Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Beneej_Spoor

[Flamu] Clan Battles - What A S**tshow

130 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

978
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,807 posts
6,219 battles
23 minutes ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

 

At some point, they are going to release a global map, like in World of Tanks

 

No need for an elaborate map.  Make there be four ports on each server, controlling any of which provides unique content, and the serie of battles for them are 4 hours long on a weekend night, scheduled 2 weeks in advance.  20vs20 battles, no restrictions.  Attacking clan wins only if they can deplete the enemy's 'campaign' points to zero (each ship being worth some points and winning/losing battles as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,019 posts
8,415 battles
1 hour ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

 

Having CW at tier 10 gives incentive for people to play to tier 10 and not just stop at 8.  It provides an endgame for people who have played to tier 10.  When CW started in WOT, there were very few players who had tier 10 tanks.  Clans busted their tails to get tier 10 tanks to enable them to participate meaningfully in CW.  Some of my fondest memories of WOT clan wars was loading in my tier 8 and 9 tanks with a team of other tier 8 and 9 tanks and seeing what we could do against the 10's.  Watching 8 Lowe's climb the hills on Sand River still amuses me to this day.  

 

Good players who congregate together are always going to beat average players, regardless of the tier.  If you lack tier 10 experience, well, this is the time to get it.  You never get better if you don't play against the best.  Mid skill clans are going to have plenty of games against each other.  What I will say about competitive ships is that a group of people who play together and coordinate together can beat more skilled players who aren't quite as into team play and like to pub stomp.  I was on a team in one of the first seasons of Supremacy League.  We had arguably the most talented group of deep purple players I've ever seen on one team.  We kind of laughed off practicing or strategizing and went into our first matches doing everything on the fly.  We got absolutely steamrolled by a couple teams of greens who had been working with each other and putting effort into their team play.  It was an absolute eye opener for me.

 

In the end, CW is not about everyone getting a participation trophy.  It's about groups of people who want to put in the time and effort to play with each other and get good.  If that's not your cup of team, you can still queue up for randoms and get your participation trophy via solo ranked.

 

 

        I am no "defender of the folk" but maybe starting by T8 the first CW with a notice that it will be made fully to T10 eventually will atleast prepare people for it, not speaking for myself because I prefer T10 gameplay above other tiers, but the rent system is just plain stupid, being able to use a T10 ship for the first time wont make any player a good T10 capt. and this will ruin the experience for many.

 

 The idea of not having a chance to play against a  CV will just cause to build the cruisers to counter DD's 100%, so that will cause that almost no one to play a DD, so We will see CW's being cruisers vs cruisers mostly, meh.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,522
[SYN]
Members
4,921 posts
11,844 battles

Krusers and Khabs.  That's what clan battles are going to be.

 

I already had little interest in clans even before clans became available.  After seeing how WG is restricting clan battles and their "rationale" for doing so, I now have absolutely zero interest.

 

What a joke.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,208
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
6,814 posts
19,621 battles
3 minutes ago, Kuckoo said:

Krusers and Khabs.  That's what clan battles are going to be.

 

I already had little interest in clans even before clans became available.  After seeing how WG is restricting clan battles and their "rationale" for doing so, I now have absolutely zero interest.

 

What a joke.

I tend to agree but the advantages of being in a clan (because of the naval base thing) is too good to pass up. There are lots of clans or "anti clans" of solo players that have recently formed. No voice chat, no divnisioning up, none of the typical clan crap. You just play as you do normally and harvest oil so you get the same bonus as real clans do. I have hated clans since my MUD days and I just recently joined one of solo players so I could get the bonuses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[-K-]
Alpha Tester
363 posts
10,699 battles
2 hours ago, Retnav54 said:

It's not about handing out participation trophies, it's about members of this community being told they can't participate PERIOD - at least not in the class of ship they've devoted considerable time, effort, and most likely money, to become good in. And from my own limited efforts trying out carriers, I daresay it's probably the hardest class to become good at. Essentially, WG has told a portion of their playerbase that because they've done such a poor job of balancing ship classes and game mechanics over the past 2 years, that they're simply going to take the easy way out and simply prohibit them from playing the ship class they prefer in Clan Battles, instead of actually fixing their bloody game.

For my perspective, in so many words, WG has basically told CV mains "you're not part of our community". I don't blame any of them that take this as the last straw and exit stage left.

 

 

Stop being overdramatic. This is nothing more than Wargaming saying that CVs are not in a good spot right now and their inclusion would cause more harm than good. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, keeping CV players from playing other ship classes. If they choose not to do so, it is hardly Wargaming's fault. This decision is no more exclusionary than the decision to make ranked battles require a tier 6 ship or a tier 8 ship. But when it's a ship type which virtually everyone agrees is in dire need of a rework, suddenly it's the end of the world. Get over yourselves.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[PLPTR]
Beta Testers
519 posts
1,777 battles

EVERYONE WHO SAYS THAT A CARRIER WILL LIGHT THE MAP AND THAT DD WILL HAVE NO ROOM TO PLAY AROUND HAS NEVER PLAYED A CARRIER.

I can't stress this enough. Carriers can't light the map totally, even less on T10 where your planes can just be on the edge of the aa bubble to spot because of the insane ranges of the high tier antiair. 
We all know wargaming NEVER played a carrier game in their life, none of their employees know how to carrier, and seems like everyone who defends them here does not aswell.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[FTWRK]
Members
560 posts
3,533 battles
7 hours ago, Beneej_Spoor said:

Please view below prior to submissions if possible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wMobjY3lvw

 

I have this posted with no embedding since the Thumbnail may not be presented due to censorship on the forum, so I've taken that precaution.

 

I will note. I largely agree with his perspective with the sole exception of his perspective of how this will increase Battleship play; however, that aside, given it only takes up the middle three minutes from 8:00 to 11:00, I will not focus on that. I want to see what everyone else thinks of course as now we finally have *some* uniformity in feedback, albeit, I feel key issues are overlooked here and there, but finally it seems the four "names I dropped" unanimously think the moves as of late have been horrible

 

I really do deeply appreciate the contradiction narrative he points out. That is refreshing and critical to why these change are punishing to everyone, even a "potato name dropper" like me. Perhaps we can focus on that, since basically WG is comitting a low form of gas-lighting (basically calling *you* crazy and making you question your own memory or points of reference as if you do not recall them accurately).

What he says is totally misleading and frankly outright [edited] at many points. He basically blames the CV exclusion on 'Potato' players.

What stood out in WGs comments on the matter what that it was to make concealment relevant and really just improve variability and game play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[FTWRK]
Members
560 posts
3,533 battles
7 hours ago, Beneej_Spoor said:

Please view below prior to submissions if possible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wMobjY3lvw

 

I have this posted with no embedding since the Thumbnail may not be presented due to censorship on the forum, so I've taken that precaution.

 

I will note. I largely agree with his perspective with the sole exception of his perspective of how this will increase Battleship play; however, that aside, given it only takes up the middle three minutes from 8:00 to 11:00, I will not focus on that. I want to see what everyone else thinks of course as now we finally have *some* uniformity in feedback, albeit, I feel key issues are overlooked here and there, but finally it seems the four "names I dropped" unanimously think the moves as of late have been horrible

 

I really do deeply appreciate the contradiction narrative he points out. That is refreshing and critical to why these change are punishing to everyone, even a "potato name dropper" like me. Perhaps we can focus on that, since basically WG is comitting a low form of gas-lighting (basically calling *you* crazy and making you question your own memory or points of reference as if you do not recall them accurately).

What he says is totally misleading and frankly outright [edited] at many points. He basically blames the CV exclusion on 'Potato' players.

What stood out in WGs comments on the matter what that it was to make concealment relevant and really just improve variability and game play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[FTWRK]
Members
560 posts
3,533 battles
7 hours ago, Beneej_Spoor said:

Please view below prior to submissions if possible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wMobjY3lvw

 

I have this posted with no embedding since the Thumbnail may not be presented due to censorship on the forum, so I've taken that precaution.

 

I will note. I largely agree with his perspective with the sole exception of his perspective of how this will increase Battleship play; however, that aside, given it only takes up the middle three minutes from 8:00 to 11:00, I will not focus on that. I want to see what everyone else thinks of course as now we finally have *some* uniformity in feedback, albeit, I feel key issues are overlooked here and there, but finally it seems the four "names I dropped" unanimously think the moves as of late have been horrible

 

I really do deeply appreciate the contradiction narrative he points out. That is refreshing and critical to why these change are punishing to everyone, even a "potato name dropper" like me. Perhaps we can focus on that, since basically WG is comitting a low form of gas-lighting (basically calling *you* crazy and making you question your own memory or points of reference as if you do not recall them accurately).

What he says is totally misleading and frankly outright [edited] at many points. He basically blames the CV exclusion on 'Potato' players.

What stood out in WGs comments on the matter what that it was to make concealment relevant and really just improve variability and game play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,820
Members
5,575 posts
7,121 battles
35 minutes ago, BlitzFalcon109 said:

What he says is totally misleading and frankly outright [edited] at many points. He basically blames the CV exclusion on 'Potato' players.

What stood out in WGs comments on the matter what that it was to make concealment relevant and really just improve variability and game play.

 

 

35 minutes ago, BlitzFalcon109 said:

What he says is totally misleading and frankly outright [edited] at many points. He basically blames the CV exclusion on 'Potato' players.

What stood out in WGs comments on the matter what that it was to make concealment relevant and really just improve variability and game play.

 

 

35 minutes ago, BlitzFalcon109 said:

What he says is totally misleading and frankly outright [edited] at many points. He basically blames the CV exclusion on 'Potato' players.

What stood out in WGs comments on the matter what that it was to make concealment relevant and really just improve variability and game play.

 

Really? Are you sure? :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by Wulfgarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,208
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
6,814 posts
19,621 battles
24 minutes ago, Wulfgarn said:

Really? Are you sure? :Smile_teethhappy:

This made me laugh.. I don't think he is sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,215
[NGAGE]
Members
4,242 posts
6,149 battles
4 hours ago, IronWolfV said:

Come on Shizzle think about it. 3 Des Moines or Moskova with SI and premium consumable radar then toss in the time extender with radar, out of 20 minutes you can keep up constant radar for 13 of them. Hydro almost as long.

But to play devil's advocate for a moment, just imagine what havoc three Des Moines running the radar mod AND a CV could do.  Throw in a pair of defensive fire equipped Gearings, a Kurfurst and have one or two of the Des Moines's take hydro, and all of the sudden you are looking at a situation in which it would be possible to chain smoke, hydro, radar and defensive fire almost non stop for most of the battle, in addition to having a CV.

I will need to see how CW plays before making any judgements, but I'm not so sure about the exclusion of CVs being such a detriment to DDs.   

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,522
[SYN]
Members
4,921 posts
11,844 battles
1 hour ago, Taylor3006 said:

This made me laugh.. I don't think he is sure. 

 

He should post it one more time.  Just to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,620
[INTEL]
Members
9,542 posts
27,167 battles
7 hours ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

Neither Flamu, Notser nor any of the other loudmouth twits who are whining their eyes out over this version of CW bothered to participate and provide feedback in the testing process.  Lots of people from lots of clans across NA, EU and Russia participated.  It was an excellent process where lots of people tested, suggested and tested some more.  WG devs did a quite excellent job of trying CW in various modes at various tiers with and without CV's and ultimately came to the conclusion that the first season will be without CV's.  

 

Personally, I think this was the right call.  It opens the map up, allows for more diverse tactical play and once the smoke changes previously discussed come into play will make CW a truly fun and engaging experience.

 

Jesus, thank you. Flamu even misquotes WG to make a non-point. 

C8JmFlf.jpg

But their announcement did not mention CV player skill:
 

Quote

 

It wasn't easy to decide to leave out carriers from Season 1. Before we did, we made sure to review past tournament results and Clan tests. The tests showed that carriers in well-coordinated teams... 

  • Provided perfect reconnaissance over the entire map
  • Added extensive obstacles for the opposing team’s destroyers, and 
  • Creates a battle environment in which "everyone sees everyone else" 

This reduced battle variability and the role of torpedo attacks, while the small number of high-tier carriers and the high skill ceiling to play them well left their potential role even more lopsided. Also, the battles are in a "contest" mode where all ships are fully researched and upgraded in an anti-aircraft configuration, so carriers are primarily expected to provide reconnaissance, before overloading and exhausting enemies. 

We’re aware of the positives and negatives of this decision, and we’ll be looking for more ways to incorporate carriers in Clan Battles going forward.

 

 

Clan Wars are going to be a lot of fun, even if OPG and APOC will win everything, at least my excellent clan will die trying. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
825 posts
13,665 battles

2nd and last vid I watch from that guy. Pathetic.

If CVs were included he would have complained about it too.

 

CVs are and have always been imbalanced and game deciders, even more so in a 7 vs7 format. That is the issue. Balancing CVs will always be tricky.

Let see the format and see how it performs. It will be very similar to the previous attempt at team battles, most likely.

 

 

Now the only thing I see with this, is that it is NOT competitive, way too many random clans forming just to be part of this. and in any case it should not replace or delay Ranks. Rank and Clan battles are two different things, the more formats available, the better it is for everyone to play what he likes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,455
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,100 posts
10,331 battles
10 hours ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

Carriers stifle gameplay.  At tier 10 they perma spot everything and force people to ball up into AA bubbles.  Flanking and repositioning is impossible.  Cross torping is impossible because planes are everywhere.  Carriers cause a turtle mentality until one of the CV's makes a mistake and then the game is over.  Games become about who has the best CV player.  Everyone else is just watching Starcraft for 10 minutes until one of the CV's screw up.  

I think this is the perspective of a lot of players.

6mOLBDW.gif

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,236 posts
7,188 battles
12 hours ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

Neither Flamu, Notser nor any of the other loudmouth twits who are whining their eyes out over this version of CW bothered to participate and provide feedback in the testing process.  Lots of people from lots of clans across NA, EU and Russia participated.  It was an excellent process where lots of people tested, suggested and tested some more.  WG devs did a quite excellent job of trying CW in various modes at various tiers with and without CV's and ultimately came to the conclusion that the first season will be without CV's.  

 

Personally, I think this was the right call.  It opens the map up, allows for more diverse tactical play and once the smoke changes previously discussed come into play will make CW a truly fun and engaging experience.

I'm a bit split. Ultimately though, I feel like any real carrier main would know just how jacked up CV balance is at t10 currently and understand the decision to go without them for now. You certainly can blame WG for their laziness in fixing CVs, but I'm not really going to blame them too much for choosing to not include them in the release of CW. I'm more surprised and bothered at the limit on BBs to only one.

 

The contradictory statement that "everything is balanced at tier 10" is the biggest fuel to this flame, if you ask me. No, things are not balanced, which is why CVs and BBs are limited in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
918
[NMKJT]
Members
3,502 posts
12 hours ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

Neither Flamu, Notser nor any of the other loudmouth twits who are whining their eyes out over this version of CW bothered to participate and provide feedback in the testing process.  Lots of people from lots of clans across NA, EU and Russia participated.  It was an excellent process where lots of people tested, suggested and tested some more.  WG devs did a quite excellent job of trying CW in various modes at various tiers with and without CV's and ultimately came to the conclusion that the first season will be without CV's.  

 

Personally, I think this was the right call.  It opens the map up, allows for more diverse tactical play and once the smoke changes previously discussed come into play will make CW a truly fun and engaging experience.

If CVs aren't viable for CW then just remove them from the game. If they  are so restrictive on play why do we have them around?

 

No class should be singled out and excluded. It just lacks credibility at this point

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[FTWRK]
Members
560 posts
3,533 battles
7 hours ago, Wulfgarn said:

 

 

Really? Are you sure? :Smile_teethhappy:

Yes, I'm sure that is the best you could do. IE not much. :Smile_facepalm:

Try again though. Never gets old watching you even try.

giphy.gif

Edited by BlitzFalcon109
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[-K-]
Alpha Tester
363 posts
10,699 battles
27 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

If CVs aren't viable for CW then just remove them from the game. If they  are so restrictive on play why do we have them around?

 

No class should be singled out and excluded. It just lacks credibility at this point

It is unreasonable to expect them to remove something which they have spent a significant amount of development time on and which currently has a full rework planned. It is equally as unreasonable to expect them to pause their entire development timeline until they manage to fix CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
918
[NMKJT]
Members
3,502 posts
51 minutes ago, Dianeces said:

It is unreasonable to expect them to remove something which they have spent a significant amount of development time on and which currently has a full rework planned. It is equally as unreasonable to expect them to pause their entire development timeline until they manage to fix CVs.

That's my point. It's unreasonable to exclude them from CW. If the reasons WG gives are valid, that they unbalance play, that wins and losses are unduly influenced by the skill of the CV player, that is just as prevalent in randoms as it would be CW. They are part of the WOWS meta for good or ill.

 

And if we remove them CW, than CW is no longer WOWS, it's something else. Everyone should be able to play. You're right, it's unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[-K-]
Alpha Tester
363 posts
10,699 battles
Just now, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

That's my point. It's unreasonable to exclude them from CW. If the reasons WG gives are valid, that they unbalance play, that wins and losses are unduly influenced by the skill of the CV player, that is just as prevalent in randoms as it would be CW. They are part of the WOWS meta for good or ill.

 

And if we remove them CW, than CW is no longer WOWS, it's something else. Everyone should be able to play. You're right, it's unreasonable

You completely missed the point. It is eminently reasonable to exclude them from because they aren't balanced. Including them in Clan Wars would make CW just as [edited] as randoms. Since it is unreasonable to remove them entirely, the lesser evil is to exclude them from CW.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,098 posts
15 hours ago, Turbotush said:

So in the vid Flamu says "CV's changed the way WWII was fought"  since this is a game with ships with big guns that want to shot at each other, why would anyone think there was a big part of the player base that doesn't mind that CV's are not in Clan battles?  Also, when did we all decide this was not a lose interpretation of how these ships would perform in real life and should be truly historical in all aspects.  Just ask any one that spent weeks doing one battle using the Seakreag WG method and then played this game, this is an arcade game that is just way to much speculative fantasy, its fun, but it really is a stretch to say its a true sim of these ships.  I do get his point and do sympathize with those few T10 CV players that are going to be left out (you know, the good ones), but it is only the first season and I bet there was a big enough stink that has been made by so many in the player base, that CV's will be in Clan Battle in the future (maybe). 

During the last Ranked season, most players voiced at the start of a match that they were glad a CV was not in with them, and I know many that would jump out of the queue when they saw 2 CV's waiting to go in (yep, I was one of those).

CV's will all ways be a part of this game, I just wish they weren't, but hay, I'm ok ether way.  Just don't be thinking you represent all players when you jump on the "CV's need to be a bigger part of the game" band wagon, there are some of us that think they change this from a Naval warfare sim to a "How do I hide from the sky cancer" game.

:Smile_honoring:

 

I played SeeKrieg a good bit in the mid 80s, really great fun. I enjoyed it so much I bought the game, but not the miniatures the hardcore guys in the club had. If I remember correctly the Bismarck was a good bit more dangerous than she is in WoWS. The battles were an all day affair with over a dozen people but it didn't take weeks. Our games were damn the torpedos style though, I can imagine if it was 2 guys being very competitive it could take a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
918
[NMKJT]
Members
3,502 posts
5 minutes ago, Dianeces said:

You completely missed the point. It is eminently reasonable to exclude them from because they aren't balanced. Including them in Clan Wars would make CW just as [edited] as randoms. Since it is unreasonable to remove them entirely, the lesser evil is to exclude them from CW.

So it's balanced enough to release new premiums, but not balanced enough for CW?  If the class is so out of whack then they shouldn't be releasing new ships. But they are.

 

I didn't miss the point at all, but two years after launch is ample time to fix the class. It is unreasonable to tell an entire class of players they cannot participate. If the class is so bad that it can't be in clan wars after two years, then the class shouldn't be in the game. If it's going to be in the game, it should be in clan wars. 

 

WG needs to get off the pot. "2017 the year of the Carrier". Remember that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[-K-]
Alpha Tester
363 posts
10,699 battles
23 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

So it's balanced enough to release new premiums, but not balanced enough for CW?  If the class is so out of whack then they shouldn't be releasing new ships. But they are.

You're right; they shouldn't be releasing new premium CVs.

 

23 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

I didn't miss the point at all, but two years after launch is ample time to fix the class. It is unreasonable to tell an entire class of players they cannot participate. If the class is so bad that it can't be in clan wars after two years, then the class shouldn't be in the game. If it's going to be in the game, it should be in clan wars. 

We are back to the part where it's unreasonable to completely remove CVs, but not unreasonable to exclude CVs from CW because they're broken. There are exactly zero players who are excluded by this decision. If they have a T10 CV, they can rent one of the T10s and still participate. If they don't have a T8 CV, they weren't going to be able to participate anyway.

 

23 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

 

WG needs to get off the pot. "2017 the year of the Carrier". Remember that? 

They've admitted they aren't going to get around to the CV rework this year and have walked back their "Year of the CV" comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×