Massive double standards?

[Andrewbassg]

4 hours ago, Verytis said:

That doesn't explain why sinking a target is NOT a counter. Rather, that it is something else, but with no mention of why it is mutually exclusive to being a "counter".

 

 i didn't said as being  mutually exclusive. However not all classes (and not many  ships) can pull that of. But all classes( even arguably all ships) have the capability to sunk a Cv, And...

4 hours ago, Verytis said:

So naturally we'd have different word to more accurately convey that, as given by your example of "countered" vs "sunk".

...also counter could be invoked in many different grades and scenarios. There is temporary counter,  (for example shooting down a whole squad) there is permanent counter ( i.e deplaning a cv, tho she stlll can cap)and there could be counter to a specific action of a cv (for example defending a dd from a cv attack) 

Not at least, here in this thread, we discuss in the context of counter play, which means what actions one could could take to defend himself (that's why  just WASD-ing is not counterplay that's just dodge (ya know,as dodging a bullet)  and that's why above my last example is not counterplay but counter).

All of this seems trivial but believe me, its not. I participated in countless debates and discussions and people tend to assume that the other party will automatically knows beforehand their definitions and also adheres to them. And then take offence and start calling names if not. 

For example Ahskance kept calling planes "ordinance" (!! not even ordnance!), until it was explained to him that ordnance means torpedoes and rockets, not planes. Yuk.....

4 hours ago, Verytis said:

This is a matter of timescale and focus on individuals as opposed to team perspective.

 

Because counterplay is singular, whereupon counter, not necessarily.

 

4 hours ago, Verytis said:

You say "merely surviving" as if to imply the ship is not doing anything else if he can't shoot immediately back at the CV. 

 

Yes, absolutely. Because,  limping away with x amount of HP gone and who knows how much module damage (or possibly destruction) will render that ship more or less combat ineffective for future participation.  Not to mention the possibility that he will just "suicide' to start freshly over. And lets not forget the loss of the fun factor.

4 hours ago, Verytis said:

Call "running up to the enemy" as a "tactic" 

You misunderstood me. I never meant that as a derogatory term.

4 hours ago, Verytis said:

....by which I achieve the counterplay conditions if you wish. But If I inflict more dmg and kill the CV, before it inflicts similar dmg to me or my team. What is it if not a successful counterplay by your own definition given?

 

As I said earlier counterplay assumes an action from the cv beforehand. Coz is counterplay. And that's why counter and counterplay are not the same thing.

4 hours ago, Verytis said:

Some also call it an imperfect sphere, are you gonna call everyone wrong except for your own definition?

  Well....

a) Formally, a sphere is the set of points that are all at the same distance r from a given point in three-dimensional space.That given point is the centre of the sphere, and r is the sphere's radius. That's why the Earth is not a sphere, not a spheroid, but a geoid.

b) its not my definition.

 

Edit: Look, the thread was started for  calling out "double standards". So ....let's see where is the double and where or what  is the standard.  

Otherwise.....you can call me..... lets say a "nerd", but I'm fully prepared to "demolish" even devs over this and keep smiling at them. 

Edit 2: Ah fiddlesticks..... Scratch the edit. I'm not here to... "fight". 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Admiral_Karasu]

Is there an agreement on the counter measures and counter play issue? Asks he coyly.

[Andrewbassg]

37 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Is there an agreement on the counter measures and counter play issue? Asks he coyly.

There is a thread from the NA forums which contains many good advices.

I know coz I started it. 🙂 

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/249862-fair-and-very-balancedyeeah/

 

Regarding WASD-ing, one has to know what Cv is he facing, what planes are coming to attack and what are their strengths and MO's.

For example, RN Cv's have level bombers, therefore is a good idea to not let them do a shiplength  pass, but to turn broadside to them and that is also true generally for bombers. And the opposite is true for rocket attacks i.e presenting the smallest possible profile. It is also a good idea to activate hydro just after torpedobombers released their fish, to see the spread.

Still... none of that is counterplay.

 

Also Ahskance has a series on Cv's ( what a surprise)... 

....with the observation that he is heavily biased towards Cv's and it needs to be taken with grains of salt. LOTS of it.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Admiral_Karasu]

14 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

There is a thread from the NA forums which contains many good advices.

I know coz I started it. 🙂 

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/249862-fair-and-very-balancedyeeah/

 

Ee...eh..... A very.. focused discussion, my head was spinning by the end of the 2nd page there. Nonetheless, there is no effective counterplay in WoWS against CV's, or if there is, it's incidental. The counterplay there is mostly the anti-CV tactics which you use to try to lessen the chances of getting hit.

[Andrewbassg]

18 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Ee...eh..... A very.. focused discussion....

Truth to be told, that was a major difference between the forums. NA tended to be much more CV..."friendly" . At one point I lost interest in fighting with windmills....

[Admiral_Karasu]

TBH, I'm actually trying to figure out what 'counter play' is, and... to me it seems that it is a combination of both counter measures and counter attacking. This is one area where, in my considered opinion, World of Warships is lacking, not just in terms of CV vs. surface ship interaction, but also in other interactions as well.

Feel free to correct me, though.

[AkiraKurai]

9 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

TBH, I'm actually trying to figure out what 'counter play' is, and... to me it seems that it is a combination of both counter measures and counter attacking. This is one area where, in my considered opinion, World of Warships is lacking, not just in terms of CV vs. surface ship interaction, but also in other interactions as well.

Feel free to correct me, though.

If we want to take the definition of "Counter" from other games (TCG, fighter, MOBA), all of them center around the idea that you can negate, punish, and come out of the situation in a condition better than the player who got countered relative to the start of the situation.

Imo, "Punish" can be in the form of putting someone on reload, which essentially happens when you "negate" via not taking damage from a salvo or airstrike. However, degrees of "punish" vary depending on the engagement, these engagements also heavily revolve around the concealment mechanic as you cannot punish something you cannot see.

"Condition" in this case can be seen as your ships total potential health. In the case of a CV I would rather judge based on their Potential hangar capacity as the CV itself without any planes can't do anything useful due to their detections being similar to fast BBs, upside is that they don't take any kind of damage saturation. And DDs will also count their torpedos as their health pool due to their long reloads compared to all other armaments in game.

Personally I would say that "Just dodge" is a somewhat reasonable statement as in theory you have negatived all damage the CV has done to you and have destroyed the CVs squad.
Obvious it rarely plays out like this in practice as any one with a braincell will take advantage of you dodging the CV strike and the CV itself will try to "Counter play" your "Counter play" of "Just dodge" by "just line up your strike correctly".

The argument where we've seen people call torps against a BB OP and 0 "counter play" can also be applied here as you've essentially put the DDs torpedos on cooldown and have a general location on where he is, maybe.
Again, in practice, the 2 braincell individual will probably notice you turning broadside and captialize on this.

Aother "Counter play" that everyone seems to holler about is smoke firing. However, in this situation you aren't in a vacume as there needs to be at least 1 ship spotting for said ship in smoke. So the idea of solely focusing in a 1v1 situation is thrown out of the window and things get complicated.
But if we wish to go into a 1v1 in theory, it's honestly against the smoke user as now they've lost sight of their target and have gained nothing in the situation.

At the end of the day, the question becomes who should win out on top in 1v1 situations more than "Counter Play".

[Verytis]

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Edit 2: Ah fiddlesticks..... Scratch the edit. I'm not here to... "fight". 

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

All of this seems trivial but believe me, its not. I participated in countless debates and discussions and people tend to assume that the other party will automatically knows beforehand their definitions and also adheres to them. And then take offence and start calling names if not. 

Then let us de-escalate.

• I acknowledge that I upped my aggression. Because some of what you say, I indeed find baffling, if not possibly self-contradictory.
• I actually agree there is value in attempting to define "counters" and counterplay" in the context of WOWS. Because despite being an old player, I find myself rarely using the word outside of specific cases. Like...why is that?
• Possibly relevant, is that my gaming experience comes more from RTS genres, and also from occasionally watching CB planning. A ship is a chess piece and part of the fleet. The amount of beatings one takes and gives, will not always be equally distributed.
• Other factors such as "fun" and "economic incentives" and player rage quit behaviour, should be kept separated, when discussing ship capabilities and defining gameplay terms.
• And yes, I too feel fatigue from having a go at you.

Have a good day.

 

------------------

27 minutes ago, AkiraKurai said:

f we want to take the definition of "Counter" from other games (TCG, fighter, MOBA), all of them center around the idea that you can negate, punish, and come out of the situation in a condition better than the player who got countered relative to the start of the situation.

Finally, some good stuff. Anything to help turn the conversation.

[SunkCostFallacy]

6 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Uhu... I'm just thinking aloud here, but how easy would it be for WG to come up with with new devs through recruitment. Marketing positions etc. are probably easier to fill in comparison. Not that I personally care either way, I'm just curious if the game's going to see more development or less development in future. Considering what their track record is for the past four years or so, I'm not exactly sure which option I might find preferable under these circumstances.

It may well be quite difficult to find good dev talent. Every year tertiary education churns out a lot of people who are, theoretically, qualified for such roles. Most of them are of minimal value, having been spoon fed and lacking any real talent ... so are only suited for very large development environments where they are a small cog in a large engine. I suspect that WG don't have the kind of funds necessary to employ such a dev team, so they need GOOD people.

Add the language requirements, because I imagine that the code is documented/commented in Russian.

And of course add the fact that what dev talent WG can attract may end up working on WoT.

 

 

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

Then let us de-escalate.

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

• Other factors such as "fun" and "economic incentives" and player rage quit behaviour, should be kept separated, when discussing ship capabilities and defining gameplay terms.

I  tend to agree with that and that's why I try to keep discussions on factual grounds. With the added caveat, that the human factor ( motivation, skill level) is obviously playing a part. Still...

 

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

A ship is a chess piece and part of the fleet.

.... I tend to disagree with that. While there are obvious similarities with chess ( i.e  different classes with different capabilities fighting  for map control (coz that's what happening in Wows, players trade HP for HP and map control)) there is one major difference.

In chess one commands many pieces, therefore  there is one will, vision and strategy ( therefore sacrifice is a valid tactic) and also there is no skill gap. In Wows in turn we have  up to 12 (on one side) different agencies, therefore up to 12 visions, wills  and "strategies" ( and therefore sacrifice is subject to  individual, personal decision, meaning that one can make  such a decision, but cannot expect it from others) and there could be multiple (even massive )skill gaps.

Arguably CB can get close to chess, meaning the differences get reduced to a degree, but are still at play.

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

Possibly relevant, is that my gaming experience comes more from RTS genres, and also from occasionally watching CB planning.

 

My perspective derives from game theory which have all sort of applications, both  IRL as well as in games . For example, if one takes action to help a friend there is always the possibility that he will hold him back instead 🙂 

1 hour ago, Verytis said:

Because some of what you say, I indeed find baffling, if not possibly self-contradictory.

Oh, feel absolutely free to ask/point out what you consider as such, coz EN is my third language. therefore things very much could be lost in translation. i'm human, not immune to mistakes 🙂 

And...I'm not after a win. On the official forums there was a  (however remote) chance that things could be "heard", but.......that was proven false.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

35 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

In chess one commands many pieces, therefore  there is one will, vision and strategy ( therefore sacrifice is a valid tactic) and also there is no skill gap.

I disagree that there is no "skill gap" in chess.
Each player has an amount of talent & skill, and it is entirely possible for a "gap" to exist between the playing capabilities of two Chess players.

That said, your point, (about one Chess player commanding many pieces compared with WOWs wherein each player commands their own ship and may or may not choose to communicate & cooperate with their team-mates) is well-taken.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

TBH, I'm actually trying to figure out what 'counter play' is, and... to me it seems that it is a combination of both counter measures and counter attacking. This is one area where, in my considered opinion, World of Warships is lacking, not just in terms of CV vs. surface ship interaction, but also in other interactions as well.

Feel free to correct me, though.

I think it is an "expectation" which varies from player to player.

That said, the discussion here and attempts to define counter-play within the World of Warships environment seem to be useful conversation (even if we haven't yet defined it in a mutually agreed-upon manner, yet).
I like that people are trying to keep things civil and exchange perspectives.

I can be satisfied with simply maneuvering my DD in a manner that dodges an aerial rocket attack enough to remain afloat.
I feel that my ship's survival is often enough.
Best block, no be there = just dodge.
The opponent has spent time & effort to sink me that didn't succeed, at least for the moment.

If I can remain afloat and maneuver to gain a favorable position, I may deliver an attack of my own.

I'm thinking beyond the immediate moment, because I plan to sink my opponent(s) (either with my own ordnance or by providing opportunity for my team-mates via spotting).

So, one might argue that I have "low" expectations for the defining standard(s) of "counter-play", when compared to the higher expectations of other players.  

Food for thought?  🤔

Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust! Sproing!

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[Andrewbassg]

55 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I disagree that there is no "skill gap" in chess.
Each player has an amount of talent & skill, and it is entirely possible for a "gap" to exist between the playing capabilities of two Chess players.

Obviously yes,  🙂 but the point I was trying to make is that there is no 16 (or 32) different skill gaps . The skill gap can exist only once and in one place.  

Edit: Yes you are correct Wolfie there could be a skill gap in chess. i very much played chess, so I know

Mea culpa I made a mistake.

 

But the possibility doesn't get multiplied, both de facto and in effect x12.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

41 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Edit: Yes you are correct Wolfie there could be a skill gap in chess.

Thanks.

[Verytis]

9 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

I  tend to agree with that and that's why I try to keep discussions on factual grounds. With the added caveat, that the human factor ( motivation, skill level) is obviously playing a part. Still...

9 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

.... I tend to disagree with that. While there are obvious similarities with chess ( i.e  different classes with different capabilities fighting  for map control (coz that's what happening in Wows, players trade HP for HP and map control)) there is one major difference.

In chess one commands many pieces, therefore  there is one will, vision and strategy ( therefore sacrifice is a valid tactic) and also there is no skill gap. In Wows in turn we have  up to 12 (on one side) different agencies, therefore up to 12 visions, wills  and "strategies" ( and therefore sacrifice is subject to  individual, personal decision, meaning that one can make  such a decision, but cannot expect it from others) and there could be multiple (even massive )skill gaps.

Arguably CB can get close to chess, meaning the differences get reduced to a degree, but are still at play.

Yes, in WOWS you have multiple players.

I do acknowledge there are very real implications of a poorly coordinated team:

• A skilled player often has to "read" and "guess" the behavior and reliability of both his own team and the enemy.
• Aggression is often lower, because it requires more coordination than defense.
• Tactics such as RPF triangulation to find easily find DDs/Subs, sometimes do not happen.
• This in-turn likely effects how WG's does balancing of ships.

However for purposes of defining capabilities and gameplay, we should generally accept that winning takes highest priority for all players. And that they're all reasonably skilled so they're fully aware of their ship's capabilities, and a decent grasp of friendlies/enemies as well.

"A tool is only as good as the person that wields it" or whatever the original phrase is.

And yes regarding CB, there is often one overriding will, the CO. That person coordinates the overall plan, of when and how to push/pull or hold. It is the role of the XO and other members to then carry out that will to the best of their knowledge and experience, although counter suggestions and advice do happen.

9 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

My perspective derives from game theory which have all sort of applications, both  IRL as well as in games . For example, if one takes action to help a friend there is always the possibility that he will hold him back instead

Yes, I too have an interest in game theory, although I lost my attention span with all the matrices. So I mostly just read articles and watch videos about it casually instead.

[Jakob Knight]

So....after nine pages of discussion....

 

Massive Double Standards or Massive Player Myopia?

 

 

[clammboy]

On 10/2/2023 at 3:19 AM, Wulf_Ace said:

why dont you try playing DDs and tell me how its going.

with 12 km radars

with 10km radars that last 50 sec

with planes

with subs

with german 3 min hydro with 6km range

So yeah, amazing experience.

It seems to be going pretty good for you lol.

[Gillhunter]

On 10/6/2023 at 9:47 AM, Wolfswetpaws said:

I think that 3D-printing a ship is unrealistic.
Damage Control (compared to repair) is more realistic, as I understand it.

The ship isn't being "repaired" as much as the damage is being controlled from becoming worse.

Are such efforts amazing, especially when one can point to actual history for several ships and nations?  
Yep.
But, limping/towing a ship to the nearest port after having its aft separated from the middle is not the same as magically re-attaching that aft in the middle of combat while maintaining main-gun fire and maneuvering.
 

 

I see that you disagree with the way WOWs has handled damage control, but failed to address the very unreal speed that subs have in the game.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Gillhunter said:

I see that you disagree with the way WOWs has handled damage control, but failed to address the very unreal speed that subs have in the game.

My position remains pretty much the same.
1.  That people cannot "have it both ways" in order to meet their preferences and/or expectations.
2.  That people expecting the game to conform to their expectations, perhaps even in mid-battle, is unrealistic.
3.  World of Warships is a game.  Its rules and principles are published in wiki articles & etc.
4.  I didn't create this game.  I do enjoy playing it, though.
5.  Failure to read and accept the published rules and game-mechanics won't exempt a player from them.
6.  Constructive discussion and communication (about player concerns) directed at representatives of World of Warships may, on occasion, eventually lead to changes in the game.
7.  Sometimes those changes are welcome, sometimes they're unwelcome and sometimes they're not a big deal.

I welcome our continued exchange of perspectives.  🙂 

[Gillhunter]

1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

My position remains pretty much the same.
1.  That people cannot "have it both ways" in order to meet their preferences and/or expectations.
2.  That people expecting the game to conform to their expectations, perhaps even in mid-battle, is unrealistic.
3.  World of Warships is a game.  Its rules and principles are published in wiki articles & etc.
4.  I didn't create this game.  I do enjoy playing it, though.
5.  Failure to read and accept the published rules and game-mechanics won't exempt a player from them.
6.  Constructive discussion and communication (about player concerns) directed at representatives of World of Warships may, on occasion, eventually lead to changes in the game.
7.  Sometimes those changes are welcome, sometimes they're unwelcome and sometimes they're not a big deal.

I welcome our continued exchange of perspectives.  🙂 

You are very accomplished in never directly answering a question. Have you ever considered a career in politics?

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Gillhunter said:

You are very accomplished in never directly answering a question. Have you ever considered a career in politics?

" ... why not consider a more challenging career ..."

Muppet Treasure Island - Professional Pirate

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

About roughly nine times out of ten, the changes WG comes up with fall into the 'most unwelcome' category, at least as far as I'm concerned, opinions may vary.