General CV related discussions.

[AndyHill]

Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

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 

You claimed that losing planes is equivalent to losing hitpoints, which I proved to not be the case in a number of different ways, including that ships get destroyed when they lose their hitpoints, whereas carriers do not when they lose planes. You can easily prove me wrong is reality is indeed not on my side.

[1MajorKoenig]

10 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

You claimed that losing planes is equivalent to losing hitpoints, which I proved to not be the case in a number of different ways, including that ships get destroyed when they lose their hitpoints, whereas carriers do not when they lose planes. You can easily prove me wrong is reality is indeed not on my side.

Read again 

[AndyHill]

4 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Read again 

I won't go deep into the meta discussion, but just to recap:

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

To you question (does the carrier die when you shoot down its planes): 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.

To which I replied 

47 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

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.

...which lead to 

42 minutes ago, 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 

Of course there was some other stuff involved, but the point above was included and the fact remains, losing planes is not comparable to losing hitpoints, especially because you do not in fact die when you lose planes. In fact a further point you made emphasizes the fact that the comparison is not valid. You specifically stated that

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

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.

This is in fact a good observation. Losing HP does not result in direct loss of attack power, even though indirectly a ship with 1hp usually has very few offensive options left. Losing planes, however, does - eventually with great enough losses - result in direct loss of offensive power. 

 

The ship with 1hp left has lost something very different to the CV that has one plane left. The very point you make above demonstrates one of the distinct ways losing HP is very different to losing planes. The correct comparison is losing planes vs. losing turrets and torpedo tubes either momentarily or permanently. That is of course unpleasant, but very different from losing HP, and it is basically the one thing both carriers and gun ships suffer from. And as such it is of course a valid point and comparison to make, carriers do have some limitations.

 

Of course when you count all the other things gun ships suffer from (such as risking and losing hitpoints and a trip to port to do anything useful in the game), the one-sidedness becomes quite obvious. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

8 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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. 

 The biggest problem IMO is that they haven't spun out the pre-WO2 area enough. 

Probably because the Russians lost the Russo-Japanese war... then again, they DID deliver Mikasa.

But THAT would be something I'd look forward to. Big, fat, tumblehome pre-dreadnoughts. BOOM!

[AndyHill]

19 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

But THAT would be something I'd look forward to. Big, fat, tumblehome pre-dreadnoughts. BOOM!

I think one of the inherent problems with a tier-based system is that you never really get to see the early period ships in their full glory as the rightful rulers of the waves that they were in their time. Dreadnought isn't very impressive when facing Wyomings (and Langleys and Hoshos), even though in reality it kind of was in its time. The newer stuff is bound to be just better if you don't divide the game into distinct eras with their own top tier ships, but that would be problematic in its own ways.

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

I have another suggestion, a very great suggestion. Probably the best suggestion of all time. I know I am the best and smartest around.

 

CV dropping ship is the same as getting detonated. There is nothing you can do about it, it is pure RNG for the surface ship player. Now to prevent detonations we have a signal flag. My suggestion is to have a signal flag that prevents CVs from doing damage. I don't think CV players will notice these changes anyway.

 

Spoiler

Корабль сброса CV - это то же самое, что взорвать. Вы ничего не можете с этим поделать, это чистый ГСЧ для игрока надводного корабля. Теперь для предотвращения взрывов у нас есть сигнальный флажок. Я предлагаю установить сигнальный флаг, который предотвращает повреждение резюме.

[AndyHill]

Well if the flag also prevents the planes from spotting you, that's beginning to sound like a solution.

[UnterSeeBot]

I want a flag that as soon as I hoist it, detonates entire air squadrons that enter my AA range. The flag design could be open to a community competition, but i have an idea.

 

16 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

 The biggest problem IMO is that they haven't spun out the pre-WO2 area enough. 

Probably because the Russians lost the Russo-Japanese war... then again, they DID deliver Mikasa.

But THAT would be something I'd look forward to. Big, fat, tumblehome pre-dreadnoughts. BOOM!

This. tier 2 and 4 cvs would be better served with seaplane tenders, with squadrons composed of 1 to 2 planes. It would reflect WW1 (at the least) warfare.

[Nibenay78]

3 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

I want a flag that as soon as I hoist it, detonates entire air squadrons that enter my AA range.

The AA flag gives what.. 5% increase? Clearly WG made a mistake there and the value should be 500% or another 10x

[Yosha_AtaIante]

On 12/24/2020 at 4:01 PM, Nibenay78 said:

Then again you are not mr average? Meaning everyone below your skill is pepega? :D

Who cares about average?

You want to balance CVs after the best but when it comes to surface to CV interaction you want to protect the brainless? 

 

Such is peak bs

[BLUB__BLUB]

7 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

This. tier 2 and 4 cvs would be better served with seaplane tenders, with squadrons composed of 1 to 2 planes. It would reflect WW1 (at the least) warfare.

Tier 2 CVs would be zeppelins... 

However these ships belong in T1. Having max +2. 

But you'd only get them through missions with T6 ships. 

That way yes we'll get sealclubbers, but they'll be at a disadvantage.

[arquata2019_]

hello hello everyone, today, i am asking you dis:

how can i increase my PR with midway? i currently am sitting for some days at 2262-2259... i am getting 2-3 kills a match now, am i gonna increase it anytime soon? @Zuihou_Kai

[tocqueville8]

On 12/25/2020 at 9:25 PM, BLUB__BLUB said:

 The biggest problem IMO is that they haven't spun out the pre-WO2 area enough. 

 

Agreed. I'd love to have more pre-dreadnought era BBs. Some of them looked just hilarious, something out of steampunk fiction.

[BLUB__BLUB]

59 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

Agreed. I'd love to have more pre-dreadnought era BBs. Some of them looked just hilarious, something out of steampunk fiction.

Yes. I do not see the fascination with post- WW2 ships anyway. 

After CVs wiped out BBs, nuclear subs wiped out anything else at sea. 

[Kazomir]

Question: Why can carriers control their places after they die? There is nothing more infuriating after killing a CV (which takes sweat and blood to accomplish) than to have said CV Kill you back when he is dead. Sinking should mean you are out of the game and not be able to control anything. You are the captain of the CV, not the pilots of the planes.

[John_Selfprinter]

Před 40 minutami Kazomir řekl/a:

Question: Why can carriers control their places after they die? There is nothing more infuriating after killing a CV (which takes sweat and blood to accomplish) than to have said CV Kill you back when he is dead. Sinking should mean you are out of the game and not be able to control anything. You are the captain of the CV, not the pilots of the planes.

It is equivalent of torps sent/shells in the air. You cannot stop those to make damage just because the one who sent them died

[Deckeru_Maiku]

11 minutes ago, John_Selfprinter said:

It is equivalent of torps sent/shells in the air. You cannot stop those to make damage just because the one who sent them died

It's not. Shells and torps just go on with a course they had when the ship "sending" them was still alive - planes are actively played by the captain of a sunk ship... Fair treatment would be the have CV player mark a target ship and then let the remaining planes do bot controlled attacks on that target... with the CV ability of WG's bot KI that would be quite close to those shells/torps fired before getting sunk...

 

[John_Selfprinter]

Před 2 minutami Deckeru_Maiku řekl/a:

It's not. Shells and torps just go on with a course they had when the ship "sending" them was still alive - planes are actively played by the captain of a sunk ship... Fair treatment would be the have CV player mark a target ship and then let the remaining planes do bot controlled attacks on that target... with the CV ability of WG's bot KI that would be quite close to those shells/torps fired before getting sunk...

 

If you haven´t noticed, you control more planes than the actual starting platform. And the logic here stays the same.

What I demand (since rework) is to give control of the CV itself back to our hands, cause autopilot sucks, cannot cope with islands or map border and all other stuff.
 

Most of the time you fly planes and attack with them. If it is the last thing that went into the air before sinking your ship, so be it. Usually the last squadron won´t make so big difference (though sometimes it does). But there are far worse problem with the game, and this thing I don´t even consider a problem, perfectly makes sense

[BLUB__BLUB]

39 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Fair treatment would be the have CV player mark a target ship and then let the remaining planes do bot controlled attacks on that target..

Well, in the RTS times "bot attacks" were beneficial for most players... 

Be careful what you wish for. Next thing WeeeGe might give a b0t CV for every game that hasn't at least three. 

Just so you'll all get used to it.... 

[tocqueville8]

On 12/28/2020 at 12:39 AM, Deckeru_Maiku said:

It's not. Shells and torps just go on with a course they had when the ship "sending" them was still alive - planes are actively played by the captain of a sunk ship... Fair treatment would be the have CV player mark a target ship and then let the remaining planes do bot controlled attacks on that target... with the CV ability of WG's bot KI that would be quite close to those shells/torps fired before getting sunk...

Well, the CV captain is actually both the CV captain and the captain of each air squadron. In fact, CV captains are already penalized by not being able to switch between CV and planes at their leisure, which compounds with the autopilot problems. It's kinda the equivalent of having to choose between turning your BB and turning the gun turrets.

Contrary to what the other poster said, you ARE the captain of the planes as well.

 

In real life, planes would land on available air bases, or on other CVs (any excess planes on deck could be thrown in the water to make room, like the choppers during the fall of Saigon), or they would ditch in the sea near friendly ships.

For instance, at Midway the American counterattack that sank the Hiryu included Yorcktown planes launched from the Enterprise, as the Yorcktown had been heavily damaged.

 

All in all, I'd say this is a reasonable rule to have in the game.

What the poster is proposing sounds like that battle in the Phantom Menace, when blowing up the Trade Federation "donut ship" shuts down all the droids, which is a bit silly.

[Just_a_bit_meh]

251 Pages of community ripping into CV's. We all know CV's are killing this game. The only solution is to remove CV's completely...or return to the old CV format. This would mean WG take a loss (which means it wont happen...but players are leaving this game like they are with world of tanks...but at least you have a chance of killing arty. I will no longer pay anything (after over 6 years of playing) to wargaming...and if things dont change soon...leave the game as well...

 

Rant over...sit back and watch CV fanboys [edited]...

[Just_a_bit_meh]

Dear Wargaming,

CV's

 

Fook off.

 

That is all.

 

 

[tocqueville8]

1 hour ago, Just_a_bit_meh said:

Dear Wargaming,

CV's

 

Fook off.

 

That is all.

 

 

Says the guy with 378 games in the Hosho...

[Deckeru_Maiku]

18 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well, in the RTS times "bot attacks" were beneficial for most players... 

Be careful what you wish for. Next thing WeeeGe might give a b0t CV for every game that hasn't at least three. 

Just so you'll all get used to it.... 

We're get often bot CVs on the human team in CoOp already, so there's an equally inept oponent for the bot CV on the bot team...

So, really, I don't give a flying fook about bot controlled CVs... if I would have the choice between bot CVs or human controlled, I'd rather have three bot CVs in the enemy team than one human controlled one

[Sub_Human]

So we all know that CVs are a sh*t show. In short they make the game less fun for all but them selves and render good tactics bad.

 

WG seem to want it this way, but please can you atleast make them vulnerable. Let them burn like they used to, let them be unable to launch planes while the deck is on fire.

 

Would that really render them useless?

 

Do they always have to be the last vessel floating?

 

Cant we atleast try it?