General CV related discussions.

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, DeviousDave02 said:

trash by IJN/USN CV line standards?

This. Should have made that clear.

 

Opinions however seem to be somewhat divided. As always final judgement is reserved to when I get my hands on them myself.

[SodaBubbles]

2 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

 

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).

Lol, CVs ended the era of big gun naval battles. None of the other sniper mechanics in any game ended the use of other vehicles in the game. That is why CVs can never be a part of Random battles, and that is why the "CVS are historical" argument fails.

They need their own mode, with separate rules, gameplay, and vehicle performance. That is the only way they can ever work in the WOWs environment.

 

But the devs want them in matches to create arbitrary damage that shortens games and puts players back in the queue ASAP. CVs have no fun in-game function, they are there merely to satisfy the current impoverished, extractive, and brutal business model, to make sure the bean counters are happy. 

[mtm78]

18 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

Lol, CVs ended the era of big gun naval battles. None of the other sniper mechanics in any game ended the use of other vehicles in the game. That is why CVs can never be a part of Random battles, and that is why the "CVS are historical" argument fails.

They need their own mode, with separate rules, gameplay, and vehicle performance. That is the only way they can ever work in the WOWs environment.

 

But the devs want them in matches to create arbitrary damage that shortens games and puts players back in the queue ASAP. CVs have no fun in-game function, they are there merely to satisfy the current impoverished, extractive, and brutal business model, to make sure the bean counters are happy. 

 

I feel the same way about the mechanics, but mainly the assured damage / first strike and assured late game battle influence because of no counter options. Air spotting is annoying because while it was worse with RTS ( more squads ) you now also don't have a CV with friendly fighters ready to counter them ( late game, say I'm important enough to keep alive even for @El2aZeR who I know will say the only effective use of fighters in RTS was to escort your strike group o7 ). 

 

WG can't fix first strike assurance, that would make the class unattractive to bad/mediocre players.  They can fix late game influence by limiting planes more ( either/or better AA / less plane respawn rate ). And they are going to fix spotting overall by making it minimap only which would be good for ships depending on stealth ( not easy to hit smoll ships using only a  minimap icon who aren't sitting relatively still in smoke ). 

 

And they could even come with odd carrier tiers with fighters or something.. so carriers have an actual direct counter..  not that I think they will be able to balance something like that, kind of sounds what they want to do with submarines, you know giving some ships no ASW so they have to rely on others to counter them. 

 

In the end this is the issue, how do you counter a CV? And I don't want the answer to be: you don't, they are there to do assured damage and send you back to port quicker while all you can do is shoot down some of the ammo ( planes ). 

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, mtm78 said:

late game, say I'm important enough to keep alive even for @El2aZeR who I know will say the only effective use of fighters in RTS was to escort your strike group o7

 

On the contrary air control was highly important due to the long time it took your strikes to cycle. When you can only attack a target every 3-4 minutes at best, making sure your team stays in the fight either by denying strikes or denying/supplying spotting becomes a core part of your ability to influence the match. In RTS teamwork was essential to succeed.

 

Meanwhile in the rework defending your team is just straight up not an option due to how useless fighters are in that regard. Spotting, while no longer global, can be supplied locally in a much more oppressive fashion and is no longer as easily denied.

And ofc most importantly damage output is not only the same or increased when compared to before but also much more flexible due to a much faster strike cycle, allowing you to deal with emerging situations on the fly rather than having to rely on your teammates to do it. If I hit a target in RTS and, say, the enemy team starts taking a cap, there is literally nothing I can do about it except spot for the next 3-4 minutes. In the rework meanwhile I just go there immediately and suppress whatever is there myself while providing spotting at the same time.

[mtm78]

3 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

On the contrary air control was highly important due to the long time it took your strikes to cycle. When you can only attack a target every 3-4 minutes at best, making sure your team stays in the fight either by denying strikes or denying/supplying spotting becomes a core part of your ability to influence the match. In RTS teamwork was essential to succeed.

 

Thank you, I needed to be contradicted by someone who's word should carry some more weight regarding CV's... wish WG would do the same and actually listen to it.. 

[One_Eye_Potato]

8 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

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).

On a historical basis, I would agree with much of what you've written.  However, this is a game, whereby 85% of players on a team have work around both concealment and terrain to work effectively, whilst the remaining 15% can do what the heck they like.  Carriers are far simpler to play and break the mutual support the other three lines provide one another and this supportive relationship is fundamental regardless of tier. 

 

What's more tier 4 carriers are a travesty and are just exploitative.  They operate in an arena where most new players are supposed to be learning the basics of the game, have at best marginal AA and at worst, literally none.  What lessons do you think they are learning as they progress into higher tiers?

 

I'm writing this 'through gritted teeth', but I did prefer the old RTS system, despite it's flaws. I believe it appealled to a player who at the very least had a chance of thinking tactically.  Thinking about it, the fact that not many people played them could reflect the mindset of the average player and I certainly believe skill levels have fallen since the introduction of the CV rework.

 

The old RTS meta was certainly more comfortable to play against than what we have now.  The AA mechanics were more effective and 'carriers' were just that and not floating factories.

 

Can we at least agree, that at the heart of this mess, there is a game which has been thrown way out of kilter by a developer, who neither seems to listen or understand their own product.

[Pikkozoikum]

7 hours ago, SodaBubbles said:

They need their own mode, with separate rules, gameplay, and vehicle performance. That is the only way they can ever work in the WOWs environment.

Not really, everything can work, because it's a game and developer can code it like they want. If they want flying DDs, they can add it. If they want priate ships with laser guns, they can make it work.

It's totally up to the devs, how something works and everything can be implemented.

 

I actually made once a suggestion, how to change the carrier, that they work. DDs and CLs were the counter-ships against Carrier spotting in my suggestion.

But it was to "complex" for Devs and players. Actually it was not complex the gameplay, only the description to understand that was complex

[mtm78]

5 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Not really, everything can work, because it's a game and developer can code it like they want. If they want flying DDs, they can add it. If they want priate ships with laser guns, they can make it work.

It's totally up to the devs, how something works and everything can be implemented.

 

No it's up to the players if they would play such an abomination. Just because a dev can make a game about flying pigs doesn't mean the game should be played. 

 

Certainly devs can't make a game about flying pigs, and years after release replace them with flying unicorns without pissing off the pig lovers.

 

5 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I actually made once a suggestion, how to change the carrier, that they work. DDs and CLs were the counter-ships against Carrier spotting in my suggestion.

But it was to "complex" for Devs and players. Actually it was not complex the gameplay, only the description to understand that was complex

The Most Difficult Antiaircraft Problem Yet Faced By the Fleet (navy.mil)

 

DD's were important as units in the picket line but the amount of weight available for AA mounts does seem to be related to the ship. A heavy cruiser had double the amount of guns as a light cruiser if you take this one source as leading ( I got no reason not to btw ). The importance of Destroyers was related to their early warning function so CAP could be called in to deal with incoming threats. We sadly lost the CAP part of carriers :( 

 

edit: btw this quote wasn't meant to indicate I don't agree with what you said, just that I am curious what you would propose ( in the light of how I would try to find a relation with the real world usage ). 

[One_Eye_Potato]

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

On the contrary air control was highly important due to the long time it took your strikes to cycle. When you can only attack a target every 3-4 minutes at best, making sure your team stays in the fight either by denying strikes or denying/supplying spotting becomes a core part of your ability to influence the match. In RTS teamwork was essential to succeed.

 

Meanwhile in the rework defending your team is just straight up not an option due to how useless fighters are in that regard. Spotting, while no longer global, can be supplied locally in a much more oppressive fashion and is no longer as easily denied.

And ofc most importantly damage output is not only the same or increased when compared to before but also much more flexible due to a much faster strike cycle, allowing you to deal with emerging situations on the fly rather than having to rely on your teammates to do it. If I hit a target in RTS and, say, the enemy team starts taking a cap, there is literally nothing I can do about it except spot for the next 3-4 minutes. In the rework meanwhile I just go there immediately and suppress whatever is there myself while providing spotting at the same time. 

This quick 'turn around' of aircraft is another reason why Carriers are so dominant and the overall experience for the rest of the team is just one of frustation.  This is especially the case at tier 4, where you can multiply that frustation by a factor of two in most games.

[H_Menapii]

On 8/25/2021 at 7:02 PM, gopher31 said:

I’ve been surprised recently at just how good FDR torps are against the slower DDs. Aim to make them turn away from them and they are locked in one direction.

 

Your team mates might shoot them or you can even cross torp them.

FDR is not the standerd for CV 's !!! It is totaly overpowered !!!

 

[H_Menapii]

On 8/25/2021 at 10:53 AM, El2aZeR said:

Yeah, no. The problem sits between your keyboard and the back of your chair.

How about you learn how to lead?

I do know how to lead sir ! Before the strafe changes leading was already in use. 

 

But i have no glass bowl that tells me the ship is going to go straight, left or right !

 

Before a good DD player could outmaneuver most rockets when paying attention, now he can dodge ALL easily !

 

On 8/25/2021 at 10:53 AM, El2aZeR said:

Halving the strafe time would quite literally make most rockets impact faster than they did prior to the change.

You might be right, but i don t think so. It would be the same i think.

 

But the machinegun fire giveway, would still give extra chances for evasive maneuvering !   

 

 

Another idea: How about deleting those machinegun fire indicators ?

[AndyHill]

14 hours ago, mtm78 said:

Air spotting is annoying because while it was worse with RTS ( more squads ) you now also don't have a CV with friendly fighters ready to counter them

This is a somewhat interesting question. On the EU server (according to proships.ru) the modern carriers are somewhat behind RTS carriers in spotting damage with one exception, but on the RU server last month's spotting statistics for the modern CVs are a little higher than RTS all time ones except for Midway. Roosevelt is the spottingest CV of all time on both servers. In "flashed ships" (the first spot ribbon) RTS carriers are behind the modern ones on both servers. 

[H_Menapii]

On 8/25/2021 at 7:52 AM, gopher31 said:

Suggestion 3: Play an overpowered class like the DD.

i agree on the part regarding AA power of some DD's, who got more then you can fit on a T10 BB !!!

 

It would help alot if DD's had a more 'REALISTIC' amount of AA !

s

That way, balancing both, would make it a fair game for both sides ! 

 

[mtm78]

10 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

This is a somewhat interesting question. On the EU server (according to proships.ru) the modern carriers are somewhat behind RTS carriers in spotting damage with one exception, but on the RU server last month's spotting statistics for the modern CVs are a little higher than RTS all time ones except for Midway. Roosevelt is the spottingest CV of all time on both servers. In "flashed ships" (the first spot ribbon) RTS carriers are behind the modern ones on both servers. 

 

Also from a player perspective, while RTS CV could for instance park a depleted attack squad or a fighter on you to keep you spotted, this also meant you were much more likely to be able to shoot them down and get back into concealment. At least that's how it felt to me, current squads and AA values just mean it takes much more time to get rid of them. 

 

21 minutes ago, Hank_Flemish said:

Before a good DD player could outmaneuver most rockets when paying attention, now he can dodge ALL easily !

 

So if we find ONE clip of a good DD player not able to dodge rockets your thesis is proven wrong... you really going to stick with that? 

 

Also it wasn't about CV's always hitting ( though yes even the worst of the worst player suddenly became a treat to my DD's and I loath that kind of game design ) but DD's already actually being busy with things like playing objectives. Playing with speed and heading sounds fun until half the enemy team is trying to shoot at you at the same time. That's the thing, DD's are quite crucial in PTFO kinda thingies. 

[Samyuel]

If DD players stopped leaving their AA on all the time it would make their life easier.
But most of the time they reveal themselves with AA which greatly help aiming at them. Even if rockets are less potent now.
While finding a DD that want to stay hidden is way harder and is sometimes more a waste of time than anything else.

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, Hank_Flemish said:

I do know how to lead sir ! Before the strafe changes leading was already in use. 

 

But i have no glass bowl that tells me the ship is going to go straight, left or right !

 

Before a good DD player could outmaneuver most rockets when paying attention, now he can dodge ALL easily !

 

Clearly you don't.

 

You don't need one. DD maneuvers are highly telegraphed and they are unable to change their course in the few seconds it takes you to execute an attack due to drifting.

 

They couldn't. They cannot.

 

3 hours ago, Hank_Flemish said:

You might be right, but i don t think so. It would be the same i think.

 

But the machinegun fire giveway, would still give extra chances for evasive maneuvering !

 

Previous rocket time to target was 2 seconds. Currently it is usually around 3.5. Do the math.

 

It wouldn't because the time would be far too short. It already is in fact, machine guns merely tell the DD whether he is about to get hit or not, they cannot be used to evade.

 

53 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

If DD players stopped leaving their AA on all the time it would make their life easier.

 

Ironically on some DDs it is actually a lot more helpful to you if they keep their AA shut off as it cuts down on losses and enables you to execute more attacks.

 

53 minutes ago, Samyuel said:

While finding a DD that want to stay hidden is way harder and is sometimes more a waste of time than anything else.

 

This is your own fault. Due to a combination of simple map awareness, utilizing your own concealment and speed finding DDs is entirely up to you. You hold all the cards, it is just a matter of whether you are skilled enough to play them out correctly.

[El2aZeR]

 

Oh look this guy tried to turn but it didn't work. Sure wonder why? 

[One_Eye_Potato]

4 hours ago, Samyuel said:

If DD players stopped leaving their AA on all the time it would make their life easier.
But most of the time they reveal themselves with AA which greatly help aiming at them. Even if rockets are less potent now.
While finding a DD that want to stay hidden is way harder and is sometimes more a waste of time than anything else. 

Where in the tutorial does it state this as a valid tactic?  Whoops a Daisy, there isn't one.  I suppose that's too bad and all of those new players will have to figure out what the 'P' key does all on their own.  Maybe they should play Carriers instead, it's far easier, you dont have to worry about turning things on and off because the game does it for you and those pesky fires just put themselves out.  Damn, I wonder why carriers are so popular?  Hey ho, I dont know and Wargaming obviously know what they're doing!

[Deckeru_Maiku]

22 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Opinions however seem to be somewhat divided. As always final judgement is reserved to when I get my hands on them myself.

Was on the receiving end of the russian T8 papernapkin CV today in my Blyscawisca (or how that polish DD is called...) and it didn't seem to hard for it to hit me with dive bombs - one or two hits per attack - and there was little for me to do against it... and the player in a Baltimore was kinda astounded that his AA didn't exactly do much against the squads harrassing 'til the CV managed to sink him... he shot down 12 planes in his defense, not sure how many of those were fighters...

So, yeah, it seems that WG follows the approved habit of making russian blueprint/papernapkin ships slightly OP, with flaws that can only be used against them under certain conditions...

I guess that CV player was slightly better than average, too... one of the usual CV potatoes might not be able to play as successful as he did.

[Samyuel]

2 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Was on the receiving end of the russian T8 papernapkin CV today in my Blyscawisca (or how that polish DD is called...) and it didn't seem to hard for it to hit me with dive bombs - one or two hits per attack - and there was little for me to do against it... and the player in a Baltimore was kinda astounded that his AA didn't exactly do much against the squads harrassing 'til the CV managed to sink him... he shot down 12 planes in his defense, not sure how many of those were fighters...

So, yeah, it seems that WG follows the approved habit of making russian blueprint/papernapkin ships slightly OP, with flaws that can only be used against them under certain conditions...

I guess that CV player was slightly better than average, too... one of the usual CV potatoes might not be able to play as successful as he did.

Some peoples are already releasing videos about them and for now the opinions if CV players that I saw is that they are not great. SO you ended up against somebody good or you didnt dodged properly.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

9 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

I guess that CV player was slightly better than average, too... one of the usual CV potatoes might not be able to play as successful as he did.

guess what...

7 hours ago, Samyuel said:

SO you ended up against somebody good

...that was I exactly what I wrote...

 

7 hours ago, Samyuel said:

for now the opinions if CV players that I saw is that they are not great

I'd rather build my own opinions on what I see in battles, not second hand from "best of.." or "worst of..." videos done by players with negotiable skill and/or intent.

Showing videos that "prove" the intent of making something worse than it really is, to "prove" that is no harm coming your way and WG has no need to change anything are as treacherous as the opposing intent...

 

And, again, I don't expect the average potato CV player to do good in them. Doesn't mean that the skilled ones could do a lot better or even too good in them.

[Miscommunication_dept]

Looks like they will be like the Immelmann with people getting frustrating at a lack of plane kills.

 

looking at a lot of Pobeda play, there is potential here and a unique play style.

 

Im interested in the RU CVs but not yet excited.

[El2aZeR]

On 9/5/2021 at 9:39 AM, Pikkozoikum said:

Not really, everything can work, because it's a game and developer can code it like they want.

 

Except game design is a thing, something you clearly have no clue about.

[Pikkozoikum]

13 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Except game design is a thing, something you clearly have no clue about.

I think, you have no clue about game design, then you would know the possibilties.

[Pikkozoikum]

11 hours ago, One_Eye_Potato said:

Where in the tutorial does it state this as a valid tactic?  Whoops a Daisy, there isn't one.