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

PQ's The CV problem - discussion with skilled players only

460 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SHAFT]
Players
11,743 posts
9,747 battles
18 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Does it summarise what (almost) all high level players think? - Yes. 

 

Thats what i was thinking aswell.

Mostly i agree, but some thinks could just be changed with balancing

 

1. CVs can fit into the game imo. But i believe, for what they bring to the table, they need to be balanced in a way, that they basicly have no impact on the game. Fundamentally, they are a coward class, dealing damage from safety, and that need to be considered.

Ofc we all know, that noone would play CVs anymore, so that would just defeat itself. So maybe they dont fit in the game afterall, all things considered. Theoratically tho, it could be balanced so they not only risk their planes for striking.

 

2. Yep, thats a huge issue. But i wouldnt say, CVs in general have huge Alpha. Again, its certain types of ammo which are bad, namely AP bombs and AP rockets, but also Rockets vs DDs. CVs have lower alpha than what they used to during RTS CV days.

 

4. I dont think manual AA can work. It only benefit BBs, all others would need to decide if they shoot down planes or deal damage. BBs can do both, because they only shoot every 30 sec. Also who would believe, that WG would make manual AA strong enough, so that good players can be immune to planes? Really not gonna happen, so in the end, i have to do the work for basicly the same outcome we have now.

And not sure if CVs mind that AA is automated, maybe bad players do? I have no idea tho...

 

5. CV spotting needs to be removed anyway, especially regarding point 2. You can only have crossfires when you can get shot at from 2 angles. CV creates one angle, and enables the other through spotting.

 

6. Again, mostly AP bombs and rockets are an issue here, same with low-midtier ships who dont have a heal.

 

8. In general thats not 100% correct, only if we assume hat every CV player is good. I would have hoped, that CV players would be better, so that WG would realize that CVs are brokenly OP, but "luckily" our potatobase is so bad that WG can just say "iz balanzed, have vodka comrade"

But at the same time it also means, that those CVs often are just so bad that they dont really bother you anyway. Once we leave potato randoms tho, it becomes a MAJOR issue, like Clanbattles and Brawls.

 

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ENUF]
Players
4,794 posts
14,622 battles

:cap_popcorn:

 

am i the only one waiting for more snowflakes to appear in this thread?

iirc, we had those discussions several times, even with only good players involved...and basically every1 of them knows the issues with cvs and yet it wont change anything tbh. cvs itself are kinda okish (even if the gameplay is boring af imo), the biggest issue is the stupid AA mechanic. since it is developed for snowflakes, wg wont change that because wg loves snowflakes too much. skill is no reason for wg to change something.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Players
1,031 posts
3,661 battles

Tbh just to give you my opionion about this. Yes there are issues with cvs and you rightfully want to discuss them. But what point is it to only involve the top1% of the game if there is 99% which is also affected by that topic? @LemonadeWarriorITA

I could understand if you want to left the below 50% players out. But whatever. I am done with this so good luck. 

  • Cool 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
6,411 posts
14,935 battles
1 hour ago, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

I am not asking for anything weird.

In all seriousness: what did you expect would happen, given the phraseology used in your OP?

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,115 posts
11,523 battles
53 minutes ago, _ReWinD_ said:

we had those discussions several times, even with only good players involved...and basically every1 of them knows the issues with cvs and yet it wont change anything tbh.

 

Thats exactly what I thought a few minutes into watching the video.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,431 posts
7,079 battles
15 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

In all seriousness: what did you expect would happen, given the phraseology used in your OP?

I liked the blunt statement in his video and ofcourse this would happen. Everyone that understands the game already knows what is broken about carriers, so it is pointless to discuss this. Also it is a new month so a new CV topic.

 

It is the direction this game is going: dumbing down game mechanics and adding content for the premium shop. Like others already mentioned. 

 

EDIT: As someone mentioned I need to work on my win-rate, so hopefully I win some steel in Ranked so that I can buy the well balanced FDR.

  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
42 posts
5,861 battles

I have 60%+ in the last 21 days, does that count? kek.
 

Anyway, in all seriousness, I pretty much agree with PQ's points, even though I think that finding a way to make CVs fit into the game could be possible. 

 

My main issues with CVs, as PQ also said, are spotting and AA: they just don't work in the current state of the game imo.

Would be interesting to see if we could come up with ways to overcome these problems though because at the end of the day, wows is a naval game and CVs belong to this theme. 

Perhaps changing CV spotting so that it only updates the ship's position on the map and not balancing AA around groups of ships would be a nice improvement.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RAIN]
Community Contributor
307 posts
15,998 battles

You have a Super Unicum winrate, but blue PR overall ... Does it mean you get carried by your teammates or divmates every single time ?
I agree all the way with the video though, but you should not really begin with such a sentence, especially on the forum. You simply have to ignore those referred :)

  • Cool 9
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TF]
Players
105 posts
1,886 battles

I actually have a question for T10 CV players. The basic gameplay is the same across all tiers, and the advantages explained in the video remain valid. But I feel there is a big gap of firepower (alpha strike potential mostly) and match presence between T10 and lower tiers ? Do you think T4/6/8 CVs are on the same level of broken, facing higher tier ships most of the time, as T10 CVs at the top of the food chain ? in competitive with same tier ships I think yes, but in random battles, the mode most people play ?

Don't bother with my stats I'm garbage tier, still interested.

edit : well I think he answers this in the vid, the AA mechanic is frustrating for both surface ships and CV, I think that was behind my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Players
2,824 posts
25,528 battles
3 hours ago, _ReWinD_ said:

:cap_popcorn:

 

am i the only one waiting for more snowflakes to appear in this thread?
[...]

as sub 60% overall (--> in surface ships ^^!!1!11!1!!!111), i guess it's time to shine ^^

Spoiler

don-t-call-me-a-snowflake-i-m-a-freakin-


*edit*

 

:Smile_child::Smile_hiding:

 

ot:

if u simply could express what u actually mean op, at least myself can't be bothered to watch that vid. so, a few simple points on what u're on here might could help... on the other hand..... might just dont bother, i'm just a sub 60 ya know

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SPURD]
Players
746 posts
5,667 battles

Funny, the I had roughly the same idea of how to change AA/CV interaction some weeks ago, beef up AA in whatever way that allows it to actually deflect strikes but remove deplaning entirely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NCDF]
Players
208 posts
6,165 battles

Everything mentioned in that video was already mentioned many times before, and does not really require a 60%winrate to understand... Also, winrate, and statistics in general, have very little information of a players skill. Because the statistics that are being tracked are not the ones that have much to do with skill. After all, WoWs is a teamgame where bad players have a bigger outcome of the battles that good ones....Unfortunately....

 

There are countless potential ways on how to balance Cv's. Even some that do not require a lot of changes, one(WG) would simply have to test them out. 

For example: Fixing the problem of not having to risk your ship whatsoever. 

There are simple ways of fixing this: Give the planes a maximum range they can travel away from the CV. Does not limit the total range the planes can fly(so nothing with fuel of such), only how far away your planes can be from the CV, and if they hit the maximum range, the planes just bounce back similar to the map border. IF the Maximum range is set with brain(looking at some cruisers gun ranges like Des Moines, Wooster, Minotaur), Cv's would be forced to be within a certain range to the enemy. 

Another possible solution: Don't give the planes their own spotting range. Have Cv's use their ships spotting range. Like this, the planes could still travel the entire map, but would not be able to spot or see anything outside their carriers spotting range. So dropping on a surfaceship outside of your carriers spotting range is only possible by minimap aiming. or looking for shells ebing fired/hit. 

Pick the spotting range of the carrier with brain. Cv's would be forced to come closer to the enemy.

 

Both thoss methods don't require a whole rework to the current Cv's, it would be relatively minor changes. Surely It might not fix all problems with Cv's, might even cause other problems, but one(WG) would have to test such methods first to find out how good/bad this could work.

 

 

And here comes the big BUT...

But why would WG want to balance CV's?

 

What kind of ships does one think of when you here the name World of Warships?

Battleships. Yeah, of course.

Cruisers, sure,

Destroyers, absolutely,

Frigates, maybe

Submarines, probably yes as well.

Aircraft carriers.... Ehm, not really, no. While technically you can call aircraft carriers a warship, noone really thinks of aircraftcarriers when being asked what kind of warships you might play in world of warships. 

Battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines all require you to actually play with said ships. While playing with aircraft carriers, technically, you are not really playing with the arcraftcarrier itself, but with the planes being "stored" on it. 

 

This means, there is a natural playerbase that wants to play with destroyers.

There is a natural playerbase that wants to play with battleships.

There is a natural playerbase that wants to play with cruisers.

There even will be a natural playerbase for submarines when they get released.

But there is NO BLODDY NATURAL playerbase for aircraftcarriers because you are not playing with the carrier, but instead with planes.

Noone starts to play WorldofWarships because they like playing plane/flight-games. If you're interessted in planes, you go play warthunder, heck, some might even play WorldOfWarPlanes(if that game still exists)if they prefer arcade-style. Or other games that i do not know. But noone joins WoWs, our game, because they want to play with planes. It's just not the case...

 

 

So after Wg dicided that they want to have Cv's in WoWs, they had the problem of not having any natural playerbase for cv's.

And how to you fix this?

You make them so bloody overpowered that people will play them, for the wrong reasons, sure, but they WILL play them. And that's all WG cares about. They invested money developing something, and they need to make people use it...

 

 

And now we have the roblem that there are more battle without any DD's then battles without CV's(at least for my experinece of the last 20ish battles with 2 battles not having any DD's, while every single battle had CV's....) because they are way too overpowered...

The pure lack of natural interrest in CV's forces WG to have them so overpowered. We can't fix this. Balancing CV's means noone will play them anymore. 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BANCV]
Privateer
1,606 posts
12,375 battles
4 hours ago, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

 


Moderators

Be so kind to remove replies from unexperienced players. Hidden stats = unexperienced in surface ships. 

If needed I can mark them.

 

what the f... and i don't even see the point of doing this. You don't need to be a good player to understand that there is something wrong with current CVs. 

Maybe some real potatoes will say its fine because with or without CVs in game they are trash anyways, but that's it. The forum isnt made for "skilled players" it's made for people playing the game. 

 

Oh by the way http://www.bancv.org/

  • Cool 11
  • Funny 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
4,262 posts
11,645 battles

Video is bringing up points that have been already discussed and pointed out. I see no point in repeating it again. 

But interesting way of opening this topic, I give you that. 

 

It might be better to just discuss these things on a Discord or something where you can enforce your own rules I guess? 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
536 posts
Vor 3 Stunden, Chips_uk sagte:

In the last 21 days your win rate is below the required 60% for this thread. Please remove yourself from the discussion :) 

53% in current ranked. Shamefur dispray.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
355 posts
11,803 battles
34 minutes ago, thisismalacoda said:

53% in current ranked. Shamefur dispray.

not very honarbrahhhhh indeed. On a more serious note the vast majority of these mysterious good players that i would identify with on a good day agree about the state of the game and the pq video. Honestly there isnt much to discuss, most of it is repetition that we have been saying even pre rework,  nothing will really change, apart from small delayed nerfs coinciding with completely backwards introductions : most notably looking at the reduction in the haku ap bomb alpha, and then introducing the mvr as a clear example.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
195 posts
4,299 battles

Sorry to hear that skilled players are not coping with the CVs

I'm a terrible player and tbh it's not that big a deal.

Good luck.

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VIBES]
Players
390 posts
17,860 battles
3 hours ago, meuhbat said:

I actually have a question for T10 CV players. The basic gameplay is the same across all tiers, and the advantages explained in the video remain valid. But I feel there is a big gap of firepower (alpha strike potential mostly) and match presence between T10 and lower tiers ? Do you think T4/6/8 CVs are on the same level of broken, facing higher tier ships most of the time, as T10 CVs at the top of the food chain ? in competitive with same tier ships I think yes, but in random battles, the mode most people play ?

Don't bother with my stats I'm garbage tier, still interested.

edit : well I think he answers this in the vid, the AA mechanic is frustrating for both surface ships and CV, I think that was behind my question.

I've played all tech tree CVs but the MvR, and among premiums I've only tried the Kaga (rental).

 

Imho the Hosho is absolutely OP with the double torps, and Kaga is very strong as well as with lots of reserves and a 12 plane squadron of torpedo bombers she can always strike high tier targets effectively.

 

However, I don't feel Audacious, Hakuryu and Midway are much better than their T8 counterparts, relative to the AA they face. I'd rather deal with T10 AA now and then in the Lexi than basically all the time in the Midway. Yes, the planes are tankier, but not that much, and having larger squadrons often just means you need to pre-drop more, and sometimes you just misjudge things.

For instance, 12 dive bombers almost guarantee two strikes on a normal target, but 6 might not be enough for a single drop (I mean a 3-plane drop) on a strong AA target: so if you pre-drop once and go with 9, you'll get a strike off, which is a fair trade, but if you go with 6 you'll get nothing off, which sucks.

 

On the same note, the Haku only drops 2 torps at once and it has huge squadrons, so it's a pain in the a** to pre-drop 8-10 planes in case you want to go for a single strike on a cluster of enemies, especially if they're close to the CV.

 

Finally, the plane upgrades of the T10 CVs are often nothing special: a few knots to the speed, maybe 5% more hp, but a longer respawn time as well, so in fact many are pointless side-grades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VIBES]
Players
390 posts
17,860 battles
2 hours ago, Echo_519 said:

Another possible solution: Don't give the planes their own spotting range. Have Cv's use their ships spotting range. Like this, the planes could still travel the entire map, but would not be able to spot or see anything outside their carriers spotting range. So dropping on a surfaceship outside of your carriers spotting range is only possible by minimap aiming. or looking for shells ebing fired/hit.

I'm not sure that makes sense.

If you are to control the planes yourself, which has been the case since the rework, then you have to be able to see what you're dropping and where. That's kind of the point of having planes. We can discuss what the allies should be able see (how do the planes talk to the allies, so to say), but the planes themselves should not have this problem: if the target is right below them, why should they get confirmation of its precise location from the CV? It's completely counterintuitive, and new players would have a terrible time with the mechanic. Unless that's the plan...

 

Also, with this system a concealment build for the CV would most likely be detrimental, as one would give up on dropping with any accuracy on lots of targets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
2,030 posts
20,093 battles

I watched through the whole video.

As has been discussed too many times to count, we all know CV's are broken. Yes, there are Potatoes who couldn't play a surface ship if they tried, who are miraculous in CV's.

In its' current format, my personal game count is somewhere around 10% of the monthly game count from Pre rework, Playing DD's is enormously frustrating, the inability to cap, gain that perfect ambush spot, even spotting is nerfed when a CV is in the game as he does all the spotting for the team.

Playing Cruisers is frustrating as hell as AA means nothing anymore, and being spotted gets you nuked by the rest of the enemy team assuming the CV doesn't do it instead.

Playing Battleships is super frustrating for similar reasons to the Cruiser ones, with the addition that it is all nigh impossible to push up and play tank while perma spotted by a CV from a range where your (AA?) is unable to touch them, let alone those fast flanking BB's like the Richelieu et al whose raison d'etre was to get out on a flank and punish the enemy.

 

I have given up complaining about CV's they are a fact of life now, so I play less games, I buy less premium time, I don't bother buying that shiny ship that is in the Shop, or bother to do that dockyard grind, heck I don't even chase Steel anymore as TBH I can't be arsed to.

My defence mechanism these days is to assume that, whatever ship I am in, any game where there are CV's is going to be a loss for me, if for some reason it is a win then I am super happy about it, but if it's a loss, then it was totally expected.

 

However saying all that, the best and most enjoyable games in any class are indeed those that are not affected by carriers, when I look at MMM and see CV players with super unicum stats on an FDR or MVR then check their surface stats it always saddens me a bit, but I suppose it's no more than players using the system given to them to prop up their abilities and/or inabilities. But there is no getting away from the FACT that games without CV's are by and large, closer, more tactical, more fun and a way to showcase individual ability that is taken away by the CV. 

I lose count of the number of times I say to my clan mates, "that CV has a hard on for me" because he is quite obviously looking to take out the better players in the enemy team first. It never fails to amuse me when I see 30 or 40 plane kills at games end when I have a dreadnought to add to my collection but it's the fact that a muppet can shine and ruin the gameplay in a fun, arcade ship v ship game without having to risk anything. Heck if they do get spotted you can't even set them on fire anymore.

 

I am more than happy to play the game, and would play more if there was only ONE change to the CV gameplay..... Spotting... CV should not be spotting for the whole team. Yes they spot for themselves and maybe for ships within  a fixed distance of the aircraft,  10KM maybe? A bit like a Radar consumable, or they add a consumable to the planes that is triggerable to allow spotting, but on a timer and a finite number.....

 

I don't see wargaming doing anything about CV's, at least not in the next year or so, but new players will join, us older longer term players will drift away and the game will probably survive purely on those facts alone, but there will be no 'spirit' or 'history' to the player base, just a constantly revolving door of players playing a few months, then moving on to the next new thing. What WoWs HAD was a stable, committed player base who were heavily invested in the game, nowadays I think not so much....

 

Just my tuppence guys

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
2,030 posts
20,093 battles
7 hours ago, bobtherterrible said:

Sorry to hear that skilled players are not coping with the CVs

I'm a terrible player and tbh it's not that big a deal.

Good luck.

They probably take a look at MMM and see that you're not worth the effort, if even you think you are that bad buddy.

(I didn't check stats BTW just your own words - NOT attacking you at all)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×