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

Will there be CV nerfing agian ?

71 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,108 posts
5,881 battles
Vor 4 Minuten, Uglesett sagte:

They did once.

 

And let's not get started on how many times WoT artillery have been changed simply because enough people really dislike them.

So you are going to keep whining with the mob for the next rework to come? ☆

 

Alright, have fun! ♡

 

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
1,452 posts
3,769 battles
3 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

So you are going to keep whining with the mob for the next rework to come? ☆

 

Alright, have fun! ♡

No.

 

I'm explaining why it probably will come. Because while they may be slow to do so, WG tend to cave to pressure eventually.

 

Of course, judging by what's happening with WoT artillery, chances are the next rework is just going to make things even worse, because they're basically doing the same thing there that they are doing with CVs in WoWs: Removing high alpha damage in favour of more and more constant annoyance. So the logical extrapolation is that the next iteration of CVs are probably going to be effectively unstoppable, but deal piddly amounts of damage :Smile_sceptic:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,452 posts
3,604 battles
58 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

They did once.

 

And let's not get started on how many times WoT artillery have been changed simply because enough people really dislike them.

Well the new carrier system has exactly the same issues as wot artillery does. Underwhelming for the carrier player, and super annoying for the surface ships. Its all down to that guaranteed safe damage output that surface ships can do nothing about, While requiring little skill on behalf of the carrier.

 

"No skill safe reward" is never a good idea in any game, its stupid.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
283 posts
8,168 battles
3 hours ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

It reached the goal of being more accessible and CV are fairly popular now, 2 things they fixed! ☆

People forget that this was the primary goal, and all game mechanic changes just ways to get there. It looks like a success to me as well? After all, that's why this forum is now all about CV's and nobody remembers radar anymore.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
[BHSFL]
Players
1,925 posts
6,150 battles
12 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Well the new carrier system has exactly the same issues as wot artillery does. Underwhelming for the carrier player, and super annoying for the surface ships. Its all down to that guaranteed safe damage output that surface ships can do nothing about, While requiring little skill on behalf of the carrier.

 

"No skill safe reward" is never a good idea in any game, its stupid.

 

You really talk nonsense...

 

Yesterday i had a littlle spin in WOT again, using artillery with all the mechanics that make it challenging to play. But it still does whack enemy tanks that sit still for too long while detected.

 

And i was killed by the exact anti-artillery weapon that is supposed to do that, and always was.....very fast light (scout) tanks. But counter artillery could have done the job too.

 

Players just do no like being blown up out of nowhere......that is the only reason they want it removed, but it never will be. It is the same for WT and tank players that hate aircraft. Those devs even rubbed salt in the wound by adding attack helicpters.....with guided missiles already there or coming.

 

Should learn to play your class and deal with your natural enemies...not want them removed from the game by devs...You should remove them from the match, yourself.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,452 posts
3,604 battles
7 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

You really talk nonsense...

 

Yesterday i had a littlle spin in WOT again, using artillery with all the mechanics that make it challenging to play. But it still does whack enemy tanks that sit still for too long while detected.

 

And i was killed by the exact anti-artillery weapon that is supposed to do that, and always was.....very fast light (scout) tanks. But counter artillery could have done the job too.

 

Players just do no like being blown up out of nowhere......that is the only reason they want it removed, but it never will be. It is the same for WT and tank players that hate aircraft. Those devs even rubbed salt in the wound by adding attack helicpters.....with guided missiles already there or coming.

 

Should learn to play your class and deal with your natural enemies...not want them removed from the game by devs...You should remove them from the match, yourself.

I can deal with them, that doesnt mean tho that i think they are good for the game. And im sorry but no, artillery in wot requires zero skill to do decent in, and if you look at the minimap every two minutes, you are immune to light tanks, if those kill you, you really are afk.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
283 posts
8,168 battles
15 minutes ago, thiextar said:

"No skill safe reward" is never a good idea in any game, its stupid.

It doesn't describe the reworked CV's very well, now does it? Only in the sense that you don't die early if you have no clue, and the skilled red CV can't shut you out. 

The basic gameplay is very accessible to any WoWS player, as intended, but a lot of people are complaining about the inefficiency of CV's and proposing buffs. They're very skill-sensitive. In fact, I kind of think that the only way to do really well in the CV's is by mastering the other classes first.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,108 posts
5,881 battles
Vor 2 Minuten, asalonen sagte:

I kind of think that the only way to do really well in the CV's is by mastering the other classes first. 

No,look at me,good in CV, below average on everything else :/ ☆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWTP]
Players
801 posts
8,060 battles
5 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

You really talk nonsense...

 

Yesterday i had a littlle spin in WOT again, using artillery with all the mechanics that make it challenging to play. But it still does whack enemy tanks that sit still for too long while detected.

 

And i was killed by the exact anti-artillery weapon that is supposed to do that, and always was.....very fast light (scout) tanks. But counter artillery could have done the job too.

 

Players just do no like being blown up out of nowhere......that is the only reason they want it removed, but it never will be. It is the same for WT and tank players that hate aircraft. Those devs even rubbed salt in the wound by adding attack helicpters.....with guided missiles already there or coming.

 

Should learn to play your class and deal with your natural enemies...not want them removed from the game by devs...You should remove them from the match, yourself.

So what is your natural enemy? Because I can't see any except for a very poor team collapsing in a few minutes and letting enemy rape you as the last victim to mass rape.

Fun and engaging? Yes, but for whom? I played only less then20 games in Furious and I suck badly but it is not much fun for me. Feels like tedious labour. For surface ships balanced about concealment with poor AA it is game breaking crap with 2Cvs currently often at lower tiers. I can't understand how it is possible that in a product where the majority of often paying customers do hate something it is still shovelled down the throats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
[BHSFL]
Players
1,925 posts
6,150 battles
12 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

So what is your natural enemy? Because I can't see any except for a very poor team collapsing in a few minutes and letting enemy rape you as the last victim to mass rape.

Fun and engaging? Yes, but for whom? I played only less then20 games in Furious and I suck badly but it is not much fun for me. Feels like tedious labour. For surface ships balanced about concealment with poor AA it is game breaking crap with 2Cvs currently often at lower tiers. I can't understand how it is possible that in a product where the majority of often paying customers do hate something it is still shovelled down the throats. 

 

This is why artillery is in WOT.....but in WOWS we have aircraft for the same reasons.

 

"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."

 

God fights on the side with the best artillery.

 

I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know the artillery did.

 

Artillery is the god of war.

 

Contrary to popular belief, we at artillery command do not believe we're God. We merely borrowed His "Smite" button.

 

Without support the infantry won't move.

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWTP]
Players
801 posts
8,060 battles
11 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

This is why artillery is in WOT.....but in WOWS we have aircraft for the same reasons.

 

"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."

 

God fights on the side with the best artillery.

 

I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know the artillery did.

 

Artillery is the god of war.

 

Contrary to popular belief, we at artillery command do not believe we're God. We merely borrowed His "Smite" button.

 

Without support the infantry won't move.

 

Before the rework, we did well with CV in every 5th battle. I dare to say even better than now. YMMV.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,452 posts
3,604 battles
24 minutes ago, asalonen said:

It doesn't describe the reworked CV's very well, now does it? Only in the sense that you don't die early if you have no clue, and the skilled red CV can't shut you out. 

The basic gameplay is very accessible to any WoWS player, as intended, but a lot of people are complaining about the inefficiency of CV's and proposing buffs. They're very skill-sensitive. In fact, I kind of think that the only way to do really well in the CV's is by mastering the other classes first.

But my point is this: You dont have to do really well in cvs to annoy the ever living soul out of surface ships, you just have to do something.

 

Surface ships dont see the performance difference between bad and pro carrier players, all they see is guaranteed damage heading their way every 30 seconds, from something that they cant spot, counter or damage.

 

Honestly, i have never ever seen anyone write "woho, there are carriers in this battle". On the other hand, space battles comes out, and when asked what they like best about it, most of the people ive asked says "No carriers". Seriously, a new game mode with new game mechanics and the ability to test most tier 10 ships in the game, and the most liked feature is that carriers arent featured in it?

 

That is not good game design, it just isnt.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
[BHSFL]
Players
1,925 posts
6,150 battles
5 minutes ago, thiextar said:

But my point is this: You dont have to do really well in cvs to annoy the ever living soul out of surface ships, you just have to do something.

 

 

I daresay annoying is not the correct word. Such a clueless player will fly his squadrons into dense AA and just sees exploding sqadrons, and negative credit result screens bankrupting him quick.

 

The "annoyed" players will squatter those sqadrons without having to do anything, not even set AA zones. No skill is involved save for choosing usefull captain skills and ship modules. And this "annoyed" players will be rewarded with credits and XP for killing many aircraft.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,452 posts
3,604 battles
1 minute ago, Beastofwar said:

 

I daresay annoying is not the correct word. Such a clueless player will fly his squadrons into dense AA and just sees exploding sqadrons, and negative credit result screens bankrupting him quick.

 

The "annoyed" players will squatter those sqadrons without having to do anything, not even set AA zones. No skill is involved save for choosing usefull captain skills and ship modules. And this "annoyed" players will be rewarded with credits and XP for killing many aircraft.

I have yet to face a carrier player that doesnt get every single plane to drop their payload on their first attack run.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,108 posts
5,881 battles
Vor 14 Minuten, thiextar sagte:

I have yet to face a carrier player that doesnt get every single plane to drop their payload on their first attack run.

But if you were able with say all cruisers with a specialized build to negate the first attack of the CV (therefore negating the whole attack run) how is the CV ever going to damage anything? ☆

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ANV]
[ANV]
Players
251 posts
3,146 battles
5 hours ago, thiextar said:

1. Nothing can be done about the squadrons first strike, its guaranteed to get through, which leads to safe damage

 

2. Planes regenerate simultaneously in three different squads, as long as you dodge flak and dont charge minos, you pretty much have infinite planes.

 

3. Decent cv players can make themselves pretty much immune to flak, and all the aa skills have been shafted so hard that fire prevention is now more useful vs carriers than all the aa skills combined.

 

Previously carriers had a hardcap on the amount of planes they could bring, aa was devastating and aa skills actually worked, this meant that if you made slight mistakes, you basically killed yourself by making yourself useless.

 

The new carriers are so idiot-proofed that you pretty much have to kill the carrier itself to get rid of them, something that is impossible if they look at the minimap once a minute.

 

So yeah, id say they are pretty much a no-risk guaranteed reward class.

But apart from that you think they're OK? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GOD-]
Players
361 posts
14,496 battles
25 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

I daresay annoying is not the correct word. Such a clueless player will fly his squadrons into dense AA and just sees exploding sqadrons, and negative credit result screens bankrupting him quick.

 

The "annoyed" players will squatter those sqadrons without having to do anything, not even set AA zones. No skill is involved save for choosing usefull captain skills and ship modules. And this "annoyed" players will be rewarded with credits and XP for killing many aircraft.

Annoying is the exact right word actually sir.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,452 posts
3,604 battles
50 minutes ago, Lord0 said:

But apart from that you think they're OK? 

I think that balance wise they are fine, but the entire concept is completely broken and toxic to gameplay and the meta.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
283 posts
8,168 battles
1 hour ago, thiextar said:

Honestly, i have never ever seen anyone write "woho, there are carriers in this battle".

I actually remember saying something along those lines before the rework. I didn't play CV's then, but generally liked the games with CV's due to the additional tactical element. It only sucked really bad when the skill disparity between CV's was really big, or when you were insta-deleted by a unicum CV.

 

1 hour ago, thiextar said:

That is not good game design, it just isn't.

One of the problems with the rework is the perceived lack of counterplay to CV's. I wouldn't be surprised by a major AA rework somewhere in the future. This post on the NA forums was excellent pointing about some of the problems with the rework.

 

Still, I feel that what we have after rework is better than what we had before. I've enjoyed playing the new CV's a lot, and personally haven't minded them when I play surface ships, even if they are more numerous than before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
807 posts
5,454 battles

I feel my CVs are already uber nerfed that I decided filtered my CVs off. God these cvs (in my hands) are terribly weak in all game modes (coop, random and scenario). Damage can't support my team and can't get enough dmg to enemy ships. T8 CV mm is terrible bad when you get 90% t10 mm, where AA is ridiculous OP.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
6,688 posts
5,548 battles
8 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

I really enjoy the premium CV's but i also see they are WAY more powerful when used to their full potential then tech tree CV, at least the T VIII ones.  Also i think they will be quite popular so the damage they  inflict will not go unnoticed and will not sit well with many players not using CV probably causing massive complaints again.

 

Since WG seems to not want to touch premium ships with nerfs one might come to have the idea they might nerf all CV's to reduce the power of these premium ones. I think that would not be acceptable, as these tech tree CV's were nerfed so much already and really do not share the same very powerful abilities the premium ones have.

 

What do you think will happen ? Especially the larger squadrons releasing more weapons ( per squadron ) will prove to be menacing to other players, but nerfing them through other CV that do not even have that will surely castrate them.

 

Which premium carriers are OP in your opinion? 

 

Zeppelin‘s 2000 Damage Torps or Kaga‘s T7 planes? Or Saipan‘s three and a half planes?

 

I think CVs are quite low already so I don’t see why anyone would make them even worse

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
110 posts
21,248 battles
4 hours ago, asalonen said:

People forget that this was the primary goal, and all game mechanic changes just ways to get there. It looks like a success to me as well? After all, that's why this forum is now all about CV's and nobody remembers radar anymore.

No it wasn't their primary goal was to make carriers work on console for when they release wows on it and RTS CV couldn't do that.

No matter how much they deny it that was their goal, the final nail in the coffin for me and this game will be if they put CV in clan battles

If that happens i will pretty much stop playing totally

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ROPS]
Players
48 posts
5,104 battles

i love how ppl waste their money on premium cv's and have no clue about playing them, i got attacked by that shokaku and an enterprise. the enterprise player had 43% wr but he was a proud owner of a premiujm cv and i [edited]wrecked his planes :D

shot-19.04.12_11.40.44-0734.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,248 posts
3,657 battles
13 hours ago, thiextar said:

I hope there will be, a no-risk safe class should also come with the disadvantage of being weak in comparison to the not-so-safe classes.

But they are not 'no risk,' especially with the AA nowadays, plus when in randoms, and the red team get a little too close, then there are risks aplenty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,248 posts
3,657 battles
1 hour ago, pfcremus said:

i love how ppl waste their money on premium cv's and have no clue about playing them, i got attacked by that shokaku and an enterprise. the enterprise player had 43% wr but he was a proud owner of a premiujm cv and i [edited]wrecked his planes :D

shot-19.04.12_11.40.44-0734.jpg

You say waste their money it is theirs to waste,plus they pay for the game to keep going, also is someone has not got any tech tree tier 8, why not buy one.

 

You could accuse me of wasting money, however I still enjoy the game, so it brings me fun, and yes I suck at everything so tell me something I don't know, lol

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×