Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Horin728

The CV exclusion from Clan Wars (a commentary by Femenennly)

209 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[CSF]
Players
470 posts
4,655 battles

Watch the video first: 

 

I can't agree more... It should be the clans problem to get a decent CV player. Or to not take CV at all. Same with the rest of the team comp. I can agree that there should be a limit to CVs per side (one) but it should be the clans decision to use it or not. Will they suffer if they don't have a CV player at all? Yes. But there are 50 places in the clan. There are recruitment ways. It is your clans problem to find a CV player or to train one.

 

All the other arguments supporting the removal of CVs are debunked in the video...

 

As I said, this is quite possible the biggest screw up WG has done in the history of WoWs, (including the Ichase, GZ and Ser Fosh) because it has been going on for years now!

 

  • Cool 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
300 posts
5,979 battles

I'd have to say I support this descision. I am a CV player also, and I do love my CVs, but they are really not in a good place right now and I think first they need to fix them, rework them or whatever they are going to do, and then they should be implimented. 

Yes cruisers will spec anti-DD, yes it's unfair to people who only play CVs, these are all good points, BUT they are all points which indicate in how bad of a place CVs are right now and how desperately we need the CV rework.

And another thing I can point out is that they are not really excluding a whole class of ships - they are excluding one single ship, becasue we all know what would be the obvious choice between the USN and the IJN ones...

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,154 posts
9,305 battles
7 minutes ago, Adrian1914 said:

I'd have to say I support this descision. I am a CV player also, and I do love my CVs, but they are really not in a good place right now and I think first they need to fix them, rework them or whatever they are going to do, and then they should be implimented. 

Yes cruisers will spec anti-DD, yes it's unfair to people who only play CVs, these are all good points, BUT they are all points which indicate in how bad of a place CVs are right now and how desperately we need the CV rework.

 

Or WG could simply follow the tournament experience at tier VIII which has proven to be a rather well balanced tier for competitive play without somehow imploding all game balance with CVs in the teams.

 

Tier X has a tenous balance in randoms at the best of times, but for competitive? Might aswell make it tier II ...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CSF]
Players
470 posts
4,655 battles
14 minutes ago, Adrian1914 said:

I'd have to say I support this descision. I am a CV player also, and I do love my CVs, but they are really not in a good place right now and I think first they need to fix them, rework them or whatever they are going to do, and then they should be implimented. 

Yes cruisers will spec anti-DD, yes it's unfair to people who only play CVs, these are all good points, BUT they are all points which indicate in how bad of a place CVs are right now and how desperately we need the CV rework.

 

I would agree, but WG has been promising this CV rework since 2016 and it is being pushed back to 2018 now... And the first season will set the standards for next ones. And suddenly we might not have CVs in ranked and then no CVs in randoms...

 

7 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

Or WG could simply follow the tournament experience at tier VIII which has proven to be a rather well balanced tier for competitive play without somehow imploding all game balance with CVs in the teams.

 

Tier X has a tenous balance in randoms at the best of times, but for competitive? Might aswell make it tier II ...

 

They are just digging deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole... Deeper than I thought is possible...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,712 battles
33 minutes ago, Adrian1914 said:

I'd have to say I support this descision. I am a CV player also, and I do love my CVs, but they are really not in a good place right now and I think first they need to fix them, rework them or whatever they are going to do, and then they should be implimented. 

Yes cruisers will spec anti-DD, yes it's unfair to people who only play CVs, these are all good points, BUT they are all points which indicate in how bad of a place CVs are right now and how desperately we need the CV rework.

And another thing I can point out is that they are not really excluding a whole class of ships - they are excluding one single ship, becasue we all know what would be the obvious choice between the USN and the IJN ones...

The fact it's ONE ship only, is again WG's fault for not releasing UK CVs which I'm waiting for since forever and others probably too. Instead we get a crapton of cruiser lines, several BB lines and lots of split DD lines. But A SINGLE CV line during ALL THIS TIME was too much? Yeah, good job.

 

Let's go deeper - they haven't released a CV line (or worked on one) because of the state of CVs. Newsflash! CVs were a mess since alpha. In alpha you could put all the bugs and shitty-ness on the fact it was alpha, but nothing improved when WoWs was released. Only over the course of more than two years has there been some minor improvements.

 

No game developer ever could tell me they can't rework the concept of a class in their game within two years - that's incredibly pathetic, it would be even for an indie studio, much more for one with the budget of WG. What exactly is the problem? Too little ideas? Definitely not. Fear the CV players will dislike the rework? Hell, I hate WoWs because of how I can't play my main class because it's in this horrible state for years. ANY rework is better than just letting us CV players sit in the rain and wait for TWO YEARS.

 

No, no, no, the real thing here is - CVs are the least appealing class of ships. WG gives zero anything about the least played class. Believe me, if CVs had 35% playrate like BBs we would have twenty paper-ship CVs and would be in our third rework of the class and entire battle system. But the fact is WG sees "oh we screwed up the class, let's overbuff all AA - oh no one plays the unfun class, so why invest any effort into it, no profit."

 

I personally don't care about CVs being excluded. In their state right now I only rage whenever I play them, because of how AWFUL the gameplay is. And if I was in a clan I would be forced to play CV because I'm one of the few decent CV players around - and believe me it wouldn't be nice to be in the same channel as me in teamspeak when I play CV, it's not even in random battles with potatoes everywhere.

 

I still believe firmly that the CV rework will never come and WG is just trying to keep CV-enthusiasts playing with empty promises while they grind up their other lines.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CSF]
Players
470 posts
4,655 battles

And here we have reaction from Ichase:

 

 

Basically teamwork is bad and we don't have a faintest clue how to balance CVs... And if you spend a lot of time mastering CVs? The hardest class to play? Yea F*** YOU!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles
1 hour ago, Adrian1914 said:

I'd have to say I support this descision. I am a CV player also, and I do love my CVs, but they are really not in a good place right now and I think first they need to fix them, rework them or whatever they are going to do, and then they should be implimented. 

Yes cruisers will spec anti-DD, yes it's unfair to people who only play CVs, these are all good points, BUT they are all points which indicate in how bad of a place CVs are right now and how desperately we need the CV rework.

And another thing I can point out is that they are not really excluding a whole class of ships - they are excluding one single ship, becasue we all know what would be the obvious choice between the USN and the IJN ones...

 

Unfortunately, cutting carriers from probably the most competitive gameplay mode limits the information for how to balance them as well as removes almost all motivation to balance them. By not letting them into competitive game modes, there's no longer any pressing need to fix them and so they can just be thrown onto the back burner indefinitely. If they were allowed in clan battles, then it would put WG on an urgent clock to get them sorted as the competitive scene would require them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,389 posts
9,606 battles

What a [edited]disaster. This could've been so good, now it's going to be a crap fiesta.

First of all, T10??!?! This has been tried and tested for years, T8 is far more balanced and makes a much better competitive mode, what are you thinking!?

Also this entire line;

Besides, there are still very few high-tier carriers in the game, and it's quite difficult to learn how to play them well.

Yeah you know what will really help the rapidly dwindling CV player base? EXCLUDING THEM FROM THE ONLY COMPETITIVE GAME MODE.

Once again WG is catering to the absolute lowest [edited]denominator. We had the German BB line, then they followed it up with the RN BB line. Making the game simpler and simpler and dumber and dumber. Now they literally exclude a class from the "competitive" mode because it's "too hard" for the average glue-eater.

Jesus [edited], yes I'm mad. Can you [edited]stop shitting on my favorite game WG?

edit: This [edited]quote from that text. This [edited]quote.

All Tier X ships are well-balanced across the board. Each Tier X ship has very distinct strengths and weaknesses, and can fit its own niche in every team.

Confirmed, WG also sampling that tasty glue.

 

Flamus opinion.


This WG is joke of company.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2D]
Beta Tester
63 posts
15,518 battles

Gonna be expensive, all t 10 captain and ships have to retrain and remount modules if theres no fear of CV's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,962 posts
13,451 battles

Honestly, I can understand the decision of removing CVs from a T10 7vs7 match-up. Having one CV + 6 other surface combatants is simply too low of a number of the latter and restricts both tactical options and viable ship choices severely. Imo this is obviously the true driving force for removing CVs as any other reason is nothing short of absolutely retarded (as demonstrated in the video).

 

Which makes me wonder, why not simply roll with the usual T8 9vs9 tournament setup that is proven to work? Or, if you really want to keep T10, also make it 9vs9 so you can have adequate numbers of all ship classes available?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CSF]
Players
470 posts
4,655 battles

All I can do is wonder what on earth would happen if WG tried to pull this crap on any other class... I can even see the bloody arguments:

 

CAs: 

So we have decided that cruisers are too versatile, their hydro, radar and defensive AA make battles not fun for every other class, so they will not be able to join clan wars.

 

DDs: 

Being constantly torped by invisible ships, or peppered by long range HE spam in case of the Khaba and the smoke usage is no fun for all, so we have decided to remove DDs from clan wars, to make them more dynamic.

 

BBs:

Hell I don't even have to make up reasoning for BBs, WG provided it themselves in their own article... I only need to change the limit from 1 to 0.

(I never though I'd actually come to BB defense...)

 

And no I will not just let this one slide. The CV situation has been discussed for years now with many many many suggestions. WG themselves promised that 2017 will be the year of the carrier. Well newsflash it is 2017 and can you see what is happening? First we have buggy UI, then the USN vs IJN imbalance, then the GZ disaster, then this? Really?! I am so disgusted.

 

In my opinion it should be the clans choice as to what their composition of ships will be. Do they want to take 7x Des Moines? Alright why not. Do they want to take 7x gearings? Again why not? This is metagame. It evolves, it changes according to what is strongest right now. If the clan take 7x DM, then you will see more BBs in the opposing team. If they take Khabas, you will see more Moskvas with fire prevention. I could understand limiting CVs to one, since that is the case even in normal battles, but not this... This.. Thisness.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Players
745 posts
12,697 battles
5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Honestly, I can understand the decision of removing CVs from a T10 7vs7 match-up. Having one CV + 6 other surface combatants is simply too low of a number of the latter and restricts both tactical options and viable ship choices severely. Imo this is obviously the true driving force for removing CVs as any other reason is nothing short of absolutely retarded (as demonstrated in the video).

 

Which makes me wonder, why not simply roll with the usual T8 9vs9 tournament setup that is proven to work? Or, if you really want to keep T10, also make it 9vs9 so you can have adequate numbers of all ship classes available?

As you know, I think the game is more fun when CVs are not present. In other words, I can only applaud this decision....

 

...on the other hand, I understand her frustration completely: she has been looking forward to new endgame content in her class of choice, and feels unfairly excluded from that. So my applause will be a polite golf clap.

 

But then there is WGs dilemma - and something they no doubt have seen in ranked play: when CVs are present in a 7v7 matchup, that is the only ship that really matters. Sure, the players in random can YOLO and die before the CVs have time to rectify their mistakes, but in competetive their minions will not be so stupid. WG evidentally wants all players to feel part of the team (which they now ironically achieve by excluding some players).

I'm surprised you'd agree with that, considering our discussions in the past... but we agree.

 

However, I would like to submit this as further proof that WG has fundamentally messed up CVs from the start.

 

It's pretty evident really: the first installations of CV (full strike 4xTB, 3xDB FTW!!!), to strictly limiting of numbers (max 3) to strictly limiting their numbers further (max 2 per side) to the partial mirror MM, to full mirror MM, to the now existing limit of max 1 (one) high tier CV even in games with 11 victims on the map: WG had great difficulty balancing CVs against other classes.

 

Carriers as they are now are simply wonky. I haven't heard anyone - not even the most avid CV fan - say they are completely happy with how CVs are done in the game. Which is why this...

 

7 hours ago, Horin728 said:

I can agree that there should be a limit to CVs per side (one) but it should be the clans decision to use it or not.

 

 

...is something I don't understand. CV is the most flexible and universal ship in the game, they can be everywhere on the map and they can help any other ship with anything. In any other game, the most flexible class, would be the most numerous on the field. So when you restrict that class to be only one, you are putting an enormous amount of influence over the battle in the hands of that one ship.

 

Either CVs should not be limited at all (and their power adjusted to a level where hordes of them do not render all non-cv play obsolete), or they need to be removed. WG chose the latter.

 

And WG stated - long ago - that they wanted this class to tbe the least played? And then they still wanted the CV to be the dominant, most valuable capital ship, so they balanced CVs around that, making it so that the entire enemy fleet had to base their strategy solely on that one enemy ship... This simply wasn't ever going to work. CVs are simply too different.

 

I'm sorry WG, but you need to set up a sandbox server to test some fundamentally different concepts regarding CV play, or remove them altogether. The current CV implementation is simply fundamentally flawed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Players
745 posts
12,697 battles
5 minutes ago, Horin728 said:

WG themselves promised that 2017 will be the year of the carrier.

No, that was 2016. :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UN]
Weekend Tester
824 posts
19,371 battles

Honestly, in the current state the cv UI is in, I do not want to play cv at all. I have micro stuttering every couple of seconds. Orders are getting lost, planes and ship move to where I didn't click, attack runs just don't happen,.... And I know for sure I am not the only one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
374 posts
3,289 battles

I don't understand how this clan wars will be implemented. Just press play in a team and enter? Or do you have to make arrangements with another clan (like day/time etc.). Why not make it optional? Let a Clan USE a CV if they have one, don't use it if they don't prefer. Am I Missing Something? 

 

Wanna mention, I have never played 1 CV game. Radar and german Hydro is much worse than a CV with all the AA builds possible right now in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
784 posts
7,839 battles

This is what happen when you play a certain ship so much that you're garbage in all other ships. I do feel bad for those rare good CV player out there..But I think the unbalanced nature of CV and their strike power is terrible for T10 7V7.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOAST]
[TOAST]
Players
1,909 posts
25,215 battles

@Tuccy @Sub_Octavian WG, it's not too late to change the format of Clan Wars, Take the $ £ signs from your eyes with the "Rent-A-Ship" crap, make clan wars T8 9v9, and FFS include a CV and make it 2 BB's.

Keeping your customers happy and content, this will keep your cash registers full and profitable, stop looking for quick fixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,056 posts
13,790 battles

Well, renting tier X isn't bad in concept. I, for a start, would very much like to take tier Xs I don't have for a spin for a few games each season to see whether or not I want them. Even so, I think we all know that the reason behind the rental system is to squeeze more money from the 1000 game crowd and to tortuously prolong the illusion that this game isn't in a mode of total collapse thanks to how WG handles interclass balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,962 posts
13,451 battles
10 hours ago, Namolis said:

I'm surprised you'd agree with that, considering our discussions in the past... but we agree.

 

With only 6 other surface combatants, of which 2-3 will be DDs, you have no room for tactical decisions or maneuvers. If it were 9vs9 you could split into two, if not three groups and thus retain tactical options and ship diversity, as it is already done successfully in competitive, making the rest of your points null and void. You keep clinging to your flawed views and ideals despite being told numerous times that they're wrong and will not benefit the game in any shape or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
443 posts
9,461 battles

I support the removal of CVs. Tier 10 CVs are monsters and force you to play clamped up and that's not fun at all in a 7vs7 format.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[0RCA]
Players
335 posts
7,641 battles

another terrible  decision by wargamad. same reason i didnt play this game for a long time. 

interesting format should be 10 vs 10, for clans , 7vs7 this is very low. 

must haves should be 1 CV, 3 BB , 1 CL ,1 DD. (rest 4 places can be optional -but only CL or DD ,what clan choses).

i am happy they are grilled on ru. forum. 

in any case i want clan war only cv- 5 VS 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Players
745 posts
12,697 battles
2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

With only 6 other surface combatants, of which 2-3 will be DDs, you have no room for tactical decisions or maneuvers. If it were 9vs9 you could split into two, if not three groups and thus retain tactical options and ship diversity, as it is already done successfully in competitive, making the rest of your points null and void. You keep clinging to your flawed views and ideals despite being told numerous times that they're wrong and will not benefit the game in any shape or form.

No, you just invalidated your previous statements. Previously, you had trouble striking two ships together (even groups of one was too hard for you sometimes).

 

Now, you don't want to split your group of 6 even in two. I agree with you on that count, but I have to ask: what changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,962 posts
13,451 battles
16 minutes ago, Namolis said:

Previously, you had trouble striking two ships together (even groups of one was too hard for you sometimes).

 

*depending on class and nation.

Newsflash: At least two, if not three ships of the remaining 6 surface combatants will be DDs. DDs are not known for their AA abilities.

That leaves at best 4 capital ships. Splitting those in two is suicide in tactical terms if the enemy doesn't split. Even worse when only three are remaining.

 

- wants to remove CVs due to limiting tactics

- does not understand basic tactics

What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
885 posts
8,158 battles

A bit off topic but it really caught my eye.

Jesus Christ, she has 1.2 BILLION credits?

dr-evil_o_617237.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×