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

[BAD-A]
Players
60 posts
8,769 battles
6 hours ago, asalonen said:

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.

It doesnt even touch on what the real problems are and falls into the same trap that wargaming are in by getting fixated on surface imperfectations of a concept that is rotten at the core.

 

How many games does the cv last till its the last ship or is hidden away as the game ends.... far far too often. That is a symptom of the main underlying reason why the concept doesnt work. There is next to no real counter-play that gives actual valid options to fight back against the cv. AA is not counter-play, it merely defends against cv players.

 

The surface ships counter each other and all have a chance to some degree but the cv breaks that concept and offers no weakness in return. Low damage is not a weakness in this regard as the only interaction the surface ship player experiences is being on the recieving end and rarely gets to damage the cv hull in return, they fact they have a special sound when a cv is killed just to mark the rarity of the occasion shows it to be the joke it is. You can talk AA changes etc till the cows come home but cv's need to take actual damage and start dieing earlier more often.

 

Until WG stops fumbling about and address's the real problems, not the perceived ones, CV's will always be hated for the negative play experience they are.

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,219 posts
14,969 battles
11 minutes ago, TVLX said:

AA is not counter-play, it merely defends against cv players.

 

Not that I particularly disagree that CVs currently are hilarious (in a bad way) but really, what kind of reasoning is this?

You may as well say "angling is not counterplay, it merely defends against AP shells".

 

Counterplay options do not necessarily have to be offensive in nature you know?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
1,999 posts
10,202 battles
12 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

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?

 

The one you forgot to mention? :D

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
6,393 posts
5,351 battles
1 minute ago, Saiyko said:

The one you forgot to mention? :D

 

 

 

I see - bummer that’s the one I don’t own 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
1,412 posts
5,589 battles
9 hours ago, TVLX said:

It doesnt even touch on what the real problems are and falls into the same trap that wargaming are in by getting fixated on surface imperfectations of a concept that is rotten at the core.

 

How many games does the cv last till its the last ship or is hidden away as the game ends.... far far too often. That is a symptom of the main underlying reason why the concept doesnt work. There is next to no real counter-play that gives actual valid options to fight back against the cv. AA is not counter-play, it merely defends against cv players.

 

The surface ships counter each other and all have a chance to some degree but the cv breaks that concept and offers no weakness in return. Low damage is not a weakness in this regard as the only interaction the surface ship player experiences is being on the recieving end and rarely gets to damage the cv hull in return, they fact they have a special sound when a cv is killed just to mark the rarity of the occasion shows it to be the joke it is. You can talk AA changes etc till the cows come home but cv's need to take actual damage and start dieing earlier more often.

 

Until WG stops fumbling about and address's the real problems, not the perceived ones, CV's will always be hated for the negative play experience they are.

 

 

 

WG modelled CV to have very low DPM compared to other ships. To be able to have a decent score CV need to be around mid-late match to build up that score slowly.

 

Also, at map start when ships overlap their AA a CV is almost powerless. Late game when enemy ships are scattered, alone, have wrecked AA modules and low hitpoints......then a CV becomes extremely powerful as it can always reach them anywhere in the map at any moment.

 

So CV staying aline untill late game....that is 100 % intended by WG if the enemy was not able to do something about it.

 

CV can be sunk at nearly all stages of the match you know.......it is done by keeping them spotted and bringing long range guns in range. That spotting can be done by an allied CV ( oh the horror ) or a DD that does not show himself to the CV as he will be killed if he does. Then it is only a matter of BB or Cruisers coming in range and focussing it down before it can run off. Ofcourse being able to focus on the CV is situational, as there are ofcourse other enemies around that prevent this.

 

If you demand it is CV that delete other CV....convenient, but no WG decided that is not the way of the CV anymore......many still try, but nearly always fail at higher tiers then T6....most T8+ CV have 60+ pieces of AA.....has something to do with a bit of realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-F]
Players
111 posts
162 battles

Oh looky another CV thread.... shouldn't this be in the pinned, dustbin thread for CV's?

Hey ADMINS why are you not consistent?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
855 posts
22 hours ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Some like it some dislike it. ☆

That's how it's going to be. ♡

That's how it is actually and you either continue playing or stop, there is no other way around it! ☆♡☆

 

Or do you truly truly truly believe they will change it again if enough CV whining topics appear? ♡

 

Cvs will be buffed, they will be nerfed. ♡

Whatever happens, deal with it! ☆

Yeah, CVs will be a neverending story with buffs and nerfs, and i understand that. I realise the insanely hard task for the devs to balance it to get all parties happy. Some changes will make people swap between happy and unhappy, and that is how the world works.

I think they read, and acknowledge feedback from the forums, but i certainly don't think they balance the game after the forum whine. But a thread can spark a fire the dev team might have overlooked or not thought of. Clearly they are as human as me and you. But unlike other games, we atleast have a devteam constantly re-balancing the game since pre-launch. Still there must be room for people to vent and give players the space to utter their opinion, within reasonable parameters.

 

But, yeah you are 100% right. And sometimes it's smart to take a break instead of sitting frustrated in a time window you should be relaxed and enjoy yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
Players
60 posts
8,769 battles
9 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Not that I particularly disagree that CVs currently are hilarious (in a bad way) but really, what kind of reasoning is this?

You may as well say "angling is not counterplay, it merely defends against AP shells".

 

Counterplay options do not necessarily have to be offensive in nature you know?

 

Sooo if you really think they are bad why are you focusing on a triviallity in terms of the main point im making?..... instead what you actually do is try and discredit the point by focusing on a small element of it that you can vaguely reason against but make it you look like it undermines the whole point.

 

You know full well the surface ships only interaction is mitigation of damage, they have no option to fight back in a meaningful way and that is why its not counter-play. A surface ship angling can fight back, thats why its different.

 

You can do better than this El2aZer, take the bias hat off and stop passive agressviely defending CV's while pretending you arent. I dont want them removed, but when WG trys to fix a broken concept by window dressing the user interface and boxing themselves into a corner in design it was always going to fail, that has been blatently obvious from beta test 1.

 

58 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

So CV staying aline untill late game....that is 100 % intended by WG if the enemy was not able to do something about it.

Did you miss the part where I stated WG dont have a clue what they are doing with CV's and the whole issue with them comes back to this exact point! Its the Real problem with them that cant be ignored. Players are on the recieving end of the atack with no recourse at any point, its not healthy for the game, stop trying to pretend it is.

 

Its a game, it needs to be balanced and ultimately fair. Go look at other types of game that have recognised the conept of negative play experience, they actively try and remove the sources of it because they know long term it damages the player base. We are seeing that right here with CV's. They destroy the game for the rest of the classes, it doesn't have to be high damage, its the continuous spotting and being attacked over and over and over and rarely getting to fight back and when it does happen its to late to make any real difference.

 

Ask yourself, What is the point of these threads continuously being created, everyone knows CV's are a problem, majorioty of players hate them yet we have a small collection of apologists vehmently defending them to the last despite the obvious major flaws.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,259 posts
11,649 battles
9 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Not that I particularly disagree that CVs currently are hilarious (in a bad way) but really, what kind of reasoning is this?

You may as well say "angling is not counterplay, it merely defends against AP shells".

 

Counterplay options do not necessarily have to be offensive in nature you know?

 

I think I found why it is difficult to argue with you on this matter, you are confusing your terms somewhat. What you describe as "counterplay" is actually damage mitigation.

 

Counterplay is something entirely different.

 

counterplay in British

(ˈkaʊntəˌpleɪ)
 
noun
1. 
a positive or aggressive action by the defending side, esp in chess

 

verb (intransitive)

2. 
to make an opposing or positive action from a position of defence
 
Shooting down aircraft or avoiding their attacks is merely the "position of defense" - it is a defensive action. There is no option to oppose the enemy player (CV) only mitigate his damage (defend). In order to truly counterplay we need a way to not only defend against the CV's attacks but also attack them ourselves.
 
I guess, due to your confusion over terminology, we have been talking at cross purposes all this time.
  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,219 posts
14,969 battles
2 hours ago, TVLX said:

You can do better than this El2aZer, take the bias hat off and stop passive agressviely defending CV's while pretending you arent.

 

That's a rather grand thing to say when saying that defensive action cannot be counterplay. Just because I don't like CVs in their current form doesn't mean I can't point out how objectively flawed your argument is. I neither want nor need to join the hate train some people here are on.

We are not talking about fighting back, we are talking about whether a defensive play can be counterplay. So is angling a counterplay to AP shells or not?

I'd say yes. If done well (and unless overmatch comes into play but that's a different thing entirely) you can mitigate your enemies' damage potential down to zero.

And this is the actual deal with the current iteration of CVs. Unless you stack AA to ludicrous amounts it is impossible to deny them their first attack. They can even mitigate the inevitable losses by just shortening their squads.

As such your counterplay option is either hugely impractical or straight up doesn't really work. And it is necessary for it to be so due to the fundamental concept of CVs, hence why CVs as they are right now are impossible to balance.

 

Here, I've made your argument non-biased. You can thank me later.

 

2 hours ago, xxNihilanxx said:

I guess, due to your confusion over terminology, we have been talking at cross purposes all this time.

 

I don't see how it doesn't apply to what I am saying tbh. Though I guess it depends on what you consider a positive or opposing action, doesn't it? Since in a broad sense technically speaking just taking the first attack and denying the second one via AA along with impacting the reserves a tiny bit in the current CV rework could already be considered positive or opposing the enemy CV even if it is moot since the CV will just come back in 30 seconds.

But lets not get caught up in that, shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,259 posts
11,649 battles
14 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

I don't see how it doesn't apply to what I am saying tbh.

 

I understand that but it is precisely this failing of yours that I and others have tried repeatedly, in vain, to point out to you. Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

The Tiger is incredibly well camouflaged against the backdrop of light and shade at the edge of the jungle. You don't see the Tiger but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Someone with more acute vision can see the Tiger and warns you of it but, unable to see the Tiger, you proceed as if the Tiger isn't there. Doesn't stop you from getting eaten by a freaking Tiger.

 

14 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

 

Though I guess it depends on what you consider a positive or opposing action, doesn't it? Since in a broad sense technically speaking just taking the first attack and denying the second one via AA along with impacting the reserves a tiny bit in the current CV rework could already be considered positive or opposing the enemy CV even if it is moot since the CV will just come back in 30 seconds.

 

Precisely, "in a broad sense, technically" - so if you turn your head to a particular angle and squint in exactly the right way through these special glasses it can be made to seem that.... - This is the kind of mental gymnastics that I and others refuse to engage in. In a real sense with no technicalities required it totally isn't even remotely like that at all. You should not need to rely on such mental gymnastics if your argument is sound. (Just like the HP of a CV is the f***ing HP of the ship - there is even a f***ing HP bar on the CV that identifies itself an HP bar - no mental gymnastics required. None!)

 

14 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

But lets not get caught up in that, shall we?

 

It is entirely the crux of the whole issue but yea, let's not go there shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,219 posts
14,969 battles
11 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

I understand that but it is precisely this failing of yours that I and others have tried repeatedly, in vain, to point out to you. Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

And you have ofc never considered for a moment that what you're seeing is in fact entirely made up? You're basically telling me right now that the way you interpret it to be is right and the way I do is wrong which is the height of subjectivity.

 

But since you still want to beat around the issue, let me end this by asking you directly.

Is the action of angling, not the action of fighting back, a counterplay option to AP shells or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,427 posts
245 battles

On topic: Maybe, at least for regular cv's anyways, prems and the more famous waifu is balans atm.

 

Off topic: Warthunder has a lot of negative play yet is still played by thousands of people.

 

Fun>Balance>Realism. I don't know anyone that plays a game they dont find fun for years on end.

 

Also im suprised this thread still exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,259 posts
11,649 battles
Just now, El2aZeR said:

 

And you have ofc never considered for a moment that what you're seeing is in fact entirely made up? You're basically telling me right now that the way you interpret it to be is right and the way I do is wrong which is the height of subjectivity.

 

But since you still want to beat around the issue, let me end this by asking you directly.

Is the action of angling, not the action of fighting back, a counterplay option to AP shells or not?

 

No, it is literally, by definition, damage mitigation. The act of angling alone can only mitigate damage and thus is a defensive action. If there were a specific angle that one could set their ship at that would reflect incoming the damage to the opponent then that might be considered counterplay but as that is, obviously, not the case then angling in and of itself is the epitome of defensive, damage mitigation.

 

Counterplay is a positive, opposing/aggressive action. Mitigation is the reduction of a negative action. The reduction of a negative does not equate to a positive, it just means less of a negative.

 

In the specific case of CVs IF, for each aircraft killed did actually lose part of its hull HP until it eventually died, then it would be possible to consider that AA defense was, in some part, counterplay to the CV but as that is currently not the case then it does not apply.

 

I have tried to point this it before, in order to counter my aggressor, I have to be able to end the engagement by killing said aggressor thus preventing any further attacks on me or my team by that ship/player. This is how it is with all other classes in the game but, for some reason, this is not the case with CVs and the apologists think this is fine, fair and balanced. Merely surviving an encounter is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination - regardless of mental gymnastics - counterplay.

 

 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,219 posts
14,969 battles
17 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

No, it is literally, by definition, damage mitigation.

 

And there is nothing positive you can draw out of that? That you have successfully made the enemy waste a salvo that could have otherwise been used to better effect for example? Really nothing at all?

What you are saying would be true if the enemy doesn't incur any negative penalties. In most scenarios in this game he does. Depending on the class, weapon type, etc. that penalty is either negligible or a pretty big deal. A DD firing HE at you from smoke won't particularly care that your armor just shattered his previous salvo for no damage since he probably has another one already in the air. A BB might care a lot more that you just dodged all his shells since he needs far longer for another attempt at you.

This is where balance comes into play. Depending on the potential power of a weapon a failed attack must inevitably incur a smaller or larger penalty. This is where the CV rework fails because the penalties for a failed attack aren't NEARLY big enough to offset its potential power.

 

25 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

In the specific case of CVs IF, for each aircraft killed did actually lose part of its hull HP until it eventually died, then it would be possible to consider that AA defense was, in some part, counterplay to the CV but as that is currently not the case then it does not apply.

 

You know, I was partially joking about removing the CV hull from the match previously but wouldn't that actually satisfy your criteria?

I mean, if you remove the hull and let him fly in from the map border then plane reserves both figuratively and literally becomes the HP of the CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
Players
60 posts
8,769 battles
9 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

That's a rather grand thing to say when saying that defensive action cannot be counterplay. Just because I don't like CVs in their current form doesn't mean I can't point out how objectively flawed your argument is. I neither want nor need to join the hate train some people here are on.

We are not talking about fighting back, we are talking about whether a defensive play can be counterplay. So is angling a counterplay to AP shells or not?

I'd say yes. If done well (and unless overmatch comes into play but that's a different thing entirely) you can mitigate your enemies' damage potential down to zero.

And this is the actual deal with the current iteration of CVs. Unless you stack AA to ludicrous amounts it is impossible to deny them their first attack. They can even mitigate the inevitable losses by just shortening their squads.

As such your counterplay option is either hugely impractical or straight up doesn't really work. And it is necessary for it to be so due to the fundamental concept of CVs, hence why CVs as they are right now are impossible to balance.

 

Here, I've made your argument non-biased. You can thank me later.

Have you... from where im standing all you've done is ignore the larger point and made a lot of noise about the exact topic im saying is distracting people from the real issue.

 

My point was AA is a surface deep problem that is distracting people from the real issues with a flawed concept > You responed by babbling on about said AA

 

You literally epitomised the problem

 

Or I could draw the conclusion you are fully aware of this and deliberately obfuscating the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,219 posts
14,969 battles
12 minutes ago, TVLX said:

My point was AA is a surface deep problem that is distracting people from the real issues with a flawed concept > You responed by babbling on about said AA

 

Oh, so because of that I can't point out where your reasoning is flawed?

 

And have you ever considered that aircraft having no meaningful counterplay is perhaps the bigger issue? Why would I ever care that the CV hull survives if I have reliable means of completely denying both his spotting and damage dealing capabilities via killing his aircraft (you know, like it existed in the RTS iteration)?

 

Also how exactly would you solve your supposed core issue in a way that actually makes sense? Again the only way I see is to remove the hull of the CV entirely, make aircraft fly in from the map border and let plane reserves serve as a substitute HP bar. Do you believe that this is going to make the situation any better when there still isn't a reliable way to prevent a CV from spotting and/or attacking you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
Players
60 posts
8,769 battles
32 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Oh, so because of that I can't point out where your reasoning is flawed?

 

And have you ever considered that aircraft having no meaningful counterplay is perhaps the bigger issue? Why would I ever care that the CV hull survives if I have reliable means of completely denying both his spotting and damage dealing capabilities via killing his aircraft (you know, like it existed in the RTS iteration)?

 

Also how exactly would you solve your supposed core issue in a way that actually makes sense? Again the only way I see is to remove the hull of the CV entirely, make aircraft fly in from the map border and let plane reserves serve as a substitute HP bar. Do you believe that this is going to make the situation any better when there still isn't a reliable way to prevent a CV from spotting and/or attacking you?

I get the point your making, but I refuse to fall into the trap of letting a debate get side tracked over something that boils down to what your opinion (of counter-play) is. I do not consider AA to be real counterplay as we have it. As @xxNihilanxx put it, counter-play should be a positive action, not mitigation that is only really defensive.

 

The only interaction 20-22 players have with cv's in a match, is being spotted by planes that move far faster than they can, approaching from any direction at will and receiving damage from them. To a surface ship, shooting down planes makes no difference as thirty seconds later another wave is back. Surface Ships have no perception of whether the carrier has been deplaned/is limited by plane generation, the cv player is the only one that feels that. As far as the Surface Ship player is concerned they could be attacked and just as crucially spotted at anytime by another player they cant see, cant shoot and even if they win is likely still sitting at the far end of the map unotuched. That cv player might never be spotted nevermind take damage or die... i cannot see any reason how anyone can call that healthy game design. Its not and it needs to change.

 

We can talk rts/1st person/3rd person, multiple squads/single squads, high damage/low damage, limited planes/unlimited planes etc, none of it adds any positive interactions for the player of DD/CL/CA/BB's

 

My take on it;

 

Cv's need to be forced closer in the main fight so they can be killed more often and not constantly be the last ships alive when played half competently. For example they should be likely to die when a flank collapses, they get radared or are generally just spotted more often in positions they can actually be shot or torped. Id do this giving them a concealment penalty and plane launching penalties if they dont stay within proximity to friendlies (excluding cv's) and the penalties just get worse depending on a number of remaining friendlies close by and extermity of position on the map. If they are too far out at the edge and not close enough to a number of remaining friendlies, they become fully visible regardless of postion to everyone. Cv's also shouldnt be able to hard spot anything (planes or the hull) for the rest of their team other than positions on the minimap.

 

Further id add some or all of the following;

  • A recticle/aiming penalty against smaller targets to make it less worthwhile going after dd's
  • Cv's should suffer a concealment penalty when launching planes much like gun bloom
  • A damage buff to cv's as appropriate to make up for lowered survivability (personally i dont see any fun in playing cv's that hit like a wet a paper towel)
  • Multipler damage buff to AA or a collision mechanic (something like a more frequent detonation for planes) if multiple cv's are in a match and planes are dropping ordinance too close within a smilar time. If stacking AA gets debuffed why shouldnt multiple cv's!

If this sound harsh then we are on the right track

 

The CV would now have to play a far more active role in positioning itself and as it ran out of friends or a flank collapsed and it would become extremely vulnerable and now have a major outplay option where a dd (or even cruiser or battleship given suitable circumstances) could find a CV and kill it without being visible to the rest of the team if that cv is alone as it cant hard spot by planes or hull. They would become far more reliant on their team.

 

Im not calling for CV's to be gimped, but they absolutely need to be in harms way far more often, dieing earlier more often and have negatives to their play style. It doesnt have to be direct retalitation but mechanics the opposing players can exploit which can bring about the destruction of the hull in the same way the surface ship player experiences it. I talked about negative play experience previously and i dont think a de-planed hull is good either if a player has to sit with nothing to do (as funny as that used to be)

 

I get this isnt a WG friendly tactic for making the game idiot proof but thats part of why they have a class they cant balance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BW-UK]
Beta Tester
560 posts
5,175 battles

Had a match where a player issued smoke instantly at the start position on match beginning without moving, he remained safe for some time :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,219 posts
14,969 battles
1 hour ago, TVLX said:

Cv's need to be forced closer in the main fight so they can be killed more often and not constantly be the last ships alive when played half competently.

 

Again I don't see how this is supposed to work out or even put CVs into the line of fire. I generally don't have much issue with your proposals (aside from the current iteration being almost completely reliant on the stupid auto pilot but that's a problem with the implementation of the rework more than anything else) but I honestly don't see how this is supposed to put CVs into any danger. Because aircraft are their primary interactive element CVs don't suffer the same limitations when it comes to cover choice. As such being spotted or not would be almost entirely moot because your enemies can't shoot you anyway unless they fight through the entirety of the enemy team. A CV could e.g. just pick the backmost island to camp behind and it won't matter at all if he's spotted while doing so.

 

It also wouldn't actually change anything for me personally as a skilled CV player. Positioning was and still is very important when it comes to CV play. It granted faster plane cycling in the RTS iteration and it gives you far superior DPM in the rework. I've been playing CVs for a while to say the least. I know every single position on every map that'll put me closer to the front line, in proximity of friendlies and let my hull be completely safe from enemy fire. Whether I'm spotted or not is irrelevant because my opponents won't be able to shoot me anyway or if they can, they'll get negligible returns if any. And if things start to get dicey I can just extract myself well ahead of time and make a clean getaway. This applies even if you choose to limit my range in some manner (which is probably a moot thing anyway given that I can only concentrate on one flank only with the rework).

Or I just pick a position so far back that my entire team has to fall before you can reach me.

 

You could counteract sitting behind an island by requiring that a CV stays on the move to launch aircraft I suppose but again I can just circle a point behind my backmost teammates and be practically safe forever as I'll inevitably be out of range. I've done that plenty, too.

 

So unless you make Ocean the default map I don't see how this is going to change things for CV play. What it will change however is

- Potato CVs will inevitably die in droves, as such skilled CV players actually get handed more influence over the match simply by surviving. Perhaps this is your intention but I don't believe this is going to make the situation any better.

- The :etc_swear:ing "I SEE CV, I MUST GO SNIPE CV" players will immediately have their brains scrambled once they see the enemy CV pop up, throwing away their lives for nothing and making their team miserable. I've seen that EXTREMELY often lately and it's not something I would want to encourage.

 

And given that CVs currently become hilarious DPM monsters at a certain distance it is practically inevitable that any attempt at implementing your proposed outplay will just get shut down by the CV himself rather quickly. An aiming penalty won't prevent that, all high tier CV weapons (except E's rockets), including USN HE DBs (since they've fixed the exploit), are extremely inconsistent when it comes to killing smaller targets. Putting even more RNG on it wouldn't change that very much.

 

I know where you're coming from. Really, I do, however given that the fundamental CV playstyle inherently prevents your desire to see them take fire more often I'd say it is much more practical to give surface ships reliable counterplay options against aircraft and be done with that. Would it really make the game better if you get a potato CV on your team and you know "We'll be severely down in points already in like 2 mins" while you can see the enemy unicum CV just sitting full HP behind some island or circling somewhere behind his teammates where no gun can reach him and farm his way to victory?

If anything I expect that'll make CVs even more hated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×