CV Rework Discussion

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, Capra76 said:

 

It's still damage, kills and XP though and cruisers are meant to be weak to BB and strong v DD.

And wasn't CV supposed to be strong against every class but also countered by every class, either by AA or being gunned down?

[Panocek]

2 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

It's still damage, kills and XP though and cruisers are meant to be weak to BB and strong v DD.

I don't think rock-paper-scissors ever existed in this game beyond this trailer

 

[Capra76]

29 minutes ago, Panocek said:

And wasn't CV supposed to be strong against every class but also countered by every class, either by AA or being gunned down?

 

So what are CV weak against now that AA is a joke and they can strike everywhere from safety?

 

 

28 minutes ago, Panocek said:

I don't think rock-paper-scissors ever existed in this game beyond this trailer

 

Are you saying that CA are meant to be the equal of both BB and DD?  If not then what is the relationship if it's not RPS?

[1MajorKoenig]

11 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

now that AA is a joke

 

What makes you think AA is weak? You only played Hosho - yes T3/4 AA is weak. But that’s not exactly new. 

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, Capra76 said:

So what are CV weak against now that AA is a joke and they can strike everywhere from safety?

This is part where you go and ask S_O or someone else from WG, while fending off posts of players losing planes to Shimakaze and other such "AA powerhouses"

 

2 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

Are you saying that CA are meant to be the equal of both BB and DD?  If not then what is the relationship if it's not RPS?

Whole RPS got defeated on day one:

 

cruisers counter destroyers: provided you find one to start with, which can be an issue as destroyers almost universally are faster than cruisers. Only later Radar consumable was added and to select few ships to help with that. In return, even single torpedo hit on cruiser can be crippling.

destroyers counter battleships: assuming you land torps on them, preferably multiple. If RPS would be the case, then battleships would not have such effective torpedo belts, while heal can fully recover flooding and partially bow/stern hits. if you're stuck with guns, it will take a LONG time to burn down BB.

battleships counter cruisers: check, overmatch, crippling citadel and no heal to recover on cruisers until tier 9+. On other hand, one of the two starting cruiser lines had and still have massive torpedo payload, so assuming they find their mark, "cruiser can counter BB" just fine.

[Capra76]

4 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

What makes you think AA is weak? You only played Hosho - yes T3/4 AA is weak. But that’s not exactly new. 

 

There's such a thing as PT server, plus co-op plus training room plus listening to other players who also say it's a joke.

[Panocek]

3 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

There's such a thing as PT server, plus co-op plus training room plus listening to other players who also say it's a joke.

Whole AA effectiveness boils down to skill check in terms of flak evasion. Even blob of high AA dps is highly unlikely to stop air strike dead in its tracks, which is seemingly core principle of REEEwork - CV will always get at least one strike through.

 

Closest to that was 0.8.6 patch, where high AA dps coupled with single plane focus was able to butcher squadron even before drop.

[Woof_for_Me]

Vor 30 Minuten, Capra76 sagte:

 

So what are CV weak against now that AA is a joke and they can strike everywhere from safety?

 

 

 

Are you saying that CA are meant to be the equal of both BB and DD?  If not then what is the relationship if it's not RPS?

Hello.

 

RPS is not really the way to describe how the different classes in this game interact with each other. In equal standings towards each other the single classes might be able to be described as RPS but since those scenarios usually never apply it's really wrong to call class interactions as so.

This game can be described as an advanced form of chess.

The map control that is gained wins the game as the agressive and controlled gain of the field wins the game in chess.

The difference is that in chess a single player is in control of all the pieces as to World of Warships where every single "piece" is controlled by individual players.

 

So if we assume chess pieces being ship classes i would call Destroyers the "knight", Battleships the "rook", light cruisers and heavy cruisers the "Bishop" and Aircraft Carriers the "Queen".

Each shot and every torpedo as the consumeables such as radar serve as pawns that are expendable but need to be used with care to achieve certain advantageous results.

The King is the whole map. One has to be aware of the King. The more positions are occupied by ones team over the map the more control over how the match will go is applied.

 

A queen (the CV) by itself is strong but mostly can't influence the match all to much. The queens position is strongest in a defensive position where favorable trades can be forced which is happening all the time between CVs and surface ships.

But other than chess in this game every single "Piece" has a mind of it's own and moves and trades are being made which will either gain or lose control over each others "King" which is the map.

In short, advances over the map and influence are therefore more important than any other interaction between ship classes. While they play a role the trades that are being made in between the different classes and thus the control over the map that is gained is what decides who wins and who loses.

 

Taking out the Destroyers refuses the enemy of being able to abuse gaps in between the controlled map positions. Taking out the cruisers refuses flanking opportunities and pressure applied towards the positioning of the less flexible Battleships "rooks".

Taking our the Battleships offers more flexibility and control over the map by more mobile forces.

The queen however which is always to be played carefully is to be valued the most since as a CV it can assume limited control anywhere and make favorable trades anywhere anytime if played with consideration.

 

Therefore each and every class influences the development of a game session in most unique ways as they are happening on a chess board. It's much more than RPS

[El2aZeR]

37 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

What makes you think AA is weak? You only played Hosho - yes T3/4 AA is weak. But that’s not exactly new. 

 

Because surely AA strength can only be inferred from playing CVs? 

 

21 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

But other than chess in this game every single "Piece" has a mind of it's own and moves and trades are being made which will either gain or lose control over each others "King" which is the map.

 

Except every other enemy piece can capture a Queen in Chess or put it into dire situations. Aka there is counterplay to a Queen despite her being the most versatile piece on the board.

Now imagine if the Queen were invincible unless every other piece has already fallen. That's basically CVs. The only thing that can keep them in check is the incompetence of themselves and their own teammates. The enemy team has no influence on their impact whatsoever.

 

The RPS principle in WoWs, or generally a lot of games, is only followed in so far that every strategy, unit, weapon, etc. can be counterplayed. As soon as this no longer applies to a specific mechanic, such as CVs, it becomes overpowered. RPS is often used as a simplification so even speshul people can roughly understand the framework behind a much more complicated design. It isn't to be taken literally.

 

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

I don't think rock-paper-scissors ever existed in this game beyond this trailer

 

Actually there is a T-shirt, too.

Doesn't seem to be in the WG store but it was given out at GC. Looked similar to this:

Spoiler

 

So apparently the counter to CVs are DDs?  

 

I can provide a picture if needed. Not sure where I stashed it tho.

[1MajorKoenig]

8 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Because surely AA strength can only be inferred from playing CVs? 

 

Yes 

 

40 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

There's such a thing as PT server, plus co-op plus

 

Ah co-op. Excellent reference 

 

41 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

listening to other players who also say it's a joke.

 

Now we finally get to the point. You are just taking two (although admittedly very loud) individuals’ words as if they would be the truth. See the thing is: you should see both sides yourself

[Woof_for_Me]

Vor 7 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

the incompetence of themselves

Hello and thank you for your response.

 

You are correct. Only the incompetence or decisionmaking of the player in control of the Queen in chess decides it's fate.

In chess it is of course more likely to see early trades for the queen which are unthinkable in a game like World of Warships but if those trades don't happen a Queen will never be lost except for a highly advantageous trade being made.

The queen in a chess game enjoys the same feel of invincibility as the CV on World of Warships and only ever gets lost if the player in control makes a heavy blunder.

A good player in a chess game will always be able to trade favorable against a mispositioned queen.

A badly controlled CV in WOWS will always be non-influential and or sunk as a queen is taken on a chessboard.

The queen in a chess game controlled by equally skilled players is safer than the CV in a WOWS game. Both teams understand (usually) the value of such a single player and the aim is to conserve not only their value but potential influence also. However since the Queen in WOWS isn't in control of her players this can go in unforseen directions.

 

I can't really say much more on this subject since I lack the experience you sit on. Regardless I believe that my comparison is valid due to the limited experience I gathered so far.

[xxNihilanxx]

24 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Because surely AA strength can only be inferred from playing CVs? 

 

 

Except every other enemy piece can capture a Queen in Chess or put it into dire situations. Aka there is counterplay to a Queen despite her being the most versatile piece on the board.

Now imagine if the Queen were invincible unless every other piece has already fallen. That's basically CVs. The only thing that can keep them in check is the incompetence of themselves and their own teammates. The enemy team has no influence on their impact whatsoever.

 

The RPS principle in WoWs, or generally a lot of games, is only followed in so far that every strategy, unit, weapon, etc. can be counterplayed. As soon as this no longer applies to a specific mechanic, such as CVs, it becomes overpowered. RPS is often used as a simplification so even speshul people can roughly understand the framework behind a much more complicated design. It isn't to be taken literally.

 

 

Actually there is a T-shirt, too.

Doesn't seem to be in the WG store but it was given out at GC. Looked similar to this:

  Hide contents

 

So apparently the counter to CVs are DDs?  

 

I can provide a picture if needed. Not sure where I stashed it tho.

 

So in that image BB players are rocks, cruiser players are scissors, DD players are papers and CV players are... that hand gesture looks familiar but I can't quite.... ah yes... got it. And I totally agree!

 

I guess the collective noun for CV players is a "wunch" then.

[Woof_for_Me]

Vor 3 Minuten, xxNihilanxx sagte:

 

So in that image BB players are rocks, cruiser players are scissors, DD players are papers and CV players are... that hand gesture looks familiar but I can't quite.... ah yes... got it. And I totally agree!

Hello xxNihilanxx.

 

I would like for you to elaborate on your thoughts and agreements.

I believe we can have a good discussion going if more likeminded players offer their more detailed opinions on this.

[El2aZeR]

1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Yes 

 

So lets imagine the following scenario:

I play a DM which is a supposed AA ship, am full AA spec aside from MAA since I know that it does nothing for my ship and a Haku approaches me with her AP DBs. I use the SR mechanic and DFAA while attempting to maneuver to give the Haku the worst possible target. The Haku meanwhile ignores flak completely since he is not a potato and compensates for my turn, halving my HP on the first attack.

But not only that, he manages to get a second attack off, almost killing me.

 

Apparently there is NOTHING I can infer about AA strength here? Especially if I know that DM AA, despite being inadequate, is among the better AA in this game?

 

But please, tell us why you believe AA strength can only be judged when playing CVs yourself, especially since you previously contradicted CV players far more skilled and experienced than you?

 

12 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

The queen in a chess game enjoys the same feel of invincibility as the CV on World of Warships and only ever gets lost if the player in control makes a heavy blunder.

 

And that's an issue since unlike Chess WoWs is not 1vs1 where a single player is in control of all pieces. It's a 12vs12 team based game, as such every mechanic, naturally including all classes, needs viable counterplay options.

Thus since reworked CVs by design can't have any they are broken beyond repair.

[Woof_for_Me]

Vor 2 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

It's a 12vs12 team based game, as such every mechanic, naturally including all classes, needs viable counterplay options.

Thus since reworked CVs by design can't have any they are broken beyond repair.

It is my belief that if such counterplay options would be offered each class being different from each other would serve no purpose and therefore the game would be lost.

The best counteplay against a CV that can be offered is excellent teamplay which in a randomly constructed enviroment is rarely to be seen.

I believe it's therefore not the fault of a single class being overly influential but more of an issue of the teams interacting with each others in ways that enable said CVs to have this amount of power and influence.

CVs are designed to be able to give support in single disadvantageous situations and excell at that if the enemy team allows them to do so.

If however the enemy team due to luck and or better gain of map control achieves a winning position regardless of the CVs influence they will win the game.

There are to many factors that play into a single battle to be able to determine a single players actions as overpowering since it all depends on positions taken and decisions made of both teams.

 

[El2aZeR]

1 minute ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

It is my belief that if such counterplay options would be offered each class being different from each other would serve no purpose and therefore the game would be lost.

 

Then the great majority of multiplayer games, including pretty much all of the hugely successful ones, are "lost" according to you.

 

2 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

The best counteplay against a CV that can be offered is excellent teamplay which in a randomly constructed enviroment is rarely to be seen.

 

Except teamplay is meaningless in the face of reworked CVs unless taken to a destructive degree where over half the team sits in a single grid and therefore is almost guaranteed to lose the match regardless.

 

3 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

CVs are designed to be able to give support in single disadvantageous situations and excell at that if the enemy team allows them to do so.

If however the enemy team due to luck and or better gain of map control achieves a winning position regardless of the CVs influence they will win the game.

 

This is actually untrue. Reworked CVs can claw back matches from utterly ludicrous positions that are impossible to hold in any other class due to their enormous damage and killing potential that cannot be influenced by their opponents in any way, granting them more map control than entire flanks. Having the cap and map control advantage is utterly meaningless in the face of a skilled reworked CV player as they are capable of easily making up the difference. The flank they are on is guaranteed to fall, there is nothing the enemy ships can do except giving up that flank and extending their life for a little while or die for nothing.

This means that the enemy team can in fact do nothing against a skilled reworked CV player. Every option they are given either leads to them losing map control or losing ships. As such, again, the only thing that keeps a reworked CV in check is if their own teammates play "the cap is lava" or something equally speshul. Almost every other situation is very much winnable alone.

 

In fact I have made it a routine to grant the enemy the cap advantage from time to time just so I can farm more damage.

[Woof_for_Me]

Vor 25 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

 

Then the great majority of multiplayer games,

That is to broad of a claim. I need you to specify.

 

Vor 25 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

Except teamplay is meaningless in the face of reworked CVs unless taken to a destructive degree where over half the team sits in a single grid and therefore is almost guaranteed to lose the match regardless.

  

I will give this one to you since you have far more experience on how random battles turn out.

Vor 25 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

As such, again, the only thing that keeps a reworked CV in check is if their own teammates play "the cap is lava" or something equally speshul. Almost every other situation is very much winnable alone. 

 

In fact I have made it a routine to grant the enemy the cap advantage from time to time just so I can farm more damage. 

What you gave as an example is very situational. Just because this might be the case for most of the battles doesn't mean it has to be true.

Since you are speaking with your high success in mind (which isn't a fact but my perception) I would guess that most matches don't happen considering the success you offer and therefore are a single occurence due to your genius being faced on the enemy team.

If we go back to the chess analogy it's the same as comparing a grandmaster playing against an amatuer. And those matches don't happen often enough to be considered. If you play 20 matches a day and 980 of the others are equally skilled CV players up against each other it is not enough of data to be able to state what you do.

Humans of course all seem to fullfill different purposes in this world. If all were geniuses like you are which I highly believe is true due to how you argue... then the world would fall apart because no one would want to do the "dirty" work and CEOs are worth nothing without their employees.

I believe that in a game like WOWS which is aimed towards more casual of players true balance can never be achieved and a class like a CV adds a spice that in the grand total is a welcome gamechanger that can surely be mitigated if the right minds end up on it's opposing end.

[mcboernester]

 

3 hours ago, Panocek said:

But when BB oneshots cruiser across the map then its all fine and good

When you sail 15 sec in the same direction with the same speed after you have been spotted and have a number on your "detected" icon you are doing something horribly wrong in the first place. you could slow down, turn in, turn out, use islands to avoid this. There's a reason why stern in Henris where the meta for such a long time, you couldnt really hurt them. Right now its more russian bias. 

[Sunleader]

5 hours ago, Yoshanai said:

Points are endlessly repeated. Endless cycle. 

Cozy talk is the only solution. 

One can only repeat the same answers over and over again so many times. 

 

Even @Sunleader gave up writing you up a shitton amount of reasons as to why CV's are OP and gamebreaking.

 

We are tired. As long as noone starts paying me money to play customer support to new raging folk I won't provide them with "yes, we talked about this. This is why it won't work/why they are indeed OP/ there are still workable options ingame against avg/ why nerfs won't work and so on. 

 

So we rather talk about nice things and be friendly to each other than to endlessly and pointlessly going in circles raging. 

 

It's like a limbo state in between you know. 

 

Imagine me being a resident of this topic. And you come in without knocking trying to sell me the same crap many before you already tried selling me. I argued with all of them. But they didn't tell you about it. Now I need to argue with you about the same crap again infront of my doorstep while talking with my wife @CptBarney and sister @Sunleader.

U come in and interrupt our family matters. 

 

I once tried to buy it and those pesky sellers still come in. 

 

Not run times at all

 

I would not even mind Repeating things and Explaining it to everyone anew who comes in here without reading the other hundreds of pages.

I am not even Angry at them. Cause I would not want to read all of this either.

 

But for 3 Updates in a Row now. Wargaming has done nothing on CVs.

Its pretty obvious at this Point that Wargaming is ready to Bleed the other Classes Dry as long as it means they get their CV Player Quota.

So there really is nothing to say.

 

WG knows that CVs are Ridiculously Overpowered. And by Unpinning this Topic they made Pretty Clear that they no longer care what the Community thinks about the Issue.

They wont change anything because the only way they can keep people Interested in Playing CV without doing another Full Rework of the Class. Is to keep CVs ridiculously Overpowered.

They know they will lose 3k Players from the other Classes for each 1k they Gain on CV Players. But its a Price they are obviously ready to Pay.

 

Thats all there is to it. 

Complaining about a Game is something you only do when you care about the Game and thus want bad things of that Game to be changed.

But I just dont care about this Game anymore. So it makes no sense for to waste time complaining in its Forums.

 

[El2aZeR]

27 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

That is to broad of a claim. I need you to specify.

 

Lets pick CS. In CS there is a weapon so powerful in certain hands it can single handedly win matches. It was even nerfed once based on the performance of just one player. That's the AWP.

However the AWP is not without counterplay options. It has a slow RoF meaning double peeking a player equipped with it and at least trading is an option. Likewise you can use a small financial investment to purchase smoke or flash grenades to prevent them from having a clear shot, often forcing them to give up their position and relocate. If you're particularly ballsy/skilled you can even take a fight straight up and potentially pull out a win.

 

How about SC? Any cheese strategy is basically the gatekeeper of the meta. If you don't scout early enough (or don't understand what you've scouted) you risk being cheesed with little to no chance for a recovery. If you do however there is plenty you can do against it and put the enemy into an unrecoverable position instead.

 

Battlefield perhaps? An enemy tank is dangerous if taken on alone, but can be fairly easily taken out if you work in tandem with a few other players.

 

In almost all multiplayer games with an asymmetric balancing system it is preserved by a system of play and counterplay. For especially powerful mechanics with high potential, such as e.g. aircraft in Battlefield, there are even dedicated hard counters put in to curtail them. To claim that this makes asymmetry worthless when it in fact makes asymmetrical balancing possible in the first place is far fetched at best.

 

27 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

If we go back to the chess analogy it's the same as comparing a grandmaster playing against an amatuer. And those matches don't happen often enough to be considered. If you play 20 matches a day and 980 of the others are equally skilled CV players up against each other it is not enough of data to be able to state what you do.

 

Which is why game balancing doesn't take the human factor in at all as the human factor is what is supposed to decide the match in the end. What you balance around is the potential of a mechanic, skilled players just represent said potential in actual match conditions. Hence why skilled players are relevant while average players are not.

 

27 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

I believe that in a game like WOWS which is aimed towards more casual of players true balance can never be achieved and a class like a CV adds a spice that in the grand total is a welcome gamechanger that can surely be mitigated if the right minds end up on it's opposing end.

 

If that were the case then CVs clearly need severe buffs as the average player, aka the target audience, is doing terribly with them.

I also fail to see how a CV is welcome in any way. In the grand majority of matches I play people tend to despise CVs far more often than not which is thoroughly unsurprising. There is nothing welcome about seeing a SU CV player take your team apart without anything they can do about it. Likewise there is nothing welcome about seeing your average CV teammate being essentially afk as he misses strike after strike, loses all aircraft to flak and tries to worthlessly provide fighter cover for teammates, being equivalent to an afk in terms of match impact.

 

A reworked CV objectively provides nothing for their teammates, as is seen in their fundamental design philosophy of being egoistical damage farmers with no active team utility.

[Woof_for_Me]

Vor 6 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

 

Lets pick CS. In CS there is a weapon so powerful in certain hands it can single handedly win matches. It was even nerfed once based on the performance of just one player. That's the AWP.

However the AWP is not without counterplay options. It has a slow RoF meaning double peeking a player equipped with it and at least trading is an option. Likewise you can use a small financial investment to purchase smoke or flash grenades to prevent them from having a clear shot, often forcing them to give up their position and relocate. If you're particularly ballsy/skilled you can even take a fight straight up and potentially pull out a win.

 

How about SC? Any cheese strategy is basically the gatekeeper of the meta. If you don't scout early enough (or don't understand what you've scouted) you risk being cheesed with little to no chance for a recovery. If you do however there is plenty you can do against it and put the enemy into an unrecoverable position instead.

 

Battlefield perhaps? An enemy tank is dangerous if taken on alone, but can be fairly easily taken out if you work in tandem with a few other players.

 

In almost all multiplayer games with an asymmetric balancing system it is preserved by a system of play and counterplay. For especially powerful mechanics with high potential, such as e.g. aircraft in Battlefield, there are even dedicated hard counters put in to curtail them. To claim that this makes asymmetry worthless when it in fact makes asymmetrical balancing possible in the first place is far fetched at best.

 

 

Which is why game balancing doesn't take the human factor in at all as the human factor is what is supposed to decide the match in the end. What you balance around is the potential of a mechanic, skilled players just represent said potential in actual match conditions. Hence why skilled players are relevant while average players are not.

 

 

If that were the case then CVs clearly need severe buffs as the average player, aka the target audience, is doing terribly with them.

I also fail to see how a CV is welcome in any way. In the grand majority of matches I play people tend to despise CVs far more often than not which is thoroughly unsurprising. There is nothing welcome about seeing a SU CV player take your team apart without anything they can do about it. Likewise there is nothing welcome about seeing your average CV teammate being essentially afk as he misses strike after strike, loses all aircraft to flak and tries to worthlessly provide fighter cover for teammates, being equivalent to an afk in terms of match impact.

 

A reworked CV objectively provides nothing for their teammates, as is seen in their fundamental design philosophy of being egoistical damage farmers with no active team utility.

Due to my lack of knowledge of your examples I can't argue on them. Thank you for the explainations. I can understand what you are trying to tell me.

 

On your second point however. Why would the performance of single selected players matter in determining the classes effectiveness?

In olympic games the gain of highly worthy medals is constructed around high averages performance. One does not need to be a world record performer to achieve gold but only exceed certain pre-determined conditions. I might be making a wrong analogy here since it might not apply to game design and therefore might be false If so then I'm wrong.

 

The people who speak out against CV are appearing as the majority simply because they are the loudest complaining about it.

If I were to go about evalueating the products I offer based on criticism of customers who apply sold products wrong I would lose all revenue in trying to improve a product that functions well but fails in certain uneducated users hands. I can offer to make the usage of such a product more (excuse me) idiot proof... but those increased development costs and complications aren't worth the gain because (excuse me again) stupid can't be fixed.

 

I also don't see any need for buffs. Just because some underperformig players are present doesn't mean that a defining class needs any help.

 

You say that CVs might be egoistical damage farmers but I doubt that this is the sole way you achieve a win in them.

There are many other factors that play into how successful CV interactions with the enemy will be and those are solely dependent on how the enemy team deals with the situation the CV player gets them into.

I still believe that if the opposing team plays with the threat of a CV in mind that much of what makes CVs overpowered will be negated.

[El2aZeR]

22 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

On your second point however. Why would the performance of single selected players matter in determining the classes effectiveness?

 

Again, because it represents the potential of a mechanic under actual match conditions. And the potential of a mechanic is what you balance around.

Whether players fail using it is irrelevant because you do not design anything around the idea of people failing to use them.

 

22 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

In olympic games the gain of highly worthy medals is constructed around high averages performance.

 

In the Olympic games you literally have to be among, if not the best in the world to have a chance to gain medals. Every single one of the athletes competing is the equivalent of a superunicum. None of these people are potatoes and they are certainly not just above average.

 

22 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

The people who speak out against CV are appearing as the majority simply because they are the loudest complaining about it.

 

I meant ingame, not in public discussions or anything. CVs are negatively received ingame by an overwhelming amount. In CV matches you'll see the majority of people agreeing that CVs are terrible far more often than not. Likewise in non-CV matches you are far more likely to see more people cheering for the lack of CVs rather than complaining about it. This is especially prevalent in 4x or even 6x CV matches.

It has come to the point where even WG employees openly admit that CVs negatively influence match conditions as seen during the last KotS stream.

 

22 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

You say that CVs might be egoistical damage farmers but I doubt that this is the sole way you achieve a win in them.

 

Yes it is. And the enemy can do nothing, not ONE thing, against it. Complete disregard for your teammates is the way to go if you want to be successful in playing CVs.

[Woof_for_Me]

Vor 2 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

you do not design anything around the idea of people failing to use them. 

I believe that to be wrong and I will agree to disagree.

 

Vor 4 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

None of these people are potatoes and they are certainly not just above average. 

And therefor only the best of them face off against each other. The bar is set higher and higher every time and there still are people overachieving.

 

Vor 7 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

overwhelming amount.

I would sort those responses under emotionally driven ones mainly being the victims of CV domination.

Vor 8 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

where even WG employees openly admit that CVs negatively influence match conditions

I didn't follow any developer responses. I therefore ask for proof and if you decide not to provide it i will regardless trust you on this one since it's my own fault for being uneducated on this subject. I don't have the opportunity right now to educate myself on it.

 

Thank you very much for discussing this with me El2aZeR. Pressuring on would be me making things up I don't know about yet and you have far more experience in the matter than I do.

I appreciate the time you spend with me. I will from now on pay more attention to your points while I experience them ingame. I hope it was a pleasant experience for you talking with me about it.

[El2aZeR]

22 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

I believe that to be wrong and I will agree to disagree.

 

There is nothing to disagree when you're simply wrong. It's equivalent to believing the Earth is flat.

It's simple fact that e.g. no manual was ever written under the assumption that the majority of people reading it would fail regardless.

Likewise no game mechanic was ever designed under the same pretenses.

 

22 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

And therefor only the best of them face off against each other. The bar is set higher and higher every time and there still are people overachieving.

 

And yet the rules of the specific disciplines/games are always written according to the best performers with absolutely no regard to the casual player.

 

22 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

I would sort those responses under emotionally driven ones mainly being the victims of CV domination.

 

The proven fact that such is possible without anything a surface ship player can do against it validates such complaints regardless of circumstance.

 

22 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

I didn't follow any developer responses. I therefore ask for proof and if you decide not to provide it i will regardless trust you on this one since it's my own fault for being uneducated on this subject. I don't have the opportunity right now to educate myself on it.

 

On two occasions, once due to a question from Crysantos, TobiAssho mentioned that a complete lack of CVs made matches more entertaining and tactically diverse, thus it is for the better that KotS banned CVs for the time being.

To which Crysantos wholeheartedly agreed.

Was during the EU vs NA finals I believe. Can't be bothered to rewatch the whole thing.

[Woof_for_Me]

Vor 2 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

no manual was ever written under the assumption that the majority of people reading it would fail regardless.

You are wrong on this one. I think it's a bit insulting to compare my experience in that matter to be akin to a flat earther.

Humans as in customers are of value regardless of intellect. Therefore we are (The company I work for as an example) are determined to make sure all kinds of intellects except for special cases (handicapped ones) are able to access our products with the least amount of complains possible. We write manuals which "when" those are read responsibly will provide all information needed to use our products to their advertised specifications. If something is unclear we provide as much communication and service towards our customers as possible.

And if that means additional fees for the customer then so be it.

 

Vor 16 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

with absolutely no regard to the casual player

And therefore it is quite unlikely to present performers who aren't up to such a standard and those who present themselves anyways and underperform are discarded quickly.

 

Vor 8 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

validates such complaints regardless of circumstance.

Does this not fall under players simply not understanding why under certain circumstances their games end early due to destroyers dying inside their smokes to torpedos or cruisers being eliminated by battleships due to wrong maneuvers?

 

I don't ask you to rewatch any of it. It's solely my responsibility to educate myself on this topic and since I failed to do so I will believe you without further questions.