CV Skill Gap as Big as Ever

[Guest]

Our team..Ranger 148 games played, 30k avg damage in CV. Red team Serov CV Main 4500 games played 76k avg damage in CV.  Ours ends up with no kills and #8 in the lineup. Theirs 3 kills and #1. The game's outcome was decided before it even started. The only class where one ship has so much sway in the game. Back to the rework days they claimed they wanted to address the skill gap in CVs. They failed. Just another broken aspect of a broken class that only serves to piss people off. 

[majmac]

10 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

Our team..Ranger 148 games played, 30k avg damage in CV. Red team Serov CV Main 4500 games played 76k avg damage in CV.  Ours ends up with no kills and #8 in the lineup. Theirs 3 kills and #1. The game's outcome was decided before it even started. The only class where one ship has so much sway in the game. Back to the rework days they claimed they wanted to address the skill gap in CVs. They failed. Just another broken aspect of a broken class that only serves to piss people off. 

Perhaps, as the saying is; "You can't fix stupid!"? (Players, that is.)

Edited December 21, 2023 by majmac

[BOBTHEBALL]

9 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

Our team..Ranger 148 games played, 30k avg damage in CV. Red team Serov CV Main 4500 games played 76k avg damage in CV.  Ours ends up with no kills and #8 in the lineup. Theirs 3 kills and #1. The game's outcome was decided before it even started. The only class where one ship has so much sway in the game. Back to the rework days they claimed they wanted to address the skill gap in CVs. They failed. Just another broken aspect of a broken class that only serves to piss people off. 

Well yeah, bad players are everywhere (I mean everywhere lol) and they'll complain and complain not realizing they're the problem. The best thing we can do is get better to try alleviate their lack of skill with our own.

[Verytis]

They all gotta start somewhere. Can't be too harsh on T6.

Not to mention lower tier CVs tend to have reduced impact in exchange for AA being weaker.

[WES_HoundDog]

1 hour ago, Kalishnikat said:

Our team..Ranger 148 games played, 30k avg damage in CV. Red team Serov CV Main 4500 games played 76k avg damage in CV.  Ours ends up with no kills and #8 in the lineup. Theirs 3 kills and #1. The game's outcome was decided before it even started. The only class where one ship has so much sway in the game. Back to the rework days they claimed they wanted to address the skill gap in CVs. They failed. Just another broken aspect of a broken class that only serves to piss people off. 

Yes broken class, but also broken ship.    Russians are superior because, well you know why.

 

On another note, just came out of a match with 2cv's per side, 2 subs per side and the enemy team had 2 Ise's.  I spent the first half of the match running from a sub in my New Mexico,  and the remainder of the match trying to find something to shoot at as planes are trying to farm me.  Finally row around the final island to get a clear shot on a cv just in time for the match to end.   WeGee doesn't realize just how terrible this gameplay is.

[SeaQuest]

WG does not care about how bad players play or they would not have been giving out a tier 8 Bismarck to a new player who has only played one game. 

[Aethervox]

I have barely ever played reworked CVs (specifically designed by WG to be easy to play). If RTS CVs were ever offered again, I would play them.

[torino2dc]

Whenever I see complaints like these, I swap the classes and imagine what people would say.

"Our team..New Mexico 148 games played, 30k avg damage in BB. Red team Warspite BB Main 4500 games played 76k avg damage in BB.  Ours ends up with no kills and #8 in the lineup. Theirs 3 kills and #1."

I doubt it would provoke such a negative reaction. Certainly not enough to merit a forum post. But why? Functionally speaking, both instances saw a veteran player exploit the fact that their opposite number was weak (and their own ship was strong) to hard carry their team. 

Is it somehow 'more honest' when a BB does it? Or is it because CVs are just more un-fun to play against? 

[Itwastuesday]

25 minutes ago, torino2dc said:

Is it somehow 'more honest' when a BB does it? 

Yes. 

[Wulf_Ace]

36 minutes ago, torino2dc said:

Whenever I see complaints like these, I swap the classes and imagine what people would say.

"Our team..New Mexico 148 games played, 30k avg damage in BB. Red team Warspite BB Main 4500 games played 76k avg damage in BB.  Ours ends up with no kills and #8 in the lineup. Theirs 3 kills and #1."

I doubt it would provoke such a negative reaction. Certainly not enough to merit a forum post. But why? Functionally speaking, both instances saw a veteran player exploit the fact that their opposite number was weak (and their own ship was strong) to hard carry their team. 

Is it somehow 'more honest' when a BB does it? Or is it because CVs are just more un-fun to play against? 

Perfectly said.

[Mutsu_Man]

25 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

Yes. 

a BB would actually have to do much better and work harder for it than a CV, due to a BB having a much lower battle impact and having to actually fight and not farm from behind an island. A fact the CV crowd sidesteps as usual.

[torino2dc]

54 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

Yes.

Why is it more 'honest'? 

Please be specific. 

[torino2dc]

29 minutes ago, Mutsu_Man said:

a BB would actually have to do much better and work harder for it than a CV, due to a BB having a much lower battle impact

what does "do much better" and "work harder" mean? 

Also please elaborate on why a class that can one-shot other ships at significant distances has "lower battle impact". 

[Snargfargle]

5 minutes ago, torino2dc said:

what does "do much better" and "work harder" mean? 

Also please elaborate on why a class that can one-shot other ships at significant distances has "lower battle impact". 

I've played reworked CVs for a long time and probably am as good in them as I'll ever be. Most of the time, I come in at the middle of the team, which is OK. I think, for a CV player. Rarely do I see CVs come in at the top of the team. It happens but it's not common.

With a CV, I can sink a ship if I spend about a quarter of the match working on it. With my Massachusetts, I generally sink three to five ships a match. These are oftentimes one-salvo kills. There's nothing more fun that to see a full-health cruiser, send a volley its way and see the red ribbon come up. I did it to an Atago just this morning.

I think that the CV rework accomplished what it set out to do. It's hardly made DD players run for the hills. At tier VIII-X, most of the matches have the maximum of four DDs in them. Relatively few matches have CVs in them but there are still enough CV players that if you want to play a CV you don't have to wait too long for a match.

 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

7 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

Our team..Ranger 148 games played, 30k avg damage in CV. Red team Serov CV Main 4500 games played 76k avg damage in CV.  Ours ends up with no kills and #8 in the lineup. Theirs 3 kills and #1. The game's outcome was decided before it even started. The only class where one ship has so much sway in the game. Back to the rework days they claimed they wanted to address the skill gap in CVs. They failed. Just another broken aspect of a broken class that only serves to piss people off. 

This has nothing to do with a skill gap and everything to do with an experience gap. 4300 games from now, your Ranger captain might be wiping the floor with the enemy team.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

8 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

Our team..Ranger 148 games played, 30k avg damage in CV. Red team Serov CV Main 4500 games played 76k avg damage in CV.  Ours ends up with no kills and #8 in the lineup. Theirs 3 kills and #1. The game's outcome was decided before it even started. The only class where one ship has so much sway in the game. Back to the rework days they claimed they wanted to address the skill gap in CVs. They failed. Just another broken aspect of a broken class that only serves to piss people off. 

First time?

Welcome to WoWs.

WG doesn't care about this kind of result, and the playerbase isn't large enough to have skill based matchmaking.

3 hours ago, Itwastuesday said:

Yes. 

Ah yes, the people who think this game wants to be an e-sport.

LOL

[clammboy]

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

Also please elaborate on why a class that can one-shot other ships at significant distances has "lower battle impact". 

Because you can shoot back at BB, everybody can see you, you can run it down torp it set it on fire. It's slow it doesnt turn well it burns like timber. Yes it's tanky and yes you can one shot a CA but you need some skills and good RNG and you need the player to be a broad side dummy.

I am used to CVs so I am not complaining about them. But a lot of people dont like the fact that you never see it during the game. It comes after you in non stop waves If he's good and focuses you your dead. You are at the mercy of your AA which is usually bad and you dont control it leading to frustration you cant always dodge due to other ships focusing you. 

When I was boxing the hardest fighter to fight was the one I couldnt hit because it's so frustrating but at least he was right in front of me.  Imagine not being able to see him or hit him it just makes people crazy.  I guess thats why they call it a griefer class which Subs seem to fall into to. I dont always agree with this but I can understand were some people are coming from especially newer or average players like me.

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by clammboy

[Type_93]

I love the fact that plenty of posters here are talking about bad players, or less skilled players being a problem. I mean we got a lot pots calling the kettles black here, just sayin. 
 

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

This has nothing to do with a skill gap and everything to do with an experience gap. 4300 games from now, your Ranger captain might be wiping the floor with the enemy team.

Ensign has the best point here. Most of the rest are just not very efficient at mitigating CV attacks. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

24 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Because you can shoot back at BB, everybody can see you, you can run it down torp it set it on fire. It's slow it doesnt turn well it burns like timber. Yes it's tanky and yes you can one shot a CA but you need some skills and good RNG and you need the player to be a broad side dummy.

I am used to CVs so I am not complaining about them. But a lot of people dont like the fact that you never see it during the game. It comes after you in non stop waves If he's good and focuses you your dead. You are at the mercy of your AA which is usually bad and you dont control it leading to frustration you cant always dodge due to other ships focusing you. 

When I was boxing the hardest fighter to fight was the one I couldnt hit because it's so frustrating but at least he was right in front of me.  Imagine not being able to see him or hit him it just makes people crazy.  I guess thats why they call it a griefer class which Subs seem to fall into to. I dont always agree with this but I can understand were some people are coming from especially newer or average players like me.

 

Welcome to the naval combat arcade WG is selling.

This will never be a nicely balanced and fair arcade shooter.

If that's what you are looking for, this isn't the game for you.

The problem here is our expectations...WG has been abundantly clear about the game they are selling us.

[Itwastuesday]

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

Why is it more 'honest'? 

Please be specific. 

Because a battleship (or other artillery ships) have to fight other ships that fight back, they have to play the position game and the team game. The carrier plays his own, craven game where he's at minimal risk and just does things to people that they can't prevent. I'd think it's self-evident that most people don't consider it fair if in a PVP game somebody can kill you while you can't do anything back to them?

I suppose the biggest thing about CV diff is that nobody can pick up the slack. If you have a terrible battleship, the other four can still function and cover for this deficiency but nobody can make up the difference of a decent carrier and one that can't so much as hit his strikes.

[Justin_Simpleton]

22 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

I love the fact that plenty of posters here are talking about bad players, or less skilled players being a problem. I mean we got a lot pots calling the kettles black here, just sayin. 
 

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

This has nothing to do with a skill gap and everything to do with an experience gap. 4300 games from now, your Ranger captain might be wiping the floor with the enemy team.

Ensign has the best point here. Most of the rest are just not very efficient at mitigating CV attacks. 

I'm not having a great problem with CVs as a BB player.  Most of my BBs have purple stats regarding planes shot down.  I'm disappointed that Viribus Unitus is still in the red after shooting down 5 total planes in the years I've owned it. I wonder how this statistic compares with Kitikami? 

66 mm/50 Škoda K10 on a single mount4 х 1 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second8.8

. . . Firing Range3 km.

Oh, and by the way there is a significant difference between Kitakami and Kitakazi.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

6 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

I'd think it's self-evident that most people don't consider it fair if in a PVP game somebody can kill you while you can't do anything back to them?

Let's pit you against one other player in a 1v1. You're in a Yamato. Your opponent is in a Shimakaze. They can be 6km away from you and never be seen, and next thing you know you're facing a 15-torpedo spread. And if you're not devstruck at once, you face another a couple of minutes later. And so on until you're dead. Yet you never see him because he never fires his guns, so you can't shoot at him. Or maybe it's not a 1v1 and he's spotting for the Vermont behind a landmass who then devstrikes you with a gun broadside.

How is this any different from being attacked by a carrier? 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Ensign Cthulhu

[Type_93]

6 minutes ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

I'm not having a great problem with CVs as a BB player.  Most of my BBs have purple stats regarding planes shot down.

Exactly. I just think the anti-CV sentiments are unfounded. CVs are a nuisance. Sure, a unicum CV player can have massive impact, but they will have that same impact, if not more, in other ships as well. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

11 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

Because a battleship (or other artillery ships) have to fight other ships that fight back, they have to play the position game and the team game. The carrier plays his own, craven game where he's at minimal risk and just does things to people that they can't prevent. I'd think it's self-evident that most people don't consider it fair if in a PVP game somebody can kill you while you can't do anything back to them?

I suppose the biggest thing about CV diff is that nobody can pick up the slack. If you have a terrible battleship, the other four can still function and cover for this deficiency but nobody can make up the difference of a decent carrier and one that can't so much as hit his strikes.

While this is true, the whole CORE of the gameplay in World of Warships is about certain ships having overwhelming advantages over other ships.

Battleships with overmatch facing cruisers.

Destroyers with really good concealment.

Etc

Etc

Etc

Complaining only about CVs with this argument really highlights that the problem is with your expectations...not WG.

If you expect that every ship class is going to be equally pitted against every other ship class...

This is not ever going to be that game.

[torino2dc]

3 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

I'd think it's self-evident that most people don't consider it fair if in a PVP game somebody can kill you while you can't do anything back to them?

By that logic, any ship that uses vision asymmetries to its advantage is also 'dishonest'. That means we should axe all torpedo destroyers, smoke farmers, and island farmers. Next to go should be the propulsion abusers, because not being able to hit something is also unfair. After that, we nuke the ships with good armor because not being able to damage something is also not fair. If you run this logic to its conclusion, there would be no ships left in the game. Every ship has its asymmetries -- that's what makes people enjoy playing them. 

8 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

I suppose the biggest thing about CV diff is that nobody can pick up the slack. If you have a terrible battleship, the other four can still function and cover for this deficiency but nobody can make up the difference of a decent carrier and one that can't so much as hit his strikes.

Depends on the situation. Getting CV-diffed is unfun but a decently coordinated team can still keep it together because the CV still needs his surface ships to convert the advantage he is giving them. After all, he can only strike one target at a time and moving his hull to the front line to cap for his teammates is very risky.

If the battleship anchoring a 3-man flank explodes for free, an entire third of the map is in danger of collapsing. I would argue that puts the team under much more pressure.