Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
GreyFox78659

The Carrier debate

Carrier removal   

62 members have voted

This poll is closed for new votes
  1. 1. Should Carriers be removed?

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      50

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/04/2018 at 06:16 PM

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

346
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,544 battles

Just got to know how the forum really feels about the rework.

  • Boring 2
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
[WOLF2]
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

If you're curious about how the forums feels about the rework, this is an odd question. We know how CVs are now, but the extent we know of the rework is that some people are working on it. So, how do you feel about the thingamajig at the place?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,357 battles

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,411
[PNG]
Supertester
5,660 posts
6,455 battles

Sure? They’re in a really weird spot right now because the skill cap is so high that a team with the 30%er Midway is going to suffer a dramatic air loss and blame the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,357 battles
Just now, Compassghost said:

Sure? They’re in a really weird spot right now because the skill cap is so high that a team with the 30%er Midway is going to suffer a dramatic air loss and blame the team.

I don't follow this, a team with a 30% Midway will win 30% of the time, in other words, it's definitely not a predetermined outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[STW]
Members
658 posts
4,340 battles

I'm of the mind that maybe some more diligence should have been given to it before they were added in the first place, but now that they're here, they should stay.  I do actually like the variety, but I don't particularly enjoy the difference in skill level of the two CVs generally being the indicator of how the match is going to go.  While the amount of influence they can have on a match is on the order that they had in real life, for gameplay it doesn't seem healthy to me for 2 out of the 24 ships to carry such an inordinate amount of weight in the match.  Can a team make up for a bad DD or bad BB?  It can still be a struggle, but yeah.  Can a team make up for a bad CV if the other team's is competent?  Yes, but it basically takes the competent CV's team throwing you the match.

8 minutes ago, megadeux said:

I don't follow this, a team with a 30% Midway will win 30% of the time, in other words, it's definitely not a predetermined outcome.

It's about as predetermined as a match can be in WoWS.

Edited by Deviathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
437
[YAN]
Members
1,637 posts
7,464 battles

Remove them until the rework is introduced, then put them back.

Given up on sub threads now I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,357 battles
7 minutes ago, Deviathan said:

I'm of the mind that maybe some more diligence should have been given to it before they were added in the first place, but now that they're here, no.  I do actually like the variety, but I don't particularly enjoy the difference in skill level of the two CVs generally being the indicator of how the match is going to go.  While the amount of influence they can have on a match is on the order that they had in real life, for gameplay it doesn't seem healthy to me for 2 out of the 24 ships to carry such an inordinate amount of weight in the match.  Can a team make up for a bad DD or bad BB?  It can still be a struggle, but yeah.  Can a team make up for a bad CV if the other team's is competent?  Yes, but it basically takes the competent CV's team throwing you the match.

It's about as predetermined as a match can be in WoWS.

Absolutely not. I've had enemy teams that absolutely counter my every possibility of a strike. It doesn't matter how potato their CV is if I can't influence anything anyway. Thing, I'm never actively countered in a CV, players are just too lazy I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,656
[INTEL]
Members
8,469 posts
25,366 battles
16 hours ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Just got to know how the forum really feels about the rework.

How can your question tell you that? Wait til rework, then ask. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
346
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,544 battles
12 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Remove them until the rework is introduced, then put them back.

Given up on sub threads now I see.

Nope 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Department
2,034 posts
513 battles
24 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Just got to know how the forum really feels about the rework.

10 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Remove them until the rework is introduced, then put them back.

Given up on sub threads now I see.

No need even to put question that way because the removal even shotperiod is not planed. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,357 battles
2 minutes ago, turbo07 said:

No need even to put question that way because the removal even shotperiod is not planed. 

That's nice to know, more time for me to play in the current meta then! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[STW]
Members
658 posts
4,340 battles
12 minutes ago, megadeux said:

Absolutely not. I've had enemy teams that absolutely counter my every possibility of a strike. It doesn't matter how potato their CV is if I can't influence anything anyway. Thing, I'm never actively countered in a CV, players are just too lazy I guess.

Speaking in terms of facing T9/T10 CVs, maybe it isn't based on your play of CV, but based on my surface ship play vs. CVs, it absolutely is.  If the enemy CV is a 60+%'er and mine is <50%'er, if the enemy team doesn't throw and can basically trade then there's a point where you just aren't going to have enough AA to resist strikes from an intelligent CV, and your own can't protect you because he doesn't know how to strafe or was deplaned long ago.  Once in a blue moon, you'll have a team that groups AA or the AA cruisers know where to setup shop to shut down the important areas of the map, but we come back to that the vast majority of people playing this game only have a loose idea of what they're doing.

Edited by Deviathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
346
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,544 battles
1 minute ago, Taichunger said:

How can your question tell you that? Wait til rework, then ask. 

The and SOON we not be considered a viable answer do you think that will take? Ballpark it. 

With what I know which is the same as what you know 1-2 years. This isn’t a patch it’s a total rebuild from scratch.

If it isn’t well it’s going to bomb as a controlling a squadron without 3d freedom will bomb I have played that way it sucks. That is the only way to make the rework faster than a year is to just eliminate top down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,357 battles
4 minutes ago, Deviathan said:

Speaking in terms of facing T9/T10 CVs, maybe it isn't based on your play of CV, but based on my surface ship play vs. CVs, it absolutely is.  If the enemy CV is a 60+%'er and mine is <50%'er, if the enemy team doesn't throw and can basically trade then there's a point where you just aren't going to have enough AA to resist strikes from an intelligent CV, and your own can't protect you because he doesn't know how to strafe or was deplaned long ago.  Once in a blue moon, you'll have a team that groups AA or the AA cruisers know where to setup shop to shut down the important areas of the map, but we come back to that the vast majority of people playing this game only have a loose idea of what they're doing.

So CVs can punish teams that have no tactical sense anyways? 

What's the complaint then? If a team refuses to co ordinate or adapt to my presence, then they deserve to lose.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,411
[PNG]
Supertester
5,660 posts
6,455 battles
33 minutes ago, megadeux said:

I don't follow this, a team with a 30% Midway will win 30% of the time, in other words, it's definitely not a predetermined outcome.

I’ll gladly give you all my 30% CV games so I don’t have to deal with them. Watching a planeless Midway toot along while the enemy carrier still has full squadrons is too much for my heart to bear.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[STW]
Members
658 posts
4,340 battles
2 minutes ago, megadeux said:

So CVs can punish teams that have no tactical sense anyways? 

What's the complaint then? If a team refuses to co ordinate or adapt to my presence, then they deserve to lose.

Even if we do coordinate and adapt, it's pretty difficult to overcome when you're essentially playing down a ship and it happens to be the most powerful ship class on the map at the moment.  Even if on the whole our surface ships are more competent than yours, if we've got a 30%'er facing a 60%'er then it's as guaranteed of a loss as there can be in WoWS.  It takes some extremely heavy lifting from the surface ships, or the good CV's team just being brilliantly bad.  This amount of match-changing disparity in skill is what I have issue with.  Do I appreciate the skill it takes to get good enough to be a CV on that level?  Yeah, I do, I've tried to play them a little bit and it just takes so much more effort than I want to put into it; but I still don't feel like they should carry that level of power over a match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,490
[PSP]
Members
6,047 posts
8,589 battles

If players would organize and not yolo off by themselves in search of "glory," then carriers would be only a minor nuisance. Of course, asking random teams to organize is like the proverbial herding of cats -- you might wish it but it ain't likely to happen. Carriers should be a part of this game as they were integral to most of the time period in which the game is set. Other than low-tier games representing WWI-era ships, it's almost historically ludicrous to even think about fighting a ship battle without a carrier.

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,604 posts
3,573 battles

The problem with CV's is that we don't have more CV's.  This stretches to other areas but primarily,  no one thinks its worthwhile to take AA builds so no one is prepared for the matches that have CV's.  This is also why we have things like BB"s hanging around in the back where they are safest and why radar has become such a big thing,  since no one else is spotting DD's.  If we had more CV's more people would take AA builds,  teams would hang together more often,  BB's would be less likely to go solo even in the back,  and DD's would be reigned in more heavily without the need for radar.  

Hopefully the rework makes CV's more popular so the balance goes back to a more normal state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,074
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,263 posts
8,818 battles

How can you have an opinion on work that we know very little about? All I do know is the rework was desperately needed as they were badly broken and my opinion was that the changes made since launch only broke them more by widening the already wide skill gap. I am hoping that the rework will make them a ship that more people will find fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[STW]
Members
658 posts
4,340 battles
4 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

If players would organize and not yolo off by themselves in search of "glory," then carriers would be only a minor nuisance. Of course, asking random teams to organize is like the proverbial herding of cats -- you might wish it but it ain't likely to happen.

"My ship, my play!"  You also get a lot of non-AA builds because of how rare CVs are.  You get more mileage out of a build that serves you 90% of the time than doing one that you need 10% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,523
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,706 posts
3,468 battles

This thread is a waste of space. CVs aren't being removed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,230 posts
6,194 battles

uJSBZRe.png

CVs won't be removed pre-rework, the manure storm taking premiums away would cause alone would make 'Bama-gate look like a minor Squall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,357 battles
22 minutes ago, Deviathan said:

Even if we do coordinate and adapt, it's pretty difficult to overcome when you're essentially playing down a ship and it happens to be the most powerful ship class on the map at the moment.  Even if on the whole our surface ships are more competent than yours, if we've got a 30%'er facing a 60%'er then it's as guaranteed of a loss as there can be in WoWS.  It takes some extremely heavy lifting from the surface ships, or the good CV's team just being brilliantly bad.  This amount of match-changing disparity in skill is what I have issue with.  Do I appreciate the skill it takes to get good enough to be a CV on that level?  Yeah, I do, I've tried to play them a little bit and it just takes so much more effort than I want to put into it; but I still don't feel like they should carry that level of power over a match.

Alright, I'm going to show you exactly how easy it is to shut down a CV. 

Put a DM between A cap and B cap, parked behind an island. 

Put a minotaur between B and C, in the same position.

Done, that's it. I've lost air control over the caps and will be forced to just try to counter the enemy CVs strikes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×