It's do reasonably well in CVs people don't like day.

[Burnsy]

I haven't drug these things out in a long time. They aren't the best premiums for sure and these aren't the greatest matches in the world, but these lessor liked premium CVs can be made to work ok if you happen to have them.  Obviously had a bunch of flags on for the Saipan.  The Indomitable was bare bones with the stock premium camo though.


 

[black_hull4]

Some CV hate troll is going to come through here & say something along the lines of "all of them."

[Meta_Man]

49 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

I haven't drug these things out in a long time. They aren't the best premiums for sure and these aren't the greatest matches in the world, but these lessor liked premium CVs can be made to work ok if you happen to have them.  Obviously had a bunch of flags on for the Saipan.  The Indomitable was bare bones with the stock premium camo though.


 

Good games......I wouldn't mind seeing people having to unlock and play all classes before moving to the next tier....it would open their eyes to how difficult every class can be to excel in. 

[Crucis]

12 minutes ago, Meta_Man said:

Good games......I wouldn't mind seeing people having to unlock and play all classes before moving to the next tier....it would open their eyes to how difficult every class can be to excel in. 

I'd love to see players have to learn the difference between ship type and ship class before they advance or perhaps even post.

[WanderingGhost]

So, I'm gonna kinda be that guy -

The Saipan match the highest tier of ship is 9, which could be annoying but the only actual AA threat I see is Buffalo and maybe Kansas, not knowing the AA of the Pommern. Atlanta's AA has been a joke because they balanced it in the rework around mid/short-range flak and never properly adjusted for that's removal or the reduction to 50% for Def AA, low HP as Saipan squadrons are NO, Schors and Tirpitz are no threat. All you really need to worry about is them grouping up and traces of the damn AA bug. 

Indomitable similar story - your top tier this time, there are this time 4 potential AA threats - the 2 NC's, the Skane, and the Anchorage, the rest have at best laughable AA considering. And your missing a screen shot that for this ship is the most important - the one that tells you how long the match lasted. 16 fires on 140 hits, win by points with 3 survivors, I feel pretty safe guessing the match was close to 15 minutes, very unlikely less than 10. 

and THAT is the problem. Saipan's planes, 1-1, have more HP than Lexington's, but the overall group has less HP and a higher regen time with similar ordnance and a frankly negligible speed increase in the more important planes. Against tier 10 or teams with better AA/coordination, Lexngton's faster regen and higher HP groups are far superior, as is the option to choose ordnance type if you prefer HVAR to nuke DD's and have area coverage and start fires. Indomitable can match the damage output of Implacable - the problem is it requires a longer match and DoT, so in a 5 minute curb stomp your screwed where Implacable has the punch to do damage in a hurry. And once again HP/hanger/regen becomes an issue depending on AA. It's the same with Ark Royal - top tier it'll wreck but against 7-8 it's sort of and completely screwed respectively with tier 4 planes. Hell, the only thing keeping Kaga competitive when not top tier is the shear number of planes at it's disposal - and even then I've seen them run out of planes, especially in prolonged tier 10 games. 

Several of the premiums are stupidly situational and MM dependent to do well, same with some of the regular CV's. It's why the cookie cutter design doesn't work (aka they HAVE to have rockets/torps/bombs and can't carry say in Germany's case a more accurate mix of AP and HE bombs with more useful historically accurate 21 cm rockets, IJN better served by using it's historic SAP bombs and HE bombs in dives with level AP bombs as a more specialized and consistent (due to constant drop height) anti-BB weapon, etc) and the balance, for both sides, absolutely sucks, and more so in my opinion than in RTS. Because yeah, it's frustrating when I play against higher tier CV's knowing my AA won't stop much if anything, but it's just as bad playing the same CV and being bottom tier and the only thing you can attack and not take 80%+ losses is stray DD's. It's why when Wargaming staff members and some players go 'well it has x winrate and y damage' I get ticked off because most or none of them actually understand that that number is formed from matches where it can curb stomp lower tiers, but gets stomped on by higher tiers, on two extremes tat when you average them out look balanced - especially when match maker was adjusted to limit players to 1 in 5 matches bottom tier on average - meaning the number is actually artificially inflated by having more gams against those weaker opponents. Instead of balancing the seesaw they just changed the length of a side to make it seem more balanced. Or going to sports currently much as I love my Eagles would be like any team outside the NFC East with played 2 games against each team in the NFC East ad then maybe 1 or 2 against Jets with a 12-4 record - sure that's a great win %, sure you maybe racked up loads of points per game, etc, but you did it against teams that weren't a challenge so it shouldn't be that surprising when an 8-8 team blows them out of the water that faced teams that actually are doing well and not decimated by injuries and the like. 

4/20 matches at say 40k damage, and lets say an even 8/8 split of mid tier and top tier that result in 60k games and 120k games, if 80k damage is considered balanced or good - then yeah, on paper that average loos great but ask the CV player in those 4 bottom tier matches and the non-CV layers in the top tier matches - I'm sure they'd say it sucks. If those moved to 60, 80, 100k in the same scenario - sure the average goes up to 84k in this case - but the performance is more consistent through the tier range and would at minimum have less complaining from the respective parties in the same scenario's (though I'm sure there'd be new ones because higher tier CV can't bully lower tiers as it has been just as higher tiers no longer have relative immunity in cases to air attack anymore). 

[0ldRichard]

2 hours ago, Crucis said:

I'd love to see players have to learn the difference between ship type and ship class before they advance or perhaps even post.

Indeed. Funny thing how words have meanings.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

So, I'm gonna kinda be that guy -

The Saipan match the highest tier of ship is 9, which could be annoying but the only actual AA threat I see is Buffalo and maybe Kansas, not knowing the AA of the Pommern. Atlanta's AA has been a joke because they balanced it in the rework around mid/short-range flak and never properly adjusted for that's removal or the reduction to 50% for Def AA, low HP as Saipan squadrons are NO, Schors and Tirpitz are no threat. All you really need to worry about is them grouping up and traces of the damn AA bug. 

Indomitable similar story - your top tier this time, there are this time 4 potential AA threats - the 2 NC's, the Skane, and the Anchorage, the rest have at best laughable AA considering. And your missing a screen shot that for this ship is the most important - the one that tells you how long the match lasted. 16 fires on 140 hits, win by points with 3 survivors, I feel pretty safe guessing the match was close to 15 minutes, very unlikely less than 10. 

and THAT is the problem. Saipan's planes, 1-1, have more HP than Lexington's, but the overall group has less HP and a higher regen time with similar ordnance and a frankly negligible speed increase in the more important planes. Against tier 10 or teams with better AA/coordination, Lexngton's faster regen and higher HP groups are far superior, as is the option to choose ordnance type if you prefer HVAR to nuke DD's and have area coverage and start fires. Indomitable can match the damage output of Implacable - the problem is it requires a longer match and DoT, so in a 5 minute curb stomp your screwed where Implacable has the punch to do damage in a hurry. And once again HP/hanger/regen becomes an issue depending on AA. It's the same with Ark Royal - top tier it'll wreck but against 7-8 it's sort of and completely screwed respectively with tier 4 planes. Hell, the only thing keeping Kaga competitive when not top tier is the shear number of planes at it's disposal - and even then I've seen them run out of planes, especially in prolonged tier 10 games. 

Several of the premiums are stupidly situational and MM dependent to do well, same with some of the regular CV's. It's why the cookie cutter design doesn't work (aka they HAVE to have rockets/torps/bombs and can't carry say in Germany's case a more accurate mix of AP and HE bombs with more useful historically accurate 21 cm rockets, IJN better served by using it's historic SAP bombs and HE bombs in dives with level AP bombs as a more specialized and consistent (due to constant drop height) anti-BB weapon, etc) and the balance, for both sides, absolutely sucks, and more so in my opinion than in RTS. Because yeah, it's frustrating when I play against higher tier CV's knowing my AA won't stop much if anything, but it's just as bad playing the same CV and being bottom tier and the only thing you can attack and not take 80%+ losses is stray DD's. It's why when Wargaming staff members and some players go 'well it has x winrate and y damage' I get ticked off because most or none of them actually understand that that number is formed from matches where it can curb stomp lower tiers, but gets stomped on by higher tiers, on two extremes tat when you average them out look balanced - especially when match maker was adjusted to limit players to 1 in 5 matches bottom tier on average - meaning the number is actually artificially inflated by having more gams against those weaker opponents. Instead of balancing the seesaw they just changed the length of a side to make it seem more balanced. Or going to sports currently much as I love my Eagles would be like any team outside the NFC East with played 2 games against each team in the NFC East ad then maybe 1 or 2 against Jets with a 12-4 record - sure that's a great win %, sure you maybe racked up loads of points per game, etc, but you did it against teams that weren't a challenge so it shouldn't be that surprising when an 8-8 team blows them out of the water that faced teams that actually are doing well and not decimated by injuries and the like. 

4/20 matches at say 40k damage, and lets say an even 8/8 split of mid tier and top tier that result in 60k games and 120k games, if 80k damage is considered balanced or good - then yeah, on paper that average loos great but ask the CV player in those 4 bottom tier matches and the non-CV layers in the top tier matches - I'm sure they'd say it sucks. If those moved to 60, 80, 100k in the same scenario - sure the average goes up to 84k in this case - but the performance is more consistent through the tier range and would at minimum have less complaining from the respective parties in the same scenario's (though I'm sure there'd be new ones because higher tier CV can't bully lower tiers as it has been just as higher tiers no longer have relative immunity in cases to air attack anymore). 

This is all true...

...but damage isn't everything.

In the old RTS era, AS captains didn't care about personal damage.

But yeah...since WG likes to talk about damage balance...it would be nice if they didn't assume we were fools.

[Burnsy]

9 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

---big wall of text--

Again, I am not saying "look at my awesome matches!"  and I am also not saying "these ships are great!".  I just decided to play some of the lessor liked CVs for a bit because I almost never play them.  This would be a poor attempt at showing off and it's not my message.

I had some reasonable matches in them, nothing special, but wanted to share that if you happen to have them because you bought them or maybe you are not a CV main but they popped out of crate, they aren't horrible or completely trash.  They aren't the best, but you can still have some fun in them and do ok.

Heck I ended up with confederate, witherer and high caliber in the same match with the Indom.  I think it's reasonable to say that regardless of the MMing, that's a happy game no matter what ship you are in.

[WanderingGhost]

8 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is all true...

...but damage isn't everything.

In the old RTS era, AS captains didn't care about personal damage.

But yeah...since WG likes to talk about damage balance...it would be nice if they didn't assume we were fools.

I agree - I actually mostly played USN AS. The problem being, other than my fighters being way too OP, that it had until I think Midway the same issue as Indomitable - higher damage was achievable with DoT, but you needed the time to really have an impact on the red team ships other than the CV. I ended up with a losing record because even though I'd absolutely shut down the red CV sometimes in under 5 minutes the match was over in 7 minutes - and they still blamed me for the loss and them taking maybe 1 torpedo hit from planes. The reasons they blamed me were wrong (lack of air cover) but unless I was starting fires and they burned DB's didn't really do damage. 

Really boils down to protection, damage, then vision for CV's. Problem is that they removed our ability to protect our team and ourselves in any effective manner (fighter consumable is trash, made the ships overly sluggish, minimap only steering, etc). The damage is more inconsistent than in RTS which is saying something. And while vision needed to be changed and they have always been in a weird place (while they have the 'freedom' to move places DD's can't non-CV players can't seem to wrap their heads around both in RTS and Rework that planes are not actually unlimited, their ability to spot sucks until something is spotted and they can try and hover over it, the planes are spotted nearly twice as far out as DD's in cases and that CV spotting more often than not, especially in the rework, basically amounts to sacrificing a turret, even temporarily, in order to see something), the whole system for it is just so bad for it at this point it's not even funny anymore. 

And don't get me wrong, there are plenty of fools, problem is their making the same mistake the Dev's are. Over a year ago there was a thread concerning the rate at which CV's lost planes or in some cases, didn't, and Sub_Octavian literally showed up and in the thread rattled off "The win rate, average damage done and potential damage (assumed to mean the max it can cause within context as opposed to potential taken) are good so why do plane losses matter?" - which I'm pretty sure a CV bashing 8 year old would understand that the fact he isn't shooting enough planes down from his PoV lets them do too much damage and tear his team apart therefore winning matches. The fact that a dev didn't seem to know how plane loses impacted those numbers, let alone touting the 'average numbers are fine so what's the problem' seemingly oblivious that two extreme number sets can make an average that looks fine but isn't.

5 hours ago, Burnsy said:

Again, I am not saying "look at my awesome matches!"  and I am also not saying "these ships are great!".  I just decided to play some of the lessor liked CVs for a bit because I almost never play them.  This would be a poor attempt at showing off and it's not my message.

I had some reasonable matches in them, nothing special, but wanted to share that if you happen to have them because you bought them or maybe you are not a CV main but they popped out of crate, they aren't horrible or completely trash.  They aren't the best, but you can still have some fun in them and do ok.

Heck I ended up with confederate, witherer and high caliber in the same match with the Indom.  I think it's reasonable to say that regardless of the MMing, that's a happy game no matter what ship you are in.

I know that isn't what your saying, but people point to cases like this and go either 'See, they are fine' or 'see they are OP'. When Indomitable was coming out some people went all chicken little that it was OP cause a guy did 160k damage and posted a video so to shut them up I did the same thing in Implacable without using my Torpedo bombers to prove otherwise. My wall was more a clarification to the point as someone that owns them yes, you can do well in them - if matchmaking helps out and you get the right enemy team comp and match length for them to really work out, which is why the community considers them 'bad' and in need of improvement.

Yes, those are happy matches, but I think most owners of the ship would agree they'd like to have better odds at doing that when the red team has 3 Worcester's, 2 Seattle's, and the only other tier 8 is a DD as opposed to limited more to the scenarios these matches seem to be. I mean, it really boils down to the concept of they are broken clocks, so how often are you gonna use them and things be right?