General CV related discussions.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Just now, Sunleader said:

 

@Yoshanai

Now have Fun Explaining to Everyone that you were just messing around all the time.

Better not. 

 

I have mostly been telling the truth anyway. Whenever I said that there is no counterplay... :)

I have also stated multiple times that CVs are OP in the past and that they can't be fixed (what can't be fixed implies that it needs fixing no?) 

 

And on top of all the post Krieger quoted clearly states that WG is considering them being fine and not me. So I don't see any issues. 

 

 

[Excavatus]

8 minutes ago, Kriger3n said:

 

From WGs point of view.. CV rework is a success.. at least they've said it multiple times in the public.. 

I guess thats what @Yoshanai was referring to "success"

[Figment]

1 minute ago, Yoshanai said:

I have also stated multiple times that CVs are OP in the past and that they can't be fixed (what can't be fixed implies that it needs fixing no?) 

You don't know if they can't be fixed. Tbh, I think the main issue is that you can't see WG fixing it properly.

 

And yes, some fixing is usualy in order. Perfect design and balance from any coding team? On the first, second, third or fourth try? That'd be a first...

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Just now, Figment said:

You don't know if they can't be fixed. Tbh, I think the main issue is that you can't see WG fixing it properly.

 

And yes, some fixing is usualy in order. Perfect design and balance from any coding team? On the first, second, third or fourth try? That'd be a first...

Oh I'm not demanding them to create a world wonder of a fix. I understand that it takes time. But under the current conditions CVs are in fixes aren't really going to happen to eliminate the fundamental issues of the rework. 

[Excavatus]

2 minutes ago, Figment said:

Tbh, I think the main issue is that you can't see WG fixing it properly.

no the main issue, which most people does not want to accept, including @Sunleader too.. 
WG does not think there is something to fix :D

At least they say it like that to the public.. we can't know what they talk behind closed doors. 

[AirSuperiority]

24 minutes ago, redraven said:

Good luck having a nice time when the latest "balanced ships" have just been released. Also try having "fun" when cvs keep ruining everything you try to do.

 

Okay maybe i should have: nobody with more than 2 braincells likes the way they are implemented and thinks they are balanced. You really have to look like shilling for WG or you just dont want your unfair toy taken away from you if you try to tell people they are balanced when the best CV players themselves are saying they are problemtic.  Like how they say flak is meaningless and easy to avoid and how clans are actively protesting their inclusion in CW.
It just sounds dishonest seeing people defend something that they themselves know is problematic  Those who truly do not understand the mechanic think is okay.

Thank you.

I get sunk by a CV every 50-400 matches, I find it happens very seldom.

99% of time I get sunk by non-CV classes.

I also experience lots of matches with no CV at all in them, which I find sad - I like max action and seeing reds spotted.

 

 

[Figment]

1 minute ago, Yoshanai said:

Oh I'm not demanding them to create a world wonder of a fix. I understand that it takes time. But under the current conditions CVs are in fixes aren't really going to happen to eliminate the fundamental issues of the rework. 

I don't think it'll either, but I also think there's always going to be someone who got caught unaware by aircraft torping them even for 1K damage and come to forums to complain about CVs needing to be removed.

 

I really wish we could just drop the whole removal discussion because it's just unconstructive venting.


I also really hope they're not going to add subs the way I've seen on vids it's been done so far. It seems very out of touch with a workable solution and only going to add more negativity on the forums if they do add it this way.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Just now, Figment said:

I really wish we could just drop the whole removal discussion because it's just unconstructive venting.

Yes please. 

That's just sad at this point that players still can't accept that CVs will stay in the game. 

[Figment]

2 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

no the main issue, which most people does not want to accept, including @Sunleader too.. 
WG does not think there is something to fix :D

At least they say it like that to the public.. we can't know what they talk behind closed doors. 

One reason probably is that they invested a lot in a rework like this. Telling your boss you screwed up (or that the decision taken by its management was flawed is probably not going to go down well in a Belarussian working environment - I'm assuming it's fairly authority oriented with a large power distance though. Not entirely sure, but saving face and denial of critique thrives in that sort of environment and it's something I've seen a lot). However, they've said that about a lot of things before. Maybe if the make-up dev team changes and it's not their personal baby anymore...

[Kriger3n]

As i have said before: i am here to give feedback about my experience in this game. This is the only place to do that. Wargaming has no other channel. It's the same for all players. So, there will be positive feedback and alot of negative since we come here to complain about what we feel is not right. I will continue to try to get WG to do something about CV's until they do. If i do nothing, nothing will happpen.

It's rather you that need to accept that alot of people will come here to complain about cv's, since alot of players hate cv gameplay.

[AndyHill]

7 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

At least they say it like that to the public.. we can't know what they talk behind closed doors. 

If WG was planning on doing something massive about carriers (or anything else) the first we'd ever hope to hear of it would be when they know exactly what and when. Until then we'd get the "everything is fine" -treatment. And this is not meant as an insult to WG, this is how every company ever would handle the situation, except for some rare exceptions. Who are likely to lose most of their value and get sold to Microsoft at a discount price as a consequence.

 

I don't really think that there are major things happening behind closed doors right now, but WG stating that everything is ok is not really a strong indication of the opposite.

[BLUB__BLUB]

25 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

@Yoshanai

Now have Fun Explaining to Everyone that you were just messing around all the time.

Nah man. Even for my single braincell it is clear what he put there. 

 

The rework was a success objectively. 

If they weren't for some personally then it's none of WG's issues.

 

Then he sums up why WG thinks it is a success. 

 

Most cynically he ends with So have fun hating in something WG is considering a success.

 

@Kriger3n It's pretty clear to me he thinks it's a real good Cleveland Steamer. 

 

[AirSuperiority]

20 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

If WG was planning on doing something massive about carriers (or anything else) the first we'd ever hope to hear of it would be when they know exactly what and when. Until then we'd get the "everything is fine" -treatment. And this is not meant as an insult to WG, this is how every company ever would handle the situation, except for some rare exceptions. Who are likely to lose most of their value and get sold to Microsoft at a discount price as a consequence.

 

I don't really think that there are major things happening behind closed doors right now, but WG stating that everything is ok is not really a strong indication of the opposite.

IMHO the last time WG decided what to do with the CV ship class

was 1 year before the release of game version 0.8,

so around 2.5 years ago.

 

IMHO asking for a CV class removal since 0.8 is like thinking Lego would stop issuing bricks in grey color.

 

WG is making hundredthousands of monies with CVs and CV assets vs 2 dozen complaining forum accounts.

Its like 20 people standing in front of a Ford factory holding up a banner "No more factory cars without spare wheel in it".

[159Hunter]

12 minutes ago, AirSuperiority said:

WG is making hundredthousands of monies with CVs and CV assets vs 2 dozen complaining forum accounts.

Its like 20 people standing in front of a Ford factory holding up a banner "No more factory cars without spare wheel in it".

Great, now show us the source on those numbers.

[Sunleader]

31 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

no the main issue, which most people does not want to accept, including @Sunleader too.. 
WG does not think there is something to fix :D

At least they say it like that to the public.. we can't know what they talk behind closed doors. 

 

I tend to pay more Attention to whats happening rather to whats been said.

If what was Said was an Accurate Indicator for what WG is actually doing we would still have RTS after all WG said for Years its Fine ^^ We would not have Subs as after all WG said there definitively wont be Subs ever and Shikishima or however its named would not come around because according to WG no Ship will ever get Bigger Guns than Yamato ^^

 

Oh just because this is a Recent thing. But while WG has Repeatedly Claimed that Puerto Rico Event was a Success and that the Event was Good the way it was and was only Misunderstood due to a Communication mistake.

In the Stream where the Announced Odin to be the next Dockyard Ship they actually Apologized for the Puerto Rico Event and the miserable experience the Players had due to it. Pointing out there have been alot of Internal Talks afterwards to see what went wrong and how they could do it better this time :)

 

So well. Call me a Branded Child. But effectively I have Learned over the Time that WG will in General just Claim anything to be Fine and a Success down to the last possible moment before actually presenting a Change that is already half Done.

Which means WG could right now be working on a Second Rework because they themselves think that the Rework was a Complete Failure and we would not get to know it till maybe 2 or 3 Months before its Finished and thus Announced for a Specific Patch.

 

 

Thats why I generally Pay more Attention to WGs Actions than to what they say. 

And well. I just dont see much of their Actions lately being Favorable for CVs.

But hey. Thats just me being Optimistic ^^

WG might just as well be sitting there and Planning new Air Dropped Waterbombs and Dipping Sonar for CVs :P

[Sunleader]

20 minutes ago, AirSuperiority said:

WG is making hundredthousands of monies with CVs and CV assets vs 2 dozen complaing forum accounts.

Its like 20 people standing in front of a Ford factory holding up a banner "No more factory cars without spare wheels in it".

 

Mind backing up that Statement ? ^^

Because I somehow doubt that.

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

no the main issue, which most people does not want to accept, including @Sunleader too.. 
WG does not think there is something to fix :D

At least they say it like that to the public.. we can't know what they talk behind closed doors. 

 

I think Excavatus is right, WG doesn't need to fix anything according to WG. This is what they do.

Spoiler

Except they've been fixing stuff for over a year now in the worst way possible.

 

[Figment]

Andy, think we need to prioritise our topics a bit, we both have the tendency to expand and create sub-topics. :)

But here's block two:

12 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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

I disagree, the rules change if one can fire torps from total impunity and some fire torps from within secondary distance. Different (spotting) rules, just the same firing mechanic.

12 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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

Please try to leave such unconstructive comments out, any others I come across I'll just ignore since I can relate to a need to vent your frustration a bit and thus your temptation to do so, but it's not really helping the discussion. Mind, I'm not saying I never make such comments, feel free to point those out so we can keep it clean. :)

12 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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.

Agreed. Hence I've been suggesting changes.

12 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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

Agreed as well, but it's still a mechanic that's part of the game that you can't fight back against directly and you accept. Whether that's because of the fail rate or because of something else, you still accept it. And glad you acknowledge they can be snipers. ;)

12 hours ago, AndyHill said:

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.

I never said I´m the best at everything or anything and never will. I´m quite aware of what´s possible, but I enjoy trying things that aren´t optimal and risky, just to challenge myself. I don´t play for pure winrate, sometimes it´s just fun to go on a waaaay too dangerous torp mission with a light cruiser for instance. The adrenaline rush from pulling it off is worth more to me than the optimal way of playing it safe and kiting with HE for instance. Of course only doing it if it has a modicum chance of success, but sometimes that´s what makes it worth it. Gonna leave the torp discussion out btw, love torp gameplay on both receiving and firing end (in part due to the adrenaline rushes), it's no discussion for me.

 

12 hours ago, AndyHill said:

[...]  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.

Or why they shouldn't be implemented in a realistic fashion, but as a watered down balanced game version of it. ;) Yes, BB era ended with the arrival of CVs, but your latter half of the sentence is your subjective intention for the game. You can't monopolise intention if it's not a game you designed.

12 hours ago, AndyHill said:

[1] 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.

 

[2] 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).

 

[3] 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.

 

[4] (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.

 

[5] 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.

 

[6] 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?

 

[7] 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.

 

[8] 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.

[1] Agreed.

 

[2] Russian balance is Russian balance. :) I mean these ships are math (algebra) models in essence and for a game like this the best 'answer' to the math question wins (might be slightly subjective and cognitive bias involved, with people simply copying what worked for others. Trends and all). You'll see this all the time. But in general, if there's just one pick, even one class used, that tends to smell of too dominating gameplay by said class. In this case the CV probably obsoletes certain classes (DD in particular) where there's role overlap and the choice of ships for the remainder make it easier to deal with the spotted (probably based on relocation ability, flexibility, hp and dps). I don't do clan wars for these reasons too, it's boring when a side is exploiting a type. Honestly CWs should have a limit of one player per ship. Then you get a good mix of strengths and weaknesses for another team to exploit. But hey... Player freedom to game the system is what game design is all about these days.

 

[3] Of course. They're operated by a player, so they should be able to have influence. My question is, what's the (strategic/logistical) cost to be? If that CV focuses on a winning side, might the other side implode? Does it waste its aircraft needlessly for the coming battle elsewhere? That should depend IMO on what they faced.

 

[4] Seems you misunderstood me. I'm talking about situations where you end up with low types of ships left near the end of the match and one ship has no chance against a ship it can't see because it's too slow to get into spotting range of the DD (some smart herding often helps to trap one, but depends on the map and situation). A CV in this case would aid a BB overcome its disadvantage. Whereas a CV on the other side, with a DD on low health and no torp range without getting spotted faced with a cruiser, could help it even the odds. But that's all circumstantial conjecture.

 

Note that I would opt for a fuel design that keeps the CV close to the main combat. With say fuel in a top tier match for a 19km flight to and 19km flight back and 2-3km loitering time. You wouldn't be able to cover the entire map and keep your air alive. An optimal strike should become less optional then In case you go too far from the fight (say 26km without coming closer to receive your aircraft, while risking your ship), you might be able to strike, but you lose those aircraft permanently then. This should encourage CVs to not sit on the other end of the map, thus making it easier for attacks on it. If they go too far, they might be able to fight at the end of the match, but only if they didn't lose too many squadrons already. For lower tier CVs, you should just decrease the fuel available to get the same effect.

 

[5] I think you'll find that when sneaking was very easy, there were a lot of DDs in Beta. Especially high up the tiers with long distance torps. I've seen 6 DDs, most IJN, per side regularly then. The fogs spamming torps were widely spread (I didn't think it a big issue though, but obviously there were a lot of complaints so they changed fog to be less effective which screwed US DDs in particular as they used to fog while making an aggressive move within spotting distance). So finding that balance of sneak vs brawl vs etc. is always going to be a bit tricky. It's why hydro and radar were introduced after all as well. I think there's too little now, as I've addressed regarding the ability of CV to hover over DDs till they're spotted again. Permaspotting is bad.

 

[6] It depends on the situation. An aggressive push is often not possible in these circumstances. I have no quarrel with the positioning or mechanic, but it shouldn't be riskfree either. I think you'll know that map with all the high brown islands rising straight up from the sea? This is a map where you see this a lot. The result is BBs and other ships sitting static behind a corner out of fear of being one of the few exposing themselves to fire. It's quite easy to get into the cover position there, the risk is on the ships crossing the open. It actually reminds me a lot of the WoT situation where both sides wait for the other team to get spotted first and corner camp. Something needs to happen before the fight becomes more dynamic then.

 

[7] [8] Eh, ship length is rather non-representative compared to the map in this game too. :) But this is a subjective thing and non-historical implementation is well... What WG does. :P War Thunder tries to be closer to original models, but in doing so screws up balance often as well. The most important thing to me is that A. it's balanced and B. they're in. I think that with just adding plane fuel there's already a significant reduction in aircraft influence across the map. Of course it will still be felt in one part of the map, but even then you can balance it with damage output and hit chances (amount fired per salvo, bloom, reticule size, module damage, etc).

 

 

[Capra76]

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

From WGs point of view.. CV rework is a success.. at least they've said it multiple times in the public.. 

 

Can you imagine a situation where anyone in an official capacity would say anything but that in public?

 

I think the CC's have pretty much all voiced opposition to the CV rework, WG talks to them regularly, I suspect that in private a lot of the WG staff are not at all happy with the outcome but jobs and incomes depend upon keeping that quiet (and hiding it from those higher up in the company) so officially everything is mostly fine.

 

[AndyHill]

2 hours ago, Figment said:

Whereas you seem(ed) unwilling to accept any variant period because of your dislike of the concept and implied abilities of aircraft. There's no discussion possible when all you're doing is trying to shut down discussion. However, I saw your response here you kinda admitted that because you feel you've seen it all and WG isn't listening anyway. I can understand and relate to the somewhat defeatism in that, but it is what it is. I'd like to move towards a balancing discussion, rather than the need discussion since that part seems more subjective. There can be no compromise in being a bit in it, it's either in or out, like you're pregnant or not, so either group will have to give way - if you catch my drift - and be disappointed to some degree. With a balancing discussion we can at least ensure that neither side is completely let down.

I'm specifically not trying to shut down the discussion. Writing gigantic posts on the subject year after year thread after thread isn't exactly that. Although therein lies the issue - and it's perhaps not how things should be, but even if you are fairly new here, I and many others are not, this discussion is over 4 years old now and it shows in the attitude of some people. The previous thread on the subject was approaching a thousand pages or something before it was shut down. It's always refreshing to get new people and new views (which is why this thread is this active again), but due to the "been there, done that" experience for me - even if it's new to you - I really want to cut to the interesting bit. Which is "can someone finally come up with an actually good reason to have planes in the game in the first place". 

 

The reason for not compromising basically has two reasons behind it.

 

First of all, we've had two very different implementations of carriers in the game, both absolutely horrible for the gameplay. First one of them has been proven to be so bad, that WG themselves put enormous effort into removing one class completely (yes, it has been done) and replacing it with another (the new carriers have no resemblance to the previous ones and no resemblance to real carriers, so they can be considered an entirely new class of imaginary ships that are for some reason called "carriers"). We've had over four years of ideas and discussions on the subject and although many ideas - including yours - would definitely improve the situation, none have convinced me they would make carriers a positive factor in the game. Also, I can not come up with anything myself and I have tried. Furthermore, the very factors that make carriers carriers (incredible information gathering ability and the ability to strike anywhere anytime without risk) are the exact things that make them so toxic to the game. And if carriers can't even remotely resemble carriers, what's the point?

 

Second reason is more philosophical and related to the first one. If (and assume this is in fact the case) there is an actual problem in a game and the easiest and most effective remedy is to just remove the problem, why would I be interested in complicated measures to reduce the negative effect, when the obvious optimal solution exists?

 

As a sidenote and I don't want to discourage you, since I'm always ready for some theoretical discussion, but you should probably know that WG themselves have stated that carriers will be balanced by popularity. Thus, nothing that reduces their effectiveness in an appreciable manner will ever be implemented, because WG want people who download a ship game to also play a really, really bad plane game (and one of the things I do for a living is reviewing plane games, and I've seen few worse than what we have in this game right now) and they won't do that unless it's a super powerful easymode for them. This is basically an admission that WG themselves neither know what good carriers should bring to the table nor care about it, carriers just need to exist or they lose money.

 

What they do is show player numbers that are pretty stable (apparently they don't expect growth, try comparing the first years of the tank game to the first years of the ship game) stating that there is no problem because carriers are obviously not chasing people away from the game (which apparently wouldn't grow with better design anyway). They're kind of forgetting that those same numbers were pretty stable already during RTS times, which they did recognize as a problem.

 

This was a pretty long winded, but hopefully at least slightly useful explanation of why me and many people here show apparently little interest in discussing carrier balancing measures and why the camps are so polarized between total removal and best ever.

2 hours ago, Figment said:

That's subjective though.

Not really. Concealment is an important part of the game and saying that's subjective is like saying a game can not be objectively good or bad. I might of course be wrong in my assessment, but then again I do have a lot of experimental experience in carrier and non-carrier battles (as well as demonstratably relatively deep understanding of how the game works) and I can tell that carrier free gamess are more interesting, varied and offer far greater gameplay options (as well as much less completely unfair getting-pooped-on than the ones with carriers in them).

 

And yes, your suggestions would probably make carriers somewhat less bad, but not even a tiny bit good for the game.

2 hours ago, Figment said:

Flying planes and delivering them is hard to get an average time for though. The amount of air strikes depends largely on the CV's proximity to target and the player's ability to efficiently find targets and line up shots. Which I don't doubt is easier if they just pay attention to the map as they should and while airborne they have a pretty good overview of the HP bars of all ships.

I simply referred to shooting down planes as counterplay. Now that I've given it a little bit more thought the situation actually sounds extremely grim. If a Yamato can fire theoretically 360 (and in reality far less) shells in a battle and Midway (or other carrier) fly around 100 or so planes max, one plane is the equivalent of 3-4 shells. Now imagine an unseen Yamato somehow spotting you (can be hard to imagine, perhaps, I know), firing a volley and taking 15k of your health away (while spotting you for his teammates to shoot at) without ever getting spotted or shot at by anyone on your team. Does that feel like counterplay to you? To me that sounds more like just getting smacked for no gain. With these numbers that would be the equivalent of shooting down 2-3 planes when a carrier does 15k damage to you.

 

If you start looking at a realistic situation, how difficult and dangerous it is for a carrier or a Yamato to keep delivering effective fire from the start to the end of the match, the scales are only going to tip in the favor of the carrier. Carrier survival rates are something like 3 times that of Yamatos (couldn't be arsed to check so this is a guesstimate), so Yammy is likely to spend much less time in the battle to begin with as a result of just how dangerous it is for a battleship to provide effective fire compared to a CV.

2 hours ago, Figment said:

I don't see it as a problem, but a design challenge. Different attitude towards the solution. The need is obvious to me and I think a lot of other people who like CVs for a variety of reasons and feel it should be part of the whole mix (it only makes sense to have them even though your argument from a historical perspective is that they effectively ended the battleship era), therefore it's clearly a subjective need on both our sides.

It is definitely a design challenge to turn carriers into a positive for the game. I just think that until that problem has been solved and carriers turned into something positive, they shouldn't be part of the game. Isn't that just logical? I've also seen many arguments, none have ever managed to convince me (but I'm not saying there couldn't possibly ever be a convincing argument). Historical arguments especially don't hold any water, firstly and most importantly because this is not a historically accurate simulation to begin with and secondly, because carrier participation in surface battles was so rare as to be not historically accurate in a game like this to begin with.

2 hours ago, Figment said:

Is a failed strike on AA cruisers a bad thing balance wise? No, everyone should be able to just miss. But hence why AA should be strong, but CVs still have some chance to try an attack (at high risk and cost).

Do you mean miss as in the current system where the carrier can potato a drop and miss or AA actually preventing a strike? Anyway, the high risk and cost can't really be up to one flight, because that would mean total shutout for the carrier in the current system. That is one of the big, if not insurmountable, balancing problems with the current implementation. In RTS you could usually make a massive alpha strike with everything you have to try to get something through the worst AA concentrations, in the current system one flight is all you can have so one squad needs to always get through or the carrier is helpless. Not that I would mind, but I can see why that is a balancing problem.

[CptBarney]

I wonder if a game with minimal variety in units, but huge replayability in terms of gameplay with perfect balance (basically chess, but more complex to some degree or featuring heroes etc).

Would be popular? Or popular enough to earn loads of moneh?

[Yosha_AtaIante]

17 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

I wonder if a game with minimal variety in units, but huge replayability in terms of gameplay with perfect balance (basically chess, but more complex to some degree or featuring heroes etc).

Would be popular? Or popular enough to earn loads of moneh?

The more complexity there is the harder it is to balance. Not even chess is perfectly balanced. 

[CptBarney]

6 minutes ago, Yoshanai said:

The more complexity there is the harder it is to balance. Not even chess is perfectly balanced. 

Technically chess is, the only things un-balanced are humans. But then trying to create the perfect human is impossible.But then i guess since whites get the first move adv that unbalances it slightly, but if black plays perfectly then it can end in a draw (draws seem to be pretty high in terms of percentage) or even a win.

 

Chess isn't perfect but it will be the closest thing to perfect for a game (in terms of balance anyways). However it is very one-dimensional because of that.

 

Bit like if you only had one ship in the game and one map. Or tank or Mech (Grasshopper pls).

 

Also it's f2p, so no wallet needed. No shigure doe. You'll have to buy dlc for dat.

 

[Figment]

28 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

I'm specifically not trying to shut down the discussion. Writing gigantic posts on the subject year after year thread after thread isn't exactly that. [...]

I can relate to that, but when you sometimes provide no opening or wiggle room and draw conclusions, there's little debate left to be had.

Mind, I've had these discussions in and after Beta as well.

28 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

The reason for not compromising basically has two reasons behind it.

 

First of all, we've had two very different implementations of carriers in the game, both absolutely horrible for the gameplay. First one of them has been proven to be so bad, that WG themselves put enormous effort into removing one class completely (yes, it has been done) and replacing it with another [...] We've had over four years of ideas and discussions on the subject and although many ideas - including yours - would definitely improve the situation, none have convinced me they would make carriers a positive factor in the game. Also, I can not come up with anything myself and I have tried.

 

Furthermore, the very factors that make carriers carriers (incredible information gathering ability and the ability to strike anywhere anytime without risk) are the exact things that make them so toxic to the game. And if carriers can't even remotely resemble carriers, what's the point?

 

Second reason is more philosophical and related to the first one. If (and assume this is in fact the case) there is an actual problem in a game and the easiest and most effective remedy is to just remove the problem, why would I be interested in complicated measures to reduce the negative effect, when the obvious optimal solution exists?

I think the first reason is poor, since the implementations we've seen have been poor and I think virtually anyone can see the glaring faults with both. It's no guarantee that another setup would fail. I would not go as far to say horrible though, there's some good ideas in it after all, but to me they feel like being implemented in alpha stages of design and hasn't been fleshed out. I often blame devs who don't run full worst case scenarios. Seen that in a lot of other games too though. And once committed it's hard to recall for many managers, because it would be taking something away from consumers that consumers already worked (hard) for to get. Which is why permanent removal would be an affront to people losing access to what they grinded ages for.

 

Their representation doesn't need to be an exact replica of their abilities either. Compromises must be made for gameplay.

 

The "optimal" solution you present is subjective though. Those who want carriers in will not be able to agree to this. A temporary removal till a tried and tested acceptable version is available is a different suggestion however than outright removal and never looking back.

[AndyHill]

17 minutes ago, Figment said:

I disagree, the rules change if one can fire torps from total impunity and some fire torps from within secondary distance. Different (spotting) rules, just the same firing mechanic.

No, they are literally just parameters. Torps count as main weapons (that can be operated by the player), they have different speeds, ranges, spotting ranges and hitting power as well as special attributes such as deep water. Every class of ships have torpedoes and every class of ships have ships in them that do not have torpedoes. Every ship has main guns. Except of course one class that is very different anyway. Only those aforementioned attributes change, not the mechanics. 

 

Spotting rules is literally the same for every single object in the game. If unit A is within unit B's visibility range and there are no obstructions in the way, unit B gets spotted.

21 minutes ago, Figment said:

Please try to leave such unconstructive comments out, any others I come across I'll just ignore since I can relate to a need to vent your frustration a bit and thus your temptation to do so, but it's not really helping the discussion. Mind, I'm not saying I never make such comments, feel free to point those out so we can keep it clean. :)

To be fair, that was a direct response to how you tried to claim that carriers in fact follow the same rules as above even if their planes do not, when in fact I think we both know that was the whole point.

24 minutes ago, Figment said:

Or why they shouldn't be implemented in a realistic fashion, but as a watered down balanced game version of it. ;) Yes, BB era ended with the arrival of CVs, but your latter half of the sentence is your subjective intention for the game. You can't monopolise intention if it's not a game you designed.

Now the question is; if the argument is historicity, what is the point of implementing carriers if they are basically unrecognizable and do not resemble real carriers even remotely? I think it's pretty safe to assume that in a game where 90+% of battles are fought in surface ships, surface ships are not supposed to be pointless and obsolete.

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

[2] Russian balance is Russian balance. :) I mean these ships are math (algebra) models in essence and for a game like this the best 'answer' to the math question wins (might be slightly subjective and cognitive bias involved, with people simply copying what worked for others. Trends and all). You'll see this all the time. But in general, if there's just one pick, even one class used, that tends to smell of too dominating gameplay by said class. In this case the CV probably obsoletes certain classes (DD in particular) where there's role overlap and the choice of ships for the remainder make it easier to deal with the spotted (probably based on relocation ability, flexibility, hp and dps). I don't do clan wars for these reasons too, it's boring when a side is exploiting a type. Honestly CWs should have a limit of one player per ship. Then you get a good mix of strengths and weaknesses for another team to exploit. But hey... Player freedom to game the system is what game design is all about these days.

It's not Russian bias, Venezia is not Russian. You are correct in guessing that DDs have pretty much no place in clan battles anymore. Clan battles are actually a very good experiment for what actually happens when carriers are in the game and everyone playes it properly and the answer is pretty shocking, it's actually even worse than I thought. Venezia is a special ship, because it can momentarily escape detection with its special smoke, but other than that the games are extremely one dimensional long range gunfights where the only thing that matters is your ability to deliver effective fire from long ranges. This is actually the now proven, optimal thing to do in carrier games and everything else is playing the game wrong. The only reason other playing styles (like zinging around in DDs and such) only work, because others are also playing wrong. 

 

I will post a screenshot from some high-level CW player (not my own and I don't remember whose it was), but this is what CW meta looks like in carrier battles:

Spoiler

This IS factually exactly what any carrier match looks like, unless people are playing deliberately wrong or being potato - and good game design should neve rely on that. If Stalin and Venezia get nerfed, they will simply be replaced by one or two next best long range spammers, because in carrier games that is all there is to it. In randoms we would of course see more battleships, because there are no limitations. In fact without ship type limitations we might see pure battleship lineups or something like that, but it would be dominated by whoever is the best at doing and tanking damage at long ranges. Once again, the above is literally what teamplay in a carrier battle looks like. 

44 minutes ago, Figment said:

[3] Of course. They're operated by a player, so they should be able to have influence. My question is, what's the (strategic/logistical) cost to be? If that CV focuses on a winning side, might the other side implode? Does it waste its aircraft needlessly for the coming battle elsewhere? That should depend IMO on what they faced.

Isn't this a question that needs to be asked by every ship in the game? Much more so in fact than carriers, that can change flanks almost infinitely fast compared to other ships? Why should any single class have such an immense ability to basically fix mistakes they make by choosing a bad location in the early game - when everyone else have to make hard choices and suffer the consequences?

47 minutes ago, Figment said:

[4] Seems you misunderstood me. I'm talking about situations where you end up with low types of ships left near the end of the match and one ship has no chance against a ship it can't see because it's too slow to get into spotting range of the DD (some smart herding often helps to trap one, but depends on the map and situation). A CV in this case would aid a BB overcome its disadvantage. Whereas a CV on the other side, with a DD on low health and no torp range without getting spotted faced with a cruiser, could help it even the odds. But that's all circumstantial conjecture.

(ending games quickly) But carriers are almost invariably the last ship hunted down. Everything else is easier to kill quickly, carriers have many times higher survival rates than anything else in the game. For every time a carrier helps end the game fast by finding the last ship, there are many, many games where the carrier is the last ship, safely tucked away impossibly far from everything.

50 minutes ago, Figment said:

[5] I think you'll find that when sneaking was very easy, there were a lot of DDs in Beta. Especially high up the tiers with long distance torps. I've seen 6 DDs, most IJN, per side regularly then. The fogs spamming torps were widely spread (I didn't think it a big issue though, but obviously there were a lot of complaints so they changed fog to be less effective which screwed US DDs in particular as they used to fog while making an aggressive move within spotting distance). So finding that balance of sneak vs brawl vs etc. is always going to be a bit tricky. It's why hydro and radar were introduced after all as well. I think there's too little now, as I've addressed regarding the ability of CV to hover over DDs till they're spotted again. Permaspotting is bad.

I played closed betas since the weekend phase and I've played the game pretty consistently ever since. Torpedoes had their hayday long ago, it mostly ended when people learned to read the game and figure out where the torps are coming from and of course there have been torp nerfs and stuff like hydro and radar added to the game. Currently (I'm pulling statistics off the top of my head so I might be wrong) DDs do about half the damage BBs do (which is much less than average hit points of one BB per game) and torpedoes are one of the least effective weapons in the game (most damaging being battleship AP). I don't really know if there's any need for further DD mitigation, I kind of don't think so. Do you? 

55 minutes ago, Figment said:

[6] It depends on the situation. An aggressive push is often not possible in these circumstances. I have no quarrel with the positioning or mechanic, but it shouldn't be riskfree either. I think you'll know that map with all the high brown islands rising straight up from the sea? This is a map where you see this a lot. The result is BBs and other ships sitting static behind a corner out of fear of being one of the few exposing themselves to fire. It's quite easy to get into the cover position there, the risk is on the ships crossing the open. It actually reminds me a lot of the WoT situation where both sides wait for the other team to get spotted first and corner camp. Something needs to happen before the fight becomes more dynamic then.

If it's not possible, should it? Aggression in general is dangerous and people who are not very good at the game end up becoming very passive, because they get their gutts handed to them too often. If somebody is in a location you want to push, he is obviously positioning himself well and I don't think he should be punished for it be someone who doesn't have to risk anything or pay anything for it.

58 minutes ago, Figment said:

[7] [8] Eh, ship length is rather non-representative compared to the map in this game too. :) But this is a subjective thing and non-historical implementation is well... What WG does.

The scaling and pacing of combat is actually one of the things WG got exceptionally right in this game. It's an extremely solid foundation for interesting gameplay and great design in itself, so good job to them. Personally, even though I think carriers in reality are just about the coolest thing ever invented by humankind, I don't really understand why people want to have them in the game at any cost. After all, it was historically very rare for carriers to participate in surface battles, so I don't really understand why they should be in the game in the first place, especially if it comes at a stark cost to gameplay.

 

As a generic reply to all of your improvement ideas; yes, they would probably make the carriers less bad for the game, but I'm really genuinely only interested in things that would make them positive factor or at least neutralize them completely.