CV Rework Discussion

[El2aZeR]

13 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

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.

 

Except the majority of people, thus the majority of your statistical base, will never bother to RTFM.

Do you still write that manual regardless?

 

14 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

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.

 

Except according to most here such a standard is not allowed when it comes to CV play. Apparently one has to encompass even the most underperforming potatoes in balancing which is ofc utter rubbish.

 

17 minutes ago, Rose_Dikinson said:

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?

 

No it doesn't, because you have no influence on what the enemy CV does. You can prevent yourself from dying to torps in a smoke e.g. by having the situational awareness to not camp in a smoke while there is still a DD on your flank. There is nothing you can do to prevent a CV from either killing you or causing your loss regardless of how much AA you stack, how you maneuver and how you are positioned.

[Woof_for_Me]

Vor 45 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

Do you still write that manual regardless?

Yes.. it is required to write it regardless of how much use it provides as we can excuse ourselves with it.

Vor 45 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

the most underperforming potatoes in balancing which is ofc utter rubbish. 

I agree. Effort is an ingredient necessary to achieve the least expected results.

 

On your last point I need to make either more observations myself or believe you and I chose to believe you.

[1MajorKoenig]

7 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

I play a DM which is a supposed AA ship,

 

You want an auto-win button?

 

7 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

But please, tell us why you believe AA strength can only be judged when playing CVs yourself,

 

It’s like with everything in live. If you just know/see one side of the coin you can’t have a good view because - well half of it is missing. Trivial. 

 

And no - just picking out one particular isolated situation doesn’t give you a good view either.

 

If the dude is really interested in a good discussion rather than just b*** around he should see both sides. 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

You want an auto-win button?

 

Considering that a CV already gets to dictate the engagement and has a slew of other advantages over regular surface ships with very few and largely inconsequential tradeoffs, not to mention that it is apparently both my job in e.g. a DM to be the "counter" to CVs, is it unreasonable to ask that an AA cruiser or even several can actually deny a CV strike?

 

Besides, if you were so disinclined to give even certain "AA" ships an "auto-win button" then how come you're not speaking out against reworked CVs since they themselves have practically won any engagement before it even started with no option for a target to even remotely do anything against it?

Or is it just that you want to keep your auto-win CVs?

 

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

And no - just picking out one particular isolated situation doesn’t give you a good view either.

 

Except that "one particular isolated situation" can be applied to numerous others as well, making it the rule and not the exception. I can e.g. replace the DM with a Mino or a Worcester. Or even with small groups of ships that, supposedly, have good AA armament and as such should counter CVs according to people such as yourself.

The end result still remains the same. All that potentially changes is the approach a CV needs to take to engage, not the outcome.

 

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

If the dude is really interested in a good discussion rather than just b*** around he should see both sides. 

 

Again, you have frequently contradicted far more experienced and skilled CV players than you on this and several other things regarding CV play despite their no doubt superior perspective.

And now you want to portray this as your narrative? Really?

 

Well, lets roll with it then. You're objectively either mediocre or awful in CVs, therefore you haven't even remotely seen what CVs are capable of. As such by your own standards your view on the matter is utterly incomplete and of no value whatsoever.

Not that it ever was, really, but it's nice of you to confirm it yourself.

[1MajorKoenig]

17 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

is it unreasonable to ask that an AA cruiser or even several can actually deny a CV strike?

 

Yes

 

19 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Again, you have frequently contradicted far more experienced and skilled CV players than you

 

Is it really that hard to stay on a discussion for you? Either you don’t understand the point or you are trying to twist it which gives that strange blabbering.

 

So again: if you haven’t played CVs at all you can only see the other side of the coin. But it doesn’t mean that you need to be among the top 5% of the players to see what interaction happens between classes. As usual your comments are just a poorly concealed twisting of words to repeat your repetitive story. 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Vor 17 Minuten, 1MajorKoenig sagte:

 

Yes

 

 

Is it really that hard to stay on a discussion for you? Either you don’t understand the point or you are trying to twist it which gives that strange blabbering.

 

So again: if you haven’t played CVs at all you can only see the other side of the coin. But it doesn’t mean that you need to be among the top 5% of the players to see what interaction happens between classes. As usual your comments are just a poorly concealed twisting of words to repeat your repetitive story. 

It's funny how YOU expect Him to give you a different answer even if he is giving you factually right ones. 

[El2aZeR]

23 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Yes

 

Then, again, how come it is okay for CVs to just destroy everything else no matter the circumstances?

 

23 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Is it really that hard to stay on a discussion for you? Either you don’t understand the point or you are trying to twist it which gives that strange blabbering.

 

Seems to be very hard for you at least given that you're failing to give any sort of objective facts or arguments on your contradicting statements.

 

23 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

So again: if you haven’t played CVs at all you can only see the other side of the coin. But it doesn’t mean that you need to be among the top 5% of the players to see what interaction happens between classes.

 

Except the top players will obviously have a better perspective on it than the average player, as there are inevitably things the average player will not be able to accomplish and as such has a far more narrow and perhaps even wrong view of the whole picture.

E.g. it is simple fact that all flak can in fact be dodged no matter the concentration as can be proven by skilled players. The average player on the other hand will not be able to dodge all flak and as such label some of it as unavoidable. We've seen examples of this on this forum aplenty.

 

Thus the viewpoint of the average player is just as worthless as someone who has extensive experience of going up against CVs but has yet to play them according to your own standards.

 

23 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

As usual your comments are just a poorly concealed twisting of words to repeat your repetitive story. 

 

As usual you fail to give any sort of objective facts to support your statements in an effort to preserve your laughable narrative.

[1MajorKoenig]

24 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Then, again, how come it is okay for CVs to just destroy everything else no matter the circumstances?

 

Aaaaaand again: the game tries to avoid 100% shutdown situations for a very good reason (it’s a game). Therefore Bombers need to get through at varying costs. You can make strikes costly but shouldn’t make them impossible. Relatively simple 

[kfa]

20 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Aaaaaand again: the game tries to avoid 100% shutdown situations for a very good reason (it’s a game). Therefore Bombers need to get through at varying costs. You can make strikes costly but shouldn’t make them impossible. Relatively simple 

Well bombers are a bad example, you can just do a fake drop 8km from a desmo and yeet 30k dmg in her face with AP bombs, losing 3 planes on the way out. 

[1MajorKoenig]

13 minutes ago, kfa said:

Well bombers are a bad example, you can just do a fake drop 8km from a desmo and yeet 30k dmg in her face with AP bombs, losing 3 planes on the way out. 

 

Well true but you can argue whether slingshot is an intended mechanic. It looks certainly a bit silly 

[1MajorKoenig]

13 minutes ago, kfa said:

Well bombers are a bad example, you can just do a fake drop 8km from a desmo and yeet 30k dmg in her face with AP bombs, losing 3 planes on the way out. 

 

Well true but you can argue whether slingshot is an intended mechanic. It looks certainly a bit silly 

[Sunleader]

2 hours ago, Yoshanai said:

It's funny how YOU expect Him to give you a different answer even if he is giving you factually right ones. 

 

Isnt that Standard for him ?

As long as I have known him in this Forum. His main Strategy of Discussion has been to be Completely Ignorant of the Answers he didnt like and just keep making the same Claim over and over again pretending you did not answer him while hoping if he just makes that claim often enough he will get an different Answer he likes at some point.

I sometimes think he is mistaking this for some sort of Single Player Game where he is trying to reload the Savegame until he gets the Result he wants.....

 

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Aaaaaand again: the game tries to avoid 100% shutdown situations for a very good reason (it’s a game). Therefore Bombers need to get through at varying costs. You can make strikes costly but shouldn’t make them impossible. Relatively simple 

 

Invalid Argument.

Because avoiding 100% Shutdown Situations for Player A always means a 100% Shutdown Situation for Player B.

Right now CVs are Completely Protected from 100% Shutdown Situations.

But that also means that they can Force a 100% Shutdown Situation for 2 out of the 3 other Classes.

 

DDs right now can easily be 100% Shutdown by a CV if he wants to. Because if the CV Focusses him not only is the CV Guaranteed to Kill them given enough Attacks with Assault Aircraft. But by keeping them Spotted the DD also loses all Options in the Match and thus is Practically Completely Excluded from the Match.

 

A Cruiser as well can be 100% Shutdown by a CV if he wants to. Because if the CV decides to Focus him he will pretty much always get an Attack through and the Cruiser which does not have the HP Pool and Armor.

(And below T9 not even a Heal to at least Recover part of the HP Losses)

Thanks to that a Cruiser which is Reliant on using Cover and Concealment to Avoid Direct Fights with BBs is also 100% Shutdown if the CV decides to Focus him.

 

Currently the only Class which has a Chance of not being 100% Shutdown by CV is BBs. And only if they belong to the BBs with Sufficient AA Power to cause losses to the CV Faster than their own HP Pool Drops.

As a Haku for example. Sinking a Full Yamato requires some Time. But its absolutely no Problem to do it. If a Haku wants a Yamato out of the Battle he can do that. Because the Yamato will either Die or will be forced to move away from the Battle. But a Montana will Generally cause too much losses for the CV to 100% Shut it Down. As you will simply run out of Aircraft before he Runs out of HP.

 

 

Therefore the Argument that its a Game and 100% Shutdown Situations should be Avoided is Completely Invalid. Because whenever you Guarantee one side to not be 100% Shutdown you Automaticly also Guarantee that this side can force a 100% Shutdown on the other side.

 

But Yes. We Argued this 100 Times already. And nothing has Changed......

 

 

[CptBarney]

Damm boiz. Missed quite a bit clearly.

 

 

Still any news about miss yorkie or booooooogue (and yes ill probs repeat dis till toineh waifus get installed into teh game).

 

@mtm78 you can come out again lol.

 

 

[El2aZeR]

6 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Aaaaaand again: the game tries to avoid 100% shutdown situations for a very good reason (it’s a game). Therefore Bombers need to get through at varying costs. You can make strikes costly but shouldn’t make them impossible. Relatively simple 

 

Except a CV is as of 0.8.7 always capable of shutting down any surface ship in any situation 100% for negligible plane losses due to a combination of massive reserves and generally inadequate AA as already outlined previously. "Costly" strikes do not exist.

The last time this actually applied to CVs you labeled them as unplayable and demanded a refund despite more experienced and skilled CV players telling you otherwise.

 

Thus, again, by your own standards CVs are broken.

 

Also gotta love how you dropped every other point again for which you have no answer for. The truth is harsh, isn't it?

[1MajorKoenig]

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Except a CV is as of 0.8.7 always capable of shutting down any surface ship in any situation

 

How is that a shut down? 

 

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Also gotta love how you dropped every other point again for which you have no answer for. The truth is harsh, isn't it?

 

No, not really. I was polite. Your other „points“ are not really for discussion as they are simply your very own opinion. And I am not in the mood to go over the same points again today. 

[El2aZeR]

57 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

How is that a shut down? 

 

A guaranteed kill without any negative consequences for the CV nor options to counterplay for the surface ship player isn't a shut down? That's rich.

 

57 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No, not really. I was polite. Your other „points“ are not really for discussion as they are simply your very own opinion. And I am not in the mood to go over the same points again today. 

 

Statements backed by objective facts are now opinions.

I guess that's the only thing you have left after running out of arguments.

 

Also "again"? You have yet to back your statements with objectively true facts a single time.

[CptBarney]

omfg, the hermes has too litterally be the most useless CV ever. Why does it have 18mm's pen on its HE bombers? and why didn't it get buffed like hosho and langley?

 

I hope the furious is better too be honest. Love how BB's are immune to the bombs unless you start fires on them 8.0% fire start soo much for focusing on DOT lmao.

 

jesus christ.

[Capra76]

22 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Ah co-op. Excellent reference 

 

Actually in terms of AA/CV effect it is quite a good reference, the AA effects are after all automated, the bots tend to blob up naturally so the difference between this and random is much less than with surface v surface combat.

 

Plus you ignored PT server (against real players) and training rooms (taking down Des Mo with T4/6 ships as an experiment).

 

But, frankly, the reeeeeeworked CV gameplay is repetive and moronic so I can't be bothered to grind it any further.

[1MajorKoenig]

7 hours ago, Capra76 said:

Actually in terms of AA/CV effect it is quite a good reference

 

OMG sweet summer child 

[El2aZeR]

39 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

OMG sweet summer child 

 

Truly a remark you of all people should be using after basing every single statement on either lies or worthless beliefs that crumble in the face of proven facts.

[159Hunter]

3 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Truly a remark you of all people should be using after basing every single statement on either lies or worthless beliefs that crumble in the face of proven facts.

What do you expect, you attack his stat padding shipclass. It's not the class, he's good at it. You are all wrong.

[Capra76]

5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

OMG sweet summer child 

 

Care to expand?

[Yedwy]

5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

OMG sweet summer child 

Actually he is right, bot blob up and dont break the blob whatever you do to them 4-5 T10 ships can really ruin your coop fun with a cv as the AA goes over the top, you have less problems in breaking up a blop of humans, also you cant wait for the AA to be withered down by your team in coop as they will kill the bots off...

[CptBarney]

3 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

What do you expect, you attack his stat padding shipclass. It's not the class, he's good at it. You are all wrong.

Dont get the last part.

 

halp.

 

nevermindings.

[Sunleader]

1 hour ago, 159Hunter said:

What do you expect, you attack his stat padding shipclass. It's not the class, he's good at it. You are all wrong.

 

Reminds me of Air Supplement. Where the Winrate Percentage for CV Class is higher than the Winrate Percentages for all other classes added up....

 

But you will always have people Defending the Indefensible.

Even more so when its something they Profit from.

 

 

Bigger Issue is however that Wargaming has pretty much Decided that they will rather have CVs Ridiculously Overpowered than have a low CV Population.

And well. A if you keep the System so easy for CVs that even a Noob which has 30-40% Winrate will easily achieve over 50k average damage and nearly 1 kill per Match.

Then of course anyone with some Actual Skill will be able to Dominate a Battle without much effort.