Temporary Class Removal.

[PappaBrejj]

Since Wargaming have decided to remove Submarines for the time being, to work on them since they are unbalanced/have too much game presence/barely anyone plays them. Couldn't the same argument be made about Aircraft Carriers? If I had it my way they both would be gone permanently - But I am genuinely curious as to the ratio of opinions on this subject of temporary removal to balance/adjust these issues. 
 

[Aethervoxx]

I answered MEH - CVs do not need to be removed but they do need to be adjusted.

To be more specific -   reworked CVs have to be completely removed and replaced by the return of RTS CVs . CVs, imo, are & should be integral to WoWS play.

Since  War Failing will never admit they wreaked their game completely with reworked CVs, this will not happen .

[bobtherterrible]

Say what you like about the subs but one thing that was I think kinda good was that they were only available cyclically, ie rental and you had to earn the availability. This meant there were periods where those that were troubled by the subs could sail without worry.

Just imagine "carrier free tuesdays". Better than nothing....

[Hirohito]

40 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

reworked CVs have to be completely removed and replaced by the return of RTS CVs

[edited]no.

Old CVs were even more cancerous imot, in that they could devstrike targets, spot torps and utterly shut down the other CV, making the best CV on a team having a field day.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

4 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

[edited]no.

Old CVs were even more cancerous imot, in that they could devstrike targets, spot torps and utterly shut down the other CV, making the best CV on a team having a field day.

 

But the battles were better.. well.. so were the maps, and the balance, so TBH we don't really have a reliable point of reference any more because the whole meta has shifted.

[Piratenmaedchen]

Temporary dev removal, anyone?

[Aethervoxx]

12 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

But the battles were better.. well.. so were the maps, and the balance, so TBH we don't really have a reliable point of reference any more because the whole meta has shifted.

We do have the reliable point of reference, Karasu_Hidesuke, you just mentioned it ....

 

13 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

the battles were better.. well.. so were the maps, and the balance

     

[Panocek]

22 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

[edited]no.

Old CVs were even more cancerous imot, in that they could devstrike targets, spot torps and utterly shut down the other CV, making the best CV on a team having a field day.

Anti air and especially DFAA was actually effective though. And even lowliest of AA ships with DFAA active could disrupt CV strike, try doing that now

[Aethervoxx]

16 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

the whole meta has shifted

Yes, to a  toilet  & down a drain .

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Just now, Panocek said:

Anti air and especially DFAA was actually effective though. And even lowliest of AA ships with DFAA active could disrupt CV strike, try doing that now

 

How many tries do you get?

[PappaBrejj]

27 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

[edited]no.

Old CVs were even more cancerous imot, in that they could devstrike targets, spot torps and utterly shut down the other CV, making the best CV on a team having a field day.

Ye but if anyone remembers, AA actually used to be effective/existent. Do you remember when Monty was a NO FLY ZONE. Nowadays outside of a few newer ships with powercrept aa stats, like the Swedish DDs, AA mechanics are just completely useless with how squadrons operate now. As a side note (and this is a specific point to a ship I play) Why TF did they nerf Paolo Emilio's AA range to an incredible 2km????????????? Please let me have some of what they're smoking over there in Russia. the Emilio gets spotted by planes at 3km, and then can't even open fire at them (like that would do anything anyways lmao) until 2km. Is there even another DD that has a shorter AA range than its detectability range by air? Friesland, for example, gets a 6km AA range with a 2.3km air detection range + defensive AA lol. Don't @me with "But Friesland doesn't get torps and is an AA platform whereas Paolo is a 1 trick yolo meme pony". I've tried finding out what Paolo's AA range was pre-nerf, but can't find out exactly, I think it was like 4.5km if my memory serves me - maybe someone remembers for sure. 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Just now, PappaBrejj said:

Ye but if anyone remembers, AA actually used to be effective/existent. Do you remember when Monty was a NO FLY ZONE. Nowadays outside of a few newer ships with powercrept aa stats, like the Swedish DDs, AA mechanics are just completely useless with how squadrons operate now. As a side note (and this is a specific point to a ship I play) Why TF did they nerf Paolo Emilio's AA range to an incredible 2km????????????? Please let me have some of what they're smoking over there in Russia. the Emilio gets spotted by planes at 3km, and then can't even open fire at them (like that would do anything anyways lmao) until 2km. Is there even another DD that has a shorter AA range than its detectability range by air? Friesland, for example, gets a 6km AA range with a 2.3km air detection range + defensive AA lol. Don't @me with "But Friesland doesn't get torps and is an AA platform whereas Paolo is a 1 trick yolo meme pony". 

 

Indeed, and I had my AA build AA cruisers out there as well. Also, the old CV's could be crippled by causing fires on their flightdecks.

[PappaBrejj]

Just now, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

Indeed, and I had my AA build AA cruisers out there as well. Also, the old CV's could be crippled by causing fires on their flightdecks.

Yep I was thinking about that old mechanic yesterday, It was somewhat *realistic* and actually punished CVs for their trash positioning skills. It's been gone for a while now, I can remember being very confused when I was burning a CV on an aggressive DD push, and the dude was launching squadrons through the fire and flames like he didn't give a f u q. I genuinely thought it was a bug at first lol. 

[bushwacker001]

27 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

[edited]no.

Old CVs were even more cancerous imot, in that they could devstrike targets, spot torps and utterly shut down the other CV, making the best CV on a team having a field day.

Bang on Hirohito, players have short memories. If a (competent/decent)CV player decided you were dead then a cross drop would end your game pretty quickly. I probably mostly play BB and can count on one hand how many times a CV has taken the majority of my ship HP since the change whereas cross dropping, which happened pretty often was bloody annoying.

[SV_Kompresor]

11 minutes ago, PappaBrejj said:

Ye but if anyone remembers, AA actually used to be effective/existent. Do you remember when Monty was a NO FLY ZONE. Nowadays outside of a few newer ships with powercrept aa stats, like the Swedish DDs, AA mechanics are just completely useless with how squadrons operate now. As a side note (and this is a specific point to a ship I play) Why TF did they nerf Paolo Emilio's AA range to an incredible 2km????????????? Please let me have some of what they're smoking over there in Russia. the Emilio gets spotted by planes at 3km, and then can't even open fire at them (like that would do anything anyways lmao) until 2km. Is there even another DD that has a shorter AA range than its detectability range by air? Friesland, for example, gets a 6km AA range with a 2.3km air detection range + defensive AA lol. Don't @me with "But Friesland doesn't get torps and is an AA platform whereas Paolo is a 1 trick yolo meme pony". I've tried finding out what Paolo's AA range was pre-nerf, but can't find out exactly, I think it was like 4.5km if my memory serves me - maybe someone remembers for sure. 

I don't think it's worth going back to a worse gameplay (with just as many worse mechanics) just because of a few better ones. Might aswell just include the good ones here if that's what people want.

[CptBarney]

CEO and top management rework is badly needed.

[Insane_Ringworm]

Should have left CVs the old way and gave good rewards for shooting planes down, then cruisers would actually feel useful, biggest problem imo was if you protected BBs from planes you got nothing for it so players stopped and back the AA was useful and could stop planes.

[triumphgt6]

I remember when playing the Atlanta always asking the BB if he would like AA cover! Not sure the AA on the Atlanta can stop a Russian carrier at all now. You used to be able to deplane a CV but I think doing that to a Russian CV is impossible now at any tier.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

25 minutes ago, SV_Kompresor said:

I don't think it's worth going back to a worse gameplay (with just as many worse mechanics) just because of a few better ones. Might aswell just include the good ones here if that's what people want.

 

It's not a good idea to go back to anything that was worse.. however.. the RTS CV's had a loyal following, so many people preferred that type of gameplay back then. Ideally, perhaps, the choice of RTS should be a player option, providing the game mechanics could accommodate all that and keep a level playing field for everyone. But, yeah, definitely... they should bring back the good elements because...

 

17 minutes ago, Insane_Ringworm said:

Should have left CVs the old way and gave good rewards for shooting planes down, then cruisers would actually feel useful, biggest problem imo was if you protected BBs from planes you got nothing for it so players stopped and back the AA was useful and could stop planes.

 

.... they add to the breadth and scope of gameplay options. Currently this game is a mere shadow of its former self.

[Itwastuesday]

Idk. I hate being CV'd as much as the next guy, but with CV everybody blob together and kite toward spawn while using low effort ammo. Without CV everybody blob together and kite toward spawn while spamming low effort ammo.

[PappaBrejj]

2 hours ago, bushwacker001 said:

Bang on Hirohito, players have short memories. If a (competent/decent)CV player decided you were dead then a cross drop would end your game pretty quickly. I probably mostly play BB and can count on one hand how many times a CV has taken the majority of my ship HP since the change whereas cross dropping, which happened pretty often was bloody annoying.

Ye God forbid a CV player wanted to decide you were dead. We wouldn't want THAT in the current state of the game now would we? imagine how horrible that would be... I would also like to point out that you specified "competent/decent cv player" - Now even the garbage ones can delete/harass you or spot you for their entire team and deny any movement at will with 0 consequences. 

 

Also attached is a screenshot to illustrate how many players clearly enjoy playing the class of CVs currently, compared to Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers. 260 BBs, 46, CAs, and 28 DDs - then all of 4 CV players (It's 4 more than submarines I guess). 

 

The exciting and engaging aircraft carrier gameplay is clearly drawing MANY players to the class! 

[Lootboxer]

26 minutes ago, PappaBrejj said:

Ye God forbid a CV player wanted to decide you were dead. We wouldn't want THAT in the current state of the game now would we? imagine how horrible that would be... I would also like to point out that you specified "competent/decent cv player" - Now even the garbage ones can delete/harass you or spot you for their entire team and deny any movement at will with 0 consequences. 

RTS CV had to be carefull, full AA cruiser could wipe his entire squadrons in a no time so AA build was something back then.

But even if he decided to kill poor AA ship and was good enough to do it without messing drops, he would do it in a clean humanitarian way, bum, GG, next game, not torture you for minutes dropping his droppings over and over again slowly killing you without counterplay.

 

The only thing that I feel like removing is... this whole game. And not even temporary, as it is just getting worse and worse, so little hope that it will be better.

[Gvozdika]

Voted to remove them - temporarily.

 

Maybe leave it a decade or so then think about bringing them back. 

 

[Kuroikaze787]

Really don't know why everyone keeps saying " we should go back to the old rts" the short term memory is astounding. Unless those posting for rts are cv players. The old days you would get absolutely wrecked from the starting gate. Cross drops galore. Good good rudder,? no matter. A quick plane orentation correction and the cv's good to go. I watched this game for years (pc) and saw the devastation. Cross drops, constant spotting. Granted, the best thing was if you did have good aa you could drain them dry. Tactically thats great. But with multiple squads a good cv player could get around that. Sacrificing 1 squad to sneak another in. I played blitz for 2-3 years 22k battles sure tease or say what you want, but the principles on pushing and kiting are the similar. Blitz still has rts..and a double damage ghost torpedo glitch. So thank your lucky stars it isn't here. For the record I am not a cv main. I have noo problems with how they are. T10 thats a bit of a different story.

[bushwacker001]

10 hours ago, PappaBrejj said:

Ye God forbid a CV player wanted to decide you were dead. We wouldn't want THAT in the current state of the game now would we? imagine how horrible that would be... I would also like to point out that you specified "competent/decent cv player" - Now even the garbage ones can delete/harass you or spot you for their entire team and deny any movement at will with 0 consequences. 

 

Also attached is a screenshot to illustrate how many players clearly enjoy playing the class of CVs currently, compared to Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers. 260 BBs, 46, CAs, and 28 DDs - then all of 4 CV players (It's 4 more than submarines I guess). 

 

The exciting and engaging aircraft carrier gameplay is clearly drawing MANY players to the class! 

So what are you scared of then?