Jump to content
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
dasCKD

Punishing success and rewarding idiocy

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,011 battles

Many have presented pages of evidence that documents the broken nature of the CV economy. Today though, I have a different facet of the economy I want to bring up. Yesterday, I had two games that provides a very interesting contrast that I would like to bring to everyone's attention. Appologies to Aotearas for the first of these games :[

 

image1paint.png

These games are extremely different, I'm sure you'd agree. The first game is below the server average. The second is my highest damage game of any CV (on the live server). The kinds of ships I went after were nearly identical (save for the Budyonny who didn't use his defensive fire on time). In the first game, I screwed up my positioning and got double citadelled by a Bismark. On the second game, I played until the end of the match by which time I burned out all of my fighters and we chased the enemy ships right to the corner of the map where I secured my forth and last kill of that game. Considering the fact that I was nearly useless in the first match whilst extremely decisive for the second match, you would think that I would be properly punished for the first match whilst very well paid for the second match.

 image1paint.png

Wargaming apparently disagrees. In one game where I did the kind of damage most of my tier 8 cruisers would be embarrassed to do, I barely made a loss even with a premium damage control. In another game where I laid waste to the enemy team, I get the kinds of credits a tier 3 or 4 would call paltry.

 

For a performance difference of 141 327 damage, I made 77 425 extra credits and 627 extra XP. CV play: 2016.

Edited by dasCKD
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,286 posts
9,504 battles

Where those the Saipan or Shokaku matches we had?

 

Because if those were the Saipan games ...

 

 

Just checked the service cost chart, it was the Shokaku, but still not really good, nearly 200k damage but barely getting any credits for the damage done.

If I'd do that much damage in a cruiser or destroyer, I'd get double even triple that amount of credits for the same damage, even in a battleship I'd get considerably more.

Edited by Aotearas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
716 posts
10,615 battles

shot-16.09.29_18.30.56-0232.jpg shot-16.09.29_18.30.59-0064.jpg shot-16.09.29_18.31.02-0606.jpg

WG ''loves'' CV we all know that, thets why there are threats sugesting to just delete them instead of beying credit leeches.

shot-16.09.29_18.30.56-0232.jpg

shot-16.09.29_18.30.59-0064.jpg

shot-16.09.29_18.31.02-0606.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,011 battles

Where those the Saipan or Shokaku matches we had?

 

Because if those were the Saipan games ... :facepalm:

 

Nope. Both were Shokaku matches. I don't generally post Saipan match results because I'm pretty sure that counts as graphical violence against seals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Weekend Tester
2,269 posts
7,420 battles

To the bottom with your carriers, play with submarines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,011 battles

To the bottom with your carriers, play with submarines.

 

I'd play subs just to annoy the people whose whining put carriers in this state.
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,015 posts
4,182 battles

"Beating of a dead horse" phrase suddenly comes to mind...

 

CVs are long dead, first the retarded AA levels at T9 and T10, then this economy trying to force spotting and AS instead of strike to yield any credits.

 

No thanks WG. Strike and sinking ships wins games no matter how hard you try to force other options on us. And that is what I will continue to play until I lose interest in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AMOK]
[AMOK]
Players
3,020 posts
13,833 battles

Penalty for denying your BBs damage and kills.

Its only your job to open up enemy ships (so that your BBs can shoot at them), protecting your BBs from enemy bombers (cause of the weak BB AA) and in case your BBs get pummeled: Go in with your CV and tank the damage for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,609 posts
5,132 battles

What would be really nice, would be if WG allowed a drill down into the credits received value.. that would show just exactly how they 'value' contribution in a battle via the credits rewarded (dolled out?).

 

From those 2 screenies, the income difference makes no sense. Also intrigued by the apparent usage of less ammunition in the good battle compared to the poor one. Were they both victories?

Edited by philjd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,011 battles

From those 2 screenies, the income difference makes no sense. Also intrigued by the apparent usage of less ammunition in the good battle compared to the poor one. Were they both victories?

 

That is my fault unfortunately. I messed up the image ordering. The higher screenshot for the rewards is the victory match and the lower screenshot is for the defeat match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
317 posts
4,678 battles

Many have presented pages of evidence that documents the broken nature of the CV economy. Today though, I have a different facet of the economy I want to bring up. Yesterday, I had two games that provides a very interesting contrast that I would like to bring to everyone's attention. Appologies to Aotearas for the first of these games :[

 

image1paint.png

These games are extremely different, I'm sure you'd agree. The first game is below the server average. The second is my highest damage game of any CV (on the live server). The kinds of ships I went after were nearly identical (save for the Budyonny who didn't use his defensive fire on time). In the first game, I screwed up my positioning and got double citadelled by a Bismark. On the second game, I played until the end of the match by which time I burned out all of my fighters and we chased the enemy ships right to the corner of the map where I secured my forth and last kill of that game. Considering the fact that I was nearly useless in the first match whilst extremely decisive for the second match, you would think that I would be properly punished for the first match whilst very well paid for the second match.

 image1paint.png

Wargaming apparently disagrees. In one game where I did the kind of damage most of my tier 8 cruisers would be embarrassed to do, I barely made a loss even with a premium damage control. In another game where I laid waste to the enemy team, I get the kinds of credits a tier 3 or 4 would call paltry.

 

For a performance difference of 141 327 damage, I made 77 425 extra credits and 627 extra XP. CV play: 2016.

 

with premium you would have made profit with both, so simple, buy premium you cheap skate !! :teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
320 posts
8,544 battles

Where those the Saipan or Shokaku matches we had?

 

Because if those were the Saipan games ...

 

 

Just checked the service cost chart, it was the Shokaku, but still not really good, nearly 200k damage but barely getting any credits for the damage done.

If I'd do that much damage in a cruiser or destroyer, I'd get double even triple that amount of credits for the same damage, even in a battleship I'd get considerably more.

 

Look at it from the bright side: incompetent CV players like the complete idiot with 688 rating after 2,4k games who just ruined my Tier 10 game within minutes and got 95 xp will have an even worse time and shall slowly but surely vanish from high tier, because they cannot afford to keep sucking on such an epic scale.

And those cretins are part of the reason why so many people hate your class.

Edited by Zerstoeroer
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,712 battles

Since the very first nerf to CV economy a year ago this was already the case.

 

You perform bad - you get ok rewards

You perform ok - you get appropiate rewards

You perform gamebreakingly good - you get slightly better rewards

 

You can literally not fail in CVs reward-wise, but you cannot excel either.

 

The first nerf was a total failure IMO. It gave no rewards to outstanding players. Why is that such a problem? When I play DD or BB I totally crush the scoreboard as well and I still do - I have games in which the 2nd placed has barely more than a  third of my XP. And in CV I'm not allowed to have that? Why? There is no reason, it's just "artificial balancing".

 

Some proof:

 1lzB5dE.jpg

gHs16uj.jpg?1

 

I'm not saying those games are normal. Even I get that only sometimes. But I often score double the 2nd. In CV? Basically impossible. I have one insane ranked game in which I solo-capped two bases and destroyed the whole enemy fleet and shot down nearly all planes of the enemy CV - and yet I barely managed to get close to double the 2nd. This game was so insane, it probably was the best I had in over 2000 games.

3sfTlPj.jpg?1

XyM83bw.jpg?1

In any other ship I would have gotten 1mil credits and so much XP it would probably break the game - of course that's hyperbole, but where is the balance in that?

 

Also:

No thanks WG. Strike and sinking ships wins games no matter how hard you try to force other options on us. And that is what I will continue to play until I lose interest in this game.


Seriously Wargaming - if you want CVs to have an incentive to play air superiority setup then make it FUN - do you understand this concept? "Fun"? Because making strike NO FUN is not going to fix anything. It's not that important if it's strong or not, the most important part is that it's fun. You have casual gamers as core player base - they are out for FUN first and victory second.

 

The whole reason there are no CVs is not because they are weak, not because they are RTS - it's because you surgically removed most fun out of them by making once fun things sluggish and unresponsive so they are just frustrating now. I would even say that CVs right now aren't insanely off balance, they are weak, but not unplayable weak. What makes them truly unplayable is that you need to be some twisted weird kind of person to enjoy the broken interface, the unresponsive EVERYTHING and the fact you have no way to outplay opponents, you can only hope they outplay themselves.

 

The reason we have little CV players from day 1 is because the skill floor is high, so you have to be dedicated to even start doing okay in CVs. Once you do however, the rewards were huge and the fun was huge too - partially because CVs were too strong, I admit that, but even if they had been balanced, that would not have changed much.

Now you still have no tutorial, high skill floor and all the problems we mentioned so many times. But in addition, why would you stick to CVs past T5? AA gets ridiculous. Suddenly half the ships are immune and everyone close to them as well. It's zero fun to deal with an automatic immolation aura while your enemies don't have to deal with you. Even ships with bad AA have to deal with you every 3-4 minutes once if you focus them like crazy. Meanwhile you have to deal with the enemy CV's fighters, try not to die to his bombers and still manage to attack ships, while not flying your planes over a Cleveland.

Even I - who has this all in muscle memory, can't be bothered. I prefer to play complex champions in intense 50 minutes League of Legends matches than deal with the APM and effort CV requires for so little reward. I even prefer SC2, which is honestly the most exhausting game I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles

btw did anyone notice that almost all non-CV t10 ships are ~20 mil credits, while CV are ~30mil credits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
194 posts
1,413 battles

image1paint.png

 

Oh so you're one of those that ruin BB gameplay? :smart_fish:

 

Look at that poor Tirpitz, the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau, they just wanted to play the game, and then you came and clicked on them :(

 

Also, what's up with the hate against german BBs? :trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,011 battles

 

Look at it from the bright side: incompetent CV players like the complete idiot with 688 rating after 2,4k games who just ruined my Tier 10 game within minutes and got 95 xp will have an even worse time and shall slowly but surely vanish from high tier, because they cannot afford to keep sucking on such an epic scale.

 

You evidently don't understand the post. Without that premium consumable and camo, I would have lost less than 2000 credits. I sucked on an epic scale that first battle, and yet I barely would have made a lost in any other circumstance. This new economy means that the utterly awful carrier players can go along with barely any loss whilst even the excellent carrier players would be paid like they were mediocre cruiser players. This in itself I wouldn't have an issue with if there was an algorithm to always put those carrier captains on the same teams as whinny BB mains, but there is a second part to this.

And those cretins are part of the reason why so many people hate your class.

 

Yes. "My" class.

screenshot.png

Fact checking goes a long way, doesn't it? If I played nothing but carriers, I would have no issue whatsoever if incompetence wasn't punished because it means that thanks to mirror matchmaking, I would be able to coast along easily in basically all of my matches because I'd be encountering the type of player who can't tell his ship's bow from her aft. Unfortunately, I don't and I really don't like the 50% chances of being weighed down because WG thinks it's a good idea to basically let bad players get almost the same rewards as a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,011 battles

 

with premium you would have made profit with both, so simple, buy premium you cheap skate !! :teethhappy:

 

I already bought 3!

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,011 battles

 

Oh so you're one of those that ruin BB gameplay? :smart_fish:

 

Look at that poor Tirpitz, the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau, they just wanted to play the game, and then you came and clicked on them :(

 

Also, what's up with the hate against german BBs? :trollface:

 

They had the audacity to show up to a game with my CV in battleships, they had to be appropriately punished. I was just killed by a Bismark in my last match, remember?:trollface:

 

In all seriousness, I don't like bombing BBs that much. They either have to strong an AA or just plain useless AA meaning that I'm basically fighting against a number instead of a player. Destroyers, I enjoy going after. The problem is that the destroyer in that match was a bit too small and slippery for someone of my current skill level to go after with a reasonable likelihood of inflicting damage. Add that to the fact that the enemy team was basically composed entirely of them made them the priority target.

Broken_Economy_2.png

Edited by dasCKD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,207 posts
10,378 battles

Maybe if we start a thread about the silly CV economy every hour, WG will fix it?

 

It does seem to have worked with all the BBabies-whine threads..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
320 posts
8,544 battles

 

You evidently don't understand the post. Without that premium consumable and camo, I would have lost less than 2000 credits. I sucked on an epic scale that first battle, and yet I barely would have made a lost in any other circumstance. This new economy means that the utterly awful carrier players can go along with barely any loss whilst even the excellent carrier players would be paid like they were mediocre cruiser players. This in itself I wouldn't have an issue with if there was an algorithm to always put those carrier captains on the same teams as whinny BB mains, but there is a second part to this.

 

Yes. "My" class.

screenshot.png

Fact checking goes a long way, doesn't it? If I played nothing but carriers, I would have no issue whatsoever if incompetence wasn't punished because it means that thanks to mirror matchmaking, I would be able to coast along easily in basically all of my matches because I'd be encountering the type of player who can't tell his ship's bow from her aft. Unfortunately, I don't and I really don't like the 50% chances of being weighed down because WG thinks it's a good idea to basically let bad players get almost the same rewards as a good one.

 

I don't understand your post? Haha.

Or perhaps it's you who doesn't understand how the new system works yet. In which game did you defend 3 caps caps, etc? Your screenshots also don't show how much dmg you received, how much you scouted, etc. Look at your experience between both matches. While we don't know the system in detail, damage clearly is not as important now as it was before the change.

 

My statement was of a more general nature because these horrible horrible CV players who are ruining high tier games do neither scout nor defend caps. You received 90 xp less in the "bad" game (assuming the order of the last screenshot is wrong) which is more than the player I am talking about received. Don't bother with factoring in the win bonus, those CVs rarely win. 

 

 

You may believe that your bad game was bad, but WG seems to disagree.

Also, "your class" was basically referring to all CV players.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×