Why is the "high skill ceiling" of CVs frowned upon? (Discussion)

[Speedstang]

Okay be warned, this is somewhat of a rant, but this has been driving me insane since I first played CVs, and I want to know other people's thoughts on the matter. Here is my view on the situation. You can look up my CV stats if you wish. I may not have a T10, but I believe I've played enough battles to accurately make a statement on this.

 

Wargaming, time and time again, continues to show that they do not like the so-called "high skill ceiling" of carriers or the fact that a very skilled player can dominate a poor one. This can most recently be seen in their decision to exclude carriers from clan battles. My question is, quite simply, why? Is it not a good thing to promote victory through player skill rather than other factors, such as luck? If a very skilled player can dominate a poor one is that not a good thing? Why should a very poor player be able to match and extremely experienced player? Personally, I absolutely enjoy carriers because of this fact. Carrier performance is very reliant on skill, more so than any other class. A poor CV player will do much worse than a poor player of any other class, but a good CV player has a chance to turn the tide of battle of a losing team.

 

Okay, I can already see this coming, so I will address this first. Many claim that carriers are overpowered because of their very high capabilities in the hands of a skilled player. I cannot disagree with this enough. Even if your own CV player is very poor and is dominated by the enemy CV, that doesn't exactly declare the match a loss for you. The carrier very much still needs its team 's support in order to not be located or left alone and promptly sunk. And while it may be able to delete lone ships, it is nearly impossible to attack a well-organized enemy fleet. If AA heavy ships are in proper positions and everyone is relatively close together, it is extremely difficult to even allow the planes to drop their ordinance, much less survive the drop. I say this from first-hand experience.

 

The above essentially addresses the situation in in random battles, but what about ranked battles? Well, while there may be smaller groups of people with less combined AA, they are now in similarly skilled matchmaking (save for the first few ranks), meaning both carriers should have similar capabilities and will be able to fight and contest each other in the air. The rest of the team together still puts up a formidable AA defense even without any dedicated AA ships and is not doomed if their allied CV happens to fail.

 

In short, CV's are not overpowered by any means, they simply can punish people who are doing things very wrong, but what ship can't do this? A broadside cruiser or battleship is a free citadel to the same ship of the enemy, and a yolo charging destroyer at the start of the match isn't going to last very long to enemy destroyers and cruisers.

 

Now, on to the exclusion of CVs from clan battles. This is extremely illogical. For one thing, what clan would allow a poor CV player to join them in battle? And at the same time, at T10 there aren't exactly many poor CV players, save for people who free xp'ed the line without ever having played a carrier. Each clan would only bring a carrier player if they knew that person was good at it. And matchmaking requires that the enemy also have a carrier, and that carrier will also have been allowed by the clan because they were good at it. So, contrary to WG's claims that "carriers provide perfect reconnaissance", the carriers would be much too busy engaging each other and dancing with enemy fighters to constantly keep every enemy ship spotted 24/7. Not to mention T10 AA is very formidable, and the clan will only face a carrier if they bring a carrier, so cruisers will know if they should be packing defensive fire.

 

Personally, I have found carriers far more fun to play than any other class in the game. I began with battleships, going up the line. They were alright. I was terrible at cruisers and destroyers. Then I decided to try the Langley, despite all the claims I'd heard about USN CVs being underpowered. And I hated it at first. I was terrible. Nevertheless, I eventually gathered enough xp for the Bogue, and started using it. Once again, I was terrible. But this time I didn't move on when I gathered the necessary xp, I kept using the ship, and I managed to make the list of top players for the ship on the server. From there I started moving up the tiers. As broken as CVs may be considered, I still find them very fun to play, and I constantly find myself devoting more and more time to them than other classes. I love the challenge they provide, and the huge emphasis on skill they place. The class values player skill more so than any other, and this is an extremely good thing. Now, this is not to say CVs are perfect. CVs DO need changes. There are many inconsistencies and balancing issues. However, they are not broken or overpowered or anything else extreme by any means. Just because the class appeals to a smaller amount of people than others does not mean it is broken.

 

So my question is this: Why is there so much hate on the high skill ceiling of carriers? Why are they considered broken or overpowered or other extremes? Why is victory through player skill discouraged rather than encouraged? This is something that we should see more in all classes, not just CVs. Why is seemingly everyone against this?

 

 

[pikohan]

I don't think the high skill ceiling is a problem, it's the disproportionately large effect a super-skilled or super-unskilled CV player can have on a game.

[awiggin]

The only reason you're confused, is that you seem to honestly believe there is a significant hardcore base in this game, when all evidence seems to point to the opposite. 

WG can't continue to play to the few hardcore players left in this game and keep enough of a player base to fill the queues.

Tier 10 rentals for Clan wars is simply more evidence of this, players don't want to grind to tier 10, so they have to offer rentals, just to swell the numbers in Clan battles.

Odds are, it won't help....

[GuntherPrein]

Its because one day I was all alone at the side of a map in my DD and then all of a sudden madness some Hak planes perma spotted me nooo this cant be its unfair I was supposed to be unseen all the way up the map until I sunk that CV all by myself, so me and my friends mad 10 000 posts a week about how CV ruin MY game play and are OP against MY ship all alone by itself and they need nerf bats  because there is no way a single ship should dominate ME ALONE with my wasd skills and map awareness

[Zhoyzu]

Its not even a skill ceiling of the CVs or CV players. its the skill ceiling of the surface ship players. those without any map/situational awareness get deleted then cry OP.

"well am i just supposed to broadside those yamatos?!?" Yes actually because they are probably far away and are strongly enslaved by RNG. you're less likely to die broadsiding the enemy team than you are to a CV strike. In most cases people just sit there acting like they couldnt have done anything.

When you play CVs you can tell which surface ships also play CVs because they mitigate most of the damage if not entirely.

Due to the "RTS-ness" of CVs the only way to get better is by playing against better and in general just having more experiences with the class.

[Zhoyzu]

3 minutes ago, awiggin said:

The only reason you're confused, is that you seem to honestly believe there is a significant hardcore base in this game, when all evidence seems to point to the opposite. 

WG can't continue to play to the few hardcore players left in this game and keep enough of a player base to fill the queues.

Tier 10 rentals for Clan wars is simply more evidence of this, players don't want to grind to tier 10, so they have to offer rentals, just to swell the numbers in Clan battles.

Odds are, it won't help....

i must have missed some patch notes are they really giving T10 rentals???

[awiggin]

Just now, Zhoyzu said:

i must have missed some patch notes are they really giving T10 rentals???

 

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/clan-destine/

[Zhoyzu]

Just now, awiggin said:

 

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/clan-destine/

thanks

[Speedstang]

Just now, Zhoyzu said:

Its not even a skill ceiling of the CVs or CV players. its the skill ceiling of the surface ship players. those without any map/situational awareness get deleted then cry OP.

"well am i just supposed to broadside those yamatos?!?" Yes actually because they are probably far away and are strongly enslaved by RNG. you're less likely to die broadsiding the enemy team than you are to a CV strike. In most cases people just sit there acting like they couldnt have done anything.

When you play CVs you can tell which surface ships also play CVs because they mitigate most of the damage if not entirely.

Due to the "RTS-ness" of CVs the only way to get better is by playing against better and in general just having more experiences with the class.

7

My point is shouldn't that be encouraged? You just said yourself a CV has minimal effect on a player that knows what he's doing vs one that doesn't. Isn't promoting victory through skill something that should be encouraged?

 

5 minutes ago, awiggin said:

The only reason you're confused, is that you seem to honestly believe there is a significant hardcore base in this game, when all evidence seems to point to the opposite. 

WG can't continue to play to the few hardcore players left in this game and keep enough of a player base to fill the queues.

Tier 10 rentals for Clan wars is simply more evidence of this, players don't want to grind to tier 10, so they have to offer rentals, just to swell the numbers in Clan battles.

Odds are, it won't help....

2

I mean, I get that not everyone is a super-unicum going for maximum WTR, but I don't know who would play a game without working to be a better player than they currently are.

[awiggin]

1 minute ago, Speedstang said:

 

I mean, I get that not everyone is a super-unicum going for maximum WTR, but I don't know who would play a game without working to be a better player than they currently are.

 

You're asking me? 

I'm simply stating the facts as I see them, not saying I think it's good...I'd personally like to see more team play, I find the solo game mentality fairly frustrating.

I've been playing games online before the days of the Internet, when BBS's were king, and people were friendly. And I honestly can say I've never played a game that has as many seemingly casual, fearful players as this one.

Perhaps it's the age, I'm 60, I don't play this game hours a day because I can't, the average age on this server is around 40 last I heard. Many older players are not going to take a game as seriously as young ones, but not that many young players will stick with a slow moving game like this one. 

Far too many players treat this like a phone game, sail ships, shoot stuff and move on. But this is who the player base is, and I don't see it changing...not two years out of beta...

[Dr_Powderfinger]

My only issue with high-skill CV captains is when I have a ship(usually a BB) with poor AA capabilities and/or manueverability.

If the BB and the CV have equal skill, the CV can cross-torp the BB and have him dead in one or two sorties if the ship does not have the native AA or manueverabilty to defend itself.  Just sticking around other ships that have good AA is not a high-skill ceiling defense, it's an extremely low one.  You can spec your ship and captain for max AA, but if it doesn't have good AA capabilities to begin with that is an inefficient exercise. It's also relatively low-skill and "automatic", even if you have good AA...not much more you can do other than manual targeting if your ships is big/doesn't turn well. There just aren't many "high-skill" counters to CVs that know what they are doing in that scenario and want you dead.

In many ships and circumastances I don't even have the option to use my skill to defend myself properly, much less to actually defeat the skilled CV unless he screwed up and got spotted in my range.

[_WaveRider_]

2 hours ago, pikohan said:

I don't think the high skill ceiling is a problem, it's the disproportionately large effect a super-skilled or super-unskilled CV player can have on a game.

Very much this as far as I can see.

 

Again Cvs are very powerful in game - too powerful in many cases, take a look at the stats. It is time that WG addressesd CVs, how? (just a suggestion):

 

1. Even up the nations better; the Japanese can be stronger in the TB area, US in the AP DBs area. The nations shouldn't be wildly different in strength at each tier, yes they can have their own  style, but should be evenly match.

2. Tie-in plane health with CV HP. If the CV is attacking then it should risk its HP like every other class. If all your planes are destroyed then you are dead - not aircraft used but aircraft lost to enemy fire. This is fair IMO.

3. To stop a good CV player taking advantage of a lesser skilled one (and exploiting point #2), all CVs should have very good AA and a free Combat Air Patrol. One CV should not be able to destroy another through direct attack (its a game - it needs balance).

4. Consider extending reload times. Stats show CVs have high kill rates. By extending the reload you bring a more balanced approach.

 

#1 Makes CVs more balanced.

#2 Balances the survival stats and means CVs take the same risks as everyone else.

#3 Does not stop a CV player, playing skillfully across the map to beat another CV player, but it does stop them instakilling the enemy. Sky battles will take place over the map, not the CV. Good CV players can still be good and lesser skilled can stay alive long enough to learn.

#4 balances the kill rate of CVs. It also will address the affect of Adrenaline Rush and the Plane - HP tie in. Yep, AR should be something CVs can use to good effect if we expect them to take risks like the other ship types.

 

My thoughts; happy to discuss. 

[Ascinius]

1 hour ago, _WaveRider_ said:

2. Tie-in plane health with CV HP. If the CV is attacking then it should risk its HP like every other class. If all your planes are destroyed then you are dead - not aircraft used but aircraft lost to enemy fire. This is fair IMO.

 

You don't play CV do you? If you kill all of a CV's planes it is effectively dead. Beyond that, why should a CV be further punished for trying to scout near a Minotaur or another such AA gunboat. If you want any of the changes you proposed then you should add nerfing AA on all surface ships to your list.

 

3 hours ago, pikohan said:

I don't think the high skill ceiling is a problem, it's the disproportionately large effect a super-skilled or super-unskilled CV player can have on a game.

Do you understand what a skill ceiling is? If both CV's are crapthen nothing happens, if both are good each one kills 1 or 2 enemy ships which is pretty standard for any skilled ship. The real problem comes when there is a skill gap between the CV players or when a CV messes up and gets wiped out due to positioning and or some other mistake.

 

I agree with Speedstang, the tier 10 AA in conjunction with actual teamwork that might be possible with clan coordination would result in minimising the effects generated by CVs. As far as the skill differential goes, most teams probably wont bring a bad CV and risk losing not that many CV players are wven willing to play tier 10 matches anyways.

 

Edited PS: Im glad that someone else is upset by this decision.

[_WaveRider_]

6 minutes ago, Ascinius said:

 

You don't play CV do you? If you kill all of a CV's planes it is effectively dead.

You really don't get balance do you? Now see, we can both make silly comments, but lets try any discuss the points made instead yeah?

If you kill a CVs planes and it can't do anything more, why should the endgame of a match equate to chase the CV? If a ships has had all its guns blown off its probably dead too! Every ship has to chance taking damage when it attacks - why should a CV be different?

Beyond that, why should a CV be further punished for trying to scout near a Minotaur or another such AA gunboat. If you want any of the changes you proposed then you should add nerfing AA on all surface ships to your list.

Further punished? Why is a DD punished for scouting when an enemy ship has a radar? This is a war game, there is risk in everything - why do you feel the CV should not take risk?

If AA becomes a massive problem then yes, I agree - that's called balance. However, I find in the DDs and CAs I play their damage isn't as good or is about the same as the damage that the planes do to me - isn't that fair/balanced?

Also if a ship is built as an AA ship, then keep away from it - just as a DD keeps away from CV planes and radar ships.

This isn't punishment - its the game!

 

6 minutes ago, Ascinius said:

Do you understand what a skill ceiling is? If both CV's are crapthen nothing happens, if both are good each one kills 1 or 2 enemy ships which is pretty standard for any skilled ship. The real problem comes when there is a skill gap between the CV players or when a CV messes up and gets wiped out due to positioning and or some other mistake.

I've stated that CV should have good AA and an Air Cap to protect it from being sniped by another CV. This means the CV players fight over the waters not above the enemy CV - yes a good player will beat a bad one in the end, but I'm not looking to penalise a good player - just give the less skilled player a chance to learn.

I agree with Speedstang, the tier 10 AA in conjunction with actual teamwork that might be possible with clan coordination would result in minimising the effects generated by CVs. As far as the skill differential goes, most teams probably wont bring a bad CV and risk losing not that many CV players are wven willing to play tier 10 matches anyways.

I've already stated my 'Clan Wars' thoughts on another thread and do not believe CVs should be excluded - simply I just said 2 teams of 12: 1x CV, 3xBBs, 5x CAs, 3x DDs. Very off the cuff but my main point was that WG really needs to engage with the community.

Edited PS: Im glad that someone else is upset by this decision.

 

[Ascinius]

@_WaveRider_ please work on your quoting format. 

1) I do understand what balance is. Balance is a CV's inability to win a game by capturing objectives or dodge any concentraited attacks. (Im not saying fix this im saying the trade off to punishing any stray ship is the capacity to be punished for being agressive with positioning)

 

2) If a CV wants to agressively attack a ship it needs to move closer to the battle in order to reduce reload times and this is where the attack/risk balance comes into play. Your argument of it attacks so it must be put in danger is flawed as a BB attacking a cruiser at range is not in danger of being shot at by the cruiser. Furthermore, CVs are again limited by time because going around the map to mislead enemy forces into thinking you are in another location further lengthens reequiping times. Whereas the opposite adds to the risk of being discovered by litterally leading enemy ships back to your position with a trail of planes.

 

3) No, DDs are punished by losing HP for scouting and CVs are punished with the loss of overall defensive and or strike capability by scouting, and again, the mechanic shooting down planes runs automatically... as in there is no skill required to do any damage to planes, you simply have to be there. Balanced? Probably not, unless you also propose the manual control of ALL AA mounts on ALL ships to the point where you have to lead your shots on the planes. Hurting a CV when you shoot them down (beyond eliminating its attack and defend capability) is just a stupid idea.

*For the same token, a DD does not loose torpedo tubes as it scouts enemy locations.

 

4) CVs in my experience do not need stronger AA to deal with CV stikes and performing a CV stike is such a huge waste of time. On average imcluding the time it takes to circumnavigate the enemy team it takes about 6-7 minutes to make it to the enemy CV and even then if they dont realize what is going on and pull a fighter group or start turning to minimize damage it is still possible to not kill the CV in one go. THE ONLY TIME that a CV strike is worth it is when you can gaurantee their destruction because the ammount of time wasted to fly out, strike, and return is not worth it if they can still carry out attacks. 

 

In conclusion, I highly recommend that you actually play CV and realize how rediculous your "fixes" would be to the gameplay :)

[_WaveRider_]

2 minutes ago, Ascinius said:

@_WaveRider_ please work on your quoting format. 

I addressed each point directly after your quote - how would you like me to format my replies?

1) I do understand what balance is. Balance is a CV's inability to win a game by capturing objectives or dodge any concentraited attacks. (Im not saying fix this im saying the trade off to punishing any stray ship is the capacity to be punished for being agressive with positioning)

Actually I've seen many CVs take caps - they're objectives aren't they? Take a look at the stats CVs do very well, I don't think they are a disadvantaged party here.

2) If a CV wants to agressively attack a ship it needs to move closer to the battle in order to reduce reload times and this is where the attack/risk balance comes into play.

If any ship wants to attack they need to get in range of guns and risk being attacked right back. This risk is already taken by all other ship types.

Your argument of it attacks so it must be put in danger is flawed as a BB attacking a cruiser at range is not in danger of being shot at by the cruiser. Furthermore, CVs are again limited by time because going around the map to mislead enemy forces into thinking you are in another location further lengthens reequiping times. Whereas the opposite adds to the risk of being discovered by litterally leading enemy ships back to your position with a trail of planes.

That isn't my argument, please quote correctly - If a ship comes into range in order to attack it runs the risk of being attacked. There are other ships that can attack the BB that is firing on the CA - another BB, a long range CA (such as the Kutz), a sneaky DD, or even a CV!

3) No, DDs are punished by losing HP for scouting and CVs are punished with the loss of overall defensive and or strike capability by scouting, and again, the thing shooting down planes runs automatically... as in there is no skill required to do any damage to planes, you simply have to be there. Balanced? Probably not, unless you also propose the manual control of ALL AA mounts on ALL ships down to having to shoot and lead enemy planes.

*For the same token, a DD does not loose torpedo tubes as it scouts enemy locations.

DDs can be killed for scouting - simple as that. If they are it could be attributed to bad luck or bad play (who knows). The more HP loss the more conservative the play, until there is no more DD - a bit like CVs then!

 

There is no skill in shooting down planes, there is no skill in firing off and watching torps go 'straight', there is no skill in secondaries, there is no skill in everyone seeing a ship when one does, there is no skill when a radar sees everything in range (even through land mass). There are a lot of areas that suffer from the game mechanics taking charge - I've already

4) CVs in my experience do not need stronger AA to deal with CV stikes and performing a CV stike is such a huge waste of time. On average imcluding the time it takes to circumnavigate the enemy team it takes about 6-7 minutes to make it to the enemy CV and even then if they dont realize what is going on and pull a fighter group or start turning to minimize damage it is still possible to not kill the CV in one go. THE ONLY TIME that a CV strike is worth it is when you can gaurantee their destruction because the ammount of time wasted to fly out, strike, and return is not worth it if they can still carry out attacks. 

Well your experience does not seem to be the factor complained about a lot on this forum - a good player destroying a poor player and having reign to sway the balance in game. However, that is not to say you are wrong - so the fact that a CV is uber protected won't really matter will it. It wil just come down to the battle over the map and not the CVs. Everyone happy.

In conclusion, I highly recommend that you actually play CV and realize how rediculous your "fixes" would be to the gameplay :)

In conclusion, you may like to try playing other ships and consider balance.  You have made no points that have disproved any of mine. Please try harder, I am willing to take your views if you actually address where you believe mine are wrong.

 

[cometguy]

10 hours ago, Zhoyzu said:

When you play CVs you can tell which surface ships also play CVs because they mitigate most of the damage if not entirely.

Yep. I have about 1500 games in CVs, and about 750 games in everything else. One time a CV sunk me in a BB. A CV has never sunk me in a cruiser or destroyer.

[Ascinius]

@_WaveRider_ to start, the best way to use a quotation in this forum is to reply outside of the quote box so you can in turn be quoted. In lieu of you doing that i will be copying and pasting your replies.

 

1) "Actually I've seen many CVs take caps - they're objectives aren't they? Take a look at the stats CVs do very well, I don't think they are a disadvantaged party here."

I refer to my previous comment of, "Im not saying fix this im saying the trade off to punishing any stray ship is the capacity to be punished for being agressive with positioning." To elaborate more on this I stated that a CV would be unable to win a game by itself through points. Imagine this: If a CV at full health who lost all of his strike planes (and was therefore unable to win by killing the enemy) went up against any other ship within 2 tiers of it (standard tier spread in random) and both sides had equal points. The CV would be unable to win because pushing a capture would allow the enemy to immediately know where the CV is and it could go destroy it to win the game. Whereas different results would be generated by different ships, CV's lack the speed or manueverability to engage and survive against any ship without being able to destroy that ship with its strike aircraft. 

 

Again a CV is not designed to push points, sure you CAN capture a point in a CV if it is uncontested or if there are minimal threats at the point, But this means that a CVs capacity to impact the game is limited to killing ships and scouting them for the rest of your team to eliminate.

 

I am not saying disadvantaged I am saying balanced. 

 

2) "If a ship comes into range in order to attack it runs the risk of being attacked 

 

 "If a CV wants to agressively attack a ship it needs to move closer to the battle in order to reduce reload times and this is where the attack/risk balance comes into play."

 

Again I already adressed this point but I can explain it more. Yes CV's can lazily attack enemy forces across the map, but in order to have a huge impact on the game positiining becomes important. The closer you can get to the battle without being spotted the more effective you are. To a CV you are not truly limited by plane count, you are limited by time. Time to target, time on target, return time, and reloading time are all factors that limit how much damage a CV can do. The only reason a CV would take a riskier attack and sacrifice planes might be because waiting for a "better" moment sacrifices more time. That is to say as a CV player you need to balance how much time you waste on a strike with how many planes you predict you will lose. This is proven by the fact that CV players are sometimes willing to lose entire squadrons because the reload time is faster than the return time.

 

The point being in order to maximize effect the CV needs to be agressive with positioning in order to increase how many attacks they can carry out. 

 

3.1)  "a bit like CVs then!" yes, that was my point, to draw that parallel.

 

3.2) "There is no skill in shooting down planes, there is no skill in firing off and watching torps go 'straight', there is no skill in secondaries, there is no skill in everyone seeing a ship when one does, there is no skill when a radar sees everything in range (even through land mass)." 

 

Adressing this in order: 

Torps, there is no skill in watching them go strait but there is skill and risk involved in actually hitting the enemy with said torps. Sure the game helps you lead them but aiming exactly where the game tells you to does not yield the best results. I assume i do not need evidence here as there are plenty of other sources you can look up to find out how to drop torps more effectively based on the white lines. That being said, sure you CAN get a hit by just launching them but to usw them to the best effect you need skills developed by playing ships with torps.

 

Secondaries require skills in that the positioning of your ship relative to the enemy ship determines how effective they are. Yes you can hit the enemy without doing anything, but to use them to their best effect it is a balance between exposing yourself to damage and exposing your enemy to the greatest number of guns ie turning to the side. Again, a minor player assited task can impact how effective this mechanic is.

 

Radar and just generally seeing other ships both balance risk and reward in that in order to see you risk being seen. If you are in radar range you are also most likely in torp range. To use this mechanic to its best effect it requires timed coordination from the rest of the team to focus fire on the revealed ships.

 

Finally, AA mounts... the player imput involved in using these to the best effect involves timing when to pop defensive fire (as soon as you are sure you are targeted) and the choice to prioritize a specific plane group. Under the current mechanics, I have no problem with this. If instead killing planes did actual damage and could kill CVs there would be a problem because an AFK player could effectively kill a CV. That is to say, an AFK player in a minotaur could sit there and without any other player input than clicking battle, he could kill thr CV's planes and under your proposed system, could finish off an already weakened CV.

 

4) There exists a balance to the game right now that benefits players who understand it and allows them to punish those who dont. I do not beleive that your proposed syatem of taking out CV health by killing their planes would be a fair or balanced mechanic in the current state of the game. As I said before I would be willing to listen to this if you proposed changing the AA mechanic as well. If you think that CVs are overpowered I again recommend that you play them and find out. 

 

 

[centarina]

until CV has same carry ability as any other ships,   they will have issues.   This means they need to lower the ceiling massively.   it isn't the average player that is the issue, it is the super unicums.      I've seen CV players with 93%WR in a  t5 CV after 200 matches  and almost that in saipan.      75+% WR on rest of  IJN CV.    no other ship type can boast that type of WR.  

 

balance means that they are almost interchangeable with another ship.    we are long ways from that point. 

 

 

 

 

[_WaveRider_]

11 minutes ago, Ascinius said:

@_WaveRider_ to start, the best way to use a quotation in this forum is to reply outside of the quote box so you can in turn be quoted. In lieu of you doing that i will be copying and pasting your replies.

 

1) "Actually I've seen many CVs take caps - they're objectives aren't they? Take a look at the stats CVs do very well, I don't think they are a disadvantaged party here."

I refer to my previous comment of, "Im not saying fix this im saying the trade off to punishing any stray ship is the capacity to be punished for being agressive with positioning." To elaborate more on this I stated that a CV would be unable to win a game by itself through points. Imagine this: If a CV at full health who lost all of his strike planes (and was therefore unable to win by killing the enemy) went up against any other ship within 2 tiers of it (standard tier spread in random) and both sides had equal points. The CV would be unable to win because pushing a capture would allow the enemy to immediately know where the CV is and it could go destroy it to win the game. Whereas different results would be generated by different ships, CV's lack the speed or manueverability to engage and survive against any ship without being able to destroy that ship with its strike aircraft. 

 

Again a CV is not designed to push points, sure you CAN capture a point in a CV if it is uncontested or if there are minimal threats at the point, But this means that a CVs capacity to impact the game is limited to killing ships and scouting them for the rest of your team to eliminate.

 

I am not saying disadvantaged I am saying balanced. 

 

2) "If a ship comes into range in order to attack it runs the risk of being attacked 

 

 "If a CV wants to agressively attack a ship it needs to move closer to the battle in order to reduce reload times and this is where the attack/risk balance comes into play."

 

Again I already adressed this point but I can explain it more. Yes CV's can lazily attack enemy forces across the map, but in order to have a huge impact on the game positiining becomes important. The closer you can get to the battle without being spotted the more effective you are. To a CV you are not truly limited by plane count, you are limited by time. Time to target, time on target, return time, and reloading time are all factors that limit how much damage a CV can do. The only reason a CV would take a riskier attack and sacrifice planes might be because waiting for a "better" moment sacrifices more time. That is to say as a CV player you need to balance how much time you waste on a strike with how many planes you predict you will lose. This is proven by the fact that CV players are sometimes willing to lose entire squadrons because the reload time is faster than the return time.

 

The point being in order to maximize effect the CV needs to be agressive with positioning in order to increase how many attacks they can carry out. 

 

3.1)  "a bit like CVs then!" yes, that was my point, to draw that parallel.

 

3.2) "There is no skill in shooting down planes, there is no skill in firing off and watching torps go 'straight', there is no skill in secondaries, there is no skill in everyone seeing a ship when one does, there is no skill when a radar sees everything in range (even through land mass)." 

 

Adressing this in order: 

Torps, there is no skill in watching them go strait but there is skill and risk involved in actually hitting the enemy with said torps. Sure the game helps you lead them but aiming exactly where the game tells you to does not yield the best results. I assume i do not need evidence here as there are plenty of other sources you can look up to find out how to drop torps more effectively based on the white lines. That being said, sure you CAN get a hit by just launching them but to usw them to the best effect you need skills developed by playing ships with torps.

 

Secondaries require skills in that the positioning of your ship relative to the enemy ship determines how effective they are. Yes you can hit the enemy without doing anything, but to use them to their best effect it is a balance between exposing yourself to damage and exposing your enemy to the greatest number of guns ie turning to the side. Again, a minor player assited task can impact how effective this mechanic is.

 

Radar and just generally seeing other ships both balance risk and reward in that in order to see you risk being seen. If you are in radar range you are also most likely in torp range. To use this mechanic to its best effect it requires timed coordination from the rest of the team to focus fire on the revealed ships.

 

Finally, AA mounts... the player imput involved in using these to the best effect involves timing when to pop defensive fire (as soon as you are sure you are targeted) and the choice to prioritize a specific plane group. Under the current mechanics, I have no problem with this. If instead killing planes did actual damage and could kill CVs there would be a problem because an AFK player could effectively kill a CV. That is to say, an AFK player in a minotaur could sit there and without any other player input than clicking battle, he could kill thr CV's planes and under your proposed system, could finish off an already weakened CV.

 

4) There exists a balance to the game right now that benefits players who understand it and allows them to punish those who dont. I do not beleive that your proposed syatem of taking out CV health by killing their planes would be a fair or balanced mechanic in the current state of the game. As I said before I would be willing to listen to this if you proposed changing the AA mechanic as well. If you think that CVs are overpowered I again recommend that you play them and find out. 

 

 

I find that when answering outside the quote box many do not address the actual subject, but rather talk on other subjects. In hopes you do not I am more than happy to converse the way you find most agreeable.

 

1) So what about a DD against a ship with radar? The DD can never win. But wait, the CA may have used all its radar consumables - Yep and a CV could still have some planes left. Now we have ventured into the realm of the fantastic scenario can we get back to something more realistic.

What of my original points are you actually trying to address - the Plane/HP link? If so, the fact you have won 567 of your games yet survived 787 (That is 50% additional to your win rate), shows the imbalance.

 

2) No you didn't address the point, as moving closer is not the same as moving into the firing range of other ships. A CV can move forward and hide behind a large land mass and still not be hit. This is proven by the fact that most CVs don't move forward into the firing range of other ships in order to benefit from even faster reloads, but rather take the hit on reload to stay safe. I don't blame them for doing so, but lets not pretend that CVs dance with death when it comes to survivability. That's how your favourite ship has 69% survivability stats and all the rest of the CVs at that tier have survival rates of 69%, 75% and 77%.

The point being that CVs may need to be aggressive, but it's obvious they are not that aggressive.

 

3.1) Your initial quote was regarding CVs being 'further punished' - I made an example of how DDs suffer exactly the same way and it is in no way a 'further punishment'. If you want to agree that it is the same great; I guess we agree that CVs would not b further punished.

 

3.2) Addressing in order:

Torps para: When a DD you can dodge, sneak, be brave and use your experience to guess where the torps need to go. Yet the ship can turn for absolutely no reason whatsoever - and ruin the shot. That turn took no skill but affected the flow of the battle. The ship survives where it could have been badly damaged or sunk. When you make your attack you can use your experience to pick the best route in and try to lessen your damage and the roll of the dice decides whether the AA will damage none, a few or all of your squadron. Fate my friend. Some thing in game have no human skill attributed to them.

Secondaries para: (Please see above) AA operates the same as secondaries, any ships (or planes!) venturing into strike range run the risk of taking damage too. Please don't try and say both aren't automated and subject to the luck of the defender or attacker.

Radar para: Using your own words - 'both balance risk and reward in that in order to see you risk being seen. If you are in radar range you are also most likely in torp range.' So doesn't that mean if you are in range to drop torps/bombs you should also be within AA range. That was my point - there are game mechanics that humans do not have a say in. They can influence it in the way they approach it (using experience etc) but if you want to attack something you should accept risk - planes attacking risk being attacked by AA (with varied results).

Finally AA para: Why on earth would a CV player attack an AA strong ship? Really, you're trying to say a CV player attacks a ship heavy on AA and wonders why he is killed.

And even if we use an AFK ship that isn't heavy on AA, yep the CV will lose some planes, but probably kill the ship and continue with his other planes. A fair trade I'd say.

 

4) Of course it is your right to disagree; I have no issue with that at all. My point is I have no idea how you feel it is such a bad thing - it doesn't stop you fighting as usual, it doesn't stop you killing any less ships, it doesn't stop you moving around the map as usual. All it does is bring down the survival rate of CV (in balance with other ships) and stop the chase the CV around the map game that comes at the end of the map which must have happened in some of the 220 games you lost but managed to survive - that is 20% of your total games!

 

[_WaveRider_]

1 minute ago, centarina said:

until CV has same carry ability as any other ships,   they will have issues.   This means they need to lower the ceiling massively.   it isn't the average player that is the issue, it is the super unicums.      I've seen CV players with 93%WR in a  t5 CV after 200 matches  and almost that in saipan.      75+% WR on rest of  IJN CV.    no other ship type can boast that type of WR.  

 

balance means that they are almost interchangeable with another ship.    we are long ways from that point. 

 

 

 

 

I agree. Although I do not really want to penalise good players for being good.

That's why I suggested

1) Making sure a lesser skilled player can't be sniped - although this still allows the good player to beat him over the seas (but may let the lesser skilled player survive enough to learn).

2) Possibly a longer reload - although this will affect the average damage and possibly kills and I am unsure if that is needed in all cases.

 

The WR is subjective as it could be as simple as the team with the surviving CV is the team that wins - my first point in levelling up the nations to start and have the difference being IJN more TB orientated, whilst the USN CV are more DB orientated.

 

I am sorry for good CV players because they have had it very good for a long while and anything that levels the playing field or reduces there normal chance to survive and cause damage probably seems unfair - but it seems silly to have to miss out a ship type from Clan Wars because you just don't know what to do with them. At least big 'global' changes would get around the 'can't nerf premiums' problem.

 

[Ascinius]

7 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

I find that when answering outside the quote box many do not address the actual subject, but rather talk on other subjects. In hopes you do not I am more than happy to converse the way you find most agreeable.

You can use quote boxes like this to show relevant sections of the material you want to refer to while maintaining clarity.

 

[_WaveRider_]

1 minute ago, Ascinius said:

You can use quote boxes like this to show relevant sections of the material you want to refer to while maintaining clarity.

 

I don't worry about me sticking to the subject.

[cometguy]

12 minutes ago, centarina said:

until CV has same carry ability as any other ships,   they will have issues.   This means they need to lower the ceiling massively.   it isn't the average player that is the issue, it is the super unicums.      I've seen CV players with 93%WR in a  t5 CV after 200 matches  and almost that in saipan.      75+% WR on rest of  IJN CV.    no other ship type can boast that type of WR.  

 

balance means that they are almost interchangeable with another ship.    we are long ways from that point. 

 

 

 

 

I believe they need to raise the ceiling of all other ship types. You can lower CV a bit if you want, but the pace of the game is too slow for "dumb it down" to always be the answer.

They tried dumbing down t4 and t5 CVs, but the clubbing continues. Going from playing like pros to minors isn't going to do much when everyone else is still playing like the beer league.

[Ascinius]

13 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

 

4) Of course it is your right to disagree; I have no issue with that at all. My point is I have no idea how you feel it is such a bad thing - it doesn't stop you fighting as usual, it doesn't stop you killing any less ships, it doesn't stop you moving around the map as usual. All it does is bring down the survival rate of CV (in balance with other ships) and stop the chase the CV around the map game that comes at the end of the map which must have happened in some of the 220 games you lost but managed to survive - that is 20% of your total games!

 

 

The thing that you fail to understand here is that linking number of planes to a CV's health would not help players with low skill, it would hurt them by punishing them more for not knowing how to properly manage their air groups. Instead of circling the map as a useless husk forced to watch and learn from their mistakes they would simply be dead. If you look at the statistics, the greater number of aircraft kills comes from CV's meaning that there would be no reason to strike the enemy CV anymore all you would have to do is wait for them to mess up and take out their aircraft, which under your proposed system, would kill them.