General CV related discussions.

[Yedwy]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

You'd be surprised how many DD players hat CV, but next game they play them themselves...

Ofc, because they hate playing the CV and even more getting demolished by CV and after having their match ruined they want to ruin somebody else day for a change to blow off steam...

 

Some time ago I was stuck in some ranked sprint at R3 and it was an everlasting see saw, I got annoyed and switched to Enterprise and guess what I ranked out in 3 or 4 games, balance right?

 

Today I did just what you said, got dumped on by a loudmouth CV in my Benson, well 3 matches later when I met him in my Enterprise it wasnt so funny anymore

[Deckeru_Maiku]

47 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

You'd be surprised how many DD players hat CV, but next game they play them themselves...

I'm not an "only DD" player... I play three classes about equally... DD, BB, Cruiser... and still I hate BaBBies... what makes some people think that I hate all BB players, which is nonsense...

And with CVs it's the same. I don't hate CVs. Many DD players don't CVs, but - like me - hate the reeework and the nonsense it brought into the game.

In fact, except for my personal handicap when RTS CVs about using strafing - which kept me from playing CVs much anymore - I really like RTS CVs in the game. CVs had to work for their kills then. Much more than nowadays.

And yes, I play reeeworked CVs, but only for scientifical reasons. To be able to do critical posts about something, one should have personal experience.

 

55 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

You have one game in Ryujo. There is no way you could estimate any skill level regarding CVs.

 

I've got a couple more battles in Ryujo. More then You even, right? And the skill amount needed to achieve okay-ish results in it seems quite low to me, considering that I am little better than as a potato and still get a 58% solo winrate in her... (about the same as in my RTS Ryujo... which was much more fun to be played for me)

[tocqueville8]

2 hours ago, TrangleC said:

I usually end up among the top scoring players on my team in most tier 9 and 10 battles.

Well so do I, but that's a bit misleading.

Scoring #3 in the losing team is very different than scoring #2 in the winning team, usually.

 

2 hours ago, TrangleC said:

What is it with people here not being able to have a conversation without snooping in other people's game stats?

 

2 hours ago, TrangleC said:

You probably mean well,

Look, I'm not stat-shaming you or anything, and I do mean well, but you can't really judge CV gameplay if you've never experienced it yourself. Your stats paint a picture of what kind of player you are, for the moment, so they are relevant. Frustration from a 5k games player is different than frustration from a 330 games player, and the advice one can give is also different.

It's like getting mad at your doctor for reading your chart, in a way.

 

2 hours ago, TrangleC said:

And such "just dodge" advise is something even Unicums like Flamu, Flambass and other Youtubers make fun of, because it is nonsense, sorry.

Those guys barely play CV, and sometimes they lack a bit of perspective.

They're formidable players, but I've seen them do insane things with pretty much any other ship as well.

People kept posting a Flambass video of him doing 120k in the Kaga like it was proof of her OP-ness, but honestly, that's a pretty standard NC or Richelieu game, right there.

"Just dodge" is a meme, sometimes you can't dodge AP bombers. But in general, the more you maneuver the more the CV is likely to lose interest and go for someone else, or miss her drop, or circle you to get the perfect drop, but lose all her squadron while doing so.

And good AA, or clustered AA, makes it much harder for CVs to do a second pass, which cuts down their DPM by a lot.

 

Frankly I don't find those 15k dmg + 2 fires salvoes from Thunderers more fun to play against than the MvR, ditto for getting melted by a Hindenburg in the Republique, or having to sneak around 3-4 radars cruisers in a DD, only to see all of my torps avoided because there are BBs and DDs around with 5-6 km hydro.

Or getting citadelled through the nose in the Nelson, by a Sinop.

It's all annoying and sometimes difficult to avoid, bit hey, most ships are at least decent and they can return the favor, one way or another.

At high tiers, I'd say cruisers are also a bit broken: a well-played CA can kite a BB, outspot her, hit more consistently and heal faster as well.

 

2 hours ago, TrangleC said:

You CV players can go on convincing yourselves you are doing nothing wrong,

I'm not really a "CV player". I'm grinding the Parseval right now (I really didn't fancy taking an Albemarle to Ranked, or a Fantasque...), but until a couple of weeks ago only 8% of my games were in CVs.

All in all, I think I'm about as likely to be sunk by a CV as to sink one myself while playing a different ship type.

 

It's basically a different game mode with CVs around, but there's plenty you can do: ship selection, captain skills, modules and consumables, clustering with teammates, asking for fighters, and above all maneuvering. One by one they don't change much, but overall they make a huge difference, believe me.

 

Cheers

[BLUB__BLUB]

42 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

well 3 matches later when I met him in my Enterprise it wasnt so funny anymore

Well I think that's just extremely funny, somehow. 

What's next, you'll confess to T5 sealclubbing in kamikaze R? 

 

41 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

I've got a couple more battles in Ryujo. More then You even, right?

TBH I do not play it that much, most funny is faildivving it into T9. WR is a bit on the low side considering you're better than me, usually.
Means you'll have to practise  bit more to make the difference between CV-others sort of equal (BTW I had almost 70% on it... for a while. It evens out...).

And yes you have more games than me, maybe you'll become a CV main someday (you'll not beat my Ark Royal amount though LOL) 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

3 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

you'll not beat my Ark Royal amount though LOL

Surely not, as I won't spend any amount of really money or in-game "money" to buy me a premium CV... and with my luck I won't get one from a free container either... so your stats are secure.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 minute ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Surely not, as I won't spend any amount of really money or in-game "money" to buy me a premium CV... and with my luck I won't get one from a free container either... so your stats are secure.

Well, it's the only one that is sort of a challenge. 

[AndyHill]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Btw.: do you know how many battleship vs battleship engagement WW2 saw? 

Not very many, especially if you leave out Mers el Kebirs and the likes and only count actual fleet battles. But why was that? Why did the most powerful gun ships engage each other so rarely?

[B051LjKo]

MVR nerf hurts quite a bit. I can understand that the ship was overperforming, but they could have reduced the damage. With the accuracy nerf, it is just stupid RNG... 

[UnterSeeBot]

I hurt CV feelings today

Spoiler

(gratuitous gloat, sorry)

This is why 2 cvs per team are two cvs too many. 2 x bad does not make good (though it broke my Edin AA record)/ I was the only player during that battle who had fun.

[1MajorKoenig]

8 hours ago, TrangleC said:

Look up the definition of the word "fundamental".

Indeed carriers are less fundamental, because naval battles happened a long time just fine without them.

 

And as I said in my initial comment, the one you didn't bother reading, CVs ended the era of classical naval battles, not only killed off Battleships, but reduced Cruisers and Destroyers to escort and support vessles.

 

Putting Carriers into a game like this, OBJECTIVELY ruins it.

 

CVs "ruined" it for every other class of war ship (except submarines) in reality and they ruin naval battles in a naval battle game.

 

The same way WW2 and Korean War era tanks were not designed to fight magical real time birds eye artillery throwing small asteroids at them from space, WW1 and 2 era war ships were not designed to fight magical super aircraft that have no fear for their lives, respawn on the aircraft carrier and are next to immune against AA fire.

 

There is no justifying this nonsense.

 

We have heard all that BS from artillery players in WoT 10 years ago.

"Arty prevents camping!" 

Nobody takes that seriously anymore. Everyone sees through it.

Sorry bud

 

This is plain and utter nonsense and I am not going to bother with that anymore. 
 

In the “theme” era it was nothing about “gun ships have been doing fine without carriers” - that era was long done by that time (at least one Great War).
 

This game is simply not about the big gun era whatsoever 

 

As a closing remark - even if the carrier indeed made the battleship obsolete in WW2 - that has nothing to do with this game. All four classes are equally viable in the realms of the game. You probably just need to play all classes instead of spamming such nonsense here. Merry Christmas 

[1MajorKoenig]

7 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Not very many, especially if you leave out Mers el Kebirs and the likes and only count actual fleet battles. But why was that? Why did the most powerful gun ships engage each other so rarely?

Well - firstly because the ocean is huge and usually your big ships are in the wrong spot, second: these ships are ridiculously expensive and most nations feared their loss, third: planes could cover vastly more area while delivering the same punch - while moving into the “right” spot 
 

Btw. There were only TWO BB engagements in the entire pacific - a war defined by naval combat 

 

 

[Yedwy]

8 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well I think that's just extremely funny, somehow. 

What's next, you'll confess to T5 sealclubbing in kamikaze R? 

Nope, Gremyashy 

[AndyHill]

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Well - firstly because the ocean is huge and usually your big ships are in the wrong spot, second: these ships are ridiculously expensive and most nations feared their loss, third: planes could cover vastly more area while delivering the same punch - while moving into the “right” spot 
 

Btw. There were only TWO BB engagements in the entire pacific - a war defined by naval combat 

Ocean is big but mostly pretty uninteresting. Smaller ships did manage to find each other and fight a few good scraps - because they were fast enough to make their maneuvers at night when planes had difficulty operating and run back to safety before planes got up in the morning. After Pearl Harbor and the early losses to Japanese airpower suffered by the allies, just about everyone realized that the age of big gun ships was over. Approaching to within the effective range of enemy airpower was suicidal and since planes outranged gun ships massively, the latter were reduced to mobile coastal artillery.

 

WoWS is a fantasy game based on the ahistorical premise that gun ships can still fight each other. Gameplay-wise carriers have a devastatingly negative effect, which is of course kind of realistic. If you think of history and realism a bit further, though, carriers are either the only ships that "belong" in the game or they don't "belong" in the game at all. 

[1MajorKoenig]

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

WoWS is a fantasy game based on the ahistorical premise that gun ships can still fight each other. 

You noticed one of the basic assumptions for this game. Even more: the premise is that any ship can fight any other in the game.

 

Still you make a statement like:

2 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Gameplay-wise carriers have a devastatingly negative effect, which is of course kind of realistic. If you think of history and realism a bit further, though, carriers are either the only ships that "belong" in the game or they don't "belong" in the game at all. 

Which is either a stunning amount of ignorance or a flabbergasting lack of game understanding.

 

The game is - as said - built in a way that any class can fight any other class which - based on your previous statement - you already know.

 

In reality a destroyer or even a cruiser has no business in fighting a battleship in a gunnery duel. Still the game allows exactly that. Same with carriers and their planes.

 

You are contradicting yourself as you seem to know the truth but somehow try to twist some weird stuff to fit your lame narrative of “I don’t like Carriers”.

 

It is down to personal preference but it doesn’t matter jack . So stop complaining 

[AndyHill]

17 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Which is either a stunning amount of ignorance or a flabbergasting lack of game understanding.

Your post didn't make the first bit of sense, but I will try to reply. About game understanding; it takes willful blindness to not see how badly the carriers destroy the game. 

19 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

In reality a destroyer or even a cruiser has no business in fighting a battleship in a gunnery duel. Still the game allows exactly that.

True

19 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Same with carriers and their planes.

False. Except maybe planes - which, by design in game as in reality, are expendable.

19 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

You are contradicting yourself as you seem to know the truth but somehow try to twist some weird stuff to fit your lame narrative of “I don’t like Carriers”.

No. I just showed you how your reality based argument is as flawed as the ones based on game design. I understand well why you might not like it.

 

Also, it's objectively bad game design to have one class that can just ship all over everyone else without counterplay as well as break core game mechanics for everyone. If it was simply a matter of opinion, good games and bad games wouldn't exist. They do.

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, AndyHill said:

False. Except maybe planes - which, by design in game as in reality, are expendable.

No - planes are not any more expendable than HP of any other ship. You can use your „HP“ pool or plane pool to make an effect on the Game. It’s very comparable.

 

3 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

No. I just showed you how your reality based argument is as flawed as the ones based on game design. I understand well why you might not like it.

You brought the reality argument - not me. I don’t have a problem with either class or the gameplay concessions needed to enable them fight each other (eventhough their real life counterparts probably could not 

[AndyHill]

16 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No - planes are not any more expendable than HP of any other ship. You can use your „HP“ pool or plane pool to make an effect on the Game. It’s very comparable.

No. Not even close. Simple question: does your ship get destroyed when your planes die? Does it become points on the board? Can you even run out of planes? Can ships run out of hitpoints? I think I'll just go for a big fat nope on this one.

 

Just a comparison; my Yamato shoots on average about 160 shells per game. A T10 carrier can fly what, 60-80 planes before losing its striking power? With those numbers, taking a 20k dump from a carrier while shooting down 3 planes is about the equivalent of making a Yamato miss 7 of his shells and destroying two more with your citadel - even if you're unspotted behind cover, while the Yamato spots you for his team and never gets spotted himself or even remotely endangers one of his hitpoints. And the equivalency only happens if you or the rest of your team actually shoot down enough planes so that the carrier can't fly useful squadrons, otherwise the loss of planes is completely meaningless. 

 

So, no, planes and HP don't even begin to compare.

23 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

You brought the reality argument - not me.

You said that carriers belong to the game because they existed in reality and asked someone how many BB to BB battles there were in reality as an attempt to emphasize carriers' historical significance. To this I replied by explaining what actually caused the lack of BB to BB battles and why it's in fact an argument against including carriers in the game.

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, AndyHill said:

Simple question: does your ship get destroyed when your planes die?

Actually that is how I would have done it. Make the planes the “only” HP of the CV. Once the “plane pool” is depleted send the CV back to port. However WG chose differently And made The CV HP twofold: planes plus hull.

 

To you question: the CV doesn’t get destroyed but you lose the ability to make any effect on the game. So in a way yes - although the difference of not being sent to port remains.

 

3 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

A T10 carrier can fly what, 60-80 planes before losing its striking power?

Roughly - give or take. Although the AI will lose a good bunch of that without yourself being able to stop it (whenever you attack the remaining squadron trails your attack wing and gets killed).

 

5 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

or even remotely endangers one of his hitpoints.

As said - I would have designed it differently but at the end it’s irrelevant in 99% of the cases. 
 

6 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

you or the rest of your team actually shoot down enough planes so that the carrier can't fly useful squadrons, otherwise the loss of planes is completely meaningless. 

It’s actually the exact other way around: you quickly come to a point where squadrons lose attack power by losses - whereas for a surface ship that doesn’t happen. Even with 1 bloody HP you have 100% of your strike power. It doesn’t matter what you did up to that point.

 

7 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

So, no, planes and HP don't even begin to compare.

Except from you got it all the wrong way up to now. 

 

And yes they do compare 

 

8 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

You said that carriers belong to the game because they existed in reality and asked someone how many BB to BB battles there were in reality as an attempt to emphasize carriers' historical significance.

My comment was a reply to some random dude who claimed that the game is about WW1 and WW2 gunnery duels and an era where ships did fine without carriers. Which obviously is nonsense. That’s all I pointed out. Within the era the four classes were indeed the relevant Warships. And WG put in enough gameplay concessions that they can fight each other. Like fire mechanics, RNG dispersion (in reality bigger guns tend to be more accurate than smaller ones - not the other way around), etc. 
 

The only one with a problem seems to be you but the “problem” is simply a personal preference. 

[AndyHill]

2 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

To you question: the CV doesn’t get destroyed but you lose the ability to make any effect on the game. So in a way yes - although the difference of not being sent to port remains.

The thing about being sent to port - or becoming points on the board - is a major difference in getting destroyed or not. In fact, getting destroyed is the big difference in getting destroyed or not, so no, not in any way comparable. All in all, a carrier does in fact not get destroyed when it loses it planes, not by any definition.

 

Even if you'd like the carrier to be destroyed when it loses its planes (which might indeed make the situation a little bit better if not that much), that's not the case right now so it doesn't matter for the comparison.

8 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Roughly - give or take. Although the AI will lose a good bunch of that without yourself being able to stop it (whenever you attack the remaining squadron trails your attack wing and gets killed).

Have I misunderstood something about the immunity period? My planes usually seem to all still be there when I switch back to the remaining flight from the attacking ones.

9 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

As said - I would have designed it differently but at the end it’s irrelevant in 99% of the cases. 

Wait, endangering one's hitpoints is irrelevant in 99% of the cases? No, it's actually not.

10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

It’s actually the exact other way around: you quickly come to a point where squadrons lose attack power by losses

No, you don't, unless you go full pokemon on the puffies on every attack.

11 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

whereas for a surface ship that doesn’t happen.

Yes it does. In the example, the Yamato invests 9 of its 160 or so shells every time it fires, they're never coming back. Additionally, surface ships can have their turrets, torps and secondaries disabled or knocked out for good, which is kind of comparable to losing (a lot of) planes. Additionally, surface ships risk instant annihilation (it is literally impossible for a carrier to lose all of its planes as fast as a ship can get devstruck) or just massive loss of hitpoints every time they try to do anything at all.

15 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Even with 1 bloody HP you have 100% of your strike power.

With 1hp a ship has to play incredibly carefully or just outright hide to not become points on the board. It is only combat effective under very specific circumstances.

16 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Except from you got it all the wrong way up to now. 

 

And yes they do compare (planes and hitpoints)

Nope, nope, and nopity nope. In any way. As shown above. Numerous times.

17 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

My comment was a reply to some random dude who claimed that the game is about WW1 and WW2 gunnery duels and an era where ships did fine without carriers. Which obviously is nonsense. That’s all I pointed out. Within the era the four classes were indeed the relevant Warships.

Well if the game was in any way realistic, gun fights would be very rare and situations with planes involved in such fights would be even more rare, because they basically prevented such fights from happening. So WoWS is basically a fantasy game depicting a scenario that didn't happen in reality. Thus, having all the relevant classes of ships in the game as compared to realism isn't much of an argument and automatically overridden by game gameplay requirements.

20 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

The only one with a problem seems to be you but the “problem” is simply a personal preference. 

No, having a class that can just ship all over other classes while also destroying fundamental gameplay elements (concealment) is still objectively terrible game design.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Nope, nope, and nopity nope. In any way. As shown above. Numerous times.

Well  - I explained it to you I guess and of you don’t believe it - well then don’t. This discussion won’t get anywhere as it is simply a matter of “I simply don’t like it and I won’t listen to anyone else”. But again: that is absolutely irrelevant 

 

[AndyHill]

Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

Well  - I explained it to you I guess and of you don’t believe it - well then don’t. This discussion won’t get anywhere as it is simply a matter of “I simply don’t like it and I won’t listen to anyone else”. But again: that is absolutely irrelevant 

It's not about believing or not, I'm not a religious person. It's about arguments and figuring out what the reality is and neither of those agree with your view. 

[1MajorKoenig]

Just now, AndyHill said:

neither of those agree with your view. 

Fair enough - neither do I agree with yours. Anyway - merry Christmas 

[AndyHill]

Reality doesn't care what you agree with, unfortunately. If you want to prove your points, you can start by posting a replay of a carrier exploding by just getting its planes shot down.

[Puffin_]

On 12/23/2020 at 11:39 PM, Puffin_ said:

Carrier players seem to be incapable to save the star ins this Ranked Battle Season.

So they are stuck at Bronze  leagues 

Wargaming could you Buff Carriers so these poor CV players could move on 

Make Carriers strong again  

 

How ineffective Carriers are in ranked is getting out of hand. 

They can't save a star, they struggle with helping theire team.

I guess they can spot some ships 

 

Wargaming   Make Carriers Strong Again 

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Reality doesn't care what you agree with, unfortunately. If you want to prove your points, you can start by posting a replay of a carrier exploding by just getting its planes shot down.

What the hell are you talking about? Read again - you seem to have not understood a single bit up to now. Understand reality - or don’t. I don’t care