Poll about Cv spotting.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

17 hours ago, Von_Pruss said:

Please - never again - mention those players in one sentence.

I guess you just can't handle a few more bombs and rockets :(

[Fesvil]

Yowsers... this debate is exactly the same that got shima nerfed so hard nobody played her for ages (BB players complained that the "wall of skill was imba" and proclaimed their rights to sail how they damn wanted in a straight line... and got what they wanted, as they were the loudest crowd...).

 

Checking profiles, it's clear that most of you rarely or never play CV's, meaning you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

CV's now are moot compared to RTS variance, not sure how many times I've tried to explain that fact alone. So, CV's now, docile and easy to manage, a CV player can chose to spot and do neigh damage (as doing damage consumes planes and you lose spotting when you're out of planes, fighter planes are eaten by any  boat due to not dodging flak so only slightly extend spotting) or he/she can be doing damage to those that try to limp off with little hp left (and of course be labelled as a kill stealer and thus reported :-)). For a CV player you get NOTHING from spotting, it's less than dd's that get 5% of spotting damage as their "own", a CV costs more to "repair and replenish ammo" so for a CV player, the incentive given by WG is to just farm damage on loners and big ships.

 

A good CV player does a bit of both, spot in the beginning of the game to see where the opposing forces are, if possible spot dd's to get those pesky fish or lead spammers out of the game and then help mop up the rest when the ranks are softened. 

 

Just as a side note, carriers have zero ASW, food for thought there....

 

 

So to the things I am amazed over, the down play of speccing into AA. It seems the general player (yeah I know generalizing is a bit bad, but...) do not want to "waste" any talent points into AA and thinks all ships should be able to repel any airstrike from any CV at any tier, as a dimwit CV player, it's rather interesting to see how battles plan out and how players around mid point tend to panic and scatter instead of sticking together. A tip, do you feel you have a problem with a CV, invest in AA (modules and/or talents are very useful), any CV player loathe to lose planes, it's a very limited resource. So we tend to try and find the limping ship to harass to death. Also, as a non-cv player, find out which CV's have what planes, plan your play style based on the oppositions team setup, not on your "damn this is how I loooooove to play this boat", because Somers can be an issue to play if there are few supporting vessels, but you have long range torps, so instead of gunghoing into the cap, play safe, from a distance.

 

Super ships CV's are awesome :-), they provide a different play style than regular CV's, but their planes are as easy to whack as other CV's, yes their jet fighters go nearly twice as fast as a regular carriers (not quite, but.. at least Eagle's planes go fast), but they cannot dodge flak well as they have 5-6 times the turning circle of the worst BB in the game and cannot slow down. Also, super ships fighters lasts 20s, vs 60s for T10  CV's. Also remember that interceptors (square reticule "icon" on the fighters) cannot spot ships and will only attack rocket, bomber or torpedo planes.

 

Should spotting be changed? Yes, probably, but I would also have BB's penalized for staying back and not moving to the front line to take damage for their team. I would also penalize DD's that provide no spotting damage for their team or smoke screens.. To be honest, the entire "reward" mechanic in the game needs a revamp at the moment, there's no incentive for me as a CV player to spot, because people still only shoot on what they want, go where they want.. Players are in general sheep with no regards of teamplay...

 

So, the poll should rather be about the reward system and how to incentivise a behaviour that benefits most players.

 

-Fes

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, Fesvil said:

Yowsers...

So...I'm not gonna debate, at least not in this thread. Still two things a) spotting is a mechanic not people's actions b) If you think that the reward system is flawed you should start a thread about it.

 

As for playing Cv's......for now they are too dishonestly implemented for my taste for PvP. I did play them a bit in ops

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

So...I'm not gonna debate, at least not in this thread. Still two things a) spotting is a mechanic not people's actions b) If you think that the reward system is flawed you should start a thread about it.

But spotting... is something you can actually choose to do. 

Indeed it is a mechanic - but it is one that CV players get blamed for. 

While, as turns out in this thread, no CV player ever asked for it and it is not beneficial to themselves.

 

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

As for playing Cv's......for now they are too dishonestly implemented for my taste for PvP. I did play them a bit in ops

Have you ever wondered what would happen if WeeGee allowed double CV in competitive?

Also, if you play in a division, and every other game, you lose because your CV happens to be potat and the reds have a good one, then what?

 

[Andrewbassg]

51 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

But spotting... is something you can actually choose to do. 

Yes and no. While indeed it is a  pursuable tactic and actually it is arguably the best tactic teamwise for CV players to employ in reduced, ergo competitive game modes, it is not something that they can turn on/off.

Btw that's one of the metrics how I judge a Cv player, being good or not.:)

51 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Indeed it is a mechanic - but it is one that CV players get blamed for. 

While, as turns out in this thread, no CV player ever asked for it and it is not beneficial to themselves.

Hence my drive and hence the inexplicability and sheer dumbness of the resistance against its  removal. Very few people actually wants it but Wedgie somehow is, again, convinced that they know better

 

51 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Have you ever wondered what would happen if WeeGee allowed double CV in competitive?

Also, if you play in a division, and every other game, you lose because your CV happens to be potat and the reds have a good one, then what?

 

:) None of that is on me. Choosing a/the ship and playing it is a personal choice and therefore 'responsibility" :)

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yes and no. While indeed it is a  pursuable tactic and actually it is arguably the best tactic teamwise for CV players to employ in reduced, ergo competitive game modes, it is not something that they can turn on/off.

Btw that's one of the metrics how I judge a Cv player, being good or not.:)

In competitive, you can actually have some degree of certainty that teammembers will shoot what you spot...

In randoms, spotting is futile, as they  (and/or) a) do not shoot that DD anyway b)manage to miss it by a mile.

So in randoms, you better farm harder than the other CV, and make sure you farm the right targets (not always the fattest one). 

 

There's so much crap the average player doesn't know, and then they go CV do this CV do that... 

[Andrewbassg]

13 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

So in randoms, you better farm harder than the other CV, and make sure you farm the right targets (not always the fattest one). 

 

:) That's the other metric...

[FukushuNL]

7 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

In competitive, you can actually have some degree of certainty that teammembers will shoot what you spot...

In randoms, spotting is futile, as they  (and/or) a) do not shoot that DD anyway b)manage to miss it by a mile.

So in randoms, you better farm harder than the other CV, and make sure you farm the right targets (not always the fattest one). 

 

There's so much crap the average player doesn't know, and then they go CV do this CV do that... 

Hey, you are shoving off responsibility again towards WG for your choice of playing CVs. "We don't want guns that kill people, but we got them so we use them. It is not our fault stuff dies. They made me do it." WG makes you play CVs. 

 

Also "Spotting does not help in randoms. I fly past an enemy ship, it lights up and people shoot at it, but it is random, so that is not because of my spotting. That only rarely helps in ranked/CB. Why? Because I say so and if I say spotting is useless while lots of people in random shoot at spotted ships, everyone else is wrong.".

 

Yeah, you don't like spotting either, right? All CV players "don't like the spotting element of CVs". But d*mn how convenient it is to use while WG keeps it in. And even more convenient as you can blame WG for it, right? "Nobody can me for keeping a slave. The government handed me the slave and says it is a good thing to use a slave. So I am using a slave. Don't blame me, I don't want the slave, but the government gives me no choice." 

 

God, I am so glad for this world that there are people out there that, unlike you, do take responsibility for their own actions and make their own choice not to do something that they are against. Mr. "I know the CV class is broken, but I am going to play them anyways. FU, blame WG for my actions.".

 

@Fesvil No, you don't need to play the class to understand when a class is broken or not. Playing against them and a few braincells to think stuff over will net you seemingly a way clearer and more honest view about CVs than playing them and being/playing blind to the truth. The only thing I see from those that play CVs frequently are blinkers, super pink glasses and lots and lots of blaming CVs while throwing their own blame overboard while it is those that don't dare to play CVs that do so because of the myrad of sound and logical reasons why that sh*tclass is broken and at least are so thoughtful towards their fellow community members not to scr*w them over playing CVs. 

 

Hey, I never used a gun and don't know how it works. If you stand just a bit in front of me, lets see how good I know about the danger of operating a gun ;) Never drove a truck either. Bet I don't know how use it in the best way to flatten everything in sight. 

[COPlUM]

I recall them testing something to this effect : The CV can spot you way more easily, but only for himself, not for his entire team. I don't know what if anything came of it. As to CVs in general, submarines are so messed up people dislike CVs less, don't even report them anymore, I preserve those for submarines in the 1st second of the game, regardless of what team they're on.

[BLUB__BLUB]

16 hours ago, FukushuNL said:

God, I am so glad for this world that there are people out there that, unlike you, do take responsibility for their own actions and make their own choice not to do something that they are against. Mr. "I know the CV class is broken, but I am going to play them anyways. FU, blame WG for my actions.".

Yeah you're one of those snowflakes who'd rather see everyone die than use a gun, right? Well, have fun with that. 

But with that attitude, maybe you should go play something with ponies and unicorns instead of a war game.

Get a life, this is a war game - and if I have to use a CV for lack of better CV players in my team, then I will. 

FYI yes I'd also shoot whatever person would be a treath to my family, and I'd make sure he'd be quite dead, too. 

[Fesvil]

On 5/3/2022 at 2:58 AM, FukushuNL said:

 

@Fesvil No, you don't need to play the class to understand when a class is broken or not. Playing against them and a few braincells to think stuff over will net you seemingly a way clearer and more honest view about CVs than playing them and being/playing blind to the truth. The only thing I see from those that play CVs frequently are blinkers, super pink glasses and lots and lots of blaming CVs while throwing their own blame overboard while it is those that don't dare to play CVs that do so because of the myrad of sound and logical reasons why that sh*tclass is broken and at least are so thoughtful towards their fellow community members not to scr*w them over playing CVs. 

Serious? Wow, glad you at least have a few cells.