Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Iron_Salvo921

CV Rework APPRECIATION thread

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

81
[UTWE]
Members
335 posts
4,698 battles

I am so tired of so many people complaining about the CV rework STILL. I don't play CVs that much, in fact, I'm a DD main. Currently I'm on Yugumo in IJN DD's and have gone up a few other DD lines. Recently I've been getting a lot of CV matches and it's actually really easy to play around the CV. Sure when the CV rework first came out CVs were disgusting, but now with all the balances IMO they are finally alright. I just thought I'd make this thread to prove that there is at least ONE person who thinks CVs are fine, Radar on the other hand... Well there I said it, now it's time for the haters to yell their opinion :)

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,484
[-K-]
Members
7,079 posts
11,622 battles

For many, the issue wasn't necessarily the rework itself, but how long (and how many patches/hotfixes) it took to get it "balanced".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
81
[UTWE]
Members
335 posts
4,698 battles
Just now, Ace_04 said:

For many, the issue wasn't necessarily the rework itself, but how long (and how many patches/hotfixes) it took to get it "balanced".

Not in my experience. I still see so many people in battle complaining about how OP CV's are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,238
[O7]
Members
1,431 posts
15,198 battles

The problem has nothing to do with balance, how strong, how weak they are. It is all about the fact that it is simply not fun to play in CV games for the most part. As a player the CV is fighting the ships' AI in the anti aircraft. As the ship captain, all you can do is try to #Justdodge and hope your AI can take care of some planes. I still maintain the RTS System would have been fine if there were good tutorials, it was cleaned up a bit, and the bugs removed. But alas, here we are, committed to a system that is built on a concept that cannot be made to have a positive impact.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
90
[-TXT-]
Members
243 posts
4,413 battles

I tried World of Warships during the open beta.  I got to around Tier 4 and quit.  The RTS CVs were interesting, but I'm not a multi-task oriented player so it wasn't a gameplay I could do.

Several months ago, my best friend told me that carriers were changed (his father infected him with a love of aircraft) and showed me the new system.  It seemed interesting.

Since then, I've played nearly every single day over the past... 6 months?  8 months?

I have learned how to play various surface ships, but ultimately it's not a gameplay experience that I enjoy.  I love the support-aspect of the CV class, though.

P.S.  The old RTS system was horrid in it's ability to one shot ship after ship after ship.  While I was never that player, just watching old CV youtube videos is disgusting in how brokenly awful the class was.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
860
[USCN]
Beta Testers
2,738 posts
22,820 battles
12 minutes ago, Ace_04 said:

For many, the issue wasn't necessarily the rework itself, but how long (and how many patches/hotfixes) it took to get it "balanced".

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
367
[_RNG_]
Members
760 posts
6,087 battles

I'm right there with you @Iron_Salvo921. I'm a DD main and I am fine with CVs in the game.

In fact, I played a game the other night where I caught myself thinking "oh dang no CVs... boring". Honestly I did. I know it's weird for a DD player to say that.

And it's also true that on that same night I complained in chat about getting focused down and wrecked by a CV.

But that just proves my point: CVs do not break the game or make it unplayable for DDs. Yes, they do make it hard. But isn't that the point of playing a game: to face a difficult challenge and do your best to overcome it?

CVs are not any harder than Radar or fast Battleships or a skilled Division of Red ships or being uptiered or trying to gun fight a Gunboat DD when you're in a torpedo boat or getting ambushed by a Helena or Minotaur or Kleber or... It's all part of the excitement. 

I wrote another thread making this exact point a few months ago -- "I'm aDD main and I do not think CVs are a problem" -- so I won't continue to repeat myself.

But thanks for posting this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
81
[UTWE]
Members
335 posts
4,698 battles
21 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

The problem has nothing to do with balance, how strong, how weak they are. It is all about the fact that it is simply not fun to play in CV games for the most part. As a player the CV is fighting the ships' AI in the anti aircraft. As the ship captain, all you can do is try to #Justdodge and hope your AI can take care of some planes. I still maintain the RTS System would have been fine if there were good tutorials, it was cleaned up a bit, and the bugs removed. But alas, here we are, committed to a system that is built on a concept that cannot be made to have a positive impact.

See I get that argument. Sometimes CVs can be boring while you are flying for a few minutes to the battle only to be shredded by Smol AA. And if you liked the RTS version better then alright, it's not a thing anymore and IMO this versions better, BUT WERE ALL ALLOWED TO HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS. Even if someone does think CVs are OP how about you say that rather than yelling at every single CV player you see, and complaining the whole game about how they got blapped 2 minutes in going broadside to a Yamato and blaming it on the CV somehow. I just wish people would be more calm and logical.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,238
[O7]
Members
1,431 posts
15,198 battles
1 minute ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

See I get that argument. Sometimes CVs can be boring while you are flying for a few minutes to the battle only to be shredded by Smol AA. And if you liked the RTS version better then alright, it's not a thing anymore and IMO this versions better, BUT WERE ALL ALLOWED TO HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS. Even if someone does think CVs are OP how about you say that rather than yelling at every single CV player you see, and complaining the whole game about how they got blapped 2 minutes in going broadside to a Yamato and blaming it on the CV somehow. I just wish people would be more calm and logical.

Yeah definitely the people blaming CV players got it wrong. WG implemented the rework knowing that the feedback was resoundingly negative about both balance and the gameplay. People should only blame WG, but if a ship exists in game, you cannot blame the player for playing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
376
[CHASE]
Members
512 posts
19,856 battles

Yes, I love being unable to take certain options on ships or playing some ships because if i do a CV can kill me with literally no counterplay, it's excellent design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,880
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
22,100 posts
12,348 battles
45 minutes ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

Not in my experience. I still see so many people in battle complaining about how OP CV's are.

They are here too and most of them have little or no rework CV experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,057
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,836 posts
18,456 battles
1 hour ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

Sure when the CV rework first came out CVs were disgusting,

That hasn't changed the CV rework is a steaming heap of putrid maggot crawling garbage made worse with every update.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,584
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,477 posts
10,386 battles

As a CV player who plays the other types just as much - month 10 -11 and were still not remotely close to balanced. AA is still a problem in both directions - why typically when you see '3 CV's per team' complaint threads it's always tier 4 where AA is a joke, reverse there are ships at 8 and 10 in particular that obliterate planes. Minotaur and others are cloaked till their AA guns open fire despite having powerful long range flak. A skilled player can drop a DD's HP by 1/3 with rockets while changes to usability of the planes have made them a problem in some scenarios and more so for average/lesser players - increasing the skill gap and reducing popularity in contradiction of 2 goals of the rework in the first place. Cat fighters are 9 levels of wth because they auto delete planes, we can't figure out CV regen rates till we balance AA - which is still unbalanced, spotting is still an issue, and that doesn't even get in to carriers being way too generic and basically cardboard boxes with national markings, historical accuracy issues and not ones that are for the sake of gameplay, and plain and simple fixes to sloppy modeling work like the HVAR's shoved onto the F8F on Midway with one jammed between rockets, and one under center, instead of on the wings not that it should have that many rockets to begin with. 

And that's the abridged version of the numerous issues, balance or otherwise, that CV's still have - and why you will continue to see complaints about CV's and the rework - it is still heavily work in progress based on what it needs, despite wargaming's attempts to claim otherwise.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,695
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
3,400 posts
11,508 battles

We've basically gone from more acute cancer in fewer games to less acute cancer in more games. But not even that because you can have two or three of 'em and that cancer is pretty acute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,755
[RLGN]
Members
11,675 posts
20,672 battles
2 hours ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

See I get that argument. Sometimes CVs can be boring while you are flying for a few minutes to the battle only to be shredded by Smol AA. And if you liked the RTS version better then alright, it's not a thing anymore and IMO this versions better, BUT WERE ALL ALLOWED TO HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS.

My opinion is that RTS (Admiral Halsey in a CIC,) was better than this FPS (McClusky leading Bombing 6,) snore fest.

2 hours ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

I just wish people would be more calm and logical.

We were calm and logical last Nov-Jan. Many of the issues with the rework that still exist to this day, were pointed out by beta testers.

Considering two years of broken promises, and the mishandling of the rework; many of us are past the point of ‘logic,’ and just don’t care any more.

2 hours ago, Kebobstuzov said:

Yeah definitely the people blaming CV players got it wrong. WG implemented the rework knowing that the feedback was resoundingly negative about both balance and the gameplay. People should only blame WG, but if a ship exists in game, you cannot blame the player for playing it.

I constantly blame WG.

As to blaming players? If they don’t want grief, maybe they shouldn’t play carriers.

I’m long past the point of having any sympathy for carrier drivers.

I hate the rework as a matter of firm opposition; I don’t play carriers in Randoms because I’ll not inflict an abusive mechanic on other players.

And just for the record; no; I don’t find carriers that difficult to deal with. I didn’t under RTS, and I don’t now.

Edited by Estimated_Prophet
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,490
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
8,504 posts
21,838 battles
14 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

And just for the record; no; I don’t find carriers that difficult to deal with. I didn’t under RTS, and I don’t now.

I never had much trouble dealing with RTS carriers as either a CV player or a "surface" ship even playing PvP but I gave them some respect since I knew they could actually take me out. The new carriers in PvE and PvP are just anemic and I honestly don't pay them much mind. I just find them more annoying since they pretty much kill you by a death of a thousand cuts. The biggest danger is keeping you spotted while trying to aggravate you to death and taking incoming fire from the rest of the reds. Least that has been my experience in PvP, in PvE they are just totally ignorable and good only for feeding you plane kills. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,755
[RLGN]
Members
11,675 posts
20,672 battles

@Taylor3006

Yeah, pretty much.

Part of my irritation lies in being an average at best carrier player, but good enough at RTS to at least have fun with carriers in Co-op, (while not inflicting myself upon anyone in Randoms.)

Even that much was destroyed by the rework. Near complete inability to carry the teams I usually have when I play, (late night, so few real players, and lots of bots,) pathetic spotting, and 100% manual attacks; something I was never much good at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[SSBN]
Members
137 posts
5,097 battles

CV's are fine, when they decide to feed the one boat they shouldn't.1910853058_WorldofWarships2019_11.15-22_11_25_01.thumb.png.c33fff8f1188997b8c343ba3c1b5a669.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,012 posts
5,817 battles

I preferred the RTS style of CV play.  It modeled a CV Command perspective better than the current re-work.

Control multiple squadrons at same time?  Yep.
Control the CV, too while squadrons are in the air?  Yep.
Direct fighters to seek out enemy planes and shoot them down?  Yep.

Use two or more squadrons to deliver all aircraft ordnance to the same target at the same time?  Yep.
Set up simultaneous cross-drops of torpedoes?  Yep.

Find that good players could still dodge torpedo drops?  Yep.

If all the planes in your CV's hangar were shot down, would you get new ones?  Nope.

The difference between the real-time-simulation interface versus the first-person-shooter interface is *significant*.
CV Captains went from being in control of all assets simultaneously to becoming a glorified squadron leader.

Could there have been tweaks & improvements?  Perhaps.

How many of you had all of your odd-tiered ships of a given class taken from you?  
Ships you had fun playing with for many games and formed fond memories with, TAKEN from one's port!
If you weren't a CV player during the RTS era, you have yet to experience it.

No amount of credits can replace my Zuiho. 
The ship XP gained by my Zuiho was shunted to a lower-tier Hosho and rendered unable to advance my Ryujo's progress in the tech-tree research.
I would need to spend doubloons just to access/convert the shunted XP.

Tell me of a Battleship or Cruiser or Destroyer line-up where that happened, eh?

CV players have been hit on the proverbial chin, time & again in the WOWs community. 
The CV-rework.
The wails and lamentations of people calling CV's "sky cancer". 
The toxic lack of understanding & perspective of what a CV player's life is like in a game that is supposed to be fun for *all*.

And still, here we are, trying to make the best of it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
126 posts
5,048 battles
On 11/15/2019 at 8:56 PM, Wolfswetpaws said:

I preferred the RTS style of CV play.  It modeled a CV Command perspective better than the current re-work.

Control multiple squadrons at same time?  Yep.
Control the CV, too while squadrons are in the air?  Yep.
Direct fighters to seek out enemy planes and shoot them down?  Yep.

Use two or more squadrons to deliver all aircraft ordnance to the same target at the same time?  Yep.
Set up simultaneous cross-drops of torpedoes?  Yep.

Find that good players could still dodge torpedo drops?  Yep.

If all the planes in your CV's hangar were shot down, would you get new ones?  Nope.

The difference between the real-time-simulation interface versus the first-person-shooter interface is *significant*.
CV Captains went from being in control of all assets simultaneously to becoming a glorified squadron leader.

Could there have been tweaks & improvements?  Perhaps.

How many of you had all of your odd-tiered ships of a given class taken from you?  
Ships you had fun playing with for many games and formed fond memories with, TAKEN from one's port!
If you weren't a CV player during the RTS era, you have yet to experience it.

No amount of credits can replace my Zuiho. 
The ship XP gained by my Zuiho was shunted to a lower-tier Hosho and rendered unable to advance my Ryujo's progress in the tech-tree research.
I would need to spend doubloons just to access/convert the shunted XP.

Tell me of a Battleship or Cruiser or Destroyer line-up where that happened, eh?

CV players have been hit on the proverbial chin, time & again in the WOWs community. 
The CV-rework.
The wails and lamentations of people calling CV's "sky cancer". 
The toxic lack of understanding & perspective of what a CV player's life is like in a game that is supposed to be fun for *all*.

And still, here we are, trying to make the best of it.

^^^ This. Previous CV's you were in charge on the strategic level. You chose what type of planes to carry. (A choice I think should be limited, and have restrictions. Or just keep it historical. Could you Imagine the Enterprise with 82 Hellcats?) You carried out attacks based on a CIC approach. If I want to fly a Hellcat, I'll play thunder or World of Warplanes. 

Edited by CorvetteKaptain67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,012 posts
5,817 battles
1 minute ago, CorvetteKaptain67 said:

^^^ This. Previous CV's you were in charge on the strategic level. You chose what type of planes to carry. (A choice I think should be limited, and have restrictions. Or just keep it historical. Could you Imagine the Enterprise with 82 Hellcats?) You carried out attacks based on a CIC approach. If I want to fly a Hellcat, I'll play thunder or World of Warplanes. 

The Modules menu allowed some CV's to select from "packages" of aircraft for the load-out of the hangar.

Example:
Default load-out = 2 squadrons bombers, 1 squadron torpedo planes, 1 squadron fighter planes and one back-up squadron of each to replenish losses.
Optional load-out = 1 bomber, 2 torpedo, 1 fighter and backups
Optional load-out (air supremacy) = 1 bomber, 1 torpedo, 2 fighter and backups.

The exact planes varied from CV to CV, but you get the idea.

Air Supremacy was useful, and devastating if two friendly CV's both had it.  They could shoot down all enemy planes from opposing CV's before friendly ships could be hit by ordnance (unless opposing CV's were similarly equipped, then it was a close match and using friendly ship AA to augment fighter's shoot-down rate helped win the day).

Fighter planes were launched and directed by the player.  They could scout and defend and attack, per the player's choice.

Logistics mattered.  If all one's planes were on one side of the map and an opposing set of planes arrived to hit one's CV, all one could do is maneuver because their fighter defense was escorting the strike squadrons.  No fighter consumables back then.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
126 posts
5,048 battles
2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The Modules menu allowed some CV's to select from "packages" of aircraft for the load-out of the hangar.

Example:
Default load-out = 2 squadrons bombers, 1 squadron torpedo planes, 1 squadron fighter planes and one back-up squadron of each to replenish losses.
Optional load-out = 1 bomber, 2 torpedo, 1 fighter and backups
Optional load-out (air supremacy) = 1 bomber, 1 torpedo, 2 fighter and backups.

The exact planes varied from CV to CV, but you get the idea.

Air Supremacy was useful, and devastating if two friendly CV's both had it.  They could shoot down all enemy planes from opposing CV's before friendly ships could be hit by ordnance (unless opposing CV's were similarly equipped, then it was a close match and using friendly ship AA to augment fighter's shoot-down rate helped win the day).

Fighter planes were launched and directed by the player.  They could scout and defend and attack, per the player's choice.

Logistics mattered.  If all one's planes were on one side of the map and an opposing set of planes arrived to hit one's CV, all one could do is maneuver because their fighter defense was escorting the strike squadrons.  No fighter consumables back then.

In other words it was fairly realistic. :D

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,012 posts
5,817 battles
2 minutes ago, CorvetteKaptain67 said:

In other words it was fairly realistic. :D

Good times.  Many good "chess matches" in real time, as one tried to out-think and out-maneuver their opponent(s).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
126 posts
5,048 battles
1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Good times.  Many good "chess matches" in real time, as one tried to out-think and out-maneuver their opponent(s).

I miss that aspect of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×