General CV related discussions.

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

2 hours ago, Europizza said:

Where did he write he thinks that?

Read between the lines.

Scarish · January 14

Am i toxic enough to enter this club? :cap_yes:

https://replayswows.com/replay/173859

Mad_Dog_Dante · January 14

5 hours ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

Read between the lines.

Something you seem to be doing way too much, and rather poorly I might add. It's unconstructive to say the least.

The complaints never change, that is correct, because fixes for a lot of issues are made at a snails pace. I've never seen a developer corner itself as much as Lesta did so far. By creating conflicting gameplay issues one after another they made this IP into an impossble spagetti of gameplay design and revenue conflicts which they keep 'repairing' with already blood clogged bandaids.

It's a simple given, the carrier rework was disasterous from a gameplay perspective, even WG admitted to it in their own bizarre way. So these complaints will be ongoing as long as and for everything they fail to adress. It's a force of nature.

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

26 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Something you seem to be doing way too much, and rather poorly I might add. It's unconstructive to say the least.

when you post your qualification about ability to evaluate others reading between line we can talk more...if you have none...pls stop adhominem....it is simmilar to stat shaming

Mad_Dog_Dante · January 14

8 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

when you post your qualification about ability to evaluate others reading between line we can talk more...if you have none...pls stop adhominem....it is simmilar to stat shaming

Care to stay on topic there buddy? We are discussing carriers, not your phenominal people skills.

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

Care to stay on topic there buddy? We are discussing carriers, not your people skills.

lol says the guy who gave description of me :) i can stay if you can

back to topic. if your main aobjection is that CV can from distance and safty strike it is clear that only removal of them can solve this problem

Yosha_AtaIante · January 14

29 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

lol says the guy who gave description of me :) i can stay if you can

back to topic. if your main aobjection is that CV can from distance and safty strike it is clear that only removal of them can solve this problem

exactly. we already established that they cant be fixed in a way to make then fit. the only other thing is to either make them utterly useless or remove them and that is what most in here actually want. They don't want to balance CVs. There is no reading between the lines its crystal clear. Even them pretending that CVS can be balanced is ... well... you know what it is.

And nerfing CVS to utter uselessness is like removing them, same thing

it doesn't help that these people don't even give examples that make CVS still workable(because it doesn't really exist). They only moan.

Mad_Dog_Dante · January 14

36 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

lol says the guy who gave description of me :) i can stay if you can

back to topic. if your main aobjection is that CV can from distance and safty strike it is clear that only removal of them can solve this problem

Yeah man, it's not like I had a OT paragraph for you to respond to after that right?

About your assumption about removing carriers as the clear and only solution to carriers being able to strike from afar: that is nonsense. A false argument. It's boring. It wasn't true for fixing the carrier DD damage issue after 3 years for example (took them long enough), and it isn't true for this issue. There are design solutions for everything. But, I'm pretty sure WG has a completely different focus by now as they seemingly wasted a massive amount of manhours and department budgets to the carrier rework, and repeated that brilliant game production vision over the submarines flawlessly.

So the complaints will stay. It's kind of a budget issue if you look at it this way ^^

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

5 minutes ago, Zuihou_Kai_Ni said:

exactly. we already established that they cant be fixed in a way to make then fit. the only other thing is to either make them utterly useless or remove them and that is what most in here actually want. They don't want to balance CVs. There is no reading between the lines its crystal clear. Even them pretending that CVS can be balanced is ... well... you know what it is.

And nerfing CVS to utter uselessness is like removing them, same thing

it doesn't help that these people don't even give examples that make CVS still workable(because it doesn't really exist). They only moan.

offcourse they do not want to balance them. but to remove them....so no idea why some of them are "playing dumb" when you openly say it.....but we all know CVs are not going anywhere and will stay in game....if somebody dislike them so much - leaving ithe game is solid option

Yosha_AtaIante · January 14

4 minutes ago, Europizza said:

About your assumption about removing carriers as the clear and only solution to carriers being able to strike from afar: that is nonsense. A false argument

bro really?

Me and some other SU CV players are saying the exact opposite for years with the majority of the community agreeing. Nothing can fix this mess without making CVs unplayable and now you pretend there are ways? Also where do you get the ideas from that something might be possible?Can you cite me or El2a for example saying that there are fixes that could be done? Or do you suddenly have SU CV main experiences?

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

23 hours ago, FloatingTarget said:

As it is, a CV player can just sit back and spam out planes with very little risk and there isn't too much another player can do about it. Is that realistic, sort of as in real life planes don't respawn, though CVs are the linchpin of a modern fleet, but it's a game, not real life.

5 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Yeah man, it's not like I had a OT paragraph for you to respond to after that right?

About your assumption about removing carriers as the clear and only solution to carriers being able to strike from afar: that is nonsense. A false argument. It's boring. It wasn't true for fixing the carrier DD damage issue after 3 years for example (took them long enough), and it isn't true for this issue. There are design solutions for everything. But, I'm pretty sure WG has a completely different focus by now as they seemingly wasted a massive amount of manhours and department budgets to the carrier rework, and repeated that brilliant game production vision over the submarines flawlessly.

So the complaints will stay. It's kind of a budget issue if you look at it this way ^^

i was talking to specific post..it is clear what the summary of "problems" for that poster are.

i cnow crying will stay.....same as CVs will stay...

Mad_Dog_Dante · January 14

4 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

offcourse they do not want to balance them. but to remove them....so no idea why some of them are "playing dumb" when you openly say it.....but we all know CVs are not going anywhere and will stay in game....if somebody dislike them so much - leaving ithe game is solid option

So, 'they' in your little rant is people who come to the forums complaining from an emotional point of view? You understand gaming is mostly an emotional appeal right? And you call those people 'playing dumb' or are you calling me 'playing dumb'? Your generlizations and ramblings are quite uncohesive to be honest.

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

If we wanna talk about CVs strenght that basicly define them and can not be removed are:

- only class than can fight left side and than swithc to right side in minute.....nobody can do that, even fastes dd can not do that

- only class that last the longest in game due to mechanics that it strikes with planes....and yes from safety.

- only class that basicaly have 3 types of weapons for any class....rockets, bombs, torps

- only class that can pick his target anywhere on map - EXCELL ON KILLING BOTS; POTATOS; 47% wr guys who are majority of crying peoples on forums

things that can be removed but in my opinion would be stoopid

- spotitng......it could spot only for himself

things that have no matter in balance:

- fixed number of planes - we had that in first iteration and still CVs where alpha ships

- unlimited (respawn time) like now - still does not "solve" any problem

- AAA (we had super aaa in first iteration....we had I WIN BUTTON aka defensive firew....still did not do anything to stop strong player to spot strong targets or to demolish noobs

CVs are strongest ships in game....it is as it is....no nerf or buff can change that....

Mad_Dog_Dante · January 14

6 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

i was talking to specific post..it is clear what the summary of "problems" for that poster are.

The only thing that is clear to me is that you are assuming things, but I already mentioned that. The person in question never mentions removing carriers as the only clear solution. So we are back where we started. I'll be phasing out of your little self propelling circle 'argumentation' if you don't mind.

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

3 minutes ago, Europizza said:

So, 'they' in your little rant is people who come to the forums complaining from an emotional point of view? You understand gaming is mostly an emotional appeal right? And you call those people 'playing dumb' or are you calling me 'playing dumb'? Your generlizations and ramblings are quite uncohesive to be honest.

they = in 99% time are 47% wr, 500 PR, 28% survival rate bots. If definition of thery is needed.

other 1% who are not bots are playing dumb in most cases cause they understend most things, they play, win, dod their job CV or no CV i ngame....but just hate the mehanics and are crybabies who needs their voices to be heard on place nobody relevant reads. and no it nos posted to anybody specific

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

The only thing that is clear to me is that you are assuming things, but I already mentioned that. The person in question never mentions removing carriers as the only clear solution. So we are back where we started. I'll be phasing out of your little self propelling circle 'argumentation' if you don't mind.

back in time 30 minutes

if your main objection is - they strike from far and safe - only way to amand that is to remove CV.....no other way you can make CV attack from "dangerous" position.....if you give maximum range for planes lets say equal to maximum range of BBs fire range they still will attack from stalth and safty

Mad_Dog_Dante · January 14

43 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

CVs are strongest ships in game....it is as it is....no nerf or buff can change that....

I think DD's in general as a class are stonger actually. Lesta/Wg has always been on top of that class to keep it in check, with a myrad of design solutions, some great some a little less great. After the great carrier rework (I use great lightly here), that didn't hold up for the carriers after. This is why people mock carriers and now subs as WG's teachers favorite. It's a junevile reaction, emotional. But the core of the problem actually hold some meat to the bone.

To me the two major issues that carriers in general pose is their overarching influence on tactics, by a single ship/player, even if the carrier player is really bad, and the risk vs. reward issue compared to other classes as far as being sent to port early or mid game. These two issues are actually closely related and part of what I earlier described as Lesta cornering themselves into an impossible design spagetti.

As Lesta has shown in case of the DD's, they can be on top of and adress class problems perfectly fine over the years. But to my mind, burning this much cash, manhours and effort over these two classes scarred them deeply. They won't allocate anything of substance ever again to adress these issues. We can talk endlessly over them, but as you already pointed out, and me showcasing here, it's a fruitless effort of butting heads. So we can agree on that and be on our way, don't you think?

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

10 minutes ago, Europizza said:

I think DD's in general as a class are stonger actually. Lesta/Wg has always been on top of that class to keep it in check, with a myrad of design solutions, some great some a little less great. After the great carrier rework (I use great lightly here), that didn't hold up for the carriers after. This is why people mock carriers and now subs as WG's teachers favorite. It's a junevile reaction, emotional. But the core of the problem actually hold some meat to the bone.

To me the two major issues that carriers in general pose is their overarching influence on tactics, by a single ship/player, even if the carrier player is really bad, and the risk vs. reward issue compared to other classes as far as being sent to port early or mid game. These two issues are actually closely related and part of what I earlier described as Lesta cornering themselves into an impossible design spagetti.

As Lesta has shown in case of the DD's, they can be on top of and adress class problems perfectly fine over the years. But to my mind, burning this much cash, manhours and effort over these two classes scarred them deeply. They won't allocate anything of substance ever again to adress these issues. We can talk endlessly over them, but as you already pointed out, and me showcasing here, it's a fruitless effort of butting heads. So we can agree on that and be on our way, don't you think?

about CV vs Subs...dear god....those 2 classes are no near in strenght, one is masterclass, other is noobtrap/magnet.....stats that peoples do in subs is so shamfull that if somebody would look just in resaults would think that bots are playing. Anything that Cv has, subs lack:

- range

- speed

- spoting ability

- dmg potential (until introduction of subs lowest dmg class were torpedos dds....now they look like titans compared to torpedos from subs and its dmg.

- survavibility

about second option you are right...as i mentioned CV is master class that has all and ablitiy to do all......in it core design it will always be or they can be removed.....no amount of meaningfull nerf can change that.

about third.....Dds are very imortant...but i would not call them dominant in no way, after all, they are still the worst dmgdealing class - as torpedos are nonconsistant source of dmg for many of them.

Forth - as i said before....that 1% nonbots understand things perfectly and still pulls strong resaults and are dominating/wining games no mater CV in game.

Lootboxer · January 14

19 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

if your main objection is - they strike from far and safe - only way to amand that is to remove CV.....no other way you can make CV attack from "dangerous" position.....if you give maximum range for planes lets say equal to maximum range of BBs fire range they still will attack from stalth and safty

Exactly. Class exceptional mechanics plus limited counter-play options are broken and toxic deliberatly by design. Working as intended. Griefers can grief, potatoes still can do "something" without dying first, average and better players like me can stat pad WR and massage ego at lower tiers killing even much better players at will without much effort and at no risk whatsoever. All this frustration pushing players into higher tiers faster, maybe even making them spend some money to speed up the process.

There were some ideas about how could CV been balanced back then before rework but Lesta has chosen fun and engaging arcade way of redesign and 3 years later we are still having this complains and pointless discussion that nobody at WG cares about.

Who would have thought that bringing into 2D game a class (now 2 classes with subs) that can emerge from 3rd dimension, strike and disengage above or below will please 2D players???

Obviously nobody, WG knew very well what are they doing here, they are not as :etc_swear: up as we like to paint them it was deliberate attempt in creating frustration and complexity. What for I have no idea, probably it was predicted to make them money somehow. :Smile_facepalm:

Or they are really eating glue there and just sabotaging their own game.

After all they do not even play it, do they? :Smile_trollface:

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

Just now, Lootboxer said:

Exactly. Class exceptional mechanics plus limited counter-play options are broken and toxic deliberatly by design. Working as intended. Griefers can grief, potatoes still can do "something" without dying first, average and better players like me can stat pad WR and massage ego at lower tiers killing even much better players at will without much effort and at no risk whatsoever. All this frustration pushing players into higher tiers faster, maybe even making them spend some money to speed up the process.

There were some ideas about how could CV been balanced back then before rework but Lesta has chosen fun and engaging arcade way of redesign and 3 years later we are still having this complains and pointless discussion that nobody at WG cares about.

Who would have thought that bringing into 2D game a class (now 2 classes with subs) that can emerge from 3rd dimension, strike and disengage above or below will please 2D players???

Obviously nobody, WG knew very well what are they doing here, they are not as up as we like to paint them it was deliberate attempt in creating frustration and complexity. What for I have no idea, probably it was predicted to make them money somehow.

Or they are really eating glue there and just sabotaging their own game.

After all they do not even play it, do they?

since they were here from alpha faze of the game....you can live with them or leave the game....that really sums things up. And offcourse strong players will still win games and dominate games no mater CV in game or not.

statpading is not new or limited to Cvs on lower tiers......on TX it is alitle bit harder as your 1479 PR on Midays and 1201 PR on hakuryu and 623 on Nakimov shows (really no intend of statshaming, but to prove point that on tx it is not so easy)

there allways are ideas...but in most cases they are unrealistic and would turn CV into ussles ships....which in the end is wet dream of any CV hater..offcourse devs ignored that.....but to some degree they did balance CV.....more to say CV vs CV play that was before integrated part of play...were strong player would totaly shut down noob with strafing fighters play and dominate with rest of strike force...where poor noob would do 0 dmg......right now dominant players still domante and poor nobs at least do 30 k dmg in t8 ggame

Kyorinn · January 14

32 dakika önce, WingedHussar_Adler dedi:

on TX it is alitle bit harder as your 1479 PR on Midays and 1201 PR on hakuryu and 623 on Nakimov shows (really no intend of statshaming, but to prove point that on tx it is not so easy)

"no intend of statshaming"
proceeds to statshame

Mad_Dog_Dante · January 14

1 hour ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

they = in 99% time are 47% wr, 500 PR, 28% survival rate bots. If definition of thery is needed.

other 1% who are not bots are playing dumb in most cases cause they understend most things, they play, win, dod their job CV or no CV i ngame....but just hate the mehanics and are crybabies who needs their voices to be heard on place nobody relevant reads. and no it nos posted to anybody specific

All assumptions based on imaginary ghosts.

1 hour ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

back in time 30 minutes

if your main objection is - they strike from far and safe - only way to amand that is to remove CV.....no other way you can make CV attack from "dangerous" position.....if you give maximum range for planes lets say equal to maximum range of BBs fire range they still will attack from stalth and safty

You keep going in crazy circles posting removal as the only clear solution, a false narrative, posing a dramatic zero sum solution. Russian carriers have shown that they can be closer to the front lines and still perform very well actually. It made that carrier line strong as a result as far as I can tell mainly due to speeding up the attack waves to a silly immersion breaking level. Making airgroups slower between attack waves but stronger in HP on the other end of the idea spectrum turned out to be a horrible choice in testing the waters. I'm sure that Lesta tried many different things, and some even made it into seperate nation or ship gimmicks, but the core of the problem, the rework spagetti of design issues regarding carrier survivability, damage application, AA, player vs. automation interaction, etc etc. will remain wickedly tangled.

45 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

about CV vs Subs...dear god....those 2 classes are no near in strenght, one is masterclass, other is noobtrap/magnet.

Subs and carriers share a problematic implementation due to failure of both the producers and the game designers, that is all. They are nothing alike, I agree.

Quote

about second option you are right...as i mentioned CV is master class that has all and ablitiy to do all......in it core design it will always be or they can be removed.....no amount of meaningfull nerf can change that.

about third.....Dds are very imortant...but i would not call them dominant in no way, after all, they are still the worst dmgdealing class - as torpedos are nonconsistant source of dmg for many of them.

Forth - as i said before....that 1% nonbots understand things perfectly and still pulls strong resaults and are dominating/wining games no mater CV in game.

You said many things so far that don't make much sense to me, so that doesn't really add to their strength much. Repeating them won't add validation to their falsehoods.

I'll summarise my point of view, because it's really simple: Carriers won't change not because they can't be changed, but because they won't be changed.

Have a great weekend.

FloatingTarget · January 14

21 hours ago, Nov_A said:

The video is 2 years old.

Okay and? That doesn't make the points any less relevant.

What I'm getting from this topic is that any attempt or conversation about balancing CVs so they are not sky cancer is met by CV players with "No! Noob! Stop crying! Just leave the game! Any criticism is moaning! There's nothing wrong with them!"

Because if CVs get balanced, suddenly they would need to work to win XD (joke in case the salt flow)

But yea, people are free to talk and criticise. CVs have many issues, if they didn't their wouldn't be so much flak aimed at them, if you forgive the pun.

Lootboxer · January 14

2 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

....but to some degree they did balance CV.....more to say CV vs CV play that was before integrated part of play... were strong player would totaly shut down noob with strafing fighters play and dominate with rest of strike force...where poor noob would do 0 dmg .....right now dominant players still domante and poor nobs at least do 30 k dmg in t8 ggame

Strafe removal was a major one of proposed points. In this light rework was indeed a success, going from 90% solo WR of the best players down to mere 80% :cap_haloween: but true.

10 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

And offcourse strong players will still win games and dominate games no mater CV in game or not.

3 minutes ago, WingedHussar_Adler said:

on TX it is alitle bit harder as your 1479 PR on Midays and 1201 PR on hakuryu and 623 on Nakimov shows

It is harder, but I have not much experience at high tier CV play, I play very rarely and quite poorly at TX as I am focusing on spotting for my team and killing/zoning out DDs first for a win instead of farming and it shows in lower damage/PR for a not bad WR (I know that I should farm more as it's a damage race between CVs especially since rocket nerf)

Thing is that even average player can dominate in a CV while strong can just obliterate. Solo WR of best CV players is higher than any other class partly because there is more then one of other class ships to compensate skill gap nearly every time while CV is mostly just one of a class himself at T8-10) Even average players usually have better WR in CVs by 5-10%, total noobs will have lower then average still.

WingedHussar_Adler · January 14

3 minutes ago, Komi_Shouko_Ndnd said:

"no intend of statshaming"
proceeds to statshame

i can only statshame somebody who has worst stats than me..right...i suck hard on tx cvs and my stats are probably even worst....so really there was no intention of statshaming becasue that player in case is good.....for todays standards far aboveavrage

General CV related discussions.

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites