General CV related discussions.

[OVanBruce]

Flamu has pretty much put himself in a trap by overspecializing on a single game. Sure, he grabs a big part of the pie of a niché population with lots of money to throw around but he probably didn't count for the possibility that the game could get to this state. He feels a bit jaded at this point and as mentioned, he probably only does it for the money now. In a sense it's almost an allegory of WoWs now.

[MadGunna]

2 hours ago, Miragetank90 said:

@Aethervoxx As I mentioned on the previous page, the dates start from just before rework and end on the day of posting. The last date written on the graph at the bottom right is the 1st of May. 

 

As for intervals, it's on a monthly basis, but I realise it's hard to see from that screenshot. 

 

What you're seeing is the result from all of last year from the 1st of January 2019 up till now. 

Interesting, do you also know if it is broken down by tier somewhere? Given how brutally OP tier IV CV's are right now I'd expect them to skew the numbers up immensely.

[Miragetank90]

24 minutes ago, MadGunna said:

Interesting, do you also know if it is broken down by tier somewhere?

 

Hm. Sorry, I don't. But I suppose one could ask on the WoWs Discord. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

8 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

I was just in a tier 3 ship with no AA guns in a game with 2 enemy CVs, can you imagine how did I feel ?

uhm.. lucky, because it wasn't 3 CV anymore as it could have been a while before?

I hope You did bend over quickly to get done with it, right? ^^

[Deckeru_Maiku]

2 hours ago, Miragetank90 said:

 

Hm. Sorry, I don't. But I suppose one could ask on the WoWs Discord.

 

From personal experience over the last year I can assure You, that there's no need to ask at Discord..

 

1. The number of T4 CVs (in battles) has gone up through the ceiling
2. The number of T6 to T10 CVs (in battles) doesn't really look different than before the reework
3. ...unless You count CoOp, which has CVs in at least 90% of the battles, even though it's mostly Bot CVs on both sides

So.. WG calling the reeework a "success, because of increased number of players playing CV" is true, but nonetheless ox-feces. I'd bet all the money in my pocket right now on the presumption, that about 90% of the players playing T4 CV now have no intention of ever going up to T6 or higher CVs, as that would end their sealclubbing attempts...

 

So that graphic You posted is nice, but in the end totally useless...

 

[Miragetank90]

7 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

 

So that graphic You posted is nice, but in the end totally useless...

 

 

It's not useless, because it addressed the statement I was originally referencing - that there was no real increase in play of high tier CVs. It shows that, clearly, there was. 

[Malim0o]

I m back on cv since 2 or 3 days and i still have some main issues with the rework 

-Rockets planes .....  Are to easy to use and to strong against dd (atm i regrind fr and ru dd and it's not that fun)

-CV's autopilot , it's maybe the worst autopilot since the release ? When you are close to a island , it's a nightmare.

[AndyHill]

4 hours ago, OVanBruce said:

In a sense it's almost an allegory of WoWs now.

Indeed it is. Even clan battles that used to be kind of fun are just monotonous boredom right now with little to no room for tactics or anything interesting. And it would be so easy to fix, I doubt there's been a game in gaming history with such a simple change potentially improving it so much. Rather than being hopeful, I fear that barring a miracle, submarines will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, Miragetank90 said:

It's not useless, because it addressed the statement I was originally referencing - that there was no real increase in play of high tier CVs. It shows that, clearly, there was. 

 

No it doesn't. It merely shows that the percentage of CV matches compared to the other classes overall has risen. There are too many variables that are being ignored here such as total population differences and queue/MM differences to bring this to a conclusive end.

 

Again, they should have just shown the total player numbers. That they didn't is rather... interesting to say the least.

[159Hunter]

7 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

No it doesn't. It merely shows that the percentage of CV matches compared to the other classes overall has risen. There are too many variables that are being ignored here such as total population differences and queue/MM differences to bring this to a conclusive end.

 

Again, they should have just shown the total player numbers. That they didn't is rather... interesting to say the least.

This really. 

You can prove anything with numbers and even more so with percentage based numbers.

1 player playing 1000 matches in a CV is not equal to 20 players playing 50 games each in a CV in terms of popularity. However it will generate the same amount of percentage based CV battles.

[Humorpalanta]

I am [edited]tired of this crap. GG WG you [edited]idiots.

3 of us sitting in the cap at T6and there is nothing we can do because carrier is faster than us. We cannot cap because he wears us down completely. There is no AA to stop the attacks. He comes back every 15 seconds. Finally kills us.

 

HOW IS THIS BALANCED???

 

Next game: Dallas. Planes in the air. Def AA running. Sector reinforcement. CV still makes a full drop and can turn and come for a second.

 

HOW IS THIS BALANCED???

[Miragetank90]

9 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

No it doesn't. It merely shows that the percentage of CV matches compared to the other classes overall has risen. There are too many variables that are being ignored here such as total population differences and queue/MM differences to bring this to a conclusive end.

 

Again, they should have just shown the total player numbers. That they didn't is rather... interesting to say the least.

The plotted values on that graph are still percentages of a whole. If the total population changes over time, it doesn't really matter. The total amount of CV battles at each point are registered as a percentage of the total number of battles at that point, and so painting a pretty good snapshot of how popular the class currently is, relative to the others, based on the percentage of battles played at the point of plotting. 

 

I can appreciate that just showing total player numbers would have been a more definitive way of presenting the data, but I tend to think this isn't part of some conspiracy to try to prove or to hide something. 

 

@159Hunter Hm, yep. No argument here. It's something the graph doesn't account for. In that sense, it is flawed. 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, Humorpalanta said:

Next game: Dallas. Planes in the air. Def AA running. Sector reinforcement. CV still makes a full drop and can turn and come for a second.

 

HOW IS THIS BALANCED???

If you had a savvy (T6) CV player yes he can pull it off, in certain CVs. 

Not of he is average. But if the CV was T8, well, any nutter can do it. 

 

But the hing is, the AA-revisions have left AA-ships like Dalllas a bit.... stale. 

IMO they should have much much better AA. Because this is crappy indeed.

 

 

[Capra76]

56 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

If you had a savvy (T6) CV player yes he can pull it off, in certain CVs. 

Not of he is average. But if the CV was T8, well, any nutter can do it. 

 

What kind of game balance is that?  You can't do anything about it but don't worry, maybe the other player is and you'll be okay.

[AndyHill]

Interesting question. If one class can strike anyone anywhere anytime without having to risk anything, needing help from his team or having to spend much effort doing it - and without the target being able to do anything about it - how much damage would actually be "balanced"?

[CptBarney]

11 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Interesting question. If one class can strike anyone anywhere anytime without having to risk anything, needing help from his team or having to spend much effort doing it - and without the target being able to do anything about it - how much damage would actually be "balanced"?

None due to the class itself breaking game mechanics by how it operates, so you are left with two choices. Keep the class in for the sake of game variety or delete the class for the sake of game balance.

 

Unfortuantly you can't have both really.

 

@1MajorKoenig Whinge all you like you know its true, stop trying to make out CV's are actually balanceable in a game focused on direct gunfire based combat.

[Sunleader]

37 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

None due to the class itself breaking game mechanics by how it operates, so you are left with two choices. Keep the class in for the sake of game variety or delete the class for the sake of game balance.

 

Unfortuantly you can't have both really.

 

@1MajorKoenig Whinge all you like you know its true, stop trying to make out CV's are actually balanceable in a game focused on direct gunfire based combat.

 

Oh you could make them Balanced. The Problem is just that at the Point of being Balanced they would likely not be Fun to Play.

Because just like the BBs which have enough Range to Cover the Whole Map but Pay for it by an Accuracy that makes them Miss 9 of 10 Shells on a Flat Broadside Target 3km away.

The CVs would have to either get their Range Limited or Pay for that Range by being Extremely Inaccurate or Extremely Weak etc.

 

This is why I suggested several Times to for example Implement Fuel for Aircraft.

So that Aircraft have a Fuel Timer and therefore a Certain Range.

 

That Range would be only 10km for Rocket Attackers. 25km for Dive Bombers and 30km for Torpedo Bombers. And as the Range is not a Circle around the CV but is used up on the Flight. Any Turn and any Maneuver would cost you Range.

Which means at Max Range the CV can only do a Direct Attack from the Direction where he came from in the First Place and he can only do 1 Drop regardless of how much Aircraft he has left.

 

This way CVs would suddenly Face 3 Importand Limitations that all other Ships have but which they dont have. And which is among the Reasons why they are Broken in the First Place.

These are.

A: No longer being Able of Attacking at Unlimited Range and thus Finishing off Fleeing Targets before they can Recover.

B: Attacking on Extremely High Ranges Heavily Reducing the Damage they can Deal to the Target.

And C: Having an only Time Limited Ability to Deny Concealment and do Precision Attacks against Targets.

 

 

Effectively a CV would become Similar to a BB.

With DBs and TBs being the Main Artillery which gets less Dangerous on Range and cannot easily move into Position for better Angles unless the Target is Close. As well as giving the Target an option to Counter the improvement of Angling by Steering accordingly while the Squadron keeps using Fuel.

And the Rockets would become sort of like the Secondaries DD Defences which are Strong against Smaller Targets coming into Close Range.

 

 

BUT. The CV Players even if they think CVs are Broken. Are mostly Trapped inside the Tought Process that a CV cannot possibly have as little Influence as a BB. And therefore this Idea for most CV Players effectively Results in the Statement.

"Do this and CVs would be useless and nobody would play them"

Because well. With this Change the Difference between BB and CV would basicly be Similar to the Difference between Spam Cruisers like Worcester and Mino which mostly Fire unleash devastating spam from hiding spots near you without being seen. And the Traditional Heavy Cruisers like Zao and Hindenburg which Deal Damage from Firing Range while being Spotted and Evading and Angling to Survive your Return Fire.

Because CVs would then be BBs that effectively set up Strikes while Hiding themselves. But they would need to get into Fighting Range. And just like BBs they would not be able to Strike very effectively unless they actually closed the Range.

 

 

 

So its not True that CV cannot be Balanced. Its just that Balancing them would likely Result in them going down to like 1% Players again.

And unfortunately it seems that at least for now Wargaming is Ready to Sacrifice Balancing in Favor of Attracting more Players to CVs.

[CptBarney]

@Sunleader Ye i know, thats what i mean, the class is so broken that for it too be enjoyable it needs to be easy which will attract more players, but if it gets too powerful it can make the game unbearable as you encounter it more frequently.

Obviously if you try to balance it then you have to make it pointless and a waste of a team slot and basically destroy whatever the cv rework has generated in terms of a playerbase.

 

So i was right you can't really balance CV's entirely without removing the fun factor (variety) and if you want the fun factor you would need to make the class easier and more accessible with less roadblocks (balance-issues).

 

For some reason you get people that can't seem to comprehend this whatsoever and only whinge when weegee attempts to do any balancing whatsoever (i was fine with 0.8.5 btw).

 

And yes this is coming from someone who wants to see yorktown, illustrious, italian and french cv's added to the game.

[OVanBruce]

15 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Stuff

 

 

 

Sure, let's do that but in exchange give CVs real unlimited planes, not the regeneration we have now which effectively means a carrier has a plane limit, but each time you put an squadron in the air it will allways go out full strength no matter how many planes you lose through the match. You wouldn't want to spend 2 minutes looking for a suitable target and then have to return without doing anything because you ran out of fuel so at least make them able to throw planes at unsuitable targets without regrets.

 

Also make CVs have DD concealment too, cruiser manouverability and speed since now having a REAL neccesity to get close they certainly need the tools to do it as in their state now they are giant exp pinatas when shot at.

[steveraptor]

21 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

@Sunleader Ye i know, thats what i mean, the class is so broken that for it too be enjoyable it needs to be easy which will attract more players, but if it gets too powerful it can make the game unbearable as you encounter it more frequently.

Obviously if you try to balance it then you have to make it pointless and a waste of a team slot and basically destroy whatever the cv rework has generated in terms of a playerbase.

 

So i was right you can't really balance CV's entirely without removing the fun factor (variety) and if you want the fun factor you would need to make the class easier and more accessible with less roadblocks (balance-issues).

 

For some reason you get people that can't seem to comprehend this whatsoever and only whinge when weegee attempts to do any balancing whatsoever (i was fine with 0.8.5 btw).

 

And yes this is coming from someone who wants to see yorktown, illustrious, italian and french cv's added to the game.

Oh,

 

Italian CV with SAP rocket planes when? 

 

[Sunleader]

10 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

Sure, let's do that but in exchange give CVs real unlimited planes, not the regeneration we have now which effectively means a carrier has a plane limit, but each time you put an squadron in the air it will allways go out full strength no matter how many planes you lose through the match. You wouldn't want to spend 2 minutes looking for a suitable target and then have to return without doing anything because you ran out of fuel so at least make them able to throw planes at unsuitable targets without regrets.

 

Also make CVs have DD concealment too, cruiser manouverability and speed since now having a REAL neccesity to get close they certainly need the tools to do it as in their state now they are giant exp pinatas when shot at.

 

1.

Unlimited Planes would actually Work. But then like BBs you would get Reload Times on these Planes. Meaning while you dont need to worry about losing Planes. You can only Launch 1 Squadron every 5 Minutes regardless of that Squadron returning or not.

2.

Concealment in the Game is Tied to Range. So as your Range is Similar to BBs you get BB Range. Unless of course you want to have Similar Range to DDs as well. Then I am Fine. CV having 6km Concealment but max Range of 15km Sounds Fun. Nonsensical. But Fun. :P

 

 

8 minutes ago, steveraptor said:

Oh,

 

Italian CV with SAP rocket planes when? 

 

 

Dont say it too loud. Given that German CVs come with AP Rockets already.

[Nibenay78]

On 5/7/2020 at 1:23 PM, poopooo said:

For me, I am with a level 6 aircraft carrier in a new system, although it needs a few tweaks, I do not see anything wrong, now the aircraft carriers do less damage than before and you have to play them very well and that the enemy does almost nothing to avoid you to get make a game of at most 100,000, in my games the normal is 45,000 or 50,000 on average, and for example in the last game that an enemy destroyer played, he found me and killed me before I could kill him with the rocket planes, that Yes, kill him with another platoon of rocket planes that he takes out just before he dies.

damage balance isn't everything. I'll be happy to repeat (yet again) my suggestion for a rocket ship.

 

It fires one auto-homing rocket that will always hit the enemy ship with most hitpoints. After that it is useless and has a 40% chance to explode, otherwise it just sits there.

To add some player interaction, you can be allowed to click the mouse button to launch the rocket.

Now we can always tweak around to make the ship has suitable average damage, average deaths and average winrate etc..

 

But will it be an enjoyable addition to the game?

 

On 5/7/2020 at 5:27 PM, Miragetank90 said:

 

Hm, well...

 

 

So I'd say in that sense(increase in players), it succeeded. 

Undeniable! as WG can pick their criteria for success, its clearly a success.

 

14 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

1.

Unlimited Planes would actually Work. But then like BBs you would get Reload Times...

I always wondered why the caps, but my guess was right that there was some german involved :P (ref a thread way back)

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, Capra76 said:

What kind of game balance is that?  You can't do anything about it but don't worry, maybe the other player is and you'll be okay.

Same thing as when you get somebody that is very good in a HE-spam cruiser, and you are in a BB.

You'll be quite crispy after a while and will not be able to get him. If he's stupid though, well --> BLAP.

 

One difference:

T6CVs are quite reasonably "balanced", damage-wise and "on average".

Still broken OP though, which is why good players can't be countered AT ALL.

Like a good player in a Smolenks... he just harvests everything and craps all over. 

 

Plus the thing about Dallas, it used to have great AA, now it is not "outstanding" at all anymore. Which sucks.

But when you know it, you do not expect it to "harvest planes". Because nothing does, really. 

[Capra76]

2 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Same thing as when you get somebody that is very good in a HE-spam cruiser, and you are in a BB.

 

Sail away, stealth up, use island cover to your advantage etc.....................

[Nibenay78]

2 hours ago, Capra76 said:

 

Sail away, stealth up, use island cover to your advantage etc.....................

People are frustrated about HE spam and CVs because it feels hard to punish them back at times. HE cruisers can at least be radared or blind fired at in smoke, giving a resemblance of being able to do something.

With CVs you can only hope your AA will deal with it (which only a few ships has enough AA to do, even against average players), and even then you'll be raped before the losses to AA starts to reduce squadron size.

 

I don't think either CVs or the most extreme HE spammers really add to the game in a constructive way.

 

In most other situation you can always do something vaguely useful when you meet a superior enemy (ship or skillwise). A last ditch torp launch or ram or similiar.