Reported!!!

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, Type_93 said:

Sorry but I’ve seen the victim mentality prevalent today brush true victims under the rug. The world would be a much better place if “victims” of “toxicity” would grow some spine and deal with the real problems in their life instead of crying victim and wanting someone else to deal with their problems. 

Yawn.

This is obviously not directed at me...so, have at it.

Edited June 25 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Type_93]

1 minute ago, Asym said:

Wow !  Talk about generalizations ! 

I accidentally got drug into a Randoms match last week when a clan mate invited me to Division for a clan star....  He was new and didn't know I don't play Randoms.....

A one sided, toxic stomp....  I reported two players. 

I joined the military at 17 and spent 22 years in Combat Arms units and for a while, jumped out of planes for a living....  Does that qualify as coddled?  I wonder if my "entitlement" came from over 18 months in rehab?  Ever do a night tactical drop where the Air Force misplaced the IP????  And, you end up in a cedar swamp and bounce of a cedar stump - at warp three with 100 pounds of combat equipment....  Stump won mate.  

A word of advice:  you have no idea whom we are....  Even when we are whining or crying the blues and screaming at each other....  You don't know us.  So, let's give up categorizing players....  Even the Barney level players have "moments" where they loose it....  I can't play Clan Battles anymore -  because, if you speak in a Command Voice, some players are seriously offended....! 

I always take a breath and remember this from a Great song by the Moody Blues (Justin Hayward, 1969 ARR):

There you go man
Keep as cool as you can
Face piles of trials with smiles
It riles them to believe
That you perceive the web they weave
And keep on thinking free

Or, when I get game stressed with a situation I think of my hero, Oddball...

"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" (Kelly's Hero's, 1970)

You took that awfully personal. If you went through all that and yet get upset at players in a random battle, well you prolly aren’t as tuff as you think you are. Dont stand on your service like it’s something that gives you more insight to the world. Plenty of us here served and seen first hand what real toxicity is.  My senior Sargents from basic to my last unit would have eaten players with a victim mentality for lunch. 

[Type_93]

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Yawn.

This is obviously not directed at me...so, have at it.

Why would you think it was directed at you in the first place? You sure are full of yourself. 

[Ferdinand_Max]

1 hour ago, Aethervox said:

This is the incessant lament about CVs

Exactly, if you want to play WW2 naval ships, then, expect CVs. 

Back to the topic, "Reported!!!". I'd sure like to 'Report' reworked CVs (all of them) but Wedgie won't be listening (as most know, I'd like RTS CVs to return 😁).

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Well, if you play in "Age of Sail" video-games, then you won't have to worry about Aircraft Carriers, eh?

If you're willing to step-up to WW-II games, then "buckle-up, buttercup".  🙂 

I want to play World War I naval ships as well, or even, primarily.

How many aircraft carriers were there at Jutland? Yet every time I jump into Orion, Iron Duke or Acasta, I seem to have to handle two enemy carriers each match.

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I was ruthlessly and systematically bullied all through school. The whole damn twelve years. I know how that feels.

There is no comparison with being worked over by a competent CV player who knows his job and is out to remove the threat you pose to his team. I'll choose the CV any time.

So do I. And no, I am not saying that the emotional impact is the same. This is the bloody game, of course it is not the same. You can quit the game... you cannot quit the life and log in again later.

But psychological mechanics behind them are the same. Being harassed, frustrated, and at the same time unable to do a thing about it.

2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I don't think you understand the kind of game World of Warships is or the kind of experience WarGaming wants to deliver.

ALL of the classes are purpose designed to cause frustration to their victims.

If you can't handle the heat of battle, stay out of the battle space.

Yeah, no. That is just a generalization.

You do have (some) counterplay against a destroyer in a battleship, against a cruiser in a destroyer... there is no reason to feel frustration against an enemy in such conditions, especially since trying to survive in such conditions can actually be quite fun (well, unless you are being HE farmed to death by an angry smoke cloud).

Against a carrier, the only counterplay (in anything larger than a destroyer, at least) is hoping the enemy player is a moron.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

I want to play World War I naval ships as well, or even, primarily.

How many aircraft carriers were there at Jutland? Yet every time I jump into Orion, Iron Duke or Acasta, I seem to have to handle two enemy carriers each match.

Yup. This is true of a lot of people as well.

Sadly, WG just doesn't understand that the magic of their game engine is the WW1 era fights, not WW2. Plus, there is an order of magnitude more potential content from world war 1 than what we have now.

Major missed opportunity.

4 minutes ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

Yeah, no. That is just a generalization.

You do have (some) counterplay against a destroyer in a battleship, against a cruiser in a destroyer... there is no reason to feel frustration against an enemy in such conditions, especially since trying to survive in such conditions can actually be quite fun (well, unless you are being HE farmed to death by an angry smoke cloud).

Against a carrier, the only counterplay (in anything larger than a destroyer, at least) is hoping the enemy player is a moron.

You are preaching to the choir.

I've spent so long trying to educate WG staff about just how broken CV 'balance' is, from the perspective of a CV main...(I agree with you, CVs are bonkers OP)...that most WG staff have me blocked because they don't want to have to continually deal with me telling them the truth.

They prefer their own self delusions.

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 hours ago, Asym said:

"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" (Kelly's Hero's, 1970)

🙂👍

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

9 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Well, if you play in "Age of Sail" video-games, then you won't have to worry about Aircraft Carriers, eh?

If you're willing to step-up to WW-II games, then "buckle-up, buttercup".  🙂 

I want to play World War I naval ships as well, or even, primarily.

How many aircraft carriers were there at Jutland? Yet every time I jump into Orion, Iron Duke or Acasta, I seem to have to handle two enemy carriers each match.

Quote:  "I want to play World War I naval ships as well, or even, primarily."

I hear you. 
But, that might mean you'd be limiting yourself to Tier-2 gameplay?
I wonder if there would be an increased risk of turret detonation from gunpowder handling procedures, though?  Just kidding.  😉 

I believe you're aware of the matchmaking and which tiers of ships risk encountering CV's during a match.
https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Matchmaking

World War One included Submarines, though.  Currently, in game, Submarine tech-trees begin at Tier-6.  So, that's some relief for you, I suppose.

Tier-2 games are fun, in my opinion.  
It would be nice if games below Tier-5 could count towards accomplishing more missions.  
As things are now, only the Five Epochs of the Navy campaign allows low-tier ships an opportunity to strut their stuff.

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

But psychological mechanics behind them are the same. Being harassed, frustrated, and at the same time unable to do a thing about it.

How do you feel about learning how to fight a CV?

[Ferdinand_Max]

5 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Quote:  "I want to play World War I naval ships as well, or even, primarily."

I hear you. 
But, that might mean you'd be limiting yourself to Tier-2 gameplay?
I wonder if there would be an increased risk of turret detonation from gunpowder handling procedures, though?  Just kidding.  😉 

I believe you're aware of the matchmaking and which tiers of ships risk encountering CV's during a match.
https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Matchmaking

World War One included Submarines, though.  Currently, in game, Submarine tech-trees begin at Tier-6.  So, that's some relief for you, I suppose.

Tier-2 games are fun, in my opinion.  
It would be nice if games below Tier-5 could count towards accomplishing more missions.  
As things are now, only the Five Epochs of the Navy campaign allows low-tier ships an opportunity to strut their stuff.

I'd rather suffer submarines than carriers if I'm being honest. Although I have to note here that fleet submarines were an abject failure in both world wars, meaning that having submarines in the game outside the convoy missions makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of the tier. And the only submarines that may have theoretically operated as part of battle fleet are all from the Second World War, excepting the K-class submarine. But if you want to be historically accurate, said British Kalamity class would sink by itself at the start of the battle, meaning they would not be a problem at all.

5 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

How do you feel about learning how to fight a CV?

The only way to fight a CV is to pray that the CV player is a n00b or a moron. That's it. There is no interaction there, just a surface muppet and the Divine Hand of God coming to crush him.

Well, you can avoid attacks if you are in a destroyer, but if you are in a destroyer, then direct attacks by a CV are the least of your CV-related problems.

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

I'd rather suffer submarines than carriers if I'm being honest. Although I have to note here that fleet submarines were an abject failure in both world wars, meaning that having submarines in the game outside the convoy missions makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of the tier. And the only submarines that may have theoretically operated as part of battle fleet are all from the Second World War, excepting the K-class submarine. But if you want to be historically accurate, said British Kalamity class would sink by itself at the start of the battle, meaning they would not be a problem at all.

 

An interesting sentiment.  🙂 
Though, the names of the Indianapolis and the Taiho come to mind.  Granted, those operated during WW-II, not WW-I.
First I've heard of the Kalamity class.  So, now I've got a bit of light-reading to do, in order to satisfy my curiosity.  Thanks.
 

7 hours ago, Ferdinand_Max said:

The only way to fight a CV is to pray that the CV player is a n00b or a moron. That's it. There is no interaction there, just a surface muppet and the Divine Hand of God coming to crush him.

Well, you can avoid attacks if you are in a destroyer, but if you are in a destroyer, then direct attacks by a CV are the least of your CV-related problems.

Ah.  Well.  If you insist, then, of course, you may persist in that way of thinking.

::: Humming a tune often used in Yuro's videos while he "just dodges" accompanied by torpedo-beats music.  :::
 

Spoiler

Personally, I rather like the thought of sailing forward, clearing a flank with the help of my team and then pursuing & cornering a CV. 
Whereupon, I hope to deliver this modified version of some lines from the movie "The Labyrinth".  🙂 

[Sarah] :  "Through dangers untold and hardships unnumbered, I have fought my way here to the castle beyond the Goblin City to sink you sportingly." 
[thunder rumbles] 
[Sarah] : "For my will is as strong as yours, my kingdom as great..."
[Sarah] : "You have no power over me."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091369/characters/nm0000124?ref_=tt_cl_c_2

 

[Asym]

13 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

How do you feel about learning how to fight a CV?

Well, now there's a topic for some popcorn !  🤔

The entire game from inception has been hung up on Carriers.   Carriers are the "dissimilar weapons" the changed the actual world's combat meta in 1925.....  Some nations grasped the dissimilarity and some didn't;  till,  it was shoved down their throats, screaming and yelling.....

And, as all stories of "adaptive friction" to technological change (a Toffler wave no less and NPI !), it involved a war.....  The difference was, that the technology curve shortened and is to this day getting shorter and shorter.......  That breeds impatience.  That breeds even stronger ''assimilation rejection" tendencies....   ow.

And, here we are Militarily:   just like in 1925....   Simply, choking on:

Clausewitz’s Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity
The Nature of War as a Complex Adaptive System 

"But in war more than in any other subject we must begin by looking at the nature of the whole; for here more than elsewhere the part and whole must always be thought of together."
—Carl von Clausewitz               (Brian Cole, 2020)

Notice the Complex Adaptive System part....   Hmmmm?   As in Asymmetrical systems whose changes, challenge cultural expectations and concepts of "order..."

“There is a certain amount of change men can handle and this is called adaptive range.  If the amount of change is below this level, the results are boredom and people seeking more excitement in life.  If the level of change is above the adaptive range, man’s coping mechanism breaks down and the result is destruction and irrationality.” (Toffler, 1970.)

 

Here we are again.   Deja Vu  

Now, where's my popcorn........ 🍺  Come on lads, you know I am wrong !!!  And yet, since I teach/taught/lecture on this topic I really, know I am right.....and, the rest of you simply can't assimilate why !   It's kind of like being a surfer, it's all about understanding the Wave........and, not having your head explode or dying.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, Asym said:

Now, where's my popcorn........ 🍺

Here you go.  🍿  
(Use the emoji menu, and the search function, and type pop as a search-word.  Popcorn emoji will be among the results.)

While it took me a couple of read-throughs, this was one of your less cryptic posts.  😉 

[Admiral_Karasu]

8 minutes ago, Asym said:

Well, now there's a topic for some popcorn !  🤔

The entire game from inception has been hung up on Carriers.   Carriers are the "dissimilar weapons" the changed the actual world's combat meta in 1925.....  Some nations grasped the dissimilarity and some didn't;  till,  it was shoved down their throats, screaming and yelling.....

And, as all stories of "adaptive friction" to technological change (a Toffler wave no less and NPI !), it involved a war.....  The difference was, that the technology curve shortened and is to this day getting shorter and shorter.......  That breeds impatience.  That breeds even stronger ''assimilation rejection" tendencies....   ow.

And, here we are Militarily:   just like in 1925....   Simply, choking on:

Clausewitz’s Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity
The Nature of War as a Complex Adaptive System 

"But in war more than in any other subject we must begin by looking at the nature of the whole; for here more than elsewhere the part and whole must always be thought of together."
—Carl von Clausewitz               (Brian Cole, 2020)

Notice the Complex Adaptive System part....   Hmmmm?   As in Asymmetrical systems whose changes, challenge cultural expectations and concepts of "order..."

“There is a certain amount of change men can handle and this is called adaptive range.  If the amount of change is below this level, the results are boredom and people seeking more excitement in life.  If the level of change is above the adaptive range, man’s coping mechanism breaks down and the result is destruction and irrationality.” (Toffler, 1970.)

 

Here we are again.   Deja Vu  

Now, where's my popcorn........ 🍺  Come on lads, you know I am wrong !!!  And yet, since I teach/taught/lecture on this topic I really, know I am right.....and, the rest of you simply can't assimilate why !   It's kind of like being a surfer, it's all about understanding the Wave........and, not having your head explode or dying.

The higher up in the command chain you are, the more you are prepared to fight the previous war.

[Asym]

5 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

The higher up in the command chain you are, the more you are prepared to fight the previous war.

OH My !!!   Do you really believe that???

After several "years of full time Military schools" and knowing all sorts of "general grade officers".........no.

Knowing and Doing are all part of: Clausewitz’s Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity

Take an example:  Colin Powell's and Normal Schwarzkopf's major conflict on the Highway of Death situation.....  Oh my !  There are hundreds of others.....

In fact, History repeats itself because even if we study what happened in the past, a great many students "assume" what was right in the past is correct today !  Even though, the world is physically the same and people are people......and, there in is the rub Toffler discusses.....   Change is inevitable......and, that means that you must be daring enough to evolve a step ahead of that change to be relevant....

Or, politics gelds you.

[Admiral_Karasu]

5 minutes ago, Asym said:

OH My !!!   Do you really believe that???

After several "years of full time Military schools" and knowing all sorts of "general grade officers".........no.

Knowing and Doing are all part of: Clausewitz’s Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity

Take an example:  Colin Powell's and Normal Schwarzkopf's major conflict on the Highway of Death situation.....  Oh my !  There are hundreds of others.....

In fact, History repeats itself because even if we study what happened in the past, a great many students "assume" what was right in the past is correct today !  Even though, the world is physically the same and people are people......and, there in is the rub Toffler discusses.....   Change is inevitable......and, that means that you must be daring enough to evolve a step ahead of that change to be relevant....

Or, politics gelds you.

Well, do you have a better explanation for the navies still focusing on battleships well after the introduction of the carriers? And some navies never really got into carriers at all (until well after WW2 if even then).

[Justin_Simpleton]

22 minutes ago, Asym said:

36 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

The higher up in the command chain you are, the more you are prepared to fight the previous war.

OH My !!!   Do you really believe that???

The @Admiral_Karasu is correct. Because you are prepared to win the fight given the same conditions as before, there will be certainty that the conditions will be different.  So, you must look at your own weakness in the same manner as you look at your opponent's.  The trick is telling the funders you need money without spilling the beans to the adversaries.

 

23 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well, do you have a better explanation for the navies still focusing on battleships well after the introduction of the carriers? And some navies never really got into carriers at all (until well after WW2 if even then).

The government with the money is run by people who only know the past and aren't ready to grasp the future. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Asym said:

"There is a certain amount of change men can handle and this is called adaptive range.  If the amount of change is below this level, the results are boredom and people seeking more excitement in life.  If the level of change is above the adaptive range, man’s coping mechanism breaks down and the result is destruction and irrationality.” (Toffler, 1970.)

Ah, but is it irrational to detest the company forcing too high of an adaptive range change on someone else? Or in other words, it is within WGs power not to include CVs and world war 2 into the game...but they did it anyway...

Or is it more rational to recognize that the game isn't what we want...so we should look for another...

Interesting.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Asym said:

Colin Powell's and Normal Schwarzkopf's major conflict on the Highway of Death situation.....  Oh my !  There are hundreds of others.....

FYI, this example is not well known by folks outside the military...

Could you provide explanation or links to education on it?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well, do you have a better explanation for the navies still focusing on battleships well after the introduction of the carriers? And some navies never really got into carriers at all (until well after WW2 if even then).

The ability to use an aircraft carrier goes far beyond just physically building the hull and having planes capable.

An aircraft carrier is a hugely complicated weapons system with a lot of completely different parts and skills required to develop.

Battleship technology was already known in the 1920s. Sure, change was happening there too...

So in order to be relevant...you needed to keep up with the development costs of battleships...while also funding development of systems, people, operational use, and a myriad of other things for a completely new weapons system called the fleet air arm.

Cost was a huge reason for countries not to develop aircraft carriers. Politicians were unwilling to fund both sets of development.

Only the USN and Japan actually properly invested in all the systems required prior to world war 2...and Japan skimped on some systems to get enough resources to make Kido Butai a reality. Fleet air defense and damage control and radar were sacrificed, for example.

Britain skimped HEAVILY on aircraft and aircrew development for the fleet air arm in the years leading up to world war 2 for budget reasons and paid heavily for that error.

[Admiral_Karasu]

5 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The ability to use an aircraft carrier goes far beyond just physically building the hull and having planes capable.

An aircraft carrier is a hugely complicated weapons system with a lot of completely different parts and skills required to develop.

Battleship technology was already known in the 1920s. Sure, change was happening there too...

So in order to be relevant...you needed to keep up with the development costs of battleships...while also funding development of systems, people, operational use, and a myriad of other things for a completely new weapons system called the fleet air arm.

Cost was a huge reason for countries not to develop aircraft carriers. Politicians were unwilling to fund both sets of development.

Only the USN and Japan actually properly invested in all the systems required prior to world war 2...and Japan skimped on some systems to get enough resources to make Kido Butai a reality. Fleet air defense and damage control and radar were sacrificed, for example.

Britain skimped HEAVILY on aircraft and aircrew development for the fleet air arm in the years leading up to world war 2 for budget reasons and paid heavily for that error.

You think this was just about budgetary constraints and not about doctrine?

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Ah, but is it irrational to detest the company forcing too high of an adaptive range change on someone else? Or in other words, it is within WGs power not to include CVs and world war 2 into the game...but they did it anyway...

Or is it more rational to recognize that the game isn't what we want...so we should look for another...

Interesting.

Here's a simple test:  are we growing the game population in a steady manner?

If you say yes, we are growing then we have not exceeded the adaptive range.

If you say no, there is only a break even or loss of customers - well then, it seems we have exceeded the adaptive ranges and people are irrationally rejecting the game....

Stalled game populations indicate that the game has more issues than solutions. 

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

You think this was just about budgetary constraints and not about doctrine?

Yes,  and a way out of doctrine....  It wasn't the engineering to create a Carrier.  Nor, the building capabilities.  Nor even, the planes or manning....

England is not a strategic partner.  Costs to maintain a "strategic power projection" capability simply could not be met.  They relied on the US for that.  We spent the money and they enjoyed the coverage.  And, here we are today.....  Who has the Carrier task forces?   Strategic Counties.....    And no, jump jet mini carriers are not Power Projection platforms.   Carrier groups are large organization of ships that are always "out there !  Subs are another situation.

And, so it goes with all things NATO......

[Admiral_Karasu]

26 minutes ago, Asym said:

Yes,  and a way out of doctrine....  It wasn't the engineering to create a Carrier.  Nor, the building capabilities.  Nor even, the planes or manning....

England is not a strategic partner.  Costs to maintain a "strategic power projection" capability simply could not be met.  They relied on the US for that.  We spent the money and they enjoyed the coverage.  And, here we are today.....  Who has the Carrier task forces?   Strategic Counties.....    And no, jump jet mini carriers are not Power Projection platforms.   Carrier groups are large organization of ships that are always "out there !  Subs are another situation.

And, so it goes with all things NATO......

Yes, the subs. Years ago I remember it being said that the subs were the way of the future, the new 'capital' ships in a sense. Even more recently I've seen references to carrier task forces as having become obsolete for power projection.

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Yes, the subs. Years ago I remember it being said that the subs were the way of the future, the new 'capital' ships in a sense. Even more recently I've seen references to carrier task forces as having become obsolete for power projection.

At the end of the chase for strategic weapons systems, we are chasing towards the limits of Science... BB became Carriers;  Subs may replace Carriers; and, Space with replace subs till science provides for Energy Weapons that, make space platforms obsolete.  Then, we'll enter the last thing can tinker with:  people.

Sounds like a SF novel doesn't it....

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 minutes ago, Asym said:

At the end of the chase for strategic weapons systems, we are chasing towards the limits of Science... BB became Carriers;  Subs may replace Carriers; and, Space with replace subs till science provides for Energy Weapons that, make space platforms obsolete.  Then, we'll enter the last thing can tinker with:  people.

Sounds like a SF novel doesn't it....

Yeah well... back on old earth I prefer to stick to the battleship concept, that's where I feel most at home. As for SF, well, it's spaceships that are cool.