Rock, Paper, Scissors

[Gillhunter]

What happened to it? Seems like we had it when the game started. Where and why did it go away?

[Wolfswetpaws]

We never had "rocks, paper, scissors" in my opinion.

Each ship type can do things, but the "things" have been changed or adjusted over the course of time as the game has been updated.
Plus, we have five ship types now, instead of the four the game started with (if various posts I've read are true, which state that CV's have been in-game since the beginning).

What we've always had is a variation of "paintball".  
Every ship can damage every other ship, it's just a matter of how they do it.
Maneuvering to gain a useful position has been a core principle all along.
The maps being too small and filled with plenty of islands (except on the Ocean Map) has also been a continuous phenomena.

This game has always been about doing enough damage to sink "the other guy" while managing to remain afloat in the process.
Guns, torpedoes, bombs, rockets and ramming are all on the figurative table.  🙂 

Edited to add:  Depth-charges, too.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[Asym]

13 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

We never had "rocks, paper, scissors" in my opinion.

Each ship type can do things, but the "things" have been changed or adjusted over the course of time as the game has been updated.
Plus, we have five ship types now, instead of the four the game started with (if various posts I've read are true, which state that CV's have been in-game since the beginning).

What we've always had is a variation of "paintball".  
Every ship can damage every other ship, it's just a matter of how they do it.
Maneuvering to gain a useful position has been a core principle all along.
The maps being too small and filled with plenty of islands (except on the Ocean Map) has also been a continuous phenomena.

This game has always been about doing enough damage to sink "the other guy" while managing to remain afloat in the process.
Guns, torpedoes, bombs, rockets and ramming are all on the figurative table.  🙂 

Edited to add:  Depth-charges, too.

Correction:  three ship types and two dissimilar naval weapons systems that operate outside of LOS gunnery.

What has changed over time is the meta or battlespace mechanics.  Gimmicks to sell, i.e. homing torpedoes and Radar have driven the game to extremes....  As Update 8.0 clearly showed that AA simply wasn't sufficient, we now see that SONAR is what is needed to balance submarines.  And, the list goes on and on.

No, the sky isn't falling......but, IMO, the game isn't close to the quality it was before Update 8.0....  It simply isn't.  And, since it isn't we have a stalled population and endless clones of everything.

[Gillhunter]

Well of course we haven’t in your opinion. That must be why there were at least 20 threads on the old forum debating it. 

[ArIskandir]

Since ships still get enveloped, crushed and cut to pieces I dare say RPS is still alive and kicking 😛

#dadjoke

[Helstrem]

47 minutes ago, Gillhunter said:

Well of course we haven’t in your opinion. That must be why there were at least 20 threads on the old forum debating it. 

Cruisers didn't counter DDs originally.  DDs countered DDs.  DDs countered Cruisers.  DDs countered BBs.  BBs countered Cruisers.  BBs countered BBs.  CVs countered DDs, Cruisers and BBs.

[Jakob Knight]

In my opinion, what happened was the people complained and expected WG to change the game so they could play it as a beer-and-pretzels game instead of one requiring teamwork and in-depth commitment to excel at.

 

At launch, there were two nations, US and Japan, Destroyers were countered by Carriers, Carriers were countered by Cruisers, Cruisers were countered by Battleships, and Battleships were countered by Destroyers.  If any of those encountered their nemesis, it took alot of work to survive, and if they engaged their target shiptype, it was a pretty good chance they were going to sink it.  Ships that worked together covered their weaknesses, while ships on their own had to have players of skill to succeed.  

 

Then Battleship players complained that they should not be required to have escorts and be 'helpless' against DDs, Carrier players complained Cruisers and other Carriers were too good at stopping their attacks, everyone complained about open-water firing, complaints about maps, complaints about playing against other players.  More mechanics added, changed, removed trying to satisfy players who were complaining.  Then adding new national lines with new mechanics to make them different from what was already there and the game was designed around.  

 

After all of that, the original system was stretched, twisted, expanded, cropped, and streamlined past any point where it might be able to be what it was at the start with just two national lines meant to oppose each other.  It still exists to some extent, but unless we want to roll back all the changes since launch along with all the 'improvements', the new balance is what we have to accept is the natural result of all the changes that both players and WG have wrought upon it.

 

[Helstrem]

34 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

At launch, there were two nations, US and Japan, Destroyers were countered by Carriers, Carriers were countered by Cruisers, Cruisers were countered by Battleships, and Battleships were countered by Destroyers.  If any of those encountered their nemesis, it took alot of work to survive, and if they engaged their target shiptype, it was a pretty good chance they were going to sink it.  Ships that worked together covered their weaknesses, while ships on their own had to have players of skill to succeed.  

This is not accurate in my recollection of how the game actually played at release.

Nothing countered CVs.  CVs were rare, perhaps one match in ten had CVs.  DDs ran rampant with nothing to counter them other than fellow DDs.  Torpedo nerfs happened and radar was introduced.  DD players have been demanding the reversion of the torpedo nerfs and the neutering of radar ever since.

[Sailor_Moon]

3 hours ago, Gillhunter said:

What happened to it? Seems like we had it when the game started. Where and why did it go away?

It has devolved into "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Shotgun, Nuke" 😛

But half-joke aside, yes....the initial Wargaming approach to ship type balance seemed to be something like this:

Battleships are great against cruisers, but weak to destroyers.

Cruisers are great against destroyers, but weak to battleships.

Destroyers are great against battleships, but weak to cruisers.

But really, that has long since changed, imo, since CVs and subs exist. (Yes, CVs were there at the beginning of the game, but even then the balance was...unique and didn't really play well with the "Holy Trinity"-esque balancing method)

As for categorizing the "unique ship types":

Carriers are.....uhhhh...I don't know, tbh. I GUESS they're technically great against everything but also technically weak to everything (in terms of gunfire against CV hull)?

And with the addition of subs, I guess that's another ship type that is "technically" good against everything but also "technically" weak against everything?

I honestly don't know HOW to grade them in regards to what they're strong or weak against (in general). :S

[Sailor_Moon]

46 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

Destroyers were countered by Carriers, Carriers were countered by Cruisers, Cruisers were countered by Battleships, and Battleships were countered by Destroyers.

I feel like this isn't fully correct. Destroyers were always countered by cruisers to my knowledge, which would in turn be countered by battleships. And I guess battleships would be logically countered by carriers (although destroyers are supposed to be their primary counter? Which is weird then)....which would make carriers counterable by destroyers...

Subs, I honestly have NO clue where to place them in this "food chain".

[Jakob Knight]

2 hours ago, Helstrem said:

This is not accurate in my recollection of how the game actually played at release.

Nothing countered CVs.  CVs were rare, perhaps one match in ten had CVs.  DDs ran rampant with nothing to counter them other than fellow DDs.  Torpedo nerfs happened and radar was introduced.  DD players have been demanding the reversion of the torpedo nerfs and the neutering of radar ever since.

 

CVs regularly had their attacks blunted or outright stopped cold by Cruisers, some of which became known as 'no fly zones' even for a T10 CV.  Built for the task, a ship like the Des Moines or Atlanta were the ships CVs hated most to see.  The interaction with them and Air Superiority CVs was a major complaint by CV players right up to the Rework, and the reason for the changes to CV loadout and AAA mechanics prior to that.

 

DDs were countered by CVs and were helpless to prevent being spotted and cross-dropped on.  The only reason DDs did not regularly end up sunk early in battles were that CVs were much rarer in those days and required more skill to use.  The torpedo nerfs were largely the result of complaints by lazy BB players, while radar was a result of complaints that Cruisers couldn't hunt DDs down (mainly because of the erroneous assumption they were supposed to).  Radar became needed because of the lack of CVs and the general inability or unwillingness of BB players to stick with their escorts (or vice versa).

 

1 hour ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I feel like this isn't fully correct. Destroyers were always countered by cruisers to my knowledge, which would in turn be countered by battleships. And I guess battleships would be logically countered by carriers (although destroyers are supposed to be their primary counter? Which is weird then)....which would make carriers counterable by destroyers...

Subs, I honestly have NO clue where to place them in this "food chain".

 

Actually, Cruisers were intended as air defense units, which is why almost all of them had the Defensive Fire consumable at the start.  DDs were the worst unit to go after a CV with due to their low AA ability, loss of concealment, and vulnerability to being cross dropped.  A BB could shoot down some planes and a Cruiser shred them out of existence, and neither was as damaged by being spotted by planes than the DDs were.  

 

By the time Subs were introduced, any semblance of the old system was long gone, and the complexity of the game wouldn't allow for it.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[IfYouSeeKhaos]

4 hours ago, Gillhunter said:

What happened to it? Seems like we had it when the game started. Where and why did it go away?

 

30 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

It has devolved into "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Shotgun, Nuke" 😛

Well... disregarding the Shotgun/Nuke (aka sticking with just the main 3)...

All the originals now have braches that counter their counters...

Cruisers used to be required to hydro for BBs so the DDs couldn't get them...

Now the BBs not only have their own hydro but also torps & speed & maneuverability (for those that run those lines at full speed that is...as opposed to parking behind islands) & can hunt DDs easier than DDs can hunt them in some cases.

Cruisers have some DDs that can out gun them now with their own hydro (& in a few cases even radar) & (in 1 line) mechanics that allow them to saturate & take no damage after a point while reigning fire (& even effective AP salvos to their broadsides)...all while...in most (but not all) cases..still being able to smoke.

& we now have cruisers that can stand toe to toe with a BB because their armor is up to par for it not to mention their guns can cit the BB just the same as the reverse.

Basically every consumable (&/or special mechanic) that used to be exclusive to a specific ship type (with rare exceptions) are now scattered amongst every ship type with relative frequency.

So...short answer to your question...

Power creep.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Gillhunter said:

Well of course we haven’t in your opinion. That must be why there were at least 20 threads on the old forum debating it. 

And I support your right to have your opinion.  🙂 

[Sailor_Moon]

1 hour ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

 

Well... disregarding the Shotgun/Nuke (aka sticking with just the main 3)...

All the originals now have braches that counter their counters...

Cruisers used to be required to hydro for BBs so the DDs couldn't get them...

Now the BBs not only have their own hydro but also torps & speed & maneuverability (for those that run those lines at full speed that is...as opposed to parking behind islands) & can hunt DDs easier than DDs can hunt them in some cases.

Cruisers have some DDs that can out gun them now with their own hydro (& in a few cases even radar) & (in 1 line) mechanics that allow them to saturate & take no damage after a point while reigning fire (& even effective AP salvos to their broadsides)...all while...in most (but not all) cases..still being able to smoke.

& we now have cruisers that can stand toe to toe with a BB because their armor is up to par for it not to mention their guns can cit the BB just the same as the reverse.

Basically every consumable (&/or special mechanic) that used to be exclusive to a specific ship type (with rare exceptions) are now scattered amongst every ship type with relative frequency.

So...short answer to your question...

Power creep.

Wargaming's quest to make every ship available with a "unique" playstyle is probably the root cause though for why ship types have deviated so much from their initial strengths and weaknesses. Which led to said "powercreep". Not saying unique playstyles for every ship is necessarily a bad idea, though. However, unique playstyle at the cost of fun factor is questionable at best...

[Sailor_Moon]

1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

Actually, Cruisers were intended as air defense units, which is why almost all of them had the Defensive Fire consumable at the start. 

....Ouch.

Poor cruisers. That aspect of theirs aged poorly, to say the least. Well, for the vast majority of cruisers, anyways. There are very select options for cruisers specializing in AA....

1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

By the time Subs were introduced, any semblance of the old system was long gone, and the complexity of the game wouldn't allow for it.

Pretty much, yep. :S

[Jakob Knight]

1 hour ago, Sailor_Moon said:

....Ouch.

Poor cruisers. That aspect of theirs aged poorly, to say the least. Well, for the vast majority of cruisers, anyways. There are very select options for cruisers specializing in AA..

 

Yeah.  I didn't mind a lot of the aspects of the CV Rework, but the crippling of Cruisers in their primary role in the game and the fortifying of BBs into that role really stung me.  The one job where Cruisers shone was kicked out from under them, and left the whole ship type with little to do but set BBs on fire.

 

 

 

[Gillhunter]

16 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

In my opinion, what happened was the people complained and expected WG to change the game so they could play it as a beer-and-pretzels game instead of one requiring teamwork and in-depth commitment to excel at.

 

At launch, there were two nations, US and Japan, Destroyers were countered by Carriers, Carriers were countered by Cruisers, Cruisers were countered by Battleships, and Battleships were countered by Destroyers.  If any of those encountered their nemesis, it took alot of work to survive, and if they engaged their target shiptype, it was a pretty good chance they were going to sink it.  Ships that worked together covered their weaknesses, while ships on their own had to have players of skill to succeed.  

 

Then Battleship players complained that they should not be required to have escorts and be 'helpless' against DDs, Carrier players complained Cruisers and other Carriers were too good at stopping their attacks, everyone complained about open-water firing, complaints about maps, complaints about playing against other players.  More mechanics added, changed, removed trying to satisfy players who were complaining.  Then adding new national lines with new mechanics to make them different from what was already there and the game was designed around.  

 

After all of that, the original system was stretched, twisted, expanded, cropped, and streamlined past any point where it might be able to be what it was at the start with just two national lines meant to oppose each other.  It still exists to some extent, but unless we want to roll back all the changes since launch along with all the 'improvements', the new balance is what we have to accept is the natural result of all the changes that both players and WG have wrought upon it.

 

I guess the old saying applies. "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it."

[MBT808]

11 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

Yeah.  I didn't mind a lot of the aspects of the CV Rework, but the crippling of Cruisers in their primary role in the game and the fortifying of BBs into that role really stung me.  The one job where Cruisers shone was kicked out from under them, and left the whole ship type with little to do but set BBs on fire.

 

 

 

Well… BBs didn’t fair much better to be fair. BBs got shafted objectively harder than cruisers by significant margin in the AA department. DDs arguably actually became better AA platforms than cruisers though. Some of the best “AA” ships are DDs.

though even then, they often don’t impact things much. A determined CV can still carry out multiple strikes even against full AA spec on the best of AA on surface ships.

[Jakob Knight]

39 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

Well… BBs didn’t fair much better to be fair. BBs got shafted objectively harder than cruisers by significant margin in the AA department. DDs arguably actually became better AA platforms than cruisers though. Some of the best “AA” ships are DDs.

though even then, they often don’t impact things much. A determined CV can still carry out multiple strikes even against full AA spec on the best of AA on surface ships.

 

Actually, a lot of BBs became AA fortresses, with significant advantages over Cruisers in their ability to down planes.  The reason this wasn't apparent was the change to how AA damaged planes and the focus on allowing CVs to always get some damage through.  No ship felt as good as they did before the change, though BBs fared better than other ships in this regard.

 

 

[Sailor_Moon]

4 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

Actually, a lot of BBs became AA fortresses, with significant advantages over Cruisers in their ability to down planes.

Uhhhh, no, Cruisers still have innately better AA (50%(stock)/75%(upgraded) Sector Reinforcement bonuses vs battleships' 35%/60% bonuses)  than ANY battleship right now. Where are you getting this info? Even some DDs (Halland for example) have better AA than most BBs, primarily due to not only high AA ratings, but also higher Hit Probability modifiers...which leads to higher continuous AA damage output.

However, you're not entirely wrong. I agree that the AA changes made AA power feel like garbage across the board. Whether it's 15 planes shot down or 30 planes, it doesn't feel any better, especially when you still get sunk by said CV regardless. (happened in 1v1 Tier VIII Brawl against Kaga, twice. Once in my Bismarck (low AA), and once in my Massachusetts (high-ish AA). The outcome was basically the same.)

[Jakob Knight]

16 minutes ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Uhhhh, no, Cruisers still have innately better AA (50%(stock)/75%(upgraded) Sector Reinforcement bonuses vs battleships' 35%/60% bonuses)  than ANY battleship right now. Where are you getting this info? Even some DDs (Halland for example) have better AA than most BBs, primarily due to not only high AA ratings, but also higher Hit Probability modifiers...which leads to higher continuous AA damage output.

However, you're not entirely wrong. I agree that the AA changes made AA power feel like garbage across the board. Whether it's 15 planes shot down or 30 planes, it doesn't feel any better, especially when you still get sunk by said CV regardless. (happened in 1v1 Tier VIII Brawl against Kaga, twice. Once in my Bismarck (low AA), and once in my Massachusetts (high-ish AA). The outcome was basically the same.)

 

Remember, I was talking at the time of the Rework, before heavy AA DDs became a thing (Kidd was the only one I believe, maybe also the IJN gunboat line).  Even so, compare number of explosions and base damage, which I believe come about from the number of AA mounts.  The bonus from Sector Reinforcement is an adjustment that came about after WG decided to throw a bone to the ship type that used to make CVs shake in their boots until the Rework.

 

As it is, I'm not sure if a Des Moines performs as well as Montana in downing planes, whereas before the Rework, there was no question which one would ruin a CV's day.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[Wolfswetpaws]

🍿