CV Rework Discussion

[El2aZeR]

10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Too bad if Conq has better concealment than most of her targets

 

If a Conq is close enough to have to utilize her minimum concealment you're in range to fire back effectively as well.

 

You know, unlike CVs where you have no real means to fight back whatsoever.

[veslingr]

6 minutes ago, mcboernester said:

WG doesnt seem to plan anymore big modifications here, so yeah. 

 

From a purple PoV I can tell you that CVs are utterly broken since Day 1 of the Betatest last year based on their core concept, and that none of those tweaks regarding aa / speed / dmg was able or will be to change that. Ppl actively denied that and always told me "you just want your op cvs back"  At one Point that buffed AA so hard that most CVs just quite and we dropped below RTS numbers, now we are slightly above while the AA is a joke right now. Many good players dont even see any Reason to mount def AA for example since it just doesn't help anymore.

 

Guess what, back in 2018 i couldn't just dive into a Republique, Des Moines with aktive AA and a yamato + montana  So yeah, guess i was right after all

From a purple point of view any class is broken because most top players have 65 - 70% WR in any class they play. 

Offc CV giving them even more flexibility (changing side) that they can not do in any other class.

There are specialist for one class where they have significantly better results than in other classes, but still those kind of players belong in higher skillstat department and have uniqum stats in their favorite class.

 

but all that talks nothing about state of the game, because they create very small margine of players. 90 or even 95% players CAN NOT DO WHAT THEY CAN.

 

otherwise we would not have average stats where CVs do not dominate. 

[1MajorKoenig]

4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

If a Conq is close enough to have to utilize her minimum concealment you're in range to fire back effectively as well.

 

You know, unlike CVs where you have no real means to fight back whatsoever.

 

Which is possible in a 1-on-1 scenario but not in a Fleet/team engagement. I don’t want to derail the thread any further - I was just pointing out with an example that counterplay isn’t first on WG’s Prio list. 

[El2aZeR]

Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

Which is possible in a 1-on-1 scenario but not in a Fleet/team engagement. I don’t want to derail the thread any further - I was just pointing out with an example that counterplay isn’t first on WG’s Prio list. 

 

Ah, so now it's a fleet engagement.

At which point you can:

- utilize concealment in addition to spotting from more stealthy allies

- flank/provide a crossfire

- make use of the ordinance your teammates throw at it

Among other things.

 

Also something that utterly fails against CVs.

[veslingr]

There is 1 thing i never understood why WG did not implemented for CV, and it was historically relevant/accurate.

 

All other classes have range on which they can engage, CV historically had range on which could engage enemies (historically IJN had longer range).

One of strong points of CV is that he can attack on whole map and be safe.

 

Is there any good point why WG would not introduce fuel for planes? Lets say it would work very independednt, after xy miles/kilometers planes would automaticly return to ship......by this you prevent them to ordinate on whole map. If they wanna from line 10 attack line 1 they should come closer. 

[Allied_Winter]

5 minutes ago, veslingr said:

Is there any good point why WG would not introduce fuel for planes?

Because it'd impact bad players more and good players almost to no effect, as good players already move with the fleet (when necessary).

[mtm78]

 

33 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

If a Conq is close enough to have to utilize her minimum concealment you're in range to fire back effectively as well.

 

You know, unlike CVs where you have no real means to fight back whatsoever.

 

Conq is a sad BB for relying on HE but it has enough counterplay especially after the nerfs to the heal. Overextended Conq is a dead one. That people feel a need to use her as example imo shows there are no proper arguments. 

 

6 minutes ago, veslingr said:

There is 1 thing i never understood why WG did not implemented for CV, and it was historically relevant/accurate.

 

All other classes have range on which they can engage, CV historically had range on which could engage enemies (historically IJN had longer range).

One of strong points of CV is that he can attack on whole map and be safe.

 

Is there any good point why WG would not introduce fuel for planes? Lets say it would work very independednt, after xy miles/kilometers planes would automaticly return to ship......by this you prevent them to ordinate on whole map. If they wanna from line 10 attack line 1 they should come closer. 

I think they tested it and to many baddies found it to hard to be more effective as they usually are, hence it was scrapped. 

[veslingr]

2 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Because it'd impact bad players more and good players almost to no effect, as good players already move with the fleet (when necessary).

Yes, but it would be a point towards balance, you actualy could be out of range, and cv could not cover all 3 caps without proper movement.....

 

but we are back to dumbing down the game cause "average" player can not move his ship across map and not die

[Allied_Winter]

3 minutes ago, veslingr said:

but we are back to dumbing down the game cause "average" player can not move his ship across map and not die

Which - as we had discussed earlier - is in line with balancing a game around the average player. If the average player isn't able to follow the way of a given match, then this is the threshold by which to balance the mechanic.

 

 

[Xevious_Red]

6 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

This means one of the following is true:

- CVs have become harder to play

- Average player skill is down the drain

 

Given that the rework was marketed towards players who have either never played CVs or even this game before it isn't hard to conclude that the latter is true.

*Technically* they are also harder to play.

 

Although it was a terrible idea, the RTS carriers could be played with autodrop - just left clicking on the ship you wanted to attack. Obviously vastly inferior to "playing properly", it was available, and meant even really bad players achieved something.

 

With the new model there is no autodrop, so there's no crutch for these truely terrible players, hence why you can now find people with all new lows, like 2k average damage in a tier 4

[Pikkozoikum]

41 minutes ago, veslingr said:

Offc CV giving them even more flexibility (changing side) that they can not do in any other class.

Well, if there wouldn't be the CV, then there would be another ship type with the most flexibilty, maybe DDs because of the speed, or bbs because of the range.

 

39 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Which is possible in a 1-on-1 scenario but not in a Fleet/team engagement. I don’t want to derail the thread any further - I was just pointing out with an example that counterplay isn’t first on WG’s Prio list. 

That's why I think, that people have a complete wrong view. They go always with what a single ship can do against another single ship. But it's a team game. And one ship type don't have to be fully equal to another ship type. A CV can be stronger than other ship types.

Some might go with "Yes, but then we could stay with RTS". But I say no, even if one ship type is in some situations better, the other ship types should be able to do something. And I see that I can do way more as a surface ship against rework than against RTS.

 

The real balancing and if a ship is op, should majorly happen inbetween the shiptype. For example the russian bbs compared to other bbs. In Clan battles it was just not fair, if I shoot as BB a russian bb. This should be way more equal fight.

 

Almost every game with different classes in PvP have their different purposes. What can a Healer do in a 1vs1 in an RPG-PvP game? What can a Supporter do in a Moba? What can a medic do against tank?

That a different roles

 

The CV can damage others, without getting backfired - but this is a gamemechanic and it's only about is it fair for the player to fight against the CVs attack. Has the player a chance to survive the attacks at least that long, that the enemy CV is losing the match?

 

25 minutes ago, veslingr said:

Is there any good point why WG would not introduce fuel for planes? Lets say it would work very independednt, after xy miles/kilometers planes would automaticly return to ship......by this you prevent them to ordinate on whole map. If they wanna from line 10 attack line 1 they should come closer. 

I would actually like, if they don'T return automatically, hehe

 

18 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Because it'd impact bad players more and good players almost to no effect, as good players already move with the fleet (when necessary).

I thought the whole discussion is more about CV vs other ships and that CV is op. That would restrict every CV player, no matter if someone can handle with that better or worse

 

16 minutes ago, veslingr said:

but we are back to dumbing down the game cause "average" player can not move his ship across map and not die 

Hehe a good point. If it's too easy for unicums -> "CV is op". If you make it harder, than "too hard for average players" Wargaming can only lose :D

 

[Pikkozoikum]

3 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

*Technically* they are also harder to play.

 

Although it was a terrible idea, the RTS carriers could be played with autodrop - just left clicking on the ship you wanted to attack. Obviously vastly inferior to "playing properly", it was available, and meant even really bad players achieved something.

 

With the new model there is no autodrop, so there's no crutch for these truely terrible players, hence why you can now find people with all new lows, like 2k average damage in a tier 4

That real bad player had to face better CV players and got deleted by his fighters

[Allied_Winter]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I thought the whole discussion is more about CV vs other ships and that CV is op. That would restrict every CV player, no matter if someone can handle with that better or worse

Well ... for one: This discussion has a bazillion aspects and view points to it. Some come in here to complain about ALL CV's being OP, others to say it's fine, while yet again others think only certain features are OP and El2 tries to explain logically why CV's are broken.

 

Second: Sure it would restrict every CV player, but it'd hamper bad one's more than good one's. Thus it was - probably - shunned. Probably as we don't know if WG ever experimented with time/range limited planes.

 

 

[Xevious_Red]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That real bad player had to face better CV players and got deleted by his fighters

Indeed. Unless they found another potato, in which case they both sat around autodropping. Those clown fiestas of two terribad CV were actually fairly common (personal perception). At tier 4/5 autodrop was the only thing available anyway.

[Pikkozoikum]

3 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Second: Sure it would restrict every CV player, but it'd hamper bad one's more than good one's. Thus it was - probably - shunned. Probably as we don't know if WG ever experimented with time/range limited planes.

There were fuel in Steel Ocean, at some point the planes just had to be recalled, but mostly a CV went for targets, who were close anyways. Can't imagine, that it would impact the CV gameplay for anyone too much, as long it doesn't get stupid numbers like 40s fuel

There would be just rare situation, where the fuel would be relevant

[El2aZeR]

7 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

And I see that I can do way more as a surface ship against rework than against RTS.

 

You: Personal opinions hold no relevancy.

Also you: My personal opinion must be the truth.

 

This isn't even intellectual dishonesty anymore. You're just blatantly lying at this point.

[Allied_Winter]

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Can't imagine, that it would impact the CV gameplay for anyone too much, as long it doesn't get stupid numbers like 40s fuel

As said: We don't know if WG tested and discarded it or simply ignored such a feature. We don't know.

 

So to me it doesn't really matter if I can or can not imagine what the impact would've been. It simply is not in the game.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, Allied_Winter said:

As said: We don't know if WG tested and discarded it or simply ignored such a feature. We don't know.

 

So to me it doesn't really matter if I can or can not imagine what the impact would've been. It simply is not in the game.

The point of a forum is to discuss subject matter. ;)

The mods reading this, and maybe forward the conclusion of a discussion to the developer. Thus it makes to think about such idea, though I'm pretty sure, that this idea was discussed a few times, nevertheless it's still a location of discussion. Up to you, if you want be part of it or not, though since you replied to that comment about fuel, I thought you would

[CptBarney]

 

Damm, when is the next patch out? Need to do some *ahem* 'testing'

 

bUt yUO caN dOdGE tHeM.

 

@L0V3_and_PE4CE miss hosho 'w'

 

[Allied_Winter]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The point of a forum is to discuss subject matter. ;)

Of course, but WG said they're done with big changes to CV's. BUT, if you think this could be a worthwhile addition, why not create a more fleshed out idea?

 

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

if you want be part of it or not, though since you replied to that comment about fuel, I thought you would

Just reiterated, what the common reply to why there is no fuel is. And sure, my opinion on that is, that I think it'd hamper bad players more than it'd limit good players. But since I have no way of proving this statement ... it'll remain only an opinion. No facts. Unfortunately.

 

5 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

and maybe forward the conclusion of a discussion to the developer.

We can't forward it any more to the developer than you or any other forumite. It's MrConway's or Tanatoy's job to sort through the conlcusions/suggestions. But even then, even if they deem all suggestions worthy enough. If the devs don't like them, that's a dead end.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, Allied_Winter said:

Of course, but WG said they're done with big changes to CV's. BUT, if you think this could be a worthwhile addition, why not create a more fleshed out idea?

I said, that fuel won't add much beside some specific situation as long it's not designed in a stupid way. The CV will have too much fuel or too few. Can't imagine, that there is something inbetween. Most of the time a CV doesn't go for the furthest possible target

 

1 hour ago, Allied_Winter said:

it'll remain only an opinion. No facts. Unfortunately.

Opinions can matter as well for discussion. If 100% of the people are the opinion, that CVs have to be removed from the game, I guess Wargaming would considered that

 

59 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

We can't forward it any more to the developer than you or any other forumite. It's MrConway's or Tanatoy's job to sort through the conlcusions/suggestions. But even then, even if they deem all suggestions worthy enough. If the devs don't like them, that's a dead end.

I didn't said, that I can do that, I said mods can do that. Mods like Moderators. In the german Forum Sehales mentioned, that he forward specific discussion, thus I would assume that he did that.

[AndyHill]

If you want to evaluate CV stats to other classes, try checking out the combination of spotting, damage and survival rate.

 

The main problem with carriers isn't their OPness, it's the harm they do to the gameplay by spotting and crabbing all over everyone. 

 

PS. If you're having trouble with Conquerors, try shooting back. 

[Sunleader]

5 hours ago, veslingr said:

oh oh...now when i used next set of data from nex source you dismiss date in general? We should go by feeling? But you were williing to use data like High, Middle, Low Tier without looking what is composed into that data?
And 2 months is very relevantt, nothig epicly cahnged in those to moths.

 

 

but i will now put shorter data lets see there if we will see CV domination,

I mean, this domination should be seen somewhere in statistic, right?

 

P.S.

now all classes have Mirror MM. 

 

What ?

You Serious ?

Nothing Changed in 2 Months ????

So basicly you didnt notice the AA Rework at all ? :)

 

Good. Now I am absolutely Sure your either Trolling on Purpose or you Really have not Played a Single Match in the last 2 Months...

 

 

[veslingr]

2 hours ago, Sunleader said:

 

What ?

You Serious ?

Nothing Changed in 2 Months ????

So basicly you didnt notice the AA Rework at all ? :)

 

Good. Now I am absolutely Sure your either Trolling on Purpose or you Really have not Played a Single Match in the last 2 Months...

 

 

As stat do show nothing big changed in global picture. Aaa change is small tweak that did not influence average performance both CVs and other classes. Even CV dropped 1 place on DMG list. Can you elaborate that? AAA got nerfed and Cvs dmg dropped on tx ?

[Sidewayz]

Love and kisses to my #1 Fan. Love you so much beautiful, almost as much as annoying your friend with planes, annoying him to the point of proving me right =)