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

This is why CV's make this game suck

138 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,232
[TWFT]
Members
1,281 posts
35,752 battles

So here is WG idea of MM CV balance..........

There CV's WR, 74% with 2500 battles, PR 2553.

Or CV's WR, 31% with 1500 battles PR 523.

If there are not enough good CV players to match up with Happy_Tho..., then he should not have gotten a match, it sucks, but the rest of us should not have to pay the price for WG insistence in putting in a un-counterable force in the game.  There was not extra AA on our side, there was no counter to him.  It was just a waist of everyone's time.  Next time, just as we are loading in to a CV match that has numbers like this, do me a solid WG and just flash on the screen "Battle Over, you lost" and take a few credits and let me re-queue into a decent battle with out a CV.

BTW, I left his name in not to shame him but to complement him, hes a dam good CV player and I gave him a comp.  I do not want to shame the other CV ether, but if you are this bad at this ship then please reconsider your choice and get in a dam BB!  At least if you are bad in a BB you can be carried.

shot-17.12.11_14.14.26-0172.jpg

  • Cool 16
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Members
806 posts
7,007 battles

I remember playing a game once called Natural Selection, which featured asymmetrical gameplay where one player, as the commander, played an RTS whereas everyone else played an FPS. Like a CV in Warships, the commander in Natural Selection held the most important job on the team. Unlike Warships however, the team could vote to eject the commander, and replace them with someone else if they were doing a terrible job. Perhaps a similar feature could be added to this game? This is not actually a serious suggestion...

Edited by Cruiser_Chicago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[ANKER]
[ANKER]
Members
164 posts
14,828 battles

Skill based MM what a novel idea? lol...  To be honest though you should look at the bigger picture and see that yes you will get a fail CV for every godlike CV as well.  The darker side of the law of averages always tends to stand out more in ones mind.  We have all been in your shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
176
[PEED2]
Members
159 posts
10,022 battles

Your CV was bad, worst of all was trying to snipe the other CV and losing a whopping 57 planes, holy cow. You actually did have some great AA on your team in the katuzov and the New Orleans, but they shot down very few planes somehow. Also their Bismarck was great, he came in second in a Tier 10 match. So in addition to having a bad CV captain, other mistakes were made on your team and they had at least one other ringer on their side. An epically bad matchmaking effort but it happens. CVs will never be matched by skill so this will continue to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[5IN]
Supertester
2,106 posts
10,138 battles

I feel for ya mate... I've had quite a few matches lately like this.  Of course, I've had some from the other side too (our CV good, theirs not so good).  The disparity makes it a lot less fun for everyone else.   

 

Skill based MM for CVs only would go great lengths to fix this.  Maybe not fully fix, but at least not screw over the other 11 players as much.

 

B

Edited by bassmasta76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,503
[INTEL]
Members
12,295 posts
34,066 battles
16 hours ago, Gavorche said:

I don't think this is necessarily a CV issue, unicorn divisions also have the same problem.

 

It is a CV issue. Turbotush is absolutely right -- it is completely wrong to set up the game so everything turns on the play of the CV, and then permit crappy CV players to advance. Loaded into many games this weekend with sub-45% CV players. Very tired of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21
[NCBL]
Members
127 posts
4,862 battles
12 minutes ago, Cruiser_Chicago said:

I remember playing a game once called Natural Selection, which featured asymmetrical gameplay where one player, as the commander, played an RTS whereas everyone else played an FPS. Like a CV in Warships, the commander in Natural Selection held the most important job on the team. Unlike Warships however, the team could vote to eject the commander, and replace him with someone else if they were doing a terrible job. Perhaps a similar feature could be added to this game? This is not actually a serious suggestion...

I played the crapout of Natural Selection 2. I tried it a couple months back and it had like 60 active players. Made me sad face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
578
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,138 posts
6,661 battles
8 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

 

It is a CV issue. Turbotush is absolutely right -- it is completely wrong to set up the game so everything turns on the play of the CV, and then permit crappy CV players to advance. Loaded into many games this weekend with sub-45% CV players. Very tired of it. 

Perhaps the issue is more along the lines of some CV players are very good and those that are merely average get rolled over because it is such a hard ship to master. This is where WG screwed up, some ships do very well in skilled hands and most ships can just potato along and do OK. If you potato in a CV, you get wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
39 posts
2,198 battles

Well it works both ways,  I love playing the Bogue....am 0-5 with it.  Average damage site wide in the Bogue is 23k or close to it.  My average damage is 57k, 1.6 kills, and 1231XP.  I average 15 planes a battle shot down.  I cant buy a win.  This morning I had 86k, 4 kills and 22 planes shot down....and guess what?  Team wide - 4 kills. LOSS.  I dominate every battle and can't win.  It is only 5 battles but it definitely works both ways.  Even a good cv player can lose if the rest of your team plays their best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,364
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,158 posts
4,938 battles

The issue you run into here as well...Tier 9 and Tier 10 CV's have planes the lower tiers cannot even hurt

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[KIA-A]
[KIA-A]
Members
699 posts
9,972 battles

I feel bad for cv players that are t8 that get uptiered to t10

even zao's aa hell even my aa on khaba eats some of the t8 planes...its funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,145
[HINON]
Privateers
6,266 posts
3,308 battles

You can still try to win. No sense in giving into a 'predetermined' outcome just because the stats don't look so good. Some of the most fun I've had in the game has come of a result of challenging what should be a superior enemy team, and having fun doing it.   

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,232
[TWFT]
Members
1,281 posts
35,752 battles
11 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

Perhaps the issue is more along the lines of some CV players are very good and those that are merely average get rolled over because it is such a hard ship to master. This is where WG screwed up, some ships do very well in skilled hands and most ships can just potato along and do OK. If you potato in a CV, you get wasted.

If you are a potato CV you have a bigger effect on your team then a potato BB, CA or DD.  So if you get waseted in your CV it is more likly your team will get wasted right along with you.

7 minutes ago, CaptNautiguy said:

Well it works both ways,  I love playing the Bogue....am 0-5 with it.  Average damage site wide in the Bogue is 23k or close to it.  My average damage is 57k, 1.6 kills, and 1231XP.  I average 15 planes a battle shot down.  I cant buy a win.  This morning I had 86k, 4 kills and 22 planes shot down....and guess what?  Team wide - 4 kills. LOSS.  I dominate every battle and can't win.  It is only 5 battles but it definitely works both ways.  Even a good cv player can lose if the rest of your team plays their best. 

I agree it dose, but at the higher tiers that cost more to run in credits, this is compounded.  If your on a team with a weak CV at T8 or above then you are more likely to lose by a WIDE margin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
937 posts
7,720 battles

Normally I don't complain about CVs but today I got completely boned when we had one on our team never send his fighters to help.  I was bombed constantly the whole match and took almost no damage from anyone else.  The bad thing was that I tried telling him that I have bad AA and that they are going to keep coming after me.  It was pretty brad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KYARU]
Members
259 posts
5,694 battles

Just do your best

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,767
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles
41 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

Perhaps the issue is more along the lines of some CV players are very good and those that are merely average get rolled over because it is such a hard ship to master. This is where WG screwed up, some ships do very well in skilled hands and most ships can just potato along and do OK. If you potato in a CV, you get wasted.

^This!!!

This is exactly the problem.  It's not a certainty that a 40% or less player in a tier 9 or 10 CV is nearly that  bad overall, because the chances that that player is facing a really good CV player at those tiers is rather high.  I mean, is a player who might otherwise be relatively average, say close to 50%, truly "bad" if he's getting constantly rolled by some unicum CV main to the point of having a sub 40% WR in a tier 9 or 10 CV?

Oh, I know some people will say, if he can't do better why does he still play those CV's, but that's an entirely different question. 

The problem is that carriers leverage player skill and act as a force and skill multiplier far more than battleships or cruisers.  If WG wants to make carriers more playable and accessible for lesser skilled players, they need to reduce the influence of skill on the type.  They'd need to remove things like ALT attacks.  The more that a player's ability to multitask is a part of the CV skill mix, the more that player skill will dominate CV game play.  Make carriers simpler and less skill intensive to play effectively, and you'll  see more players playing them and see a lessening of the ability of unicum CV mains to dominate in them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
Members
343 posts
6,782 battles
1 hour ago, IAMMUDBONE said:

Your CV was bad, worst of all was trying to snipe the other CV and losing a whopping 57 planes, holy cow. You actually did have some great AA on your team in the katuzov and the New Orleans, but they shot down very few planes somehow. Also their Bismarck was great, he came in second in a Tier 10 match. So in addition to having a bad CV captain, other mistakes were made on your team and they had at least one other ringer on their side. An epically bad matchmaking effort but it happens. CVs will never be matched by skill so this will continue to happen. 

 

Actually, the AA on New Orleans is pretty mediocre compared to other US cruisers. For pure AA defense, I think I'd rather have a Cleveland, since it's 5" guns have nearly a kilometer more base range (how is that even possible in a ship 2 tiers lower??). New Orleans' AA small DPM advantage is only realized at <2km when the extra 20mm Oerlikons come into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,767
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles
12 minutes ago, Bolo_MkXX_Tremendous_DMD said:

Normally I don't complain about CVs but today I got completely boned when we had one on our team never send his fighters to help.  I was bombed constantly the whole match and took almost no damage from anyone else.  The bad thing was that I tried telling him that I have bad AA and that they are going to keep coming after me.  It was pretty brad.

Bolo, different people have different opinions of how carriers should be played.  Non-CV players are never happy with CVs unless the CV player is constantly defending THEIR ship and spotting targets that threaten THEIR ship.  The CV player in that game could do 300k damage and kill half the enemy team, but if the CV player didn't protect that one BB that the enemy CV happened to sink, then the BB team mate is going to scream bloody murder that the CV player stunk.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,767
[SALVO]
Members
24,197 posts
24,546 battles
2 minutes ago, Jarink said:

 

Actually, the AA on New Orleans is pretty mediocre compared to other US cruisers. For pure AA defense, I think I'd rather have a Cleveland, since it's 5" guns have nearly a kilometer more base range (how is that even possible in a ship 2 tiers lower??). New Orleans' AA small DPM advantage is only realized at <2km when the extra 20mm Oerlikons come into play.

A. The Cleveland was a more modern ship than the New Orleans.

B. This won't be true for all that much longer, given the upcoming USN cruiser line split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,293
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
25,205 posts
13,798 battles

Skill based MM for CV's would be a disaster. What needs to be done is a complete rebuild of the class from the bottom up so that it doesn't take a top player to simply do well. I don't know how to accomplish that but I think that removing manual drops as they now work is part of the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
937 posts
7,720 battles
18 minutes ago, Crucis said:

<apologetic nonsense for what was basically an AFK up against a good CV player>

 

I'm not one of the kids you teach at your school for [edited] so you can lose this condescending attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×