Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
sfcgx3

WG is adjusting CV the wrong way

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

149
[AN-DO]
Member
392 posts
9,199 battles

Guys I am not a fan of CV but I think the key reason why so many dislike it is because of its annoying spotting:

- for BB players: it makes you a target for long range spamming

- for CA CL: it ruins your carefully planned cover

- for DD: it's another radar that has unlimited reach

So I believe spotting is the source of frustration for many and thus need adjustment.

However WG has been focusing on adjusting its attack tool. I say thats the wrong focus that does not solve the issue.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[TWR]
Alpha Tester
2,196 posts
7,467 battles

I havent paid much attention to upcoming plane nerf, but if its to rocket planes, they are already bad enough.

When your planes detect a dd you have less than 1 second to react and attack, in fact you pretty much need to predict when to attack BEFORE spotting the dd now.

This forces one pass flyover to expose, then circle around and predict where the dd went so you can press attack mode before the dd becomes visible again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[ARRR]
Member
982 posts
14,516 battles

I think its the spotting aspect as well. You can generally dodge to get minimal/zero damage. If they hit me harder then its pretty much my fault for doing something wrong. Its the damage you get from being spotted by the CV which hurts big time.

Fix by using mechanics like 

  • having a delay to when you are spotted by the enemy ships, similar to radar.
  • bunging in a bit of dispersion increase when firing at ships spotted by planes.
  • maybe giving planes 2 modes. Attack and spotting. When in attack mode spotting information is either not transmitted or really fuzzy for supporting ships (the tiny crew of the plane is focused on doing damage). When in spotting mode you cannot deal damage but transmit current spotting info? 

The other issue (which is similar to arty in WoT) is that people generally like there to be a level of perceived fairness in things. Having one ship able to inflict damage on another without risking being damaged in return rubs people up the wrong way to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,084
[CLAY]
Member
3,684 posts
15,723 battles
2 hours ago, sfcgx3 said:

Guys I am not a fan of CV but I think the key reason why so many dislike it is because of its annoying spotting:

- for BB players: it makes you a target for long range spamming

- for CA CL: it ruins your carefully planned cover

- for DD: it's another radar that has unlimited reach

So I believe spotting is the source of frustration for many and thus need adjustment.

However WG has been focusing on adjusting its attack tool. I say thats the wrong focus that does not solve the issue.

Finally, an Anti CV post that addresses the reason other than “OMFG CAN’T DODGE, CANT SHOOT DOWN PLANES!!!”

I too believe it’s the spotting as well which is the main frustration. It makes it very difficult for both DDs and cruisers trying to use cover.

That said, RTS CV also caused this problem. The only reason it was acceptable, is because you only saw them 1/10 games.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
356
[MALD]
Member
544 posts
14,655 battles

Seems like they are quite hesitating in implementing the spotting changes, despite people pointing it out long ago. And yes, I really hate the moment when my ambush attempts are foiled thanks to plane spotting

Edited by rookieFTW
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,639
Member
6,150 posts
10,628 battles

There are only 2 things that are very annoying about CVs these days: AP bombs and spotting. And air-to-surface spotting is a whole new category of salt-inducer.

 

Surface Concealment = Physical Resistance/Defense/Armor; Air Concealment = Magic Resistance

WoWS is the only game I've played where having low Magic Resistance would make me more vulnerable to Physical attacks, and vice versa. Not many things deal Magical damage, but if there is, I'd take more Physical damage.

Other RPG devs would consider this a big-aft fail.

 

25 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

That said, RTS CV also caused this problem. The only reason it was acceptable, is because you only saw them 1/10 games.

Because an RTS CV wouldn't need surface ships to take down a target. They could do it themselves... very quickly.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,084
[CLAY]
Member
3,684 posts
15,723 battles
45 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

Because an RTS CV wouldn't need surface ships to take down a target. They could do it themselves... very quickly.

True.And I am glad that CVs no longer have the alpha they once had.

Edited by Grygus_Triss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,423
[-CAT-]
Member
4,580 posts
16,504 battles
26 minutes ago, IJN_Katori said:

@S0und_Theif isn't that planned for the next patch?

 

I heard it's somewhere 0.9.11 or 0.9.12

I have not heard of this news. :fish_book:

I am also not sure if it was implemented on PT.

Usually, WG will PT it 2 - 3 patches before release.

Since I have not been PT-ing, I did not check.

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,036
[LBAS]
Member
3,730 posts
17,775 battles

Well it said that the AA changes and detectability will hit next patch. There might going to be a news with the PTS soon. @S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,079
[SMOKE]
Member
3,407 posts
20,029 battles

as usual, hey the heater not working, go fix the air conditioner ... that is how WG do things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,084
[CLAY]
Member
3,684 posts
15,723 battles

Its not the CV which kills you.

Its the 7 surface ships aiming at you from 15 km away while you fleet a flank in you Wooster with a 9.8km concealment because the rest of the team decided it wasn't worth pushing that flank.

And unfortunately, they decided this 3 minutes into the game, after you had already committed to getting into cover of the islands near the cap.

But you would still have escaped if not for aerial spotting!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[REKT]
Member
165 posts
1,401 battles

Now somebody is getting to my point that cv have an unfair advantage.Its not cv that damage you directly,its their constant spotting which ruins your ambush and tactics.i dont like them in either team for this reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
505
[LBAS]
Member
1,571 posts
7,108 battles

WG love playing snooker.

instead of hitting target ball (real problem) they hit other ball and expect that ball will hit theirs true target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,090
[151ST]
Member
4,125 posts
13,669 battles
On 11/7/2020 at 7:54 PM, PATHAK12345 said:

Now somebody is getting to my point that cv have an unfair advantage.Its not cv that damage you directly,its their constant spotting which ruins your ambush and tactics.i dont like them in either team for this reason.

No...

If you go back and read the replies that attempted to address your points you will see spotting come up most of the time.

We've been saying this for a while, spotting is the primary issue with some ship-specific things in other places like Enterprise, MvR or FDR.

Your arguments were flatly about CVs because if you had written them better and been about CV spotting you would have had agreement.

@sfcgx3 agreed.

Nothing new here, we've known spotting is the issue for some time.

WG are just really bad at implementing changes to this.

'We tried spotting changes but they were too complicated so we've sidelined them'

'ummmmmmmm keep them simple then?'

'they were too complicated, we've shelved it for now'

'no, just make it simple, like a 20-30% air detect buff or only minimap spotted'

'as we said, spotting changes were too complicated so we'll look at this again sometime, nerfing rockets is easy, the real issue is rocket damage on DDs'

'are you on crack WG? SPOTTING, SPOT-TING'

'ROCK-ETS'

'... ... why do we even bother?'

'oh can you fill out this survey about which maps you like in CB?'

*cries*

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,423
[-CAT-]
Member
4,580 posts
16,504 battles
7 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

No...

If you go back and read the replies that attempted to address your points you will see spotting come up most of the time.

We've been saying this for a while, spotting is the primary issue with some ship-specific things in other places like Enterprise, MvR or FDR.

Your arguments were flatly about CVs because if you had written them better and been about CV spotting you would have had agreement.

@sfcgx3 agreed.

Nothing new here, we've known spotting is the issue for some time.

WG are just really bad at implementing changes to this.

'We tried spotting changes but they were too complicated so we've sidelined them'

'ummmmmmmm keep them simple then?'

'they were too complicated, we've shelved it for now'

'no, just make it simple, like a 20-30% air detect buff or only minimap spotted'

'as we said, spotting changes were too complicated so we'll look at this again sometime, nerfing rockets is easy, the real issue is rocket damage on DDs'

'are you on crack WG? SPOTTING, SPOT-TING'

'ROCK-ETS'

'... ... why do we even bother?'

'oh can you fill out this survey about which maps you like in CB?'

*cries*

Step 3:

WG doesn't believe your feedback. You go to Gulag! hehehehe....

image.png.1f093129885265709a8acbeaa449d7fe.png

 

The cycle continues. -_-

Edited by S0und_Theif
  • Funny 2

Share this post


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

×