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

You have not proved yourself in this battle.

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
95 posts
2,660 battles

Seems each time I decide to use my US Cruiser as AA cover for the Carriers I am always told this end game message. Well I'd like to think I have been effective because my team has won the game and the Carriers have survived due to me either shooting down planes or taking torpedoes meant for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
512 posts
308 battles

If you spent the whole game "protecting" the carriers you pretty much did nothing, you may like to think you did something, but all you did was make certain that your team had one less player doing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,923 posts
4,018 battles

Seems each time I decide to use my US Cruiser as AA cover for the Carriers I am always told this end game message. Well I'd like to think I have been effective because my team has won the game and the Carriers have survived due to me either shooting down planes or taking torpedoes meant for them.V

 

Very Patriotic.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
44 posts
3,371 battles

last time I saw this, Id been torpedoed by some nimrod in my team in a kuma, about 45 secs after the battle started...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
506 posts
1,386 battles

If you spent the whole game "protecting" the carriers you pretty much did nothing, you may like to think you did something, but all you did was make certain that your team had one less player doing something.

 

Cleveland protecting carriers may be able to shot down some planes, but a Myoko once followed my Independence around instead of capping flags in domination map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
4,335 battles

You're getting this message because the CAs you're not providing enough ASW support for that carrier. Ping your hydrophone (definitely worth using the premium) as often as possible to make sure there are no hostile u-boats in the vicinity. Then you will get an 'Excellent Escort' medal and the CV player might give you a 500 doubloon tip if give him a happy ending.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

instead of that, why don't you just have the boosting AA one and start being a widow maker to enemy's pilot?

If you're on an Omaha or lower tier, don't bother sitting around covering your CV. With only acceptable AA value, Omaha and lower tier ships only became a burden if you "try" to do the AA. Thinkin' about it as medium tank camping at arty's location for protection against enemy light tanks. This is utterly frustating and you should deserve to get the above message...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
372 posts
715 battles

You don't need to be with the CV in order to protect them for an example the enemy CV plan to attack your ally CV you can always move your ship towards the incoming squadron and provide you AA support in the first wave then I am sure your CV will handle the test with its AA let him know in advance that enemy squadron are on the way. That's my tip and tricks.              (。・ω・。)

Edited by daniel98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
679 posts
3,488 battles

You're getting this message because the CAs you're not providing enough ASW support for that carrier. Ping your hydrophone (definitely worth using the premium) as often as possible to make sure there are no hostile u-boats in the vicinity. Then you will get an 'Excellent Escort' medal and the CV player might give you a 500 doubloon tip if give him a happy ending.

 

 

dude 500 bart for a happy ending, that's way less than 500 doubloons......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

Meh, any CA without decent AA should be with BBs, not CVs.

 

Something like a Cleveland (anything with the def fire ability, frankly) can be useful dealing with the inevitable initial plane spam trying to kill your CV(s), but after that it too should be doing something useful near BBs.

 

All CAs are best used killing/driving off DDs that are detected trying to get friendly BBs, or firing at enemy CAs along with friendly BBs, or annoying enemy BBs already being shot by friendly BBs.

 

In other words, most of the time a CA is far more valuable to its team if it is acting in concert with its own BBs. That's how I see it when in a BB (SO tired of my CAs getting themselves killed uselessly way ahead of me by enemy BBs/CAs, leaving me vulnerable to DDs etc) or in a CA myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
512 posts
308 battles

In other words, most of the time a CA is far more valuable to its team if it is acting in concert with its own BBs. That's how I see it when in a BB (SO tired of my CAs getting themselves killed uselessly way ahead of me by enemy BBs/CAs, leaving me vulnerable to DDs etc) or in a CA myself.

 

And the issue with that (another flaw with the way WG has "balanced" this game), is that's a huge skill cap, the role you're suggesting is most optimal, is basically pure support, in other words you're only as effective as what you're helping, this might work in organised environments, but for random games with random people, you're only limiting yourself.

 

The more I think about the meta the more I wonder why I didn't jump ship (pun not intended, I hate puns) to battleships earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
372 posts
715 battles

Wait there's actually a special message that pops up for doin nothing for a whole match??? I'm confused...

I don't think so but you will receive very less exp and credits for doing nothing though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

And the issue with that (another flaw with the way WG has "balanced" this game), is that's a huge skill cap, the role you're suggesting is most optimal, is basically pure support, in other words you're only as effective as what you're helping, this might work in organised environments, but for random games with random people, you're only limiting yourself.

 

The more I think about the meta the more I wonder why I didn't jump ship (pun not intended, I hate puns) to battleships earlier.

 

Yup. I was only trying to give advice on what I see as viable, reliably effective play.

 

Whether that makes for a good game is an entirely different question.

 

Any rock-scissor-paper design is going to leave rocks hoping for a roster full of scissors and very few, if any, paper. Which is what I find when I play BBs, for example; I want loads of CAs, no CVs, and I can live with a few DDs.

 

The alternative, however, would be having all classes effective against each other, which is what WoT achieved when they made unlimited sprem available (a HUGE shift in balance parameters) and did nothing to compensate for that change of balance. Many of the best players play "CAs" more than anything else (i.e. high tier meds) because suddenly they have few significant weaknesses and many accessible strengths.

 

Would that be a good idea here? CAs able to take on BBs and expect to have a decent chance of winning? Do THAT and most people will stop playing BBs because, let's face it, against every major danger to a BB you'd rather be playing a CA.

 

It's an interesting problem, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Already in Alpha Testers
300 posts
938 battles

Meh, any CA without decent AA should be with BBs, not CVs.

 

Something like a Cleveland (anything with the def fire ability, frankly) can be useful dealing with the inevitable initial plane spam trying to kill your CV(s), but after that it too should be doing something useful near BBs.

 

All CAs are best used killing/driving off DDs that are detected trying to get friendly BBs, or firing at enemy CAs along with friendly BBs, or annoying enemy BBs already being shot by friendly BBs.

 

In other words, most of the time a CA is far more valuable to its team if it is acting in concert with its own BBs. That's how I see it when in a BB (SO tired of my CAs getting themselves killed uselessly way ahead of me by enemy BBs/CAs, leaving me vulnerable to DDs etc) or in a CA myself.

 

I'll give a slightly different perspective. I think the first thing CA's should do is support DD's especially on domination maps. BB's take position on the flanks/corridors  they intend to fight on. Once the BB's are ready to rumble, CA's move to support them. In that way CA's are involved as much as possible throughout the battle and are giving appropriate support.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
304 posts
2,010 battles

I have nothing more than agreeing everything mentioned in this thread, however, there were several occasions where BBs and CVs were staying far back during the game while DDs, CLs/CAs were shot to death in the frontline!!!! Then ultimately BBs and CVs were turkey-shot one by one!!!! For CVs, I don't mind if they stay a bit behind, but BBs are supposed to lead the charge while CLs/CAs in group with BBs assist in wiping enemy DDs/CLs/CAs and ultimately help destroying enemy BBs, right? Anyway, It's quite rare to see such cooperation in the game!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

I'll give a slightly different perspective. I think the first thing CA's should do is support DD's especially on domination maps. BB's take position on the flanks/corridors  they intend to fight on. Once the BB's are ready to rumble, CA's move to support them. In that way CA's are involved as much as possible throughout the battle and are giving appropriate support.

 

 

 

Domination is a bit different, true. Even then, however, if you take your CA to support the DDs in Domination and get obliterated by a couple of BBs sailing along the back was that a good plan?

 

I suppose my general approach regardless of what I play is ask "what am I good at, what is good at killing me, and how do I do the former while avoiding the latter?". 

 

I continue to ask that question throughout the game, because sometimes it's necessary to take risks/do things that aren't ideal.

 

IMO, however, far too many people do those "less than ideal things" right from the start when there's no excuse/justification.

 

I have to conclude either they don't care about how best to play when it comes to winning/doing well OR they're simply stupid, or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
682 posts
4,757 battles

Wait there's actually a special message that pops up for doin nothing for a whole match??? I'm confused...

 

Yes ... That word are in place of the badge you do in the game (Hits,fire,plane shot down etc ) .. if you not get any badge .. it will be the text "You have not proved yourself in this battle."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
512 posts
308 battles

Any rock-scissor-paper design is going to leave rocks hoping for a roster full of scissors and very few, if any, paper. Which is what I find when I play BBs, for example; I want loads of CAs, no CVs, and I can live with a few DDs.

 

The alternative, however, would be having all classes effective against each other, which is what WoT achieved when they made unlimited sprem available (a HUGE shift in balance parameters) and did nothing to compensate for that change of balance. Many of the best players play "CAs" more than anything else (i.e. high tier meds) because suddenly they have few significant weaknesses and many accessible strengths.

 

Would that be a good idea here? CAs able to take on BBs and expect to have a decent chance of winning? Do THAT and most people will stop playing BBs because, let's face it, against every major danger to a BB you'd rather be playing a CA.

 

It's an interesting problem, isn't it?

 

I'm going to be going slightly off-topic here, but whatever, couple of counter points:

 

Having all classes effective against all classes, where skill is the largest factor in determining who wins (unlike this game at the moment, where what you're in and what your opponent is in will play a huge role unfortunately), is a state of balance that should absolutely be aspired towards, though WG is not very good at it.

 

In a way, tier 5, 6 and 7 heavies are still much better than same tier mediums as a class, bar a few outliers (T-34-85, T-34-1 and so on), tier 8 it narrows for some, but at this point many mediums (mostly just the Nato ones, surprise surprise) become shitty pure support tanks, and are bad regardless of how much gold you fire, this leaves tier 9 & 10 mediums as the only ones that are equal to same tier heavies, of all of these I can only think of three where gold plays an important role in making them pubstomp tanks (T-54, M46 and E-50, all of which have awful AP compared to their peers, but are otherwise very strong, a nerf to gold would absolutely require an AP buff), tier 10 mediums then go a little silly with the DPM/gun handling/pen combos which they all have, which is where WG failed@balance, but gold doesn't really help a lot as they get an abnormally high base pen. However, tier 9 & 10 heavies are still good as far as the class is concerned, with only a few that are genuinely bad, so I don't think it's fair to say that gold ruins balance entirely, it certainly means armour is less effective, but heavies are still capable of being bricks, and anchoring in a way mediums simply can't.

 

As for good players playing mostly mediums, assuming it's true (I know many good players who mostly play heavies, so yrmv), that's mostly because mobility matters (certainly far more than in this game), and stat padders (gotta get dat 4k wn8), all genuinely good players are able to do fine without gold (some individual tanks excepted), so I don't really know if unlimited gold would really be a factor when they are deciding what to play.

 

If a CA could take on a BB and still have a good chance at winning, assuming equal skill that would be a case of the game being better balanced than it is now, people wouldn't stop playing battleships because they still would have a number of advantages over cruisers, mediums can take on heavies in wot, but that hasn't stopped people playing heavies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

T-54 and E-50 stand out as having certain characteristics typically associated with heavies, and their compensating weakness in pen is no longer applicable. But they're still pretty decently mobile etc etc and have gun handling better than heavies IIRC.

 

I should note also that sprem is in some ways a PENALTY to skilled play because who needs to learn flanking, refusing combat, spotting/immobilising a more formidable foe if one can load sprem and shoot it in the face (the best players barely need any sprem at all; having it just makes things that much simpler)? Indeed it's that factor I dislike most about sprem. We can argue WG sucks at maps such that everyone would generally play heavies (or some TDs), but we could to and fro about that all day.

 

If CAs can take on BBs of their own tier 1 on 1 and have a 50/50 chance at winning, would you play BBs? BB v DD is usually a nightmare for the BB. Same goes for BB v planes. And CAs are generally faster, harder to spot, and the IJN ones have torps (as do lower tier USN). I suspect I wouldn't.

 

When we talk of "skilled play" it probably helps if we define that. What if some of the skill is NOT getting into a shooting match? Using your mobility/stealth more effectively? Again, map design is significant, too.

 

I suspect the biggest issue they have with this game is a BB will trump a CA and a DD if it can see/hit them, and that's historically accurate. Then CVs come along and they trump everything. Again, historically accurate. But how do you include all those classes and make them equally viable to play and, probably even more important, FUN while doing so?

 

Perhaps they need to tweak things like how easily CAs are spotted and their handling characteristics before looking at the blunt implement of effective DPM v health. I also don't understand why things like def fire should be limited in numbers of use, and I suspect there are a lot of different things that can be altered to affect balance/playability.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


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

×