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

So with all the talk about CV's being neutered...

84 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,121
[WOLF7]
Members
12,189 posts

So, looking at the CV's there appears to have been a significant upward trend in performance. Was it really intended to bring CV's back to their previous strength?

FdLO2Oe.png

A month ago, all CV's were lagging behind their prework counterparts, now, with the exception of Graf, which they totally trashed, all of them appear to be with in a couple k of their pre-rework damage averages.

Lexington is actually out performing it's pre-rework counterpart.

How exactly does this fit into the game plan of making CV's less effective?

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[NGAGE]
Members
3,597 posts
8,673 battles

Wow, this is a totally surprising outcome.

No one ever expected this to happen when top players were abusing CVs to magnitudes the pre-rework CV players never could and in ways that WG didn't care about. Not a single person thought this might happen.

Shocking I tell ya. Shocking!

  • Cool 8
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,977
[HYDRO]
Members
3,559 posts
5,062 battles

I think the part of making CV's less effective wasn't that high on the rework list. Making CV gameplay more effective and engaging for a larger part of the playerbase, definitely.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,206
[SBS]
Members
4,570 posts
2,408 battles
Just now, RipNuN2 said:

I didn't realize damage was the only stat that mattered.

Go ahead and tell us what stats matter...and I bet CVs will be at the top on those stats along with damage.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,144
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Members
1,752 posts
18,953 battles
5 minutes ago, awiggin said:

How exactly does this fit into the game plan of making CV's less effective?

At no point was the goal to make the class "less effective".

What was happening before the rework, was a good CV player could completely wipe out a bad CV players, or even a mediocre CV player, aircraft hangar. With aerial supremacy, the good CV player could now Dev Strike his opponents team at will while keeping his unchallenged fighters all over the map for spotting. In this was a good CV player was "too effective" and destroyed the balance of teams.

Now, a CV player cant do that. He can aide in shooting down enemy planes but he cant take out any hopes of his enemy doing anything in battle.

Also, CV strike alpha damage was generally much higher than.

  • Cool 6
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,872
[HINON]
Members
11,207 posts
3 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Go ahead and tell us what stats matter...and I bet CVs will be at the top on those stats along with damage.

 

The OP only includes damage as the focus which is an incomplete picture. What matters is looking at all the relevant stats in concert to see if the premise is sound. There is also the fact that the stats include all the prework CV battles which in many cases is multiple times the number of battles as compared with the post rework CVs which can also skew stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,206
[SBS]
Members
4,570 posts
2,408 battles
2 minutes ago, Skuggsja said:

At no point was the goal to make the class "less effective".

What was happening before the rework, was a good CV player could completely wipe out a bad CV players, or even a mediocre CV player, aircraft hangar. With aerial supremacy, the good CV player could now Dev Strike his opponents team at will while keeping his unchallenged fighters all over the map for spotting. In this was a good CV player was "too effective" and destroyed the balance of teams.

Now, a CV player cant do that. He can aide in shooting down enemy planes but he cant take out any hopes of his enemy doing anything in battle.

Also, CV strike alpha damage was generally much higher than.

Yeah, before the better CV player had to earn aerial supremacy, now both CVs get to run around unopposed right from the start.  Big improvement. :Smile_facepalm:

3 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

The OP only includes damage as the focus which is an incomplete picture. What matters is looking at all the relevant stats in concert to see if the premise is sound. There is also the fact that the stats include all the prework CV battles which in many cases is multiple times the number of battles as compared with the post rework CVs which can also skew stats.

Sure, damage isn't everything.  That's why I pointed out CVs are on top of almost every meaningful stat.  The only thing CVs aren't on top of is base capping, everything else they are number one, and in some cases they are way ahead of the other ship types, like spotting, survival, base defense, frags, and XP.

 

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
621 posts
699 battles
22 minutes ago, Skuggsja said:

At no point was the goal to make the class "less effective".

What was happening before the rework, was a good CV player could completely wipe out a bad CV players, or even a mediocre CV player, aircraft hangar. With aerial supremacy, the good CV player could now Dev Strike his opponents team at will while keeping his unchallenged fighters all over the map for spotting. In this was a good CV player was "too effective" and destroyed the balance of teams.

Now, a CV player cant do that. He can aide in shooting down enemy planes but he cant take out any hopes of his enemy doing anything in battle.

Also, CV strike alpha damage was generally much higher than.

Which is a mentality I don't get at all. I'm not the best BB driver, but I know what I'm doing and will walk all over the majority of new players and hold my own against the top tier. I am fully capable of being outplayed and overpowered and doing the same in the right circumstances 

I fail to see why CV's need special treatment in this regard. If I play a DD with, say, Hazegray on the map, I'm probably going to be rightly hosed. If I catch him out in the open with with my New Mexico or worse, my Alabama, he'd assume the position because it's going to be bad day 

 Cruiser players have the same dynamic. Most of the players here would not enjoy being locked in a match with Flambass. But, for some reason, CV's are so special that they need specific mechanics and consideration to insulate them from being uttterly outplayed by a better player or sheer bad luck, and that rankles a lot of the playbase.

If a CV driver doesn't want to be manhandled by their opposite number, perhaps said CV driver needs to get good.

Edited by Highlord
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
919 posts
33,307 battles
43 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

I didn't realize damage was the only stat that mattered.

Ha - for most people in WoWs it is... they can talk about WR but they only think about DMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,566
[RLGN]
Members
11,240 posts
20,260 battles
57 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Shocking I tell ya. Shocking!

(had to do it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[NGAGE]
Members
3,597 posts
8,673 battles
1 hour ago, Skuggsja said:

At no point was the goal to make the class "less effective".

What was happening before the rework, was a good CV player could completely wipe out a bad CV players, or even a mediocre CV player, aircraft hangar. With aerial supremacy, the good CV player could now Dev Strike his opponents team at will while keeping his unchallenged fighters all over the map for spotting. In this was a good CV player was "too effective" and destroyed the balance of teams.

Now, a CV player cant do that. He can aide in shooting down enemy planes but he cant take out any hopes of his enemy doing anything in battle.

Also, CV strike alpha damage was generally much higher than.

This is kind of a misnomer.

Sure, alpha strike was higher... but only against certain classes. It took a very unicum CV player to reliably kill destroyers or even do much damage to them (I guess if the DD player was complete potato they could still do damage?). But now, rocket planes (and if you are decent in HE DBs, them too) have huge alpha strike potential vs DDs. Regularly destroyers lose 25%+ of their HP to a single strike -- let alone the whole strike wave.

Battleships definitely benefit the most from the CV rework because they were the most prone to getting nuked of any class prior. Bombs (both HE/AP) were much more effective for the average player against battleships than any other class - similarly torpedos. 

Also, DefAA more or less removed alpha from CV players, turning it into an RNG lottery. You can say that Midway AP bombers were too powerful AP bomb alpha.. except the Hak basically has almost the same alpha now (3 citadels is enough to do 20k+ damage). That is effectively untouchable as DefAA and AA both got neutered hard in the rework.

The only class that really meaningfully benefited from the rework was battleships (and complete potato DD/CA players, I guess). For most players both cruisers and destroyers are worse off now. Destroyers, vs a considerably above average RTS CV player were worse off - but, there were considerably fewer CVs in general and the skill distribution meant you likely weren't going to face a CV player that mattered almost ever.

Time will tell but the fact that reworked CVs already have caught up in damage should make people pretty worried - a lot of people basically jumped straight into TX/8 games with their newly reworked CVs and dropped those numbers significantly at the beginning. What has happened is that instead of being good at CVs being limited to a small superunicum class, many people are able to be good at CVs.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,115 posts
6,263 battles
20 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

This is kind of a misnomer.

Sure, alpha strike was higher... but only against certain classes. It took a very unicum CV player to reliably kill destroyers or even do much damage to them (I guess if the DD player was complete potato they could still do damage?). But now, rocket planes (and if you are decent in HE DBs, them too) have huge alpha strike potential vs DDs. Regularly destroyers lose 25%+ of their HP to a single strike -- let alone the whole strike wave.

Battleships definitely benefit the most from the CV rework because they were the most prone to getting nuked of any class prior. Bombs (both HE/AP) were much more effective for the average player against battleships than any other class - similarly torpedos. 

Also, DefAA more or less removed alpha from CV players, turning it into an RNG lottery. You can say that Midway AP bombers were too powerful AP bomb alpha.. except the Hak basically has almost the same alpha now (3 citadels is enough to do 20k+ damage). That is effectively untouchable as DefAA and AA both got neutered hard in the rework.

The only class that really meaningfully benefited from the rework was battleships (and complete potato DD/CA players, I guess). For most players both cruisers and destroyers are worse off now. Destroyers, vs a considerably above average RTS CV player were worse off - but, there were considerably fewer CVs in general and the skill distribution meant you likely weren't going to face a CV player that mattered almost ever.

Time will tell but the fact that reworked CVs already have caught up in damage should make people pretty worried - a lot of people basically jumped straight into TX/8 games with their newly reworked CVs and dropped those numbers significantly at the beginning. What has happened is that instead of being good at CVs being limited to a small superunicum class, many people are able to be good at CVs.

 

Unfortunately this is exactly what WG wanted with the rework. I don't think they care about the fact that this has an atrocious effect on gameplay so long as it doesn't completely kill off the game and I'm not sure they can recognize that they're killing a game until it's too late for recovery (see World of Warplanes).  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,751
[EGIRL]
Beta Testers
4,340 posts
13,110 battles

Most of people will just give up and go for easy mode (like play with bbs), unicum cv players of this new boring system will keep playing and incrase the stats... what is terrible low in comparasion of bbs at same tier.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,444
[WORX]
Members
5,028 posts
15,593 battles

Stats are only numbers for which only a people few care about. Of those few people, must do the same error as WG.... Interpret the numbers towered an agenda while ignoring reality to the harm the current unstainable meta has become. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,269
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
21,245 posts
19,617 battles
2 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

Go ahead and tell us what stats matter...and I bet CVs will be at the top on those stats along with damage.

Battleships are doing better with WR% and Damage Average.  Carriers, even the Tier X ones, are middling in performance on average.

Tier IV BBs & CVs

Spoiler

lPu10BM.jpg

Tier IV WR% is on par, nothing out of the ordinary.  Damage is low.  When people whine about Tier IV Carriers, I always laugh because I know those things suck real bad.  Considering how bad or nonexistent the AA they come across are, and then seeing how much damage they're really doing, it becomes comedic seeing the complaints about them.  Tier IV Carriers are trash.

 

Tier VI BBs & CVs

Spoiler

uv6vPli.jpg

The Tier VI CVs haven't really changed in performance, not in big ways anyways.  WR% is normal.  Damage Average is subpar.  I consider Tier VI CVs to be trash, in general.

 

Tier VIII BBs & CVs - This should start being more interesting.  This is where CVs actually start having offensive teeth.

Spoiler

vbhJcQH.jpg

Note:  Indomitable is still a WiP ship and not released, not final.

Despite the increased offense of Tier VIII Carriers as well as notable ones like Lexington, Enterprise, the WR% is typical for the list here.  None of the VIII CVs are exceptional in WR% like some of the Battleships in this list.  Damage?  Middle of the road, which is funny despite the better offensive power.  Even Lexington, who is now what I like to call "The Standard" of Tier VIII Carriers, is middling in performance.  No Tier VIII Carriers stand out in performance.

 

Tier X BBs & CVs - This should be great, this is where the CV Boogeymen are!

Spoiler

fDolysy.jpg

The Old Hakuryu, Old Midway were better than their current versions.  Tier X WR% tend to drag down and the Tier X CVs right now follow that pattern like BBs.  Damage is on the low side.  Audacious has been looking good out of the three Tier X Carriers.

 

But here's where things get funny for Tier X CVs.  Ranked.  Hakuryu comes out as a very notable performer while Audacious and Midway aren't looking good at all.  Even Audacioius' 92k Dmg Avg from the previous sheet evaporates in the rigors of Ranked.  Midway was even worse.

 

It's all fun, I really like looking at stat performance of ships seeing changes, where things really lie.  But even then, with all the stat sheets and Ranked link I provided, this isn't truly accurate.  All these stats, outside of X Ranked, encompass the game's full history.  For the Rework CVs, this includes the initial era of the CV Rework's release in February (including Midway's full powered, non Tier IV Torpedoes, Hakuryu reticle speed, etc).  There have been some sweeping CV changes, i.e. Engine Boost nerf, speed alteration, changes to Dive Bomber drops, etc.

Even with including the initial Rework Tier X CV stats where I believe they were stronger, their averages are still pretty much mediocre.

 

So... On average for Tier IV, VI, VIII and even X, Battleships are still better performing ships than Carriers.

 

What will be interesting is when Maplesyrup gets 2nd Quarter 2019 NA Server stats up.  Right now it's only 1st Quarter 2019 for most recent stats, and that alone taints the CV stats as it will include Pre-Rework stats.  Maplesyrup is the only one that I know that filters stats to specific periods.  Stat sites like WoWS Stats & Numbers just jumble the entire game history of stats together, phases of the game that haven't existed in years.  Montana for example used to operate for years with a tall exposed Citadel and she got blapped easily.  She used to be so bad that people got mad if you brought Montana into PVP and see you on their team.  Yamato used to have an improved heal.  German BB Secondaries used to have a better fire chance, etc.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,872
[HINON]
Members
11,207 posts
16 minutes ago, C14Alpha said:

Damage alone IS an incomplete picture.

Would including Win Rate, EXP, Ships Destroyed, Aircraft Destroyed, Base Defense, Survival, and Spotting provide a more complete picture?

Because Tier 8/10 CVs dominate all of those categories (data for last week and last 2 months).

Creepy you have 666 posts . . .

I think most all of that is due to the inflated CV survival rate. I do wish DOTs could stack on CVs once again to where when one was caught in the open it is going to take serious damage or be sunk when taking gunfire. I think this would help to balance them out a bit better tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[UMP]
Members
251 posts
4,300 battles

Average damage of around 50k?

That's pretty damn low for something that's supposed to be incredibly OP.....

Now lets compare them with average BB damage at those tiers

And lookie lookie, they lag so far behind it's kind of sad.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,536
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
21,335 posts
11,846 battles
3 hours ago, awiggin said:

So, looking at the CV's there appears to have been a significant upward trend in performance. Was it really intended to bring CV's back to their previous strength?

FdLO2Oe.png

A month ago, all CV's were lagging behind their prework counterparts, now, with the exception of Graf, which they totally trashed, all of them appear to be with in a couple k of their pre-rework damage averages.

Lexington is actually out performing it's pre-rework counterpart.

How exactly does this fit into the game plan of making CV's less effective?

This is tier 8 which is the performance sweet spot for CV's and tier 6 is close. Go up to tier 10 or down to tier 4 and CV performance is way down.

26 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

Creepy you have 666 posts . . .

I think most all of that is due to the inflated CV survival rate. I do wish DOTs could stack on CVs once again to where when one was caught in the open it is going to take serious damage or be sunk when taking gunfire. I think this would help to balance them out a bit better tbh.

Even so they are easy to kill with guns and ship torpedoes when they are spotted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,089 posts
6,231 battles
55 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

 

 

So... On average for Tier IV, VI, VIII and even X, Battleships are still better performing ships than Carriers.

 

 

Shhhhh, the CV haters dont want to hear about facts which dont support their fear mongering.

What will REALLY piss off the CV haters is when CV drivers try to explain that yes, on average CV's live MUCH longer and yet still cant put out the avg damage of a BB.

The one stat I would love to see is damage per minute of game life. A CV that does 150k in 20 minutes of game time is far less effective than a BB that does 100k in 10 minutes.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,751
[EGIRL]
Beta Testers
4,340 posts
13,110 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

So... On average for Tier IV, VI, VIII and even X, Battleships are still better performing ships than Carriers.

How dare you show facts vs players frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,830
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,401 posts
16,809 battles
3 hours ago, awiggin said:

So, looking at the CV's there appears to have been a significant upward trend in performance.

This is just hilarious! 

I was having a rather good round of Forum debates with @BrushWolf a month or so ago and I told him that CV players were just now getting good at playing their ships and that the stats on CVs could be expected to get much better in the future when they finally got used to playing them.

He, in turn, told me I was wrong and that I was trying to make every CV jock out to be a unicum.

I guess I really wasn't all that wrong, and that now that CV drivers have had a sufficient amount of time to learn their ships we can expect the CV win rate to climb ever further.

1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

This is tier 8 which is the performance sweet spot for CV's and tier 6 is close. Go up to tier 10 or down to tier 4 and CV performance is way down.

Tier 10 will obviously lag behind tier 8 because tier 10 ships have taken longer for CV players to earn the XP and credits for, so they have had less time to learn to play them. Wait another little bit of time and I'm sure they will be overperforming like tiers 6 and 8.

And tier 4 will always be the worst because tier 4 is where all the CV noobs start off and the stats reflect that.

3 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

I didn't realize damage was the only stat that mattered. 

I don't know if it's the only one that matters, but it seems to be the only one that matters to WoW.

3 hours ago, Skuggsja said:

At no point was the goal to make the class "less effective".

I disagree, as did the developers video put out explaining the reasons for the rework, where they said that CVs were dominating the matches they were in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,206
[SBS]
Members
4,570 posts
2,408 battles
42 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Battleships are doing better with WR% and Damage Average.  Carriers, even the Tier X ones, are middling in performance on average.

We have mirrored MM so any ship type will always be 50% overall, meaning its useless to compare different ship types/tiers.  What WR does show is how strong a given ship is compared to the other ships of its type and tier (and it doesn't do a great job at that). 

1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

So... On average for Tier IV, VI, VIII and even X, Battleships are still better performing ships than Carriers.

Wrong, overall (high tier) CVs greatly outperform all other ship types in almost every category just like I said.  Spotting, base defense, survival, XP, damage, frags, and plane kills.  Its only capping that DDs are in the number one position, CVs are on top of everything else. 

Lower tiers CVs are more inline with the other ships.  We can agree on that.

7 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

Shhhhh, the CV haters dont want to hear about facts which dont support their fear mongering.

5 minutes ago, HyenaHiena said:

How dare you show facts vs players frustration.

And you guys are ignorant to the facts.  The data doesn't lie.

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190615/na_week/average_ship.html

8 minutes ago, MajesticTwelve said:

Average damage of around 50k?

That's pretty damn low for something that's supposed to be incredibly OP.....

Now lets compare them with average BB damage at those tiers

And lookie lookie, they lag so far behind it's kind of sad.

You're dead wrong.  Here's the latest data for average damage for T8 BBs and CVs on the NA server.

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190615/na_week/average_ship.html

  Average Damage
T8 BBs 52,939
T8 CVs 60,682
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×