Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
RobertViktor68

CV re-work question

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

281
[TSPC]
Beta Testers
1,104 posts
10,099 battles

I'm not a CV player.  I appreciate good CV players because they can multi-task in a way that I can't.  Good for them.  I've been hearing for a couple of years "CV's unbalanced, bad CV vs. Good CV player is automatic win, WG needs to fix...etc." 

 Is the CV re-work being motivated by players who are getting blaped by CVs? OR by "less good" CV players wanting skill to mean less?

How do good to great CV players feel about the change?  Do they believe it is necessary?

Doesn't a CV re-work necessitate a re-work on AA?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,699 posts
3,459 battles

It is being worked on with the aid of players like Fem who have played CVs at an exceptional level.

We should here something very soon, as they said they were hoping to reveal it at Gamescon but weren't as satisfied as they wanted with the polish. They didn't want another GZ blunder.

They followed that up by saying it was likely to be announced within the days following Gamescon.

I expect we'll here something within the next 2-3 weeks.

From my understanding the goal is the lessen the disparity between an average player and a great player so that the losing experience isn't so pedestrian. They also want players on all sides to feel both rewarded and less frustrated as the CV or ship being attacked, as long as they're making the right choices.

They also want to make the experience more engaging and less of a departure from that of the other 3 ship types.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[O_O]
Members
783 posts
4,734 battles
12 minutes ago, RobertViktor68 said:

Is the CV re-work being motivated by players who are getting blaped by CVs? OR by "less good" CV players wanting skill to mean less?

Yes.  The idea is to depolarize carriers as a class, so there's not such a wide gulf between the skilled and new players.

13 minutes ago, RobertViktor68 said:

How do good to great CV players feel about the change?  Do they believe it is necessary?

I certainly wouldn't know.  Hopefully they're guardedly optimistic.

14 minutes ago, RobertViktor68 said:

Doesn't a CV re-work necessitate a re-work on AA?

Oh buddy yes.  Yes and yes some more, and not only that but I would be tremendously surprised to see a phased deployment.  In other words; it may be more graceful to release the carrier interface changes and then tweak the AA system, but it would also be catastrophic to player opinion.  It's going to be a difficult and awkward deployment of both systems, but at least they are (hopefully) coming at the same time.

The only thing I can say is that I'm in the "Similar to WOWP" camp.  When Jingles teased the footage of the CCs playing the rework concept it looked an awful lot like Warplanes control inputs.  Now, I may be completely off base here and he may well have cut in commentary over footage of the CCs doing anything else, so take this all for a grain of salt.  When speculating about those videos, we should also keep in mind that it's been... what, six months?  The development team could have rewritten the entire thing since then.

-R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,071
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,683 posts
10,011 battles

Given that the current problems with carriers could be simply described as 'everything' hopefully the rework will change just about everything. I believe that would include an AA rework - one of the problems is that carrier-target interaction is incredibly lopsided - turn at some point with 14s rudder shift vs. 180kt aircraft.... - so something in that line would be sensible.

One of the big issues has been carrier unpopularity. Midway, in the game since launch has accumulated a measly 233k battles. Republique which has been out for 6 months has already beaten that with 238k, and the popular older battleships Yamato/Montana have about 2m battles apiece, Shima has 2.3m, Des Moines 1.7m. That's despite those types being diluted in popularity by more choice.

For all that some people like carriers, as a whole the community has voted with it's feet and voted to walk away from carriers as they are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[OSG]
Beta Testers
1,350 posts
14,771 battles
9 minutes ago, mofton said:

..................................

One of the big issues has been carrier unpopularity. Midway, in the game since launch has accumulated a measly 233k battles. Republique which has been out for 6 months has already beaten that with 238k, and the popular older battleships Yamato/Montana have about 2m battles apiece, Shima has 2.3m, Des Moines 1.7m. That's despite those types being diluted in popularity by more choice.

For all that some people like carriers, as a whole the community has voted with it's feet and voted to walk away from carriers as they are.

 

This is no surprise given that carrier captains know that for sure they will face another carrier captain of the same tier every single time they want to play a CV.  So if you are a bit below average or a lot below average in skill, why would you keep playing since you know most games you will face a better CV captain.  It's a self fulfilling system since the lower skilled captains have a choice of either keep losing or quit playing CVs (which they should since they cause such an imbalance that their team loses more often than wins).

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,071
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,683 posts
10,011 battles
4 minutes ago, Merc85 said:

This is no surprise given that carrier captains know that for sure they will face another carrier captain of the same tier every single time they want to play a CV.  So if you are a bit below average or a lot below average in skill, why would you keep playing since you know most games you will face a better CV captain.  It's a self fulfilling system since the lower skilled captains have a choice of either keep losing or quit playing CVs (which they should since they cause such an imbalance that their team loses more often than wins).

A problem that would fall under 'everything'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[5D]
Members
605 posts
7,026 battles
1 hour ago, RobertViktor68 said:

Is the CV re-work being motivated by players who are getting blaped by CVs? OR by "less good" CV players wanting skill to mean less?

1

The motivation to rework the CV is coming from all sides, including those that "are getting blaped by CVs" and those that religiously play CVs only. The CV problems (matchmaking, skill disparity, UI, strafing, permanent spotting, etc) are seen by all sides and pretty much everyone agrees that a complete CV rework is needed. So far, there has been disagreement between different factions on how the CV rework should be. Not only that, no one has any idea on Wargaming is planning. Only Femennenly and The Mighty Jingles and a few other Community Contributors have a sneak peak. 

 

1 hour ago, RobertViktor68 said:

How do good to great CV players feel about the change?  Do they believe it is necessary?

 

As a CV player myself, I'm cautiously optimistic. Those that love the CV gameplay see a "mini-RTS" gameplay where we carrier players would like to dictate how the battles would go. I chose to master CVs because I am an RTS player myself and I would love to play the most powerful class in World of Warships!

But overall, there seems to be a mixed bag. I know people that would not like the CV changes because the current theme of CVs fits well with the historic aura of CVs. Others would side with the faction that wants a complete CV rework, but they too wouldn't be too liberal on how they want to redo CVs.

 

1 hour ago, RobertViktor68 said:

Doesn't a CV re-work necessitate a re-work on AA?

 

Definitely. When you change CVs, you change the planes. When you change the planes, you change the nature of the planes' counters, namely AA. Wargaming has said that the CV rework will come alongside the AA rework. 

To give an idea on what the AA rework may be, they intend that players take control of AA ships and try to manually shoot down planes themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[IRISH]
Members
347 posts
7,092 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:

Given that the current problems with carriers could be simply described as 'everything' hopefully the rework will change just about everything. I believe that would include an AA rework - one of the problems is that carrier-target interaction is incredibly lopsided - turn at some point with 14s rudder shift vs. 180kt aircraft.... - so something in that line would be sensible.

One of the big issues has been carrier unpopularity. Midway, in the game since launch has accumulated a measly 233k battles. Republique which has been out for 6 months has already beaten that with 238k, and the popular older battleships Yamato/Montana have about 2m battles apiece, Shima has 2.3m, Des Moines 1.7m. That's despite those types being diluted in popularity by more choice.

For all that some people like carriers, as a whole the community has voted with it's feet and voted to walk away from carriers as they are.

 

Honestly the day after removing US CV lodaout choices is when I saw the CV populations drop tremendously. Taking choice away from CV players was an aweful idea. They basically said, hey, you arent smart enough to decide your loadout, so we will do it for you. I being  a primarily US CV player as far as CV's go was totally peee'vd. I LOVED the SL only loadout, and I even took a poll, and most PREFER that loadout!.

 

Am I excited about the carrier re-work? Well it should be an option for the interface..place the new way,or play the old way. If someone likes they re RTS style play then be it. WOT has a mode like that also, its called playing SPG, and its also Top down, and THAT mode hasn't changed for 10 years from what I hear. and oh yes MASNY people lament..sTOP{ the CLICK and SQUASH gameplay..well tis NOT Click and squash..takes enough skill.

 

but I digress...

 

When it comes to WOWs CV rework....bring back old US loadouts, make the NEW mode whatever it is an option, and stop forcing massive changes as, it alienates those of us who've been playing the game for years. Were spending the money in this game!!!!

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FOG]
Members
278 posts
4,574 battles
26 minutes ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

I chose to master CVs because I am an RTS player myself and I would love to play the most powerful class in World of Warships!

It is this statement that is so troubling when it comes to any discussion of CVs. I have read repeatedly that there should be "balance" within WoWS and although one ship, say a DD would counter a BB, and a CA would counter a DD, etc, nowhere in this model does a discussion of a counter for CVs come in. I have been told by two friends who started with WoWS when it came out to "stay away" from this game unless I wanted to play CVs as they were crushingly overpowered. It was only after a significant nerf about a year later (I think) that was I advised that the game might be both playable and enjoyable by non-CV captains. (Interestingly neither of them now still play...)

CV captains proudly say that they can sink any ship that they choose and the only question is how many planes will they lose and is that attack with it to them; a statement that is never challenged I might add. Further, there are some ships that face CVs that literally have no AA at all. I have never gotten an explanation as to how either of these statement represents "balance".

I have come accept that CVs are probably here to stay, but want CVs to have a "counter" or "counters" just like any other ship and not be simply pre-designated as the "most powerful class in World of Warships.....

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[5D]
Members
605 posts
7,026 battles
7 minutes ago, DJC_499 said:

It is this statement that is so troubling when it comes to any discussion of CVs. I have read repeatedly that there should be "balance" within WoWS and although one ship, say a DD would counter a BB, and a CA would counter a DD, etc, nowhere in this model does a discussion of a counter for CVs come in. I have been told by two friends who started with WoWS when it came out to "stay away" from this game unless I wanted to play CVs as they were crushingly overpowered. It was only after a significant nerf about a year later (I think) that was I advised that the game might be both playable and enjoyable by non-CV captains. (Interestingly neither of them now still play...)

CV captains proudly say that they can sink any ship that they choose and the only question is how many planes will they lose and is that attack with it to them; a statement that is never challenged I might add. Further, there are some ships that face CVs that literally have no AA at all. I have never gotten an explanation as to how either of these statement represents "balance".

I have come accept that CVs are probably here to stay, but want CVs to have a "counter" or "counters" just like any other ship and not be simply pre-designated as the "most powerful class in World of Warships.....

My quote isn't supposed to be how I like crushing other ships because I play a powerful ship (if I wanted to play and experience a fully powerful ship, I would play a battleship). Its how I ultimately appreciate CVs, no matter the state. 

But there are counters to CVs. CVs generally affect the team and therefore the team should affect the CV. That's generally the counter to both the CV and to the enemy team because allied fleets are dependent on the strength of CVs (cue the debate of skill disparity). Single ships can counter CVs such as AA cruisers and destroyers since the AA becomes exponentially strong to the detriment of CV players!  

There are counters to CV. But it's not the traditional way like cruisers countering destroyers and such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[OSG]
Beta Testers
1,350 posts
14,771 battles
11 minutes ago, DJC_499 said:

It is this statement that is so troubling when it comes to any discussion of CVs. I have read repeatedly that there should be "balance" within WoWS and although one ship, say a DD would counter a BB, and a CA would counter a DD, etc, nowhere in this model does a discussion of a counter for CVs come in. I have been told by two friends who started with WoWS when it came out to "stay away" from this game unless I wanted to play CVs as they were crushingly overpowered. It was only after a significant nerf about a year later (I think) that was I advised that the game might be both playable and enjoyable by non-CV captains. (Interestingly neither of them now still play...)

CV captains proudly say that they can sink any ship that they choose and the only question is how many planes will they lose and is that attack with it to them; a statement that is never challenged I might add. Further, there are some ships that face CVs that literally have no AA at all. I have never gotten an explanation as to how either of these statement represents "balance".

I have come accept that CVs are probably here to stay, but want CVs to have a "counter" or "counters" just like any other ship and not be simply pre-designated as the "most powerful class in World of Warships.....

Yep....well said DJC.  Given CVs are really RTS ships that were unfortunately put into a FPS game they really don't have any counter except for another CV unlike the other three classes of ships.  So there is no balance when it comes to CVs in battles except in those few instances when the CV captains happen to have about the same skill.  And I totally agree with your last sentence.....CVs cannot be taken away now because even though that might be the best solution for the game balance overall it would be very unfair to the CV captains who have spent their time and money to play that class.  But lets at least make them just as "counterable" as the other three classes.

Plus, to let tier VI CVs have strafe and manual drops and still be able to get into a tier V match with a tier V CV (one VI and one V on each team), ends up with the tier V CV captains having no chance....just plain stupid design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[OSG]
Beta Testers
1,350 posts
14,771 battles
2 minutes ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

................... Single ships can counter CVs such as AA cruisers and destroyers since the AA becomes exponentially strong to the detriment of CV players!  

..........................

Sure this is technically true, but in most cases it's not that relevant to a good CV captain.  He/she goes after the lone ship or DD early in the match and then goes after the ships with better AA later in the match when their AA has been made much weaker by his teammates shells taking them out over time.  All this while scouting the entire map for his team....which a good CV captain always does while the weaker ones just keep all their fighters/TBs/DBs together in one clump for protection.  So saying CVs have counters is a bit of a stretch imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[IRISH]
Members
347 posts
7,092 battles
5 minutes ago, Merc85 said:

Sure this is technically true, but in most cases it's not that relevant to a good CV captain.  He/she goes after the lone ship or DD early in the match and then goes after the ships with better AA later in the match when their AA has been made much weaker by his teammates shells taking them out over time.  All this while scouting the entire map for his team....which a good CV captain always does while the weaker ones just keep all their fighters/TBs/DBs together in one clump for protection.  So saying CVs have counters is a bit of a stretch imo.

This is all fine and dandy, but I tell you there are hard counters bye ANY class to a CV. I'll personally challenge you in a  CV, and Ill counter you with any of the classes.

 

DD counter: easy..I'll snipe you from the corner of a map..sneak up real quite like..and unleash upon U my PEdo BArrage..boom..done one CV sunk. this is done to me often, and I as a DD do this to CV's too, successfully

CL/CA counter: Easy....AA build.with dual fighters...then squirm my way ever closer to you..sure Ill take some shots from you, but when I Catch you..Oh buddy..yer toast.

BB: this ones the hardest cause BB's are slow..but spec AA best you can..and make your way to the CV hugging islands...so yer only open to pedo bombers from one side. You can have pretty good success if done right..50/50 chance you can succeed.

 

As far as ships with crapp AA?...ride along with bettter AA ships..teamup with another player to go snipe the CV together...theres many options. NO ship is powerless to a CV attack. practice decent strategy. You can plan a great CV snipe with 2 to 3 ships..and 2 of you working in conjunction can send a CV to the grave.

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,376 posts
7,971 battles
2 hours ago, RobertViktor68 said:

I'm not a CV player.  I appreciate good CV players because they can multi-task in a way that I can't.  Good for them.  I've been hearing for a couple of years "CV's unbalanced, bad CV vs. Good CV player is automatic win, WG needs to fix...etc." 

 Is the CV re-work being motivated by players who are getting blaped by CVs? OR by "less good" CV players wanting skill to mean less?

How do good to great CV players feel about the change?  Do they believe it is necessary?

Doesn't a CV re-work necessitate a re-work on AA?

 

The problem is we the public know NOTHING of what they are actually doing so in many ways, it's hard to say how we feel. And yes, Notser (who has seen the rework) said in a video today that obvious fact that AA would be changing too (and that we need to start educating people how to play the changes ASAP, if they go through). 

 

However, the motivator isn't even bad CV players or the scrubs getting wrecked alone.... or at least not anymore on that second one. It's the fact that CV's are straight up broken. Despite appearances I'm actually good with a CV, I get how they work, know strengths and weakness's, but I'll tell you right now usually unless I'm against someone like Fem and other CV players I know aren't a joke - I don't use strafe and manual drop - because I understand how broken they are. And anyone that says "we need manual drop" didn't play alpha or is an out right liar because we were knocking down 2-300k games without it when AA at certain points wasn't nearly as much a threat. Think they are OP now, should have seen 2,2,2 midway, with jets, when tier 10 AA was a joke to anything above tier 8, BB's and all ships really had less agility, DD's had citadels, and HE bombs actually had some decent accuracy (and could hit the DD's citadel), there was no strafing AND DF was meant to lower accuracy not shred planes. Oh, and strafing may have been a non issue as you could have 2 CV's on a team and none on the other. 

 

USN fighters have always been OP, and needed a DPS nerf. AA has been buffed far too much on the high end, because of Manual drop, which has been OP since day one of it's introduction, the damage is way too high for that level of accuracy. Like if you gave Yamato the accuracy of say, Baltimore (dispersion and sigma both). HE bombs, namely the 1000 pound ones, are only a tad high, as the max damage they can deal unless they cause a det is about 3300 hp (as they can't pen citadels and a regular pen is 33% max damage) and need to be lowered so we can dial in the USN HE DB accuracy so they can actually be effective though part of that is needing more HP seeing as IJN planes are faster and have more HP in their TB's. AP bombs as well are too accurate for the damage they do - which is also high when you consider the bomb used has 1/3rd the explosives of the HE bomb. The aircraft rework, aside from adding to the AA issue on the high end, messed things up on the low end too, and against these war time planes, the tier 5-7 ships need wartime AA builds, New York should be closer to Texas, NM closer to Idaho or Mississippi, Colorado's more like West Virginia's (I say these ships cause I can find the upgraded weapon types ad numbers easy). There's a long list, in both directions, of things that need fixing. 

 

I may not be in Fem and the likes league, but I've shut down my fair share of CV's only to have inaccurate bombs or enemy ships work together to render what I do pointless and make it as if I wasn't there and did nothing as they slaughter the team. I have been the god of death smiting the red team as I see fit. I have been shut down but seen my team cancel out the enemy CV with their AA. I have seen the red CV choose targets at will and delete them as they sees it. What they have can be fixed, if they would actually listen and think, but rework is just as well to some degree because they are quite simply broken. Non-CV player, CV player, IJN, USN, pro, joe - we all generally agree on this fact.... just most have only one point of view and would say only op, only up, they need a nerf, no THEY need a nerf as opposed to the few of us that understand that CV's, and the other ships, need a mix of buffs and nerfs BOTH. 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
2,257 posts
24,799 battles

Lets see what WG has done with carriers so far.

Allowed for years for the USN CVs to consistently underperform compared to their IJN counterparts.

Graf Zeppelin.

Kaga

Enterprise

Strafe

AP bombs

Removing AS loadouts from all USN carriers and giving them only 1 loadout while leaving IJN squadrons untouched.

 

And yet there are players who have faith in WG that they will fix CVs with their upcoming rework.  I am not one of those players.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[IRISH]
Members
347 posts
7,092 battles
25 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

The problem is we the public know NOTHING of what they are actually doing so in many ways, it's hard to say how we feel. And yes, Notser (who has seen the rework) said in a video today that obvious fact that AA would be changing too (and that we need to start educating people how to play the changes ASAP, if they go through). 

 

However, the motivator isn't even bad CV players or the scrubs getting wrecked alone.... or at least not anymore on that second one. It's the fact that CV's are straight up broken. Despite appearances I'm actually good with a CV, I get how they work, know strengths and weakness's, but I'll tell you right now usually unless I'm against someone like Fem and other CV players I know aren't a joke - I don't use strafe and manual drop - because I understand how broken they are. And anyone that says "we need manual drop" didn't play alpha or is an out right liar because we were knocking down 2-300k games without it when AA at certain points wasn't nearly as much a threat. Think they are OP now, should have seen 2,2,2 midway, with jets, when tier 10 AA was a joke to anything above tier 8, BB's and all ships really had less agility, DD's had citadels, and HE bombs actually had some decent accuracy (and could hit the DD's citadel), there was no strafing AND DF was meant to lower accuracy not shred planes. Oh, and strafing may have been a non issue as you could have 2 CV's on a team and none on the other. 

 

USN fighters have always been OP, and needed a DPS nerf. AA has been buffed far too much on the high end, because of Manual drop, which has been OP since day one of it's introduction, the damage is way too high for that level of accuracy. Like if you gave Yamato the accuracy of say, Baltimore (dispersion and sigma both). HE bombs, namely the 1000 pound ones, are only a tad high, as the max damage they can deal unless they cause a det is about 3300 hp (as they can't pen citadels and a regular pen is 33% max damage) and need to be lowered so we can dial in the USN HE DB accuracy so they can actually be effective though part of that is needing more HP seeing as IJN planes are faster and have more HP in their TB's. AP bombs as well are too accurate for the damage they do - which is also high when you consider the bomb used has 1/3rd the explosives of the HE bomb. The aircraft rework, aside from adding to the AA issue on the high end, messed things up on the low end too, and against these war time planes, the tier 5-7 ships need wartime AA builds, New York should be closer to Texas, NM closer to Idaho or Mississippi, Colorado's more like West Virginia's (I say these ships cause I can find the upgraded weapon types ad numbers easy). There's a long list, in both directions, of things that need fixing. 

 

I may not be in Fem and the likes league, but I've shut down my fair share of CV's only to have inaccurate bombs or enemy ships work together to render what I do pointless and make it as if I wasn't there and did nothing as they slaughter the team. I have been the god of death smiting the red team as I see fit. I have been shut down but seen my team cancel out the enemy CV with their AA. I have seen the red CV choose targets at will and delete them as they sees it. What they have can be fixed, if they would actually listen and think, but rework is just as well to some degree because they are quite simply broken. Non-CV player, CV player, IJN, USN, pro, joe - we all generally agree on this fact.... just most have only one point of view and would say only op, only up, they need a nerf, no THEY need a nerf as opposed to the few of us that understand that CV's, and the other ships, need a mix of buffs and nerfs BOTH. 

I just couldn't disagree with you more. High Tier CV play Is NOT point..click..delete..if you are a CV..the AA is too strong, sorry, but you're just wrong. Without manual drops its WAY too easy for ships to dodge your TB's...flat out piece of cake.

Any mid tier ship can easily Torpedoebeat these days..and Im talking the slowest BB's.

Remove strafing? Now this might be something that actually requires skill, I still suck @ it..but Im going to keep trying..instead of crying..OOOOHH CV's are OP..or OH that CV player is too uniucum..he shouldn't be allowed to play.. I just havened seen one single compelling argument as to  HOW they are OP. IF a team melts..and the opposing CV is making a killing..chances are..even without that CV it would happen. That you cannot stop.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,031
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,092 posts
9,215 battles
3 hours ago, RobertViktor68 said:

I'm not a CV player.  I appreciate good CV players because they can multi-task in a way that I can't.  Good for them.  I've been hearing for a couple of years "CV's unbalanced, bad CV vs. Good CV player is automatic win, WG needs to fix...etc." 

 Is the CV re-work being motivated by players who are getting blaped by CVs? OR by "less good" CV players wanting skill to mean less?

How do good to great CV players feel about the change?  Do they believe it is necessary?

Doesn't a CV re-work necessitate a re-work on AA?

 

It is motivated my WG's desire to bring CV gameplay more inline with the other classes.  This change is a big one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
705 posts
3 hours ago, mofton said:

One of the big issues has been carrier unpopularity. Midway, in the game since launch has accumulated a measly 233k battles. Republique which has been out for 6 months has already beaten that with 238k, and the popular older battleships Yamato/Montana have about 2m battles apiece, Shima has 2.3m, Des Moines 1.7m. That's despite those types being diluted in popularity by more choice.

For all that some people like carriers, as a whole the community has voted with it's feet and voted to walk away from carriers as they are.

In all likelihood, the community as a whole will keep walking. One can hope, anyway. With all the hype about the rework, it had better be pretty awesome or folks will finally give up on the darn thing.

The cynic in me believes the CV rework project is really just a last-ditch effort to avoid the mass refund of all the Premium carrier purchases.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,376 posts
7,971 battles
2 minutes ago, drakoolia said:

I just couldn't disagree with you more. High Tier CV play Is NOT point..click..delete..if you are a CV..the AA is too strong, sorry, but you're just wrong. Without manual drops its WAY too easy for ships to dodge your TB's...flat out piece of cake.

Any mid tier ship can easily Torpedoebeat these days..and Im talking the slowest BB's.

And if you actually read carefully, you'll note that when I was referring to that - it was long ago in the past before the AA buffs, before the mobility buffs, etc, that it was point, click, delete. 

Also, a DD, maybe, a more agile cruiser, there's a chance, But some of the bigger ones and BB's barring your planes getting shredded and only having a couple dropping, which yes does happen, the only way you should be missing them if you have clue one how to play and use the properly is to flat out botch the drop somehow. My record in Midway is I think 212k and the only manual drops were on ships in smoke. I've hit cruisers for 6/6 with my Essex, to be exact the last one was a Neptune. Drop range is somewhere between 2.5 and 3 km and it is no different than when you launch torps from a ship - you have to predict what he is going to do, and it's better yet if you can make them do what you want them to do. 

You can play and still do well without manual drops, it's just the difference of shooting at a target 5 feet away vs 5000 feet. And if they removed manual drop, which I'm against because there are some scenario's it would be preferable to have because of where a ship is  camped out, and because of smoke and the removal of AA spotting in it, it's better to nerf the damage at this point, then that would be grounds and cause to undo some of the mobility buffs to the other ships, or buff the speed of aerial dropped torps, to compensate. Which would bring us back to the old days that you didn't need to use it because it never existed, assuming we also fix AA because again, if you read carefully, I do go on to say that high tier AA is too high. 

17 minutes ago, drakoolia said:

Remove strafing? Now this might be something that actually requires skill, I still suck @ it..but Im going to keep trying..instead of crying..OOOOHH CV's are OP..or OH that CV player is too uniucum..he shouldn't be allowed to play.. I just havened seen one single compelling argument as to  HOW they are OP. IF a team melts..and the opposing CV is making a killing..chances are..even without that CV it would happen. That you cannot stop.

Credit where it's due, you have the right mind set. And to some extent, your because some teams that melt, the CV is the least of the issue, and a DD, a cruiser, a BB with a good player can make just as much difference. And the truth is they are not strictly OP - in certain scenario's, yes, they are OP, but in others are underpowered. Which is why they are simply broken. Put an independence in a match with tier 4 and 5 ships mostly, with the other being IJN, it has the better fighter group, and with how little AA those ships have, odds are it's gonna run wild, part of why I actually have 52% WR in the thing and deal above average damage. But what cancels that out, is when I see tier 7 and 8 ships, or more accurately tier 7 CV's, that have double my reserves and better planes, and in the case of IJN's CV's the option to strafe lock that they've used to shut down Ranger and Lex, and tier 8 ships, where I simply don't have the reserves to account for losses sustained. A top tier CV can be a very potent force, they do have a ton of potential striking power, and the only defense you personally have is maneuvering and an RNG based system - which while working with your team helps drastically, means a gameplay change that most players do not want to make, having to play closer to other ships. Torpedo defenses aside, my 6 planes get through, all my torps on target at 9k a pop that's 54k damage. That's enough to potentially one shot a tier 6 BB, or damn close to it, not even counting any DB groups or additional TB as in the case of Midway. And sure BB's can launch similar devastation but it's way less accurate, and can be defeated by armour, angling, etc. And yeah I think they need a slight nerf to their AP too. Now toss in tier 8 you have AP bombs that can literally one shot a ship. 

 

Your not really going to find a truly compelling argument that they are straight up OP because they aren't anymore. Back in Alpha, Beta, yeah, these things were gods. All knelt before the power of the CV, even early live release they were something to be feared. But the teeth have been mostly removed and while when you get the guy with a tier 10 trolling in his tier 6 against the guy that just bought his, and is top tier, he can rain fire and devastation without really any repercussions, he's not spotted and his planes aren't being shot down. Unlike the BB that is worried with dispersion and spotted most any time he fires his guns and is fired upon in return. While conversely the same match but both are bottom tiered, may prove an exercise in frustration due to the AA and lack of reserves, even if he shuts down the enemy CV. Not Overpowered, not underpowered - simply broken.

 

The day they added manual drop was the day they really just broke CV's. Before that, fighters needed balancing, and AA needed to be tweaked, because it used to be tiers 4 and 5 had meh and sometimes with 5 okay AA, tiers 6-8, except when seeing jets, had amazing nightmare AA, and 9-10 was good unless against jets in which case it failed. But when they added Manual Drop, trying to make it "more actiony" and so we could chase DD's from smoke that turned their AA off, but didn't lower the damage - led to the agility buffs that hurt DD's as well. That led to the AA buffs that caused issues for both lines, shifted power balances, etc. That led to DB's being so problematic because of he AA buffs they added AP ones that cause more issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
260
[MWM]
Supertester
1,792 posts
4,935 battles

Ive had the opinion CV balance and overall mechanics are fun for no one for a long time. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
580
[OPRAH]
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
3,763 posts
12,435 battles

@RobertViktor68 CVs did not need a rework but rather those who play them poorly need to learn to play them better as some have. 

This so called rework came about due to complaints from those who do not want to have CVs in game at all in other words TARGETS, those who do not have a problem with CVs in the game until they become ……. wait for it ……. TARGETS and those who whine CVs are too hard to play please dumb them down! 

I reiterate CVs do not need a rework! Though there are many viable suggestions that could be added to them and make many happy. Chief among CV players is Let Us Make our own load outs and not be forced to choose from default load outs! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,042 posts
1,915 battles
2 hours ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

The motivation to rework the CV is coming from all sides, including those that "are getting blaped by CVs" and those that religiously play CVs only. The CV problems (matchmaking, skill disparity, UI, strafing, permanent spotting, etc) are seen by all sides and pretty much everyone agrees that a complete CV rework is needed. So far, there has been disagreement between different factions on how the CV rework should be. Not only that, no one has any idea on Wargaming is planning. Only Femennenly and The Mighty Jingles and a few other Community Contributors have a sneak peak. 

 

As a CV player myself, I'm cautiously optimistic. Those that love the CV gameplay see a "mini-RTS" gameplay where we carrier players would like to dictate how the battles would go. I chose to master CVs because I am an RTS player myself and I would love to play the most powerful class in World of Warships!

But overall, there seems to be a mixed bag. I know people that would not like the CV changes because the current theme of CVs fits well with the historic aura of CVs. Others would side with the faction that wants a complete CV rework, but they too wouldn't be too liberal on how they want to redo CVs.

 

Definitely. When you change CVs, you change the planes. When you change the planes, you change the nature of the planes' counters, namely AA. Wargaming has said that the CV rework will come alongside the AA rework. 

To give an idea on what the AA rework may be, they intend that players take control of AA ships and try to manually shoot down planes themselves. 

Does this mean that Texas might be able to get an AA graphics upgrade?

 

But the thought of being able to take manual control of AA, that's MIND-BLOWING! DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA !:cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
742
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,155 posts
1,648 battles
1 hour ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@RobertViktor68 CVs did not need a rework but rather those who play them poorly need to learn to play them better as some have. 

Any solution that relies on something absurd like you posted is fantasy, and not a solution.  Solutions have to work in reality, not just in spherical cow world.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[OSG]
Beta Testers
1,350 posts
14,771 battles
5 hours ago, drakoolia said:

This is all fine and dandy, but I tell you there are hard counters bye ANY class to a CV. I'll personally challenge you in a  CV, and Ill counter you with any of the classes.

 

DD counter: easy..I'll snipe you from the corner of a map..sneak up real quite like..and unleash upon U my PEdo BArrage..boom..done one CV sunk. this is done to me often, and I as a DD do this to CV's too, successfully

CL/CA counter: Easy....AA build.with dual fighters...then squirm my way ever closer to you..sure Ill take some shots from you, but when I Catch you..Oh buddy..yer toast.

BB: this ones the hardest cause BB's are slow..but spec AA best you can..and make your way to the CV hugging islands...so yer only open to pedo bombers from one side. You can have pretty good success if done right..50/50 chance you can succeed.

 

As far as ships with crapp AA?...ride along with bettter AA ships..teamup with another player to go snipe the CV together...theres many options. NO ship is powerless to a CV attack. practice decent strategy. You can plan a great CV snipe with 2 to 3 ships..and 2 of you working in conjunction can send a CV to the grave.

 

 

 

 

Go ahead and waste your time in a DD trying to sneak around the map against a good CV captain.  You will not be spotting for your team, not be capping for your team, and not be torping for your team since you are trying to stay unspotted.  Sure a good cruiser build can stop a CV from doing huge damage early in the match, but after a while the AA gets weaker as guns get taken out (same as the AA does in a BB).  So a good CV will not be countered since a DD will usually not get to him and BBs don't have the AA generally.  And you are in most cases (except for the DD wasting his time) talking about soft counters, not hard counters like all the other classes face.   Good luck trying those soft counters against a good CV captain, which I never will be.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×