General CV related discussions.

[arquata2019_]

question:

Which CV will be the best performing in the upcoming (as of devblog) T10 Clan battles with CVs season?

1cv + 1bb allowed (if no cv, then 2 bbs)

And why would the best cv be the best?

[BLUB__BLUB]

48 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

question:

Which CV will be the best performing in the upcoming (as of devblog) T10 Clan battles with CVs season?

1cv + 1bb allowed (if no cv, then 2 bbs)

And why would the best cv be the best?

Would depend on your team line-up. But with a CV vs a 2BB team:

- you lose out on tank;

- can't cap/push; 
you lose firepower. 
 

So what you'd need is a "first kill", fast. Or something to "outlast" them. 
Or some setup that is a CV killer thing. Thunderer + Richthofen?
Then add a Daring (Vampire2), maybe Kleber - and of course some Petro/DM.
Maybe a Venezia, or two, and we'll even see Mino and Wooster.
I can see Conqkek (superheal) and Salem (ditto) playing a role,. too. 

 

Midway will be most versatile as usual. Haku... maybe. 
MvR, certainly. Speed... then again, FDR... slow but sure.
The problem with FDR is that it needs time to really get going. 

The question is, will you have it or is half the team already overwhelmed/dead. 

[arquata2019_]

1 ora fa, BLUB__BLUB ha scritto:

Would depend on your team line-up. But with a CV vs a 2BB team:

- you lose out on tank;

- can't cap/push; 
you lose firepower. 
 

So what you'd need is a "first kill", fast. Or something to "outlast" them. 
Or some setup that is a CV killer thing. Thunderer + Richthofen?
Then add a Daring (Vampire2), maybe Kleber - and of course some Petro/DM.
Maybe a Venezia, or two, and we'll even see Mino and Wooster.
I can see Conqkek (superheal) and Salem (ditto) playing a role,. too. 

 

Midway will be most versatile as usual. Haku... maybe. 
MvR, certainly. Speed... then again, FDR... slow but sure.
The problem with FDR is that it needs time to really get going. 

The question is, will you have it or is half the team already overwhelmed/dead. 

I have the Legendary Upgrade for Midway and i am actually capable of doing quite some damage. She can hunts DDs and basically everything she faces.

also, guys, another question: is this build (in your opinion) good for midway?

https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PASA110&modules=13221&upgrades=121413&commander=PAW102&skills=2461960&consumables=11&pos=0

(As of now i have the "Close Quarters Expert" skill, because, BELIEVE ME, i kill so many DDs approaching me with my ~7,7km secondaries!)

that build, the only thing that differs from mine is the +5% bomber speed. that's actually the question, is it worth it? you get to 194kts with midway's DBs, kinda like hakuryuu.

[BLUB__BLUB]

6 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

I have the Legendary Upgrade for Midway and i am actually capable of doing quite some damage. She can hunts DDs and basically everything she faces.

also, guys, another question: is this build (in your opinion) good for midway?

https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PASA110&modules=13221&upgrades=121413&commander=PAW102&skills=2461960&consumables=11&pos=0

(As of now i have the "Close Quarters Expert" skill, because, BELIEVE ME, i kill so many DDs approaching me with my ~7,7km secondaries!)

that build, the only thing that differs from mine is the +5% bomber speed. that's actually the question, is it worth it? you get to 194kts with midway's DBs, kinda like hakuryuu.

Build looking fine to me, but I'd change the TiTs for HVARS if you see many 2DD teams. 
Also, for CB I'd not go for restauration time but just more speed on the squadrons. 
games aren't gonna last long enough to profit from the restore...

 

And you'd probably not eat that much FLAK... if you know how to do it. 

Then again... sometimes you need to get in no matter what. 

 

Not sure about CQE for those DDs... if your teammates do not manage to kill 1 or 2 DDs, in CB (!)

and they manage to sneak up to your CV, and (when he spots you!) you do not get 100% shot by THEIR teammates, well... 

[arquata2019_]

10 minuti fa, BLUB__BLUB ha scritto:

Build looking fine to me, but I'd change the TiTs for HVARS if you see many 2DD teams. 
Also, for CB I'd not go for restauration time but just more speed on the squadrons. 
games aren't gonna last long enough to profit from the restore...

 

And you'd probably not eat that much FLAK... if you know how to do it. 

Then again... sometimes you need to get in no matter what. 

 

Not sure about CQE for those DDs... if your teammates do not manage to kill 1 or 2 DDs, in CB (!)

and they manage to sneak up to your CV, and (when he spots you!) you do not get 100% shot by THEIR teammates, well... 

Regarding flak, do you think it's a good idea training in the training rooms with midway, dodging a bot's worcester flak, or halland, ecc...

anyway, i have already tried HVARs in ranked. i don't like them, i mean, 4km (if i remember correctly) aiming time is way too much, and how/why should i hunt dds with it?

i prefer actually the tiny tims for: better aiming time, more powerful (i get crazy lucky with my RNG), and more accurate (in my opinion).

"i'd not go for restauration time but just more speed on the squadrons" you mean i should also get the +5% speed to DBs? because that's the only thing i can speed up with the legendary upgrade already mounted

[GoTTa_Sm4ShDTr4sH]

Vor 3 Stunden, arquata2019 sagte:

question:

Which CV will be the best performing in the upcoming (as of devblog) T10 Clan battles with CVs season?

1cv + 1bb allowed (if no cv, then 2 bbs)

And why would the best cv be the best?

As far as I've heard from very good CV players, Haku is probably the best CV. WG will hopefully ban certain ships again. As long as FDR is not banned, you probably play Haku with Fighterbuild. Counters great FDR. As soon as FDR is gone, the fighter build can probably be left out on Haku. Haku is generally the best CV for CW, because you have very quick plans, which makes spotting and AA dodging easier, good reserves of planes for the late game, and DMG that is permanent thanks to AP bombs. Midway can only inflict damage that can be easily healed, since it is only HE bombs. Furthermore, Midway doesn't really have the reserves for the late game and the planes aren't really "fast" enough either. Richthofen is simply too unreliable, thanks to RNG bombs.

[Pikkozoikum]

11 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

But pushing, when done properly, can work even at a high tier:

The fist 10 Minutes he is nor really playing aggressive. He moves to a unprotected cap but stays on range. All the enmeies are on A, he is on C; further away is almost not possible^^

I mean he fights against single targets

But then again: I never said, that playing aggressive is impossible. I never that, it can't work

My statement is about, why we have passive plays. And  the reason lays in the game design. You would need to rework mechanics. One thing would be for example, that there is no alert, when you are spotted.

That's why Steel Ocean was a pretty aggressive game, because you never knew, when you are spotted, though the spotting mechanic was so complex, that it was very hard to know, which ship could spot you when

 

But again: I don't say, you can't play aggressive. I just answer the question, why we have passive plays. And it's not just "Because of a CV", or "Because of HE spam"

It's the game design itself.

CV, HE and so on can make it worse, but is not the major reason ^^

[Pikkozoikum]

5 minutes ago, Dreadnought_Rose said:

As far as I've heard from very good CV players, Haku is probably the best CV. WG will hopefully ban certain ships again. As long as FDR is not banned, you probably play Haku with Fighterbuild. Counters great FDR. As soon as FDR is gone, the fighter build can probably be left out on Haku. Haku is generally the best CV for CW, because you have very quick plans, which makes spotting and AA dodging easier, good reserves of planes for the late game, and DMG that is permanent thanks to AP bombs. Midway can only inflict damage that can be easily healed, since it is only HE bombs. Furthermore, Midway doesn't really have the reserves for the late game and the planes aren't really "fast" enough either. Richthofen is simply too unreliable, thanks to RNG bombs.

I would still assume MIdway. Better figher and with the Fighter build it could be nasty. But also Midway is more universal.

The Haku AP bombs are very inflexible. You almost need to be on the right spot, when you start the attack, and if you guess wrong, they might all miss

[BLUB__BLUB]

55 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

Regarding flak, do you think it's a good idea training in the training rooms with midway, dodging a bot's worcester flak, or halland, ecc...

never done it 1 vs 1, but it should not matter as it is automated. So, should be good I guess - if the B0ts have maximised AA.

I am doubting a bit if B0t AA is the same as player AA>>> We did some training, 6 of us vs 12 b0ts, and then scaled the tier of b0ts. 

I could even whack the T10 b0ts... with Ark Royal... 

 

55 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

anyway, i have already tried HVARs in ranked. i don't like them, i mean, 4km (if i remember correctly) aiming time is way too much, and how/why should i hunt dds with it?

it is a matter of preference. My preference is MvR or Haku... 

Might run FDR if the team is up for it. But the slowness of the thing must be compensated. 
And I dunno what other players are gonna run, it is sensitive to FLAK & "fighter build CV". 

Might run MvR... very very fast... but the AP-bombs are RNGesus galore, spo then use the rockets.

Will work if the enemy runs lots of cruisers. 

 

Note that I do not expect the CV to hunt Dds. Yes I can kill Dds in MvR... but it takes too much time. 
Same in FDR, Haku maybe possible. Not tyhat I intend to just leave the buggers alone (if I can smack one I will).

But more like, spot them, get a radar cruiser (or your own DD) there, kill the FF-er. 

 

55 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

i prefer actually the tiny tims for: better aiming time, more powerful (i get crazy lucky with my RNG), and more accurate (in my opinion).

Luck = best there is. Yesterday I was (re)grinding New Mexico, I could not even hit a broadside Nurnberg at 9 km.

but of course, the other New Mex managed to hit full citas even if I was not broadside... duh. 

 

55 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

"i'd not go for restauration time but just more speed on the squadrons" you mean i should also get the +5% speed to DBs? because that's the only thing i can speed up with the legendary upgrade already mounted

I mean, with the captain skills. And, I dunno about your team tactics. But often they want/need this-and-that-and-they-want-it-now. 

So, speed is important. For example when tyhere is a Stalingrad somewhere, yes you can attack him with CV but it is FAR better to spot him.

Your whole team can kill him much faster than you ever could. Maybe even try to get that extra spotter-plane consumable.

 

The whole idea of a CV is to gain control due to situational/position info. 

You cannot outdamage the cruisers and BBs, because the CV doesn't have the alpha-damage. 

But since you do not tank, and do not push, you must "give" your teammates the MAX damage possible. 

Just my ideas though... remember that I am not the best CV player ever.

 

[Pikkozoikum]

2 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

never done it 1 vs 1, but it should not matter as it is automated. So, should be good I guess - if the B0ts have maximised AA.

I am doubting a bit if B0t AA is the same as player AA>>> We did some training, 6 of us vs 12 b0ts, and then scaled the tier of b0ts. 

I could even whack the T10 b0ts... with Ark Royal... 

I think bots don't have modules and skills? That can make a difference, if a Wooster gets DefAA + 3 additional flak explosion

[arquata2019_]

3 minuti fa, Pikkozoikum ha scritto:

Better figher and with the Fighter build it could be nasty

do you mean only with the +10% range (1PT skill) and the +1 fighter captain skill? (always 1 PT)

 

12 minuti fa, Dreadnought_Rose ha scritto:

As far as I've heard from very good CV players, Haku is probably the best CV. WG will hopefully ban certain ships again. As long as FDR is not banned, you probably play Haku with Fighterbuild. Counters great FDR. As soon as FDR is gone, the fighter build can probably be left out on Haku. Haku is generally the best CV for CW, because you have very quick plans, which makes spotting and AA dodging easier, good reserves of planes for the late game, and DMG that is permanent thanks to AP bombs. Midway can only inflict damage that can be easily healed, since it is only HE bombs. Furthermore, Midway doesn't really have the reserves for the late game and the planes aren't really "fast" enough either. Richthofen is simply too unreliable, thanks to RNG bombs.

I see hakuryu as an "anti cruiser" CV, because she can torpedo cruisers with fast and deadly torps and bomb them for non fully-healable damage, and you can't hunt DDs like midway does (Midway's HE bombs really hurt). I hunt dds in case my team tells me to do so or when i see a dd ambushing one of my teammates, and i can try killing it or badly damage it.

Yes, Midway deals damage that you can repair, (no AP rockets or AP bombs) but if you have the right upgrades/commander skills and you use wisely your plane reserves, she can still do damage in the late game. I hope they do not ban Midway because, well... i would have to play a whole different CV XD (i didn''t play haku for some time, because midway is superior and i can hunt dds, and i like midway. and i resetted haku line)

[BLUB__BLUB]

12 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

I see hakuryu as an "anti cruiser" CV, because she can torpedo cruisers with fast and deadly torps and bomb them for non fully-healable damage,

Well there will be 7vs7, 1 or 2 BBs, 1 or 2 DDs, and 3-4 cruisers. So cruiser killing is actually VERY handy. 

MvR is much better at killing cruisers... FDR does 20K at least (torps/bombs/rockets). 

 

12 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

....and you can't hunt DDs like midway does (Midway's HE bombs really hurt). I hunt dds in case my team tells me to do so or when i see a dd ambushing one of my teammates, and i can try killing it or badly damage it.

Midway bombs on a DD work, because yes they are HE but no overpen, et cetera.

IMO the Midway is best at killing DDs from all CVs. But if the enemy plays only one DD?

That would mean you have 4 cruisers.  

[arquata2019_]

2 minuti fa, BLUB__BLUB ha scritto:

That would mean you have 4 cruisers.  

I could try torpedoing them (if you can get some torps it's very nice), bombing them for 8k-12k+ damage and starting some fires or, simply using rockets on them. Even though i would use rockets on low hp targets too

[Pukovnik7]

34 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The fist 10 Minutes he is nor really playing aggressive. He moves to a unprotected cap but stays on range. All the enmeies are on A, he is on C; further away is almost not possible^^

I mean he fights against single targets

But then again: I never said, that playing aggressive is impossible. I never that, it can't work

My statement is about, why we have passive plays. And  the reason lays in the game design. You would need to rework mechanics. One thing would be for example, that there is no alert, when you are spotted.

That's why Steel Ocean was a pretty aggressive game, because you never knew, when you are spotted, though the spotting mechanic was so complex, that it was very hard to know, which ship could spot you when

 

But again: I don't say, you can't play aggressive. I just answer the question, why we have passive plays. And it's not just "Because of a CV", or "Because of HE spam"

It's the game design itself.

CV, HE and so on can make it worse, but is not the major reason ^^

It is many reasons, yes. But all of them come down to one or both of the major problems that both CV and HE have:

1) reduced skill level required to deal damage

2) increased ability to deal damage at range

 

And you can see both of these problems excarbarated by CVs, HE, map design, weapons accuracy...

 

What was Steel Ocean like? From what you wrote it sounds like a far better game than World of Warships.

[BLUB__BLUB]

15 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

I could try torpedoing them (if you can get some torps it's very nice), bombing them for 8k-12k+ damage and starting some fires or, simply using rockets on them. Even though i would use rockets on low hp targets too

Yes. The thing is, with FDR or MvR, or Haku I'll kill them lots faster, usually. 

But well Midway can actually kill DDs pretty good. 

[Pikkozoikum]

17 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

It is many reasons, yes. But all of them come down to one or both of the major problems that both CV and HE have:

1) reduced skill level required to deal damage

2) increased ability to deal damage at range

 

And you can see both of these problems excarbarated by CVs, HE, map design, weapons accuracy...

 

What was Steel Ocean like? From what you wrote it sounds like a far better game than World of Warships.

If you remove the newer HE ships like Thunderer and CV, you will still have the passive play.

It's simply, because as soon a ship goes closer, it get focus down by default.

 

It's still what I try to make clear. The passive play is caused by the game design itself. Nobody will play aggressive, just because a CV or HE is missing. Just like I showed on the screenshot, the teams on the flanks are even, but I can't push, I'm forced to play passive, if I don't want give the enemy free trades.

The ship types almost doesn't matter, as soon , as I decide to go aggressive, an enemy team will focus me down.

 

It's the default gameplay -> Target is close -> multiple player will shoot on it -> consequence: Don't go close -> passive play

 

 

 

Steel Ocean was overall not better, but it had some very cool mechanics. For example the spotting was chaotic. The spotting was not just depending on a concealment value, but also a spooting value. So if a ship is seen depends on the spotted ship and the spotting ship

Large ships have good spooting, small ships have bad spotting

Large ships have bad concealment, small ships have good concealment

 

Lets take Yamato as example. The spotting is very large, the concleament low. If Yamato spots a ship in Steel Ocean depended on the ship she was spotting

For example with fictive values:

Yamato can see a Shimakaze at 7 km,  and a Mogami at 9 km

Shimakaze can see Yamato at 15km, and a Mogami at 8 km

Mogami can see Yamato at 16 km, and a Shimakaze 6 km

 

That system made it impossible to know, when you are acutally spotted, because the value, when you get spotted was very variable.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, arquata2019 said:

do you mean only with the +10% range (1PT skill) and the +1 fighter captain skill? (always 1 PT) 

I would go with with all skills except the Interceptor. The 4th point skill will get buffed, probably

[Pukovnik7]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If you remove the newer HE ships like Thunderer and CV, you will still have the passive play.

It's simply, because as soon a ship goes closer, it get focus down by default.

 

It's still what I try to make clear. The passive play is caused by the game design itself. Nobody will play aggressive, just because a CV or HE is missing. Just like I showed on the screenshot, the teams on the flanks are even, but I can't push, I'm forced to play passive, if I don't want give the enemy free trades.

The ship types almost doesn't matter, as soon , as I decide to go aggressive, an enemy team will focus me down.

 

It's the default gameplay -> Target is close -> multiple player will shoot on it -> consequence: Don't go close -> passive play

That was actually part of my point. Still, I do believe that interplay of factors makes it far worse than any of the factors individually.

 

1) Map design is often too open, allowing any pushing ship to be focused.

2) This is made worse by the gun accuracy, because hitting more often = far greater effect of focus fire.

3) Which is made even worse by HE shells, which mean that armour angling or armour design has no effect and thus focus fire cannot be even partially mitigated.

4) Which is made even worse by CVs, because their presence means that not only islands are useless for cover, they are useless for concealment as well.

 

And that is what leads to what I wrote: 

1) reduced skill level required to deal damage

2) increased ability to deal damage at range

 

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Steel Ocean was overall not better, but it had some very cool mechanics. For example the spotting was chaotic. The spotting was not just depending on a concealment value, but also a spooting value. So if a ship is seen depends on the spotted ship and the spotting ship

Large ships have good spooting, small ships have bad spotting

Large ships have bad concealment, small ships have good concealment

 

Lets take Yamato as example. The spotting is very large, the concleament low. If Yamato spots a ship in Steel Ocean depended on the ship she was spotting

For example with fictive values:

Yamato can see a Shimakaze at 7 km,  and a Mogami at 9 km

Shimakaze can see Yamato at 15km, and a Mogami at 8 km

Mogami can see Yamato at 16 km, and a Shimakaze 6 km

 

That system made it impossible to know, when you are acutally spotted, because the value, when you get spotted was very variable.

Thanks. Yeah, that is a very good system.

[Nibenay78]

3 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I think bots don't have modules and skills? That can make a difference, if a Wooster gets DefAA + 3 additional flak explosion

..it still not sufficient :D

[AndyHill]

18 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's still what I try to make clear. The passive play is caused by the game design itself. Nobody will play aggressive, just because a CV or HE is missing. Just like I showed on the screenshot, the teams on the flanks are even, but I can't push, I'm forced to play passive, if I don't want give the enemy free trades.

Again, it's not binary. Pushing is harder than defending in this game as in many others (and reality), which creates passive play. However, there are mechanisms that can generate MORE or LESS passive play, which is the point of the discussion.

 

In your screenshot for example the Kleber is in a carrier countering position, which deprives your team of vision and moves the "frontline" towards you (which can be considered aggressive by the red team). Also evident is a smoke spammer (possibly a DM, which is a far greater threat than any torpedoes btw) and a radar, which will lock the cap down for your team pretty effectively. In fact your team's lack of radar will allow the reds to push in and take the cap, so the fight is going to be pretty difficult for your team. 

 

It would be interesting to see the replay if you still have it, but that situation looks fairly typical for the game.

 

As for the carrier's role as far as pushing goes

- He can easily turn that flank's 3v3 into a 3v4 unless of course your carrier decides to participate

- He can make sure you stay spotted at all times and prevent you from disengaging

- He can torp you and keep you flooded easily if you have to angle towards the Monty or DD torps (he can bomb or rocket you whenever regardless)

- He can bully the Kleber around making sure your team doesn't get good vision (was the Kleber pushed initially out of the cap by CV or the DM?)

 

None of the above is the one and only reason you'll have a hard time pushing in, but all of them contribute to making it harder.

 

[Pikkozoikum]

12 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Again, it's not binary. Pushing is harder than defending in this game as in many others (and reality), which creates passive play. However, there are mechanisms that can generate MORE or LESS passive play, which is the point of the discussion.

If defending is easier is not the point. Even in Defending you have the passive play.... ;)

The point of the discussion was, that not single mechanism cause the passive play, but the game play itself, how the whole game is designed.

 

There is no Tank like in a RPG, who will jump into the enemy, and taunt them all, while being almost invulnerable.

There is no duel-mechanic, that a solo fighter could charge in, and fight the enemy one by one.

It's not a FPS game, where a very skilled player can one shot multiple enemies in a row very quickly.

 

Remove CV. You will still have passive play. Remove all the new HE-Spam ships, we could go back to very early versions of WoWs, and we will have passive plays.

 

A CV can cause passive play. but not because CV is unique in that, but because he can spot. Just like DD can spot an causes passive play.

 

17 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

In your screenshot for example the Kleber is in a carrier countering position, which deprives your team of vision and moves the "frontline" towards you (which can be considered aggressive by the red team). Also evident is a smoke spammer (possibly a DM, which is a far greater threat than any torpedoes btw) and a radar, which will lock the cap down for your team pretty effectively. In fact your team's lack of radar will allow the reds to push in and take the cap, so the fight is going to be pretty difficult for your team. 

The Kleber played no role in my passive play. Even with an aggressive kleber I would still play passive, because torps and gun fire was on me, and moving in would cost me my ship.

 

The DM existed since release. That was my statement, the passive play is nothing, that just came up with Dead Eye, or CV rework, or the HE-Spam meta. Those ships existed since ever.

 

29 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

As for the carrier's role as far as pushing goes

- He can easily turn that flank's 3v3 into a 3v4 unless of course your carrier decides to participate

- He can make sure you stay spotted at all times and prevent you from disengaging

- He can torp you and keep you flooded easily if you have to angle towards the Monty or DD torps (he can bomb or rocket you whenever regardless)

- He can bully the Kleber around making sure your team doesn't get good vision (was the Kleber pushed initially out of the cap by CV or the DM?)

All these points doesn't matter for my decision of "passive" play. I decided to go there because of an enemy DD with torps, DM with HE and Montana with AP. The combination of the attack power made me not to go into a bad position. That's the point, why you have passive play. Focused gun power against the first target, that pushes in too much. People rather want farm damage and not get shot

20210507_191201_PJSB510-Shikishima_53_Shoreside.wowsreplay

 

 

[AndyHill]

35 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If defending is easier is not the point. Even in Defending you have the passive play.... ;)

The point of the discussion was, that not single mechanism cause the passive play, but the game play itself, how the whole game is designed.

I frankly didn't quite understand what you meant by passive play in defending (which is kind of obvious in itself I think).

 

The point is that every mechanism adds or reduces passive play, it's not binary. The inherent design in the game - as well as most others - favors passive play due to simple logic. Then there are game mechanics on top of this basic fact that either reduce or increase passiveness in the base design. Usually they are of course designed to favor aggressive play just because of this.

39 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

There is no Tank like in a RPG, who will jump into the enemy, and taunt them all, while being almost invulnerable.

There is no duel-mechanic, that a solo fighter could charge in, and fight the enemy one by one.

It's not a FPS game, where a very skilled player can one shot multiple enemies in a row very quickly.

These are all examples of mechanisms designed to reduce the passiveness inherent in the design, just like cover, concealment and most importantly capturable objectives in WoWS.

42 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Remove CV. You will still have passive play. Remove all the new HE-Spam ships, we could go back to very early versions of WoWs, and we will have passive plays.

 

A CV can cause passive play. but not because CV is unique in that, but because he can spot. Just like DD can spot an causes passive play.

Yes. But much less. Which is the point. Carriers spot about double the amount DDs do, so if that's your measure for passive play CVs are twice as bad - not including their ability to do damage (again twice the amount of DDs) while completely mitigating cover.

49 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The Kleber played no role in my passive play. Even with an aggressive kleber I would still play passive, because torps and gun fire was on me, and moving in would cost me my ship.

 

The DM existed since release. That was my statement, the passive play is nothing, that just came up with Dead Eye, or CV rework, or the HE-Spam meta. Those ships existed since ever.

The Kleber was actually chased away by the carrier so you had little to no vision and nobody scouting torps. That's what CV counterplay is supposedly supposed to look like, BTW.

 

Passive play did not come with any of those things. But all of those things (well carriers existed from the start rework didn't change it that much) increase passive play and if they are changed, the meta becomes less passive.

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

All these points doesn't matter for my decision of "passive" play. I decided to go there because of an enemy DD with torps, DM with HE and Montana with AP. The combination of the attack power made me not to go into a bad position. That's the point, why you have passive play. Focused gun power against the first target, that pushes in too much. People rather want farm damage and not get shot

A specific question: If the design is so inherently passive, how did the reds manage to push and take the cap?

Also: If you are 5 ships vs 2, what changes in the core design that enables you to go aggressive?

[Lootboxer]

On 5/9/2021 at 6:02 AM, Europizza said:

No other class of ships needs to be limited to 1 per side because of its influence except carriers. 

And this limit is the very reason why SU CVs can have such high WR, if there was 3 each team then he's influence would be somehow countered by 2 others- presumably way worse and there wuold be a chance that enemy would have at least one decent carrier too.

Obviously that would be hell for surface ships.

[DFens_666]

3 hours ago, DariusJacek said:

And this limit is the very reason why SU CVs can have such high WR, if there was 3 each team then he's influence would be somehow countered by 2 others- presumably way worse and there wuold be a chance that enemy would have at least one decent carrier too.

Obviously that would be hell for surface ships.

 

I guess that was their innitial thought when attempting to make a hardcap on 3 CVs... but i assume thinking 1 step further, that surface ships would be reduced and CVs just hammering one ship together, was too complicated.

The only way to balance it (atleast i cant think of any other) would be to have a planecap for all CVs together. So if its 1 CV or 3 CVs per side - always ~same amount of planes available. Basicly the regeneration time x3, and less planes to start with.

[rage1750]

I Imagine this thread is overrun (in the background) by WarGaming Dev's, anxiously taking your ideas on board as afterall; "WarGaming cares and listens to your feedback"™