Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Nebel13

CV problem and wargaming's lack of communication

125 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IWB]
Players
13 posts
4,322 battles

Dead simple, there should be no more then one CV per side. I am dog tired of games were absolutely mediocre teams get artificially propped up by 2 CV's that are blobbing their planes together and ruining the day for anyone that they choose to gang upon. CV's by nature have no direct counters so they can strike with impunity and if god forbid you are the focus of their attention, you'll either be dodging and weaving for the rest of the match or you' be at the bottom of the ocean in no time.

I like the fact they are no longer the insta-gib weapons, but they lack vulnerability, they haven't got the necessary trade-off to make them balanced but above all CV stacked ruin the day for everyone, especially DD's. The game is actively rewarding passiveness and blobbing.

It would be nice if wargaming at least acknowledge this is a problem and talk to their frustrated costumers and let them know what is going on.

  • Cool 17
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,588 posts
14,275 battles

One CV per side only fixes half the problems. 1 per side from T6 should be implemented. 

 

If only coz then I don't have to share the kills and exp with another CV on my team :Smile_trollface:

 

But in seriousness, for the sake of surface ships 1 CV is enough. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,759 posts
21,868 battles
Vor 1 Stunde, elblancogringo sagte:

2- There is no lack of communication, at all. Wargaming reacted already several times

 

 

Nothing WG have ever announced can fix the fundamental CV problem, which is that they do not fit the core concept of this game.

 

 

WG very obviously refuses to acknowledge this, and indeed their key people may just be unable to grasp this. Even only judging by the latest new ships introduced, there is a high probability this company does not fully understand the very core concept of their own game.

 

Take the new superfast French DDs. As soon as there is a carrier in the game, even their ridiculous speed is insufficient because of course they are still far slower than planes. From back to front, with the speed and the powerful AP and the high burst DPM of the reload booster, they are designed for quick flanking, quickly doing some damage and quickly making their getaway again. But that is of course precisely the kind of skirmishing gameplay that the CVs just shut down. All the speed gimmick does is help them get away from their support and into harm's way that much faster. And since they don't even have smoke, let alone much in the way of AA, there is no counterplay, so the omnipresent CVs will of course just farm them for free.

 

And then of course the Soviet BB line, whose gimmick - much better dispersion at short distances - means they need to push and get in close. But of course a BB pushing in close becomes the best target of all for the CV because they are the easiest to strike. (And last I looked, their citadels, by and large, make excellent landing decks for AP bombs...)

 

Of course.

 

Did I write "of course" enough yet?

  • Cool 23
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9 posts
21,970 battles

In irl sea warfare was over when carriers came so this might be the most realistic feature in this game they have ever made:Smile_trollface: and if they get money off from every mentaly 5 years old with a console do you really think they will give a flying [edited]to our oppinions?

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
106 posts
3,963 battles
3 hours ago, elblancogringo said:

Wargaming reacted already several times (check Sub_octavian posts) about that matter and informed the players about the MM status with CVs, why there is sometimes several CVs per team, and more importantly, why it will not change in the future. What is the point for them to repeat themselves? Should they every week or month react to the topics raised here which are always the same?

Well call me crazy but they could fix the issue with the MM and properly test things before release that might help. Improving the life of 2 players in 24 by ruining the game of 20 of those 24 players by having 2 T10 CV's is just sloppy thinking and coding. If they didn't frustrate their customers that way then people wouldn't feel the need to post here, again call me crazy but customer feedback should be seen as a good thing as it helps you improve your product.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,172 posts
7,233 battles
2 hours ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

 

Take the new superfast French DDs. As soon as there is a carrier in the game, even their ridiculous speed is insufficient because of course they are still far slower than planes. From back to front, with the speed and the powerful AP and the high burst DPM of the reload booster, they are designed for quick flanking, quickly doing some damage and quickly making their getaway again. But that is of course precisely the kind of skirmishing gameplay that the CVs just shut down. All the speed gimmick does is help them get away from their support and into harm's way that much faster. And since they don't even have smoke, let alone much in the way of AA, there is no counterplay, so the omnipresent CVs will of course just farm them for free.

 

Even though I agree, this french DD design in the current CV heavy meta is tantamount to suicide, that has nothing to do with the matchmaking issue that was raised by OP.

When I said WG reacted about this it was only about the MM issue.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,172 posts
7,233 battles
1 hour ago, samphilconlor said:

Well call me crazy but they could fix the issue with the MM and properly test things before release that might help. Improving the life of 2 players in 24 by ruining the game of 20 of those 24 players by having 2 T10 CV's is just sloppy thinking and coding. If they didn't frustrate their customers that way then people wouldn't feel the need to post here, again call me crazy but customer feedback should be seen as a good thing as it helps you improve your product.

I won't call you crazy :Smile_trollface: and I totally agree with the problem of multiple CV per team, it's no fun.

However, I also can understand WG's issues with the MM. The game suffers from a small playerbase.

With a lot more players I believe they could be more flexible in the MM rules. 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CRU_]
Players
361 posts
9,700 battles

The problem is making a good game, isn't their primary operating objective, making a coin slot is. The reason CVs were reworked was quite simply they were not being played enough and therefore not generating coin. edited* who make these decisions at WG are only interested in gimmicks, that's why they have been telling the devs to add subs. Do you think it is because subs would enhance the game? lol Don't be stupid, you just have to watch videos of devs from years ago publicly stating that subs in this game would be retarded, but hey when the edited*.

 

Game has went to crap, is crap, and will get more crap, It's WG it can only get worse.

 

edit: language please.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,398 posts
7,298 battles
6 hours ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

 

Nothing WG have ever announced can fix the fundamental CV problem, which is that they do not fit the core concept of this game.

 

 

WG very obviously refuses to acknowledge this, and indeed their key people may just be unable to grasp this. Even only judging by the latest new ships introduced, there is a high probability this company does not fully understand the very core concept of their own game.

 

Take the new superfast French DDs. As soon as there is a carrier in the game, even their ridiculous speed is insufficient because of course they are still far slower than planes. From back to front, with the speed and the powerful AP and the high burst DPM of the reload booster, they are designed for quick flanking, quickly doing some damage and quickly making their getaway again. But that is of course precisely the kind of skirmishing gameplay that the CVs just shut down. All the speed gimmick does is help them get away from their support and into harm's way that much faster. And since they don't even have smoke, let alone much in the way of AA, there is no counterplay, so the omnipresent CVs will of course just farm them for free.

 

And then of course the Soviet BB line, whose gimmick - much better dispersion at short distances - means they need to push and get in close. But of course a BB pushing in close becomes the best target of all for the CV because they are the easiest to strike. (And last I looked, their citadels, by and large, make excellent landing decks for AP bombs...)

 

Of course.

 

Did I write "of course" enough yet?

IIRC there was something about the russian player base not liking the game being built around stealth, and wanting a more pew pew game.

Look at a lot of the things added and it points towards this. Radio locator? Less stealth. Radar, and subsequent range buffs - stop that smoke hiding. DD lines that can swap out smoke, and now ones that dont have it at all. Nerf in CE. BB designed to rush forward. CV in every game so lots more spotted constantly

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
106 posts
3,963 battles
3 hours ago, elblancogringo said:

I won't call you crazy :Smile_trollface: and I totally agree with the problem of multiple CV per team, it's no fun.

However, I also can understand WG's issues with the MM. The game suffers from a small playerbase.

With a lot more players I believe they could be more flexible in the MM rules. 

Appreciate the considered response.

 

However if 90% of the playerbase doesn't want this to happen and you are appeasing the 10% that do all that you are doing is annoying the majority of the playerbase and that will only have a one way effect on player numbers.

 

I'll leave you with one more thought the below is a quick screenshot from a WoWS stats site sorted by the average experience earned by ships of all classes and all tiers, in the top 10 there are 5 aircraft carriers. So the least played class has by far and away the most experience awarded. If you also look at the K/D ratio as these ships often flee the battle and run they have less repair bills to pay so should be fairly profitable. Admittedly they don't dominate on damage but that is misrepresentative and I'll tell you why. The fact you are now constantly dodging CV launched torps and bombs negates angling as you are maneouvering, as you try to avoid torps you just open yourself up to broadsides from ships you would normally be angled against it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. The damage is landed because of the CV's whether or not they claim the damage themselves.

 

Something needs to change to slow down the rate at which planes are launched, they need to be manually piloted all the way back to the ship and numbers of planes should be reviewed. The sheer turnaround speed of planes is what causes the toxicity it seems you are never not under attack and there is no skill based defence against it other than blobbing all the ships together and they look to be nerfing that from one article I read.

 

I actually preferred the old CV playstyle but that is probably because it had less people playing it. The turnaround time on real carriers was huge, yes they could have a massive effect but not every 30 seconds or so. This was also the dawn of carriers and their effect was largely negated by improvements in AA defences like in "The Battle of the Philippine Sea", they weren't the all powerful force they are today.

 

Anyway I've had a bad CV day today 8% my @rse for the numbers of 2 CV games but I'll get off my soap box now and wait patiently for the release of perfectly balanced Soviet BB's.

Carriers.PNG

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4CRED]
Players
1 post
1,437 battles

In general i'm totally fine with the idea of CV's, but at the moment they're really to strong in multiple areas. Basically any class has it's weakness, but when it comes to CV's it looks like they're made to survive almost anything. 

 

AA: much better than on most other ships, beside the fact that CV's are most of the time behind the other ships so it's already hard enough to get to that point

HE: wasn't there once the idea that setting CV's on fire could be a decent tactic to stop CV players from starting one plane after another? Why do they have such a strong repair skill then? Their fire fighting capabilities are ahead of so many other ships
Planes itself = Why can they spam the planes so much? It shouldn't be possible to have more than one set of planes in the air at a time. If CV player would have to wait until their planes are back it would also create a tactical opportunity to play a bit more aggressive with them. I big slow down on the plane launching rate would also give DDs the opportunity to change their position to make it not too easy to keep them spotted. 
Level: Getting over and over again with a Tier 6 cruiser into a match against two Tier 8 CV's isn't fun at all. I can see how the low player base at night times gets a problem, but why not reduce the damage of the high tier ships if there are not enough players online for a fair matchmaking. 

Quests: If there is a problem with too many CV's entering the matchmaking, why are there still personal missions with the requirement to do them with a CV?

 

 

They way it's currently i can't await to get the submarines, because they seem to be the only way to take care of too many CV's. But I'm afraid that then the balance of the game will be even worse. 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,551 posts
20,712 battles
1 hour ago, Relax_81 said:

AA: much better than on most other ships

 

CV AA is actually very meh for the most part. What makes them good at air defense is their almost permanent CAP and the ability to spam fighters on themselves constantly. Catch a CV without any fighters up though and it isn't uncommon at all to be able to get all your strikes off.

 

1 hour ago, Relax_81 said:

HE: wasn't there once the idea that setting CV's on fire could be a decent tactic to stop CV players from starting one plane after another? Why do they have such a strong repair skill then? Their fire fighting capabilities are ahead of so many other ships

 

Because WG believes most players are too stupid to be able to manage the hull as well as the squad in the air.

Which is a very true assessment tbh.

 

1 hour ago, Relax_81 said:

Planes itself = Why can they spam the planes so much? It shouldn't be possible to have more than one set of planes in the air at a time.

 

It isn't.

 

1 hour ago, Relax_81 said:

Level: Getting over and over again with a Tier 6 cruiser into a match against two Tier 8 CV's isn't fun at all.

 

Has nothing to do with CVs, really.

Also this is part of how WG makes money. They'd be incredibly stupid to change it in the way you want.

 

1 hour ago, Relax_81 said:

Quests: If there is a problem with too many CV's entering the matchmaking, why are there still personal missions with the requirement to do them with a CV?

 

....There are?

 

1 hour ago, Relax_81 said:

They way it's currently i can't await to get the submarines, because they seem to be the only way to take care of too many CV's.

 

CVs are already slated get ASW capabilities if that should ever become necessary.

I'm not making this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
2,773 posts
6,795 battles
6 hours ago, samphilconlor said:

If you also look at the K/D ratio as these ships often flee the battle and run they have less repair bills to pay so should be fairly profitable.

There is no dynamic repair bill, the service cost is fixed regardless of damage taken or even if you're destroyed.

 

The variable cost comes from ammunition expenditure and plane losses.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
336 posts
6,227 battles

The fact that 2 CVs are already considered as too much is a pretty solid proof that CVs are completely broken and do not belong in a balanced game mode. No one player should have that kind of influence by virtue of his class/ship/etc.

 

Another strong indicator is that CVs can: spot better than DDs and deal damage on par with BBs while being able to hide out of reach of enemy ships.

 

So...imo there is a lot of balancing to do.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,257 posts
12,019 battles
15 hours ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

 

Nothing WG have ever announced can fix the fundamental CV problem, which is that they do not fit the core concept of this game.

 

 

WG very obviously refuses to acknowledge this, and indeed their key people may just be unable to grasp this. Even only judging by the latest new ships introduced, there is a high probability this company does not fully understand the very core concept of their own game.

 

Take the new superfast French DDs. As soon as there is a carrier in the game, even their ridiculous speed is insufficient because of course they are still far slower than planes. From back to front, with the speed and the powerful AP and the high burst DPM of the reload booster, they are designed for quick flanking, quickly doing some damage and quickly making their getaway again. But that is of course precisely the kind of skirmishing gameplay that the CVs just shut down. All the speed gimmick does is help them get away from their support and into harm's way that much faster. And since they don't even have smoke, let alone much in the way of AA, there is no counterplay, so the omnipresent CVs will of course just farm them for free.

 

And then of course the Soviet BB line, whose gimmick - much better dispersion at short distances - means they need to push and get in close. But of course a BB pushing in close becomes the best target of all for the CV because they are the easiest to strike. (And last I looked, their citadels, by and large, make excellent landing decks for AP bombs...)

 

Of course.

 

Did I write "of course" enough yet?

What if... carrier rework was meant to do exactly that.

 

After all, players willing to pay, not necessarily able to play are WG main target. All those REEEEEs about OP DDs, OP flanking uniscums and whatnot so baBBies could duke it out happily bow on with each other. And WG decided to kill all these birds with one CV rework stone:cap_tea: No (unnoticed) flanking, island camping is diminished, DDs can't get into position for torpedo launch, while battleboats are least vulnerable to carriers AND on average they carry the most potent "revenge" short range AA, so CV can get reserves depleted simply by attacking BB, with Yamato now taking the cake at 1k dps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
631 posts
12,405 battles
12 hours ago, elblancogringo said:

However, I also can understand WG's issues with the MM. The game suffers from a small playerbase.

With a lot more players I believe they could be more flexible in the MM rules. 

I don't see how an increased player base would change the situation much. It's all about the relative popularities of different ship classes, and what's their impact in the game.

 

Currently the influx of CV's in the queue is such that in tier 4 battles must sometimes be started with 3 CV's on each side. In tiers 6 to 10 there are currently less CV's in the queue, so there's a soft cap that mostly guarantees a maximum of 2 CV's per side. I believe it's still like this in 0.8.3 -- the CV's will wait 3 minutes in the queue, if necessary, to get battles going with only 2 CV's on each side.

 

If CV's remain popular, it's possible that the number of CV's in queue in tiers 6 to 10 will increase as people grind the CV lines towards higher tiers. The introduction of premium CV's also increases their numbers somewhat. If the number of CV's in the queue goes up, the soft cap will no longer work. First the number of CV players actually waiting up the 3 minutes will increase, and then the soft cap will likely be abandoned.

 

Managing the relative popularities of ship classes is tricky, and CV's are especially problematic. WG wanted them to become popular and succeeded, but any more than one per side and the majority of player base seem to think it's bad for the game. What can WG do?

  1. Give CV players special matchmaking so that there's a hard cap of 1 CV per side. Too many CV's in the queue? Have a lottery and make some CV players play against bots, instead of making other players suffer. This is likely the people's choice but a no-go: You can't shaft some of your customers like this. I just paid real money for my Kaga, and when I choose a random battle I want to make real people hurt.
     
  2. Nerf CV's to make them less popular? Currently CV's are borderline OP when played by top players, but already frustratingly inefficient for many players. You could further raise the skill floor, make them less OP and more frustrating at once. I'm sure this alone would do the trick, but I think WG is more ambitious.
     
  3. Fine-tune the gameplay so that the player base wouldn't mind CV's being popular, and having 2+ CV's per game. The way to go, anything else would essentially mean giving up -- even if many players think that WG already should give up here...

In any case, I think the current balance is better than before 0.8.0, when most forum posts were about radar. 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,759 posts
21,868 battles
Vor 9 Stunden, Xevious_Red sagte:

IIRC there was something about the russian player base not liking the game being built around stealth, and wanting a more pew pew game.

Well, I don't know about that, but it certainly fits the picture that I'm getting from many Russian teams in Clan battles and their preferred tactics, which seem to be headlong frontal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,257 posts
12,019 battles
5 minutes ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

Well, I don't know about that, but it certainly fits the picture that I'm getting from many Russian teams in Clan battles and their preferred tactics, which seem to be headlong frontal attacks.

Yep. Which is why release of Russian cruiser line, focused on long range support instead Rush B tictacs caused some quality butthurt on RU forums years ago to the point of "WG not being patriotic" :etc_red_button:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
7,182 posts

Oh but now things are right again in domaja :Smile_trollface: the thing they missed to understand the cruisers is finally here...

Now they can have ru bbs leading the way to a push, on flanks fast ru flanking dds to support together with supercruisers at sort of half flank to catch broadsides of ships angeled twards their bbs and long range railguns (including slava) raining death from the second and third lines, complete glorious motherland only fleet set :Smile_izmena:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
64 posts

I think the carriers having fighters as a (limited use) consumable is a mistake,as it is now carriers have no real means of gaining air superiority on part of the map. With the burden of AA resting on cruisers,it severly limits the skill options for a cruiser commander....no room for different playstyles,all "cookie cutter" builds...yay for progress.:fish_palm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NPE]
Players
51 posts
6,493 battles

i play WoW with some breaks from the beginning , but i am way to sick of this CV circus. With old CV system at least you were happy with shooting down planes, now its just..ok, i susvived, but i know another wave incoming. I am not even talking about low Lvl when you have bad captains+bad AA on ships, your game becomes which side have better CV players and hey they dont targeting me, so i can play a while..Yet if you are CV target, you are out of luck, your game is dodging and tryng to delay your death. WOW thats a gameplay... I am sick of WG and i see only one solution is a playerbase STRIKE. Lets those who against CV crap, for one day stop playing. Lets call it 0 game day. How about 9th of May, lets make victory day ours!

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,630 posts
9,707 battles
3 hours ago, Panocek said:

What if... carrier rework was meant to do exactly that.

 

After all, players willing to pay, not necessarily able to play are WG main target. All those REEEEEs about OP DDs, OP flanking uniscums and whatnot so baBBies could duke it out happily bow on with each other. And WG decided to kill all these birds with one CV rework stone:cap_tea: No (unnoticed) flanking, island camping is diminished, DDs can't get into position for torpedo launch, while battleboats are least vulnerable to carriers AND on average they carry the most potent "revenge" short range AA, so CV can get reserves depleted simply by attacking BB, with Yamato now taking the cake at 1k dps

 

You know what? Thats what i fear aswell :Smile_sad: WG doesnt need good players, afterall, they dont have to throw money at WG to play the game  (for sure i dont:Smile_trollface:). And ontop of that, good players keep killing those poor noobies, which make them have less fun playing Cruiseship-simulator.

Guess thats why, IFHE is next one to be sledgehammered:Smile_amazed:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×