about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

The more you play CVs, the more you'll see players disengage and fold back into cover provided by teammate positioning. Or simply position relative to teammates in the first place to harden up.

The internet meme is that folks have to clump in groups of 10 to pray that the scary CV player loses planes, but only 2 ships are needed to incur sustained plane attrition (outside of ships with a notable weakness in their AA capabilities). 3 ships can be considered a "Hard Target"

---

Note: Do understand that highly talented players will be happy to show you how talented they are. They can circumvent situations which would cripple or disable or players, but the vast majority operate at a standard skill level and the 2-3 ships rule holds consistent.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

The common refrain is that a CV's existence forces other ships to hide and not claim space. Actual gameplay bears that out as not true. Map positions are claimed in Random Battles, Ranked Battles, Clan Battles, and more.

The thing that needs to be remembered is that a common Game Design axiom is that a player or team should always have insufficient resources to cover all situations. This forces the player or players to make the best decisions they can while using the resources they have access to. While CVs add a new threat which demands a different resource use, they do not stop the game from functioning just because they add a different type of theat.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

It's worth noting that on North America, DD play exploded in popularity after rocket reticles were made broadside. Note, this was even prior to the Rocket Delay change being added.

Ranked matches were consistently run with 3-5 DDs despite a CV's existence. Destroyers are very powerful pieces on the board.

There was quite a lot of concern in other regions when the Rocket Delay was added that feared how powerful DDs would become. Ultimately, the game has found its equilibrium again after some change/adjustment.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

You will have outlier incidents with any class. A Destroyer that opens up on a Battleship that has 3k health and finishes him off after enough torpedoes have landed onto a Battleship that couldn't get away.

Ideally, the Battleship could fall back to their team in such a way that the Destroyer could not follow, or that the torps sent would be screened by the fleeing Battleship's teammates.


In terms of a CV's ability to follow and strike stragglers, it's a Strength of the line's concept. If the planes have a route they can slip through un-intercepted, then that's absolutely a thing they can do.

CVs have Strengths and Weaknesses, and the more you play them the more you'll see where their limitations exist.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

I don't think anyone should be arguing that because it would be ignoring much of the play that gets Destroyers killed in games without CVs.

The bigger impact of the Rocket Change was that Destroyers numbers/players were actively suppressed by the capability of a CV. Matchmaker being what it is, you cannot usually control if you encounter one or not, so Destroyer numbers responded to that. Post Broadside-Reticle Rework, the suppression effect was lifted to a great degree, even though it wasn't highly publicized. It was lifted further when the Delay was added to Rockets.

I'm pointing to the numbers in Ranked play as an observable trend. Folks that were trying hard no longer felt hindered enough to actively avoid a class. They were consistently willing to play within the normal set of constraints of Radar/Hydro/DDs, and even CVs after the changes.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

I completely understand. It's why I was so excited about Fighter standardization and the Fighter talents being added back with the Commander Rework. I took those into Ranked and bullied enemy CVs on stream. My preference is the MvR as her planes are all very agile so I can be where I need to be to drop Fighters (assuming my team's ground game isn't get stomped and I have to divert to that).

Having a more formalized Air Superiority platform is extremely exciting. Bearn is really cool~

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Worth considering that just because you can see an average skill player with planes left at the end of the match doesn't mean he's USED the planes throughout the match.

Some CV players are actively intimidated by AA and will avoid striking any thing that isn't alone.


Can't lose planes if you don't use them.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Not instantly, but Fighters have specifically low health pools to aid in them being taken out by Surface Ship AA.

Bearn has tougher Fighters with larger health pools, but specifically reduced spotting capabilities (2km) in a form of compensation.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Were you within 2km of the actual planes?

Whenever your AA is used, your Aerial Detection blooms to full value, but I would assume the "Spotting" mechanic is determined by "seeing" your Conning Tower. If it wasn't within 2km of you, then you may have been detected by other planes?

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

This is true, lower Tiers have little AA because lower tiers are training grounds. Both for CV drivers to learn how to CV, and for surface ships to learn what CVs can do.

Tier 4 CVs are gated by bad damage and plane speed to make them more into training experiences. Tier 6 CVs have more damage and speed, but are still undertuned as the AA the exists isn't powerful yet. It's stronger, but not anything like what Tier 8 and up AA is.

So yes, this is different at lower tiers, though CVs are less of a threat there.

I wasn't referring to "resources" like HP or Ammo. Resources in this case is better thought of as "Players" or "Player Positions".

By having players position closer, you gain Defense, but lose Offense. There is no perfect choice, because you are given a situation that is complex and requires dynamic choices since you don't have enough resources (Players) to cover all the problems at one time.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

There was a section in the 2019 CV Summit which measured player behavior after 0 CV, 2 CV, and 4 CV games. That showed information toward general acceptance for 0 and 2 CV being the same, and that was pre-8.5 of all things.

Probably referring to the 15 Rocket Throw of the Kearsarge instead of the 9 Rocket Throw of the Midway. More saturation effect.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

My response to the "CV Apologist" tripe is to state: "I've never apologized"

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Just worth knowing, Priority Sector isn't something a CV player hides from. It's just part of the damage interaction. The damage from the Instantaneous and the ramping damage is factored into normal play, so a CV driver that runs away from it would actually be playing incorrectly.

Priority Sector is a nod to "Manual AA" in the sense that you look at and "shoot" the planes. It's only a single look and button click, but it's still often more than a stressed player is able to do. The amount of folks actually using Priority Sector is quite low, so hopefully there's a way to get the word out.

---

As for Fighters, Fighters on a Surface Ship deny follow-up strikes or help to deny attack lines. Typically CVs don't pick strike lines that run directly over another ship on the way to a target, because that's wasteful in terms of taking lots of mid/close range AA. Fighters bolster that "don't attack through here" zone more and can drive a CV to pick a different target instead.

Fighters from CVs have more varied possibilities in their play, though most CV drivers simply drop a Fighter on top of a surface ship and call it a day. It's functional, but doesn't prevent strikes... only stops follow-ups. Correct Fighter placement involves looking at attack lines and trying to deny them along with friendly ship positions to fill gaps or drive the enemy planes onto unfavorable lines.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

I don't think you're catching his point.

CVs force players to evaluate positions differently:

"Can I roll solo on this flank like last game? Nah, there's a CV on this side of the map"
"Is this island good for holding the choke alone? Hrm, Hak's can bomb here, I'll move over 1 island where the Halland blocks the attack line"
"Oh god, we only have one DD and they're on the other flank... Oh wait, CV can you spot this DD over there?"

The conditions change so the battle plays out different in various ways.

Whether you like or dislike those differences is a matter of personal opinion, but the point is that playing the same maps with the same ships typically leads to the same spots taken and similar experiences. Shaking those experiences up with "varied rulesets" causes more replayability. Random Battle being random helps a lot, but having matches with CVs, without CVs... with DDs, without DDs... with BBs, without BBs... the conditions changing keeps it novel.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Surface Ship Fighters are definitely weak to useless against Russian CVs. That is certainly true.

---

As for baking in the Priority Sector, that could be done, but there is a constant drumbeat from players wanting More Things To Do. This is often the higher-end of the playerbase that feels like they don't have enough things active to challenge them. Average players are not in need of a wealth of things to keep them occupied, however, so Priority Sector is a compromise between the two. It's a reward for recognizing and responding to a situation, but it's not crippling if it's missed. It's often the difference of a plane kill or not. A single plane shot down isn't likely the end of a CV's match, but if everyone used it the losses would certainly add up. They do in competitive play with high-end teams.

As to the Fighter being able to stop a strike, can you imagine a "Batten the Hatches" consumable that would make a Surface Ship temporarily immune to Shellfire? For a few second window, say. Ultimately, the CV Driver is a player like any other, and being able to impact another player is important. While the typical response is "But I don't get to shoot the CV Hull", plane/resource loss is still the path to rendering the CV unable to continue aggression (outside of blapping the hull, of course).

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

I know people like to say this all the time, but it doesn't bear out.

Ships move up and flank and take positions in CV games. The "hide and spin in circles in a big ball at the back of the map" is just a clickbait meme.

Imagine O7 or some other high-end clan just hiding in terror of some planes instead of doing what they actually do... which is taking map positions, caps, and kills even though a CV exists.


CVs have been in the game for years, and in the Reworked state for nearly 3 years. People still play the map regardless of mode.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

I haven't sat down to watch pre-Rework KotS. I caught like 2 games of the KotS that had Reworked CVs, but I was a very new player then. I agreed with the removal of Reworked CVs from KotS because they were in heavy iteration at the time and that's not a sound place for competitive to deal with.

As for CVs in Clan Battles, I've played every Reworked CV season since they've been in at a Hurricane level (though I played less recently as twitch and work got in the way). I can tell you with absolute certainty that there was no death-balling in Hurricane. People still moved out, took positions that threatened crossfires, fought over Cap Points, and claimed space.

Fun fact, one of the best teams in that season ran Battleship instead of CV. That was an Asian clan that Stratmania (well respected CV player) was affiliated with if I recall correctly.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

You're describing Season 11, as Goliath wasn't in the game during Season 9. Season 11 was a different experience with the introduction of the MvR, though it stablized fairly quickly until the FDR came along and shook things up a small amount.

When did you have to deathball to save your CV? I've never experienced a situation like that, though MvR didn't try to AP Rocket snipe another MvR. That was one of the perks of not bringing the Hakuryu when the MvR was still fresh and pre-nerf.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

There was one team that excelled with it. I remember speaking with Stratmania in a post Season 9 podcast that TNG held with reps from severeal Hurricane clans.

Season 11 was quite different with all the ships that had been added.

Prior to the Commander Rework, yeah? Odd that your enemy CVs had so much trouble so consistently. You can just angle to force only one strike angle and then block that.

Weird to hear folks were doing that in Hurricane...? Never got to hear about/experience that one.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

As I came from KSC before moving to WG, I wouldn't need to look far to find excellent players that are ok with CVs. This isn't to say it's an opinion shared by most, though.

This is not surprising given the hundreds or thousands of posts the Great CV Debate has inspired.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

You can listen to the podcast yourself. This was hosted by TNG after the conclusion of Season 9.

https://anchor.fm/the-new-guys/episodes/Episode-027-The-CV-Mains-You-Love-to-Hate-Hurricane-CV-Roundtable-ef9v6u

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

This is quite possible. Worth noting that strong players tend to think if terms of "If X, then Y threatens" when evaluating choices/tactics and before making moves. As a CV has the potential to threaten nearly anything, that calculation easily comes up OP as it's always in the Threat column.

The part that fails to bear out is that the CV is a single Threat, meaning that while it is a Threat in one place, it is not anywhere else. Active Threat vs Potential Threat is important in weighing the calculations on pushes, moves, takes, etc.

Unfortunately, the common rhetoric ascribes CVs the ability to fly at incredible, near teleportational speeds and be an Active Threat in all places at once, which causes decision paralysis in higher-order players. This is hard to put into context to a strategist that isn't familiar with planning on exploiting timings and attack lines that limit a CV.

Looking to control/deny the aerial space is something I don't think has been explored very well, even by top teams. Mostly, it's been dismissed as impossible but I don't believe it's been given enough chance to develop.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

@NefariousRaven

A few points you should understand when talking with El2aZeR.

1) He does not see plane loss as mattering, because he does not believe plane loss can be expected to reach critical levels. This is not something you will convince him of, because he will simply say that the CV player should play correctly. Or that even "bad" CV players can't lose enough planes to reach this condition.

2) He does not believe flak is a threat. He has played enough that while he does occasionally encounter flak damage, it's rare enough that it's shown as a non-factor to him. See again about playing correctly and how even "bad" CV players don't lose enough planes to reach a critical condition.

3) He does not believe there is a way to stop a CV strike. While he knows there are mathmatical situations that prevent strikes, the ability for the CV to strike something else negates the issue and keeps the CV relevant regardless.

These are three points you will disagree with him on, and you will not move anywhere with.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

I'll link you a video I did regarding countering Russian CV.

Two things: I talk slow, so x2 speed is your friend, and it's aimed for general audience so I realize it won't be high end gripping entertainment.

In the latter half/third of the video, there's a description of attack lines, ship spacing, and fighters. Please check it out and then get back to me.



Raw Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZpEBEl6gI

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Negate isn't a bad word. It describes erasing the threat, which is not realistic in many situations.

Ultaimtely AA is treated like the other ship statistics. Some ships have good armor, others good speed, others good guns, and other good AA. Some ships have AA on them, but as it's not the focal point of the design it's more "functional" than "exceptional". This can be frustrating because when you have a game where there is no CV, the lack of AA strength has no bearing on ship performance... but it absolutely matters when a CV is present.

The Musashi is an extreme example of a Very powerful Tier 9 when no CV is present, and a babysitter-required liability when a CV is present.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

So, a few things. Clan Battle maps are smaller, so it's less about having AA ships stacked on top of each other and more about having them take positions with 3-4 km distance between them. This gives you a "frontline" in terms of AA which has to be dealt with to break-through and find attack angles. Gaps in "frontline" can be covered with Fighter drops that staticly plug holes.

More diverse CVs like the Midway and Hakuryu have broadside torps and bow-in bombs, so it's harder to block the multiple angles which guarantees that some of the damage will penetrate through to your team. The planning phase comes around having positions where bombs alone can wound, but not cripple ships badly enough to see them removed off the board singlehanded.


The next thing to consider is using Aerial Cover to spread CV damage around, instead of letting it hard focus a single target. Just like rotating ships out between heal cooldowns and spreading damage out that way.
Ultimately, there's more map than there is "coverage" outside of using long range AA in interesting ways that also have to be sustainable, but this isn't technically a bad thing. Modern game design looks to give players too many holes to plug with only so many fingers. It's up to the player or players to decide where to stick what they've got as the situation develops. AA defenses are just that, defenses. They're designed to be penetrated just like armor is designed to be breached, but it's how you position your assets as to how "defended" or "held" a part of the map is.

As of yet, I haven't seen a lot of Fighter placement relative to ship placement except for one team in a Clan Battle a while back. The "hold" points seemed pre-determined and well placed.


Lastly, you can consider a CV like a Jungler in League of Legends (if you're familiar with it). Junglers are fairly autonomous and tend to rely on strange angles and the element of surprise to get results. These surprise timings are heavily mapped out so the team can make plays around them. Enemy teams learn those timings and create their own counter-setups to deal with them. CV flight positioning is similar in that you can expect your CV to be a X location doing Y at 1:30 into the game. Then at Z position doing T at 2:15 into the game. While "no strategy survives contact with the enemy", there's nothing stopping teams from having preplanned CV strategies to assist moves and takes on the board.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

I think you should watch more top-laners in League~ The amount of rage and hate that a camping Jungler can bring about is quite high.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Yes, World of Warships is an attrition-based game model, so the damage/trades have much more significance down the line. MOBAs are much swingier.

Not sure about your playstyle and how to assist, but I do anti-CV tactic replay reviews for free. Your profile shows you play CVs, so I don't expect there's a lot to learn from what I have to teach, but there are more tricks and concepts to use then most have sat around trying to develop. If you have a situation you'd like a second set of eyes on, please send me a replay. Worst case, if there's something extremely problematic I can kick it up the chain and see if it'll be a useful example of an issue to address.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Please create less monsters. This monster has had me stuck to a computer performing moderation duties for... about 12 hours straight at this point~

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Review video is uploading. 10-15 minutes. high-res takes a while, but low-res is functional enough to watch.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Your stat picture showed CVs with a 60+% survival rate while the other classes had 30ish%.

Are you seriously going to pick a fight on a hill that says living until the end of the match more consistently doesn't have a relationship to having more time on average being alive? This seems a weird hill to fight on.

The arguement that the "they live longer" folks are making is that living longer means more time to secure a base level of damage or XP, as opposed to the more volatile ship classes that result in twice as much death.


Also, you mention CV's have the highest winrate. That doesn't make sense as CVs are always mirrored. If one CV wins, the other loses.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

No. Giving the perspective of what the CV sees in the terms of target selection and reading into how to move to mitigate.

Hopefully it's helpful. I think I was able to give some useful information. I'm tired, but I've been doing this for years at this point~

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Video is up. HD is still rendering.



Raw Link: https://youtu.be/9akQlVC-Sq0

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

I'm just going off the stats you provided. It's raw Class stats, and CVs are mirrored. You'll notice all the other winrates were near 50% as well.

It's likely some varied player information wasn't tracked to a small percentage.

Blowout or not, 5 minute match or not, the other classes die twice as much. It's perfectly reasonable to recognize less CV death equates to more time not being dead.

Also, there is a fundemental difference between a CV that gets 80k damage over 15 minutes, and a surface ship which deals 80k damage in the first 6 minutes of the game before dying. The latter damage sticks and is relevant for a greater portion of the match.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

"Survived" column is "Survived the battle"

CVs in your table lived to the end of the battle in 65% of match events recorded. Other classes were 30-33.5%

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

What would bad play have to do with loss of data?

Some games don't get tracked, some profiles are blocked, some profiles are so low in battles as to not be recorded on some sites. There's a variety of reasons for "error" to cause some float in the data.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Time of death stated is:

a) Before the end of the battle.
b) Not during the battle.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

It's worth pointing out that CVs have the lowest battle count on the chart. It's not surprising to see they have the most "float".

It's not like the data in damage/xp/whatever isn't valuable, but the Win Rate portion is hard to take seriously because of the mirror'd matchmaker. Technically other ships can vary in queue dumps, but not CVs.

about 3 years ago - Ahskance - Direct link

Ok folks. The bar has been open long enough. Time for the punch-drunk fun to come to an end.

I'm going to bed after babysitting this thread for over 13 hours to prevent snarling death fighting.

I'm going to lock this to prevent World War CV from erupting while I sleep tonight. :p Please save it for whenever the next thread pops up next time.