CB ratings, expressing perfectly our feelings about CVs

[El2aZeR]

32 minutes ago, Erik_Aukan said:

A CV will have trouble finding you if you choose to go dark.

 

On the contrary unless you're a potato finding DDs isn't particularly difficult in a CV. You literally have mechanics that help you in this regard.

 

33 minutes ago, Erik_Aukan said:

If your AA is bad, turn it off, if it's good, turn it off and activate when CV overflies you. He'll either waste a lot of his planes, or he returns to CV.

 

No DD AA can inflict meaningful losses on a CV. There is no "he'll waste a lot of his planes" scenario here.

 

34 minutes ago, Erik_Aukan said:

CVs have changed in just about every patch, but people still bring up things that went away a year ago. Proving they don't play CV regularily 

 

On the contrary people bring up old issues because they haven't been fixed. That you even believe this is the epitome of ignorance and bias.

 

34 minutes ago, Erik_Aukan said:

If you always expect to wtfpwn everything, there's a reality check for you. CVs are apparently your weakness.

 

Rather ironic given that CVs are allowed to kill everything without consequence and anything their opponents can do about it.

 

35 minutes ago, Erik_Aukan said:

They might be bad, but it proves that AA can shoot down planes, even in great numbers. Good players, however, are not immune to get planes shot down, they trade in another way, but strong AA is still strong, you work around it.

 

No, it proves that the CV player in question is incompetent. Nothing more.

Good players do not "trade". That implies that there is some kind of downside to what they're doing in a CV. To good CV players plane losses are irrelevant, they do not trade anything.

[RepSrb]

10 hours ago, DxN69 said:

Are you small kid or something? First of all, the big clans are still there, no sudden underdogs appeared. Secondly, it is like you play soccer for Steaua Bucharest and suddenly Barcelona is making you an offer. You do not hesitate, you go directly. If any big clan doesn't already have a good cv player, it would be extremely easy to recruit one. Most will be thrilled, enchanted and honored to be a member of a Clan that is well known in international competitions. Grow up.

this is hillarious , why would you go??

what are they going to offer , 100 million , ??

better be #1 in your clan and make your friends even better.... no wonder they are bitter about cv.....

[HMS_Kilinowski]

What kind of cluster intercourse have you guys got yourself into this time?

 

Ah, CVs of course, it had to go that way.

 

Let's try to stay rational and dissect this phenomenon of "sudden change of clan-tag".

 

Are some clans irritated by the prevalance of CVs in CB?

They changed their clan-tag, but the clan-tags do not relate to CB. Maybe the clans don't like CVs in general. Or did they change the clan-tag just as the CB-season started?

If so, why are CVs suddenly a problem. They have been in the game for 15 months. That's a long time. Irrespective of debating whether they are broken or not, shouldn't these clans have uttered that opinion for months? Why now?

So some users speculated this was done out of frustration with the current meta. I agree that their motives would be stainless if they had changed their names months ago.

Wasn't it obvious, CVs would some day be implemented into CB? They are either in the game or not. If one doesn't want them in CB, one should also reject them in other modes and vice versa

 

I think most of what followed was besides the point, including the OP. Why would it be necessary to present a screenshot of clans changing their tags? To claim a dominant sentiment? That was irrelevant, one might say anecdotal. One could just start a discussion and say "I don't like the current CB-meta. What do you guys think?" If that sentiment was dominant, it should reveal itself in this discussion, no "expert opinion" needed.

 

 

So what do we think about the current CB-meta?

 

I can understand the different motives. Good CV-players have wished for seasons, that they finally can prove themselves in CB. I can truly say a good CV-player helps to not only get the CB-meta straight but also to do better in randoms.

That doesn't alter the fact that a meta can be enjoyable or not, independent of success. A player can adapt to a meta, but the play can be dull.

 

The current CBs are a bit boring. I can say that and claim for myself that I have very capable CV-players in my team. I benefit from having CVs. Still the meta is boring. What's the point of citadelling a Stalingrad at 23 km just as it accelerates out of the spawn? Isn't the spawn point supposed to be a safe zone? Now a CV can spot you within the first minute and you eat massive damage just by moving out of the spawn. So hello, Wargaming, maybe your spawn points are not suited for this meta anymore. Making clans choose between BB and CV is short-sighted. So 2% of players are CV-mains and WG wants to promote their participation by pushing out the 20% of players who are BB-mains. Great logic. It's not at all that BBs are the one thing that keeps Stalingrad on their toes in randoms and that you just made them an apex predator by removing BBs.

So now each clan needs a Venezia, since it's the only thing that can counter a Stalingrad while matching a Venezia. Nice, now finally we got some dynamics back. Right?

Wrong.

I can perfectly flank in my Venezia, but I am spotted and shot from 23km away and the opposing team is regularly updated about my position. And while doing that I need to sync my moves with another ship for AA. There is no room for heroism, no surprise party, no "hello, here I am, is that half your hull gone?" I miss the opportunity for initiative.

Whoever now blames CVs for the current meta is deceiving himself. This goes way back to the introduction of Stalingrad and then Kremlin into CB. Kremlin and Stalingrad have made the traditional 203mm CAs useless. Suddenly it was all about tanking stationary, and the dynamic positioning was gone. Then the community reacted with counters like Henri. So Wargaming nerfed the Henri into oblivion. Kremlin players laughed: "Finally I can shoot fish in a barrel again." So IFHE-Hindenburgs became a thing and then Venezia. None of all that helped getting diversity back into the game. But nobody renamed his clan-name to "ban Stalingrad" or "Kremlin go home". So now we have CVs in CB and 50mm+ armor is still a thing defining the meta.

Every bit of this meta has evolved over the course of five CB seasons, over more than a year. Yet now some people point at CVs and say "this is the one thing that is causing all this upset."

 

If anybody claims he wants a healthy competitive game mode, he imo should wish for CB rules as they were in Season 3 and earlier, before the first special ships were introduced into CB. Anything else to me seems more like "I fail to adjust to the meta, so the meta should adjust to me".

[Resolutlon]

5 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Except that it doesn't. Bow tanking still happens and the meta does not appear more mobile than before. Carrier's DPM still isn't as high as the rest of the team's, so in many cases you're better off taking cover from them, preferably next to an island or some other obstruction.

 

Also, nose tanking isn't the wonderous, invincible tactic so many people seem to think it is. Nose tanking is useful in certain ships, when you can use islands to get closer to the frontlines. A ship maneuvering freely in the open will usually wreck a nose tanker, because he is a harder target to hit whereas you can hardly miss a stationary ship.

 

Furthermore, nose tanking next to islands isn't even a very defensive or passive tactic to begin with. If that island doesn't exist, but the situation is otherwise the same, that nose tanker ship is now 5-10km further back with his rear towards the enemy - because that's the actual safe position and the only thing you can do without overextending unless there is suitable cover to use.

 

This is also why we see Stalins and Venezias, they can do their thing without ever having to get close to the enemy. No ambushes, no skirting on the edge of concealment, no sneaky flanks, just a two-way shooting competition between two fleets. Nose tanking still exists and if it didn't, it would just be replaced by butt tanking further away from the enemy lines.

Well to be honest, good luck nose tanking and hugging island when a cv is around, and it's not the reason Venezia is being picked, the reason is it's mobile has access to panick smoke  and it can also use the smoke to sneak into caps, although the real reason Venezia is popular in CB because it is agile and can face wreck Stalingrads. And yes Venezia promotes way more mobile gameplay than a Desmoines or a stalin

[Resolutlon]

5 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Except that it doesn't. Bow tanking still happens and the meta does not appear more mobile than before. Carrier's DPM still isn't as high as the rest of the team's, so in many cases you're better off taking cover from them, preferably next to an island or some other obstruction.

 

Also, nose tanking isn't the wonderous, invincible tactic so many people seem to think it is. Nose tanking is useful in certain ships, when you can use islands to get closer to the frontlines. A ship maneuvering freely in the open will usually wreck a nose tanker, because he is a harder target to hit whereas you can hardly miss a stationary ship.

 

Furthermore, nose tanking next to islands isn't even a very defensive or passive tactic to begin with. If that island doesn't exist, but the situation is otherwise the same, that nose tanker ship is now 5-10km further back with his rear towards the enemy - because that's the actual safe position and the only thing you can do without overextending unless there is suitable cover to use.

 

This is also why we see Stalins and Venezias, they can do their thing without ever having to get close to the enemy. No ambushes, no skirting on the edge of concealment, no sneaky flanks, just a two-way shooting competition between two fleets. Nose tanking still exists and if it didn't, it would just be replaced by butt tanking further away from the enemy lines.

So you do see now introducing CV to CB session made gameplay more dynamic you have to be mobile or cv will ap bomb you to death, it's the reason Desmoines has fallen off the meta instantly as CVs are introduced and about sneaky flanks maybe it is not possible anymore but it's more tactics based now that's everyone knows everyone's positions. From my point of view while I'm playing Venezia, the only thing a cv can do is to rocket strike me and they don't do that much of a damage, while OP Stalingrads are being punished, who can literally citadel you from almost every angle and from any range. So what are you complaining about exactly? Balans being Balansed by another Balans?

 

And besides, which would you pick for your supposed flanking and sneaky pushes? A DM? Which is known for its stationary gameplay. A Moskva? Also a bow tanker. A hindy? A Wooster? A Henry?

[Catslave]

On 5/2/2020 at 1:13 PM, Yoshanai said:

Yes truly pitiful isn't it? 

Many clans were late recruiting the best of the best and are now shafted by not having strong enough CV players to field as no-one expected CVS to enter CB even though it was obvious. 

Now they want them gone of course. As they are feeling the pain of being beaten by clans that never felt the privilege of getting close to hurricane. 

This is the difference it makes having a CV player who knows their crap. By removing the class outright they remove the problem of having the scrap that was left on the market of CV players instead of the better end of the stick. 

 

That's just a theory however :D

As I see it CBs improved by having CVS as it ended to boring stationary campfest of last season

Massively mistaken you are.

 

It's not that most (relevant) clans didn't expect carriers to come, they outright DID NOT WANT carriers to come - massive difference.

How well beloved carriers are can be seen in the KotS teams outright voting AGAINST carriers.

 

You see CB improved ? Most ppl who actually play dare to disagree.

Being forced to choose Carrier OR BB anyone who can brings carrier because they are so gamebreakingly overpowered that not a single ship can even compete with them. The "new meta" thanks to that is teams of Hakuryu or Midway and 6 Stalingrad as evidenced by various screenshots.

 

The general oppinion of what players think about carriers in clan battles ?

That alone says more then enough:

 

On 5/2/2020 at 2:01 PM, Yoshanai said:

The problem is there simply aren't many and skill gap is real. Skill gap is likely one of the reasons why they complain.

 

No.

The main issue is that even a bad carrier completely sh*ts on every surface ship and with the progressive and massive nerfs to all AA ever since the carrier rework, there is absolutely neither counterplay nor defense against a carrier. The effect is bad in normal 12Vs12 games but it becomes outright insane in smaller formats with e.g. 7Vs7 like CB.

Any form of tactical play like flanking, ambush or w/e goes completely out of the window. Concealment becomes almost completely irrelevant as well.

You get spotted around 90seconds into the game while still trying to leave spawn and will be permaspotted almost all game. For the rest of the game you have the choice of either trying to evade the carrier strikes or angle against the enemy surface ships ... because naturally the carrier automatically spots you for his team WHILE attacking .... the equivalent would be giving homing shells with remote camera and radar attached to surface ships.

 

The equivalent would be Zeus (=carrier) throwing lightning from Mount Olymp at you while you (surface ship) are swimming in the ocean ....he doesn't even need to aim or hit to kill you.

[Resolutlon]

Personally I don't promote CVs but if it creates radical changes in the meta it is good for the competitive scene, go watch KOTS matches back to back, and notice how things have changed so little over the years, the meta is basically the same, it comes down to micro adjustments. Now go watch League of Legends worlds and msi, you will notice how radically different the meta is in each passing quarter. That's why wows competitive scene is so unpopular, while league and dota can afford to hold such big events and are so popular. Stop whining about the gameplay changes and adapt and form new strategies.

 

The first thing I've noticed when I've joined EU servers is literally how much people do whine over here compared to SEA, like "we want subs, now we don't want subs, we want new ships, we don't want Russian ships, we want Italian BBs, we don't want bbs with SAP" have you guys ever thought about stopping complaints and playing the damn game for once? I'll end my rant here. Peace out

[Catslave]

20 minutes ago, Resolutlon said:

Personally I don't promote CVs but if it creates radical changes in the meta it is good for the competitive scene, go watch KOTS matches back to back, and notice how things have changed so little over the years, the meta is basically the same, it comes down to micro adjustments. Now go watch League of Legends worlds and msi, you will notice how radically different the meta is in each passing quarter. That's why wows competitive scene is so unpopular, while league and dota can afford to hold such big events and are so popular. Stop whining about the gameplay changes and adapt and form new strategies.

WoWs competetive is unpopular because it doesn't exist.

 

Every few months WG brings out some overpowered stuff (like Stalingrad or Kremlin) or completely nerfs a ship into the ground for no reason (like Hindenburg, Henry IV, YueYang) .. effectively resulting in largely stale "competetive" matches where anyone who can brings 1 of the 3 or 4 overpowered or overperforming ships.

 

And the "radical change" brought by carriers can be seen in normal games. Or the last ranked with carriers where some avg. stats carrier players ranked out in record amounts of matched because they basically always saved the star (resulting in them ranking out in like half the amount of matches various super unicums needed in surface ships).

 

Besides the majority of screenshots and feedback i have seen from the current carrier clan battle season is basically "carrier+ rest Stalingrad", I can't believe anyone would call that good ....

 

On a sidenote: the radical changes in LoL are usually the results of RIOT making radical changes to the game, buffing/nerfing or introducing champions to the point where they define the meta. If you actually watch a LoL tournament you will realise that out of the crapton of existing champions, each and every team picks (and bans) out of a very small and selected group ...... commonly you see something like 20 different champs played with 1 or 2 odd ones in a game or another.

 

Edit:

About the competetive being unpopular. Back in 2016 or so Wargaming proudly announced to make WoWs eSports ... and (i believe) Jingles made a vid poking fun at it (mostly about how the horrendous RNG truely showcases competetive skill).

Now the game has no tournament mode even after ~5 years. Commentators had to pick a carrier and kill themselves just to spectate. It took years to make it so they would spawn close enough to ram (which was hillarious if they took different ships and 1 of them survived). It literally took Wargaming ~5years just to introduce an actual spectator mode.

Up to this day WG refuses to introduce any form of rating as used in EVERY competetive game for decades (like elo). Instead the "competetive" is: you win - you get a point

you loose - you loose a point (unless you are top scorer, operation "Save the star" commence)

Your score is 90% based on the damage you dealt, 8% on the kills you get and 2% on the rest (tanking, plane damage, capping, spotting ... ... ...) often resulting in the most useless players to save the star because they sniped with HE from 30km away all game.

Add in various bugs (like the bugged auto aim feature), ghost shells, random client crashes, the current massive desync etc ..... "competetive" in WoWs is unpopular for various reasons, but lack of change is definitely not one of them.

[Resolutlon]

5 minutes ago, Catslave said:

WoWs competetive is unpopular because it doesn't exist.

 

Every few months WG brings out some overpowered stuff (like Stalingrad or Kremlin) or completely nerfs a ship into the ground for no reason (like Hindenburg, Henry IV, YueYang) .. effectively resulting in largely stale "competetive" matches where anyone who can brings 1 of the 3 or 4 overpowered or overperforming ships.

 

And the "radical change" brought by carriers can be seen in normal games. Or the last ranked with carriers where some avg. stats carrier players ranked out in record amounts of matched because they basically always saved the star (resulting in them ranking out in like half the amount of matches various super unicums needed in surface ships).

 

Besides the majority of screenshots and feedback i have seen from the current carrier clan battle season is basically "carrier+ rest Stalingrad", I can't believe anyone would call that good ....

 

On a sidenote: the radical changes in LoL are usually the results of RIOT making radical changes to the game, buffing/nerfing or introducing champions to the point where they define the meta. If you actually watch a LoL tournament you will realise that out of the crapton of existing champions, each and every team picks (and bans) out of a very small and selected group ...... commonly you see something like 20 different champs played with 1 or 2 odd ones in a game or another.

Lol what do you smoke buddy? Give me some of that please. Saving star in ranked depends upon base XP, and cvs earn most low xp per damage ratio, it's the smolensks who mostly saved the stars.

 

And yes I do play and watch lol competitive, do you feel placing an ADC in mid and MAGE at bottom with support is same? And not different? Those 20 champions always always switch with each new tournament.

 

And lastly they are using all Stalin's and CV, I suggest you to run A halland a haku and rest Venezias and see how all stalin teams fail

[AndyHill]

44 minutes ago, Resolutlon said:

So you do see now introducing CV to CB session made gameplay more dynamic

It just didn't. You have to be more defensive than ever. Nose tanking still works. Concealment does not. The reason DM and such don't work anymore is because now a ship needs to be good at blabbing reds constantly spotted at max range, preferably butt towards the reds. Ships that rely on concealment to make plays don't work. There's nothing dynamic about that.

[steveraptor]

2 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

It just didn't. You have to be more defensive than ever. Nose tanking still works. Concealment does not. The reason DM and such don't work anymore is because now a ship needs to be good at blabbing reds constantly spotted at max range, preferably butt towards the reds. Ships that rely on concealment to make plays don't work. There's nothing dynamic about that.

Exactly why stalins and venezia are the problems.

[DxN69]

2 hours ago, RepSrb said:

this is hillarious , why would you go??

what are they going to offer , 100 million , ??

better be #1 in your clan and make your friends even better.... no wonder they are bitter about cv.....

Does the following matter? Prestige, possibility to play at high levels and the chance to learn from some of the best? Should I add that for a clan to stay in top for long time, the atmosphere should be nice and friendly, otherwise they do not resist on top for long term?

[Erik_Aukan]

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

What kind of cluster intercourse have you guys got yourself into this time?

 

Ah, CVs of course, it had to go that way.

 

Let's try to stay rational and dissect this phenomenon of "sudden change of clan-tag".

 

Are some clans irritated by the prevalance of CVs in CB?

They changed their clan-tag, but the clan-tags do not relate to CB. Maybe the clans don't like CVs in general. Or did they change the clan-tag just as the CB-season started?

If so, why are CVs suddenly a problem. They have been in the game for 15 months. That's a long time. Irrespective of debating whether they are broken or not, shouldn't these clans have uttered that opinion for months? Why now?

So some users speculated this was done out of frustration with the current meta. I agree that their motives would be stainless if they had changed their names months ago.

Wasn't it obvious, CVs would some day be implemented into CB? They are either in the game or not. If one doesn't want them in CB, one should also reject them in other modes and vice versa

 

I think most of what followed was besides the point, including the OP. Why would it be necessary to present a screenshot of clans changing their tags? To claim a dominant sentiment? That was irrelevant, one might say anecdotal. One could just start a discussion and say "I don't like the current CB-meta. What do you guys think?" If that sentiment was dominant, it should reveal itself in this discussion, no "expert opinion" needed.

 

 

So what do we think about the current CB-meta?

 

I can understand the different motives. Good CV-players have wished for seasons they finally can prove themselves in CB. I can truly say a good CV-player helps to not only get the CB-meta straight but also to do better in randoms.

That doesn't alter the fact that a meta can be enjoyable or not, independent of success. A player can adapt to a meta, but the play can be dull.

 

The current CBs are a bit boring. I can say that and claim for myself that I have very capable CV-players in my team. I benefit from having CVs. Still the meta is boring. What's the point of citadelling a Stalingrad at 23 km just as it accelerates out of the spawn? Isn't the spawn point supposed to be a safe zone. Now a CV can spot you within the first minute and you eat massive damage just by moving out of the spawn. So hello, Wargaming, maybe your spawn points are not suited for this meta anymore. Making clans choose between BB and CV is short-sighted. So 2% of players are CV-mains and WG wants to promote their participation by pushing out the 20% of players who are BB-mains. Great logic. It's not at all that BBs are the one thing that keeps Stalingrad on their toes in randoms and that you just made them an apex predator by removing BBs.

So now each clan needs a Venezia, since it's the only thing that can counter a Stalingrad while matching a Venezia. Nice, now finally we got some dynamics back. Right?

Wrong.

I can perfectly flank in my Venezia, but I am spotted and shot from 23km away and the opposing team is regularly updated about my position. And while doing that I need to sync my moves with another ship for AA. There is no room for heroism, no surprise party, no "hello, here I am, is that half your hull gone?" I miss the opportunity for initiative.

Whoever now blames CVs for the current meta is deceiving himself. This goes way back to the introduction of Stalingrad and then Kremlin into CB. Kremlin and Stalingrad have made the traditional 203mm CAs useless. Suddenly it was all about tanking stationary, and the dynamic positioning was gone. Then the community reacted with counters like Henri. So Wargaming nerfed the Henri into oblivion. Kremlin players laughed: "Finally I can shoot fish in a barrel again." So IFHE-Hindenburgs became a thing and then Venezia. None of all that helped getting diversity back into the game. But nobody renamed his clan-name to "ban Stalingrad" or "Kremlin go home". So now we have CVs in CB and 50mm+ armor is still a thing defining the meta.

Every bit of this meta has evolved over the course of five CB seasons, over more than a year. Yet now some people point at CVs and say "this is the one thing that is causing all this upset."

 

If anybody claims he wants a healthy competitive game mode, he imo should wish for CB rules as they were in Season 3 and earlier, before the first special ships were introduced into CB. Anything else to me seems more like "I fail to adjust to the meta, so the meta should adjust to me".

I fully agree, you have many valid points here.

I also think the current meta is far more than CVs, they don't even have anything to do with some aspects of it.

In clan battles, Stalingrads, Moskvas, Des Moines and BBs like Ohio and Kremlin  rule surprime. There is very little variation. 

The amount of radar cruisers is so high that DDs almost are extince, because the few operational ranges they have is beyond 12-15 kms long range torps. And their DPM is too low to defend having one on the team. 

I've tried both CVs and BBs on the team. There isn't a guaranteed win in the CV, as you said, the DPM is lower than on a BB, so they can just push through and bully themselves through. Kremlin is very good here.

There is almost no variation. If you bring the "wrong" ship, you will struggle against a meta-set up team. 

The special ship was rewards back then, but when Stalingrad was introduced, they completely replaced many tier 10 cruisers because they could not match it.

 

25 minutes ago, Resolutlon said:

Personally I don't promote CVs but if it creates radical changes in the meta it is good for the competitive scene, go watch KOTS matches back to back, and notice how things have changed so little over the years, the meta is basically the same, it comes down to micro adjustments. Now go watch League of Legends worlds and msi, you will notice how radically different the meta is in each passing quarter. That's why wows competitive scene is so unpopular, while league and dota can afford to hold such big events and are so popular. Stop whining about the gameplay changes and adapt and form new strategies.

 

The first thing I've noticed when I've joined EU servers is literally how much people do whine over here compared to SEA, like "we want subs, now we don't want subs, we want new ships, we don't want Russian ships, we want Italian BBs, we don't want bbs with SAP" have you guys ever thought about stopping complaints and playing the damn game for once? I'll end my rant here. Peace out

You have very good points. More varied ships and ship types will be better, and you are right about competitive like KOTS. We are doing ourselves a disfavour of excluding classes, ships and tactics, because if 3-4 ships out of what? 300 available in wows, isn't that a bit sad and one-dimensional. (I know, tier 10 does not have 300 ships available)

 

and you are right. Actually playing the game. Instead of complaining.

[Catslave]

10 minutes ago, Resolutlon said:

Lol what do you smoke buddy? Give me some of that please. Saving star in ranked depends upon base XP, and cvs earn most low xp per damage ratio, it's the smolensks who mostly saved the stars.

 

And lastly they are using all Stalin's and CV, I suggest you to run A halland a haku and rest Venezias and see how all stalin teams fail

And for what do you get base xp ? Ah yes, mostly for damage dealt. So while all surface ships have to risk their own ship to spot and shoot something, carrier just hides in A1 and blabs anyone anywhere on the map ... his "shells" (aka planes) doing the spotting on the fly.

 

Great to see you know what you're talking about.

Stalingrad is basically a BB, it can reliable citadel almost anything even at max range. So while Venezia generally does good against Stalingrad, this is not really the case here. Carrier spots you 90seconds into the game and Stalingrads open up with their laser shells at 20km. Not to mention that neither Venezia AA nor Armor nor Air Concealment provide anything against a T10 carrier. IFHE Henri or (IFHE) Hindenburg would serve a similar purpose but suffer from similar issues.

And not really sure what Halland is supposed to do when 6 Stalingrad come for his booty the very second he gets spotted (which isn't hard considering you have a carrier and 6x 12km radar).

 

But alas, it has never served any purpose trying to argue with carrier defenders, i have yet to see anyone defending carrier with an actual argument.

[AndyHill]

28 minutes ago, steveraptor said:

Exactly why stalins and venezia are the problems.

No. In a one dimensional carrier-infested meta without concealment, any ship that has the best long range performance is the best choice without exceptions. The gimmick smoke does help Venezia, though, but its strength at the moment is its ability to counter Stalins that otherwise rule supreme.

[Catslave]

14 minutes ago, steveraptor said:

Exactly why stalins and venezia are the problems.

Not really.

 When wargaming nerfed Hindenburg into oblivion, IFHE Henri IV took it's place. Same for other similar occasions. When a tournament forbade the use of Stalingrad, ppl brought Moskva instead.

If you do anything to Stalingrad or Venezia, something else will just take their place resulting in the same issue just in a different flavour.

9 minutes ago, Erik_Aukan said:

I've tried both CVs and BBs on the team. There isn't a guaranteed win in the CV, as you said, the DPM is lower than on a BB, so they can just push through and bully themselves through. Kremlin is very good here.

You have very good points. More varied ships and ship types will be better, and you are right about competitive like KOTS. We are doing ourselves a disfavour of excluding classes, ships and tactics, because if 3-4 ships out of what? 300 available in wows, isn't that a bit sad and one-dimensional. (I know, tier 10 does not have 300 ships available)

The issue with carrier is not the dpm ... a carrier comes for you without risking his own ship, providing unavoidable spotting for his whole team, forcing you to choose "try to evade the carrier strike or angle against his surface team mates" while still doing more then respectable damage ... and esp. the T10 carrier have enough armor to tank T10 BB's, bouncing their AP (not including they cannot detonate, are literally immune to fire and flooding and have a 60second fully automatic damage con).

 

We are doing ourselves a disfavour is probably an "interesting" choice of words. Normally if the "competetive" scene of a game rejects a certain aspect almost without exception, then they are very likely to have very good reasons. And the outright hatred for carriers has become so universal, that even various known carrier mains are pretty much against carriers. In normal competetive games if the competetive scene strongly rejects a certain aspect, then the developers change it to fit ... if a certain aspect proves to be to influential, the developers rebalance it to bring it in line ... in WoWs ppl are vocal about carriers for years and WG is just feeding spreadsheets, slowly but steadily shoving them into ppl's faces.

 

As for the choice of ships: do not blame the players. Naturally you are free to pick Goliath and then go and fight a Stalingrad, Venezia ... Kremlin or even any of the T10 carriers ... feel free to come back and report how you enjoyed it.

SuperTesters, CC's and normal players have been giving ample amounts of feedback including various ideas on how to improve it .... but wargaming generally ignores all that, spouts some blatant lies (Kremlin has bad dispersion at range, da comrade), points at some spreadsheets and then does things that are at best moronic (like e.g. the nerf to Yueyang or reducing the health on Kremlin AA).

[DFens_666]

9 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

No. In a one dimensional carrier-infested meta without concealment, any ship that has the best long range performance is the best choice without exceptions. The gimmick smoke does help Venezia, though, but its strength at the moment is its ability to counter Stalins that otherwise rule supreme.

 

Henri and Hindenburg would counter Stalingrad better, but they lack the smoke from Venezia. And a Venezia just rapes Henri and Hindenburg...

Venezia can cap while no other Cruiser can.

[Catslave]

12 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

No. In a one dimensional carrier-infested meta without concealment, any ship that has the best long range performance is the best choice without exceptions. The gimmick smoke does help Venezia, though, but its strength at the moment is its ability to counter Stalins that otherwise rule supreme.

Minor mistake in there: the ship with the best long range performance (which is not a BB or carrier) just so happens to be a certain soviet fantasy ship with magical 12km radar .... and the ~10km smoke firing penalty does not really help Venezia in this kinda fights either.

So in a carrier infested meta it's an uphill battle for Venzia.

[ForlornSailor]

4 hours ago, RepSrb said:

this is hillarious , why would you go??

what are they going to offer , 100 million , ??

better be #1 in your clan and make your friends even better.... no wonder they are bitter about cv.....

 

You must be new to online gaming. @DxN69 is absolutly right. thats how it works around here.

[Captaindanz]

9 hours ago, Catslave said:

Minor mistake in there: the ship with the best long range performance (which is not a BB or carrier) just so happens to be a certain soviet fantasy ship with magical 12km radar .... and the ~10km smoke firing penalty does not really help Venezia in this kinda fights either.

So in a carrier infested meta it's an uphill battle for Venzia.

It really isn't, unless you keep sailing in a straight line and you are asking for it, plus it is almost impossible to cap anything but your home cap in a stalingrad, the reason teams are taking stalins  not because of the radar, it is the closest thing to BB.

You don't have to sit 10 km from a stalin in a venezia, spotting shouldn't be an issue, and in the worst case scenario venezia can out spot a stalin, angle away and start farming it.

Stalingrad isn't broken and it has counters.

[SriverFX]

A single class forcing one of the most stale metas ever in CWs and people argue here that we would protest because we don't want other clans with superior CVs finally reach hurricane. 

Want to know how much variety CVs added? In 12 matches Sunday we saw only once a Worcester, once a Yoshino and once a Moskva. The only difference in 99% of the teams is the amount of Stalingrads and Venezias. I guess i don't have to mention which carrier was picked in every single match. So much variety, so much fun. 

[ApesTogetherStronK]

2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Henri and Hindenburg would counter Stalingrad better, but they lack the smoke from Venezia. And a Venezia just rapes Henri and Hindenburg...

Venezia can cap while no other Cruiser can.

Carriers render Zao unviable for countering as well, and nothing quite effs up a pushing Stalin than 12km Zao torps. 

1v1 a Zao will win vs CV every time (Tested her along with everything else in training room vs CV.) The problem is you cannot deal with multiple Stalins AND AP bombs in any cruiser, you can only angle one. So even ships like Zao, that have stealth AA, get absolutely boned in CV meta with no meaningful way to disengage. Zao is also yet another cruiser that Venezia completely shafts because the majority of tier 10 cruisers have only 30mm plating absolutely everywhere, with even their armor belts being hidden behind thinner outer armor a lot of the time (HIV spaced armor in particular being like this.) 

 

The problem with Venezia, is there is nothing that really hard counters her. Radar ships that could deal with her, she outconceals (for Russians) or just straight up murders (for Americans) which leaves only the Smolensk, Salem and Zao as viable counter options, of these, only Zao is really viable because torps, and a Zao initial AP broadside will do 20-30k to a Venezia, a good Zao player will time the strike to the same second the Venezia activates smoke while turning out, thereby not being spotted after firing himself. Salem can't do this as any counter fire from the Venezia will do 10-20k back and she only has a 9 gun broadside anyway, and Smolensk does not possess any one shot power versus that armor at the 10-11km range this scenario takes place in. 

 

So the problem here is in a CV dominated meta (naturally) the main predator is Stalin with range mod, which in turn is preyed on by Venezias, but the Venezias themselves have very little counterplay when they can just smoke and run in the hands of a very good player. From either the CV or the Stalins or anyone else. 

 

The fact the meta has boiled down to three ships only a few weeks into CB's (and it got here after the first week really) is really quite saddening. We used to see so many different setups that worked well and now it's just those three. With the occasional Halland or Moskva sprinkled in. (And Moskva is only because either someone does not have a Stalin or because some clans value the dps and anti-fire ability of Moskva over Stalin, along with the legendary mod.) 

[Yamato942]

Its boring that some fo you say that Stalingrads arent op. You say if they nerf Stalin and Venezia other ships will take their place. Ofc it will, skilled players always take best at current moment. But the thing is nothing is even close to this two. Moskva can do same as Stalingrad? Yea sure, slower shells, only half of Stalingrad AP shell, a lot less range, no improved pen angles, no hitpoints.etc and you dare to say Moskva will do same? Cmon let be serius If Stalin go something else will take it place but the thing is there is a lot of diffrent ships which are pretty much balanced one to another and we saw last season when no Stalingrads and CV there is a lot of diffrence ships like HenryIV,Yoshino,DM, even some Hindeburg,Zao and Mino,Worchester,etc. and btw that ship can fight CV better then Stalingrads but they cant fight Stalingrads at range, nothing can, except stupid Venezia with stupid SAP and Moving Smoke at 35kn. I can bet if we dont see Stalingrads and Venezias in cw we can see a lot of diffrent setup and more bb setups. BB setups cant work this season not beacuse of CV and lack of spotting but beacuse BB cant do anything about Stalingrads and Venezias. One will tank him with armor and other will kite and smoke and farm.

[ApesTogetherStronK]

1 hour ago, Yamato942 said:

Moskva can do same as Stalingrad? Yea sure, slower shells, only half of Stalingrad AP shell, a lot less range, no improved pen angles, no hitpoints.etc and you dare to say Moskva will do same? 

 

21km range with legendary module versus 23.6km range. It's  not that big of a difference. 

Shells are still plenty fast enough. 

Half Ap damage, double fire rate = same effective AP DPS, but you will get loss 'huge salvoes' however you will also get more opportunities to hit broadsides. 

Improved pen angles mean little versus players who know what they're doing, both ships will bounce vs. a competent player. 

HP difference is a fair point. However Moskva has less for a Venezia to hit and is marginally thinner, meaning AP bombs hit you less. 

Moskva can get fire duration time down to 16 seconds (and yes that is the build you should use) whereas Stalin is always 35+ while having more HP so she takes significantly more damage from HE overall. 

Moskva is far superior at engaging the odd Halland you'll come across, easily doing 10k+ per radar compared to Stalin's much slower dps. 

Moskva is more agile, if only by a tiny amount. 

 

Stalingrad was straight up better before the fire nerf imo, after that, they both earned a place with similar but slightly different roles. I personally prefer Moskva, she just works better for me, though I can get both ships to work just fine. Last season was particularly fun to knife fight Kremlins who were unaware I could citadel them in Moskva. 

[Yedwy]

Math is simple - more BBs = less Stalins

 

People take Stalin whem they need a BB that doesnt count as one in MM