Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
1Sherman

Unpopular question, but still: How many people who hate CVs have actually played them more than just a few times?

257 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,997
Alpha Tester
6,638 posts
3,333 battles

Essentially, the title says it all. Growing up, I was taught to look for the larger context of an issue so that I'd be able to make an informed opinion regarding it. Recently, I've been seeing videos on YouTube of people like Jingles and Flambass railing on CVs, making complaints about the seemingly infinite reserves, the wonky damage control system, and the uselessness of AA that lead me to believe they're missing the larger context. To this day I have never seen either of them, or almost any other like-minded content creator, play CVs with any sort of regularity, and I believe that that's the reason why they, or a number of other people who share their opinions, don't know the full context. 

I currently have four CVs sitting in my port: The Enterprise, the Furious, the Zeppelin, and the Lexington. I've played all of them and while I'm not the best, I like to think I'm not particularly bad at them because I know my stats support that. When I play them, I'm often reminded that there are still plenty of ships out there with powerful enough AA to chew through planes and that reserves can be burned through surprisingly quickly, even to the point where you have no choice but to send out depleted squadrons. Often times, I've found, the ships that get shredded by planes without being able to do much are the ones that are isolated and without any sort of AA backup, and even then it comes down to the ship: A lone USN cruiser is always a no-fly zone.

As well, it's worth noting that before the rework, CVs were legitimately disgusting, something I think people who rail on CVs as they are right now tend to forget. I believe there is no way to justify being able to Dev Strike a full health tier 10 BB in a hammer-and-anvil drop with torpedo bombers as better than what we have now. There are certainly issues with CVs as they are currently (e.g. the damage control system), but I'd say that it is by far the lesser of two evils.

To conclude, I believe that if some of the people who complain about CVs played CVs with any sort of regularity, they might see the other side of the story and not complain quite so much. I know I'm likely just painting a target on my back with this argument, but I don't care; This is my opinion and I felt like it needed to be shared in order to provide some context. If you have a problem with that, that's your opinion, but I hope that you'll be able to share it as civilly as I did mine here.

Sincerely,

1Sherman.

  • Cool 23
  • Boring 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,148
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
3,915 posts

I don't hate cv's in general...  i just hate when there are 3  and I have no AA at tiers 3 and 4...  and i think i have 1 match in a cv...  i did terrible, i will come back to them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,846
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,481 posts
22,829 battles

I was trying to learn the RTS style so I had US and IJN up to tier 6 and 7.

Bought the Kaga.

When rework hit, I sold all but Kaga.

When British CV hit I earned tier 4. 6 & 8.

Got the Saipan from a santa crate.

I like Kagas large hanger, the British cv for ease of use. 

I hate Saipan low plane numbers.

I am mediocre at best when playing a carrier.....

......

When in a destroyer,  I allways end up with a unicom red cv..... (feels like most of the time)

....

That's my impression. 

CV easy to grasp, hard to do well in with overlapping AA.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,624
[-DF-]
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
6,582 battles

The ignominious death at the end in the first stomp and that'd be enough for me.  I can imagine how it is.  lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[CLUMP]
Members
1,482 posts
2,134 battles

Most of the players whining about CVs have probably never played them and are most likely DD players that can no longer ninja torp other players :Smile_veryhappy:  DD players are really the only ones making such a big fuss even though they are the fastest and most agile class in the game and are also capable of single-handedly sinking if not take almost all the HP of any ship in class in the game with torpedo spreads :Smile_smile: 

 

Edited by LastRemnant
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,333 posts
7,142 battles

My complaints have never been based around the difficulty level of playing CVs. I don't find them very interesting and don't really play them but that's personal preference. I can't say how hard they are to play in randoms and it doesn't matter to me if CVs are braindead easy or require superunicum skills to be effective in. My issue is that CVs, whether played poorly or brilliantly have a negative impact on game play and that my ways of countering them are uniquely limited. 

9 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

Often times, I've found, the ships that get shredded by planes without being able to do much are the ones that are isolated and without any sort of AA backup, and even then it comes down to the ship: A lone USN cruiser is always a no-fly zone.

Here however is where a major issue comes in because I have seen unicum CV players claim this is not true. And I've been up against enough good CV players to see the dramatic difference between AA vs a good CV and AA vs a bad CV to strongly suspect they are right. I think many CV players focus too much on what they can accomplish in CVs and view it as representative of the entire class without thinking about what the top players in that class can accomplish and how broken that situation is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,830
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,812 posts
4,278 battles

I started up the USN line, in part because I figured if I was going to hate on CVs, I should know something about them. It's disgusting how easy it is to blap DDs. They're still broken. IMO rocket planes need to go, they make it way too easy to hit the least protected ship type. In the past it was actually hard to hit DDs, not so much anymore. 

The rework made CVs slightly better. But it also made them much much more popular (because they're easier). And don't confuse better with fixed, they're still busted. And now you had a slightly less broken class played WAY more, which just made everyone realize how broken they are. People tolerated CVs before because they were rare, and building into AA actually worked. Now they're still broken, much more common, and there's is nothing you can do to stop them. People don't hate strong ships, people hate things they can't fight back against. Smolensk and CVs are two examples of that.

Also, you don't need to play CVs to know they're busted. If as a DD player every game with a CV means you can't effectively contest objectives and screen ahead of the fleet, something is wrong. No single ship should have the power to force a complete change of playstyle for every other ship. And don't spout the nonsense about "just group up with the team." When was the last time a DD was able to be effective when he spent the entire game within 4km of a group of BBs and cruisers?

The DD mains still claim that mass whining by BB players caused torps to get nerfed. That's debatable, but I've never seen the entire playerbase so opposed to one idea like CVs (except the NTC). If everyone who plays your game hates a single thing about it, maybe that should clue the devs in that something is seriously wrong. And yes, I know not "everyone" hates CVs. But I have yet to see a single CC in favor of CVs right now. And I have yet to see anyone in battle chat say something good about CV design. But sure WG, what we all want is yet more CVs....:Smile_facepalm:

 

You know if they want to make money all they have to do is make a few premium CAs, maybe even a BB, with god tier AA that actually works. I bet they would be best sellers.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,624
[-DF-]
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
6,582 battles
1 minute ago, AJTP89 said:

You know if they want to make money all they have to do is make a few premium CAs, maybe even a BB, with god tier AA that actually works. I bet they would be best sellers.

That's undoubtedly on the long term plan.  That's WG 101 right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12,597 posts
14,320 battles

I have logged enough CV battles both as the CV and as the CV’s target to say I do not like CVs. And they are costly in terms of Captain skills, signal flags, Consumables, equipment to try and counter them not to mention battle performance lost because of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,072 posts
43,929 battles

I would like to think players that hate CVs actually played them, but it is entirely possible that a lot of players never bothered and just jumped on the hate train.

This would be consistent if say you made a complaint in forums or sent in a ticket complaining. As WG would check to see if you actually played CVs..

There is a thing called credibility. And if you have no experience with CVs, then stop complaining.

I play all ship types. I have fun with all of them to some degree. I played CVs before rework and after.

As for streamers not playing them, well it could be a case of them not being comfortable with playing the ship type.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
68
[DRACS]
Alpha Tester
739 posts
19,496 battles

I don't like them very much still.  I keep trying them, but never seem to do very well in them :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,333 posts
7,142 battles
4 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

I would like to think players that hate CVs actually played them, but it is entirely possible that a lot of players never bothered and just jumped on the hate train.

This would be consistent if say you made a complaint in forums or sent in a ticket complaining. As WG would check to see if you actually played CVs..

There is a thing called credibility. And if you have no experience with CVs, then stop complaining.

I play all ship types. I have fun with all of them to some degree. I played CVs before rework and after.

As for streamers not playing them, well it could be a case of them not being comfortable with playing the ship type.

 

 

 

Why would I need to play CVs to hate the impact they have on the game? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts

CVs are now very accessible, I would guess that most who comment for/against CVs; and that have 1000 + total battles, have played them. The most effective CV hater commentary, has come from those who have played CVs to prove their point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,624
[-DF-]
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
6,582 battles
1 minute ago, LoveBote said:

CVs are now very accessible, I would guess that most who comment for/against CVs; and that have 1000 + total battles, have played them. The most effective CV hater commentary, has come from those who have played CVs to prove their point.

It's really not necessary.  Some things are pretty apparent if you've been playing long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,151
[KWF]
Members
5,738 posts
6,985 battles

Flambass has quite a few videos of post RTS CV gameplay, albeit a bit old.

Consider that in his case he often does requests via votes, so it could be they are just unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12,597 posts
14,320 battles
Just now, CommodoreKang said:

That's undoubtedly on the long term plan.  That's WG 101 right there.

No I think actually their long term plan was to finish up with the limited number of CVs they could realistically add, then do the rework so they could nerf them and keep subtly nerfing or buffing them as needed including the premium CVs. You see the real golden goose will be the submarines and not the CVs. But in order to have subs be effective you needed to get rid of the numerous squadrons RYS CVs could send up at a time or else subs would more easily get located and sunk. It really is no accident that now you have 1 squadron in the air at a time which means a sub submerges and could set course 360° and a CV now has to guess which way instead of throwing up a nice expanding ring of squadrons from the submerge point.

And really this makes sense considering just how many different subs they could add. Only a small handful of nations were able to design and build CVs. But pretty much any nation that had DDs, CAs, patrol boats and other warships CA size or smaller could still field some subs as they did not cost all that much, especially compared to some naval assets. So Wargaming will have more than enough subs to keep adding them close to indefinitely. The only catch to this golden goose is as I have theorized that they needed CVs reigned in or able to be reigned in. And you will notice that the announcement for subs was around the time when the CV Rework happened...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,106
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,607 battles
27 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

 Recently, I've been seeing videos on YouTube of people like Jingles and Flambass railing on CVs, making complaints about the seemingly infinite reserves, the wonky damage control system, and the uselessness of AA that lead me to believe they're missing the larger context.

So the guys who have played many, many more matches than you, and in fact play for a living, are missing the "larger context" that, somehow, you just magically glommed onto? Yeah!

29 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

To this day I have never seen either of them, or almost any other like-minded content creator, play CVs with any sort of regularity, and I believe that that's the reason why they, or a number of other people who share their opinions, don't know the full context. 

So if you didn't see it then it didn't happen?

31 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

As well, it's worth noting that before the rework, CVs were legitimately disgusting, something I think people who rail on CVs as they are right now tend to forget.

A good indicator of how screwed up CVs are now is the number of players who want the old system back, disgusting as it might have been.

32 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

To conclude, I believe that if some of the people who complain about CVs played CVs with any sort of regularity, they might see the other side of the story and not complain quite so much.

I don't need to own, or fire, a gun to know it's overpowered against flesh and blood, especially after I've been shot by one.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,624
[-DF-]
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
6,582 battles
1 minute ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

No I think actually their long term plan was to finish up with the limited number of CVs they could realistically add, then do the rework so they could nerf them and keep subtly nerfing or buffing them as needed including the premium CVs. You see the real golden goose will be the submarines and not the CVs. But in order to have subs be effective you needed to get rid of the numerous squadrons RYS CVs could send up at a time or else subs would more easily get located and sunk. It really is no accident that now you have 1 squadron in the air at a time which means a sub submerges and could set course 360° and a CV now has to guess which way instead of throwing up a nice expanding ring of squadrons from the submerge point.

And really this makes sense considering just how many different subs they could add. Only a small handful of nations were able to design and build CVs. But pretty much any nation that had DDs, CAs, patrol boats and other warships CA size or smaller could still field some subs as they did not cost all that much, especially compared to some naval assets. So Wargaming will have more than enough subs to keep adding them close to indefinitely. The only catch to this golden goose is as I have theorized that they needed CVs reigned in or able to be reigned in. And you will notice that the announcement for subs was around the time when the CV Rework happened...

That's an interesting theory.  But the better than normal AA thing is already happening.  I've been away for a few months but seems like most of the Russian lines had really decent AA for some strange reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,981
Members
7,101 posts
22,001 battles

CV's are fun to play, the disconnect is the effect/affect (still fail on the difference) that they have on the rest of the game.

I enjoy them, I can play them. RTS I strafed more of my own planes than I did the reds.

The speed/spotting is to much.

 

This thread will get locked eventually, as most do. All points have been discussed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
582
[RTXN]
Banned
1,416 posts

WG killed CV and DD play for me on rebork - and have done nothing to convince me to try them again.

Gave up on complaining - like talking to a brick wall or getting a Marine to admit that they are wrong (change is just not going to happen).

If you like CV's as they are now, fine - I have learned to adapt - when I actually do play randoms, and now clan battles, bring only a BB or Cruiser with outstanding AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12,597 posts
14,320 battles
Just now, CommodoreKang said:

That's an interesting theory.  But the better than normal AA thing is already happening.  I've been away for a few months but seems like most of the Russian lines had really decent AA for some strange reason.

Yep and Wargaming removed the bulk of the CV’s teeth with the Rework in terms of raw destructive power. Although the rockets are annoying for DDs which once again will add subs as DDs will be the primary sub hunters now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,223
[KAG]
Members
1,351 posts
12,257 battles

It’s more about the interaction between you (the CV) and everyone else.  You can just fly around, do not damage, and still have a dramatic effect on the enemy team.  They will never be balanced.  The ships do not interact with CVs at all, besides the A and D keys.  Sectors are the dumbest thing in the game, so you rely on set standards to shoot down planes.  DFAA is completely useless and nobody specs it unless you don’t have a choice to opt out of the module.  
They’re broken, probably always will be, and the hate will probably never go away.  So, CV players need to deal with the spitefulness just like the rest of the community has to deal with being crapped on in every game.  

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,981
Members
7,101 posts
22,001 battles

I believe that this will be the first Clan Battles since rework that allow CV's.

We should get some really good info from the results. I predict rage and clan upheaval....Imagine playing CV for your clan and being the best in your clan but not really good? You are going to get Waxed..... see what I did there? Pretty good huh?

I'll be here all week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,027
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
5,216 posts
22,755 battles

I've only played CV's after the rework because the RTS method was a big turnoff to me. I am seriously a potato with my CV's and generally stay in Coop where less harm can come to team mates. BUT, I would be happy to see them go and have WG limit this game to surface combatants which include BB, CA, CL, and DD and exclude CV and SS.

Ideally this game should be the "World of Surface Combatants".

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[TARK]
Members
640 posts

I have.  I'm no good in them at all, but in every game I was able to pick a target and sink it.  It sucked for that player, who couldn't do ANYTHING.  It sucked for my team because I was wet azz at the CV.

So... I guess my point is... CVs have the ability to destroy any single target they want.  Bad CV players will still sink that target, and do nothing for their team (me).  Good CV players will sink it faster, and then move on to harassing the next person.

Not once was my ship ever in danger.  Never.  I was always alive near the end. I never ran out of planes (except on the Saipan.  I don't have the skills for that ship).  With the Kaga I think my record is 38 torps (never ran out of planes).  In the Lexington, I believe with the Tiny Tims I sunk a Cleveland on the second squad I sent against it... they just obliterated the boat.  In the Implacable I found the rockets to actually do damage, and the bombs to be good at starting fires.

TLDR:  I hate CVs.  I've played them.  I was able to pick and destroy the targets I wanted without recourse.  My boat was never in danger.  I sucked and did no good for my own team.  I imagine if I was actually good at CV, it might be fun to have all the power... but I prefer shooting rounds to flying planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×