Battlecruiser_Renown

'Sky Cancer Hell Weekend' really shines a light on why CVs are so broken.

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

462 posts in this topic

Actually, WG's surveys show an overwhelming number of players wish all matches have two CVs.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CV's are a class where studied cautious play is easy to learn is smart, compared to reckless play, which is something other classes seem to struggle with.

 

 

"You brought up the point that CV's are less likely to be removed from play very early in the game, insta-gibbed/nuked, before they can accomplish anything.  While I agree that is true, I disagree that it is because CV's have an inherent advantage over other classes, instead, I say it's because CV's are less likely to risk their ship by rushing recklessly into the forward position that leads to getting nuked right off."

Cool.

 

So WHY are CVs less likely to risk their ship by rushing into a forward position?

 

It's not because their players are just all better on average, it's because their mechanics allow them to act WITHOUT closing in.

 

That is an inherent advantage in the mechanics of the class over everything else.

 

~~~~~~

 

"But, not breaking even happens even when a ship, or any class, survives an entire battle.  Earnings/accomplishments are not exclusively dependent upon long term survival; positioning, timing, aim/lead... all are far far more important. 

 

 

Simply surviving to the end doesn't mean doing more damage than a ship that was sunk before the mid-point, the after-game report often shows live ships with far less exp/damage than the dead ships.  So, while ship A may have been more effective at damage, it doesn't mean it lived longer.   Which is why carriers can be seen to survive, and still do worse than half the team. "

 

I am arguing in averages and large numbers of games.

 

You are "rebutting" with an individual games.

 

I am saying "over thousands and thousands of games, a ship that survives more often will do more damage, earn more credits, and break even more often"

 

You are saying "but look at this one particular game where this guy survived to the end but was useless".

 

~~~~~~

 

"Which is why your argument is of no value."

 

Wrong. It is YOUR arguments, which attempt to draw general conclusions from limited anecdotes which hold no value.

 

Despite the fact that my argument does draw several assumptions - out of necessity, as public stats fail to be as detailed as hey need to to draw definite conclusions, you have not provided a single compelling rebuttal against my assumptions.

 

You merely bring up individual anecdotes which are, essentially, meaningless.

 

~~~~~~

 

"I wasn't discussing survivability overall, I was clearly discussing surviving a stupid move.  Rushing out without support, turning broadside to a flotilla, breaking stealth, not having a thought out exit strategy -  basically, my point was once you've been stupid and been caught at it, BB's can take far more damage, and have better odds of recovering from that mistake.  As you pointed out, a DD can die from a single torp, a BB can take 6 or more. "

 

Once again.

 

You are talking about a single potential outcome.

 

I am talking about the averages of all outcomes.

 

Furthermore, to the next point:

 

"Nobody was discussing the odds of a CV losing all it's planes - that's a strawman.  The point being discussed is solely surviving a stupid mistake of the magnitude that gets you removed in the first few minutes, and, CV's are inherently more fragile than BB's, lack heals, and lack guns to drive or hold off an attacker.  You're right - there are only a few ways for a CV to screw up that bad, steaming forward recklessly, or tunneling and getting caught asleep.  But, those are the types of instances I am discussing, and only those."

 

You know what's an actual straw man?

 

Pretending that a CV driver who immediately drives their CV into the enemy team is anywhere near as competent as a CA, DD, or BB who does the same thing.

 

Bad CV drivers do not drive their ship into the enemy team, bad CVs stay where they spawn and don't move until the enemy team pushes into them 10 minutes later.

 

Therefore, the ONLY reasonable way for a crappy CV driver to be knocked out of the match early is for them to lose all their planes: And that is literally impossible.

 

~~~~~~

 

"CV's are a class where studied cautious play is easy to learn is smart, compared to reckless play, which is something other classes seem to struggle with."

 

Completely and utterly wrong.

 

A CV can easily be reckless, their recklessness is simply expressed in a different way, due to the different nature of their mechanics.

 

A DD is stupid and reckless when it charges into a cap 2 mins in with no recon or support.

 

A CV is stupid and reckless when it decides to attack a full HP Iowa.

 

You seem to be under the delusion that all classes are playing with the same mechanics, so the decisions of all classes can be measured the same way.

 

A DD that pushes a cap is the same as a CA that pushes a cap, which is the same as a BB, or CV, that pushes a cap.

 

After all, you're trying to equate "a CV pushing in early" as equivalent in incompetence as "a DD is pushing in early".

 

You seem to think that the only difference between the two is the skill and judgement of the player behind the controls.

 

This is so utterly retarded it can't be anything other than trolling.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yJcdpXE.png?1

 

Just putting this here. I always think of this when people call carriers this.

 

Because it's a stupid, tasteless term that my brain always wants to turn into something equally stupid but at least funny.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, WG's surveys show an overwhelming number of players wish all matches have two CVs.

 

Care to share the link to this survey?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least form survey's that I've seen, most players are tolerant of CV.  But remember that most don't really play that much.  casual players couldn't care less about lot of stuff.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chrisifer - Actually, diesel subs are far more effective against nuclear subs than you imagine.  What they lack in range of operations, they make up for in the ability to run quiet.  Just saying.

 

 

WG doesn't want to play-balance CVs. If it did, then they would cancel each other out, and average match duration would rise, costing WG money in server time per match and queue time.

 

CVs are like artillery in WOT, they exist only to speed up matches by arbitrarily damaging and killing ships. Because they degrade gameplay with this cancerous damage and higher probability of collapses, WG hard balances them in the MM and restricts their numbers. 

 

Haven't you noticed how many matches with CVs are stupid collapses, vs how many without CVs are enjoyable games that go down to the wire? When a CV is present the chance of a collapse rises dramatically. 

 

This key function of CVs is why WG retains them in the game even though their surveys show players don't want to play against them. It is also why they will never be play balanced.

 

After the next big set of CV changes comes out, everyone will still be complaining about the unbalanced CV lines, and I will still be saying this one year from now. 

 

 

 

sigh.

There is nothing arbitrary about CV inflicted damage - an actual person is actively making choices on their attacks - it's no more or less arbitrary than any other weapon in-game.

 

"You brought up the point that CV's are less likely to be removed from play very early in the game, insta-gibbed/nuked, before they can accomplish anything.  While I agree that is true, I disagree that it is because CV's have an inherent advantage over other classes, instead, I say it's because CV's are less likely to risk their ship by rushing recklessly into the forward position that leads to getting nuked right off."

Cool.

 

So WHY are CVs less likely to risk their ship by rushing into a forward position?

 

It's not because their players are just all better on average, it's because their mechanics allow them to act WITHOUT closing in.

 

That is an inherent advantage in the mechanics of the class over everything else.

 

~~~~~~

 

"But, not breaking even happens even when a ship, or any class, survives an entire battle.  Earnings/accomplishments are not exclusively dependent upon long term survival; positioning, timing, aim/lead... all are far far more important. 

 

 

Simply surviving to the end doesn't mean doing more damage than a ship that was sunk before the mid-point, the after-game report often shows live ships with far less exp/damage than the dead ships.  So, while ship A may have been more effective at damage, it doesn't mean it lived longer.   Which is why carriers can be seen to survive, and still do worse than half the team. "

 

I am arguing in averages and large numbers of games.

 

You are "rebutting" with an individual games.

 

I am saying "over thousands and thousands of games, a ship that survives more often will do more damage, earn more credits, and break even more often"

 

You are saying "but look at this one particular game where this guy survived to the end but was useless".

 

~~~~~~

 

"Which is why your argument is of no value."

 

Wrong. It is YOUR arguments, which attempt to draw general conclusions from limited anecdotes which hold no value.

 

Despite the fact that my argument does draw several assumptions - out of necessity, as public stats fail to be as detailed as hey need to to draw definite conclusions, you have not provided a single compelling rebuttal against my assumptions.

 

You merely bring up individual anecdotes which are, essentially, meaningless.

 

~~~~~~

 

"I wasn't discussing survivability overall, I was clearly discussing surviving a stupid move.  Rushing out without support, turning broadside to a flotilla, breaking stealth, not having a thought out exit strategy -  basically, my point was once you've been stupid and been caught at it, BB's can take far more damage, and have better odds of recovering from that mistake.  As you pointed out, a DD can die from a single torp, a BB can take 6 or more. "

 

Once again.

 

You are talking about a single potential outcome.

 

I am talking about the averages of all outcomes.

 

Furthermore, to the next point:

 

"Nobody was discussing the odds of a CV losing all it's planes - that's a strawman.  The point being discussed is solely surviving a stupid mistake of the magnitude that gets you removed in the first few minutes, and, CV's are inherently more fragile than BB's, lack heals, and lack guns to drive or hold off an attacker.  You're right - there are only a few ways for a CV to screw up that bad, steaming forward recklessly, or tunneling and getting caught asleep.  But, those are the types of instances I am discussing, and only those."

 

You know what's an actual straw man?

 

Pretending that a CV driver who immediately drives their CV into the enemy team is anywhere near as competent as a CA, DD, or BB who does the same thing.

 

Bad CV drivers do not drive their ship into the enemy team, bad CVs stay where they spawn and don't move until the enemy team pushes into them 10 minutes later.

 

Therefore, the ONLY reasonable way for a crappy CV driver to be knocked out of the match early is for them to lose all their planes: And that is literally impossible.

 

~~~~~~

 

"CV's are a class where studied cautious play is easy to learn is smart, compared to reckless play, which is something other classes seem to struggle with."

 

Completely and utterly wrong.

 

A CV can easily be reckless, their recklessness is simply expressed in a different way, due to the different nature of their mechanics.

 

A DD is stupid and reckless when it charges into a cap 2 mins in with no recon or support.

 

A CV is stupid and reckless when it decides to attack a full HP Iowa.

 

You seem to be under the delusion that all classes are playing with the same mechanics, so the decisions of all classes can be measured the same way.

 

A DD that pushes a cap is the same as a CA that pushes a cap, which is the same as a BB, or CV, that pushes a cap.

 

After all, you're trying to equate "a CV pushing in early" as equivalent in incompetence as "a DD is pushing in early".

 

You seem to think that the only difference between the two is the skill and judgement of the player behind the controls.

 

This is so utterly retarded it can't be anything other than trolling.

 

No. 

I'm not discussing individual games any more than you are.   A specific game or example would be me one-shotting a Montana with a single torp after he rushed a DD through smoke in a narrow channel. Another would be me witnessing a CV, out of planes, the sole survivor of our team, getting a Kraken and the win by ramming a DD.

 

But those aren't what I am presenting.  I'm presenting, regarding "Simply surviving to the end doesn't mean doing more damage than a ship that was sunk before the mid-point, the after-game report often shows live ships with far less exp/damage than the dead ships.  So, while ship A may have been more effective at damage, it doesn't mean it lived longer.   Which is why carriers can be seen to survive, and still do worse than half the team. ",   a result that occurs over and over again, that is, games that are patently NOT outliers.  As you say, events that occur in thousands and thousands of game.

 

I entered this discussion expressly to rebut your view that  CV's not being as prone to getting wiped out very early in a game, before achieving a break even point, is a significant issue.  Being insta-gibbed that early was your specific example - you are now attempting to move the goal posts to distance yourself from that foolish statement.

 

You know what's an actual straw man?

 

Pretending that a CV driver who immediately drives their CV into the enemy team is anywhere near as competent as a CA, DD, or BB who does the same thing.

 

Bad CV drivers do not drive their ship into the enemy team, bad CVs stay where they spawn and don't move until the enemy team pushes into them 10 minutes later.

 

Therefore, the ONLY reasonable way for a crappy CV driver to be knocked out of the match early is for them to lose all their planes: And that is literally impossible.

No. 

It's a stupid reckless move regardless of class played, of the magnitude that debating exactly how much more stupid it is pointless.  And, we've all seen CV's drive out with the fleet and die early.  Also, it's not literally impossible for a CV to lose all it's planes on it's first wave of sorties, highly unlikely, but possible.  You need to not use absolutes where they don't exist.  Of course, a CV doesn't need to lose all it's planes to be ineffective, but, at the same time, even an empty CV can have an effect.  It's fairly rare, but it happens.

 

Your final point is a strawman.  It doesn't matter what the specific act of recklessness is - other classes seem to have a harder time learning not to be foolhardy and reckless. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's an actual straw man?

 

Pretending that a CV driver who immediately drives their CV into the enemy team is anywhere near as competent as a CA, DD, or BB who does the same thing.

 

Bad CV drivers do not drive their ship into the enemy team, bad CVs stay where they spawn and don't move until the enemy team pushes into them 10 minutes later.

 

Therefore, the ONLY reasonable way for a crappy CV driver to be knocked out of the match early is for them to lose all their planes: And that is literally impossible.

No. 

It's a stupid reckless move regardless of class played, of the magnitude that debating exactly how much more stupid it is pointless.  And, we've all seen CV's drive out with the fleet and die early.  Also, it's not literally impossible for a CV to lose all it's planes on it's first wave of sorties, highly unlikely, but possible.  You need to not use absolutes where they don't exist.  Of course, a CV doesn't need to lose all it's planes to be ineffective, but, at the same time, even an empty CV can have an effect.  It's fairly rare, but it happens.

 

Your final point is a strawman.  It doesn't matter what the specific act of recklessness is - other classes seem to have a harder time learning not to be foolhardy and reckless. 

 

"Simply surviving to the end doesn't mean doing more damage than a ship that was sunk before the mid-point, the after-game report often shows live ships with far less exp/damage than the dead ships.  So, while ship A may have been more effective at damage, it doesn't mean it lived longer.   Which is why carriers can be seen to survive, and still do worse than half the team. ""

 

You are taking a small subset of potential outcomes and presenting that as the norm.

 

Which one of these assumptions is false?

 

1) A player is unable to deal damage when they are dead.

  1a) Any damage dealt post death is a cause of an action taken before death, and there is an effective time limit for how long post death an action can occur.

 

2) A player who is unable to deal damage is unable to earn credits

 

3) A player who remains alive to the end of the match IS MORE LIKELY TO earn more credits.

 

If you accept these 3 points as reasonable assumptions, then necessarily, you must accept that as the class with the undisputed highest survival rate, CVs will naturally do more consistent damage, and earn more.

 

Don't take my word for it, I'll let iChase make my point:

 

 

CVs not getting instagibbed early on is not IN ITSELF a significant issue: What it is is an indication of a larger issue: That CVs take on very little risk for their substantial rewards.

 

~~~~~~

 

"It's a stupid reckless move regardless of class played, of the magnitude that debating exactly how much more stupid it is pointless.  And, we've all seen CV's drive out with the fleet and die early. "

 

And here is where you get into pure bullcrap territory.

 

A DD has business being in a cap at the beginning of a game: To, you now, cap it.

 

A CA has less business, but their presence in an early cap is still understandable: To support their DDs.

 

A BB, even less so, but they might be supporting their CA.

 

A CV has zero business being in a cap early on. Pretending that a CV with no business being in a cap is equally as incompetent as a DD with business being there when they run into enemies early is nothing but a strawman.

 

We've all seen CVs drive straight into the enemy team? Yeah, and we've all seen friendly collisions where one ship ends up literally on top of the other. Just because we've seen it does not mean it's normal. You are, once again, basing your entire argument on a small subset of outcomes - in this case, a minuscule, negligible subset.

 

"Also, it's not literally impossible for a CV to lose all it's planes on it's first wave of sorties, highly unlikely, but possible.  You need to not use absolutes where they don't exist.  Of course, a CV doesn't need to lose all it's planes to be ineffective, but, at the same time, even an empty CV can have an effect.  It's fairly rare, but it happens."

 

No, it's literally impossible.

 

This is an absolute.

 

There is literally no CV in the game that can not field, at minimum, a partial replacement for their lost planes.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny when you accuse me of choosing a small subset of games (although I haven't), when you do the exact thing later in your own post.

 

Pushing a cap and getting sunk is one small subset of how ships can screw up badly enough to get wiped out too early to break even.  

 

As for the rest - I'm bored with going over the same ground again and again.  I'm not concerned with earnings, and, well, CV earning are already discounted compared to other classes - so, there is a trade off for their survival rate.  The example being disputed was that having a lessor risk of early game nuking was significant - it isn't.  You keep pointing out that ships that last longer can earn more than if they died 2 minutes in - nobody disputes that.  But, does the extra couple of minutes a CV survives translate to a large increase of the other classes earnings?  Nope.  Because - discounted earnings.

 

Why should I care what ichase says or thinks?  I've no idea who they are, and no concern with them.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yJcdpXE.png?1

 

Just putting this here. I always think of this when people call carriers this.

 

Because it's a stupid, tasteless term that my brain always wants to turn into something equally stupid but at least funny.

 

Yeah, there was some time ago a cancer survivor who complained about it. Honestly, probably would be best to stop using this term that could offend many people. But it seems out of control and engraved in the fabric of world of warships jargon now. 

 

The most common use of the word is for the biological and medical use. But, it appears that it can be used to describe an evil or destructive phenomenon that is hard to contain or eradicate. 
 
Either way, i find it pretty taste-less to use the word as applied to a game, but in theory is could be used as the alternative more generic meaning of the word. 

 

 

can·cer
ˈkansər/
noun
 
  1. the disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body.
    "he's got cancer"
    • a malignant growth or tumor resulting from the division of abnormal cells.
      plural noun: cancers
      "most skin cancers are curable"
      synonyms: malignant growth, cancerous growth, tumormalignancyMore
       
       
    • a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil or destructive and hard to contain or eradicate.
      "racism is a cancer sweeping across Europe"
       
       
       
       
       
Edited by Carrier_Junyo

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny when you accuse me of choosing a small subset of games (although I haven't), when you do the exact thing later in your own post.

 

Pushing a cap and getting sunk is one small subset of how ships can screw up badly enough to get wiped out too early to break even.  

 

As for the rest - I'm bored with going over the same ground again and again.  I'm not concerned with earnings, and, well, CV earning are already discounted compared to other classes - so, there is a trade off for their survival rate.  The example being disputed was that having a lessor risk of early game nuking was significant - it isn't.  You keep pointing out that ships that last longer can earn more than if they died 2 minutes in - nobody disputes that.  But, does the extra couple of minutes a CV survives translate to a large increase of the other classes earnings?  Nope.  Because - discounted earnings.

 

Why should I care what ichase says or thinks?  I've no idea who they are, and no concern with them.

 

YES.

 

FOR [edited]SAKE

 

THAT'S MY [edited]POINT.

 

INCOME balance is not the same as gameplay balance.

 

The reason I brought up survival rates, or being instagibbed early, is to explain to that idiot Kiyoshimo WHY CVs have to work harder to earn the same amount.

 

I was explaining WHY the "discounted CV earnings" exist: CVs have additional in game power over other classes, in the form of consistently better performance. This translates to higher average earnings. As having one class with higher earnings  would be troublesome for WG, WG artificially reduced CV earnings in reward calculation to maintain balance of income.

 

But you're [edited]sitting here picking at irrelevant details that don't change the conclusion, which you both agree with, and completely ignore.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

YES.

 

FOR [edited]SAKE

 

THAT'S MY [edited]POINT.

 

INCOME balance is not the same as gameplay balance.

 

The reason I brought up survival rates, or being instagibbed early, is to explain to that idiot Kiyoshimo WHY CVs have to work harder to earn the same amount.

 

I was explaining WHY the "discounted CV earnings" exist: CVs have additional in game power over other classes, in the form of consistently better performance. This translates to higher average earnings. As having one class with higher earnings  would be troublesome for WG, WG artificially reduced CV earnings in reward calculation to maintain balance of income.

 

But you're [edited]sitting here picking at irrelevant details that don't change the conclusion, which you both agree with, and completely ignore.

 

Lol this is what happens when someone has 9000 posts, and people dont care much about his constant rants. 

 

Calling people names to get a point across...that's why I ignore most of your posts now issm, even if I'm not a regular poster on the forums....stop trying to sound like you are the only person that knows this game. 

Edited by Carrier_Junyo

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol this is what happens when someone has 9000 posts, and people dont care much about his constant rants. 

 

Calling people names to get a point across...that's why I ignore most of your posts now issm, even if I'm not a regular poster on the forums....stop trying to sound like you are the only person that knows this game. 

 

You're confusing the cause.

 

People were saying stupid crap long before I got pissed enough to include insults in every post.

 

People saying stupid crap is why I hold forums in such contempt.

 

Back when the insane repair costs were my thing, and I was suggesting solutions to that, you already had morons like TalonV making stupid claims, like "I just wanted to play high tiers for free", DESPITE the fact that I had included in my suggestions significant cost increases in other areas to make up for the direct decrease of costs in repairs.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, there was some time ago a cancer survivor who complained about it. Honestly, probably would be best to stop using this term that could offend many people. But it seems out of control and engraved in the fabric of world of warships jargon now. 

 

The most common use of the word is for the biological and medical use. But, it appears that it can be used to describe an evil or destructive phenomenon that is hard to contain or eradicate. 
 
Either way, i find it pretty taste-less to use the word as applied to a game, but in theory is could be used as the alternative more generic meaning of the word. 

 

 

can·cer
ˈkansər/
noun
 
  1. the disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body.
    "he's got cancer"
    • a malignant growth or tumor resulting from the division of abnormal cells.
      plural noun: cancers
      "most skin cancers are curable"
      synonyms: malignant growth, cancerous growth, tumormalignancyMore
       
       
    • a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil or destructive and hard to contain or eradicate.
      "racism is a cancer sweeping across Europe"
       
       
       
       
       

 

Cancer is also a latin word for "Crab". Hence my picture.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can tell, disregarding the controversial subject as to whether or not CVs are OP, most of the hate for CVs comes from the fact that the vast majority of players find them no fun to fight against.  In my mind, it doesn't matter whether or not CVs are OP.  If people don't enjoy fighting them they will always be hated.  So to cure "Sky Cancer"  you need to find some way to make fighting off carrier strikes enjoyable (I personally support redesigning AA around manually aiming and firing your AA guns as well as several other radical changes).  Once people actually enjoy fighting against carriers, I think you can start to worry about balance.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

YES.

 

FOR [edited]SAKE

 

THAT'S MY [edited]POINT.

 

INCOME balance is not the same as gameplay balance.

 

The reason I brought up survival rates, or being instagibbed early, is to explain to that idiot Kiyoshimo WHY CVs have to work harder to earn the same amount.

 

I was explaining WHY the "discounted CV earnings" exist: CVs have additional in game power over other classes, in the form of consistently better performance. This translates to higher average earnings. As having one class with higher earnings  would be troublesome for WG, WG artificially reduced CV earnings in reward calculation to maintain balance of income.

 

But you're [edited]sitting here picking at irrelevant details that don't change the conclusion, which you both agree with, and completely ignore.

 

They aren't irrelevant details, because you are fond of using flawed assumptions and incorrect definitions, as well as absurd example selections, to support your points, even when it isn't neccessary.  You do this so that you can legitimize those fallacies later, you use their inclusion and implied vetting as precedent for their legitimacy later.

 

You'll note I generally only get involved in these kinds of topics when it's time to rein your excesses in, and to deconstruct and excise your absurdities from the body of the discussion.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not going to change anything Nuke. ISSM purely exists on this forum to see his own writing, and bask in his own sense of superiority to every living creature and person the on the planet. There is no situation in which he will concede victory to you, because in his mind there is no situation in which he is not correct. He has almost made bending and contorting basic reason and logic into an Olympic event. His arguments have been flawed for a lengthy amount of time, and his inability to approach anyone else on this forum with any semblance of respect has earned him the disdain of the entire forum almost without question.

 

The fact that so many people oppose him only reinforce his smug self-confidence in his flawed and foolish beliefs.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can tell, disregarding the controversial subject as to whether or not CVs are OP, most of the hate for CVs comes from the fact that the vast majority of players find them no fun to fight against.  In my mind, it doesn't matter whether or not CVs are OP.  If people don't enjoy fighting them they will always be hated.  So to cure "Sky Cancer"  you need to find some way to make fighting off carrier strikes enjoyable (I personally support redesigning AA around manually aiming and firing your AA guns as well as several other radical changes).  Once people actually enjoy fighting against carriers, I think you can start to worry about balance.

 

So much truth for such a short post. But I believe this comes from the generally low population of CVs compared to other classes. Face them enough and you start to see how to beat them or at the very minimums their effect on the game.

 

For example DDs can be a complete pain for new BB players with stealth torps and smoke.  A little practice facing them a little wasd and targeting tracers and that opinion changes. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Welp, there you go - carrier players in a nutshell.

 

if you faced me with my Hiryu CV or Saipan CV, after the torpedo bomber strike, i'd ask via public chat if you enjoyed eating that bucket load of aerial torpedo on aerial bombs just to make you salty

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't irrelevant details, because you are fond of using flawed assumptions and incorrect definitions, as well as absurd example selections, to support your points, even when it isn't neccessary.  You do this so that you can legitimize those fallacies later, you use their inclusion and implied vetting as precedent for their legitimacy later.

 

You'll note I generally only get involved in these kinds of topics when it's time to rein your excesses in, and to deconstruct and excise your absurdities from the body of the discussion.

 

Please explain how these 3 assumptions are wrong:

 

1) A player is unable to deal damage when they are dead.

  1a) Any damage dealt post death is a cause of an action taken before death, and there is an effective time limit for how long post death an action can occur.

 

2) A player who is unable to deal damage is unable to earn credits

 

3) A player who remains alive to the end of the match IS MORE LIKELY TO earn more credits.

 

With only these 3 assumptions, you can draw 2 conclusions:

 

1) A ship that survives longer will have consistently superior average performance compared to other classes

 

Which results in:

 

2) A ship that survives longer will have consistently higher earnings than other classes.

 

WG addresses the second issue with the reduced CV earnings, but fails to address the in game power imbalance.

 

~~~~~~

 

And while we're on the subject of "flawed assumptions", there is no assumption more completely, utterly, ridiculous as your troll "assumption" that a DD that runs into the enemy in the opening moves is anywhere close to being as abysmally incompetent as a CV who does the same thing.

Edited by issm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So much truth for such a short post. But I believe this comes from the generally low population of CVs compared to other classes. Face them enough and you start to see how to beat them or at the very minimums their effect on the game.

 

For example DDs can be a complete pain for new BB players with stealth torps and smoke.  A little practice facing them a little wasd and targeting tracers and that opinion changes. 

 

I don't think it's that people don't know CV counter play.  By the time the reach tier 5 or 6 I believe most people will understand the basics (group up essentially) It's just that the only effective counters for CVs aren't what most players consider fun.  Again I rush to add IMHO.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

if you faced me with my Hiryu CV or Saipan CV, after the torpedo bomber strike, i'd ask via public chat if you enjoyed eating that bucket load of aerial torpedo on aerial bombs just to make you salty

 

and you'd end up with 3   complaint about poor chat and possible chat ban  :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true, I'm boarded line Yolo in a bb and pure Yolo in a cl and don't get deleted by CVS very often. I'll actually taunt CVS in some bbs because I feel it's a waste of the cv' s time. I lol for real when I see 2-3 strikes against me that just results in me burning a Cool down or 2. Even when I eat a mouthful of sky hurt I still feel it's better done against me rather than questionablely reliable random allies. 

 

The best I can think of as a parallel would be a game in my Nagato where I was sailing broadside to a gneis at 18k and a dead ally was going off on chat about sailing broadside. Sailing broadside is bad but if a gneis citadeled at 18k they deserve it. If you don't play smart against a cv and they put a hurting on you you deserve it. Every enemy needs to be played against 8n a certain way and sometimes it's not the way you want to play and that's not limited to cvs


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Please explain how these 3 assumptions are wrong:

 

1) A player is unable to deal damage when they are dead.

  1a) Any damage dealt post death is a cause of an action taken before death, and there is an effective time limit for how long post death an action can occur.

 

2) A player who is unable to deal damage is unable to earn credits

 

3) A player who remains alive to the end of the match IS MORE LIKELY TO earn more credits.

 

With only these 3 assumptions, you can draw 2 conclusions:

 

1) A ship that survives longer will have consistently superior average performance compared to other classes

 

Which results in:

 

2) A ship that survives longer will have consistently higher earnings than other classes.

 

WG addresses the second issue with the reduced CV earnings, but fails to address the in game power imbalance.

 

~~~~~~

 

And while we're on the subject of "flawed assumptions", there is no assumption more completely, utterly, ridiculous as your troll "assumption" that a DD that runs into the enemy in the opening moves is anywhere close to being as abysmally incompetent as a CV who does the same thing.

The problem with your three assumptions is that it doesn't factor in anything that actually earns credits and experience. So it only holds true for the individual.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true, I'm boarded line Yolo in a bb and pure Yolo in a cl and don't get deleted by CVS very often. I'll actually taunt CVS in some bbs because I feel it's a waste of the cv' s time. I lol for real when I see 2-3 strikes against me that just results in me burning a Cool down or 2. Even when I eat a mouthful of sky hurt I still feel it's better done against me rather than questionablely reliable random allies. 

 

The best I can think of as a parallel would be a game in my Nagato where I was sailing broadside to a gneis at 18k and a dead ally was going off on chat about sailing broadside. Sailing broadside is bad but if a gneis citadeled at 18k they deserve it. If you don't play smart against a cv and they put a hurting on you you deserve it. Every enemy needs to be played against 8n a certain way and sometimes it's not the way you want to play and that's not limited to cvs

 

I'm not saying CVs don't have counter play.  They definitely do.  I'm just saying what counter play they do have is usually either passive (Grouping up, DF, Upgrading your AA), or only of situational and marginal  effectiveness (a good Cv player will be able to hit you with a drop no matter how you turn, even without cross drops).  I'm not arguing to change the net outcome.  A ship on its own deserves to get hit.  I just think players should have more agency in the defense of their ship from planes.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with your three assumptions is that it doesn't factor in anything that actually earns credits and experience. So it only holds true for the individual.

 

Damage doesn't actually earn credits and exp.

 

Got it.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.