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

CV rocket changes...makes them UNUSABLE FOR DEFENSE

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

72
[WARHK]
[WARHK]
Members
146 posts
7,387 battles

Yep, I know...everyone loves to hate carriers but seriously, this latest rocket aiming nerf makes it nearly impossible to defend against even one dd much less more.

 

Give us Flat-top drivers something we can defend ourselves with!  I'd be happy with MUCH BETTER secondaries as it's impossible to spot and hit a DD in first flyover.

 

Do you guys test these changes?

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,001
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
5,503 posts
26,132 battles

In my opinion the rocket attack nerf was most noticeable on the IJN and USN CV’s. The DB’s and TDB’s wasn’t nerfed. The RN planes are the slowest flying and shoot the most rockets per pass, seem to be less effected so still viable for use against DD’s. The KM AP rocket attack seem to still be more viable than the IJN and USN against DD’s. 
Personally I’ve just started using the IJN and USN rocket attack planes more as fire starters on cruisers, BB’s and CV’s. Or as spotting and dropping fighters over green ships.

The nerf is working as intended. Notice more DD’s in matches now? 
 

I could be wrong but most drastic changes are commonly dialed back a bit. I think the time may be cut down a little on the delay that rocket attack planes fire their rockets. I doubt it ever goes back to the instant LMB click and firing of rockets, the way it used to be. It will be interesting in how this affects the  number of people who would have picked up the still in testing Russian Navy’s CV line, who will pass due to the nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
[-TKS-]
Members
1,689 posts
15,869 battles
1 hour ago, XturbohawkX said:

Yep, I know...everyone loves to hate carriers but seriously, this latest rocket aiming nerf makes it nearly impossible to defend against even one dd much less more.

 

Give us Flat-top drivers something we can defend ourselves with!  I'd be happy with MUCH BETTER secondaries as it's impossible to spot and hit a DD in first flyover.

 

Do you guys test these changes?

CV still has better chance vs a DD than a US/IJN BB if it were 1v1 so we can't complain about this tbh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
815
[VVV]
Members
3,246 posts
5,521 battles
11 hours ago, XturbohawkX said:

Yep, I know...everyone loves to hate carriers but seriously, this latest rocket aiming nerf makes it nearly impossible to defend against even one dd much less more.

That's the idea. To give CVs an actual weakness, so that there's a class they don't have a 1v1 advantage over.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[CYNIC]
[CYNIC]
Members
349 posts
8,963 battles

Please, if you are wanting to discuss the rocket plane nerf, please, for the love of God, comment on one the new half-dozen previous threads about this very same topic that have cropped up over the past 3-weeks since I have come back to the forums.

I don't mind the discussion, I even agree that some of the CVs had it taken too far, but why does there need to be a new thread posted about it ever 3.5 days?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[JR-B]
Members
21 posts
1,454 battles
13 hours ago, XturbohawkX said:

Yep, I know...everyone loves to hate carriers but seriously, this latest rocket aiming nerf makes it nearly impossible to defend against even one dd much less more.

 

Give us Flat-top drivers something we can defend ourselves with!  I'd be happy with MUCH BETTER secondaries as it's impossible to spot and hit a DD in first flyover.

 

Do you guys test these changes?

I agree. I very rarely play my Ranger CV after this dirty nerf.  My CV has basically been turned into a defenseless ship. The few times I play it, I only attack BBs to farm credits and XP. I do not worry anymore about spotting for the team, my planes take exotics ways just to prey on isolate BBs. And I know if a DD manage to get close to my CV, my CV will be sunk because I can't defend it against DDs anymore. Anyways, I don't care, because by that time I would have farmed more credits than ship reparation costs. I play with chat sound disabled and I do not pay attention to the chat at all.  This is the way Wargaming forced me to play my CV after the rocket nerf. 

Edited by Not_give_a_clue
grammar mistake
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[CYNIC]
[CYNIC]
Members
349 posts
8,963 battles
6 hours ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

I agree. I very rarely play my Ranger CV after this dirty nerf.  My CV has basically been turned into a defenseless ship. The few times I play it, I only attack BBs to farm credits and XP. I do not worry anymore about spotting for the team, my planes take exotics ways just to prey on isolate BBs. And I know if a DD manage to get close to my CV, my CV will be sunk because I can't defend it against DDs anymore. Anyways, I don't care, because by that time I would have farmed more credits than ship reparation costs. I play with chat sound disabled and I do not pay attention to the chat at all.  This is the way Wargaming forced me to play my CV after the rocket nerf. 

Sorry, I fail to understand your logic. Can you please elaborate more?

If rocket planes no longer work on DDs, why not use them for spotting? They are plenty fast.

Why can't you use torpedoes to force the DD to have to change speed and direction while you run for your team? Carriers aren't slow, and unless you don't pay attention to your map, you should be able to notice when it is time to reposition.

What happened to dive bombers? As above, it might be hard to hit a DD, but you can certainly force him to start doing hard maneuvers.

However, you sound like a very selfish player. Why should the team help you, when you are obviously only looking out for numero uno.

Unless you are running a smurf account, I don't think you have had enough experience in the game to have a fair and honest opinion about this. Seeing as your account only dates back to July 9th and you've power-ground your way to Ranger and only played 5 games in her and have been ranting about it since Thursday, I'll go with smurfing...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
681
[SOCOM]
Members
910 posts
31,638 battles
6 hours ago, 40902nd said:

Sorry, I fail to understand your logic. Can you please elaborate more?

If rocket planes no longer work on DDs, why not use them for spotting? They are plenty fast.

Why can't you use torpedoes to force the DD to have to change speed and direction while you run for your team? Carriers aren't slow, and unless you don't pay attention to your map, you should be able to notice when it is time to reposition.

What happened to dive bombers? As above, it might be hard to hit a DD, but you can certainly force him to start doing hard maneuvers.

However, you sound like a very selfish player. Why should the team help you, when you are obviously only looking out for numero uno.

Unless you are running a smurf account, I don't think you have had enough experience in the game to have a fair and honest opinion about this. Seeing as your account only dates back to July 9th and you've power-ground your way to Ranger and only played 5 games in her and have been ranting about it since Thursday, I'll go with smurfing...

I have played Bird Farms for a while. I just recently took out two and the rework made it so I am parking them. I have the T4-T8 UK, Germany, and American Carriers not to mention all the  premium carriers. I have played them since i started 5 years ago and I am tired of a class of ship that is always changing and causing discord, bottom line they need to be gotten rid of IMO, concept is good but mechanics are terrible. It only Ford two  years  to get rid of the Edsel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[CYNIC]
[CYNIC]
Members
349 posts
8,963 battles
11 minutes ago, Chief_SeaDog said:

I have played Bird Farms for a while. I just recently took out two and the rework made it so I am parking them. I have the T4-T8 UK, Germany, and American Carriers not to mention all the  premium carriers. I have played them since i started 5 years ago and I am tired of a class of ship that is always changing and causing discord, bottom line they need to be gotten rid of IMO, concept is good but mechanics are terrible. It only Ford two  years  to get rid of the Edsel

I enjoy them in Scenarios, though I will admit that I am severely lacking in experience when playing them in Randoms. I am learning them and working my way down the lines because I am part of my clan's competitive team, when we have enough people to field one, and I am one of the better players on said team (take that with what you will about the state of our clan). Originally, I was a heavy cruiser main, but as I've gotten better at the game, I have acquired more destroyers in my repertoire (gun boats, mainly), and I am still learning how to play them effectively. However, Wargaming is intent on forcing Carriers onto competitive gameplay, and we have few, if any, Tier 10 carrier drivers, which means that to be competitive with other teams, someone has to do it.

This upcoming season is only Tier VI, which is where I am at along the carrier lines, so I just need to work on what I've got at the moment, but as of now, Wargaming is apparently allowing 2 carriers per team. You can read about it here, just below the portrait of the special Dutch captain and the flag. I know what a pair of decently coordinated carriers can do. If I am right (and I have been wrong before), the only Battleship that will be viable in this new meta will be Ise, since it, too, can launch planes. But I see double CVs dominating. Destroyers would be right out, too. Too many light cruisers and WAY too much potential spotting.

Now, I am not a doomsayer. I'm not saying that this is going to ruin the game or what ever nonsense the Carrier-haters will spout. I understand that WG is experimenting, and they will use the results here to further improve competitive play. I just know that this is going to rile the CV-Haters up even more, and I'll have to endure their endless moans, as they belly-ache about how broken CVs, just as I've had to deal with Carrier-Drivers griping about the rocket plane nerf. It'd be interesting, I think, seeing the threads popping up one-after-another alternatingly complaining about how how broken and useless carriers are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
190
[AAA]
Members
274 posts
14,893 battles

I propose this:

Keep the current rocket nerfs.

BUT if a ship is within a certain range, say visible range, then the machine gun strafing time is reduced by 50%.

Everyone is happy.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
343 posts
4,110 battles
On 7/16/2021 at 9:13 PM, Lord_Magus said:

That's the idea. To give CVs an actual weakness, so that there's a class they don't have a 1v1 advantage over.

Yeah, DDs should be the only ones with no counters, except other DDs of course.

eyeroll

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
815
[VVV]
Members
3,246 posts
5,521 battles
58 minutes ago, NefariousRaven said:

Yeah, DDs should be the only ones with no counters, except other DDs of course.

eyeroll

Countering DDs is the role of cruisers, especially radar cruisers. And CVs can still ruin a DD's day by keeping them spotted.

Maybe the rocket nerf was bigger than it should be. Maybe the machine gun animation should be reduced by half in time or something so they're more useful against DDs. But previously a CV could completely dominate a DD with little counterplay other than "hope the CV player is bad."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[CYNIC]
[CYNIC]
Members
349 posts
8,963 battles

The Ryujo's rockets are pretty much unusable, but I don't think the others at tier 6 are that bad. 

Destroys are ridiculously easy to counter. It's called map awareness and HE. In fact, it there is anyone who deserves to complain about Destroyers, it's Italian Battleship players, since they don't even get HE to save then. Both their ammo choices are terrible against destroyers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
343 posts
4,110 battles
5 hours ago, Lord_Magus said:

Countering DDs is the role of cruisers, especially radar cruisers. And CVs can still ruin a DD's day by keeping them spotted.

Maybe the rocket nerf was bigger than it should be. Maybe the machine gun animation should be reduced by half in time or something so they're more useful against DDs. But previously a CV could completely dominate a DD with little counterplay other than "hope the CV player is bad."

Rockets are literally absolutely garbage now, completely unusable except against the dumbest of enemies.  Only a complete potato DD with any agility can't dodge them now.  I can nearly avoid like 90% of their damage in slow Shultz and Elbing  There's 0 agency on the CVs part anymore and 0 way to defend yourself against a DD.  The nerf was crap and WGing are idiots for it.

And just Radar Cruisers?  That's the only counter?  Not even a whole class ('cause it's not)...  "okay"... totes reasonable.

Edited by NefariousRaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[CYNIC]
[CYNIC]
Members
349 posts
8,963 battles
12 hours ago, Lord_Magus said:

Countering DDs is the role of cruisers, especially radar cruisers. And CVs can still ruin a DD's day by keeping them spotted.

 

7 hours ago, NefariousRaven said:

And just Radar Cruisers?  That's the only counter?  Not even a whole class ('cause it's not)...  "okay"... totes reasonable.

Especially

No. Not just Radar Cruisers. Cruisers, as a whole, are good at it. Radar Cruisers, Light Cruisers, Italian Tech Tree Cruisers, and French Cruisers all are particularly good at countering Destroyers. Other Heavy Cruisers are okay at it, and Super-Cruisers that don't fall in to the aforementioned categories can struggle with it. 

I noticed how you hyper focus on rocket planes, the easiest means of attacking a destroyer, and fail to mention the other types. HE bombs are effective, if harder to use. They can still be used to harass a Destroyer. If you are one of those carrier players that actually pays attention to the map and remembers that you are captaining a ship, not a stationary air base, then you should be in a position to call for help and have a reasonable chance of getting it. If so, then delaying tactics and spotting should be more than enough to help your team. 

What you want is a class immune from reprisals that excels at everything. Destroyers have ranges mostly between 10 and 15 km. A carrier's range is literally restricted only by the size of the map, with no line if sight needed. A destroyer probably needs to take about 7.5-10 minutes to cross the map, depending on enemy positions, terrain, and how much he wants a carrier kill as opposed to helping his team with any the other duties a destroyer is supposed to fulfill. Carriers, or rather the planes that the carrier carries, can do so in a minute or two, on a whim, whenever that want to,  no matter the intervening terrain. Destroyers need to worry about conserving their health. While they can out run most opponents, it still takes time to get to a range where effective maneuvering or stealth can render them marginally safe. Planes are absolutely safe from any target so long as they stay outside of 7km. In most cases, 6km, but 6in DP can reach pretty far. Also, as planes (slowly) get replenished on deck, carriers effectively have a slow HoT running all the time, something that no other class in the game enjoys. The carrier, it self, is also nearly immune to any DoT.

A carrier complaining it can't 1v1 a destroyer is like a sorcerer complaining he can't 1v1 a rogue. And, I am willing to bet that a decent carrier player can win a true 1v1 verse just about any other same-tier ship 9-times-out-of-10. If you don't believe me, take it to a training room. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[JR-B]
Members
21 posts
1,454 battles
On 7/17/2021 at 7:20 AM, 40902nd said:

Sorry, I fail to understand your logic. Can you please elaborate more?

If rocket planes no longer work on DDs, why not use them for spotting? They are plenty fast.

Why can't you use torpedoes to force the DD to have to change speed and direction while you run for your team? Carriers aren't slow, and unless you don't pay attention to your map, you should be able to notice when it is time to reposition.

What happened to dive bombers? As above, it might be hard to hit a DD, but you can certainly force him to start doing hard maneuvers.

However, you sound like a very selfish player. Why should the team help you, when you are obviously only looking out for numero uno.

Unless you are running a smurf account, I don't think you have had enough experience in the game to have a fair and honest opinion about this. Seeing as your account only dates back to July 9th and you've power-ground your way to Ranger and only played 5 games in her and have been ranting about it since Thursday, I'll go with smurfing...

I'm not a "spot slave". Also of course I'm not a "team slave" so my torpedoes are meant not only to force DDs to change direction but to hit ships.  But  after this dirty rockets nerf I was forced to forget about DDs at all cause I can't hit them and also when I spot them most of the time teammates concentrate fire into other ships.  I also want to actually hit ships with my planes the same as other ships want to hit ships with their torpedoes and shells.  Can you understand that? 

Are you saying that there is any problem with running "smurf" accounts?  Is it forbidden?  Please, enlighten me.

Also, you are using the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". Since I supposedly wouldn't have enough experience in the game, I would be so silly that I wouldn't be able to notice the nerf in my Ranger CV rockets. Also I have to remember you that the Langley CV rockets were also nerfed. I have more experience with the Langley than with the Ranger.  And I had chosen USN CVs only because of its attack planes that used to have powerful rockets, actually nerfed.

The right way to go for you without logical fallacies if you want to prove me wrong would be to demonstrate that the CV rockets "evolve" change was not a nerf of them. 

And if you will go with smurfing... It's your problem, not mine. 

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[CYNIC]
[CYNIC]
Members
349 posts
8,963 battles
22 minutes ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

I'm not a "spot slave". Also of course I'm not a "team slave" so my torpedoes are meant not only to force DDs to change direction but to hit ships.  But  after this dirty rockets nerf I was forced to forget about DDs at all cause I can't hit them and also when I spot them most of the time teammates concentrate fire into other ships.  I also want to actually hit ships with my planes the same as other ships want to hit ships with their torpedoes and shells.  Can you understand that? 

Oh, sorry, I guess I was mistaken. I thought this was a team game. Silly me. And I guess I should remember that all should yield to the majesty of the almighty carrier. Good heavens, what was I thinking? Carriers should have something they are not good at? Ha. You outstanding rhetoric has convinced me if the error of my ways! 

28 minutes ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

Are you saying that there is any problem with running "smurf" accounts?  Is it forbidden?  Please, enlighten me.

Am I saying there is a problem with "smurf" accounts? No. I just think it's vain, that's all. 

In terms of the discussion at hand, it does make it difficult to gauge your experience with other classes, though. 

37 minutes ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

Also, you are using the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". Since I supposedly wouldn't have enough experience in the game, I would be so silly that I wouldn't be able to notice the nerf in my Ranger CV rockets. Also I have to remember you that the Langley CV rockets were also nerfed. I have more experience with the Langley than with the Ranger.  And I had chosen USN CVs only because of its attack planes that used to have powerful rockets, actually nerfed.

False.

"Appeal to Authority" is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. "Appeal to False Authority" is.

I feel "Appeal to Authority" to be appropriate here as I have 22 times the number of battles as you have on your current account and it is impossible for me to track down any account you might have made previously.

Are you honestly trying to point to a Tier IV carrier and say that any nerf is unjustified? A tier, I need not remind you has a number of ships that literally, not figuratively, but literally have no recourse against aircraft. 

I had left open the option that you had more experience than you were showing. I can only go of what I see, and what I see so far, with the data set hand, is someone who has very little experience in the game complaining because things aren't going their way. 

If I am wrong, prove it. 

1 hour ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

The right way to go for you without logical fallacies if you want to prove me wrong would be to demonstrate that the CV rockets "evolve" change was not a nerf of them. 

False. 

You do not get to dictate how I frame my rebuttal to your arguement. I am not trying to prove that the change was a nerf. It most certainly was. There is no way imposing a firing delay on the rockets can be anything but a nerf. Where, anywhere, did I say, or so much as hint otherwise? I do believe I've said the exact opposite when I said that Ryujo's rockets were pretty much unusable now. 

1 hour ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

And if you will go with smurfing... It's your problem, not mine. 

If you are saying that you aren't smurfing, then I feel confident in my claim that you don't know enough to make a truly informed decision. You can have an opinion, but you lack context on how different ships balance against each other. I have played tiers 1-10, as and against carriers (only up to tier 8 as carriers, and only in premiums, at that), in casual, competitive, and co-op settings. I feel like I can make an informed opinion on this. 

 

Also, you are using the logical fallacy of "strawmanning". Since you have failed to engage with my actual arguement, and instead constructed one of your own and preceded ro not only try to counter that one, but also tried to dictate the way I was to respond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[JR-B]
Members
21 posts
1,454 battles
19 hours ago, 40902nd said:

Oh, sorry, I guess I was mistaken. I thought this was a team game. Silly me. And I guess I should remember that all should yield to the majesty of the almighty carrier. Good heavens, what was I thinking? Carriers should have something they are not good at? Ha. You outstanding rhetoric has convinced me if the error of my ways! 

This is a supposed team game where most of teams do not work like a real team. See for example the BBs that remind backwards at a safe distance and act as "snippers". As a matter of fact, I'm used to play with my chat disabled to avoid CV hatters thinking they are best than me at managing my CV and forgetting how to properly manage their own ships. Once I had to stand a CV hatter whose ship was sunk because of his own fault but remained in game in "viewer mode" only to try to bully me because "as the CV is the most powerful ship it was my fault his ship was sunk".  I just blocked him, I didn't step on the trap of getting nervous and answering him the way he would deserve. 

 

Quote

Am I saying there is a problem with "smurf" accounts? No. I just think it's vain, that's all. 

It's not vain in my opinion. You can try different lines of ships. For example, I had an account to test IJN carriers, I didn't like them, so I forgot completely about that account, I have never signed in on that account again, I think I earned precious time realizing I didn't like IJN carriers and not trying to play them anymore. 

 

Quote

In terms of the discussion at hand, it does make it difficult to gauge your experience with other classes, though. 

False.

"Appeal to Authority" is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. "Appeal to False Authority" is.

I feel "Appeal to Authority" to be appropriate here as I have 22 times the number of battles as you have on your current account and it is impossible for me to track down any account you might have made previously.

Are you honestly trying to point to a Tier IV carrier and say that any nerf is unjustified? A tier, I need not remind you has a number of ships that literally, not figuratively, but literally have no recourse against aircraft. 

I had left open the option that you had more experience than you were showing. I can only go of what I see, and what I see so far, with the data set hand, is someone who has very little experience in the game complaining because things aren't going their way. 

 

You are wrong and the fallacy is "Appeal to Authority" and not "Appeal to 'false' authority".  Logic as an important branch of Philosophy indicates that. An example: Newton was not a "false authority" but a genius in Physics. Anyways, he was later proven wrong by Einstein about the way gravity works and definition of "mass".  You couldn't said Newton was right because he was Newton, not a "false" authority at all. You must analice arguments by themselves, not because of who formulates the arguments.  So if you want to prove me wrong, you should prove my arguments wrong instead of introducing the "Appeal of Authority" fallacy in the debate.

Langley planes are very slow, few and weak biplanes. That compensates the fact the ships Langley could face in battle may have little AA. And Langley is extremely slow, if they detect you, you can't scape.

 

 

Quote

If I am wrong, prove it. 

False. 

You do not get to dictate how I frame my rebuttal to your arguement. I am not trying to prove that the change was a nerf. It most certainly was. There is no way imposing a firing delay on the rockets can be anything but a nerf. Where, anywhere, did I say, or so much as hint otherwise? I do believe I've said the exact opposite when I said that Ryujo's rockets were pretty much unusable now. 

If you are saying that you aren't smurfing, then I feel confident in my claim that you don't know enough to make a truly informed decision. You can have an opinion, but you lack context on how different ships balance against each other. I have played tiers 1-10, as and against carriers (only up to tier 8 as carriers, and only in premiums, at that), in casual, competitive, and co-op settings. I feel like I can make an informed opinion on this. 

 

Also, you are using the logical fallacy of "strawmanning". Since you have failed to engage with my actual arguement, and instead constructed one of your own and preceded ro not only try to counter that one, but also tried to dictate the way I was to respond. 

 

I hadn't said I wasn't smurfing. Also I hadn't said I was smurfing. I neither had said "yes", nor I had said "no" about smurfing in my former post.  

I'm very glad you agree with me about CV rockets "evolved" is actually a rocket nerf

Sadly, I can't agree with you about there is a supposed  "Appeal to 'false' authority". The fallacy is "Appeal to authority".

You can see it better in Math than in Physics.  The reputed best math teacher of the school eventually can said: "2+2=5" (in decimal system).  An illiterate can said: "2+2=4". Who among them would be right?  I think, in that particular case, the illiterate. You, with your particular logic, would have said "2+2=5" because the best reputed math teacher of the school had said that.  

 

Edited by Not_give_a_clue
typing mistakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[CYNIC]
[CYNIC]
Members
349 posts
8,963 battles
1 hour ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

This is a supposed team game where most of teams do not work like a real team. See for example the BBs that remind backwards at a safe distance and act as "snippers". As a matter of fact, I'm used to play with my chat disabled to avoid CV hatters thinking they are best than me at managing my CV and forgetting how to properly manage their own ships. Once I had to stand a CV hatter whose ship was sunk because of his own fault but remained in game in "viewer mode" only to try to bully me because "as the CV is the most powerful ship it was my fault his ship was sunk".  I just blocked him, I didn't step on the trap of getting nervous and answering him the way he would deserve. 

Teams don't work because of people like you behave selfishly, acting only in their own self interests, instead of that of the team, going for personal score and not for the win.

You had to deal with an idiot online? Welcome to the Internet. It has been said that the worst thing about multiplayer games are the other players. The solution isn't becoming the problem.

1 hour ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

It's not vain in my opinion. You can try different lines of ships. For example, I had an account to test IJN carriers, I didn't like them, so I forgot completely about that account, I have never signed in on that account again, I think I earned precious time realizing I didn't like IJN carriers and not trying to play them anymore. 

You... you do know that you can have multiple nations on a single account, right? In point of fact, I have over 300 ships in my port, with representatives from every 'nation' in the game. You can even sale the ships you don't use and it leaves the port slot, so you can accumulate free experience to help with other lines. They even have a method where you can spend money to get a premium currency called 'Doubloons' which can used to unlock more port slots, or even convert xp on fully researched ships into free xp. If you don't want to spend money, there are always was to get free doubloons, though in limited quantities. I see no practical benefit to making and managing multiple accounts. Also, making multiple accounts in-and-of itself is not smurfing. Smurfing is making a new account to reset your stats, as it doesn't reflect your learning period.

1 hour ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

You are wrong and the fallacy is "Appeal to Authority" and not "Appeal to 'false' authority".  Logic as an important branch of Philosophy indicates that. An example: Newton was not a "false authority" but a genius in Physics. Anyways, he was later proven wrong by Einstein about the way gravity works and definition of "mass".  You couldn't said Newton was right because he was Newton, not a "false" authority at all. You must analice arguments by themselves, not because of who formulates the arguments.  So if you want to prove me wrong, you should prove my arguments wrong instead of introducing the "Appeal of Authority" fallacy in the debate.

Ok, so I had to go to an check, and you are correct that "Appeal to Authority" is always a logical fallacy. However, my initial argument is not "Appeal to Authority", anyway. It seems that we were both using it wrong.

2 hours ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

I hadn't said I wasn't smurfing. Also I hadn't said I was smurfing. I neither had said "yes", nor I had said "no" about smurfing in my former post.  

It can be inferred from your statement that you were smurfing. But now you are just being evasive for the sake of being annoying.

2 hours ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

I'm very glad you agree with me about CV rockets "evolved" is actually a rocket nerf

This was never in contention. Ever. I have, in fact, not seen a single person make the argument that it wasn't a nerf. Even if someone did say it wasn't a nerf, it is demonstrably is one. The contention is whether is was needed.

2 hours ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

Sadly, I can't agree with you about there is a supposed  "Appeal to 'false' authority". The fallacy is "Appeal to authority".

Appeal to False Authority.

2 hours ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

You can see it better in Math than in Physics.  The reputed best math teacher of the school eventually can said: "2+2=5" (in decimal system).  An illiterate can said: "2+2=4". Who among them would be right?  I think, in that particular case, the illiterate. You, with your particular logic, would have said "2+2=5" because the best reputed math teacher of the school had said that. 

I would, in fact, not.

I come from a fairly math heavy background and I have yet to find a proof for 2+2=5 in a base 10 number system that I've found convincing. But hey, this is the internet and I could be lying about my background. Let me put it another way.

You go up to a professional baseball player and say "A 98mph fast ball can't be hit. I've tried and it is impossible."

The baseball player says "It can be done. I've done it."

You reply "You have made an Appeal to Authority fallacy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[JR-B]
Members
21 posts
1,454 battles
21 hours ago, 40902nd said:

Teams don't work because of people like you behave selfishly, acting only in their own self interests, instead of that of the team, going for personal score and not for the win.

May be also teams don't work because of people who behave pretending other players (and specially  CV ones) act as team-slaves while that people themselves act on their own self interests going for personal score and not for the win. 

 

21 hours ago, 40902nd said:

You had to deal with an idiot online? Welcome to the Internet. It has been said that the worst thing about multiplayer games are the other players. The solution isn't becoming the problem.

Yes, I had to deal with idiots online.  I'm very calm, that helped me a lot. 

 

21 hours ago, 40902nd said:

You... you do know that you can have multiple nations on a single account, right? In point of fact, I have over 300 ships in my port, with representatives from every 'nation' in the game. You can even sale the ships you don't use and it leaves the port slot, so you can accumulate free experience to help with other lines. They even have a method where you can spend money to get a premium currency called 'Doubloons' which can used to unlock more port slots, or even convert xp on fully researched ships into free xp. If you don't want to spend money, there are always was to get free doubloons, though in limited quantities. I see no practical benefit to making and managing multiple accounts. Also, making multiple accounts in-and-of itself is not smurfing. Smurfing is making a new account to reset your stats, as it doesn't reflect your learning period.

I know that, but I don't like to spend money.  Having ships of a lot of countries into the same account would in my opinion make my account unsustainable without coining. I know about doubloons but free doubloons are given in very limited quantities, not enough for buying multiple countries interesting ships. In addition, the upgraded commanders from one nation don't work in other nations ships, so you can't use them if you change country. 

 

21 hours ago, 40902nd said:

Ok, so I had to go to an check, and you are correct that "Appeal to Authority" is always a logical fallacy. However, my initial argument is not "Appeal to Authority", anyway. It seems that we were both using it wrong.

It can be inferred from your statement that you were smurfing. But now you are just being evasive for the sake of being annoying.

This was never in contention. Ever. I have, in fact, not seen a single person make the argument that it wasn't a nerf. Even if someone did say it wasn't a nerf, it is demonstrably is one. The contention is whether is was needed.

Appeal to False Authority.

"Appeal to 'False' Authority": just a particular case of "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.  "Appeal to Authority" is always a logical fallacy, no matter if that Authority is "true Authority" or "false Authority".  "False Authority" only makes the fallacy  less sneaky. 

 

21 hours ago, 40902nd said:

I would, in fact, not.

I come from a fairly math heavy background and I have yet to find a proof for 2+2=5 in a base 10 number system that I've found convincing. But hey, this is the internet and I could be lying about my background. Let me put it another way.

You go up to a professional baseball player and say "A 98mph fast ball can't be hit. I've tried and it is impossible."

The baseball player says "It can be done. I've done it."

You reply "You have made an Appeal to Authority fallacy".

About the baseball example: yes, it's a fallacy if you state that it can't be done just because one (or many) professional baseball player(s) say you it can't be done. You should prove it analyzing the possible max forces a human player is capable of exerting, wind resistance, angles, a lot of variables. His word alone it's not proof.  By the way in science and in logic you can not prove negative. You prove positives meaning you show examples of what you assert. For example in (formal, scientific) language you don't just state: "There are no dogs in that room", in scientific terms you enlist all the objects inside the room, all of which are different from the "dog" concept and therefore state what it is inside the room.  The weight of an argument does not rely on someone's word alone on most subjects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[CYNIC]
[CYNIC]
Members
349 posts
8,963 battles
8 hours ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

May be also teams don't work because of people who behave pretending other players (and specially  CV ones) act as team-slaves while that people themselves act on their own self interests going for personal score and not for the win. 

Are you familiar with the details of compositions in MMORPGs? Or RPGs in general? I ask because I believe there is a a parallel than can be drawn, even if the current meta has moved a bit away from it.

DPS: Cruisers
Tank: Battleships
Rogue/Assassin/Burst DPS: Destroyers
Support: Carriers
Healer: Not Applicable

Feel free to disagree with my assessment, but this is based off of experience, and this has stood me in good stead.

My view of the argument is similar to some sort of clothy class raging that they can't solo a dungeon. It's just not what they were intended to do.

8 hours ago, Not_give_a_clue said:

About the baseball example: yes, it's a fallacy if you state that it can't be done just because one (or many) professional baseball player(s) say you it can't be done. You should prove it analyzing the possible max forces a human player is capable of exerting, wind resistance, angles, a lot of variables. His word alone it's not proof.  By the way in science and in logic you can not prove negative. You prove positives meaning you show examples of what you assert. For example in (formal, scientific) language you don't just state: "There are no dogs in that room", in scientific terms you enlist all the objects inside the room, all of which are different from the "dog" concept and therefore state what it is inside the room.  The weight of an argument does not rely on someone's word alone on most subjects. 

This example highlights the issue I am having here: You seem intent on attacking the argument itself, and not points it makes. I will not ascribe motive at this time, but as we go on, I think I am starting to learn more about your personality. I think part of our miscommunication may be a language barrier and a difference in background. I am a computer scientist, though I have a fairly heavy physics background, as I had attempted at one time to Major in Physics (E&M convinced me otherwise). Then again, this is the internet, so do feel free to not believe me. Based off of what I have read, your background seems closer to that of a mathematician. Do feel free to correct me if you desire.

-----

Anyway, we have veered WAY off topic. This is a topic about the CV changes making rocket planes unusable for defense. I've played several games in the Ranger and only once have I been sunk by a destroyer. A number of factors had to go into that attack, too, including me misreading the situation on the map and the destroyer player sacrificing his own participation in the game in order to specifically go for the carrier assassination.

Other than that instance, I have been able to keep my carrier out of harms way until the end of a match through repositioning and by keeping spotted any threats I couldn't deal with my self. It is difficult, but not impossible, to land rockets on destroyers, but I have found success in torpedo drops and dive bombing. That is, of course, on the rate occasion that I find a destroyer moving off on it's own, something that can't be guaranteed, since I have noticed that there just haven't been a whole lot of destroyers running about, and where there are, they are usually in the mutual defense zone of other ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
535 posts
22,971 battles

If the games Most OP ship isnt OP.. I suggest you consider operator error. Its not that the arrows are broken, Its the person shooting the arrows isnt that good yet: and 

002e0361eb00c4aa0c4465fc708a9ffa.jpeg

Edited by jr_token

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[JR-B]
Members
21 posts
1,454 battles
8 hours ago, jr_token said:

If the games Most OP ship isnt OP.. I suggest you consider operator error. Its not that the arrows are broken, Its the person shooting the arrows isnt that good yet: and 

002e0361eb00c4aa0c4465fc708a9ffa.jpeg

I only have to agree because in my opinion DDs are OP and unrealistic in this game  but anyways a powerful DD lobby had been crying for years and asking for a CV nerf and a DD boost,  may be mainly because that players don't know how to shoot their arrows. They one more time got what they asked for.  Of course, they continue crying and asking for more nerfs for others ships and more boost for theirs. 

Have a nice day you too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[JR-B]
Members
21 posts
1,454 battles
10 hours ago, 40902nd said:

Are you familiar with the details of compositions in MMORPGs? Or RPGs in general? I ask because I believe there is a a parallel than can be drawn, even if the current meta has moved a bit away from it.

DPS: Cruisers
Tank: Battleships
Rogue/Assassin/Burst DPS: Destroyers
Support: Carriers
Healer: Not Applicable

Feel free to disagree with my assessment, but this is based off of experience, and this has stood me in good stead.

I didn't played enough naval MMORPGs to agree or disagree with that.  In this game, may be some CV players had thought their supposed support rol was mainly to spot and kill DD's then. I'm not one of them, I've never prioritized to kill DDs because they were more difficult targets than other kind of ships. I like to play in a more opportunistic way, that's my way to play this game.  I make clear that I'm the one who manage my CV (rol) and I decide how to support the team, Never i would allow the random teammates I can find in a random or in a ranked battle to decide for me. I think CV only "support" role is extremely unrealistic but I can understand it may be needed for arcade games purposes. But this topic was about "CV rockets nerf... make them unusable for defense" and in my experience that is true: I find that rockets unusable for defense after the nerf.

  

 

10 hours ago, 40902nd said:

My view of the argument is similar to some sort of clothy class raging that they can't solo a dungeon. It's just not what they were intended to do.

This example highlights the issue I am having here: You seem intent on attacking the argument itself, and not points it makes. I will not ascribe motive at this time, but as we go on, I think I am starting to learn more about your personality. I think part of our miscommunication may be a language barrier and a difference in background. I am a computer scientist, though I have a fairly heavy physics background, as I had attempted at one time to Major in Physics (E&M convinced me otherwise). Then again, this is the internet, so do feel free to not believe me. Based off of what I have read, your background seems closer to that of a mathematician. Do feel free to correct me if you desire.

-----

Again you want to know about my background because you can't stay away from the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.  You need to determine if I'm a "false" or a "true" authority to make statements. You may be a "true" authority because you are a computer scientist who also knows a lot about physics.  But "Appeal to Authority" is a fallacy no matter if the authority is "true" or "false". Of course we are not going to begin speaking here about quantum state or trying to determine if the cat of Schrödinger is dead or alive into the cage. This is not only 0 or 1, not  only "true" or "false" (authority).

 

10 hours ago, 40902nd said:

 

Anyway, we have veered WAY off topic. This is a topic about the CV changes making rocket planes unusable for defense. I've played several games in the Ranger and only once have I been sunk by a destroyer. A number of factors had to go into that attack, too, including me misreading the situation on the map and the destroyer player sacrificing his own participation in the game in order to specifically go for the carrier assassination.

Other than that instance, I have been able to keep my carrier out of harms way until the end of a match through repositioning and by keeping spotted any threats I couldn't deal with my self. It is difficult, but not impossible, to land rockets on destroyers, but I have found success in torpedo drops and dive bombing. That is, of course, on the rate occasion that I find a destroyer moving off on it's own, something that can't be guaranteed, since I have noticed that there just haven't been a whole lot of destroyers running about, and where there are, they are usually in the mutual defense zone of other ships.

 

I agree we have gone very way off topic.  In my modest opinion and  experience,  rockets "evolve" have made them unusable for defense, specially against DDs.  But I thank you for sharing your experience about how you deal with them when attacking your CV.  I know it can be done with dive bombing, but in my experience it's a lot more difficult than it was with the rockets when they were the "not evolved" ones. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×