CV Rework Discussion

[Solstad1069]

14 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

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

Then we have a problem or WG have a problem, because we all like to win, but we cant all be playing CVs.

[thisismalacoda]

Vor 2 Minuten, Solstad1069 sagte:

Then we have a problem or WG have a problem, because we all like to win, but we cant all be playing CVs.

Why not actually? That would send the second clearest message - after stopping all payments for pixelships of course.

[AndyHill]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

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

Because I'd like to see you try. We have already established that WoWS is indeed a somewhat arcadeish game, so it is entirely possible to leave important historical ship classes - such as for example minelayers and aircraft carriers - out of it (note that for example the console WoWS does not have carriers). Since historicity is out of the window anyway, what gameplay value do you think carriers bring into the game? 

[1MajorKoenig]

31 minutes ago, ApolloF117 said:

You think its not?

 

One guy posted a number crunch exercise from Reddit which stated that the new CVs Deal significantlt. less damage and spot significantly less than the old ones. Sure there are exceptions who carry games but you have that in all classes.

 

Most ppl are only looking at T10 - T4-8 CVs are not OP in my opinion. Maybe Big E is an exception - don’t own her but the others? Do you really think they are?

[AndyHill]

2 hours ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

For how long have they been part of WOWS now?

"No ought from is": https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Is-ought.html

 

Just because something exists or/and has existed for a long while does not mean it should exist. Carriers have been the bane of this game since the very start, Wargaming basically admitted to as much when they spent a lot of effort on reworking the whole concept.

[1MajorKoenig]

29 minutes ago, 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 think he meant the new ones are worse 

[HansiSolo]

WG just needs to change 3 things and most people would be fine with CVs:

- Spotting only on minimap

- Damage balancing (less for tier X, more for all other)

- AA that feels effective when used correctly

 

The first point is the most important and the reason why surface ship players don't enjoy the game like in the past - especially against 2CVs.

Dunno why WG is not even considering this.

 

[Sunleader]

17 minutes ago, WynnZeroOne said:

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

 

 

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?

 

Oh look.

Another Post dedicated to my person instead of saying anything on the Topic.

 

Why am I not Surprised :)

 

14 minutes ago, WynnZeroOne said:

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.

 

This is actually wrong.

Or well.

More accurately. It is misleading.

 

Because most Ships being Sunk by Aircraft is actually True.

Roundabout 70-80% of that however was land based Aircraft.

 

 

The reason for that. Is that Carrier Aircraft lacked the Numbers to actually Score lethal damages against Surface Ships.

And that Aircraft Carriers could not support larger Aircraft capable of delivering large Bombs that would Sink larger Ships.

 

Due to that. Carrier Aircraft needed to score fairly accurate Dive Bombing or Torpedo Hits which was really hard when you had such limited numbers to attack with.

 

Most Ships sunk by Carrier Aircraft was during massed Raids where whole Carrier Fleets pooled their Aircraft for massive Attack Waves on Enemy Fleets.

Or if you count Submarines. By Attacking an Isolated Target over and over again while its pursued by friendly Surface Ships.

 

 

 

Carriers are not meant to do individual Battles with other Warships.

They are Fleet Vessels.

[1MajorKoenig]

6 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Because I'd like to see you try. We have already established that WoWS is indeed a somewhat arcadeish game, so it is entirely possible to leave important historical ship classes - such as for example minelayers and aircraft carriers - out of it (note that for example the console WoWS does not have carriers). Since historicity is out of the window anyway, what gameplay value do you think carriers bring into the game? 

 

You clearly don’t understand the meaning of historical. And you don’t understand the term “relevant” either or you wouldn’t bring up mine layers. 

 

But sure dude - how about that: make your own game only with completely irrelevant and boring ships. No variety in gameplay - they will play all the same. Have fun with that it’ll be the most boring game ever 

 

Serious question: why do you even bother with WW2 Naval stuff if you hate planes? 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour 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.

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

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.

 

Do you even read?

 

 

[DFens_666]

51 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

A class grossly unpopular is a problem. 

As we can see, that wasnt the classes fault, but the implementation being RTS. If MM has to put 6 CVs in one game, then there is a problem with popularity imo. The problem is, that for every CV, there are less surface ships in the game. For every CV added, we would need MORE surface ships to keep the balance up.

 

51 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

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.

Basicly the further you are away, the better is the dispersion. Ive seen some "closer" (10-12 km) engagements, and the dispersion is BB like. Shoot 20+km and aim well, you can land 7-8 out of 9 shells With insane penetration ontop, while only having 406mm IIRC.

 

51 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

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

 

Some of them definetely are

And ofc the tier difference problem... and having up to 3 CVs in a game 2 Toptier T8 CVs is pretty much horrible experience. Lucky we got mostly rid of 2 CVs at TX.

[AndyHill]

4 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

You clearly don’t understand the meaning of historical. And you don’t understand the term “relevant” either or you wouldn’t bring up mine layers. 

 

But sure dude - how about that: make your own game only with completely irrelevant and boring ships. No variety in gameplay - they will play all the same. Have fun with that it’ll be the most boring game ever 

 

Serious question: why do you even bother with WW2 Naval stuff if you hate planes? 

Then please define "historical" and "relevant" so that we can talk on common grounds.

 

And actually I kind of love planes. My main thing is in fact hardcore simulators and I think carrier aviation is one of the coolest things ever invented. However, due to my knowledge and understanding of the subject, I'm also aware of its immensely disruptive effect on warship combat and the great dangers (that have now been realized in WoWS) it poses on game design.

 

In general, I bother with WW2 Naval stuff, because I find it a very interesting subject and WoWS, because it's a good and somewhat addictive game (at least when you get to play without carriers).

 

Also I notice a distinct lack of your views on how carriers make the gameplay better in WoWS.

[AirSupremacy]

1 hour 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.

BB`s could also play a role and fit into this game,

especially as they sometimes get disturbed in matches by DD`s.

[Uglesett]

21 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

You clearly don’t understand the meaning of historical.  

As I mentioned in my previous post, historically CVs weren't really involved at the sort of engagement ranges this game represents (unless someone screwed the pooch), and as has also been mentioned earlier, aircraft weren't really involved once surface ships started engaging each other due to difficulty identifying targets. Aircraft engaged surface ships on their own outside of surface engagements.

[1MajorKoenig]

13 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

And actually I kind of love planes. My main thing is in fact hardcore simulators and I think carrier aviation is one of the coolest things ever invented. However, due to my knowledge and understanding of the subject, I'm also aware of its immensely disruptive effect on warship combat and the great dangers (that have now been realized in WoWS) it poses on game design.

 

The game makes tons of concessions for these four classes all being equally viable. Don’t play that card or are you one of those suggesting that BBs should stomp all other ships because in such frame they would sh** on a destroyer or cruiser? 

 

The same applies to CVs vs other classes. All classes are implemented in a non strictly historical way so they can compete on more or less equal terms. The HE mechanics for cruisers is an example - the BB dispersion another. The fact that some aerial torpedos Deal less damage that a normal AP shot are also part of that 

[1MajorKoenig]

20 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Also I notice a distinct lack of your views on how carriers make the gameplay better in WoWS.

 

Sorry forgot this one: they offer a unique experience and some good immersion which is fun for lot of people

[black_falcon120]

@El2aZeR I was curious, so i looked up the stats of the CVs, and I noticed that the E was trailing Kaga, do you know why?

 

source: https://wows-numbers.com/ships/compare/?type=air_carrier&tier=8

[DocStrangeFruit]

High tier CVs are still seriously broken, Haku is so OPed its untrue, just watched one in 2 rocket runs on a BB get 58k damage I mean wtf?

 

The Brit CVs can only wish to do that much damage.Plus why do high tier IJN and USA torp planes get 4 or 6 torps per run not 3 like the brit CV?

 

Saying Brit torps are stealthier and more accurate is total baloney as 3 torps are far easier to dodge than 4 or 6, and the IJN can potentially do twice as much damage.

 

Brits = 3 torps doing 6k max each (18k max)

USA = 6 torps doing 4.2k each or (25k max)

IJN = 4 torps doing 9k max each (36k max)

 

That's huge jump in damage with more hit chance.

 

Yes Brit aircraft allegedly have more health, but it makes no odds if you have less attacking aircraft or torpedo's being dropped.

[AndyHill]

Ok, now this is getting more interesting since we're actually at the relevant part of the topic. A unique experience and more immersion are positive things, but then again unique can be problematic, like for example in the case of RTS carriers WG felt (and I kind of agree) that RTS carriers weren't very popular among the playerbase - which led to the issue of a few masterful players stomping all over everything else - due to how different they were to play. Immersion is a bit more challenging to quantify, but what if the game had for example lots of AI aircraft striking some made-up ground targets? Really nice looking and sounding, massive airstrikes pounding the ground with flak bursting all over. Would that not be impressive as well as immersive in the same way current carriers are?

 

Also how do you feel about the role of concealment in WoWS? To me concealment is the only thing that stands between two static blobs firing at each other on Ocean and everything that detracts from that detracts from the game directly. If the enemy knows you're trying to make a sneaky play and can react to it, there's no point in trying to make a play. To me this is the worst aspect of carriers at the moment, even worse than getting pooped on with no counterplay.

[Seinta]

13 minutes ago, Dr_Strangefruit said:

High tier CVs are still seriously broken, Haku is so OPed its untrue, just watched one in 2 rocket runs on a BB get 58k damage I mean wtf?

 

The Brit CVs can only wish to do that much damage.Plus why do high tier IJN and USA torp planes get 4 or 6 torps per run not 3 like the brit CV?

 

Saying Brit torps are stealthier and more accurate is total baloney as 3 torps are far easier to dodge than 4 or 6, and the IJN can potentially do twice as much damage.

 

Brits = 3 torps doing 6k max each (18k max)

USA = 6 torps doing 4.2k each or (25k max)

IJN = 4 torps doing 9k max each (36k max)

 

That's huge jump in damage with more hit chance.

 

Yes Brit aircraft allegedly have more health, but it makes no odds if you have less attacking aircraft or torpedo's being dropped.

2 rocket runs and a BB that let the fires burn?

 

As for the Brits, aren't those the point black drop ones and correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the 4 torp option on Haku nerfed to uselessness?

[El2aZeR]

27 minutes ago, black_falcon120 said:

@El2aZeR I was curious, so i looked up the stats of the CVs, and I noticed that the E was trailing Kaga, do you know why?

 

Probably because Enterprise generally takes more skill to play effectively.

[black_falcon120]

4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Probably because Enterprise generally takes more skill to play effectively.

I don't think so, taking the top 5% of players, the Enterprise is still behind both Saipan and Kaga, by WR it's (just) behind the Saipan although it does lead by 30xp for average xp/battle. 

 

I'm not doubting you, it's just the stats were making me curious. 

[El2aZeR]

14 minutes ago, black_falcon120 said:

I don't think so, taking the top 5% of players, the Enterprise is still behind both Saipan and Kaga, by WR it's (just) behind the Saipan although it does lead by 30xp for average xp/battle. 

 

None of the people in Saipan or Kaga who have a high WR have a substantial amount of battles played.

Then again that would make me the only guy who has an actually representative score anywhere close to the top.

 

Guess you'll just have to take my word on it. :)

[Wazige]

I haden't played this game for a while and came back after the CV rework and i must say that the game has gotten worse. For me as a casual some what average player ending up in a battle with a CV or even 2(the horror) removed most of the fun. I already disliked CV's before the rework but did not really mind getting absolutely wrecked by a skilled CV player. The new CV's are simply stupid

 

My observations:

1: Spotted from start to finish.
2: No freedom of movement when a CV is in the battle. Stray further than 3-4km away from your friends and the CV will simply crap on you and turn you into an exp pinata

3: AA is garbage (does it shoot cookies instead of flak grenades?)

4: No counter to getting crapped on. The CV decides you are next to die? you die, as simple as that. No matter what ship you are using, you'll be death very soon.
5: Battles with 4 top tier CV's turns the entire map into a massive "no fun zone" for everyone else.

 

 

In world of tanks the worst part of the game are arties. They have been from the start and still are. In warships it's the CV's. So wargaming please remove the CV from the game or simply create 2 seperate queues. 1 for people that like to get crapped on by CVs or play CVs and 1 for everyone else(probably the big majority of players)

 

[black_falcon120]

17 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

None of the people in Saipan or Kaga who have a high WR have a substantial amount of battles played.

Then again that would make me the only guy who has an actually representative score anywhere close to the top.

 

Guess you'll just have to take my word on it. :)

Yes, I had a look into that, and the ONLY person in either carrier who was In the top 19 with more than 100 games was YOU.....  

 

Ironically, if you are excluded, the stats look better for the Kaga, so it appears you're some sort of demon...