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

To those that believe CVs should be removed/rework cancelled..

41 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

47
[-RUM-]
Members
176 posts
2,026 battles

I have seen a lot of posts citing why carriers should be removed completely instead of the current rework being implemented. Not sure if this has been mentioned frequently but to these players realise that near all BBs/CA/CLs/DDs that remain will have to be statistically reworked entirely? AA is a huge mechanic that is featured in near all ships, captain skills, consumables etc. To balance those that feature a large portion of capability in this area they would have to be buffed in regards to other stats to bring them into line with those that are weaker (US lines spring to mind). TWA, another WG published title, just died because of too much emphasis on unit difference and counters (well one of the reasons anyway). The rework does seem to bring CVs closer to the other classes and hence make them more balanced and approachable. The RTS CV model was clever in theory though clearly didn't fit with the bulk of player base psychology. Removing CVs again would be a ludicrous undertaking and many people don't seem to fathom the repercussions. Keep pushing with that rework WG. If you seek to please everyone you of course please no one. 

Edited by Sumwunskum
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,973
[INTEL]
Members
8,838 posts
26,334 battles

Got news.

4/5 of matches dont have CVs. No one minds.

CVs are being reworked anyway. Removing them is less of a task than reworking them to keep a mechanic in the game that the playerbase largely does not want. Thats a total waste of resources.

  • Cool 10
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RUM-]
Members
176 posts
2,026 battles
5 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Got news.

4/5 of matches dont have CVs. No one minds.

CVs are being reworked anyway. Removing them is less of a task than reworking them to keep a mechanic in the game that the playerbase largely does not want. Thats a total waste of resources.

I just wonder will people mind if CVs were removed and their heavily AA equipped ships are now assuredly worse? What will then happen if these ships are compensated with improved stats? CVs still exist and DFAA still exists...as do those captain skills. I am just wondering where will the substitute be? Sorry but damn...what the player base wants seems to change with every single persons opinion from WG devs to newer players. I honestly don't have a clue what the truth is.

Edited by Sumwunskum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[ACES_]
Beta Testers
275 posts
3,777 battles

if i am super pissed at being cross dropped i just drop out of que if a cv shows in list

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
129
[PQUOD]
Members
454 posts
6,893 battles
33 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Got news.

4/5 of matches dont have CVs. No one minds.

CVs are being reworked anyway. Removing them is less of a task than reworking them to keep a mechanic in the game that the playerbase largely does not want. Thats a total waste of resources.

4 out of 5, sometimes 5 out of 4, T9 and T10 matches don't have CV's. The majority of the CV matches are low to mid tier. If CV's were removed,  the USN T7 - T9 CL's would vanish as well.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
672 posts
2,396 battles
28 minutes ago, Sumwunskum said:

I just wonder will people mind if CVs were removed and their heavily AA equipped ships are now assuredly worse? What will then happen if these ships are compensated with improved stats? CVs still exist and DFAA still exists...as do those captain skills. I am just wondering where will the substitute be? Sorry but damn...what the player base wants seems to change with every single persons opinion from WG devs to newer players. I honestly don't have a clue what the truth is.

The AA could be repurposed as a light secondary that only works well against dds perhaps? You can still shoot down spotter planes too.  DFAA could be changed into another type of consumable. Captain skills could be reworked as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,973
[INTEL]
Members
8,838 posts
26,334 battles
7 minutes ago, Capt_Ahab1776 said:

4 out of 5, sometimes 5 out of 4, T9 and T10 matches don't have CV's. The majority of the CV matches are low to mid tier. If CV's were removed,  the USN T7 - T9 CL's would vanish as well.

No, they wouldnt. They are present in every match because of their fearsome DPM, radar, anti-DD capabilities. I would still play mine...

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RUM-]
Members
176 posts
2,026 battles
6 minutes ago, Krupp_Sabot said:

The AA could be repurposed as a light secondary that only works well against dds perhaps? You can still shoot down spotter planes too.  DFAA could be changed into another type of consumable. Captain skills could be reworked as well.

Nice idea. There's the rework word again though. With all the ships that would have to feature it who knows what it would do to balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RUM-]
Members
176 posts
2,026 battles
1 minute ago, Taichunger said:

No, they wouldnt. They are present in every match because of their fearsome DPM, radar, anti-DD capabilities. I would still play mine...

You might, perhaps many others wouldn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
672 posts
2,396 battles
1 minute ago, Sumwunskum said:

Nice idea. There's the rework word again though. With all the ships that would have to feature it who knows what it would do to balance.

Something is gonna have to give though one rework or another. I dont have high hopes for the cv rework myself. Low risk high reward classes attract path of least resistance players of which are sadly the majority in gaming. i see CVs becoming the WoWS arty with this change and that is not a good thing. I wish CVs would get their own CV v CV mode even i would play that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
982
[SBS]
Members
2,848 posts
2,391 battles
Just now, Sumwunskum said:

You might, perhaps many others wouldn't. 

There aren't a lot of CV games at T7-T9 and people are playing these ships now.  I'd be willing to bet very few people even bother to spec into AA with those ships.  If CVs were gone tomorrow I don't believe there would be any balance adjustments made.  I think you're completely off base here.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
129
[PQUOD]
Members
454 posts
6,893 battles
14 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

No, they wouldnt. They are present in every match because of their fearsome DPM, radar, anti-DD capabilities. I would still play mine...

I agree to disagree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
129
[PQUOD]
Members
454 posts
6,893 battles
4 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

There aren't a lot of CV games at T7-T9 and people are playing these ships now.  I'd be willing to bet very few people even bother to spec into AA with those ships.  If CVs were gone tomorrow I don't believe there would be any balance adjustments made.  I think you're completely off base here.  

I think if CV's were eliminated. The only people playing the T7-T9 USN CL's would be almost exclusively people grinding to the Worcester . Emphasis on almost, there are exceptions to every rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
672 posts
2,396 battles
1 minute ago, Capt_Ahab1776 said:

I think if CV's were eliminated. The only people playing the T7-T9 USN CL's would be almost exclusively people grinding to the Worcester . Emphasis on almost, there are exceptions to every rule.

I have heard the helena is solid to heck it better be since the dallas sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[WLDD]
Beta Testers
359 posts
5,285 battles

I have no problem with CVs being in World of Warships, but I do have a problem with the current iteration of CVs and their impact on the game.  Right now a single CV on the team has more influence on the outcome of the match than any other ship in the game.  The mechanics of CV play are also one reason why so few players are willing to use them, since everything about them is so vastly different than anything else in the game.  The CV rework is one step by Wargaming to lower the influence CVs have on the match, while simultaneously making it easier for more players to use them.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,375
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,028 posts
10,703 battles
1 hour ago, Sumwunskum said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned frequently but to these players realise that near all BBs/CA/CLs/DDs that remain will have to be statistically reworked entirely? AA is a huge mechanic that is featured in near all ships, captain skills, consumables etc.

Probably not.

Des Moines and Montana have been the most played BB and CA in Clan Battles for pretty much every season. That's despite AA being a 'plus point' which they are 'balanced around'.

Even the vaunted Worcester averages a mighty... 2.2 plane kills per battle. Almost entirely irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[S-N-D]
Members
1,690 posts
5,773 battles
1 hour ago, Sumwunskum said:

I have seen a lot of posts citing why carriers should be removed completely instead of the current rework being implemented. Not sure if this has been mentioned frequently but to these players realise that near all BBs/CA/CLs/DDs that remain will have to be statistically reworked entirely? AA is a huge mechanic that is featured in near all ships, captain skills, consumables etc. To balance those that feature a large portion of capability in this area they would have to be buffed in regards to other stats to bring them into line with those that are weaker (US lines spring to mind). TWA, another WG published title, just died because of too much emphasis on unit difference and counters (well one of the reasons anyway). The rework does seem to bring CVs closer to the other classes and hence make them more balanced and approachable. The RTS CV model was clever in theory though clearly didn't fit with the bulk of player base psychology. Removing CVs again would be a ludicrous undertaking and many people don't seem to fathom the repercussions. Keep pushing with that rework WG. If you seek to please everyone you of course please no one. 

The game worked just fine before strafe. The rework is pointless if CVs are made to struggle to do damage by appeasing players with ridiculous levels of AA on top of being limited to one squadron. You can rework it and balance it into tedium, like Tic Tac Toe, but if no one is going to bother it won't matter. Most of the player base are not going to play a CV because they can't control their ship while attacking and are going to be easy pickings for veteran destroyers. The skill gap is not addressed here either as everything is manual drops, on a timer, while trying to dodge aa clouds and still hitting a moving target. Artillery is remedial in comparison.

Edited by _Caliph_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RUM-]
Members
176 posts
2,026 battles
46 minutes ago, mofton said:

Probably not.

Des Moines and Montana have been the most played BB and CA in Clan Battles for pretty much every season. That's despite AA being a 'plus point' which they are 'balanced around'.

Even the vaunted Worcester averages a mighty... 2.2 plane kills per battle. Almost entirely irrelevant.

Aren't those just high tiers though? Just using the US lines as an example. I assumed by the stats they were renowned for that. Other ships AA are too considered for their AA potential in reviews and such.  I also got shredded in a few games today by some Americans. Farragut was one. I was in a Kaga where I actually feared that ship. Usually in other classes I don't consider it too much. That all being said yeah the game is played over multiple tiers/playstyles which perhaps are enjoyed by all. The only time I flinch when in a Nikolai too is when a CV appears, which they more often do down there.

Edited by Sumwunskum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,011
[SALVO]
Members
17,714 posts
18,486 battles
1 hour ago, Sumwunskum said:

I have seen a lot of posts citing why carriers should be removed completely instead of the current rework being implemented. Not sure if this has been mentioned frequently but to these players realise that near all BBs/CA/CLs/DDs that remain will have to be statistically reworked entirely? AA is a huge mechanic that is featured in near all ships, captain skills, consumables etc. To balance those that feature a large portion of capability in this area they would have to be buffed in regards to other stats to bring them into line with those that are weaker (US lines spring to mind). TWA, another WG published title, just died because of too much emphasis on unit difference and counters (well one of the reasons anyway). The rework does seem to bring CVs closer to the other classes and hence make them more balanced and approachable. The RTS CV model was clever in theory though clearly didn't fit with the bulk of player base psychology. Removing CVs again would be a ludicrous undertaking and many people don't seem to fathom the repercussions. Keep pushing with that rework WG. If you seek to please everyone you of course please no one. 

Actually, I don't think that you're correct.  Yes, AA is a part of all non-carriers.  But with a handful of exceptions, I don't think that the game would desperately need to have all of its non-carriers rebalanced if CVs were removed.  Some DDs, primarily premium ones, whose primary selling point was that they are AA DDs, like the Kidd, and to a lesser degree the Sims and Monaghan, might need to be seriously re-examined.  And the Grozovoi might need to be looked at.  But beyond that, I think that pretty much all other ships are already in a good spot as is.

Oh, without CVs, they might want to remove the DefAA consumable, and possibly consider a replacement or replacements.  But I don't think that they'd need to rush on that.  I'd probably suggest that different ships should get a different replacement for DefAA, rather than having it be the same replacement across the board.  For some, it could be a Repair Party (Heal).  For others, maybe Hydro.  And for others, maybe consider coming up with new consumables.  I could see the Kidd getting a torp reload booster in place of its DefAA, for example.

But this is all just idle speculation.  I doubt that they'll remove carriers any time soon (if at all).  They've invested far too much time and resources in this rework to just (bleep)can it right now, unless they come across some amazingly good reason to abort the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,375
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,028 posts
10,703 battles
2 minutes ago, Sumwunskum said:

Aren't those just high tiers though? Just using the US lines as an example. I assumed by the stats they were renowned for that. Other ships AA are too considered for their AA potential in reviews and such.  

Those are high tiers, but mid-tiers the USN AA isn't noteworthy for the most part any more, and isn't a big deal.

When New Orleans was T8 she had pretty bad AA, nowadays the others are usually solid, but it just doesn't matter - not enough carriers, and too big a points/modules investment required to make AA relevant. Destroyer AA doesn't matter without DFAA, USN battleships are generally 'ok' at middling tiers but don't need the AA to be good where they're good. Again they average low single-digit plane kills/game - New Mexico does worse on planes/game than 3 other T6 BB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
672 posts
2,396 battles
3 minutes ago, mofton said:

Those are high tiers, but mid-tiers the USN AA isn't noteworthy for the most part any more, and isn't a big deal.

When New Orleans was T8 she had pretty bad AA, nowadays the others are usually solid, but it just doesn't matter - not enough carriers, and too big a points/modules investment required to make AA relevant. Destroyer AA doesn't matter without DFAA, USN battleships are generally 'ok' at middling tiers but don't need the AA to be good where they're good. Again they average low single-digit plane kills/game - New Mexico does worse on planes/game than 3 other T6 BB's.

Only the Texas is really hurt since her AA is her gimmick. the Atlanta is still a menace even in non cv games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RUM-]
Members
176 posts
2,026 battles
9 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Actually, I don't think that you're correct.  Yes, AA is a part of all non-carriers.  But with a handful of exceptions, I don't think that the game would desperately need to have all of its non-carriers rebalanced if CVs were removed.  Some DDs, primarily premium ones, whose primary selling point was that they are AA DDs, like the Kidd, and to a lesser degree the Sims and Monaghan, might need to be seriously re-examined.  And the Grozovoi might need to be looked at.  But beyond that, I think that pretty much all other ships are already in a good spot as is.

Oh, without CVs, they might want to remove the DefAA consumable, and possibly consider a replacement or replacements.  But I don't think that they'd need to rush on that.  I'd probably suggest that different ships should get a different replacement for DefAA, rather than having it be the same replacement across the board.  For some, it could be a Repair Party (Heal).  For others, maybe Hydro.  And for others, maybe consider coming up with new consumables.  I could see the Kidd getting a torp reload booster in place of its DefAA, for example.

But this is all just idle speculation.  I doubt that they'll remove carriers any time soon (if at all).  They've invested far too much time and resources in this rework to just (bleep)can it right now, unless they come across some amazingly good reason to abort the project.

Yeah not a bad point. Reworking premiums and tier 10s with perma camos....adding different consumables. That could get nasty. Just amazing the way small changes to things like that throws balance. Radar on the YY anyone? CVs just seem to be better the devil you know. Does anyone enjoy the concept of aircraft in the game from a historical or immersive perspective? Honestly just asking. I do but that's just me. No matter what class of ship I'm in.

Edited by Sumwunskum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,011
[SALVO]
Members
17,714 posts
18,486 battles
17 minutes ago, Sumwunskum said:

Yeah not a bad point. Reworking premiums and tier 10s with perma camos....adding different consumables. That could get nasty. Just amazing the way small changes to things like that throws balance. Radar on the YY anyone? CVs just seem to be better the devil you know. Does anyone enjoy the concept of aircraft in the game from a historical or immersive perspective? Honestly just asking. I do but that's just me. No matter what class of ship I'm in.

Actually, there's another and different concern when it comes to the possibility of removing carriers.  It's something that people who have played clan battles will understand.  And that's if carriers are removed, even if DefAA, the AA skills, and the AA upgrade modules weren't immediately removed, most players would respec their ships, particularly their higher tier ones and at a minimum, use hydro instead of Def AA, on those cruisers where it's an either/or choice.  And the result would be that it'd be even more difficult for DDs to land torpedo hits when hydro was being more commonly mounted.  Heck, I suspect that even now with the relatively low carrier population, some cruiser players may not bother with AA setups, so it may be possible that this wouldn't cause quite that large a shift, if the shift has already occurred.  But it is something to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
29 posts
2 hours ago, Sumwunskum said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned frequently but to these players realise that near all BBs/CA/CLs/DDs that remain will have to be statistically reworked entirely?

Nonsense. Swap out  the relevant consumables and Bob's your uncle.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×