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

Multiple cv's a side has to go WG.

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

363
[90THI]
Members
101 posts
8,399 battles

The daily post on the most relevant problem in the game.   It is driving away new customers or forcing people into cv's further perpetuating the problem.  In every way WG has followed the path of other gaming houses.  Following in the footsteps of EA, Blizzard, Bethesda among many others that lose sight of the benefits of superior gameplay as the paradigm instead of profit at any cost.  Such great potential squandered by lack of vision or humility in their inability to listen to an experienced player base that is/was devoted to your product.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,397 posts
6,894 battles

Lose the multiple CVs, gain the CV with multiple squadrons. What is scarier, two Squadrons or five Squadrons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,252
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,097 posts
4,081 battles

But dodging twice as many plane squadrons just makes twice the fun in my DD:Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,302 posts
9,235 battles

How about actually giving carrier fighters a chance to interact under the control of the players, and not making striking another CV so costly that it’s only done as a last resort?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[BBQ]
Beta Testers
202 posts

The amount of CV threads now makes me want to play CV only. Just to keep the fun and engaging numbers up.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts

I think it's fair to admit that until CV situation improves it's good for the game and community to limit matches to 1 CV per side. Double and even triple CV just completely deny any LOS related tactical moves and ambushes, plus introduce big chance of steam-roll based purely on disparity in CV players skills.

Until this seriously addressed CV battles will keep disturb playerbase ... and forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts

The answer to reducing the CV population is not by restricting their MM even more, but in making low tier CVs more difficult to get good results with, to make them less influential on battle outcomes, and so less damaging to their intended victims.

In short, make playing a low tier CV less profitable and less effective. NERF THEM! :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,316
[WOOK3]
Members
4,213 posts
3,235 battles
41 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

The answer to reducing the CV population is not by restricting their MM even more, but in making low tier CVs more difficult to get good results with, to make them less influential on battle outcomes, and so less damaging to their intended victims.

In short, make playing a low tier CV less profitable and less effective. NERF THEM! :cap_rambo:

CVs at low tiers are pretty ineffective. You have to address the reasons why people play them which include T8 planes get slaughtered by T10 AA. 

The game experience at higher tiers isn't good so people play lower tiers.

They really need to start over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[NSEW]
Members
1,858 posts
10,702 battles

Well, one perspective is that WG have successfully succeeded in their CV rework goal.  "To raise the number of players, playing the CV lines".

Now that, it is quite apparent that the number of players playing CV (rough guess here) have increased.  It would be nice of WG to implement a max 1 CV per side, even if it meant, slightly longer time to get a game (for the CV player).   I doubt many players that do play CV as their main or not wouldn't mind. I won't. 

 

Another thing I do miss is the semi-direct CV vs CV encounters, with players direct inputs. As is, the Anti-AA (Close Air Patrol) is limited to an automatic action by a pre-calculated script.It would be really nice to have an option where, the Rocket/Torpedo/Bomb squadrons can 'switch' to Anti-AA/Fighter mode at the flick of a button press.  Then the follow up squadrons launched could have the same option.  Be the Rocket/Torpedo/Bomb squadron or switch to an AA role.

 

The disparity between the lower tier CV games (Tiers 4, and 6), and the higher CV games (Tiers 8, 10) are just odd.  Yes, there are overlapping power creeps between certain tiers along the way (for non-CV ships, as well as for CVs).  There has be a reasonable half way point for CV to be workable in the game currently, and for non-CV ships with their AA systems. 

Personally speaking, for me.  I really don't think the CV rework is "complete", as WG says it is.

 

 

 

Edited by LowSpeed_US
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,422
[WOLFG]
Members
28,917 posts
8,200 battles
46 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

CVs at low tiers are pretty ineffective. You have to address the reasons why people play them which include T8 planes get slaughtered by T10 AA.....

....and can virtually ignore T6 AA.

I still think they should give CVs +/-1 MM, and then rebalance. That way, T8 CVs wouldn't be completely shut down by T10 AA, or run riot on T6 ships.

It would get rid of the worst extremes, for CVs and surface ships both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,834
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,411 posts
14,163 battles
1 hour ago, Wombatmetal said:

CVs at low tiers are pretty ineffective. You have to address the reasons why people play them which include T8 planes get slaughtered by T10 AA. 

The game experience at higher tiers isn't good so people play lower tiers.

They really need to start over.

 

12 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

....and can virtually ignore T6 AA.

I still think they should give CVs +/-1 MM, and then rebalance. That way, T8 CVs wouldn't be completely shut down by T10 AA, or run riot on T6 ships.

It would get rid of the worst extremes, for CVs and surface ships both.

AA scaling has been a problem since the RTS days and has never been properly addressed. Tier 10 AA pretty much shuts down all but top players even in tier 10 CV's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,186
[SALVO]
Members
24,780 posts
25,829 battles

There are times when I think that this number of CVs per team issue is a bit overblown. 

Last night, I was in a tier 9 battle in my AL Yukikaze where there was a mild MM dump that caused there to be 2 tier 8 CVs per team.  And the enemy CVs hardly ever bothered me.  I think one of them did a little chip damage to me … ONCE.  But for the most part, they ignored me.  This is a point that I think that far too many of you guys seem to overlook.  Just because there's a CV (or 2) in a battle and you're in a DD, that's not a guaranteed death sentence for your DD.  A carrier's planes can only be in one place at a time on the map.  (Or two, if it's 2 CVs per team, of course.)  And there's absolutely no guarantee that the enemy CV player is going to focus your side of the map or even make an effort to find you.

I had a game late last week in my Kleber where the enemy CV completely ignored me for the entire battle.  And I managed to do in excess of 100k damage.  It wouldn't have been hard to find me, since I had my guns hot most of the game.  And yet he just plain ignored me and allowed me to trash his team.  

People shouldn't assume that the presence of a CV or 2 is an automatic guarantee that your DD is going to die a quick death to the almighty carrier.  It's not.  

 

Now, mind you, I do think that the game would be better off with a soft limit of 1 CV per team and a hard limit of 2 CVs after a certain time in queue has passed.  Hell, I think that the game would also be better if there were no tier 4 CVs and the first CVs were at tier 6.  Either that, or the devs should go back and buff all tier 3-4 ships' AA as a historically logical counter to CVs being a serious threat.  Honestly though, between the two choices, I think that it'd be easier to just remove tier 4 CVs and make tier 6 the first tier for carriers, if for no other reason than it'd require less work.  No balancing would seem to be required, since the T6 CVs already exist.  But if they tried to buff tiers 3-4 ships' AA, that would require a lot of balancing work, and I'm not sure that it'd be worth doing in the face of the far simpler solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
363
[90THI]
Members
101 posts
8,399 battles

I think the high frequency of rofl stomps we are getting in many matches is also a product of cv proliferation as many skippers are too intimidated to play boldly when they are spotted from mere moments into the match.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,364 posts
3 hours ago, Crucis said:

Now, mind you, I do think that the game would be better off with a soft limit of 1 CV per team and a hard limit of 2 CVs after a certain time in queue has passed. 

I know that T8 and up already have this.  Soon, T4 will have this.  T5 matches will still be 2 soft, 3 hard, but that means T3 doesn't see three CVs.  I don't know exactly what T6's rules are. whether they're 1 soft/2 hard, or 2 soft/3 hard.  

They can't compress it any further than that, or they'll just end up with more queue dumps.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[FG]
Members
566 posts
4,799 battles

There are two ways they could go about this imo:

Limit CVs to one per game, potentially causing issues with queuing with a CV. A bandaid fix, but better than the current situation.

Or,

Improve DD vs aircraft interactions (i.e. rocket planes) and changing aircraft spotting to be less invasive. More ideal, as it fixes the root of the CV problem, while not interfering with queuing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,207 posts
5,629 battles
13 hours ago, Willawaw said:

The daily post on the most relevant problem in the game.   It is driving away new customers or forcing people into cv's further perpetuating the problem.  In every way WG has followed the path of other gaming houses.  Following in the footsteps of EA, Blizzard, Bethesda among many others that lose sight of the benefits of superior gameplay as the paradigm instead of profit at any cost.  Such great potential squandered by lack of vision or humility in their inability to listen to an experienced player base that is/was devoted to your product.

I understand that WG makes more money with CVs than without CVs, correct? Are you sure? Experienced player base don't like CVs, new players love CVs? Mmmhhhh... Are you sure? I think experienced player base knows how to deal with CVs and play them. I checked a number of experienced players profiles, they all play CVs, some more, some less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[-PVE-]
Members
591 posts

I remember using a Charleston once, and there were a total of six CVs in that random battle. 

The three enemy CVs focused their attacks on my ship and there was little I could do. 

The enemy players did it again on other ships. The focused attacks really worked for them.

It was an effective tactic of the enemy.

I wonder how truly new players will feel whenever a similar situation will happen to them over and over again. Will they persevere? Or will they uninstall the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
19 hours ago, Wombatmetal said:

CVs at low tiers are pretty ineffective. You have to address the reasons why people play them which include T8 planes get slaughtered by T10 AA. 

The game experience at higher tiers isn't good so people play lower tiers.

They really need to start over.

WOWS 2.0, they need to start afresh, all over. Delete their current .dev folders, and create new ones. The entire game dev philosophy would need to be rethought, reset and started over again. Back in the early days, WOWS had the leeway to explore different development paths, but in the end it took the shortest route available, copying WOT, the limits of which, are quite clear today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,107
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,436 posts
6,489 battles

Why is this poster and others allowed to keep making the exact same thread every single day?    These forums have become CV hate spam for the same dozen posters who are just continuously starting the exact same or very thinly veiled rehashes...   No new ideas, or discussion,  just same effort to keep the forums cluttered with this.  It's time to stat moderating these threads....     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[KID0]
Members
127 posts
1,392 battles
21 hours ago, Bguk said:

The amount of CV threads now makes me want to play CV only. Just to keep the fun and engaging numbers up.

I play Hosho all the time now.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
363
[90THI]
Members
101 posts
8,399 battles
1 hour ago, iRA6E said:

Why is this poster and others allowed to keep making the exact same thread every single day?    These forums have become CV hate spam for the same dozen posters who are just continuously starting the exact same or very thinly veiled rehashes...   No new ideas, or discussion,  just same effort to keep the forums cluttered with this.  It's time to stat moderating these threads....     

We are all allowed to voice our opinions.  The simple fact is I have tried that route already.  One thread had around 30 pages of replies and suggestions, analysis etc.  How is this a hate thread?  Where have I said get rid of cv's altogether?  Every new idea has been proffered but WG continues to hammer the square piece into a circular hole.  You must evolve and realize you will always hear dissent in a dysfunctional system taking this attitude frankly is oppressive and signs of a closed one track mind that is all about itself and denies the other any dignity or respect.  And frankly any comment posted on these forums has a 90% probability of being a repeat.  It is time to start rejecting "thought police" attitudes and accept the opinions of others as valid in expression but perhaps not content according to "your" gaming paradigms.   

Edited by Willawaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,107
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,436 posts
6,489 battles
1 hour ago, Willawaw said:

We are all allowed to voice our opinions.  The simple fact is I have tried that route already.  One thread had around 30 pages of replies and suggestions, analysis etc.  How is this a hate thread?  Where have I said get rid of cv's altogether?  Every new idea has been proffered but WG continues to hammer the square piece into a circular hole.  You must evolve and realize you will always hear dissent in a dysfunctional system taking this attitude frankly is oppressive and signs of a closed one track mind that is all about itself and denies the other any dignity or respect.  And frankly any comment posted on these forums has a 90% probability of being a repeat.  It is time to start rejecting "thought police" attitudes and accept the opinions of others as valid in expression but perhaps not content according to "your" gaming paradigms.   

No...... None of the above.. Just tired of you starting a new thread every day on exactly the same subject.  Bump your old one... no need to start a new thread with your same personal opinion every day.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
363
[90THI]
Members
101 posts
8,399 battles

 

8 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

No...... None of the above.. Just tired of you starting a new thread every day on exactly the same subject.  Bump your old one... no need to start a new thread with your same personal opinion every day.    

Ha ha me, every day?  Oh you are frustrated.   Necroing old threads is offence that can get you banned, that is directly from the forum moderators fyi.  I said daily because this is getting attention ..... daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts

as an underline for this topic. ignoring situation with CV won't do any good,

yes, that was somebody's rage and maybe doesn't worth mentioning but this is happening every day 

(btw that was Bismark with barely 1300 battles and 47% but the problem is he will never have chance to become good player because he was raged into uninstall and this is sad)

Spoiler

image.png.afb60b210645eec43323eb4333b7791d.png

 

Edited by SlartiBartFastE2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×