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

All this fuss over just one player?

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

587
[WOLF6]
Members
1,361 posts
4,446 battles

Ah the CV rework. Don't you simply love it!?

This is the issue that hasn't really been discussed as one of the larger negatives regarding it. Anti aircraft armament and the lopsided emphasis that has been placed on it.

Thanks largely to player priorities around ship capabilities CVs only seem to be played when they are supposedly powerful enough. They still seem to be capable though one could say they only appear now with some level of rarity if at all. Despite this there still exists an entire gameplay mechanic to counter a lone ship that may or may not appear in any given match.

Take the Hydro consumable for instance. You are guaranteed to be pitted against ships that fire torpedoes not to mention the fact that it can be used as short range detection capability. Repairs, yeah you have them, you'll use them. Radar? Huh yeah. Reload boosters, spotter aircraft etc. Cat fighters? DFAA? These tend to sit rather idle. Two whole consumable mechanics.

Now I'm sure tweaks to the AA system takes a decent amount of development time. I just wonder if all of this is going down the toilet because carrier numbers have been cut back so severely from the MM. Isn't this one of the big issues with the CV rework? Complex in game elements existing to counter a single ship out of 12 that may or may not show up in every battle.

Perhaps we need to get an assured aviation element in the game to make all this worthwhile. If it isn't carriers then perhaps some sort of land based/carrier based strike consumable or something. What a fuss for nothing otherwise. Discuss my small dudes!

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,149
Members
2,487 posts
4,169 battles

We HAD carriers in games.  Then WG made a snap change that they didn't thoroughly test that they were warned was bad that chased them all off.  If they revert that nonsense and rebalance AA ((...again...)) then we'll have CV's again and anti-fighter armaments will once again be viable.  I mean they'd also have to splash it on the main loading page "Massive AA changes should help CV play!" so that everyone logging in knows its safe to go back but people WILL play them again,  a lot of people find the new system fun.  Just not when you're going to bleed planes approaching dang near anything.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,881 posts
6,886 battles
5 minutes ago, Palladia said:

We HAD carriers in games. ..."

Exactly.  Had.
Now they're just glorified mobile bases for squadron-leader pilots to use in a first-person-shooter style game.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
587
[WOLF6]
Members
1,361 posts
4,446 battles

Problem is that all the AA mechanics still only counter one ship on any given team...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,992
[RLGN]
Members
12,231 posts
21,951 battles
43 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Exactly.  Had.
Now they're just glorified mobile bases for squadron-leader pilots to use in a first-person-shooter style game.

Or as I said after seeing carriers in the beta test last December; glorified cardboard boxes with a fancy skin, flying off dime-store balsa gliders with equally fancy skins.

Call it ‘immersive,’ ‘fun’ and ‘better than RTS’ until you’re blue in the face all you want. The only differences right now between one carrier and another of the same tier are those involving performance parameters of questionable value, and meaningless cosmetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
207 posts
1,139 battles

WG will never admit it, we will never read "you were right all the time, we dont know how to balance (A)AA and CVs" post or replace the carriers, at least we know they learned from this mistake and didnt added CVs in Legends (for now)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,149
Members
2,487 posts
4,169 battles
2 minutes ago, taberuco said:

WG will never admit it, we will never read "you were right all the time, we dont know how to balance (A)AA and CVs" post or replace the carriers, at least we know they learned from this mistake and didnt added CVs in Legends (for now)

They are still adding CV's to legends. They had better,  anyway,  lots of people looking forward to them there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[AVW]
Members
135 posts
22,661 battles

I've addressed this multiple times and have made videos on it including the latest PTS iteration. As I see it, there are 3 main problems for CV players ATM.

1. The cost is astronomical. Even in a win unless you have a very good game at T8+ you'll lose credits. Not a few credits either, I'm talking 6 figures at T10. Nerfing the number of planes per strike makes you stay in AA longer so your losses increase exponentially. Your average T8 planes are rated at 57 or so. You consistently in T10 matches with AA ratings of 75+. It's over before you start really.

2. Damage is, at best, weedy. Even though the latest version buffs torp speed and damage, the impact you have is relatively insignificant. You'll do 20 - 40k damage at T6 and even T8+. Of course, that's if you even GET to the target at all. Players are smart enough to group for mutual defense. You might get one pass in an over tiered match. The rest of the planes are toast. 

3. Abuse is heaped on CV players to the point where most say screw this and stop playing. It is well known the very often CV players get reported before they even launch the first plane. 

WG broke it hardcore. I won't play mine in randoms and I have all CVs except a few premiums. It is truly sad. Until further notice, CVs are extinct. My prediction is that WG will " force " players to roll them by spawning missions to shoot down x planes or hit x aerial torps etc....

Edited by Zilla
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70
[_ARP_]
Members
694 posts
31,494 battles
40 minutes ago, dadeoo said:

My Hipper shot down 62 aircraft....that crazy

 

meanwhile, on the pts, i ko 80 on my harugumo :v

and 84 with my non aa monty is my current record on the live server :v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
207 posts
1,139 battles
1 hour ago, dadeoo said:

My Hipper shot down 62 aircraft....that crazy

 

 

22 minutes ago, Submarine_M1 said:

meanwhile, on the pts, i ko 80 on my harugumo :v

and 84 with my non aa monty is my current record on the live server :v

My record is 41 with Kaga pre 8.5, that is a sign that the red CV still dont know who to avoid and means literally nothing because this (edited) system is automatic

Screenshot_2019-08-20-18-45-03-1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70
[_ARP_]
Members
694 posts
31,494 battles
1 minute ago, taberuco said:

 

My record is 41 with Kaga pre 8.5, that is a sign that the red CV still dont know who to avoid and means literally nothing because this (edited) system is automatic

Screenshot_2019-08-20-18-45-03-1.png

true

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
129
[PPFV]
[PPFV]
Members
302 posts
26 minutes ago, Zilla said:

1. The cost is astronomical. Even in a win unless you have a very good game at T8+ you'll lose credits. Not a few credits either, I'm talking 6 figures at T10. Nerfing the number of planes per strike makes you stay in AA longer so your losses increase exponentially. Your average T8 planes are rated at 57 or so. You consistently in T10 matches with AA ratings of 75+. It's over before you start really.

This is by far the main reason I don't use my CVs past Tier VI (you can still at least break even at Tier VI, and maybe take home some loose change). I literally can't even level up newly purchased CVs in co-op, because I make a substantial loss even in reasonably decent games. They need to dramatically reduce the service cost of lost planes at the very least if they intend to keep CVs in a position where you're guaranteed to lose entire squadrons regularly.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,182
[SALVO]
Members
23,316 posts
23,942 battles
1 hour ago, Sumseaman said:

Ah the CV rework. Don't you simply love it!?

This is the issue that hasn't really been discussed as one of the larger negatives regarding it. Anti aircraft armament and the lopsided emphasis that has been placed on it.

Thanks largely to player priorities around ship capabilities CVs only seem to be played when they are supposedly powerful enough. They still seem to be capable though one could say they only appear now with some level of rarity if at all. Despite this there still exists an entire gameplay mechanic to counter a lone ship that may or may not appear in any given match.

Take the Hydro consumable for instance. You are guaranteed to be pitted against ships that fire torpedoes not to mention the fact that it can be used as short range detection capability. Repairs, yeah you have them, you'll use them. Radar? Huh yeah. Reload boosters, spotter aircraft etc. Cat fighters? DFAA? These tend to sit rather idle. Two whole consumable mechanics.

Now I'm sure tweaks to the AA system takes a decent amount of development time. I just wonder if all of this is going down the toilet because carrier numbers have been cut back so severely from the MM. Isn't this one of the big issues with the CV rework? Complex in game elements existing to counter a single ship out of 12 that may or may not show up in every battle.

Perhaps we need to get an assured aviation element in the game to make all this worthwhile. If it isn't carriers then perhaps some sort of land based/carrier based strike consumable or something. What a fuss for nothing otherwise. Discuss my small dudes!

I agree with the sentiment that there's a problem with things like the DefAA consumable or strictly AA skills or strictly AA upgrade modules that only have value when there's a CV in your battle.

I really wish that the devs would merge AA items (i.e. consumables, skills, upgrade modules) with secondary gun items across the board to increase the general usefulness of both more of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,719
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,605 posts
10,850 battles
1 hour ago, Sumseaman said:

hanks largely to player priorities around ship capabilities CVs only seem to be played when they are supposedly powerful enough.

The biggest issue, that many of us pointed out in testing, what little their was, was that the gameplay of the new ones gets boring in a couple matches. All it really is is go farm damage if your squadron is vaporized, which leads to the other end that if you aren't able to, your a glorified spotting plane that can no longer effectively help the teams air defense, keyword, effectively. Of players that tested before the rework even went to PTS, let alone live, only 32% were in favour of changing to this. They then tossed out 16% of the responses to boost it to a little over 40%. And I can tell you with fact some of the "Yes this is fine" were people that wanted carriers to die and if not be directly, then effectively, removed from the game.

But directly to the quoted point the biggest issue, which was one they wanted to fix and brought back, is the damn skill gap. Early rework AA was admittedly a joke, and needed some improvements in places, DESTROYERS needed better concealment, and another 1-2 minor things needed tweaks. So instead they nerf accuracy of rockets and IJN TB's, nerf fighter consumable in to the ground and give higher tiers a distinct advantage using it, buff cat fighters, nerf the hell out of DB accuracy, and nerf in other ways as well plane vs AA instead of just adjusting the AA on the ships that are too weak, making that other than those of us that are stubborn, only the really good and great players are playing because they can be effective. Which has long been an issue in Wargamings balance particularly on CV's in that they see what the best are doing and balance around that, which drives the lesser players away, that keeps the best around because they still stomp things, which causes players to cry here when they encounter those players, so they try to nerf them some more, which drives away the lesser players, further leaving the best of the best, and becomes a self feeding circle. Despite what people on this forum think you DO NOT balance against the best players, and you DO NOT balance against the worst, you balance against THE AVERAGE because that is the MAJORITY of your player base and you will always have outliers that do worse or better, literally something I learned in game design 101 - and really should be common sense. 

Case in point the OP Kami types - other day took one out, other team never really saw me till match end as I devastated them with salvo and dev struck a Ceasre from full health with a 6/6 torp salvo hit, but couldn't change the match to a win. Later the same day I took out Hill and I killed one of the red teams Kami's cause he picked a gun fight with me and didn't land torps and the other got wasted by a Nurnberg in the open in about 5-7 minutes of match start. You don't balance around my ability to play it while staying unseen for 15 minutes dev striking a ship or the two guys that died in 5 minutes in them - it's the ones somewhere in the middle.

 

Also AA system is literally just math and I'm pretty sure I've seen WG's coding in one of their video's and it's one of the modern 'simplified' ones to interact with that isn't what my dad had to do with 1 and 0s. So say 

<North Carolina>

 -coding for hp, other weapons, etc-

   <AA>

      <20 mm Oerilikon>

       <DPS All: 200>

      <DPS side: 100>

      <barrels: 50>

-further coding-

 

Now I've over simplified a little as I've not seen a full set of their coding but in game design I had to work with programs and coding and pretty much all of it had this kind of interface. Something that tells the game that it has a particular DPS, and how much it loses per gun knocked out of a particular type. While there are a ton of values, given the number of ships, all you need is the math you want of how much should your average player, who can dodge some but not all flak bursts, taking, set the numbers, and tweak from there. So you just have to say change those 2 values to say, 180 and 90. 90% of the issues with CV's, in RTS and this, have basically been unbalanced math equations that lead to unbalanced gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,448
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,829 posts
1 hour ago, taberuco said:

WG will never admit it, we will never read "you were right all the time, we dont know how to balance (A)AA and CVs" post or replace the carriers, at least we know they learned from this mistake and didnt added CVs in Legends (for now)

Part of the reason for the rework was the console versions.  One can't RTS with a controller very well.

The last update we got was that CVs will be coming to console versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,383
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
10,087 posts
2 hours ago, Zilla said:

I've addressed this multiple times and have made videos on it including the latest PTS iteration. As I see it, there are 3 main problems for CV players ATM.

1. The cost is astronomical. Even in a win unless you have a very good game at T8+ you'll lose credits. Not a few credits either, I'm talking 6 figures at T10. Nerfing the number of planes per strike makes you stay in AA longer so your losses increase exponentially. Your average T8 planes are rated at 57 or so. You consistently in T10 matches with AA ratings of 75+. It's over before you start really.

2. Damage is, at best, weedy. Even though the latest version buffs torp speed and damage, the impact you have is relatively insignificant. You'll do 20 - 40k damage at T6 and even T8+. Of course, that's if you even GET to the target at all. Players are smart enough to group for mutual defense. You might get one pass in an over tiered match. The rest of the planes are toast. 

3. Abuse is heaped on CV players to the point where most say screw this and stop playing. It is well known the very often CV players get reported before they even launch the first plane. 

WG broke it hardcore. I won't play mine in randoms and I have all CVs except a few premiums. It is truly sad. Until further notice, CVs are extinct. My prediction is that WG will " force " players to roll them by spawning missions to shoot down x planes or hit x aerial torps etc....

I scrimped and saved and bought perma-camo for my Midway. A combo of perma-camo, clan cost reduction buildings, and economy signals allows me to actually make credits playing a CV, even without a Premium account. I've gotten significantly better with them too, though it's difficult to keep up with the changes due to the constant reworking at every patch.

I like playing CVs. I like playing against CVs. I think that they add enormously to the game and have changed a rather stagnant camping meta that was far too prevalent.

Damage is, as you have mentioned, "weedy." People who don't play CVs think that I'm lying when I say that you can oftentimes hit a ship with an entire salvo of torpedoes and see only 10,000 damage. If you can even hit a ship with torpedoes because the aiming mechanic has been so nerfed as to allow even the most slightly aware ship to dodge most of them.  When I'm playing my Montana, if a CV can even drop a torpedo I just ignore it as it does less damage than a salvo of DD rounds and flooding is limited to 15 seconds on that ship. Probably the most damage I can do is with rockets. However I have to alternate squadron types as I'm usually short on planes half-way through the match.

That's not saying that the CV player can't cope. I really don't see why WG is adding another AA buff as CV play and CV counters seem pretty well balanced now. About the only ship that has to really worry about my Midway is a Bismark that's too dumb to not find an AA escort and sail off alone. Most other ships usually will decimate my squadrons so that they essentially become Kamikaze missions. On the flipside, my Massachusetts has little to fear from enemy Midways, even though it's tier VIII. About the only time I'm really concerned playing a tier VIII ship against a tier X CV is when I'm in an Atago.

Abuse against CVs is the main reason I hid my stats. It's bad enough to hear people whining without them cussing you out and saying that they might as well quit because your CV stats are below 50%. Anti-CV abuse is here in the forums too and has grown more than a little old. I even wrote a song about it.

I still play my Midway a lot though because it's fun to play. I like the rework's flight mechanic much more than I did the RTS system. The planes, even now after hundreds of matches, are a sight to behold too. WG really did a good job on the models.

 

 

 

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,383
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
10,087 posts

I can hold my own with CVs now and make positive credits, even on the losing team. It's taken me 6 months to get to this level of competency and it's far from "unicum," just reasonably good enough to support the team. I'm afraid that the AA buff tomorrow is going to set me back to "noob" status. If someone who has almost 500 games in reworked CVs quits playing the ship type due to the overwhelming increase in AA then new players will take a CV out once or twice and then never again. I'm really wondering if WG just wants CVs to go away, even though they have worked on them so much. Or maybe, they want people to buy doubloons as everyone is going to spec for AA and then have to respec once CVs are no more. It's one way to make money, I guess.

image.thumb.png.6972c4087d6eb882b9c691031b772ac9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[AVW]
Members
135 posts
22,661 battles
7 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

image.thumb.png.6972c4087d6eb882b9c691031b772ac9.png

I am curious as to how many planes you lost. I find games like this too, but I have a Premium account as well and it helps a lot. Still, that's a good  game. I'd say that's the exception for me, not necessarily the rule.I also find that the damage/reward does not seem consistent across the board, as different ribbons give different prizes. However, my Yamato can do half that damage total with one well placed salvo. While you no doubt ran how many strikes to generate that? Does not seem right does it?

Myself, TorchCad30 and 85fury ran tests on credits at T8. We played 10 games each in randoms on our CVs, including Enterprise. Average credit loss was 40k between us. But there for a bit we wondered if WG had ninja nerfed the cost for CVs because early results showed profit. I wonder if you'd try it and share the results? Thanks

Edited by Zilla
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[WOLFC]
Members
1,473 posts
8,014 battles

Came on this thread to found out who this one player we can blame everything on was.

 

Disappointed.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
[WOLFC]
Members
626 posts
22,706 battles
13 hours ago, Sumseaman said:

Problem is that all the AA mechanics still only counter one ship on any given team...

Just wait until we have submarines in the game. Then we'll have a whole second set of mechanics designed to counter one ship type. Or should I say boat type?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3 posts
652 battles
9 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

image.thumb.png.6972c4087d6eb882b9c691031b772ac9.png

What's interesting to me having been leveling up slowly over the summer here is that my stats at Tier VI are about the same when looking at the ribbons.  Torp Hit count, bombs, rockets, etc.  My damage down there is usually only about a 1/4th of that but I figure that's because I'm still 4 tiers behind.

Thing I've been banging my cockpit against is that if I get in a match on my Tier 6 Carrier, and there are Tier 8's there with me, I'm useless.  I'll have entire flights taken out before I can even get into attack range.  Even if I try to "be sneaky" and come around, the AA is just too buffed and it's an exercise is throwing planes against AA walls.

I've grown to like the new mechanics (specifically the part where you don't find yourself without ANY planes after a while) but upping the AA isn't going to make playing CV's any better, especially when balance is based on raw data rather than relative.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[P2W]
Members
415 posts
10,956 battles
2 hours ago, Anonymous50 said:

Came on this thread to found out who this one player we can blame everything on was.

 

Disappointed.

I figured it was the one guy who got 550k damage early in the rework, and that all of the subsequent flailing changes were to try to keep him from repeating :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207
Members
687 posts
9,588 battles
3 hours ago, Zilla said:

I am curious as to how many planes you lost. I find games like this too, but I have a Premium account as well and it helps a lot. Still, that's a good  game. I'd say that's the exception for me, not necessarily the rule.I also find that the damage/reward does not seem consistent across the board, as different ribbons give different prizes. However, my Yamato can do half that damage total with one well placed salvo. While you no doubt ran how many strikes to generate that? Does not seem right does it?

 

Sounds right to me. Your Yamato cannot spot enemy ships. And this here really is, and has been the ultimate issue with CVs. They just simply cannot be balanced in a game like this, because spotting is too invaluable. The key component that doesn't get shown on the stats screen, or is credited, is spotting damage. 

No stat screen can show you how many times a DDs torp run got shut down because he was spotted early. Or how many times a cruiser got blapped, who's only "mistake" was that the CVs plane spotted him. Personally I'd rather just see ships that are spotted by the CV be just shown on the minimap rather than be a targetable ship, but I suppose that's another topic. 

Still, many players have lived in the days where CVs were putting up insane numbers, and I don't think anyone wants to relive that nightmare again. So here we go again, and again, trying to force a "mechanic" in a game where it just simply doesn't fit in. 

And I'm sure this has already been said multiple times before, but we're all going to be having these same discussions about submarines. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×