It has begun; Flamu on CV imbalance.

[vak_]

1 hour ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

There were too many things that could have been done to lessen the impact of RTS carriers, that weren’t even tried, for me to ever grant WG the least modicum of slack over the CV rework.

At a minimum; getting rid of Strafe and Manual attacks, then adding the Brits, would have helped get the numbers back up.

No more entire air wing getting wiped out by some Strafe king; no more instadeath murder drops, and new carriers to try.

Strafe was added because otherwise fighters did nothing to stop strike carriers with lots of air groups (i.e. IJN ones). It was a good design decision. The only poor thing about its implementation was Saipan that didn't lose fighters in a strafe, which made it broken.

[Torenico]

The war against/for CVs is like the lamest war you can imagine, only TRUE G*MERS (tm) and debatelords would waste their time arguing about pixel boats so much. There are things to be really, REALLY mad about (You know, like, outside of your room?), CVs ain't one of them lol.

Either way, I am collecting steel for FDR. It will be the only CV that I will bring to randoms, you know, I need to have fun from time to time especially if I get "compliments" during/after the battle :D

[Crokodone]

2 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

Guess it didn't take long for that to happen. Please be polite, no personal attacks etc.

How coincidental:

It's almost like there's a synergy going here...

[ArIskandir]

9 minutes ago, Pirate_Named_Sue said:

The current CV game play is unappealing to me, but that’s not the reason believe CV to be OP and unbalanced. 

But that's the core reason to everything CV. Being unappealing is the original sin of CV design, the one and true fault of the Rework, the design is fast food... popcorn... it fills you up for a time but doesn't nurture you in the long term. From there cascades almost all the imbalances and special prerogatives CVs have. 

[pcgamer001]

2 hours ago, Torenico said:

Grown adult having a mid-life crisis with pixel boats.

LOL what a zinger.

[vak_]

The video certainly makes a good number of convincing points.

Also, why are many members of the pro-CV crowd so toxic in most threads these days? (you know who you are) No objective arguments, just personal attacks.

[Pugilistic]

30 minutes ago, Xidax_Gamer said:

orly?

check out 5:37

 

I had never seen this, it was utterly cathartic. I havent heard that song in years, just downloaded it to have in favorites. 

[Willawaw]

   This game was a hobby for many.  Toxic game design is not good game design, it is playing games with your customers to extract as much money as possible.  I can understand the need for profit.  Once you use toxic methods and transparently extreme spin doctoring, integrity is lost.  Furthermore as is reasonably evident is a toxic gameplay paradigm that is the preferred gamestyle for Wargaming.  Total lack of synergy with the player/payer that was willing to put up with a lot.  

My level of fatigue with World of Warplanes insertion is such that last night I logged in to play my Asashio and first match was 4 cv's.  I bade them good luck and good night.  I am sorry that style of gameplay is not interesting nor any fun for anyone.  WG knows this and has ignored that paradigm for years now.  It has laid waste to low tier play and that is the alarm bell they were deaf too. 

You want to make a profit WG.  Show premium payers some respect and give them the choice to play in matches without CV's and see how popular that is.  You might even see a resurgence of play in this game.  I would pay again.

 

Gambatte! 

[Velled]

1 hour ago, LuckyStarFan said:

Oh, are we not allowed to disagree with Flamu?  My mistake, I did not realize he was infallible and above reproach from us mere mortals.

 

CVs are a part of this game and are a necessary balancing factor.  Without CVs, DDs become incredibly powerful.  Flamu is a self-professed DD main and is understandably biased against CVs.  Additionally, he does not play CVs, the last time he played any significant number of CV battles was during the 8.0 test and he has since entirely shaped his opinion by playing non-CVs.  It is understandable that a man getting hit with a rock every day would become upset about rocks, it does not mean that rocks are imbalanced.  It is extremely tiresome that the erstwhile most popular CC spent so much of their time whining about CVs and Russian ships while ignoring many other aspects of the game.  The amount of literal worship the man has is frankly disturbing and indicative of a larger problem among society at large; an unwillingness to think for yourself and discuss things openly is everywhere now.

 

Upvotes and downvotes are meaningless if you cannot put into words why you think somebody or something is wrong.  CVs will stay in this game and crying fruitlessly about them will not bring change.  I suggest Flamu and anyone who believes as he does come to terms with this.

Basically you didnt watch the video and are here to defend CVs regardless of the argument presented. You didnt even address the post you quoted.

 

[SoothingWhaleSongEU]

32 minutes ago, Xidax_Gamer said:

orly?

check out 5:37

I assume you mean what @Hapa_Fodder said at 1:21?

I recall seeing this back when it originally happened, and to be honest I remain unconvinced this was referring to forming anti-CV divisions rather than mocking the **** out of them in chat, esp. on a stream.

And it's not beyond possibility that WG did try to come down on the triple CV division then revised their opinion afterwards.

To my knowledge such divisions are still possible and aren't in violation of the EULA.

 

 

[Helstrem]

In the section right at 11:00 Flamu did not seem to understand that the dev, who was admittedly struggling with English, was trying to explain that CV damage was inflated by CV survival rates increasing the percentage of damage CVs get in "garbage time", time where the outcome of the match is already inevitable, compared to what other types get in "garbage time".  How relevant that is can be debated, but it is a logical point that makes Flamu's desired yes/no answer a lot more complicated than he presents it as.

I don't think anybody was fully satisfied with the CV rework and I do think it is safe to call it a failure.

[GSXstage1]

Flamu's popularity or unpopularity has nothing to do the evidence he has provided. Four years I have been playing and I went through the cv and AA changes and saw first hand what it has done. The CV IS the most hated class and the most protected class in the game. People say that without CV's the DD becomes to powerful. I am certainly NOT a DD main but I'd rather have an OP'd DD than a CV to worry about Any day. By far the cv is the most inaccurate unfactual ship in the game. Having 2 cv's in one game just ruins it. Having CV's in a game tier 6 and below ruins it. I am sure more evidence of WG failures on the CV will be coming out soon, unless the ban Flamu from the Forums etc. Heck, they might even yank his account.

[GSXstage1]

11 minutes ago, Velled said:

Basically you didnt watch the video and are here to defend CVs regardless of the argument presented. You didnt even address the post you quoted.

 

Well said and correct. Shaming people the way he did will not bend people to his point of view. [edited]

[vak_]

1 hour ago, Merc_R_Us said:

18:20 - "DFAA no longer has any effect"

20:45 - "They would use DFAA to shred enemy planes"

Just curious, which is it? Or do we just misrepresent DFAA to suite what we're trying to say?

If you're genuinely curious, instead of going for a gotcha -- I think at 18:20 he is referring to the fact that DFAA no longer panics airplanes, which forced you to vary tactics quite a bit in the RTS days. Now all it does is just increasing AA damage. And unless the ship with DFAA is something like Halland, OR you have a stack of ships with DFAA (like two Kidds from 20:45 comment) -- then it doesn't matter all that much if it's on or not. The strike pattern will look exactly the same, maybe instead of getting four strikes in you get three, or whatever.

[SuperUnicumInBed]

 Despite the fact that most of us have different view points on certain things, there is no reason to personally attack someone based on his/her views. Now that doesn't mean we have to act like perfect angels. It means we have constructive arguments and challenge each others views about the game (politely), that's what these forums are for.

 

 

[ArIskandir]

32 minutes ago, vak_ said:

Also, why are many members of the pro-CV crowd so toxic in most threads these days? (you know who you are) No objective arguments, just personal attacks.

I chalk it up to Flamu effect

24 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I don't think anybody was fully satisfied with the CV rework and I do think it is safe to call it a failure.

If CV popularity naturally tanks in the span of a few months, without artificially pumping interest in them, then you can consider the rework a failure since it will be failing to achieve its intended purpose. Making their design "accessible" and too simple is proving a bad call in the long run.

[Merc_R_Us]

9 minutes ago, vak_ said:

If you're genuinely curious, instead of going for a gotcha -- I think at 18:20 he is referring to the fact that DFAA no longer panics airplanes, which forced you to vary tactics quite a bit in the RTS days. Now all it does is just increasing AA damage. And unless the ship with DFAA is something like Halland, OR you have a stack of ships with DFAA (like two Kidds from 20:45 comment) -- then it doesn't matter all that much if it's on or not. The strike pattern will look exactly the same, maybe instead of getting four strikes in you get three, or whatever.

Was partially curious as I didn't play prior to the re-work. 

[Crokodone]

36 minutes ago, vak_ said:

Strafe was added because otherwise fighters did nothing to stop strike carriers with lots of air groups (i.e. IJN ones). It was a good design decision.

True.

36 minutes ago, vak_ said:

The only poor thing about its implementation was Saipan that didn't lose fighters in a strafe, which made it broken.

Not when the squadron only had ~3-4 fighters.

[SilverPhatShips]

4 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I chalk it up to Flamu effect

If CV popularity naturally tanks in the spam of a few months, without artificially pumping interest in them, then you can consider the rework a failure since it will be failing to achieve its intended purpose. Making their design "accessible" and too simple is proving a bad call in the long run.

 The problem is WG will continue to make them OP as possible to keep their numbers up regardless of the effect it has to the other players that's the problem and they admit that

   this makes the game not a competitive platform that's why real gamers careless for this game

  It's simply broken and obvious

[Hapa_Fodder]

13 minutes ago, SoothingWhaleSongEU said:

I assume you mean what @Hapa_Fodder said at 1:21?

I recall seeing this back when it originally happened, and to be honest I remain unconvinced this was referring to forming anti-CV divisions rather than mocking the **** out of them in chat, esp. on a stream.

And it's not beyond possibility that WG did try to come down on the triple CV division then revised their opinion afterwards.

To my knowledge such divisions are still possible and aren't in violation of the EULA.

 

 

You are correct, we never said that a division formed for the purpose of countering a CV was against any rules. Nor did we ever discourage this, in fact, on these forums, we even pinned and responded to guides on how to effectively counter a CV as seen here: 

 

Just like the IX, IX, VIII divisions that have been formed in the past (meaning two tier IX BBs and 1 Tier VIII CV). As these are using the game as it was intended.

HOWEVER, actively griefing, harassing, or personally attacking other players or other actions as outlined in the EULA are violations and not allowed.

It is 100% okay and encouraged to discuss tactics and strategy, however, it is NOT okay to be toxic or violate the EULA.

-Hapa

[ArIskandir]

4 minutes ago, SilverPhatShips said:

 The problem is WG will continue to make them OP as possible to keep their numbers up regardless of the effect it has to the other players that's the problem and they admit that

   this makes the game not a competitive platform that's why real gamers careless for this game

  It's simply broken and obvious

Yeah totally... and that's what scares me about the intended Sub design... it is plain simple, lacks depth and boring in the long run... what could go wrong?

We are aimed to trip twice on the same stone... 

[Taylor3006]

46 minutes ago, vak_ said:

Strafe was added because otherwise fighters did nothing to stop strike carriers with lots of air groups (i.e. IJN ones). It was a good design decision. The only poor thing about its implementation was Saipan that didn't lose fighters in a strafe, which made it broken.

How weird, I never had any problems stopping strikes using my fighters without strafe. The only times I resorted to using strafe was when there were two carriers per team and my cv partner sucked. Personally I found the mechanic to be poor game design and really didn't add much to the fun of playing carriers. I found it far more efficient use of my time to lock down red fighters over friendly ships with decent AA and use my attack aircraft to stop capping or spot DDs.  After my fighters had control over the air, shooting down red attack planes was super easy without using strafe.... 

The removal of carrier vs carrier play was the worst thing about the CV rework bar none. I used to take it as a personal affront if red attack planes got thru my defenses to attack my team. With that one mechanic gone, any potato can get into a carrier and farm damage and all you can do in a friendly carrier is try and drop a fighter consumable in the way...................... It is pathetic. 

[SKurj]

bets anyone?  cv sales will be up for the next 2 weeks...  who wants to take that bet lol

[WarStore]

1 hour ago, SoothingWhaleSongEU said:

As a counter to that, I heard the actual reason was they were being abusive to said players in chat on stream.

And people then interpreted that as "AMG! WG SAID YOU COULDN'T MAKE ANTI CV DIVISIONS!" - which I am pretty sure WG later confirmed is entirely viable play.

Certainly to my knowledge it's still entirely possible to create both types of division.

But again, all this is second/third hand information so what was actually said and when, I have no real idea.

You heard it wrong. WG said it was against EULA to even discuss tactics whose purpose was to "grief" players, aka sole purpose of hunting CVs. WG threatened to remove the entire clan from supertesting and so on. That is not warning a particular player for being mean in the chat towards the baby class.

[Ministre_de_la_Marine]

2 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Yeah totally... and that's what scares me about the intended Sub design... it is plain simple, lacks depth and boring in the long run... what could go wrong?

We are aimed to trip twice on the same stone... 

You're probably right. They've evidently invested heavily in subs, and seem destined to suck themselves into a sunk cost feedback loop just like CV's.

An optimist might hope that the delay for subs is because they learned from the cv rework, but the cynic in me doubts it.