General CV related discussions.

[DFens_666]

57 minutes ago, UnderDuress said:

  Hide contents

In spoiler because not related to CVs at all.

 

There certainly are on EU but usually they seem to be who don’t know game mechanics and never really cared, which is fair enough. Or people with different interpretations of intangibles like effectiveness or counter play, even if I disagree it’s fair enough. There is only really one poster who can’t cope with simple empirical facts. On NA there seems to be multiple who seem to actively think about the game and spend all their time on the forum but still are absolutely divorced from reality. Even a simple question on HE damage devolves into this absolute mess after the simple answer is posted by the 5th post https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/227981-need-help-understanding/

 

 

Help, what kinda morons are running wild there? After a few posts, i would have wanted to ragely smash my keyboard because of all the nonsense they are writing

Why are people with 1000 battles allowed to write such a [edited] without anyone interfering

And the guy after has 10k battles and is potentially even more dumb

 

Why did you share this my poor brain...

[Capra76]

11 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

 

Wow... the amount of BS given in that official (!!!) post is mindblasting.

 

Hey @El2aZeR, any chance for You having a couple battles in which all those WG cronies developers can test their fantastic CV defend tactics against some skilled player, not one of their seemingly utterly incompent company CV players?

Would be a great watch for a stream, I right?

 

I did suggest a while back that some of the better CV players could try stream sniping the official and semi-official channels, not to cheat of course, just to ensure that the developers get to play against good CV players in every game.

 

I'm sure there's nothing wrong with this, CV are after all "mostly fine".

[ForlornSailor]

8 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

I did suggest a while back that some of the better CV players could try stream sniping

 

Oh, they are doing that, I know for a fact.

[Itwastuesday]

So what, it's like, add ships to the game that are about static bowcamping to annoy everybody, then have CV counter those ships (along with all other ships) so that hopefully players will see CV as our rightful lord and saviour?

 

Shall we also have missile boats that shoot at everybody from behind islands BUT also shred carrier planes so of course, logically, people will accept and love them?

[Sunleader]

2 hours ago, WarDax said:

Well, you kinda focus on DD, I rather play Cruiser or BB, but points taken. I do have a Z-39, that I use occasionally.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Thing is. There isnt much for a BB to do.

BBs arent Nimble enough to really make evasive maneuvers without exposing themselves to heavy Hits.

And even when they can do evasive Maneuvers they are so Big that the effect is very limited.

 

For BBs you really can do only 3 things.

 

Shoot CV if they get Spotted.

Wait with Damage Con till the Squadron cant drop you anymore to avoid perma Fires/Floods.

And dont get temped to Evade CV Strikes when the Evasion might get you Devstriked.

 

 

BBs are usually not Primary Targets for CVs anyways.

Since they take long to Destroy.

And are less Influental anyways.

[BLUB__BLUB]

There's another thing you can do. DIV UP with a CV.

And yes you will learn to do the things @Sunleader has said. 

Remember them:

 

 

Does it work? Yes it does. If you are too much trouble the CV will go look for something else.

Unless he is @El2aZeR but then nobody is safe not even the red CV. 

Spoiler

 

[_JaIrO_]

Cada día y con cada actualización es más vergonzoso y más mierda este juego no me extraña que tengan que estar metiendo bots cada día menos gente entra putos ladrones en mi cuenta se mueren de hambre

[Puffin_]

FDR is a secondary CV.

Funny clip

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, Puffin_ said:

FDR is a secondary CV.

Funny clip

At that kind of distance, only Saipan isn't "secondary CV"

[Aethervoxx]

I propose we go back to RTS CV play. The Devs can fit the Brit & Ger CVs into that model (plus, ofc, the T10 FDR CV). Then reset all the AA parameters to what they were (when it worked). 

[surfer_gr]

i want more reports pls to keep reporting all cv players that i meet in game my teams and oppositions therefore cause i play at least 25 battles daily i need 50 reports minimum lols i stoped playing cvs when they abolished the manual drops before the rework and you know you can make them as op as you like some people play them for stats i dont care about stats i want to have fun and thats it obsolete with cvs in game i dont care about the radars or anything else cvs are just a waste of time for me most of the time if its accomponied by epicentrer and storm crap modes i just suiside and go fot the next battle hoping for something fun that means in the 25 battles over half of them i suiside and i simply dont care lols i refuse to play these crap modes and i totally hate cv crap iam not the player that needs a company of 3 or 4 ships to use for aa cover so i simply dont care i go alone and thats it i love to hold a flank on my own is a bad habbit and i am having fun doing it LOLs but cvs ruin my fun like cyclone in a khaba waste of time to play this crap LOL

[surfer_gr]

i mention khaba cause as you can see i have over 4300 battles with khaba and that is in randoms alone not to mention ranks clan battles etc ..... imagine playing in a cyclone and epicentre snowstorm with a khaba with 9.7 kms consealment and no smoke ahahahah borring :P 

[El2aZeR]

2 hours ago, surfer_gr said:

i mention khaba cause as you can see i have over 4300 battles with khaba

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Don't worry masterrrrr I have 2nd place in EU with Ark Royal, someday I will manage to fai;ldiv into T10 with it and then I'll kill him. 

[Allied_Winter]

One post had to be removed. Please keep in mind, that discussion of moderation in any topic is an infraction of the forum rules. If you think some moderation has been done poorly please contact either the moderator at hand or Tanatoy.

 

Also: If you want to share criticism, please do so! But without using insults.

[TheBrut3]

How about a CV rework where the CV ship isn't on the map anymore. The player that will pick CV is aloud to launch a squadron every 4 minutes, it can be any squadron (rockets, bombs, torps) any time. If one loses the squadron within the 4 mins, he has to wait until the cooldown is over. Of he can survive for 6 mins, the third squadron will be ready 2 mins later.

 

Planes don't lift up from the CV anymore, but they come fly in from a random border of the map. For example if you spawn south, they will fly in from anywhere between southeast and southwest.

[UnterSeeBot]

55 minutes ago, TheBrut3 said:

How about a CV rework where the CV ship isn't on the map anymore. The player that will pick CV is aloud to launch a squadron every 4 minutes, it can be any squadron (rockets, bombs, torps) any time. If one loses the squadron within the 4 mins, he has to wait until the cooldown is over. Of he can survive for 6 mins, the third squadron will be ready 2 mins later.

 

Planes don't lift up from the CV anymore, but they come fly in from a random border of the map. For example if you spawn south, they will fly in from anywhere between southeast and southwest.

I agree, there is no reason to have the actual CV on the map. (other than for premium sales).  But I think we can be more radical, and say that "if one loses the squadron, the player is out of the game, sunk, spectator or back to port," just as when a player loses a ship. No replacement squadron(s). Obviously, squadrons would need a slight revision to afford them as much survivability, as for example, a dd.

Removing the actual CV from the equation, while keeping a remnant of player controlled airpower, would make it much easier to achieve a state of fair influence on game enjoyment and battle outcomes.

 

What are the main obstacles to such a direction for gameplay development?

1. obviously costs (unknowable)
2. and vested interests (of some players, and who knows what/who at WG)

[BLUB__BLUB]

28 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

I agree, there is no reason to have the actual CV on the map. (other than for premium sales). 

Wutwutwut, and deny the DD players their PELTS? No way! 

 

28 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

But I think we can be more radical, and say that "if one loses the squadron, the player is out of the game, sunk, spectator or back to port," just as when a player loses a ship. No replacement squadron(s). Obviously, squadrons would need a slight revision to afford them as much surviviability as a for example, a dd.

That can be done whether there is a CV "body" floating around or not.

The only thing that would change is the CV doesn't get to choose a "launch platform".

But you'd remove the chance for players to take out the CV if he screws up position. 

 

28 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Removing the actual CV from the equation, while keeping a remnant of player controlled airpower, would make it much easier to achieve a state of fair influence on game enjoyment and battle outcomes.

Here's another idea: invite players form World Of Warplanes... 

Get a Premium Live Subscription and dakka real live adversaries... 

@MrConway how about it? 

 

28 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

What are the main obstacles to such a direction for gameplay development?

1. obviously costs (unknowable)
2. and vested interests (of some players, and who knows what/who at WG)

Meh. I assume if you have a certain CV, after the removal of teh CCV you'd still have the planes.

So, if you owned Ark Royal then there would be Swordfish planes flying in. If you'd own a German CV they'd be something else.

 

IMO there are TWO real problems:

- CV spotting everything. Everybody gets a free shot. --> remove that, just Minimap except for ships in a certain (8km?) radius (I think they experimented in CB, with cyclone).

- AA sux. It is automated and as such there is no real challenge or satisfaction. --> involve some player action. Choice of FLAK pattern, click-aim, or whatever.

[UnterSeeBot]

26 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

IMO there are TWO real problems:

- CV spotting everything. Everybody gets a free shot. --> remove that, just Minimap except for ships in a certain (8km?) radius (I think they experimented in CB, with cyclone).

- AA sux. It is automated and as such there is no real challenge or satisfaction. --> involve some player action. Choice of FLAK pattern, click-aim, or whatever.

If players can only control a single, non replaceable, squadron their ability to spot would be greatly reduced. The cost of spotting (losing planes) would be far too great.

Automated AA is a problem, that's why we need player controlled, aimed and fired AA , with seamless transition from main gun armament to AA (based upon player view elevation, for example)

26 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Here's another idea: invite players form World Of Warplanes... 

Get a Premium Live Subscription and dakka real live adversaries..

I think the separate design/dev team approach of wargaming, is part of the problem, undermining quality as these separate teams are not truly in competition, but in niche dev/prod monopolies.

Bring in the Warplanes team, along with their players. Warplanes does have some quite nice planes vs (ai) ship interaction, which is both reasonably challenging and fun/ We can learn from them.

26 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

That can be done whether there is a CV "body" floating around or not.

The only thing that would change is the CV doesn't get to choose a "launch platform".

But you'd remove the chance for players to take out the CV if he screws up position. 

We cannot achieve fair influence upon battle outcomes, as long as we have the CV (floating airbase) in the game. It is not possible.

It is true, removing the CV would remove a target of choice, and for those that enjoy sinking CVs, this would be a loss (but not a great one).

26 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Meh. I assume if you have a certain CV, after the removal of teh CCV you'd still have the planes.

So, if you owned Ark Royal then there would be Swordfish planes flying in. If you'd own a German CV they'd be something else.

I assume so. perhaps 3 x premium units, one for each plane type. Equivalent of gaining three premium "ships" in exchange for one. Imagine swapping your tirpitz for 3 premium cruisers. Owners of premium and tech tree CVs would have few reasons to complain. On the other hand, those that object to CVs in competitive (like me), would have nothing more to argue about.

We'd also free up immense possibilities for Air Squadron tech trees, EVERY nation could have an Air Squadron tech tree, at every tier. Pan Euro tech tree? No problem.(for example).

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, LoveZeppelin said:

On the other hand, those that object to CVs in competitive (like me), would have nothing more to argue about.

I bet they'd start about PLANES in CB, but of course, that is the whole idea. 

You're a bit too easy to figure out mate. No ship = no CB. Duh. 

 

And though I agree that putting CVs in CB is kinda dumb, well... that idea of yours doesn't fly with me. 

WG just needs to fix CVs, not replace them by the next crap-o-matic invention. 

Current iteration is just balanced by "average damage in 12 vs 12". That's BS, too. 

Same as giving DDs 1.5km air-detection - LOL why not just give them a dive-mechanic. Oh wait... 

 

 

 

[mil71]

Kinda miss RTS CV's however people would cry if that came back.

Cross dropping would be back, Saipan nuking everyone would be back.

ETC

[UnterSeeBot]

14 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

You're a bit too easy to figure out mate. No ship = no CB. Duh. 

 

You are too cynical. I am innocent of ulterior motives.

An air squadron would be the equivalent of a surface ship for MM, in my proposal, so the inclusion of a single air squadron, subject to the same game mechanics and consequences as everyone else, would pose far less of a problem to other players, than a floating zombie BORG airbase with zombie plane regeneration (or is that troll regen?)

So please, define your criticism on what I say, not on what you think I mean.

Promise, I don't have any interest other than that which I have stated.

14 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

WG just needs to fix CVs, not replace them by the next crap-o-matic invention. 

CVs are unfixable, there is nothing that can resolve the inherent problem of excessively negative influence on battle outcomes and player enjoyment, but my "crapomatic" proposal makes the best of a bad idea (CV Rework), preserving the part CV players actually enjoy the most (controlling their air squadron). Thus my proposal is evolutive, it improves an aspect of gameplay (air power), rather than seeking to remove/replace.

Why do you think after 5 years WG has still failed to "fix" CVs? It isn't for lack of trying. But this horse is dead, about time they stopped flogging it, and gave it a proper burial.

[BLUB__BLUB]

10 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

You are too cynical. I am innocent of ulterior motives.

An air squadron would be the equivalent of a surface ship for MM, in my proposal, so the inclusion of a single air squadron, subject to the same game mechanics and consequences as everyone else, would pose far less of a problem to other players, than a floating zombie BORG airbase with zombie plane regeneration (or is that troll regen?)

The air-base is actually the ship. I don't see the argument, really. 

At least if there is a base floating around, players have the chance to shoot it.

Zombie-regeneration is a problem indeed. But I do not hear comp[laints about invisible DDs reloading sh...oloads of torps. 

Oh wait... there were complaints about that... 

 

However having just a few planes and having them shot down would be like ships receiving damage and at 25%HP they have 1 turret left. 

Not gonna work mate. 

 

10 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

So please, define your criticism on what I say, not on what you think I mean.

Promise, I don't have any interest other than that which I have stated.

If you'd let planes get in, and consider that balanced, there is no need for a limit.

7X "air team" for CB, here we come. 

 

10 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

CVs are unfixable, there is nothing that can resolve the inherent problem of excessively negative influence on battle outcomes and player enjoyment, but my "crapomatic" proposal makes the best of a bad idea (CV Rework), preserving the part CV players actually enjoy the most (controlling their air squadron). Thus my proposal is evolutive, it improves an aspect of gameplay (air power), rather than seeking to remove/replace.

Well, you seem to think flying the planes is the actual enjoyment? 

It is not, really. The tactical placement of the nuke-base is also important. 

There is nothing evolutionary about what you think. 

 

10 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Why do you think after 5 years WG has still failed to "fix" CVs? It isn't for lack of trying. But this horse is dead, about time they stopped flogging it, and gave it a proper burial.

I think it is lack of listening. And they tried very very little. 

Like you want to jump over a ditch, WG provides a pair of lead shoes.

If that doesn't work they'll provide watertight boots, with lead... Duh.

[UnterSeeBot]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

However having just a few planes and having them shot down would be like ships receiving damage and at 25%HP they have 1 turret left. 

 

So your fundamental objection to my proposal is that an air squadron player would be subject to the same consequences of game mechanics as a dd driver? You wish to protect your precious? (the immunity of CVs to the consequences of game mechanics that affect other classes - bbs, cruiser and dds)

This is why CVs cannot be balanced, after 5 years, because of a refusal to accept the idea that every player, every class, should play according to the same rules, be subject to the same rules, and have the same opportunities accorded by those rules.

If I understand correctly, you are, like quite a few, at heart, in favour of exceptionalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptionalism

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

So your fundamental objection to my proposal is that an air squadron player would be subject to the same consequences of game mechanics as a dd driver? You wish to protect your precious? (the immunity of CVs to the consequences of game mechanics that affect other classes - bbs, cruiser and dds)

Nope, a DD can still fire torps even if he has 100HP left.

What you are supposing is like a DD on 50%HP can only fire half the torps.

Or a BB only being able to fire half the guns. 

 

3 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

This is why CVs cannot be balanced, after 5 years, because of a refusal to accept the idea that every player, every class, should play according to the same rules, be subject to the same rules, and have the same opportunities accorded by those rules.

Well, you can't make CVs behave that way. 

Even subs will be easier to balance. 

BTW Reeeework has been two years - not five...

 

3 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

If I understand correctly, you are, like quite a few, at heart, in favour of exceptionalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptionalism

 

You're just being childish now. 

 

Removing the plane-platform AKA ship will not solve anything. 

What you want is nerfing CVs to just one, slowly diminishing squadron.

It will not solve anything, just make them shut down quicker.

Why not just have a countdown, after which all planes will explode as well?