Massive double standards?

[Boomer625]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I can't upload screenshots.  I've exceeded my available space on this forum, if I understand the situation correctly.

 

How much upload space do you get on this forum? I liked how the now closed wows forums did not have limited upload space compared to other wg forums as it allowed for a lot more media to be uploaded and not having to delete previosuly uploaded images- also old forum messeages with media could still be referenced.

 

nvm I found it - its 48.83 mb

Edited October 7, 2023 by Boomer625

[Admiral_Karasu]

@I_cant_Swim_ How much do we have storage space currently?

I haven't hit the limit myself, I assume I can delete existing attachments to make room for new ones, but I assume that if I do that the images attached to my older posts will disappear. Not a huge issue if those threads are no longer active, but a little awkward though.

What's the deal with using Discord as a cloud service? I remember seeing something about them intending to place limitations on using Discord for file service but I can't find any Discord notification on that.

[Verytis]

On 10/6/2023 at 5:53 AM, Andrewbassg said:

That's not a counter, that's a tactic. Counter is preventing the opponent (or denying the possibility to him) to take meaningful action.

Sinking the red Cv is not a counter.

I don't even care about the semantics side of the argument anymore. Because I struggle to believe this is written in good faith by an experienced player. And I'm surprised noone else caught this either while I was took a break from processing such broken logic.

 

• Sinking a CV removes their ability to launch anymore squadrons while putting a hard timer on their final airborne squadron.
• Theres a reason a CV hides in the back, why people will focus it if it exposes it's belly. And why some attempt to snipe them in early game.
• Much of the game involves around sinking, or the threat of sinking, to stop opponent from taking certain actions.

 

To imply that sinking a target doesn't prevent them from taking meaningful action, is absurd.

Therefore I just ask you to seriously re-evaluate your definitions in the context of WOWS.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Verytis

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, Verytis said:

I don't even care about the semantics side of the argument anymore. Because I struggle to believe this is written in good faith by an experienced player. And I'm surprised noone else caught this either while I was took a break from processing such broken logic.

 

• Sinking a CV removes their ability to launch anymore squadrons while putting a hard timer on their final airborne squadron.
• Theres a reason a CV hides in the back, why people will focus it if it exposes it's belly. And why some attempt to snipe them in early game.
• Much of the game involves around sinking, or the threat of sinking, to stop opponent from taking certain actions.

 

To imply that sinking a target doesn't prevent them from taking meaningful action, is absurd.

Therefore I just ask you to seriously re-evaluate your definitions in the context of WOWS.

Sinking the CV does indeed counter it.

When the rework launched, WG made sure that no one could easily snipe the enemy CV unless they were in a coordinating division...and even then not at tier 10.

Now, with the release of the Russian CVs...and the impending release of air defense USN carriers, it appears that WG is relenting and allowing carriers to be able to meaningfully snipe each other again.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Sinking the CV does indeed counter it.

When the rework launched, WG made sure that no one could easily snipe the enemy CV unless they were in a coordinating division...and even then not at tier 10.

Now, with the release of the Russian CVs...and the impending release of air defense USN carriers, it appears that WG is relenting and allowing carriers to be able to meaningfully snipe each other again.

I've been in random battles with Tier-4 ships, and remember a Wyoming player asking for the opposing CV to be spotted so they could attempt to snipe it.
So, the "CV Snipe" coordination tactic did filter down to the lower tiers.

How successful a "snipe" attempt is may vary according to the situation in each match, though.  🙂 

[Asym]

9 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I've been in random battles with Tier-4 ships, and remember a Wyoming player asking for the opposing CV to be spotted so they could attempt to snipe it.
So, the "CV Snipe" coordination tactic did filter down to the lower tiers.

How successful a "snipe" attempt is may vary according to the situation in each match, though.  🙂 

Ah geeze, how screwed up can this game get.....  Having to "ask" a Carrier to find a Carrier to kill a carrier with.........a Battleship.....  Reflect on that for a second.  a minute or even a day - and, if the Irony of that thought doesn't eat at your historical neurons and sense of all things from 1925 to 1945, gosh, we have lost the point......yes?

Carriers kill Carriers: it's dissimilar weapon versus dissimilar weapons....  Isn't that backed by History?    And, if they can't this game is hosed.......and, will never grow again.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Just now, Asym said:

Ah geeze, how screwed up can this game get.....  Having to "ask" a Carrier to find a Carrier to kill a carrier with.........a Battleship.....  Reflect on that for a second.  a minute or even a day - and, if the Irony of that thought doesn't eat at your historical neurons and sense of all things from 1925 to 1945, gosh, we have lost the point......yes?

Carriers kill Carriers: it's dissimilar weapon versus dissimilar weapons....  Isn't that backed by History?    And, if they can't this game is hosed.......and, will never grow again.

"Taffy 3" says "Hello"?

[Asym]

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

"Taffy 3" says "Hello"?

I don't disagree but, our game isn't based in historical battles....  It's more a Seven Sisters battle (let's see you find that reference....) and I just wish Carriers had the capabilities they should have:  A serious CAP mission with the rewards of that mission; and, their goal, where the real rewards money should be is tracking down and killing the other carrier.....

Like fighting like to establish aerial superiority....

[Wolfswetpaws]

26 minutes ago, Asym said:

I don't disagree but, our game isn't based in historical battles....  It's more a Seven Sisters battle (let's see you find that reference....) and I just wish Carriers had the capabilities they should have:  A serious CAP mission with the rewards of that mission; and, their goal, where the real rewards money should be is tracking down and killing the other carrier.....

Like fighting like to establish aerial superiority....

Dude.  We did have that.  But it was "re-worked".

Also, the maps in this game are too small for typical Aircraft Carrier open ocean operations.
Instead, CV's in this game are performing a "close air support" role, by attacking ships (instead of shore targets, with the exception of Scenario Operation Cherry Blossom).

And, is this what you were referencing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Of_The_Seven_Sisters

Or this?  https://www.space.com/pleiades.html

Or this?  https://www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/fiction/lucinda-riley-seven-sisters-series

Edited October 8, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[Asym]

3 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Dude.  We did have that.  But it was "re-worked".

Also, the maps in this game are too small for typical Aircraft Carrier open ocean operations.
Instead, CV's in this game are performing a "close air support" role, by attacking ships (instead of shore targets, with the exception of Scenario Operation Cherry Blossom).

And, is this what you were referencing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Of_The_Seven_Sisters

Or this?  https://www.space.com/pleiades.html

Or this?  https://www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/fiction/lucinda-riley-seven-sisters-series

Hey Wolf, I'm really not a "dude" and where I come from, that would be considered a slur.....a negative connotation.  Thanks and I did not take it that way....

Yes, I do know and have talked about my dislike of what this game has done to Carriers at length.  And, yes I do realize that on small, time compressed maps, Carriers are the "elephant in the room" and have said so for years....

It is just "comical" to me, that we are having carriers spotting carriers to kill them with CA's and BB's.....  When, for the most part, Carriers were spotted and killed by Carriers which is a Like-to-Like engagement....  It just struck me as funny.

And, no.  Google might not find the Seven Sisters for you.  Another hint:  SIMNET was a 1:1 representation of the Severn Sisters.   Another hint:  Team Yankee.

Be well, I've got rifles to clean from a major match yesterday !  Sigh, work, work, work.....

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Asym said:

Thanks and I did not take it that way....

No insult was intended.  🙂 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Asym said:

Be well, I've got rifles to clean from a major match yesterday !

👍👍

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I've been in random battles with Tier-4 ships, and remember a Wyoming player asking for the opposing CV to be spotted so they could attempt to snipe it.
So, the "CV Snipe" coordination tactic did filter down to the lower tiers.

How successful a "snipe" attempt is may vary according to the situation in each match, though.  🙂 

WG gave many CVs sufficient armor to prevent same tier ships from overmatching battleship fire at range...

This is why most sniping coordination requires specific battleship choices to ensure that any shots that do hit can do sufficient damage.

Thankfully some of this aversion to the CV dying early seems to be leaving the dev teams.

[hipcanuck]

On 10/2/2023 at 3:05 AM, Zaydin said:

Best example I can think of: Perma-spotted by a DD hiding in stealth in a ship that you can do nothing to flush it out of stealth with? Perfectly fine and a skill issue and you need to git gud.

Spotted by a CV or sub? OMG OP CANCER MUST BE REMOVED!

And the knots people twist themselves into defending perma-spotting DDs and how it is totally different. Go ahead, play a match in a radar or hydro-less ship and tell me how much fun you have being stalked by a DD. It's also why I consider Brisk a worthless/noob trap skill on BBs.

Where you around when DD's could shoot and keep concealment? Imagine how much fun it was when a Khab was burning you down, shelling you non stop....and you couldnt see it!

[SoshiSone]

On 10/2/2023 at 3:05 AM, Zaydin said:

Go ahead, play a match in a radar or hydro-less ship and tell me how much fun you have being stalked by a DD. It's also why I consider Brisk a worthless/noob trap skill on BBs.

Spotting is part of the game.  It can take many (thousands) of games to get good at handling it.

Keep in mind that most perma spots in stealth reduces a DD to torps only in trail.  If that spot is being used for reds to see and target you, keep in mind that in most cases you can see and target them.  So...in some respects you have the attention of two or more reds, of which you can respond in kind.  This is not a particularly bad strategic situation as you remain engageed and the reds have a DD sidelined with spotting and low prob torp shots.

Now, there are times you can get double teamed with a spotter and a smoker.  These are very frustrating, but a team that can pull this off gets kudos for strategic play.  You can mitigate this a little before the match by paying close attention to match maker and divisions or clans.  Once one is spotted as the game evolves, the other will be near.  Play in a manner not to get caught in the spotter/smoke trap.  Or, if your team is on par, rush and crush.

Lasly, there are many counter ships to smokers and stealh spotters.  If you are getting stealth spotted, ask for help, or perhaps work to keep counter ships between you and the threat.  If that doesn't work, play a counter ship.

Strealth spotting is part of the game.  In my experience, most of the time I can manage it.  Those times when the reds catch me out.  Well, they got me.  There are many many many "got me" moments in this game.  Be it the surprise torp barrage, the triple cit from no where, or the det from that one torpedo that hits below the gun turret.  All are part of the game.  Manage what you can; accept what you can't.  Just realize that the the range of manage and can't moves right with experience.  I've learned to mostly avoid torp barrages...triple cits, and torpedo hits below the turret..and a host of other "got me" moments.  Stealth spotting is just one (and even a less severe one) than the many other "got me"  moments.

[Asym]

3 minutes ago, SoshiSone said:

Spotting is part of the game.  It can take many (thousands) of games to get good at handling it.

Keep in mind that most perma spots in stealth reduces a DD to torps only in trail.  If that spot is being used for reds to see and target you, keep in mind that in most cases you can see and target them.  So...in some respects you have the attention of two or more reds, of which you can respond in kind.  This is not a particularly bad strategic situation as you remain engageed and the reds have a DD sidelined with spotting and low prob torp shots.

Now, there are times you can get double teamed with a spotter and a smoker.  These are very frustrating, but a team that can pull this off gets kudos for strategic play.  You can mitigate this a little before the match by paying close attention to match maker and divisions or clans.  Once one is spotted as the game evolves, the other will be near.  Play in a manner not to get caught in the spotter/smoke trap.  Or, if your team is on par, rush and crush.

Lasly, there are many counter ships to smokers and stealh spotters.  If you are getting stealth spotted, ask for help, or perhaps work to keep counter ships between you and the threat.  If that doesn't work, play a counter ship.

Strealth spotting is part of the game.  In my experience, most of the time I can manage it.  Those times when the reds catch me out.  Well, they got me.  There are many many many "got me" moments in this game.  Be it the surprise torp barrage, the triple cit from no where, or the det from that one torpedo that hits below the gun turret.  All are part of the game.  Manage what you can; accept what you can't.  Just realize that the the range of manage and can't moves right with experience.  I've learned to mostly avoid torp barrages...triple cits, and torpedo hits below the turret..and a host of other "got me" moments.  Stealth spotting is just one (and even a less severe one) than the many other "got me"  moments.

Well said and this is what is taught at many schools that offer degrees in game creation....  There has to be a balance between game play and the expectations of the game's "Value Proposition" at time of offer....

At issue always is reality versus game mechanics...  Some can accept the game's mechanics, even though they are so obtuse to what really happens; and, some can not and stay frustrated for a long time or leave.  I have found that it is "the explanation as to why they exist" is what keeps or eliminates those stuck in the comparison...

Good thread !

[Andrewbassg]

15 hours ago, Verytis said:

I don't even care about the semantics side of the argument anymore. Because I struggle to believe this is written in good faith by an experienced player. And I'm surprised noone else caught this either while I was took a break from processing such broken logic.

 

• Sinking a CV removes their ability to launch anymore squadrons while putting a hard timer on their final airborne squadron.
• Theres a reason a CV hides in the back, why people will focus it if it exposes it's belly. And why some attempt to snipe them in early game.
• Much of the game involves around sinking, or the threat of sinking, to stop opponent from taking certain actions.

 

To imply that sinking a target doesn't prevent them from taking meaningful action, is absurd.

Therefore I just ask you to seriously re-evaluate your definitions in the context of WOWS.

 

Nah..... look A is A not a B.

Yes, obviously sinking an opponent will prevent him from taking meaningful action, but that's not just counter, because he is removed completely, he is longer present, he is out of the game and he is relegated to port . People don't say "I successfully countered the Cv"  but "I sunk the  Cv".

Flambass had a video, in which playing a Kidd he parked himself close to the CV (T6 and kinda late game) and kept shooting down his planes. Still he didn't sunk him (at least for a while). THAT is counter. 

Similarly,  counterplay means that the opponent has taken at least the same amount of dmg or pain ( ofc proportionally) , as he inflicted. Merely surviving,  is not counterplay.

In extension successful counterplay implies inflicting more dmg or pain as taken.   Any other interpretation is just ......  mental gymnastics and simple copium.

And I said "that's a tactic and NOT counter" because one have to get there in the first place. And getting there and sinking the Cv is the execution of the aforementioned tactic. But its not a counter.  Its a kill  🙂 

For example what is Earth, round or a geoid? Some people could say that the Earth is round, but that's incorrect, because in fact the Earth is a geoid, and that also encompass and gives out specific characteristics. 

 

I  hope that now we understand each other, because, again, It is important that the terms used are understood, or explained, otherwise the discussion become a meaningless noise.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

 I hope that now we understand each other, because, again, It is important that the terms used are understood, or explained, otherwise the discussion become a meaningless noise.

This is an amusing sentiment...because WG has quite clearly not utilized counterplay mechanics in the game design.

Prominent CCs had to explain the concept to the developers...at which point WG started using the concept in their advertising but NOT their balancing and developing.

The whole conversation is meaningless noise, as WG has very little interest in actually balancing the gameplay.

[Andrewbassg]

12 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is an amusing sentiment...because WG has quite clearly not utilized counterplay mechanics in the game design.

Prominent CCs had to explain the concept to the developers...at which point WG started using the concept in their advertising but NOT their balancing and developing.

 

 

           

 

12 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The whole conversation is meaningless noise, as WG has very little interest in actually balancing the gameplay.

No conversation is meaningless if  something can be learned from it. And... we already know how much Wedgie is worth....

 

Also we having fun 🙂 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

13 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The whole conversation is meaningless noise, as WG has very little interest in actually balancing the gameplay.

I think in all likelihood WG will direct any balance related queries to their accounting department. It's not that WG does not care about balance per se, it's that they understand the concept differently from us players.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

28 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I think in all likelihood WG will direct any balance related queries to their accounting department. It's not that WG does not care about balance per se, it's that they understand the concept differently from us players.

Indeed.

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

 

           

 

No conversation is meaningless if  something can be learned from it. And... we already know how much Wedgie is worth....

 

Also we having fun 🙂 

 

I agree. Just making sure we aren't driving ourselves completely negative by holding expectations about WG behavior that are never going to be met.

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Indeed.

I agree. Just making sure we aren't driving ourselves completely negative by holding expectations about WG behavior that are never going to be met.

I think overall most of us old timers are far too salty and cynical to fall into that trap... but of course it always pays to be extra cautious.

On the subject of balance.... do we know if the non-Lesta WG (that we are with) even has a devs team and/or balancing department, or are they theoretically having to subcontract all that work from Lesta Studios? Judging by the crap they keep throwing at us, I definitely get the sense that we just have some kind of a marketing/promotional department that's engaged in overdrive by the looks of it.

[SunkCostFallacy]

48 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I think overall most of us old timers are far too salty and cynical to fall into that trap... but of course it always pays to be extra cautious.

On the subject of balance.... do we know if the non-Lesta WG (that we are with) even has a devs team and/or balancing department, or are they theoretically having to subcontract all that work from Lesta Studios? Judging by the crap they keep throwing at us, I definitely get the sense that we just have some kind of a marketing/promotional department that's engaged in overdrive by the looks of it.

Someone posted here (on DevStrike, not necessarily this thread) about WG having advertising for a whole bunch of positions, none of which appear to have been filled. I can't find it, or I'd credit them.

I'm guessing that WG pretty much HAVE to have some kind of dev staff in place, but I'm also none to sure that they have a fully implemented and competent dev team at this point.

Only time will tell to be honest.

[Verytis]

13 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yes, obviously sinking an opponent will prevent him from taking meaningful action, but that's not just counter, because he is removed completely, he is longer present, he is out of the game and he is relegated to port . People don't say "I successfully countered the Cv"  but "I sunk the  Cv".

That doesn't explain why sinking a target is NOT a counter. Rather, that it is something else, but with no mention of why it is mutually exclusive to being a "counter".

But ofc, there is significant difference between a live and dead opponent. A living opponent can still pose threats later on. Killing the opponent means you have not only interrupted their current actions, but also preemptively stopped any future actions. Also kills often have other implications such as score/points, etc.

So naturally we'd have different word to more accurately convey that, as given by your example of "countered" vs "sunk".

17 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Similarly,  counterplay means that the opponent has taken at least the same amount of dmg or pain ( ofc proportionally) , as he inflicted. Merely surviving,  is not counterplay.

In extension successful counterplay implies inflicting more dmg or pain as taken.   Any other interpretation is just ......  mental gymnastics and simple copium.

And I said "that's a tactic and NOT counter" because one have to get there in the first place. And getting there and sinking the Cv is the execution of the aforementioned tactic. But its not a counter.  Its a kill  🙂 

This is a matter of timescale and focus on individuals as opposed to team perspective.

 

You say "merely surviving" as if to imply the ship is not doing anything else if he can't shoot immediately back at the CV. That ship will either be fighting your teammates, capping, or coming with intent to kill you.

Call "running up to the enemy" as a "tactic" by which I achieve the counterplay conditions if you wish. But If I inflict more dmg and kill the CV, before it inflicts similar dmg to me or my team. What is it if not a successful counterplay by your own definition given?

 

17 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

For example what is Earth, round or a geoid? Some people could say that the Earth is round, but that's incorrect, because in fact the Earth is a geoid, and that also encompass and gives out specific characteristics. 

Some also call it an imperfect sphere, are you gonna call everyone wrong except for your own definition?

But thank you for providing a representation of where this conversation is going, if its not there already.

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 hour ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

Someone posted here (on DevStrike, not necessarily this thread) about WG having advertising for a whole bunch of positions, none of which appear to have been filled. I can't find it, or I'd credit them.

I'm guessing that WG pretty much HAVE to have some kind of dev staff in place, but I'm also none to sure that they have a fully implemented and competent dev team at this point.

Only time will tell to be honest.

Uhu... I'm just thinking aloud here, but how easy would it be for WG to come up with with new devs through recruitment. Marketing positions etc. are probably easier to fill in comparison. Not that I personally care either way, I'm just curious if the game's going to see more development or less development in future. Considering what their track record is for the past four years or so, I'm not exactly sure which option I might find preferable under these circumstances.