Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
InterconKW

An Argument for CV Removal

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
341 posts
4,020 battles

Edit 3/16/18: If you are seeing this thread, this was posted a long time ago. I've updated my carrier experience in the most recent reply here. 

Ha, clickbaity title. Sort of.

It's come to my attention through a recent thread that opinions on certain aspects of carriers are... conflicting. So I'm going to give my two cents- MY OPINIONS- in a dedicated rant thread with reasoning about why carriers are the most horrible thing that has ever happened to this game. You have been warned, feel free to attack me.

First of all, I'm going to clear up the misconceptions people might have about me. First of all, I'm not having problems fighting carriers. I sometimes wipe their squads with DFAA, sometimes they kill me... that's not the real issue. Second of all, I don't hate many people who play carriers at all. I in fact highly respect good carrier players and keep many of the ones I've met on my ingame contact list, including ones that mowed down my team... because let's be honest, carriers are not easy to play and expert micromanagement is an admirable skill.

It is due to my active interaction with these players that I can lay down my points, despite not being one who would be considered a "carrier player."

OPEN RANT- A BACKSTORY ON WHY I HATE CARRIERS WITH A PASSION.

A while ago I posted a thread detailing the... nasty experiences I had suffered under carriers during the marathon for the Gangut battleship. The grand total games I played with CVs in the matchmaking was 65 during the last portion of October 2017. In these 65 games, 3 times I had a carrier sail into the enemy team, and I saw 24 allied carriers sniped by the enemy. A further 8 were AFK, or actually didn't do anything (see- sub 200 base exp) and often, the enemy CV dominated. I kept count on the WoWs Reddit Discord because it was just too horrible to be true. Any user who happens to be there may feel inclined to confirm my progress keeping.

For a while, I thought I could let the matter slide and that my stroke of bad CV luck would come to an end. I left it in my resolutions for 2018 to not rant about carriers. One party wasn't happy about this... and it was the carriers themselves.

The New Year event has hit, and complaints about "events bringing out bad or tryhard players" go flying. 

And so it begins.

Here are two photographs from the last 2 days alone.

4Qeh8b0.jpg?1
MMASKpr.jpg?1\

The first photo shows... a Taiho. I can throw an incredibly long and vulgar insult about the level of intelligence this player is exhibiting, but the moderators would not like that. The second photo still physically pains me. The allied Independence not only got deplaned, but in the last 20 seconds turned into an enemy destroyer, got killed, and flipped the points after a backbreaking carry by my division (note the base exp)- DEFEAT.

What is this.

WHY AM I PUTTING UP WITH THIS DAY AFTER DAY. TODAY ALONE IN 4 GAMES WITH CARRIERS 2 GOT DEPLANED AND 2 SAILED INTO THE ENEMY, INCLUDING THAT TAIHO.

WHAT ARE THE REASONS.


To me, the cause of this is how absolutely horribly the CV class has been designed. There's a difference between a badly balanced ship, and a badly designed one. The CV class is TERRIBLY designed IMO has brought about a plethora of issues, including and not limited to...

1- Intra-class Imbalance
The interaction between carriers and other carriers is flawed. Note tier 7, with Sai-pain's infinite unpenalized strafing works, Kaga's one-shot kill drops, keeping in mind the state of the silver CVs. How about tier 8? The fiasco that was Graf Cr... I mean Zeppelin, a carrier so out of wack it had to go through the process of removal and community testing? 

2- Inter-class Imbalance
Carriers are not "clear cut" more powerful than all surface ships, but they are in most cases and tiers the highest influence class. They can do unavoidable drops on many surface ships (see USN CVs, high tier especially) and can spot destroyers and heavily influence the capture points and the game. This on its own is not outright bad... but consider...

3- Carrier Skill Gaps
Since CVs are a high skill class, the population of players who plays them well is... relatively small, which is why I respect such players. However, WoWs is free-to-play and that inevitably brings about the people who are less than skilled. Measures have been taken to penalize poor play in carriers, but this hasn't stopped many individuals from failing their way up the trees. I won't pull any names. Bad carriers, especially ones with poor attitudes along with poor skill, can be... notoriously well known. This means that a portion of the CV population will continuously roll over the other without much effort. This skill gap is, IMO, further aggravated by recent changes to low tier CVs (bring out your “it stops sealclubbing” argument now, then remember the 4 point AS skill exists) that gives any new CV player a rough ride into the tiers that alt-drop, with visible effect on especially tier 6 carriers.

Okay, so you say "skill gaps exist in all classes?" I say "it's worst in carriers". Remember how CVs have a small but highly skilled group on top? This causes a metaphorical "top heaviness" in CV vs CV interaction. Furthermore, CVs are high influence and one CV being steamrolled or doing something unspeakably stupid spells doom for their own team moreso than any other class doing the same. Thus, this skill gap is more influential in carriers than in any other class, and also has more negative effects for the teams when carriers are involved. It's also pretty rough on a new player picking up carriers. The gap only widens.

4- Badly-designed Mechanics Involving Carriers
The following complaints have reached me from even good carrier players. AA mechanics are iffy, RNG filled and a select number of ships turn the skies into the Bermuda Triangle. Then we have AA powercreep? (look at that Kidd). The carrier UI and how it handles lag/latency is another talking point. Such issues make playing carriers unpleasant.

On the other hand, CVs are bad-mechanic riddled. A good example would be the APDBs. Anti-battleship you say? Watch a full HP Des Moines get left clicked to oblivion. Today a LEXINGTON APDB took 22k off my Zao. WORKING AS INTENDED. I won't even talk about the juggling of carrier loadouts, including recent USN changes. 222 Midway totally hasn't pushed Hakuryu into the sub 50% WR zone.

This list is once again not exhaustive, but put the factors here alone together.

Here's a possible vicious cycle. 

Carriers in their current state > Skill gap widens > Steamrolls with CVs occur > More hate for carriers "throwing games" > More AA builds and ships > CV changes > Updates > Flawed Mechanics > etc. etc.

I have more CV issues to bring up, but it's getting tiring on me.

GET TO THE POINT. I HATE CARRIERS.

CVs are ruining my games. Causing me defeats. Causing negative experiences. I'm not alone. I'm sure issues like this are giving the CV players pain, especially those who are well-educated on their own class. Community opinion of carriers is poor. You see phenomena like "CV blame" or "CV hate" and this community opinion is totally justified. In fact I'm willing to say the majority of players usually consider the presence of a carrier an element that makes a round worse than a round without a carrier. I've seen CVs tell me about how "everything runs AA builds" and honestly, this is because people want to mitigate this flawed high influence element of carriers. In turn, this gives CV players a bad time. 

Let's throw more stuff into my CV hate soup. How about the aforementioned APDBs with autodrops wiping full HP Tier 10s? Seems enjoyable. Carriers committing suicide and other forms of manipulating the CV's high influence for "griefing"? Groups of players using carriers to sync drop or mess with MM?

Oh, let me rant about that last one too. In my first solo T10 game of 2018 a clan had a solo Essex on my team and a Taiho divved with a Des Moines group on the enemy team. Same clan. Seems fishy? Well, the Essex strikes like normal, but proceeds to fly his planes into the enemy side where his clanmates shred them. I call this out to my team. Fortunately, a group of players agrees to help try to stop this possible "clan feeding", and we take out one of the Des Moines and start taking the objective and point lead. This is when the Essex possibly starts trying to "sabotage himself" so the larger div of his clan mates wins the game. First, he lets a flanking, border riding Shimakaze close the distance to him. When I successfully intercept this DD, he refuses to spot it.

When the DD dies, things go back to normal again for a while, but then suddenly he charges straight into the enemy flank. I believe he was trying to flip the points by essentially killing himself. He succeeds, but an objective lead and two last minute kills make my side win by 20 points. Mission accomplished? No, I just felt outright sour at the usage of CVs like this.

How else can CV divs manipulate MM apart from such syncdropping, assisted by low carrier populations especially at high tier? How about 2 T6 ships divved with a T5 carrier, or two T8 ships divved with a T7 carrier, thus essentially forcing MM to give them a more advantageous tier spread? Are CVs the kingpins of such manipulation? To me, yes. And we return to the vicious cycle- such actions make the community hate CVs more, and CVs suffer more, and so on.

Oh, I almost forgot. Premium carriers. An Enterprise on my team 1 day after the release sailing into the center of Tears of the Desert and dying without launching planes? People with no carrier experience given the opportunity to ruin games by buying high tier CVs? The imbalance of premium CVs? All contributing to CV hate, no?

And if it isn't obvious, people hate seeing their own CV getting steamrolled too. Yay, my CV is useless and the enemy CV, the highest influence class in the game, is now facerolling my team. Bit of a roundabout point, but I'm summing this all up. CV hate grows due to these factors, among others. And so on.

And so on...

AND SO ON.

And with countless games ruined by the class with the derogatory nicknames of "Sky Cancer" or "Cancer Vessel", this is why I make my stand that I should not have to tolerate the existence of CVs, which is a huge mistake in the face of WoWs even the developers have arguably acknowledged (Clan battle CV exclusion? The post about carriers being unsatisfactory and the developers being unsure about what to do?). As someone so utterly salty about repeat horrible experiences with carriers, my opinion on "what to do" is more radical than most's. 

Once again, WHY AM I PUTTING UP WITH THIS. CVS ARE A MISTAKE IN A VICIOUS, SELF DEGRADING CYCLE, AND NOONE TRULY CAN AGREE ON WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH THEM.

Honestly, a deep down, less logical part of me wants a carrier removal. I'm being self reaffirmed that carriers are sinking further and further into their mess, and that they are "too far gone" to have their reputations fixed or the class resolved.

The alternative to a hardline removal I've talked about would be a bypass. Say... an option to never see a CV in your game until the rework (we know one is needed- CVs are too flawed). Regardless of what ship you play. You get the choice, say "No, I do not like CVs" and never see them again until they are fixed.

The latter suggestion brings about the questions "Wouldn't this make playing carriers horrible because the only people who want to see them are AA build, or worse, if the majority of the community hates carriers and says no (something I believe is totally possible), would getting a game as a CV be impossible?"

Personally, I don't care anymore. Carriers have done enough to ruin my experience in a game that, while far from perfect, I otherwise enjoy, and I don't want to see their ugly flat-decked faces ruining my games and turning my hard fought victories into defeats through abuse of their high influence anymore.

This rant is sponsored by the countless "allied" carriers who may as well have teamkilled me outright (and... the one or two CVs who accidentally did drop me)- Who have ruined my games, who have used their ships to put their teams at disadvantages whether willingly or not, who have made WoWs unpleasant enough for me to warrant posting this.

My apologies go out to the few good carrier players out there that give me the only fading reasons to try to talk about carriers in a reasonable manner. I still respect you for being skilled and often nice or understanding to me in chat, but your class is bad for the game. I also know the developers of WoWs probably put more dedication into their game than most of the community probably believes, and that expecting them to get a class as complex as CVs right might not be fair. Everyone makes mistakes. You guys made carriers. I pity you.

Rant over.

Edited by InterconKW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
203 posts
11,788 battles

Just have everybody run FULL AA builds see if those kind of CV players can live with it.

There problems solved they can play CV all they want and surface units don't have to suffer much, Both parties are happy.
I doubt it though you can see exactly what could happen in The Ultimate Frontier where most A.I. ships run FULL AA.

Running Full AA build is the most effective way to "Deal with" CVs these days, it even winds up skilled CV players experiencing it you can imagine how worse for others.

The whole game is a mistake, a lot of system doesn't work properly already.
Playerbase won't ever notice it though its hard to notice small things when you have the whole game mechanics to work with.

Edited by MikuChrome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,126 posts

CV are not OP, but the way it operate is absolute broken.

 

I can barely tolerate be spot/hunt by radar, but not with plane fly over my head rendering me the useless ship in game and I have no way to counter it.

almost 2 years of WoWs, I'd say, game is more fun without CV

(or may be I just happen to choose class that vulnerable to CV too much =w='a)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
381 posts
9,957 battles

+1, your OP is pretty much what I wanted to say about CV. 

CV should have been removed from random/ranked long long ago, either permanently or temporarily for a rework. WG is too arrogant to admit the severity of this problem and exclude the class from play so they came up with excuses like "don't worry we are still trying the best to redesign CV" or "20xx is the year of CV". If you WG can't deliver it soon enough, give us a non CV MM option instead of pure promises for 2 years, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
[1NATN]
[1NATN]
Member
402 posts
15,002 battles

Your argument is well made but I'll never support the removal of CVs and I almost never use them so I don't make that statement from a perspective of personal bias. They were the definitive ship of WW2 and for that reason alone they deserve their place. 

Far more toxic to gameplay was the introduction of radar. At least air craft can be shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
653 posts
3,525 battles

I don't like the part where 2 CV vs 2 CV is a stupid thing I've ever seen.

But nowadays Almost mid to high tier ship have sophisticated AA power to just to make their CV planes suffer a small drastic blow.

Even my Kaga had that painful fate losing my Fighters due to low durable fighter planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
3 posts
52 battles

WG dont need to remove CV.....

- nerf its damage into half, no oneshot kill

- AA damage should be nerfed into half, plane can still alive

- DD have AA range equal of its air concealment

- remove strafing and manual drop for all tier

- all CV have AADF

 

to remove noob/bot CV

- someone cannt play CV after 2 lose streak until it did another 10 match in other ship

- research price for CV is triplet, the ship price remain same

- a CV ship cannt go to random battle until it did 50 Co Op mode. so if someone unlock Hosho he must do 50 Co Op battle, if unlock Zuiho 50 Co Op battle too! so if someone buy a enterprise, he must do 50 Co Op battle. at least its better than never play CV and suddenly jump to play enterprise

 

problem solved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AE]
Member
200 posts
9,488 battles

I wonder how many of you are ex-tankers? Remember the days of 5 arties per team?

In both cases you have people wanting a "fun" game, ruined by a player that has way too much control over target selection.

I think that if these games are supposed to be remotely realistic, then artie and carriers are vital. There are many issues, and as a person who likes carrier games in coop games, I would say the major reason I don't play randoms with them is that which OP mentioned- namely, anyone trying to climb the ladder will come up against carrier players who have a skill set unrivalled by newcomers. The new carrier players have no chance against these people. As I only play coop. I don't know if they got rid of the whole 2 carriers per side thing..... As the lower tiered carrier you may as well not even be there. The higher tiered enemy cv cuts you to pieces.

But the biggest issue is non-carrier player enjoyment. NOBODY, NOBODY, likes being smashed by a carrier or artillery. Because it robs that player of any chance of making a difference in a match. And unfortunately, there is a tendency, for the carrier player, to continue attacking the same ship. Even if to just finish it off. Being the powerless victim of a seemingly God like force that determines "YOU WILL NOW RETURN TO PORT! YOU WILL BE OF NO INFLUENCE IN THIS MATCH", is gutting.

As it is, this is utterly realistic. Carriers smashed all comers. They exterminated the Yamato. They exterminated fleets. Totally realistic. And totally not fun. I am still gob smacked that after all the suffering both the players and WG itself went through over artillery in Tanks that it would ever envision a line of carriers. They should have been left out.

All WG had to do was put some sort of artillery strike option, and some sort of carrier strike option in the game, a random attack now and then by planes. Would have been realistic, but more importantly, they would not just target one person relentlessly, spoiling their enjoyment of a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,126 posts
1 hour ago, Bex_o7 said:

They were the definitive ship of WW2 and for that reason alone they deserve their place. 

If that were the case, submarine would also be in the game already.

 

IMO. rise of CV is mark the end if giant ship and big gun. that's why even in game where big ship still roaming around like nothing, it's hard to get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
142 posts
2,615 battles

CV removal would be bad for business. period.

I think they shudder to think about the logistics of having to rework their marketing materials, refunding people that bought premium CVs, compensating CV-only players etc.

Ultimately, it's less to do with the developmental concerns, and everything to do with the bottom line - it wouldn't look good for them to remove an entire class of ships after spending so much time and resources showcasing the game as a complete naval action package.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
[1NATN]
[1NATN]
Member
402 posts
15,002 battles
57 minutes ago, PGM991 said:

If that were the case, submarine would also be in the game already.

Submarines are not ships. They're boats. 

World of Warships.

Edited by Bex_o7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,346 posts
8,860 battles
51 minutes ago, Darkshaunz said:

CV removal would be bad for business. period.

I think they shudder to think about the logistics of having to rework their marketing materials, refunding people that bought premium CVs, compensating CV-only players etc.

Ultimately, it's less to do with the developmental concerns, and everything to do with the bottom line - it wouldn't look good for them to remove an entire class of ships after spending so much time and resources showcasing the game as a complete naval action package.

 

 

Actually I would say developmental concerns are a part of it too. 

WG will have to rebalance a whole slew of ships, skills and upgrades, and compensate players for choosing anything that is remotely AA spec or anti-CV.

Sure people can point to Clan Battles (where BBs were almost banned too I might add) but that is a game mode that not everybody plays - it is certainly not the heart of WoWs. Even there the removal of CVs have big effects - nobody takes AFT or BFT in their cruisers, everybody runs hydro and Vigilance etc.

That is why any argument asking for the removal of CVs, or any other class for that matter, is ultimately fruitless.

In any case, it is not so bad anyway. People just need to spec AA and play smartly if they are scared of CVs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,553 posts
7,993 battles

Why argue about something that is not going to happen?

The main problem is, WG tried to fit in RTS theme into an arcade shooter. There will never be a balance like this. Just let the players fly the planes instead, like in War Blunder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,553 posts
7,993 battles
1 hour ago, Thyaliad said:

In any case, it is not so bad anyway. People just need to spec AA and play smartly if they are scared of CVs.

Honestly though, you get stuck into a bad cycle.

If you change the game somehow so that CV population rises tremendously, that will mean every player is going to use AA build, and hydro or other builds are going to be useless. That will in turn destroy the CV population effectively reducing the number of CV players and thus every surface ships transforms back to anti surface builds instead of AA. This keeps on going on and on. It never stays on a balanced state from my observation.

I agree with others that WG has created a class that doesn't just fit well with others. And skill disparity is just too much on this class. Only way to overcome is to make CVs easier to play like CA, BB, DD, so that more players play the class, at the same time, reduce to effectiveness, so that someone good in CV doesn't instantly win over someone bad in CV. Both player should get enough chances. Just like in DDs. You can play god like in USN, but every now and then some IJN DD players get lucky to land one or two torp on you. That simply doesn't happen to CVs right now.

However at the end of the day, we are here for the ride, we just try to adapt to whatever shit thrown our way.

UbcvZvY.jpg

Edited by icy_phoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,346 posts
8,860 battles
1 hour ago, icy_phoenix said:

Honestly though, you get stuck into a bad cycle.

If you change the game somehow so that CV population rises tremendously, that will mean every player is going to use AA build, and hydro or other builds are going to be useless. That will in turn destroy the CV population effectively reducing the number of CV players and thus every surface ships transforms back to anti surface builds instead of AA. This keeps on going on and on. It never stays on a balanced state from my observation.

I know, but until WG fixes CVs that is what we can do. Better to take whatever measures we can rather than to just cry for the removal of an entire class that is probably never going to happen.

Interestingly enough, I find this similar to games like Starcraft where certain builds and strategies fall into and out of favour depending on what is the current meta. Build A is popular so Build B is developed to counter Build A, decreasing Build A's popularity, while somebody else develops Build C specifically to counter Build B. Not sure how that would play out in a games like WoWs though, but I do know Mobas like Dota and Lol have similar meta shifts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,314 posts
7,096 battles
10 hours ago, humusz said:

WG need to revamp CV.  as a class

nuff said

Yes. Total rework of the class please and bloody hell... Do something about Saipay...

The no penalty strafe out and 2 tiers above the ship tier is just too broken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

the only good reason of why there are quite a number of high tier CVs drive straight to the enemy fleet is because those player are, either, Bot or Player who bought his way to high tier CV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
455 posts
8,038 battles
8 hours ago, Harpoon01 said:

the only good reason of why there are quite a number of high tier CVs drive straight to the enemy fleet is because those player are, either, Bot or Player who bought his way to high tier CV

It could also be a bad player who selects his ship instead of a sqad and doesnt notice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
435 posts
6,169 battles

I’m wondering if listing WOWS on Steam has anything to do with the spike in bots/hacks, a whole lot of dubious mod contributors are now conscious.

 

 

Edited by BuckleUpBones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[AMPOL]
Beta Tester
177 posts
6,442 battles

We need to remove CV as a class in Random, do what you like elsewhere. They never should have been included for open play. Don't rework and and what not just remove them from the game, OR give me a NO CV Button I can switch on for Random games, I'll wait the extra time it takes for a drop honest :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
97 posts
13,773 battles
On 1/13/2018 at 6:48 AM, MikuChrome said:

Just have everybody run FULL AA builds see if those kind of CV players can live with it.

That is the standard ridiculous counter argument to balancing CVs that the naysayers trot out whenever this issue is raised.

It's ridiculous to suggest people should fully-spec AA on all their ships on the 1 in 5 chance (I think there's maybe a 20% chance of having a CV in a game) that ONE SHIP might be present in the game. What if the ship you are want to play has very poor AA to start with? You might as well just tell people that the only viable ship class in the game is an AA-spec cruiser or battleship. But wait, tell that to the German BBs that get deleted by USN AP bombs. It's gotten even more ridiculous now that Midways can one-shot T10 AA cruisers.

Does that not strongly suggest that CVs are what is broken in this game?

Would it not make more sense to suggest that every ship should full-spec against DDs, since there are guaranteed to 1-5 DDs in EVERY GAME?

It's stupid and it's broken.

 

Edit: There's a reason this thread exists:

 

If one ship and 1 player can dictate the outcome of a battle 9 times out of 10 then it's just plain broken.

 

Edited by Bunnios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×