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

To overhaul CV, must discard mirrored MM

Sorry for long poll. Please direct complaints at me.  

119 members have voted

  1. 1. How long play WoWs?

  2. 2. How long play CV?

  3. 3. Tiers play?

  4. 4. Tiers play CV?

  5. 5. Play CV in ranked? (Answer only if have placed in Rank 1 before.)

  6. 6. Play CV in division?

  7. 7. Preferred Loadout?

  8. 8. In-game, like to see CV(s)?

  9. 9. Do you find playing CVs fun?

  10. 10. Do you look forward to completing rest of CV line(s)?

  11. 11. Is the CV balanced?

  12. 12. Which WoWs class least vulnerable to CV? (Multiple choice)

  13. 13. Can the CV be improved?

  14. 14. Can the CV experience be improved?

  15. 15. Look forward to a CV overhaul?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Withhold judgement and right of comment until see concrete results. Whenever that is.
  16. 16. How deep do CV elements need repair?

  17. 17. Is this poll too long?


220 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Edit: Added "Man-made Spectacle" post, as promised. It's still not the actual argument having to do specifically with the mirrored MM in a functional sense, but here it is. (I regard those as mundane, trivial, less important than the qualitative arguments, it's just me. Maybe I'll add in again later, if someone really asks.)

To-Do: sort out the memories into data in the 1.5 years later thread, make a (shorter) poll out of those data (such as the heavy leaning towards everything with the word "premium" in WG design nowadays)(quite difficult as some of those are open-answer questions in nature), and analyze the data from this thread once the poll reaches at least 100 people.

 

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I heard WG is planning some CV changes in 2018. It was the same thing we heard for 2017, but possible it's actually the big one this time.

(I also got a nice present from WG to log back in ... so one could say I'm a bit more "motivated" to put some attention to WoWs again. =D. Good job. It might just work to bring back some of the old players.)

 

Since we do not know how a form of CV overhaul could work for the current version of WoWs, I would like to make use of this opportunity to engage the English forum in discussion of the possibilities within a CV overhaul. Such that regardless of how the WG version turns out, we will be able to receive it well-informed and prepared. First goal is to reduce the "reactive" discussion to the overhaul, and second is in hopes of reaching conclusions which will be difficult to do once hemmed in by the existing logic of the overhaul. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The first questions to ask is "what do we aim to accomplish through the CV overhaul":

 

How can the game's mechanics systems, balance, depth, polish be improved from mechanic changes. How do we fix vulnerabilities and shortcomings of existing features.

Why would these changes be an improvement to the player experience. (Much comparison to other games in this part.)

How do we design the overhaul to be more friendly to future overhauls and expansions in the game's systems and thus possibilities, aiming for continuous improvement. But first, how do we break the stalemate of the current game norm.

How do we execute the operation of this overhaul to maximize the data gathered and observe its potential, within reasonable effects to the game. How do we use it to improve player-relations.

What is the theoretical amount of potential this can fulfill, what is its unique strengths, and characteristics uniquely suited to WoWs, how do we generate conclusions from those to identify or design possibles future systems.

 

And likely more, but WG probably has it all sorted out. You get the idea.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The second question to ask is "what would be some ideal states to be in after the CV overhaul".

 

Even if we cannot describe an exact state of affairs, general desirable characteristics of the situation can be used to "triangulate" approximate definitions.

 

Which brings us to the title. In my estimate, mirrored MM for one will no longer be necessary. But in a more ideal case, aka. "victory" scenario, not only will mirrored MM be gone, but CVs will be so balanced, enjoyable, and well-integrated into the game, that even if the teams had one side with CV, and the other side without a CV, the match is still fair and fun. Or, CV from further apart in tiers can play together in more than +2 MM (even if not every tier 1-10 at once).

 

Now that's quite a leap. Normally, one would start with approximate definitions such as "playing CV will no longer be more pressuring and daunting than a normal ship". "CV will not be disproportionately harder to control than a normal ship". "CV will not be more dependent on captain skill requirements than normal ships". "Losing in a CV is no more toxic or humiliating an experience than in normal ships." And obvious ones, such as "CVs will no longer be disproportionally OP in general match conditions than normal ships, or at least their effect will no be felt disproportionally from normal ships". Etc.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

So for the remaining questions, I'd like to ask everyone else's experience with CVs, Why might a CV overhaul be necessary (but if not, then what to do instead), What might a possible overhaul aim to do, and what is your "ideal state" from overhauled CVs.

Bonus points if you can explain how you reached those conclusions. And because this is a discussion thread, all opinions, from new and old players, CV and non-CV mains, fans and haters alike, etc. (you get the idea), are valid. Try to be kind to each other's experiences and points of view. 

 

Cheers.

Edited by KarmaQU_EU
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

Before ask, yes I have more detailed argument adhering to the title. But not that detailed yet. Give me some time, and to see what others have to say. And please give advice and suggestions for poll, e.g. good questions I should've included. I'll see if I can add, if still within 1 day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,283 posts
7,458 battles

The very only thing I wish right now it's that they fix the frigging carrier bugs which are happening since 8 versions ago or so, bugs which I reported (even with videos) and nobody does a shi┬ about it

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,844 posts
9,996 battles

The 9th question could be refined.

I read it as "do you find playing CV to be fun?"
It isn't. Let's be honest, it's stressful and basically everyone in the match despises you for many reasons.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, Players
5,335 posts

with curent aa whine up wg will never make cvs better , untill these dd / ca / bb babies whine about aa to bad

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,644 posts
14,304 battles

Without having considered all aspects... first thing that I think should be done is to make cv-plane spotting only visible for the cv. The rest of the team only gets a ghost image on the minimap where the enemy ship last was seen, updated every 5 or 10s.

Providing spotting for the team is once again foremost a dd duty. cvs will still provide info for the team, but won't completely change the game every time cvs are in the battle. Clan battles were much more enjoyable to watch compared to King of the Sea. The game is just better when planes aren't playing a huge influence for spotting.

I'd like to see how much this would change. More changes are probably necessary, but this would be a big one.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,670 posts
20,297 battles

Give the players the possibility to choose game mod with/without CV and you ll be amazed how much love there is for CVs . :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Players
865 posts
23,083 battles

From what I've seen of their ideas for an overhaul it's basically to nerf cvs or at least nerf them for skilled cv players. If a player is good at something he should be rewarded not have it dumbed down so that everyone can be as good as him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLUMR]
Beta Tester
846 posts
8,770 battles

WG didn't take notes from Arty in WOT when balancing CVs, people didn't like getting deleted by Arty and people don't like getting deleted by CVs.

 

In my opinion, CVs should have never been designed as Damage dealing class they should have been a support class and nothing more, but not just any support class, the BEST support class.

 

1.Damage and DoTs(chance) should be drastically cut 

2.Attack rate should be increased to balance the big cut in damage(remove the timers)

3.Plane HP should be buffed or AA cut down to give Cruisers their role back

4.Defensive AA should be reworked to increase AA range and panic squadrons rather than flat damage boost

5.Auto attacks should be flawed(easily avoidable torps and wide bomb spread) while Manual attacks offer accuracy

6.Fighter strafes should not delete squadrons but just do area damage to all affected planes and give the ability to strafe ships as an auto attack for AA destruction and minor damage

 

CVs are not fun to play and not fun to play against in their current state.

 

 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,844 posts
9,996 battles
1 hour ago, 22cm said:

Give the players the possibility to choose game mod with/without CV and you ll be amazed how much love there is for CVs . :Smile_teethhappy:

 

And then when people demand a with/without DD game mode, you'll see just how much people just want a 12v12 BB game mode.
 

CVs are the current scapegoat, but mark my words, were it not for them, whiners would find another one within 24 hours.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
45 minutes ago, Seinta said:

WG didn't take notes from Arty in WOT when balancing CVs, people didn't like getting deleted by Arty and people don't like getting deleted by CVs.

In my opinion, CVs should have never been designed as Damage dealing class they should have been a support class and nothing more, but not just any support class, the BEST support class.

That would maybe induce a "reverse AA barrage" kind of mechanic. Sort of like what smoke does. It's a drastic measure, but CVs as support can be considered. Will introduce even more fiction into the game but not like the game was remotely realistic anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
2 hours ago, loppantorkel said:

Without having considered all aspects... first thing that I think should be done is to make cv-plane spotting only visible for the cv. The rest of the team only gets a ghost image on the minimap where the enemy ship last was seen, updated every 5 or 10s.

Providing spotting for the team is once again foremost a dd duty. cvs will still provide info for the team, but won't completely change the game every time cvs are in the battle. Clan battles were much more enjoyable to watch compared to King of the Sea. The game is just better when planes aren't playing a huge influence for spotting.

I'd like to see how much this would change. More changes are probably necessary, but this would be a big one.

Mainly agree with the ghost image. The pop-in pop-out insta-stealth/complete-vision could use an upgrade. I've been personally favouring a "grey silhouette" and "layered spotting" concept anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,293 posts
16,472 battles
1 hour ago, Seinta said:

In my opinion, CVs should have never been designed as Damage dealing class they should have been a support class and nothing more, but not just any support class, the BEST support class.

 

This is funny because CVs were in fact never designed as a primary damage dealing class. It is painfully obvious when you consider how they attack their targets and how their damage is applied.

Then again this game was never designed to be played primarily by braindead morons, either.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLUMR]
Beta Tester
846 posts
8,770 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

 

This is funny because CVs were in fact never designed as a primary damage dealing class. It is painfully obvious when you consider how they attack their targets and how their damage is applied.

Then again this game was never designed to be played primarily by braindead morons, either.

 

Just because they do a lot of damage in DoTs doesn't mean they aren't primary damage dealers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,293 posts
16,472 battles
23 minutes ago, Seinta said:

Just because they do a lot of damage in DoTs doesn't mean they aren't primary damage dealers?

 

That's not what I meant.

They were never meant to have this many targets to choose from and if the enemy team isn't utterly braindead then they actually don't. Stacking AA, seeking the protection of dedicated counters or playing such counters are all effective means to deny a CV any damage potential. Just because the majority of the playerbase is too braindead to realize this doesn't make it any less true.

 

A CV's attack is the most telegraphed out of all found in the game and by far the most easy to counter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,670 posts
20,297 battles

Carriers are still OP now, even after all the nerfs, compared with the other classes. CV counters hard 2 of the other 3 classes, DD and BB, and counters even the last 3rd class, CC, while Def AA is on cooldown. This is the real issue that has to be adressed. One class should be able to counter just one single class.

 

In real life naval battles never mixed with air battles, the difference between their engagement ranges was just that big. It was either a long range air battle or a short range naval battle. Also, in bad weather. carriers could not operate at all, while other ships could. While in Wows the ship the least influenced by Taifun is, of course, the CV.

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
2,113 posts
10,123 battles

They were never meant to have this many targets to choose from and if the enemy team isn't utterly braindead then they actually don't. Stacking AA, seeking the protection of dedicated counters or playing such counters are all effective means to deny a CV any damage potential. Just because the majority of the playerbase is too braindead to realize this doesn't make it any less true.

 

Playing a CV involves just working through the list of opposition ships, identifying the ones with the least AA, / most isolated and attacking them. Team cover and stacked AA may have worked back at the start but the game doesn't play like this any more. We have Tiers where there is a 15 knot difference between the CLs and BBs, random spawns and bad maps which force players to traverse the map in small groups just to get into the fight (We also have Tiers where CVs can play where there are ships with no AA at all. Ships which were built before the advent of powered flight, ffs.).

 

Really we need Torp bombers to be slower and more vulnerable, bombers to be given a high / low attack option (lower hit ratio/lower losses vs higher hits/higher risk) and CVs to given more of a spotting and support role. The days of the flying destroyer need to be very numbered indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,293 posts
16,472 battles
1 minute ago, 22cm said:

In real life naval battles never mixed with air battles

 

Number of pure BB on BB engagements during WWII: 2

Number of engagements in which CVs came into gun range: 2

 

I guess BBs should be removed as well for being unrealistic.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,670 posts
20,297 battles
2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Bla bla

 

As an obvious CV fan club boy, I m not even wondering you did not even touch what I said about a single class being able to counter all the other 3 classes as being the major problem why CVs are unballanced.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,210 posts
6,267 battles
4 hours ago, loppantorkel said:

Without having considered all aspects... first thing that I think should be done is to make cv-plane spotting only visible for the cv. The rest of the team only gets a ghost image on the minimap where the enemy ship last was seen, updated every 5 or 10s.

I wouldn't mind if this happens to radar spotting as well. Now MM can [edited]you if the enemy team gets 4, 5, maybe 7 radar ships who could use their livestream consumable in turns. An artillery radar couldn't direct fire for other ships either iirc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,293 posts
16,472 battles
43 minutes ago, 22cm said:

I m not even wondering you did not even touch what I said about a single class being able to counter all the other 3 classes as being the major problem why CVs are unballanced.

 

Yes, because it shows your blatant inexperience. CVs counter all three classes? That's hilarious at best.

 

48 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

We have Tiers where there is a 15 knot difference between the CLs and BBs, random spawns and bad maps which force players to traverse the map in small groups just to get into the fight

 

Please, how exactly has that changed? These issues have always existed, yet CVs were perfectly fine in the grand scheme of things. The only differences between then and now are that AA is stronger than ever before and the playerbase being infinitely worse than it was back then. That means the counters to CVs are even stronger now than they were when CVs were fine. Whether or not the playerbase utilizes them is no longer a balancing concern.

 

Damage dealing capabilities are balanced around the individual class and not in relation to other classes. The attack of a CV has the longest reload, the most vulnerability to enemy action and is by far the most telegraphed. As such anything short of crippling or even sinking an enemy ship in a single strike is unacceptable. Weakening the attack of a CV is not an option unless you want to strengthen other aspects, which on the other hand will bring with it a plethora of new problems as has been the case many times before in the history of this game.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles

The main problem with CVs is that many battles devolve into which CV is better, with very little other ships can do about it. They're just broken, and they don't fit this supposedly team-oriented game as they're currently implemented.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
2,113 posts
10,123 battles

Please, how exactly has that changed? These issues have always existed, yet CVs were perfectly fine in the grand scheme of things

 

They weren't. Lower Tier CV play is a turkey shoot - double CV games at Tier IV? That doesn't teach the players the skills they need to succeed (and it makes everyone hate CVs). Then we have the OP premiums at higher tiers, the shonky MM which lets Tier IX planes loose on Tier V ships, and the mucking around with loadouts to turn everything into a torp fest. It's all wrong, and it always has been - it's just that WG have actually made it worse by tinkering.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,963 posts
8,682 battles
2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Number of pure BB on BB engagements during WWII: 2 What?!?

Number of engagements in which CVs came into gun range: 2

 

I guess BBs should be removed as well for being unrealistic.

 Naval battles that involved battleships fighting other battleships during World War two: Battle of the Denmark Strait, the sinking of Bismarck, Battle of Mers El Kebir, the Battle of Casablanca, The Battle of Calabria, The Battle of the North Cape, The Battle of Guadalcanal, The Battle of Surigao Strait for a total of 8 battles.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,293 posts
16,472 battles
1 minute ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

Naval battles that involved battleships fighting other battleships during World War two: Battle of the Denmark Strait, the sinking of Bismarck, Battle of Mers El Kebir, the Battle of Casablanca, The Battle of Calabria, The Battle of the North Cape, The Battle of Guadalcanal, The Battle of Surigao Strait for a total of 8 battles.

 

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Number of pure BB on BB engagements during WWII: 2

 

Sinking of the Bismarck had a CV attack prelude.

Mers El Kebir can hardly be called a battle. Also had aviation.

Casablanca, well, if you call a half finished BB sitting in port firing on a fully functional one out at sea a true BB on BB engagement, yeah, can be counted as one. Personally I would simply see her as a form of coastal artillery.

I have to admit, Calabria completely slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder! :)

During North Cape cruisers and destroyers dealt the crippling damage, a BB simply delivered the final blow.

Same with Surigao, really.

 

Thus, depending on your point of view we have 3-4 vs 2. Hardly much of a difference.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×