Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Shannon_Lindsey

A different CV solution

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

964
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,057 posts
10,837 battles

After careful consideration of some of the best criticisms of CVs, I have a solution that might improve some people's largest complaints about the class.

Basically, aircraft carriers should take a cue from the submarines. They should be starting at tier 6 instead of tier 4. 

From a historical perspective, most of your tier 4 ships in the game we're never designed with the intention of interacting with enemy aircraft. They simply existed for aircraft carriers became any kind of mainstay. Starting at tier 5, however, with the exception of the German battleships, we're looking at ships that survived into the aircraft carrier era, and subsequently were equipped with some primitive form of anti-aircraft protection. If aircraft carriers were tier shifted, beginners at tiers 3 and 4 would no longer have to deal with them, and tier 5 would only see the earliest carriers. 

However, if aircraft carriers we restructured to start at tier 6, it would be unwise to have them at alternating tiers. Some of the previously removed carriers from the American and Japanese lines would have to be reintegrated. Also new carriers for the British line would have to be introduced. 

Thoughts?

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,596
[KRAK]
Members
3,718 posts
21,738 battles
11 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

After careful consideration of some of the best criticisms of CVs, I have a solution that might improve some people's largest complaints about the class.

Basically, aircraft carriers should take a cue from the submarines. They should be starting at tier 6 instead of tier 4. 

From a historical perspective, most of your tier 4 ships in the game we're never designed with the intention of interacting with enemy aircraft. They simply existed for aircraft carriers became any kind of mainstay. Starting at tier 5, however, with the exception of the German battleships, we're looking at ships that survived into the aircraft carrier era, and subsequently were equipped with some primitive form of anti-aircraft protection. If aircraft carriers were tier shifted, beginners at tiers 3 and 4 would no longer have to deal with them, and tier 5 would only see the earliest carriers. 

However, if aircraft carriers we restructured to start at tier 6, it would be unwise to have them at alternating tiers. Some of the previously removed carriers from the American and Japanese lines would have to be reintegrated. Also new carriers for the British line would have to be introduced. 

Thoughts?

Nothing wrong with carriers now. They finally got them somewhat balanced.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,802
[SALVO]
Members
25,517 posts
27,504 battles
23 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

After careful consideration of some of the best criticisms of CVs, I have a solution that might improve some people's largest complaints about the class.

Basically, aircraft carriers should take a cue from the submarines. They should be starting at tier 6 instead of tier 4. 

From a historical perspective, most of your tier 4 ships in the game we're never designed with the intention of interacting with enemy aircraft. They simply existed for aircraft carriers became any kind of mainstay. Starting at tier 5, however, with the exception of the German battleships, we're looking at ships that survived into the aircraft carrier era, and subsequently were equipped with some primitive form of anti-aircraft protection. If aircraft carriers were tier shifted, beginners at tiers 3 and 4 would no longer have to deal with them, and tier 5 would only see the earliest carriers. 

However, if aircraft carriers we restructured to start at tier 6, it would be unwise to have them at alternating tiers. Some of the previously removed carriers from the American and Japanese lines would have to be reintegrated. Also new carriers for the British line would have to be introduced. 

Thoughts?

I've made this suggestion before.  Start at tier 6, but add back in CVs at tier 7 and 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,315
[MUDDX]
Banned
8,144 posts
23,217 battles
25 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

I have a solution that might improve some people's largest complaints about the class.

The only reasonable thing for WG to do for CVs is to revert to the pre rework CVs with adjustments to lessen their devastating effectiveness. By the way the tier 3 and 4 ships faced the low tier pre rework CVs and they were much more effective than the garbage rework CVs will ever be.

What you suggest is not a solution to anything. It is just another whine in a long line of whines, the earliest of which prompted WG to cave and give us this PUTRID GARBAGE CV rework.

  • Funny 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
372
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
776 posts
4,907 battles
34 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

Thoughts?

I think this is a pretty good idea, as I and many others have suggested something like this. The  only problem I could see is the possible learning curve from starting out at tier 6, but the same problem would persist for submarines. I think in general there should be a tutorial for all classes of ships that is mandatory. Obviously it won't cover all the nuances of certain ships, but it gives the player an idea of the role of the class. Also, I want the odd tier CVs to be added back. I want to play Narai in a CV

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,325
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,698 posts
7,106 battles

You would be throwing new carrier players into T8 matches.    Not a great idea.    Popularity of the class does not make them imbalanced.    I get that some players are not fond of the interaction that is created by having more carriers in game ques and matches.   But I'll put it out there again.   CVs have NEVER been better balanced into this game than they are right now. and they have been here since Alpha testing for every single  moment of this games existence.      

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,551
[O7]
Members
1,494 posts
11,235 battles

another cv rant thread that wargaming will ignore because your name is not spreadsheet, full of below average players recommending cv are fine and balanced and all competent players saying how awful cv are for the game.

you can complain all you like wargaming does not listen to the playerbase.

 

Edited by Benched_ferlyfe
  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
682
[KSC]
Members
794 posts
10,990 battles
1 hour ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

After careful consideration of some of the best criticisms of CVs, I have a solution that might improve some people's largest complaints about the class.

Basically, aircraft carriers should take a cue from the submarines. They should be starting at tier 6 instead of tier 4. 

From a historical perspective, most of your tier 4 ships in the game we're never designed with the intention of interacting with enemy aircraft. They simply existed for aircraft carriers became any kind of mainstay. Starting at tier 5, however, with the exception of the German battleships, we're looking at ships that survived into the aircraft carrier era, and subsequently were equipped with some primitive form of anti-aircraft protection. If aircraft carriers were tier shifted, beginners at tiers 3 and 4 would no longer have to deal with them, and tier 5 would only see the earliest carriers. 

However, if aircraft carriers we restructured to start at tier 6, it would be unwise to have them at alternating tiers. Some of the previously removed carriers from the American and Japanese lines would have to be reintegrated. Also new carriers for the British line would have to be introduced. 

Thoughts?

This is a game.  A historically-based game, but a game none the less.

World of Warships has a habit of using the slower pace of lower tiers as a training ground of sorts, with new consumables and complexity added as tiers get higher.

Can it suck to be in a ship with weak AA?  Sure.  So sail near a second ship that also has AA.  AA is designed to overlap, so utilize your teammates for protection, even if it's only one person.

CVs can deal damage, but the planes are slow and the DPM is nothing amazing.  Seal clubbers will always be a thing, but most Tier 4 is slow enough that more advanced players gravitate to Tier 6 as their pubstomp of choice.

Edited by Ahskance
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,325
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,698 posts
7,106 battles
22 minutes ago, Benched_ferlyfe said:

another cv rant thread that wargaming will ignore because your name is not spreadsheet, full of below average players recommending cv are fine and balanced and all competent players saying how awful cv are for the game.

you can complain all you like wargaming does not listen to the playerbase.

 

Because, of course only, "competent" Players are actually allowed to have an accurate opinion on anything...    Good thing games don't have to make a living off the only the massive amounts of money dallied out by competent   players(1%ers).  

 

LOL @ at posting a CV poll by Flamu and his army of adoring CV fans.... 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,551
[O7]
Members
1,494 posts
11,235 battles
1 minute ago, iRA6E said:

Because, of course only, "competent" Players are actually allowed to have an accurate opinion on anything

imagine listening to competent players that actually understand basic game mechanics and how to play the game at a higher and more detailed level compared to window lickers................................

2 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

LOL @ at posting a CV poll by Flamu and his army of adoring CV fans....

thats a straw poll that went across reddit, forums, twitch streams 

i will always stand by my statement anyone with an iq higher then their shoe size knows that cv is awful for game balance

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,596
[KRAK]
Members
3,718 posts
21,738 battles
16 minutes ago, Benched_ferlyfe said:

imagine listening to competent players that actually understand basic game mechanics and how to play the game at a higher and more detailed level compared to window lickers................................

thats a straw poll that went across reddit, forums, twitch streams 

i will always stand by my statement anyone with an iq higher then their shoe size knows that cv is awful for game balance

Imagine having a real-life and not having to measure yourself by how you play a game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[HASH]
[HASH]
Members
12 posts
3,233 battles

I'll consider them balanced when rocket planes have been replaced with fighters.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
57 posts
833 battles
47 minutes ago, Benched_ferlyfe said:

another cv rant thread that wargaming will ignore because your name is not spreadsheet, full of below average players recommending cv are fine and balanced and all competent players saying how awful cv are for the game.

you can complain all you like wargaming does not listen to the playerbase.

 

Bravo

1FDAF878-4265-46FF-BD13-5882C5983470.gif.7cbed45e6bc2b9b70ea86cea9c117f5d.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,267
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,215 posts
14,759 battles
2 hours ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

After careful consideration of some of the best criticisms of CVs, I have a solution that might improve some people's largest complaints about the class.

Basically, aircraft carriers should take a cue from the submarines. They should be starting at tier 6 instead of tier 4. 

 

I don't think they are starting at tier 6 and that they are just using tier 6 for the testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,551
[O7]
Members
1,494 posts
11,235 battles
40 minutes ago, Vaffu said:

Imagine having a real-life and not having to measure yourself by how you play a game.

oh no here comes the brain dead real life attempted insult, everyone that plays a game at a more intelligent level must live in mums basement right?

Have you considered that more competent players play at higher levels because they require higher brain stimulation? meaning as someone like yourself who would go outside and poke a puddle with a stick and find that to be riveting fun the rest of us find fun in competitive play, improving stats, damage farming, pushing for leaderboard positions.

Edited by Benched_ferlyfe
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
279 posts
1,259 battles

If steam punk is showing up in game I dont think historical accuracy is as important as balance and fun. Waiting till tier 6 to play carriers equals no fun. Adding carriers to every tier from 3 and up sounds better as the only real issue is to over load at tier 4.

I was not playing before the rework, but it sounds like a better balance between now and then is needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
964
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,057 posts
10,837 battles
3 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

I don't think they are starting at tier 6 and that they are just using tier 6 for the testing.

I was surprised when they originally said they were starting at tier 6 as well. Submarines entered mainstream service long before aircraft carriers. If they did decide to start them lower, I would not be surprised.

Also, what I posted is not an anti CV whine at all. I like CVs, and I miss the RTS CVs. I also understand why a lot had to change. I agree that the new carriers are not nearly as likely to get out of hand with dominance. I was only suggesting a sort of solution to the difficulties being faced by new players in ships with non-existent AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[55UP]
Members
407 posts
3,259 battles
5 hours ago, Benched_ferlyfe said:

i will always stand by my statement anyone with an iq higher then their shoe size knows that cv is awful for game balance

This is possibly the most ridiculous and untrue statement I’ve ever read on this forums. It’s made even more ridiculous by the fact that you KNOW it’s not even remotely true. 

Edited by FineousFingers
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
729 posts
10,041 battles
5 hours ago, Ahskance said:

Can it suck to be in a ship with weak AA?  Sure.  So sail near a second ship that also has AA.  AA is designed to overlap, so utilize your teammates for protection, even if it's only one person.

just stay within 1.5 km of a yubari, it's so easy, i see no possible way this could fail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,767 posts
93 battles
5 hours ago, Benched_ferlyfe said:

thats a straw poll that went across reddit, forums, twitch streams 

i will always stand by my statement anyone with an iq higher then their shoe size knows that cv is awful for game balance

Imagine believing in a biased poll.

Flamu's CV poll is already considered to be irrelevant and unreliable, and yet here you are using it as evidence.

Edited by RyuuohD_NA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,580
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,266 battles
7 hours ago, Vaffu said:

Nothing wrong with carriers now. They finally got them somewhat balanced.

Now if only people would STOP WHINING ABOUT THEM! Yeesh... I'm not directing that at you or any one person in particular, Vaffu. I just... Can we please just move on? Please? As a community can we please get out of the damned rut we've collectively been stuck in for the past nine months? That's all I ask! I'll acknowledge that they're not perfect but nothing in the game is! "Good enough" is good enough!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,551
[O7]
Members
1,494 posts
11,235 battles
2 hours ago, FineousFingers said:

This is possibly the most ridiculous and untrue statement I’ve ever read on this forums. It’s made even more ridiculous by the fact that you KNOW it’s not even remotely true. 

i know its so un true thats why i said it, thats why i have 500+ matches in cv including being rank 5 midway and lexington on NA server.

i will always stand by my statement anyone with an iq higher then their shoe size knows that cv is awful for game balance

Nobody with any competent bone in their body will say current cv are good for the game right now. The only ones defending current cv are those that are very low skill levels in every ship and have little knowledge about the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,551
[O7]
Members
1,494 posts
11,235 battles
1 hour ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Flamu's CV poll is already considered to be irrelevant and unreliable, and yet here you are using it as evidence.

that was just a clip i added because it was funny, no where did i say this is evidence of such.

The amount of complaints about cv alone prove that cv are trash by design and fundamentally awful for the game. The fact that the KOTS admins refused to allow them in the tournament proves that nobody competent wants them in the game.The fact that wargaming still has not added them into clan battles proves that even wargaming knows that cv are fundamentally unbalanced.

i will always stand by my statement anyone with an iq higher then their shoe size knows that cv is awful for game balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,596
[KRAK]
Members
3,718 posts
21,738 battles
7 hours ago, Benched_ferlyfe said:

oh no here comes the brain dead real life attempted insult, everyone that plays a game at a more intelligent level must live in mums basement right?

Have you considered that more competent players play at higher levels because they require higher brain stimulation? meaning as someone like yourself who would go outside and poke a puddle with a stick and find that to be riveting fun the rest of us find fun in competitive play, improving stats, damage farming, pushing for leaderboard positions.

I  stand by my comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×