CV Rework Discussion

[Culiacan_Mexico]

Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Of course they could. Because they mastered this part of the game. Thing is: that was not what the rest of the game wanted.

 

Your point is really questionable. Do I need to play Slava myself to see it will likely be broken as hell? Not really 

It doesn't take much to see that the current iteration of CVs, for the most part, are not balanced. But what specifically needs to be changed on the Enterprise to bring it into balance... how would I know without having played it?  Should the effectiveness of HE be changed and by how much... I lack the knowledge to truly understand the details.

[cherry2blost]

So 128 pages in the 'bin' now and all you see are the same few people fanbois, slugging it out with the same repetitive argument.

 

I have been in game since CBT, have played a lot of games, have spent liberally, have enjoyed my time in WoWs, but my average game count is down to around 10% (or less) of my usual. The reason. is Carriers, pure and simple the mass influx of carriers, two per side and being bottom tier against them a lot of the time has sucked the fun out of this fine game. Sorry to say it but I know I am not alone in this.... Argue all you like but this game is losing a lot of its' veterans, those who, historically, have also been the biggest spenders as well. Only time will tell for sure.....

[rising_uk]

6 hours ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

...

No, i care. I play CV because it's fun for me, other players and to provide WG with the data they need to balance them correctly while learning and teaching other players about the reworkes class, how to play and avoid it.

The thing is that they'll NEVER be able to balance them correctly, unless of course they make it possible to deplane the CVs but then the pew, pew, brigade will stop playing them and defeat WG's aim of making them popular in the first place. It's a mistake to think that the rework CVs are still a class of ship in the game, they aren't they are aeroplanes and you might as well just have them flying off a fixed airbase for all the point of the carrier now.

In the RTS version they were more like the role CV's should play in a PvP game but WG in their wisdom decided to add strafing to the fighters which meant that those who could manage this skill could effectively deplane a less skilled player pretty quickly and led to people stopping playing them as how much fun is it to just sail around doing nothing for half the game. I'm pretty sure the solution would have been for WG to listen to what the RTS players had apparently been trying to tell them for ages but WG have a history of not listening to their player-base and fair enough  as it's their game and they obviously know how to make money from it but this rework is nearly the exact same thing as the introduction of Arty into WoT and that pretty much ruined that as a tank game and has never been managed to be balanced even now.

 

I get that you think it a good thing to provide data to WG but if you are a premium account player aren't you just slightly miffed that you are effectively being a beta tester for WG and paying them for the pleasure?

[Procrastes]

2 minutes ago, rising_uk said:

The thing is that they'll NEVER be able to balance them correctly, unless of course they make it possible to deplane the CVs but then the pew, pew, brigade will stop playing them and defeat WG's aim of making them popular in the first place.

Giving the carriers a finite number of planes, and tweaking the effectiveness of AA, might actually be at least part of a solution to the CV rework situation. One reason why I find it a bit boring to play carriers - aside from my total lack of skill in that regard, of course - is that I don't feel I'm risking anything when I embark on an attack run. A "deplanability solution" would probably require some fairly major rebalancing to almost every ship in the game above tier III, though - so it's not likely to be the first venue of approach from WG.

 

Whatever else comes to pass, the pew pew brigade will cope. They always do.

[Lootboxer]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

WG has plenty of options if they want to change the spotting aspect 

What options? Even mini map icons will ruin flanking attempts. Make them blind or forbid any form. Of communication? If WG could balance CVs they would do it long time ago. 

[rising_uk]

9 hours ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

A traditional type of submarine doesn't really seem viable in this game, or at least not in randoms. Scenarios are a possibility though.

Well I used to be of the opinion that that would be the last straw for me but now I look forward to them as I know which class of ship I'll be heading for straight from the get go. 

[ApolloF117]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

I don’t refuse to read but you are not bringing anything. No counterplay? There is still this stupid RNG AA just like before. How is that inherent to the rework 

Just so you know, AA was not rng before , thats why was it effective, and not a garbage like the reworked AA now

[Beaker71]

1 hour ago, rising_uk said:

In the RTS version they were more like the role CV's should play in a PvP game but WG in their wisdom decided to add strafing to the fighters which meant that those who could manage this skill could effectively deplane a less skilled player pretty quickly and led to people stopping playing them as how much fun is it to just sail around doing nothing for half the game.

I've played a total of 5 CV games, and don't intend to increase that, so i can't comment from an experience point of view - but the strafing did seem a particularly stupid mechanic - even for WG.  WOWs isn't exactly great for explaining features, so i can imagine quite a few CV players didn't even know what it did, or how to use it effectively. 

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

So are you just saying Big E’s AP bombs and Midway’s HE bombs are broken? 

 

I actually lost my AP DBs for nothing thanks to the glorious bug that prevents planes from dropping ordinance. So I just murdered them with rockets and torps instead.

Thus I'm actually pretty sure I could've done that with every other CV too.

[Sunleader]

26 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

I actually lost my AP DBs for nothing thanks to the glorious bug that prevents planes from dropping ordinance. So I just murdered them with rockets and torps instead.

Thus I'm actually pretty sure I could've done that with every other CV too.

 

I actually tried Murdering CVs with my CV.

As neither Fighters nor AA will Protect you from CVs Bombing you. It is actually not a Problem to Kill an Enemy CV with Bombs.

Unfortunately as the Enemy CV can stay at the other end of the Map behind the entire Enemy Fleet. It takes too long to kill the Enemy CV to really be a Good Advantage in Battle.

Because no matter how much you Bomb him. His Aircraft Capacity and ability to meanwhile Kill your Team which is a much Shorter Flight for him. Is not Diminished at all until he is 100% dead....

 

I am still considering to just Play Games and Murder the Enemy CV right away.

Just to give em a Taste of how Futile any Attempts of Defending themselves against Bombers are.

[El2aZeR]

8 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

It takes too long to kill the Enemy CV to really be a Good Advantage in Battle.

 

That and the enemy CV can just spam fighters and diminish your reserves, severely hindering your ability to continue influencing the battle after their inevitable demise. So even after you kill the CV and play out the match, it is very likely that you'll end up behind in the damage race.

 

Sniping a CV is really only worth it if said CV is just as close or closer than enemy surface ships. Which so far has happened to me exactly one time.

[Kathapalt]

14 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

I actually tried Murdering CVs with my CV.

As neither Fighters nor AA will Protect you from CVs Bombing you. It is actually not a Problem to Kill an Enemy CV with Bombs.

Unfortunately as the Enemy CV can stay at the other end of the Map behind the entire Enemy Fleet. It takes too long to kill the Enemy CV to really be a Good Advantage in Battle.

Because no matter how much you Bomb him. His Aircraft Capacity and ability to meanwhile Kill your Team which is a much Shorter Flight for him. Is not Diminished at all until he is 100% dead....

 

I am still considering to just Play Games and Murder the Enemy CV right away.

Just to give em a Taste of how Futile any Attempts of Defending themselves against Bombers are.

Good idea might buy enterprice and just spam enemy cv:s for therapy. AP bombs any good against cv:S?

[T3ddyBear]

8 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

To put this into perspective, just recently I faced a double unicum Seattle div in my Enterprise. That would've been a daunting perspective in the RTS iteration, but in the rework I knew precisely that they've just ed themselves over by choosing AA cruisers funnily enough.

So I proceeded to kill them both. While they stuck together and coordinated DFAA usage. All for a paltry amount of planes lost on my part which didn't matter anyway as I ended the match with full squads.

Now that's a replay I would like to see on your channel matey!

 

Good "learnings" to be had there.

 

TB.

[EgyptOverseer]

If WG is hell bent on merging WoWp with WoWs then someone needs to look at CV survivability, AA mechanics and high tier strike potential, unless they plan to have 1/10 of the combined playerbase of both in less than a year. 

[Amun_RA]

CVs have completely changed the meta. What drove many players to this game is the tactical aspect of the game and relying much on the lines of sites. That all is much gone now. 

 

Carriers spot you and harass you in many critical moments. DDs are nerfed because of this. They encourage you to camp far away in the back which is stupid. I also have the tier 8 premium CVs and I like playing them but I must admit they ruin the game.

 

And there is the minority of the player base who loves to play carriers and cry and cry on the forum that CVs get nerfed into the ground when the reality is they are still way too dominant and simply ruin the game. These people should want a balanced game like the majority of the players.

 

WG shot themselves in the foot when they introduced the way too powerful CVs for a game that relies a lot on strategy and not getting spotted.

 

If these people like so much playing planes then they should simply play World of Warplanes (that game really needs more players in order to be more fun and engaging - so go there and shoot as many ships and targets as you want to). 

 

People, let's encourage WG to further balance the carriers, nerf them to some extent if we want to have a tactical game in the future and not just  very fast 'shoot and run' battles like in WoT.

 

Battles were already too short because of the stupid point system which should be tweaked a lot in my opinion to prevent battles where half the enemy team still alive and the game ends in victory for you without the satisfaction of destroying them. Now the carriers make battles even shorter than before. 

[lup3s]

3 hours ago, cherry2blost said:

So 128 pages in the 'bin' now and all you see are the same few people fanbois, slugging it out with the same repetitive argument.

 

I have been in game since CBT, have played a lot of games, have spent liberally, have enjoyed my time in WoWs, but my average game count is down to around 10% (or less) of my usual. The reason. is Carriers, pure and simple the mass influx of carriers, two per side and being bottom tier against them a lot of the time has sucked the fun out of this fine game. Sorry to say it but I know I am not alone in this.... Argue all you like but this game is losing a lot of its' veterans, those who, historically, have also been the biggest spenders as well. Only time will tell for sure.....

 

Very recognisable.

 

My (IRL) friends and I play this game less and less since the CV rework; most of them have even quit this game entirely.

Some of them even refuse to return to WoWS (even for a single battle) because of the current state of the game ... 

[Uglesett]

9 hours ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Come up with your own ideas how to better the situation without saying lazy things like unbalanceable.

The problem is that the only really good suggestion, WG didn't listen to: Scrap the CV rework sometime back in Jan.-Feb.

 

There genuinely isn't any "constructive" feedback to give beyond "start over", because the CV rework is fundamentally flawed and never should have been implemented in the live game. Because what it boils down to is that CVs don't fit into the basic design of the game. They aren't subject to the restrictions used to balance the other classes, and their only role is to be the fun police for every other class by basically negating all skill related to positioning and use of concealment. Meanwhile, they don't really have any actual counter play options any more beyond gambling for misplays by the CV.

 

The reworked CVs will never be balanced to play against while being actually enjoyable to play.

 

If I was going to give one option that might semi-salvage this show until they can get a second rework going (or they just give up and scrap CVs entirely)  it's to basically make them behave a lot more like the RTS CVs:

-Reduce plane speeds and/or introduce a delay between recalling one squadron and launching another

-Remove multiple strikes per squadron - the entire squadron strikes as one.

-Increase AA damage across the board

 

This is basically going to cause the following

-Losses before a strike actually count

-Less loitering over targets, which reduces the impact of CV spotting

-More turnaround time giving time to react and reposition before a new strike

 

Unfortunately, this is going to require basically a complete restart of the balancing process. Squadron sizes, plane health, ordnance damage... all these will have to be redone. Again.

[1MajorKoenig]

6 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

There genuinely isn't any "constructive" feedback to give beyond "start over", because the CV rework is fundamentally flawed and never should have been implemented in the live game. Because what it boils down to is that CVs don't fit into the basic design of the game.

 

Which is nothing more than your personal opinion. Zero rationale behind this. The opposite is true - they fir very well into the game 

[Asakka]

1 hour ago, EgyptOverseer said:

If WG is hell bent on merging WoWp with WoWs then someone needs to look at CV survivability, AA mechanics and high tier strike potential, unless they plan to have 1/10 of the combined playerbase of both in less than a year. 

Yeah they could tone down the AA a bit 

[Beaker71]

This pretty much sums up (albeit not normally quite so extreme as this) a lot my experiences with CVs. One sided games,  either win or lose - and very little i can actually do about it. Ok i know you get games like this without CVs, but still feels like more lopsided than before.

 

 

Looking at their stats our CV was far from a good player (45% win rate in that CV),  but that was still over 5% better than the opposition.  Ok so both me,  and the harugumo have good AA, so makes it tricky for a CV to target us - but they did have a mino

[Asakka]

2 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

This pretty much sums up (albeit not normally quite so extreme as this) a lot my experiences with CVs. One sided games,  either win or lose - and very little i can actually do about it. Ok i know you get games like this without CVs, but still feels like more lopsided than before.

 

 

Looking at their stats our CV was far from a good player (45% win rate in that CV),  but that was still over 5% better than the opposition.  Ok so both me,  and the harugumo have good AA, so makes it tricky for a CV to target us - but they did have a mino

? its somehow CVs fault ?

[1MajorKoenig]

3 hours ago, DariusJacek said:

What options? Even mini map icons will ruin flanking attempts. Make them blind or forbid any form. Of communication? If WG could balance CVs they would do it long time ago. 

 

If you really think that spotting by CVs is an issue (which I don’t think it is) WG COULD Limit it in different ways which btw have been discussed multiple times

- spot only for minimap 

- spot transmit to team button (like radar)

- reduce distance where you “see” spotted enemies yourself

- remove spotting for fighters

- etc pp

 

However WG doesn’t seem to believe it’s a huge issue. Preventing a flanking move? Really...? Well I think you have some romantic dreams about the state of random games. “Parking Lot” is a nice understatement for this mainly boring and untactical clusterfork and that is not only since the rework. But yea keep blaming the CVs for that 

 

Btw the Reddit number crunch showed apparently that the new CVs spot significantly less than the RTS ones. 

[Beaker71]

Just now, Asakka said:

? its somehow CVs fault ?

Not saying it's the players fault, but you get a good vs average,  average vs poor etc CV player and sometimes (not always) the game is over before it's started. A difference in skill can be still influential in other classes, but one poor player doesn't kill the game for  the team - unless they are in a CV 

[Sunleader]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

 

That and the enemy CV can just spam fighters and diminish your reserves, severely hindering your ability to continue influencing the battle after their inevitable demise. So even after you kill the CV and play out the match, it is very likely that you'll end up behind in the damage race.

 

Sniping a CV is really only worth it if said CV is just as close or closer than enemy surface ships. Which so far has happened to me exactly one time.

 

Actually I found the Fighters to be absolutely not an Issue.

Just like my Own Fighters. They mostly Ignore the Bombers and only really start mattering after you already Dropped your Bombs once.

Especially with the TB Repair of the Kaga. I can often get a Second Drop into the Enemy despite Fighters on my Tail. Because they need too long to actually give chase and start doing damage.

 

1 hour ago, Kathapalt said:

Good idea might buy enterprice and just spam enemy cv:s for therapy. AP bombs any good against cv:S?

 

I am using Kaga with Torpedo Bombers.

CVs got pretty bad Torp Damage Reduction. So they do alot of Damage.

Usually takes me 3-4 Drops to Kill an Enemy CV.

 

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

If you really think that spotting by CVs is an issue (which I don’t think it is) WG COULD Limit it in different ways which btw have been discussed multiple times

- spot only for minimap 

- spot transmit to team button (like radar)

- reduce distance where you “see” spotted enemies yourself

- remove spotting for fighters

- etc pp

 

However WG doesn’t seem to believe it’s a huge issue. Preventing a flanking move? Really...? Well I think you have some romantic dreams about the state of random games. “Parking Lot” is a nice understatement for this mainly boring and untactical clusterfork and that is not only since the rework. But yea keep blaming the CVs for that 

 

Btw the Reddit number crunch showed apparently that the new CVs spot significantly less than the RTS ones. 

 

Right now CV Spotting is an Issue.

But yes that could be Fixed.

Several of these Suggestions are stuff I also Suggested already as a Temporary Fix.

And to begin with. While CV Spotting is right now an Real Issue for DDs. Its not really a matter for most other Ships.

 

 

 

The Worst Problem however is and Remains the absolute Lack of Counter Gameplay for Surface Ships against a CV.

When 90% of the AA is Automated with little to no Influence from the Player. Then you always come down to the simple Question.

Can my AA Stop the Enemy Bombers before they Bomb. Or can they not.

Its either A or B.

And thus CVs always end up either Useless or Overpowered.

 

So for CVs to actually be able to do anything. You have to keep AA to a Point where the CV can Still Drop his Bombs.

But that also means the Player cannot Fight Back against a CV.

And there when a Player cannot Fight Back against something. Then he will always be Frustrated. Ruining his Game Experience.

 

 

 

For the Game to be Fun on Both Sides.

You would need a System where for the Surface Ship there is Actual Gameplay Involved in wether or not you are Hit by a Bombing Run.

Right now the only Deciding Factor on wether your Hit by a Bombing Run is the CVs Ability to Aim his Run.

 

And the Honest Answer is.

I do not see any Way to Fix this Problem without making CVs entirely Useless and unable to really Bomb anything but Complete Noobs.

Which means that no matter how we turn it.

This System will never Work and will always remain a Frustrating Experience for either the Surface Ships or the CV depending on how Powerful the Automatic AA is.

[1MajorKoenig]

12 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

The Worst Problem however is and Remains the absolute Lack of Counter Gameplay for Surface Ships against a CV.

When 90% of the AA is Automated with little to no Influence from the Player.

 

For once we agree. The problem isn’t “no counterplay” though but “manual attack vs RNG defense”.

 

However that isn’t an issue of the rework but an issue with WG refusing to give players control over their AA guns. That would be a player vs player situation - however WG doesn’t want to unfortunately.