Massive double standards?

[Silence_CN]

23 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I just noticed that my single solitary Solo Warrior achievement I ever got was not earned when I played a DD, but instead I got it while playing

Phoenix for me...   😁

[That WoT Player]

18 hours ago, That WoT Player said:

As an avid CV player, I can guarantee that it is easy and safe to spot enemy ships, any enemy ship, for extended periods of time. There is little risk to my squadrons, no matter what the enemy ship does, and I can do it from anywhere. I actually made a habit of annoying “AA ships” like Halland and Worcester by repeatedly attacking them and making their games miserable, because I knew that I could and still have full squadrons by the end of the game. 
 

Also as a carrier, my planes can fly over mountains and other terrain that a sub or stealth DD can’t move through, which makes your position irrelevant as I can not only spot you, but attack you, and much quicker than either the DD or sub can. 

 

10 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I bet you couldn't before January 2019....

 

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

My point was that the extent to which the game play has changed as the result of WG's botched up CV rework in 2019 is relevant to the current meta and the state of the game. As we all know it has changed.

… how do you get “you couldn’t pull the s#!t you say before January 2019,” when I don’t reference a date or even compared how the old CV system worked. I’m genuinely curious how you jumped to such a wrong conclusion about my statement. 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

2 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

a steak through the heart

A stake through the heart.

A steak is what you put in your stomach. 😜

2 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

( WOWS can educate about what ships existed and the reason they existed, but it isn't about depicting how they existed)

My call: for what it is, I think WOWS actually does a pretty good job at that. Doing it better (particularly in regard to modelling flood damage) has the potential to overcomplicate things and make it a poor sim as opposed to a good arcade game. 

I've done a LOT of reading around naval battles, ship construction (including textbooks written by some of the people who actually designed warships that were built), and damage control in the context of ships which either survived damage that should have sunk them or vice versa. That gave me an appreciation of how incredibly complicated it would be to simulate such things, and makes me sympathetic to the developers' decision to simplify this aspect in the way they do. And that's before we get to the vagaries of naval gunnery, the terribly low percentage of shells that actually hit (and the critical damage they can do in that case), etc.

I can live with the departures from reality, even if I find some of them hilarious (e.g. the fact that an armour-piercing bomb which overpenetrates on a vertical drop doesn't cause flooding). 

[Admiral_Karasu]

20 minutes ago, That WoT Player said:

 

 

… how do you get “you couldn’t pull the s#!t you say before January 2019,” when I don’t reference a date or even compared how the old CV system worked. I’m genuinely curious how you jumped to such a wrong conclusion about my statement. 

You said 'full squadrons'. We can argue which approach is fairer, as ships never run of shells or torps, but the fact remains that this was a huge change, much bigger than the UI aspect. Are you sure WG rebalanced the CV's properly back then in 2019?

[That WoT Player]

14 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

You said 'full squadrons'. We can argue which approach is fairer, as ships never run of shells or torps, but the fact remains that this was a huge change, much bigger than the UI aspect. Are you sure WG rebalanced the CV's properly back then in 2019?

I’m stating that they DIDN’T balance them properly, BECAUSE I can do all these things: reliably attack ships which are purported to be my counter; out spot and harass ships that live or die based on their own ability to spot and harass (and I can do it without suffering damage to my hull); and attack from any direction, even over terrain which would prevent a similar act from a surface ship, much quicker than the stealth boats. Please, read what what I wrote, not some fanfic you wanted me to write. 

[Jakob Knight]

33 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

A stake through the heart.

A steak is what you put in your stomach. 😜

My call: for what it is, I think WOWS actually does a pretty good job at that. Doing it better (particularly in regard to modelling flood damage) has the potential to overcomplicate things and make it a poor sim as opposed to a good arcade game. 

I've done a LOT of reading around naval battles, ship construction (including textbooks written by some of the people who actually designed warships that were built), and damage control in the context of ships which either survived damage that should have sunk them or vice versa. That gave me an appreciation of how incredibly complicated it would be to simulate such things, and makes me sympathetic to the developers' decision to simplify this aspect in the way they do. And that's before we get to the vagaries of naval gunnery, the terribly low percentage of shells that actually hit (and the critical damage they can do in that case), etc.

I can live with the departures from reality, even if I find some of them hilarious (e.g. the fact that an armour-piercing bomb which overpenetrates on a vertical drop doesn't cause flooding). 

 

Ughh.  Guilty as charged, and I plead 'distraction by menu', your honor.  Though, I don't know if anyone has actually tried pounding a pound of meat through a vampire to see if it kills them or just gives them more of an appetite...

 

And, completely agree that this game is quite livable as a hybrid between real data and arcade functionality.  Some of the best military games compromise between simulation and playability to improve player comprehension and limit fatigue, and I think WOWS hits that combination well.

 

Still wish I had this kind of playerbase back when I was trying to get matches in SSN-21 Seawolf or Fleet Command.

 

 

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 minute ago, That WoT Player said:

I’m stating that they DIDN’T balance them properly, BECAUSE I can do all these things: reliably attack ships which are purported to be my counter; out spot and harass ships that live or die based on their own ability to spot and harass (and I can do it without suffering damage to my hull); and attack from any direction, even over terrain which would prevent a similar act from a surface ship, much quicker than the stealth boats. Please, read what what I wrote, not some fanfic you wanted me to write. 

There was no fanfic on my part, but if the above was your point it was a valid one IMO.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 hour ago, That WoT Player said:

and attack from any direction, even over terrain which would prevent a similar act from a surface ship,

Some of the more recent carriers have mechanisms which specifically address this issue, as you should know if you are a well-rounded CV player. 

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, try to get any sort of strike off over high terrain in a tech-tree USSR CV or with German rockets.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Ensign Cthulhu

[That WoT Player]

7 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Some of the more recent carriers have mechanisms which specifically address this issue, as you should know if you are a well-rounded CV player. 

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, try to get any sort of strike off over high terrain in a tech-tree USSR CV or with German rockets.

As to the USSR skip bombers: I can still drop the bombs directly on the enemy ship’s head. Not even a difficult thing to do. 
 

As to the attackers: I can use the terrain to attack a target from even further away, even completely outside of their AA range. A little more difficult, but doable. 
 

And how does this prevent me from going slightly further around and circling back to attack the ship from a more favorable position? Terrain is meaningless, and does not hinder me in any way, unlike a DD or sub. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Some of the more recent carriers have mechanisms which specifically address this issue, as you should know if you are a well-rounded CV player. 

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, try to get any sort of strike off over high terrain in a tech-tree USSR CV or with German rockets.

Skill issue.

With practice, you can do things even more effectively because of the terrain than in spite of it.

Typical WG design flaw in their process...they imagine that the development team's limits are the actual limits of the ship or feature. Testing and feedback from more skilled players is usually ignored until the concept has already been launched...and then lazy bandaid fixes attempted.

Sadly typical of the free2play/pay2win genre of games.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Guest]

Carriers...some simple "fixes"

Plane bloom..similar to gun bloom..increases detection range when launching planes. If the rest of us have this penalty for deploying our main weapon, so should carriers.

Fires: Let them burn..like real carriers did

Cut back on the time the zombie planes can operate after CV is sunk. ONE pass is sufficient, not repeated passes after the ship is sunk.

These would at least bring the illusion of fairness to the whole CV mess.

 

[Jakob Knight]

19 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

Carriers...some simple "fixes"

Plane bloom..similar to gun bloom..increases detection range when launching planes. If the rest of us have this penalty for deploying our main weapon, so should carriers.

Fires: Let them burn..like real carriers did

Cut back on the time the zombie planes can operate after CV is sunk. ONE pass is sufficient, not repeated passes after the ship is sunk.

These would at least bring the illusion of fairness to the whole CV mess.

 

 

Back in the day, CVs did burn, and couldn't launch aircraft while on fire.  Then again, they could also drop enough ordinance to sink any target they wanted to in one pass, so I guess you get blessings in one hand, something not so good in the other.

[Dareios]

26 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

Plane bloom..similar to gun bloom..increases detection range when launching planes. If the rest of us have this penalty for deploying our main weapon, so should carriers.

Fires: Let them burn..like real carriers did

Cut back on the time the zombie planes can operate after CV is sunk. ONE pass is sufficient, not repeated passes after the ship is sunk.

 

 

planes are spotted at 10km. You want CVs to be spotted at 30km when they first launch their planes? Ok, lets counter that logic.. if you say its bloom for using the weapon, your main guns dont bloom UNTIL they are fired.. and as such CV planes should not, by that extension, bloom until they drop their ordnance and would therefor not be spotted at 10km (engine smoke, visual profile, whatever) but only at the point they drop torps or bombs - so invisible until 2-3km. The 'rest' of 'us' have a penalty for using 'our' weapon, not deploying it, otherwise your Yamato would be permanently spotted at 26-30km range as it has the capacity to shoot at that range, regardless if it is or is not actively shooting. In a similar vein I am assuming that a shimakaze should be spotted at 20km for launching its torpedoes.

If fires can burn as per normal, give CVs back manual control over our consumables. Would you be happy in your BB if WG took away your option to let on fire burn, insisted your DCP be used immediately, and then be set on fire twice more 20s later and have sub pings incoming?

Zombie planes.. agreed. Sort of. It could use some tweaking. There needs to be some zombie period, otherwise torpedoes and main gun shells need to be removed 100ms after the parent ship dies too, and not continue on regular trajectory. However there's a few instances where a zombie squad can get 3 strikes off (IJN CV), and Nahkimov could not care less about your one pass restriction. This too does not address the issue of me choosing not to strike with that remaining zombie plane and spending three minutes spotting for my team and probably not making a DD match fun for a while (since I have no incentive to strike and recall for dpm).

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Dareios

[Wolfswetpaws]

Planes without a CV have ordnance and nowhere to land. 
They're naturally angry and looking to put some damage on the team that sunk their "home".

That said, there is already a countdown timer on planes activity after a CV is sunk.
Planes are forced to depart the area either after making an attack or after a specified period of time.
Of course, shooting the planes down ends the countdown timer, too.

[Guest]

Yes...Shimkaze and other DDs should have a brief period of visibility when they launch torps. CVs should have an increased detection when launching planes, not necessarily  30k but at least a 50% increase in detection range. That way they just can't run away, stay out of detection range and launch planes when you are trying to chase them down. Yes, by all ,means take away automatic fire protection. Make the players actually play the ship.

[Wolfswetpaws]

32 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

Yes...Shimkaze and other DDs should have a brief period of visibility when they launch torps. CVs should have an increased detection when launching planes, not necessarily  30k but at least a 50% increase in detection range. That way they just can't run away, stay out of detection range and launch planes when you are trying to chase them down. Yes, by all ,means take away automatic fire protection. Make the players actually play the ship.

Reading the mini-map will enable a player to observe the path of the planes approaching to attack and the planes that are returning to the CV after an attack.
Savvy players can already locate CV's this way.
Sail closer if you want to detect a CV "hull-to-hull".

[Verytis]

Increased detection range of strike aircraft would help.

If you can see planes coming from 15km away, instead of 10km, you'd have more time to prepare yourself.

 

IJN CVs do have a special gimmick of stealthy 7.5km torpedo planes, letting them potentially get really close before spotted. Its surprising all other planes have 10km detection, because WG clearly saw it as a potential differential factor.

[Wolfswetpaws]

31 minutes ago, Verytis said:

Increased detection range of strike aircraft would help.

If you can see planes coming from 15km away, instead of 10km, you'd have more time to prepare yourself.

 

IJN CVs do have a special gimmick of stealthy 7.5km torpedo planes, letting them potentially get really close before spotted. Its surprising all other planes have 10km detection, because WG clearly saw it as a potential differential factor.

Most DD's have an even smaller detection radius than 7.5 km.

Should a plane be more detectable than a Destroyer?

[Dareios]

7 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Most DD's have an even smaller detection radius than 7.5 km.

Should a plane be more detectable than a Destroyer?

and this is surface detection. consider air detection, specifically of the smaller DDs.

DD sees planes (generally) 10km out, planes sees DD (generally) at 3km.

that's a reasonable level of gap timing to move your 3km detection radius outside of the planes projected path.

[Dareios]

On 10/3/2023 at 6:12 AM, Folded_1000_Times said:

I main dds, in order for me to do a fraction of the no counterplay cv and subs experience with little effort i first have to:

Kill enemy dds, neutralize enemy radars, kill hydro ships, position perfectly, and have enough HP to either gun you down, or get lucky with torps. 

Torps arent direct damage, they are more area denial at the higher skill levels. 

and by your own admission you dont play either subs or CVs thus I contend you have minimal experience about the presumed no counter play.

I am also a DD main, but even driving cruisers and BBs I find outside of the spotting possibilities that there is a plethora of counter play against both classes. Ive had plenty of matches where driving as a BB Ive killed two enemy subs in the match.. should be impossible if there's no counterplay (hint: shoot them with main guns when they are spotted - but I only have 5km ASW doesnt cut it if your thunderer can one shot an I56).

I will agree with you on torps.. there are a range of uses for them and damage is only one option (but the option that generally pays best and has more match influence). Depends on circumstances and how many torps you have available to spam. certainly more true in comp modes.

I was going to just boring it.. as I would with anyone who cant address a comment without having to use it as an agenda for their dislikes (as in your first quoted sentence, which is irrelevant to your second very valid sentence about the many roles a good DD has to accomplish).. but then I saw the name and given our recent interactions I will do you the courtesy of not doing so this time.

[MnemonScarlet]

45 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Most DD's have an even smaller detection radius than 7.5 km.

Should a plane be more detectable than a Destroyer?

They already are, and for game balance's sake, yes. The planes just have an incomparable speed and terrain ignoring advantage - the map is just a flat plane to them that they simply traverse in straight lines at speeds no other unit can match.

[Chobittsu]

Aye, if you want things to be strictly realistic, War Thunder has game modes for that, but you'll be just as annoyed there as you are here, I guarantee it

[Jakob Knight]

11 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

Yes...Shimkaze and other DDs should have a brief period of visibility when they launch torps. CVs should have an increased detection when launching planes, not necessarily  30k but at least a 50% increase in detection range. That way they just can't run away, stay out of detection range and launch planes when you are trying to chase them down. Yes, by all ,means take away automatic fire protection. Make the players actually play the ship.

 

And BBs should have to turn broadside to fire their guns.  Can't make it so one class of ship has to commit suicide to use their main weapons without such being extended to all types of ship, after all. 🙂

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[That WoT Player]

32 minutes ago, Chobittsu said:

Aye, if you want things to be strictly realistic, War Thunder has game modes for that, but you'll be just as annoyed there as you are here, I guarantee it

I second this: wart chunder’s naval mode is very slow, about as slow as US standards in this game, and you don’t have unlimited torps in your DDs, either. You also have to contend with no spotting ranges (as everyone is automatically spotted with line of sight) and realistic reloads (several battleships that have 30 second reloads in this game have 40 second reloads in WT), and an extremely poor economy. 
 

The only good thing is all the ships look amazing, but that’s par for the course: great graphics at the expense of the rest of the game. 

[Chobittsu]

Just now, That WoT Player said:

 

Aye, but if you want more realism outta your naval combat, that's the way to go. Which explains why it's such an underplayed mode in the game and barely anyone plays it.   It's slow, it's boring. You're basically sitting there between shots and most of them are gonna miss anyway.
About the one thing it has going for it is the ships feel like they have real weight to them, even the small ones.
But at some point you have to compromise. At what point do you trade realism and aesthetics for functional and fun gameplay, y'know?