Jump to content

CaliburxZero

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    2,378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9464
  • Clan

    [--K--]

Community Reputation

1,483 Superb

About CaliburxZero

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Birthday October 17
  • Insignia
    [--K--]

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    caliburxzero

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States-- A State you don't want to be in.
  • Interests
    Anime of all kinds, Gaming, Fencing, Sci-Fi stuff, and most of all sleeping

Recent Profile Visitors

7,710 profile views
  1. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Jeez, aren't I popular today. I really want to pry away from the forums, but since you responded I suppose yet one more response along with Mouse's. Yes, clickbait in a sense. Many do it all the time here. Either way this thread and its idea was to point out the obvious. And I have no data to prove it. Perhaps the due diligence of testing CVs thoroughly could've given the data needed, and act upon it to where myself and others didn't need to exist trying to get these claims to be drawn out. Oh, is that so? Stupid ol' me wanted to raise a fuss, and that's all I wanted? I suppose given history, it was foolish of me to think you would ever give me credit. That's fine. A bit disappointed, but not surprising. So, right back at you. Don't project onto me what my motivations are. At best, you know me from 4-5 years ago. Don't think you have any right to judge my character and my thought processes. There's a few in this thread that was aware of this thread as I was building it-- the goal was stated before it even existed. Whether you buy into that or not, makes little difference to me. You can label this however you want, and use your clout to try as such. But at the end of the day, such a crazy idea of placing so many CVs in and what kinds of discussion it would bring up I hinted at that being what I wanted from the very first post I responded to that you made. What I value and don't you know little of either. So I suppose we're at best, both guilty on that. If you're trying to steer my reasoning into "just causing a fuss" to try and cancel out what's said here, that's fine too. And its okay if i'm ignorant on how to play CV. There are many purple CV players who will happily entertain that side of things too. And with that, that's all I'll bother with. I'll let folks who are well-respected that won't be personally labeled say the things I'd like to, some have said some things already. I'm glad I don't spend much time here on the forums anymore.
  2. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    And when I responded to you before, the "begging the question" fallacy I'm happy to entertain. That the premise is already proven. But you my friend still give me what I want-- If you admit to the premise being proven, then you admit CVs aren't balanced. For the fallacy to work, the premise has to be correct. You cannot have the logic work without that. You can have that, nor do I care. People upvoted my initial explanation for a reason. And as for goal-post shifting, well you and many others do. >But you don't play CVs/you're not good with them? Well your opinion doesn't count! > *Unicum walks in with CVs* > B-but you don't represent what most can do! Just the easiest example of many. Defenders of CV balance and of that opinion do it all the time. So at the very least, I suppose you could say... I'm no better than the other side of the fence. But hey, the facts remain. And that i'm A-OK with. Okay, I really must be going now. Enjoy. I'll be back.
  3. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Just gotta quickly chime in here while I'm up and got the time-- If you feel me wanting this was for spite, then you don't know me nor my reasons for creating this thread. In fact, you've given me *exactly* what I wanted, and what I wanted certainly wasn't this "experiment". The point was to flush out some obvious truths about CV. Their balance weakpoints, and why they are hated. You've done a fairly good job through your own posts here in illustrating that, things that I and many others already knew. However, because of your presence, combined with certain aspects of balance such as it being balanced for random battles and it can only have *one* CV proves points of how CV's balance is indeed, well... imbalanced. That's why the careful narrative of "Its balanced around 11 surface ships" or similar notions completely undoes any hopes of reasoning. Because at a most basic level, nobody else in the game requires that an entire team be balanced against just them, and them alone. In my opinion, that is overpowered on some level in its most basic of definitions. Discussion at a fundamental level, where logic cannot be side-stepped. This is one of the things I had hoped for. And whether it be through discussion here, or people pointing out what my idea would do... you've given me the same thing, but in different words that I want-- bringing in 2+ CVs constantly would cause havoc. And the conclusions drawn from that fact is in the end, what I've always wanted. Yes, CVs are "relatively" balanced with just one. But balancing around the idea just one should be fine, is and of itself, a flawed and unfair notion. One with many holes to poke through, and easily for myself and many the largest blunder this game has ever seen on a gameplay and fun level comparatively-- The Carrier. And whether it be through the "experiment", or through what people admit here... Feedback that WG cannot as easily ignore. Feedback that has been up until recently very much so ignored, with CVs stepping into CBs and ruining them creating enough backlash to finally get some notice. One way or another, the CV issues and feedback surrounding it will not be silenced.
  4. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Except here's the thing. If the "snake oil" of trying to prove CVs are balanced is the idea of trying to treat them like other classes then you've already lost. Fair is fair, no? Pray tell as outlined in my OP-- If treating CVs to a different standard in population is not balance related, then why is it so? I have approached the logic and reasoning like many before myself have done in regards to arguing that CVs are balanced, but its very interesting to see just how upset you and others are at me because I try to assert the idea of letting CVs be around as much as others. I mean, let's not dance around the elephant in the room-- We both know why this upsets you so. And the implications to my proposal would do to the game, and reveal truths you don't want. Your anger and emotionally-charged accusations are proof of that. And with that, I bid you and everyone else goodnight.
  5. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Pulled from google: "a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments." That contentious opinion is to to let the CVs be treated equally like everyone else, and it does indeed test the strength of the argument that CVs are balanced. I'm good, thanks. And now you want to compare the balance of a MMORPG to this game? I think you've already lost if you want to talk about the balance of entirely different genre to justify the cap limits of classes in a game. Plus, raids are PVE content to begin with for most RPGs. A further demerit.
  6. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    You're barking up the wrong tree, buddy. I didn't say that. I have quoted the post that actually comes from. I do not feel that statement is remotely correct or right either, and had answered in kind already. See above.
  7. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Thanks for linking it. You said you'd be fine with having plenty of CVs, so there you go. But you see, your argument isn't the same buddy. I didn't specifically STATE that CVs needed to be pitted against one class of ship. In fact, your argument only gives mine more fuel in the end-- By you trying to say its unfair and equal that a BB could face a bunch of DDs, why is it that you use this counter-example against me, who pits the CV versus *all* types? You only shoot yourself in the foot, because this also sets down the idea that CV doesn't care about what class it has to face, which it doesn't. Where as you can only pit a battleship against a single type, one that its weak against. Which infers all classes are indeed weak to CV. Thank you very much.
  8. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    The core mechanics you speak of are designed to let a single CV needing an entire team effort to stop, you're right. Either way, you've already provided suggestions about tuning the AA system. Damage is not everything, sorry. Stating numbers like that mean little to me. As LWM had stated, DDs have a huge amount of influence. But do they statistically average as much damage as the rest? Nope. Not at all. The damage argument is a poor one, no offense. In any case, countering a DD is far from a "team-wide" effort. All it takes to push back and kill a DD is another DD, a single radar, or better yet... a *single* CV. Funny how that works.
  9. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    All correct. But by outlining this fact, I hope you realize that only further stresses the idea that 10-11 AA platforms are needed to keep one CV in check, aka 10-11 players to keep a single player in line with AA. In a PVP game, ignoring the context of this game... don't you find a competitive game a bit silly if one of 12 players on your team needed the other 11 to effectively stop just him? And that also outlines the point i'm trying to make.
  10. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Ah, so you'd like to stat shame me because I don't find CVs fun? You tried to appeal to the fact that I am indeed a Kraken member. You just got done telling me how my clan does not take poor players. So why is it you try the reverse here? Would you prefer that a skilled player in CVs come to tell you what i'm telling you? Because we both know if I was a unicum in a CV, you wouldn't listen to me anyway. In fact, you and others have even tried to shoot down the same statements from skilled CV players. And inject politics in? Okay, you're reaching here now. This is a talk about BALANCE, and humoring a hypothetical of what would happen if we treated CV like the other classes in the way of population per match, and discussing the implications behind doing so and why it could or couldn't be done. Nothing more. I don't care if you pay me no heed. I'm here to prove a point, not to win the next vote for being "Mr. Warships" or something like that. Haha.
  11. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    A historical argument only goes so far, as we are playing a game that is not based in reality, merely its inspired by it. Yes, the game is indeed balanced to have few carriers. But don't you see? That in and of itself admits that CVs are pound-for-pound stronger than the rest. You said it yourself here, that CVs are only allowed even *two* because of practical reasons. So what did you just admit? That matches are balanced around *one* CV. And if that simple idea doesn't make you see just how powerful CV is above the rest, to the point where you MUST have just one as you put it "ideally"... then no, I don't feel you can be reasoned with either. And that my friend, is why this thread was made in the first place. Because by saying you only can have one, that's admission the class is indeed special, and held to a power level that the rest are not held to. And if holding a single class to a standard that is different from everyone else is at its most rudimentary level is not considered "imbalanced", then I don't know what is.
  12. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Treating CVs fairly in the sense of having them represented in a match as much as the other classes is indeed a means to an end-- and I of course knew this thread and the idea of trying this would indeed never go through. And that's where I get to have my cake and eat it-- If magically this were to go through, the result would be obvious. But the admittance to the idea you couldn't do such a thing is also proof of the point I have to make. "An appeal to inflict the frustration you feel when facing carriers back on themselves" would be right on the nose, and i'm glad you of all people recognize that. Its very clear, and horribly obvious there is a certain *ahem* skill level of players who say the same thing, who feel what I do. But if you feel this emotionally-charged idea is to simply inflict petty vengeance, you'd be very mistaken. The idea is simple-- Its to force out into the open the type of gameplay experience CVs engender. Two friends of mine, both more skilled and have been around just as long as you and I actually quit last month, both because they got fed up with CVs. But the reality is, most won't admit to the type of experience they give. People like myself tough it out, get frustated, cool off by doing something else, then ultimately come back on again. And eventually we get burned out, and quit or take a break for awhile. Of the 90-some people I keep on my list, do you know how many still are active outside of my fellow clansmen? 5 or so. And half I keep in contact via discord/steam/whatever else. In my honest opinion, 0.9.0 and the changes after were far from done. It was half-baked the rework. WG clearly doesn't want to expend the resources to fix issues as large and systemic issue known as AA and until enough feel this way, it won't happen. The contradictions that lie within introducing CV into the conversation in relation to other ship class interaction all add up to the same message. Sure, statistically speaking CVs are relatively balanced. But to end the conversation there falls into the same spreadsheet memes onto why that's a short-sighted way to view balance. Whether it be through logic someone cannot ignore, the frustration inflicted from trying to go with my idea, or the ever-present contradictions that happen only when CVs are spoken of the same message will be there: CVs are not balanced. And while of course you can't quantify "skill" perfectly, you can anecdotally feel the same thing when playing CV then playing the other classes... it is comparably easier to not only take down and ruin the plays a skilled player has, but also have a heavy impact. And to me? Impact = Power.
  13. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    That problem being "resolved" at low tier is in the most depressing way possible... Its a ghost town filled with bots primarily. A buddy of mine came back to play all confused, thinking he had signed into PVE instead of random battles. The confusion in his voice made it comedic to say the least. At the end of the day, that therein lies the point of this exercise and proposal. Let's say I wanted to take this thread and make it 2-3 but always at least two. Can you tell me with a straight face even that would be stomach-able by people on the regular at high tier? Can you tell me once that "meta" sets in that it wouldn't be commonplace for CVs to to tag-team everyone to death? This idea is already hammered hard, because you can't take two CVs in a div despite the cap being two. So why is this? Because AA of ships is more or less "Balanced" around 1 CV, and there's a bazillion videos of good players being able to laugh in the face of all but the largest deathballs. So what does this mean? Well. It means that AA individually is only potent enough when there are at least 2-3 ships, ships with strong AA for their tier. So... what is the analogue to this? What other type of attack in this game *demands* that you have multiple close to you in order to stave off a single attack? What other singular player can force at least 25% of the team to forcibly position close in order to stop an attack? Is it main battery fire from a BB? Is it a torpedo attack? Is it HE spam? Of these other attacks to your ship, do their counter(s) require more than just you to do them? The answer was always: Nothing. Because this thread was to highlight one simple fact: CVs are, indeed, ignoring these hypotheticals are treated like they are SPECIAL. And unlike all other classes, having 3+ ruins the game. Can you really tell me that any other type changes the game for the worse? Of course not. That's why only CV has these restrictions. And therein lies the ugly truth whether you'd like to buy it or not. The conclusions left behind not being capable of treating the class as a whole like all the other classes is a self-evident fact that Carriers are, indeed, not balanced. And the feedback and frustration of average joe who doesn't come onto the forums would never approve, we both know it.
  14. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    I didn't realize the very idea of treating CVs fairly and equally to all other classes would be considered a "CV whine thread", but I guess that's the level of deflection you must do when you have literally no recourse to my reasoning. News at 11 folks.
  15. CaliburxZero

    The Devil's Advocate: Shall we do a test?

    Yeah, I did. Don't like it, because you clearly feel attacked? That's too bad. Ding ding ding, we have a winner indeed. One who can cherry-pick and ignored the follow-up posts. Gathering data on people who don't go to the forums is the real key, and I highly suspect someone of your.... opinion would not take kindly to. And let's deconstruct that "begging the question" logical fallacy, shall we? Definition straight from the link: "You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise." Let me be blunt and tell you-- For those who want to take this stance to discredit the points being made here, all you've done is shot yourself in the foot so congrats. So, let's argue that my OP is indeed a "circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise". Okay. So this would infer that CVs are not able to be balanced like the other classes, therefore special and not balanced. You DO realize labeling my experiment as that is admittance to the idea that CVs aren't balanced therefore meeting that conclusion then labels that as FACT right? Just lol, laugh. out. loud. That's why the following was added even if u were to pretend that by meeting that definition you've already lost the "CV is balanced argument" that I asked for people to provide reasoning on why CVs need to be limited down to 1 or 2, and can still be considered balanced. So go on, i'm waiting for that reasoning. I'm truly curious. Also, the post you so kindly pretended it didn't exist in its entirety:
×