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

@Wargamming Proof No one wants to play your game with CV's

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6,153
[GWG]
Supertester
22,771 posts
12,773 battles

Plus one for rudimentary photoshop skills, minus a much larger amount for not proving what you think you are proving.

Maybe you should give them an honest try.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[-VT-]
Members
704 posts
8,567 battles
36 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Plus one for rudimentary photoshop skills, minus a much larger amount for not proving what you think you are proving.

Maybe you should give them an honest try.

I do remember a clan mate saying he saw negative que numbers the other night, probably just something wrong with client.

Edited by DemonGod3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,741
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,671 posts
11,710 battles
39 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Plus one for rudimentary photoshop skills, minus a much larger amount for not proving what you think you are proving.

Maybe you should give them an honest try.

Being a griefer may be plenty fun, but it's not good for the game and should not be something the game designer encourages.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,153
[GWG]
Supertester
22,771 posts
12,773 battles
4 minutes ago, DemonGod3 said:

I do remember a clan mate saying he saw negative que numbers the other night, probably just something wrong with client.

That is possible but it still doesn't prove what the OP was implying.

1 minute ago, HazardDrake said:

Being a griefer may be plenty fun, but it's not good for the game and should not be something the game designer encourages.

Define griefer? A Wooster sitting behind an island and untouchable by the victim spewing napalm is just as much a griefter. CV's are the only ship type where the target can reduce the effect of the attack by destroying some of it and except for  most tier 3 and a few tier 4 and tier 5 ships no one is unable to kill part of the attack. I will say to you the same as I said to WES, give them an honest try! He at least had a couple matches in the reworked CV's.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,710
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,591 posts
10,798 battles
7 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

That is possible but it still doesn't prove what the OP was implying.

Exactly.That said I'm a CV player and while I refuse to play tier 4 CV's unless I have to because of say, a new line or something to test for various reasons - it's because even I have to acknowledge that CV's vs current T3 and 4, a lesser extent 5 (depends on the CV they see) is brutally unfair for those ships. Especially with the 2-3 CV's per side. Tier 6-ish you don't see those numbers and tier 10 the issue is somewhat reversed. I mean, tier 4's are not the unholy nightmare they were under RTS with manual drop, but still a bit too powerful. 

But then part of that is players. Some of the changes made to CV's actually made it that once again the 'average' players left and now it's really just the stubborn or better players again, players that can rack up stupid high damage numbers and dodge flak well, what little you see at that tier. And most go there to hide from some of the nonsense of this evens only with constant 1-2 tier higher battles (thankfully the number of -2 ones was reduced) and AA that at some tiers has [edited] level of power, and then the cat fighters. At the current rate, I'd say optimistically were maybe 6 months out from them being about 90% right to where it's really just 'tweaks', and not things like having to adjust 80% or more of the ships in game AA DPS. But it's still better than day 1 of 8.0.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,483
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,354 posts
8,419 battles
30 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

Being a griefer may be plenty fun, but it's not good for the game and should not be something the game designer encourages.

And I feel the same way about destroyers.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,153
[GWG]
Supertester
22,771 posts
12,773 battles
Just now, WanderingGhost said:

Exactly.That said I'm a CV player and while I refuse to play tier 4 CV's unless I have to because of say, a new line or something to test for various reasons - it's because even I have to acknowledge that CV's vs current T3 and 4, a lesser extent 5 (depends on the CV they see) is brutally unfair for those ships. Especially with the 2-3 CV's per side. Tier 6-ish you don't see those numbers and tier 10 the issue is somewhat reversed. I mean, tier 4's are not the unholy nightmare they were under RTS with manual drop, but still a bit too powerful. 

But then part of that is players. Some of the changes made to CV's actually made it that once again the 'average' players left and now it's really just the stubborn or better players again, players that can rack up stupid high damage numbers and dodge flak well, what little you see at that tier. And most go there to hide from some of the nonsense of this evens only with constant 1-2 tier higher battles (thankfully the number of -2 ones was reduced) and AA that at some tiers has [edited] level of power, and then the cat fighters. At the current rate, I'd say optimistically were maybe 6 months out from them being about 90% right to where it's really just 'tweaks', and not things like having to adjust 80% or more of the ships in game AA DPS. But it's still better than day 1 of 8.0.

I have said it many many times, tier 4 CV's are overpowered against tier 3, roughly even against tier 4, and under powered against tier 5. The question is how is this fixed in a way that doesn't create even more issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[-DOG-]
Members
56 posts
3,511 battles

I feel the same way I myself have ships like Kong Albert and the dreadnought.So I said screw it I have 5 games in a cv now 1 coop 4 random.

But I refuse to be a dirty tactless  hoe, and use the Hosho, even though I had enough research points, that 1 is XTRA bad for the low tiers and needs a SERIOUS nerf BEATING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,072
[-D-S-]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,068 posts
7,958 battles

It doesn't matter what is said here about CV.  There have been amazing, well thought out logical arguments that completely shut down CV on why its bad for the game, with various pulls showing a majority disliking them.  

But it still won't change the small amount of the same faces, the same handful I always see on here arguing for them.  Only one thing comes to mind with CV players on these forums:  Dunning Kruger effect.

And that's why this thread is pointless.  The only things left is for the game to have the consequences upon the toxicity of the community, and the state of the playerbase at large to suffer because of them.  No amount of ridiculous arguing will change the negative impact they'll have.  

Oh-- And watch the catastrophe unfold.  

Gonna be funny if WG makes Subs ridiculous and turns it into CV drama 2.0 with battle of the bias players versus logical ones

  • Cool 5
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,871
[RLGN]
Members
12,018 posts
21,513 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

He at least had a couple matches in the reworked CV's.

I've played 90 Randoms, 339 Co-op, and an unknown number of Ops.

The rework can still go to hell.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
596
[NGA]
Members
1,878 posts
9,937 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Plus one for rudimentary photoshop skills, minus a much larger amount for not proving what you think you are proving.

Maybe you should give them an honest try.

I don't think he used Photoshop.

1740099815_Screenshot(93).thumb.png.092197836a7753acc29d742e4d4c37b8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,710
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,591 posts
10,798 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

I have said it many many times, tier 4 CV's are overpowered against tier 3, roughly even against tier 4, and under powered against tier 5. The question is how is this fixed in a way that doesn't create even more issues?

Maybe my view is skewed a bit but other than certain ships at 4 and 5, I have no issue attacking those ships with a tier 4. 

And the question is how do we define an issue in this case. It'd cause a historical issue, or as much of one that is the tech tree sandbox, but easy answer is level out the AA, like Wargaming has said they want to do with the 8.7 changes - but y'know - actually do it. something where, plucking numbers from the air, where the average DPS of tiers 3, 4 and 5, are say 300, 350, and 400, with the in tier AA +/- 25 points so if USN is the high bar at tier 5 it'd be 425, and low bar 375. Planes spend roughly 10 seconds on the initial attack run, and lets for simplicity say 10 seconds on follow ups, total 30 seconds, set the HP of planes at about 1800 we'll say for an average plane and make it that only the planes still attacking or that used the F key get shot at till they reach escape height, - or lower the escape height of planes that attacked further - a 6 plane group has 10800 HP, losses 2-3 planes overall vs tier 4 ship (and is a tier 4 CV), Tier 3 likely takes out 2, Tier 5 takes out 3-4, and tier 6 more solidly 4. Other variables of course but generally, a CV is likely not able to get off it's absolute full strike it's gonna take some losses. You do that through tiers - you get rid of the nightmare for both sides of "shoots nothing down" and loses all planes - unless the player makes a dumb mistake and eats flak bursts, then they might lose all of them. And only say an Ark Beta or Kamikaze worry about 0 shoot downs. Still more effective vs lower tier, but not going to be wiped out if by higher tier even when they dodge AA. 

After that, it's tweaking either plane regen, or what I'd rather see - reserves. I'd actually rather see CV's go back to kinda having hangers, similar to Kaga's setup (maybe not as extreme, hard to say till we have AA balanced better) where they can launch a group a second time, just maybe not a third. Again, depends on AA balance. Which the slower regens would help avoid the old issue of outright deplaning. And a CV player that plays well should have no issues while more average ones have a greater margin of error particularly in longer matches. Which helps close the skill gap a bit. 

After that it's a matter of nerfing alpha directly where needed, not making it harder to aim in and stupid things like that Wargaming has tried. Again, personal preference, I'd actually like to see it adjusted (including distributing HP differently) to a system that actually has a few more planes than now, but lower damage per ordnance hit, even if the amount of damage now is considered 'balanced' and it does the same just slightly differently. Kinda like if Scharn and Gnei were both doing say 50k average with the main battery, my way is similar to Scharn (tad more accurate through volume but damage is a bit lighter per hit) while Gnei is a bit more like now (fewer things so a tad less accurate, but higher damage per hit). I think it'd open up more room for actual flavour and variation in carriers. Taking the 3 lines we have now shift USN to rocket and DB focus, UK to rocket and torp, and IJN to torp and DB, instead of the current "everyone goes 2 at a time" USN only drops 2, UK drops 3, IJN 4 like the old days. Or if we wanna have USN like it was it drops 6 torps with way lower damage and maybe only has 1 group till you get planes that carry 2 at a time to make more runs with less planes or something, while IJN has the old wider spread with higher damage meant for BB hunting. All depends on the direction we take it.

 

But again, those are just numbers I made up for an example and my general ideas and feelings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,322
[ARGSY]
Members
15,087 posts
9,812 battles
3 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

Only one thing comes to mind with CV players on these forums:  Dunning Kruger effect.

You're saying that about some very intelligent people in some technically demanding professions. You might want to reconsider that. It's pushing close to libel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
586
[WOLF6]
Members
1,361 posts
4,275 battles
25 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

You're saying that about some very intelligent people in some technically demanding professions. You might want to reconsider that. It's pushing close to libel.

Law is not a technically demanding profession! Libel is now covered by sum de ...de fam...dee fammi...faaack I can't spell it.

That Dunning Kruger effect....had to look that up.

Edited by Sumseaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
86 posts
116 battles
7 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

It doesn't matter what is said here about CV.  There have been amazing, well thought out logical arguments that completely shut down CV on why its bad for the game, with various pulls showing a majority disliking them.  

But it still won't change the small amount of the same faces, the same handful I always see on here arguing for them.  Only one thing comes to mind with CV players on these forums:  Dunning Kruger effect.

And that's why this thread is pointless.  The only things left is for the game to have the consequences upon the toxicity of the community, and the state of the playerbase at large to suffer because of them.  No amount of ridiculous arguing will change the negative impact they'll have.  

Oh-- And watch the catastrophe unfold.  

Gonna be funny if WG makes Subs ridiculous and turns it into CV drama 2.0 with battle of the bias players versus logical ones

Some of us that actually play CV have advocated for balance and a fairness from the off. But sure, blanket statements make you right and everyone else wrong I suppose...

 

 

Edited by RescuerRangersSociety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[WOLFD]
Members
707 posts
5,481 battles
5 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

That is possible but it still doesn't prove what the OP was implying.

Define griefer? A Wooster sitting behind an island and untouchable by the victim spewing napalm is just as much a griefter. CV's are the only ship type where the target can reduce the effect of the attack by destroying some of it and except for  most tier 3 and a few tier 4 and tier 5 ships no one is unable to kill part of the attack. I will say to you the same as I said to WES, give them an honest try! He at least had a couple matches in the reworked CV's.

Your exception group gets much larger when it is a 2v2 CV game and the cvs on the other side decide to gang up on the same ship.  A ship like the Koniengsberg is a fine cruiser at T5 with fight planes, but when 4 or more squadrons of planes come at you your are completely helpless to defend yourself. 

 

If every ship had AA to deal with that situation then no single squadron would ever make it through, which to the OPs point means CVs and correspondingly AA are not balanced.  Meaning, CVs are not just NOT fun to have in a match let alone 2 per side.   When 2 good CV players work together they will will decimate the enemy team!  So I would argue, no one I know wants to play against CVs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
127 posts
15,414 battles

CVs are fine.. Potatoes who pay their way to high tier CVs or buy premium CVs are my issue.. Lost a game because our cv couldnt spot a dd if it was in detection range and lost us the game.. 1 squad of planes.. would have spotted 2 near dead dds.. game over.. but nope.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[SYN]
Members
294 posts
11,589 battles
8 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Plus one for rudimentary photoshop skills, minus a much larger amount for not proving what you think you are proving.

Maybe you should give them an honest try.

no photoshop - there should be a 1 CV per battle limit - (per side) this would be manageable

Captureuuu.JPG.91aadbb2a54510d6bade06d5e8482227.JPG

Edited by 05Chopp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,072
[-D-S-]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,068 posts
7,958 battles
3 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

You're saying that about some very intelligent people in some technically demanding professions. You might want to reconsider that. It's pushing close to libel.

People can claim that all they want, and even if you are some 200+ IQ genius, that's clearly not the norm.  Or are you so arrogantly trying to claim that all CV players are "super high intelligence"?

No, let's be real here.  You just took offense to what I said and trying to stir the pot.  There's no doubt there's at least a couple but that's clearly not the norm, and congratulations:  Those who meet this criteria are actually worse:  Just people with an agenda.

And if I had to take another guess-- You probably didn't even know what the Dunning Kruger effect was till you googled it.

PS, i'll say what I want.  Just as you guys clearly do no matter how ridiculous it is.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×