General CV related discussions.

[Camperdown]

1 hour ago, Yosha_nai said:

oh no how terrible. I hope you are okay. The pain most have been unbearable

I appreciate your sarcasm 

The point is: it is no fun at all.

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, General_Alexus said:

Just think of games where you only have one DD (no CV) and the rest is CAs and BBs. If your one DD dies at the start (compare to CV sniping) your chance of winning, even if the enemy DD that is left just Spots and Caps, are next to zero.(aka the influence of the DD class increeses to unhelthy levels just because there is only one present in the game)

Yeah, no. 1 DD isn't nearly as influencial on gameplay as 1 carrier is.

[Pukovnik7]

2 hours ago, General_Alexus said:

You are missing the point. It was about limmiting influence of CVs given limmiting circumstances of:

1) not removing them

2) not making them useless

3) keeping CV sniping a thing

 

Given thouse 3, you would need to unlimit the numbers.

Just think of games where you only have one DD (no CV) and the rest is CAs and BBs. If your one DD dies at the start (compare to CV sniping) your chance of winning, even if the enemy DD that is left just Spots and Caps, are next to zero.(aka the influence of the DD class increeses to unhelthy levels just because there is only one present in the game)

Nah. If your DD dies, you can still win. If your CV dies? Well, you can still win, but it will be a tightrope act. And more importantly, DDs do not redefine the rules of the game by their very existence. A game with a CV (or an SS) feels like a completely different game to one where there are only surface ships present.

[Camperdown]

8 minutes ago, Pukovnik7 said:

Nah. If your DD dies, you can still win. If your CV dies? Well, you can still win, but it will be a tightrope act. And more importantly, DDs do not redefine the rules of the game by their very existence. A game with a CV (or an SS) feels like a completely different game to one where there are only surface ships present.

If your CV dies you can win if the red CV is a noob. If the red CV knows his business, you will lose 9 games out of 10.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, Camperdown said:

If your CV dies you can win if the red CV is a noob. If the red CV knows his business, you will lose 9 games out of 10.

More like, 7 out of 10. Once the team discovers the enemy CV is dead they usually go nuts. 

Sometimes I wonder if it is effective to kill the enemy CV. Your teams brain may be in it. 

[General_Alexus]

I mean I get the CV hate to some extent, but you have to choose:

1)CVs with detonations and normal fires + no takeoff

=> CV nerf+ easier to kill them but also easier CV sniping and therefor influence of CVs on the battle

2) less influence of CVs on the battle (it might still be more than 1/12 but removing the super-dmg-con on CVs is directly the opposite of 2)

 

This was all I wrote to people wanting fires and Detonations back on CVs, the ball is in your hand here I was arguing for none of thouse two options.

[arquata2019_]

15 ore fa, Camperdown ha scritto:

I had a 2+2 CV match yesterday at T6. Wow, it does remind you why the cap of 1 is in place 

2+2 CVs at T4 is also a criminal stupidity.

just say: "i will report you if you two CVs attack me"
"CVs CVs go away~"

"CVs let's sign a pact"

or smth like that

[Vbeest]

19 hours ago, Pukovnik7 said:

And more importantly, DDs do not redefine the rules of the game by their very existence. A game with a CV (or an SS) feels like a completely different game to one where there are only surface ships present.

 

Nonsense. You clearly did not see (rare, but still appearing from time to time) matches with 0 DDs.

[Pukovnik7]

1 minute ago, Vbeest said:

 

Nonsense. You clearly did not see (rare, but still appearing from time to time) matches with 0 DDs.

Few times, and the only thing different for me was the lack of "stick close to DD to avoid being stealth-torpedoed" mandate.

[Bainsmit_steel]

21 hours ago, Europizza said:

Yeah, no. 1 DD isn't nearly as influencial on gameplay as 1 carrier is.

And yet team with better dd(s) wins in 80 % of cases...

[Yosha_AtaIante]

26 minutes ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

And yet team with better dd(s) wins in 80 % of cases...

well if both CVs, the one on your team and the one on the enemy team are bad then obviously they wont have any influence

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

54 minutes ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

And yet team with better dd(s) wins in 80 % of cases...

Fictitious numbers are fictitious. ^^

 

Sure, I agree with the geste of what you are trying to say. A better DD player has a higher influence on the battle outcome when opposed to a bad DD player right? The big difference with carriers is that carrier players do not directly oppose eachother which means both opposing carriers will have a simular lasting affect on gameplay up to the end game. Carriers do not fight eachother. DD players do. Bad DD players often die early due to opposing DD players counters. Bad carrier players do not. Good DD players take and keep caps, even good carrier players can not.

 

A carrier has more influence on gameplay (which is not the same as battle outcome) because of it's spotting capabilities, air speed, disregard of visual and hard cover and sustainability (survival rate). A carrier can switch flanks fast. A DD is unable to do that. A DD can't spot what is behind islands or smoke screens. A DD is highly vulnerable to counter attacks where a carrier is not.

[Bainsmit_steel]

I agree with you but again beater dd players wins a match for their team more often then better cv players...this time without fictitious numbers...:)...

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

41 minutes ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

I agree with you but again beater dd players wins a match for their team more often then better cv players...this time without fictitious numbers...:)...

While this might be true it is besides the point as it was about gameplay influence of 1 ship a class, not of better players. Influence on gameplay -> 1 carrier takes the cake over 1 dd. That is the exact reason we have a soft limit on 1 carrier per team per match ^^

[Deckeru_Maiku]

15 hours ago, arquata2019 said:

just say: "i will report you if you two CVs attack me"
"CVs CVs go away~"

"CVs let's sign a pact"

or smth like that

For me at T4 it's usually:
"Shouldn't all those wannabe sealclubbers in CVs play subs now, as they are the new sh*t?"

Usually gives me a lot of attention...

[Bainsmit_steel]

1 hour ago, Europizza said:

While this might be true it is besides the point as it was about gameplay influence of 1 ship a class, not of better players. Influence on gameplay -> 1 carrier takes the cake over 1 dd. That is the exact reason we have a soft limit on 1 carrier per team per match ^^

Again I agree with you...but this is team match and 1 dd is just one peace of puzzle in this game...so game should be monitored as the whole...if you look 1 vs 1 then yes CV is op as hell...but again the lest op CV is if it plays against dds...hell dd can even have an modest chance to win...honestly I think that cruisers are not in the good spot with or without cvs...but that is another topic.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 minute ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

Again I agree with you...but this is team match and 1 dd is just one peace of puzzle in this game...so game should be monitored as the whole...if you look 1 vs 1 then yes CV is op as hell...but again the lest op if it plays against dds...hell dd can have an modest chance to win...honestly I think that cruisers are not in the good spot with or without cvs...but that is another topic.

Exactly my point: in that team game, 1 carrier has a bigger influence on the puzzle (gameplay/meta) as a whole ^^

[Capra76]

2 hours ago, Bainsmit_steel said:

I agree with you but again beater dd players wins a match for their team more often then better cv players...this time without fictitious numbers...:)...

 

The maximum solo WR% for a DD player over any reasonable number of battles is about 67%; for a CV player it can be north of 80%, thus better CV players win more matches for their team than the best DD player.

[General_Alexus]

5 hours ago, Europizza said:

A carrier has more influence on gameplay (which is not the same as battle outcome)

An important distinction indeed, thank you for pointing it out. When I argued against CV-sniping and why WG gave CVs special threatment in regards to Fire and Detonations, it was about influence on the Battle outcome.

A CV snipe at the start of the game means a great step towards the Battle outcome, and WG dont wants CVs to have this kind of (battle outcome)influence by making CV sniping unviable.

With both CVs present, each one has influence on the players, but as the dmg farming abilities are equal the outcome of the battle is not actually that high (given both CV choose equal targets and spot equalish on the way to them)

Compare this to one CV sniped at the start of the match, every additional dmg done by the remaining CV is counting towards a gamewinning advantage.

[BLUB__BLUB]

6 hours ago, Yosha_nai said:

well if both CVs, the one on your team and the one on the enemy team are bad then obviously they wont have any influence

Yes they will, depending which one of them gets himself blapped. Or at least FFs it up and gets his position noticed... . 

Then again, this might (if he doesn't get blapped outright) mean he draws 3Dds to him, which are then useless DDs, so... well.. 

Even between really bad CVs there are differences. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, General_Alexus said:

An important distinction indeed, thank you for pointing it out. When I argued against CV-sniping and why WG gave CVs special threatment in regards to Fire and Detonations, it was about influence on the Battle outcome.

A CV snipe at the start of the game means a great step towards the Battle outcome, and WG dont wants CVs to have this kind of (battle outcome)influence by making CV sniping unviable.

With both CVs present, each one has influence on the players, but as the dmg farming abilities are equal the outcome of the battle is not actually that high (given both CV choose equal targets and spot equalish on the way to them)

Compare this to one CV sniped at the start of the match, every additional dmg done by the remaining CV is counting towards a gamewinning advantage.

As far as I'm concerned, not entirely. The anti snipe bs WG gave to carriers is wrongfully based on the previous rts carriers design where half a carriers job was countering the enemy carrier. The fire, flooding and DCP nonsense was a misguided attempt to preemptively fix something that wasn't broken with the new carriers. It made carriers way too strong in survivability, which was simply never addressed again, because the rework is a pile of dung.

 

In the rts days with the enemy carrier gone the remaining carrier was freed up to 100% focus on damaging surface ships uncontested, which tipped the damage balance too much.With the current generation, carriers are already balanced and designed for 100% damage farming surface ships. There simply is no carrier vs carrier gameplay. Losing a carrier now doesn't tip the damage balance as much as the rts days other then losing another ship and mainly affects detection and killing off low health targets. Which is bad, but the reworked carriers are the worst pvp class design ever anyway so pf. Who cares.

 

The absurd protection carriers get makes them noob vessels which was the ultimate rework goal, it has little to do with mutual balance. If that was the goal, DDs should get the same bs protection.

[Aethervoxx]

30 minutes ago, Europizza said:

It made carriers way too strong in survivability, which was simply never addressed again, because the rework is a pile of dung.

 

Note how War Failing still hasn't included the odd tier CVs even after 2 years from the reworked CV wreaking. You made more good points than just what I quote, Europizza, and some others make good points too.

I'd say good play by both CVs & DDs can highly influence a battle. It is rediculous how difficult it is to sink CVs now, as opposed to their vulnerability before the CV rework.

It is also rediculous what WG did to AA to make the ugly stepsister's (reworked CVs) foot to fit into Cinderella's slipper (RTS CVs). Talk about fixing something that wasn't broken.

We all know this argument will never cease.

We have the three camps - the total CV haters (totally unrealistic), the reworked CV acolytes (WG & their sycophants) & the RTS CV supporters (imo, the correct attitude  CV acolytes).

[arquata2019_]

8 ore fa, Deckeru_Maiku ha scritto:

For me at T4 it's usually:
"Shouldn't all those wannabe sealclubbers in CVs play subs now, as they are the new sh*t?"

Usually gives me a lot of attention...

gud

so you're saying CVs are now better than something?

oh well, CV rework isn't always was a glorious success

[Yosha_AtaIante]

6 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Yes they will, depending which one of them gets himself blapped. Or at least FFs it up and gets his position noticed... . 

Then again, this might (if he doesn't get blapped outright) mean he draws 3Dds to him, which are then useless DDs, so... well.. 

Even between really bad CVs there are differences. 

well at that point one could call that negative influence Q_Q

[Deckeru_Maiku]

54 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

gud 

so you're saying CVs are now better than something?

oh well, CV rework isn't always was a glorious success

Uhm...

No?

RTS were more fun... there were ways to not getting utterly rekt by them all the time... CV interaction was a thing...

So, no, imho they aren't "better" than anything.

It's just fun to f*ck with those wannabe sealclubbers...

Not with them real sealclubbers, though... I mean those, who know how to hit targets...

Luckily there's not too many of them around.

Mostly...