Jump to content


'Sky Cancer Hell Weekend' really shines a light on why CVs are so broken.


  • Please log in to reply
461 replies to this topic

centarina #321 Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:59 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Members

  • 6,768
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015

View PostMr_Alex, on 20 March 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

 

if you faced me with my Hiryu CV or Saipan CV, after the torpedo bomber strike, i'd ask via public chat if you enjoyed eating that bucket load of aerial torpedo on aerial bombs just to make you salty

 

and you'd end up with 3   complaint about poor chat and possible chat ban  :D

IJN: Mikasa,  Ichizuchi, Fuso, Amagi, Katori, Ibuki, Tachibana, KamikazeR, Shinonome, Shiratsuyu, Akizuki, Yugumo

             VFM: Aurora, Murmansk, Budyonny, Chapayev, D.Donskoi, Ognevoi, Kiev, Tashkent, Udaloi, Khab  PA Anshan   

USN:   New York, North Carolina, Marblehead,  Indianapolis, NO,  Farragut, Sims,Benson,Fletcher, Bogue    RN Leander, Edinburgh   

KM:  Konig Albert, Bayern, Graf Spee, Gneisenau, Bismarck, Emden  Admiral Hipper, Roon, Lib Maas         ARP: Kongo, Myoko, Haruna, Kirishima, Ashigara, Hiei, Haguro,  Nachi, Takao

Don of Popcorn Mafia


StoneRhino #322 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 518
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Not true, I'm boarded line Yolo in a bb and pure Yolo in a cl and don't get deleted by CVS very often. I'll actually taunt CVS in some bbs because I feel it's a waste of the cv' s time. I lol for real when I see 2-3 strikes against me that just results in me burning a Cool down or 2. Even when I eat a mouthful of sky hurt I still feel it's better done against me rather than questionablely reliable random allies. 

 

The best I can think of as a parallel would be a game in my Nagato where I was sailing broadside to a gneis at 18k and a dead ally was going off on chat about sailing broadside. Sailing broadside is bad but if a gneis citadeled at 18k they deserve it. If you don't play smart against a cv and they put a hurting on you you deserve it. Every enemy needs to be played against 8n a certain way and sometimes it's not the way you want to play and that's not limited to cvs



cometguy #323 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:22 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 566
  • Member since:
    07-29-2016

View Postissm, on 20 March 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

 

Please explain how these 3 assumptions are wrong:

 

1) A player is unable to deal damage when they are dead.

  1a) Any damage dealt post death is a cause of an action taken before death, and there is an effective time limit for how long post death an action can occur.

 

2) A player who is unable to deal damage is unable to earn credits

 

3) A player who remains alive to the end of the match IS MORE LIKELY TO earn more credits.

 

With only these 3 assumptions, you can draw 2 conclusions:

 

1) A ship that survives longer will have consistently superior average performance compared to other classes

 

Which results in:

 

2) A ship that survives longer will have consistently higher earnings than other classes.

 

WG addresses the second issue with the reduced CV earnings, but fails to address the in game power imbalance.

 

~~~~~~

 

And while we're on the subject of "flawed assumptions", there is no assumption more completely, utterly, ridiculous as your troll "assumption" that a DD that runs into the enemy in the opening moves is anywhere close to being as abysmally incompetent as a CV who does the same thing.

The problem with your three assumptions is that it doesn't factor in anything that actually earns credits and experience. So it only holds true for the individual.



Viper5delta #324 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:23 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 10
  • Member since:
    01-04-2014

View PostStoneRhino, on 20 March 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:

Not true, I'm boarded line Yolo in a bb and pure Yolo in a cl and don't get deleted by CVS very often. I'll actually taunt CVS in some bbs because I feel it's a waste of the cv' s time. I lol for real when I see 2-3 strikes against me that just results in me burning a Cool down or 2. Even when I eat a mouthful of sky hurt I still feel it's better done against me rather than questionablely reliable random allies. 

 

The best I can think of as a parallel would be a game in my Nagato where I was sailing broadside to a gneis at 18k and a dead ally was going off on chat about sailing broadside. Sailing broadside is bad but if a gneis citadeled at 18k they deserve it. If you don't play smart against a cv and they put a hurting on you you deserve it. Every enemy needs to be played against 8n a certain way and sometimes it's not the way you want to play and that's not limited to cvs

 

I'm not saying CVs don't have counter play.  They definitely do.  I'm just saying what counter play they do have is usually either passive (Grouping up, DF, Upgrading your AA), or only of situational and marginal  effectiveness (a good Cv player will be able to hit you with a drop no matter how you turn, even without cross drops).  I'm not arguing to change the net outcome.  A ship on its own deserves to get hit.  I just think players should have more agency in the defense of their ship from planes.

 



issm #325 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:41 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,283
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Postcometguy, on 20 March 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

The problem with your three assumptions is that it doesn't factor in anything that actually earns credits and experience. So it only holds true for the individual.

 

Damage doesn't actually earn credits and exp.

 

Got it.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Destroyer_Kiyoshimo #326 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:58 PM

    Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 10,674
  • Member since:
    05-25-2014

View Postissm, on 20 March 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

 

Damage doesn't actually earn credits and exp.

 

Got it.

 

It's not the only thing that does. Ignoring the other factors ignores a large portion of the income.

 Kiyoshimo's aircraft carrier rework Kiyoshimo's Torpedo Campaign

AP is the ship-killer. AP is the heavy death that brings total obliteration. I will face their AP. I will permit it to pass over me and bounce from me. And when it has passed, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the AP has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain. 

 


cometguy #327 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 566
  • Member since:
    07-29-2016

View Postissm, on 20 March 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

 

Damage doesn't actually earn credits and exp.

 

Got it.

It does, but your assumptions don't account for it. They only account for the fact that you can't do it when you're dead.  Your assumptions account for no behavior while alive, and so, the only thing we can say about being dead is at the individual level, because that narrows it down to the same ship/ability.


Edited by cometguy, 20 March 2017 - 10:28 PM.


issm #328 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:51 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,283
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostDestroyer_Kiyoshimo, on 20 March 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

It's not the only thing that does. Ignoring the other factors ignores a large portion of the income.

 

Sure, like?

 

Caps? Sure. CVs get shafted here.

 

Spotting? CVs are the undisputed king of spotting.

 

Tanking? Sure, again, shafted.

 

However, WG has indicated that the influence of these factors can all be individually adjusted on a ship by ship basis. So, we can assume that for a CV, they earn a lot more from damage than they do from caps.

 

~~~~~~

 

Furthermore, we know that not all actions have the same exp/credit ratio in their rewards.

 

Damage, for example, gives you proportionally more credits, while caps/defense give proportionally more exp.

 

CVs, obviously, tend to lean more towards the damage side.

 

~~~~~~

 

Finally, while "service" costs are theoretically the same for all ships, the effective net charge per match is most definitely not.

 

Compare the consumables a Baltimore needs to mount to be competitive, vs what a Taiho needs.

 

Balti needs prem DCP, heal, and radar.

 

Taiho needs..... nothing. You don't get shot at all that often, so DCP is unnecessary, and sniping being the waste of time it is, prem DF is also unnecessary. The CV is ~70k cheaper than a CA right off the bat.

 

~~~~~~

 

So while you COULD argue that CV income is shafted in terms of EXP gain, it is indisputably easier on the credits - and at high tiers, that's far more important.

 

After all, you can't even grind for exp if you don't have the credits to run your ship.

 

~~~~~~

 

Thing is, at the end of the day, this is all irrelevant.

 

While I presented my justification of the lower CV earnings ratio in terms of credits, the argument remains equally valid with all other forms of income.

 

Dead ships don't tank, dead ships don't spot, and dead ships don't cap or defend.

 

In fact, while damage is something that you can deal for a limited time AFTER you die, these other means of earning income stop IMMEDIATELY after you die - moreover, with capping, not only do you immediately stop earning rewards, any cap points earned in a not yet secured cap are lost immediately.

 

Even taking into account the other forms of income, my overall argument remains valid.

 

View Postcometguy, on 20 March 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

It does, but your assumptions don't account for it.

 

"Ships that survive longer have more potential to deal damage" doesn't account for damage.

 

Got it.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


cometguy #329 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 566
  • Member since:
    07-29-2016
So you don't know the difference between can do and does. Your argument is tantamount to me saying a 40 year old is more likely to be a better musician than Jimmy Hendrix because they lived longer. It's complete nonsense because potential means nothing if it is not realized, and you have no way of showing how much of it is realized. In fact, the evidence is against you because USN CVs have very high survivability and very average experience earned. Now we all know that USN CVs are weak compared to their counterparts, but it doesn't change the fact that it completely disproves your argument.

Edited by cometguy, 20 March 2017 - 11:15 PM.


StoneRhino #330 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:16 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 518
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postcometguy, on 20 March 2017 - 10:11 PM, said:

It does, but your assumptions don't account for it. They only account for the fact that you can't do it when you're dead.  Your assumptions account for no behavior while alive, and so, the only thing we can say about being dead is at the individual level, because that narrows it down to the same ship/ability.

 

Issm

 Lol never gets old.



issm #331 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:16 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,283
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Postcometguy, on 20 March 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

So you don't know the difference between can do and does. Your argument is tantamount to me saying a 40 year old is more likely to be a better musician than Jimmy Hendrix because they lived longer. It's complete nonsense because potential means nothing if it is not realized, and you have no way of showing how much of it is realized. In fact, the evidence is against you because USN CVs have very high survivability and very average experience earned. Now we all know that USN CVs are weak compared to their counterparts, but it doesn't change the fact that it completely disproves your argument.

 

Your response is complete and utter nonsense.

 

If anything can be called arguing for the sake of arguing, it's this drivel. There is not a single valid statement in here.

 

Fallacy 1: Your analogy fails because you're talking about specific instances, while I'm discussing averages.

 

Explanation

 

~~~~~~

 

 

Fallacy 2: "potential means nothing if it is not realized, and you have no way of showing how much of it is realized"

 

Sure..... but I can say with absolute certainty that the potential can not be realised if the potential is not there.

 

A live ship that wastes 99% of it's potential will contribute more than a dead ship with no potential, every time.

 

A dead ship can contribute massive before it dies? A live ship can contribute equally as much in that same period of time. Why assume the dead one contributes while  the live one doesn't?

 

~~~~~~

 

Fallacy 3: "USN CV are have bad average exp, therefore you're wrong"

 

You know what else USN CVs are really bad at? Winning.

 

Do you perhaps remember what winning does? Right. It boosts your average exp. What will a class have if it has bad W/R then? Bad exp.

 

Then, consider the fact that USN CVs don't have a viable offensive loadout until T9/10 (Ranger and Lexington lacking any fighters to defend their bombers), at which point USN CVs are very competitive in all metrics other than win rate and win rate dependant stats.

 

Furthermore, USN CVs still have all the credits related advantages over surface ships: Lower consumables cost, and income more structured to boost credit gain rather than exp.

 

So no, "low USN has poor exp earnings" does not "disprove" my argument.

 

~~~~~~

 

It's cute how you decided to ignore all the gameplay factors that result in USN CVs being poor performers though. Why are you ignoring them? You don't say. Presumably because if you consider those factors, your entire argument goes down the drain.

 
I mean, I do personally dismiss things as irrelevant a lot, but at least I give you the courtesy of explaining WHY I'm dismissing them.
 
Like when I dismissed Kiyoshimo's argument of "but damage isn't the only source of income", I had the courtesy to explain, and to demonstrate, that my argument remains the same even if you substitute "caps" or "tanking" or "spotting" in for "damage".
 
But hen you try and say "We all know USN CVs are weak, but that doesn't matter"?
 
WHY does it not matter?

Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


issm #332 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:32 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,283
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Postcometguy, on 20 March 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

It does, but your assumptions don't account for it. They only account for the fact that you can't do it when you're dead.  Your assumptions account for no behavior while alive, and so, the only thing we can say about being dead is at the individual level, because that narrows it down to the same ship/ability.

 

No..... my assumptions literally ONLY account for when people are alive.

 

People who are alive remain able to deal more damage and earn more credits.

 

A player who is ALIVE for a longer period of time will, on AVERAGE, accumulate greater rewards.

 

Therefore, a class of ships who's very mechanics incentivize and allow players to survive for a longer period, for example, a class with an extremely low risk weapon of attack, like a CV with a large supply of replacable planes to deal damage with, will, on average, do more damage than a class where risk is inherent, i.e., a destroyer with short range that needs to sail into harms way to get it's damage in.

 

My argument is literally only valid for large samples, but for some reason, it's only valid for individuals because..... why? Because you said so? 

 

Get the f*** out of here.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


cometguy #333 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 566
  • Member since:
    07-29-2016

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

 

No..... my assumptions literally ONLY account for when people are alive.

 

People who are alive remain able to deal more damage and earn more credits.

 

A player who is ALIVE for a longer period of time will, on AVERAGE, accumulate greater rewards.

 

Therefore, a class of ships who's very mechanics incentivize and allow players to survive for a longer period, for example, a class with an extremely low risk weapon of attack, like a CV with a large supply of replacable planes to deal damage with, will, on average, do more damage than a class where risk is inherent, i.e., a destroyer with short range that needs to sail into harms way to get it's damage in.

 

My argument is literally only valid for large samples, but for some reason, it's only valid for individuals because..... why? Because you said so? 

 

Get the f*** out of here.

Would you agree that on average destroyers die considerably quicker than CVs? And if I recall, you're ok with a correlation between xp earned and credits earned?

Last two weeks Langley and Hosho earn less than Clemson and Izyaslav. Bogue earn less than Podvoisky (I'll omit all of the wonderful premium t5 dds that earn more on account of premium). Shira and Mass earn more than Hiryu and Ranger, Akizuki and z23 earn more than Shokaku and Lexington. Udaloi and z46 earn more than taiho and Essex. Khab earns more than hak and Midway.


Edited by cometguy, 21 March 2017 - 02:04 AM.


StoneRhino #334 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:19 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 518
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
But all those dds have the highest survivability in their tiers... wait no they don't... it's almost like survivability does not equate to greater rewards... it's almost like Issm' s "But did you die" die argument is useless.

issm #335 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:47 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,283
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Postcometguy, on 20 March 2017 - 09:03 PM, said:

Would you agree that on average destroyers die considerably quicker than CVs? And if I recall, you're ok with a correlation between xp earned and credits earned?

Last two weeks Langley and Hosho earn less than Clemson and Izyaslav. Bogue earn less than Podvoisky (I'll omit all of the wonderful premium t5 dds that earn more on account of premium). Shira and Mass earn more than Hiryu and Ranger, Akizuki and z23 earn more than Shokaku and Lexington. Udaloi and z46 earn more than taiho and Essex. Khab earns more than hak and Midway.

 

Did you not get the memo that carriers are currently under a reduced earning ratio?

 

You know, like how a unicum comes on to the forums to whine "I did 200k damage, got confederate, High Caliber, Kraken, and Witherer, and only walked away with 2k exp"?

 

Or, you might have noticed Kiyoshimo a few pages back, complaining that "A carrier has to work 300-400% harder than a surface ship to earn the same amount"?

 

You're conflating unmodified earnings (what I'm talking about) with the actual modified earnings (i.e. what you see in games, and what stats sites track).

 

Why are the earnings ratios modified?

 

Because WarGaming KNOWS that the problem I'm describing exists, and have already taken action to compensate for it.


Edited by issm, 21 March 2017 - 02:47 AM.

Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


StoneRhino #336 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 518
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 02:47 AM, said:

 

Did you not get the memo that carriers are currently under a reduced earning ratio?

 

You know, like how a unicum comes on to the forums to whine "I did 200k damage, got confederate, High Caliber, Kraken, and Witherer, and only walked away with 2k exp"?

 

Or, you might have noticed Kiyoshimo a few pages back, complaining that "A carrier has to work 300-400% harder than a surface ship to earn the same amount"?

 

You're conflating unmodified earnings (what I'm talking about) with the actual modified earnings (i.e. what you see in games, and what stats sites track).

 

Why are the earnings ratios modified?

 

Because WarGaming KNOWS that the problem I'm describing exists, and have already taken action to compensate for it.

 

If WG already knows about and has corrected for it then why are you harping about it.  I agree that CVs should earn less silver because of not needing premium consumables. To which surprise they do.  So move on because your complaint has already been noted and action has already been taken to correct it.  Because like I said in another thread all it sounds like now is that you want CVs to sink more often just so the CV players know what it's like to sink.

issm #337 Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:27 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,283
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostStoneRhino, on 20 March 2017 - 11:33 PM, said:

If WG already knows about and has corrected for it then why are you harping about it.  I agree that CVs should earn less silver because of not needing premium consumables. To which surprise they do.  So move on because your complaint has already been noted and action has already been taken to correct it.  Because like I said in another thread all it sounds like now is that you want CVs to sink more often just so the CV players know what it's like to sink.

 

BECAUSE FIXING AN INCOME IMBALANCE DOES NOT FIX THE GAMEPLAY MECHANICS IMBALANCE THAT CAUSED IT.

 

Ultimately, the gameplay is still flawed, and since the gameplay is what I care about, this remains an issue.

 

If I build a house on uneven ground, and raise my house on stilts so that I have a flat floor, did I just make the ground beneath flat?

 

No, of course not.

 

That uneven ground is the imbalanced gameplay, and the flat floor is the balanced income.

 

The tweaked income rates are the stilts bridging the difference between the flat floor and the uneven ground.

 

Even though the income is balanced, the game still is not, and that makes the game less fun to play.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


csp0811 #338 Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:08 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 467
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostMrDeaf, on 13 March 2017 - 05:27 AM, said:

 

If the ship is bottom tier and still heavily influencing the outcome, in your case 82% WR, that basically says the ship is broken and has an incredibly high skill floor.

 

I literally cannot pull off 82% WR in any of my ships, even the ones people claim are OP and P2W.

 

Im a CV main and I was easily able to get 80+ WR in most of the IJN carriers. Shokaku is stupidly OP for it's tier. On the other hand, here I am getting 50-60% WR in my USN carriers.

 

Almost all the examples of egregious game imbalance and poor game design have IJN carriers as the offenders. IJN gets faster, easier to use planes that are more accurate, can crossdrop destroyers reliably, and scout with multiple groups more easily. Fix that line and you will fix the perception that carriers in general are OP.



issm #339 Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:18 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,283
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Postcsp0811, on 21 March 2017 - 01:08 AM, said:

Almost all the examples of egregious game imbalance and poor game design have IJN carriers as the offenders. IJN gets faster, easier to use planes that are more accurate, can crossdrop destroyers reliably, and scout with multiple groups more easily. Fix that line and you will fix the perception that carriers in general are OP.

 

I an mostly agree with this.

 

I'd still like to see an incentive or range mechanic to force CVs to stick with the fleet, but limiting the power of IJN CVs would greatly help in reducing the most obnoxious excesses.

 

Remove the "squadron size" national flavours. Give IJN CVs 6 plane squadrons and the decrease in flexibility that entails.

 

Clone to the USN loadouts to IJN, flipping DB numbers with TBs, and then altering loadouts so that no loadout has more than 2 TBs, and no loadout other than strike has more than 1 TB.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


StoneRhino #340 Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:26 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 518
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 05:27 AM, said:

 

BECAUSE FIXING AN INCOME IMBALANCE DOES NOT FIX THE GAMEPLAY MECHANICS IMBALANCE THAT CAUSED IT.

 

Ultimately, the gameplay is still flawed, and since the gameplay is what I care about, this remains an issue.

 

If I build a house on uneven ground, and raise my house on stilts so that I have a flat floor, did I just make the ground beneath flat?

 

No, of course not.

 

That uneven ground is the imbalanced gameplay, and the flat floor is the balanced income.

 

The tweaked income rates are the stilts bridging the difference between the flat floor and the uneven ground.

 

Even though the income is balanced, the game still is not, and that makes the game less fun to play.

 

You yourself admit that your Taiho does not do any better or worse than your other T9 and WG has already given "Bonus" income to all classes by lowering a CV's income because of offset premium cost.  So how again is your argument anything other than "CVs need to sink more so those playing CVs know what it feels like"???




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users