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

Could a great deal of frustration be removed along with tier IV CVs? Thoughts...

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

844
[WOLF6]
Members
1,705 posts
5,277 battles

With the addition of the KM CV line the salt flows greatly as ever.

Reading the forums I see tier IV CVs as the seemingly main culprit where players who want to enjoy a playstyle without the presence of high level mechanics and closer engagement ranges. Alas this is where the regularity of CV games seems to be at its highest.

Now I don't really play below tier VI personally, often due to the fact that mission requirements extend between tiers V-X and that I quite enjoy the variety of ships encountered as the tiers progress. It does seem frustrating to me though that where I expect to encounter far more frequent CV matches in whatever type I play, the higher it goes the less you get.

I'm not sure on the numbers but from personal experience, tier X least of all where the AA is an actual challenge with that CV match frequency increasing the lower you go.

I am an avid carrier player due to an interest in aviation and the carriers I play are the historical premiums and a couple of tier Xs. Would the more versed in this tell me why probable experienced players continue to screw around in that tier IV bracket and don't embrace the greater depth of carrier play high up? Is it the lack of AA down there? Is it the high cost of servicing carriers at those high tiers? I've got my own thoughts and opinions but would like to hear others.

Since subs will be introduced (if all goes according to plan) at tier VI then perhaps remove the tier IV carriers so players are at least able to deploy fighters in a match and tier V AA is the softest they will experience?

Again....thoughts?

Edited by Sumseaman
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,530
[S-N-D]
Members
3,327 posts
7,738 battles
3 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

1) set all tiers to a limit of 1 CV per team.

2) fix AA.

Solved.

 

Not solved. There are too many players for 1 CV per battle. AA is fixed. 

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[WOLF6]
Members
1,705 posts
5,277 battles
12 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

1) set all tiers to a limit of 1 CV per team.

2) fix AA.

Solved.

 

 

1) Doesn't get rid of the tier IV clubbers.

2) Little AA resides in those lower tiers to fix.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,173
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,686 posts
5,943 battles

So, WG has a unique (to me anyway) strategy regarding its games.  I've always absolutely despised the Premium Ammo thing.  I've always though the Premium Time thing was a much better way to go.

But now, I'm not so sure.  In the early phases of the game life cycle, I think Premium Time is better.  But as the game gets long in the tooth and starts to unravel, I think it's not so great.

The Premium Ammo thing is a much more direct and up front way of monetizing the game and selling a generic way to "exploit" it.  Through the premium ammo.

It provides a much more consistent revenue stream.  And I think more importantly, reduces the need to come up with a never ending stream of new fun and engaging classes or gimmicks to monetize to provide that same consistent revenue.

CVs at T4 and NTC/RB were part of the grand strategy to provide a consistent revenue stream to replace the revenue from people grinding out the stock tech trees.

Neither of those things (CVs and NTC/RB) have worked out as well as WG might have initially planned for.  The CVs seem to be popular and I'm sure they've locked in that juicy target market that WG is looking to farm.  But I think the negativity associated with them has had equally negative impacts on revenues.

Suffice to say, the game is at a real turning point.  Do they continue down the road farming the target market and slowly strangling their game?  Or do they take a chance at pissing off the one player base they can count on in the hopes of drawing back old players and attracting more new players?

It's a tough spot.

  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,301
[WOOK3]
Members
4,180 posts
3,208 battles

I decided to start up the Swedish DD line today, FXP'ed up to T4, and played a match. In under a minute I was being focused, and I spent the whole match dodging as I was spotted most of the time by air. It seems unplayable to me right now. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[WOLF6]
Members
1,705 posts
5,277 battles
9 minutes ago, CommodoreKang said:

So, WG has a unique (to me anyway) strategy regarding its games.  I've always absolutely despised the Premium Ammo thing.  I've always though the Premium Time thing was a much better way to go.

But now, I'm not so sure.  In the early phases of the game life cycle, I think Premium Time is better.  But as the game gets long in the tooth and starts to unravel, I think it's not so great.

The Premium Ammo thing is a much more direct and up front way of monetizing the game and selling a generic way to "exploit" it.  Through the premium ammo.

It provides a much more consistent revenue stream.  And I think more importantly, reduces the need to come up with a never ending stream of new fun and engaging classes or gimmicks to monetize to provide that same consistent revenue.

CVs at T4 and NTC/RB were part of the grand strategy to provide a consistent revenue stream to replace the revenue from people grinding out the stock tech trees.

Neither of those things (CVs and NTC/RB) have worked out as well as WG might have initially planned for.  The CVs seem to be popular and I'm sure they've locked in that juicy target market that WG is looking to farm.  But I think the negativity associated with them has had equally negative impacts on revenues.

Suffice to say, the game is at a real turning point.  Do they continue down the road farming the target market and slowly strangling their game?  Or do they take a chance at pissing off the one player base they can count on in the hopes of drawing back old players and attracting more new players?

It's a tough spot.

That's interesting as WoT was bleeding numbers so fast due premium ammo they new that they simply had to fix it in a ludicrously complicated way that I think is still yet to be implemented.

I just despise players that simply play carriers at the low tiers because they never want to develop reasonable skills that permit them to play higher. Get out of that Hosho and into a Hak.

If tier IV CVs go at least tiers III-IV will be a no-CV mode that quite a few players want.

Edited by Sumseaman
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[WOLF6]
Members
1,705 posts
5,277 battles
4 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

I decided to start up the Swedish DD line today, FXP'ed up to T4, and played a match. In under a minute I was being focused, and I spent the whole match dodging as I was spotted most of the time by air. It seems unplayable to me right now. 

Hehe yes and I guess if you FXP to the Halland you wouldn't have to worry about carriers coming near you. Perhaps this is part of a grand plan....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,823
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
14,722 posts
5 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

1) Doesn't get rid of the tier IV clubbers.

2) Little AA resides in those lower tiers to fix.

When I say "fix AA", that includes a hard rule that any ship that can face CVs gets AA efficacy of at least a certain level, even if that means an ahistorical AA suite refit.

Working AA at all tiers means that no ship is an easy no-brainer target for a CV, clubber or not.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[WOLF6]
Members
1,705 posts
5,277 battles
1 minute ago, KilljoyCutter said:

When I say "fix AA", that includes a hard rule that any ship that can face CVs gets AA efficacy of at least a certain level, even if that means an ahistorical AA suite refit.

Working AA at all tiers means that no ship is an easy no-brainer target for a CV, clubber or not.

 

Oh yes then all for that. History be damned at this juncture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,173
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,686 posts
5,943 battles
11 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

That's interesting as WoT was bleeding numbers so fast due premium ammo they new that they simply had to fix it in a ludicrously complicated way that I think is still yet to be implemented.

I just despise players that simply play carriers at the low tiers because they never want to develop reasonable skills that permit them to play higher. Get out of that Hosho and into a Hak.

WG's whole style is to feed one part of their playerbase to another.  I'm not entirely familiar with tanks but I'm guessing the concept there is the premium ammo crowd feeding on the f2p'ers.  

Both are always going to be incredibly problematic for all sorts of reasons.   It still kind of blows me away that they've been so incredibly successful despite the seemingly insurmountable problems associated.  I guess if you want to look a little deeper, there's something about "exploiting the other player" that's incredibly attractive to a certain market.  And they'll put up with just about anything to keep that advantage.  

So, the idea is to create a game that attracts the bait for those people and then you just start working it from there.  It's really quite clever in that brutally cunning Russian type way.

 

Edited by CommodoreKang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,923
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,205 posts
5,971 battles

I really don't think we need Beginning CV players in T8 matches.  The lazy [edited]introduction of only even tier CVs has caused many issues.. this one included.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,506
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
25,690 posts
14,007 battles
9 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

 

1) Doesn't get rid of the tier IV clubbers.

2) Little AA resides in those lower tiers to fix.

Tier 4 always was the most popular tier for CV's but with the RTS system if you maneuvered well you could make the CV player whiff even with BB's and that attack was over. Now with the multi pass system you can make the first one whiff but you will be out of position to do that to later passes so they will usually get a hit in.

With few exceptions what AA there is in tier 3 & 4 is useless. The only fix I see that would work is to add AA to the tier 3 & 4 ships that have none and buff the AA on the ships with useless AA because the DPS is so low.

@KilljoyCutter beat me too the AA addition/buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[WOLF6]
Members
1,705 posts
5,277 battles
1 minute ago, CommodoreKang said:

WG's whole style is to feed one part of their playerbase to another.  I'm not entirely familiar with tanks but I'm guessing the concept their is the premium ammo crowd feeding on the f2p'ers.  

Well they left it in the oven for too long in WoT. Before they could figure out a fix to the premium ammo (buffing the HP, damage of standard rounds instead of simply nerfing premium) players were deserting in droves apparently.

I'm starting to see it in WoWs with blanket nerfs followed by individual buffs to premiums. Shame part of the community just can't accept individual, balanced and overall beneficial changes to such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[KOBK]
Members
191 posts
3,671 battles

AA for tiers 4 and 5 need a buff. Its too weak, you can literally be a satelite in top of a ship for like 30 seconds. This is too op for spotting. Maybe also add more player to the regular match, this way it wouldnt hurt too much the 2 cvs thing (of course, im talking after the buff to AA in those tiers).

I think its fine, since its supposed to teach people to play together to avoid being eated alive by the cv. But for some reason, its not working. Im not talking about aa efficiency right now, but playstile. I still think AA tier 4 and 5 needs a buff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,173
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,686 posts
5,943 battles
1 minute ago, Sumseaman said:

Well they left it in the oven for too long in WoT. Before they could figure out a fix to the premium ammo (buffing the HP, damage of standard rounds instead of simply nerfing premium) players were deserting in droves apparently.

I'm starting to see it in WoWs with blanket nerfs followed by individual buffs to premiums. Shame part of the community just can't accept individual, balanced and overall beneficial changes to such things.

You get what you pay for, I suppose..... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[HC]
Beta Testers
2,866 posts
12,501 battles
36 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

With the addition of the KM CV line the salt flows greatly as ever.

Reading the forums I see tier IV CVs as the seemingly main culprit where players who want to enjoy a playstyle without the presence of high level mechanics and closer engagement ranges. Alas this is where the regularity of CV games seems to be at its highest.

Now I don't really play below tier VI personally, often due to the fact that mission requirements extend between tiers V-X and that I quite enjoy the variety of ships encountered as the tiers progress. It does seem frustrating to me though that where I expect to encounter far more frequent CV matches in whatever type I play, the higher it goes the less you get.

I'm not sure on the numbers but from personal experience, tier X least of all where the AA is an actual challenge with that CV match frequency increasing the lower you go.

I am an avid carrier player due to an interest in aviation and the carriers I play are the historical premiums and a couple of tier Xs. Would the more versed in this tell me why probable experienced players continue to screw around in that tier IV bracket and don't embrace the greater depth of carrier play high up? Is it the lack of AA down there? Is it the high cost of servicing carriers at those high tiers? I've got my own thoughts and opinions but would like to hear others.

Since subs will be introduced (if all goes according to plan) at tier VI then perhaps remove the tier IV carriers so players are at least able to deploy fighters in a match and tier V AA is the softest they will experience?

Again....thoughts?

A poor solution, Players need to learn how to use a CV, and how to deal with them, before they hit tier 6, they need to learn how at as low a level as possible. Having a CV players first game be at tier 8 is a bad idea.

I'm for making tier 4 CV's more functional, and go back to the single torpedo bomber. They should have the ability to drop fighters, so that CV's can start learning their whole job, not just the damage doing part.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[WOLF6]
Members
1,705 posts
5,277 battles
Just now, SgtBeltfed said:

I'm for making tier 4 CV's more functional, and go back to the single torpedo bomber. They should have the ability to drop fighters, so that CV's can start learning their whole job, not just the damage doing part.

Probably a better solution. Didn't TBs have a single torp drop pattern when the rework was released? Not sure why they changed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[KOBK]
Members
191 posts
3,671 battles
1 minute ago, SgtBeltfed said:

A poor solution, Players need to learn how to use a CV, and how to deal with them, before they hit tier 6, they need to learn how at as low a level as possible. Having a CV players first game be at tier 8 is a bad idea.

I'm for making tier 4 CV's more functional, and go back to the single torpedo bomber. They should have the ability to drop fighters, so that CV's can start learning their whole job, not just the damage doing part.

you are right about fighters. The old RTS cvs has fighter squadron, i dont know why they removed it now. Its not the best solution, but it help to mitigate part of the enemy cvs damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,732
[RLGN]
Members
13,776 posts
23,991 battles

WG kicked over a Fire Ant hill with 0.8.0, when they would have been better off leaving things (mostly) well enough alone.

Nerf damage to current levels; nerf spotting to current levels, remove Strafe and Manual attacks; easy peasy; not the over complicated mess they have now.

Planes would die and not (in effect) keep coming back, and AA would still work; instead of being something purple CV drivers apparently just ignore.

For all that WG ‘simplified’ carriers, nothing has really changed except the mechanics carriers use to irritate other players...

...well; a of course there’s also now MORE players engaged in that irritation.

(-)

On a side note; many of the T1 cruisers have better AA than ships that actually see T4 carriers.

Erie for example, has four Chicago Pianos; the US 1.1” quad mount. Whereas St Louis has a couple of Lewis Guns?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[HC]
Beta Testers
2,866 posts
12,501 battles
Just now, Sumseaman said:

Probably a better solution. Didn't TBs have a single torp drop pattern when the rework was released? Not sure why they changed it.

It was. For some reason WG wanted to make CV's more effective at tier 4, and I'm not sure that was a good idea.

In the special play test,  they didn't even have torpedo bombers, which was a mistake. (again, learning how torpedo bombers work at tier 6 is probably a bad idea as well, for both sides)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,417
[WPORT]
Members
4,327 posts
9,311 battles
28 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

 

1) Doesn't get rid of the tier IV clubbers.

2) Little AA resides in those lower tiers to fix.

If you're so awesome and have a beef with experienced players playing in a tier they enjoy or are playing to accomplish training of ship & crew, then why don't you be the seal-clubber-clubber?  :-)
Be the "balance" you seek?  :-)

It takes a team working together to win consistently, in my experience.  

And I've seen teams attempt CV-sniping with spotting and long-range naval gunnery in Tier-4.  There are smart people playing in every tier.  Also, there are plenty who are still learning. 
The better players have an opportunity to lead by good example, eh?

CV and counter-CV methods and tactics are well-published (on the forums and elsewhere).  It is up to each player to seek the knowledge they need in order to level-up their game-play.

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[WOLF6]
Members
1,705 posts
5,277 battles
41 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

If you're so awesome and have a beef with experienced players playing in a tier they enjoy or are playing to accomplish training of ship & crew, then why don't you be the seal-clubber-clubber?  :-)
Be the "balance" you seek?  :-)

Not awesome....never said I was. No premium carriers exist at that tier though for training or credit earning. I guess it would be good to see the players that want it have a pvp experience without carriers get it at least in tiers III-IV.

Perhaps you can agree if these tier IV carriers are addressed it would clear some rage space on the forums? :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by Sumseaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,173
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,686 posts
5,943 battles
1 minute ago, Sumseaman said:

Not awesome....never said I was.

Perhaps you can agree if these tier IV carriers are addressed it would clear some rage space on the forums? :Smile_teethhappy:

The fact they went with bots is significant i think.  Sadly.  How's the RB thing doing?  Is that generating much business i wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,417
[WPORT]
Members
4,327 posts
9,311 battles
4 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Not awesome....never said I was.

Perhaps you can agree if these tier IV carriers are addressed it would clear some rage space on the forums? :Smile_teethhappy:

I play all ship types.

I don't see CV's as being a problem or over-powered.

More often, I see people who are still learning how to play and behave in a manner that allows opponents (of all ship types) to find an opportunity and make an attack.

I've gotten sunk plenty of times with all ship types and by all ship types.  I speak from experience (including my own).  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×