger when lead time is as major of a factor as it is in World of Warships. If low tier was played optimally, it would be roughly the same. 

36 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Same problems occur at tier 10, and with lots of other ship matchups.

This issue has nothing to do with planes...

Not nearly as often, and other ship matchups typically have multiple other factors as compensation. A Kleber is not disadvantaged against a Shima despite the 2km+ spotting gap. 

[Unlooky]

35 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Makes sense. It would need to be down to T6 (no radar) in order to make it less campy (in theory), possibly also limit the number of smoke DDs. 

Last time CBs were held at tier 6, the meta (because it was a CV season) became to play smoke cruisers, such as London, Perth, and Huanghe. I would expect it to remain the same.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

13 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

You're going to pretend the "crossfire on demand" capability of CVs isn't a huge turnoff to any sort of active gameplay?

Lol.

Spotting is spotting...provided by DD or plane.

I've already said planes make it easier, and that contributes...but the issue is how concealment works, rather than the exact means.

13 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Accuracy in World of Warships is RNG, to varying factors depending on how accurate a ship is. To claim they are totally separate ideas is not possible.

The reward of a risky play also increases the more damage output there is to support it. A Des Moines yoloing an island has the potential to be a game winning play. A Pensacola, not nearly to the same degree. 

Accuracy is not rate of fire. It is not the sole determiner of damage output.

13 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Low tier is neither fast nor dynamic. You cannot call a tier where it takes half the match to change flanks "dynamic." 

Tier 10 is more passive in the beginning of matches because of the higher damage and because players are better. Playing defensively is inherently stronger when lead time is as major of a factor as it is in World of Warships. If low tier was played optimally, it would be roughly the same. 

Low tier is FAR more dynamic than high tier.

Most tier 10 ships don't even make it out of spawn. Believing speed is the same as game dynamics is not persuasive.

You even admit tier 10 is more passive because of the higher damage output.

That lower damage output means risky, game winning plays, are more possible at low tier than they are at high tier.

13 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Not nearly as often, and other ship matchups typically have multiple other factors as compensation. A Kleber is not disadvantaged against a Shima despite the 2km+ spotting gap. 

Not an apples to apples comparison.

Try a unicum Smaland against a new player in a Hayate or Forest Sherman with a six point captain from the purchase and no experience beyond tier 6.

11 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Last time CBs were held at tier 6, the meta (because it was a CV season) became to play smoke cruisers, such as London, Perth, and Huanghe. I would expect it to remain the same.

The issue in that CB was smoke...again, a concealment issue.

The problem is how concealment is implemented. It goes beyond planes.

Edited Saturday at 01:43 AM by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Unlooky]

26 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Spotting is spotting...provided by DD or plane.

I've already said planes make it easier, and that contributes...but the issue is how concealment works, rather than the exact means.

CV spotting is not the only detriment to active play. IMO the issue is twofold

1) That a CV can spot you whenever he so chooses with minimal risk/punishment, regardless of your ship's capabilities

and that 

2) Active play is highly discouraged because of the thought "what if the CV comes after me next." WIth how CVs can setup their drops, getting spotted and dropped mid push can absolutely end your game right then and there. 

Let's not pretend the damage potential from a CV is a non factor when it comes to stopping pushes. 

26 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Low tier is FAR more dynamic than high tier.

Most tier 10 ships don't even make it out of spawn. Believing speed is the same as game dynamics is not persuasive.

You even admit tier 10 is more passive because of the higher damage output.

That lower damage output means risky, game winning plays, are more possible at low tier than they are at high tier.

I suspect a great deal of this comes from nearly all your high tier matches being in CVs, in which, as I already argued, the games never stop being passive.

In your average Tier 10 non-CV battle, you are able to take advantage of your superior mobility as the match goes into the mid and late game. 

I completely agree that Tier 10 is more passive because of the higher damage output. However, there is the aspect of the game called "people dying." With less ships across the board, the game becomes so much more active. This is why Arms Race succeeds where Epicenter failed: Instead of forcing aggressive play early game, it's only in the mid game when half the teams are dead that you need to play aggressively. 

 

26 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Not an apples to apples comparison.

Try a unicum Smaland against a new player in a Hayate or Forest Sherman with a six point captain from the purchase and no experience beyond tier 6.

VIrtually every destroyer captain I see at tier 10 either has full concealment or is running an alternate build. Extremely few do not have CE because they can't afford to. 

Consider what happens more often. 

A new player grinding destroyers, who doesn't understand the importance of concealment or doesn't have a 10 point captain at tier 6,

or someone who manages to accumulate 230k coal and decides to get a Tier 10 DD after months of play, and yet buys it without having a 10 point captain for that nation or does not understand the importance of concealment for DDs. 

One of these seems significantly more probable than the other. 

26 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The issue in that CB was smoke...again, a concealment issue.

The problem is how concealment is implemented. It goes beyond planes.

The issue that season was the presence of CVs which forced everyone to run smoked ships to avoid getting dropped and crossfired. Smoke ships are also significantly stronger at Tier 6 than Tier 10 because you are not sacrificing utility (Radar) to run smoke, and the lack of radar altogether. 

Adding radar to ships at tier 6 would solve this issue and make it much more viable for competitive, but Tier 6 isn't supposed to be a competitive tier and doing so would only make clubbing easier. The issue does not lie with the concealment system but a meta which only exists under a specific environment. Not a system issue. 

Edited Saturday at 02:09 AM by Unlooky

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

CV spotting is not the only detriment to active play. IMO the issue is twofold

1) That a CV can spot you whenever he so chooses with minimal risk/punishment, regardless of your ship's capabilities

and that 

2) Active play is highly discouraged because of the thought "what if the CV comes after me next." WIth how CVs can setup their drops, getting spotted and dropped mid push can absolutely end your game right then and there. 

Let's not pretend the damage potential from a CV is a non factor when it comes to stopping pushes. 

The same concept applies with low concealment DDs...they are just less efficient at it than planes.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem is still how concealment works more than the actual vehicle doing the spotting.

5 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

VIrtually every destroyer captain I see at tier 10 either has full concealment or is running an alternate build. Extremely few do not have CE because they can't afford to. 

Consider what happens more often. 

A new player grinding destroyers, who doesn't understand the importance of concealment or doesn't have a 10 point captain at tier 6,

or someone who manages to accumulate 230k coal and decides to get a Tier 10 DD after months of play, and yet buys it without having a 10 point captain for that nation or does not understand the importance of concealment for DDs. 

One of these seems significantly more probable than the other.

...and yet, I see new players often at tier 10.

The whole idea that tier 10 randoms is the bastion of high skill, high experience play is no longer true.

We've had too much turnover / churn in the last few years.

[Unlooky]

17 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The same concept applies with low concealment DDs...they are just less efficient at it than planes.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem is still how concealment works more than the actual vehicle doing the spotting.

Strongly disagree.

The issue lies with planes being anywhere up to ten times as mobile, and are mostly immune to counterplay (Radar, friendly DD screening, etc.) 

A destroyer must commit his ship when he goes to spot you, travelling for minutes and putting him at risk of being permanently damaged or even killed from friendly radars, destroyers, or other DD hunters. 

A CV commits maybe 40 seconds worth of travel, can spot you much faster, and risks losing a (regenable) squadron at most. He can immediately pivot his attention to the opposite flank to permaspot someone there as well if he so desires.

17 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

...and yet, I see new players often at tier 10.

The whole idea that tier 10 randoms is the bastion of high skill, high experience play is no longer true.

We've had too much turnover / churn in the last few years.

Between the two of us, I believe I have more experience in this regard because:
1) I play significantly more games at Tier 10

2) I play with PotatoAlert, so I can actually see who is brand new to the game

3) I use the leaderboard mod which shows people's actual concealment.  

 

I never claimed Tier 10 randoms to be "the bastion of high skill, high experience play."

My claim is that the overwhelming majority of destroyer players are able to and do run the maximum concealment at Tier 10, at a significantly higher rate than Tier 6 players. 

Edited Saturday at 02:36 AM by Unlooky

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

21 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Strongly disagree.

The issue lies with planes being anywhere up to ten times as mobile, and are mostly immune to counterplay (Radar, friendly DD screening, etc.) 

A destroyer must commit his ship when he goes to spot you, travelling for minutes and putting him at risk of being permanently damaged or even killed from friendly radars, destroyers, or other DD hunters. 

A CV commits maybe 40 seconds worth of travel, can spot you much faster, and risks losing a (regenable) squadron at most. He can immediately pivot his attention to the opposite flank to permaspot someone there as well if he so desires.

Eh.

Radar isn't really counterplay, and friendly DD screening only works if your DD has workable concealment.

DDs playing 'at risk' is a favorite excuse...but DDs aren't really a high risk ship compared to cruisers.

For example, Hayate is fairly easy to stay alive in while playing... especially if focusing on spotting.

I think we agree that CVs can spot much easier, and that there is a spectrum to spotting impact...planes are just way more efficient.

My point is that even without planes, the problems still exist...that 'spotted / not spotted' is just too much of an advantage. The whole game basically hangs on it.

21 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

My claim is that the overwhelming majority of destroyer players are able to and do run the maximum concealment at Tier 10, at a significantly higher rate than Tier 6 players.

A higher rate than tier 6, yes.

Overwhelming majority? I doubt it.

Remember, my point was a DD with useable concealment AND the skill to make use of it...not just, does he have a 10 point captain.

Unicum Smaland vs rookie Hayate...

Edited Saturday at 02:57 AM by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Ferdinand_Max]

14 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

For sure.

Which really demonstrates how the core problem is not planes, but in how concealment 'works'.

So basically submarines and aircraft shouldn't have any ability to spot at all.

And yes, core problem with CV is the planes. They are far more mobile than any surface ship, can ignore terrain unlike a surface ship, and are basically immune to any kind of tactical counterplay (unlike a surface ship). And the only counterplay to them is bunching up in a clump for maximum AA, which means that between that and spotting, presence of carriers destroys any possibility of tactical gameplay.

Thinking man's action game... until a CV gets involved and forces everybody to turn into a zomboid.

Edited Saturday at 06:25 AM by Ferdinand_Max