The Reason why people dont play CV

[Tr1umph]

... is the power creep on any kind of AA.

 

Originally CVs were meant to be the counter to BBs not to DDs. 

In the real world the introduction of CVs to the battelfield made BBs obsolete. 

 

Right now there are so many ships in the game that are basically immune to any strike its ridiculous.

The only thing that a CV can do right now is kill DDs or strike the enemy CV, attacking BBs is suicide, with a only few exceptions and if there is a cruiser around then its over. 

 

Just flying fighters in spotting range of an Alabama or minotaur and your entire squad gets wiped out. 

So many BBs have so much AA now and almost every cruiser has defensive AA. 

You wait 2 minutes for your squad to fly into position just to get completely wiped out by a single ship. 

 

Considering that any CV that is not T10 gets matched with +2 tier ships constantly things get even worse. 

 

Any rework of CVs that will not adress the recent AA power creep and matchmaking imbalance for CVs will fall short. 

 

Right now DDs counter BBs, which is completly historically inaccurate but it makes the current gameplay a big camp fest because any BBs that actually pushes gets punished by deep water torpedos and such. 

While CVs are the best counter to DDs and completely useless against BBs (few exceptions) and cruisers, also historically inaccurate and bad gameplay.

Never heard of a plane torping a destroyer, while in WOWs that is everydays business. 

 

I dont see any rework being any fun if the current trend of planes being made out of paper and huge invisible AA bubbles killing everything in seconds stays in the game. 

 

Also for the sake of increasing the feel of carriers actually having an impact you should drastically increase the numbers of planes per squadron.

And by that i dont mean buff the dps/hp, just the numbers of planes that are visually attacking.

 

I mean there is only 1 cv per game and he send 6 planes your way? wow how terrifying, what about 20 planes?

If an airstrike would actually invovle 60 planes, that would actually look impressive.

Again not talking about changing the damage numbers, just for more action, make squads bigger.

[El2aZeR]

Historical accuracy is largely, if not completely unimportant.

[AdmiralDing3Ling]

Its actualy not completely unrealistic either. Large parts of why the japanese got desperate enough to use kamikaze tactics were because US carriergroups were more or less immune to airstrikes because of extremely effective AA.

[principat121]

43 minutes ago, Tr1umph said:

... is the power creep on any kind of AA.

No.

 

Any proofs for that claim? No?!

Did you conduct any sort of poll or something? No?!

Did you interviewed players who did give up CV-playing? No?!

 

So... what is your point?

[gautrek]

Because people want to sail ships and shoot things.
Because CV play is shite to say the least. Its just basically a crappy RTS game stuck on top ( and a badly done one at that) of a FPS ship game.
I hate CV's and I hate them being in a match I am in. The fact all you do is dodge their torps which is just boring or randomly shoot down some "planes" by clicking on their icon and letting the computer decide how many you have shot down  which is also boring . YAWN
 

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

4 minutes ago, gautrek said:

Because CV play is shite to say the least

learn play first, before says ts bad or boring

[gautrek]

2 minutes ago, xXx_Blogis_xXx said:

learn play first, before says ts bad or boring

I tried them in closed beta mate. Hated every minute of it. But then I also tried arty in WOT and hated that. Why would I want to get gud at some thing I dislike . I tried a few DD's and can't get on with them so rarely play them ( for me to torp somethign in a DD is a miracle) . But  DD's are ships and therefore have a place in a  FPS ship game and I like hunting them down with other ships. But CV play is just YAWN inducing.
 

[pzkpfwv1d]

I still give my CV' the odd outing now and then but but the really hard thing I find is strafe, if you try and do it manually the fighters wobble all over the screen and are hard to control and if you let the computer decide you lose most of the time, I will be taking my 3 T8 carriers out for spins during the forthcoming ranked battle event and if I get up far enough I will take the Hak out and if I am extremely lucky I might get some ranked battles in Saipan etc 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

1 hour ago, Tr1umph said:

The Reason why people dont play CV

For me, my interest in RTS is fairly limited, but since it seems like RTS CVs are going away. 

 

We will see.

[LazyInsight]

2 hours ago, Tr1umph said:

Originally CVs were meant to be the counter to BBs not to DDs. 

Originally for WoWs, CVs were supposed to be recon ships. I think at some point there was even WG idea to provide them with scout squadrons.

 

Currently they are what they were initially designed for; being eyes of the fleet, and trying to deny eyes of enemy fleet. Awkward AA mechanics and poor understanding of game concepts by number of players also make them one of the major damage dealers in random battles.

[Xevious_Red]

33 minutes ago, LazyInsight said:

Awkward AA mechanics and poor understanding of game concepts by number of players also make them one of the major damage dealers in random battles.

MM can play a huge part too. 

 

Just had a game at tier 5 - im grinding bretagne/mate is grinding minekaze.

The majority of both teams were tier 5. However stuck on the top were a ranger and a kaga.

 

Our ranger was the kind that flew his squads one at a time down the centre of the map into the 2 squads of fighters. The kaga, using the amazing power of not-even-bother-to-strafe soon had clear sky.

 

Which left the rest of us. None of us had DFAA, because none of us could take it. Tier 5 AA doesnt really make a dent in 12 torp bombers because by the time your AA is in range, they're dropping. The usual low tier turn into the drop doesnt really apply when there's 2x6 TB that can cross drop. Any plane kills you do manage don't matter as it has 85 planes.

 

If everyone was tier 7 it would have been a different story. However tier 7 carrier (particularly the kaga) vs all tier 5 is just how many ships can the kaga kill before the timer ran out

[Tr1umph]

2 hours ago, principat121 said:

No.

 

Any proofs for that claim? No?!

Did you conduct any sort of poll or something? No?!

Did you interviewed players who did give up CV-playing? No?!

 

So... what is your point?

Are u kiddin me? 

That is like common knowledge by now, every player, streamer, youtuber i know has that very exact opinion.

 

And my point is: read my post.

 

what a [edited]worthless comment srsly. 

[principat121]

So you just confirm that your entire post is just your opinion?! Nothing more!

 

And I did read your post.

 

And AGAIN... on what data is your statement based?! That is the point! You have non. And you can turn it like you want, your post is just meaningless. You cannot change game mechanics on "opinion" of a bunch of players.

 

 

3 hours ago, Tr1umph said:

every player, streamer, youtuber i know has that very exact opinion.

Please show me a streamer or youtuber who do not play CV as main (meaning less then 10% in CV in total) who made a statement about that the AA is the reason he/she doesn't play CV any more?! You will find non. And even if... you still fail to show that that is also the reason why the majority of the player base avoid playing CV at all?!

 

 

 

Do not mix opinion with knowledge!

Do you really know why the general player base avoid CV?

Or do you just think you know?

 

 

[lafeel]

Actually the reasons are no doubt as varied and diverse as the playerbase itself.

 

In my case I feel I am not up to the multi tasking needed.

[EgyptOverseer]

I do find it funny someone playing CV saying that getting into spotting range of a BB kills all his planes. Not many BBs in the entire game have an AA bubble more than half that of its spotting range, let alone be able to shoot down planes with the outmost aura. A skilled CV player can permaspot BBs without losing a single plane, and believe me, they do. Further to that, if a T7 CV wants to drop my Iowa it can, very easily, despite the near 100 AA rating.

 

I have absolutely no simpathy for CV players that complain AA is OP, because it's the exact opposite. They are playing an RTS in an FPS game, where other player rely on abstract chance calculations for the possibility to shoot a single plane of the many squadrons that come to it. THAT is the reason why some ships have very high AA rating, because it reduces that randomness a bit further. In the meantime, I am looking at planes that perma spot and drop me in my Normandie because my AA range is 4Km and its AA consists of one guy shouting expletives to planes that fly by.

 

I commend and compliment CVs that play the team objective, but absolutely despise those that farm damage because they know it's the easiest class to do that in.

[DanottiTR]

That is why You play low tier CVs for fun and do not touch anything higher then T6 unless you enjoy getting frustrated :D 

[dCK_Ad_Hominem]

I don't play cv because first I was grinding tao tIXs and then I needed to grind two dd lines for cw. 

 

 

And now I will first wait and see what they do, before buying Shokaku.

[Crow_Eschatologist]

The reason I don't play CVs is I find the 1990s RTS controls annoying on their own. Add to that the fact that the CV GUI itself has both poor responsiveness and affordance, on top of the superannuated design and you have an excercise in frustration.

 

In addition the constrained views when playing a carrier are really annoying - if I am in RTS mode give me total free view for crying out loud. 

[avenger121]

Alle 4/25/2018 alle 22:17, Tr1umph ha scritto:

... snip ....

 

What a load of nonsensical crap.

 

The reason why CVs are the least played class are really simple, WoWs is basically a slow paced shooter and that is what ppl mostly want to play, CVs on the other side are a buggy mess of a *edited* RTS.

 

It is a wonder that you can even find ppl playing it, some surely because of they just like CVs and the possibility to play them in a naval combat game is enough, others surely like to abuse the  OPness of CVs just as ppl always like to play the OP stuff in video games.

[RAHJAILARI]

Hmmh... I think @Tr1umph here may have a point actually. Personally, I stopped playing CV a tirer 7, because I lost interest. It gets all very complicated with a manual drop (I admit, cannot master it and have no interest to practice). Playing CV I would only be a burden to my team and also find it less interesting that DD or Cruiser play. All that aside tho, here's my take on it.

 

It may be that the planes themselves are too vulnerable to AA. Also many BB's have buffed-up AA even without the Defensive AA consumable so dealing with any CV strike will not be a problem, unless you are completely isolated. basically there are several things, that need to be resolved.

 

1) Plane vulnerability leads to a CV easily losing all planes early on in a game, if not very careful. Now this would be OK, if enough reserve planes would be available, but sometimes this in not the case and without planes a CV has no utility. Perhaps they should be given an extended AA rage and Def AA consumable so they could act, as AA support in the event that they run out of planes? Also extended secondary range, so they could have some self defense capability against spotted DD's? Perhaps give them a "Spotting Aircraft" consumable too.

2) Manual Torp/Bomb-drop is both a good and a bad thing. It enables a CV to easily kill DD's, which have insufficient AA to defend themselves. In lower tiers this is not a problem, because only auto-drop is available so CV's will have to concentrate on other, less agile targets (as should be the case indeed). It also allows the skilled player to shine. But due to strong AA ships this utility is limited to knocking off DD's early in the game instead of attacking BB's, as intended. Auto-drop all the way would resolve this, but at the same time it would result in less rewarding play for the skilled player. On the other hand, it would also reduce the performance gap between skilled and average player and switch focus back to more rewarding targets like BB's (but of course, the plane survivability & replacements would have to be buffed to compensate).

3) Manual Strafing could be retained and also introduced, as a method of attacking light ships with fighter planes. They would cause some damage, but make fighters  more vulnerable to ship AA (hence only viable against DD's and CL's, who would not have strong BB- AA or Def AA consumable) so that the targeted DD and CL could still have a chance to defend against it. This would be useful late game, if enemy has already run out of planes and so fighter planes generally have no more utility at this stage.

4) In response - And to give Cruisers additional utility, their Defensive AA consumable should be buffed a bit and it could also be limited to CA only consumable (CL's being purpose-build DD hunter after all - To compensate for this all CL's could have a smoke of some kind, Perth-type perhaps). Purpose-built AA ships like Atlanta, Akitsuki, Cleveland should always have the Def AA consumable and should retain their no-fly zone status. That said, Def AA or indeed any other sk- Cruiser-type consumable should never be a feature of any BB ever...

 

This might in fact resolve many of these issues and improve the overall gameplay too.

 

 

 

 

 

[soulmask]

sorry but only some ships are stupid op in the AA department, having recently unlocked the ijn T8 CV, out of the games iv played in her, only 4 where non t10,

 

where iv had to hold back and wait for the damage to build up for some AA guns to be taken out while scouting the caps, only to have t10 players cry that i didn't cover their ship

who sailing alone on the other side of the map, who has the AA to destroy most or all planes going to them, or don't seem to understand fighter need to reload,

 

or got the lower teir's that moan and rant that you didn't have fighter over them at the time they yolo off and don't even try to avoid yet, you did the most on the team by score,

 

yeah the moaning and bitching from player is a reason not to play cv's

 

yes, the aa needs to be looked at but at the same time, the UI can be buggy as hell, oooo he flying all his bomber in a line ok  fighter strafe i go,

just to watch the fighter fly past dealing 0 damage to the bombers

[cro_pwr]

7 hours ago, EgyptOverseer said:

 Further to that, if a T7 CV wants to drop my Iowa it can, very easily, despite the near 100 AA rating.

 

I have absolutely no simpathy for CV players that complain AA is OP, because it's the exact opposite.

 

1st one is total BS

 

2nd one is BS

 

And I tought that answer to the topic will be "Because they are bad in them"

 

But in a serious note, yes, the AA powercreep is huge, and every new ship WG decides to put in the game has to have 300 AA rating on t6, because why the f not...

[robihr]

i played CV a lot when i started playing this game, but i gave up on them cause WG doesnt know how to balance them. i also liked playing US CA in AAA supportive role to counter the enemy CV. but nerfs to CV and buffs to BB AA have made that role obsolete.

 

low tier CV game is totally different from high tier one. and that was before they removed manual attacks from t4 and t5. now it is like you have 3 games for CV. t4-t5 baby CV mode, t6-t7 "normal" mode, and t8+ hardcore mode

level of AA is totally unbalanced across the tiers. t8 CV can easily drop almost any t6 ship, while t6 CV cant do sh*t against t8 bb/ca... and that is normal MM.

also player skill gap... i played old strike ranger year ago... in some 50-60% of the games i could snipe enemy CV at beginning (even though i was against saipans and hiryus). it is fun at beginning, but it grows old fast.

[Kenjiro_]

It's because I'm simply too old&incompetent to play a clickfest RTS.. 

[Sargento_YO]

The Minotaur part it's true. Also, I wonder why WG make possible to use your AA inside a smoke screen and not being spotted in the process. Hell, there was a "bad advice" chapter about it.