A Discussion of Carriers. Ahskance and Pulicat.

[Grevester]

We decided to have a sit down discussion based on this forum thread, and my comment in it in particular.

Timestamps:

Spoiler

These are not perfect. They are about close enough to where they should be.

Start: intro
8:40 Flamu video, a DM and it's role.
26:00 What really constitutes teamplay.  Do Carriers remove tactical variance?
36:00 Misery. Does a game being played make a game good?
52:00 Shared goal of CBs. An SEA comp team.
1:09:00 Inference and mass consensus.
1:15:00 What does the carrier player represent in the game?
1:34:00 a summation of the previous argument.
1:37:00 PvP, is this the relationship between ship and planes?
1:56:00 Is moving and defense enough to fulfill a PvP relationship?
2:20:00 Are all video games really a tabletop game?
2:45:00 Balance and the co-operation between developers and players in the pursuit of a better game. Is it really necessary? Do opinions have a gradient of value?
3:00:00 QnA
 

Enjoy.

[Sventex]

On 12/9/2020 at 4:26 PM, Ahskance said:

"For a group of people to **** someone over, they need someone to **** over. And they find them, lots of them. **** over and over and over again. That person's game experience is to literally pay a subscription, log into a game, get hell camped, murdered, griefed, lied to, cheated from, stolen from and have everything they've worked for taken from them because it made someone else happy. Does that even make sense? Ultimately, once I got used to it, it does? Because it's content. It's an experience. It's a player based something. I know it sounds ****ing crazy, but when I log in to bring it back to World of Warships, I log in, I queue for a random battle, and I'm a DD...and there's a Carrier that's hunting me, just going balls deep on me, over and over and over again. Whatever. I don't take it as a bad thing. Because I take it as an experience. It's an experience worth having." - Ahskance 39:19

 

A colonoscopy is an "experience". I don't know what else to say other than you don't need any standards at all if all you looking for is "an experience".

[Grevester]

1 minute ago, Sventex said:

How do you think the discussion went?  I'll take me 4 hours to get through the entire video.

It was civil. I can't be objective as in who came out ahead, since I would always pick myself. There is some good discussion about concepts.

[WarStore]

I haven't had time to watch the whole thing. 50 minutes in and the main argument is "from a game dev perspective"

[paradat]

Hmm this could be interesting. Will listen to it when I play maybe tonite.

[Pyrrhuloxia]

[warheart1992]

Ooof, that's a pretty lengthy vid. Any pointers for people that can't watch the entire 4 hours? That said, from the little I skimmed it it sounded civil enough.

 

[Grevester]

5 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Ooof, that's a pretty lengthy vid. Any pointers for people that can't watch the entire 4 hours? That said, from the little I skimmed it it sounded civil enough.

 

I can go through it and try to timestamp it, it'll take some time but when i have it i'll add it to the OP.

[warheart1992]

4 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

I can go through it and try to timestamp it, it'll take some time but when i have it i'll add it to the OP.

Thank you, I appreciate the offer but there's no need for that and to be honest considering it was uploaded on Ahskance's channel maybe he should consider timestamping some of his longer videos.

Just general pointers, like which hour or so do you deem the most fruitful concerning your discussion?

[Pillbox_7]

As a very new player, who recently commented that the toxicity on the forums(which is not unique to wows, btw but is a general internet forum issue) was one of the least attractive things about this game. I think it is fantastic that people were able to have a civil and enthusiastic discussion for 4 hours. Nobody has to convince anyone or win the argument. That should not be expected.  Having the discussion about a game we all like is a win for everyone in the wows community in my book. The threads can get depressing sometimes.

[hateboat]

20 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

I can go through it and try to timestamp it, it'll take some time but when i have it i'll add it to the OP.

We need a transcript. Major career opportunity for an intern 

but will sticky the video and watch it in bits when free.

I keep trying to skip to where Puli is speaking, but Ashkanze is doing all the talking, doesn't stop really. Fasfoorward to 7 minute mark to finally hear Pulicat.

[Grevester]

17 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Thank you, I appreciate the offer but there's no need for that and to be honest considering it was uploaded on Ahskance's channel maybe he should consider timestamping some of his longer videos.

Just general pointers, like which hour or so do you deem the most fruitful concerning your discussion?

I think the discussion at 1:34:00 when the image changes really hits upon the difference of perspective we have.

[Bandi73]

1 hour ago, Pulicat said:

It was civil. I can't be objective as in who came out ahead, since I would always pick myself. There is some good discussion about concepts.

Hmm....I'm sorry to say this, but......it wasn't:(. He constantly tried to overspeak you, to enforce his arguments, to asses "the superiority" of his arguments to "win".  It is correct that you were civil and let him to do many of that, until you realised what's happening.  I'm at 2.04.00 ish time stamp. 

Edit: He pretty much violated the rules set forth with the invitation.

[Grevester]

4 minutes ago, Bandi73 said:

Hmm....I'm sorry to say this, but......it wasn't:(. He constantly tried to overspeak you, to enforce his arguments, to asses "the superiority" of his arguments to "win".  It is correct that you were civil and let him to do many of that, until you realised what's happening.  I'm at 2.04.00 ish time stamp. 

Just because people are passionate and want to argue their point doesn't mean they aren't civil. I knew he had a tendency to go on tangents, and if it was relevant I let it go because it's his stream.

[Bandi73]

11 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

Just because people are passionate and want to argue their point doesn't mean they aren't civil. I knew he had a tendency to go on tangents, and if it was relevant I let it go because it's his stream.

I know. That's why I didn't accept his invitation. When I debate... I don't really take prisoners. Sorry... ( well... not really :))  And...there are other considerations too, so.....

Edit: And like I said... you are good sport.

[hateboat]

5 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

Just because people are passionate and want to argue their point doesn't mean they aren't civil. I knew he had a tendency to go on tangents, and if it was relevant I let it go because it's his stream.

there is a difference between passionate and obnoxious.

If you invite someone to your house for a meal, do you serve yourself first?

[ThisIsClassic]

For me this disconnect in watching this is that the CV perspective is being related to the mechanics of a totally different game while being explained from the perspective of a board game.  It's almost like CV mechanics and perspectives can't be  compared to how ships work...

[Grevester]

1 minute ago, hateboat said:

there is a difference between passionate and obnoxious.

If you invite someone to your house for a meal, do you serve yourself first?

I am only speaking from my perspective and my approach to the discussion. I didn't feel disrespected or ignored or dismissed. 

[warheart1992]

55 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

I think the discussion at 1:34:00 when the image changes really hits upon the difference of perspective we have.

Thank you, I started watching a while ago and yes it really shows the difference in perspective. One part that really strikes me is how so much time was spent by Ahskance on setting up his DM scenario to end up with him saying that it isn't really fun to be a pawn on the board, but it's viable. It's interesting how most players consider this factor a real issue whereas it's brushed off as just viable in a discussion concerning an online game whose purpose is to have fun. If a game makes a player feel like a pawn, while giving another the ability to control the board with the only "counter" being AI controlled mechanics, then I don't see any fairness in that sort of interaction.

Bottom line, saying something is viable just doesn't really cut it.

I also believe the focus on damage without delving into the impact of objective control that can easily tip battles is a big oversight. Or maybe I haven't reached that part yet...

Regardless, looks like a pretty interesting discussion. Personally I would like to see you both commenting on two replays, one from a CV perspective, one from a surface ship.

That would shed some more light in CV-surface ship interactions, highlight your differences in opinion and take this away from the theoretical "board game scenario" perspective and put it into a much more dynamic and complex environment.

[Skuggsja]

10 minutes ago, hateboat said:

there is a difference between passionate and obnoxious.

If you invite someone to your house for a meal, do you serve yourself first?

He has Aspergers, is social edict might not be the best and he states that in a few videos. 

[Utt_Buggly]

TL,DW

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Pillbox_7 said:

As a very new player, who recently commented that the toxicity on the forums(which is not unique to wows, btw but is a general internet forum issue) was one of the least attractive things about this game. I think it is fantastic that people were able to have a civil and enthusiastic discussion for 4 hours. Nobody has to convince anyone or win the argument. That should not be expected.  Having the discussion about a game we all like is a win for everyone in the wows community in my book. The threads can get depressing sometimes.

Being able to attach a face (or voice) to the other side of the argument can go a long way towards reigning in people’s toxic behavior (this is NOT a comment directed towards either Pulicat or Ahskance, btw). It reinforces that you’re interacting with another person and not just words on the page. There is a depressing amount of people who will throw out vitriol in text form that would never be used in person.

Sometimes having an actual real-time exchange where you can (politely) interject and clarify things on the fly also facilitates understanding and can keep an exchange on track, especially when each side is passionate about their views. I’ve had discussions on this forum where I’ve posted comments that were multiple paragraphs in length, only to receive an equally long reply that I feel talks past my points, completely misconstrues them, or doesn’t even address them at all. You can get two people waging two completely different arguments. Both parties can end up getting frustrated because they are investing time and energy into crafting long replies that they each feel are being ignored or trivialized. Entire essays can be crafted based on a single statement that was poorly worded or taken out of context, and the other person can’t interject and stop the tangent before it builds up steam.

I popped into the stream a few times and caught some of the discussion. When I have the time I plan to sit down and watch it in its entirety.

[Bandi73]

20 minutes ago, Skuggsja said:

He has Aspergers, is social edict might not be the best and he states that in a few videos. 

I became aware of that when I watched his first response/video. Nevertheless, when I debate (or discuss) I debate the arguments, NOT the person. We all are humans, we all have all kinds of pluses and minuses. And I proud myself to be objective  and take into account all the factors of which I'm aware ( i'm a libra :))

Nevertheless his arguments are based on that of a game designer implicitly that of WeeGee. And the fundamental flaw of his arguments is that he doesn't take into account the fact that this game is a naval and specifically naval history themed game. Which is one of its main appeal  Which brings some specific limitations.

[Ahskance]

Haha!  I was actually about to post this with the general lead-in intro that I've done with the other discussion sessions.  Now I don't have to <3

Thank you again to @Pulicat for stopping by and having a fun talk!

-----

Note:  As you may hear in the video, I go on tangents and ramble OFTEN~  This does NOT work on a forum, where word choice and formatting are extremely sensitive to perception, so please don't expect me to fire off paragraphs and essays in response to questions leveled.  If you'd like to come on the stream and have a talk, you can hit me up on Discord at Ahskance#4305

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

38 minutes ago, Bandi73 said:

And the fundamental flaw of his arguments is that he doesn't take into account the fact that this game is a naval and specifically naval history themed game. Which is one of its main appeal  Which brings some specific limitations.

Air power is a fundamental fact of naval force projection since 1925.

A world war 2 game without airplanes is NOT a world war 2 game. It is a fantasy game.

You cannot have a naval history themed combat game with world war 2 equipment and not include aircraft.

That to me is the fundamental failure of the playerbase expectations. They want to fight Yamato but not in the combat meta of her time period.

The desire / expectation of the game is to be a fantasy of naval combat...not a history themed naval combat game.

Its like steampunk...