CV Rework Discussion

[KillStealBoss]

24 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

No you said Flak clouds can be dodged and therefor don’t count in the overall AA equation. And I am highly doubtful about that if you look at ALL players (not the top 100) and I am challenging this on the broader perspective. 

Atlanta and Flint should be the no-fly zone of those tiers. You through their AA - you lose a lot of planes . Especially if they turn on the def AA. Just like the Worcester on T10. 

[1MajorKoenig]

42 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

Atlanta and Flint should be the no-fly zone of those tiers. You through their AA - you lose a lot of planes . Especially if they turn on the def AA. Just like the Worcester on T10. 

 

- no-fly-zones are not really compatible with the rework itself 

 

- I am not aware of any T7 CVs. Just for my understanding - do you mean these ships should be an auto win button against T6 or even against T8 CVs?

[KillStealBoss]

15 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

- no-fly-zones are not really compatible with the rework itself 

 

- I am not aware of any T7 CVs. Just for my understanding - do you mean these ships should be an auto win button against T6 or even against T8 CVs?

Not auto win button. Kidd can shoot down more planes than Flint. Where is the logic here. How can a T8 CV with T7 planes go 5 times against Atlanta and loses only 27 planes. 

[1MajorKoenig]

7 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

Not auto win button. Kidd can shoot down more planes than Flint. Where is the logic here. How can a T8 CV with T7 planes go 5 times against Atlanta and loses only 27 planes. 

 

Because in return the alpha gets reduced drastically. 

 

See - either you play “all or nothing” like in RTS - meaning you strike a target and nuke or mission kill it in case you get through. In that scenario no-fly-zones are needed as a counter.

 

Or: you make aerial torpedos do a meager 2.5 k damage which is less than a BB normal pen and you acknowledge that striking needs to be possible with very few exception. 

 

WeeGee tried to go from 1) to 2) with the rework but start building in no-fly-zones now - based on feelings - mind you - as S_O even admitted (!) not actual needs. 

 

That is a problem 

[KillStealBoss]

Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Because in return the alpha gets reduced drastically. 

 

See - either you play “all or nothing” like in RTS - meaning you strike a target and nuke or mission kill it in case you get through. In that scenario no-fly-zones are needed as a counter.

 

Or: you make aerial torpedos do a meager 2.5 k damage which is less than a BB normal pen and you acknowledge that striking needs to be possible with very few exception. 

 

WeeGee tried to go from 1) to 2) with the rework but start building in no-fly-zones now - based on feelings - mind you - as S_O even admitted (!) not actual needs. 

 

That is a problem 

No, the problem is the Kidd has stronger AA than Flint. Which is absurd and should be the opposite. Then why not to nerf Worcester and Mino and make them vanruable like Flint/Atlanta? 

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

No, the problem is the Kidd has stronger AA than Flint. Which is absurd and should be the opposite. Then why not to nerf Worcester and Mino and make them vanruable like Flint/Atlanta? 

 

Make the AA progression flatter / less steep would be an excellent start 

 

 

 

(but requires some effort - something WeeGee tries to avoid by seamingly simple but at the end disastrous quick shot solutions of which they have no clue what they will do )

[KillStealBoss]

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Make the AA progression flatter / less steep would be an excellent start 

 

 

 

(but requires some effort - something WeeGee tries to avoid by seamingly simple but at the end disastrous quick shot solutions of which they have no clue what they will do )

This will take another year for them to figure it out , implement it and test it. 

[MadnerKami]

6 hours ago, Sunleader said:

Lets See.
 

Last Week

 

This Week.

 

Lets Check the Changes.

Pls note I will only Consider the High Tier cause the Low Tier is roughly the same with some Exceptions. But its not worth doing a whole Second Set.

 

1.

There was a Player Increase all Across the Board.

This is Partially also due to the Event currently Going on.

Most People have Completed the Directives that are Opened and thus have Returned to Normal Battles.

 

So Players with enough Games to be Counted have Increased: (Please note I.ll only use Rough Percentage as I am too lazy to make a Detailed Calculation.)

BBs by 13%

CAs by 14%

CVs by 8%

DDs by 18%

 

Its Pretty Clear however that the other Classes are Recovering more Players than the CVs.

So CVs seem to have become less Attractive.

 

 

2.

In terms of Performance of CVs compared to other Classes however.  There is very little actual Movement.

 

CVs are still Dominating the vast Majority of Statistic Boards.

Just as before. The only thing where CVs are not the Top Dog is on Average Damage which goes to BBs. Base Capture which is the sole Top Position of DDs.

 

So even after 0.8.5 CVs are Still Overperforming by a Large margin. And are still in need of Nerfs.

 

Now bring  and compare stats, when battleships/cruisers/destroyers survive the vast majority of battles to the end. Your "stats" and your reading of them are deeply flawed, because you disregard the single most important stat of your own chart. If BBs/cruisers/DDs had an almost 80% survival rate, what do you think their stats would look like?

 

4 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

You state this as a given. I would be highly curious what the global ratio between Flak cloud damage to DPS is. I don’t think it is as insignificant as you assume.

 

You are again trying to balance a class based on the best players - what is bull- and would take us to a very dark place we have been before. 

Given that it is the long (and mid) range AA that produces the clouds, you can bet your arse that the bursts are the primary killers, because those hammer your post-attack returning planes and have a wierd consistency at hitting center mass when you disengage after an attack, where there is either nothing (in case of returning planes) or little (when disengaging) you can do about evasion.

[The_Joker_1]

7 minutes ago, MadnerKami said:

Now bring  and compare stats, when battleships/cruisers/destroyers survive the vast majority of battles to the end. Your "stats" and your reading of them are deeply flawed, because you disregard the single most important stat of your own chart. If BBs/cruisers/DDs had an almost 80% survival rate, what do you think their stats would look like.

The reason they don't survive as much as other ships is partially due to the existence of CV's - a class which can spot anywhere on the map in mere seconds, and kill DD's and low HP cruisers & BB's with incredible ease. No skill involved, even. A CV will render a DD in the late game completely useless, whereas normally that should be the time where the DD is the most powerful and influential. If the CV player has a brain he will figure out where you are, keep you spotted so you get shot by everyone and their mother, or kill you with the most skill-based mechanic in the game: rocket planes. 

[Sunleader]

15 minutes ago, MadnerKami said:

Now bring  and compare stats, when battleships/cruisers/destroyers survive the vast majority of battles to the end. Your "stats" and your reading of them are deeply flawed, because you disregard the single most important stat of your own chart. If BBs/cruisers/DDs had an almost 80% survival rate, what do you think their stats would look like?

 

 

And why Should I only use the Good Games of other Classes to Compare with the Average Game of the CVs ?

These Stats are the Facts Mate.

Nothing Flawed about them.

 

The High Survivability of CVs comes from one of the Biggest Advantages that a CV has.

Which is that he does not need to Risk any Danger to his Ship in order to Attack and Scout the Enemy.

 

He can do so from Perfectly Safe Distance.

Thanks to this almost Guaranteed Survival he is of course also Guaranteed far more Chances to actually do something in a Battle.

 

 

You are likely trying to make the Point. That other Ships if they Survive that long will do Better than the CV.

But thats Irrelevant. Because they Dont.

Unlike CVs. Other Ships have to Go Forward and Risk their Ship in order to do something.

And thus they are of course also more Likely to Die.

 

So your Point is Defeating itself. Because the Fact that CVs Survive that long. Is in itself one of its Biggest Advantages and one of the Reasons for it being this Strong.

[MadnerKami]

You could work for WarGaming, you'd fit right into their statistics-departement. It ain't like CVs have to risk their striking capacity in order to deal damage, it ain't like the chassis is completely irrelevant to the CV's performance, other than providing an ability to fire your "guns" until the last second of the match's length. CV gameplay is the equivalent to throw your turrets at the target you are shooting, while hiding your ship behind an island.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

29 minutes ago, MadnerKami said:

You could work for WarGaming, you'd fit right into their statistics-departement. It ain't like CVs have to risk their striking capacity in order to deal damage, it ain't like the chassis is completely irrelevant to the CV's performance, other than providing an ability to fire your "guns" until the last second of the match's length. CV gameplay is the equivalent to throw your turrets at the target you are shooting, while hiding your ship behind an island.

Of coarse the vessel is relevant to the performance of CV's. Sure, being deplaned renders a CV useless, but only really bad captains get deplaned. In all other cases the absurd high survival rate of CV's ensure that they can do damage, spotting and even contribute in capping for a whole rounds worth of time. No other ship class has that feature build in.

[MadnerKami]

7 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Of coarse the vessel is relevant to the performance of CV's. Sure, being deplaned renders a CV useless, but only really bad captains get deplaned. In all other cases the absurd high survival rate of CV's ensure that they can do damage, spotting and even contribute in capping for a whole rounds worth of time. No other ship class has that feature build in.

There is one and it's called a well-played destroyer.

[Sunleader]

40 minutes ago, MadnerKami said:

You could work for WarGaming, you'd fit right into their statistics-departement. It ain't like CVs have to risk their striking capacity in order to deal damage, it ain't like the chassis is completely irrelevant to the CV's performance, other than providing an ability to fire your "guns" until the last second of the match's length. CV gameplay is the equivalent to throw your turrets at the target you are shooting, while hiding your ship behind an island.

 

1.

Sure.

Just that WG is actually more on your side with this. And has for nearly 6 Months Claimed all is Fine.

Even now they are only Selling the Change as "making AA more Consistent" not actually calling it a Buff and not Admitting that CVs needed to be Nerfed :P

So if anything. You would be the actual WG Employee here ^^

 

2.

And Yes.

Now lets Check this.

If a DD Goes in for a Strike he Risks 100% of his Hull. If he messes up. He is Dead. He leaves the Match with maybe 5-10k Damage from the Enemy DD that Intercepted him.

Something that happens almost every Game to about Half of the DDs Present.

 

Lets Compare that to the CV.

The CV Messes up and Flies right into an AA Cruiser.

So he loses a Squadron. No Problem. Next Squadron is Ready.

He can Mess up like this. Roundabout 6 before he is actually Deplaned.

And assuming he manages these 6 Times Fast enough. He is then still not out of the Game.

Because by the end of the Game. He will have Regenerated 3 more Times he can Mess up.

 

 

In case you didnt Notice it.

But Other Classes Risk their Turrets in the Fight as well.

Because guess what. The Turrets dont Continue Floating after the Ship got Sunk.

 

The Difference is.

If a Cruiser Showed Broadside to a BB and gets Deleted.

He doesnt get another 5 Tries at doing Better. He is just gone from that Match.

 

Meanwhile the CV only loses some Planes and is allowed to Try again ;)

 

 

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

20 minutes ago, MadnerKami said:

well-played

Sure, as do well played battleships and cruisers  The difference between them is that CV captains have to engage in serious bad play in order to get sent back to harbor. In all other situations their risk of getting early retirement from the round is almost zero.

[Sunleader]

Meanwhile I had a Really Fun Match Today.

Not Fun in the Sense of being Extremely Succesful.

But Fun in the Meaning of actually being Funny.

 

And its also a Perfect Showcase for this Topic.

Because after the Rework. And this has not Changed after 0.8.5

Any T10 Match is Primarily Decided by the CV.

No other Ship Class. Has even Remotely as much Influence on the Outcome of a Match as the CV.

And I dont mean this on a Per Player Basis. I mean it as The Single T10 CV. Having more Influence than the 4-5 BBs in his Team Combined.

 

0.8.5 did Improve the Situation a Bit.

Because in 0.8.4 and before that.

The CVs Influence on the Match was Basicly higher than the Influence his entire Remaining Team had on that Battle.

 

But its Still far away from being Balanced.

 

 

 

 

Well then What Happened.

Well long Story Short.

We had a Game. Where both Teams just Refused to be useful. And thus the Game was Pretty much Decided 100% between the 2 CVs.

 

And Seriously. My Team was Bad. Really Really Bad.

With a Yamato Showing Broadside to the Enemy Team. And a N-Carolina Sitting half of the Match in the Northern Corner of the Map out of Range of anyone.

Most of my Team was for the entire Match Clumped together at our Spawnpoint. And not a Few of them were Further away from the Enemy than I was with my CV.

(And no I did not move towards the Enemy. As my Team never Secured any Area. I never had a Chance to move Forward or onto a Flank lol.... )

And with a Single Brave T8 BB which also got 2nd Place later on. Being the only BB Player of my Team actually knowing how to Play this Game.

 

So during the Match I ended up having a Conversation with the Enemy CV. Also a Haku.

Leading to a small Contest on who could Sink the Few Useful Ships on each others Team. As we both told each other on how our Teams are just not Possibly Carriable.

 

And well. This is what Happens when 2 CVs after the Rework are Simply not Capable of Carrying Hard enough.

And the End Result. Was Pretty Hilarious.

 

 

 

Can you Tell who Won ? *gg*

 

No ?

Dont Worry. Because Neither of us Won.

We ended up with a Timeout while we had Exactly the Same Score....

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1MajorKoenig]

7 hours ago, Sunleader said:

Lets See.
 

Last Week

 

This Week.

 

Lets Check the Changes.

Pls note I will only Consider the High Tier cause the Low Tier is roughly the same with some Exceptions. But its not worth doing a whole Second Set.

 

1.

There was a Player Increase all Across the Board.

This is Partially also due to the Event currently Going on.

Most People have Completed the Directives that are Opened and thus have Returned to Normal Battles.

 

So Players with enough Games to be Counted have Increased: (Please note I.ll only use Rough Percentage as I am too lazy to make a Detailed Calculation.)

BBs by 13%

CAs by 14%

CVs by 8%

DDs by 18%

 

Its Pretty Clear however that the other Classes are Recovering more Players than the CVs.

So CVs seem to have become less Attractive.

 

 

2.

In terms of Performance of CVs compared to other Classes however.  There is very little actual Movement.

 

CVs are still Dominating the vast Majority of Statistic Boards.

Just as before. The only thing where CVs are not the Top Dog is on Average Damage which goes to BBs. Base Capture which is the sole Top Position of DDs.

 

So even after 0.8.5 CVs are Still Overperforming by a Large margin. And are still in need of Nerfs.

 

 

Dear Mr. @Sunleader! While you are fortunately on my igno list for a while so I won’t bother with your walls of content-free text I feel I need to call you out on this one.

 

Either you don’t understand the numbers you are throwing around or you are straight up lying. I am not even sure what is worse.

 

Higher tiers in maple Syrup is T7+. As you might know there are no T7+9 CVs so you are comparing T8 with T7+T8 and T10 with T9+10. Naturally these numbers are therefore inflated and have literally ZERO added value or information because of that. This comparison can’t be used for anything else then cleaning a dark place where the sun never shines.

 

Plus: CV damage is for a significant part done after the game is already decided - unfortunately we don’t have the ratio available yet. And I hope I don’t need to explain that the XP figure is completely irrelevant as the modifiers are pulled out of blue air by WG.

 

Same with lower tiers btw but the CV numbers there are already pitiful.

 

SO: for the love of god, stop spreading your nonsense please. 

 

thx

[U156dasboot]

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

3 minutes ago, tobbeb17 said:

 

[El2aZeR]

30 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Plus: CV damage is for a significant part done after the game is already decided - unfortunately we don’t have the ratio available yet. And I hope I don’t need to explain that the XP figure is completely irrelevant as the modifiers are pulled out of blue air by WG.

 

Guess which class is capable of inflicting accurate, guaranteed crippling early game damage within the first few minutes of a match. 

[1MajorKoenig]

Just now, El2aZeR said:

 

Guess which class is capable of inflicting accurate, guaranteed crippling early game damage within the first few minutes of a match. 

 

All of them 

[El2aZeR]

1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

All of them 

2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Guess which class is capable of inflicting accurate, guaranteed crippling early game damage within the first few minutes of a match. 

 

You have actually never played this game, haven't you?

 

[1MajorKoenig]

Just now, El2aZeR said:

 

You have actually never played this game, haven't you?

 

 

I did. But you are going off the wrong assumptions. 

[El2aZeR]

Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

I did. But you are going off the wrong assumptions. 

 

Uh huh. So you're telling me that your attempt to downplay a CV's influence on the match by pointing towards their "irrelevant late game damage" isn't actually pathetic and intellectually dishonest?

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

Uh huh. So you're telling me that your attempt to downplay a CV's influence on the match by pointing towards their "irrelevant late game damage" isn't actually pathetic and intellectually dishonest?

 

It isn’t dishonest - there is more useful and less useful damage. But it is dishonest to present screwed averages that tell absolutely Nothing to “prove” CVs are OP.

 

Your wrong assumption btw is that you assume that all CVs play perfectly and always to the ship’s full potential. You should know  better. Balancing is about averages not a few exceptions 

 

(if you really think all player always play brilliant - play a game right now. It’s weekend )