Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
LT_AFK

WG's treatment towards CV players is straight up outrageous

131 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

610
[-K-]
Beta Testers
1,791 posts
7,790 battles

WG, we seriously need to talk about one of your customer group: CV players.

Yes they are minor, yes they are often hated among other "mains" but we are still your customers. We buy your products and we use your products.

We are not less valued than BB main nor we do not spend less money than Cruiser main.

Yet you guys never treat us the same as others.

 

You guys said 2016 will be a great year for carrier, however we all remember CV's got rather in a worse situation.

- Internation balance was broken

- terrible UI and Bug which comes all the way from CBT and Alpha didn't get fixed at all

- skill gap became larger

- no new CV except for 1 single ridiculously broken premium.

- refuse to address problems

 

Great, how can we get worse?

 

Yet you guys did it again in 2017

- Introduction of Kaga made any tier 7 regular tech tree CV completely pointless to play except for grinding.

- Current state of Graf Zeppelin and her release made it very clear that none of you guys at balance department have a single idea how carrier is played or should be played.

- The promised CV rework isn't coming at all. We haven't heard a single word about it. Don't get started with the supposed "UI-rework" in the yearly of this year which was basically just swap of RMB and LMB

- You promised USN CV balance rework in few patches all the way back  in June 2017(QnA 15th June 2017), we still got nothing. Ranger and Lexington are still in their pathetic state.

- Another year without new CV branch, suppose we are probably getting no CV rework again this year.

Spoiler

Next CV tech tree will be British, but no comment on when they'll come. We still need to rework the CV gameplay before that anyway. IJN Tone is also tied to this rework, as are other hybrid vessels, meaning they'll certainly not come before the CV rework is done.

from:

 

 

 

- All the problems from 2016 are still existent and didn't get addressed at all

- Even larger skill gap through fighter engagement denial

 

This isn't amusing at all, WG. We are customers, yet you neglect, ignore and offer unfinished products to us. You should seriously reconsider what your priorities are. New branches are cool but you are completely ignoring the fact that you are taking promise to your customers very lightly. Even if you have no idea how to fix CV, there are tons of I mean really TONS of very good and decent player made rework CV proposals.

You have no excuse here. Address your promises and problems first, then bring out premium CV or whatever money grabber you want.

  • Cool 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183
[NOVA]
Members
11,026 posts

CVs do not belong in a surface combat game.

 

They're not fun to play except under very specific conditions, and they CAN NOT be made to be fun to play due to the sheer difference in soft power between a CV and a surface ship.

 

CVs will never work in a symmetric PvP format.

 

Either relegate them to bots, or implement a fully asymmetric game mode for them (i.e. CVs vs attackers).

Edited by issm
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,504
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,988 posts
5,724 battles

They systematically ignore the CV issue in every Q/A, in favor of refusing to add 4k support for some reason for the twentieth time.

 

It's pretty great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,023
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,043 posts
11,539 battles

They don't know how to fix them is the problem, and I've seen enough CV threads to make me believe that CV players have no unbiased, un -selfserving way to fix them either.,

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

A perfectly reasonable interim fix would be literally to mirror USN loadouts with IJN loadouts, except to add variety the USN trades a squad of torpedo bombers for dive bombers. That would be so damn simple and balanced and it allows the class to be balanced in the interim while they work out their CV rework. But for some reason they won't do that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[SPTR]
Members
3,459 posts
5,674 battles

Spec your Hood for full AA. Solves all your problems.

YQ6pWex.jpg?1

Spoiler

They see me trolling'...They hatin'.....:Smile_playing:

 

Edited by The_first_harbinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,780 posts
5,642 battles

And I do not believe the cv's should be mirrored, Nation's built ships for different reasons and reflecting those reasons is what keeps this game from being a FPS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
299 posts
5,019 battles
35 minutes ago, Treediagram said:

WG, we seriously need to talk about one of your customer group: CV players.

Yes they are minor, yes they are often hated among other "mains" but we are still your customers. We buy your products and we use your products.

We are not less valued than BB main nor we do not spend less money than Cruiser main.

Yet you guys never treat us the same as others.

 

You guys said 2016 will be a great year for carrier, however we all remember CV's got rather in a worse situation.

- Internation balance was broken

- terrible UI and Bug which comes all the way from CBT and Alpha didn't get fixed at all

- skill gap became larger

- no new CV except for 1 single ridiculously broken premium.

- refuse to address problems

 

Great, how can we get worse?

 

Yet you guys did it again in 2017

- Introduction of Kaga made any tier 7 regular tech tree CV completely pointless to play except for grinding.

- Current state of Graf Zeppelin and her release made it very clear that none of you guys at balance department have a single idea how carrier is played or should be played.

- The promised CV rework isn't coming at all. We haven't heard a single word about it. Don't get started with the supposed "UI-rework" in the yearly of this year which was basically just swap of RMB and LMB

- You promised USN CV balance rework in few patches all the way back  in June 2017(QnA 15th June 2017), we still got nothing. Ranger and Lexington are still in their pathetic state.

- Another year without new CV branch, suppose we are probably getting no CV rework again this year.

  Reveal hidden contents

Next CV tech tree will be British, but no comment on when they'll come. We still need to rework the CV gameplay before that anyway. IJN Tone is also tied to this rework, as are other hybrid vessels, meaning they'll certainly not come before the CV rework is done.

from:

 

 

 

- All the problems from 2016 are still existent and didn't get addressed at all

- Even larger skill gap through fighter engagement denial

 

This isn't amusing at all, WG. We are customers, yet you neglect, ignore and offer unfinished products to us. You should seriously reconsider what your priorities are. New branches are cool but you are completely ignoring the fact that you are taking promise to your customers very lightly. Even if you have no idea how to fix CV, there are tons of I mean really TONS of very good and decent player made rework CV proposals.

You have no excuse here. Address your promises and problems first, then bring out premium CV or whatever money grabber you want.

Problem is not cvs bbs dds cruisers being unbalanced 

The main problem with this and many other online games is the lack of teamwork and this idiotic idea that everyone should be a lone wolf and be able to kill anything on the battlefield.......... sorry but naval warfare required many different ships to deal with many different problems....thats why we have so many different types of ships......

 

A good example of a game that does this well is team fortress 2.......but imagine the chaos in team fortress 2 if they  allowed the mechanic to detect spies with his auto turrets.......

 

what they need to do is give these ships their respective strengths and weaknesses back and just tell this poopy community to learn to work together rather then listen to them whine that their (insert any ship here) cant take on and kill 14 ships on its own

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183
[NOVA]
Members
11,026 posts
7 minutes ago, Sn0vvman said:

The main problem with this and many other online games is the lack of teamwork and this idiotic idea that everyone should be a lone wolf and be able to kill anything on the battlefield.......... sorry but naval warfare required many different ships to deal with many different problems....thats why we have so many different types of ships......

 

Teamwork will kill CVs more effectively than any nerf.

 

Teamwork = no fly zones, and if everything's inside a no fly zone, CV can't do anything.

 

Teamwork is also crap for everyone else. Groups mean focused fire, which means no one gets close enough for the game to be interesting.

 

The suggestion to nerf gun arcs does nothing but push the standoff closer together. Equally boring, just closer.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KNTAI]
Members
3,125 posts
7,558 battles
39 minutes ago, issm said:

-snip

CV's are an integral part of the game, and they should be balanced properly for everyone's sake. Hopefully they get there at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[SAA]
Members
822 posts
26,877 battles
40 minutes ago, issm said:

CVs do not belong in a surface combat game.

 

They're not fun to play except under very specific conditions, and they CAN NOT be made to be fun to play due to the sheer difference in soft power between a CV and a surface ship.

 

CVs will never work in a symmetric PvP format.

 

Either relegate them to bots, or implement a fully asymmetric game mode for them (i.e. CVs vs attackers).

this^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
89
[WFSDL]
Members
610 posts
8,312 battles

Bring back manual drop to T4-5. Balance load outs to CV's, i.e., 3-1-1, 2-2-2, 1-3-1, 1-1-3, all CV's having the same option of load out. And less of a difference in DP and HP on fighters,etc.. Thus making it more skill based, rather than the Japs have more planes, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183
[NOVA]
Members
11,026 posts
2 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Amagi said:

CV's are an integral part of the game,

 

Hardly. Last time I bothered calculating, CVs are only in like, a 5th of high tier matches, and whatever problems exist there are not there because of CVs.

 

Are the integral to WW2? Sure. 

 

But this is not a WW2 game.

 

This is a surface combat game.

 

CVs are about as relevant to surface combat as tanks and shore artillery were.

 

7 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Amagi said:

they should be balanced properly for everyone's sake. Hopefully they get there at some point.

 

It is literally not possible to balance a CV in a way that makes everyone happy.

 

Even if you fixed EVERY SINGLE UI PROBLEM, CVs still have so many critical issues you would never be able to fix them all.

 

For a start, any fix to an overpowered class WILL be a nerf, which will piss off a good number of our unicum "friends" who like having their clubs.

 

Leaving them as a RTS class gives them all of the flexibility and vision they have now. To make that balanced with the rest of the game would require you to nerf their damage output to such a degree that they would no longer be fun.

The current "solution" to the problem that WG decided on is mirror MM. CVs are OP, so you put one on each side so both sides have an OP ship.

Thing is, the "solution" does not work.

The first problem is that players are not all the same, and as such, not all CVs are equally OP. This is where all of the "skill imbalance" complaints come from.

Second problem, even if you balance it statistically in terms of win %, players aren't playing the game statistically. They play it one battle at a time, and "balancing" CVs with mirror MM still makes them OP, and no fun to play against in any single given engagement. 

 

Any solution where you leave CVs as an RTS class will leave the majority of surface ship players unsatisfied.

 

While there is a minority of people (who almost universally play AA heavy ships) who do enjoy CVs, it's important to keep in mind WHY they enjoy having CVs: They enjoy shooting down the planes - something that just makes the game not fun for the CVs - problem still not solved.

 

Trying to remove the insane vision and flexibility pushes CVs away from the RTS style, which pisses off all of the people who enjoy it.

 

It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to fix CVs in a symmetrical PvP format.

 

The sooner WG accepts this, the sooner they can start trying to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KNTAI]
Members
3,125 posts
7,558 battles
1 minute ago, issm said:

 

-snip

I still think it can be done, with the right mindset. You can't remove a class that's been on the game since the very beginning, it'd be dumb. It just wouln't be WoWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
101
[HYDRA]
Members
500 posts
2,510 battles

Oh dear, the BB mains are out in force.

CVs need a major rework, especially USN CVs.  Playing Ranger in her current state almost makes me want to quit CV play altogether.  

Of course, that's what you want, right?  Because "Battleships are the center of the fleet, supposed to be indestructible, makes every other class useless".  Yeah, I direct you to the word "Fleet".  You need escorts.  Go off alone and you deserve what's coming, even if it doesn't come from the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
101
[HYDRA]
Members
500 posts
2,510 battles
Just now, lemekillmister said:

Simple: Then don't play them.  Just stop.  You'll be doing most of us a favor, thanks. 

You realize the only thing that keeps me going on them is people like you, right?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183
[NOVA]
Members
11,026 posts
4 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Amagi said:

I still think it can be done, with the right mindset. You can't remove a class that's been on the game since the very beginning, it'd be dumb. It just wouln't be WoWs.

 

Have you ever heard of the Sunk Cost Fallacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,331 posts
8,055 battles
6 minutes ago, DoctorMcDerp said:

You realize the only thing that keeps me going on them is people like you, right?

 

 

That says a lot more about you than anything about me.  YOLO those USN CVs!

 

P.S. haven't played a BB for at least a month. 

Edited by lemekillmister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
101
[HYDRA]
Members
500 posts
2,510 battles
Just now, lemekillmister said:

 

 

That says a lot more about you than anything about me. 

 

Eh, it gives me a reason to play, or at least to slog through the pain and suffering that is Ranger.  You see, typically, when people complain about CVs, it's because they die a lot to them.  Now, why is that?  Perhaps you split of from the main group.  Perhaps you got a bit to greedy chasing after my teammates or with the cap.  All of those are the little things that I punish.  All of those are things I love to see.  All of those are things that get me kills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,227
[RKLES]
Members
7,113 posts
8,767 battles

These days not sure what I would call my main, perhaps BBs, but I use all 4 ship classes heavily though.

Have hundreds of CV battles to my name which is the reason I make sure many of my BBs and CAs have decent to good AA lol.

 

Not sure if the following idea would be a good fix or not. 

What I have noticed happening is in many battles a CV will get killed by enemy fighters so many CVs now seem to feel they need to be AS load out which weakens their surface attack power. And also weakens their ability to defend themselves from  DDs hunting them. So my thought is what if Fighters get removed at least for a little while and replaced with more bomber squadrons?

While it may turn out to be a disaster which is why I would recommend it be on a trial basis for a while to see, but it would make CVs more focused on providing fire support instead of spending most or all of the battle running fighters around.

Also this would give AA escort ships some value again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×