Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
avenger121

CV opt-out when?

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts

CVs are even more OP than it was already before and now even more annoying, WG's attempt to make CVs console viable failed spectacularly.

 

- skyaids is the dmg dealer no.1

- skyaids is the most flexible class

- skyaids has the highest survivability

- skyaids dominates the vision game

 

It has been 3.5 years since release and WG didnt manage to balance CVs at all, at this point it is an exercise in futility waiting for them to come up with a solution that resembles anything that is not cancerous to gameplay or remotely balanced. Also the only time that they even attempted to fix CVs is when they need to change controls for a console version of WoWs.

 

Since WG is too stubborn to admit that CVs have been a mistake from day 1 and are nothing more than foreign matter in this slow paced 3d shooter, WG should at least gives us the possibility to opt-out of matchmaking with CVs.

 

CV queue times are mostly because of the time it takes to find other CVs for mirror MM, not because of the lack of regular ships. Implementing a feature that for every CV match you have played, you are stuck in matchmaking with CVs for the next 100 matches should easily ensure that WG doesnt need to admit their mistakes and also CV apologists can keep molesting themselves with their OP toys.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,827 posts
14,092 battles

Hasn't this been asked over and over already? What was the answer again? 

 

The current problems need to be fixed, and the answer isn't the ludicrous.

If we play a CV game, our next 100 matches need to have CVs in them?

Do you realise how this rule would break the matchmaker? You think people are going to quit over the rework, just wait and see how many will quit when they can't find matches. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
5 minutes ago, Miragetank90 said:

Hasn't this been asked over and over already? What was the answer again? 

 

The current problems need to be fixed, and the answer isn't the ludicrous.

If we play a CV game, our next 100 matches need to have CVs in them?

Do you realise how this rule would break the matchmaker? You think people are going to quit over the rework, just wait and see how many will quit when they can't find matches. 

 

 

 

You do realize that the ppl who played a CV would be in both pools, right? How the f*ck wouldnt they find any matches. This just serves the purpose to bolster the pool that can be matched with CVs, because I dont think it is too unrealistic that no one wants to play against skyaids and those that want, want to sit in CVs, not in the ships that get facerolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
6,235 posts
10,704 battles
8 minutes ago, Miragetank90 said:

Hasn't this been asked over and over already? What was the answer again? 

It has. WG wants CVs to be part of the game. Some players like it (my AA specced Mino says "hello!") some don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,457 posts
14,578 battles
38 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

 

 

- skyaids is the dmg dealer no.1

 

Really?

Warship Tier Type Nation Battles Win rate Avg. frags Avg. damage Avg. experience Avg. planes destroyed Kills / deaths
Imperator Nikolai I 4 Battleship U.S.S.R. 436 180 60.57 % 1.28 46 875 994 0.03 2.61
Orion 4 Battleship U.K. 1 396 136 53.28 % 1.09 42 541 761 1.21 2.19
Hosho (<30.01.2019) 4 Aircraft Carrier Japan 2 618 689 52.22 % 0.85 38 620 745 7.81 2.49
Arkansas Beta 4 Battleship U.S.A. 1 109 966 53.63 % 1 37 122 867 0 1.86
Kaiser 4 Battleship Germany 4 116 616 51.87 % 0.9 35 675 693 1.07 1.78
Courbet 4 Battleship France 326 778 50.82 % 0.84 33 164 646 0.21 1.58
Ishizuchi 4 Battleship Japan 912 359 52.84 % 0.88 33 095 809 0.14 1.48
Iwaki Alpha 4 Cruiser Japan 80 305 57.87 % 1.16 32 694 937 0.82 1.85
Wyoming 4 Battleship U.S.A. 7 380 437 50.32 % 0.76 29 964 685 0.61 1.37
Langley (<30.01.2019) 4 Aircraft Carrier U.S.A. 3 654 584 48.84 % 0.58 27 277 697 9.96 1.27
Shenyang 4 Destroyer Pan-Asia 624 569 52.51 % 0.91 25 717 714 0.08 1.44
Duguay-Trouin 4 Cruiser France 1 657 604 52.23 % 0.76 25 704 649 0.23 1.11
Myogi 4 Battleship Japan 4 745 934 48.8 % 0.59 24 588 661 0.62 1.09
Kuma 4 Cruiser Japan 4 522 861 51.51 % 0.76 23 857 708 0.3 1.04
Yūbari 4 Cruiser Japan 709 351 51.87 % 0.78 23 793 795 1.97 1.16
Hosho 4 Aircraft Carrier Japan 2 653 55.01 % 0.63 23 136 777 1.65 2.28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
9 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

It has. WG wants CVs to be part of the game. Some players like it (my AA specced Mino says "hello!") some don't.

In one of his Q&As SO when I asked him about the Belfast, he told me my opinion is invalid and Belfast is fine. Belfast isnt sold any longer because she is OP as f*uck.

 

In a later Q&A by SO, I asked him about BB AP against DDs, he told me everything is fine and that those are just underwater pens, despite my screenshots showing that all hits were far above the waterline. BB AP damage mechanics got drastically changed and now can only do overpen damage against DDs.

 

 

 

@ColonelPete

How did you manage to copy that chart? I have given up on using charts with this forum software, it is a pain in the [edited].

 

You do realize that posting the average stats of idiots that cant handle the flak burst mechanic is kinda pointless, nevermind using T4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
2 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

You are aware of the fact that opinions aren't set in stone for all eternety?

 

Thank god you understood what I was trying to say. Seperate queues are not ruled out for all eternity. It just needs some play pressure to stop this shítshow, pretty much like BB AP or the Belfast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
6,235 posts
10,704 battles
1 minute ago, avenger121 said:

 

Thank god you understood what I was trying to say. Seperate queues are not ruled out for all eternity. It just needs some play pressure to stop this shítshow, pretty much like BB AP or the Belfast.

True. But at the same time WG announced that they want to bring 1 CV per team into 75% of all the battles! Doesn't sound to me as if they're happy with whatever falls out of the rework and then code two queues that can be choosen by the players.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
Just now, Allied_Winter said:

True. But at the same time WG announced that they want to bring 1 CV per team into 75% of all the battles! Doesn't sound to me as if they're happy with whatever falls out of the rework and then code two queues that can be choosen by the players.

I assure you, even if somehow by a miracle WG managed to remotely balance CVs, people would still be pretty pissed having CVs in 75% of their matches, just because of how annoying they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
6,235 posts
10,704 battles
2 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

people would still be pretty pissed having CVs in 75% of their matches, just because of how annoying they are.

How would that be different from the BB players that are annoyed because there's a Shimakaze on the enemy team?

 

How would that be different from the DD players that are annoyed because there's a Des Moines on the enemy team?

 

Players are always annoyed about a class that can 'harm' them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
1 minute ago, Allied_Winter said:

How would that be different from the BB players that are annoyed because there's a Shimakaze on the enemy team?

 

How would that be different from the DD players that are annoyed because there's a Des Moines on the enemy team?

 

Players are always annoyed about a class that can 'harm' them. 

 

Yeah right, because cruisers and DDs are just as remotely cancerous as skyaids. :Smile_veryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,827 posts
14,092 battles
13 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

 

You do realize that the ppl who played a CV would be in both pools, right? How the f*ck wouldnt they find any matches. This just serves the purpose to bolster the pool that can be matched with CVs, because I dont think it is too unrealistic that no one wants to play against skyaids and those that want, want to sit in CVs, not in the ships that get facerolled.

 

3 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

 

Thank god you understood what I was trying to say. Seperate queues are not ruled out for all eternity. It just needs some play pressure to stop this shítshow, pretty much like BB AP or the Belfast.

 

So the people who play CVs are stuck in their own pool for all eternity, basically, with a few non-CV players making up the rest of the team list

Is this what you are saying?

If you can't see how implementation of such rules has the potential to spiral out of control then idk

 

What's next? DDs opting out of battles with radar cruisers? 

Will they need their own separate queue as well? 

We'll get right on it chief 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
6,235 posts
10,704 battles
Just now, avenger121 said:

DDs are just remotely as cancerous

Tell that to the straight lining BB players that get torped :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

The biggest issue is that somehow CVs have made almost everyone camp at the back and never contest a cap. This has made Random Battles utterly stupid as you can't play for the objectives reliably any more.

 

Strange as the old CVs were arguably even better for map control yet it didn't get the same level of passive gameplay.

 

I'm also tired of these constant CV threads but meh WG...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
4 minutes ago, Miragetank90 said:

So the people who play CVs are stuck in their own pool for all eternity, basically, with a few non-CV players making up the rest of the team list

Is this what you are saying?

If you can't see how implementation of such rules has the potential to spiral out of control then idk

 

What's next? DDs opting out of battles with radar cruisers? 

Will they need their own separate queue as well? 

We'll get right on it chief 

 

Step for step, just for you to understand.

 

If the MM creates a lobby with CVs, it can only draw from players who havent chosen the opt-out and those that played a CV within their 100 last matches.

 

If the MM creates a lobby without CVs, it can draw from all ships that are not CVs, which includes those that played a CV within their last 100 matches and havent chosen the opt-out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,457 posts
14,578 battles
19 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

 

 

@ColonelPete

How did you manage to copy that chart? I have given up on using charts with this forum software, it is a pain in the [edited].

 

You do realize that posting the average stats of idiots that cant handle the flak burst mechanic is kinda pointless, nevermind using T4.

Just copy/paste.

And just disproving your statement...

 

Btw....

https://wows-numbers.com/ships/

 

 

Warship Tier Type Nation Battles Win rate Avg. frags Avg. damage Avg. experience Avg. planes destroyed Kills / deaths
Bourgogne 10 Battleship France 9 807 60.54 % 1.36 127 149 2 445 2.13 2.95
Hakuryu 10 Aircraft Carrier Japan 12 474 55.01 % 1.16 105 460 2 323 5.69 6.52
Stalingrad 10 Cruiser U.S.S.R. 106 682 60.23 % 1.17 103 797 2 201 1.68 2.35
Conqueror 10 Battleship U.K. 1 465 783 50.35 % 0.81 100 515 1 720 1.23 1.75
Midway (<30.01.2019) 10 Aircraft Carrier U.S.A. 635 742 46.5 % 1.27 96 799 1 791 25.68 6.84
Hakuryu (<30.01.2019) 10 Aircraft Carrier Japan 389 746 47.82 % 1.24 95 015 1 659 21.45 6.95
République 10 Battleship France 1 243 907 50.32 % 0.92 90 972 1 701 1.35 1.66
Yamato 10 Battleship Japan 5 727 574 49.06 % 0.81 85 947 1 677 1.33 1.44
Montana 10 Battleship U.S.A. 4 502 079 49.25 % 0.86 81 844 1 642 1.98 1.63
Großer Kurfürst 10 Battleship Germany 4 947 577 50.04 % 0.84 80 332 1 513 1.57 1.44
Henri IV 10 Cruiser France 884 477 49.97 % 0.81 79 679 1 644 1.29 1.62
Zao 10 Cruiser Japan 3 736 523 49.36 % 0.83 77 655 1 600 1.12 1.7
Midway 10 Aircraft Carrier U.S.A. 10 064 49.09 % 0.82 76 930 1 963 6.03 4.3

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts

@ColonelPete

Do you even read what I wrote? Here again for you to have a 2nd chance:

"You do realize that posting the average stats of idiots that cant handle the flak burst mechanic is kinda pointless."

 

Just go to wows-numbers, look into the 4 different ship classes and sort for the upper 10% of players.

 

 

Edit: Btw, DesMo and Mino are missing, didnt want to make that pic even bigger, also obviously you have to disregard the Bourgogne & Stalingrad as ships not accessible to the masses.

 

a5.thumb.jpg.ce80a2a66c12345072e5e869b7fab28a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,165 posts
245 battles

Never since this is a new class wargaming can make a lot of money from.

 

i guess they should include the option for those who want it but i think that will increase waiting times considerably.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,457 posts
14,578 battles
9 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

@ColonelPete

Do you even read what I wrote? Here again for you to have a 2nd chance:

"You do realize that posting the average stats of idiots that cant handle the flak burst mechanic is kinda pointless."

 

Just go to wows-numbers, look into the 4 different ship classes and sort for the upper 10% of players.

Good luck running into these 10% once in a blue moon....

Performance is measured in averages. Always was and always will be. The game is not for the top 10%.

 

Btw....

Top 10%

 

Hakuryu Japan 80.25 % 2.16 175 916 3 360 8.62 27.12
Midway U.S.A. 76.91 % 1.81 144 286 3 000 9.47 20.14
Midway (<30.01.2019) U.S.A. 72.01 % 2.26 144 050 2 624 38.37 21.76
Hakuryu (<30.01.2019) Japan 73.51 % 2.26 143 161 2 432 33.95 22.95

 

Bourgogne France 80.77 % 1.94 163 605 3 013 5.06 5.82
Großer Kurfürst Germany 65.43 % 1.35 114 822 2 032 3.07 2.97
République France 68.03 % 1.50 129 720 2 302 2.72 3.67
Conqueror U.K. 66.92 % 1.30 141 446 2 249 2.66 3.86
Yamato Japan 63.51 % 1.26 119 238 2 247 2.90 2.86
Montana U.S.A. 65.27 % 1.37 116 100 2 252 4.50 3.41

 

Midway seems lacking

             
               
               
               
               
               

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,842 posts
16,989 battles

As I said before: I don't mind. However, as you decide to not play against 25% of the classes in game, you'll have to make due with 25% less XP and credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRNPA]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Good luck running into these 10% once in a blue moon....

Performance is measured in averages. Always was and always will be. The game is not for the top 10%.

 

Btw....

Top 10%

 

 
Hakuryu Japan 80.25 % 2.16 175 916 3 360 8.62 27.12
Midway U.S.A. 76.91 % 1.81 144 286 3 000 9.47 20.14
Midway (<30.01.2019) U.S.A. 72.01 % 2.26 144 050 2 624 38.37 21.76
Hakuryu (<30.01.2019) Japan 73.51 % 2.26 143 161 2 432 33.95 22.95

 

Bourgogne France 80.77 % 1.94 163 605 3 013 5.06 5.82
Großer Kurfürst Germany 65.43 % 1.35 114 822 2 032 3.07 2.97
République France 68.03 % 1.50 129 720 2 302 2.72 3.67
Conqueror U.K. 66.92 % 1.30 141 446 2 249 2.66 3.86
Yamato Japan 63.51 % 1.26 119 238 2 247 2.90 2.86
Montana U.S.A. 65.27 % 1.37 116 100 2 252 4.50 3.41

 

Midway seems lacking

             
               
               
               
               
               

 

Yeah, as you see, looking at all regular available ships Midway and Hakuryu are dominating, and that is only damage, not talking about everything else like vision control which let CVs faceroll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×