Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
illusin007_

CV gameplay is broken - The skill gap is back big time

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
191 posts
10,223 battles

I took the time to explain 

1. Why some think CVs are so weak

2. Why some wreck havoc with them

3. Showing that the skill gap is alive and well, almost exactly like the old CV skill gap

 

Edited by MattttChris
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,805 battles

The RTS skill gap was big but you could always play the game with auto-attacking. "Action" skill gap much bigger because some players will understand the... physics to attacking enemy ships a lot more compared to others. CVs get no grey lead or follow assist. It is all player reliant. If CVs had that grey lead indicator, CVs would be a bit more doable but a lot of people will complain about constantly getting hit by planes. :cap_hmm:

Edited by Vangm94
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,834
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,087 posts
5,777 battles

Of course there is only one tier - X   

 

Please do DDs as well...    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
191 posts
10,223 battles
1 minute ago, RA6E_ said:

Of course there is only one tier - X   

 

Please do DDs as well...    

Again I only did T10 because they have the most matches (bigger sample sizes always best) and they are supposed to be the strongest

Just by looking at DD stats, they appear to have a skill gap as well. Just as every ship does. It's just not as drastic as CVs. However, I didn't actually do the math. Just did it in my head.

Edited by MattttChris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,834
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,087 posts
5,777 battles
Just now, MattttChris said:

Again I only did T10 because they have the most matches (bigger sample sizes always best) and they are supposed to be the strongest

Well not hammering you, because this post is pretty much consistent with all chatter on these forums and WG balancing in general.   The entire world revolves around highest tier...   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
191 posts
10,223 battles
Just now, RA6E_ said:

Well not hammering you, because this post is pretty much consistent with all chatter on these forums and WG balancing in general.   The entire world revolves around highest tier...   

Honestly I personally prefer T8 CVs. 

However, CVs that can't be top tier 100% of the time have different compounding variables like MM to influence the data. I do hate that it seems like only T10 matters, but for good data it is the best tier for me to analyze. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[TARK]
Members
640 posts
1 minute ago, RA6E_ said:

Well not hammering you, because this post is pretty much consistent with all chatter on these forums and WG balancing in general.   The entire world revolves around highest tier...   

I mean... why wouldn't it revolve around end game?

I enjoy some low-tier boats... but there is an analog to everything that is low-tier at a higher tier that does everything better.

Staying low-tier means 1 of 3 things:

1. you just like lower tier.... I don't get this unless you just like stomping new players, or you, yourself are crap and incapable of getting better

2. you don't play enough to get high tier boats (making your opinion on anything useless in my "useless" opinion)

3. you somehow hit T8, and are so bad that you just lose credit every game (lol)

  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,648
[IRNBN]
Members
3,146 posts
8,338 battles

There is a skill gap for every type. Some people are just better players than others in a given situation.

The problem was magnified in the old RTS system by strafing, which a unicum could use to castrate a potato CV in minutes and then run riot unopposed.

As it stands, someone is either good at manual drops, or they're not. No shame there. I totally suck at DD stealth mechanics, so I don't play DD's. My narcolepsy kicks in playing battleships. Tough cookies for me, eh? I'm half-way decent at cruisers, so that's what I play.

In any game archtype, unicums gonna come, taters gonna tate.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
191 posts
10,223 battles
6 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

There is a skill gap for every type. Some people are just better players than others in a given situation.

The problem was magnified in the old RTS system by strafing, which a unicum could use to castrate a potato CV in minutes and then run riot unopposed.

As it stands, someone is either good at manual drops, or they're not. No shame there. I totally suck at DD stealth mechanics, so I don't play DD's. My narcolepsy kicks in playing battleships. Tough cookies for me, eh? I'm half-way decent at cruisers, so that's what I play.

In any game archtype, unicums gonna come, taters gonna tate.

 

Yes but even with fighter straffing removed we have a very very similar skill and stat gap to before. 

I also wanted to give a numerical representation to each side so everyone can hopefully understand one another a little better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[MPIRE]
Beta Testers
1,809 posts
10,354 battles
1 minute ago, MattttChris said:

Yes but even with fighter straffing removed we have a very very similar skill and stat gap to before. 

I also wanted to give a numerical representation to each side so everyone can hopefully understand one another a little better. 

Interesting, I've been noticing the skill gap quite a lot, but that's pretty bad.  At least it's not a completely binary thing at least.  A poor CV driver can still have a good game versus a better CV driver.  Or they can both fail miserably!  Would be really interesting to see the T6 and the T8 numbers, those are the tiers where most of the complaints come from, and an I wouldn't be surprised if the gap was even bigger there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[NERO]
Members
3,630 posts

I'd be curious to know if the top players have changed significantly from pre and post change. 

For example, are the people that use to dominate with the RTS play style now struggling or are people that were good at CVs still good at CVs? I know what I would guess, but it would be neat to actually see the stats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,805 battles
3 minutes ago, TTK_Aegis said:

I'd be curious to know if the top players have changed significantly from pre and post change. 

For example, are the people that use to dominate with the RTS play style now struggling or are people that were good at CVs still good at CVs? I know what I would guess, but it would be neat to actually see the stats. 

Compare and contrast. I am not a top player but I am top eight players for amount of battles in (old) Ryujo so take that however you like. The only real difference is that I am sunk more because I stopped caring and I attack harder.

 

Edited by Vangm94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,447
[CAST]
Members
4,898 posts
3,416 battles

I posted in your reddit thread, but I'll say the same here.

You title is misleading. The RTS model skill gap was strong not because one player was simply better at dealing damage than the other. The problem actually lay in the fact that a good player could *completely shut down* the enemy CV player and then run rampant.

Now, the skill gap is about on par with other ships in that you could have good CV players and bad CV players ... but neither can just outright prevent the other from playing. Could you imagine being in a battleship and then suddenly you could no longer move nor fire your guns because an enemy BB had some sort of skill that could prevent you from doing *anything* for a full two minutes? Yeah, sounds bad, right? THAT was how RTS CV play was.

Also, Hak stats are highly skewed to pre-0.8.0.1 when it got nerfed hard. Pretty sure many Hak players just stopped playing when they realized they could no longer automatically rack of stupid damage numbers by stealth torping.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
189
[DENY2]
Members
156 posts
2,452 battles
10 minutes ago, Kenjister said:

Interesting, I've been noticing the skill gap quite a lot, but that's pretty bad.  At least it's not a completely binary thing at least.  A poor CV driver can still have a good game versus a better CV driver.  Or they can both fail miserably!  Would be really interesting to see the T6 and the T8 numbers, those are the tiers where most of the complaints come from, and an I wouldn't be surprised if the gap was even bigger there.

 

Pretty sure majority of complaints coming from tier6 and tier8, are from those carriers being up to tiered. Being in a T6 CV in a T8 battle, is the same as being in a T8 CV in a T10 you feel it would be more fun sailing to the middle of the map and being deleted.

That's where if CV's had a -1 tier limit on them balance would probably feel better all-around.

Edited by _Browncoat_
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
191 posts
10,223 battles
3 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

I posted in your reddit thread, but I'll say the same here.

You title is misleading. The RTS model skill gap was strong not because one player was simply better at dealing damage than the other. The problem actually lay in the fact that a good player could *completely shut down* the enemy CV player and then run rampant.

Now, the skill gap is about on par with other ships in that you could have good CV players and bad CV players ... but neither can just outright prevent the other from playing. Could you imagine being in a battleship and then suddenly you could no longer move nor fire your guns because an enemy BB had some sort of skill that could prevent you from doing *anything* for a full two minutes? Yeah, sounds bad, right? THAT was how RTS CV play was.

Also, Hak stats are highly skewed to pre-0.8.0.1 when it got nerfed hard. Pretty sure many Hak players just stopped playing when they realized they could no longer automatically rack of stupid damage numbers by stealth torping.

Thanks for replying here too! I replied to you on reddit aswell. 

I never meant to mislead, but it is still a type of skill gap. Yes the old skill gap had large parts in the strafing, but that wasn't the complete story. 

 

Now even with removal of strafing we are still seeing a very similar looking skill gap even by half of every server population. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
586
[NUWES]
Members
2,939 posts
9,735 battles

That's not what they meant by the old skill gap. There always is a skill gap between good and not-so-good players. The problem under the old system was the skill gap between your carrier and the other carrier would get you whole team wiped out because individual CVs were so powerful compared to everyone else. The only real way to counter a carrier under the RTS system was with another carrier of at least equal skill. If you had a good Hak player on your side and the other side had a player who just got his Hak, your side basically lost already. The good player will just roll over the whole other team because the not-so-good player can't keep up with the air defense duties. They only thing left in the end would be a few cruisers with good AA who would simply die last now that the CV had time to focus them. The problem was even worse by the fact that it was difficult to last long enough to learn how to play the high tier CVs against a better player. 

Under the new system CVs are much weaker and damage is more in line with other ships. They don't really directly counter each other and damage is much lower so skill differentials among CV players aren't any worse for the team than having a less-skilled BB player on your side. That is the skill gap they were talking about. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,287
[RKLES]
Members
12,246 posts
13,897 battles

Skill gap with new CVs is even greater than with RTS CVs, because in RTS CVs a new player could at least auto drop with bombers and still score some hits and a little damage. The Reworked CVs you have to have good skill to use or else you probably will not even get a single point of damage off an enemy ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,542
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,099 posts
18,104 battles

I have two complaints about the analysis, neither of which is particularly avoidable.

First is that the data (unfortunately, all publicly available data) for post-rework CVs is badly confounded by the massive swings in AA power. That means your top 50% likely includes a substantial overrepresentation of data from 0.8.0.0 (with super broken Hak, completely ignorable AA, and F-key spam). The bottom 50% almost certainly includes an overrepresentation of data from 0.8.0.1 and beyond (Hak gutted, guaranteed AA damage amped up massively). So in a sense, this comparison probably says more about pre- and post-nerf stats, than it does about skill gaps.

Second, the fact that there are only two types of CVs in a tier means that the WR stats cannot be interpreted as the absolute power level of the ships. There are only four possible matchups in 1v1 CV games: Mid-Mid, Hak-Hak, and Mid-Hak. Two of those (Mid-Mid and Hak-Hak) are guaranteed to produce a 50% WR because one of them will win and the other will lose. That means the only place you'd see a deviation from 50/50 is in Midway vs. Hakuryu games -- the WR stat really represents the relative power levels of Midway vs. Hak, not CVs vs. non-CVs. WR comparisons of other ships technically suffer from the same issue, but to a much lesser extent because there are many more types of, e.g., cruisers to compare against.

In terms of personal experience, though, I agree, the entry-level effectiveness of CVs could stand to be brought up a fair amount. If you don't know how to avoid flak, and you haven't processed which ships to avoid, you're going to do basically nothing, and you won't even be dead to go back to port, you'll just be stuck with no planes and nothing to do for the rest of the match.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[MPIRE]
Beta Testers
1,809 posts
10,354 battles
Just now, _Browncoat_ said:

Pretty sure majority of complaints coming from tier6 and tier8, are from those carriers being up to tiered. Being in a T6 CV in a T8 battle, is the same as being in a T8 CV in a T10 you feel better be more fun sailing to the middle of the map and being deleted.

That's where if CV's had a -1 tier limit on them balance would probably feel better all-around.

That's why I'm curious.  The rework for all intents and purposes is still pretty new and differences in player skill are bound to be high.  Being uptiered is difficult, but in my experience with Shokaku and Kaga it's very possible to do well in a game filled with t10.  My personal theory is that most players are still lacking the mechanical skill needed to drop through heavy AA, or are simply attempting to strike targets that they shouldn't be.  If that was true, then the skill gap should be high.  Even higher than the tier 10s, which are more forgiving in terms of plane reserves.  If that's the case, then WG will probably want to lower the skill floor somehow without messing with the overall power - after all as time goes on the average player skill is bound to increase.
On the other hand if the skill gap isn't that high, then perhaps the CVs deserve more of an overall buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
43 minutes ago, MattttChris said:

I took the time to explain 

 

Nice analysis, but as you state, 

Quote

 

Of course take this with a grain of salt. These stats do take into account the Hak when it could still Air Shima. The new class was just released, things are changing constantly, we have a smallish sample size.

 

 

 

Maybe that should come as a parental guidance warning at the very start of your post, rather than hidden after your results. And put in bold letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
794
[HC]
Beta Testers
2,764 posts
12,389 battles
4 minutes ago, TTK_Aegis said:

I'd be curious to know if the top players have changed significantly from pre and post change. 

For example, are the people that use to dominate with the RTS play style now struggling or are people that were good at CVs still good at CVs? I know what I would guess, but it would be neat to actually see the stats. 

Looking at the stats for a few CV players, it does look like a good CV skipper pre-0.8.0 is still a good CV skipper post 0.8.0. Certain skills, like planning out how to attack someone, how to read the map, ect... are just as important now as they were before.

 

Back to the OP, there's something else that's going to throw off the numbers for a skill gap. CV's just got a massive infusion of bad players. A lot of players just came out of the woodwork, which might very well have tier 10 CV's they failed at long ago but still had around or repurchased, and they still don't have any skill beyond sending their planes at the nearest AA cruiser and watching them evaporate. Gotta see what the numbers look like not including them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[WOSV]
Members
584 posts
3,600 battles

There's a skill gap for everything. But, trying to say the skill gap with current CV is bad, can we remember how bad the skill gap of pre-rework CV was?

Old CV that were good would erase the other CV given even a tiny window to do so. New CV just are able to do more damage. The other CV can still play and compete with a good enemy CV. It comes down to who can hit the more important target harder as opposed to who can out-multitask the other guy.

Aiming isn't super hard though. IDK if I just caught on particularly fast or what, but I had very little difficulty adjusting. At least you can practice good aim and not have to worry about strafing RNG. With a little practice anyone can put up good damage with new CV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,805 battles
1 minute ago, Kenjister said:

That's why I'm curious.  The rework for all intents and purposes is still pretty new and differences in player skill are bound to be high.  Being uptiered is difficult, but in my experience with Shokaku and Kaga it's very possible to do well in a game filled with t10.  My personal theory is that most players are still lacking the mechanical skill needed to drop through heavy AA, or are simply attempting to strike targets that they shouldn't be.  If that was true, then the skill gap should be high.  Even higher than the tier 10s, which are more forgiving in terms of plane reserves.  If that's the case, then WG will probably want to lower the skill floor somehow without messing with the overall power - after all as time goes on the average player skill is bound to increase.
On the other hand if the skill gap isn't that high, then perhaps the CVs deserve more of an overall buff.

My only real issue is dropping my torpedoes from one kilometer because that is Kaga's arming distance. I guess that is a sacrifice I get for having four torpedo bombers. :cap_old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
191 posts
10,223 battles
1 minute ago, Halonut24 said:

There's a skill gap for everything. But, trying to say the skill gap with current CV is bad, can we remember how bad the skill gap of pre-rework CV was?

Old CV that were good would erase the other CV given even a tiny window to do so. New CV just are able to do more damage. The other CV can still play and compete with a good enemy CV. It comes down to who can hit the more important target harder as opposed to who can out-multitask the other guy.

Aiming isn't super hard though. IDK if I just caught on particularly fast or what, but I had very little difficulty adjusting. At least you can practice good aim and not have to worry about strafing RNG. With a little practice anyone can put up good damage with new CV. 

You would be suprised, but when using win rate and avg damage numbers the skill gap looks to be very similar to RTS CVs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,805 battles
2 minutes ago, Halonut24 said:

There's a skill gap for everything. But, trying to say the skill gap with current CV is bad, can we remember how bad the skill gap of pre-rework CV was?

Old CV that were good would erase the other CV given even a tiny window to do so. New CV just are able to do more damage. The other CV can still play and compete with a good enemy CV. It comes down to who can hit the more important target harder as opposed to who can out-multitask the other guy.

Aiming isn't super hard though. IDK if I just caught on particularly fast or what, but I had very little difficulty adjusting. At least you can practice good aim and not have to worry about strafing RNG. With a little practice anyone can put up good damage with new CV. 

Dropping four torpedoes and seeing that none of them hit. It gets old quick. Then dropping another four and seeing those all miss.

3 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Looking at the stats for a few CV players, it does look like a good CV skipper pre-0.8.0 is still a good CV skipper post 0.8.0. Certain skills, like planning out how to attack someone, how to read the map, ect... are just as important now as they were before.

 

Back to the OP, there's something else that's going to throw off the numbers for a skill gap. CV's just got a massive infusion of bad players. A lot of players just came out of the woodwork, which might very well have tier 10 CV's they failed at long ago but still had around or repurchased, and they still don't have any skill beyond sending their planes at the nearest AA cruiser and watching them evaporate. Gotta see what the numbers look like not including them.

Same tactics, slight variations in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×