Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Teekesselchen

The state of CVs - why the rework is necessary

149 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,529 posts
6,365 battles

TL;DR?

 

Chance that someone will read through a simple wall of text tends to be really low :cap_old:

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 5
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OM]
Beta Tester, WoWs Wiki Team
3,195 posts
11,002 battles

You don't need to tell us that the rework is necessary, WG is already working on it.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,675 posts
13,098 battles

While I applaud it, you could've saved yourself the effort to write all this if you had simply read some of the news WG gave out lately regarding CVs.

Simple fact is that you're wrong in almost every aspect (EDIT: See below as to why). The CV rework is necessary due to the upcoming console version, nothing more, nothing less.

On the other hand I was able to shut down a Midway in my Seattle hard simply by existing. Not a single AA DPS boosting skill taken. Shutting down CVs is ludicrously easy, it's just too bad that it requires more than one working brain cell. Whether you think it's fun or not is both subjective and completely irrelevant. This is a competition, the other team literally exists to ruin your fun just like you and your team exist to ruin theirs.

 

CVs do well because the large majority of the playerbase is braindead. Just today I got not one, but two caps in my CVs, one of which was in a standard battle. And that's far from a rare occurrence. If you want to pander to this kind of audience, you get the Graf Zeppelin.

Now ask yourself, is this really what you want?

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
125 posts
11,863 battles

One bit at time then (agree with the TLDR) - agree with first part about a lot of the strengths not even showing up on stats. CV gets 200k spotted damage? That's probably helped team win. He wont get much xp for it but he got xp from other things so it maintains the pretence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
781 posts
6,846 battles

IMO the largest problem is that CV's exist in this game-within-game vacuum. They're mainly opposed by the other CV. This means they become really, really powerful if the one CV lacks the skill to oppose the other. 

 

In those games where the CV's are roughly equally skilled, they're generally fine IMO, but that situation is insanely sensitive to skill imbalance.

 

So what do you do about this. The easy option is a blanket nerf to CV's, and this is what WG did in tier 4-5. So the unopposed CV has a more limited ability to demolish the enemy team. Sure enough this works, but the resulting CV gameplay experience is not very compelling.

 

I think ultimately CV's can't exist in this vacuum. There needs to be more interaction between the other ship classes and the CV, so even if your own CV is bad, the other ships can do more to oppose the CV. I have no concrete suggestion, but something to this effect needs to happen -- so the other ships don't become helpless torpedo/bomb fodder whenever there's a CV skill imbalance.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
125 posts
11,863 battles
19 minutes ago, jss78 said:

IMO the largest problem is that CV's exist in this game-within-game vacuum. They're mainly opposed by the other CV. This means they become really, really powerful if the one CV lacks the skill to oppose the other. 

 

In those games where the CV's are roughly equally skilled, they're generally fine IMO, but that situation is insanely sensitive to skill imbalance.

 

So what do you do about this. The easy option is a blanket nerf to CV's, and this is what WG did in tier 4-5. So the unopposed CV has a more limited ability to demolish the enemy team. Sure enough this works, but the resulting CV gameplay experience is not very compelling.

 

I think ultimately CV's can't exist in this vacuum. There needs to be more interaction between the other ship classes and the CV, so even if your own CV is bad, the other ships can do more to oppose the CV. I have no concrete suggestion, but something to this effect needs to happen -- so the other ships don't become helpless torpedo/bomb fodder whenever there's a CV skill imbalance.

 

 

 

As an occasional cv player I say no. Impartially I say yes to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,915 posts
5,887 battles

Very good writing :Smile_great:

 

It's worth the read as it gives a good insight in what the problem is and why and how to possible fix this.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MDF]
Beta Tester
149 posts
9,083 battles

While I like the efforts you took for this post, you're quite wrong on some points or my opinion differs. 

3 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

This is why they are played even in competitive, which is filled to the brim with AA. They have the ability to threaten enemies with spotting and instant kills across the entire map.

Firstly in competitive due to bristling AA, they LOOSE their ability to insta kill across the map , unless their enemy makes a serious mistake, an ability with a hard cap on reload and ammunition. Also with the introduction of Worcester it's yet to be seen how competitive will work out for CVs. 

 

3 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

CVs enhance the radar problem

Yes, but in my opinion the disregard for cvs and their dwindling numbers led to the radar problem in the first place. 

I agree with 

3 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

The balancing of other ships is done without CVs in mind. CVs break the balance.

WGs problem is (they confirmed this) that they balance around the greatest playerbase. As we all know this ment they started to ignore teamplay and focused on improving the experience for lone wolfs ignoring teamplay. This resulted in the big AA swap, which neutered the ability of most DDs to fend of spotting planes and gave way for the introduction of No Fly Zones on BBs.

3 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

CV divisions are absolutely broken.

I am not a great, but a decent CVplayer and I tell you counterplay against CVs still exist outside AA divisions. If players put the occasional point or module for AA in their builds and stay together in groups of 2-3 ships I can't do a thing against that. Players ignored AA so hard, that WG went overboard in buffing it resulting in ludicrously strong AA ships like Hindenburg, Des Moines, Worcester, Minotaur, Gearing, Grosovoi, Montana and Republique. If you include AA builds suddenly Zao and German BBs can wipe your flight too. If only one other ship stays within range of mentioned ships you get wiped on approach. 

If one team stays in groups and the opposing team singles themselves out, the cv isn't the game deciding factor anymore.

AA  divisions provide a cushion for the cv to rely upon dampening the effect of unable teammates. Yes they're broken but that's all to AA being broken. 

 

All the problems of cv resulted from the neglect of wargaming and the loss of players due to that, making them think of a total overhaul to cater to the braindead masses again (they already confirmed that too)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,871 posts
11,295 battles

Any rework that dumbs down CV play can only be bad. For all their power you should remember that they have a very limited ability to strike ships since their rearm is minutes rather than seconds on most ships. People who do well deserve it but it's just the disparity in skill with CVs is vast.

 

Granted the same limited strike ability lets you in theory strike anything on the map but in reality you're often limited to the solo non team players. Especially at higher tiers when almost everyone packs decent AA, you might only get a few opportunities to strike at targets without being stripped of your hanger.

 

I agree that CV Divisions are pretty obscene. A Kaga with hard AA support is simply unstoppable in the right hands. Although any good AA support Div with a CV is powerful.

 

All I want to see with the rework is a less laggy interface rather than drastic changes but we'll see.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
[DAVY]
Players
1,042 posts
4,512 battles

I've said this before but gonna say it regardless.

The major problem with CVs are not the class itself but the players going against them.

People really put me in awe, when they see a CV in game they don't act accordingly.

Most of the people try to play the game all the same whether there is a CV in game or not.

 

It is like,  a squadron captain asks the commander:

 

- Enemy don't have any AA guns.. what should we do?

: fly at day time, fly at low altitude and bomb the shite out of them

 

- the next enemy has monster AA, they can erase us in seconds. What should we do?

: fly at broad day light, fly at low altitue and bomb the shite out of them..

 

It is like the arty situation in WOT.

People don't want to acknowledge the presence of a CV in game because they only know one thing to do, one spot to go, one tactic to do..

They don't think. They don't adapt, they don't learn. They refuse to learn!

 

I only played low tier CVs, and only a handful of battles. But ı've seen a lot of them as opponents.

CV gameplay has it's own problems. UI is crap, AA is just a yes or no. A ship can be a monster threat for you or nothing.

 

only one point I agree with the OP,

is the CV divisions with tier differences.

That is an exploit IMO and must be dealt with.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,871 posts
11,295 battles
17 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

I've said this before but gonna say it regardless.

The major problem with CVs are not the class itself but the players going against them.

People really put me in awe, when they see a CV in game they don't act accordingly.

Most of the people try to play the game all the same whether there is a CV in game or not.

 

It is like,  a squadron captain asks the commander:

 

- Enemy don't have any AA guns.. what should we do?

: fly at day time, fly at low altitude and bomb the shite out of them

 

- the next enemy has monster AA, they can erase us in seconds. What should we do?

: fly at broad day light, fly at low altitue and bomb the shite out of them..

 

It is like the arty situation in WOT.

People don't want to acknowledge the presence of a CV in game because they only know one thing to do, one spot to go, one tactic to do..

They don't think. They don't adapt, they don't learn. They refuse to learn!

 

I only played low tier CVs, and only a handful of battles. But ı've seen a lot of them as opponents.

CV gameplay has it's own problems. UI is crap, AA is just a yes or no. A ship can be a monster threat for you or nothing.

 

only one point I agree with the OP,

is the CV divisions with tier differences.

That is an exploit IMO and must be dealt with.

 

DDs who play the same with a CV present are borderline stupid IMO as you've got an omnipresent spotter overhead but assume it's your right to play exactly the same and flank alone etc...

 

WoT Arty tho, 3 in a game as a HT on an open map is utterly infuriating but that's why I play Med and LT these days. Plus unlike CVs they can strike anything without risk as a Carrier needs to expose it's strike groups at least.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
[DAVY]
Players
1,042 posts
4,512 battles
10 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

DDs who play the same with a CV present are borderline stupid IMO as you've got an omnipresent spotter overhead but assume it's your right to play exactly the same and flank alone etc...

 

WoT Arty tho, 3 in a game as a HT on an open map is utterly infuriating but that's why I play Med and LT these days. Plus unlike CVs they can strike anything without risk as a Carrier needs to expose it's strike groups at least.

 

 

Partially agree with you,

but most of the arty players in WOT gets really surprised and reports you for HAXX when you counter them!

So general ARTY population is not immune to damage :)

And as like CV I think It must be limited 1 per battle..

 

Anyway, back to subject!

The best CV players I've seen, sent their fighters with me into the cap at the start.

That is the best feeling a DD captain can get!

 

you are right but said less! not only DD captains are idiots..

People sail alone or with only 1 friend, both in tirpitz, against a tier 8 - 9 - 10 US CV in the battle..

then start cursing to the CVs when they get deleted..

 

Or An idiot DD gets cross torped in his smoke by a shokaku.. then gets angry..

People really are wierd! how hard it is to learn!

There is a frigging CV in the game.. there will be planes everywhere..!!!

 

But I think it is like the same when a CV captain keep sending planes over a mino and a fletcher in the same smoke and keep complaining about the AA power!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
7,774 posts
6,417 battles
32 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

It is like the arty situation in WOT.

 

That is a very solid misconception I've seen so many time.

 

As a former arty-hater in WoT, I can say for sure it's anything but the same situation. CV got several counter play, CV is forced to take into account the enemy CV, a bad CV will get utterly wrecked by a good CV.

On the other hand, arty in WoT was pure RNG madness catering to the most braindead players. There was almost no skill involved besides knowing the best spots of the maps and knowing when to play as a TD rather than the Eye of God. Arty in WoT could just say "nope" to you. I remember quite a few game where I had the arty entirely focused to my heavy tanks like IS-7 or Jagdpanzer E-100 simply because I had blue stats (yay XVM) or because I was a big target.

The kind of games where I had no choice but to find a cover and don't move from it at all, while the arty splash damage chipped away my HP little by little. I remember completely stupid one-shot of my heavily armored tank by arty 2 tier lower, and I remember even more occurence of being one-shot while driving 60km/h with medium or light tank which were what I played the most.

And the worst of all : it required absolutely no skill. Aim at the guy from above and leave it to the RNG. That was all it took to play arty.

 

CV on the other hand takes way more risks. A good CV will play close to its team in order to optimize its plane rotation. A good CV will have to spot, fight the other CV, counter the spotting, strike the priority targets, prevent strike of allies. Everything at the same time.

 

I think WG need that rework done anyway. The skill gap is enormous between two CV players. Playing CV can be very frustrating when the enemy team blobs together and there are so many no-fly zone. AA skills are too powerful, or more like they can change garbage AA into monster AA, that shouldn't happen. The UI is absolutely horrible. CV have too much to deal with at the same time, and some gimmicks involving CV are completely stupid. (Just looking at Thisheep deleting Worcester with AP bomb under AA barrage is absolutely ridiculous)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SKRUN]
Players
96 posts

Lots of the things off with cv play could've been fixed rather easily. The suggestions by the community are there. Heck, if one looks for them, the forums are filled with them. Over the last years however, most of the reasonable suggestions by players that actually know and play cvs, got drowned out by people that simply want them gone because they can not or do not want to adapt or change their playstyle. Well, WG helped with that as good as they could too.. The people that actually "get it" have mostly either given up, thanks to the constant "improvements", or stopped posting/talking about it because they get drowned out by ignorant trolls and haters. The forums here are like a chronicle of the downfall of reason in that regard.

 

Now we get another "year of the CV" which is ironically very likely the last year of what CV play really is before its smashed into something a player without a mouse can snort from the back of a console. There are quite a few wrong assumptions/conclusions by the OP but why bother clearing those up? The answers are already on the graveyard of good suggestions.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
[DAVY]
Players
1,042 posts
4,512 battles
12 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

That is a very solid misconception I've seen so many time.

 

As a former arty-hater in WoT, I can say for sure it's anything but the same situation. CV got several counter play, CV is forced to take into account the enemy CV, a bad CV will get utterly wrecked by a good CV.

On the other hand, arty in WoT was pure RNG madness catering to the most braindead players. There was almost no skill involved besides knowing the best spots of the maps and knowing when to play as a TD rather than the Eye of God. Arty in WoT could just say "nope" to you. I remember quite a few game where I had the arty entirely focused to my heavy tanks like IS-7 or Jagdpanzer E-100 simply because I had blue stats (yay XVM) or because I was a big target.

The kind of games where I had no choice but to find a cover and don't move from it at all, while the arty splash damage chipped away my HP little by little. I remember completely stupid one-shot of my heavily armored tank by arty 2 tier lower, and I remember even more occurence of being one-shot while driving 60km/h with medium or light tank which were what I played the most.

And the worst of all : it required absolutely no skill. Aim at the guy from above and leave it to the RNG. That was all it took to play arty.

 

CV on the other hand takes way more risks. A good CV will play close to its team in order to optimize its plane rotation. A good CV will have to spot, fight the other CV, counter the spotting, strike the priority targets, prevent strike of allies. Everything at the same time.

 

I think WG need that rework done anyway. The skill gap is enormous between two CV players. Playing CV can be very frustrating when the enemy team blobs together and there are so many no-fly zone. AA skills are too powerful, or more like they can change garbage AA into monster AA, that shouldn't happen. The UI is absolutely horrible. CV have too much to deal with at the same time, and some gimmicks involving CV are completely stupid. (Just looking at Thisheep deleting Worcester with AP bomb under AA barrage is absolutely ridiculous)

 

I am not talking about the skill or the brain requirements on them.

I am just saying it is the same situation: like this;

 

When there is arty/CV in a match, you have to take it into account and play accordingly.

People refuse to do that and then complain about getting wrecked.

 

Not gonna get into arty gameplay argument here. I agree with you on some points. disagree on some..

 

But I agree that the skill floor for the CV is considerably high just to do average in them.

and the skill ceiling is non existent! Good CV player absolutely mops the ocean floor with the bad one!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,675 posts
13,098 battles

Since I currently got nothing to do (don't tell my boss tho), let me break down everything that is wrong in the opening post.

And this is going to be a long :etc_swear: wall of text, so let me spoiler it, too.

Spoiler
9 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

CVs are balanced on a much higher power level than any other ship class

 

No they aren't. CVs are balanced according to the principles of this game. They have the longest reload, the most limited resources and the worst target selection, which trades off their accuracy and striking power. They have no ability to contest and take caps whatsoever (in a match that isn't populated by braindead monkeys), which is why they need to be able to spot.

The primary reason why CVs dominate statistics is really simple. CVs are the ultimate weapon against braindead play. They're literally designed to accurately punish mistakes and enforce teamplay. And yes, teamplay can be forced. If it isn't forced, most people will not bother with it as seen in randoms today.

Another reason is that CV play can be largely automated thanks to auto drop. That ties in with the point above, even bad CV players can have good games because everyone else is bad, too. The amount of auto drops I have seen doing massive damage is staggering, all because the average player cannot comprehend what WASD is. You only need to look at the damage averages of players at the lower WR ranges in T10 CVs, a good chunk of them still reach 100k average damage despite everyone with half a brain knowing how easy it is to evade auto drops.

 

9 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

CVs' biggest strengths don't even show up in the stats.

 

Pretty sure you can see spotting damage on that Japanese stat site. Just saying.

In any competitive scenario CVs are absolute :etc_swear: at zoning and damage. They literally can't do it on their own due to everyone being AA spec.

A CV being a threat to you or not in randoms is a question of what ship you play. A CV is no threat to anyone in competitive at least not directly.

 

9 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

CVs enhance the radar problem

 

It's the other way around. Radar enhances CV spotting. Radar was introduced due to a lack of CV spotting, as such it is an unnecessary addition to the game.

 

9 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

The balancing of other ships is done without CVs in mind. CVs break the balance.

 

Just straight up wrong. AA is actually an important balancing factor at least to WG. Lack of AA is used to justify certain advantages (see Kronhstadt, Conqueror, Khaba, etc.) while high AA ships suffer disadvantages, usually in the armor department (see Monty, DM, Mino, etc.).

The reason why most concealment based ships get :etc_swear:ed over by CVs is because CVs are designed to :etc_swear: over concealment based ships which otherwise had no counters up until radar was introduced (again BECAUSE of the lack of CVs). Concealment based ships need the support of more visible ships to contest areas guarded by a CV. If said more visible ships then are unwilling to do so, then it's only fair that they lose.

That's not breaking anything, that's teamplay.

 

9 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

Active counterplay to CVs is awful.

 

So basically teamplay is awful. Too bad that it is one of the design principles of this game even if it has been neglected as of late.

If people are incapable of playing as a team in a team game then they deserve to get their teeth kicked in by any mechanic that enforces it.

Also rather fishy that you've left out the part where you can wipe out entire strikes by the push of a button.

 

9 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

AP bombs are some of the worst mechanics in the game.

 

Right and wrong at the same time.

Yes, AP bombs shouldn't exist, but counterplay is actually possible IF manual drop is used. The reason why DBs are an awful mechanic in general is due to the automation of CV play as stated above already. Take away the automation, introduce a skill check of some sort and DBs will be just fine.

 

9 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

CV divisions are absolutely broken.

 

CV divisions find huge success due to the same reason why CVs are doing well in general. The average player is simply braindead.

The reason they can do so is because three skilled players working together in a game that is based around teamplay bringing three high impact ships is enough to dominate twelve opposing players who suck at the game. The actual advantages a CV division brings against a skilled enemy CV in terms of ship performance is of little value. Literally the best scenario they can hope for is air parity. Bringing AA ships frees up your fighters and does nothing more. Freeing up fighters has next to no advantages if the enemy CV is playing defensive as he should.

To put this into perspective, I alone can carry two other potatoes to a 70%+ WR regardless of class used simply via teamplay as outlined here:

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/102507-the-true-power-of-divisions/

 

 In reality there is no "omg CV divisions op", either divisions themselves are op and should be removed or they're simply part of the game and should continue to exist.

 

9 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

The only real counter to a good CV is another good CV.

 

All it takes is two or three cruisers with DFAA equipped and a team willing to play together. It's ludicrously easy.

(And, well, a map that isn't absolute :etc_swear:.)

 

9 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:

So how can all of this be fixed?

 

Plenty of suggestions have come and gone over the years (some of which you have listed), all of which have fallen on deaf ears. And now it's not very hard to understand why, there was simply no reason to waste time and manpower on fixing CVs when the console version then in development will necessitate a complete rework anyway.

It is I believe more than confirmed that CVs will lose their spotting ability for the most part, that role taken over by DDs and cruisers (which will inevitably cause outrage and calls for removal against these classes for being too influential in that aspect as is already the case), and become pure damage dealers instead.

I highly doubt that this is going to be very fun for anyone else either as such a principle is currently embodied by both Kaga and Graf Zeppelin.

Just keep this in mind when you get nuked with no counterplay once the CV rework hits: This is what you wanted, now live with it.

 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SKRUN]
Players
96 posts
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Radar was introduced due to a lack of CV spotting, as such it is an unnecessary addition to the game.

It is almost funny how so many people fail to notice that radar begins right were CVs stop. Just looking at the game, radar begins at T8 (not counting premium gimmicks) which just happens to be where matches chronically lack same tier cvs. Just spelling it out for the oblivious players.

 

I'm looking forward to new radar variations, like mid range radar with longer up time etc. That will certainly sit well with the players and improve the camping meta we see more and more of. /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,669 posts
12,084 battles

Firstly, your post is excellent, and having followed the forum since the official start of the game I can say that it is one of a series of such posts from yourself. :Smile_honoring:

You yourself point out the biggest issue, and this is where we probably differ on whether anything can be done. It's probably a philosophical matter. You may be an optimist, whereas I am a pessimist.

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

CVs are the ultimate weapon against braindead play. They're literally designed to accurately punish mistakes and enforce teamplay.

This may well be true - but they don't seem to have been successful in enforcing team play. It may be very irritating, but people don't want to change.

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

The amount of auto drops I have seen doing massive damage is staggering, all because the average player cannot comprehend what WASD is

Indeed - often due to tunnel vision ( a serious skill limitation which I am also guilty of)

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

So basically teamplay is awful. Too bad that it is one of the design principles of this game even if it has been neglected as of late.

If people are incapable of playing as a team in a team game then they deserve to get their teeth kicked in by any mechanic that enforces it.

There is no "if" about it. Some people actively shun team play - not just the "lone wolf".  I don't think that the language barrier on the EU server helps either.

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

CV divisions find huge success due to the same reason why CVs are doing well in general. The average player is simply braindead.

Indeed - this ties in with your comment about "braindead" players. (Which I am for at least part of every game - so I am criticising myself also here)

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

All it takes is two or three cruisers with DFAA equipped and a team willing to play together. It's ludicrously easy.

Easy for decent players - absolutely. Impossible for the average "braindead" player.

 

What you say is all true, and your solutions theoretically viable.  The sad fact is though that people WILL be "braindead". People WILL shun teamwork. You might wish that the player base were more competent and willing to learn - but they aren't. Everyone who keeps wishing for human nature to change is in denial.

 

What is easier to change? People, or elements of the game?

I personally regret it and wish it were not the case. However I am not in denial about it, and I reluctantly accept that this is how things are.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
177 posts

After reading 90%, must say that although I agree with some I disagree with most. I am an average CV player, but I rarely division up to play CV and I mostly play in the evening. I think that AA defense or spec should not be optional and it should be transversal to all ships, the diference between a team that has at least 3 AA spec ships and a team that has none is to great of an impact in the outcome of a battle. Given that mm does not take AA into account.... This is part of the randomness present in game that detracts from the fun and the skill that game play should have, specially in high tiers. Special events such as team battles and special missions also impact the game seriously, and now am not only talking about cv only but all ships in general. Balance is seriously affected by the previous mentioned making certain ships alot easier to play than others. 

Regarding the AP bombs, I don't consider them to be a problem in tier 10 however in tier 9 they are, not because of their strength but because of the poor decision WG has made regarding lower tier ships and scalling damage. This allows a tier 9 cv to delete a Bismark in 2 drops... That is poor design. When a tier 10 cv tries to do the same to a kurfurst it fails miserably. 

 

Then you have the premium CV that plague mid tiers and that are brain dead win it all ships. This is another poor game design that cripples the game and detracts seriously from the fun. I have said numerous times before, high tier game play should be about skill and not about how OP your ship is. Until WG decides that this is the way to go the game will just keep on being run by random RNG factors that will only determine how easy or how hard you will have to try to win a game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,871 posts
11,295 battles
50 minutes ago, Black0rchid said:

After reading 90%, must say that although I agree with some I disagree with most. I am an average CV player, but I rarely division up to play CV and I mostly play in the evening. I think that AA defense or spec should not be optional and it should be transversal to all ships, the diference between a team that has at least 3 AA spec ships and a team that has none is to great of an impact in the outcome of a battle. Given that mm does not take AA into account.... This is part of the randomness present in game that detracts from the fun and the skill that game play should have, specially in high tiers. Special events such as team battles and special missions also impact the game seriously, and now am not only talking about cv only but all ships in general. Balance is seriously affected by the previous mentioned making certain ships alot easier to play than others. 

Regarding the AP bombs, I don't consider them to be a problem in tier 10 however in tier 9 they are, not because of their strength but because of the poor decision WG has made regarding lower tier ships and scalling damage. This allows a tier 9 cv to delete a Bismark in 2 drops... That is poor design. When a tier 10 cv tries to do the same to a kurfurst it fails miserably. 

 

Then you have the premium CV that plague mid tiers and that are brain dead win it all ships. This is another poor game design that cripples the game and detracts seriously from the fun. I have said numerous times before, high tier game play should be about skill and not about how OP your ship is. Until WG decides that this is the way to go the game will just keep on being run by random RNG factors that will only determine how easy or how hard you will have to try to win a game. 

 

AP bombs are a mystifying addition as I always assumed previously that CVs were about stacking DoT fire and floods...

 

Yeah T7 Prem CVs lol, Kaga's crazy OP drop pattern or worse still Saipan's supreme fighters that strafe dance anything in it's tier to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
145 posts
15 hours ago, Teekesselchen said:
-- snip --

 

While your topic is interesting, there have been many others like it on the forum the past few years. From what I glanced you have played about 27x or so random matches in a Tier 10 Carrier, less than 100 random matches in a Tier 9 and Tier 8 Carrier and less than 500 Carrier random matches in total. So your point of view is probably closer to an opponent than a proponent of Carrier play in WOWS. By contrast I have played about 1500+ in Tier 8 Carrier random matches alone last time I checked. And that is still nothing compared to several forum members that have played well over 10,000 Carrier random matches. In all Carrier play is not that bad in WOWS, it is actually quite fun depending on the setup of the match (enemy Carrier Commander skill, enemy Carrier flight mode setup), but some serious issues could and should be addressed to make Carrier play in WOWS better.

 

A more recent forum topic on the subject of Carriers in WOWS - albeit in a different presentation and format than your topic - for example is the one I recently posted on both the EU and NA WOWS forums:

 

 

In my Carrier topic I have listed 16 of the major Carrier related issues which most Carrier proponents and opponents can more or less agree upon, they are based on both my own observation and what I have read over the past 12 or so months on the North American and European Union WOWS forums concerning Carriers. The only thing I have left out in my Carrier topic is a description of the Carrier User Interface bugs which could easily have been fixed if the decision makers at WOWS had wanted to do so in the past few years.

 

The 16 solutions that I mention in my topic could easily been implemented the past few years by the decision makers at WOWS. And they could still do that even now. But the decision makers at WOWS for the past 2 years have refused to even fix the Carrier User Interface bugs, let alone do anything serious to promote and improve Carrier play in WOWS. One of the key (pavlovian) mechanisms in WOWS is enticing players to "do" something for a "reward". This comes in the form of unlockable commanders, missions, campaigns, rewards etc. etc. You only need to take ONE look at the Carrier related unlockable commanders, rewards, missions, campaigns, etcetera: there virtually are none! That means the decision makers in WOWS are not interested in promoting Carrier play, not interested in educating the Carrier player base and not interested in generally supporting Carrier play in WOWS.

 

The reason for that MIGHT be that the WOWS decision makers consider that their WOWS main player base is mostly interested in "pew pew" cannon play instead of Carriers, because Carriers require a different mindset and skill set. Whatever the real reason for it is, it is a fact that the WOWS decision makers have for the past 2 years made no real effort to promote and improve Carrier play in WOWS.

 

One of the worst issues affecting play balance between Carrier Commanders is that most Carrier Commanders in WOWS do not use Aircraft manual attack. The majority of Carrier Commanders that I have met in matches still have not learned and mastered Aircraft manual attack (even at Tier 8 and up) and the reason for that is that players are not "nudged" or "coached" in WOWS to learn and perfect the Aircraft manual attack. Like I stated before on the forum: "if the learner has not learned, the teacher has not taught". And there lies a major Carrier related issue in itself.

 

What could the decision makers at WOWS have done to "educate" the player base concerning Carriers, for example to close the gap between Carrier Players that use Aircraft manual attack ("strafing", etc.) and those that do not? The issue of Aircraft manual attacks alone separates the new or novice Carrier Commander from the skilled Carrier Commander and it leads to highly unbalanced combat between novice versus skilled Carrier Commanders.

 

I gave one quite possible solution example for "educating the player base" in my Carrier topic which I will repeat here:

 

PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION

  Hide contents

 

Each WOWS player will get access to a new set of five Tier 6 level Carrier-only missions that can be completed only once by a player but which have no time limited completion period: (Mission #1) Shoot down 250 enemy Aircraft via Fighter "Strafing" with a completion award of 250 Golden Doubloons, (Mission #2) Hit 250 enemy Ships via manual attacks with Dive Bombs with a completion award of 250 Golden Doubloons, (Mission #3) Hit 250 enemy Ships via manual attacks with Torpedoes with a completion award of 250 Golden Doubloons, (Mission #4) Sink 250 enemy ships via manual attacks with Dive and/or Torpedo Bombers with a completion award of 250 Golden Doubloons, (Mission #5) Gather 25,000 Experience Points (XP) with any Tier 6 Carrier which will reward a special "Carrier Expert" badge and achievement to the player in addition to the final completion award of the new French Tier 6 Premium Carrier LA FAYETTE with a 10-skill point French Commander and a free Port Slot. The new French Carrier LA FAYETTE is an exact copy of the already existing WOWS Tier 6 Tech Tree USA Carrier INDEPENDENCE but she is equipped with an unique "Type 11" Permanent Premium Ship Camouflage ("-3% to surface detectability range", "+4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship", "-10% to the cost of ship's post-battle service", "+50% to experience earned in the battle", "+100% Free experience earned in the battle"), has a total of 45x Aircraft on board (1x4-Aircraft Fighter-Squadron with a total of 15x "Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat" Tier 7 Fighters, 1x4-Aircraft Dive-Bomber-Squadron with a total of 15x "Curtiss SB2C Helldiver" Tier 8 Dive-Bombers that can be equipped with either 1x HE 1000 lb ANM65 Bomb or 1x AP 1000 lb Mk33 Bomb, 1x5-Aircraft Torpedo-Bomber-Squadron with a total of 15x "Curtiss SB2C Helldiver" Tier 8 Torpedo-Bombers each equipped with 1x Mk13 Mod. 0A Torpedo).

 

This solution will likely both appeal to all players of WOWS and draw more players to play Tier 6 Carriers because it allows them to win 1,000 golden Doubloons and in addition rewards an unique French Premium Aircraft Carrier which offers a slightly similar – but not as overpowered – setup and play as the Tier 7 Premium Carrier SAIPAN. As a result of the setup of the five missions the players will have to both learn and gain an understanding of the pros and cons of Carrier play and especially of manual Aircraft attacks, meaning manual Fighter "strafing" attacks and manual Bombing attacks with Dive and Torpedo Bombers. Currently there is no reward incentive whatsoever for dedicated Battleship, Cruiser and Destroyer players to learn and gain an understanding of the pros and cons of Carrier play in WOWS via direct Carrier play experience, and there is also no special reward incentive whatsoever for new and novice Carrier Commanders to learn and perfect manual Aircraft Attacks. The best way to entice WOWS players to at least gain a minimum level of actual Carrier game play experience ("educating" the player base in other words) is to offer a reward that is simply too good for them to pass up. The proposed LA FAYETTE French Carrier uses a ship model, ship camouflage assets and stats, aircraft assets and aircraft armament that currently already exists in WOWS, meaning that no new content needs to be created to add this authentic French Aircraft Carrier into WOWS as a unique and interesting reward ship.

 

Basic general information on the authentic French Carrier LA FAYETTE can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_La_Fayette_(R96)

 

A colour image of the French Carrier LA FAYETTE in Mers-el-Kébir.

https://imgur.com/a/9r29LQa

oDNohK2.jpg

 

A colour image of a French Flottille 1F-Aeronavale  - Grumman F6F-5 'Hellcat' like the ones that were used aboard LA FAYETTE

https://imgur.com/a/YqqbhTX

eHDcAMK.jpg

 

A colour image of a French Flottille 3F-Aeronavale  - Curtiss SB2C 'Helldiver' like the ones that were used aboard LA FAYETTE

https://imgur.com/a/2i7Fgle

U9urdNA.jpg

 

With such a solution it is highly probable that most of the player base (even the ones that only like to use Battleships) would give those Carrier missions a try to get the 1,000 Golden Doubloons while Carrier enthusiasts might be more interested in getting the LA FAYETTE which would "nudge" or "coach" them to learn and master Aircraft manual attacks. In any event players that would try out these missions would be enticed to learn and perfect the use of manual attacks ("strafing" etc.) or at the very least get an understanding of them.

 

But NOTHING like this has EVER been done to my knowledge. WOWS decision makers are fine with having the majority of players having no understanding of Aircraft manual attacks, their pros and cons and their effectiveness. And that is just one major example of what basically is disinterest for Carriers by the WOWS decision makers.

 

Many PC Carrier players, including me, have stated it: the Carrier Rework that is being worked on now is likely only being done to be able to port WOWS to consoles (XBOX, PS4). In other words, WOWS likely needs to be dumbed down to a level that allows it to be played on console with a controller. So the less mouse and keyboard input required the better for this purpose and only from that perspective. So the likely goal is NOT to improve WOWS Carrier play and it is also NOT to get MORE players to use Carriers in WOWS. The likely goal of the "long term" Carrier rework is to keep Carriers in WOWS in a fairly unattractive play state but playable with a controller instead. What the WOWS decision makers have made clear in the past 2 years is that Carriers are not really desired in WOWS, they are tolerated but the Carrier game play is kept overall unattractive (including keeping major Carrier User Interface bugs in place) to make sure that the Carrier player base remains small AND that the main WOWS target audience  - the "pew pew" cannon interested player base - keeps playing WOWS in large numbers.

 

Some examples of what can likely be expected from the "long term" solution "dumbed down" WOWS Carrier play which will allow WOWS Carriers to be played with a controller on XBOX/PS4 instead of a mouse and keyboard can be glanced from what has been done in other games.

 

These two videos for example.

 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,675 posts
13,098 battles
1 hour ago, Admiral_H_Nelson said:

You might wish that the player base were more competent and willing to learn - but they aren't. Everyone who keeps wishing for human nature to change is in denial.

 

The thing is that this actually worked very well in the beginning when CVs were so overwhelmingly powerful you either worked together or you just died even harder than you do now.

By murdering CVs WG essentially removed teamplay right as most players joined the game in OBT and formed the meta as we know it which consequently cannot deal with the presence of CVs. I agree that it's pretty much impossible to avert the trend now, but I see no reason to change CVs for the benefit of braindead potatoes either. Let them get their teeth kicked in until they finally l2p.

 

Trust me, I'm not an optimist by any means. I'm a realist and reality is that pretty much every team based multiplayer game throws their less skilled players to the wolfs until they git gud. WoWs should be no different.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-SBF-]
[-SBF-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
314 posts
9,781 battles
11 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

TL;DR?

 

Chance that someone will read through a simple wall of text tends to be really low :cap_old:

Too bad you didn't read it, it's an excellent post about the current state of cv's. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,669 posts
12,084 battles
8 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Let them get their teeth kicked in until they finally l2p.

It's all relative. Compared to me you are an "incurable optimist!" :Smile_teethhappy:

 

Sadly, given the low player retention rate (there was a major thread on this not so long ago), it feels as if players would rather leave the game if they keep getting their teeth kicked in than l2p.

 

People don't want to make the effort in an era that craves immediacy and does not want to wait for anything. It's a risk spending time & money. It may pay off - but then again it may not.

 

Far easier to go find another game to play.

 

(Not my views. However this is how lots of people think - maybe even the majority)

 

I wonder how long this game has got? I'll be sad to see it go.:Smile_sad:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×