Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • IronGuard

      World of Warships Forum Rules   06/08/2017

        Welcome to the Official World of Warships ASIA forums! These forums are here to provide you with a friendly atmosphere where you can discuss ideas, give and receive game play advice, and discuss any other aspects of World of Warships with other players. Community forums are at their best when participants treat their fellow posters with respect and courtesy. Therefore, we ask that you conduct yourself in a civilized manner when participating on these forums and be mindful of your audience.   The guidelines and rules listed below explain what behaviours is expected of you and what behaviour you can expect from other community members. Note that the following guidelines are not exhaustive, and may not address all manner of offensive behaviour. As such, the forum moderators and administrators shall have full discretion to address any behaviour that they feel is inappropriate. Also, suspension or banishment from the game will always result in the same in regard to forum access. Your access to these forums is a “privilege,” and not a “right.” Wargaming.net reserves the right to suspend your access to these forums at any time for reasons that include, but are not necessarily limited to, your failure to abide by these guidelines.   Wargaming.net reserves the right to evaluate each incident on a case by case basis. The actions taken may be more lenient or more severe than those listed under each category. Before posting any kind of information on this forum, all users are to read the following rules. These rules are obligatory for all registered users on this forum.     1. GENERAL PROVISIONS   1.1 Registration Requirements   There is no requirement for a user to use his or her real name or to use any other form of identification that can be used to easily trace identities, and all e-mail addresses that are provided will be kept private. In order to register on World of Warships forum, registrants must be thirteen (13) years of age or older.   Users are solely responsible for protecting their accounts from access by others. Users are strongly encouraged to select a hard-to-guess password and not re-use that password on any other sites where it may be read by the owners or administrators of that site. It is highly recommended that board users do not share their accounts with others, or share their computers used to access the site with others. In case of a lost or hacked account, users are to inform support immediately.   1.2 Forum purpose   The purpose of this forum is to discuss World of Warships and related topics, get to know fellow players, find a clan to join, and to give feedback to the Wargaming.net developers.   1.3 Responsibility   Wargaming.net is not responsible for any user messages posted. Wargaming.net does not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and is not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact the moderation team immediately. Wargaming.net employees and community moderators have the ability to remove objectionable messages and will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time limit, if it is found that removal is necessary. Users agree, through the use of this service, that they will not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Users agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by said user or by this board.   1.4 Sanction Policy   Violations of these rules/guidelines may lead to users being sanctioned temporarily or permanently within this forum or even in game bans of a players account on severe or repetitive offenses.   1.5 Error reporting   Bugs and errors can be reported at the support website (http://support.worldoftanks.asia/), Users can also report any bugs and errors on the corresponding forum thread.     2. PROHIBITIONS and RESTRICTIONS   2.1 Forum etiquette   Users are not allowed to abuse others, make personal attacks or behave disrespectfully. This prohibition applies to both public threads and private messages (PMs).   Disrespect can include but is not limited to: FlamingTrollingHarassment or Defamatory remarksProfanity, Inappropriate language or abbreviations there ofPersonal abuse or attacksRacial, Religious, Sexual, National or Ethnic, slurs or insults, this includes "jokes" in bad taste.Excessive CapitalizationInappropriate or adult content   This behaviour has no place on the World of Warships forums due to its extremely offensive and inappropriate nature.   2.2 Distribution of real life information and real-life threats   Postings and discussions which have users’ personal data (such as addresses, telephone numbers, emails, other contact information) - regardless of whether this is their own or that of other users - will be removed. Users who publish this type of content on the forum will be warned or sanctioned by an administrator or moderator. No rude or disrespectful posts to or about any forum moderators or Wargaming.net employees, as well as no release of real-life information about moderators or Wargaming.net employees are allowed on this forum. Real-life threats include both clear and masked language and/or links to websites containing such language or images which refers to violence in any capacity that is not directly related to the game world   2.3 Advertising   Users are not allowed to post threads or comments that advertise or solicit any non-beneficial, non-Wargaming related businesses, organization, or website. Explicit advertising and solicitation in signatures are also prohibited.   Forum rules allow "light" discussion other games; however any kind of direct promotion, solicitation, or linking to other games is not permitted. Also please do not use images related to games other than World of Warships in your signature, avatar or name.   2.4 Accounts, Gold/Credits, Pre-order & Promotional codes, Leveling services, Begging.   This category includes: Advertising of, or selling of game accounts. Advertising of, or selling of in game currency such as gold/credits. Advertising of, or selling of leveling services. Advertising of, or selling of promotional codes or pre-order codes. Begging in any form. Begging includes but is not limited to: requesting users to transfer real money to the virtual wallet, asking for additional gold/credits, and requests to transfer game gold/credits, promotional codes, pre-order codes, or anything similar. Linking to or promoting websites that contain the above prohibited services.   All types of posts for the sale or promotion of the exchange or transfer of accounts, currency, codes, and other services from one user to another violate the EULA and are prohibited within the forums and game channels.   2.5 Off Topic, spamming and trolling   This category includes: Excessively communicating the same phrase, similar phrases, or pure gibberishCreating threads on topics that already exist on the forums, (Please use search and add to existing topics were possible)Off-topic PostingCreating threads/posts for the sole purpose of causing unrest on the forumsCreating threads/posts for purpose of reporting or discussing in game violations. Such incidences are to be directed to supportCausing disturbances in forum threads, such as picking fights, making off topic posts that ruin the thread, insulting other postersMaking non-constructive posts, or posts with non-constructive topicsAbusing the "Reported Post" feature by sending false alarms or nonsensical messagesNumbering a thread, posting “First!”, “IBTL” (“in before thread lock”) or any other fad statements“Bumping” posts are only permitted in the clan recruiting sections of the forums, please refer to the rules for that section.Petition posts or polls that are not aimed at conducting a discussion.   Users should make sure that they post new threads and postings into the appropriate forum, and users are asked to familiarize themselves with the forums. This helps other users and moderators maintain an overview and to be able to respond faster with an appropriate answer to players questions. Before beginning a new thread, look to see if an active thread on that topic has already been established using the Search feature. If so, place your comments there instead. Keep discussions about one topic to one thread only.   Posts which drift off topic, or content-free posts will be edited or removed. Posting multiple messages with the same content across several forums is unwelcome and inappropriate, since such activities divide the targeted discussions and makes gathering feedback considerably more difficult. Such ‘cross posts’ will be merged, closed and redirected or removed. Before beginning a new thread, look to see if an active thread on that topic has already been established using the Search feature. If so, place your comments there instead. Keep discussions about one topic to one thread only.   2.6 Politics, Major Religions or Religious Figures   Posting about social, religious, political, illegal or other controversial topics that may create offense. As well as negative portrayal of religious and political figures is prohibited within the forums.   2.7 Law Violations   This category includes: Posting discussion threads on, or linking to, cheats, hacks, Trojan horses, or malicious programs. If you suspect that a cheat or hack exists, provide the necessary information to support, it is not to be discussed within the forums.Posting unreleased content / hacking data files: showing unreleased in-game items, equipment, or areas that have been unlocked by hacking into client data files; discussing or displaying any data not available through normal game play;Illegal drugs or activities. Both clear and masked language and/or links to websites containing such language or images which reference to abusing illegal drugs or to performing illegal activities are prohibited.   Users are expected to act lawfully when participating on the forums. Posting about or discussing issues that violate local or international laws is not allowed under any circumstance. The administration reserves the right to delete, update or modify any information which is considered inappropriate on these forums.   2.8 Discussing disciplinary actions   Discussion or disputing of disciplinary actions is prohibited within the forums.   This category includes: Creating posts or threads to discuss or dispute disciplinary actions taken against a player in game or on the forumsCreating posts or threads to discuss or dispute moderators, moderator decisions or actions   Appeals on sanctions received or questions and suggestions relating to rule enforcement are to be submitted to support and are not to be discussed within the forums.   3. MISCELLANEOUS   3.1 Language   The official language of this forum is English. Use of other languages may be allowed in special forum sections only. Users are to be considerate to those who have difficulties with English.   3.2 Hard-to-Read Posts   Posts that disrupt the message boards for other users, intentional or not, are prohibited. This category includes, but is not limited, to: Conducting conversations in foreign languages, outside designated forums Posting excessively in capital letters, Excessive whitespace or line breaks, leet speak, or other hard-to-read writing styles Using misleading topic titles, excessive punctuation, and/or non-standard symbols   While posting on these forums users are to be reasonable with font size and color. Stick to default font size and try to avoid use of text colors different from black. The administration reserves the right to modify inappropriate posts and give warnings to their authors.   3.3 Links and Images   Whenever linking to a website or image or posting an image, be sure to check that they don't violate any of the rules above. Sites or images that display illegal content, pornography, nudity, gratuitous violence, Nazi symbols such as swastikas, obscenities and any other content that goes against the standards of this community will be moderated. In addition to the above we also request you not post ASCII art (pictures created by using letters and symbols on a keyboard) they are usually quite large and can be misinterpreted based on display issues.   The size of files and images referred may not exceed 100 kilobytes (kb).   3.4 Names (Players and Clans), Avatars, Images/Video, Signatures & Clan logos   Certain content for names, avatars, images/video, signatures & clan logos, have no place on the World of Warships forums or within the World of Warships game, due to their extremely offensive, annoying or inappropriate nature. The following list is only a summary, but it gives some idea of names, images, signatures, avatars and clan logos which are not accepted with the World of Warships environment: Names, Avatars, Images/Video, Signatures & Clan logos .... that contains insults, personal attacks, abuse or harassment. that contains unprintable words or abbreviations, or which are unattractive and/or unreadable. which have (in any way) racist or nationalistic implications which may create offense to a certain nation, ethnic, religious or racial group. that contain an allusion of racial or national supremacy, as well as discriminative propaganda on any level. which are derogatory discriminative or offensive to people with a disability or illness. which have an association with sexuality, pedophilia, sexual abuse; or have an offensive connection to the human body or bodily functions. which contain excessive gore or violence, or are obscene/vulgar. which make reference to addictive or illegal substances or their use, or any other illegal activities. which either in whole or partly contain copyrighted or registered trade mark elements. that contain reference to current mainstream religions that may create offense, i.e. names such as God, Jesus, Allah, etc. that contain Logotypes, symbols, emblems or figures connected in one way or another with organizations, that violate or were violating existing laws and rules (For example, using different variations of Nazi symbolic, abridgments and signs as well as credentials, names and surnames of Nazi leaders) which may provoke strong negative reaction/association or promote national/ethnic/religious hatred. that are connected with negative historical or political personalities, first of all those who are judged by international courts for crimes against humanity, those that generally arouse feelings of suffering or disgust in the majority of people, as well as members of currently existing terrorist organizations; that negatively portraits the projects moderators, staff or administration; which in any other manner violates the End User License Agreement or local laws;   ....... either implicitly or explicitly are prohibited (This also contains links to websites containing the above). If names (player or clan), avatars, signatures, images/video, clan logos within the forums or within the game violate these rules the offending account may be changed and/or the accounts may be sanctioned or suspended. Moreover, the administration reserves the right to delete, update or modify any names (player or clans) and avatars, images or clan images which are considered inappropriate on the forums or within the game environment.   Additionally, excessively long forum signatures are not permitted. Signatures may not exceed two lines. If these limitations are exceeded, then the disruptive elements will be removed without explanation and the offending account may receive sanctions. Users are allowed to use images in your signatures, but their size must not exceed 468px×120px (length x width). The signatures can contain animation, but it should not be annoying.   4. FORUM ADMINISTRATION and MODERATION   4.1 Administrators   Administrators are Wargaming.net employees. The administrator status is confirmed by “Group: Administrators, Game Master, Developer, Support” inscription under the user nickname.   4.2 Moderators   Moderators are community contributors (players) Recruited from forum members, the moderators uphold the forum rules, with the Game Master team. The moderator status is confirmed by “Group: "Forum Moderators” inscription under the user nickname.   4.3 Administrators and Moderators’ powers   Administrators and moderators have the right to warn or suspend forum members in the case of forum rules violation. Any measures taken by moderators can be appealed to support via the website (http://asia.wargaming.net/support/), in accordance with the established procedure. Measures taken by administration are not subject to appeal. In some cases, which go beyond the forum rules, administrators can warn or suspend a particular forum member, even if their actions formally don’t fall under the current prohibitions and restrictions.   4.4 Warnings   The warnings and official notifications are set off in red, this font color is reserved by Moderators and Administrators. Any other moderators message is considered to be an ordinary one and is equal to a message of any forum member. Once one of a posts has been moderated, users are not permitted to edit the moderators notes placed within the post. Similarly, the impersonation of the administration or moderating team in any way, is not permitted.   4.5 Restrictions on Administrators and Moderators   Administrators Game Masters Developers and support staff being official employees are representatives of Wargaming.net, they are avid World of Warships players, but do not normally partake in clans and clan wars with the exception of special events.   Moderators however are not official employees of Wargaming.net and recruited from the player base. They have no special abilities in game to give them any advantage, other than the ability to issue chat mutes within the game. Moderators participation within clans or clan-wars is not limited. If users believe a moderator to be biased in any way or acted inappropriately, they are to send the details to support via the website (http://asia.wargaming.net/support/) and it shall be investigated by management.   5. CONTACT LIST   1. Technical Support service (both forum and in-game):   Web form: (http://asia.wargaming.net/support/) for Billing and Payment issues - Billing and Payment department for technical problems and bugs - Technical issues department for forum and game name and password changes - Account Administration department for disputes on game or forum bans, or disputes against moderators or their decisions and actions. for inquiries that don’t suit the above, including reporting hacks, cheats, Trojans, bots etc - In-game general questions department   2. Appeals   The report should contain the complete description of the dispute with the corresponding screenshots attached if needed. Any other ways of appeal are not subject to consideration. Any appeals lodged within the forums are regarded as off-topic.   IMPORTANT   The administration reserves the right to update and modify these rules as the needs of the community dictate to ensure the smooth operation of this community.   Repeatedly violating any area of these Rules or EULA, including the areas detailed above, will often result in permanent suspension from the game and/or forums. This policy is not language-restrictive. Language that falls under this policy will always be subject to the repercussions listed, whether it is inappropriate in English or any other language.   The bottom line is that we want World of Warships to be a fun and safe environment for all players. World of Warships is a Massive Multiplayer Online Game with a mixture of genres, and the key words are “Massively Multiplayer.” While playing this game and posting on its forums, you will encounter thousands of other players who share different experiences and come from vastly different backgrounds. While certain language and images may not be offensive to you, consider the fact that that same language and images may have a completely different effect on someone else. We’ve done everything we can to make this a great game but now it’s up to you, the players, to breathe life into the world.  
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

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

I guess I am one of the few players who actually enjoy CV matches in my surface ships lol.

Except when I play IJN DDs, but that is more to do with IJN DDs than to do with CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+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

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

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

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

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
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

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
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
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

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
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
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
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

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
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

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

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
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  

×