Why CV players should be able to do divisions together

[Antique_Nova]

CV players should be able to play in the same divisions, because have you seen 2 CVs working together? It's absolutely monstrous and a nightmare for the enemy team.

 

Which is why they banned it from happening.

 

But have you any idea what it's like going up against two random CV players who decide to work together when you're playing as the opposing CV with a CV team mate who refuses to work together or is completely incompetent or who's skill level is too different for better or for worse compared to yours? It makes the game horrific for us, damn near unplayable and in smaller games, especially the lower tiers and in maps where the team is split in two. I guarantee that if the 2 CVs are working together, they will sink the enemy CV that isn't working well with his team mate. Normally in the first half of the game and when that's done, no matter how good the remaining CV player is, it's hopeless for him/her.

 

In English, not allowing CVs to go into divisions together means you are simply done for if your CVs don't work together against a pair that does. Making it nigh impossible for you to win the game as they can freely bomb anything and anyone.

 

So in the interests of all players, not just CV players, let us CV players work together. Because we hate getting team works who won't work together against those who do. And yeah, 2 CVs working together is OP and I'm proud of that, because no one else says 2 Battleships or 2 Destroyers or 2 Cruisers working together is OP. Do have you any idea how OP it will be for your team and you if those 2 CVs working together were on your team?

 

Updates: How would this work?

 

No more than 2 CVs per division - No real explanation needed.

 

CV divisions can only face other CV divisions - In other words, CV players who want to work together will only face an opposing fleet with CV players who also want to work together. Thus cancelling the advantage of 2 CVs working together against the opposing team being unfair. The only factor that is still up for debate is, who is the more skillful pair? That is the same question you ask when there is only one CV player on each team.

 

CVs in divisions must be of the same tier - So tier 4 CVs can only pair up with other tier 4 CVs, because players can abuse this if we don't by having a tier 4 CV pair up with a tier 10 CV just for laughs. Which is not amusing for everyone else.

 

CV divisions may only face other CV divisions of the same tier - So tier 4 CV divisions can only face other tier 4 CV divisions to prevent abuse of tiers.

 

What if your CV division has to wait longer than five minutes? Keep them waiting then. - It doesn't make sense to force them into games, when the above suggestions haven't been adhered to. Plus, I've been in queues longer than five minutes. It happens. Every single CV player that I can clearly identify has said that they wouldn't mind the queue time. One has already said he would be willing to wait 15 minutes! 

 

What if my team's CV division isn't as good as the CV division that I'm against? - That's just tough luck and that's just the same as asking, what if my team of ships including Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers isn't as good as the enemy team of Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers? When you go into any MM battle, you start by hoping that you have a better collection of players that will work together to be a better team than the one you're facing and you try to do your best. This is not a factor that any changes in the game can affect and this is not something my suggestion can affect.

[mtm78]

 

For reasons you already mentioned. I would hate being in a team with just one of the top CV players against me with a tomato, having two of them in carriers would be unplayable. 

[Antique_Nova]

 

For reasons you already mentioned. I would hate being in a team with just one of the top CV players against me with a tomato, having two of them in carriers would be unplayable. 

 

The chances of having the two top CV players against you in a tomato is about as rare as a politician that doesn't lie. So that pretty much nullifies your point in my opinion.

[Aotearas]

The problem here is that unless the enemy team also gets two carriers in a division, you're just changing who's screwed over.

 

I'm typically feverishly against restricting teamplay for balance reasons, but as you noted, two CVs working together vs two CVs that don't is a huge performance gap and with CVs capped to two per teams, it's not like the effects of teamwork are being diluted by virtue of having several other enemies to spread the impact on like with any other class. A triple BB division is still facing 10 enemy non-CVs, same as a cruiser and DD division.

 

But the only effective hardcounter against CVs is other CVs (I define ship AA as softcounter, since you can technically avoid it, say triggering and then waiting out a Defensive Fire duration for example). If two Cvs play together in a division and the enemy CVs don't, you effectively halved their enemies capacity to counter them, which is disproportionally more so than with any other ship class in a division.

 

As crude and unsatisfactory it is (trust me, I've only played few CV games but I know how frustrating it is when you can't count on your friendly CV at all, doubly so if you happen to be the lower tier one!), the alternative would cause even more lopsided match-ups.

This is a textbook example of "can't please 'em all" and unless WG reworks CV gameplay and balance between Cvs and all other classes from the ground up, I don't see a way to solve this.

 

 

 

The chances of having the two top CV players against you in a tomato is about as rare as a politician that doesn't lie. So that pretty much nullifies your point in my opinion.

 

Hypocritical argument.

 

If there was no significant enough performance gap between coordinated CVs and non-coordinated ones, you wouldn't propose what you did.

You can't form a proposal on a basic premise, then dismiss the logical consequence of it in effect as invalid counterargument.

[Syrchalis]

Well, there is an insane performance gap between good and bad CV players, so ...

[fnord_disc]

Two skilled carriers working together are guaranteed to kill one enemy of their own tier or lower per sortie except maybe Yamato and Montana. Being guaranteed to kill at least half the enemy team is unacceptably powerful in my opinion and would give them win rates over 80%.

[Antique_Nova]

@ Aotearas

 

Why that would be easy to fix as you could code MM so that it would only pair divisions that have 2 CVs in it against teams that also have 2 CVs in the same division. Which I believe does effectively counter the points you raised, until there is something you haven't mentioned already?

 

 

[Antique_Nova]

Two skilled carriers working together are guaranteed to kill one enemy of their own tier or lower per sortie except maybe Yamato and Montana. Being guaranteed to kill at least half the enemy team is unacceptably powerful in my opinion and would give them win rates over 80%.

 

That's like saying a team of players that decides to work together is powerful and would get win rates of over 80%, which the chances of happening is about the same as random CV players working together. Whole fleets working together are guaranteed to win quite often and kill most of the enemy fleet and win the objectives, making them also unacceptably powerful compared to most other teams that aren't as effective together. Which again, I think paired up CVs in the same division should only be paired against other CVs who have also paired up. This would create longer wait times, but I'd accept that as a CV player. As for the skill difference, there is absolutely no way to prevent yourself from getting bad players or bad divisions, because it's about as likely to happen as getting a bad team in any other game.

[Antique_Nova]

Hypocritical argument.

 

If there was no significant enough performance gap between coordinated CVs and non-coordinated ones, you wouldn't propose what you did.

You can't form a proposal on a basic premise, then dismiss the logical consequence of it in effect as invalid counterargument.

 

You're going to have to reword that, because it completely flew in over my head. XD

[duoinvasion]

@ Aotearas

 

Why that would be easy to fix as you could code MM so that it would only pair divisions that have 2 CVs in it against teams that also have 2 CVs in the same division. Which I believe does effectively counter the points you raised, until there is something you haven't mentioned already?

 

 

 

I legit was gonna say this, this is a good idea.

Limit MM for div cv to play against div cv.

It might even make playing cv fun with all these AA buffs because you have a competent div mate(assume friend IRL) to cover you and you cover him.

I would love playing shokaku(when I get it) with my cv friend.

[mtm78]

 

I legit was gonna say this, this is a good idea.

Limit MM for div cv to play against div cv.

It might even make playing cv fun with all these AA buffs because you have a competent div mate(assume friend IRL) to cover you and you cover him.

I would love playing shokaku(when I get it) with my cv friend.

 

Yes, I also think Reyte and strangers123 would like to play carriers in a division. Wait, I will try and ask them how this would work out

[Mayv]

CVs as a class have a much greater influence over the match compared to other ship classes. Allowing 2 of them to easily co-ordinate their attacks and loadouts is a bad idea.

[Aotearas]

 

You're going to have to reword that, because it completely flew in over my head. XD

 

Basically, I understand your proposal is meant to encourage teamplay and make it possible for people to guarantee that they can play CVs and work together. Partly because being on the recieving end of two CVs who work together when the ones on your team don't is a massive disadvantage.

 

However, the logical consequence would be that whilst you can guarantee two CVs working together by allowing them to division up, the same doesn't hold true for the enemy team who can still be seeded with two random CVs that might or might work together. As such, this would put the enemy team opposing a 2 CV division at a significant disadvantage.

 

Hence why the proposal isn't balanced, it just shifts the disadvantage to the other side.

 

edit://

Unless of course you force CV division mirror matchmaking too, so CV divisions always face CV divisions. But just imagine the waiting time before getting into a battle

[strangers123]

CVs as a class have a much greater influence over the match compared to other ship classes. Allowing 2 of them to easily co-ordinate their attacks and loadouts is a bad idea.

 

^^That

[duoinvasion]

edit://

Unless of course you force CV division mirror matchmaking too, so CV divisions always face CV divisions. But just imagine the waiting time before getting into a battle

I'm okay with waiting 15+ min for a div cv match, t10 MM in the early morning takes long enough as is so meh. I've played a decent amount of 2 cv matches in a cv and with my div mate who mains cv, when the other guy doesn't want to cooperate, your team is almost always fucked.

I am all for specific div cv MM

[EsaTuunanen]

The chances of having the two top CV players against you in a tomato is about as rare as a politician that doesn't lie. So that pretty much nullifies your point in my opinion.

Your logic limps more than elephant which stepped on antitank mine:

Allowing two CVs in division can (and will) only increase chances of two good cooperating CVs vs two random CV players situations.

 

And two good CVs vs two bad ones gives results like 4 ships + 45 planes vs 9 planes:

http://wowreplays.com/Replays/images/249c9a9571554449a6c3b0ac39d4557e.jpg

 

 

Even MM forcing enemy carriers to be in division wouldn't guarantee them actually knowing port from starboard.

Though it would definitely force lot longer waiting times for those CV players.

 

[Kais_S012]

I have to agree with the majority here. the power of 2 competent carriers especially with the introduction of vocal communications in the coming patch in a single ship squadron would make them far too powerful in game for the majority of players to handle.

 

to deal with two competent players working together using the current chat (text) requires enough team work as it is. considering that most players have a very mercenary-esq attitude towards one another. trying to organize a defense against a verbally co-ordinating carrier team would be incredibly difficult if not impossible

[strangers123]

Long story made short:

The reason why 2CV division games were taken away were because they would cause too major an imbalance in the flow of the game. 
Even if a mirror division MM would be implemented you would face 2 issues

First the most obvious one: Queue time. You would have to wait at higher tiers for another division of 2 CVs. Also should you hit the 5 minute mark, the matchmaker goes "instant game mode" where the moment MM has the criteria to give you a game, the MM will give you a game, often with loosened MM rules. Used to result in stuff like 3 tier 10s vs 5 tier 8s and a tier 7. Nowadays its usually the reason why you see 3v3 games or other silly stuff. Not fun for any party.

The criteria that needs to be forfilled would basically be:

4 CVs, 2 per division, with matching tiers in the divisions. 

-What if one division has 1 tier 8 and a tier 10?

-What if one division has a tier 4 CV with a tier 10? The probability of them getting a match by other random people fielding a similar division I would rate quite low.

 

Second one: What if you meet something like the OMNI 5CarDiv that MTM78 mentioned earlier.
And the other team gets 2 random people with minimal experience working together in a lineup that isn't effective?

[159Hunter]

No, just no. That would be an OP division, an if those CV players actually know what their doing they'll roflstump on all other ships.

[aboch]

Worst MM suggestion ever to allow a division of 2 carriers, it would break the game. However you turn it, it would break the game for the own team or for the whole enemy team.

 

For many captains its hard when you just get 2 random carriers on each team, whats left if you let 2 superb carriers team up game after game. The winrate for them would be 90-99%.

 

Just game breaking and there is a good reason it is not allowed and i doubt it will ever ever change!!!

[Flukeyluke]

my solution isto  allow a max off 2 carriers in a platoon, and force the match maker to pick another platoon off carriers for the other team, balance is unchanged for everyone else

[mtm78]

my solution isto  allow a max off 2 carriers in a platoon, and force the match maker to pick another platoon off carriers for the other team, balance is unchanged for everyone else

 

Long story made short:

The reason why 2CV division games were taken away were because they would cause too major an imbalance in the flow of the game. 
Even if a mirror division MM would be implemented you would face 2 issues

First the most obvious one: Queue time. You would have to wait at higher tiers for another division of 2 CVs. Also should you hit the 5 minute mark, the matchmaker goes "instant game mode" where the moment MM has the criteria to give you a game, the MM will give you a game, often with loosened MM rules. Used to result in stuff like 3 tier 10s vs 5 tier 8s and a tier 7. Nowadays its usually the reason why you see 3v3 games or other silly stuff. Not fun for any party.

The criteria that needs to be forfilled would basically be:

4 CVs, 2 per division, with matching tiers in the divisions. 

-What if one division has 1 tier 8 and a tier 10?

-What if one division has a tier 4 CV with a tier 10? The probability of them getting a match by other random people fielding a similar division I would rate quite low.

 

Second one: What if you meet something like the OMNI 5CarDiv that MTM78 mentioned earlier.
And the other team gets 2 random people with minimal experience working together in a lineup that isn't effective?

 

 

This 'solution' doesn't work. There is a reason CV's are capped at two per game, they have incredible individual power already. This is particularly visible in cases where..

 

Well, there is an insane performance gap between good and bad CV players, so ...

 

[ScratxNeko]

One carrier per division is more than enough, folks... please don't give everyone nightmares.

[El_Pollo_Locooo]

No. Just no.

[Namolis]

This would be only a problem because...

CVs as a class have a much greater influence over the match compared to other ship classes.

...so if WG actually balanced CVs to other classes, the MM constraints could be loosened up. It isn't nearly as bad as it once was, but the simple truth is that CVs are still OP.