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.  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Robby_Hermanto

Why there is no British CV line?

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

25 posts
1,960 battles

As the title said...

British had abundant CVs during WWII. Some of them scored great impact in history, they also have specifications that not less to US and JP counterpart.

Not only CV, the DD is also too less for a nation with title "The ruler of the waves".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336 posts
3,607 battles

In my personal opinion, asking for another CV line is the worst thing you can do right now. I find that the CV class has issues in design, ranging from being too influential (causing games to be restricted and often one sided), a sticky user interface and questionable matchmaking (noting 2 CV games or games with one team at a huge AA advantage). Think of CVs as a real-time strategy overlay over a first/third person shooter, with CVs being designed to create different characteristics of units in the RTS. This has led to a lot of fundamental issues.

CVs are also a kingpin of 3-player AA or anchor divisions (divving with AA ships to ensure an advantage or even higher tier ships since the CV will ensure the enemy CV and thus tier is almost always anchored down E.G. Saipan Kutuzov Kidd facing a Ranger to make the division top tier- these activities make playing carriers especially at high tiers look outright painful) due to the high influence on the game a carrier provides.

Within the class, carrier balancing is very questionable. Enterprise and Graf Zeppelin for example- Enterprise outfighters every same tier CV and still has a respectable strike to boot, Graf is outright overpowered, see 2 week stats on Warships.Today (without doubt Enterprise and Graf heavily outperform their tech tree counterparts)

IMG_20180520_204147.png

(is Lexington even relevant)

Wargaming is aware of the horrible state of the carrier. They are proposing various reworks and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt for now. But at this moment they do not have a clear direction to fix the flaws with the class. 

tl;dr CVs are in very bad shape right now and we do not need to make the problem bigger. Let Wargaming solve the issues with them first. I really hope we do not get new CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226 posts
2,610 battles

Well at least WG need 6 different type (& model design)of British CV, not just different names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,481 posts
3,588 battles

Until they come up with a better option there is no point progressing with any CV lines. There are so many things wrong with them at the moment.  The premiums are so broken it's not funny,. The inability to balance the IJN v the USN lines.  The disparity between a high skill and low skill player.   It's a basket case of a class and more wont help the game.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 posts
1,960 battles
21 hours ago, MissMeMiss said:

Well at least WG need 6 different type (& model design)of British CV, not just different names.

There even 7 classes out in total 73 British CVs of WW2 period. These classes are not included with Aircraft Maintenance Class Carriers and a French CV that sail under Royal Navy flag: Arramanche.

Royal Navy carrier classes are: 

1. Long Island Class Escort Carrier.

2. Ruler Class Escort Carrier.

3. 1942 Light Fleet Carrier.

4. Courageous Class Escort Carrier.

5. Illustrious Class Aircraft Carrier.

6. Implacable Class Aircraft Carrier.

7. Bogue Class Aircraft Carrier. (This one we already have in game under USN flag. British version: HMS Ravager).

 

22 hours ago, InterconKW said:

...

Thank you for your opinion. How ever the explanation didn't answer the question. If you whining about CV mechanics and game play, it should be addressed to the other concerns, and no relation to CVs variation.

Doesn't matter WG put the whole nation have or only one nation have, there still only maximum 2 CV in a match for each competing team. If the mechanics is broken, then you still cope with the same problem... Doesn't matter the whole nation have or only one nation have.

Brining other nation CVs into the game (Nation who eligible for it), will only adding variations and options to CV players.

Let's say if one day WG make mistake by bringing in a super OP BB, the BB always score good rank in every occasion; should we whining for all BB must be deleted?

Referring to Graf Zeppelin and Enterprise rank you highlight: A particular fail on certain ship cannot be blamed to all ships of the same class. I agree if Graf is a fail. But not for Enterprise... It is just the player who is cool, she is definitely not a fail.

15 hours ago, RalphTheTheatreCat said:

Until they come up with a better option there is no point progressing with any CV lines. There are so many things wrong with them at the moment.  The premiums are so broken it's not funny,. The inability to balance the IJN v the USN lines.  The disparity between a high skill and low skill player.   It's a basket case of a class and more wont help the game.    

Balance is forever problem in an online game. Moreover if you addressed the comparison between high skill and low skill player.

Doesn't matter what game it is, doesn't matter where on the universe it is, and doesn't matter what class is played; the low skill one will always get owned.

Edited by Robby_Hermanto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336 posts
3,607 battles

My explanation is that as CVs have huge problems, we should not add new carriers until they get resolved. The hunt for variety has led to many bad carrier class design choices. Hope this clears that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
344 posts
On 5/28/2018 at 12:57 AM, Robby_Hermanto said:

As the title said...

British had abundant CVs during WWII. Some of them scored great impact in history, they also have specifications that not less to US and JP counterpart.

Not only CV, the DD is also too less for a nation with title "The ruler of the waves".

The current CVs are so poorly balanced you'll have to wait for "year of the CV" to happened for there to even be a chance of UK CV line to exist.

Balance will never be perfect but the difference should be small at times the difference between WR are as high as 10% on top of that CVs still need to be more balanced to surface ships and that doesn't even take into account AA powercreep

 

It's a long process till UK CVs can be considered but you're not the only one hoping for it #ark royal is best UK CV

Edited by BravaZulu296

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,481 posts
3,588 battles

Here is a vid that pretty much sums up Weegees problem towards balancing CV's in class and in game.  1 min 51 sec of trolling because there are no answers.

Dead class is dead.  No point throwing other corpses in the fire. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 posts
1,960 battles
17 hours ago, RalphTheTheatreCat said:

Here is a vid that pretty much sums up Weegees problem towards balancing CV's in class and in game.  1 min 51 sec of trolling because there are no answers.

Dead class is dead.  No point throwing other corpses in the fire. 

 

Dead class? Do you have any reliable sources to prove the statement other than a random video about a guy which what he play on the screen is not even seen?

On my side, I have 6 of my invitation codes used by new players all switched to full time CV players, which they are on T6 now. If you want I could write down all of their IGN.

I have 12 out of 21 in my office who play WoWs plays CV as their main.

One more... 4 of them offers to buy my account just because I have a Kaga and Saipan on it.

Ah maybe that just me, and my office. I could expect you will post a deep research statistics stated that the whole world left CV and it is a dead class now. Lol.

Edited by Robby_Hermanto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
190 posts
3,940 battles

At low tier CV still playable and fun, when you reach tier 7 and above,  it is one the most stressful class to play, that why you will not see them regular (like 1 every 10 match). It have serious problem in balance between nation, the gameplay itself and spotting-AA mechanic, until WG overhaul the whole CV gameplay and spotting-AA mechanic, add another CV line is the most stupid thing they can do. Just like how much drama and time WG took since they release Graf. So no more CV.

Meanwhile for RN CV there is some reason about it

- First is as above

-RN have many CV,  but most of them is Light Aircraft carrier (CVL) and escort carrier (aka CVE), while you can put them in tier 4-7, there is no way to them again other standard carrier without over buff it (just like Saipan and Graf). If i remember right the biggest CV that RN had is Malta class that probably can place at tier 8, but again WG still need to dig some where to find 2 more ships for tier 9-10. It will take some time.

-Another thing that for some reason, anything that relevant with Brits's military is take a lot of time to come out, just look how many time they need since the CBT until the first RN CL line announced, same as for WoT, and other games (like WT).  It hard to access British data than US or Russia, so WG is more favor US ship than other nation, the more data they can access the easier to make them look right ( or it will turn into another disaster design like Izumo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,481 posts
3,588 battles

I don't mean dead as in terms of player numbers.

I mean dead as in it is not working as well as it should and needs to be fixed before addition of new lines.

Statistically the class sits about par with all classes in relation to normal ships.  50-52% WR is the norm for the top ships in the game.  

Saipan runs at a staggering 58%WR.  The Kaga and GZ are not far behind.    The only non prem in the fight is the Enterprise.  The Saipan sits in the top 5 ships by WR.  2 are ranked reward ships and 2 will never be sold again???   That's a demonstration of the artificial chasm between the high skill ceiling and floor of the CV class created by the ships rather than the players which influences games far too heavily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 posts
1,960 battles
On 30/5/2018 at 3:48 AM, K135Blitzkrieg said:

At low tier CV still playable and fun, when you reach tier 7 and above,  it is one the most stressful class to play, that why you will not see them regular (like 1 every 10 match). It have serious problem in balance between nation, the gameplay itself and spotting-AA mechanic, until WG overhaul the whole CV gameplay and spotting-AA mechanic, add another CV line is the most stupid thing they can do. Just like how much drama and time WG took since they release Graf. So no more CV.

I agree on this part that T7 and above is stressful to play. (I even see it from T6, the tier where strafing mechanism is applied). As a CV player, I see that it is a huge touch for the balance. By that mechanism, it allows the player skill to override the ship and the commander qualities. It prevents inexperienced players who have money to just go buy a premium ship straight and then ruin the battle.

T4 to T5 have a huge flaw that can be exploited. Once you have a 10 skill commander on them (air superiority skill), you are most likely to excel in any battle. What I used to do to exploit is: Launch all the squadrons to the sky, and then send them all together to target opponent CV estimated position (Launch to the sky, NOT to other CV position straight from your runway). You may adjust the course slightly to avoid other surface ships from being harassed by AA guns. If while on the way if the enemy fighter spotted, just simply pass it. If it dares to attack, you just assign your fighter squadron to engage. The rest of striker squadrons continue their journey. Target the CV, release armaments, back to ship. On the way back you can see opponent squadron already cleared from the sky. No player skill necessary, no situation analysis necessary, just no brainer actions to follow step by step guide and you'll be fine. If your captain doesn't has "Air Superiority", while opponent on the other side has, your chance to win is extremely low, although both of you are experienced players.

It is not stressful, but it is really broken. T6 above is balanced. CV bridge is not for everybody. You can't just jump to play a CV based on your 1000++ battle experience of other ship background.

On 30/5/2018 at 3:48 AM, K135Blitzkrieg said:

Meanwhile for RN CV there is some reason about it

- First is as above

-RN have many CV,  but most of them is Light Aircraft carrier (CVL) and escort carrier (aka CVE), while you can put them in tier 4-7, there is no way to them again other standard carrier without over buff it (just like Saipan and Graf). If i remember right the biggest CV that RN had is Malta class that probably can place at tier 8, but again WG still need to dig some where to find 2 more ships for tier 9-10. It will take some time.

-Another thing that for some reason, anything that relevant with Brits's military is take a lot of time to come out, just look how many time they need since the CBT until the first RN CL line announced, same as for WoT, and other games (like WT).  It hard to access British data than US or Russia, so WG is more favor US ship than other nation, the more data they can access the easier to make them look right ( or it will turn into another disaster design like Izumo).

About this one, I have no clear idea. But yes you give me some insights to guess in the dark of why they are not present yet. Blueprint designs, specs, etc., can be found in detail at www.armouredcarriers.com

Your explanation about the capacity is also logic though. US CV averagely carry 80 aircrafts while RN CV averagely run with 51 - 54. Despite the logic explanation, there also a factor to appeal with capacity issue though. If we see Italian BB line. They also have the same situation. They don't have every BB to fill until T10. But however, WG managed to release them in a partial tier presence.

So is it maybe the authorization bureaucracy of UK that is complicated? Lol. Only WG knows.

On 30/5/2018 at 7:23 AM, RalphTheTheatreCat said:

I don't mean dead as in terms of player numbers.

I mean dead as in it is not working as well as it should and needs to be fixed before addition of new lines.

Statistically the class sits about par with all classes in relation to normal ships.  50-52% WR is the norm for the top ships in the game.  

It is working. If it is not working, it will be CV players who will complain and nobody from other classes will complain about CV mechanism. If other players complaining of CV, it means CVs are working too well and their presence becomes an annoying harassment.

On 30/5/2018 at 7:23 AM, RalphTheTheatreCat said:

Saipan runs at a staggering 58%WR.  The Kaga and GZ are not far behind.    The only non prem in the fight is the Enterprise.  The Saipan sits in the top 5 ships by WR.  2 are ranked reward ships and 2 will never be sold again???   That's a demonstration of the artificial chasm between the high skill ceiling and floor of the CV class created by the ships rather than the players which influences games far too heavily

CV is not for everybody. The skill ceiling is extreme. If you are inexperienced in CV and you play CV in high tier, you will just be a free citadel. If you are experienced, then you have the capability to turn back the table.

Please allow me to add a little correction: USS Enterprise is a premium ship. The original non premium for T8 is USS Lexington and IJN Shokaku.

Edited by Robby_Hermanto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109 posts
3,775 battles

Ask yourself this, are you having high xp games in cv? Are you able to beat the enemy cv more than half the time? Are you able to provide spotting, AA cover and strike important targets simultaneously?  Im pretty sure over 80% of the cv players in asia have no as an answer. CV has highest influence in the game and only skilled players can actually play it properly. Adding a new line so inexperienced CV players can start ruining mid and high tiers with their antics, while seasoned CV players form new fishing divs to club the shit out of everyone? Please, use your brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 posts
1,960 battles
2 hours ago, Exiaa said:

Ask yourself this, are you having high xp games in cv? Are you able to beat the enemy cv more than half the time? Are you able to provide spotting, AA cover and strike important targets simultaneously?  Im pretty sure over 80% of the cv players in asia have no as an answer. 

Answer:

Experienced: Yes I am experienced as a full time CV player of both nation.

Win rate: NO, I Can NOT beat more than half a time. My win rate currently at 44%

Spotting: Yes I do provide spotting on potential target. That's why you whining here. I know you can't hide if there CV in play.

AA cover: No, I am a CV, not your baby sitter. My AA is for myself.

Strike importantly target simultaneously: Yes if only necessary.

2 hours ago, Exiaa said:

CV has highest influence in the game and only skilled players can actually play it properly. Adding a new line so inexperienced CV players can start ruining mid and high tiers with their antics, while seasoned CV players form new fishing divs to club the shit out of everyone? Please, use your brain.

You said, "only skilled players can actually play it properly."

You said, "Adding a new line so inexperienced CV players can start ruining mid and high tiers with their antics,..."

Are you trying to say that inexperienced players managed to reach mid and high tier without gaining any experience start ruining mid to high tier with their antics.

Man, do you have a brain? Whose brain you use to write such inexperienced analysis in this thread?

Ah yes, have you ever heard about World of Warships? You should try to play it man, it is really a great game.

Edited by Robby_Hermanto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336 posts
3,607 battles
16 minutes ago, Robby_Hermanto said:

Answer:

Experienced: Yes I am experienced as a full time CV player of both nation.

Win rate: NO, I Can NOT beat more than half a time. My win rate currently at 44%

Spotting: Yes I do provide spotting on potential target. That's why you whining here. I know you can't hide if there CV in play.

AA cover: No, I am a CV, not your baby sitter. My AA is for myself.

Strike importantly target simultaneously: Yes if only necessary.

You said, "only skilled players can actually play it properly."

You said, "Adding a new line so inexperienced CV players can start ruining mid and high tiers with their antics,..."

Are you trying to say that inexperienced players managed to reach mid and high tier without gaining any experience start ruining mid to high tier with their antics.

Man, do you have a brain? Whose brain you use to write such inexperienced analysis in this thread?

Ah yes, have you ever heard about World of Warships? You should try to play it man, it is really a great game.

I rather not be impolite and I'm not a very good CV player and don't focus on the line. My highest tier CV is 6 and even then my winrate is over 44% (I have 56%). In this case @Exiaameans AA cover as in "stopping enemy planes from reaching your allies by shooting them down" and you should be able to do that.

It is actually true that CVs are a high skill class. You need to be good at micro like an RTS. You cannot fly your planes around in one group and you must be good at manual attacks (using the alt key) especially above T5.

Also, I believe striking important targets when you can is very important, not just situational. For example taking out an enemy DD at the start of the game is a huge advantage to your team.

From what you say, I'm doubtful that you are a very good carrier player. CVs have the greatest influence on the game and thus the greatest disparity in winrate and performance over time, and thus, your WR should not be as low as 44%. Note that a bad CV is the most detrimental single ship to their team.

Statistic sites like asia.warships.today may help you improve if you are willing to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109 posts
3,775 battles
50 minutes ago, Robby_Hermanto said:

Are you trying to say that inexperienced players managed to reach mid and high tier without gaining any experience start ruining mid to high tier with their antics.

Exactly what i mean

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109 posts
3,775 battles

I know im not the best person to argue about CV, i have 47% winrate and 760 wtr in my ryujo over 15 games. But hey, at least im smart enough to decide im bad at cv and stop playing it, instead of bringing my shitty micromanagement skills into t8-10 and make everyone report me :)))

Edited by Exiaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444 posts
6,850 battles
1 hour ago, Robby_Hermanto said:

 

AA cover: No, I am a CV, not your baby sitter. My AA is for myself.

 

Ok since you said that..... next time you faced a way superior cv, dont cry when we babies below didnt give u AA support <3 

Why again? i bolded for you, screw your planes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,877 posts
7,402 battles
15 minutes ago, Gummilicious said:

Ok since you said that..... next time you faced a way superior cv, dont cry when we babies below didnt give u AA support <3 

Why again? i bolded for you, screw your planes

He isn't telling the truth, I can correct the statement:

AA cover: No, I am a CV, not your baby sitter. I lose all my planes before 10 minutes, so no AA cover. 

Anyway, thought we were talking about British CVs. As long as they don't make a whole line of Graf Zeps, we should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 posts
1,960 battles
4 hours ago, InterconKW said:

I rather not be impolite and I'm not a very good CV player and don't focus on the line. My highest tier CV is 6 and even then my winrate is over 44% (I have 56%). In this case @Exiaameans AA cover as in "stopping enemy planes from reaching your allies by shooting them down" and you should be able to do that.

Please don't feel like that. Experience gains along the time goes. When you face better opponent, yes you might say you have less experience. So is vice versa when you face worse opponent.

About that AA stuff @Exiaa mean, I also get his point well.

Please allow me to reaffirm what I said: my AA is for myself, and I mean it.

My fighters are not goal keeper to prevent reckless player charging alone and then become an appealing target of opponent striker. If they are stay in the formation, opponent striker will also think few times before decide a daring strike.

I will not bother to send my fighters across the map just to intercept opponent strikers that would reach my team.

My fighters are assigned for air superiority duties, which is: clear the sky and killing opponent strikers to weaken the other CV.

Should in case the scenario is opponent strikers reach my team, I'd rather follow them home and intercept them along the way to prevent them back for good.

It is pointless to try to please everybody. You do what you need to do.

If the request is: I should able to cover AA safety with my fighters; I would say again: No. Your ship have talents cope with the situation, and my fighters got their own task to be completed.

You are not impolite at all. I really appreciate you for a good discussion although your point of view might different than mine. This is what a forum for.

I just flame those who try to bully without using their brain.

Those who answering out of context with a complain that has no relation with the topic.

4 hours ago, InterconKW said:

@Exiaa

It is actually true that CVs are a high skill class. You need to be good at micro like an RTS. You cannot fly your planes around in one group and you must be good at manual attacks (using the alt key) especially above T5.

Agreed with this.

 

4 hours ago, InterconKW said:

Also, I believe striking important targets when you can is very important, not just situational.

This also I agreed. If I may ask, is this referring to previous statement that mention attacking multiple target simultaneously?

If so, I would say attacking multiple target is possible but situational. I'd prefer to focus to stop one threat rather than deal with multiple target without same effectiveness... Unless the situation allows me (or forced me) to do so.

4 hours ago, InterconKW said:

For example taking out an enemy DD at the start of the game is a huge advantage to your team.

About this one, your priorities might be different than mine. I would rather target opponent CV as my first priority.

The next will be the rest of other types. DD is favorable when I am with HE Diver Bomber ready, or the DD is somewhere among small islands where it is challenging to avoid torps, or she is currently staying still hiding in smoke.

4 hours ago, InterconKW said:

From what you say, I'm doubtful that you are a very good carrier player. CVs have the greatest influence on the game and thus the greatest disparity in winrate and performance over time, and thus, your WR should not be as low as 44%. Note that a bad CV is the most detrimental single ship to their team.

Statistic sites like asia.warships.today may help you improve if you are willing to do so.

You have full right to think about a player is good or not. I also didn't say I am good. I said I do have experience.

This maybe a bit out of context, but I would love to answer this one: What people think about me is not a matter. I will keep developing as the progress planned.

3 hours ago, Exiaa said:

I know im not the best person to argue about CV, i have 47% winrate and 760 wtr in my ryujo over 15 games. But hey, at least im smart enough to decide im bad at cv and stop playing it, instead of bringing my shitty micromanagement skills into t8-10 and make everyone report me :)))

Nobody gonna report you if you really reach that tier by grind yourself. From the way to present your thought, and the way you understand words, you don't reflect a person with 3k battles of 47% rate (or maybe that is a co-op rating).

I had only 5 or 6 recognition so far, but nobody ever report me yet.

Please tell me who is that guy that make the 47% rating?

3 hours ago, Gummilicious said:

Ok since you said that..... next time you faced a way superior cv, dont cry when we babies below didnt give u AA support <3 

Why again? i bolded for you, screw your planes

I never ask for AA support from the beginning I play until this moment I write. I know the feel to be nagged, and I will not nagging for a cover.

 

3 hours ago, icy_phoenix said:

He isn't telling the truth, I can correct the statement:

AA cover: No, I am a CV, not your baby sitter. I lose all my planes before 10 minutes, so no AA cover. 

Anyway, thought we were talking about British CVs. As long as they don't make a whole line of Graf Zeps, we should be fine.

Lol. I had that. Lured to an Atlanta. It is a cool joke though.

Edited by Robby_Hermanto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
344 posts
6 hours ago, Robby_Hermanto said:

Answer:

Experienced: Yes I am experienced as a full time CV player of both nation.

Win rate: NO, I Can NOT beat more than half a time. My win rate currently at 44%

Spotting: Yes I do provide spotting on potential target. That's why you whining here. I know you can't hide if there CV in play.

AA cover: No, I am a CV, not your baby sitter. My AA is for myself.

Strike importantly target simultaneously: Yes if only necessary.

You said, "only skilled players can actually play it properly."

You said, "Adding a new line so inexperienced CV players can start ruining mid and high tiers with their antics,..."

Are you trying to say that inexperienced players managed to reach mid and high tier without gaining any experience start ruining mid to high tier with their antics.

Man, do you have a brain? Whose brain you use to write such inexperienced analysis in this thread?

Ah yes, have you ever heard about World of Warships? You should try to play it man, it is really a great game.

OK I play CVs a bit, my highest tier CV is T9

I have no idea what my overall CV WR is and my USN CV WR no longer matters because changes and also essex is so crap I won't be playing it for a while because random giberish about under tiered planes being shot down like flies by minotaur in smoke I though was DD you don't need to worry about. But I say my IJN CV rating are pretty OK (55% on Hiryu, Ryujou=scenario , Zuiho and Hosho stats are pre-auto only and that I enjoyed seal clubing with But I assure you I am innocent of any murdering any baby seals I also have a shokaku but I've only played 8 battles and can't be bother to play anymore because I want to keep it at 100% WR (Even if 100% on 8 battles means nothing it feels good man))

 

Just one thing:

AA cover: you need to provide AA cover for allied ships and make sure planes don't attack them because you need to make sure your meat-shields(i.e allied ships) last or else the enemy will find you and end you quickly CVs are very mediocre at close combat.

Edited by BravaZulu296

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,877 posts
7,402 battles
4 hours ago, Robby_Hermanto said:

I will not bother to send my fighters across the map just to intercept opponent strikers that would reach my team.

My fighters are assigned for air superiority duties, which is: clear the sky and killing opponent strikers to weaken the other CV.

Should in case the scenario is opponent strikers reach my team, I'd rather follow them home and intercept them along the way to prevent them back for good.

It is pointless to try to please everybody. You do what you need to do.

If the request is: I should able to cover AA safety with my fighters; I would say again: No. Your ship have talents cope with the situation, and my fighters got their own task to be completed.

You are not impolite at all. I really appreciate you for a good discussion although your point of view might different than mine. This is what a forum for.

I just flame those who try to bully without using their brain.

Well the thing is, disagreement in a conversation is quite common thing, however, when you notice that everyone else is disagreeing with you, that is a good indication of you doing or saying something wrong. Most of the people I know in this forum are well experienced about the game, and you are quite a new player. 1k battles is nothing really, you don't have any experience to form a concrete opinion yet. Instead of trying to fight everyone off, may be listening to what they have to say would prove more helpful? I have checked your statistics (for research purposes ofcourse) and it seems you are not doing well, may be we could help you to get better with the game, but it seems like you don't like moving away from your own ideas.

Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
438 posts
6,347 battles

Pretty sure that WG will not release any new CVs until after the CV rework is complete and some resemblance of balance to CV gameplay and striking power can be obtained.

RN CV and RN DD will hopefully make it into game one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×