General CV related discussions.

[BLUB__BLUB]

14 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

But there are not a lot more CV players are there that is the point they make up about 8% of players and do not even max out slots available to them as it is.
Not sure what point you are making here it just emphasizes what i have said already i never forgot anything.

There ARE "more CV players", because objectively there's more CVs in line as before.

But the point is, you'd need 4x the amount of CV players if it is one-on-one. 

As I said, I'd usually clock up  many more CL/DD games per hour than CV-games. 

You'd need many many more to make every game have a CV. 

 

14 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

Yes i know and agree now if he hadn't insulted me there would have been no issue it was his lack of understanding so to attack someone the way he did was bang out of order and shows the sort of person he is.
Don't know about you but i don't react well to being insulted especially when it is down to their own lack of understanding in the first place.
If understanding the English language is an issue for him then he should ask for clarification not start flinging insults.
Go back through this page and you can read the rest yourself.

Yeah seen some. Still that were insults in good English. 

 

14 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

My point was more about the fact that after all this time CV's are still not balanced they are a failed project.

Well yes and no. They did get more CV-players, so to WG that is a success. 

And because of that they sold lots of premium Cvs. Another success. 

 

The balancing, damage-wise, CVs do not make that much more damage than other warships. 

In T8 it is 50-60K average for BB or CV. T10 Bbs make 55-85K, and CVs make 75-80k. 

I bet they also call that a great success.

 

Relatively, the Reeework has done SOME good. As in: it is better than before...

That we all know the actual balance/game-mechanics still suck, well...yes.

I don't know if you'd call replacing a huge disaster with a less huge disaster a "fail".

IMO they have improved but not enough by a long shot.

 

[Eternus_Damnatio]

17 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

There ARE "more CV players", because objectively there's more CVs in line as before.

But the point is, you'd need 4x the amount of CV players if it is one-on-one. 

As I said, I'd usually clock up  many more CL/DD games per hour than CV-games. 

You'd need many many more to make every game have a CV. 

The point i was making is that at 8% of the total playerbase they are obviously not popular enough as they do not even fill out the lots available to them.
You would need way more as you say to fill out those slots and be able to consider them a popular choice.
No other class has issues being represented in every game.
There should be a spike in those numbers when German CV's get released but it will drop down to regular levels again not long after.
I would also point out that there is a correlation between the amount of CV players and the amount of DD players.
When the amount of CV players increase the amount of DD players decreases and vice versa.

 

 

17 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well yes and no. They did get more CV-players, so to WG that is a success. 

And because of that they sold lots of premium Cvs. Another success. 

 

The balancing, damage-wise, CVs do not make that much more damage than other warships. 

In T8 it is 50-60K average for BB or CV. T10 Bbs make 55-85K, and CVs make 75-80k. 

I bet they also call that a great success.

 

Relatively, the Reeework has done SOME good. As in: it is better than before...

That we all know the actual balance/game-mechanics still suck, well...yes.

I don't know if you'd call replacing a huge disaster with a less huge disaster a "fail".

IMO they have improved but not enough by a long shot.

 

The first few months of that graph there is a lot of fluctuation CV's were over 15% at the start of the year it declined over time and looks to be fluctuating between around 7-9% currently
So not sure about getting more CV players it looks like the reverse is true however i would need to see the previous years data aswell to say for sure.
How many years of failed balance attempts until they call it a day for CV's i don't think they are any closer now than they ever have been and i dont see that changing either it is a horrid class to try and balance.

 

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

The point i was making is that at 8% of the total playerbase they are obviously not popular enough as they do not even fill out the lots available to them.
You would need way more as you say to fill out those slots and be able to consider them a popular choice.
No other class has issues being represented in every game.
There should be a spike in those numbers when German CV's get released but it will drop down to regular levels again not long after.

 

 

The first few months of that graph there is a lot of fluctuation CV's were over 15% at the start of the year it declined over time and looks to be fluctuating between around 7-9% currently
So not sure about getting more CV players it looks like the reverse is true however i would need to see the previous years data aswell to say for sure.
How many years of failed balance attempts until they call it a day for CV's i don't think they are any closer now than they ever have been and i dont see that changing either it is a horrid class to try and balance.

 

 

You are throwing around these % as if these were scientific facts.

 

One of the big changes before/after rework is that people now play CV among other classes whereas we had much more dedicated CV players before rework. 

 

So this whole discussion is missing the most basic basis to be any meaningful: what number are we looking at to determine “popularity” or whatever we want to discuss?

[Eternus_Damnatio]

8 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

You are throwing around these % as if these were scientific facts.

 

One of the big changes before/after rework is that people now play CV among other classes whereas we had much more dedicated CV players before rework. 

 

So this whole discussion is missing the most basic basis to be any meaningful: what number are we looking at to determine “popularity” or whatever we want to discuss?

It is not missing anything the numbers show that CV is not popular and people did play a variety of classes before the rework that has never changed.
My CV gameplay was from before this rework and i was certainly never a dedicated player.
Yes they made playing CV simpler but that hasn't helped its popularity and in fact turned a lot of others away.
And current numbers are fudged a bit by the fact that at t4 CV is a seal clubbers dream.

[Figment]

10 hours ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

Those Graphs show that CV's currently do not even make up 10% of the playerbase which means they are not even maxing out the available slots if they were every game played would have 2 CV's.
So who doesn't understand maths ? and you seem to struggle with English too go back to school kid.

They show roughly 10%, (fluctuations occur, but aren't big which suggests a fairly steady population overall), which is a little over 1 per match. Which in turn is about where WG wants it to be. That there's some space in the MM is fine to prevent too long queues, but there's no other ship class that's constantly maxed out either. It just means that - if you take the average - the MM as is covers it pretty well over all tiers: no excesses in CVs per match and sufficient capacity at higher tiers. IF the average is representative of all tiers. But I find it is not.

 

At lowest tier CV there's too many trying to get through the queue (queue can be 26 or more CV at any given time), so that might actually be a bottleneck explaining why you don't see more CV at higher levels.

 

But you're not bothering to consider that, because it's not in your interest to consider whether you're right to make the assumption it is because of popularity. You just want to selectively pick the most negative explanations that help you reach your goal of ending CVs. Which is fair enough, but don't get insulting and be realistic when you're called out on it.

 

And please, don't throw a hissy fit? I presume you'd like to return to your argument that tier IV sees a lot of CV "because of seal clubbing" as a choice. I find that questionable, considering the grind is very long (68K exp, about 3 to 5 times that of other ships in that tier need to grind before being allowed to move on (!)) there's therefore little choice but to play a lot of tier IV. So this is a tech tree issue as well and not just about the player's choice to play lower tiers. Is there also seal clubbing going on? Undoubtedly there are players who do that, but I don't have the data to check.

10 hours ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

 and you seem to struggle with English too go back to school kid.
 

And as for bannable insults you wanna check yourself the only reason i responded like that was because of insults flung by you all because you can't comprehend basics.
Insult me and give me attitude and i will give it back simple isn't it.

Uhm, you started slinging insults and your attitude been negative from the moment you entered this discussion... Don't shift blame. With regards to attitude, how do you think your attitude goes down with others (who disagree with you)? Given the amount of anti-CV people in a thread about CV, undoubtedly you'll find yourself with some allies (like that one person downvoting every post made by someone who has different ideas about CVs, which is also petty and childish, but his every right to disagree). Ever stopped to think of that? Or is it only important that people have the right attitude towards you when they come into a discussion and you get to insult and be hostile to them all you want?

 

Problem is, you feel insulted when you get critiqued or corrected and you lash out when this occurs because you find it disrespectful. I tend to find it rather testifying of low IQ when someone starts about braincells just because they are out of arguments. If you can't formulate your grievances or corrections in a mature way, just don't. And uhm, don't expect anyone else not to counter your hostility and feeble attempts at intimidation... If you can't disagree with someone without resorting to insults, maybe you're just not that smart yourself.

Feel free to correct my interpretation of the numbers, but do it respectfully or sod off.

10 hours ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

Edit- Forgot to add the majority of those CV's are also at tier 4 seal clubbing where there is no real counter to them.

As said above: Long queue at tier IV, far too long grind as well compared to other ships, keeps people there for far too long. Mid tier CV grind is doable, but sometimes ridiculously imbalanced as well in the other direction (tier 4, 6 or 8 CV vs higher tiers are hardly well balanced in the range of ships they face (from both sides depending on who is bottom tier). Tier difference should at most be one for CVs, both down and up where tier IV should probably start at tier V to prevent having no countermeasures as a ship at all).

 

That's a very valid concern and needs to be addressed.

[1MajorKoenig]

8 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

It is not missing anything the number show that CV is not popular.

 

You are missing any point possible 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 minute ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

The point i was making is that at 8% of the total playerbase they are obviously not popular enough as they do not even fill out the lots available to them.
You would need way more as you say to fill out those slots and be able to consider them a popular choice.

Yes, but 8% is around 1 in 12 players. As such, every game should have a CV.

Which it doesn't - for obvious reasons. 

 

1 minute ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

No other class has issues being represented in every game.

Well, yesterday I had a bunch of games without DDs (also, no CVs).

We also had a game this weekend there were no BBs.

 

1 minute ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

There should be a spike in those numbers when German CV's get released but it will drop down to regular levels again not long after.

Agreed.

 

1 minute ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

The first few months of that graph there is a lot of fluctuation CV's were over 15% at the start of the year it declined over time and looks to be fluctuating between around 7-9% currently

And that 8% is not enough to fill the servers. 

 

1 minute ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

So not sure about getting more CV players it looks like the reverse is true however i would need to see the previous years data aswell to say for sure.

It used to be much lower. 

 

1 minute ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

How many years of failed balance attempts until they call it a day for CV's i don't think they are any closer now than they ever have been and i dont see that changing either it is a horrid class to try and balance.

How many years of failed balance attempts? Endles.... But I think they called it a day already. 

 

It CAN BE balanced and fun for everyone (well... all things relative as this is a game where FUN for one means DEATH to the other).

Alas, WG didn't listen to many of the unicum players (who pointed out exactly what was wrong...) so here we are.

Some of the stuff they did is so @#%#@ I went "are-u-FFing-kidding-me"....

 

Other stuff is simple to fix. For example FLAK. The unicum players avoid it 100%. Potato players crash straight into it.

Because the spot where FLAK is generated is determined by the plane speed/direction. SO in fact, the CV controle the FLAK. 

 

Add MORE RNG -->  Give players a "captain skill" that makes RNG patterns for FLAK. Unicums cannot avoid it, taters will not (even now).

Let the players choose when/what they want to change to the FLAK-pattern. Hell those ARP-ships can have pony-shaped FLAK if they like. 

WG could even make it a "special flak module" and charge doubloons. 

 

6 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

You are throwing around these % as if these were scientific facts.

They are "scientific fact". But it is the GENERAL Cv-poulation. Including 3-per-side-T4-CV.

 

6 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

One of the big changes before/after rework is that people now play CV among other classes whereas we had much more dedicated CV players before rework. 

Yes it is. But only upto a degree. Not so much after T6...

 

6 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

So this whole discussion is missing the most basic basis to be any meaningful: what number are we looking at to determine “popularity” or whatever we want to discuss?

Now YOU are generalizing a bit too much. 

 

3 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

It is not missing anything the number show that CV is not popular.

He is right, but so are you. 

 

What you are interested in is not the "general amount of Cvs". You want to know how much per tier. 

Same as on T4 you want to know how many are new tater-players and how many are filthy sealclubbers.

 

[1MajorKoenig]

5 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Now YOU are generalizing a bit too much. 

 

Am I?

 

What is “popular”? What is the relevant figure?

 

- Percentage of players playing at least one CV game per week?

 

- average number of CVs in one game? Do we even expect more than one?

 

- average % of games including a CV?

 

 

[Figment]

10 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Any comments about the clan wars stuff?

Clan Wars tend to gravitate towards the most strong/flexible tools in any circumstance because most the time there's a (conservative) strategy with a higher successrate than others that's also possible to use against itself (both offensively and defensively) giving at least a 50% chance of having the right strategy (then just need luck and skill, rather than gamble on a strategy that might not be succesful if it has an effective counter strategy).

 

If out of 40 ships the only reasonable choice leaves you with the Stalingrad (and maybe one or two other ships), I'd say there's no 40 equal choices in the first place.

 

 

Earlier CW will also have had more diversity based on inexperience with the CW strategies that might be valid (still figuring out what works), people grinding specific trees (time constraint and possibly not told to get certain ships). There might be some rose teinted goggles here.

 

I don't disagree with your overall analysis and argumentation for the strategy choice btw. But the validity of certain ships is in question due to other mechanics as well. But the CV effect could be a lot more limited to a region of a map than it is now, which would validate other strategies more.

[Eternus_Damnatio]

23 minutes ago, Figment said:

They show roughly 10%, (fluctuations occur, but aren't big which suggests a fairly steady population overall), which is a little over 1 per match. Which in turn is about where WG wants it to be. That there's some space in the MM is fine to prevent too long queues, but there's no other ship class that's constantly maxed out either. It just means that - if you take the average - the MM as is covers it pretty well over all tiers: no excesses in CVs per match and sufficient capacity at higher tiers. IF the average is representative of all tiers. But I find it is not.

The graph does not lie it may peak at 10% occasionally but it does not stay there the average is around 8% currently.
 

23 minutes ago, Figment said:

At lowest tier CV there's too many trying to get through the queue (queue can be 26 or more CV at any given time), so that might actually be a bottleneck explaining why you don't see more CV at higher levels.

This there is a bit of logic too but this is down to balance issues T4 CV have no real counters and is therefore played more hence a balance issue.
 

23 minutes ago, Figment said:

And please, don't throw a hissy fit? I presume you'd like to return to your argument that tier IV sees a lot of CV "because of seal clubbing" as a choice. I find that questionable, considering the grind is very long (68K exp, about 3 to 5 times that of other ships in that tier need to grind before being allowed to move on (!)) there's therefore little choice but to play a lot of tier IV. So this is a tech tree issue as well and not just about the player's choice to play lower tiers. Is there also seal clubbing going on? Undoubtedly there are players who do that, but I don't have the data to check.

Uhm, you started slinging insults and your attitude been negative from the moment you entered this discussion... Don't shift blame. With regards to attitude, how do you think your attitude goes down with others (who disagree with you)? Given the amount of anti-CV people in a thread about CV, undoubtedly you'll find yourself with some allies (like that one person downvoting every post made by someone who has different ideas about CVs, which is also petty and childish, but his every right to disagree). Ever stopped to think of that? Or is it only important that people have the right attitude towards you when they come into a discussion and you get to insult and be hostile to them all you want?

 

Problem is, you feel insulted when you get critiqued or corrected and you lash out when this occurs because you find it disrespectful. I tend to find it rather testifying of low IQ when someone starts about braincells just because they are out of arguments. If you can't formulate your grievances or corrections in a mature way, just don't. And uhm, don't expect anyone else not to counter your hostility and feeble attempts at intimidation... If you can't disagree with someone without resorting to insults, maybe you're just not that smart yourself.

You really are unbelievable and don't want to accept that you are blatantly in the wrong or accept that the reason for my anger was you making baseless insults in the first place.

My first post on the topic -

"After many years away i come back to find CV's still yet to be balanced (shocker) it is about time they were just removed from the game.
The popularity graphs show they would hardly be missed the clan wars peeps dont want them as they ruin gameplay majority of random players would love to see the back of them.
So seriously WG when are you going to man up and remove this class you have failed to get balanced since the games release ???
From my own brief experience since coming back if a CV wants you dead you will die AA has been nerfed into oblivion and they can and will drop on what they want when they want.
This is especially true for the lower tiers where AA not only deals with the nerfs but is pretty much non existent anyway.
And to top this off after fighting your way through the enemy team enemy CV in your sights HE is pointless as they are essentially immune to fire now.
AP rounds will bounce harmlessly off the armoured deck meaning you have a very small section of ship to aim for all the while an endless wave of planes comes at you.
This was done because it is apparently unfair to the CV player as they will be controlling planes.
Boo hoo poor CV player having to multi task a bit after sitting at the back of the map out of harms way all game ruining the gameplay for the rest."

Your reply -

"Actually statistics apparently show they've become more popular after the rework (in-game pop went up to full queues initially before dropping a bit), likely the long queues due to matchmaker restrictions (only 1 or 2 in 12 allowed) help to reduce their number. It's at least one reason I'm not playing the Langley grind, as you often have 26+ tier IV CVs waiting in queue which makes a relatively long grind for low tiers even worse with a 2-4 minute wait time, so that probably deters a lot of people of going up the tiers. Don't like the lower tier CVs since for some reasons there's no fighter squadron consumeables there to aid ships without AA. On the one tier you would expect this to be useful...

 

In contrast, quick matchmaking can be done on any other class. You can't really argue popularity on the only class that's been significantly numerically restricted by comparing its numbers in game, since it by definition can't ever be more used than other classes and while people are stimulated to take the short queues by default.

 

That ~10+% of the ships used are CV means they're actually reasonably 'popular' (among those that use them). Seeing as they're 1/12th (8.3%) or at most 2/12th (16.6%) of the ships in a match by their matchmaker limitations. It means there's on average a little over one person playing one when a match starts. Either way, it would be impossible for a much larger populace to play CVs without finding themselves in matchmaker limbo constantly. "Hardly missed" seems like an exageration when it is pretty much at by WG intended numbers (one per side per match)."

I then based my next reply off the fact you had said CV's became more popular

"They became more popular because even a 5yr old could kill s@#t with them."
 

You then took this completely out of context because of a lack of basic comprehension this statement does not say CV's ARE popular it says they became more popular and that was based off figures you gave.
It is not bloody rocket science as i already stated something can increase in popularity while still remaining unpopular.
And instead of asking for clarification or acting like an adult you decided to act like an arrogant muppet flinging insults and inserting whatver meaning you personally wanted to see into my words.
You did not critique my post you failed miserably to comprehend as shown by your response.

"So what is it, are they popular or aren't they? :)

 

The reason they became more popular is irrelevant (conjecture and speculation, though you're probably right on that one), but if you want to be childish about you either misinterpreting data (you could work at WG!) or getting caught out with a little lie that happened to fit your objective, that's your perogative... Look, you're frustrated and angry, great, but if you're going to lie and whine there's little chance WG will listen to you specifically...

 

But hey. Kids venting at other people is what people on here do..."

Once you start flinging insults because of a lack of comprehension your dam right i call your intelligence into question

[Figment]

9 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Am I?

 

What is “popular”? What is the relevant figure?

 

- Percentage of players playing at least one CV game per week?

 

- average number of CVs in one game? Do we even expect more than one?

 

- average % of games including a CV?

 

 

Also consider the amount of CV trees and the amount of ships (or lack thereof) in those trees, in comparison to other ship classes. I very much doubt we have 10% of the ships in game be CV.

 

I'd even say there's a significant overrepresentation of the class incomparison to other ships at 10%.

[1MajorKoenig]

4 minutes ago, Figment said:

Also consider the amount of CV trees and the amount of ships (or lack thereof) in those trees, in comparison to other ship classes. I very much doubt we have 10% of the ships in game be CV.

 

I'd even say there's a significant overrepresentation of the class incomparison to other ships at 10%.

 

True. Considering we expect to see only one CV per game 8% would be a reasonable number. 

 

8% of all ships in all games (just for randoms btw?) in a certain timeframe that is.

 

However - this is for example not how WG measures “popularity” - just saying.

 

Still we would need to agree what the measurement is that we look at. 

[Figment]

Am 18.5.2020 um 14:07, Eternus_Damnatio sagte:

The graph does not lie it may peak at 10% occasionally but it does not stay there the average is around 8% currently.
 

This there is a bit of logic to but is down to balance issues T4 CV have no real counters andd is therefore played more this is a balance issue.

I said it's 8%-10% before, where 10% would be higher than 1 per match, thus indicating there's a relative lot of them...

 

T4 has always been a balance issue.

Am 18.5.2020 um 14:07, Eternus_Damnatio sagte:

You really are unbelievable and don't want to accept that you are blatantly in the wrong or accept that the reason for my anger was you making baseless insults in the first place.

Because that's not true?

Am 18.5.2020 um 14:07, Eternus_Damnatio sagte:

My first post on the topic -

Boo hoo poor CV player having to multi task a bit after sitting at the back of the map out of harms way all game ruining the gameplay for the rest." <-- hostile attitude

Your reply -

[no insults or attitude here]

I then based my next reply off the fact you had said CV's became more popular

"They became more popular because even a 5yr old could kill s@#t with them." <-- hostile attitude and deliberately insulting towards people who play CVs in general

You then took this completely out of context because of a lack of basic comprehension this statement does not say CV's ARE popular it says they became more popular and that was based off figures you gave.
It is not bloody rocket science as i already stated something can increase in popularity while still remaining unpopular. <-- You don't seem to understand you did not make that distinction between forms of popularity either way. You used the graph to indicate they are not popular, literally based on how many people play them. When pointed out this is a wrong interpretation of the numbers, you shift goal posts and admit that even if a lot of people went to play them after all they only did so because they're shitty people (insult). Then much later you say the numbers all don't matter because what you were really saying is they're not popular with the entire population, which is the one thing not shown in the graph. There is no question or statistic indicating how many people like or dislike CVs as a concept. As its population in game is limited, its population in game can't be used as an argument. Try comprehending your own arguments and why you get slapped around your ears with them.

 

Also, if you want to complain about grasp of English, "I" is written as a capital letter.

And instead of asking for clarification or acting like an adult you decided to act like an arrogant muppet flinging insults and inserting whatver meaning you personally wanted to see into my words.
You did not critique my post you failed miserably to comprehend as shown by your response. <-- Actually I just returned the favour. You started calling players 5 year olds, while acting as one. You didn't understand you were trying to argue popularity based on population, called out on it, shifted goal posts and got called out on it again.

Once you start flinging insults because of a lack of comprehension your dam right i call your intelligence into question <-- Again, capital I. Also, there's a difference between 'your' and 'you are'. 'Damn' is written with a 'n' on the end. Just pointing it out because you opted to question my grasp of English (twice). Otherwise I'd have ignored it.

[Eternus_Damnatio]

@Figment
I am not angry or frustrated with CV's the simple fact is they have NEVER been balanced and that includes the current itteration.
The graph as i stated does not lie  CV numbers on average are not 10% they are lower.
Numbers may have gone up from the previous year due to them being simplified to the point a 5yr old can use them which probably explains the slight rise you mention from last year.
At tier 4 I agree there may well be bottleneck as i stated that is because there is no real counter to them.
This also doesn't change the fact that at higher tiers they become very rare again showing the lack of balance and fun factor.
Nowhere did i lie or whine i stated simple truths and i want to know when this failed project called CV's will if ever be binned seeing as it has been what 5yrs now and still they remain poorly balanced.
The only problem in this conversation is you flinging insults which only shows the sort of person you truly are and that the only one seeing what they want to see is you. 
 

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

This also doesn't change the fact that at higher tiers they become very rare again showing the lack of balance and fun factor.

Simply not true dude. They are not “very rare” - independent what exactly you mean with that. They are not as much played as BBs - true but you don’t want 5 CVs per side either do you?

 

2 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

Nowhere did i lie 

Depends on how you call “not saying  the truth”

[redraven]

25 minutes ago, Figment said:

I said it's 8%-10% before, where 10% would be higher than 1 per match, thus indicating there's a relative lot of them...

 

T4 has always been a balance issue.

Because that's not true?

How is saying "even a five year old could kill crap with them" an insult?
Im really curious.

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, redraven said:

How is saying "even a five year old could kill crap with them" an insult?
Im really curious.

 

Maybe because most of the dudes around are older than that (not to mention the game is 7 years +) and improved some talents ever since? 

[Eternus_Damnatio]

1 minute ago, redraven said:

How is saying "even a five year old could kill crap with them" an insult?
Im really curious.

Because he is taking whatever meaning he wants to see instead of seeing the statement for what it is that CV's have been over simplified.

[redraven]

21 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Maybe because most of the dudes around are older than that (not to mention the game is 7 years +) and improved some talents ever since? 

The game launched in 2015. So there is no way in hell the game is older than 5 years.
And if you think that was an insult.. you should stop using the internet.. hell stop arguing with people.

 

8 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

Because he is taking whatever meaning he wants to see instead of seeing the statement for what it is that CV's have been over simplified.

Damn right they have been oversimpligied. WG has been known for making things for the lowest common.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

26 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Maybe because most of the dudes around are older than that (not to mention the game is 7 years +) and improved some talents ever since? 

The interesting part is that the comment is about the carriers, not the players.

[Figment]

35 minutes ago, redraven said:

How is saying "even a five year old could kill crap with them" an insult?
Im really curious.

17 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

Because he is taking whatever meaning he wants to see instead of seeing the statement for what it is that CV's have been over simplified.

No, because Eternus said the (main) reason people played it more was because it was simplified to the level of 5 y/os, which is insinuating about the people playing them and why they did not before (suggesting it was just too hard for them before). Eternus made a dig at the intelligence of people playing them because Eternus looks down on those people. That's called an insult. Intelligence insults seems to be a recurring theme for Eternus though.

 

3 minutes ago, Europizza said:

The interesting part is that the comment is about the carriers, not the players.

 

 

It's not just a comment about carrier mechanics, it's linking it as the main reason for the people playing it.

[1MajorKoenig]

9 minutes ago, redraven said:

And if you think that was an insult.. you should stop using the internet.. hell stop arguing with people.

 

 

Nvm 

[Figment]

53 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

They are not as much played as BBs - true but you don’t want 5 CVs per side either do you?

Which isn't even possible.

[AndyHill]

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Clan Wars tend to gravitate towards the most strong/flexible tools in any circumstance because most the time there's a (conservative) strategy with a higher successrate than others that's also possible to use against itself (both offensively and defensively) giving at least a 50% chance of having the right strategy (then just need luck and skill, rather than gamble on a strategy that might not be succesful if it has an effective counter strategy).

I don't disagree in general and this is actually a very, very important point for this discussion.

 

In WoWS (as in war and many sports) pushing is risky, since it tends to get you into situations where you are overextending. A prepared defense is a direct counter for a push. It is possible to turn the tide of the game in your favor by bold moves if the reds aren't prepared for it, though, and thus can't counter them.

 

When the best players led by the best tacticians (and even the less good ones)  prepared for this season, they figured out one important thing. Because of carriers, your opponent will always know what you are doing and will be able to counter it perfectly. The only tactic that cannot be countered by more of itself when you know exactly what the enemy is doing is long range spamming. If 1) carriers spot everything constantly and 2) both teams play a tightly coordinated game with optimal setups, the only thing you can do to not give the reds an advantage in tactics is long range spam. Then they played games and sure enough, this line of thinking was proven to be right. 

 

So, basically, if you want to keep claiming that carriers in fact add to tactical depth and teamplay, you first need to prove that the best, most experienced players and teams are wrong, you know something they don't and the fact that they keep winning with tactics based on this premise is just a fluke.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

If out of 40 ships the only reasonable choice leaves you with the Stalingrad (and maybe one or two other ships), I'd say there's no 40 equal choices in the first place.

It's extremely unlikely that all ships are completely equal as a whole, balancing . However, the main problem is that ships have different strengths and in carrier games, only one thing matters. Any ship that trades long range firepower and durability for pointless stuff like concealment, utility, torps, DPM and such are just worse in the extremely one dimensional carrier meta. And I'd say Stalingrad is a pretty good answer when you ask for the best long range cruiser (BBs are out of the window, because you have to choose between a carrier and a BB). Venezia, however, has a very special ability of being able to instantly duck into cover with its italian smoke. This doesn't hide its intention so the enemy will know what's coming if it tries to push, but it can maneuver more freely if it needs to. Of course, Venezia also has excellent long range firepower.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Earlier CW will also have had more diversity based on inexperience with the CW strategies that might be valid (still figuring out what works), people grinding specific trees (time constraint and possibly not told to get certain ships). There might be some rose teinted goggles here.

This simply isn't true except perhaps for the very first seasons. What we have now is the ninth one. Also the best clans (that define the meta) don't have much trouble fielding any lineup they want. Of course coming up with the "perfect strategy" has usually been much more difficult due to much greater potential tactical variety.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

I don't disagree with your overall analysis and argumentation for the strategy choice btw. But the validity of certain ships is in question due to other mechanics as well. But the CV effect could be a lot more limited to a region of a map than it is now, which would validate other strategies more.

Would it validate more strategies than just removing it outright? Also does this now mean that a balance patch reducing some damage and frequency of attacks per sortie wouldn't be enough after all?

[Figment]

3 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Would it validate more strategies than just removing it outright? Also does this now mean that a balance patch reducing some damage and frequency of attacks per sortie wouldn't be enough after all?

If an AA strategy is possible (either mitigate AA power or raid the CV), while such a ship cannot effect the entirety of the map,  then I don't think it necessitates removal.