General CV related discussions.

[ca12nag3]

6 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Funnily enough, so do I. Note that I was happy to have my stats hidden, it was you who brought them up. A good tip for fun and teamplay: winning is fun and your temamates like it a lot when you carry them to victory.

It is because I want to have a balanced, enjoyable game. And once again, carriers being overpowered is just icing on the cake. The real problem is their ability to ruin the games by being able to dump all over everyone without counterplay and the way they spot everything, ruining any attempts at concealment plays.

 

I think you are in the minority when it comes to how many people actually hate CVs. Also I doubt it that anyone likes you after the game longer than perhaps a kudo for the service. Unless you are in a clan div team play is ad-hoc. Unless you are a well known player you are not remembered for " carrying them to victory". Also you carry a lot in lower tiers with a fully decked premium. Hardly a challenge if you do that all day with a selection of lets say 4/5 ships. Anyone can get good at that.

[ca12nag3]

33 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

So far, well three. one from full HP (torps - and yes he was stupid), one half-HP (he was smart... but not enough) and one "kill secured". 

And it doesn't matter if they were noob or not - you said it wasn't possible. I also damaged many more. 

BTW I'm only one or maybe two levels above noob myself... so... 

 

Well Shokaku (or Hakuryu) AP-bombs vs Smolensk... if you pay enough sheep to RNGesus you might get lucky.

Not that you can't hit Smoll, but well, AP bombs and that thing don't seem to work together.

I usually use torps. Much better. T8 (or T10) torps vs Smolly is good. Kaga likes Smolly. 

 

Yes that tactic works. BTW 2-2.5km is the range most DDs get spotted with AA off. 

The reason I only got 3 so far is because usually I don't go hunt them, other ships are better equipped to do so.

 

Usually though I know sort of where he is. If I fly there I'm already on the attack, all I have to do is click once. 

Also the smart thing to do is wait until he is spotted, and then plan an attack. 

The smartest way though is to spot HIM, and use F3, let the team spam him to death.

Do not spill precious planes on a scrawny DD that might bite. One set of fighters is usually enough... 

 

That is not " taking out a Friesland"  though. That is general CV vs DD play... If you say you can take out a Friesland with a T6 CV well I can spot a Friesland with any radar boat and have him dead in seconds. It isn't anything special to spot. Though some players believe they don't have to do that.

I love parking my Radar ship behind a rock and turn on Radar and sip my coffee while the team annihilates whatever is on the other side of that rock. And then we win. But I am too much a "d*ck" to help the useless all game. Usually, I push my ship to the edge and often over it, just for fun. Tank dmg and get that kill vs a good player.

I play very differently depending on if I'm with clanmates in Div, solo or Clan battles. I usually never play my Clan battle ships in randoms, no fun to do so because they are OP or particular situational. And in random matches it gets boring. I prefer to play hard to play ships nowadays, and true it runs down my win rate. But at least I have fun.

I used to like CV for the pleasure of the duel with other CVs, T7/8/9 were really fun back then. Besting someone else tactically and saving the team. But that is gone and now all you have is idiots half a continent away screaming for AA cover from your 60 sec fighter blobs. It sucks the joy out of it. And even if I can land a good score I play CV less and less. But saying it is OP is ridiculous.

[AndyHill]

1 minute ago, ca12nag3 said:

I think you are in the minority when it comes to how many people actually hate CVs.

Basically people who understand the game and what CVs do to it hate CVs. If you've noticed, though, many community contributors hate CVs and some of the best clans are protesting against their inclusion in CW. Some are even thinking of a new clan battles league for proper matches, if WG keeps including carriers in their CW.

 

I don't really care if I'm in a minority, though, it's not important to me. My views are based on what I think or know is right, not popularity.

5 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

Also I doubt it that anyone likes you after the game longer than perhaps a kudo for the service.

I don't care if they like me or not. You mentioned teamplay as a motivation to play and I agreed. Good teamplay prouces wins.

6 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

Also you carry a lot in lower tiers with a fully decked premium. Hardly a challenge if you do that all day with a selection of lets say 4/5 ships. Anyone can get good at that.

I don't even play low tiers anymore, unless a friend wants to grind a ship or something. If you're interested, you can find out my most played solo ships rather easily, for a few moments more at least.

 

As an excercise in reading statistics, how about this: can you figure out any reasons why this player (solo stats) likes carriers and sees nothing wrong with them:

 

[ca12nag3]

56 minutes ago, Yoshanai said:

I will tell you a secret and this is not a troll post and it works 100% of the time. 

 

After one requests AA support just use the quick command for Wilco! 

And if he asks again type in chat "On my way" but never actually go there.

He won't even notice. 

Funny, might actually be true as well. Though CV is not as fun as it used to be. I still enjoy the Brit T10 though. It is very much fun to predict a players movement and carpet bomb him. Love to do that perfect drop with 3+ fires. It is not about the kill either but that moment that you actually lined up and just know what he is going to do. Other than that the toxicity vs CVs and the idea that they are somehow OP is preposterous .

[ca12nag3]

3 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Basically people who understand the game and what CVs do to it hate CVs. If you've noticed, though, many community contributors hate CVs and some of the best clans are protesting against their inclusion in CW. Some are even thinking of a new clan battles league for proper matches, if WG keeps including carriers in their CW.

 

I don't really care if I'm in a minority, though, it's not important to me. My views are based on what I think or know is right, not popularity.

I don't care if they like me or not. You mentioned teamplay as a motivation to play and I agreed. Good teamplay prouces wins.

I don't even play low tiers anymore, unless a friend wants to grind a ship or something. If you're interested, you can find out my most played solo ships rather easily, for a few moments more at least.

 

As an excercise in reading statistics, how about this: can you figure out any reasons why this player (solo stats) likes carriers and sees nothing wrong with them:

 

 

Ah the good old stat thing. Well may I say that those ratings say little? I used to play CV and only Jap other than that for about 2 years. Yup it was kind of a self set rule. I then added german ships and only after that I kinda played everything. But I also played a lot of other ships since then and that is reflected in those stats. Also those stats are overall, not " recently " I barely play CV as of late. And as I stated I don't really like CVs all that much anymore. I've been there done that. I am easily bored.

This also reflects in my ship choice. When I get better with something and rack in a good score each game I tend to switch ship to a better challenge. Something new.

 

As I said in a previous post, I loved the 1 on 1 duel with the other CV. And that since the overhaul is gone.

[Kriger3n]

13 hours ago, Kriger3n said:

  On 4/30/2020 at 7:36 PM, FerrowTheFox said:

On 4/30/2020 at 6:53 PM, Kriger3n said:

With the amount of threads about CV gameplay being opened every day on this forum (i can only imagine how many there is on the other language speaking forums) and the fact that many of the other threads boil down to CV gameplay being bad, what are the moderators and admins here doing about it?? Have any WG employees comented on this fact? Or is this thread just for CV fanbois and CV haters to go at eachother so it can be buried and forgotten?

 

The thing is that everything that is wrong with the current CVs and how they or the former RTS iteration could be improved has already been said time and time again, first and foremost by the original RTS unicums (who have a really good understanding about their interactions and mechanics) during PTS. And every time that feedback has been ignored and many possible tweaks (like minimap only spotting) discarded with "we tried it and it didn't work". The steaming pile of sh*t we have now was just rushed out and implemented anyway.

But worse than that, the problem is now that WG have pretty much driven themselves into a dead end. As for example El2aZeR has said numerous times: the fundamental mechanics of reworked CVs are so shallow and focussed on raw dmg that they are either useless or overpowered. So any change now would have to be so radical it would amoun to admitting defeat and doing a second rework. You can imagine how likely that is.

 

Apart from that according to WG they're pretty much balans in their eyes. They only go by their glorious spreadsheet and averages and the goal seems to be to keep the CV population at a certain percentage even if it means crippling class interaction.

So in light of all the feedback being there and them saying they're balans, I wouldn't hold my breath for any reaction to these threads.

 

Cynics would say this thread has only been stickied again to collect the "player feedback" in one place to be ignored and forgotten while having an excuse to close any other CV related thread.

This.

[BLUB__BLUB]

Just now, ca12nag3 said:

That is not " taking out a Friesland"  though. That is general CV vs DD play... If you say you can take out a Friesland with a T6 CV well I can spot a Friesland with any radar boat and have him dead in seconds. It isn't anything special to spot. Though some players believe they don't have to do that.

That is why I say there is other ships better equipped for it. 

I can do it and if must I will, but hey, it is a meagre measly damage ship, so let others have it.

A few seconds dakka from a cruiser will do what takes me five minutes. Better pick some other ship, really. 

 

Just now, ca12nag3 said:

I love parking my Radar ship behind a rock and turn on Radar and sip my coffee while the team annihilates whatever is on the other side of that rock. And then we win. But I am too much a "d*ck" to help the useless all game. Usually, I push my ship to the edge and often over it, just for fun. Tank dmg and get that kill vs a good player.

That's the fun eh? It is why I'll hunt DDs with torps, and use the Ark Royal.

Those slow planes are a challenge. Other CVs are much easier, especially Japanese. 
 

Spoiler

 

 

Just now, ca12nag3 said:

I play very differently depending on if I'm with clanmates in Div, solo or Clan battles. I usually never play my Clan battle ships in randoms, no fun to do so because they are OP or particular situational. And in random matches it gets boring. I prefer to play hard to play ships nowadays, and true it runs down my win rate. But at least I have fun.

Same here. I get much better winrate when playing with clanmates. But I always want to help them a lot, so damage is lower. 

In randoms and solo I do loads of damage but well you can't carry these potatoes so... WR is lots lower. 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Just now, ca12nag3 said:

I used to like CV for the pleasure of the duel with other CVs, T7/8/9 were really fun back then. Besting someone else tactically and saving the team. But that is gone and now all you have is idiots half a continent away screaming for AA cover from your 60 sec fighter blobs. It sucks the joy out of it. And even if I can land a good score I play CV less and less. But saying it is OP is ridiculous.

CVs now are meant to be damage dealers. I knew someday WG would put them in CB so I try to get good at them.

But well, I'm more like cruiser/BB usually (can't play DDs). Except that Ark Royal... that thing is hilarious.

If you get a long batlle, you can do really good damage with it. No sinkers though, they'll always "secure" them for you. 

 

Spoiler

 

[159Hunter]

11 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

Ah the good old stat thing. Well may I say that those ratings say little?

May I suggest you drop the attitude. You brought up another player's stats. And he returned the favor. 

[siraiaw]

It has been confirmed that the new premium tier 6 GZ has Stuka :D

[Figment]

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

There are no specific RTS and FPS game design elements, just generic game design elements applied to different game types. Also, RTS specific elements would by necessity be focused on real-time interfaces, since the other design stuff in them is inherited from an older game type, turn based strategies. Most importantly I'm not really sure I understand what it is you wish to achieve with this classification.

 

No, I'm talking about individual ships as part of a team. That's what WoWS pretty much is.

Lot of things to discuss here.

 

RTS semantics discussion: let's drop it.

 

You know I'm talking about the real time strategic elements of the game like rock-paper-scissors design, where each ship has a specific purpose and different strategy and gameplay to complement the team. CVs have a lot of roles they can perform equally well as others right now and this is one of the issues you're having with it. You want it to have a niche, but it will never have a specific niche as it's a jack of all trades. it's just not balanced as a jack of all trades. It support others, but aside from close to medium range combat where they are sighted, does not require much aid. This is one reason I'd like to see it have less detectability, more like a heavy cruiser and forced to be a bit closer to the action, because it would have to be supported better and would become more reliant on other ships to protect it. The main complaint we have right now is that it can just sit waaay back after all.

 

You did not talk about individual ships as part of a team. You talked about personal optimization of damage output (and that each player this attempts) and having an equal chance as if it's a duel with a CV when it's not a duel unless there's only two ships left. Not a word about teamplay, complementation or support roles. Then later added you assumed that it was a given you were talking about optimizing your team, but given how there's been talk of randoms and solo play (note that you talk mostly about individual merit and good players doing something on their own somewhere aggressively). You didn't say a word about any actual teamwork. You were and are talking about your individual capacity to deal with enemies, including a CV. You feel each ship is an individual which should be equal to other ships, while this isn't true. Class differences ensure this.

Plus you're not considering the effect of what the stacking of AA capacity of each individual ship would suffice to fend of a CV would mean for CVs. You wern't talking about teamplay, you were talking about personal protection from a threat you find inconvenient because it doesn't abide by the exact same rules as other ships - without even defining what rules these are, while I've already indicated these uniform rules do not exist for all ships as many have a capacity to fight you without direct counters to them. For instance through game mechanics like spotter + sniper.

 

Snipers can't be dealt with by shotgun users, until the shotgun user gets in their face. Should snipers be removed from FPS games or should the shotgun user accept that in close range he's got an advantage, but at range does not and that even in close range the sniper can still headshot him, but has reload time or magazine size issues? Or should we remove grenade throwers who use a gravity weapon because there's no direct line of sight from certain games?

 

This is a similar situation: you're inconvenienced and your response is "do we need it? remove it please", rather than "how can we balance this so that it doesn't overpower the rest?".

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

Also, a scout tank is supposed to be equal to a heavy, just with different strengths and weaknesses.

Uhm no. You can't be serious on this.

 

A scout in WoT is primarily a dps enabler. It enables other people's damage output, which would otherwise be zero due to not having a target. (Like how a DD or CV may scout for BBs who would otherwise be blind to enemies) It has a gun, but it's not its primary role to handle heavy tanks one on one. Similarly a light cruiser may pepper a BB and kill it eventually, but it's not supposed to brawl with it on the same terms. It's not an equal, it needs to set its terms in order to do its job (like getting it in torp range from an ambush). With a scout, its role is to allow others to beat the heavy tank. That it might get the opportunity to deal damage even kill a HT in an ideal situation is fine, but if it were an equal it'd be a toss up who'd win one on one. Instead, the scout tank has to work much harder for that. Instead, scouts are largely passive risk takers who try to go unnoticed for as long as they can provide dps enablement to other players. They may try a cap, or flank attack, maybe take out artillery, scout, medium or TD, but they will not generally try to take on a HT alone. It might finish it, or it might not even be able to dent it (think how easy the KV-2 had it back in the early WoT days and some tanks still can barely be penned). Don't tell me one shotting KV-2s were equals to "I can't even pen you" Pz.38ts.

 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

3 hours ago, AndyHill said:

The reasoning for making carriers immune to DoTs is to reduce carrier sniping. Carriers are the masters of stacking DoTs and if they were vulnerable to it, they could and would fight each other more, leading to situations where one side has a massively influential ship and the other doesn't. A lot like in the RTS days. This is basically what WG themselves had to say about the subject during the rework.

Sooo... WG perfectly knew that they had created a monster, and by making that monster even more monstrous, they tried to make sure there's always a monster on each team?

While at the same time forgetting, that there might evolve some more monstrous monsters than others? Like... monsters with a working brain - won't name any here, but usually these happen to be Unicorns...

 

And this is the same WG that now brings the next type of monsters into the game - yeah, sure... for an extra special game mode just for these monsters and some volunteers, but probably not for long before they end up in random battles, too - and people really expect WG to get it right this time? Really???? What drugs are they on?

[AndyHill]

38 minutes ago, Figment said:

 Then later added you assumed that it was a given you were talking about optimizing your team, but given how there's been talk of randoms and solo play (note that you talk mostly about individual merit and good players doing something on their own somewhere aggressively). You didn't say a word about any actual teamwork. You were and are talking about your individual capacity to deal with enemies, including a CV. You feel each ship is an individual which should be equal to other ships, while this isn't true. Class differences ensure this.

Teamplay is implied. Any slightly experienced player knows this and these discussions are already long enough without going through every self-evident detail. By my definition good players are the ones who are good at doing the things required for their team to win. Ships should be equal strength with individual strengths and weaknesses. When I talk about ship vs. carrier situations, I'm talking about interactions, which are completely one sided, be it from an individual or a team standpoint. I also mentioned the teamplay side of of carriers specifically, which basically comes down to you hoping that your team's carrier is better at farming damage and kills than the red carrier so that you get a win.

46 minutes ago, Figment said:

Plus you're not considering the effect of what the stacking of AA capacity of each individual ship would suffice to fend of a CV would mean for CVs. You wern't talking about teamplay, you were talking about personal protection from a threat you find inconvenient because it doesn't abide by the exact same rules as other ships - without even defining what rules these are, while I've already indicated these uniform rules do not exist for all ships as many have a capacity to fight you without direct counters to them. For instance through game mechanics like spotter + sniper.

Note that when I talk about AA stacking and the likes, I do so from experience and independently measured and proven performance in carriers. You are trying to tell me that AA is a massive obstruction to me and I'm claiming that it is not, is that not at least a bit curious discussion?

 

Surely I don't have to define the rules ships follow? That ships have durability, speed, concealment, weaponry and utility in varying quantities, that they move along the ocean surface, can't turn in place, can't go over islands, cap circles when they get into them and stuff like that. The important part is that all the ships will utilize their abilities as well as they can to win the game, mostly figuring out what the reds are going to do and position themselves so that they can get the upper hand in the match. All ships work according to the same rules.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Snipers can't be dealt with by shotgun users, until the shotgun user gets in their face. Should snipers be removed from FPS games or should the shotgun user accept that in close range he's got an advantage, but at range does not and that even in close range the sniper can still headshot him, but has reload time or magazine size issues? Or should we remove grenade throwers who use a gravity weapon because there's no direct line of sight from certain games?

Why are we even talking about snipers, they don't exist in WoWS? 

1 hour ago, Figment said:

This is a similar situation: you're inconvenienced and your response is "do we need it? remove it please", rather than "how can we balance this so that it doesn't overpower the rest?".

No, it isn't. This is simply a situation where ýou project your own thoughts into me, because you don't really understand the discussio or how carriers actually affect the game. Hmm maybe I can try to redirect the discussion like this:

Since you seemed to put some weight on statistics, here's my most played solo ship:

If you're not familiar with the terms, that's basically a unicum-level win rate with super unicum -level personal rating over a reasonable amount of games, all solo (none of my friends want to play with carriers). Tell me again how inconvenienced I am about air strikes (hint: that ship is close to invulnerable to air attacks), how I don't know how AA works and how I need to learn to play with/against carriers. I also play clan battles as the shot caller / tactician and the carrier main of the team, in a competitive and extremely coordinated (compared to randoms) environment against teams that know they are facing a carrier and defend against it as a team - while preparing my team to do the same. 

 

This may sound arrogantand I don't know maybe it is, but it's also kind of true. You kind of also started the stats thing so although stats don't overrule good arguments, I could tell before checking that you didn't have a lot of experience especially in high tier battles just by the arguments you used. Please don't take this as a slur, since I respect you and I enjoy civil and constructive discussion (I wouldn't bother with massive posts if I didn't), but to keep things in perspective, when talking about carriers I have more games in T10 carriers than you have over T6 in total and when talking about teamwork about half as many games as a team tactician in clan battles as you have WoWS games in total.

 

As far as these discussions go, I've found that it's most useful to try to focus on some very specific things instead of a widely ranging discussion that moves all over all the time. So if at all possible I'd really like to try to understand better why you feel we need planes in the game, that should be a good starting point. The talk about balance and counterplay (or lack of) can only really start when we understand the context and what the performance is measured against. Personally I see planes as a purely disruptive thing that only ever take away from the gaming experience, never adding anything to it and I can't see any place for them in the game. From that viewpoint it's only logical to want them removed, right? If you want to somewhat useful exchange of opinions, you need to help me understand what you think the planes actually bring to the table. in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Uhm no. You can't be serious on this.

 

A scout in WoT is primarily a dps enabler. It enables other people's damage output, which would otherwise be zero due to not having a target...

This is again me actually talking about team effort; a good scout is as valuable if not more so than the big hitters.

 

[AndyHill]

8 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Sooo... WG perfectly knew that they had created a monster, and by making that monster even more monstrous, they tried to make sure there's always a monster on each team?

While at the same time forgetting, that there might evolve some more monstrous monsters than others? Like... monsters with a working brain - won't name any here, but usually these happen to be Unicorns...

 

And this is the same WG that now brings the next type of monsters into the game - yeah, sure... for an extra special game mode just for these monsters and some volunteers, but probably not for long before they end up in random battles, too - and people really expect WG to get it right this time? Really???? What drugs are they on?

If you were hoping for comforting words, sorry. Instead, I will simply paste the well known WG method of designing and implementing new features, which should help people understand why things are the way they are:

[Deckeru_Maiku]

I'm probably the only one that would find it hilarious if after submarines are implemented into random games players would stop playing any class except for CVs and submarines...

I probably would pay money to see those battles and read the chat that evolves from them... ^^

 

[Alfa_Tau]

21 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

If you were hoping for comforting words, sorry. Instead, I will simply paste the well known WG method of designing and implementing new features, which should help people understand why things are the way they are:

ahaha I can't stop laughting pls Excavatus do something. … to protect the honor of WG Developers… 

 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

8 minutes ago, Alfa_Tau said:

ahaha I can't stop laughting pls Excavatus do something. … to protect the honor of WG Developers… 

 

no need for honour when you have vodka...

[Pikkozoikum]

7 hours ago, Capra76 said:

8 hours ago, AndyHill said:

why do we need to have planes in a ship game?

 

This ^^^^^^^^^^

- CV are ships and their purpose is to use their planes, not to fight with guns.

- It's a naval warfare game, and naval aircraft existed and are part of the naval warfare

- It's the developers decision, most naval combat games have that, why should this game be limited and lacking in variety?

 

 

[AndyHill]

12 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

- CV are ships and their purpose is to use their planes, not to fight with guns.

- It's a naval warfare game, and naval aircraft existed and are part of the naval warfare

- It's the developers decision, most naval combat games have that, why should this game be limited and lacking in variety?

- Planes are not ships. I have no problem with carriers themselves, if someone wants to play one without the planes.

- And they destroyed naval warfare as depicted in WoWS. Also we don't have minelayers, transport ships, landing craft, e-boats or nuclear weapons, all of which were and are an important part of naval warfare.

- And when developers make bad decisions, it's up to us to call them out. Variety in itself is not worth anything, only when it can be turned it to a positive thing - which is only when the result is positive. For example right now we're desperately lacking in variety because we don't have mines or nuclear weapons. 

 

Also note that WoWS is in fact a game and not a vere historically accurate one at that. Believe or not, I actually once saw something like 8 Bismarcks and Tripitzes in a game fighting each other.

[VenividiviciNL]

Although as a former CV player with IJN/US CV's tier 6-9 laying in my harbor and playing these vessels on a daily basis, I sold them when 8.0 was released. Reason for that are 3-fold:

 

a) unlimited planes during the game since 8.0 (yes, I know about the timer to replenish your planes, but in general you could say that there is an endless number of planes available). In the RTS mode you had ONE starting number of planes and that was it; if all shot down, your game was over. So in the good 'old' days it was all about tactics related to safeguard your planes, whereas nowadays it is plane wave after plane wave to be released to their foes. Bear in mind that in the old days we had multiple squadrons in the air the same time (fighters, tb's and bombers), which had to be controlled by the player versus only 1 active squadron nowadays (only releasing "bot"fighters on a designated sector).

 

b) spotting mechanics; the old spottings mechanics have not changed after 8.0 as air time of a squadron is unlimited (unless recalled or shot down). This means that you could and still can spot your foes every minute as long as your planes did/do not attack or get/got shot down (in reality a plane can fly a certain distance before he has to turn back to base. which is not the case in WoWs). The practice is still that DD's are the first to suffer from this issue. Combined with the lightning speed of the current planes you know as an enemy that you are unable to reach your position to start your gameplay. We all know the (general) starting positions of our enemies as they are opposite to ours, so in the first minute you will see the squadron heading to the obvious heading of a DD, followed by a figther drop to secure a 60 second spotting zone on the DD. 

 

c) the complaint in the RTS mode was the Alpha strike of CV's as they could do major damage if handled by a skilled/veteran player, mainly by torpedo's on CA's and BB's. Since the release of 8.0 DD's face rocket planes which will cripple them as never before. In my opinion the Alpha damage has changed from torpedoes to rockets for that matter.

 

Overall conclusion:

When you consider the fact that your gameplay is over when your ship has been destroyed (by shell, bomb or torpedo) or has received major damage, meaning that you have to play more safely in the back and therefor your contribution to the rest of the game has been greatly reduced, a CV can still play without reserve as he will have planes to his disposal till games end of till he has been destroyed (the latter will happen mostly in end game). The risk factor for a CV player is at a minimum compared to a DD/CL/CA/BB player for that matter and not fair as such.

 

To my opinion the CV could be accepted if WeeGee makes changes based on the 3 issues I mentioned above.

[poopooo]

Another thing to balance them could be that the airplanes needed a rearming time, the airplanes would land after an attack and needed a time to launch them again, so they could not chain continuous attacks against the same ship in a very short period of time.

[Pikkozoikum]

39 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

- Planes are not ships. I have no problem with carriers themselves, if someone wants to play one without the planes. 

- And they destroyed naval warfare as depicted in WoWS. Also we don't have minelayers, transport ships, landing craft, e-boats or nuclear weapons, all of which were and are an important part of naval warfare.

- And when developers make bad decisions, it's up to us to call them out. Variety in itself is not worth anything, only when it can be turned it to a positive thing - which is only when the result is positive. For example right now we're desperately lacking in variety because we don't have mines or nuclear weapons. 

 

Also note that WoWS is in fact a game and not a vere historically accurate one at that. Believe or not, I actually once saw something like 8 Bismarcks and Tripitzes in a game fighting each other.

- Obviously planes are not ships. But this is not a ship only game.

- Maybe they will be introduced someday, but that doesn't change the fact, that we have a naval warfare game and not a "only ships that I like"-game

- Having CVs is not a bad decision, it's a common decision. Are there any naval battle games out without planes/CVs? I never played one. Silent Hunter, Steel Ocean, WoWs, War Thunder. All have planes.

[Padds01]

Have to assume this is just one big pile of ignored threads but i had a thought an idea.

 

Remove rocket planes - they are the problem , the reason people really hate playing aginst CV's

remove plane spotting. or at least limit it to the mini map (a plane spotting a ship will not reveal that ship except its location on the mini map)

 

Add - not sure if this should be a consumable used much akin to the current fighter consumable. or an actual squadron that you fly out and deploy to an area a high altitude spotter once deployed this will reveal a static area allowing the CV to reveal one area at any time

 

bombers torps might need to be tweaked to pick up the slack. secondaries might need to be beeed up to give CV's some close range self defence (not GZ level of course just some actual defence)

 

secondary idea how about unlimited planes but a wing goes on a cooldown based on how many planes are shot down before it recalls, would make people feel they were having an actual impact shooting planes down , obviously this would need to be different per CV (a kaga torp plane shouldnt have the same CD associated as a saipan one for eg)

[AndyHill]

11 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

- Obviously planes are not ships. But this is not a ship only game.

- Maybe they will be introduced someday, but that doesn't change the fact, that we have a naval warfare game and not a "only ships that I like"-game

- Having CVs is not a bad decision, it's a common decision. Are there any naval battle games out without planes/CVs? I never played one. Silent Hunter, Steel Ocean, WoWs, War Thunder. All have planes.

- That's a choice. It could and should be a ships only game, it would be vastly better that way. Of course we could actually have planes and boats in a special game mode, which might actually be the best alternative.

- No, they won't. For a good reason. Unless WG goes completely... ok nevermind.

- It's not a bad decision, it's an incredibly horrible decision. What other, very different games do, does not matter. All that matters is if this specific game would be better without planes - and the answer is yes.

[Miragetank90]

9 minutes ago, Padds01 said:

remove plane spotting. or at least limit it to the mini map (a plane spotting a ship will not reveal that ship except its location on the mini map)

 

This can lead to some funny situations.

 

Example: You're sailing in your North Carolina and you see torps coming your way from the side. You know the enemy Kagero is close-by. Luckily your CV is en-route with rocket planes.

Look now, he's spotted the Kagero. He's at 5.8km from you... but... oh no! You can't do anything beyond blindfiring because, even though you see him on the map, you can't see the Kagero that is right in your face. 

 

Instead, you see the CV dropping rockets into the ocean at an invisible target. In the open, at 5.8km from you. 

[Dukewerth1]

I guess I was right to delet this game. It would be so easy for the old game to balance it with adding fuel, decrease dmg of torps ... so many options but nope, they did not because WG is not smart enough. They could take example of CVs in Navyfield (who is alive now, good new). Now the CVs are dead in that game. I loved the old gameplay. Much more strategic than it is now. Only advice I can give to people: just leave that game. They took enough time from us (and money for some of you)