CV Rework Discussion

[Pikkozoikum]

25 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

Do you have more intelligent questions like that? 

I said, it's not only seal clubbing, but also regrinding (I did not seal clubbing, when I have to play T4).

 

I was just mentioning to be correct and give relevant data, because I'm not a fan of biased comments, which mention "All", "Everyone" without any facts. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about the evidence to have the correct numbers. Seeing relevent numbers makes discussing easier, than having unimportant numbers. So I was asking for relevant numbers. Don't know the point of comments like "intelligent questions"

 

 

 

 

 

[Sunleader]

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Yep, been thinking about this one aswell. They finaly showed us the middlefinger i guess

Its like "Hey surfaceship mongs, you had a few patches now where we nerfed CVs, now we went back to what we originally wanted so you can [edited]off"

 

I wish I could claim this wasnt the case.

Unfortunately I am not a Liar....

[ForlornSailor]

18 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I'm not a fan of biased comments, which mention "All", "Everyone" without any facts.

 

Point out, where I used the words all or everyone:

 

5 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Sure. I guess the Nikolai and the Yubari in those divisions are also "regrinding".

I see one of those words here tho:

39 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

So everyone, who plays T4 CV is in a Division with a Nikolai and a Yubari?

 

Did you fail your own standard?

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

42 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

So everyone, who plays T4 CV is in a Division with a Nikolai and a Yubari?

 

Did you fail your own standard?

That was sarcastic, maybe I should have marked that with "*sarcasm*"

Because of those standards, I was sarcastic... Sorry, if this misleaded you, I will edit it.

 

3 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

23 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I'm not a fan of biased comments, which mention "All", "Everyone" without any facts.

 

Point out, where I used the words all or everyone:

I was mentioned, that not all players are seal clubbers. If someone says "Numbers are high because of all the seal clubbers", that everyone has to consider, that some, who seem to be a "seal clubber" is not a seal clubber, but some who is regrinding. And I assume the number of regrinding is not that low.

It's important to consider those facts for the statisic.

 

you said

5 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Sure. I guess the Nikolai and the Yubari in those divisions are also "regrinding".

I was sarcastic asking, that everyone, who is regrinding plays that dvision. I was sarcastic, because obvioulsy it's not the case, that everyone is playing in those division. Mostly those people are seal clubbing. I was telling, that people are just regrinding. I did my games without a divison solo. I tryed my best, to get as much base exp and then I got the Ryujo and I'm almost at Shokaku. I don't consider that as seal clubbing, and I also claim, that not everyone is seal clubbing, but regrinding.

 

 

5 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Looks like you dont know, that those are weekly stats. Well they are, thus your objection irrelevant by your own standard.

 

I looked it now up, the point was not only, that I thought it's a daily statistic, but the major point is still standing there, the numbers of total CV players is still irrelevant and I show you why:

 

If I go with the 3 dates

 

Reworked CVs at 2019/09/21

Total: 2480 players, 64.3k battles

Last snapshot of RTS CVs at 2019/01/26

Total: 2220 players, 59.1k battles

Snapshot of RTS CVs one year ago at 2018/09/22

Total: 2462 players, 62.1k battles

 

So the total battle difference is around 3% mor, than on 09/22, not much right? Would be a good argument, if it would be relevant.

But looking at total battles now and then, the numbers are different

2019/09/21 total battles of all classes:

2018/09/22 total battles of all classes:

We have 59% more battles last year. This number is relevant for the relation to the total battles of CVs.

 

If you compare the CV battles with the total battles

3.63% (2019/09/21)

2.65% (2018/09/22)

 

Thus the CV had only 3% more total battles than the year before, but there are 38% more CV battles relativly to the total battles compared with the relation of CV battles to total battles a year ago. (Maybe a bit complicated written with bad grammar, just meaning building a relation between two relative data.

[CV total battles recently / total battle recently] / [CV total battles year ago / total battles year ago]  )

 

And that's all I was asking for - having all the relevant numbers together, not just single numbers without any context or relation.

 

 

[El2aZeR]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

And that's all I was asking for - having all the relevant numbers together, not just single numbers without any context or relation.

 

All you have proven is that the game is currently less popular than a year ago.

Because guess what, relative numbers are irrelevant. The reason is very simple, RTS CV population had a number which was consistently there. These are players who played and stuck with the class. Likewise this now applies to the rework.

 

Aka relative numbers are entirely dependent on the population of other classes. Using them as you have done paints a completely wrong picture as it is derived not by an increase in CV population but by a decrease in population of surface ships.

Aka it is a blatant lie as usual with you. And it is tremendously disgusting.

[ForlornSailor]

14 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

All you have proven is that the game is losing popularity.

 

Indeed...

 

48 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I was sarcastic, because obvioulsy it's not the case, that everyone is playing in those division.

 

Fair enough. You know as well as I do, that many people in this forum are capable tho of making such statements while beeing totaly serious. So such sarcasm is not easy to detect these days. Lets leave it at that.

 

49 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Thus the CV had only 3% more total battles than the year before, but there are 38% more CV battles relativly to the total battles compared with the relation of CV battles to total battles a year ago. (Maybe a bit complicated written with bad grammar, just meaning building a relation between two relative data. 

[CV total battles recently / total battle recently] / [CV total battles year ago / total battles year ago]  )

 

And that's all I was asking for - having all the relevant numbers together, not just single numbers without any context or relation.

 

So if we reach 100% CV-battles, CV-rework is super-mega-success?

[Pikkozoikum]

24 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

So if we reach 100% CV-battles, CV-rework is super-mega-success?

I don't say that, just that we have to keep the right facts. Saying that we have 3% more total CV battles than a year ago is just a pointless fact. I didn't interpret the data, if sucess or not. But we see, that we have relativly more players (50% more players)

It's a way more important fact to know in how many games you have a CV, then to know how many total games are in CVs

 

[El2aZeR]

10 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's a way more important fact to know in how many games you have a CV, then to know how many total games are in CVs

 

Beyond how your line of reasoning and calculations are ludicrously flawed due to old vs new CV MM constraints, thus would pretty much always paint a picture that CVs now are represented more in battles than before (which I'm sure you know as these have been talked about time and time again but ignore since such facts do not fit your narrative),

 

why, pray tell, is that more important?

[CptBarney]

I dont find many cv games unless i go to tier 3, 4 and 5. Otherwise i might get 1 match with a cv every 4+ games.

 

i actually wished they had just improved the rts system. What makes me laugh is that many players here offered litteral solutions to solve the problem or to make the cvs far better in general, maybe even reducing the skill gap (bads will be bads unless they actively change playstyle). But instead went for a watered down version of world of warplanes with some random ship that you seldomly control. With aa being some weird burnt popcorn maker.

 

but then this is the same company that thinks subs and go karts are a gud idea and that paid gold ammo was ok until they changed it (probs due to backlash on the forums).

[gslick]

13 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

New population data. And boy you better strap in because it's hilarious.

Reworked CVs at 2019/09/21:

HT: 941 players, 24.6k battles

LT: 1539 players, 39.7k battles

Total: 2480 players, 64.3k battles

 

For reference
Last snapshot of RTS CVs at 2019/01/26:

HT: 992 players, 27k battles

LT: 1228 players, 32.1k battles

Total: 2220 players, 59.1k battles

 

Snapshot of RTS CVs one year ago at 2018/09/22:

HT: 1020 players, 25.4k battles

LT: 1442 players, 36.7k battles

Total: 2462 players, 62.1k battles

 

And keep in mind low tier reworked CVs are being artificially kept alive thanks to glorious T4 seal clubbing.

Also these numbers are DESPITE an event for CVs currently running and the extreme 0.8.7 buff.

 

Can someone from WG please finally admit what a gigantic failure the rework is?

 

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

All you have proven is that the game is losing popularity.

Aka relative numbers are entirely dependent on the population of other classes. Using them as you have done paints a completely wrong picture as it is derived not by an increase in CV population but by a decrease in population of surface ships.

 

1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

So if we reach 100% CV-battles, CV-rework is super-mega-success?

I think that the situation with the planes (aka  CV) chokes all the fun out of the game (I play 95% BB+CL).  I see CVs in games much more frequently than last year when I just considered them a 10% game nuisance tax.   Now they are so frequent that once I have 2 games in a night with a CV I will either play operations or just sign off.  So their increased percentage of games with CVs has come at the expense of fewer games played by those willing to subject themselves to the obscene CVs.  That's not a good way to grow your business. 

[El2aZeR]

9 minutes ago, gslick said:

I see CVs in games much more frequently than last year when I just considered them a 10% game nuisance tax.

 

Which, again, is entirely expected due to the new MM constraints. The CV population is being concentrated into fewer tiers which inevitably raises their encounter rate when coupled with their usual MM limits.

 

11 minutes ago, gslick said:

So their increased percentage of games with CVs has come at the expense of fewer games played by those willing to subject themselves to the obscene CVs.  That's not a good way to grow your business. 

 

WoWs is a seasonal game with somewhat inconsistent patterns, which is one of the reasons why relative numbers are irrelevant.

We'd have to wait until roughly Christmas to get conclusive evidence on whether the game is actually bleeding a significant amount of players. From there causes can be easily extrapolated by looking at the biggest changes, the CV rework being one of them.

For now the game is less popular than a year ago, but if Xmas time sees the same peak as last year it just means the usual popularity spike is starting late this year.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

22 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If you compare the CV battles with the total battles

3.63% (2019/09/21)

2.65% (2018/09/22)

 

Thus the CV had only 3% more total battles than the year before, but there are 38% more CV battles relativly to the total battles compared with the relation of CV battles to total battles a year ago. (Maybe a bit complicated written with bad grammar, just meaning building a relation between two relative data.

[CV total battles recently / total battle recently] / [CV total battles year ago / total battles year ago]  )

 

And that's all I was asking for - having all the relevant numbers together, not just single numbers without any context or relation.

I see your point. You are saying that CVs grew in relative popularity. I think however the data is biased and doesn't reflect the true popularity. A couple of reasons come to mind:

 

We had a lot of events in the last 12 months taking place in separate game modes. Sprints have become very frequent, savage battles, the whole halloween thing. These game modes are not counted towards the total number of battles, but they reduce the time available for random battles.

 

On the other side CVs were pushed artificially by CV missions in events, e.g. the French Destroyer event. Even I played a couple of CV battles, cause the French Auboyneau (?) special captain was very hard to get without doing the CV missions. The whole event was designed to require CVs being played just as frequently as any other ship type. You had to earn the same amount of resources in all ship types. Now when only 3% of all ships played are CVs, while on average 32% of battles are played with each other, it would be appropriate to earn only 10% of ressources in the CV class. That was not the case. So the events tried to push people into playing CVs. And they somewhat succeeded. I claim, without the events CVs would be even rarer.

 

On 9/22/2019 at 3:54 AM, El2aZeR said:

New population data. And boy you better strap in because it's hilarious.

 

[...]

 

And keep in mind low tier reworked CVs are being artificially kept alive thanks to glorious T4 seal clubbing.

Also these numbers are DESPITE an event for CVs currently running and the extreme 0.8.7 buff.

 

Can someone from WG please finally admit what a gigantic failure the rework is?

Thanks for researching that data. We had a vivid talk a few days ago in our discord and you know my position. Still for future reference and for everyone, especially WG-staff, I would like to point it out.

 

 

 

Yes, the CV rework is up to now mostly a failed project. There were five goals to achieve:

 

1. CV play was unintuitive, abstract and a different game.

The rework aimed to put CV players into the same cinematic experience that all other players got. While graphically that is true. CV players still don't get the nuance of what is going on down at the waterline. They remain tourists, zapping into one area of the map and being in an entirely different spot a minute later. The rework may have achieved an experience closer to normal play, but not on the same level.

 

2. CVs were unpopular.

The numbers, as cited by @El2aZeR, suggest, they are still not popular. If they were popular, 10% of all ships played would be CVs, meaning one CV per side per battle regularly, sometimes two CVs. Hardly anybody is playing them, hardly anybody likes seeing them. I played them now a couple of games for the directives of the last event. I found them okay playstyle-wise. I could get used to playing them, but I don't like it. I feel they don't contribute. They are overpowered if top-tier, pretty worthless if bottom-tier. My impact is mostly how fast I can kill key ships, but I am not an ingredient in the team-recipe, I stand alone. I feel like a busboy rushing to many different tables. It's not appealing.

 

3. CV play was a simple zero sum game.

CV-players could effectively counter each other. One CV-player played against another CV-player in a duel. The winner melted all planes of the weaker player and then went on a rampage. The stats back from RTS-CVs reflect that. Some CV-players had a WR exceeding 70%, while others dropped below 30%. Those are not normal winrates for a normal impact of one out of 12 players in a team. They are indicative of a balance problem. Getting out of this valley of tears was very frustrating for newcomers and made the battles biased from the start, just in terms of skill levels of CV-players alone. Bad players were insulted: "Why do you burden your team, when you cannot compete?"

The rework has mostly succeeded in CV-players being effective depending rather on their own skill, not the skill of the opposing CV. That was however not achieved by the change of perspective or playstyle, but by replacing the controllable fighter squadron with a consumable and thus removing strafing. Even RTS-CVs would have achieved that, had the same change been made.

 

4. CVs were overpowered.

Using multiple squadrons on a single target simultaneously or in quick succession made CVs immune to counterplay. They wanted you dead, in most situations you were dead.

That hasn't changed much. Now CV-players control only one squadron, but they can still make multiple attacks on one target in quick succession. Their targets, especially DDs, but also stationary BBs, are unable to counter that. I have attacked a lot of DDs. Some could hide in smoke if they had one. Any other DD I could damage or kill and there was nothing he could do to stop me. If I failed, it was because I rushed things, took too short an attack run, it was my misplay, not his counterplay, There was none.

Some BBs are designed to be stationary, to camp certain areas. It is not a playstyle, it is best practice. BBs, hell the whole game by design, is running on a slow pace. Ships are intended to accelerate slowly, turn slowly. It is a key feature of WoWs that things are slow and take time to evolve. A unit like CVs, that can change a situation within 30 seconds, not being a threat in one moment, and being an inevitable threat a moment later, are by design in conflict to this game. A BB player cannot react to this threat in time, he does not have the tools to do so, and that is independent of skill. That means that nothing has changed. CVs are still most of the time overpowered. Even worse, WG has introduced the rocket planes and added to the excessive workload of DD-play. At the same time the detection range of cruisers was increased by the CE-nerf and the AA-bubbles were reduced to 5.8km for most ships, meaning support ships have to play further back and can't cover DDs at caps with AA. A disaster, more than ever.

 

5. CVs did not fulfil a unique role.

They did not add any utility to the team. They were, sorry, like parasites, feeding of what was going on down at the water line, taking what gave them XP. They could kill key units in the enemy team, yes. But that itself is not a unique selling point. Every ship can do that. Every ship has very special skills that help the other classes, help the team. If I take away a class of ships and there is a void, that means the ship is needed for the team to work. No DD means no spotting, no caps until late game. No cruisers means no sensors, no cap support, no flanking. No BBs means no tanking, no pushing. All these ingredients are essential to a good WoWs battle. We would miss them, if they were missing.

BBs hate enemy DDs, but still they know DDs are there for a reason, they give back information and help BBs perform their tasks better. So even a BB player will be willing to have DDs in his battle, unless he is stupid, but that's another story.

DDs will hate enemy cruisers. But they will pay the price of them being in the game, cause they know their own cruisers bring utility that helps them, radaring caps, hydro, fire-support.

Cruisers hate BBs, but they cherish a good BB that tanks, so they can persist and do DoT.

It all works for every class, except CVs. CVs can scout and reliably kill DDs. That is nice, but not if the price is risking my own team being scouted, not if I risk losing my DDs, my eyes and ears. I never have experienced a single battle, where I felt i missed a CV and it would have been a better experience if one was present. I had lots of battles, where a CV was present and I felt it would have been a more enjoyable battle without him. Not because my ship was targetted, just generally. Those minutes at the end of a battle, to name just one example, where the battle is over and it just takes forever for the surface ships to finally find the CV tucked into some remote corner of the map and destroying it without anything interesting happening, those minutes alone are painfully boring for all participants, a waste of life time.

 

 

That brings me to my conclusion:

 

The CV-rework did not change the key flaws of the old system. CVs are still too powerful and they don't complement their teams, they stand apart, they remain inferior.

Dear Wargaming,

we were patient. The community pointed out all the flaws of CVs in the game. Some demanded they should be removed. You saw those concerns were legitimate. That is why you initiated the rework. We bore with that rework. We trusted you would address all the issues. The rework was extensive, it took a lot of ressources. The results are unsatisfactory. I am sorry to say that, we would have liked to see a CV class, we all find useful. But it's not, it is time to see that. In all fairness, Wargaming did not blow it, the failed rework is in the nature of the CV-class itself. They will never be an integral part of the game.

World of Warships doesn't need CVs. Even worse. World of Warships will be a better product without having CVs. It is also a better product without patrol boats, but then again nobody would think of putting them in merely cause they existed. There is a key philosophy that you boil down a product to its essence. What is needed, what is nice and what is a burden? CVs are a burden. They reduce the quality of the game. They drive away players from your product and reduce sales. You can keep the money from selling premium CVs, but you will miss out on a lot more money from not having sold stuff to people who left the game out of frustration.

Please Wargaming,

trust your community on this one. CVs have failed. Remove them. Maybe subs will do better, we'll see. CVs have had their chance ... and then they had a second chance ... and now it's time to see it doesn't work, end this CV-project, bury the CVs and leave it at that.

[Pikkozoikum]

7 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I see your point. You are saying that CVs grew in relative popularity. I think however the data is biased and doesn't reflect the true popularity. A couple of reasons come to mind:

 

We had a lot of events in the last 12 months taking place in separate game modes. Sprints have become very frequent, savage battles, the whole halloween thing. These game modes are not counted towards the total number of battles, but they reduce the time available for random battles.

 

On the other side CVs were pushed artificially by CV missions in events, e.g. the French Destroyer event. Even I played a couple of CV battles, cause the French Auboyneau (?) special captain was very hard to get without doing the CV missions. The whole event was designed to require CVs being played just as frequently as any other ship type. You had to earn the same amount of resources in all ship types. Now when only 3% of all ships played are CVs, while on average 32% of battles are played with each other, it would be appropriate to earn only 10% of ressources in the CV class. That was not the case. So the events tried to push people into playing CVs. And they somewhat succeeded. I claim, without the events CVs would be even rarer.

I didn't came up with the total battle numbers (I was just asking for relevant numbers, since the total numbers are meaningless). There is the question, if it is possible to talk about popularity without having a steady state / stable state.

Generally to compare something it needs the same conditions, which we don't have, because of different events and many changes. Thus in case of popularty, we should have to wait a year or more. Especially if we think about the RTS CV last year was already a 4? year old game design.

 

And for the "relative popularity" - the relative numbers are the only important ones. If I say: Last week, we had 5% of all matches a CV in the match or last week we had 1000 battles with a CV - which one is anyhow meaningful for you?

[El2aZeR]

Just now, Pikkozoikum said:

And for the "relative popularity" - the relative numbers are the only important ones.

 

Again, why?

Given all the facts stacked against your claim one would think you'd have some reasonable arguments to defend it. If you don't, well, that just makes it a blatant lie, doesn't it?

[Yosha_AtaIante]

i guess this needs to get a repost. 

 

 

Edit: image removed!

 

 

[HMS_Kilinowski]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

And for the "relative popularity" - the relative numbers are the only important ones. If I say: Last week, we had 5% of all matches a CV in the match or last week we had 1000 battles with a CV - which one is anyhow meaningful for you?

None is.

If WG introduced some battle-cruiser that had Kurfürst armor, 100k hp, 12 x 460mm guns, 15s reload, 4x5 Gearing torps, great AA and secondaries, 40 kts of speed, 5s rudder shift and 5km concealment, that ship would probably become very popular, though breaking the game. Any ship that allows trolls to troll is likely to become popular.

One can measure the success in terms of popularity, but that would ignore the more important questions, like "Does WoWs need CVs?". I can affirm that question for DDs, CAs and BBs, but not for CVs.

 

One might argue that WoWs should have as many ship classes as possible without harming the game. Then maybe I should be able to drive a "healer", a supply vessel to rearm and repair other ships, or a PT-boat to ambush ships, or a mine layer. In the end we don't have these ships, because of balancing issues and because the philosophy "as many as possible" does not apply.

 

So it is rather the "as many as needed and as few as possible" philosophy. Each ship must stand the trial of being essential to the game in terms of the rock-paper.scissors principle. CVs are inferior, so they should go.

 

Personally I am very curious about the upcoming submarines. But I will admit, that I don't see their unique role ... yet. Some players have told me they plan to give up WoWs if subs are in the core game. If subs are not essential and don't become essential in the future for some unforeseen reason, I wouldn't mind them never being a part of the game.

[AirSupremacy]

Usually the CV haters are also Uboat haters + ranting about any new implemented class

or weapon system.

As there is tough competetion from other games, there will always be new content arriving in WoWs.

[El2aZeR]

44 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

Usually the CV haters are also Uboat haters + ranting about any new implemented class

or weapon system.

 

People are primarily against the new submarines because the preliminary gameplay looks boring.

People are primarily against CVs because they're objectively overpowered and have no counterplay.

 

That you even lump these two together shows how informed your opinion is.

 

46 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

As there is tough competetion from other games

 

Untrue, otherwise we would've likely not seen many of the changes this game has experienced. WoWs is a monopoly, there is no other successful game in this specific niche.

Thus WG can do pretty much whatever they want with this game and always have players playing it. You know, as they have done so continuously. If this game actually had stiff competition WG wouldn't be able to disregard their community.

[Starchy_Tuber]

1 hour ago, AirSupremacy said:

As there is tough competetion from other games, there will always be new content arriving in WoWs.

What other games exactly?

[mtm78]

On 9/21/2019 at 9:37 PM, Hanse77SWE said:

CV-rework is over and nothing will change based on what is written here. Guys, for the sanity of us all: Please let this thread die!

 

1. Nothing has ever changed based on the feedback in this thread or any thread on this forum, ever.

2.This thread will never die because it is the proof that no matter how much WG [edited] up their game, they can do it better next time!

 

But hey the BaBies are happier I hear, that's all what WG thinks about anyway. 

[mtm78]

7 hours ago, AirSupremacy said:

Usually the CV haters are also Uboat haters + ranting about any new implemented class

or weapon system.

As there is tough competetion from other games, there will always be new content arriving in WoWs.

 

Usually it's a shitposter who wants to claim people just 'hate' on something and make it out like they haven't provided numerous arguments which yet no one ever has been able to counter.

 

And yeah, which game competes directly with WoWs

 

[Panocek]

45 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

And yeah, which game competes directly with WoWs

I'd say there is arms race between Wargaming and Gajiin, who can quack up their game(s) in new and interesting ways

[MadBadDave]

Having Played BB a lot recently notably T8's that spend most of their team fighting T10s!!.  I thought I'd dig out Fushun that little T6 Pan Asian fire cracker DD, guess what Cv's present, Yep red cv won the game finishing top and green cv, 2nd in our team.

 

Without the Cv's the game would have been a lot closer and the result in the balance, but with one Good Cv driver and one that didn't know the the Bow from the Stern, the game was won by the Red CV, any point in the other 11 being present ?.

 

In Smoke, check, wasd while firing check; made no difference, taking more damage from the Cv's planes than an OKT and Atlanta  etc, while he hid, AS PER NORMAL.   Counter play ROFL !!.

 

I can understand why T2-5 are so fed up,especially BB'S, must be a lot of fun, so to recap; while WG keep knocking out OP paper Russian ships,  re-hash yet another sound update, continue to foul up matchmaking and introduce Subs, Italian cruisers and then Brit Heavy Cruisers, WHEN EXACTLY are the Muppets gonna sort out the MESS, that is the CV rework.

 

CV's are as OP now as they were since the ill fated rework, especially at the lower tiers.   Research Bureau still a good idea ?.  WG are as good as the Soviet Navy was during world war 2.

 

Has ANYONE at WG actually apologised for the complete shambles it's created this year.

 

 

 

 

[Panocek]

20 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

Has ANYONE at WG actually apologised for the complete shambles it's created this year

There is nothing to apologize for, because spreadshiet says CV REEEwork is of success and WG made plenty of monies from releasing frozen in game assets in shape of premium carriers

 

And second part is what matters to WG in the end.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

On 9/23/2019 at 1:47 AM, AirSupremacy said:

Usually the CV haters are also Uboat haters + ranting about any new implemented class

or weapon system.

As there is tough competetion from other games, there will always be new content arriving in WoWs.

"Usually" is such a disclaimer, isn't it? No, I didn't generalize, I left a back door. How can you support that claim? Do we need a poll now? All CV-haters, raise your hands. Now only the CV-haters that also hate subs. Come on, be fair.

I don't like the idea of CVs, I don't hate them and don't report hem out of principle. Still I am curious about subs. Could well be that WG plans to decompose the roles of DDs in the future, have DDs contest caps and hunt subs, while subs do the torping. Ofc then subs would be unnecessary in the first place. They would take the role of a selfish Asashio-player, who ignores the caps and avoids DDs to get some cheap BB-kills. Such roles ruin the game. WoWs is a team game, supposed to be at least. That implies each player must be part of the team, be able to synergize, to combine individual skills to a great composite unit.

If a class is designed to be separate of that composition, it is not a team game anymore. That separate class then takes both teams as given, like the islands and the setting of a map and does his own thing. CVs do that. They watch the map and look for a gap in the AA, an unprotected target, an opportunity. I read a lot about CVs not being overpowered or being popular, but nobody tries to present the role of CVs so one actually could argue they are needed.

 

Really what happens in battles with or without a CV, that could convince anybody CVs are an improvement? It's not a test environment. There is no need for speculation. We see CV-free games every day, mixed with games where we have one or two CVs. We, the public, have a direct comparison. Based on that comparison, what do we miss without them, what do we gain with them? I can say for all other classes how battles are less interesting when they area missing, cause we also occasionally see battles without DDs/CAs/BBs. I can't for CVs. Help me gain insight, why CVs?