Is the patch today the CV changes?

[Admiral_Karasu]

11 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.  🙂 
 

The WoWS idea of a 'fog of war' is erroneous. The fog of war is supposed to be effected by a combination of factors such as distance, weather and detection, and these do not work in WoWS as they should. Fog of war should remain semi-predictable (with weather and relative positions being the less predictable part of the equation) but in WoWS it kind of works along the wrong axis, for want of a better word to describe it.

We should get out of the FoW when we establish contact, and we should slide back into the FoW when we lose contact, and the tactics under each condition would be different.

IMO, the Ocean allows for the FoW to work better, it also forces the players to think differently about their movements and tactics, there's less opportunity for the players to 'exploit' the FoW as opposed to the islands littered with rocks and island formations, so it punishes for overreach much more effectively (play in open water on the island maps and you'll know what I mean).

As for if the CV and sub interaction would be different and to what degree, on the Ocean I better leave for those who play those classes to comment on.

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

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

That won't solve the problems though. Even in matches without subs and CVs, passive play is the meta.

5 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

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.

Planes are a problem, but not the root cause.

This game is NOT based on the concepts of counterplay. Expecting counterplay to exist is to expect the game to be what it never was and never will be.

5 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

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

The game has never been a 'thinking man's action game'. Dont confuse marketing statements with reality...

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That won't solve the problems though. Even in matches without subs and CVs, passive play is the meta.

Planes are a problem, but not the root cause.

This game is NOT based on the concepts of counterplay. Expecting counterplay to exist is to expect the game to be what it never was and never will be.

The game has never been a 'thinking man's action game'. Dont confuse marketing statements with reality...

Well, the way I see it this game seems to be based on opportunities or 'windows' and their idea of 'counterplay' is a 'window shutter'. The idea is probably maximize the DPS output or limit the DPS if you are the opposite player. This is far from ideal from my point of view, though.

Currently, BTW, I think the game mechanics are require the CV's to produce balanced game play, theoretically, that is. In practice it doesn't happen because the game is so broken at this stage. Even if it did work (as it sort of used to do before Jan 2019) it wouldn't be exactly an ideal set up, but at least it was manageable.

[Wolfswetpaws]

13 hours ago, Unlooky said:

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.  

Then, let us see the maps you have designed, eh?

The ocean map is, in my opinion, an interesting challenge because there's no terrain to hide behind.
It's all about maneuver and managing one's detection.

Islands add places to hide and also provide "shields" if the island is large enough. 
In some ways, I feel they are a crutch.

Islands are also convenient points of reference for players who can use mini-map-aiming to hit unseen opponents.
 

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 hours ago, Unlooky said:

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

If the Battleship sails at a maximum speed of 20 knots, it would require a plane to travel at 200 knots.
Some planes can do that, when they use engine-boost.
But they're in the higher tiers where the battleships are faster on average.
Is the math based upon a fail-div situation?

Some DD's can reach nearly 50 knots.

While planes are faster than a ship, they're also more fragile and can be detected by a ship before the plane can detect the ship in a portion of the possible ship/plane comparisons.
Planes have to "stumble over" a number of DD's when the DD has turned-off its AA, for example.

Savvy players learn the game's features and mechanics and the performance envelopes of the ships & planes which are going to be their allies/opponents.

When we press the "BATTLE" button, we accept the risks.
If one doesn't accept the risks, then I sincerely wonder why one is hitting the BATTLE button?

[Wolfswetpaws]

I feel it is worth mentioning that the matchmaker places roughly equivalent ship types on each team.
(Yes, sometimes there is disparity among consumables, but BB for BB, Cruiser for Cruiser, DD for DD, Submarine for Submarine and CV for CV.)

Those inclined to complain about <insert ship here> on the other team should be reminded that their team starts with one of <insert ship type here> when the teams spawn, too.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

15 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

they're also more fragile

Ship HP and plane HP are not an apples to apples comparison.

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Ship HP and plane HP are not an apples to apples comparison.

They both have HP.  They simply have different amounts.
The method for damaging planes doesn't require that the planes have a citadel, in-game anyway.
Real-life is more complicated, of course.  🙂 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Wolfswetpaws said:

They both have HP.  They simply have different amounts.
The method for damaging planes doesn't require that the planes have a citadel, in-game anyway.
Real-life is more complicated, of course.  🙂 

Plane HP is only representative of the in air fighters...the on deck reserve and the potential Regen is not on the table.

You cannot completely sink plane HP in this game like you can a ships hp.

They are not as similar as you think.

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Plane HP is only representative of the in air fighters...the on deck reserve and the potential Regen is not on the table.

You cannot completely sink plane HP in this game like you can a ships hp.

They are not as similar as you think.

A plane has XXXX HP.  If AA or fighters chew through that amount, then the plane is shot-down.

AA doesn't damage ships.  Fighters don't damage ships.  

Sunk or shot-down = destruction for the duration of that battle.

Plane "regeneration" by a CV is probably what you're referring to.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

A plane has XXXX HP.  If AA or fighters chew through that amount, then the plane is shot-down.

AA doesn't damage ships.  Fighters don't damage ships.  

Sunk or shot-down = destruction for the duration of that battle.

Plane "regeneration" by a CV is probably what you're referring to.

A shot down plane that is regenerated is functionally the same as if that plane was not shot down.

Sunk ships, on the other hand, don't come back.

It is functionally impossible to shoot down ALL of a CVs planes. As long as his hull is alive, he is likely to have at least 1 plane to use to fly about...not counting is automatic fighters.

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

17 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I read your words carefully.
 

Ok, so to elaborate .... when I was comparing World of Warships with its chessboard minimap to the game of chess and also to military strategy I wasn't talking specifically to the fact that the chess pieces being visible (which is obvious to all) but more the fact that chess and military strategy has some similarities that you need to use a lot of brain, experience, past successes and failures to "git god" at those things and you need to be able to read youre opponent, figure out there next 2-3 moves etc to launch a perfect attack/counterattack on them.

All this would be possible in this game, and this game could really be the "Thinking mans action game" as I think WG wants to call it, but it all gets thrown out the window with broken un-balanced classes like CVs and Subs that can just scrap youre entire strategy by just happen to fly the planes over some random mountains and spot you, and then if youre in a stealth DD he can just put his portable radar(spotting planes) there which means that whole area is spoiled for the near future. 

And also when you managed to read all the moves and you are 2 moves away from "Chess mate" the CV guy can just sweep the board clean and scream "HAHA" and if you say something he can just say hes a CV guy so he can strike you however he wants and youre strategic chess moves (Shitty AA) cand do anything about it.

That was pretty much my point when it came to Chess and military, not the pieces being visible or that you move one piece at a time.

[ArIskandir]

15 hours 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.

Yeah I was there. But it could be more interesting without CVs... tho the smoke thing without Radar could be an issue. I think with the adequate objectives setup could be interesting, something that enforces the need to relocate often instead of just camping the same smoke location forever. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

11 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

All this would be possible in this game, and this game could really be the "Thinking mans action game" as I think WG wants to call it, but it all gets thrown out the window with broken un-balanced classes like CVs and Subs that can just scrap youre entire strategy by just happen to fly the planes over some random mountains and spot you, and then if youre in a stealth DD he can just put his portable radar(spotting planes) there which means that whole area is spoiled for the near future.

Just like putting a queen in an awkward spot for you...ruins the strategy in the same way.

 

[Ferdinand_Max]

4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That won't solve the problems though. Even in matches without subs and CVs, passive play is the meta.

Not nearly to the extent of games with subs and CVs.

How passive gameplay is depends on how many opportunities are there to make a push. And that depends primarily on available maneuver area, which in turn is affected by spotting and fire opportunities.

CVs significantly increase spotting opportunities, which means that opportunities for pushing and other types of proactive gameplay are far fewer.

Things which promote active gameplay:

1. more maneuver opportunities
   1. less spotting
   2. less crossfire
   3. more available maneuver space
2. fewer fire opportunities
   1. less spotting
   2. less crossfire

Islands can, depending on the situation and map design, both promote and hinder active gameplay. But increasing team's ability to spot and negate cover - something which CVs especially but also submarines to an extent do - nearly universally means more passive gameplay.

So as I said, to promote active gameplay, one should basically:

1. remove CVs
2. redesign maps 

As I noted:

On 6/28/2024 at 2:44 PM, Ferdinand_Max said:

Archipelago, Land of Fire, New Dawn... also decent examples are Polar, Big Race, Fault Line and Neighbors.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Maps

4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Planes are a problem, but not the root cause.

This game is NOT based on the concepts of counterplay. Expecting counterplay to exist is to expect the game to be what it never was and never will be.

OK, so what the game is?

As I see it, the game is all about creating opportunities while denying the enemy the ability to do the same. To me, that is what play-counterplay is.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Ferdinand_Max said:

Not nearly to the extent of games with subs and CVs.

Not in my experience. Passive play happens with or without planes and subs.

1 minute ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

CVs significantly increase spotting opportunities, which means that opportunities for pushing and other types of proactive gameplay are far fewer.

This is only true if there are ships available to fire at and hit what is spotted.

Plus CV spotting is not continuous and is of generally limited duration.

If there are no planes, the team with the lower detection destroyers has a near permanent advantage in the vision control game...which is also broken.

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

Things which promote active gameplay:

1. more maneuver opportunities
   1. less spotting
   2. less crossfire
   3. more available maneuver space
2. fewer fire opportunities
   1. less spotting
   2. less crossfire

This is all mostly map design and ship concealment ranges based.

Planes expose the broken concealment system most visibly...but they are not the root cause.

4 minutes ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

So as I said, to promote active gameplay, one should basically:

1. remove CVs
2. redesign maps 

Removing CVs without reworking concealment just returns us to the broken concealment problems from 0.7.

It is not a solution.

Map redesign and a rework of concealment might work.

5 minutes ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

OK, so what the game is?

As I see it, the game is all about creating opportunities while denying the enemy the ability to do the same. To me, that is what play-counterplay is.

WarGaming does not balance the game by that measure. They balance by looking at how often the ship is played, and by how much damage / kills it does.

The idea of it's interplay with the team or other ships is only considered for the design of the gimmick of the ship with an eye towards memes.

WG does not consider counterplay concepts when managing this game. That is more work than they want to do.

[ArIskandir]

51 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

All this would be possible in this game, and this game could really be the "Thinking mans action game" as I think WG wants to call it, but it all gets thrown out the window with broken un-balanced classes like CVs and Subs that can just scrap youre entire strategy by just happen to fly the planes over some random mountains and spot you, and then if youre in a stealth DD he can just put his portable radar(spotting planes) there which means that whole area is spoiled for the near future. 

(Disclaimer: Honestly I'm not 'out to get you', on the contrary I think you have sensible ideas and you are able to sustain them with a solid understanding of game mechanics and facts, making you a valuable interlocutor) 

I don't see why the ability to provide 'random spotting' invalidates the 'thinking' premise. Being subject to arbitrary 'random spotting' at any point of your plan just means you need to have a plan B or backup plan for the case of being spotted... to think ahead and account for when that thing that could happen (spotting) happens. 

Also, the 'random spotting' is hardly truly random, either it is accidental or deliberate. The accidental spotting happens when the planes are headed to attack someone else, in that case you need to consider the CV's possible targets and the likely 'flight plan' of the planes. In that case you can preventively avoid the areas where you could be spotted by accident... this involves (more) thinking.

The deliberate spotting is easy to identify (by plane's behavior) so you can be aware when it's happening and take the necessary meassures to avoid or prepare yourself for the potential engagement. It can be an interesting 'cat & mouse chase', involving additional 'thinking'. 

Edited Saturday at 05:54 PM by ArIskandir

[Unlooky]

6 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Then, let us see the maps you have designed, eh?

The ocean map is, in my opinion, an interesting challenge because there's no terrain to hide behind.
It's all about maneuver and managing one's detection.

Islands add places to hide and also provide "shields" if the island is large enough. 
In some ways, I feel they are a crutch.

Islands are also convenient points of reference for players who can use mini-map-aiming to hit unseen opponents.
 

I love this argument so much. Do you also require people to be movie directors before they can critique films? 

Terrain creates safe avenues for pushes and aggressive positioning. Without terrain, matches devolve into boring, permakited snipefests and torpedo soup.

 

[Unlooky]

6 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

If the Battleship sails at a maximum speed of 20 knots, it would require a plane to travel at 200 knots.
Some planes can do that, when they use engine-boost.
But they're in the higher tiers where the battleships are faster on average.
Is the math based upon a fail-div situation?

Some DD's can reach nearly 50 knots.

While planes are faster than a ship, they're also more fragile and can be detected by a ship before the plane can detect the ship in a portion of the possible ship/plane comparisons.
Planes have to "stumble over" a number of DD's when the DD has turned-off its AA, for example.

Savvy players learn the game's features and mechanics and the performance envelopes of the ships & planes which are going to be their allies/opponents.

When we press the "BATTLE" button, we accept the risks.
If one doesn't accept the risks, then I sincerely wonder why one is hitting the BATTLE button?

How did battleships enter the discussion when we are talking about DDs and planes?

Planes might be "more fragile" but their fragility is entirely automated: there is no active input from the player beyond pressing the O key. If you are not entering AA fire, there is absolutely 0 risk when spotting. Every battleship and the majority of cruisers (2/3rds of any given match typically) have approximately equal concealment to a squadron. And again, even if you outspot the squadron, there is nothing you can do to stop them from spotting you.

Perhaps some CV defenders should learn the comically onesided risk/reward of CV gameplay compared to other classes.   

Of course I know when I click battle that there is a very real possibility for me to be griefed by some shitter in a CV/sub. I can acknowledge that and play around that possibility. That doesn't mean I can't argue that this type of gameplay is in fact, neither enjoyable nor interesting. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Perhaps some CV defenders should learn the comically onesided risk/reward of CV gameplay compared to other classes.   

Perhaps you should stop being so condescending (phrases like 'CV defenders') and actually start listening.

I play CVs a lot. I fully acknowledge that CV gameplay is OP. I also understand that WG doesn't care.

3 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Of course I know when I click battle that there is a very real possibility for me to be griefed by some shitter in a CV/sub. I can acknowledge that and play around that possibility. That doesn't mean I can't argue that this type of gameplay is in fact, neither enjoyable nor interesting. 

'Griefing' is deliberately acting against the rules of the game.

Merely playing a CV or sub is NOT 'griefing'.

Stop throwing around emotionally charged phrases in an attempt to pretend other people are evil for not sharing your vision for the game.

For shame, you should know better.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

A shot down plane that is regenerated is functionally the same as if that plane was not shot down.

Sunk ships, on the other hand, don't come back.

It is functionally impossible to shoot down ALL of a CVs planes. As long as his hull is alive, he is likely to have at least 1 plane to use to fly about...not counting is automatic fighters.

Seems like we both understand what is happening, with regard to the game processes.
I get the impression I'm looking at the forest while you're examining the trees, though.  🙂 

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Ok, so to elaborate .... when I was comparing World of Warships with its chessboard minimap to the game of chess and also to military strategy I wasn't talking specifically to the fact that the chess pieces being visible (which is obvious to all) but more the fact that chess and military strategy has some similarities that you need to use a lot of brain, experience, past successes and failures to "git god" at those things and you need to be able to read youre opponent, figure out there next 2-3 moves etc to launch a perfect attack/counterattack on them.

All this would be possible in this game, and this game could really be the "Thinking mans action game" as I think WG wants to call it, but it all gets thrown out the window with broken un-balanced classes like CVs and Subs that can just scrap youre entire strategy by just happen to fly the planes over some random mountains and spot you, and then if youre in a stealth DD he can just put his portable radar(spotting planes) there which means that whole area is spoiled for the near future. 

And also when you managed to read all the moves and you are 2 moves away from "Chess mate" the CV guy can just sweep the board clean and scream "HAHA" and if you say something he can just say hes a CV guy so he can strike you however he wants and youre strategic chess moves (Shitty AA) cand do anything about it.

That was pretty much my point when it came to Chess and military, not the pieces being visible or that you move one piece at a time.

Again, I've read your words, carefully.

I get the impression that we're simply not seeing eye-to-eye or we have different expectations.

I don't have a problem with CV's & Submarines and don't mind what they bring to the game. 
I like the extra capabilities on the battlefield (or battle-ocean?  battle-waters?  Whatever.)
I simply accept those capabilities and plan for them accordingly.

You, seem reluctant to live with them, from what I can discern.  
Not judging, just trying to be clear in my communication with you and my understanding of the situation.

Another game that comes to mind, for sake of board-game comparisons, is "Stratego".
Because the identitiy of the pieces is hidden at the start of the game and is revealed by contact with the opposition and by observation of a pieces movement (or lack thereof, in the case of a "bomb" piece).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratego

Like Chess, Stratego gives each player one move per turn.  So, it's not as dynamic as WOWs.

Anyway, each team in WOWs gets roughly equivalent ships on their team rosters at the start of the match.
While people may quibble about the consumable comparisions (radar, hyrdo, and etc.) and the hybrid ships, WOWs has published its matchmaking guidelines in its "How it works" series of youtube videos.  So, people are able to plan accordingly if they take the time to do the research.
 

[Wolfswetpaws]

40 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Then, let us see the maps you have designed, eh?

The ocean map is, in my opinion, an interesting challenge because there's no terrain to hide behind.
It's all about maneuver and managing one's detection.

Islands add places to hide and also provide "shields" if the island is large enough. 
In some ways, I feel they are a crutch.

Islands are also convenient points of reference for players who can use mini-map-aiming to hit unseen opponents.
 

I love this argument so much. Do you also require people to be movie directors before they can critique films? 

Terrain creates safe avenues for pushes and aggressive positioning. Without terrain, matches devolve into boring, permakited snipefests and torpedo soup.

If you're going to claim it isn't rocket science, then how about providing *your* solution.

If you're not going to provide a solution, then you're only complaining.
Which is fine, by itself. 
It's also sometimes known as venting and ranting and being a voice in the wilderness.
But, it boils down to you saying that you didn't get what you wanted or expected and want others (specifically the game developers) to listen to you via psychic osmosis and drop everything else in order to cater to you, in my opinion.

And the game developers are also supposed to do what you want without you paying them, maybe?  🙂 

[thornzero]

3 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I simply accept those capabilities and plan for them accordingly.

Seems like the more I improve, the less I mind.

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

As I see it, the game is all about creating opportunities while denying the enemy the ability to do the same. To me, that is what play-counterplay is.

I like how you phrased that.  Nicely said.