General CV related discussions.

[Sunleader]

3 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I've seen good players (in DD, CA and BB) get a CV from a crate and potater the hell out of it. 

But That is probably the opposite of what you mean. Actually I am not sure what you mean... 

What is usually said, is that even BAD players can play CV because they are broken/OP.

 

No I don't get the sidetracking part. What we were discussing is if CVs are either broken or OP. 

 

Duh? As above:

What is usually said, is that even BAD players can play CV because they are broken/OP.

 

 

I Know. As I said. its a very common Misconception.

But while not as Pronounced in RTS. Where good CV Players Generally just Completely Shut down the Bad CV Players.

Even after Rework. Bad CV Players due to Sitting in a Highly Influental Slot of the Team and not having the Abilities to actually make it Count. Tend to Lose more often and Perform Worse.

 

 

 

[Lordcrafty]

proving CVs are OP is easy. You simply find the highest solo WR you can find for a CV and find the highest solo WR you can find for a surface ship.

 

edit: let's restrict it to T10 and then you can just try to beat this solo WR from El2aZeR:
easy task right?

[BLUB__BLUB]

4 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

wait, we are? then why did you talk about comparing CVtoCV or BBtoBB etc only?

We should, but their m,ost direct peers are other CVs in same tier.

After that, we could compare the class as such to other peers: the same tier.

And after that: compare to CVs in other tiers. Direct and less direct peers. 

 

Quote

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the definition of "OP" since your definition seems wonky to me since it doesn't work in all cases.

"OP" (in my definition, at least) means Over-Performing. If a ship overperforms it is stronger than any of its (most) direct peers.

It is the "must have" ship. That does not mean it cannot be totally smashed/deleted/ignored by something else. 

[Lordcrafty]

1 minute ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

We should, but their m,ost direct peers are other CVs in same tier.

After that, we could compare the class as such to other peers: the same tier.

And after that: compare to CVs in other tiers. Direct and less direct peers. 

 

ÖP"means Over-Performing. If a ship overperforms it is stronger than any of its (most) direct peers.

It is the "must have" ship. That does not mean it cannot be totally smashed/deleted/ignored by something else. 

ok well that's not what people usually mean with OP, maybe that's just me but OP means over powered. You could technically say that CVs aren't over performing and that's due to the players playing them often but CVs are certainly over powered. And it's not possible for CVs to over perform compared to another class really if matchmaking is mirrored cause you can't ever measure that statistically then.

[Lordcrafty]

CVs don't overperform overall due to mirrored MM but they're a far far stronger tool for winning battles and deciding game outcomes than surface ships.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 minute ago, Lordcrafty said:

ok well that's not what people usually mean with OP, maybe that's just me but OP means over powered.

Well, power is not much unless you can also prove it by doing it... so IMO performance is the same as power.

As in, I can give a ship a gun that has a shell of 10m, no doubt that is mega-over-power. 

Now give it a reload of 10 minutes and see what it does. So, unless it also can perform... it is not OP.

 

 

[Lordcrafty]

1 minute ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well, power is not much unless you can also prove it by doing it... so IMO performance is the same as power.

As in, I can give a ship a gun that has a shell of 10m, no doubt that is mega-over-power. 

Now give it a reload of 10 minutes and see what it does. So, unless it also can perform... it is not OP.

 

 

let's call "power" a ship's ability to perform and "performance" the end result after it's been played. a powerful ship will still underperform in the wrong conditions because performance isn't directly proportional to power in every case skill is involved, so we can't use performance to compare ships in fact we can't use average performance especially if we're measuring the performance by WR and there's mirrored MM If every match 1 CV wins and 1 CV loses the overall performance of the class is a 50% WR no? So instead let's use "power" the ability for a ship to perform, if WR (the "performance") is directly proportional to the skill and power of a ship then if we assume that the skill of the player is highest possible (we take the best players we can find) we should be able to compare "performance" and instead pretty much just be comparing the "power" with the same coefficient.

Psuedomaths

[BLUB__BLUB]

27 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

easy task right?

We can't search on WR, however it's not that hard. But we both know he is the Masterrrrr... nevertheless it is possible.

No saying if he'll do it for 871 games but well. 

Spoiler

 

 

10 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

let's call "power" a ship's ability to perform and "performance" the end result after it's been played. a powerful ship will still underperform in the wrong conditions because performance isn't directly proportional to power in every case skill is involved, so we can't use performance to compare ships in fact we can't use average performance especially if we're measuring the performance by WR and there's mirrored MM If every match 1 CV wins and 1 CV loses the overall performance of the class is a 50% WR no?

Damn that was well said. At least now we are getting somewhere. 

 

10 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

So instead let's use "power" the ability for a ship to perform, if WR (the "performance") is directly proportional to the skill and power of a ship then if we assume that the skill of the player is highest possible (we take the best players we can find) we should be able to compare "performance" and instead pretty much just be comparing the "power" with the same coefficient.

Mmmmm.... there is where stuff goes wrong. If you take the BEST player there is no difference between OP and broken. 

Because they'll just take something broken and use it to their best ability - as such the exploit of "broken" becomes actual power.

 

10 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

Psuedomaths

Everything is pseudomaths here, look at WeeGee. I think you are also familiar with these calculations, leading to the bell-curve.

WeeGee seems to have never heard of it. And while WE cannot get the data for the various CVs (one CV each side, but which one?), they can. 

What we would actually need is such a graph for every ship, then we could really compare. 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

39 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

I Know. As I said. its a very common Misconception.

But while not as Pronounced in RTS. Where good CV Players Generally just Completely Shut down the Bad CV Players.

Even after Rework. Bad CV Players due to Sitting in a Highly Influental Slot of the Team and not having the Abilities to actually make it Count. Tend to Lose more often and Perform Worse.

But that, in my opinion, is more a sign of them being broken. Doesn't mean they are OP as such. 

(I agree though... the more broken it is, the larger this difference will be). 

[Lordcrafty]

I think your concept of broken sounds a bit like what I think OP would be. I prefer the concept of broken to be reserved to ships that have game mechanics that don't function or fit in with the game well, e.g CVs due to the implementation of AA as an automated system their spotting and a few other factors. I also think of OP as having the potential to overperform, for me it doesn't matter where the average is or even the distribution, only how the ship would fare in competitive level play and how much influence it would have if all players are highly skilled by my understanding a ship would be OP if it gives the player controlling it in this scenario more impact on the win than the other team members.

[BLUB__BLUB]

17 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

I think your concept of broken sounds a bit like what I think OP would be.

Yes generally it is hard to keep them apart. What @Sunleader states is probably the easiest. 

If a ship is OP, they tend to perform better in every case. 

If it is broken, well it might be crap but also it might be very very very good in the hands of GOOD players. 

 

17 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

I prefer the concept of broken to be reserved to ships that have game mechanics that don't function or fit in with the game well, e.g CVs due to the implementation of AA as an automated system their spotting and a few other factors.

Well I think we all agree that CVs are broken. 

AA is broken as well, but that is "by definition" as the thing what it is aimed against is already broken.

You can't "tune" a broken thing by any normal means, because that is the definition of broken. 

You need to FIX the broken thing. Like you cannot "repair" a car that has only one wheel by adding a leg or two.

 

17 minutes ago, Lordcrafty said:

I also think of OP as having the potential to overperform, for me it doesn't matter where the average is or even the distribution, only how the ship would fare in competitive level play and how much influence it would have if all players are highly skilled by my understanding a ship would be OP if it gives the player controlling it in this scenario more impact on the win than the other team members.

MMmmmmhhh.... thinking about that.... you are talking about competitive play here. 

That is not so easy. You say, a ship that would "give more impact on the win". 

In my opinion that could be both broken AN/OR also OP. It would be the "meta" ship, the "one to have" in each case. 

But the "broken" one would be used by REALLY GOOD players alone.

Bad players would just tater in it. They, and the average ones, would just take the OP ship.

[Sunleader]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Yes generally it is hard to keep them apart. What @Sunleader states is probably the easiest. 

If a ship is OP, they tend to perform better in every case. 

If it is broken, well it might be crap but also it might be very very very good in the hands of GOOD players. 

 

Well I think we all agree that CVs are broken. 

AA is broken as well, but that is "by definition" as the thing what it is aimed against is already broken.

You can't "tune" a broken thing by any normal means, because that is the definition of broken. 

You need to FIX the broken thing. Like you cannot "repair" a car that has only one wheel by adding a leg or two.

 

MMmmmmhhh.... thinking about that.... you are talking about competitive play here. 

That is not so easy. You say, a ship that would "give more impact on the win". 

In my opinion that could be both broken AN/OR also OP. It would be the "meta" ship, the "one to have" in each case. 

But the "broken" one would be used by REALLY GOOD players alone.

Bad players would just tater in it. They, and the average ones, would just take the OP ship.

 

I didnt Say that. And would Disagree.

It might be just a matter of reference and wording.

 

But I am clearly Stating that OP Ships can often Perform Worse when Played Badly.

 

Overpowered does not Equal Invincible.

Overpowered means that a Ship is more Powerful than it should be when Compared to other Ships of its Tier.

 

This coming from a Single Overpowered Ability or from a General Advantage in Power.

Is not Relevant.

 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

3 hours ago, Lordcrafty said:

CVs don't overperform overall due to mirrored MM but they're a far far stronger tool for winning battles and deciding game outcomes than surface ships.

Right now it's more the teams that decide about the win-% of potato CV players like me...

When even this

Some battles just seem to be unwinnable...

 

PotatoAlert told me it was a 48% vs. 45% winrates battle... with me in the 48% team. Still DDs was happy to play "sit in smoke and catch torpedoes", Cruisers doing the "spam HE at BBs and ignore the DDs the CV spots for us" and BBs doing the "stay away from the cap because it looks toxic" thingy...

After spotting and damageing the enemy Sims (!) as my first target and shoving it away from a cap I went after that Normandie near the same cap next and got that "First Blood" award from it. And after that it was just trying to keep up with the enemy kill-wise, while having to watch the teammates falter all around me.

Even doing 50% of my team's capping wasn't enough to carry it..

 

I failed...

doesn't help to win a battle, the power of influence of a CV is kinda limited.

Not that this would be an average result for me...

 

Add to that, getting thrown into +2 battles also limits the deciding power of CVs.

 

Doesn't mean they are not still OP and bad for the the game/meta, but as there one of those nasty buggers on each team it leads at least not too much onesided battles per se, unless one of the CVs is me and the other one is a good player, while - for once - the teams themselves are kinda equally-ish skilled.

[Lootboxer]

5 hours ago, Lordcrafty said:

proving CVs are OP is easy. You simply find the highest solo WR you can find for a CV and find the highest solo WR you can find for a surface ship.

 

edit: let's restrict it to T10 and then you can just try to beat this solo WR from El2aZeR:
easy task right?

Easy peasy

 

Of course it's old Midway with an old interaction between CV players when v. good one could not only farm himself but also completely deny opposite CV any damage.

I doubt that anyone could come close in a surface ship, maybe in a DD like Smalland if every game there was only 1 DD each side, but we have more of course. Hard limit on CVs helps best to get crazy high WRs.

[BLUB__BLUB]

8 hours ago, Sunleader said:

I didnt Say that. And would Disagree.

It might be just a matter of reference and wording.

Probably is. As it sounds the same to me. 

 

8 hours ago, Sunleader said:

But I am clearly Stating that OP Ships can often Perform Worse when Played Badly.

That, makes no sense. They'd still be better than an underpowered ship when played badly. 

While a BROKEN ship would be worse because the bad player cannot tap into the potential.

 

8 hours ago, Sunleader said:

Overpowered does not Equal Invincible.

Overpowered means that a Ship is more Powerful than it should be when Compared to other Ships of its Tier.

Nothing is invincible - but a broken ship has some traits that cannot, or hardly, countered.

 

8 hours ago, Sunleader said:

This coming from a Single Overpowered Ability or from a General Advantage in Power.

Is not Relevant.

True. A combination of factors can do it as well. Nerfing would help.

Where the BROKEN ship would still be broken, just less powerfully so.

 

7 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Right now it's more the teams that decide about the win-% of potato CV players like me...

When even this

doesn't help to win a battle, the power of influence of a CV is kinda limited.

Not that this would be an average result for me...

There is the thing. Without the win bonus the other CV would have 542xp, and you still have 1552. 

Roughly your influence would be 3x his. Basically your team had s Wesers. But there are 4 ships better than him. 

 

7 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Add to that, getting thrown into +2 battles also limits the deciding power of CVs.

This actually is part of the problem. While it doesn't help, you are far from powerless. 

As such guess what happens in a -2 battle. But you already know.

 

7 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Doesn't mean they are not still OP and bad for the the game/meta, but as there one of those nasty buggers on each team it leads at least not too much onesided battles per se, unless one of the CVs is me and the other one is a good player, while - for once - the teams themselves are kinda equally-ish skilled.

Even Masterrr El2azer cannot pull a full tater team. Sometimes they better not exist.

That way you would not get -100 points every time one of them gets deleted.

 

6 hours ago, DariusJacek said:

Of course it's old Midway with an old interaction between...

Nope then. FAIL!

[FellRaven]

This whole OP debate is stupid. Carriers are OP/Broken not because of individual Win Rates or High Damage Games. They are broken because they break the rest of the game for every other ship type.

 

They spot DDs that would not otherwise be spotted, which are then killed by the opposing teams. They deny areas to players by leaving fighters as spotters. They can kill any ship in the game solo (Except another CV) regardless of their relative skill levels. They can create crossfires where none should exist and they force ships to expose their broadsides to avoid aerial attacks.

 

The problem is that they do all of this at NO RISK to themselves and with NO COUNTER PLAY being possible. WG seem to have a blind spot when it comes to CV play they seem unwilling to address any of the issues and indeed appear to keep buffing CVs rather than balancing them.

 

• Remove Rocket Planes
• Remove CV Plane Spotting
• Remove CV Fire Immunity
• Bring back AA (Or hard limit Plane numbers)

[1MajorKoenig]

12 hours ago, Lordcrafty said:

CVs don't overperform overall due to mirrored MM but they're a far far stronger tool for winning battles and deciding game outcomes than surface ships.

 

12 hours ago, Lordcrafty said:

let's call "power" a ship's ability to perform and "performance" the end result after it's been played. a powerful ship will still underperform in the wrong conditions because performance isn't directly proportional to power in every case skill is involved, so we can't use performance to compare ships in fact we can't use average performance especially if we're measuring the performance by WR and there's mirrored MM If every match 1 CV wins and 1 CV loses the overall performance of the class is a 50% WR no? So instead let's use "power" the ability for a ship to perform, if WR (the "performance") is directly proportional to the skill and power of a ship then if we assume that the skill of the player is highest possible (we take the best players we can find) we should be able to compare "performance" and instead pretty much just be comparing the "power" with the same coefficient.

Psuedomaths

You are mixing up battle influence and power level. 
 

CVs do have a large battle influence but they are not overpowered.

 

And if you have trouble understanding the difference just look at Thunderer. That ship is overpowered but has still a low battle influence. 
 

To make it over simplified and monkey-proof: battle influence indicates how much you can do in a battle to influence the outcome whereas the power level indicates how difficult it is. 
 

As CVs have a high influence it is easy for a good player - or even for someone above average - to achieve high Winrates. But it doesn’t tell you anything about the power level 

[FellRaven]

I would encourage everyone to watch this video.

 

 

[Lordcrafty]

12 minutes ago, FellRaven said:

I would encourage everyone to watch this video.

 

 

don't need any pepege qaulity here, get that crap out. OUT I SAY!

 

edit: I highly doubt this has anything new to tell me anyway and I can't watch past the first few minutes. I'm not going to watch someone that arrogant rant about CVs when I know enough already myself.

[Lordcrafty]

27 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

You are mixing up battle influence and power level. 
 

CVs do have a large battle influence but they are not overpowered.

 

And if you have trouble understanding the difference just look at Thunderer. That ship is overpowered but has still a low battle influence. 
 

To make it over simplified and monkey-proof: battle influence indicates how much you can do in a battle to influence the outcome whereas the power level indicates how difficult it is. 
 

As CVs have a high influence it is easy for a good player - or even for someone above average - to achieve high Winrates. But it doesn’t tell you anything about the power level 

it's nice that you want to get involved and have you're own opinion I can commend that but when you realize that I defined how I would use those terms within my own post this comment is really dumb. Also for the record, when I mean ease of play I think I'll just say ease of play instead of power level because I don't need to rewrite the meanings of other words for it.

[CptBarney]

[Lordcrafty]

if anything, I think you're the one using the terms incorrectly if I can make a quote like this out of your post:

37 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

CVs do have a large battle influence but they are not overpowered.

 

[Kyorinn]

55 dakika önce, 1MajorKoenig dedi:

 

CVs do have a large battle influence but they are not overpowered.

one of the reasons why peoples say its op cuz of the capability of making damage and spoting for it self,being able to create a crossfire at anywhere of the map that makes those things overperform compared to other clases thats why the idea of "cv's are overpowered" is kinda correct if you compare them with the other clases in the game atm

[Kyorinn]

48 dakika önce, FellRaven dedi:

I would encourage everyone to watch this video.

 

 

you can be sure cv's belongs to the game but they need to delete everything and make it from 0 to actualy make a "balanced" mechanic for both cv and surface ship players.

(im not saying cv's are weak by saying "balaced mechanic for both cv and surface ship players" im saying that cv's are broken and they need to fix this cuz its unfair for surface ship players)

[BLUB__BLUB]

20 minutes ago, COMRADE_2019 said:

one of the reasons why peoples say its op cuz of the capability of making damage and spoting for it self,being able to create a crossfire at anywhere of the map that makes those things overperform compared to other clases thats why the idea of "cv's are overpowered" is kinda correct if you compare them with the other clases in the game atm

DDs are able to spot for themselves as well... and for others. 

In fact anything that has a concealment lower than other ships is able to spot. 

 

CVs can just do it faster. Though the "free for all" spotting needs to go. 

I'd say a certain circle, maybe comparable to the planes detection, and rest gets minimap-spotting.

Or something like that.