General CV related discussions.

[Eternus_Damnatio]

9 minutes ago, Figment said:

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.

 

 

 

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

Again you fail to comprehend the logic behind the statement they have been simplified too much and at tier 4 where there is no counter it is easy to farm kills and damage i am not going to explain any further it is simple to understand.
To qoute an old friend who was an excellent and dedicated CV player under older mechanics I will leave his name out rather than drag him into this.
"Well, current CVs are cancer to play against and mind numbing to play as well."
 

[Figment]

1 minute ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

Again you fail to comprehend the logic behind the statement they have been simplified too much and at tier 4 where there is no counter it is easy to farm kills and damage i am not going to explain any further it is simple to understand.
To qoute an old friend who was an excellent and dedicated CV player under older mechanics I will leave his name out rather than drag him into this.
"Well, current CVs are cancer to play against and mind numbing to play as well."

No, again you failed to comprehend that there's a difference between saying there's an issue that is excarcebated at tier 4 (which I agree with) and comparing people with toddlers because they either have to play through tier 4 or choose to play there.

 

The one is a complaint about an in game issue, the other is an insult based on your complaint in combination with assumptions about why someone plays. Something you still don't seem to comprehend. You could have been respectful towards people, instead you choose not to and you continue to not be respectful.

[AndyHill]

21 minutes ago, Figment said:

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).

I have to drop in here just to state that at least in my case this is absolutely true and I don't feel offended by the implication. I played RTS carriers, but didn't enjoy it enough to really learn the stuff so when I got the T10 ships to my collection I just stopped. Playing at that level for fun would've meant that I would've had to learn to beat the most experienced carrier players in the game to be useful for my team. With the new implementation I can just do my own thing and as long as I'm decent at a very simple and repetitive task of dropping stuff on stuff I do well. Even if I'm not as good as my opponent or my team fails, I still get lots of rewards, credits and nice stats. So if Damnatio wants living proof for his statement's validity, I volunteer.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

19 minutes ago, Figment said:

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

Which is still not an insult to people playing carriers.

[AndyHill]

10 minutes ago, Figment said:

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. 

So is a balance patch reducing some damage and frequency of attacks per sortie enough or not?

[Figment]

10 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

So is a balance patch reducing some damage and frequency of attacks per sortie enough or not?

No, I'd add range limitations (sortie duration) and effective attrition possible as conditions, with having a hard time against targetting DDs specifically (as counterplay). I have less issue with some spotting (as long as it can't last endlessly as it does now and perhaps with a different mechanic like releasing a limited amount of spotter aircraft, like you have fighter drops today). I think CVs need to rely on allies to defend them from DDs in principle. Hence I'm not a fan of the addition of rockets in particular since hitting DDs and light cruisers with it is very easy.

 

The impact of a tier 6 CV on a tier 8 match is a lot less because of the latter where AA power increases over time as the squadrons faced get weaker and weaker. This is required because the amount of enemy ships diminish over time and it still needs to be fair when facing fewer ships, rather than an entire fleet.

[AndyHill]

1 minute ago, Figment said:

The impact of a tier 6 CV on a tier 8 match is a lot less because of the latter where AA power increases over time as the squadrons faced get weaker and weaker.

Hold on a moment. This is just absolutely flat out wrong. Yes, you can lose your planes early especially when uptiered - people with more exprience at that tier can chime in on how hard it actually is - but if you're patient enough and don't lose the match outright by being careful at the start, you will have free reign at the end when the AA on the ships has been eradicated. Every HE shell that hits a ship has a good chance of stripping out AA and one of the main discussion points about carrier balancing right now is making AA repair itself over time, because currently ships are absolutely helpless in the late game.

[Figment]

13 hours ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

*EDIT*

You know, there is an ignore button.

[Figment]

9 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Hold on a moment. This is just absolutely flat out wrong. Yes, you can lose your planes early especially when uptiered - people with more exprience at that tier can chime in on how hard it actually is - but if you're patient enough and don't lose the match outright by being careful at the start, you will have free reign at the end when the AA on the ships has been eradicated. Every HE shell that hits a ship has a good chance of stripping out AA and one of the main discussion points about carrier balancing right now is making AA repair itself over time, because currently ships are absolutely helpless in the late game.

Currently? Agreed, yes. Question is whether removing their DPS for a period of the match is wise (really depends on the team effort) and that reign not too late to win the match. It is difficult to both balance for both groups and individual targets.

 

But is that not an indication of a CV player playing his game right to some degree? A player should still be able to play well enough in a CV to influence the outcome of the match. The question is how much power they have.

 

If the spotting impact becomes less at the same time though, the amount of attacks and the damage per attack decreases as well (which are also things we've talked about) in comparison to today and there are other ways to lose aircraft (without AA being hp balanced as it is now, fuel for return flight), there's going to be quite some differences in that math compared to today. A too conservative CV alone, with lowered attack frequency and who couldn't deal with DDs well would be in a lot more trouble than today.

 

 

PS: on the topic of AA module repair, I'd say it should be done for all secondaries in much the same way as you lose an engine or rudder and it magically comes back without docking, possibly at a slower rate to make it have a chance of having an impact (say 3x the normal recuperation speed). There's ample precedence with hp recuperation and instant fire out and repairs. It's a fair point to make.

[Figment]

36 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

I have to drop in here just to state that at least in my case this is absolutely true and I don't feel offended by the implication. I played RTS carriers, but didn't enjoy it enough to really learn the stuff so when I got the T10 ships to my collection I just stopped. Playing at that level for fun would've meant that I would've had to learn to beat the most experienced carrier players in the game to be useful for my team. With the new implementation I can just do my own thing and as long as I'm decent at a very simple and repetitive task of dropping stuff on stuff I do well. Even if I'm not as good as my opponent or my team fails, I still get lots of rewards, credits and nice stats. So if Damnatio wants living proof for his statement's validity, I volunteer.

Which would still be anecdotal evidence. I'm sure there are people who play CV more since the change since it was 'easier' (or at least, different), I'm also sure there are seal clubbers. Problem is it being simpler was implied as being the only reason by Eternus for a temporary increase in popularity and then linked to an age level to indicate his disdain for those players.

 

If it is more fun due to being more emersive and less detaching to fly through the surroundings compared to a top down view is already a different reason which has nothing to do with the design's supposed simplicity.

 

I suspect the major reason people played a lot of it at first is what happens with every new toy: people try it out before moving on. Every game, every new unit addition to a game has such a curve (unless it's an absolute necessity to use after addition, then its use stabilises at higher level). People played them either to see what it can do, or just for completionism (was one reason for me to do all WoT lines and unlock all War Thunder units) or for some other reason, we just don't know without any proper enquiries.

 

If he had linked to any enquiry about reasons to play, even if a biased vote or biased set of questions, he'd been able to make an argument. Instead he chose to base his entire argument on a graph that was about something else.

 

To just assume the most insulting thing one can think of and not saying anything else is just that: making a comment with the purpose of insulting and dismiss critique. :/

 

Btw, achievement stats are always relative to others, so if you have nice stats, it means others don't do so well with the same tool (tool might still be powerful compared to other tools for that same player, which indicates more about balance or playstyle preference/experience than if a smart player knows how to handle a tool intuitively. It being intuitive isn't a bad design element of course in and on itself).

[AndyHill]

58 minutes ago, Figment said:

But is that not an indication of a CV player playing his game right to some degree? A player should still be able to play well enough in a CV to influence the outcome of the match. The question is how much power they have.

Sure, it's an indication of the CV player not screwing up at least. What it is not indication of, is opponents playing well against him. Also, the point isn't about how much power they have but about how that power is applied and what it actually does. 

58 minutes ago, Figment said:

If the spotting impact becomes less at the same time though, the amount of attacks and the damage per attack decreases as well (which are also things we've talked about) in comparison to today and there are other ways to lose aircraft (without AA being hp balanced as it is now, fuel for return flight), there's going to be quite some differences in that math compared to today. A too conservative CV alone, with lowered attack frequency and who couldn't deal with DDs well would be in a lot more trouble than today.

Now the real question remains, would this just reduce the negative effect of carriers or turn them into a positive influence. Reduction would of course be better than what we have now, but not enough to justify the continued existence of carriers. The former would be the logical conclusion, unless some kind of a mechanism I can't think of turns it into a positive at some point. If you can prove that, I'm all ears.

 

The challenge is that if you reduce the range of the carriers, even if their overall influence might be less, it would be focused more on the frontlines. And like with other ships, if people can stay out of range of something, they will want to do so (Smolensks and Minotaurs come to mind). So although we can't know without testing, there is actually a mechanism that might make things worse with reduced spotting. So, my first question is what is the thing that turns a negative impact into positive?

 

Some other factors that came up in this discussion earlier included the range of the planes. Give them very little range and people will want to stay out of it even harder, because they can. And that will focus their effect even more on the frontlines. Then again for example Midway has about 15km surface detection right now, should the planes' range be more or less than that? If it's much more (comparable to for example battleship guns), there is no practical change to the current situation, except that carriers couldn't reach each other at all. In fact to reduce spotting significantly enough, the range needs to be extremely low. As far as I know, the biggest maps in WoWS are 48x48km, so something with a 25km range sitting in the middle of the map can reach practically every spot on the map. Which makes my second question how much would the reduced range be?

25 minutes ago, Figment said:

Which would still be anecdotal evidence. I'm sure there are people who play CV more since the change since it was 'easier' (or at least, different), I'm also sure there are seal clubbers. Problem is it being simpler was implied as being the only reason by Eternus for a temporary increase in popularity and then linked to an age level to indicate his disdain for those players.

Oh there are many I know of. It's statistically impossible for it to be the only reason, but I don't think Damnatio's exaggeration was way off the mark. I don't have the statistics - I only know how stressful it was to play against a good opponent in RTS - but WG probably do and they themselves stated openly that one of the main goals of the rework was to remove all interaction between carriers so that one can't defeat the other and make him frustrated and sad (while completely dominating the match without an opponent).

25 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

If it is more fun due to being more emersive and less detaching to fly through the surroundings compared to a top down view is already a different reason which has nothing to do with the design's supposed simplicity.

This is largely personal opinion, but I'm not the only one who thinks the new thing is brain numbingly monotonous and repetitive, compared to RTS the lack of and kind of danger as an element also makes it more boring and less competitive. And this is from someone who doesn't really like the gameplay of either.

25 minutes ago, Figment said:

Btw, achievement stats are always relative to others, so if you have nice stats, it means others don't do so well with the same tool

Not really. Personal ratings based on average performance of players are, but damage, krakens and the likes aren't, except perhaps for your teammates, who have less damage and kills to share and your opponents who are too dead to do much anymore.

[redraven]

1 hour ago, Figment said:

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.

 

No he did not. RTS cvs had a real gaetkeeping quality. As the name suggests old CV was more like an RTS minigame rather than wows. What we have now is more akin to World of warplanes (yes wg tried to make a plane game). And its so easy to play that yes even a 5 Year old can play it. Which the old CV made not possible. He isnt beratin the inteligance  but points out a direct causation. Cvs are played more becasue they are significantly easier. No two ways about it.

[Pikkozoikum]

4 minutes ago, redraven said:

No he did not. RTS cvs had a real gaetkeeping quality. As the name suggests old CV was more like an RTS minigame rather than wows. What we have now is more akin to World of warplanes (yes wg tried to make a plane game). And its so easy to play that yes even a 5 Year old can play it. Which the old CV made not possible. He isnt beratin the inteligance  but points out a direct causation. Cvs are played more becasue they are significantly easier. No two ways about it.

Wouldn't say it's easier or more difficult. The RTS T4 Cvs had no manual drops - it can'T be easier than that xD

If you go only with the controls, the whole game is quite easy. It's mostly about the tactics, positioning, knowledge etc., what makes the game "difficult"

[1MajorKoenig]

9 minutes ago, redraven said:

No he did not. RTS cvs had a real gaetkeeping quality. As the name suggests old CV was more like an RTS minigame rather than wows. What we have now is more akin to World of warplanes (yes wg tried to make a plane game). And its so easy to play that yes even a 5 Year old can play it. Which the old CV made not possible. He isnt beratin the inteligance  but points out a direct causation. Cvs are played more becasue they are significantly easier. No two ways about it.

 

Nope. Again this 5 years old ?

 

And no - the RTS mini game was not any difficult, it was pretty dumb. But the main drawback was that it was inherently unattractive. It was about as exciting as watching paint dry. 

[Pikkozoikum]

3 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Nope. Again this 5 years old ?

 

And no - the RTS mini game was not any difficult, it was pretty dumb. But the main drawback was that it was inherently unattractive. It was about as exciting as watching paint dry. 

*for most players

Some players liked it

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

*for most players

Some players liked it

 

True - though I’d challenge if anyone liked the presentation. Some got to like the gameplay possibilities it gave you once you spent enough time watching the blue screen with the barely responsive green icons. Woooow 

 

But yea - fair enough. Some liked it. A lot didn’t 

[redraven]

5 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

*for most players

Some players liked it

And if those players want to play RTS games they can go and [edited]play one. There are hundreds out there.

9 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Nope. Again this 5 years old ?

 

And no - the RTS mini game was not any difficult, it was pretty dumb. But the main drawback was that it was inherently unattractive. It was about as exciting as watching paint dry. 

Not difficult.. for those who have RTS experience.
And why was it unattractive? Because when some unsuspecting player starts up Word of WARSHIPS maybe he isnt expecting a top down rts minimage that has nothing to do with playing with a WARSHIP.
The current iteration might be more.. immersive as you see your targets (which are warships) more closely and the whole attack seems more action filled but again. We arrive to my main issue with carriers. You are not playing with your WARSHIP. 

[redraven]

20 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Wouldn't say it's easier or more difficult. The RTS T4 Cvs had no manual drops - it can'T be easier than that xD

If you go only with the controls, the whole game is quite easy. It's mostly about the tactics, positioning, knowledge etc., what makes the game "difficult"

T4 cvs used to have manual drop. Only not long before the Reework the sealclubbing was so rampant with them that WG decided to remove it from them.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

8 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Wouldn't say it's easier or more difficult. The RTS T4 Cvs had no manual drops - it can'T be easier than that xD

If you go only with the controls, the whole game is quite easy. It's mostly about the tactics, positioning, knowledge etc., what makes the game "difficult"

Rework carriers: gameplay depth of an amoebe, which was the whole design focus of the rework so carriers would be more accessible to the general playerbase. to the tactics knowledge and positioning what makes the game difficult. Guess what anyone in a carrier could obstruct but just flying around :-)

[Pikkozoikum]

6 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Rework carriers: gameplay depth of an amoebe

You could say that about the whole game, depeding on the view of it.

6 minutes ago, Europizza said:

which was the whole design focus of the rework so carriers would be more accessible to the general playerbase.

There were multiple goals, not only this one.

 

7 minutes ago, Europizza said:

to the tactics knowledge and positioning what makes the game difficult. Guess what anyone in a carrier could obstruct but just flying around :-)

I generally wish more complexity in this game, but I guess I won't get it. You still need Knowledge, tactics and positioning with the CV/squads, you see that difference, when you watch beginners playing CV

[BLUB__BLUB]

4 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Am I?

Yes you are, and you know it too. 

 

4 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

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?

See, you are intelligent enough to know that it matters: depending on the question you search for the answer. 

Some people here actually do... OK not all of them. But you know better than generalize. You know some of these people.

leave the generalizing to WG, they excell at it. This is why CV is fine (LOLzzz). 

 

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Which isn't even possible.

Wanna bet? We did 3CVs division in the submarine test. 

If I'd give every CV twice the torps + allow MatchMaker to do it, you bet you gonna get 5CVs per side. 

 

[1MajorKoenig]

3 minutes ago, redraven said:

And why was it unattractive? Because when some unsuspecting player starts up Word of WARSHIPS maybe he isnt expecting a top down rts minimage that has nothing to do with playing with a WARSHIP.

 

The problem is not to control naval planes in a warship game as you try to imply. I generally like RTS games much but in this case the whole thing didn’t work. It was just not immersive, not fun,

 

Other games succeeded though - Battlestations used a combination of a rather bad RTS element (just as WOWS) game but combined that with good arcade action control of the planes. Both fighters and bombers. And put together it worked pretty well

 

10 minutes ago, redraven said:

You are not playing with your WARSHIP. 

Ah. So a CV is not a warship 

 

[CptBarney]

Well i was in one battle with that manfred cv, the ap rockits seemed to do alot of damage to miss minotaur. Torps my god are slow, was liek watching a baby crawl in 1/4 speed lol.

The bombs also spanked yammys fat butt for a lot of damage as well.

 

Although that was only one battle so i have no clue if they are broken, OP, Very strong, meh, bad, poor etc.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

You could say that about the whole game, depeding on the view of it.

I didn't think it possible, but if there is whole new level of flat to the carriers.

[1MajorKoenig]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

See, you are intelligent enough to know that it matters: depending on the question you search for the answer. 

Some people here actually do... OK not all of them. But you know better than generalize. You know some of these people.

 

Don’t get me wrong I am interested in these numbers. But I haven’t really seen a consensus on what KPI we should compare as the best discussion basis. I mean throwing around or comparing percentages is only useful or going anywhere if we all talk about the same kind of percentage.

 

But to be a bit constructive I would suggest to either look at:

 

- percentage of CVs among all ships in all games in randoms. Would be nice as you can directly apply this to game situations since we know how many ships are on one team. Plus I would exclude T4 as this tier is kind of problematic 

 

- alternatively could look at how many players are playing CVs in any given week among other ships. Meaning is different but nevertheless an interesting indicator.

 

I would probably settle on of these two to try to make the question “are these things popular” a little more tangible