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

Removal of CV

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

132
[SPCTH]
Member
390 posts
9,312 battles

So when are they going to remove CV from Random games or all. Just waiting so i can start spending again. Value of ships is 0 in a game where theres a CV. You pay for premium ships for special abilities like concealment and torpedoes, radar, bigger guns etc but in a CV game thats all useless as it counters all of them. Until then its free play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[LBAS]
Member
3,074 posts
14,510 battles
11 minutes ago, AxEyBoI said:

So when are they going to remove CV from Random games or all. Just waiting so i can start spending again. Value of ships is 0 in a game where theres a CV. You pay for premium ships for special abilities like concealment and torpedoes, radar, bigger guns etc but in a CV game thats all useless as it counters all of them. Until then its free play.

NO COMRADE, WE GOT A BORODINO WITH 25 SECOND RADAER 

 

 

IS BALANS COMRADE :Smile_veryhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
189
[ANZAC]
Member
517 posts
18,513 battles

Plaerbase: "CV OP please remove / nerf"

WG: "What the game needs is flying cruisers...hmmm cv needs AP rockets"

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[BLESS]
Member
18 posts
9,179 battles

Remove CV?????  No Comrade, I will give you more CV!!!!

German CV is on the way....hooray!!!!!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,024
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,335 posts
11,143 battles
6 hours ago, AxEyBoI said:

So when are they going to remove CV from Random games or all. Just waiting so i can start spending again. Value of ships is 0 in a game where theres a CV. You pay for premium ships for special abilities like concealment and torpedoes, radar, bigger guns etc but in a CV game thats all useless as it counters all of them. Until then its free play.

Oh, so we can remove classes now?  I'm pleased to hear that, I'd like to see BB's removed if we can thanks.  They don't fit the meta I enjoy of fast gunboats, stealthy torp boats, and fast mobile cruisers. CV's fit beautifully in this meta, while BB's are too static and dull to exist in this type of fun and interesting game play, so they should clearly be first on the list of classes to be removed, since apparently we're able to do that now.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,184
[CLAY]
Member
2,834 posts
12,634 battles

Sorry, I can’t help but find it a bit funny that in the past 12 hours there have been 2 new threads, one saying that CVs ruin everything, and another saying that CVs are useless now.

I suppose It just says how much WG absolutely #@$&ed up the class that they are both horrible to play and play against.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
Member
4,863 posts
8,859 battles
25 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

Oh, so we can remove classes now?  I'm pleased to hear that, I'd like to see BB's removed if we can thanks.  They don't fit the meta I enjoy of fast gunboats, stealthy torp boats, and fast mobile cruisers. CV's fit beautifully in this meta, while BB's are too static and dull to exist in this type of fun and interesting game play, so they should clearly be first on the list of classes to be removed, since apparently we're able to do that now.

Actually, since the most vocal + self-entitled crowd is the BBabies, DDs could have been removed from the game first, then the CRs, then the game reverts back to what it originally was/what it's always intended to be:

 

5d88e7030377fbd8d453a553ce3000d0.jpg

Edited by Paladinum
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,260
[FORCE]
Member
2,431 posts
12,271 battles

Well even if WG does as you wish, you will still complain about the other things (radar, Smolensk, etc.). And what makes you feel so entitled just because you spend money on the game? Even if you spend $500 per month continuously for 2 years, that is still worth only $12K which is only enough to pay the salary of one Russian employee for 13 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,207
[REPOI]
[REPOI]
Member
6,566 posts
26,552 battles
3 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

Well even if WG does as you wish, you will still complain about the other things (radar, Smolensk, etc.). And what makes you feel so entitled just because you spend money on the game? Even if you spend $500 per month continuously for 2 years, that is still worth only $12K which is only enough to pay the salary of one Russian employee for 13 months.

the heck kind of job only lands you 12k$ a year in russia, the janitor?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,260
[FORCE]
Member
2,431 posts
12,271 battles
13 minutes ago, CV_NMSL said:

the heck kind of job only lands you 12k$ a year in russia, the janitor?

I said the average salary for 13 months. I will rephrase it again.

17 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

Even if you spend $500 per month continuously for 2 years, that is still worth only $12K which is only enough to pay the salary of one Russian employee for 13 months.

I will break it down to make it more simple:

If he spends $500 per month (which is worth at least 3 mid-high tier premium ships), and he does it consistently for 2 years (24 months). His accumulative spending still won't cover the average salary in Russia for the same 2 year-period.

Edited by Sir_Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
132
[SPCTH]
Member
390 posts
9,312 battles

I know they wont do it. They will add more premiums to make money off yous and buff and nerf to make both sides happy as long a money comes in either side. Unfortunately i dont support CV in any way or form and i vote with my wallet staying closed until they nerf it to oblivion or remove it. They can do what ever with the other ships does not bother me if every ship is a Kremlin or Smolensk. Im sure there other out there feel the same and will do what required. For me to spend money on a ship when there is a CV that can do everything better defeats its own purpose and existence. Now if i was a CV player only then your pretty much in heaven and no need to play any other ships. Just fly around harassing ships and stealing kills. CV players a selfish. Ive not played with one that supports there team of spots rather then farming damage in the corner and disregard for the rest of the team. Thats why im anti - CV . I have premium CVs, no interest in them and its not a battle of ships with them in it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,165
[MRI]
Member
3,602 posts
15,476 battles

Oh look another anti-CV bigot asking for whatever group of people or class he doesn't like to be removed.

Since we are playing that game of asking whatever we don't like to be removed, can I ask for all DDs to be removed? Invisible torpedo boats who can attack with impunity from complete stealth do not fit into a gun-focused game. They should be attacking with their guns like everybody else.

Oh and remove all cruisers too, especially the island campers. This game is all about open water gunfights, no hiding behind islands like a chicken. Did cruisers camp behind islands all day in WWII? I think not.

And don't forget about BBs. They should be removed from the game too. This is a fast paced game where active dodging is a skill. BBs just sit in the water completely braindead. BBs do not fit into this game so they should be removed.

:Smile_smile:

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
Member
4,863 posts
8,859 battles
1 minute ago, Thyaliad said:

Remove World of Warships.

There, fixed it.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
132
[SPCTH]
Member
390 posts
9,312 battles

If the CV class was not stronger then the others then why dont we have more CV in each game like 4 - 8 CV per side............ and less ships..............question................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,794
[TLS]
Member
4,181 posts
20,346 battles

Let us lift the CV cap per game then. No 2 CV only caps. 

It is there because of mass whining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,260
[FORCE]
Member
2,431 posts
12,271 battles
12 hours ago, AxEyBoI said:

If the CV class was not stronger then the others then why dont we have more CV in each game like 4 - 8 CV per side............ and less ships..............question................

And yet you complained with just 3 CVs per side on T4. Your kind of player is the reason why we get into this crapstorm on first place because your kind is impossible to appease. Your kind of player hyped a lot on the news of CV rework to the point where you avoided the game completely when the race to T10 CVs caused a huge spike of CV players past the T7, and you wished the rework to happen sooner because you could not bare with multiple CVs that each of them could cross drop by themselves.

But I will just stop here because there is no point to argue with someone whom is unable to use "than" & "then" correctly.

Edited by Sir_Feather
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
Member
4,863 posts
8,859 battles
Just now, Sir_Feather said:

And yet you complained with just 3 CVs per side on T4. Your kind of player is the reason why we get into this crapstorm on first place because your kind is impossible to appease. Your kind of player hyped a lot on the news of CV rework to the point where you completely avoided the game completely when the race to T10 CVs caused a huge spike of CV players past the T7, and you wished the rework to happen sooner because you could not bare with multiple CVs that each of them could cross drop by themselves.

They should have been AGAINST the rework because its one true goal was to make CVs more popular, aka more battles with CVs. I've said this before, RTS CVs were way more powerful only when played right, which makes CV players very few.

Now it's 1 CV per team and "wah wah waaaaaah".

I guess some people can't read :Smile_popcorn:

 

5 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

unable to use "than" & "then" correctly.

I've seen native English speakers use "could of" instead of "could have" :Smile_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[LNA]
Member
2,048 posts
14,139 battles
2 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

They should have been AGAINST the rework because its one true goal was to make CVs more popular, aka more battles with CVs. I've said this before, RTS CVs were way more powerful only when played right, which makes CV players very few.

Now it's 1 CV per team and "wah wah waaaaaah".

I guess some people can't read :Smile_popcorn:

 

I've seen native English speakers use "could of" instead of "could have" :Smile_popcorn:

I want Midway 2x6 and Haku 3x4 back. Then i can demolish ships from full health in 1 strike and type : noob to the recipient. :Smile_trollface:

Edited by legionary2099
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,260
[FORCE]
Member
2,431 posts
12,271 battles
2 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

They should have been AGAINST the rework because its one true goal was to make CVs more popular, aka more battles with CVs. I've said this before, RTS CVs were way more powerful only when played right, which makes CV players very few.

Now it's 1 CV per team and "wah wah waaaaaah".

Their reason to support the rework was mostly "at least no one can use multiple squadrons against a single target any longer". Oh how the tables turned!:Smile_trollface:

 

5 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

I've seen native English speakers use "could of" instead of "could have" :Smile_popcorn:

That is the biggest turn off in my book, followed by "there" instead of they're".

*sips tea*

BLOODY SAVAGES!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,794
[TLS]
Member
4,181 posts
20,346 battles
1 hour ago, Sir_Feather said:

And yet you complained with just 3 CVs per side on T4. Your kind of player is the reason why we get into this crapstorm on first place because your kind is impossible to appease. Your kind of player hyped a lot on the news of CV rework to the point where you avoided the game completely when the race to T10 CVs caused a huge spike of CV players past the T7, and you wished the rework to happen sooner because you could not bare with multiple CVs that each of them could cross drop by themselves.

But I will just stop here because there is no point to argue with someone whom is unable to use "than" & "then" correctly.

Thank you for inflating what I said into something much more clearer. :3

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
499
[LBAS]
Member
1,552 posts

If I were overs-killed hacker like in movie or manga, I wouldn't wait WG to came to their sense and hack into their sever and erased all the CV data myself.

sadly... that's impossible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
67 posts
3,767 battles

For me one of the issues with the CV play is its lack of historical relevance.  In reality once a CV discovered there was another CV it would go all out to attack and destroy it because it understood the power it had.  In here, CVs do not fight each other, they farm the other ships which, for the most part, have limited defence against such attacks.  I asked a CV player to attack the other CV and he said it would be pointless because their AA is so good the attacking planes would not get through.

Balance is the key and I suspect it is not easy to get right.  Recently I have seen several battles with 4 DDs a side.  That is as bad as having a CV there, probably worse.

I hate the number of times a CV has ruined my fun.  I get they are a part of the game but I have more fun without them.  If, and it would never happen, but if you were able to choose to include a ship type in your preferred battle my bet is CVs would not be selected very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,794
[TLS]
Member
4,181 posts
20,346 battles

hohoho. "Historical relevance" Wait till the subs come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
67 posts
3,767 battles
1 hour ago, dejiko_nyo said:

hohoho. "Historical relevance" Wait till the subs come.

Lol.  well, if the screen of destroyers are there then bring it.  BUT, this is not an historical game.  Players go for points, score, kills, whatever KPI is the go.  I would love to see a 3 hour event where fog of war, real tactics and chance played a part.  But I am new and not yet jaded  <confused at times though> 😄

Edited by Rub1c0n

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×