Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
S4pp3R

PQs Anti-CV Vid [Merged Thread]

81 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,817
[151ST]
Member
2,949 posts
11,039 battles

G'day Folks...

PQs anti-CV video is doing the rounds and will no doubt be used as a reference point for every single floupie out there, so here's a breakdown on many of the points raised and why they're bs...

To clarify - I play CVs a little, mostly for Naval Battles. I don't really love playing them but that's mostly because I don't enjoy the gameplay.

Some of PQs points are valid or I have nothing to value add, I've generally skipped over those and focused on the ones I noticed are the most wrong...

Player Stats

Just because someone isn't good at the game doesn't invalidate their points; great ideas can come from unlikely places...  No one should have to list their stats to frame their point, this is ridiculous. All stats mean is that we can understand better how the player came to a conclusion.

This type of stats-based mindset is elitist and illogical, even good players can be dumb people. Good players don't necessarily understand all the nuance of why or how things are a certain way... They're just good at playing within that framework.

Basically being good and understanding complicated game meta aren't mutually exclusive.

Balancing ships for the highest levels

This is generally a good idea but doing it JUST for the highest levels of play is plain dumb. You want the ships to be balanced enough in that context but you don't want to make them OP as all hell for everyone else.

Mechanically Different

Just because something isn't mechanically the same as the others doesn't mean it doesn't fit in the game, it just means it needs to be balanced differently. Every decently large game out there has things in it that are mechanically different to others. This is variety, it doesn't mean they don't fit. It does mean that balancing them is different and needs a different approach much of the time.

CVs create crossfires

Yes they do, easy to fix - fix CV spotting. Again a balance issue not a valid argument for a classes redundancy.

Spotting

As stated above, CV spotting is an issue, if it was removed tomorrow, 90% of the CV issues would be fixed. (Note I'm not calling for CV spotting to be removed entirely, just using it to demonstrate a point). Yes it needs fixing.

CVs don't lose turrets

They lose planes, losing a turret impacts DPM, CVs lose planes and late game will effectively lose DPM through limited number of planes. Yes some CVs don't have this issue - this is an issue in and of itself.

Passive Gameplay

People play passively even when CVs aren't around. There are simply many contributing factors to the rise in passive gameplay, CVs providing spotting is one factor. CVs at times actually assist in active gameplay to occur, such as giving spotting allowing a push to occur. The flipside is sometimes it encourages sniping. That is a spotting issue however.

Caps don't get touched?

This was happening way before CVs were an 'issue'. This has been happening since radar began. Again a spotting thing though.

Look at my graphs from the CC conference

Old data that was from before a lot of changes occurred. To give you folks an idea, that's from around 8.0 and was 2 years ago... We are upto 10.0 this month.

WG measured success by number of people playing CVs

I have long suspected that WG often uses poor measures of success or not enough. If indeed they only used player numbers to justify CVs, this would be an issue. We can only speculate on WGs design processes - this is not a valid argument but a moot point.

Support CVs when?

Unlikely any time soon outside of any niche releases. I can't remember where but WG basically said 'no, damage dealing is the main aim of the game'. This is complete crud but masks the actual point; XP. The XP system is damage biased, what happens when you implement a class or role that isn't about dealing much (if any) damage? Yep... Support CVs would likely require an XP system rework, YES PLEASE! Probs won't happen anytime soon.

 

Conclusion

CVs still have some issues but this video was created in a vacuum, an echo chamber. Many of the points that were raised were valid considerations or issues but by-and-large it uses many of the same worn-out arguments. 

It's 100% an opinion piece and he mentions a fair bit of 'in my view' and that's fine... But be prepared for this video to become the reference point for every anti-CV argument for the next year or two.

I tried avoiding a lot of the 'but what about ____?' because whataboutism is a really bad way to make counterpoints but it was hard... A sole DD on a flank anyone? Radar imbalance on teams? I'm not saying this invalidates CV issues, I'm merely saying CVs aren't the only class in the balance equation.

Just because a class isn't mechanically the same doesn't mean it isn't a valid part of the game.

The whole game doesn't need to be the same thing.

CV spotting is an issue and there are some others out there with individual CVs but please folks, don't buy into the rhetoric and hyperbole of floupies... Even ones as eloquent as PQ.

All IMO, of course.

Batteries not included.

 

 

Edited by S4pp3R
Somehow my thread got renamed during the merge...
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[-FUN-]
Member
464 posts
7,672 battles

I was going to go for FDR for my next steel ship, but have reconsidered since CV spotting will be removed and considering how slow FDR's planes are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,817
[151ST]
Member
2,949 posts
11,039 battles
26 minutes ago, zergling_ said:

I was going to go for FDR for my next steel ship, but have reconsidered since CV spotting will be removed and considering how slow FDR's planes are.

Honestly it'll probs still be bs good...

From what I understand, remarkably easy ship to be decent in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
187
[4RSE]
Member
361 posts
8,840 battles

So, in a nut shell what PQ is saying is - if you are not as good as him, your opinion does not count. He opens with it, and he closes with it.

 

Elitist clap trap.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,771
Member
5,151 posts
9,109 battles

My biggest issues with reworked CVs are spotting, spotting and spotting.

I have specific issues with specific CVs, rather than CVs as a whole ship type - German CVs and FDR are basically... OP. German?Japanese CVs with AP weapons, and FDR with TDBs.

AA is barely an issue for me, but AA shooting down aircraft needs to feel more consistent/reliable. I've posted a thread about that. "Feel", and not "be". Automated AA is such a stupid idea, I can't even. Even if manual AA is an option, most of the times I would let them be automated anyway, because I need to focus on the main guns and torp tubes.

 

PS. Anti-CV people are like the anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers... Harmfulness levels vary, but same way of thinking.

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
321
[LBAS]
Beta Tester
890 posts
5,777 battles

 

4 時間前、S4pp3R の発言:

Just because someone isn't good at the game doesn't invalidate their points; great ideas can come from unlikely places...

Then please rethink why do this game needs a CV rework to begin with....?

It is like saying why bosses bother read the resume and should employ a 5 years old instead? cos in 1 out of zillionth time they could have a good idea.

Or it is like we should listen to people who had a license, but never driven a car, about their opinion on car handling and on corners, and traction control issues?

Yes, the second half of this statement can happen, just not here, and not in many other places as well.

They can speak all they want, but should it be taken into account is another issue.

Edited by spixys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[BONED]
Member
585 posts
7,706 battles
1 hour ago, lunsmann said:

So, in a nut shell what PQ is saying is - if you are not as good as him, your opinion does not count. He opens with it, and he closes with it.

 

Elitist clap trap.

So you obviously didn't bother watching it, or heard what you wanted him to say.

"I truly believe that you should have some credibility..."

"If you are some-one who does not play the game at a high level I don't think your opinion should be as valid as someone who does." and he gives as his reason the level of understanding of game mechanics.

Why not lay out the bits you don't agree with rather than a bullshit ad homenim.  

 

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,973
[TLS]
Member
4,337 posts
20,640 battles

I mentioned this on discord but to me the issue is: 
If "cvs don't belong" then it should have been said before implementation. Unfortunately what has been added, has been added and removing it will be as painful rebalancing things as "reworking" it. 

Which brings me to the next point:
Subs also don't belong is using this train of logic. People should prevent things from entering the game rather than removing what has been put in. Unfortunately we have "content crazy" people who think every new shiny thing that covers bantha poodoo is good instead of thinking about the medium to long term consequences. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,973
[TLS]
Member
4,337 posts
20,640 battles

The "reason" why cv was "reworked" was the perceived "skill gap" between the bottom and top player tiers. What they did instead was to make things "easier" for crap players which introducing new abusable mechanics for top tier players to abuse. In the end, what moved was the bottom post while the top post after some months, went back to business as usual. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,443
[REPOI]
Member
6,721 posts
27,077 battles

feedback from the CV main in my clan

I got pinged multiple times over this video, so I prepared my thoughts and feedback of this video (and by extension, CVs):

Intro/Credentials:

I personally don’t think stats are all that relevant here, though I appreciate that he’d want to use them as an insurance policy against those who think only bad players complain about CVs. Still, I’d be careful about claiming that you play CVs at a “very high level” considering you’ve only played 30 games (unless you’ve gotten extensive coaching beforehand). While CVs are "braindead", there still exists a proper skillgap that can only be bridged with experience or some really hardcore backseat driving if you want to get to that top-of-hurricane level within 30-100 games. PQ's surface stats meanwhile are nothing short of exceptional which is par for the course.

CVs not fitting the game:

In complete agreement as the CV’s concept now requires them to farm “for free”. This is something no other ship can do.

CV crossfires:

This is most relevant for comp, which the game is unfortunately NOT balanced around (the video has hints of comp-style gameplay being implied which IMO is too much to ask of randos). It is also worth noting that crossfires depend on multiple factors and not just potential alpha; some CVs have much slower planes that give much more breathing room. Asia, which has the most CVs by quite a margin, has devolved into a state where whoever trades better (superior aim) wins. It’s definitely not pretty, but its optimized with CVs in mind.

Dodging CVs:

I agree on both scenarios, though it must be said that if someone pushes into a 1v3+ alone and gets stuck for the CV to strike, I am inclined to say its HIS problem. The playerbase bas severe difficulty playing appropriately given that it’s a CV game.

Automated AA:

Completely agree. Automated AA just makes it very…. “constant” and ensures its an information/knowledge war between CV and surface players.

CV Spotting:

I agree that spotting is a huge issue, but that’s mostly a comp issue (the shipdeployment aspect of it). As for DDs and certain cruisers, this IS a huge problem (I’d have preferred delayed teamspotting and removal of shipspotting of fighters, but hey!)

CV damage:

While cits and torpedoes ARE mostly unhealable, its not fair to group up all CV damage under the same umbrella; discounting ships like Manfred, and to an extent hak and FDR, CVs that rely on bomb pen and fire damage already have a lot of their damage healable, so its not so much a CV class problem as it is just straight up problems with certain CVs (akin generalizing BBs as thunderers when yamatos exist, or DDs as shimas when gunboat DDs exist).

CV vs CV gameplay:

100% agree; in the rework CVs, you just need to spot/damage better than the enemy CV and you’ve already got a better than even chance of winning.

CV vs non-CV games:

Agree, though again this is mostly a comp thing (especially with the spotting and crossfires); in randoms, though the issues above ARE critical, they are not as critical as they are in comp/clan battles.

Impact on various classes:

Generally agree, though if the playerbase were to read up more on how CVs work they’d get damaged less (still doesn't make it any less passive).

WoT Arty comparison:

Basically it according to a clanmate of mine which did live tourneys in WoT

CV skill vs surface skill:

Positioning (or lack of) IS a factor, but its more how CVs rely a LOT on ingame mechanics/automation that thus reduces the impact of skill (or lack thereof). How the DCP/DoT works, AA is designed to let 1 strike through, how planes regenerate and spot, etc. These are clearly catered to those who would, in my opinion, be less-than-stellar players. Meanwhile, RTS allowed far better counterplay (in multiple ways), but as we know, that was rather cutthroat.

CV player’s playstyle:

Agreed, and it just boils down to who can spot and damage better; purple clicking/focusing is also a thing, though in my honest opinion it comes with the territory (you’re in O7, so everyone in the server might think whacking you is akin to a trophy kill.)

Spreadsheet balance:

Agreed as well since WG DOES balance CVs based on popularity.

Solutions:

There are a LOT of potential solutions that can be considered/levelled at this stage, though given the direction WG is going at, I do not see them rocking the boat unless some really significant event happens (like, an actual mass exodus and not some pathetic threats at an exodus).

Discussions are welcome, though I must stress that WG HAS said they were trying to narrow the skillgap and would balance based on popularity, of which the former is something I cannot see coexisting with a CV system that is balanced for higher skilled players (like RTS was). Also, they don't balance for comp.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,817
[151ST]
Member
2,949 posts
11,039 battles
1 hour ago, lunsmann said:

So, in a nut shell what PQ is saying is - if you are not as good as him, your opinion does not count. He opens with it, and he closes with it.

Elitist clap trap.

 

15 minutes ago, Puggsley said:

So you obviously didn't bother watching it, or heard what you wanted him to say.

"I truly believe that you should have some credibility..."

"If you are some-one who does not play the game at a high level I don't think your opinion should be as valid as someone who does." and he gives as his reason the level of understanding of game mechanics.

Why not lay out the bits you don't agree with rather than a bullshit ad homenim.  

Sorry Puggs that's the point, it doesn't. It lends some credibility but doesn't mean you are prohibited from talking about game balance or that your opinion isn't correct if you aren't at that level...

"...I strongly believe that you should be experienced and competent at a high level if you are going to discuss things like balance and different aspects of a video game..."

"...because the person who plays at that better or higher level obviously understands some things about the game that you don't..."

It is elitist clap trap.

Just because someone is better at a game doesn't mean they understand balance any better than someone who doesn't. It just means they are better at that game and at those mechanics. On-the-ground knowledge of tactics it not the same skill as engaging the enemy with your rifle.

Knowing =/= Doing.

I don't think it was PQs intent and I would rather not speculate but what it does by saying that is says 'unless you are on my level, you cannot tell me I'm wrong and I won't listen to you'. It 100% may not be intended that way but that's effectively what it's saying and that's categorically wrong.

By all means weight pro's opinions a bit more but do not take anything anyone says as gospel. Thinking critically should always be a goal and not agreeing 100% with someone doesn't mean you disagree with 100% of what they say.

45 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

My biggest issues with reworked CVs are spotting, spotting and spotting.

Yep, spotting is the issue I want to see fixed first then see where the dice land.

 

30 minutes ago, spixys said:

Then please rethink why do this game needs a CV rework to begin with....?

Yes, the second half can happen, just not here, and not in many other places as well.

This is completely the wrong approach if I'm understanding you correctly; you are asking me to justify the inverse... Why shouldn't CVs be removed?

Doesn't work in this type of situation, CVs are already in the game and removing them would mean WG reimbursing thousands, possibly millions of dollars to players... It won't happen, please move on.

This is why I'm so sick to death of folks calling for CVs removal, it's not going to happen. Folks need approach the situation realistically and with an even temper.

Compromise not absolutism.

 

32 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Unfortunately what has been added, has been added and removing it will be as painful rebalancing things as "reworking" it.

Yep. IMO start with spotting then go from there...

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,405
[FORCE]
Modder
2,650 posts
12,877 battles

CVs don't belong in the game.

Well considering this game is introduced to be full of battleships, he's partially correct.

#removecruisers

#removedds

#cancelsubs

#defundconcealmentbuild

#makebbgreatagain

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
321
[LBAS]
Beta Tester
890 posts
5,777 battles
29 分前、S4pp3R の発言:

This is completely the wrong approach if I'm understanding you correctly; you are asking me to justify the inverse... Why shouldn't CVs be removed?

Doesn't work in this type of situation, CVs are already in the game and removing them would mean WG reimbursing thousands, possibly millions of dollars to players... It won't happen, please move on.

This is why I'm so sick to death of folks calling for CVs removal, it's not going to happen. Folks need approach the situation realistically and with an even temper.

You have misunderstood my point.

I never asked to remove CV, in fact I liked playing RTS CV (despite I mainly played them in co-op) and liked to play against it before the rework, I was merely trying to refer to your statement about:

5 時間前、S4pp3R の発言:

Just because someone isn't good at the game doesn't invalidate their points; great ideas can come from unlikely places...

to me CV was in a good place, it is because WG had listened to the majority of "great ideas" to change it, hence the rework, I was only trying to refer that it was such attitude that led us to what we are now, it is funny how you had assumed that I am promoting removal of CV.

I do agree with most of the point you stated in your original post except that quote, please be reminded.

In fact I was the person who rather quit the game over removal of CV - if you don't like where the game is going - just quit it.

Sure things had changed and can't be reverted, and WG is yet to find a balancing factor that pleases everybody onto their million dollars "investment"

 

Edited by spixys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,817
[151ST]
Member
2,949 posts
11,039 battles
41 minutes ago, Drakon233 said:

feedback from the CV main in my clan

Always interesting to read, thanks! :cap_like:

43 minutes ago, Drakon233 said:

Automated AA:

Completely agree. Automated AA just makes it very…. “constant” and ensures its an information/knowledge war between CV and surface players.

Automated AA is probably on major area that WG can actually put some power back into the hands of players, improve the current system and at the same time not too dynamically change it.

The problem I fear (as with a lot of concepts) is that when it gets down to the details that's where things get messy and people get upset.

Wider audience sees 'Giving players control of their AA' and imagines melting planes again... I can't see those two ideas going hand in hand. (100% not saying that's what your clannie was saying)

 

49 minutes ago, Drakon233 said:

CV damage:

While cits and torpedoes ARE mostly unhealable, its not fair to group up all CV damage under the same umbrella; discounting ships like Manfred, and to an extent hak and FDR, CVs that rely on bomb pen and fire damage already have a lot of their damage healable, so its not so much a CV class problem as it is just straight up problems with certain CVs (akin generalizing BBs as thunderers when yamatos exist, or DDs as shimas when gunboat DDs exist).

I didn't want to comment on this because can-of-worms, but this comment has sort of solidified my thinking... PQs video is almost entirely about T10 play. The only reason we know this is he's talking about healable damage as if it's something that everyone can do. While this is partly an issue IMO, it ignores the fact that most ships don't have a heal at most tiers... It's why MVR, Haku and FDR are the ships we think of.

While T10 meta is 100% important, changes to things like this and their impacts aren't limited to that tier and I think that's something that people forget.

 

1 hour ago, Drakon233 said:

Solutions:

There are a LOT of potential solutions that can be considered/levelled at this stage, though given the direction WG is going at, I do not see them rocking the boat unless some really significant event happens (like, an actual mass exodus and not some pathetic threats at an exodus).

This is the key bit IMO... What is WG likely to consider doing? Saying 'CVs don't belong in the game' is a pointless place to start... This endless cycle of complaining about CVs inevitably is followed by 'remove CVs' which is a stupid starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,817
[151ST]
Member
2,949 posts
11,039 battles
4 minutes ago, spixys said:

You have misunderstood my point.

I never asked to remove CV, in fact I liked playing RTS CV (despite I mainly played them in co-op) and liked to play against it before the rework, I was merely trying to refer to your statement about:

to me CV was in a good place, it is because WG had listened to the majority of "great ideas" to change it, hence the rework, I was only trying to refer that it was such attitude that led us to what we are now, it is funny how you had assumed that I am promoting removal of CV.

I do agree with most of the point you stated in your original post except that quote, please be reminded.

In fact I was the person who rather quit the game over removal of CV - if you don't like where the game is going - just quit it as a protest.

Sure things had changed and can't be reverted, and WG is yet to find a balancing factor that pleases everybody onto their million dollar "cock-ups"

Thanks for the clarification. :cap_like:

It sounded like you were doing the 'inverse argument', e.g. Instead of justifying the removal of a CV, you ask the other person to justify the inclusion.

The CV rework isn't an entirely bad idea, it fixed the perceived issues it set out to fix. The thing is they didn't have AA and CVs balanced in the old system... At minimum the progression was too sharp so up/down tiering was rough.

But they wanted an 'action' mode rather than a 'strategy' mode.

There isn't much point in crying over the rework, it won't be reverted.

The true question is how do things improve from here?

Spotting is obviously the starting point, after that well... ... We'll have to see how it worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,771
Member
5,151 posts
9,109 battles
1 hour ago, dejiko_nyo said:

The "reason" why cv was "reworked" was the perceived "skill gap" between the bottom and top player tiers. What they did instead was to make things "easier" for crap players which introducing new abusable mechanics for top tier players to abuse. In the end, what moved was the bottom post while the top post after some months, went back to business as usual. 

The de facto reason of the CV rework was to make CVs popular again. And if it's popular, it can sell, and sell more. That's it.

That was the reason for the complete dumping down of everything that is the core of being CVs - being able to control multiple groups of aircraft at once, and being able to sh*t on anyone, anywhere.

A bloody shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
222
[TWR]
Alpha Tester
1,563 posts
5,506 battles

damn i thought cv spotting already was nerfed.

I cant see a dd until i'm right on top of it, i actually have far less than 1 second reaction time to click mouse and turn my planes to aim to attack with rockets, (WG shows NO MERCY for those of us who suffer 200+ ping for 10 years now in WoT and Wows).

My planes are the foremost spotters, but I guess because ship to ship view range is so much larger, all the ships out spot enemy ships for my planes. I also only spot cruisers from between 7.5 and 6kms away, sometimes their AA is firing at my planes before I see them...dds this happens most often.

If I have a great spotting game in cv, I'll get 60k assist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,324
[CLAY]
Member
2,970 posts
13,330 battles

Well said Sapper. I always find it hard to disagree with you because you lay it out in such logical terms. (Well applied Logic can defeat me faster than any amount of people yelling opinions at me).

I don't like playing against CVs, I find them difficult to play against. I also find radar cruisers difficult to play against. And long range BBs with oversized guns. Though the latter are easier to avoid.

While it would be lovely to wake up in a World of Warships where CVs do not exist, they are in the game, and I accept that. I hate removing things from the game more than I hate adding unbalanced things in the first place. Which is why WG NEEDS TO BE MORE CAREFUL WHEN INTRODUCING NEW SHIPS AND CLASSES.

And to be honest, if CVs were never added to the game, we would have a large amount of people arguing for the implementation because "they an important part of  WW2". I.e same situation subs are in now.

I am also under the impression that while CVs are easier to play, many CV players find them less rewarding and harder to do well in, but this is mostly hearsay, I don't know from firsthand.

If WG fixed the spotting issue, it would solve a lot of things about playing against a CV.

But I honestly do not know the solution.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
222
[TWR]
Alpha Tester
1,563 posts
5,506 battles

The missions wg set for cv to get 150k spotting in one game, is unrealistic and fantasy land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[BONED]
Member
585 posts
7,706 battles
1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

 

Sorry Puggs that's the point, it doesn't. It lends some credibility but doesn't mean you are prohibited from talking about game balance or that your opinion isn't correct if you aren't at that level...

"...I strongly believe that you should be experienced and competent at a high level if you are going to discuss things like balance and different aspects of a video game..."

"...because the person who plays at that better or higher level obviously understands some things about the game that you don't..."

It is elitist clap trap.

Just because someone is better at a game doesn't mean they understand balance any better than someone who doesn't. It just means they are better at that game and at those mechanics. On-the-ground knowledge of tactics it not the same skill as engaging the enemy with your rifle.

Knowing =/= Doing.

I don't think it was PQs intent and I would rather not speculate but what it does by saying that is says 'unless you are on my level, you cannot tell me I'm wrong and I won't listen to you'. It 100% may not be intended that way but that's effectively what it's saying and that's categorically wrong.

By all means weight pro's opinions a bit more but do not take anything anyone says as gospel. Thinking critically should always be a goal and not agreeing 100% with someone doesn't mean you disagree with 100% of what they say.

I watched it several times and at the start he is at pains to lay out the context and that it is his opinion. He explicitly says that it is relative, not that if you are not as good a player that your opinion does not count. Could he have said it better? Maybe, but I don't think that it is that controversial that a better player probably does have a much better feel for how to improve things based on the depth of knowledge. But that is not mutually exclusive to a poorer player having a valid suggestion.

All I could go on was what he actually said, not what I "effectively" comprehended what he said. I think it is ok to speculate, that is part of communication, but I'm prepared to accept what he actually said rather than what I think he said as my starting point.

I don't think poorer players do have as deep an understanding of the game as higher level players. That is confirmed by a long string of posts where players who are very experienced and good give feedback to less skilled players pointing out flaws in opinions based on know knowing the game as deeply. "Play CV to get a better understanding. Learn penetration mechanics"  

How would you have responded if "elitist claptrap" would have been Nuefort's response to some of the things he was told when he made claims about the game? Would that have been fair and reasonable for him to respond like that?

Totally agree with thinking critically. Part of that is laying out the points why you disagree, not just lazily respond that it is "elitist claptrap". That is the antithesis of weighing the pros and cons.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,817
[151ST]
Member
2,949 posts
11,039 battles
17 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

Well said Sapper. I always find it hard to disagree with you because you lay it out in such logical terms. (Well applied Logic can defeat me faster than any amount of people yelling opinions at me).

Thanks... I think?

See I like people disagreeing with me if it isn't the shouty two-year old style...

I like examining my own conclusions and finding fault but it tends to mean pulling apart other folks work as well... And I'm great at doing that but perhaps not in a manner that would convince them of their errors...

 

21 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

And to be honest, if CVs were never added to the game, we would have a large amount of people arguing for the implementation because "they an important part of  WW2". I.e same situation subs are in now.

Yep.

I have never played it but one of the common remarks I hear from folks who play the console peasant version is that the community is always asking for CVs...

This makes me highly suspect of just how much shouting down has occurred in the various online forums and reddit. That makes me sad as I like different opinions when they aren't delivered as white noise.

On the WoWS discord there are a couple of 'pro CV' players who basically get summoned the moment anything remotely positive is said about them... Their arguments (or those around them) usually involve "you're wrong cause this guy is top # CV EU"... Like somehow that means no other opinions can exist?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,443
[REPOI]
Member
6,721 posts
27,077 battles
4 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

On the WoWS discord there are a couple of 'pro CV' players who basically get summoned the moment anything remotely positive is said about them... Their arguments (or those around them) usually involve "you're wrong cause this guy is top # CV EU"... Like somehow that means no other opinions can exist?

which circlejerk echo-chamber discord are you refeing to?

Edited by Drakon233

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[BONED]
Member
585 posts
7,706 battles
2 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Thanks... I think?

See I like people disagreeing with me if it isn't the shouty two-year old style...

I like examining my own conclusions and finding fault but it tends to mean pulling apart other folks work as well... And I'm great at doing that but perhaps not in a manner that would convince them of their errors...

One of the most effective ways of testing my own arguments was taught to be by a crusty old engineer who I was lucky enough to have as an advisor when I was a fresh young graduate.

"You have told me why it will work. Now tell me why it won't work."

And for a bit of good natured leg pulling, as long as you are open to have them point out and be convinced of your errors as well, then it is good faith debating.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
321
[LBAS]
Beta Tester
890 posts
5,777 battles

watched the video again.

As an ex-player who was always on the receive side of the CV, I think it can fit into the game as long as they receive a bigger consequence from their mistakes than what they are now, which are:

  • unlimited planes for them to do anything they like, and the game lacks a way to stop them effectively, sure they do have a gap of not able to do anything if all their squadron had wiped out, but ultimately they can attack continuously without a lot of risk.
  • too many ways of damaging surface ships, implement of rockets is an absolute unnecessary addition, they should have just dumped the rocket and fire the idiot who suggested the idea, and kept the air fighter squadron (not a consumable) instead.

So in the past I did think that bring back the limit of planes (maybe 200+ planes limit for Tier X CV), and replace rockets with fighter squadrons (gives CV players ability to stop air spotting) are the solution to this CV rework.

End of my not-so-worthy 2 cent.

 

P.S. CV and Arty in WoT are not that similar - except the point PQ made in the video that arties need the frontline team-mates to spot the target (except some Premium tank that has the ability to spot for themselves due to higher view range). Arty has a lower concealment in WoT than CV here (I believe) - it is 1 shot-able as well as 95% of the tank in that game can out maneuver it and kill it easily, finally Arty shots are almost pure RNG that can misses its target while CV can fix that with how the squadrons approaches the ship.

Edited by spixys
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,817
[151ST]
Member
2,949 posts
11,039 battles
25 minutes ago, Puggsley said:

All I could go on was what he actually said, not what I "effectively" comprehended what he said. I think it is ok to speculate, that is part of communication, but I'm prepared to accept what he actually said rather than what I think he said as my starting point.

That's why I quoted him in my reply... He does do it fairly politely but it doesn't change the substance which amounts to preventing debate unless you are on his level, which of course not many are, stifling debate entirely.

I realise that many basic level players won't have that game knowledge but my point is about how he treats it as mutually exclusive (as most do). This is categorically false, some of the best input, suggestions and pickups on even my meagre content is by 45-48% WR players.

Just because someone is 'bad' at the game doesn't mean they don't understand meta and strategy, just how to apply that knowledge to gameplay. But I think we both get where each other is coming from.

30 minutes ago, Puggsley said:

How would you have responded if "elitist claptrap" would have been Nuefort's response to some of the things he was told when he made claims about the game? Would that have been fair and reasonable for him to respond like that?

Hahaha, I kind of almost miss that entertainment...

I would have most likely ignored it and addressed the points. If I brandish my WR or PR or games played I expect anyone to pull me apart for it.

I would have played his argument and the only way I would have brought his stats into was to point out number of games may change his perspective or if he wanted to improve.

I try my hardest to not stat shame folks, it doesn't achieve anything and is 'playing the person, not the game'.

But yeah, I probably wouldn't devolve to using the term and just address points but I sort of agree in this instance, PQ was being elitist, whether that was the intent or not.

30 minutes ago, Drakon233 said:

which circlejerk echo-chamber discord are you refeing to?

THE WoWS discord, as in the WG one... It's usually *looks up* El2aZeR (EU)... Enjoy... lol... Way too much effort and I'm not interested in defending myself against a posse, lol.

I will note it stayed fairly civil, folks just did the usual circle jerk in the end.

 

33 minutes ago, Puggsley said:

"You have told me why it will work. Now tell me why it won't work."

And for a bit of good natured leg pulling, as long as you are open to have them point out and be convinced of your errors as well, then it is good faith debating.

Haha, love it.

My family used to do the same, I think we're just a bunch of sickos that like finding fault with everything, even ourselves, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×