CV Rework Discussion

[El2aZeR]

7 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

https://wows-numbers.com/ships/tree/type,battleship/

https://wows-numbers.com/ships/tree/type,air_carrier/

 

Yes, they will surely start believing you if you keep posting the same irrelevant stats despite people having explained to you multiple times why they're not representative of anything.

It will make you look very intelligent, too.

 

/s

[AirSupremacy]

Of course one can ignore number facts, WG balances the game after statistics. Gameplay experiences can be subjective.

 

In forum culture, it can be experienced that participants devalue others for satisfaction reasons.
If one wants to look intelligent, one can elaborate on why Wargaming will not consider damage statistics in terms of balancing

 

Happy WoWs everyone, every CV Rework contribution is appreciated :)

 

53 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Yes, they will surely start believing you if you keep posting the same irrelevant stats despite people having explained to you multiple times why they're not representative of anything.

It will make you look very intelligent, too.

 

1

1 hour ago, AirSupremacy said:

https://wows-numbers.com/ships/tree/type,battleship/

https://wows-numbers.com/ships/tree/type,air_carrier/

[GarrusBrutus]

15 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

Of course one can ignore number facts, WG balances the game after statistics. Gameplay experiences can be subjective.

 

Happy WoWs everyone, every CV Rework contribution is appreciated :)

 

Wargaming doesn't balance the game around skewed wows-numbers.com statistics. 

[xxNihilanxx]

23 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

Happy WoWs everyone, every CV Rework contribution is appreciated :)

 

 

Whenever I see fake pleasantries like this from such obvious trolls as you and @L0V3_and_PE4CE I just can't help but be reminded of the highwayman scene from Barry Lyndon.

 

 

[Gl0cK_17]

So how long are they going to carry on with that aprils fools joke?

[AirSupremacy]

Next to your community forum violations dear xxNihilanxx,

of calling contributors "Fake" & "Trolls",

what is your contribution to this CV rework thread ? Suggestions on the CV rework are welcome.

 

So far it was said by forum posters that wg-numbers.com statistics are of no relevant value to the game.

 

37 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

Of course one can ignore number facts, WG balances the game after statistics. Gameplay experiences can be subjective.

 

In forum culture, it can be experienced that participants devalue others for satisfaction reasons.
If one wants to look intelligent, one can elaborate on why Wargaming will not consider damage statistics in terms of balancing

 

Happy WoWs everyone, every CV Rework contribution is appreciated :)

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Yes, they will surely start believing you if you keep posting the same irrelevant stats despite people having explained to you multiple times why they're not representative of anything.

It will make you look very intelligent, too.

 

/s

10 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

Whenever I see fake pleasantries like this from such obvious trolls as you and @L0V3_and_PE4CE I just can't help but be reminded of the highwayman scene from Barry Lyndon.

 

 

 

 

 

[ApolloF117]

24 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

"Fake" & "Trolls",

He has a point, while you and the others keep telling that cv rework is fine , and everyone who's posting on forum whats the problem whit the rework can [edited]off

 

 This is what im seeing

[Yosha_AtaIante]

I pointed out someone who called to boycott games.

But obviously you only see me as a troll when i point at those things.

Because boycotting the game is totally fine just because you are not happy with gameplay elements. What you are calling for is called griefing and that is unacceptable behavior.

Griefing in chat, calling CV players bad names, deliberatly going afk in CV matches.

Spamming the forum with the goal to provoke a change. Very childish behavior and you want me to be constructive towards this kind of behavior?

Really?

 

The only one who knows what he is talking about in here is El2aZeR, Maaseru and in some cases Sunleader who is getting some things very right and others wrong. All the rest is just parroting with overly emotional responses and threats towards WG and calling CV players like me clueless.

There is a certain toxicity towards CVs that doesn't deserve anything less then the responses you get from me and of course, if you start saying something factually wrong and it hasn't been explained yet for the 10th time i will refute it otherwise i will just continue mocking you

[xxNihilanxx]

13 minutes ago, ApolloF117 said:

He has a point, while you and the others keep telling that cv rework is fine , and everyone who's posting on forum whats the problem whit the rework can [edited]off

 

 This is what im seeing

 

It's not because they are pro-CV that they are trolls, it's that just about every comment they make is designed to annoy and irritate other forum goers rather than actually discuss the issue at hand in a reasonable manner.

 

As an example, knowing that the introduction of submarines would be met by many with loathing, count how many times @AirSupremacy posts in CV threads that he can't wait for them to arrive. He deliberately goes into threads where people are already agitated and tries to wind them up further.

 

The pair of them think that they are being subtle but, in actuality, they have all the subtlety of a brick through your window.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 1 Stunde, GarrusBrutus sagte:

Wargaming doesn't balance the game around skewed wows-numbers.com statistics. 

So if they don't balance it around them why does the anti CV crowd use them as arguments to show how op cvs are?

Hmmmmm

[AirSupremacy]

Please provide content and input in regards to the CV rework - Otherwise, the thread is just a rant box. Thank you.

Warming up the airplanes, wishing everyone a nice time in WoWs :)

 

"It's not because they are pro-CV that they are trolls"

Forum violation

 

"...it's that just about every comment they make is designed to annoy and irritate other"

Forum violation

 

"...He deliberately goes into threads where people are already agitated and tries to wind them up further."

Forum violation

 

5 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

It's not because they are pro-CV that they are trolls, it's that just about every comment they make is designed to annoy and irritate other forum goers rather than actually discuss the issue at hand in a reasonable manner.

 

As an example, knowing that the introduction of submarines would be met by many with loathing, count how many times @AirSupremacy posts in CV threads that he can't wait for them to arrive. He deliberately goes into threads where people are already agitated and tries to wind them up further.

 

The pair of them think that they are being subtle but, in actuality, they have all the subtlety of a brick through your window.

 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 5 Minuten, xxNihilanxx sagte:

 

It's not because they are pro-CV that they are trolls, it's that just about every comment they make is designed to annoy and irritate other forum goers rather than actually discuss the issue at hand in a reasonable manner.

 

As an example, knowing that the introduction of submarines would be met by many with loathing, count how many times @AirSupremacy posts in CV threads that he can't wait for them to arrive. He deliberately goes into threads where people are already agitated and tries to wind them up further.

 

The pair of them think that they are being subtle but, in actuality, they have all the subtlety of a brick through your window.

Ouchy.

Reading that hurts quite a bit! ☆

There is nothing to discuss anymore. Everyone agrees that CVs at the moment are op and we all know that 8.4 is around the corner. ♡

It will change damage and spotting dmg done by CVs alot. ☆

 

But i probably need to say it 10 more times to be recieved and be called a troll for it ♡☆♡

 

[Sickie79]

1 hour ago, AirSupremacy said:

Of course one can ignore number facts, WG balances the game after statistics. Gameplay experiences can be subjective.

 

In forum culture, it can be experienced that participants devalue others for satisfaction reasons.
If one wants to look intelligent, one can elaborate on why Wargaming will not consider damage statistics in terms of balancing

 

Happy WoWs everyone, every CV Rework contribution is appreciated :)

 

Sorry man, your argument does not stack up.

 

It is not just the total damage caused that's the issue, you could nerf CV's to deal half of the damage they do now and they would still be broken.

 

That's because there is no counter to them, whilst the total number of player's games that would be spoiled would be reduced, the guys first in line from incessant damage-till-death from above would still be just as fed up with being a pinata for CV players.

 

When skill no longer counts - you may as well be a bot

[Culiacan_Mexico]

3 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

So if they don't balance it around them why does the anti CV crowd use them as arguments to show how op cvs are?

Hmmmmm

I am puzzled.  I think I have been the one to post most of the data from Maple... am I part of the anti-CV crowd?

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 1 Minute, Culiacan_Mexico sagte:

I am puzzled.  I think I have been the one to post most of the data from Maple... am I part of the anti-CV crowd?

No you are a neutral contributer to the forum and i'm fine with using the numbers you and others post i just find it funny how Garrus suddenly thinks that these numbers are skewed to fit his argument.

[DFens_666]

5 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

So if they don't balance it around them why does the anti CV crowd use them as arguments to show how op cvs are?

Hmmmmm

 

wowsnumbers includes all data since a ship entered the game. We have had CV rebalancing atleast once a month, sometimes even within 1 week. 0.8.0 Haku has nothing to do with current Haku, but all stats are included on wowsnumbers. Maplesyrup has imo more reliable data, as you can check each week, but its not perfect either.

WG has their own data, which includes EVERY player, while statsites cant track hidden profiles. WG can balance ships however they like. And whether something is OP or not, can always depend on the person looking at it.

And then you have people who nitpick at every single stat and ofc a single stat is usually not a good indicator if something is OP or not. But if you present them everything why you think something is OP, then they still keep argueing...

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 2 Minuten, DFens_666 sagte:

 

wowsnumbers includes all data since a ship entered the game. We have had CV rebalancing atleast once a month, sometimes even within 1 week. 0.8.0 Haku has nothing to do with current Haku, but all stats are included on wowsnumbers. Maplesyrup has imo more reliable data, as you can check each week, but its not perfect either.

WG has their own data, which includes EVERY player, while statsites cant track hidden profiles. WG can balance ships however they like. And whether something is OP or not, can always depend on the person looking at it.

And then you have people who nitpick at every single stat and ofc a single stat is usually not a good indicator if something is OP or not. But if you present them everything why you think something is OP, then they still keep argueing...

Yeah but who is saying CVs aren't op?

It's just not a good idea to always rely on these numbers and when someone in favor of CVs uses those the same way to argue their point call the same thing skewed.

It's like refering to the bible while talking about god and 2 months later calling the opposing site who refers to the bible wrong because it was written by men.

Obviously i understand that AirSupremacy is using the numbers he finds a bit wrong but others have pointed that out often enough already.

 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

1 hour ago, AirSupremacy said:

Of course one can ignore number facts

You either knowingly, or unknowingly, post data without context (not facts).  Its value is limited.

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, AirSupremacy said:

Of course one can ignore number facts

 

Like you?

[DFens_666]

2 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Yeah but who is saying CVs aren't op?

It's just not a good idea to always rely on these numbers and when someone in favor of CVs uses those the same way to argue their point call the same thing skewed. 

It's like refering to the bible while talking about god and 2 months later calling the opposing site who refers to the bible wrong because it was written by men.

Obviously i understand that AirSupremacy is using the numbers he finds a bit wrong but others have pointed that out often enough already.

 

That depends what you are looking for. As we have established, for accurate data wows.numbers isnt the best. If you look at average damage per week, than we can see CVs are rising, despite them being nerfed in between. So naturally, people are getting better with them (makes sense, as it was a "new" class introduced into the game, and most people had to start from 0). So wows.numbers includes those aswell as broken af OP Haku from 0.8.0, which is not reliable.

You can look at last weeks numbers for CVs, aswell as all other ships, which is more reliable than having data containing month or years with different Metas or nerfs/buffs.

 

I think it start with AirSupremacy stating, that TX CVs have ~80k avg damage, and another person responded, that they have ~97k. Both are "right" depending at which data you look at. But doesnt mean, that both are equally reliable to compare with other ships.

F.e. conqueror had 100k avg damage last week. Randomly picked a week from september last year: 98k average damage. Nothing has changed much. It might change, when Conqueror gets the proposed changes.

Midway however, had <80k first week of febuary. Last week it already had 98k, which is an increase of over 20%!

 

[B051LjKo]

7 hours ago, Sunleader said:

In WoWs Ships are Balanced in a Simple Manner.

The higher your Risk of being Attacked and Killed by the Enemy when you Approach your own Weapon Range on the Enemy.

The more Damage you are able to do in a Short Time.

Well same goes for the CVs, in order to do really good damage, they need to be close. If they are border hugging, the damage output will be less than mediocre.

 

7 hours ago, Sunleader said:

 

DDs have to get very close and have very little HP. So they have a Tremendous Risk of being Killed.

Hence they also get an Insane amount of Damage for their Torp Attack.

Not really, drop of torps from 12K is not considered close. And in 1 on 1 enviroment, they can attack from point blank (6-7Km) without being deteckted by the BBs...

 

7 hours ago, Sunleader said:

They are somewhat hard to Kill unless you get close. And they got a high Range.

Due to that however. While having Big Guns. Their Guns are very Inaccurate not giving them alot of Damage on High Ranges. (unless your really Lucky) and a fairly low DPS thanks to very long Reload.

Eeeeerm, are we playing the same game. In WOWS that I play, BBs have no issues with reliably hitting enemies at 20 km range. With no CVs ingame, a BB can bow tank, for the most of the game, with no means of punishing him.

7 hours ago, Sunleader said:

 

CVs have literally no Risk of being Killed or Destroyed while constantly having the whole Enemy in Range.

Hence their Damage Output should be incredible low.

So your suggestion is to further decrease Midway torps to what, 500 dmg per hit?

7 hours ago, Sunleader said:

As CVs are almost never Exposed to the Danger of being Killed or Attacked until

Maybe your Kaga is driven that way.. Most of the good players are within the range of the enemy most of the time, hiding, and constantly maneuvering to avoid detection and mitigate damage,

[GarrusBrutus]

1 hour ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

So if they don't balance it around them why does the anti CV crowd use them as arguments to show how op cvs are?

Hmmmmm

Hmmmmmmm'm maybe because they're not objective? 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

This data is neither perfect or complete, but it does give a better perspective on the situation.

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190518/eu_2month/average_class.html

 

 

Player Average for Shipclasses [ at 2019/05/18 ]
div	name	class
			exp	damage caused	warship destroyed	base capture	base defense	spot damage
1	BB	Higher Tier	1511	63464	0.72	3.52	4.43	16739
1	CA	Higher Tier	1508	52779	0.67	6.94	6.93	15646
1	CV	Higher Tier	1851	71436	0.94	0.55	12.46	53752
1	DD	Higher Tier	1462	36803	0.67	29.65	5.87	26409

 

 

[xxNihilanxx]

2 minutes ago, Culiacan_Mexico said:

This data is neither perfect or complete, but it does give a better perspective on the situation.

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190518/eu_2month/average_class.html

 

 

Player Average for Shipclasses [ at 2019/05/18 ]
div	name	class
			exp	damage caused	warship destroyed	base capture	base defense	spot damage
1	BB	Higher Tier	1511	63464	0.72	3.52	4.43	16739
1	CA	Higher Tier	1508	52779	0.67	6.94	6.93	15646
1	CV	Higher Tier	1851	71436	0.94	0.55	12.46	53752
1	DD	Higher Tier	1462	36803	0.67	29.65	5.87	26409

 

 

 

So, looking at these stats, I think we can all conclude...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...CVs need better stealth so they can cap more!

[El2aZeR]

9 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

...CVs need better stealth so they can cap more!

 

200% agreed.