CV Rework Discussion

[MRGTB]

9 hours ago, Namuras said:

They can't tho... :)

 

Remember the communities decision during the Gulio Ceasare rebalance discussion? The Com said they are fine with OP prems and WG confirmed they won't touch Prems. 

Of course they can change the global way CVs work... but that will make the silver CVs useless if they want to reign in the Big E. 

You say they can't, or won't do it to premium ships

 

Yet, in the next patch the planes on the Graff Zep (a premium ship) are being heavily nerfed on speed with no offer of a full refund to those who have the CV?

 

 

[Namuras]

Just now, TheScarletPimpernel said:

Yet, in the next patch the planes on the Graff Zep are being heavily nerfed on speed?

You see, that change to boost is a global change that affects ALL CVs equally... 

 

But they can't -or rather won't- go and directly change any prem and only that. That is what i am referring to: if they want to reign in the BigE they will nerf the silver CVs into uselesnes. 

[MRGTB]

Well it might not necessarily affect all CV. Maybe some CVs planes are already slow enough to not be affected by this speed nerf. Dunno about that, but not like some of the British cv planes are much faster than 180k using speed boost. So what, a CV like Implacable might take a hit of only 5k reduction on plane speed - while the Graff Zep gets hit by a 80k reduction in speed on planes.

 

How is that equal globally. I bet most tier 4 and 6 CV planes don't even do 180k with speed boost used. So not all CV will be effected by the speed nerf I'm betting

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

There are the ones living in the past and whining about their RTS mini game

 

Because when people who have extensive experience and being extremely successful in both iterations tell you that one is objectively worse than the other it gets labeled as whining. 

Perhaps you're actually the one who's blinded by personal preferences?

 

Was the RTS iteration perfect?  no, far from it. It was however far more fair to surface ship players than the dumpster fire that is the rework.

[El2aZeR]

1 minute ago, TheScarletPimpernel said:

How is that equal globally

 

Might not be equal in that sense but it's a global change nonetheless. Global changes can affect premiums, but they cannot be targeted specifically.

E.g. you can nerf GZ boost speed by doing exactly what they're currently planning. You can't however just specifically nerf GZ boost speed and leave everyone else as is.

[Namuras]

2 minutes ago, TheScarletPimpernel said:

Well it might not necessarily affect all CV. Maybe some CVs planes are already slow enough to not be affected by this speed nerf. Dunno about that, but not like some of the British cv planes are much faster than 180k using speed boost. So what, a CV like Implacable might take a hit of only 5k reduction on plane speed - while the Graff Zep get hit by a 80k reduction in speed on planes.

 

How is that equal globally

It's a global change... everyone (except IJN) get the same boostspeed. It doesn't mean all CVs are equally effected. BigE planes e.g. are comparativly slow, so they are hit less than GZ. 

[1MajorKoenig]

2 hours ago, Procrastes said:

Replying to your points in order of appearance, Captain!

 

We should certainly strive to keep the discussion free from any kind of "hate arguments". I have tried to keep my posts pertinent and based on factual arguments. And I want to be clear that I absolutely do not hate CV:s - or CV players, for that matter. Both, I'd say, belong in the game.

 

And I should definitely hope that destroyers have a lot of purpose left - they being my favourite ship class and all. My words about sometimes feeling a bit redundant when I'm in a destroyer, is just that - a feeling. It is a feeling that no one in this game should have to experience, irrespective of which ship class he or she prefers. The code word, as ever, is "balance".

 

Which brings me to your third point. I'm glad to see that we agree on the need for a "balance fix" to this CV rework. I am sorry if my posts on the matter have come across as a whine show. It is sometimes hard to get the right tone in a debate - but let me assure you, that nothing I have written was intended as whining or digs against other players!

 

Cheers!

 

 

Good to see some civilized discussion with a gentleman 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Why do I need to explain to you why Carriers should be part of a WW2 Naval game?! 

I think there is a place in this game for some form of CVs, because they can offer a unique game play experience.

 

Just to note: there were considerably more submarines built during the WoWs time frame than carriers, but that doesn't mean they could or should be implemented in game.

[1MajorKoenig]

6 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Because when people who have extensive experience and being extremely successful in both iteration tell you that one is objectively worse than the other it gets labeled as whining. 

Perhaps you're actually the one who's blinded by personal preferences?

 

Was the RTS iteration perfect?  no, far from it. It was however far more fair to surface ship players than the dumpster fire that is the rework.

 

I duly respect your well known skills but saying the old iteration of CVs was balanced and fun for everyone can’t be your serious opinion.

 

I get that you are mad that WG took the part of game away you liked but you can’t deny that there were problems big enough justifying the rework in general. “It’s worse” - why worse? It may not be perfect but it is certainly already much more popular. Or are you denying that as well? 

 

Independent of this it is painful to see you arguing against CVs in general - your class somehow. You know as much as I do that the hate isn’t really new. Its just a convenient time to let it all out and it is also due the fact that CVs are now present in reasonable numbers - unlike in the old iteration 

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

I think there is a place in this game for some form of CVs, because they can offer a unique game play experience.

 

Just to note: there were considerably more submarines built during the WoWs time frame than carriers, but that doesn't mean they could or should be implemented in game.

 

True but you should note that submarines were almost exclusively commerce raiders and very rarely engaged warships. And if a usually by chance only 

[DFens_666]

2 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I get that you are mad that WG took the part of game away you liked but you can’t deny that there were problems big enough justifying the rework in general. “It’s worse” - why worse? It may not be perfect but it is certainly already much more popular. Or are you denying that as well?

 

Why is being popular a good thing?!

Would you say, current version of Pobeda (slava) would be popular? I think we can agree on: Hell yeah. So i guess, Pobeda would be a good addition to the game in your book?...

Only because something is popular, doesnt mean its good for the game. Most likely its the opposite actually, thats why its popular in the first place. Well, not as much for new CVs, as most people didnt like RTS, even if they might have liked to play CVs

[Culiacan_Mexico]

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

True but you should note that submarines were almost exclusively commerce raiders and very rarely engaged warships. And if a usually by chance only 

US Submarines were very successful in sinking Japanese combat ships.

 

JAPANESE NAVAL AND MERCHANT VESSELS SUNK DURING WORLD WAR II
By
UNITED STATES FORCES

		Naval Vessels			Merchant Vessels			Total Vessels
Sinking Agent		No.	Tonnage		No.	Tonnage		No.	Tonnage
Submarines		201	540,192		1,113	4,779,902		1,314	5,320,094
Surface Craft		112	277,817		11	43,349		123	321,166
Army Aircraft		70	62,165		240	639,667		310	701,832
Navy-Marine Aircraft		172	724,638		447	1,608,959		619	2,333,597

[Sunleader]

6 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

True but you should note that submarines were almost exclusively commerce raiders and very rarely engaged warships. And if a usually by chance only 

 

This is actually wrong.

Albeit a very common mistake.

 

Submarines specialized in Attacking and Killing Surface Ships via Ambushes and Surprise Attacks.

 

This absolutely not limited to Commerce Raiding.

And in fact Commerce Raiding was never the Primary Job of Submarines.

 

This misconception stems from the German WW2 Naval Warfate Doctrine.

Which Aimed at cutting off any Forces in Europe from supplies and force the Allies into Surrender.

 

As Germany was vastly superior in Submarine Technology.

Everyone always assumes that the German Commerce Raiding Doctrine was what Submarines are supposed to do.

And only looks at Germany for Submarines.

 

 

But other Navies also had Submarines.

And they followed different doctrines actually.

(While Germany actually followed commerce Raiding Doctrine with all its Ships not just Subs :) )

 

The misconception is also further supported by the large amount of Transport Ships compared to the tiny amount of Combat Ships.

The Navies in WW2 has Thousands of Transports and Freighters. But at best a few hundred Warships.

 

 

USN and IJN Subs for example actually Aimed Primarily at Enemy Combat Ships.

Especially Capital Ships.

 

[Uglesett]

"CVs are warships, they belong in a warship game".... well, not really. It's not as if there aren't plenty of categories of warships (e.g. mine layers and sweepers, any number of coastal and littoral ships etc.) that aren't included, because there isn't really a good way to include them that doesn't make them pointless or breaks the game in other ways. TBH, if WG had made the decision a couple of years ago to not include CVs, would anyone really have missed them? 

 

All in all, I do think including them in the first place was a mistake. As for whether that mistake can be corrected? Well, I am genuinely unsure whether just removing them altogether at this stage would generate any more noise and trouble than the rework has done.

 

As for arguments for why they don't belong in a game like WoWS... well:

 

1) From a game design/game play perspective:

CVs are fundamentally different from the other three ship classes that the game is primarily designed to represent, and they ignore all of the balancing factors (detectability, weapon range and reload speed, armour layout and angling, gunnery mechanics...) that apply to the other ship classes, and instead depend on an entirely separate system of mechanisms of attack and counter play that are... at best, severely flawed. Yes, there are issues with other ships, but none of them are as fundamental as the basic disconnect between the CV game play and the game play of the other classes. And that's not something that can ever be really solved.

 

2) From a "realism" perspective:

Barring a handful of incidents that were either down to bad luck or sheer incompetence, CVs just didn't belong anywhere near the gun range of surface combatants. They'd do whatever they could to stay the  away from anything that could shoot a large calibre gun at them and launch air strikes from over the horizon. A CV that was as close to the action as they are in this game was awfully misplaced. Saying CVs belong in the game because they belong in real life just completely ignores the setting of battles in this game, which is visual range combat. 

[1MajorKoenig]

23 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Why is being popular a good thing?!

Would you say, current version of Pobeda (slava) would be popular? I think we can agree on: Hell yeah. So i guess, Pobeda would be a good addition to the game in your book?...

Only because something is popular, doesnt mean its good for the game. Most likely its the opposite actually, thats why its popular in the first place. Well, not as much for new CVs, as most people didnt like RTS, even if they might have liked to play CVs

 

A class grossly unpopular is a problem. 

 

Slava - as much as I heard about her - combines cruiser accuracy with Battleship AP which isn’t gonna end well. Haven’t played her myself or against her though.

 

Are you trying to say the current CVs are too powerful? 

 

 

[1MajorKoenig]

21 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

US Submarines were very successful in sinking Japanese combat ships.

 

JAPANESE NAVAL AND MERCHANT VESSELS SUNK DURING WORLD WAR II
By
UNITED STATES FORCES

		Naval Vessels			Merchant Vessels			Total Vessels
Sinking Agent		No.	Tonnage		No.	Tonnage		No.	Tonnage
Submarines		201	540,192		1,113	4,779,902		1,314	5,320,094
Surface Craft		112	277,817		11	43,349		123	321,166
Army Aircraft		70	62,165		240	639,667		310	701,832
Navy-Marine Aircraft		172	724,638		447	1,608,959		619	2,333,597

 

Well... ok. And I am almost sure you will get your submarines one day (after the Halloween event) - but beware the whining on the forums the weeks after this happens 

[ApolloF117]

2 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Are you trying to say the current CVs are too powerful? 

You think its not?

[Solstad1069]

19 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Last 21 days, mostly solo:

 

 

My guess is they're gonna pull her from sale. I don't believe they have any other choice really. A T8 CV that is more powerful than most T10 CVs is way too broken to remain as is.

 

This is really not a problem if you can pull the same numbers from any other tier8 ship in the game.
Or do you have to play the Enterprise to be able to carry a game?

[anonym_WQDIB9XrzbSp]

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Let's start with a simple why. The fact that CVs are warships doesn't mean they belong in an arcadeish game that focuses on surface gunships. Especially since history buffs like us certainly know what they did to naval combat in reality. Also as a history buff I'm naturally offended by the extremely hollywoodish way carriers are portrayed in game; in reality carriers and surface ships didn't coexist in battles like they do in this game. It would be far more realistic to have separate matches with major fleet carrier operations and perhaps AI gun ships and separate battles for gunship vs gunship combat. Just like reality.

Except it doesn't focus on surface ship gameplay and CV's have been present since public beta?

 

1 hour ago, Sunleader said:

 

He told me. That the worst Customers are the ones which just pay their tab and leave when they disliked it.

 

 

I see what you did there confusing feedback with incessant whining.

 

I'm not denouncing you btw, just sharing an alternative set of views that are far from pro CV, just pro realistic.

 

It is however certainly easier to understand your confrontational attitude from the perspective that you feel denounced by anyone who has a slightly different opinion.

 

Perhaps relax a little eh?

[El2aZeR]

2 minutes ago, Solstad1069 said:

Or do you have to play the Enterprise to be able to carry a game?

 

Lets just say even going seal clubbing in a Clemson doesn't put me anywhere close to the numbers I can pull in Enterprise.

[Lootboxer]

8 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

A class grossly unpopular is a problem. 

 

Slava - as much as I heard about her - combines cruiser accuracy with Battleship AP which isn’t gonna end well. Haven’t played her myself or against her though.

 

Are you trying to say the current CVs are too powerful? 

 

 

Bbs damge with DDs spoting is OK by you?

[anonym_WQDIB9XrzbSp]

42 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

True but you should note that submarines were almost exclusively commerce raiders and very rarely engaged warships. And if a usually by chance only 

No, the list of warships sunk by u-boats alone is pretty sizeable. That's just USN ships, I've not even considered RN yet.

 

Not trying to have a row here mind you, aerial torps and bombs were the no1 cause of sinkings, per the importance of CV in naval gameplay, but there are a lot of submarine kills, even just reviewing u-boat sinkings. There will presumably be scope for all these things in the game at some point.

 

The only thing hindering effective balancing in my humble opinion are the polarised extremes of the CV mains versus surface mains.

[Namuras]

45 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I duly respect your well known skills but saying the old iteration of CVs was balanced and fun for everyone can’t be your serious opinion.

I think you misread his comment. pre-rework cvs where fucked up, reworked aren't quite as bad as before, but still not good. 

 

 

[anonym_WQDIB9XrzbSp]

Just now, Namuras said:

I think you misread his comment. pre-rework cvs where fucked up, reworked aren't quite as bad as before, but still not good. 

 

 

I fear that, much like the IJN DD line, it won't be considered good until it's been neutered to the point of useless.

 

Ironically, the same rework has largely eliminated any enjoyment from playing IJN DD's, so it's something of a giggle to see BB's shifting their ire at the other more mobile torpedo launching platform.

[Lootboxer]

We can be divided in opinions on place of CVs in this game, but I think that we all will agree that big E is broken as .

Sad is that during a discussion on GC nerf WG ensured us that there will be no more as broken OP premiums, that nowadays balancing and testing is much better than back then and what have they done?

They quickly rushed premium CVs before rework was finished properly and came with this OP ship spoiling the game not only for surface ships but also for the other CVs which have to face her and outperform to win.