Dev response to multiple CV's on each team?

[Willawaw]

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.  

[theLaalaa]

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!!"

[EraserNZ1]

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.

[RipNuN2]

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

[The_Pig_of_PIGs]

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.

[Noworriesderpy1]

Were they uptiered Tier VI CVs or did you actually have 2 Tier VIII CVs ?

[clammboy]

 

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 .

[thebigblue]

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.

[cmdr_bigdog]

Spreadsheet says CVs are fun to play against. 
 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

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.

[Hel_Diver142]

I love Cvs bring them on.

[Asym_KS]

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.....! 

[Bandi73]

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.

[Bilgetwidget]

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.

[Spirit_of_76]

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

[cmdr_bigdog]

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. 

[Elo_J_Fudpucker]

5 hours ago, Willawaw said:

We have complained about it

Your complaints are music to many ears.....

[Pay_Your_Torpedo_Tax]

Spreadsheet says it's fine and you are having fun and that all you have to do is "just dodge".

[HazeGrayUnderway]

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.

 

[AXELGREASE]

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. 

[Slimeball91]

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. 

[AXELGREASE]

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? 

[Sammy_Small]

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".

[Slimeball91]

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. 

[Bandi73]

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.