General CV related discussions.

[One_Eye_Potato]

45 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

In simple wording

Berf Overperforming stuff

Buff underperforming stuff

May you like what is buffed/needed or not

Berf CV's :)

[Samyuel]

16 minutes ago, One_Eye_Potato said:

My arguement is not with any specific carrier it's with the whole CV rework and the negative impact it has had on the game and it's playerbase.   I'm horrified at the idea that you would be so selfish, that you would want an entire game to be altered to suit your needs.  If you had read my initial post, my words are not only representative of myself, but also reflect thousands of other players, the majority of which, didn't want carriers in the first place.  This brings me to another contentious issue, which is that Wargaming doesn't listen to or care about it's own playerbase; which is another reason for the recent publicity disastor involving LIttle White Mouse and the en masse walk out of a great deal many community contributers.

I am not only struggling to decipher your arguements, but I'm also failing to see the logic behind them.  It's becoming increasingly apparent this is because there is none and you're becoming quite boring.  If you could please explain how Carriers are good for the game in anyway, rather than saying everything else should be 'buffed' to match there overbearing presence then I might be more tolerant.

You call me selfish but what makes you think that you or those thousands of players represent the player base ? CVs were here since the beginning. The CV rework might be a disaster but it is here and it is here to stay. You can deal with it or walk away.

 

With how you treat everyone that disagree with you no wonder WG doesnt want to listen to you in just a few post we got attempt of stat shaming, comment about language skills, digging of past comment to try to shame, etc And it's like that everyday on this forum. So I really hope you all really dont represent what is the player base.

 

You talk about en masse walkout but there are more than 200 CCs, a dozen walk out is nothing because they will still play the game for the most part and they will still stream it. And dont tell me they were not already vocal about the bad points of WG.and the game. What WG did is bad but you cant call them out for beeing toxic when you and other peoples are att.he same level.

 

Carriers are good for the game because they give choice and different play style. You might like it or not it's like that and you cant do anything about it. Submarines will bring more changes and a new playstyle, for the better or the worst. But at last submarines are tested properly so we can only hope.

[Captain_Lootbox]

Playing CV is a right good troll. All you need to do is go to the back of the map and target one player until they die.  They can’t see your ship so you’re safe.  If your team loses it doesn’t matter because you’ve target one player at a time and ruined their game.  

[One_Eye_Potato]

9 hours ago, Samyuel said:

you call me selfish but what makes you think that you or those thousands of players represent the player base ? CVs were here since the beginning. The CV rework might be a disaster but it is here and it is here to stay. You can deal with it or walk away.

 

With how you treat everyone that disagree with you no wonder WG doesnt want to listen to you in just a few post we got attempt of stat shaming, comment about language skills, digging of past comment to try to shame, etc And it's like that everyday on this forum. So I really hope you all really dont represent what is the player base.

 

You talk about en masse walkout but there are more than 200 CCs, a dozen walk out is nothing because they will still play the game for the most part and they will still stream it. And dont tell me they were not already vocal about the bad points of WG.and the game. What WG did is bad but you cant call them out for beeing toxic when you and other peoples are att.he same level.

Carriers are good for the game because they give choice and different play style. You might like it or not it's like that and you cant do anything about it. Submarines will bring more changes and a new playstyle, for the better or the worst. But at last submarines are tested properly so we can only hope.

1. Those thousands of CV players can speak for themselves if they choose and I'm sure they would select the appropriate forum in which to air those views.

 

2. Carriers were indeed here in the beginning, but they were far more harmonised and better suited to the game than the ones we have now.  The old RTS game style was slower paced and required a little patience to master.  I would certainly agree there were flaws, but those should have been ironed out instead of scrapping the entire line.

 

3. The mere fact that you seem to agree that the CV Rework is a disaster undermines your own point of view, which I struggle with, because you appear to like the new carriers.

 

4. I haven't looked at your statistics or commented on them.  You've readily admitted English isn't your first language and yes, I've struggled to decipher some of your mnessages, let alone the logic that lies behind them.  I make no apology for this as I've tried my best and am frankly losing my patience with you.

 

5. I represent myself thanks a lot and am only repeating what's been said elsewhere on this forum

 

6. I honestly don't know how many individual community contributers there are.  However, I do know that many of the CC's who walked out were of very high profile such as the Might Jingles, iChase  and Flambass all of whom have earned the respect of the playerbase over the years.

 

7. It's stand in joke to that Wargaming have never listened to their playerbase, they've aggresively monetised the game and are now pushing loot boxes onto a game that's rated for 7 year olds and you choose to side with them?

 

8. As for you're points they seem just like hollow opinions that could be said about any ships in the game.  For instance, I could play a cruiser, destroyer or a battleship and all of which would offer a different style of play over the other; indeed, these three ships work together in harmony with one another and are mutually supportive of one another.  Where as the Carrier Rework just breaks that supportive relationship and makes a mockery of the concealment and terrain mechanics which have been fundamental to game from the very beginning.

 

I could go on but you really are sounding trollish and would probably swear the sky is green and the ground is blue.

[BLUB__BLUB]

13 hours ago, Samyuel said:

If carriers in general were broken as you say more of those unicum Here would play british CVs and german CVs. Yet most barely touch them because they have access to way better ships.

Well look at it this way:

- all the race cars are the same, except som that have wings;

- now some of those have wings AND ALSO a fat engine. 

Guess which one they are gonna play... even the unicums wanna be unicum among unicums. 

 

BTW some of them are also unicum in the rest of the ships, so.... 

 

[Samyuel]

4 hours ago, One_Eye_Potato said:

1. Those thousands of CV players can speak for themselves if they choose and I'm sure they would select the appropriate forum in which to air those views.

 

2. Carriers were indeed here in the beginning, but they were far more harmonised and better suited to the game than the ones we have now.  The old RTS game style was slower paced and required a little patience to master.  I would certainly agree there were flaws, but those should have been ironed out instead of scrapping the entire line.

 

3. The mere fact that you seem to agree that the CV Rework is a disaster undermines your own point of view, which I struggle with, because you appear to like the new carriers.

 

4. I haven't looked at your statistics or commented on them.  You've readily admitted English isn't your first language and yes, I've struggled to decipher some of your mnessages, let alone the logic that lies behind them.  I make no apology for this as I've tried my best and am frankly losing my patience with you.

 

5. I represent myself thanks a lot and am only repeating what's been said elsewhere on this forum

 

6. I honestly don't know how many individual community contributers there are.  However, I do know that many of the CC's who walked out were of very high profile such as the Might Jingles, iChase  and Flambass all of whom have earned the respect of the playerbase over the years.

 

7. It's stand in joke to that Wargaming have never listened to their playerbase, they've aggresively monetised the game and are now pushing loot boxes onto a game that's rated for 7 year olds and you choose to side with them?

 

8. As for you're points they seem just like hollow opinions that could be said about any ships in the game.  For instance, I could play a cruiser, destroyer or a battleship and all of which would offer a different style of play over the other; indeed, these three ships work together in harmony with one another and are mutually supportive of one another.  Where as the Carrier Rework just breaks that supportive relationship and makes a mockery of the concealment and terrain mechanics which have been fundamental to game from the very beginning.

 

I could go on but you really are sounding trollish and would probably swear the sky is green and the ground is blue.

1. Sure, like in this forum for instance if you dare be positive about a change to CV you immediately get belittled, insulted, etc but hey its the CVs that are toxic right :) ANd anyway, this thread is "General CV related discussions", not "We hate CV reee discussions". So "my" views are perfectly fine here. Or you want your CV players ot make an echo chambers for themselves while you stay in your echo chambers with other CV critics ? Sorry but that fortunately not how it work.
2. Yeah sure the old CV that could 1 shot anything were so much better than now right. Same for the CV rework, there are flaws but the class became more accessible to peoples and it is a good thing for a game to have all classes equally available to everyone.

3. I already stated my point of view more than once and with simple words and the fact that I agree that the CV rework wasn't great don't undermine anything.

4. The other one had fun distorting stats you, you just struggle with my english for some reason. If you lose patience just because someone refuse to agree with you and dare have a different opinion that is your problem. But Iam sorry that you feel that way.

5. And I speak as a Graf Zeppelin player who is happy to finally get a buff to a ship that needed one. If you don't like it its not my problem. If it makes you angry that a pixel boat get buffed, you should seek help.
6. Big CCs are gone but that won't change anything for them because they still play the game. They will just be even more critic about anything WG does.
7. Dont know about recent 7yo but I dont think many of them get access to credit card anyway. And this is a free to play game. lootbox and extreme monetization is the norm in that kind of game, if you hate it its the whole system of free to play game that you should fight. And there are far worst FTP games out there. There are also better way to do things and I would hope WG change. But I I odnt like something, I usually don't try to spend money on it. May be its hard to do for some peoples.

8. Again CVs were here since the beginning you just got used to not having a CV too often. Soon submarines will arrive and more changes will come for the base playstyle of all ships. And strangely you complain about CVs breaking things but there are so much stuff breaking other stuff now. More and more guns that can overmatch cruiser and makes angling useless, HE and torp spam, etc.

If you think I troll its your opinion. Meanwhile the only think I did was be happy for a buff and you all jumped on me to rage.

[One_Eye_Potato]

4 hours ago, Samyuel said:

1. Sure, like in this forum for instance if you dare be positive about a change to CV you immediately get belittled, insulted, etc but hey its the CVs that are toxic right :) ANd anyway, this thread is "General CV related discussions", not "We hate CV reee discussions". So "my" views are perfectly fine here. Or you want your CV players ot make an echo chambers for themselves while you stay in your echo chambers with other CV critics ? Sorry but that fortunately not how it work.
2. Yeah sure the old CV that could 1 shot anything were so much better than now right. Same for the CV rework, there are flaws but the class became more accessible to peoples and it is a good thing for a game to have all classes equally available to everyone.

3. I already stated my point of view more than once and with simple words and the fact that I agree that the CV rework wasn't great don't undermine anything.

4. The other one had fun distorting stats you, you just struggle with my english for some reason. If you lose patience just because someone refuse to agree with you and dare have a different opinion that is your problem. But Iam sorry that you feel that way.

5. And I speak as a Graf Zeppelin player who is happy to finally get a buff to a ship that needed one. If you don't like it its not my problem. If it makes you angry that a pixel boat get buffed, you should seek help.
6. Big CCs are gone but that won't change anything for them because they still play the game. They will just be even more critic about anything WG does.
7. Dont know about recent 7yo but I dont think many of them get access to credit card anyway. And this is a free to play game. lootbox and extreme monetization is the norm in that kind of game, if you hate it its the whole system of free to play game that you should fight. And there are far worst FTP games out there. There are also better way to do things and I would hope WG change. But I I odnt like something, I usually don't try to spend money on it. May be its hard to do for some peoples.

8. Again CVs were here since the beginning you just got used to not having a CV too often. Soon submarines will arrive and more changes will come for the base playstyle of all ships. And strangely you complain about CVs breaking things but there are so much stuff breaking other stuff now. More and more guns that can overmatch cruiser and makes angling useless, HE and torp spam, etc.

If you think I troll its your opinion. Meanwhile the only think I did was be happy for a buff and you all jumped on me to rage.

Whatever, I'm having a beer. See you.

[El2aZeR]

11 hours ago, Samyuel said:

2. Yeah sure the old CV that could 1 shot anything were so much better than now right. Same for the CV rework, there are flaws but the class became more accessible to peoples and it is a good thing for a game to have all classes equally available to everyone.

 

Reworked CVs have equal or higher damage potential than RTS ones while at the same time having less (aka no) counterplay.

Reworked CVs are currently less popular than RTS ones by a huge margin on EU, NA and RU while maintaining higher popularity on SEA due to, as explained by SEA players themselves, their tendency to exploit broken mechanics. This is due to the recent rocket change, proving once again that the average reworked CV player has no interest in playing something that isn't ez mode.

[Pikkozoikum]

5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Reworked CVs have equal or higher damage potential than RTS ones while at the same time having less (aka no) counterplay.

That would mean, that the RTS is utterly broken.

-Less potential damage which

-Additionally gets lowered by counterplay

-and yet the RTS has way more average damage?

 

Midway 2018 Q4 vs 2021 Q1

136763 - 79035

 

Hakuryu 2018 Q4 vs 2021 Q1

121065 - 84409

Even Taiho had more (around 100k)

 

Q3 the damage is actually less, but still higher than Rework Q1

 

If the potential damage is lower and also gets countered, then it should be the other way around.

 

 

2 month 2021/08/21

Midway  - 75865

Haku - 92985

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

and yet the RTS has way more average damage?

 

The primary reason for this is skill dilution.

For example on the wows-numbers RTS Midway leaderboard 1168 out of 2089 players had over 100k average damage. This is ~56% of the players listed.

Reworked Midway meanwhile has 1586 out of 6951 players over 100k average damage, representing only 23%.

It is the same reason why Midway, one of the best T10 CVs, has terrible average stats.

 

Another big reason is that ironically reworked CVs have a higher skill floor than RTS due to a complete lack of automation. This is why reworked CVs hit lows that have never been observed in years of RTS play.

 

Thus it is not only unsurprising but expected that reworked CVs have lower averages than RTS ones. The ships themselves are just as capable as before, the average player playing them however has gotten much worse.

 

Then again this has been explained to you several times before, so I can only assume you're intentionally feigning ignorance to further your blatantly dishonest narrative.

[MannequinSkywalker]

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Thus it is not only unsurprising but expected that reworked CVs have lower averages than RTS ones. The ships themselves are just as capable as before, the average player playing them however has gotten much worse.

@Pikkozoikum^^ This. Every single player who didn't touch RTS CVs due to various reasons (High skill requirements, meaning, high map awareness, high APM, boring visuals as most of the time looking over the map, and coordinating the multitasking not only according to the surface ships but also according to the enemy CV where 1vs1 strife was the thing, calculating how to bypass no-fly zones created by ships with very strong AA), started playing CVs post rework. Players who were poor in playing surface ships in the first place during RTS barely touched CVs. Now, players who can't sail a ship properly try to play CVs because it is much easier to play in comparison to RTS CVs. They are not playing post-rework CVs good but they don't care as playing CVs became more user friendly with single player visuals like surface ships.

[Pikkozoikum]

2 hours ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

@Pikkozoikum^^ This. Every single player who didn't touch RTS CVs due to various reasons (High skill requirements, meaning, high map awareness, high APM, boring visuals as most of the time looking over the map, and coordinating the multitasking not only according to the surface ships but also according to the enemy CV where 1vs1 strife was the thing, calculating how to bypass no-fly zones created by ships with very strong AA), started playing CVs post rework. Players who were poor in playing surface ships in the first place during RTS barely touched CVs. Now, players who can't sail a ship properly try to play CVs because it is much easier to play in comparison to RTS CVs. They are not playing post-rework CVs good but they don't care as playing CVs became more user friendly with single player visuals like surface ships.

I posted examples of the lasts month, years after rework. It's rather logical, that the skill of players increase over time, rather than decrease. Also people with no experience, that are extremly bad, tryed out the RTS CV. That's only an assumption, that the CV RTS playerbase was more skilled than the Rework. Also people claim all the time, that the Rework become easier, that would mean, that even bad player perform better.

So if a bad player can now perform better than with RTS. Gets now also more potential damage, but also no counterplay and that has the result of doing less? Not very logically.

 

2015-Q3 - Game was very new

Midway - 127109

Hakuryu - 102376

 

People at that time should be very new to the RTS CV

 

2017-Q3

Midway - 109682

Hakuryu - 119976

 

2017-Q4

Midway - 127884

Hakuryu - 124731

 

2 years later, still higher. Just to make it clear: If the RTS has "less potential dmg" AND "counterplay" than it should be way more less, not way more.

 

For example, if you have 100,000 with Rework, than I would expect like 90,000 with RTS minus Counterplay -> 80,000 or even worse. But we see the opposite. Even not mentioning the impact of one-hitting BBs

, while Rework struggles to sink a BB on it's own.

 

Numbers of the last 2 month for comparison

8 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

2 month 2021/08/21

Midway  - 75865

Haku - 92985

Going with one of the most extreme examples, the Midway had 68% more damage in average (compared with 2017 Q4)

 

It sounds to me, that the "skill difference" is the default argument, if the numbers don't fit or there is no other explanation working. Especially there can't be shown any evidence against or for it. I could also claim, that the skill level is higher of average players (over time) and I actually think that is the case. Over time even the worst player will increase in his skill. He might be still bad, but less bad.

 

You could say, that directly after the rework was a "skill reset", but all the players, good and new, still had experience with the total game. It's not similar to a complete new player or when the game got released. After 2 years, I don't think there is much of the learning curve left. Same for RTS, after years, I don't think, there is very much to learn for a CV main.

 

 

 

[MannequinSkywalker]

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I posted examples of the lasts month, years after rework.

And e2a2er posted;

 

8 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

The primary reason for this is skill dilution.

For example on the wows-numbers RTS Midway leaderboard 1168 out of 2089 players had over 100k average damage. This is ~56% of the players listed.

Reworked Midway meanwhile has 1586 out of 6951 players over 100k average damage, representing only 23%.

It is the same reason why Midway, one of the best T10 CVs, has terrible average stats. 

 

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That's only an assumption, that the CV RTS playerbase was more skilled than the Rework. Also people claim all the time, that the Rework become easier, that would mean, that even bad player perform better.

So if a bad player can now perform better than with RTS. Gets now also more potential damage, but also no counterplay and that has the result of doing less? Not very logically. 

You're making tons of assumptions (which is okay) but then trying to connect them with "if" clauses which distracts the main idea. 

 

Just check e2a2er's post. He explained it shortly but well.

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

9 minutes ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

And e2a2er posted;

 

 

You're making tons of assumptions (which is okay) but then trying to connect them with "if" clauses which distracts the main idea. 

 

Just check e2a2er's post. He explained it shortly but well.

 

 

That are also only assumptions.

My assumptions are supported by logic. Something that is

1. Easy to play and learn
2. Has higher potential damage
3. Has no counterplay

Can't be extremly worse.

 

The thing is, you will always find a "difference" in the statistics. According to this, it would be impossible to make any argument and would only discuss with claims and assumptions.

 

 

56 minutes ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

You're making tons of assumptions (which is okay) but then trying to connect them with "if" clauses which distracts the main idea. 

Actually that is the assumption of the others. Not mine. I just try to get logical explanation behind it.

 

Quoting myself

57 minutes ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

So if a bad player can now perform better than with RTS. Gets now also more potential damage, but also no counterplay and that has the result of doing less? Not very logically. 

A common argument here is, that new CV is easy to play, so "if a bad player can now perform better"

Another statement was, that the new CV has more potential damage, so "also more potential damage"

"No counterplay" was also not mine statement.

So I was questioning,  "the result of doing less? "

 

My statement about this: It's not logical, even if there is a difference in playerbase. Which we always will have. But I would rather say, the influence of the player base would lead into 60% different damage.

 

Even if it's with different ships, but if you compare the effect of different player bases, you mostly see a huge difference in winrate, but less in damage. The damage might by 10%, maybe 20% higher, which depends also on the ship itself

 

If you compare Midway, Haku with smaller player base Carriers like Immelmann and Audacious, the damage numbers are quite similar. Even FDR is maybe only 20% more, though I think that is more because of the damage, less because of the skill, which is actually the whole point.

[One_Eye_Potato]

On 8/27/2021 at 11:40 AM, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well look at it this way:

- all the race cars are the same, except som that have wings;

- now some of those have wings AND ALSO a fat engine. 

Guess which one they are gonna play... even the unicums wanna be unicum among unicums. 

 

BTW some of them are also unicum in the rest of the ships, so.... 

Dont' mention racing cars with wings as he'll think you can fly over corners without worrying about racing lines and as for those other competing cars, well they'll just have to sprout wings too.

[DEEP_SHARKS]

my  premium carier Saipan is not Navigable !

moddders shoot my carrier out of the  game is 3 seconds.

Random Battle is unplayable.

all you are interested in is players buying a lot of items and then shoot out of the game with mods.

you deny everything and yet most players stay away from this game.

I know how this whole game is put together.

in response you get this..... delete your account and go play somewhere else.

earned good money, first let players buy online and then shoot the players out of the game with mods. if that's not enough you steal the score from the players.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

4 minutes ago, DEEP_SHARKS said:

 

 

Why would you get that close in a CV... Something is telling me that you should not be playing Tier VIII CVs.

[El2aZeR]

12 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That's only an assumption, that the CV RTS playerbase was more skilled than the Rework.

20 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

For example on the wows-numbers RTS Midway leaderboard 1168 out of 2089 players had over 100k average damage. This is ~56% of the players listed.

Reworked Midway meanwhile has 1586 out of 6951 players over 100k average damage, representing only 23%.

 

Stats are now assumptions.

Okay then.

 

11 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I just try to get logical explanation behind it.

 

 

Clearly stats are not logical.

[Aethervoxx]

23 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Reworked CVs have equal or higher damage potential than RTS ones while at the same time having less (aka no) counterplay.

Reworked CVs are currently less popular than RTS ones by a huge margin on EU, NA and RU while maintaining higher popularity on SEA due to, as explained by SEA players themselves, their tendency to exploit broken mechanics. This is due to the recent rocket change, proving once again that the average reworked CV player has no interest in playing something that isn't ez mode.

I 100% agree with you El2aZeR. I still rue the day that WG, in it's entirely debatable wisdom, removed RTS style CVs from play.

I sold all my CVs (including the GZ).  I quit playing CVs for over a year. Then I repurchased reworked T4 CVs simply to grief T4, etc players. Yes, that was a negative revenge sentiment.

Today, I am proud to say I'm reworked CV free as I got rid of all those 'parasites'. 

Ofc, I'm still upset with WG for removing RTS CVs*. Look at all the complete failure 'so-called improvements' WoWS has made since they wreaked their own game.

* note how the 'imcompetents' have still not re-introduced any odd tier CVs .... how long has the CV rework been live now?  

[Samyuel]

4 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

What stat is important for you when you compare old CVs and new CVs ?

[Bear__Necessities]

On 8/27/2021 at 12:38 AM, Samyuel said:

 Carriers are good for the game

[Aethervoxx]

RTS CVs are & were good for WoWS. The reworked CVs wreaked WoWS. War Failing still hasn't returned any of the odd tier CVs. This fact, alone, tells you something - WF does half-assed alterations. 

[One_Eye_Potato]

Just a small intervention.  Everyone seems to assume damage is a reflection of skill, I don't think it necessarily is.  When I play a game my first and foremost objective is to win, I don't even think about damage.  Most games are based around domination mode, where the biggest threat to winning or losing are enemy destroyers and the protection of your own.  I always try and focus on knocking out DD's regardless of what ship I'm in, even if I'm in a BB I'll shoot at DD's and I'm very good at it   Because destroyers have very little HP this strategy doesn't always result in the most damage but it will go a long way to winning a game.  Damage is neither here or there if you lose.  I'm sure many of you have attained 200k with a kraken and still lost just because a team hasn't played objectively.  Personally speaking, I wonder sometimes how many players actually understand the scoring system and the importance of caps.  However, I do know that the first thing players throw in face is your win rate and not the most damage you've managed to accumulate. 

[El2aZeR]

6 hours ago, Samyuel said:

What stat is important for you when you compare old CVs and new CVs ?

 

Depends on what is relevant.

If it is popularity, again reworked CVs are vastly less popular than RTS ones currently on the majority of servers.

If it is potential power, the only relevant stat is the WR ceiling. Currently both CV iterations are capable of the same potential performance.

If it is the skill gap, statistical peaks and lows in average damage etc. become interesting. Ironically PR is a pretty good metric for it for that reason. Roughly the same performance in RTS and reworked CVs will net you much more PR in reworked CVs, meaning the skill gap is higher.

If it is counterplay, one only needs to know that a single ship could completely deny strikes before they could even get close in RTS while in the rework one strike is guaranteed even against groups.

 

And so forth and so on. The CV rework is a complete and utter failure on every level, if RTS CVs needed to be removed and/or reworked for X reason then that same reason applies to reworked CVs as well.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

If it is potential power, the only relevant stat is the WR ceiling. Currently both CV iterations are capable of the same potential performance.

It is actually worse. Over time, teams have gone from pretty crap to even more crap. Introduction of more poisonous crappy ships adds up, too. 

And it is always CV vs CV - this means that if the WR ceiling is the same, then Reeeework-CVs are capable of pulling crappy teams even better.