WG is Nerfing CVs and Buffing Surface Ships!

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

When the CV no longer has to spot - he then dedicates 100% of his time to damage. People think no spotting is a positive when in reality the best CV players will only kill more of you faster. Should be fun watching it go down. Won't really affect me as I mostly do operations mode now.

That or using the new USN fighters to halt strikes.

Either way, the skill gap will still be there.

3 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Sorry, no. It doesn't always work that way. I've spent whole games trying to spot for my team and they barely shoot at anything. I've spent other games barely being able to do any damage because my team has them dead shortly after they're spotted. 

Indeed.

People don't seem to realize how removing air spotting won't be the panacea for the game they think it will be.

[Snargfargle]

6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

People don't seem to realize how removing air spotting won't be the panacea for the game they think it will be.

I don't find air spotting to be a problem at all in the game, even when I'm playing a DD. To the contrary, I find games without CVs rather boring as everyone is pussy-footing it, slowly creeping forward while hiding behind rocks in case they are the first spotted. This includes the DDs because now subs out-spot them, but the subs are all submerged and not spotting anything either because they too are afraid of being spotted..

[CaliburxZero]

Any nerf to one of the two classes meant to hand-hold players who have no clue what they are doing and thus uses these as a power fantasy to make up for their own inadequacies is a win to me.  While this won't change just how ridiculous CVs are, it will let some ships actually be able to play the game again without having to be frustrated the whole game.

Who would've thought being able to force spot someone regardless of their position would kill ships who need concealment to survive and/or get into position.

Imagine.  

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

On 1/31/2024 at 5:34 AM, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

We honestly don't know the impact of the new USN support line being used as air superiority CVs...and WG is still trying to nerf spotting.

They don't even understand how air superiority impacts spotting...despite CV mains telling them about it for LITERAL YEARS.

The stubborn insistence on only listening to certain people for feedback and then expecting successful results when those feedback channels have only ever delivered failure.

It boggles the mind how incompetent WG leadership can be.

Its seems Essex is quite good at killing BBs at least. Flying into a 57 000 HP Der Groce and just stating "Oh yeah we kill him with this torp squadron alone" and then does it. "We kill him here btw ..... he just dies"

Moments later he just does the same thing to a Slava.

 

WG might react to this in a year or two and respond by nerfing Essex right aft AA gunner.........

[Ensign Cthulhu]

3 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

ships who need concealment to survive and/or get into position

Remove the spotting on those ships, remove the counter on those ships, and good players will use those ships to wreck teams wholesale. As Ahskance put it, "Yes, I'm wrecking the DD's fun, but the DD has the ability to wreck the fun of half my team."

If you're a unicum DD main, saying that carriers aren't fair is like a wolf saying it isn't fair that there are shepherds and sheepdogs. Sorry, wolf; you might be wearing sheep's clothing, but I can see that long snout and those bloody fangs.

[CaliburxZero]

9 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Remove the spotting on those ships, remove the counter on those ships, and good players will use those ships to wreck teams wholesale. As Ahskance put it, "Yes, I'm wrecking the DD's fun, but the DD has the ability to wreck the fun of half my team."

If you're a unicum DD main, saying that carriers aren't fair is like a wolf saying it isn't fair that there are shepherds and sheepdogs. Sorry, wolf; you might be wearing sheep's clothing, but I can see that long snout and those bloody fangs.

I can perform in all of the classes that take actual skill, thanks.  And let's do a little hypothetical shall we?  Let's take all the DD unicums and CV unicums and put them to the challenge of making the other try to perform at the same level as the other but in the opposite class.  

 

CVs are so painfully easy it will take a fraction of the time for those DDs to do the same in CV.  This idea has been proven time and time again by good players yet when you look at a CV unicum, a huge portion of them cannot even hope to do the same in anything else.  

 

DDs can only wreck half the team if they are smart about it.  Lol... I can always ask the simple question why CVs are limited to just one if they are so balanced, unlike any other class.  But I'm sure that'll just get deflections to what otherwise demands an answer using Occam's razor in reasoning.

PS this hurts wayyyy more than just DDs.  But I doubt you'd even know about that.

Edited February 1 by CaliburxZero

[Ensign Cthulhu]

10 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

Let's take all the DD unicums and CV unicums and put them to the challenge of making the other try to perform at the same level as the other but in the opposite class.  

Ahskance already responded to that challenge. He deliberately put his CVs down and ground out several DD lines on stream, beginning with the French since they had no smoke to hide in. 

11 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

PS this hurts wayyyy more than just DDs.  But I doubt you'd even know about that.

I play all ship types. I'll happily take a DD into a CV game because I don't start out scared or angry. 

[Jakob Knight]

I haven't watched either video yet (no time the last week for much more than the daily grind), but has WG detailed yet how the 'Travel Mode' and 'Attack Mode' actually will work yet?  I know we had questions about those.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Its seems Essex is quite good at killing BBs at least. Flying into a 57 000 HP Der Groce and just stating "Oh yeah we kill him with this torp squadron alone" and then does it. "We kill him here btw ..... he just dies"

Moments later he just does the same thing to a Slava.

 

WG might react to this in a year or two and respond by nerfing Essex right aft AA gunner.........

Essex right now was released OP to drive early access sales.

Just like EVERY OTHER POST REWORK CV LINE LAUNCH.

I fully expect Essex to be nerfed once WG believes they have extracted enough value from the early access event and then subsequent grind boosters.

Remember when MvR was released? This is the same.

[Jakob Knight]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Essex right now was released OP to drive early access sales.

Just like EVERY OTHER POST REWORK CV LINE LAUNCH.

I fully expect Essex to be nerfed once WG believes they have extracted enough value from the early access event and then subsequent grind boosters.

Remember when MvR was released? This is the same.

 

That's why it's important to remember these are tech tree ships and a) aren't 'protected' by purchase laws and b) can and will be obtainable without spending a cent.

 

I'm not even sure I will play these instead of the standard CVs (which I only do rarely due to both the weight of carry on a CV in a match and enjoyment of the other ship types in the game).

 

 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Essex right now was released OP to drive early access sales.

Just like EVERY OTHER POST REWORK CV LINE LAUNCH.

I fully expect Essex to be nerfed once WG believes they have extracted enough value from the early access event and then subsequent grind boosters.

Remember when MvR was released? This is the same.

Has Nakhimov also been nerfed since launch?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

48 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Has Nakhimov also been nerfed since launch?

Introduced into the game as a researchable ship in Update 0.10.10.

Update 0.10.11:

Fixed model and textures of the ship.

Update 0.11.1:

A bug that caused aircrafts' landing gear to not retract when airborne was fixed.

The number of aircraft in the stock and researchable skip bomber squadrons was decreased from 8 to 7.

Engine acceleration value changed: Time to reach full speed forwards increased from 30 to 60 s.

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

24 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Introduced into the game as a researchable ship in Update 0.10.10.

Update 0.10.11:

Fixed model and textures of the ship.

Update 0.11.1:

A bug that caused aircrafts' landing gear to not retract when airborne was fixed.

The number of aircraft in the stock and researchable skip bomber squadrons was decreased from 8 to 7.

Engine acceleration value changed: Time to reach full speed forwards increased from 30 to 60 s.

Naki players must have been devestated.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 hours ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Naki players must have been devestated.

I'm not sure. Haven't gotten up to it yet.

The only one I feel they over nerfed is the MvR, at least relative to her peers. I almost never see her.

[hipcanuck]

On 1/30/2024 at 9:11 AM, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

I think we have to see what actually happens and whet if any changes we will experience.

For instance, marginally nerfing the damage of a T6 IJN CV in a tier with no AA? It will still shit on everything it will just take a slightly longer time. Wont really change the crappy experience of T6 BB players.

Taking away 1 bomb outa each drop from Malta that Cits and almost dev strikes every light cruiser, dont know how much effect that will have, so instead of loosing 100% of youre health youre left with 20% .... after one drop .... then he just returns .... twice. And they buff the damage of the torps .......!! Saaay what?!

Conde also gets a weird "nerf" where they nerf one thing and buff another?! They really had to do the last thing? He will still sit at 19 km range and burn down everything.

Annapolis nerf wont change the OP-ness of that ship.

 

So ..... yeah. Good direction they are moving in but Im skeptical on how much this really will effect the game.

Blow things out of proportion much?

Try driving a Malta, lets see how many dev strikes you get.....or even how many times you get to cit a cruiser more than once or twice without that light cruiser wiping out all of your planes. Sure, Ive hit a mino hard, even a wooster, but it cost me an entire flight of planes which takes most of the match to regenerate....so....not really worth it IMO.

[hipcanuck]

12 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

I I can always ask the simple question why CVs are limited to just one if they are so balanced, unlike any other class.  But I'm sure that'll just get deflections to what otherwise demands an answer using Occam's razor in reasoning.

PS this hurts wayyyy more than just DDs.  But I doubt you'd even know about that.

CV's arent limited to one. CV's are....were, I guess, before radar... the hard counter to DD's being able to torp spam undetected. Without CV's, a decently played DD is a far more dangerous ship and that was proven time and time again during beta testing when CV's were FAR more lethal than they are now. Before mirror matchmaking was introduced if only one team had a DD....that team won if there was no CV to keep it in check.

Do CV's need adjusting? Sure they do, so do ships with no AA facing a T6 CV. AA is only really effective vs some players and is more effective vs some CV's than others.

[CaliburxZero]

13 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Ahskance already responded to that challenge. He deliberately put his CVs down and ground out several DD lines on stream, beginning with the French since they had no smoke to hide in. 

Ahskance is a single guy, a datapoint of *one* person.  And he is most certainly the exception not the norm so I don't know what you think you proved to me or anybody else by stating this.

Oh and PS while we're on the subject of DDs and spotting, I haven't heard you or anybody else talk about how we need radar down at Tier 5 and higher and more at 7.  A fact that nobody seems to talk about.  

[MnemonScarlet]

14 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I play all ship types. I'll happily take a DD into a CV game because I don't start out scared or angry. 

I played DD back when CV had their original rockets - check my Akatsuki grind, which is almost all solo - and it was doable. The reason I even stopped grinding those ships was because some elements of high tier meta were annoying to deal at the time, not because I couldn't deal with CVs.

That said, yeah CVs deserved that rocket nerf. I could deal with rockets, but they were still way way too strong. They deserve more nerfs too, because the vision control they have is absolutely brutal, and WG is finally addressing it. You don't have to start out scared or angry, or be unable to deal with the effect to dislike it and think it's overtuned. Every time I play some concealment based ship and a CV easily flies over and ruins one of the big salient features of my ship by a casual driveby and ruins the play that I was trying to make, I'm reminded.

CVs are overtuned now, still. They deserve what's coming for them. WG sees the writing on the wall and they're nerfing that. Even if they get cold feet and reduce it, the fact that those were the stated terms initially means they realize the issues with it. There is no harder affirmation of this point than that.

Edited February 2 by MnemonScarlet

[Beleaf]

23 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

CVs are overtuned now, still. They deserve what's coming for them. WG sees the writing on the wall and they're nerfing that. Even if they get cold feet and reduce it, the fact that those were the stated terms initially means they realize the issues with it. There is no harder affirmation of this point than that.

Seeing they are massively buffing subs in exchange for a pitiful attempt at nerfing shotgunning, I'm worried what WG will give to CVs as compensation

[MnemonScarlet]

41 minutes ago, Beleaf said:

Seeing they are massively buffing subs in exchange for a pitiful attempt at nerfing shotgunning, I'm worried what WG will give to CVs as compensation

While that is definitely true, I will say that if WG softens the blow to the point where the complaints still necessitate facing nerfing these classes again, well...

They will just be back to square one and have to contemplate nerfs again.

A conclusive nerf is just something WG can't run away from forever. They can run away for awhile, though.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

8 hours ago, MnemonScarlet said:

That said, yeah CVs deserved that rocket nerf.

With this I will happily agree.

I don't think it's reasonable or realistic to remove all CV spotting. You can't expect a pilot not to look down, especially if he's been specifically sent out to do so. I have no problems with removing fighter-group spotting and restricting active air unit spotting to a few km, but removing it entirely is flat-out stupid.

[MrWastee]

nomnomnom

8 hours ago, Beleaf said:

Seeing they are massively buffing subs in exchange for a pitiful attempt at nerfing shotgunning, I'm worried what WG will give to CVs as compensation

imo this is the only real spot-on commentary in here lol ^^... indeed, from the pt on they did put a certain ammount into it: it gonna come, no doubt! but, as we know em, the "compensation" (lol) question indeed is up.

and, as we know em, most probably it's gonna be fubar on release and won't change much for the better for a long time in the afterrun.... nevertheless, until that question gets answered, i totally gonna njoy it !

too toxic lol?!... nothing is "too toxic" for the "too-toxic-by-design" class, expect no other tone from here ^^

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, MrWastee said:

nevertheless, until that question gets answered, i totally gonna njoy it !

This is the way.

[Jakob Knight]

11 hours ago, Beleaf said:

Seeing they are massively buffing subs in exchange for a pitiful attempt at nerfing shotgunning, I'm worried what WG will give to CVs as compensation

 

Er....maybe i'm having a senior moment here (quite possible since I'm one of those players who have been around since Beta and my sea legs ain't what they used to be), but what massive buffs are you referring to?  I can't recall any recently announced.

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Jakob Knight said:

 

Er....maybe i'm having a senior moment here (quite possible since I'm one of those players who have been around since Beta and my sea legs ain't what they used to be), but what massive buffs are you referring to?  I can't recall any recently announced.

 

 

I am guessing that the changes to modules actually represents buffs to subs.

You need to be careful with WG announcements with respect to what is a buff or a nerf. WG has not always been transparent with how changes actually are expected to pan out...and have occasionally called changes that were nerfs buffs because that was what was better from a marketing standpoint.

In addition, for some classes, WG doesn't actually understand the impact of the changes and so their announcements may not be practically useful as an assessment of future change.

In this case, I haven't played subs enough to know if the changes are buffs or nerfs...but laying out the need to be somewhat cautious about trusting WG announcements to be literally true. (They are, after all, just advertising copy...there is no legal requirement that they be perfectly true.)