General CV related discussions.

[Panzer_Guido]

On 10/30/2022 at 11:22 AM, _3856794_561538473_ said:

 

I can't understand this sick obsession with stats and winning here in the game. 

 

 

unsurprising. If you lack the basic skills to understand stats and gameplay you won't understand why people "obsess" about them. 

[Fediuld]

Anyone has a clue how to get the Sekiryu? Is already in the tech tree but states only through events or missions can get it. 

 

 

[Cammo1962]

26 minutes ago, Fediuld said:

Anyone has a clue how to get the Sekiryu? Is already in the tech tree but states only through events or missions can get it. 

 

 

It is still in early acces aka final testing and not released yet thats why you cant get it for now @Fediuld

[Dutchy_2019]

On 11/2/2022 at 11:47 AM, Fediuld said:

Anyone has a clue how to get the Sekiryu? Is already in the tech tree but states only through events or missions can get it. 

 

 

 

Quite often - especially if you use Tech Tree Mods - ships that are still in testing or are no longer available will be shown. 

[Guest]

State of the game, there was another "cool" oneshot against Smolensk...

 

 

 

[Panzer_Guido]

dont see any problem with the Malta. Cruisers are food anyway nowadays. non-issue.

[Dampfboot]

Super CVs.

 

 

[Head_has_Exploded]

On 10/29/2022 at 7:10 AM, Tanaka_15 said:

CVs dont need any buffs, even if wg would finaly fix the spotting. 

Oh I don't know, Hosho would like it's second torpedo back

[FellRaven]

On 10/28/2022 at 5:14 PM, black_falcon120 said:

As they are planning to rework (nerf) cv spotting, does anyone know if they are planning on issuing a compensatory buff? And if so, what?

 

Seriously is it even possible to BUFF CVs?

 

I''d estimate that a CV is 2 Tiers higher balance wise than an equivalent surface ship then you have Super CV wtf were WG thinking surely they aren't this stupid.

 

Oh wait yes they are World of Tank destroyers anyone

[black_falcon120]

2 hours ago, FellRaven said:

 

Seriously is it even possible to BUFF CVs?

 

I''d estimate that a CV is 2 Tiers higher balance wise than an equivalent surface ship then you have Super CV wtf were WG thinking surely they aren't this stupid.

 

Oh wait yes they are World of Tank destroyers anyone

I mean they do have pain points which mean they imo do deserve a buff, I am thinking about creating a poll to see what people wanted buffed.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

19 minutes ago, black_falcon120 said:

I mean they do have pain points which mean they imo do deserve a buff, I am thinking about creating a poll to see what people wanted buffed.

you will reach the wrong people. Most great CV players are not active on the forum. But we share the opinion and wirh that I mean all of the great CV players I know do, that CVs don't need any buffs. That poll is honestly meaningless. Most agree that CVs are broken. However this matters little. Its 4 years now that the CV rework is basically in the same state. Changes were made yes but the best still perform just the same. The skill is being rewarded by being massively OP. As long as only very few stay as such no buffs or nerfs will happen.

[NewHorizons_1]

39 minutes ago, black_falcon120 said:

I mean they do have pain points which mean they imo do deserve a buff, I am thinking about creating a poll to see what people wanted buffed.

Only buffs I'd give to CVs would be to allow the player to drop patrol fighters anywhere by right clicking on the mini-map.

Whilst at the same time increase the patrol radius and duration of all fighter squadrons.

Fighters continue the pursuit if the planes they are attacking stray outside of patrol area.

And downgrade spotting via plane to mini-map only.

 

That way the CV could assist in the defence of their team mates without too much of a distraction on their own attack strike and without fighters blowing a DDs concealment too severely.

 

[Panzer_Guido]

On 11/15/2022 at 4:49 PM, black_falcon120 said:

I mean they do have pain points which mean they imo do deserve a buff, I am thinking about creating a poll to see what people wanted buffed.

trying to be polite here...based on your stats you do not have the grasp of game mechanics to actually have an educated opinion about that.

[BLUB__BLUB]

15 hours ago, Panzer_Guido said:

trying to be polite here...based on your stats you do not have the grasp of game mechanics to actually have an educated opinion about that.

Being good or not doesn't mean you do not know what sucks or not. 
Experience can also give you an idea of what could be better. You do not have to be unicum.
The whole thing of people being actually good is also because they investigated the loopholes and the specifics. 

Which may be the actual reason that somebody who has not investigated/exploited those things, thinks those things suck. 
 

[Panzer_Guido]

5 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Being good or not doesn't mean you do not know what sucks or not. 
Experience can also give you an idea of what could be better. You do not have to be unicum.
The whole thing of people being actually good is also because they investigated the loopholes and the specifics. 

Which may be the actual reason that somebody who has not investigated/exploited those things, thinks those things suck. 
 

it does mean you can not know what sucks in many instances. If you are not able to aim properly and know when to shoot broadsided with AP, you will think AP sucks and shoot HE all the time. Enter the HE spam BBs. This should be very simple to understand and is not about loopholes, its about being able to use the tools given corretly. You can see in every match that a lot of people do not manage that consistently. Over a large enough sample size your stats will reflect your ability to do that. 

 

If you are not even able to use the tools given properly you can not have an educated opinion if they work or not. 

 

So as tldr: bad stats > no idea whats going on > no educated opinion possible

[Nov_A]

2 hours ago, Panzer_Guido said:

If you are not even able to use the tools given properly you can not have an educated opinion if they work or not.

An opinion does not have to be educated, since it is mostly based on personal experience and subjective perception.

 

@black_falcon120 has a legitimate point by not being good, since it gives a more objective view on not only the capabilities of the playerbase, but also what is needed to balance/iterate CVs in a way bad players arent completely cut off, while good players mop the field. If he thinks by his opinion, CVs need buffs, then there clearly is an issue with accessibility. I dont even want to get into the discussion of what exactly has to be made more accessible, easier, etc. or where top performers have to be toned down, if it is just a skill issue or whatever.

 

The point is, opinions - no matter how isolated they are from the big picture, are always useful and more importantly, as a personal expression of free will - should always be respected.

 

We already tolerate many 60 game experts with foaming mouths typing weekly 500 word essays on why CVs are bad in the forum echo chamber, there is no reason why the opposite should not.

[BLUB__BLUB]

13 hours ago, Panzer_Guido said:

it does mean you can not know what sucks in many instances. If you are not able to aim properly and know when to shoot broadsided with AP, you will think AP sucks and shoot HE all the time. Enter the HE spam BBs. This should be very simple to understand and is not about loopholes, its about being able to use the tools given corretly. You can see in every match that a lot of people do not manage that consistently. Over a large enough sample size your stats will reflect your ability to do that. 

True, but it doesn't mean they have no correct opinion on anything at all. 

It doesn't mean they do not know ANYTHING at all. 

 

13 hours ago, Panzer_Guido said:

If you are not even able to use the tools given properly you can not have an educated opinion if they work or not. 

There you have a point. But they still can have a valid opinion, as in "CVs suck". 
For example, people that aren't race car drivers by far (AKA cannot use their tools properly)

could still have a valid point when they claim the road is full of holes and needs fixing.

 

13 hours ago, Panzer_Guido said:

So as tldr: bad stats > no idea whats going on > no educated opinion possible

As above. It doesn't mean I agree with him that CVs need a buff though (because I don't think they do).
However I agree they need fixing, as there is obviously a skill gap, causing the good CV vs bad CV thing. 
Simply put, the ones that are able to jump the skill gap are not A BIT better, but 3-5x better than the others.
And apparently even somebody who isn't great is able to see that.

[_nifty_]

....

[Panzer_Guido]

On 11/18/2022 at 8:53 AM, BLUB__BLUB said:

 

As above. It doesn't mean I agree with him that CVs need a buff though (because I don't think they do).
However I agree they need fixing, as there is obviously a skill gap, causing the good CV vs bad CV thing. 
Simply put, the ones that are able to jump the skill gap are not A BIT better, but 3-5x better than the others.
And apparently even somebody who isn't great is able to see that.

 

well he didnt make the jump otherwise he wouldnt think CV needs a buff :D

 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

54 minutes ago, Panzer_Guido said:

well he didnt make the jump otherwise he wouldnt think CV needs a buff :D

That's quite clear, but he is still correct that a buff in some parts would make CVs more equal.

As in bad player vs good player. But all you have to do is get Malta, it is easy enough. 
That one there is still a difference but it will not be that much as it is very very easy mode.

[Port_Authority]

How the hell does an airborne squadron maneuvering around the swarm of flak clouds keep spotting something 7km at 8 o clock with enough precision to direct allied fire in?

We need conical spotting, that also doesn't spot anti-aa fire outside of cone, and the cone needs to stabilize just like strikes. In defensive maneuvers? Sorry your spotting is narrowed. If we already went "realistic" with the impact strike planes had on major surface combatants, give the ships the advantage they had, a spotting tower way up high with 360deg fov that isn't blinded by enemy fire.

Spotting is the most important thing in this game, make it a mechanic for the CV, not a sideeffect.

And then on top of it start rewarding spotting with more XP for everyone.

 

[Panzer_Guido]

5 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

That's quite clear, but he is still correct that a buff in some parts would make CVs more equal.

As in bad player vs good player. But all you have to do is get Malta, it is easy enough. 
That one there is still a difference but it will not be that much as it is very very easy mode.

he is not correct. The solution to that would be to nerf Malta obviously. You cant make the gap between all carriers and the surface food wider just because there is a little gap in between carriers as well. Well WG can, anybody with a brain wouldnt but hey. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, Panzer_Guido said:

he is not correct. The solution to that would be to nerf Malta obviously.

All CVs need nerfs - Malta as well. But the thing would be, what part would you nerf.

CV like Malta is easy to play. It has strong planes that are not easy to kill, so even if you do not know CV, you can still play it.
Something like Hakuryu is much harder. But if you can play it well, it is MUCH stronger than Malta. 

 

1 hour ago, Panzer_Guido said:

You cant make the gap between all carriers and the surface food wider just because there is a little gap in between carriers as well. Well WG can, anybody with a brain wouldnt but hey. 

There is not a 'little' gap between CVs. There is a large gap in some stuff, which means some players cannot play certain CVs.

Only 5% of the players play CVs, and of those only a small part is actually good. WeeGee only looks at the average damage/kills.
WeeGee has 'filled that gap' by making some CVs stronger in other parts, but this has only worsened the problem. 

 

[Panzer_Guido]

14 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

All CVs need nerfs - .....

 

 

I know. Also we both know WG will not nerf one of the two protected classes in any relevant manner. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

10 hours ago, Panzer_Guido said:

 

I know. Also we both know WG will not nerf one of the two protected classes in any relevant manner. 

Nope, I agree. Probably the 'new AA' will mean they'll buff the torps and whatnot, so guess what will happen.
Cv players that are savvy enough will now outfarm the not-so-savvy even harder. 
I can only imagine what a torp from Haku will do after that.