Jump to content

Massive double standards?


Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, Dareios said:

and by your own admission you dont play either subs or CVs thus I contend you have minimal experience about the presumed no counter play.

I am also a DD main, but even driving cruisers and BBs I find outside of the spotting possibilities that there is a plethora of counter play against both classes. 

 

Except none of that is counterplay. it is avoidance, is mitigation but counterplay...is not.

Counterplay includes, at the very least, the ability to inflict some damage. Even shooting down some planes isn't counterplay. Moreso, only a handful of  ships have the means  to attempt (!!) to counterplay Cv's. So... nope.

Double standard does exist, but not regarding surface ships. There is no honest, valid argument that can be made in defense of Cv's. Zero, zilch, nada. Wedgie made sure of that.

 

  • Like 1
  • Bored 1
Posted
6 hours ago, MnemonScarlet said:

They already are, and for game balance's sake, yes. The planes just have an incomparable speed and terrain ignoring advantage - the map is just a flat plane to them that they simply traverse in straight lines at speeds no other unit can match.

You mean the planes are still faster than the subs?

 

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Except none of that is counterplay. it is avoidance, is mitigation but counterplay...is not.

Counterplay includes, at the very least, the ability to inflict some damage. Even shooting down some planes isn't counterplay. Moreso, only a handful of  ships have the means  to attempt (!!) to counterplay Cv's. So... nope.

Double standard does exist, but not regarding surface ships. There is no honest, valid argument that can be made in defense of Cv's. Zero, zilch, nada. Wedgie made sure of that.

 

TBH, the only counterplay to planes are planes. AA is never going to completely do it, not even in the good old days before the CV screwup in 2019. It was only limited counterplay, but yes, even that was more than what WG lets us have now.

 

5 hours ago, Chobittsu said:

You're basically sitting there between shots and most of them are gonna miss anyway.

But ... that's me playing WoWS....image.gif.a203df35bf6067e74f39a8fa07a75d2c.gif

  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Except none of that is counterplay. it is avoidance, is mitigation but counterplay...is not.

Counterplay includes, at the very least, the ability to inflict some damage. Even shooting down some planes isn't counterplay. Moreso, only a handful of  ships have the means  to attempt (!!) to counterplay Cv's. So... nope.

Double standard does exist, but not regarding surface ships. There is no honest, valid argument that can be made in defense of Cv's. Zero, zilch, nada. Wedgie made sure of that.

 

 

Actually, counterplay is any action a player may take to reduce or mitigate actions taken against them by another player.  If a Battleship turns to avoid torpedoes, draws out a Sub to places where it cannot win the game for its team, and/or uses its DCP to void homing torpedoes such that they miss, all are counterplay actions despite doing no damage in return.

 

I think the proper term you meant was 'counterattack'.

 

 

Edited by Jakob Knight
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

Actually, counterplay is any action a player may take to reduce or mitigate actions taken against them by another player.  If a Battleship turns to avoid torpedoes, draws out a Sub to places where it cannot win the game for its team, and/or uses its DCP to void homing torpedoes such that they miss, all are counterplay actions despite doing no damage in return.

 

I think the proper term you meant was 'counterattack'.

 

 

That's a good point. However still no 🙂 . AA is automated, not player aimed. And all of what you have described contains the possibility that the targeted player to actively seek to inflict damage.  Meaning, initiating an action with possible meaningful result . Whereupon, against Cv's that's not possible.

I will give you an example of counterplay, me - Cleve,( actually Helena) Cv - Ranger. He was flying around and I saw him sorta  coming, tho he didn't see me  (island). Prepared a bit myself ( turned a bit to bring AA to bear, pushed DFAA when   he was close, with finger on sector reinforcement) and when he cleared the ridge... boom, surprise mothertrucker 🙂 . But that was possible only because there was a tier difference. If the Cv would have been of equal tier, no way in hell I would have waited him broadside, motionless in a CL, even if  "supposedly" an AA one.

The Cv always have  the initiative ( because of the different  playstyle), no matter what and if all things equal....there is no possibility of counterplay. Except if sailing in a (very) few select ships.

 

Counterattack, in wows context, is counterpush.

Edited by Andrewbassg
Posted
59 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

Actually, counterplay is any action a player may take to reduce or mitigate actions taken against them by another player.  If a Battleship turns to avoid torpedoes, draws out a Sub to places where it cannot win the game for its team, and/or uses its DCP to void homing torpedoes such that they miss, all are counterplay actions despite doing no damage in return.

 

I think the proper term you meant was 'counterattack'.

 

 

I always say 'effective counterplay' myself which is what we mostly seem to be lacking in WoWS when it comes to attacks launched by a couple of specific vessel classes in World of Warships which I refrain from pointing out specifically.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

TBH, the only counterplay to planes are planes. AA is never going to completely do it, not even in the good old days before the CV screwup in 2019. It was only limited counterplay, but yes, even that was more than what WG lets us have now.

Amen.

 

1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

Actually, counterplay is any action a player may take to reduce or mitigate actions taken against them by another player. 

No. This is wrong.

Counterplay has a specific definition in the gaming world.

What you describe is damage mitigation, NOT counterplay.

Counterplay to planes is a completely dynamic set of fighters that can go anywhere on the map and pursue enemy strike planes...

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

 

 

No. This is wrong.

Counterplay has a specific definition in the gaming world.

What you describe is damage mitigation, NOT counterplay.

Counterplay to planes is a completely dynamic set of fighters that can go anywhere on the map and pursue enemy strike planes...

 

Er...no, i'm afraid you've got your terms wrong if you are talking gaming world terms.

 

Damage mitigation is how you reduce damage you are taking from a successful attack you have been hit from.  Damage reduction, damage immunity, and combat healing are the usual means this is accomplished.  The point of damage mitigation is to employ abilities or attributes to lessen damage that has been applied.

 

Counterplay, on the other hand, are actions a player can take to nullify or modify the actions of another player, regardless of if an attack would hit or not, or to make an attack that would be stopped by a player's defenses succeed instead. 

 

As an example, if an AAA ship activates their Defensive Fire AA consumable, the CV player can take counterplay actions such as delaying the attack until the consumable expires.  When the CV hits the ship with a torpedo, damage mitigation takes place when the damage of the torpedo is reduced by the target's Damage Reduction, but this is not a counterplay on the part of the target player.  Similarly, if the target ship turns and the torpedo instead misses, the target player has engaged counterplay, but not damage mitigation because there was no damage applied to mitigate, only actions taken to nullify the action of the attacking player.

 

To sum up, in the gaming world, damage mitigation is about changing damage already taken (specifically reducing damage), while counterplay is about actions taken to counter another player.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jakob Knight
Posted
1 hour ago, Jakob Knight said:

while counterplay is about actions taken to counter another player.

 

Aand you've said the truth 14728F2B-B3A1-4254-850F-95D0D4BC5353.gif.

 

Posted
On 10/3/2023 at 11:06 AM, Jakob Knight said:

 

Er...what 'naval history' do you speak of?  The one where the Soviet Navy has Carriers, the United States went big into Hybrid Battleships and continued to produce Standard Battleships, China combined with India and Indonesia to make a combined Navy, and every ship from WWI upwards had an NTDS datalink system?  That history?

 

 

Maybe you should re-read that sentence.

Posted
1 hour ago, Crokodone said:

Maybe you should re-read that sentence.

 

I'm sorry.  Do you mean my reply to your sentence, or your sentence?

 

As I believe your sentence was:  

 

"That's why WG closed the Official forums down. Regardless of all it's treasures and living and deceased sponsors (some from that era.) WG over catered to a group of not so good people. They're not called "DD Maria" out of tongue and cheek; they're very real and out to change Naval history by every means necessary."

 

I don't see where the reply is in any way out of order to the sentence(s) it was posted in relation to, nor that there is anything in the original post that would cause confusion with the reply.  I asked for clarification as to which Naval History you were referring to in your post.

 

 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I'm sorry.  Do you mean my reply to your sentence, or your sentence?

 

As I believe your sentence was:  

 

"That's why WG closed the Official forums down. Regardless of all it's treasures and living and deceased sponsors (some from that era.) WG over catered to a group of not so good people. They're not called "DD Maria" out of tongue and cheek; they're very real and out to change Naval history by every means necessary."

 

I don't see where the reply is in any way out of order to the sentence(s) it was posted in relation to, nor that there is anything in the original post that would cause confusion with the reply.  I asked for clarification as to which Naval History you were referring to in your post.

 

 

When older players refer to "Historical/history" they're referring to capabilities of that ship, not a reenactment or s sandbox simulation mode: very easy to see. It is also the catalyst for outrage for the community towards the one and only DD Mafia and their Quadruple standards that got the official forums dumped by WG in the first place. 

It's nothing personal. But untill Submarines, USN and IJn ships were the only ships held mostly to Historical parameters and it got players, including myself hooked. However, pondering to special interest groups have soiled the litter. It's common sense really.

Edited by Crokodone
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

When older players refer to "Historical/history" they're referring to capabilities of that ship, not a reenactment or s sandbox simulation mode: very easy to see. It is also the catalyst for outrage for the community towards the one and only DD Mafia and their Quadruple standards that got the official forums dumped by WG in the first place. 

It's nothing personal. But untill Submarines, USN and IJn ships were the only ships held mostly to Historical parameters and it got players, including myself hooked. However, pondering to special interest groups have soiled the litter. It's common sense really.

 

Uhhh....okay.  I suppose that's your version of common sense.

 

In what you just said, you seem to contradict yourself.  On the one hand, you say that when players refer to 'historical/history', they are referring to the capabilities of that ship, specifically as they exist in the game and not in relationship to actual history ('not a reenactment or sandbox simulation mode').  Note that this is Game History, and not Naval History, as nothing about this game will be found in the annals of any Navy History publication.

 

However, then you state that USN and IJN were the only ships held mostly to Historical parameters, and that would seem to indicate you define 'historical/history' as referring to their actual capabilities and characteristics in real world Naval History, and not specifically as they exist in the game (since both lines have received similar changes and updates to other lines over the course of the game's lifetime, they have not been held to their game history parameters any more than any other line, if not less).

 

So, I'm still confused as to what history you are referring to here.  It seems anything but common sense to me from what you have stated.

 

  • Confused 1
  • Bored 2
Posted
12 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Aand you've said the truth 14728F2B-B3A1-4254-850F-95D0D4BC5353.gif.

 

mm yes, the floor is made of floor.

That's the approximate value of what you quoted.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Verytis said:

mm yes, the floor is made of floor.

That's the approximate value of what you quoted.

Yes. And in the context, he made my point  🙂 .

Edit: ( he defined what "generally" counterplay is. However no one can counter a Cv. Countering a player and countering a player's actions.... are two very different things)

Edit2: lemme elaborate on this a bit further. Radar ships counters dd's ( coz act as a deterrent) also Cv's counter individual action  (again, deterrent). THAT'S what countering a player is. In this context who can counter a Cv? Yep.  🙂

 

Edited by Andrewbassg
Posted
28 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yes. And in the context, he made my point  🙂 .

( he deifined what "generally" counterplay is. However no one can counter a Cv. Countering a player and countering a player's actions.... are two very different things)

In that case, let me make an argument.

If you put me in my Mino against any CV except Malta in a 1v1 brawl, I will win the majority of matches.

I can probably also do it in a few others like UU Worcester, but I haven't personally tested.

It's usually not the CV stopping me from running him over, it's you guys in your BBs and CAs looking for a kill. But that is where teamplay comes in.

You have to stop looking at it from a 1v1 perspective. In a CV ranked game, what an AA CL aims to do is  reduce pressure on important friendlies by escorting them while providing some long range fire support. At the same time, your own CV needs to capitalise on the opponent's weaker AA and manoeuvrability so that you can later counterattack with a hp advantage as the game progresses.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Verytis said:

In that case, let me make an argument.

If you put me in my Mino against any CV except Malta in a 1v1 brawl, I will win the majority of matches.

I can probably also do it in a few others like UU Worcester, but I haven't personally tested.

 

Oh .....nice x2.

But we are having a discussion about a class and its capabilities. Which requires an objective,  fact based approach. Individual performance is .... subjective, right? To be clear I'm not contesting what you are saying but I'm saying that in this context is... a bit tangential. 

Now, i'm 100% for sharing one's experience, because people can learn from it and that's a good thing. Still, two things you, brought up 2 T10's and.....there are quite a few ships, across many tiers. I never said that there are no ships that can inflict pain on the cv. And ..... El2Azer exists  🙂

 

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

You have to stop looking at it from a 1v1 perspective.

I don't. However I do look at this from a PvP perspective coz is mandatory. And counterplay is singular, because it concerns and refers to the agency of one. What one can do.

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

In a CV ranked game, what an AA CL aims to do is  reduce pressure on important friendlies by escorting them while providing some long range fire support. At the same time, your own CV needs to capitalise on the opponent's weaker AA and manoeuvrability so that you can later counterattack with a hp advantage as the game progresses.

 

Those are good advices, but we need to remember that the objective is not about or the Cv. Especially in ranked. There is much more to do.

Posted

To clarify, in imitation of the real world, ships ought to have counter measures made available them, engaging said counter measures for game play purposes is what I would call counterplay.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yes. And in the context, he made my point  🙂 .

Edit: ( he defined what "generally" counterplay is. However no one can counter a Cv. Countering a player and countering a player's actions.... are two very different things)

Edit2: lemme elaborate on this a bit further. Radar ships counters dd's ( coz act as a deterrent) also Cv's counter individual action  (again, deterrent). THAT'S what countering a player is. In this context who can counter a Cv? Yep.  🙂

 

 

Technically, all I was doing was defining why an incorrect application of terms was so.  Yes, it's kind of self-evident, but that's the world we live in these days.

 

In regards to countering a player and countering a player's actions, no one can counter a player.  In your example, Radar ships can make things difficult for the DD, but the DD player can still choose to press the attack.  No one can stop them from choosing to do so, which usually results in yolo outcomes, but I think almost every veteran player can remember times when they have lit off Radar, detected a DD, and no one has fired on it or altered their course and been hit by torpedoes.  No one countered either the player or their actions, and the results were bad.  Had they sunk the DD and/or evaded the torpedoes, they would have countered the player's actions (hense, counterplay), but not countered the player's decisions ("Belay that, Captain!  You will -not- advance on the enemy!" does not work in this game).

 

In regards to CVs, I agree that counterplays are probably the fewest in the game, both for and against them.  Very little can stop a CV from attacking targets successfully, and there is very little a CV can do to stop from being sunk when they do get engaged by another target.  Counterplay seems to be something left out of the CV gameplay equation, though I'm not certain players would accept insertion of CVs able to counter direct attack on themselves at the price of being able to counter the CVs attacks (say, have the CV be able to put up a limited-time deflector shield in return for the CV's planes being locked onto an attack course longer than current, allowing evasive action).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jakob Knight
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

What one can do.

Quote
  • [the Marines are all hard at work, preparing for the drop] 

    Ripley : Hey, I feel like kind of a fifth wheel around here. Is there anything I can do?

    Sergeant Apone : I don't know, is there anything you can do?

    Ripley : ...Well, I can drive that loader. I have a Class-2 rating.

    Sergeant Apone : Be my guest.

    [Ripley mounts the second loader, activates it, then casually drives it to pick up a cargo container] 

    Ripley : [nonchalantly]  Where do you want it?

    [Hicks grins, and Apone booms with laughter] 

    Sergeant Apone : Bay Twelve, please.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    From the movie "Aliens" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

To clarify, in imitation of the real world, ships ought to have counter measures made available them, engaging said counter measures for game play purposes is what I would call counterplay.

I play all ship types.
The first "counter play" that every ship can perform versus ad CV is called "maneuver".
Wiggle dat aft, yo!
Make an appropriate turn and/or increase or decrease speed to avoid being hit or at least minimize the number of hits taken from a rocket/bomb/torpedo attack.

Of course, situational awareness is needed (to observe red-team planes near your ship) and judgement calls are frequent (do I turn port/starboard?  will this expose my broadside to the opponent?  and etc & etc.).

As Mister Miyagi say, "Best block, no be there."

We maneuver to avoid main-gun projectiles.  And we can maneuver to minimize the threat of aerial ordnance.

But, all too often, some players expect that AA will swat entire squadrons from the sky before they can perform an attack.
Sometimes that actually happens, too.
But, more to the point, why is AA expected to be a magic shield when it cannot do the same for projectiles?
Why do some players accept that maneuver is expected to avoid main-gun projectiles yet not accept that aerial attacks require some effort as well?

Why do some players accept that some gun hits may happen but not accept that aerial hits may happen?
Gee, talk about a "double standard", eh?

Positioning, maneuver and situational awareness are essential.

If I'm in my HSF Harekaze and daring a CV's planes to focus on me in 'all-chat', I'm hoping to shoot down some planes and (more importantly) distract the CV from focusing on my team-mates.
I don't do it all the time, and I may get sunk from all the red-team's attentions, but that's an example of play/counter-play.

The difference between an AP bomb miss or an over-pen compared with a citadel hit is substantial.
WASD can make a difference and help one's ship stay afloat longer, on average, than no WASD effort.

Is it *perfect*?  No, of course not.
RNG and player behavior are factors in aerial attacks, just as with main-gun attacks.
The "double standard" is in some player's expectations, though.

Based upon my research, AA within World of Warships is more effective than AA in the Pacific during WW-II.
But, some player's expectations haven't caught-up with that.

All that being said, WOWs is more of an arcade game than a simulation.
Time compression, distance and other phenomena have been studied by others in the past.
This game literally distorts reality in order to make it easier for a player to "pew pew pew" and have fun.
I hope people can learn to accept that.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The first "counter play" that every ship can perform versus ad CV is called "maneuver".
Wiggle dat aft, yo!
Make an appropriate turn and/or increase or decrease speed to avoid being hit or at least minimize the number of hits taken from a rocket/bomb/torpedo attack.

Just mitigation. Good CV captains will still hit you...his planes are more maneuverable than your ship.

13 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Of course, situational awareness is needed (to observe red-team planes near your ship) and judgement calls are frequent (do I turn port/starboard?  will this expose my broadside to the opponent?  and etc & etc.).

As Mister Miyagi say, "Best block, no be there."

CV has the power to move your ship to where he wants it to be. His planes are faster and he controls vision, not you.

15 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

If I'm in my HSF Harekaze and daring a CV's planes to focus on me in 'all-chat', I'm hoping to shoot down some planes and (more importantly) distract the CV from focusing on my team-mates.
I don't do it all the time, and I may get sunk from all the red-team's attentions, but that's an example of play/counter-play.

This is an example of skill imbalance...with equally competent captains, the CV wins that battle every time.

16 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Based upon my research, AA within World of Warships is more effective than AA in the Pacific during WW-II.
But, some player's expectations haven't caught-up with that.

Fleet air defense in WW2 was PRIMARILY provided by friendly fighters. AA guns were a last ditch effort to mitigate damage.

We used to have actual fleet air defense in world of Warships, when our friendly carriers could provide actual air superiority.

THAT is what people are missing and want.

Posted
2 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

In regards to CVs, I agree that counterplays are probably the fewest in the game, both for and against them.  Very little can stop a CV from attacking targets successfully, and there is very little a CV can do to stop from being sunk when they do get engaged by another target.  Counterplay seems to be something left out of the CV gameplay equation, though I'm not certain players would accept insertion of CVs able to counter direct attack on themselves at the price of being able to counter the CVs attacks (say, have the CV be able to put up a limited-time deflector shield in return for the CV's planes being locked onto an attack course longer than current, allowing evasive action).

WG/WOWs CV re-work took away the best option, manually instructed fighter planes shooting-down opponent's planes.

Getting into "furballs" or "dogfights" was how CV's gained or lost "air superiority" in the RTS CV era.

Assuming, of course, that one's CV wasn't sunk by an opponent's strike-package slinking along the map-border to avoid detection and then perform a simultaneous attack with everything (while one's planes were too far away to return and defend one's CV).

Gaining control of the aerial spotting meant that one's team could out-spot the other team and fire upon targets of opportunity.
Vision control remains important, even since the re-work.

Posted
2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

But we are having a discussion about a class and its capabilities. Which requires an objective,  fact based approach. Individual performance is .... subjective, right? To be clear I'm not contesting what you are saying but I'm saying that in this context is... a bit tangential. 

My intention was to use an example to describe a class's capabilities and my options for meaningfully affecting the outcome of a given match. I'm sure you too have referenced individual performances at times.

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

I don't. However I do look at this from a PvP perspective coz is mandatory. And counterplay is singular, because it concerns and refers to the agency of one. What one can do.

The agency in my example is me just running up to the CV and kill him.

The CV's agency is force me to perform evasion/mitigation to delay my approach, and hopefully outlast me while doing so.

 

Simply having the means to negate or mitigate an opponent's actions, can allow the necessary time for your teammates to perform actions elsewhere. You mitigate their attack, while your teammate makes a play elsewhere. This is what I meant by teamplay.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

We used to have actual fleet air defense in world of Warships, when our friendly carriers could provide actual air superiority.

THAT is what people are missing and want.

Even during the RTS CV era, a CV that was set-up for more bomber & torpedo squadrons than fighters could be overwhelmed by a CV that was set-up with more fighters than bomber & torpedo squadrons.

Since the re-work, the CV vs. CV equation was drastically altered.
And it was the complaints of various players that were, in my understanding, responsible.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth eventually gained WG/WOWs developer's attention.
And they "did something".

It's not impossible to "de-plane" a CV, nowadays.  But it is less likely.
The re-work reduced the alpha-strike of CV's, and the trade-off was plane "regeneration".

Unless you are the player of a CV, you don't get to control it and/or its squadrons.
Just as with any other team-mate, you can ask nicely for cooperation.

The unrealistic expecation that a CV can be deploying fighters over every team-mate's ship for the entire duration of a match is what some people still persist in maitaining as an ideal situation.
Such expectations reveal a lack of understanding about CV's actual in-game capabilities.  🙂 
 

Posted
37 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I play all ship types.
The first "counter play" that every ship can perform versus ad CV is called "maneuver".
Wiggle dat aft, yo!
Make an appropriate turn and/or increase or decrease speed to avoid being hit or at least minimize the number of hits taken from a rocket/bomb/torpedo attack.

Of course, situational awareness is needed (to observe red-team planes near your ship) and judgement calls are frequent (do I turn port/starboard?  will this expose my broadside to the opponent?  and etc & etc.).

As Mister Miyagi say, "Best block, no be there."

We maneuver to avoid main-gun projectiles.  And we can maneuver to minimize the threat of aerial ordnance.

But, all too often, some players expect that AA will swat entire squadrons from the sky before they can perform an attack.
Sometimes that actually happens, too.
But, more to the point, why is AA expected to be a magic shield when it cannot do the same for projectiles?
Why do some players accept that maneuver is expected to avoid main-gun projectiles yet not accept that aerial attacks require some effort as well?

Why do some players accept that some gun hits may happen but not accept that aerial hits may happen?
Gee, talk about a "double standard", eh?

Positioning, maneuver and situational awareness are essential.

If I'm in my HSF Harekaze and daring a CV's planes to focus on me in 'all-chat', I'm hoping to shoot down some planes and (more importantly) distract the CV from focusing on my team-mates.
I don't do it all the time, and I may get sunk from all the red-team's attentions, but that's an example of play/counter-play.

The difference between an AP bomb miss or an over-pen compared with a citadel hit is substantial.
WASD can make a difference and help one's ship stay afloat longer, on average, than no WASD effort.

Is it *perfect*?  No, of course not.
RNG and player behavior are factors in aerial attacks, just as with main-gun attacks.
The "double standard" is in some player's expectations, though.

Based upon my research, AA within World of Warships is more effective than AA in the Pacific during WW-II.
But, some player's expectations haven't caught-up with that.

All that being said, WOWs is more of an arcade game than a simulation.
Time compression, distance and other phenomena have been studied by others in the past.
This game literally distorts reality in order to make it easier for a player to "pew pew pew" and have fun.
I hope people can learn to accept that.

It may be more effective than in the real war, but in the real war the planes just didn't keep coming back like they do in WoWS either.

Maybe that's... balanced, in a way, I don't know.

Okay, for game purposes it's probably a good idea to 'distort reality' to allow players to have fun, even MicroProse simulations probably and extremely likely did that, though they did it better too, although opinions may vary on that.... But... what I don't get it is what is the rationale behind distorting reality to make the game suck for the players? WG logic much?

 

6 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Since the re-work, the CV vs. CV equation was drastically altered.
And it was the complaints of various players that were, in my understanding, responsible.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth eventually gained WG/WOWs developer's attention.
And they "did something".

Well, it was a major screwup is how I look at it. CV's should be the prime target, and CV's should seek to target and primarily attack each other because the CV's represent the strongest and most potent strike capability in any fleet.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

It may be more effective than in the real war, but in the real war the planes just didn't keep coming back like they do in WoWS either.

Maybe that's... balanced, in a way, I don't know.

Okay, for game purposes it's probably a good idea to 'distort reality' to allow players to have fun, even MicroProse simulations probably and extremely likely did that, though they did it better too, although opinions may vary on that.... But... what I don't get it is what is the rationale behind distorting reality to make the game suck for the players? WG logic much?

Pretend, for a moment, that you didn't write the words above, and that someone else did.  ^^^^

What notion do you think that the hypothetical other person is hugging so tightly in their mind?
That the game conform to reality enough to qualify as a simulation?

Because, if that is the case, then that is the attachment which the hypothetical person may need to leg go of.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Real war is different.  You're correct about that.
Each warring nation's militaries fought with what they had available at the moment.
Often, with incomplete information regarding their opponent's location and strength.

This game provides a complete roster of each team's players & ships.
The ships can be researched via the wiki-pages and other sources.
And the maps are available to be studied while not in a battle, too.
That's a huge treasure trove of intel data.

An actual simulation would have more "fog of war" and require a huge amount of time to play.
Months/weeks/days/hours of boredom punctuated by moments of life-or-death struggle.
Unless one is really an afficionado of logistics, it wouldn't be as "fun" to play.  🙂 

There are no actual casualties in WOWs.  The game waves a magic wand and our ships are ready for action.
We don't have to write letters to the next-of-kin informing them of a loss.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.