CV Rework Discussion

[Allied_Winter]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I would prefer, if people would try to analyse and giving ideas for improvements. But some are just not interested in improvments.

Believe me I did.

Personally: The rework is better. I could never make the RTS CV's work for me. They required to much ... work from my side to get good at it. Plus the constant fear of getting exit strafed by a unicum and thus being unable to do anything. Now with the rework I don't have to worry about any of that. Sure I might meet a good CV player on the red team every once in a while, but then the race to maximum damage is just a faster one, I can still mostly farm in peace.

 

For the game overall though: RTS CV's were the better option as e.g. defensive AA was actually doing something (widening the drop of a CV) or a less wide skill gap (thanks to auto drops and actually meaningfull plane losses).

 

However that is just my assesment of the presented facts. Ymmv.

[Pikkozoikum]

7 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Believe me I did.

Personally: The rework is better. I could never make the RTS CV's work for me. They required to much ... work from my side to get good at it. Plus the constant fear of getting exit strafed by a unicum and thus being unable to do anything. Now with the rework I don't have to worry about any of that. Sure I might meet a good CV player on the red team every once in a while, but then the race to maximum damage is just a faster one, I can still mostly farm in peace.

 

For the game overall though: RTS CV's were the better option as e.g. defensive AA was actually doing something (widening the drop of a CV) or a less wide skill gap (thanks to auto drops and actually meaningfull plane losses).

 

However that is just my assesment of the presented facts. Ymmv.

Well, when I play bad, I suffer from plane loss. Though to make it more meaning full, it could be already enough to lower the deck number of planes by, lets say, 2. Maybe more. With only 1-3 planes in a squad, attacking is not really possible against good aa. Thus it would a kind of de-planing.

[AndyHill]

2 hours ago, veslingr said:

you do not get sarcasm? 

No, I really don't and I don't know if it's my fault here. So, to clarify, do you think that it's possible for a class of ships to be op or not? Also what was your point regarding win rate when comparing stats of different ship types in the game? If you can clarify those two things it might be somewhat helpful for the discussion.

[El2aZeR]

4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Detonations happen by far more often

 

Lets quantify that.

On T8 a total of 24192 CV battles were played last week. Because T8 CVs are always mirrored and primarily 1vs1 you can cut that number in half to get the amount of battles in which CVs were present, so that's 12096 battles.

The top 10 players only of all T8 CVs combined played 1488 battles.

Therefore if you do happen to meet a T8 CV, you have a whopping 12% chance that he is going to ruin the match. This is ONLY for the cream of the crop. If we go for "all unicums" the number is going to be far higher.

 

So no, the chance to detonate is actually a lot lower.

[ForlornSailor]

14 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Lets quantify that.

On T8 a total of 24192 CV battles were played last week. Because T8 CVs are always mirrored and primarily 1vs1 you can cut that number in half to get the amount of battles in which CVs were present, so that's 12096 battles.

The top 10 players only of all CVs combined played 1488 battles. 

Therefore if you do happen to meet a T8 CV, you have a whopping 12% chance that he is going to ruin your match. This is ONLY for the cream of the crop. If we go for "all unicums" the number is going to be far higher.

 

So no, the chance to detonate is actually a lot lower.

 

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Detonations happen by far more often

 

math > feelings. est. ~1610, Florence, Italy

[Aixin]

Vor 23 Minuten, El2aZeR sagte:

 

Lets quantify that.

On T8 a total of 24192 CV battles were played last week. Because T8 CVs are always mirrored and primarily 1vs1 you can cut that number in half to get the amount of battles in which CVs were present, so that's 12096 battles.

The top 10 players only of all CVs combined played 1488 battles.

Therefore if you do happen to meet a T8 CV, you have a whopping 12% chance that he is going to ruin your match. This is ONLY for the cream of the crop. If we go for "all unicums" the number is going to be far higher.

 

So no, the chance to detonate is actually a lot lower.

Hold on a second... 1488 games.... Holy crap.... 148.8 battles per player 49 hours per player ingame (at least) how can you reach such a high number games or time in a week. Somehow I am a bit envious for the time...... *sad Pikachu face* 

[El2aZeR]

9 minutes ago, Karotte_marksman said:

Hold on a second... 1488 games.... Holy crap.... 148.8 battles per player 49 hours per player ingame (at least) how can you reach such a high number games or time in a week. Somehow I am a bit envious for the time...... *sad Pikachu face* 

 

Top ten players of all T8 CVs combined, not top ten T8 CV players overall. So that's top ten Lex players + top ten Shokaku players etc. for a grand total of 70 players.

That's about 21 matches per player.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

 

math > feelings. est. ~1610, Florence, Italy

Reality (empiric) > math (theory) > feelings.

I never got totally nuked by a unicum cv, that I had no fun in that game, because of that unicum Cv. Even if I have a unicum CV player in my match, doesn'T mean, that I got nuked by him. So yes, detonations happen more often, this week  I had two detonations, but never got totally nuked by a unicum CV. The worst was a double citadell of a Ryujo yesterday

 

Last week on EU server were 31357 total high tier CV battles, and the top 10 high tier CV players played 375 battles. That is a total of  1.2%.

1.2% of the total battles are battles with the top 10 players. So I have to be in one of those 1.2% battles and if I'm in one of those 1.2% battles, there is still the chance, that this player in on my team, so going with 50:50 it would 0.6%. That's only the chance for the battle and not the probabilty. My stochasitic lessons are too long ago, would it be 0.6*(1.006^100)?

 

ps.: The error here: This works only with the assumption, that I would have 100% of my matches a CV in it

 

 

 

[Bear__Necessities]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Reality (empiric) > math (theory) > feelings.

I never got totally nuked by a unicum cv, that I had no fun in that game, because of that unicum Cv. Even if I have a unicum CV player in my match, doesn'T mean, that I got nuked by him. So yes, detonations happen more often, this week  I had two detonations, but never got totally nuked by a unicum CV. The worst was a double citadell of a Ryujo yesterday

 

Last week on EU server were 31357 total high tier CV battles, and the top 10 high tier CV players played 375 battles. That is a total of  1.2%.

1.2% of the total battles are battles with the top 10 players. So I have to be in one of those 1.2% battles and if I'm in one of those 1.2% battles, there is still the chance, that this player in on my team, so going with 50:50 it would 0.6%. That's only the chance for the battle and not the probabilty. My stochasitic lessons are too long ago, would it be 0.6*(1.006^100)?

 

ps.: The error here: This works only with the assumption, that I would have 100% of my matches a CV in it

 

 

 

Doesn’t take into account players like me then as I don’t fall into that’s weeks spreadsheet...

[Pikkozoikum]

Just now, Bear_Necessities said:

Doesn’t take into account players like me then as I don’t fall into that’s weeks spreadsheet...

It's about the top ten of that week. So if it is not counting you, then another player, who were active. But we could also go with the total number of the full year

[El2aZeR]

4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Last week on EU server were 31357 total high tier CV battles, and the top 10 high tier CV players played 375 battles. That is a total of  1.2%.

 

Trying to present false data by deliberately cutting off a dataset where it is convenient. And you want people to stop accusing you of lying LOL.

Lets pick the complete dataset, shall we? The total amount of CV battles played last week was 34664 battles, which means at most 17332 battles had CVs in them. Of that 3522 matches were played by the top 100 CV players.

 

That means in a CV match there was a ~20% chance of at least one of them being competent.

 

If you were interested in only the top 10 players on high tier CVs, then that adds 657 battles played by the top 10 players of Midway, Audacious and Hakuryu respectively, on top of the 1488 I previously pulled for a total of 2145 battles. This, again, represents a ~12% chance that in a high tier CV battle you're going to have at least one extremely dominant CV player in the match.

 

Also whether that CV is on your team or not is irrelevant because guess what, the people on the other team are going to have their match ruined.

Unless you want to take the egoistical route and say only your own feelings matter, at which point everything you say becomes completely irrelevant. Not that it wasn't already ofc.

 

Besides, wanna know what completely eliminates the chance of detonations? A flag. The mechanic despite its rarity is deemed so frustrating that there is a way to completely eliminate it. In fact it is given to you when it does happen.

There is no such thing against CVs. To put detonations and CVs on the same pedestal is an argument for the removal of CVs, not against it.

[Hopeless_Guppy]

4 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Lets quantify that.

On T8 a total of 24192 CV battles were played last week. Because T8 CVs are always mirrored and primarily 1vs1 you can cut that number in half to get the amount of battles in which CVs were present, so that's 12096 battles.

The top 10 players only of all T8 CVs combined played 1488 battles.

Therefore if you do happen to meet a T8 CV, you have a whopping 12% chance that he is going to ruin the match. This is ONLY for the cream of the crop. If we go for "all unicums" the number is going to be far higher.

 

So no, the chance to detonate is actually a lot lower.

I'm Impressed just by the figures you pull for this info, where does it all come from?

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, Inappropriate_noob said:

I'm Impressed just by the figures you pull for this info, where does it all come from?

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/

[Sunleader]

4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Reality (empiric) > math (theory) > feelings.

I never got totally nuked by a unicum cv, that I had no fun in that game, because of that unicum Cv. Even if I have a unicum CV player in my match, doesn'T mean, that I got nuked by him. So yes, detonations happen more often, this week  I had two detonations, but never got totally nuked by a unicum CV. The worst was a double citadell of a Ryujo yesterday

 

Last week on EU server were 31357 total high tier CV battles, and the top 10 high tier CV players played 375 battles. That is a total of  1.2%.

1.2% of the total battles are battles with the top 10 players. So I have to be in one of those 1.2% battles and if I'm in one of those 1.2% battles, there is still the chance, that this player in on my team, so going with 50:50 it would 0.6%. That's only the chance for the battle and not the probabilty. My stochasitic lessons are too long ago, would it be 0.6*(1.006^100)?

 

ps.: The error here: This works only with the assumption, that I would have 100% of my matches a CV in it

 

 

 

 

Maybe you Should Learn Reading....

 

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Top ten players of all T8 CVs combined, not top ten T8 CV players overall. So that's top ten Lex players + top ten Shokaku players etc. for a grand total of 70 players.

That's about 21 matches per player.

 

 

Now I am really not Sure why you even bother with these 2.

They are way beyond Polishing that Turd. They are Worshipping it....

And nothing you say will get to them anyways.

 

 

 

Back on Topic.

I got Told ingame that they are Buffing Midway Torps from 4200 to 5200 Damage per Torp.

That True ?

I didnt find any Update Notes claiming this to be the case.

To begin with that would be Ridiculous. Midway Torp Bombers would go to an 31k Alpha....

 

 

 

[CptBarney]

Just now, Sunleader said:

 

Maybe you Should Learn Reading....

 

 

 

Now I am really not Sure why you even bother with these 2.

They are way beyond Polishing that Turd. They are Worshipping it....

And nothing you say will get to them anyways.

 

 

 

Back on Topic.

I got Told ingame that they are Buffing Midway Torps from 4200 to 5200 Damage per Torp.

That True ?

I didnt find any Update Notes claiming this to be the case.

To begin with that would be Ridiculous. Midway Torp Bombers would go to an 31k Alpha....

 

 

 

THey are buffing her flooding rate from 33% to 42% as well.

[Nibenay78]

3 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Besides, wanna know what completely eliminates the chance of detonations? A flag. The mechanic despite its rarity is deemed so frustrating that there is a way to completely eliminate it. In fact it is given to you when it does happen.

There is no such thing against CVs. To put detonations and CVs on the same pedestal is an argument for the removal of CVs, not against it.

 

Shouldn't we get anti-CV flag soon?

[1MajorKoenig]

10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Power progression is somewhat linear, making your argument moot.

 

You what? 

 

Precisely, progression is somewhat linear. 

 

Hence why adding T7 and T9 averages to that overall average naturally drags down the number = make it look smaller.

 

Not sure if you didn’t get the point though looking the gibberish that follows. To make it simple: if you assume for simplicity dmg averages in 10k steps from 50k (T7) to 80k (T10) the difference is already 5k if you don’t count in T7 and T9 and if averages for T8+10 are equal. 

 

 

[Allied_Winter]

On a more gameplay related note: I'm currently progressing through the Lexington, and do ... I'd say "OK" so far. While I think I do alright in terms of target decisions, my DMG isn't quite where it should be. But I'm sure that comes once she's fully upgraded.

 

Now, what nation to pick next? I'm almost through with the Hosho and have Hermes and Furious already in my port. So IJN? Or RN? From what I've heared the IJN are more difficult to play, so I'm inclined to go Brits first to get more experience about tactics and stuff?

 

Thoughts? Ideas?

[Nibenay78]

36 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

 

Thoughts? Ideas?

 

I would suggest to not play CV at all :D but I'm sure that's not what you're looking for. To be honest I still find the new CV gameplay to be incredibly boring and a dumbed down version. It's almost like it's made to play on a cellphone :-|

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Hence why adding T7 and T9 averages to that overall average naturally drags down the number = make it look smaller.

 

Ahhh, I misread that entirely. My bad.

Actually only adding the T7 number will drag down the stats due to its naturally lower value. If you do the same experiment with T8+9+10 vs T8+10 the averages equal out. The starting and end points need to be the same, what happens in between is irrelevant in the calculation.

 

However ironically that is not the case this week. Wanna know why?

 

Ofc on the other hand this makes this week's overall data a bit unreliable, though certain aspects are ofc still accurate.

(As to why these appear this week, apparently maplesyrup adds data in retrospect when a previously hidden account is made visible again.)

 

I generally disagree however that the overall data is non-telling. Clear trends can be made out which would continue regardless of whether odd tiers exist or not. It would be preposterous to assume e.g. that CVs wouldn't have a high KPM, spotting and/or base defense value if odd tier CVs were still to exist for obvious reasons.

In fact I'd say that average damage is the only stat that this calls into question, which is already in jeopardy anyway due to the incompetence of the average CV player.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Actually only adding the T7 number will drag down the stats due to its naturally lower value. If you do the same experiment with T8+9+10 vs T8+10 the averages equal out.

 

Correct. 

 

3 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

I generally disagree however that the overall data is non-telling.

 

Well the numbers indicate that BBs  are second in Dmg and that BBs are about 10% ahead in average which isn’t a problem really. 

 

The first statement based on these numbers is simply that CVs don’t deal too much damage. Btw that doesn’t look much different if you only use some 5 or 10% top players.

 

However - what these numbers don’t tell you (and where most criticism stems from) is how “valuable” said damage was as some dudes brought up here. Which is correct. Unfortunately we don’t have the numbers here. Some obvious factors are: what targets (we seem to agree that damage on a DD is more valuable than damage on a BB in most cases) were hit but also the tactical situation. Farming the last couple of ship after a roflstomp is more kill stealing than value. Finishing off a retreating low HP ship is very valuable. 

 

And that is the issue: these numbers are clearly fine. However the “feeeeling” is that the damage is more valuable. However that is currently not measurable as far as I know.

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, Allied_Winter said:

 

Now, what nation to pick next? I'm almost through with the Hosho and have Hermes and Furious already in my port. So IJN? Or RN? From what I've heared the IJN are more difficult to play, so I'm inclined to go Brits first to get more experience about tactics and stuff?

 

Thoughts? Ideas?

As long as you not try to divebomb destroyers with AP bombs and expect "I win" I don't see how IJN are harder to play. UK are certainly more... speschul than actually decent. You can keep throwing crap at the BBs wall and hope something will stick, but then brits have neither reserves nor plane regen for such tactics

[CptBarney]

Well thats the last time i listen to teammates for advice, fecked up my reserves anyways in my third midway game but i would of won it had i stuck to my presumption that the conqueror needed to die. Oh well, shame people always try to suicide so quickly in this game or just hundle in the corner of the map (second midway game) doing nothing (2v6 situation and no one pushed then had to deal with two dd’s which the game thought would be hilarious enough to make my bombs miss (i aimed well enough).

 

oh well guess its just learning issues, still under 75 games played at this point guess we all get terrible games at somepoint.

[El2aZeR]

11 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

However - what these numbers don’t tell you (and where most criticism stems from) is how “valuable” said damage was as some dudes brought up here. Which is correct.

 

Again, a combination of kills per match and average damage generally gives a decent indicator, however without hard data from WG it cannot be conclusively proven.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that CVs are at the very least capable of putting out the highest effective damage. This can easily be seen by the avg frag value when adjusting for top 10% or 5% of players and is in line with top player experience.

Therefore it can be extrapolated from that that the damage CVs put out is in fact more effective.

 

11 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Farming the last couple of ship after a roflstomp is more kill stealing than value.

 

Actually I've seen comebacks from the most ridiculous positions, thus this holds more value that most people might think.

 

[CptBarney]

@El2aZeR congrats you reached 71% winrate! But no seriously well done thats quite the achievement. Whats your next planned winrate goal?

 

’W’