Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
DariusJacek

General DD, CA, BB discussion?

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2,259 posts
14,096 battles

Just asking out of curiosity. 

Every topic about CVs are blocked and all are told to :etc_swear: off to general CV discussion pinned messy bloated topic. Why do you not do the same with every single BB, DD, or CA related post? 

Is it because of the general policy by WG of not accepting any critical feedback and pushing it under the carpet (containing in one ghetto)? Or it is that the forum would be over populated with complaints against the greatest success of gaming industry - fun and engaging  reeeework? And that would not look like being in line with the official full on propaganda of success the only official line of party? 

 

I am asking because it is next to impossible to have any meaningful discussion in this only right topic.

 

Now you will probably lock this as well since it is the only way you know. It's OK. Just another way of admitting different attitude towards CVs then the other classes. 

 

And no, I am not against CVs. I play them, even enjoy sometimes when I am in mood to bully hopeless kids. I have the least number of games with this class yet I play it with highest WR of all classes even if my CV skills are still probably lowest of all as in no other class I make so many silly mistakes. What says it all about how balanced they are and how good is the average CV target player. 

 

If WG for years can not fix and balance the class maybe its time admit the failure? And start the process all over again? 

Unless the tested changes will make it live and bring positive changes but I doubt. Lost my faith in you WG. 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,290 posts
19,553 battles
9 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

general policy by WG of not accepting any critical feedback and pushing it under the carpet

giphy.gif

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,060 posts
14,868 battles

This thread is the best example why there is a common thread.

Nobody would find this when looking for feedback on CV...

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RODS]
Players
1,463 posts
7,483 battles

 

26 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

Just asking out of curiosity

etc..

All true..

But you cant have any negative opinions about CV:s, you will for sure be burned at the stake for blasphemy

cropped_burned-stake-blasphemy-punishment.jpg.545ceb5af275b3c5b8d4911fee807a5d.jpg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,259 posts
14,096 battles
2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

This thread is the best example why there is a common thread.

Nobody would find this when looking for feedback on CV...

It's not feedback. It's a rant mixed with a bit of sarcasm. I gave my feedback already as the others did and it was properly ignored as most of the time. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,060 posts
14,868 battles
4 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

It's not feedback. It's a rant mixed with a bit of sarcasm. I gave my feedback already as the others did and it was properly ignored as most of the time. 

For that it includes a lot of feedback about CV...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,259 posts
14,096 battles
42 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

For that it includes a lot of feedback about CV...

It was to stop turning this into personal insults like, have you even tried CVs? It's for those usual CV defendends and statpadders that would come in saying: You should try them yourself, they are balanced. No, they are not. Of course they need a bit of brain and practice but it's too easy to farm poor surface ships and that spotting ability breaks the game for ships balanced around concealment. Also not much fun i gameplay and no fun at all in playing against them. 

But all this is well known. 

What annoys me most is that WG policy of hiding a head in the sand. Locking nearly all of  CV related treads. And it's mostly about this. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,597 posts
10,265 battles
17 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

We have one thread at the top of the page. If that is hiding the head in the sand...

Yes, that is hiding in the sand. That thread is like a cast away island to which all threads about cvs get send to perish. It's a place where a couple of people keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. 

Wargaming doesn't care enough about the critics to really change anything. They basically care about revenue. Game balance and enjoyment comes second, as shown by ignoring the overall declining attendance in clanbattles, the complaints about cvs in ranked, the many complaints about unenjoyable encounters with cvs in randoms. 

 

After one and a half years of rework, wargaming have accomplished two things: destroying clanbattles and selling a sh!tton of CVs. Cvs are still as unjoyable to fight against as ever and on top of that they are in almost every match. Yay! But luckily the interaction and counterplay is good, right? Not really. They're laughably bad. 

 

CVs are a double edged sword for this game. In a game in which every class makes decisions based on risk/reward, with the risk being getting killed, the cv plays on a different level. They risk ammunition but (almost) never their HP. To make them enjoyable to play, you basically make them OP in a 1v1 against surface ships. To make them enjoyable to play against, you basically need to make cvs really bad. But then WG wouldn't make money on them. 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,259 posts
14,096 battles
27 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

We have one thread at the top of the page. If that is hiding the head in the sand...

It is a ghetto. Even if at the top of the page it is still dumpster fire. And there is so many post that finding anything useful in constant bla bla of nay and yeah sayers would take ages. 

WG can throw everything CV related into one convoluted mega tread.

Is it so hard to comprehend for you? 

If still you think that they should do like that then why there is no single topic for bbs, cas and dds... 

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,060 posts
14,868 battles
2 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Wargaming doesn't care enough about the critics to really change anything.

So they are changing CV, planes and the interaction with other ships because they do not care? Interesting...

1 minute ago, DariusJacek said:

If still you think that they should do like that then why there is no single topic for bbs, cas and dds...

Because they are not that many and these topics are more specific.

On the other hand a general thread about HE and fire would be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,597 posts
10,265 battles
5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

So they are changing CV, planes and the interaction with other ships because they do not care? Interesting...

Placebo changes that do not change the inherent problems of the class interaction. Those aren't changes to improve gameplay imo. Those are changes to create a fake sense of "We hear you playerbase! Look we are doing things."

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,259 posts
14,096 battles
9 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

On the other hand a general thread about HE and fire would be a good idea

And torpedoes, flooding, pesky invisible dds, he spammers from smoke and ap spammers from behind islands, and CVs, and ships made of gasoline, over matching APs and border camping and... We have general BB discussion topic. :cap_haloween: 

Now just 2 more to go. See? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,299 posts
31,360 battles

Devs failed to balance CVs after the rework which they claimed they would. They can't balance this class anyway. It would require a very marginal change/re-doing CV related stuff all over again. What they test is not only meaningless, it would be a band-aid to open heart surgery at best.

 

These are the changes WG is testing now;

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,060 posts
14,868 battles
8 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Placebo changes that do not change the inherent problems of the class interaction. Those aren't changes to improve gameplay imo. Those are changes to create a fake sense of "We hear you playerbase! Look we are doing things."

So you do not see a difference to the CV right after the rework. Interesting...

Tell me more :cap_like:

9 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

And torpedoes, flooding, pesky invisible dds, he spammers from smoke and ap spammers from behind islands, and CVs, and ships made of gasoline, over matching APs and border camping and... We have general BB discussion topic. :cap_haloween: 

Now just 2 more to go. See? 

That is not about BB...

That is about other ships attacks and game mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,259 posts
14,096 battles
4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

So you do not see a difference to the CV right after the rework. Interesting...

Tell me more :cap_like:

That is not about BB...

That is about other ships attacks and game mechanics.

But if can have everything cv related in one place then why not everything bb related? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,060 posts
14,868 battles
2 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

But if can have everything cv related in one place then why not everything bb related? 

Why is flooding only BB related? Why it is not CV, DD, CA related? Or maybe, just maybe, it is just a game mechanic and not ship specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,259 posts
14,096 battles
18 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Why is flooding only BB related? Why it is not CV, DD, CA related? Or maybe, just maybe, it is just a game mechanic and not ship specific?

Maybe because I can't remember when last time I died in dd or ca from flooding? So even if it is just a game mechanics, it's the one that affects mostly one class. Or rather was affecting before bb bingo card things started to be fixed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MUMMY]
Beta Tester
348 posts
5,072 battles
33 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Placebo changes that do not change the inherent problems of the class interaction. Those aren't changes to improve gameplay imo. Those are changes to create a fake sense of "We hear you playerbase! Look we are doing things."

1. Adapting general use of the ellipse crosshair, making it harder for inexperienced players to easily hit on a moving DD, actually giving the DD more of a chance to reduce incoming damage by adapting his course.

2. Reducing overall AP-bomb damage to mitigate devastating damage on stationary targets, especially cruisers.

3. Introducing a new CV line that is focused around engaging broadside cruisers and frontal BBs, while taking away pressure in damage or focus from DDs.

 

To me, this sounds more than just "things" or a placebo. It may not be the solution or what many people hope for, but definitely a step in the direction of better class interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,259 posts
14,096 battles

AP bombs nerf was to balance IJN vs USA power and the only way of touching Enterprise under the cover of global changes without making her even stronger vs peers. 

New reticle has made TiTs just plane worse option. Is it kind of a good balancing? USA dive bombers can nuke a dd and will still even after potential new changes. Ijn and  Germans can still spot you in the worse moment during torpedo attack or just when you do your job of a scout with pants down and even if unable to nuke you like before it can just keep you spotted for ever.  Some changes are a step in the right direction but also some changes are rushed without proper testing and thought, just for the sake of changing something and being able to say: but we did this and that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RODS]
Players
1,463 posts
7,483 battles

They never change (nerf) anything significant

Big problem with CV:s is that an active "living and learning" player is controlling the planes

One the other hand you have BOT AA defense that a (hopefully) living player can activate

If the CV player aint a complete moron he is gonna figure out how to play around the bots 

And how the :etc_swear: is it possible for CV to launch planes when the deck is on fire and HE exploding everywhere

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,786 posts
12,246 battles
9 hours ago, DariusJacek said:

Just asking out of curiosity. 

Every topic about CVs are blocked and all are told to :etc_swear: off to general CV discussion pinned messy bloated topic. Why do you not do the same with every single BB, DD, or CA related post?  

Is it because of the general policy by WG of not accepting any critical feedback and pushing it under the carpet (containing in one ghetto)? Or it is that the forum would be over populated with complaints against the greatest success of gaming industry - fun and engaging  reeeework? And that would not look like being in line with the official full on propaganda of success the only official line of party? 

It's simple - right after the rework, the Forums were flooded with infinitely repetitive threads. From people who hated the idea of CVs existing to people who heard how OP CVs were so they tried playing them, sucked, and came to rant how useless they were. The endless flood of threads from people who wanted to rant and didn't even bother to look if there was a similar thread open already...

 

The rants were repetitive, discussion hardly existed, after the first couple posts they all were basically the same. Which is why at some point they decided to do something with the clutter and - just like with similarly repetitive MM complaints - a dump thread was created.

 

The reason why no such threads exist for BBs, DDs and cruisers is because they never became that big of a problem - the topics usually have less of a tendency of blending together. An "invisible DDs torping me, launching torps should cause concealment bloom like firing guns" rant usually doesn't evolve into a general DD hate/support thread before the first page is through - meanwhile that's what tends to happen to CV threads, pretty quickly they devolve into a clash over the class as a whole.

 

Putting it simply, CV threads were becoming a problem, cluttering the forum and bringing little if anything of value - so they were relegated to the dumpster pile dedicated thread. In fact, now this could probably be relaxed - I doubt the thread would've appeared with the current intensity at which CV threads pop up. That being said, as the thread already came to be, it's probably here to stay.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,597 posts
10,265 battles
5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

So you do not see a difference to the CV right after the rework. Interesting...

Tell me more :cap_like:

They can tweak the numbers as much as they like to make it "balanced". Except it isnt the dmg output or the way dmg is inflicted that makes a cv unfun to play against, it's the spotting, lack of interaction and core design of having a class that does dmg without risking HP. And in those areas I do not see any difference indeed. 

 

4 hours ago, Nov_A said:

To me, this sounds more than just "things" or a placebo. It may not be the solution or what many people hope for, but definitely a step in the direction of better class interaction.

See above. ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
5 hours ago, Nov_A said:

2. Reducing overall AP-bomb damage to mitigate devastating damage on stationary targets, especially cruisers.

3. Introducing a new CV line that is focused around engaging broadside cruisers and frontal BBs, while taking away pressure in damage or focus from DDs.

Too bad the new CV line of point 3 is point 2 all over again, as it has again devastating AP bombs. Nohing like losing over 20k hp permanently in one drop. It was is stupid with Haku, it's stupid with MvR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,259 posts
14,096 battles
10 hours ago, HaachamaShipping said:

Too bad the new CV line of point 3 is point 2 all over again, as it has again devastating AP bombs. Nohing like losing over 20k hp permanently in one drop. It was is stupid with Haku, it's stupid with MvR.

It's typical modus operandi. Nerf current best and bring in better to lure people to cash convert freexp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×