Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Daniel_Allan_Clark

Damage Isn't Everything - A Lesson in Why Carriers are Hated

91 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,117
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,033 battles

Check out this replay of a recent bottom tier Weser game of mine.

I throw away planes. I don't get much damage at all...the enemy ships do everything in their power to defend against my planes, and...for the most part, they 'succeed'. I am functionally deplaned for large portions of the match.

And yet, I win a solo-warrior and my very presence forces the enemy team to over-react to my planes and therefore lose the match.

It's a fascinating rebuttle to the silly delusion that plane kills matter or that Carriers are balanced because their damage output is 'in-line' with other ships.

We won because the enemy over-reacted to my planes presence and gave up position to form the AA ball of death. Sure, they stopped me from doing much damage...but they sacrificed EVERYTHING else, and got me a nice achievement.

 

20201216_215130_PGSA106-Weser_42_Neighbors.wowsreplay

  • Cool 10
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[HINON]
Members
14,007 posts

Cool, I've seen similar things happen with other ship types as the enemy team or my own get tunnel vision and forget the big picture.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,000 posts
1,451 battles

Your right, WINNING is everything. 

Cuz, I mean, I legit dont give a craphow many kills we get, how much damage we farm, if we lose, whats it matter?

The problem with this and every game is losing pays WAY to damn well and doing really well doesnt pay even remotely close to enough. 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,691
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,884 posts
14,882 battles
11 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

Cool, I've seen similar things happen with other ship types as the enemy team or my own get tunnel vision and forget the big picture.

Try playing a seen from space BB or cruiser with a stealthy DD keeping you lit up with zero chance to break contact even if only for a few moments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,489
[WKY04]
Members
3,879 posts
24,888 battles

Germany is hated too - viz., my two Solo Warriors in Emden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
270
[SF-13]
[SF-13]
Members
536 posts
8,478 battles
32 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Try playing a seen from space BB or cruiser with a stealthy DD keeping you lit up with zero chance to break contact even if only for a few moments.

That's why they need to introduce weather patterns into the battles, like fog or snow storms.  Bismarck slipped away during heavy fog in the Denmark Straight I believe, but otherwise had no way to get away from light cruisers that were shadowing it.

These games where the weather is always perfect and the ocean is smooth as glass makes me wonder what time period from the Cretaceous we're playing in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,085 posts
44,091 battles
1 hour ago, Nordlaender said:

That's why they need to introduce weather patterns into the battles, like fog or snow storms.  Bismarck slipped away during heavy fog in the Denmark Straight I believe, but otherwise had no way to get away from light cruisers that were shadowing it.

These games where the weather is always perfect and the ocean is smooth as glass makes me wonder what time period from the Cretaceous we're playing in.

It's a valid point about the weather. But it's a video game. If you overdid the weather to be realistic, you would have graphics bogged down by the intricate detail.

Not every player plays with a decent system and to middle ground the game, some concessions were made to not make the weather render too good or you would have terrible latency for some players.

Those players would be forced to tone down their graphics just to get by.

That is what happened years ago before some players got better cards and eventually better rigs.

Eventually WG, reined in and refined the software so it didn't do this, but eventually, just like all things, it evolves and will get bigger some day.

Weather is just the start. You are right.

But other stuff is at issue too and WG still struggles with CV balance and surface ship interaction.

We are already seeing maps needing updates.

A lot of work to do.

I hope 2021 is a good year.

We all could use a big break.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,598
[CYNIC]
Members
2,911 posts
7,814 battles
2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Check out this replay of a recent bottom tier Weser game of mine.

I throw away planes. I don't get much damage at all...the enemy ships do everything in their power to defend against my planes, and...for the most part, they 'succeed'. I am functionally deplaned for large portions of the match.

And yet, I win a solo-warrior and my very presence forces the enemy team to over-react to my planes and therefore lose the match.

It's a fascinating rebuttle to the silly delusion that plane kills matter or that Carriers are balanced because their damage output is 'in-line' with other ships.

We won because the enemy over-reacted to my planes presence and gave up position to form the AA ball of death. Sure, they stopped me from doing much damage...but they sacrificed EVERYTHING else, and got me a nice achievement.

 

20201216_215130_PGSA106-Weser_42_Neighbors.wowsreplay

So basically what you're saying is that the CV was in their heads, not that it was a capable ship.  It's almost as if people start to believe the nonsense posted on the forums about CVs.   Even funnier that it was a german CV with the WORST torps in the game.

It's what I refer to as the CV JEEBIES.  Players doing dumb things to  mitigate chip damage while getting Duh-Leeted.  If a player makes stupid choices, they're not in the game long.  Is what it is.  

Using a player's CV JEEBIES against them makes for quick work of their ship.  Sux to be them

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,598
[CYNIC]
Members
2,911 posts
7,814 battles
1 hour ago, Nordlaender said:

That's why they need to introduce weather patterns into the battles, like fog or snow storms.  Bismarck slipped away during heavy fog in the Denmark Straight I believe, but otherwise had no way to get away from light cruisers that were shadowing it.

These games where the weather is always perfect and the ocean is smooth as glass makes me wonder what time period from the Cretaceous we're playing in.

These aren't several hours long drawn out battles.  It's an arcade game.  We don't need another mechanic in the game to hide ships.  Even 1 storm in a week in game, is 1 too many. 

Players don't want long battles either, especially since it ties up a ship that they may want to use again.  Watching two turds waste 5 minutes trying to hide is pointless.   End it to get the ship back so it can go get sunk again. 

Edited by CV_Jeebies
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[NSEW]
Members
467 posts
4,144 battles

Any ship that can carry because of its spotting and map control as a result of it is very much a capable ship

Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,013
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,642 posts

Hilarious CV apologists mock players for bunching up to use their AA-- As WG designed AA to work this way to be effective.

If that doesn't imply a ton of very sad things from both WG's balance and the people who advocate CVs are fine, then perhaps its time to try and climb to 100 IQ.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,117
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,033 battles
14 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

Hilarious CV apologists mock players for bunching up to use their AA-- As WG designed AA to work this way to be effective.

If that doesn't imply a ton of very sad things from both WG's balance and the people who advocate CVs are fine, then perhaps its time to try and climb to 100 IQ.

Indeed.

What was hilarious was the enemy team's tier 8 premium battleships insisting on grouping up for AA against a Weser...

I couldnt believe that they were letting me herd them so easily.

Their destroyer did well, I couldnt kill him...but we did have an interesting battle late game where he was trying to spot our last remaining cruisers and I was trying to drive him away.

Hopefully, people will learn that carriers do SO MUCH MORE than just damage farming.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,013
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,642 posts
31 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Indeed.

What was hilarious was the enemy team's tier 8 premium battleships insisting on grouping up for AA against a Weser...

I couldnt believe that they were letting me herd them so easily.

Their destroyer did well, I couldnt kill him...but we did have an interesting battle late game where he was trying to spot our last remaining cruisers and I was trying to drive him away.

Hopefully, people will learn that carriers do SO MUCH MORE than just damage farming.

Bunching up is their only defense and its what WG (and many forum people who are purely Pro CV) tell you to do.  After all, no matter what you think of CVs everyone knows against a decent CV a single ship definitely won't defend themselves.

And now, you see a few of those same names here calling them potatoes-- so which is it?  Are they potatoes for bunching up and giving up map control, or will they be potatoes for running off on their own and not using their AA together?  This is what makes CV apologists who talk about how AA is fine truly hilarious.  By design, even if it did work for stopping planes (And it doesn't, many examples cited) you create a gameplay environment that is poor and passive.  Nobody wants to take an initiative and be punished for it.

People will *not* learn, not here or in-game.  Long-term no matter how good the player is they'll just leave or barely play.  Combine that with the holiday players on at this time of year, you won't be seeing me log many matches for a bit.  

I would pay *good* money to have the numbers of player retention released to the public.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,117
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,033 battles
3 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

Bunching up is their only defense and its what WG (and many forum people who are purely Pro CV) tell you to do.  After all, no matter what you think of CVs everyone knows against a decent CV a single ship definitely won't defend themselves.

And now, you see a few of those same names here calling them potatoes-- so which is it?  Are they potatoes for bunching up and giving up map control, or will they be potatoes for running off on their own and not using their AA together?  This is what makes CV apologists who talk about how AA is fine truly hilarious.  By design, even if it did work for stopping planes (And it doesn't, many examples cited) you create a gameplay environment that is poor and passive.  Nobody wants to take an initiative and be punished for it.

People will *not* learn, not here or in-game.  Long-term no matter how good the player is they'll just leave or barely play.  Combine that with the holiday players on at this time of year, you won't be seeing me log many matches for a bit.  

I would pay *good* money to have the numbers of player retention released to the public.  

Its a Weser with tier 6 planes.

A Massachusetts shouldnt be worried. My torpedoes tickle and I wont citadel him with AP bombs...plus I dont have a full up captain...

Yet the enemy huddled together like I was a Saipan.

It was hilarious in a, "Are you serious?" way...

The cruisers and destroyers hanging back I understood...I was actually a threat to them. But the Roma, Massachusetts, etc?

No excuse.

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,013
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,642 posts
1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Its a Weser with tier 6 planes.

A Massachusetts shouldnt be worried. My torpedoes tickle and I wont citadel him with AP bombs...plus I dont have a full up captain...

Yet the enemy huddled together like I was a Saipan.

It was hilarious in a, "Are you serious?" way...

Oh, the play was to ignore you and just trounce with a good position as a Mass-- Given how overtuned it is combined with its "good" AA suite.

Thing is, I bet if you go back and check their stats--- They're probably 48%ish WR, aka average.  Its a mindset that has been engrained into them, because many are just used that being the only way to not be just farmed by a CV.  People who huddle up the moment a CV starts attacking is a learned behavior.  And as to how they've learned it, i'll leave to anybody's imagination.  

People who think CVs only influence the game by damage don't understand anything about why a DD is as powerful as it is-- Its not wonder why many of the more poor CV players play CV in order to "stick it to the class" and feel they're so wildly broken.  DDs are very powerful, especially in good hands.  But what many aren't smart enough to realize is, those really good DD players also must respect the positioning of other DDs, radar, supported DDs, etc.  Their playbook has some hard and fast rules, and I can say this with great experience.

The CV?  If you're good enough, you can make any play you want, whenever you want.  And as long as those plays don't require to lose alot of planes each time, you'll continue to enjoy that impunity most of the game.  And if they're so bunched up you aren't able to strike and not a potato at it?  Well congratulations, that means you've herded the team into a ball that has no map control, still heavily influencing the match.  A DD can only scare those who are on its flank, a CV can scare an entire team into doing certain things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,117
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,033 battles
15 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

The CV?  If you're good enough, you can make any play you want, whenever you want.  And as long as those plays don't require to lose alot of planes each time, you'll continue to enjoy that impunity most of the game.  And if they're so bunched up you aren't able to strike and not a potato at it?  Well congratulations, that means you've herded the team into a ball that has no map control, still heavily influencing the match.  A DD can only scare those who are on its flank, a CV can scare an entire team into doing certain things.

Even CVs have hard and fast rules about hull positioning and plane management...but fully agree with you that you have so much more power than any other class...

...also, if you have been herded into a ball, PUSH. You cant cede map control and expect to win by killing all the enemy ships unless the game mode has only the two starting caps. The enemy team is going to kite...and a death ball doesnt kill kiting ships fast enough.

Understand the enemy carriers and get better at knowing when you can and cant be successful going out on the flank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,013
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,642 posts
1 minute ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Even CVs have hard and fast rules about hull positioning and plane management...but fully agree with you that you have so much more power than any other class...

...also, if you have been herded into a ball, PUSH. You cant cede map control and expect to win by killing all the enemy ships unless the game mode has only the two starting caps. The enemy team is going to kite...and a death ball doesnt kill kiting ships fast enough.

Understand the enemy carriers and get better at knowing when you can and cant be successful going out on the flank.

They do, but the skill floor for the few rules CV must follow is very, very low.  Since its always talked about how DD is the next most influential class, simply compare how long it takes for someone to learn CV versus DD.  Most here know DD is the most difficult class to play. 

And while that is true, the ball does need to push... The ball's influence and the types of positioning to fight it become very easy.  This is why during the last season at T6, my clan when trying to do that saw little success at the very beginning since we  attempted that.

Understanding how to play around the CV I know well on how to do, too bad that experience is tedious and directly limits my ability to influence a game.  And that CV player 9/10 times usually isn't even as good as my performance as my worst class of ship statistically (battleship).  

And then when you realize things like that, you start to ask yourself "why am I playing this game that doesn't respect the hard work it took to become even this good?"  Which on that note, back to playing Warships Cyberpunk :Smile_veryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,092
[SIM]
Members
5,787 posts
9,263 battles

Your opponents screwed up, you admit that they screwed up, and yet this is supposed to be some sort of referendum on the state of CV balance? :Smile_smile:

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,117
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,033 battles
15 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Your opponents screwed up, you admit that they screwed up, and yet this is supposed to be some sort of referendum on the state of CV balance? :Smile_smile:

No, its meant to illustrate that some common ideas about balance and ship responses are not helpful.

Damage output is not the primary strength of a carrier...

Even a successful AA blob isnt a winning strategy...

...and a carrier can recover from a bad start to influence a win without doing anything that WG tracks to determine successful performance...demonstrating that WGs apparent balancing process isnt going to create an equitable battle space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,598
[CYNIC]
Members
2,911 posts
7,814 battles
48 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

No, its meant to illustrate that some common ideas about balance and ship responses are not helpful.

Damage output is not the primary strength of a carrier...

Even a successful AA blob isnt a winning strategy...

...and a carrier can recover from a bad start to influence a win without doing anything that WG tracks to determine successful performance...demonstrating that WGs apparent balancing process isnt going to create an equitable battle space.

The entire post is about how over-blown the response to CV is and how poor players make poor decisions.  These are the same BB players that abandon cruisers and DDs for no other reason than the fact they took some fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,117
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,033 battles
6 minutes ago, CV_Jeebies said:

The entire post is about how over-blown the response to CV is and how poor players make poor decisions.  These are the same BB players that abandon cruisers and DDs for no other reason than the fact they took some fire.

Thats not what happened.

Watch the replay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[SIT]
Members
81 posts
6,275 battles

One of the funniest things to me is when a BB will turn to try to avoid a couple of weak torpedoes, and show full broadside to 4 ships in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,513
[REVY]
Members
8,285 posts
6,118 battles
9 minutes ago, Ariochaotik said:

One of the funniest things to me is when a BB will turn to try to avoid a couple of weak torpedoes, and show full broadside to 4 ships in the process.

Those "weak torpedoes" can 1 hit KO via detonation, of course they'd try to dodge them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,117
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,033 battles
9 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Those "weak torpedoes" can 1 hit KO via detonation, of course they'd try to dodge them.

Thats what detonation flags are for.

In several hundred carrier games since the rework, I have detonated ONE battleship...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×