Jump to content

Moggytwo

Members
  • Content Сount

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5

Community Reputation

185 Valued poster

About Moggytwo

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Location
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I wasn't a strawman, your last sentence in the post I quoted was about politics, that just doesn't belong here. People tend to get really worked up about this sort of thing, and we don't need the angst - there's enough when the subject of CV's come up! Plus it's against the forum rules. I think they do make a clear effort to balance the game. The issue is that it's a slow process though. Players see the problems pretty and come up with some workable solutions pretty quickly, and then spend months asking why don't WG just fix this already?! Meanwhile WG just go through their process, which is a good one, but it does take time. They review the data, then they'll make a small change, then review the effect. Big changes take an even longer time to implement, and WG are reluctant to make really big changes without a clear and significant benefit, so often balance problems go unresolved because they aren't a big enough problem in WG's eyes to make the large changes required, that potentially have negative repercussions that no one will foresee. As for their monetisation strategy, well there is a lot I don't like about that, and the PR debacle was the culmination of a very poor direction in that regard. It seems to be getting better though, with less predatory behaviour and a clearer outline of what you are getting for your money. I did like it more back in about 2017 though, because it felt there was a lot more value for your dollars spent. I don't really spend money outside santa crates anymore tbh - maybe it's because I just don't need much stuff.
  2. Those skill gaps definitely showed in the same data set pre-rework. RTS CV's were massively ahead for the same comparison. Luckily we still have the data for that though, so we can talk numbers rather than impressions! Let's have a look at the data for the two months up to January 2019, tiers 7-10, just prior to the rework: DD's - 74.7% win rate, 61.0k damage CA's - 73.3% win rate, 106.2k damage BB's - 69.1% win rate, 120.5k damage CV's - 77.0% win rate, 107.8k damage For a reminder, here's the stats for the last two months for comparison: DD's - 75.4% win rate, 59.6k damage CA's - 74.3% win rate, 110.1k damage BB's - 72.7% win rate, 124.7k damage CV's - 72.4% win rate, 111.6k damage So what conclusions can we draw from this data? Firstly, the CV win rate for the best players has dropped by nearly 5%, from 77.0% to 72.4%! That is absolutely massive, and represents a drop from being way out in front to being the least influential ship type. This directly proves that CV's used to have the biggest skill gap ever in the game, and that skill gap has been massively reduced, thus proving that one of the primary reasons for the rework has been achieved. Secondly, DD, CA, and BB skill gaps have all increased. Basically this is a representation that because CV's are much less dominant post-rework, all other ship types have increased their ability to affect the game. This is a good thing. Thirdly, all ships have increased their average damage, except for DD's that have lost average damage. This is a representation of power creep basically, although it shows that DD's have lost combat effectiveness in relative terms. DD's are still very influential however due to their vulnerability making poorly played DD's die much earlier, and thus making well played DD's relatively more influential. So, the stats were clear then, and they are clear now. Regardless of whether you enjoy rework CV's or not, the facts remain they are now the least influential class, where they used to be by far the most influential class. The game is about winning, therefore CV's are the least powerful class in the game. It's pretty straightforward really.
  3. WG really only get one shot at nerfing Enterprise here. They are doing this as a blanket nerf purely because they want to nerf Enterprise. Although I think this is a significant nerf to a very strong aspect of the ship (I seem to disagree with @TorpedoBonk on this one), I do not think this will make the ship well balanced compared to the other T8 CV's overall, and it certainly in no way, shape, or form will make Enterprise underpowered. The issue with Enterprise is a combination of both how strong each of the squadrons are (especially the RF's), with how forgiving it is for lower skilled CV captains to play. This forgiving nature (from the simplest to use squadron being the best, and the short plane respawn meaning mistakes aren't really punished), means that lower skilled CV captains will do much better in Enterprise than other T8 CV's, and that brings the whole stats of the ship up significantly. I do think that Enterprise and Saipan are about equal in power at the high player skill level, and that this nerf will push Saipan slightly ahead at this level - but this is just an opinion, I could be wrong, and the stats show this trend but not clearly enough to show absolute proof of concept. In terms of Enterprise power, what will really hit it hard if it goes through is the air concealment buff to DD's. Enterprise's biggest strength are its RF's, and in particular how effective they are against DD's. Hitting competent DD's will be next to impossible following this change. The other T8 premium CV's have their strength mainly in their torpedo bombers, and will be much less affected however. I think if this change goes through, combined with the AP DB nerf, then Enterprise will be significantly reduced in relative power. GZ is just collateral damage in the Enterprise nerf. They couldn't call it a "blanket change" unless they nerfed Enterprise as well. GZ's main problems with balancing are its secondaries and its popularity. People like the ship because its German and it has decent secondaries, so it gets played a lot, despite being pretty poor overall. The issue is, secondaries are generally pretty useless, and you most definitely don't want your CV balanced around having them, because that is taking power out of something actually useful. Although I'm sure the ship will receive more buffs over just the aiming change she just got, she is unlikely to ever be actually good again. The 0.8.4 engine boost nerf is what really hit her hard, this AP DB nerf pales in comparison.
  4. No politics please. I don't care about your politics, I don't want to know about them, and I don't want to talk about them. This isn't the place for that. I don't think there are that many problems with CV's. It's other players here who seem to have problems with them. I think they are overall quite well balanced, although there are a few issues, like there are with all classes. Certainly the most pressing game problems aren't with CV's, or are only mildly related to CV's. I would say the most pressing problem in the game is the DD skill gap, and what that is doing to the DD population. This manifests itself in people saying DD's are underpowered and terrible, and although that is incorrect, that is how many perceive them. The real problem is that DD's are difficult to play well, but have an excessive influence on the game when played well - much like RTS CV's in fact, although nowhere near as bad. Overall though, the game is in a pretty good spot right now. I certainly enjoy playing it, regardless of which class I am playing at the time. Yet there seems to be a disconnect, on these forums anyway, between a fun game that you can be quite successful playing if you learn it well, and the many populist concepts that are commonly expressed. It seems like there's a group of people who feel the world is against them, and aren't happy unless they're in a permanent state of angst over whatever issue has wrought them up on this particular day.
  5. He edited his comment after I posted mine to add the bit you quoted. Previously he just had written the part I posted. I struggle to respond to comments that don't exist. I have plenty of CV experience, and am quite capable at them. My experience in CV's is available for anyone to see on my main account on SEA. Having different opinions to you doesn't mean I "don't understand how carriers work". Every ship is mirrored in randoms. Therefore for every one of those best players who win, there will be a corresponding loss, so I don't actually need to show the bottom player group because they can be inferred from the top group. Not only that, but the top player group shows the full capability of the class when played at the absolute limits of what they are capable of. CV's are statistically less capable of winning the game than other ships. Your comments about "real life facts" I assume mean all those little things that ships do to contribute to their team that aren't reflected in things like damage stats. You're right about those being very important, but these are the things that contribute to the most important stat - win rate. Even with the capability of CV's to limit a DD's play, and spot for their team, and all the other little benefits of playing a CV, they are still overall less capable of winning the game than other classes.
  6. What makes you think I don't understand? Because I disagree with you? Clearly I must be ignorant if I don't agree with you. Perhaps I'm a terrible player... Are you confident you're more capable at this game than I am? That you have more knowledge of how this game works? Is this going to turn into an e-peen contest, or are we actually going to debate the points of the discussion rather than assume I'm bad because I don't hold your views. Of course they understand, it was quite simple. The primary culprit was the strafe mechanic. The ability for a CV player to shut down the offensive capability of the enemy CV completely by out-strafing them, and then have complete air superiority to pick and choose enemy ships to delete as they pleased, combined with the high alpha capability of a skilled player, meant that the skill gap was massive - significantly more than the next best class, which at the time was of course DD's. WG devs said quite often at the time that skill gap was the biggest reason for the CV rework, although obviously not the only one. Now you may like or dislike CV's now, but it's quite clear that they succeeded in bringing the skill gap down to being on par (or actually the equal worst as I proved above). Skill gap is not some arbitrary concept you can make up on your own. It's quite simply the gap between the best players of the class and the worst players of the class. Statistically, as I showed with actual stats from the best players of each class above, CV's are the least influential class on the win (although basically equal to BB's in that regard). This is not some "feels" thing. It's not your perception of the game from the battles you've played recently. It's the actual stats from the game. You can argue you don't like CV's. You can argue you don't find them fun to play or play against. You can argue that they change the clan battle or random meta into one that you don't think is good for the game. These are all reasonable arguments to make. If you're arguing that the actual stats of the game aren't real though, then you may as well be arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth. These are the statistical facts of the game. If you are one of the best CV players in the game, you statistically have less chance of influencing a battle to a win for your team than an equally skilled player of any other class. Hence, CV's are the least powerful ships in the game. Sure, flak is avoidable, although even the best players will clip a burst sometimes. I don't even consider flak in this discussion however, because as you said it's a skill check for the CV. Assuming they can avoid most or all of the flak, AA does its job very effectively. As I said, the role of AA is to provide a time limit to the encounter, and consequences for the decisions of the CV. Can a CV sit over any target indefinitely taking its time to get every single wave off in full? No, and this is due to the AA system. Taken to its balance point, a CV is designed to always get its first strike off unless it is attacking the absolute most powerful of grouped AA. If you think AA isn't a deterrent to CV players attacking certain targets, you're just being deliberately obtuse. Clearly a CV captain isn't going to attack the strongest AA bubbles on the map without very strong motivation, because there are consequences to doing so. The AA of a target area is one of the primary concerns when choosing targets, ingress and egress routes and follow up targets. Sometimes you feel it's necessary to hit targets in high AA zones, and you have to make the decisions as to how you will fly that attack with what plane type, and whether it is actually worth the consequences in plane losses for flying that attack. All of this is due to the AA system. It works as it is designed to, and forces the decisions on the CV player that it is supposed to.
  7. It's not average damage and WR, it's the average of the top 100 players of each class over the last two months. So the absolute elite of the game. This basically gives a snapshot of what the class is capable of when played to the limit. Correspondingly, due to each ship being mirrored in battles, a ship that wins more among the best players, will lose more among the worst players. Therefore these figures give a clear indication of skill gap, as well as quite clearly showing the relative power of each class.
  8. Good point, I haven't checked the stats for a while. Last time I checked towards the start of the year, BB's had the lowest skill gap, with cruisers and CV's roughly the same in the middle, and DD's have the highest skill gap. Skill gap effectively means the better players do better, while the poorer players do worse. Lets do the math shall we. Here are the best 100 players from each class in tiers 7-10 for the last two months. Now we simply import that page into Excel, take the average of each class, and what do we have? DD's - 75.4% win rate, 59.6k damage CA's - 74.3% win rate, 110.1k damage BB's - 72.7% win rate, 124.7k damage CV's - 72.4% win rate, 111.6k damage So things have changed. CV's now have the least skill gap and least effect on the win out of all the classes, basically tied with BB's in that position. CA's and DD's are significantly ahead, with DD's having a huge 3% higher win chance for the best players! That's a massive difference in skill gap. Meanwhile, CV's are second on damage, but basically equal to cruisers, and well behind BB's on damage. DD's, the apparent counter to the class with by far the most health, seem to do less than half the damage of BB's. That pretty conclusively proves that DD's don't counter BB's, if anyone still hadn't worked that out. So taken together CV's have the least influence on the battle, while not even balancing that out like BB's do by doing more damage. Statistically, CV's seem to be a bit weak. They could probably do with a buff overall.
  9. This is nonsense. AA limits your time over the target, which limits how many times you can strike with one squadron and how long you have to set up follow up attacks, if you can get any off at all. It punishes poor CV play. Def AA is most definitely not a joke, the CV gets their time on target cut by a third, that is massive. It also basically deletes any planes that clip a flak cloud. Feel free to not use AA though, and never to equip or use def AA. It's useless anyway apparently, so why even bother turning it on? Firstly, insulting people you don't agree with reflects poorly on you. Are you the sort of person that thinks that is appropriate, or do you just get a bit too emotionally invested and carried away. I hope it's the latter. Ironically, you've thrown about insults while completely misinterpreting what I was saying. The skill gap refers to the difference in skill between the top and bottom sections of the playing population of a single class. Different classes have different skill gaps. The skill gap for RTS CV's was huge, which was the number one reason (out of quite a few) that the rework happened. As I said in my previous comment, the skill gap between the best and worst CV players is about the same as on cruisers, a bit more than BB's, and a bit less than DD's, who remain the most influential class. This makes CV's very well balanced in terms of skill gap.
  10. Moggytwo

    DD, A pointless class

    DD's remain the most influential class in the game, even at high tiers. The added difficulty of CV's, radars, and other threats, combined with DD's having the most extreme consequences of mistakes, plus DD's being responsible for some of the most important aspects of the game like spotting, screening, and capping, is the reason for this. In effect, their vulnerability makes them more important, because good DD players will keep their ships alive and influencing their team towards a win till the end, while the poor DD's die early and thus heavily influence their team towards a loss. So they are very much not pointless, and if you like winning games and are a good player, DD's are a good pick.
  11. They have buffed air concealment a number of times, making spotting for CV's much less oppressive. They are working on buffing it again right now. They have tested player suggested improvements like the minimap only spotting for example (and found that one unacceptable). AA is pretty well balanced, except at T4. The core premise of being able to get the first strike against any ship when alone is a reasonable one, and AA does its job of limiting the time of the engagement and providing consequences for CV mistakes well. Skill gap was the absolute number one reason for the CV rework, which very successfully massively reduced the skill gap. Skill gap of CV's now is about on par with cruisers, putting them with a bigger skill gap than BB's, but a smaller skill gap than the most difficult to play and influential class, DD's. They have redone the autopilot a few times, so they have been attempting to deal with it. Having said that, the CV autopilot is still horrible to use, and often doesn't do what you want. Auto-consumables are not ideal if you're a decent player, but probably fine overall - they certainly aren't a significant issue, most non-CV players wouldn't even be aware of them. Just because they haven't put CV's in a place that is to your personal liking, doesn't mean that they haven't made a huge number of changes over the last year and a half since the CV rework was released. Many of these changes were initially player suggestions. These are facts, not opinions. You can argue the merit of each change by all means, but arguing that they haven't done any changes, or taken player feedback into account when making some changes, is just denying reality.
  12. Moggytwo

    Enterprise Coming back onsale or not

    There are plenty of desirable ships in santa crates, the presence of Enterprise won't matter a bit in overall crate sales. However, if they could sell it on its own again, they would make a pretty decent whack of money out of it - she's one of the most famous ships ever, and she's very forgiving and easy to play. This is a good recipe for lots of sales.
  13. Moggytwo

    Enterprise Coming back onsale or not

    Enterprise may come back. They are giving her an extremely significant nerf of 17% damage reduction for her AP DB's. The intention of this nerf is clearly two-fold - to reduce her power, and to possibly return her to sale - a double win for WG. Whether the nerf will be sufficient to make her balanced enough to sell remains to be seen. She is currently on par in power with Saipan for the best players, but significantly ahead of all other T8 CV's overall due to her simple nature and fast plane respawn making her very forgiving for poor to average players. Saipan will now be the best CV for the best players, but Enterprise will almost certainly be ahead overall. The other factor is the potential upcoming DD air concealment buff. This will hit Enterprise really hard, because her best squadron is her RF's, and they are most effective against DD's. Combine the AP DB nerf with the extreme difficulty of attacking DD's following this potential change, and Enterprise really will be a shadow of her former self. At this point there would be absolutely no issue in returning her to sale, especially since Saipan, Kaga, and GZ all are are built around their torp bombers, which will be unaffected by any upcoming changes. I wouldn't be surprised to see Enterprise on sale in the last quarter of this year, but this is speculation on my part based on my reasoning of game play changes going forward. I may well be wrong here, only time will tell.
  14. You're well aware that the live server gives them more and better data than the test server. CV's were always going to be unbalanced at rework release, this wasn't a surprise, the whole point of the release was to assess them and rebalance them once the data started coming in. They released multiple hotfixes over the first couple of patches (as they said they were going to do before the rework), and had most of the major balance issues sorted after a month or two. You said above they ignored all suggestions from day one of the CV rework. Nothing you've countered with there changes the fact that this is an objectively false statement, many times over. They of course reviewed the CV rework release, and have clearly learnt from this as displayed by the sub initial introduction to the live server being in their own mode. Clearly they should have done this with the initial CV live server release, but that's the point of an iterative process - you review and improve. Subs will still be unbalanced on release, even with the separate mode live server testing, but they will do what they always do, review and balance where appropriate. Their process seems pretty reasonable to me. They're doing exactly the same thing with CV's in clan battles now. Review the data and feedback, work out problem areas, consider where improvements could be made and what those improvements could be, test various possibilities, then introduce to live the fixes that seem most effective. Then they go through the process all over again, because that's the point of iterating - it just keeps going. This is not unpredictable. It's literally the same process every patch. It works well, and the game keeps slowly improving. Yet every day I read about how everything is falling apart, regardless of what the problems of the day are. Some players seem to exist in this constant state of shock, angst, and negativity, while WG dispassionately keeps on being entirely predictable and reasonable in their actions.
×