General CV related discussions.

[Prophecy82]

14 hours ago, hopfolk said:

DD Torp Damage - to CV-like Torp levels. (20K Damage on one torp is way too much, sorry.)

 

Just no. 

 

CVs can drop torps at point blank range, DDs usually cant do that. 

 

Also, look up Torpedo hit ratio on DDs. Mine is 5% (being average in Torp-DDs). 

 

DD Torpedos are not a reliable dmg-source therefore DMG/Torp has to be high. 

[CptBarney]

This will be very spicy.

 

[Ashardalon_Dragnipur]

why is he pretending the situation changes at higher tiers

there is no counter, not even with a aa specced ship known for good aa using defaa and interceptor consumable 

its just easier at lower tiers, that doesnt mean there are counters at higher tiers 

but the game play does make nice and clear that no matter how your angled, no matter how you turn, its still going strait up your , and there is nothing you can do about it just accept its time to play a different game 

he is wrong about removing t4

move t4 to t6, t6 to 8 and 8 to 10 and remove t10 

[DFens_666]

1 hour ago, CptBarney said:

This will be very spicy.

 

Video: "CVs, statistically not OP or broken"

Me: Alt+F4

 

17 hours ago, mcboernester said:

Rate nae nae / 10 

Midway says Boring - glorious

[edited]hypocrites

[Rhineheart_Thor]

May One Enquire to what hud this is?

 

[RamboCras]

16 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

So, let me get this right. Just checking... 

You're OK when you have the Roosevelt on YOUR team and the enemy has MvR? 

Absolutely... nothing does more damage than a Roos.

[CptBarney]

34 minutes ago, Buccaneer1 said:

May One Enquire to what hud this is?

 

Think its part of whatever, recording programme he uses that shows what keys hes pressing at the time. Peeps do it too show how they do stuff on the screen, they are doing it in real time and in csgo's cases to stop accusations of cheating.

[mcboernester]

2 hours ago, CptBarney said:

This will be very spicy.

 

Oh wow mongtier talking about cvs, this will definitly be an in depth analysis and not bias'd at all. 

 

I assume "something something not OP or broken"? 

 

EDIT: Read comment of Dfens, as expected. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, Ashardalon_Dragnipur said:

why is he pretending the situation changes at higher tiers

He's showing how goddamn aweful lower tiers have it, so he higher tiers carriers dont seem broken in comparison. It's called confirmation bias.

[Rhineheart_Thor]

1 hour ago, RamboCras said:

Absolutely... nothing does more damage than a Roos.

Well that,s an elite steel community ship, The Common, "play every day grinder" will probably never see it..  ~smile~

 

 

 

 

[CptBarney]

46 minutes ago, mcboernester said:

Oh wow mongtier talking about cvs, this will definitly be an in depth analysis and not bias'd at all. 

 

I assume "something something not OP or broken"? 

 

EDIT: Read comment of Dfens, as expected. 

I still remember that game @Sunleader had in midway while he camped in thunderer spamming HE at the back, soo many times he could of pushed up as well.

[BLUB__BLUB]

46 minutes ago, Europizza said:

He's showing how goddamn aweful lower tiers have it, so he higher tiers carriers dont seem broken in comparison. It's called confirmation bias.

Actually he says "they are ONLY balanced by average damage, it SEEMS a likewise tier BB will do better". 

He doesn't say higher tier CVs are less broken. Just hat in higher tiers you can't club without losing any plane at all. 

 

And in fact you cannot. Why do you think there are less CVs in higher tiers. 

As AA (OK, laughable, as the CV sort-of-controls this) gets "better", some CVs get outplayed by the (self-steered...) AA.

So much that they bleed credits on any CV above T6... I reckon this is what he means.

 

He is just showing that T4 CV are baaaaadddd. Well, we knew that already, eh.

[OVanBruce]

3 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Actually he says "they are ONLY balanced by average damage, it SEEMS a likewise tier BB will do better". 

He doesn't say higher tier CVs are less broken. Just hat in higher tiers you can't club without losing any plane at all. 

 

And in fact you cannot. Why do you think there are less CVs in higher tiers. 

As AA (OK, laughable, as the CV sort-of-controls this) gets "better", some CVs get outplayed by the (self-steered...) AA. 

So much that they bleed credits on any CV above T6... I reckon this is what he means. 

 

He is just showing that T4 CV are baaaaadddd. Well, we knew that already, eh.

 

There is this perception that there MUST be a ship that can absolutely destroy and be inmune to CVs. Accept already that there won't be any single ship that can totally shoot down all planes and there won't be a CV that can destroy a single ship in a single attack. This is what the devs envisioned with the rework. Sure, it has a lot of problems but for some reason there are still people wanting no fly zones and being able to completely shut down their brains when it comes to looking at the sky.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

15 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

There is this perception that there MUST be a ship that can absolutely destroy and be inmune to CVs. Accept already that there won't be any single ship that can totally shoot down all planes and there won't be a CV that can destroy a single ship in a single attack. This is what the devs envisioned with the rework. Sure, it has a lot of problems but for some reason there are still people wanting no fly zones and being able to completely shut down their brains when it comes to looking at the sky.

A false depiction of what the bluk of the carrier complaints are by sketching a forced stance on a non specified group of 'extremists' you just created. Nice work. 

27 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

He is just showing that T4 CV are baaaaadddd. Well, we knew that already, eh.

In that case I fail to see the point of his video.

[OVanBruce]

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

A false depiction of what the bluk of the carrier complaints are by sketching a forced stance on a non specified group of 'extremists' you just created. Nice work. 

I ain't going to quote every single complain about CVs on this thread but most of them converge on a single sentence "No matter what I do I'm going to get striked and that is BAAAAAAAAAD". Get real.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

12 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

Get real.

Try it, it trumps exaggeration ^^

[Ashardalon_Dragnipur]

55 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

 

There is this perception that there MUST be a ship that can absolutely destroy and be inmune to CVs. Accept already that there won't be any single ship that can totally shoot down all planes and there won't be a CV that can destroy a single ship in a single attack. This is what the devs envisioned with the rework. Sure, it has a lot of problems but for some reason there are still people wanting no fly zones and being able to completely shut down their brains when it comes to looking at the sky.

doesnt yuro have a video about devstriking all kinds of battleships and cruisers with torp planes 

planes can single hit ships, point blank torps do that, but ships have no way to defend against those planes

guess the randomized torp drops are to lower that happening 

[UnterSeeBot]

24 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

I ain't going to quote every single complain about CVs on this thread 

because you haven't read them.

get a job with WG feedback dept, they'd love to have you.

[OVanBruce]

8 minutes ago, Ashardalon_Dragnipur said:

doesnt yuro have a video about devstriking all kinds of battleships and cruisers with torp planes 

planes can single hit ships, point blank torps do that, but ships have no way to defend against those planes

guess the randomized torp drops are to lower that happening 

How much damage from torps and bombs you receive depends a lot on how much you manouver and have the awareness to minimize said damage. Unless you get detonated. In a sense it's an argument as disingenous as complaining about a BB devstriking you as a cruiser when you were sailing perfectly broadside.

[UnterSeeBot]

2 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

How much damage from torps and bombs you receive depends a lot on how much you manouver and have the awareness to minimize said damage. Unless you get detonated. In a sense it's an argument as disingenous as complaining about a BB devstriking you as a cruiser when you where sailing perfectly broadside.

Launching attacks of this kind (accusing others of disingenuity), very often backfire, and make their authors look silly. For example :

---

We don't complain when we steer to kite and dodge long range incoming bb salvos, sustaining zero dmg. Amazing right?

The point is, we can evade dd torps, battleship AP salvos, cruiser radar and so many surface ship engagement mechanics undertaken by the best purply players in the business.

But we cannot avoid rockets, bombs or torps dropped by the worst tomato CVs in the playerbase.

[Excavatus]

25 minutes ago, Ashardalon_Dragnipur said:

doesnt yuro have a video about devstriking all kinds of battleships and cruisers with torp planes 

planes can single hit ships, point blank torps do that, but ships have no way to defend against those planes

guess the randomized torp drops are to lower that happening 

nope.. it is not possible unless it is a detonation. 

[OVanBruce]

1 minute ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Launching attacks of this kind (accusing others of disingenuity), very often backfire, and make their authors look silly. For example :

---

We don't complain when we steer to kite and dodge long range incoming bb salvos, sustaining zero dmg. Amazing right?

The point is, we can evade dd torps, battleship AP salvos, cruiser radar and so many surface ship engagement mechanics undertaken by the best purply players in the business.

But we cannot avoid rockets, bombs or torps dropped by the worst tomato CVs in the playerbase.

And that is the point, my first post is precisely the fact that WG designed the CV rework to ensure that every single attack a CV does with minimal skill actually rewards the player with some damage. Previously on RTS one of the main problems for player retention was that lots of players could NOT get ANY damage or if there was it was minuscule due to how the nature of plane-AA interaction was so extreme, specially in high tiers. The minimal skill ceiling for being minimally effective on a CV was very high.

 

Wargaming changed all of that by making CVs have the chance to connect at least a single attack per squad almost 100% of the time so there was a positive feedback for the player yet at the same time said damage could be extremely mitigated by a good player yet not completely prevented. This brings me back to my first post: Stop expecting and demanding for a ship that can completely block and prevent any plane attack, it won't happen, it goes against the design of the rework; instead concentrate on learning the best ways to minimize the potential damage of a CV's attack so it is an scratch instead of significant damage.

 

You DON'T want to go back to the old RTS were there were indeed no fly zones but a single mistake on a surface ship could mean going from 100% to 0% health in less than a minute if the opponent CV was actually competent. Yet you don't want to make CVs completely unable to get damage if you want to have a healthy CV population.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, OVanBruce said:

There is this perception that there MUST be a ship that can absolutely destroy and be inmune to CVs. Accept already that there won't be any single ship that can totally shoot down all planes and there won't be a CV that can destroy a single ship in a single attack. This is what the devs envisioned with the rework. Sure, it has a lot of problems but for some reason there are still people wanting no fly zones and being able to completely shut down their brains when it comes to looking at the sky.

Some are like that yes. The majority though realizes that if a CV attacks t you WILL sustain damage. 

That is not the problem,. The problem is that AA works such, good players have NO PROBLEM at all, while lesser players GET NONE IN at all.

And yes first strike usually gets through - it is the manner HOW it gets through that annoys people. 

And nobody likes the spotting. Not even CV players.

 

32 minutes ago, Europizza said:

In that case I fail to see the point of his video.

Well, I fail to do so as well. The only point I see him making is that, as a CV player, he agrees T4Cvs are awful.

Also, he states it is bad for the game and scares away newbies. In the end he offers some sort of solution (T5-6-7-8-9-10 and no more T4).

Must say I agree but I don't see any novelties.

 

29 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

I ain't going to quote every single complain about CVs on this thread but most of them converge on a single sentence "No matter what I do I'm going to get striked and that is BAAAAAAAAAD". Get real.

Some do. If we take the video, he states this is the result of being clubbed to death without any response in T4. 

However, what most people say is that the workings of AA sux, and the continuous spotting sux as well. 

But hey... now we have Roosevelt... LOL... 

 

5 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

How much damage from torps and bombs you receive depends a lot on how much you manouver and have the awareness to minimize said damage. Unless you get detonated. In a sense it's an argument as disingenous as complaining about a BB devstriking you as a cruiser when you were sailing perfectly broadside.

That is true, but now gather this: 

- Yes you can mitigate damage by swerving, for instance turning nose-in. 

- But the SPOTTING means that everyone-and-his-mum now can shoot at your turned broadside.

 

10 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

The point is, we can evade dd torps, battleship AP salvos, cruiser radar and so many surface ship engagement mechanics undertaken by the best purply players in the business.

But we cannot avoid rockets, bombs or torps dropped by the worst tomato CVs in the playerbase.

Yes you can. I miss more than half the stuff that I drop on whatever ship. Because they actually move, most of the time.

However you CANNOT avoid the second attack, which is a whole lot faster on a CV - and he can ADJUST his planes faster than a surface vessel.

So yes you can mitigate damage from (for example) german rockets. But you'll have a hard time avoiding the second strike. 

 

Then again - the damage done by Cv torpedoes is a whole lot less than damage from DD torpedoes (and DDs usually have a lot more toeprdoes). 

EH well, and then WG gave us Roosevelt...

[OVanBruce]

Answering to BLUB_BLUB, yeah, Roosevelt is just WG being WG and throwing the balance out of the window to make people spend steel. The ship is too much.

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

And that is the point, my first post is precisely the fact that WG designed the CV rework to ensure that every single attack a CV does with minimal skill actually rewards the player with some damage. Previously on RTS one of the main problems for player retention was that lots of players could NOT get ANY damage or if there was it was minuscule due to how the nature of plane-AA interaction was so extreme, specially in high tiers. The minimal skill ceiling for being minimally effective on a CV was very high.

It still is high, but different. tater CV players do not get an attack in because they fly into (self-controlled...) FLAK.

And if they survive the FLAK, now they have to aim... autodrop did it for them, in RTS. 

 

2 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

Wargaming changed all of that by making CVs have the chance to connect at least a single attack per squad almost 100% of the time so there was a positive feedback for the player yet at the same time said damage could be extremely mitigated by a good player yet not completely prevented. This brings me back to my first post: Stop expecting and demanding for a ship that can completely block and prevent any plane attack, it won't happen, it goes against the design of the rework; instead concentrate on learning the best ways to minimize the potential damage of a CV's attack so it is an scratch instead of significant damage.

They aren't asking for that (besides a few, and they'll hate whatever threathens their favourite class anyway).

They just want some MEANINGFUL kind of airplane-deterrent other than RNG-plane-driven-based crap.

 

2 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

You DON'T want to go back to the old RTS were there were indeed no fly zones but a single mistake on a surface ship could mean going from 100% to 0% health in less than a minute if the opponent CV was actually competent. Yet you don't want to make CVs completely unable to get damage if you want to have a healthy CV population.

Do not forget the crappy interface.