CV Player Perspective on Latest DevBlog Changes

[HogHammer]

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2123530217?t=00h24m16s

I really wanted to hear the opinion of the proposed changes listed on the latest DevBlog from a CV player's perspective.  AngelicCypher is one of those players.  He is an EXCELLENT player, but more importantly, a very good teacher of how to play a CV and defend yourself against CVs. I first heard of him on a "fireside chat" with @clydeplays months ago, and as a non-CV player, he has really helped me defend myself against CV attacks.

The video link above is bookmarked at the start of the discussion and is well worth a view.  

If you don't watch the video, the proposed changes are "hot garbage," in his opinion.

Ironically, some of what he discusses is echoed by non-CV players.

 

[Navalpride33]

CVs are a hot topic issue..  Its not repeat not the CV ship itself to blame.

Until, we have a AA mechanic that's fair and accepted by both CVs and those getting dumped by CVs.

This issue, totally WG creation. Well only fester as band aids are proposed and implemented instead of.. Actual solution.

When it comes to CVs.. They do not deserve the negativity for the lack of AA.

------------------------------------------------------

On a different topic.. I'll mention this once and i'll say it again.. CVs, are the only class in the game who can Violate the Harassment clause of the TOS/EULA. By abusing their spotting and attack capabilities 3 min after they're sunk.

 So, I empathize with CVs players its not their fault.. At the same time, they should not take out their anger/frustration on small ships.

Pick on ships on their weight tonnage. Spot the small ships, its cool. But once you violate the EULA/TOS. I have no feeling for the CV hate at there.

Edited April 19 by Navalpride33

[Ensign Cthulhu]

48 minutes ago, HogHammer said:

If you don't watch the video, the proposed changes are "hot garbage," in his opinion.

Speaking as a supporter of CVs, I fully agree with him. 

This is going to have consequences that I'm not completely sure the creators intended, and which I hope they discover in testing and put the whole concept to bed. Preferably on the Bonneville salt flats with a stake through the heart, its head removed and placed between its feet,  the silver-lined coffin filled with holy water before it is sealed shut, and a 50 megaton nuke wired to the lid to go off the moment it opens.

 

36 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

CVs, are the only class in the game who can Violate the Harassment clause of the TOS/EULA. By abusing their spotting and attack capabilities 3 min after they're sunk.

It could be argued that this opinion is itself a violation of the TOS/EULA, as it makes insinuations about the motives and behaviour of CV players.

I know what bullying is like from having been on the receiving end of it for over a decade at school. I can tell you right now that being on the receiving end of a particularly stubborn CV player's attentions from time to time is preferable by a very long margin. 

[Jakob Knight]

18 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Speaking as a supporter of CVs, I fully agree with him. 

This is going to have consequences that I'm not completely sure the creators intended, and which I hope they discover in testing and put the whole concept to bed. Preferably on the Bonneville salt flats with a stake through the heart, its head removed and placed between its feet,  the silver-lined coffin filled with holy water before it is sealed shut, and a 50 megaton nuke wired to the lid to go off the moment it opens.

 

 

Unfortunately I believe that, unlike the idea of Stun Bombs that got this treatment, these changes will have players who are in favor of them.  Thus WG will have that tiny foothold to base their conviction that these changes are at least worth putting into the game to see what happens.

 

I'm measuring the amount of space I have in my mothball slips to make sure I can dock my Carriers for an extended inactivity evolution.  

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

CVs are a hot topic issue..  Its not repeat not the CV ship itself to blame.

Until, we have a AA mechanic that's fair and accepted by both CVs and those getting dumped by CVs.

This issue, totally WG creation. Well only fester as band aids are proposed and implemented instead of.. Actual solution.

When it comes to CVs.. They do not deserve the negativity for the lack of AA.

------------------------------------------------------

On a different topic.. I'll mention this once and i'll say it again.. CVs, are the only class in the game who can Violate the Harassment clause of the TOS/EULA. By abusing their spotting and attack capabilities 3 min after they're sunk.

 So, I empathize with CVs players its not their fault.. At the same time, they should not take out their anger/frustration on small ships.

Pick on ships on their weight tonnage. Spot the small ships, its cool. But once you violate the EULA/TOS. I have no feeling for the CV hate at there.

Every red-team ship should be trying to sink you.  
And they should keep trying to sink you until you actually are sunk. 
And that should be the situation for all of us.
It's every player's job to sink their opponents.

This is not "World of Teletubbies".  😉 

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

I'm measuring the amount of space I have in my mothball slips to make sure I can dock my Carriers for an extended inactivity evolution.  

I'm hoping it doesn't come to that.

I agree with the "hot garbage" assessment.

[Navalpride33]

33 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

It could be argued that this opinion is itself a violation of the TOS/EULA, as it makes insinuations about the motives and behaviour of CV players.

 

Its not an insinuation... I have proven cases. Therefor, you can argue all you like.. I dont blow smoke for no reason I can assure you..

[Navalpride33]

14 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Every red-team ship should be trying to sink you.  
And they should keep trying to sink you until you actually are sunk. 
And that should be the situation for all of us.
It's every player's job to sink their opponents.

This is not "World of Teletubbies".  😉 

 

I agree.. The only aspect I don't like and violates TOS/EULA are the zombie planes..

CVs alive planes no issues what-so-ever.

CVs who sunk and then cross the line with their zombie planes to violate the TOS/EULA on harassment.. That's where the CV is the only class in the game that can do so.

-----------------------------------

The above is one main issue I have and its a proven issue... The other is the lack of AA mechanic. THAT you can clearly fault on WG/DEV dept.

Edited April 19 by Navalpride33

[Wolfswetpaws]

24 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I agree.. The only aspect I don't like and violates TOS/EULA are the zombie planes..

CVs alive planes no issues what-so-ever.

CVs who sunk and then cross the line with their zombie planes to violate the TOS/EULA on harassment.. That's where the CV is the only class in the game that can do so.

-----------------------------------

The above is one main issue I have and its a proven issue... The other is the lack of AA mechanic. THAT you can clearly fault on WG/DEV dept.

Take your complaint (about aircraft using their remaining fuel to perform their job even after their CV has been sunk) to the developers.
I understand they can be reached on discord?

Personally, I like that planes (which are already aloft) can function for a limited time after the CV's hull has been sunk.

[Navalpride33]

2 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Take your complaint (about aircraft using their remaining fuel to perform their job even after their CV has been sunk) to the developers.
I understand they can be reached on discord?

Personally, I like that planes (which are already aloft) can function for a limited time after the CV's hull has been sunk.

I, took it to CS when it happens. That's the only remedy available.  Unfortunately.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

36 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

violate the TOS/EULA on harassment.

Stop it.

If it's put in the game by the devs, then by definition it does NOT violate TOS. If you keep on reporting it as if it does, you will be pigeonholed as a vexatious complainant.

Grow a spine. Fight.

Edited April 19 by Ensign Cthulhu

[Aethervox]

1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

Until, we have a AA mechanic that's fair and accepted by both CVs and those getting dumped by CVs.

My opinion is that the AA mechanic was fair & balanced versus RTS CVs. An RTS CV could get deplaned from AA defences if the CV player wasn't careful as the plane numbers were limited (unlike what Wedgie has allowed for reworked CVs). The current state of AA (the alterations of it from what it was) is entirely the fault & mistake of WG changing to their reworked CV failure.

1 hour ago, HogHammer said:

If you don't watch the video, the proposed changes are "hot garbage," in his opinion.

Ironically, some of what he discusses is echoed by non-CV players.

What is meant by 'hot garbage'? I can understand what is meant by 'garbage'. Does it matter whether the garbage is hot or cold? Your comment implies that even non-CV players agree with some criticisms that are being made here.

I doubt the player base will ever be satisfied with whatever Wedgie offers us regarding either CVs or Subs. My own opinion is that Wedgie ruined CVs in the rework so badly (& continues to do so) that I refuse to play this class (I would & did play RTS CVs). As to Subs, I call them 'Flubs & do not play them either (as offered).

I find it very instructive that Wedgie continues to 'tweak' reworked CVs (& 'Flubs') practically every update. Wedgie, also, took years to bring back odd tiered CVs & when they finally did they introduced more gimmicks (shiny baubles for the gullible, imo). Does this not show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the design failure of said reworked CVs (&, also, Subs, for that matter - I digress as this is a CV topic - just including them to make my point about Wedgie design failures).

Finally, I will watch the video link as I want to see all reworked CVs sunk in battle or, ideally, never even played by anyone so that Wedgie might get the message 😁.

[Admiral_Karasu]

Let's try to keep the two different ways of exploiting something separate. From the TOS/EULA point of view, only exploits that actually exploit glitches, bugs, or any other such defects in the game code are exploits in this sense. Gameplaywise, it's possible to exploit the situation, meaning to take advantage of one's own better tactical position or the opposing players poorer tactical move, 'exploit their mistakes', in other words. That type of 'exploits' do not violate the TOS/EULA as they aren't really exploits in that sense.

Now, some of the things people can do can and do give them an unfair advantage, but they are within their rights to do that because the game mechanics and/or meta combined with their own knowledge and skill makes it possible. That's unfortunate, and maybe grounds for a discussion for changing things around but it's not anything that could or should be pinned on any individual player of any class.

[Navalpride33]

4 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Stop it.

If it's put in the game by the devs, then by definition it does NOT violate TOS. If you keep on reporting it as if it does, you will be pigeonholed as a vexatious complainant.

Grow a spine. Fight.

According to WG... It does violate the TOS/EULA on harassment. CVs are the only ones that can harass players for being outplayed.

The question should be... They know it violates the TOS/EULA, and wont change it..  I can, charge anyone with it and get a successful prosecution.

As long as I can prove (as per you first post).. CV players are being pity.

Have I done that? YES!

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

@Aethervox Perhaps it should be 'hot cabbage'?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

CVs are a hot topic issue..  Its not repeat not the CV ship itself to blame.

Until, we have a AA mechanic that's fair and accepted by both CVs and those getting dumped by CVs.

This issue, totally WG creation. Well only fester as band aids are proposed and implemented instead of.. Actual solution.

When it comes to CVs.. They do not deserve the negativity for the lack of AA.

------------------------------------------------------

On a different topic.. I'll mention this once and i'll say it again.. CVs, are the only class in the game who can Violate the Harassment clause of the TOS/EULA. By abusing their spotting and attack capabilities 3 min after they're sunk.

 So, I empathize with CVs players its not their fault.. At the same time, they should not take out their anger/frustration on small ships.

Pick on ships on their weight tonnage. Spot the small ships, its cool. But once you violate the EULA/TOS. I have no feeling for the CV hate at there.

Nice meme.

48 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I'm hoping it doesn't come to that.

I agree with the "hot garbage" assessment.

Changes in 0.8.5 were much less impactful on CV play and resulted in a DRAMATIC reduction in CV games played...despite CVs still being functionally playable.

WG panicked and quickly quashed the changes.

The way this is coming across is a complete sledgehammer to CV gameplay...taking away a lot of the reasons to even play the class.

Why would people still bring a CV into a match with these changes?

WG still hasn't understood that people don't play CV to damage farm battleships.

Hopefully WG isn't blindsided by a mass meta rejection of their changes...but this has happened before...

...and as long as WG continues to listen to known failures with CV gameplay development, they will continue to fail.

If the changes turn out to be bad, people WILL stop playing the class.

The game population will celebrate...but WG staff will be punished.

43 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Its not an insinuation... I have proven cases. Therefor, you can argue all you like.. I dont blow smoke for no reason I can assure you..

Oh, you aren't joking.

38 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I agree.. The only aspect I don't like and violates TOS/EULA are the zombie planes..

CVs alive planes no issues what-so-ever.

CVs who sunk and then cross the line with their zombie planes to violate the TOS/EULA on harassment.. That's where the CV is the only class in the game that can do so.

-----------------------------------

The above is one main issue I have and its a proven issue... The other is the lack of AA mechanic. THAT you can clearly fault on WG/DEV dept.

Can you share the actual section of the TOS / EULA that you believe is violated by a CV player using his ship and planes as designed?

[Navalpride33]

7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

52 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Expand  

Can you share the actual section of the TOS / EULA that you believe is violated by a CV player using his ship and planes as designed?

Harassment. I stated that...

The TOS/EULA number is. 12.1.3

WG confirms it... The conformation letter cant be posted in the forums without being in violation.

 

Edited April 19 by Navalpride33

[HogHammer]

4 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

What is meant by 'hot garbage'? I can understand what is meant by 'garbage'. Does it matter whether the garbage is hot or cold?

Hot garbage is a term for something that is very bad. It describes something worse than "normal" garbage, like how garbage smells worse when it's hot outside.

10 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

Your comment implies that even non-CV players agree with some criticisms that are being made here.

Yes, you're correct.  AngelicCypher is unique among CV players I have met and learned from over time.  As a non-CV player, I find it refreshing to be informed by a ship-class player that there are major faults with the class.  He is honest about it.  But he will also teach you how to avoid or mitigate what a CV can do to you.  Even @clydeplays says he did not know about several things brought up by AngelicCypher regarding how to counter CVs.  Many of these tips I have used in-game and found them very helpful.  

The video and discussion are long, hence his reference to "hot garbage."  From reading the general forum topic on this subject over the last several days, my general impression is that the vast majority of players agree - for a variety of reasons, that these changes are garbage or hot garbage - take your pick.

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

15 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

My opinion is that the AA mechanic was fair & balanced versus RTS CVs. An RTS CV could get deplaned from AA defences if the CV player wasn't careful as the plane numbers were limited (unlike what Wedgie has allowed for reworked CVs). The current state of AA (the alterations of it from what it was) is entirely the fault & mistake of WG changing to their reworked CV failure.

AA plus the ability for friendly fighters to actively fight the enemy squadrons (complete freedom of movement to pursue or position) gave the balance.

Both aspects could be tweaked...and ships with bad AA could rely on SOMETHING within the team that could provide some air defense without just chaining themselves to the closest Des Moines or Texas.

The current AA failure is down to WG intentionally destroying the capability of the friendly CV to provide air defense because that was a skill gap issue...covering their inability to address the buggy interface of fighters which was the actual driver for low CV population...not the skill gap.

WG desperately wanted CVs to only focus on damage farming...and that desire continues to shine through with the proposed changes here. It sounds like basically CVs are only going to be encouraged to attack battleships.

But why would CV players play in such a boring and low impact way?

It's the same foolishness that spawned the recent sub changes to force subs to just stay at range and spam torpedoes.

Where is the fun in just repetitively spamming a single attack method?

Are we basically being asked just to keep pulling a slot machine lever?

That's just not interesting to most CV players, as far as I'm aware.

[HogHammer]

21 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Perhaps it should be 'hot cabbage'?

Damn, I actually like hot cabbage.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

23 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Harassment. I stated that...

The TOS/EULA number is. 12.1.3

WG confirms it... The conformation letter cant be posted in the forums without being in violation.

 

Sorry, EULA number 12.1.3 is only a general link to the Game Rules for World of Warships in its entirety.

Can you be more specific?

[BCGrog]

I never understand people complaining about CV planes that are already aloft when it is sunk, still being capable for a short time to complete their missions.

I mean really, do you expect them all to fall out of the sky when the carrier blows up? Or vanish in a puff of smoke?

By that logic, ship launched torps already heading to a target and shells in flight should self detonate upon their originating ships destruction?

[Wolfswetpaws]

50 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

What is meant by 'hot garbage'? I can understand what is meant by 'garbage'. Does it matter whether the garbage is hot or cold?

Hot garbage generally smells a lot worse than cold garbage.

[Navalpride33]

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Sorry, EULA number 12.1.3 is only a general link to the Game Rules for World of Warships in its entirety.

Can you be more specific?

I got you...

Under game rules Document.

2.03. Insults, personal attacks, abuse or harassment are not tolerated on any level.

Doesn't matter where it happens.. Zero policy is zero policy.

[Frostbow]

2 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

CVs, are the only class in the game who can Violate the Harassment clause of the TOS/EULA. By abusing their spotting and attack capabilities 3 min after they're sunk.