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

Social Justice Warships: Campaign to Fix CVs censored from Reddit

64 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[POP]
Weekend Tester
650 posts
18 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Then “they” may be better off with playing a game portraying naval battles before WW2. 

How many times did carrier planes participate in battles where gun ships were shooting at each other during WW2?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
6,582 posts
5,499 battles
10 minutes ago, Nautical_Metaphor said:

You see, and that's where you are wrong.

That is not how the world works and it is possible to change things if you are ready to get off your bottom and do something.

 

See and that’s the issue. I like them - you don’t. I don’t mind playing against them - you do.

 

You won’t find a “common ground” here. Simple as that 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
6,582 posts
5,499 battles
2 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

How many times did carrier planes participate in battles where gun ships were shooting at each other during WW2?

 

Multiple times. The British attack on the French? Yamato engaging US Taffies?

 

If you go there you should rather ask: when did Battleships engage each other in WW2? In the Pacific exactly TWO times. It was a war of the planes, destroyers and subs.

 

So if you go by that you have to remove BBs and Cruisers. Would certainly stop the small group of CV-whiners who don’t seem to get it since two month 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
3,076 posts
6,133 battles

Im pretty sure the average players ideal game consists of MM being rigged to put all the good players on their team, and the red team not being able to shoot.

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Weekend Tester
650 posts
3 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Multiple times. The British attack on the French? Yamato engaging US Taffies?

 

If you go there you should rather ask: when did Battleships engage each other in WW2? In the Pacific exactly TWO times.

One is a case of ships getting caught in port and massacred, the other is a blunder of epic proportions where escort carriers (not on anti-shipping duty and not prepared to face surface combatants) got ambushed by a major fleet due to Halsey chasing empty carriers and abandoning their guard position.

 

The reason BB to BB combat didn't and couldn't happen was carriers. You are correct about WW2 being the war of carriers and planes, they did completely dominate the war. However, WoWS is not exactly a simulator and it is a game of surface fleets engaging in (pretty evenly matched) gun battles. And that didn't and couldn't happen in reality, because when carriers were present, surface fleets couldn't get close enough to each other to fire their guns. 

 

So, if you follow history you would have separate queues: one for surface gun ships (mostly at night) and another one for carrier groups (daytime). I'd be pretty fine with that.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,032 posts
7,240 battles

Well whatever my views on CV's, it feels like the numbers of CV players have risen since the rework. For the life of me I don't know why, well sort of (generation thing), So WG have done the right thing with the rework. Fair play, I truly thought it would be the opposite.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,719 posts
6,705 battles
1 hour ago, ShinGetsu said:

CVs are fun. So nope.

Removing them outright after all the time and money WG invested in that rework will not happen. Drive this onto your thick skull.

Nope.

they are not.

 playing with a cv or against a cv I prefer the old rts.

I rather take out PEV than any of my cvs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,061 posts
3,475 battles
1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

This CV hate is ridiculous. What’s next: remove all cruisers as well? Or DDs because they can torp from stealth which is soooooooo unfair? No counterplay for a Poor BB sitting in the A-line?  

 

The more hate then the more I will play them, fed up of this hatred

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,061 posts
3,475 battles
1 hour ago, thiextar said:

Every poll and statistic we have say that the majority of the playerbase dont think that carriers are fun.

 

But that doesnt matter, whatever your opinion on the subject is, doesnt matter. What does matter is that this thread was not rude, nor did it do anything that was against any rules, the simple fact is that wargaming censored it, and the only logical reason i can find as to why they censored it, is because they were afraid it might gain traction.

 

This has happened before in world of tanks, a youtuber named sirfoch made a video full of swearing, flaming wargaming for their pay2win schemes in that game, wargaming copyright-struck that video, and drowned in a storm of crap. They got bad attention from video game journals, jim sterling, reddit, the forum flooded, the mighty jingles - the biggest world of tanks youtuber left their cc program, they got so much crap for that piece of censorship, and that was a video which mainly consisted of "f wargaming".

 

This time they censored a well written article(no matter your viewpoint of the discussion topic), which had a solid discussion point and no rude language. I dont know about you guys, but im not particularly fond of censorship.

 

Wargaming has gone to far(again), lets make them face the same shitstorm they did when they tried this the last time.

Lol yeah and to cap it all the tank he was raging about is only OP in unicoms hands, in my hands it is as OP as wet toilet tissue. After all the time and money that have invested in this CV's as they are are probably here to stay, according to those that know they have already been nerfed anyways.

 

I still think you should be able to division up with a another CV player i your clan though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
6,582 posts
5,499 battles
19 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

rather take out PEV than any of my cvs

 

I hope you sir are not talking about PEF !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
214 posts
7,274 battles
1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

How many times did carrier planes participate in battles where gun ships were shooting at each other during WW2?

dont argue with him ... he thinks CVs are just fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
6,582 posts
5,499 battles
39 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

One is a case of ships getting caught in port and massacred, the other is a blunder of epic proportions where escort carriers (not on anti-shipping duty and not prepared to face surface combatants) got ambushed by a major fleet due to Halsey chasing empty carriers and abandoning their guard position.

 

The reason BB to BB combat didn't and couldn't happen was carriers. You are correct about WW2 being the war of carriers and planes, they did completely dominate the war. However, WoWS is not exactly a simulator and it is a game of surface fleets engaging in (pretty evenly matched) gun battles. And that didn't and couldn't happen in reality, because when carriers were present, surface fleets couldn't get close enough to each other to fire their guns. 

 

So, if you follow history you would have separate queues: one for surface gun ships (mostly at night) and another one for carrier groups (daytime). I'd be pretty fine with that.

 

ALL classes are altered in a way they can fight each other. Same as DD vs BB. Difference: the CV class is brand new to the game - the others being there since three years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
6,582 posts
5,499 battles
3 minutes ago, bloodynicknames said:

dont argue with him ... he thinks CVs are just fine

 

Not “just fine” but “mostly fine”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Weekend Tester
650 posts

CV class has been in the game for a long time, it was just so fundamentally incompatible and disruptive to the rest of the gameplay experience (=90% of the game or something like that) that WG decided to go for a difficult and expensive (as well as painful for CV players) rework. However, since the basic qualities that make carriers carriers didn't change, they are no better (if not worse) now than they were before. And although I can't prove it with calculations, I'm fairly convinced that there is no rework that can make them work. In reality they were extremely disruptive - making all other ship types just about pointless - and now we have two iterations of game implementations that have a strong negative impact on the game. I'd say it looks pretty bad for carriers. Or perhaps rather all the other classes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,382 posts
10,348 battles
1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

How many times did carrier planes participate in battles where gun ships were shooting at each other during WW2?

Errrrrmmmm. Sinking of the Bismarck....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Weekend Tester
650 posts
5 minutes ago, Bear_Necessities said:

Errrrrmmmm. Sinking of the Bismarck....

A good example of why a big gun ship can't go near carriers and another case of a relatively small, crippled force being obliterated by a massively superior one rather than a more or less even contest such as in WoWS. And although it would've probably been possible for planes to participate in the combat after the British fleet was in contact, did they actually do so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BODEM]
Players
257 posts
5,124 battles

I don't understand the petition. I mean, I understand people dislike the CVs, as 90% of the 1st page on the gameplay forums is about them. Seeing this and reading the content of all those posts, I reckon WG does the same and probably more thorough then I do/can.  So they know how the community thinks about CVs, right? They have to, they just have. The complaints are everywhere, even ingame sometimes. But what I don't get about putting up this petition is that one key sentence makes the whole petetion void if you take everything in consideration: "And in the end, it is Wargaming's prerogative to do what they please with their game.".

 

"Take what into consideration" you say? We got more than 2 months of CV rework gameplay behind us. That's:

 

- Two months of those that threaten to leave WoWs because of the CV rework could do so.

- Two months of anti/pro CV rework threads in the forums. 

- Two months of comments from the community about how they feel about the CVs.

- Two months of testing happening on live servers monitored by WG. 

- Two months of a rather respectful amount of players playing CVs if every game features at least 1 CV (and seemingly mostly 2) per game.

 

So if you are warning your petitioners that in the end WG may do what they want with their game and everyone has to live with it, I don't understand the purpose of the petition. Taking that part in account next to everything about CVs that has been written and said about CVs, the rest of the text sounds like "We try to take away the fun those that want to play the game and A. don't care about the CV either way or B. like to play CVs by sabotaging the game for them in what way we can until WG's perogative changes to getting rid of CVs because that's what's best for all of us and thus for them". 

 

Maybe WG thought about it the same way and didn't think this petition would be in the best interest of ALL of their (paying) customers, including those that like to play the game and are fine with it as it is now. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,382 posts
10,348 battles
10 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

A good example of why a big gun ship can't go near carriers and another case of a relatively small, crippled force being obliterated by a massively superior one rather than a more or less even contest such as in WoWS. And although it would've probably been possible for planes to participate in the combat after the British fleet was in contact, did they actually do so? 

And Leyte Gulf. 230 warships and 1996 aircraft took part in that battle. While DD’s were nipping at Yamato constantly aircraft were also being sent in at the same time. This is the battle Musashi, Fuso, Mogami and Zuiho were all sunk in.

 

You know you really should learn about naval history before making silly blanket statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Weekend Tester
650 posts

Leyte Gulf was a series of engagements (including one of the few times BBs really did something). Yet at no point did carrier planes engage ships while surface ships were fighting each other, except for the action off Samar, which was mentioned earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,463 posts
6,952 battles
1 hour ago, Butterdoll said:

Nope.

they are not.

 playing with a cv or against a cv I prefer the old rts.

I rather take out PEV than any of my cvs

Really ? You think a CV literally able to one-strike ANY ship in game except maybe for a Yamto/GK was fine ? Sure the old RTS was more "skilled", but the sheer alpha strike they had was just too much sometimes. I remember those literal one-tap AP DB drops I did on some Des Moines or Worcester sometimes. 51500 HP gone in one drop.

 

It was frustrating and, although skilled, I only played them a handful of time, at most 2 times a day, because it was super exhausting. Current CV are more fun, less exhausting to play against a skilled opponent and the skill gap is still there. IMO the biggest issue left is how WG still didn't change how much a ship become stronger with the AA build. The difference between with and without is too big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,482 posts
15,190 battles
7 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Yet at no point did carrier planes engage ships while surface ships were fighting each other, except for the action off Samar, which was mentioned earlier.

 

The only other time I can think of a carrier coming under gun attack is the sinking of HMS Glorious.

She got crippled the moment the engagement started and couldn't launch any planes tho so it doesn't particularly fit your criteria, leaving Samar as the only true example I believe.

 

Just saying. Don't particularly want to advocate either side since I believe this discussion to be pointless as we've already established previously.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×