General CV related discussions.

[Pikkozoikum]

21 minutes ago, Miragetank90 said:

 

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. 

If you are in a DD, your aquisition range is quite low and you see ships shooting into the water. That's normal, if an target is not spotted. I suggest once a proposal about spotting planes and non-spotting combat planes. Would work well, I guess

Subs will have that even more, since their vision range is super low

[Figment]

Andy, you're being obtuse on purpose. You're in a mindset where your only goal is to naysay whoever you feel is your competition. You're not here to discuss a workable solution for CVs, you're here to sabotage the discussion what with bringing up nonsense like nukes and all.

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

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.

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?

Nothing is implied. You can't hold an argument and expect people to read your mind. If you havn't said it you havn't said it. Period. If I'm going to have to assume things about you because you fail to convey your message, what's stopping me from making the wrong assumptions? This is retarded.

 

I'm talking about being able to deal with it, while acknowledging balance is off and CVs need a rework. You tell me I can't be dealing with it and the only thing that can be done is removing it (and so far your only argument is because you don't like 'm as implemented in the versions up to now, nor having the situational awareness - or will - to deal with them and plan for their potential strikes while simultaneously dealing with other threats). So who is assuming things here? It's not very respectful.

 

The interactions are NOT one sided. Ships engage the CV's proxy, aircraft. Eventually disarming the CV. That they can't do this efficiently enough is something to balance. However, you're going for the nuclear option due to personal preference of direct interaction only, which is entirely biased and unreasonable and therefore not an argument. Not to mention hypocritical, since you don't mind a n invisible spotting ship being a proxy for other players who you can't directly engage due to range limitations or not seeing the firing ship or having no line of fire on that firing ship.

 

CVs aren't the only determining factor in wins and their impact can be further limited. You however just drone on about your issues with them without actually engaging in discussion about the potential solutions. You've not addressed a single one of the potential points of balancing I've brought up. Not a single one, while I mentioned a dozen. I've been very specific about what could be tweaked and how. But you've been more interested in going into semantics.

 

 

 

 

The only time you've addressed stacking was when you said that if a CV wants a ship dead, it can do so. What you failed to admit is that the CV in question is subsequently handicapped in terms of firepower resources. Whether it is handicapped enough is a different discussion. But basically you've used one anecdote to try to build a case that AA doesn't work "because you can get a kill". The question should be, is the cost to get that kill high enough? Instead, you state "I got a kill, thus AA doesn't work". That's a fallacy. A Phyrric victory is a victory sure, but the cost could be losing the war. In this case it would be winning the duel, maybe two or even three duels, but losing the overall battle. If the cost isn't high enough, then it needs rebalancing at the least. Personally I'd rather see a complete overhaul.



But I get the impression you're still convinced I'm somehow in favour of the current status quo because that's what you assumed at the start when I said it's possible to deal with it and the whining was exagerated. I'm all for critique on the current system, but the excessive, hyperbolic whining by angry 5 year old wannabeese is just petty and retarded.

[Miragetank90]

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If you are in a DD, your aquisition range is quite low and you see ships shooting into the water. That's normal, if an target is not spotted.

 

Except that that isn't happening at ranges close enough to feel very weird, like it would with minimap only spotting. The example I gave isn't a thing right now. With minimap only spotting it will be. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

28 minutes ago, Miragetank90 said:

 

Except that that isn't happening at ranges close enough to feel very weird, like it would with minimap only spotting. The example I gave isn't a thing right now. With minimap only spotting it will be. 

Then it can be like: DD spotted by CV can be seen if it is within the detection range of the own ship.

Like, on a BB (which is spotted from 14km) he'd see the DD if that DD was at 14km or less. 

However, the cruiser next to that BB would not see the DD - since the cruiser itself is only spotted at 8km? 

 

Wouldn;t be that weird though. In "hurricanes" my teammate spotted a fat BB, and I couldn't see him.

I see my teammate shoot at that BB, but I only saw him 1.5 km later. 

 

[Figment]

3 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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.

Some have torps. Some genormous range. OH CRAP DIFFERENT RULES.

 

Sorry Andy, but even this definition includes CVs.

 

Durability? Check

Speed? Check

Concealment? Check

Weaponry and utility in varying qualities? Check

Move along the ocean surface? Check

Can't turn in place? Check
Can't go over islands? Check

Cap circles when they get into them? Check.

 

 

The only differences? Their ordinance, which like of all ships you describe is airborne, is guided (can turn on command) after release and has infinite range. Another difference? Their ordinance can be taken out and run out. (I don't particularly like infinite range. Aircraft fuel should be a major logistical consideration and would remove most of the logistical issues you have with it being able to deliver ordinance everywhere on the map at any time save flight time).

3 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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

I'm sure no BB has more range, even double range compared to a DD or cruiser...

 

Spotter (DD, Cruiser, any other ship and aircraft) and sniper (BB, some cruisers).

 

 

We also got mortars in game who also use spotters... They sit behind islands and have a high arc...

3 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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.

Now who is projecting and making assumptions? I understand it well, I just disagree with you because my perspective is fundamentally different from how teamwork is defined. You come at it from a collective of individuals. I'm coming at it from a collective of smaller groups who combine/complement roles (and stack AA) that might be such small groups they'd be individuals. You really can't tell someone with well above average winrates they don't understand something. They might be more accepting of it, or view it in a different light, might not be as frustrated as you are, but it's not lack of comprehension per se.

3 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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. 

Because despite you recognising the ability and power of the CV, you dislike the concept of CVs. You've been very clear you'd rather not have them, but you're also someone who knows you need it in the current state of the game. It is an inconvenience to you. It isn't an inconvenience because it impacts your WR or stats (as a good player you can work around it and work with it), it is an inconvenience because you simply dislike it, dislike dealing with it and dislike having to apply it.

The argumentation is still not much different from a BB player who just wants torpedoes out of the game though.

3 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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.

Stats are important and I'm open to critique, I don't see it as arrogant, but it's not that relevant in this case because it doesn't show I'm incapable of using it if I'd be offered the tool. Would I be a unicum in it? Probably not, but a positive influence once the timing is mastered and some more experience gained? Likely. Simply not having played with something doesn't mean you can't comprehend it. Particularly if you have fought something you can already learn a lot from that.

 

I can see what a carrier can do, ample. But as I also face the top tier carrier in a sub-tier unit and survive for minutes, while shooting down many aircraft and keeping myself engaged or disengaged with other ships - and win or be top three. Sadly usualy it's the opposite side imploding at a loss - says enough to me. It's often enough to both deal damage to surface ships and distract that CV long enough. That's my goal in such a match (survival isn't per se) and that's why I state I can deal with it. I got to Zuiho and Ranger in beta (knowing I was an above average CV player at best, but barely played it intensively in comparison to DDs and cruisers). Plus my timing was somewhat poor, while often neglecting to send up enough aircraft in advance to keep up logistically, due to focusing too much on one engagement at a time. I know my flaws.

 

That doesn't mean I can't see what the potential was, certainly when looking at what other CVs were doing simultaneously and on some youtube vids. The same applies here. The basic concept is the same over the tiers, but the power distance and creep in tiering is (as I've said many times before) simply very poorly executed.

 

3 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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.

 

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

There are ample reasons, I've mentioned several before when explaining the role I imagine, though implicitly I presume. Why have them at all though? The same can be asked of any unit class, but your argument will be that they share more similarities due to firing in straight lines (well okay, curves) from their ship using either turrets or torpedo tubes. That's in fact the one you missed in your definition. Rather important one for your vision though.

But as far as reasons go:

 

1. Naval and aircraft enthusiasts who play this game love carriers. Their ommitance would not be comprehended by everyone. (not a gameplay argument, but it's why we've been seeing people ask for subs too). It brings in a larger variety of players. Provided it's implemented well of course and thus doesn't chase more away.

 

2. It brings greater variation in both threat and play, essentially a different gameplay, which also aids AA ships have a niche of some greater importance. I think we agree it's currently somewhat underwhelming on same tier or against higher CV, but overwhelming against lower tier CV. If every threat is the same or too similar, it gets boring fast.

 

3. When a side implodes, it's not fun for a player to have no support at all anymore. CVs can help overcome this by dealing some damage. The amount is up for debate. Of course they'd also be on the side that is winning.

 

4. Certain units have such advantages over other classes that they need an equalizing force to give the other class a chance. DDs if played well can run stay out of sight and run circles around BBs without the BB ever having a chance to retaliate. Think Colorado vs IJN DDs. Since cruisers or other DDs might be dead or on the other side of the map, another form of spotter to assist where no one else can makes life more fun for the hunted. Less fun for the hunter who becomes the hunted though. As a stealth / DD player at heart it's painful, but it's sometimes only fair to get air after me to detect me. The amount of engagement is a bit over the top as is though as I think most will agree.

 

5. It reduces downtime and draws, particularly in the early and late game if you know where abouts your enemy is so you can engage them. It would be incredibly boring to sail circles with multiple BBs who never find eachother. It brings people on fairly large maps together, particularly in the later stages of the game. As said though, the spotting mechanics afaic could use work. I wouldn't mind more blind map firing for instance based on radar images or other incomplete scouting reports. For all I care the map spotting simply colours the grid in a red tone if aircraft spotted something, maybe give a hint of the strength of the units sighted rather than showing the exact locations, directions and type.

 

6. It's sometimes the only way to reach and flush out camping HE spammers and therefore assists a more aggressive push and punishes too static play.

 

7. They're majestic beasts. :)

 

8. All other ships are specialists in one or two things. There's no jack of all trades. Jack of all trades should be a master of none however and this is currently not the case, it's a master of almost all. And this is IMO what bothers you the most, both as CV player and as opponent.

 

3 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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

Scouting is underrated indeed. This we can agree on.

 

However, it's not an equal in combat to a HT (it is potentially superior if it has allies in ambush and potentially inferior when it has not) and you are constantly talking about equals in combat.

[AndyHill]

21 minutes ago, Figment said:

Nothing is implied. You can't hold an argument and expect people to read your mind.

Ok I'll just start replying like you didn't know the basics of the game.

22 minutes ago, Figment said:

(and so far your only argument is because you don't like 'm as implemented in the versions up to now, nor having the situational awareness - or will - to deal with them and plan for their potential strikes while simultaneously dealing with other threats).

Actually I'm beginning to think that you are having trouble reading at all. Once again: the problem with carriers is their ability to spoil any concealment plays and crab all over anyone without having to adhere to the limitations that other ships have to adhere to, which is disruptive to the general gameplay.

29 minutes ago, Figment said:

The interactions are NOT one sided. Ships engage the CV's proxy, aircraft.

Aircraft are a resource to be used by the carrier, like ammunition on a ship. Killing a few planes while a carrier dumpsters you is like destroying BB shells with your ship.

 

Theoretically, if a Yamato keeps firing from start to finish, he will be able to fire 20 x 2 = 40 volleys (of which the last one doesn't have time to leave the barrel) with 9 shells each, which is a total of 360 shells in a match. High tier carriers can fly in the range of 100+ planes total theoretically ( I recall Kaga being something like 150, but that's an exception). Now the Yammy won't be able to fire from the start, he will have to get close to make his shells effective and he needs to have a very good position to be able to fire all of his guns effectively on cooldown for a 20min match, so his number is very theoretical. The carrier, however, will be flying his planes from 0 seconds to the finish, so his numbers are a little bit less theoretical, but most calculations do include all squads regenerating basically from the start. So taking that 10-20k of Midway bombs plus potential fires while shooting down a few planes is roughly equivalent to getting shot at by a Yamato and taking 10-20k damage while not being able to shoot back nor being able to see him. I'd call that rather one sided.

34 minutes ago, Figment said:

You however just drone on about your issues with them without actually engaging in discussion about the potential solutions. You've not addressed a single one of the potential points of balancing I've brought up. Not a single one, while I mentioned a dozen.

The thing is, those suggestions have been seen here a great many times and although they would probably reduce the problem (and perhaps I should've put more effort into replying to them, even though I've seen them all a number of times by now in this discussion and elsewhere), what I'm really interested in is why do we have to have the problem in the first place. It all really has to start with why we need to have planes in the first place, only then can we start thinking how to balance them. Funny how you haven't been able to even start to answer that, eh?

38 minutes ago, Figment said:

The only time you've addressed stacking was when you said that if a CV wants a ship dead, it can do so. What you failed to admit is that the CV in question is subsequently handicapped in terms of firepower resources. Whether it is handicapped enough is a different discussion. But basically you've used one anecdote to try to build a case that AA doesn't work "because you can get a kill". The question should be, is the cost to get that kill high enough? Instead, you state "I got a kill, thus AA doesn't work". That's a fallacy. A Phyrric victory is a victory sure, but the cost could be losing the war. In this case it would be winning the duel, maybe two or even three duels, but losing the overall battle. If the cost isn't high enough, then it needs rebalancing at the least. Personally I'd rather see a complete overhaul.

You're once again assuming things left and right. If a carrier has enough planes to fly effective strikes until the end of the game, he hasn't lost anything valuable in the attacks. And sure, AA power can be used as a means for balancing - except that with the design of current carriers WG has painted themselves into a corner, because every situation where one single squad is incapable of getting a strike through makes a carrier entirely powerless, which again isn't a good situation for balance.

45 minutes ago, Figment said:

But I get the impression you're still convinced I'm somehow in favour of the current status quo because that's what you assumed at the start when I said it's possible to deal with it and the whining was exagerated. I'm all for critique on the current system, but the excessive, hyperbolic whining by angry 5 year old wannabeese is just petty and retarded.

Very adult behavior indeed, good job I'd say.

[AndyHill]

20 minutes ago, Figment said:

Some have torps. Some genormous range. OH CRAP DIFFERENT RULES.

No, same rules, different numbers for attributes. Torpedoes count as armament.

21 minutes ago, Figment said:

Sorry Andy, but even this definition includes CVs.

 

Durability? Check

Speed? Check

Concealment? Check

Weaponry and utility in varying qualities? Check

Move along the ocean surface? Check

Can't turn in place? Check
Can't go over islands? Check

Cap circles when they get into them? Check.

Sure, and I have no problems with CVs. Just the planes. And they don't follow these rules.

24 minutes ago, Figment said:

The only differences? Their ordinance, which like of all ships you describe is airborne, is guided (can turn on command) after release and has infinite range. Another difference? Their ordinance can be taken out and run out.

I have to admit I'm doing something very wrong, since none of my ships come with guided ammunition. I suppose you meant to say that was actually a difference? However, you forgot to mention that this ammunition doesn't have to see its target before firing and that it can even spot for everyone else on the team. And that together with the guidance part is a pretty big difference.

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

I'm sure no BB has more range, even double range compared to a DD or cruiser...

Except that only the very worst battleship players would play their ships as snipers.

33 minutes ago, Figment said:

I understand it well, I just disagree with you because my perspective is fundamentally different from how teamwork is defined. You come at it from a collective of individuals. I'm coming at it from a collective of smaller groups who combine/complement roles (and stack AA) that might be such small groups they'd be individuals.

I might be more understanding of your view, if woWS players in fact weren't a collective of individuals. Even divisions usually aren't what you describe.

35 minutes ago, Figment said:

You really can't tell someone with well above average winrates

Your stats aren't bad for what they are, but what they show is a distinct lack of experience. Also winrate (or stats in general) don't make arguments. If I think your way of playing the game sounds less effective to me and I can demonstrate better results by playing my way, I can only conclude that my way is probably better.

38 minutes ago, Figment said:

Because despite you recognising the ability and power of the CV, you dislike the concept of CVs.

It's not "despite", it's "because". And it's not just power as in balanceable DPM or something like that, it's their ability to screw over anyone anywhere anytime regardless of their skill and the total lack of teamplay needed for that.

40 minutes ago, Figment said:

The argumentation is still not much different from a BB player who just wants torpedoes out of the game though.

Well if you have good arguments for removing torpedoes, I'm willing to listen (but probably in another discussion). Of course you can tell them that torps are statistically some of the least effective weapons in the game and since we've been talking about statistics, I suggest checking out how much torpedo damage said BB players do themselves, when the topic pops up next time.

44 minutes ago, Figment said:

But as far as reasons go:

Ok this is the actually interesting part.

45 minutes ago, Figment said:

1. Naval and aircraft enthusiasts who play this game love carriers. Their ommitance would not be comprehended by everyone. (not a gameplay argument, but it's why we've been seeing people ask for subs too).

Well as you said yourself, this is not a gameplay argument. I would also say that anyone who knows naval history should understand fairly well why carriers can't exist in a game that's supposed to have surface gun ships shooting at each other.

46 minutes ago, Figment said:

2. It brings greater variation in both threat and play, essentially a different gameplay, which also aids AA ships have a niche of some greater importance. I think we agree it's currently somewhat underwhelming on same tier or against higher CV, but overwhelming against lower tier CV. If every threat is the same or too similar, it gets boring fast.

Variety is a good argument, but only when it's of the positive sort. This is why I made the examples of mineships and nuclear weapons; just having variety is not necessarily positive. More variety is often a good thing, though, and lack of variety can definitely be a problem, so this is a good argument for adding carriers (and nukes and mines and subs) if a good implementation can be made.

 

Ships usually considered to be AA ships having a niche is an interesting aspect, though. They are all completely fine in non-carrier games and they'd need at most slight balancing passes if carriers were completely out of the game. It's quite telling that during the latest clan wars season (the first one with carriers) previously common Salems and Des Moineses (thought of as decent AA platforms) have lost ground in the meta to more Stalingrads and even more Venezias (not known as awesome AA platforms).

50 minutes ago, Figment said:

3. When a side implodes, it's not fun for a player to have no support at all anymore. CVs can help overcome this by dealing some damage. The amount is up for debate. Of course they'd also be on the side that is winning.

Emphasis mine. The thing is, carriers can also make a side implode. And if ship A gets caught in an imploding side, isn't that his mistake and haven't the ships B, C and D of red team earned the kill? Is it fun for them when they get crabbed on by a carrier and maybe don't get the last kill after they recognized a tactical opportunity to win a flank, won it fair and square - probably paying for it with their hitpoints? My opinion is clearly no. They have way too much flexibility and influence all over the map. Also note that red side has a carrier, too, and it might make disengaging from an imploding front impossible even if you were smart enough to recognize the situation early enough.

 

This is BTW a common thing for all examples that include a carrier helping a ship out in one situation or another, there is always the other ship on the other side that gets shafted by the carrier.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

4. Certain units have such advantages over other classes that they need an equalizing force to give the other class a chance. DDs if played well can run stay out of sight and run circles around BBs without the BB ever having a chance to retaliate. Think Colorado vs IJN DDs. Since cruisers or other DDs might be dead or on the other side of the map, another form of spotter to assist where no one else can makes life more fun for the hunted. Less fun for the hunter who becomes the hunted though. As a stealth / DD player at heart it's painful, but it's sometimes only fair to get air after me to detect me. The amount of engagement is a bit over the top as is though as I think most will agree.

(again emphasis mine) Well I simply don't agree with this. The balance in non-CV games seems fine to me. My perspective is mostly from high tier matches that are full of radar and hydro, which makes the game rather challenging for DDs. If the balance in low-mid tiers is drastically in favor of DDs, that can probably be balanced by giving ships more radars and such - but I haven't really heard or seen anything like that. Usually when a DD gets a BB (and they do statistically something like half the damage BBs do so it's rarer than people tend to think), it has possibly or even probably taken risks that paid off for once. The other side of DDs being able to stay concealed is that usually they have to, since they are the most fragile ships. So basically I simply don't see the kind of DD dominance that would justify the inclusion of carriers as a DD hunting class, but if you feel that is the case I'm certainly willing to hear your arguments.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

5. It reduces downtime and draws, particularly in the early and late game if you know where abouts your enemy is so you can engage them. It would be incredibly boring to sail circles with multiple BBs who never find eachother. It brings people on fairly large maps together, particularly in the later stages of the game. As said though, the spotting mechanics afaic could use work. I wouldn't mind more blind map firing for instance based on radar images or other incomplete scouting reports. For all I care the map spotting simply colours the grid in a red tone if aircraft spotted something, maybe give a hint of the strength of the units sighted rather than showing the exact locations, directions and type.

Actually I'm pretty sure carriers add downtime, since they are often the last ship alive and far away from the frontlines. And it is quite boring to sail after the lone carrier, sailing far away or behind some island, points ticking away slowly. Battleships aren' usually as big of an issue, since they are more often close to the action and die early. Draws are extremely rare either way. As for spotting, I really don't think we need more spotting than what we have in carrierless games. A big part of the game is figuring out when you can get to good locations and surprise people by using your concealment, and just a vague minimap plot will reveal a lot of those opportunities. People need to be rewarded for clever plays and positioning and people who get fall victim to those need to develop their game sense and learn something for the next time, not get simple spotting assistance. This is also a thing open for discussion, though, if you for example feel that there is too much sneaking about in non-carrier games.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

6. It's sometimes the only way to reach and flush out camping HE spammers and therefore assists a more aggressive push and punishes too static play.

Especially smoke spammers are a thing that generally doesn't improve the game and I'm open for reworking that (or at least taking out ships that are able to spam effectively from their own smoke). However, typically ships spamming from behind islands are in a relatively aggressive position. They have pushed into that location usually taking some kind of risks and perhaps at least sometimes should be rewarded for it. More importantly, though, if island spamming wasn't an option, those ships would be further away from the action, which isn't very aggressive either. And again this situation can be reversed; imagine somebody behind an island in a cruiser, spamming away at battleships approaching you, perhaps trying to hold a cap or something useful. Is it his duty to rush out of there, because the battleships would rather blab him in the open than risk pushing him? Is it really fair that someone on the opposing team can just blow him out of the water at will, without him - or the battleships - having to take any risks to push him out?

1 hour ago, Figment said:

7. They're majestic beasts. :)

Yes, they are. My main thing is actually flight simulators and carriers are truly awe inspiring in reality. Which is one of the reasons they don't really have a place in the game. More importantly, the designers - presumably desperate to shoehorn them into the game at any cost - butchered them so badly that they don't make any justice to actual carriers. So many things are just flat out wrong, from attacking with only a few planes at a time to Musashi having a bigger plane complement than many smaller carriers actually had, that many history buffs would probably rather have nothing at all than the freak show we have now.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

8. All other ships are specialists in one or two things. There's no jack of all trades. Jack of all trades should be a master of none however and this is currently not the case, it's a master of almost all. And this is IMO what bothers you the most, both as CV player and as opponent.

What bothers me most is the carriers' ability to strike and especially spot anywhere anytime, which breaks the flow of the game. It is true that the fact that carriers are basically masters of all at the moment, but it's important to differentiate those two factors. If it was simply a matter of making them less powerful I would be fairly optimistic about a balancing solution (except that the current implementation is based on the idea that there can't be situations where one squadron can't get through, which is very difficult to balance), but that's not really how I see the situation. Being able to see everything everywhere and strike anyone anywhere without risk are the things that make carriers carriers, they are also things that made surface gun ships completely obsolete for naval warfare and they are the things that destroy WoWS gameplay. It's hard for me to be very optimistic about anyone ever finding a good solution to that problem and if carriers can't even resemble real carriers without breaking the game, we're much better off without them.

[Alfa_Tau]

4 hours ago, AndyHill said:

5 hours ago, Figment said:

Sorry Andy, but even this definition includes CVs.

 

Durability? Check

Speed? Check

Concealment? Check

Weaponry and utility in varying qualities? Check

Move along the ocean surface? Check

Can't turn in place? Check
Can't go over islands? Check

Cap circles when they get into them? Check.

Sure, and I have no problems with CVs. Just the planes. And they don't follow these rules.

Durability? Yes 

Speed? Yes and I will add some planes turn slower than some Ships which I find quite hilarious… 

concealment? We can argue that this is really the point where planes were totally penalized ( I guess for gaming balance). Because I challenge anyone to prove that spotting 9 planes in formation at 3000 m high and 9 km away  is easier that spotting a ship at the same distance from that altitude.

Instead one more thing to improve the quality of the game, could have been this: as the squadron decrease in number also the visibility decrease. Instead now we have the absurd situation where a lone plane survivor from AA slaughter has the same detectability radius of a squadron and can be seen at 9km while a 100m long ship still can be seen only when it is at 2 km.  

now as I said I can understand this is for game balancing but it's definetely in favor of surface ships that quite often have the "first shot " advantage as usually get spotted only after starting to fire AA. 

Weaponry is limited and taliking about the latest introduction in game… now we have torps that are almost as fast as planes….  but apparently none is complaining with that.. except I guees the poor BB players.. 

among the rest only Flying over island is possible but that's the nature of planes,,, and cap . But do you really want to give planes the opportunity to CAP ? 

 

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, Alfa_Tau said:

Because I challenge anyone to prove that spotting 9 planes in formation at 3000 m high and 9 km away  is easier that spotting a ship at the same distance from that altitude.

One might say planes are spotted by air search radar instead good ol standard issue, mark, 1, eyeball. Given planes get no concealment bonus from cyclone/storm, unlike ships

[redraven]

11 hours 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?

 

 

 

 

10 hours 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.

-you see CV play like i were able to manually guide my shells from my BB. Sounds fun doesnt it?
-just wait till cruise missles get into the game. i bet my [edited]there is a reason those [edited]missles are modeled on the halland for a reason. I hope you wont mind when suddenly you are being attacked by a weapon you can do nothing against.
-And they were not really important untill the mid 40s... and even than only in the pacific theater.
-SO you want a combined arms game? There is one on the market. It starts with war and ends with thunder. Go play that.

CVs do nothing but aboslutely disrupt the balance between Surface ships.
Fact of the matter is cv players dont play Wows. They play a watered down retard-cousin version of World of warplanes. And it shows.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, redraven said:

you see CV play like i were able to manually guide my shells from my BB. Sounds fun doesnt it?

 

If you accept that your shells can get killed on the way and that you are potentially not able to shoot again.... sure 

[redraven]

10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

If you accept that your shells can get killed on the way and that you are potentially not able to shoot again.... sure 

Sure. But than i should be able to switch to the numerous 5-8 inch guns strapped on me and use those with actually accuracy and range while my main guns realod. Kind of like how CVs spamms a different squad 
The magical plane factory in the cv is the reload timer thats on my main guns.

Not to mention that my guns can actually be permanently disabled. Unlike planes i can run out firepower.

[Miragetank90]

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

One might say planes are spotted by air search radar instead good ol standard issue, mark, 1, eyeball.

 

I think of it that way too.

 

Which means IJN Torp bombers represent stealth technology? 

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, redraven said:

Sure. But than i should be able to switch to the numerous 5-8 inch guns strapped on me and use those with actually accuracy and range while my main guns realod. Kind of like how CVs spamms a different squad 
The magical plane factory in the cv is the reload timer thats on my main guns.

 

The “magical” plane factory roughly resembles actual reserves. You start with fewer aircraft but never get fully deplaned through that mechanic. We have gone the math multiple times haven’t we?

 

Btw your ammo and torp factories on your other ships say “hi”

[Phayk]

What's the point of these discussions anymore?

 

The most healthy option for the game would be to remove CVs entirely, accept that the whole idea was bad and concede - for once - that you can cover a turdburger in as much ketchup as you want but it's still gonna taste like a turd. It's what a sensible designer would have done ages ago.

 

Not to mention that thousands of different spices of ketchup have been suggested (remove shared vision from planes, reduce aircraft range, reduce CV speed, buffing AA etc.) to at least improve the taste of that burger but nothing has been done. Not even tested.

 

Like, seriously, why bother anymore?

[redraven]

3 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

The “magical” plane factory roughly resembles actual reserves. You start with fewer aircraft but never get fully deplaned through that mechanic. We have gone the math multiple times haven’t we?

 

Btw your ammo and torp factories on your other ships say “hi”

Exept that ships.. well battleships at least carried so mutch ammo they could fire for extended periods of time. Torpedos however limited yes. And i have been saying for some time that they need to be.

Not to mention other magical properties of the CVs. Like having no ammo rack.. or storage space. I guess all your bombs, rockets and torpedos are created from thin air. Also CVs must be made out of some super high tech nano armor because they are also immune to fire and floods.

Dont even try to argue about it. CVs are blatantly unbalanced and nobody with more than 2 braincells likes them.

[hilow]

please just take off the detection message the planes get when they have been spotted, it'll make it harder for them to find ships and make it so they need others to help them spot. late game they wont be able just to fly about and wait until the detection message appears to know a DD is close.

[Excavatus]

10 minutes ago, redraven said:

Dont even try to argue about it. CVs are blatantly unbalanced and nobody with more than 2 braincells likes them.

I like CVs, 

does that mean that I don't have more than 2 braincells? 

 

Why do you generalise people? 

Why do you insult people who does not think like you? 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

This discussion is going towards remove CVs again doesn't it? 

 

The amount of misinformed players is also through the roof again. Can we get back AndyHill and Figment instead of the nonsense ramblings and insults of the usual type? 

[1MajorKoenig]

25 minutes ago, redraven said:

Exept that ships.. well battleships at least carried so mutch ammo they could fire for extended periods of time. Torpedos however limited yes. And i have been saying for some time that they need to be.

 

Same for AA ammo and cruiser ammo..?

 

Dude is a game which tries to keep the player relevant for the full duration of the round. Hence these gameplay concessions. 

[Padds01]

10 hours ago, Miragetank90 said:

 

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. 

well the current spotting mechanics are already that bat crap out of whack and worse a little more fuel on that flaming garbage bin wont hurt ;)

 

 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

1 minute ago, Padds01 said:

well the current spotting mechanics are already that bat crap out of whack and worse a little more fuel on that flaming garbage bin wont hurt ;)

 

 

So you are saying making it worse at this point doesn't matter anymore but only as long as the "making it worse" part benefits you? 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

21 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

I like CVs, 

does that mean that I don't have more than 2 braincells? 

 

Why do you generalise people? 

Why do you insult people who does not think like you? 

You don't really expect an answer that might get the poster warned or banned or at least tht post deleted, right? ^^

[redraven]

7 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

You don't really expect an answer that might get the poster warned or banned or at least tht post deleted, right? ^^

Do not temp me brother!

 

29 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

I like CVs, 

does that mean that I don't have more than 2 braincells? 

 

Why do you generalise people? 

Why do you insult people who does not think like you? 

Well people can like whatever they want. But do not try to defend something that is clearly not balanced.

There have been more than enough suggestions throught the years that would have made CVs balanced.. or at least accepted by the general playerbase. And i know you are not resposible for the fact that NONE of those ideas have been EVEN TRIED. Or at least WG isnt telling us if they have at least entertained the thought of trying them.

Im saying that people who enyoj a clearly unbalanced class should at least have the dignity to admit that they are abusing something.

I mean just ask any of the resident CV unicums here.

[redraven]

11 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Same for AA ammo and cruiser ammo..?

 

Dude is a game which tries to keep the player relevant for the full duration of the round. Hence these gameplay concessions. 

And just as how AA guns die out from constant HE bombardments CVs lost their planes if they were not carefull. This used to be a 2 way street. Now im losing my already meager AA defence while the CV is still 100% effective.