General CV related discussions.

[One_Eye_Potato]

7 hours ago, gopher31 said:

Being pinned might have something to do with it.

I wasn't talking about it being pinned, but describing the  number of people 'discussing' the subject.  Any fool can pick an argument, as to whether that argument holds water is another matter.

 

[El2aZeR]

6 hours ago, Samyuel said:

Didn't they change the rocket aiming circles because bad players couldn't remember everything ?
Didn't they change radar range on a lot of ships because bad players couldn't remember the range of everything ?
Didn't they change lots of ships armour values because bad players couldn't remember everything ?

 

Wrong, they changed it to nerf rockets as vertical dispersion was universally good against horizontal targets as well and make angling easier for players who actually bothered to angle. Bad players still do not bother to angle.

Wrong, they changed it to prevent stealth radar, aka to the benefit of good players who actually react to a radar ship being spotted in their vicinity. Bad players will still happily wander into radar range regardless.

Wrong. When have armor values ever significantly changed because of anything?

 

6 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Says the guy who defends the suggestion by saying “players are too bad to understand bad mechanics therefore it is ok to implement more bad mechanics”

 

I'm not defending the suggestion, I'm dismissing your argument on the basis that in reality such a scenario is at best unlikely and therefore it has no validity. There is no need to defend when there is no argument to the contrary to begin with.

 

If you want to know why minimap spotting is a good idea, it is because it would reign in the currently overpowered nature of CVs a bit, something that is sorely needed.

[Bear__Necessities]

Nearly at 400 pages. 

 

Again...

[One_Eye_Potato]

Did you know Wargaming print off the CV forum thread onto Weegee Premium Toilet Roll and give it to their employees, a small bonus for all their hard work and saves them the bother of bringing their own.  Sub Octavian swears by it and wont wipe on anything else, he even practices his apologies on it. 

[mtm78]

34 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Wrong, they changed it to prevent stealth radar, aka to the benefit of good players who actually react to a radar ship being spotted in their vicinity. Bad players will still happily wander into radar range regardless.

 

Now I have not been playing a lot, but uhm..

Petropavlovsk - Global wiki. Wargaming.net 400m is a short range even for good players to make a 180 in some ships

 

And they did say they wanted to unify the values because it would make the game easier to play. 

 

32 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Wrong. When have armor values ever significantly changed because of anything?

 

Didn't we have a rebalance of CL/CA armor values, especially nose/stern. Or maybe 'unification' would be better word not sure anymore it was around 0.6.x I think? 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

3 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

Since WG appears to ignore most or just pick hapazardly, they might miss the gold.

Haphazardly? They must have a talent to pick the worst crap of them all.

Sometimes I wonder if they went to school to train that... 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, mtm78 said:

Now I have not been playing a lot, but uhm..

Petropavlovsk - Global wiki. Wargaming.net 400m is a short range even for good players to make a 180 in some ships

 

I mean, WG is rather known for going back on their word, no?

 

1 hour ago, mtm78 said:

Didn't we have a rebalance of CL/CA armor values, especially nose/stern. Or maybe 'unification' would be better word not sure anymore it was around 0.6.x I think?

 

I'm almost completely certain that this change made no actual difference.

Regardless the last recent armor value change was during the IFHE rework which was more to the detriment of terrible players rather than an improvement.

[CptBarney]

2 hours ago, Bear__Necessities said:

Nearly at 400 pages. 

 

Again...

just another 150 to go! then we beat the previous record lol.

[One_Eye_Potato]

On 8/29/2021 at 1:42 AM, Samyuel said:

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

It's not a statistic, it's common sense.  Carriers are broken in terms of the rest of the game because they bypass terrain and concealment mechanics to such a degree they make the rest of the classes obselete.   Without carriers in the game, the remaining three classes harmonise and support one another in a natural and balanced way when played appropriately.

 

• Destroyers spot the enemy using their inherent concealment.
• Cruisers engage enemy Destroyers and Harass enemy by using terrain for cover.
• Battleships use Long range artillery and their HP in support of the former, until the path is clear to move in closer.

 

Carriers, on the other hand,  make a mockery of this supporting chain.  These floating airfields operate with utter contempt in regards to concealment or terrain and sit with impunity throughout a match without any real threat from any other class in the game.   It's ridiculous to even contemplate defending Carriers within the current meta as they're so far removed they may as well have a game of their own.  World of Carriers anyone? 

 

At least old RTS system Carriers had finite aircraft that flew more slowly, could be shot down on their way home, AA felt far more effective than it currently does and attracted players that had a general interest in Warships and tactics.

 

Whether it's histroicaly accurate that Aircaraft Carriers are a dominant force is neither here nor there, as it's certainly no fun to play against for the majority of players when they're in anything but a carrier of their own.

[Pikkozoikum]

14 hours ago, One_Eye_Potato said:

defending Carriers within the current meta

It's not about "defending", it's about not jumping on the hate-train and the exaggerations. (at least in my case, maybe for some it's like you say, can't speak for everyone)

 

If you have a scale of 1 to 10. 1 would mean, that someone absolutely hates carrier and 10 would be someone, who absolutely loves them, 5 is neutral, it's fine. Then it often feels like some people are around 1-2. And some are around 4-6. But the 1-2 people claim, these 4-6 people are 10.

I personally would see myself as 6. I prefer new CV over old CV. What doesn't mean, the new CV is perfectly designed. I know, how to deal with it and try to share my experience, that this is not black or white. And that makes me to a 10 for many. For some people, it can be only black or white.

I heared it a few times, were people believed, that I would have said something like "CV is perfectly balanced", though those people don't know about my feedback and suggestions, how to improve the current design.
 

[Andrewbassg]

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's not about "defending",....

Yes it is. Because WG can point to these posts, and play the pretending game, which they actually did for 2 years(!!) 

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

...., it's about not jumping on the hate-train and the exaggerations.....
 

Cv's are a dishonest class, because they are dishonestly implemented. Period. This is as factual, as the Earth is wandering around the Sun.

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If you have a scale of 1 to 10. 1 would mean, that someone absolutely hates carrier and 10 would be someone, who absolutely loves them, 5 is neutral, it's fine. Then it often feels like some people are around 1-2. And some are around 4-6. But the 1-2 people claim, these 4-6 people are 10.

I personally would see myself as 6. I prefer new CV over old CV. What doesn't mean, the new CV is perfectly designed. I know, how to deal with it and try to share my experience, that this is not black or white. And that makes me to a 10 for many. For some people, it can be only black or white.

I heared it a few times, were people believed, that I would have said something like "CV is perfectly balanced", though those people don't know about my feedback and suggestions, how to improve the current design.
 

Because, like I said above, it gives Wg all the excuses they need to not take a good look at the class with impartial eyes, and dismiss any and all critical points as" muh the player base" and "muh Cv haters"  even if they are well founded and based on facts.

 

Make no mistake, I do "hate" Cv's but I don't hate planes. Still, I don't want them removed. I want them properly implemented.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said:

21 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's not about "defending",....

Yes it is. Because WG can point to these posts, and play the pretending game, which they actually did for 2 years(!!) 

As I said:

22 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

(at least in my case, maybe for some it's like you say, can't speak for everyone)

 

2 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

23 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

...., it's about not jumping on the hate-train and the exaggerations.....
 

Cv's are a dishonest class, because they are dishonestly implemented. Period. This is as factual, as the Earth is wandering around the Sun.

I don't understand the context here.

 

4 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Because, like I said above, it gives Wg all the excuses they need to not take a good look at the class with impartial eyes, and dismiss any and all critical points as" muh the player base" and "muh Cv haters"  even if they are well founded and based on facts.

Can't remember, that WG ever said, something like that abotu "CV haters"

I was more refering to the playerbase, who often go with this black and white view.

[Andrewbassg]

28 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

As I said:

It doesn't matter how moderate you are, because every pro post gives excuses to WG. to not change anything. And how about those who for various reasons actually want the class to be superior to every other class??

28 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I don't understand the context here.

Well the Earth is revolving around the Sun, right? So, its a fact. In the same vein

Cv 's cant burn or flood easily.

Cv's can't detonate.

Cv's can launch planes when under direct fire or on fire. All three of them.

Cv's  don't take module damage to their plane regeneration capacity. Let alone the destruction of that capacity.

 

All of that in a PvP game, in which every other class is subject to all of that. Its just absurd and obscene.

 

And the question of AA which can't  even be attempted to properly balance ( i.e not favoring neither side) because of the MM. Cv 's should see only =/+1 tier ships. If you think that WG is not aware of all of that... well try again.

All of that not taking into account the inherent differences resulting from the different playstyle. I e doing damage by planes, with all the tactical advantages which that confers. 

28 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Can't remember, that WG ever said, something like that abotu "CV haters"

I was more refering to the playerbase, who often go with this black and white view.

:Oh my....of course they won't. But you did, right? I'm just sayin...

[DeviousDave02]

18 hours ago, CptBarney said:

just another 150 to go! then we beat the previous record lol.

Wonder if we'll get another containment board constructed once this one hit's max capacity and is vitrified by WarGamings clean up crews to prevent the radioactive toxic pollutants generated from CV "disagreements" from spilling out into the main forum at large.

 

I vote the new CV thread be called:

 

General-CV-Containment-Area-03 

Spoiler

 

[One_Eye_Potato]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's not about "defending", it's about not jumping on the hate-train and the exaggerations. (at least in my case, maybe for some it's like you say, can't speak for everyone)

 

If you have a scale of 1 to 10. 1 would mean, that someone absolutely hates carrier and 10 would be someone, who absolutely loves them, 5 is neutral, it's fine. Then it often feels like some people are around 1-2. And some are around 4-6. But the 1-2 people claim, these 4-6 people are 10. 

I personally would see myself as 6. I prefer new CV over old CV. What doesn't mean, the new CV is perfectly designed. I know, how to deal with it and try to share my experience, that this is not black or white. And that makes me to a 10 for many. For some people, it can be only black or white. 

I heared it a few times, were people believed, that I would have said something like "CV is perfectly balanced", though those people don't know about my feedback and suggestions, how to improve the current design.
 

1.  I haven't exaggerated in any way and neither have I been rude or disrespectful to anyone. 

 

2.  I have merely pointed where as destroyers, cruisers and Battleships are mutually supportive of one another and fit within the framework of the game, carriers do not.  Carriers can spot and defeat all three classes with impunity to themselves and totally ignore terrain and concealment mechanics which are essential in the proper use of other lines. 

 

3.  I'm not going to give you a number to equate how I feel about carriers, as I think I've been quite clear that I don't think the new carrier rework belongs in the game and I make no apology for that.  I'm certainly not going to tone down MY opinion just because it makes you or other people uncomfortable.  By the same token, just because other people share the same sentiments as myself does not mean that I'm jumping on any 'band wagon'; this is my own opinion and I'm entitled to it, thank you very much!

 

4. The fact that the recent and long awaited apology posted by Crysantos, on behalf of Wargaming Management, specifically mentions Carrier Spotting mechanics as an example of something that needs addressing should also tell you something.

 

5. Did I mention the size of this thread and how long it's been here.

 

[Pukovnik7]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's not about "defending", it's about not jumping on the hate-train and the exaggerations. (at least in my case, maybe for some it's like you say, can't speak for everyone)

 

If you have a scale of 1 to 10. 1 would mean, that someone absolutely hates carrier and 10 would be someone, who absolutely loves them, 5 is neutral, it's fine. Then it often feels like some people are around 1-2. And some are around 4-6. But the 1-2 people claim, these 4-6 people are 10.

I personally would see myself as 6. I prefer new CV over old CV. What doesn't mean, the new CV is perfectly designed. I know, how to deal with it and try to share my experience, that this is not black or white. And that makes me to a 10 for many. For some people, it can be only black or white.

I heared it a few times, were people believed, that I would have said something like "CV is perfectly balanced", though those people don't know about my feedback and suggestions, how to improve the current design.
 

There is no hate train and exaggerations. Fact is that this is a naval warfare game, and CVs do not fit in it. Whereas other ships fight it out on the surface, and are thus subject to same limitations wrt spotting, concealment, terrain (cover, maneuvering) and so on, CVs simply piss all over these limitations. They have aircraft - which are fast, good at spotting, ignore all terrain, and do not really have any proper counter. Worse, presence of a CV forces surface ships to group for AA, which makes an absolute joke of tactics and general gameplay - all you have is two mindless blobs exchanging fire at long range, afraid to push because if they do, they will get focused by a CV, spotted by a CV and focused by the enemy team, or both.

 

CVs negate all of the basic mechanics of the game. They negate cover, because they can simply fly over or around it, and ship needs to be at speed to evade CV attacks, thus making it difficult or impossible to actually use what cover is present. They negate concealment, because aircraft are simply so fast and not limited by terrain, and thus impossible to predict or hide from. They negate angling, because they can attack from any angle. They don't fit within the game's basic framework.

[Pikkozoikum]

2 hours ago, One_Eye_Potato said:

I haven't exaggerated in any way and neither have I been rude or disrespectful to anyone. 

You need to udnerstand, that I was refering to the word "defending", and how this forum often treats it. Not that you are disrespectful or anything. But sometimes, it looks like, that people are "defending", when they are actually just not agree with exaggerations.

 

2 hours ago, One_Eye_Potato said:

I'm not going to give you a number to equate how I feel about carriers,

It was to point out something

[Pikkozoikum]

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

It doesn't matter how moderate you are, because every pro post gives excuses to WG. to not change anything. 

I'm sure, that count pro-posts to justify changes or not.

 

I doubt that. They do, what they want and don't need to justify anything. It's their game.

 

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

4 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I don't understand the context here.

Well the Earth is revolving around the Sun, right? So, its a fact. In the same vein

I don't understand the context between what I said and what you are telling me.

 

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

All of that in a PvP game, in which every other class is subject to all of that. Its just absurd and obscene.

Though it's a PvP game with different classes. So I would rather compare it with games like Mobas, RPGs or games like Battlefield. In Battlefield you can fly a helicopter or run around as soldier. I mean, you mentioned fires, it's new to me, that DDs suffer heavily from fires. Short DCP with short fire durations, comparing that with a fire on a BB...

 

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

:Oh my....of course they won't. But you did, right? I'm just sayin...

But you mentioned WG would dismiss everything with that reason...

[BLUB__BLUB]

21 hours ago, CptBarney said:

just another 150 to go! then we beat the previous record lol.

Maybe they'll finally gib Yorkie! 

[CptBarney]

47 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Maybe they'll finally gib Yorkie! 

knowing my luck inside a bloody lootbox or 3

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I'm sure, that count pro-posts to justify changes or not.

 

I doubt that. They do, what they want and don't need to justify anything. It's their game.

 But they cannot pretend that they listen to feedback. When Sub oct responded to one of my questions, he said that  a "LOT of people asked for subs". In  the same vein they can pretend ( because pro Cv posts exist) that a LOT of people are ok with the current situation. Which is obviously false.

 

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I don't understand the context between what I said and what you are telling me.

Those are all facts. Meaning that those are not feelings. Objective, unquestionable truths.

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Though it's a PvP game with different classes. So I would rather compare it with games like Mobas, RPGs or games like Battlefield. In Battlefield you can fly a helicopter or run around as soldier. I mean, you mentioned fires, it's new to me, that DDs suffer heavily from fires. Short DCP with short fire durations, comparing that with a fire on a BB...

Look. I'm not interested in mental exercises or forum thingy's. Again every class is subject to certain conditions. Just Cv's are "exempt and excused" from them.

  As for your example, you want me to look up a T8 dd with the smallest HP and compare it to MVR? As per the consequences of  fires on them? Really? 

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

But you mentioned WG would dismiss everything with that reason...

Of course, if it fits their interest :). Which is not the necessarily the health of the game or balance. 

 

 

[One_Eye_Potato]

5 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

You need to udnerstand, that I was refering to the word "defending", and how this forum often treats it. Not that you are disrespectful or anything. But sometimes, it looks like, that people are "defending", when they are actually just not agree with exaggerations. 

I can use the word 'defending' if I wish and you have a perfect right to take exception to whatever I say.  However, I'd rather you didn't quote me if I'm not the one who has caused offence in the first place.

[El2aZeR]

So, RU T4-8 CVs are out of NDA.

From what I've seen they're trash. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Aethervoxx]

10 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If you have a scale of 1 to 10

I give RTS CVs a 10. I give a 0 for the reworked CVs. Just so you all know where I stand (if you didn't already).

On 9/3/2021 at 1:35 PM, One_Eye_Potato said:

the remaining three classes harmonise and support one another

Sure, Potato, this works for armoured & motorized  warships from about 1880 - 1920?. Thing is, WoWS didn't bother too much with this period of history - not the earlier part anyway.

 This is the era of no CVs. You want a naval  game with no CVs then design it for this period of history.

For the period of this game, 1900 to 1945+, CVs were around from  circa 1920 onwards. 

Hence, anyone who says CVs have no place in this game are simply being totally unrealistic. CVs became the 'Queen of the Naval Battle' (supplanting the King BB).

 The discussion of 'historical simulation' to an 'arcade simulation' is another matter entirely. WG tries to do both here & fails on both accounts (obviously).

[DeviousDave02]

54 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

So, RU T4-8 CVs are out of NDA.

From what I've seen they're trash. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Suspected as much. They seemed to give up a lot on turn around time, loitering and spotting time and the general versatility of being able to make multiple passes for the Alpha strike gimmic that relied heavily on you getting that entire salvo to hit.

 

Question is though are they trash by general ship line standards (aka. The American BB split line of phat Dreadnoughts) or just trash by IJN/USN CV line standards? (So are they just awful full stop or just not "OP Pwease Nurf" aka the other CV lines?)