Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
m4tt_

why WG still did not realize that nobody likes to have 4 cvs per game

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

9
[FTBAS]
[FTBAS]
Members
25 posts
3,224 battles

Most of the people don't like when we have 2 cvs per game, much less 4.

sometimes seems like all they want is folks who like this game just stop playing it.

Edited by m4tt_
  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[-FOX-]
Beta Testers
62 posts
2,782 battles

I just love the concept that they changed the RTS style CV's so that they couldn't control a battle.  Now they're changing the game to try to stop the reworked CV's from controlling the battle.  

 “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Albert Einstein.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,753
[RLGN]
Members
11,664 posts
20,643 battles
6 minutes ago, monoace said:

I just love the concept that they changed the RTS style CV's so that they couldn't control a battle.  Now they're changing the game to try to stop the reworked CV's from controlling the battle.  

 “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Albert Einstein.

‘The more things change; the more they remain the same.’

Been saying that since the closed beta tests of the rework last year.

Many of the testers said nothing would really change, except the mechanics by which carriers did things, and we’ve been proven right.

If anything; things are WORSE than before, because of the increased numbers of carriers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,189
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,848 posts
17,412 battles

I love the concept that the CV players actually think the rework is taking the game somewhere fun and positive and where they want it to be. Someone call World of Warplanes and see if there is any room in their parking lot for another one of WGs good ideas.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,189
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,848 posts
17,412 battles
1 minute ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

If anything; things are WORSE than before, because of the increased numbers of carriers.

And the totally hosed over AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,126 posts
12,729 battles
20 minutes ago, Umikami said:

And the totally hosed over AA.

I don't usually agree with you but when I do (Like today) I prefer to have a Dos Equis ( or Grey Goose Vodka ).
"Stay thirsty my friend".

B822400131Z.1_20160310130117_000_GO81L316L.1_Gallery.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
655
[TOG]
Members
3,778 posts
20,224 battles

 I have no issue with 2 x T4's, T4/T6 or even T6/T8, depending on the tier. What's really dangerous is 2 x T8's. Especially Kaga/Enterprise combo. WG seems bound and determined to make CV's the go to ship. Even if they alienate the other 10 players in a random match with 2 CV's.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[FTBAS]
[FTBAS]
Members
25 posts
3,224 battles

it has not been a good experience playing with IJN DDs lately, I just wanted an option to remove the CVs from the matches, they're going to have fun with des moines and worcesters... anyway I miss my old hiryu :cap_wander:

Edited by m4tt_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[5D]
Members
2,932 posts
18,234 battles
6 minutes ago, m4tt_ said:

it has not been a good experience playing with IJN DDs lately, I just wanted an option to remove the CVs from the matches, they're going to have fun with des moines and worcesters... anyway I miss my old hiryu :cap_wander:

I don't even worry about CVs in this current format and I've played through Kagero, Yugumo and Shima since the rework. The first two were both no smoke and I did well with them.

If you played this game when it first came out of closed beta and were perma spotted all match by the RTS fighter squadrons that was much hard to deal with than the current setup.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,189
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,848 posts
17,412 battles
1 hour ago, STINKWEED_ said:

I don't usually agree with you but when I do (Like today) I prefer to have a Dos Equis ( or Grey Goose Vodka ).
"Stay thirsty my friend".

I will have you know I only drink the finest, discriminating boxed wine and/or only plastic bottles with screw off caps. I like my beer like I like my women, young and gone the next day. And when I drink hard likker, like moonshine, I only drink last weeks stuff so it are aged properly. And remember, when you are seeing three mason jars on the table, grab the middle one.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[FTBAS]
[FTBAS]
Members
25 posts
3,224 battles
14 hours ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

I don't even worry about CVs in this current format and I've played through Kagero, Yugumo and Shima since the rework. The first two were both no smoke and I did well with them.

If you played this game when it first came out of closed beta and were perma spotted all match by the RTS fighter squadrons that was much hard to deal with than the current setup.

you're right, I've played a few matches today and it's actually a lot better them before, but I still think 4 cvs for each side is too much.

Edited by m4tt_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[5D]
Members
2,932 posts
18,234 battles
19 hours ago, m4tt_ said:

you're right, I've played a few matches today and it's actually a lot better them before, but I still think 4 cvs for each side is too much.

If they are the same tier and work together they can be a bit much unless you have some good AA boats on your side. Most times they don't work together.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[BLK]
Members
9 posts
17,442 battles

HEH 4 CV'S. I BEEN IN GAMES WITH 6, 3 ON EACH SIDE.  WG REALLY PUSHING CV'S.  THEY SHOULD HAVE INCREASED THE AA AND NOT TAKE AWAY THE TARGETING THE PLANES.  I KNOW MANY THAT ARE LEAVING AND ALREADY GOT NEW GAMES LINED UP.  WOWS WAS A GOOD GAME BUT IS GOIN THE WAY OF WARPLANES.  FIX WHATS NOT BROKEN, THAT TENDS TO BREAK IT

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
23 posts

Personally I love having 2 CV's in game and 4 CV's is even better when dealing with DD cancer :D

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
17 posts
3,565 battles

I'm not spending another dime on this game until they restrict the CV's to ONE per side.

WG should start another server for those who want to play without carriers. I'd bet money around 70% of the players would love to have that option.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[FTBAS]
[FTBAS]
Members
25 posts
3,224 battles
18 hours ago, DD557_Aquaria said:

I'm not spending another dime on this game until they restrict the CV's to ONE per side.

WG should start another server for those who want to play without carriers. I'd bet money around 70% of the players would love to have that option.

or just give the option to not face cvs on the matches, i don't think 70% would choose it, I think 98% would choose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[FTBAS]
[FTBAS]
Members
25 posts
3,224 battles
On 6/3/2019 at 4:55 PM, Kephess said:

Personally I love having 2 CV's in game and 4 CV's is even better when dealing with DD cancer :D

well, when you see a dd being spotted by radar and instantly deleted and after that a des moines being attacked repeatedly without any loss to the cv until he sunks you see who are the real cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[FTBAS]
[FTBAS]
Members
25 posts
3,224 battles

as I said before, I really liked the old RTS system, it was too far from the perfection but...

the current one is boring for people who playing CV and bad for people who not playing with them, this new system just brought a bunch of problems for the game and for WG solve, I think the only good thing about it was the AA guns effects, this is my humble opinion :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[5D]
Members
2,932 posts
18,234 battles
17 hours ago, m4tt_ said:

or just give the option to not face cvs on the matches, i don't think 70% would choose it, I think 98% would choose it.

What makes you so special that you should get to opt out of part of the game? Then BBs will want no DDs options, cruisers will want no BB options, etc. Then all of you fools will be sitting in queue not able to get a match other than against the ship class you are playing.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[FTBAS]
[FTBAS]
Members
25 posts
3,224 battles
11 hours ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

What makes you so special that you should get to opt out of part of the game? Then BBs will want no DDs options, cruisers will want no BB options, etc. Then all of you fools will be sitting in queue not able to get a match other than against the ship class you are playing.

Makes sense, but I don't think the other classes have so many problems than the CV's, they are the biggest point of unbalance in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[NG-NL]
Members
84 posts
6,980 battles
5 hours ago, m4tt_ said:

Makes sense, but I don't think the other classes have so many problems than the CV's, they are the biggest point of unbalance in the game.

If by "unbalance" you mean "the biggest counter to my preferred play style" then for me, it's CLs. They shred my DDs.

The game is designed with counters to each play style. That's usually called "balance."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
297
[TOAST]
[TOAST]
Members
1,090 posts
9,230 battles
22 minutes ago, imaginary_b said:

If by "unbalance" you mean "the biggest counter to my preferred play style" then for me, it's CLs. They shred my DDs.

The game is designed with counters to each play style. That's usually called "balance."

It doesn't even have to do with DD at this point. They make balance so wildly inconsistent between tiers and core game mechanics. It's a hot mess between AA, kill secure annoying dot spam and CV ship controls. CV have always countered DD. This new CV make the game a miserable experience in general. If that's suppose to be "balance" I can see why there are a lot of people saying they're talking a very long break from the game and closing their wallets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[5D]
Members
2,932 posts
18,234 battles
7 hours ago, m4tt_ said:

Makes sense, but I don't think the other classes have so many problems than the CV's, they are the biggest point of unbalance in the game.

Before the rework there were endless threads by BB players about concealed DDs and their powerful torps and DDs complaining about radar everywhere.

The rework has made DDs less stealthy and easier to locate cruisers hiding behind the islands HE spamming yous.

I honestly don't think the game is really unbalanced by CVs. It's more that many players are too lazy to change tactics and a vocal minority complains endlessly hoping to force a change.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[-TDH-]
[-TDH-]
Members
11 posts
2,455 battles

I actually don't mind having 4 CVs in a game.

What I don't like is not being able to make a division with another CV player, because its impossible to coordinate.  With 2 CVs coordinating in a game, one could play defensively at the start of the game, while the other scouted.  So youd have one guy spending his time covering the DDs and BBs, dropping fighters and hitting F to "reload" his fighter count down.

Then when he runs out, the CVs switch, and the first guy who spent all his time playing defensively now goes on the offensive, and the other CV just covers his teammates.

I have yet to run into this coordination in a random battle.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×