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

Dev response to multiple CV's on each team?

211 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

527
[BINGO]
Members
144 posts
9,199 battles

Tonight was overkill 4 matches at t-8 with 4 CV's. Have devs ever responded with an answer as to why they subject us to this toxic game feature.  1 CV per team is enough at t-10, 1 is enough at t4 through tier 8. 

We have complained about it vociferously since the rework?  So many warplanes destroys the warship quality of the game.  

Edited by Willawaw
  • Cool 24
  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 7
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,811
Members
1,870 posts
27,451 battles
13 minutes ago, Willawaw said:

Tonight was overkill 4 matches at t-8 with 4 CV's. Have devs ever responded with an answer as to why they subject us to this toxic game feature.  1 CV per team is enough at t-10, 1 is enough at t4 through tier 8. 

We have complained about it vociferously since the rework?  So many warplanes destroys the warship quality of the game.  

That you experienced multiple CancerVehicles IS their response. And when anyone pays anything to this company, they're saying, "We don't mind the foul wind CV's cast over the field! More! MORE!!"

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[RDS-A]
Beta Testers
352 posts
8,714 battles

I have been regrinding the US dd line myself for the research points and the amount of 2 cv per side matches i have had has been disgusting. They really do need to put a stop to it, the new player experience must be so bad right now.

  • Cool 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,176
[HINON]
Members
13,980 posts

This just shows how many are playing cvs which necessitates 2 per side in some matches to handle the population. 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
908
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,314 posts
6,531 battles
2 hours ago, Willawaw said:

Tonight was overkill 4 matches at t-8 with 4 CV's. Have devs ever responded with an answer as to why they subject us to this toxic game feature.  1 CV per team is enough at t-10, 1 is enough at t4 through tier 8. 

We have complained about it vociferously since the rework?  So many warplanes destroys the warship quality of the game.  

8 thousand battles and whining... Unbelievable.

  • Cool 2
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,134
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
4,239 posts
12,097 battles

 

2 hours ago, theLaalaa said:

That you experienced multiple CancerVehicles IS their response. And when anyone pays anything to this company, they're saying, "We don't mind the foul wind CV's cast over the field! More! MORE!!"

Everything is money with you if no one spends any money there is no game . Stop telling people how to spend there money .

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[SIDE]
Members
4,939 posts

Odds are they were both mediocre to bad cv drivers. You said nothing about

"Ermagawd! I was killed in one pass by two carriers the entire game!"

This tells me spotting was a major inconvenience requiring you to play your ship differently than a 1 or no cv match. It happens. It sucks. Now you know how izumo or kansas feel like facing 4 DD match after match.

Edited by thebigblue
  • Cool 5
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,113
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,973 battles

Dev team have adjusted MM to make 3 CV games per side impossible.

Dev team have adjusted MM to make 2 CV games per side at tier 10 impossible.

CV population numbers mean 2 CV games at tier 8 are rare...at tier 6 can happen...and at tier 4 are common.

You are going to have to adapt, as the Dev team have not shown a willingness to subject the MM queue to serious distortions over CV angst.

  • Haha 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,029
[PVE]
Members
4,994 posts
22,033 battles
4 hours ago, Willawaw said:

Tonight was overkill 4 matches at t-8 with 4 CV's. Have devs ever responded with an answer as to why they subject us to this toxic game feature.  1 CV per team is enough at t-10, 1 is enough at t4 through tier 8. 

We have complained about it vociferously since the rework?  So many warplanes destroys the warship quality of the game.  

The answer is simple: we are still in a Carrier sales gimmick paradigm.......   They haven't driven off enough players from the game to worry about it; and, they still have some bizarre notion they can do anything they want and get away with it.

Because they can:  take it or leave it is what they are saying.....! 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
785
[-BCO-]
Members
1,739 posts
2,948 battles
30 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

CV population numbers mean 2 CV games at tier 8 are rare..

You are going to have to adapt, as the Dev team have not shown a willingness to subject the MM queue to serious distortions over CV angst.

I was about to start a thread about this very issue. This is not happening on EU. And no they are not...rare....at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,535
[NONE]
Members
3,762 posts
14 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

The answer is simple: we are still in a Carrier sales gimmick paradigm.......   They haven't driven off enough players from the game to worry about it; and, they still have some bizarre notion they can do anything they want and get away with it.

Because they can:  take it or leave it is what they are saying.....! 

^^^ Very much this. If it weren't for being able to play Co-op for free I'd have been gone last year.

I hardly play and never pay WoW any more. Alpha testing the new ultimate admiral dreadnought game has been much more fun lately. No airplanes, design your own ships. Still single-player PvE in Alpha, but it's coming along nicely.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
629 posts
12,602 battles

I'm confused about what the special CV monetization gimmick is? People get all excited about CVs and buy a Saipan or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
258
[GRETA]
Members
466 posts
16,687 battles
21 minutes ago, Spirit_of_76 said:

I'm confused about what the special CV monetization gimmick is? People get all excited about CVs and buy a Saipan or something?

The money is from people buying anti-cv ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,082
[WOLF3]
Members
29,592 posts
25,666 battles
5 hours ago, theLaalaa said:

That you experienced multiple CancerVehicles IS their response. And when anyone pays anything to this company, they're saying, "We don't mind the foul wind CV's cast over the field! More! MORE!!"

You must be really upset then seeing ARP Yamato Divisions, Puerto Ricos, Day 1 Dockyard Ships, etc.

 

:Smile_trollface:

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[WOLFD]
Members
848 posts
6,856 battles
3 hours ago, clammboy said:

 

Everything is money with you if no one spends any money there is no game . Stop telling people how to spend there money .

The problem is, that he is right.  It does boil down to money, if WG is not making money they will make changes to the game to make it more fun, attract new players and keep players.  While this is only one solution, the other requires WG to listen to player input and they are not doing that!

If you have a better suggestion let us know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,244
[SBS]
Members
6,236 posts
1 hour ago, Asym_KS said:

The answer is simple: we are still in a Carrier sales gimmick paradigm.......   They haven't driven off enough players from the game to worry about it; and, they still have some bizarre notion they can do anything they want and get away with it.

Because they can:  take it or leave it is what they are saying.....! 

The real goal of the rework was to reshape the meta, not a sales gimmick.  More spotting and unavoidable damage from aircraft to shorten matches.  WG wanted a faster paced game to appeal to a broader base.  CVs suck and WG never got what they wanted from the rework, neither did the players. 

Its shows WG is nowhere near as good at developing games as they think they are; I mean just look at what they've got for subs.  They had a chance to learn from the failure of the rework and they are going down the same path with a ships type that will be completely disruptive to the game meta instead of something that meshes well with existing meta. 

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[WOLFD]
Members
848 posts
6,856 battles
1 minute ago, Slimeball91 said:

The real goal of the rework was to reshape the meta, not a sales gimmick.  More spotting and unavoidable damage from aircraft to shorten matches.  WG wanted a faster paced game to appeal to a broader base. 

Where exactly did WG say these things? Unavoidable damage, shorter matches, more spotting, appeal to a broader base; in reference to CVs? 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[A-D-F]
Members
478 posts
16,375 battles

Be glad that the maximum number of CVs per team is caped at 2 now. It was common to see 3 CVs per side even at tier 8+ about a year ago.

Edit:
I don't think the "Management" could be bothered to care until this "crashes and burns" like World of Warplanes some other games... So lets all play more CVs and "pour some more gasoline on to this spreadsheet dumpster fire".

Edited by Sammy_Small
edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,244
[SBS]
Members
6,236 posts
14 minutes ago, AXELGREASE said:

Where exactly did WG say these things? Unavoidable damage, shorter matches, more spotting, appeal to a broader base; in reference to CVs? 

They didn't say it reference to CVs per se.  They have said in the past they wanted the game to be faster paced, to be more like other FPS games with broader appeal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
785
[-BCO-]
Members
1,739 posts
2,948 battles
28 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

The real goal of the rework was to reshape the meta, not a sales gimmick.  More spotting and unavoidable damage from aircraft to shorten matches.  WG wanted a faster paced game to appeal to a broader base.  CVs suck and WG never got what they wanted from the rework, neither did the players. 

Erm....no. You are right about broadening but not  about the motives.Cv's were a low popularity high skill demanding, VERY powerful  class. They wanted to reduce the skill requirement, therefore broaden its player base  whilst (mostly)maintaining the power of class(therefore its appeal).

About shortening...yes but not by Cv's.  By cramming 24 people on maps designed for MUCH less people, therefore reducing server load and increasing turn around time i.e "optimizing" " efficiency"

28 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Its shows WG is nowhere near as good at developing games as they think they are; I mean just look at what they've got for subs.  They had a chance to learn from the failure of the rework and they are going down the same path with a ships type that will be completely disruptive to the game meta instead of something that meshes well with existing meta. 

They don't care about the meta. They are creators who do as they please and as it fits their interests.Which are actually  multifaceted.

 

Edited by Bandi73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×