[2022] CV's in Ranked

Ships are balanced for Random Battles as that is the primary game-mode for World of Warships. That being said, it's very uncommon for a CV Driver to find themselves fighting against 11 enemy ships. Flanks usually break teams into halves and then ships tend to disperse out into sub-groups of 2 or 3 ships. In terms of 6v6 Ranked, CVs will typically interact with 2-3 ship Sub-Groups, so the AA interactions are actually fairly similar.

There is another aspect of Ranked play which impacts how a CV is played. CV strikes are quite accurate often because of teammates threatening gun-fire angles and "pinning" hostile ships to certain positions/angles. When the Ranked format has less teammates, that can result in more movement options for enemy ships which can reduce damage impact/influence.

The Thread is about Ranked?

As for Clan Battles with CVs, none of the Hurricane playing teams were deathballed. They broke into two groups and played main-force & off-force (Contested/Off-side). If you're not referring to deathballing (all the ships being in a clump), can you explain what you're referring to?

CVs alter the way Clan Battles are played on a fundamental level. Ship-choice is altered due to AA and Spotting constraints. Also, deployments are scouted so there is more of a strategy based on grind/attrition as opposed to novelty and/or surprise. As such, you can expect to see Seasons with CVs and Seasons without CVs because of how the gameplay is altered with the addition/subtraction of a Ship Type.

We have stated CVs will return to Clan Battles, but we've kept them out so players can have other experiences as we tried out the Unique-ship restriction which was very popular and we're going to be see what Superships are chosen and how they are used in the coming Clan Battle season.

The reasoning for CVs not being in Clan Battles is written above.

The reasoning for CVs not being in King of the Sea is because of a Player Vote. The KotS tournament was player-organized and previously included CVs. There was a podcast where an organizer described how after the Rework there were constant changes as CVs were being brought into line post-release and the competitive players believed CV to be too powerful to include in the tournament. The KotS organizers ran a poll and CVs were requested to be excluded. They made a decision that KotS would remain in the BB/CA/DD format, so that format remained.

WG did purchase King of the Seas but have not altered the rather successful format that existed when it was purchased.

...what? I'm going to be honest in that you've lost me on this one.

Some folks are uncomfortable that I link videos I've made explained X or Y concepts about CVs, but it's simply the easiest way to answer a question that I've literally just recorded myself answering. The videos aren't monetized or anything. It's just a pre-recorded response/answer video that gives information on a topic. I've made a lot of them, so I tend to have a variety of videos about various CV-related topics or "FAQ"-type situations.

-

"you need to adapt so they don't break my toy"

Again, ...what? This is a really confusing thing for me to read because I have no idea where that perception would come from?

If you can, please do me a favor and reply to this with ideas and such that you are worried I might have missed? I'm curious what you are worried I may have overlooked and I'd be happy to just have a public conversation to address your concerns.

You're talking about RTS CV here? Can you be more specific because I'm not sure what you're referring to. The language of "(that were around before the rebork) wish we could play again" likely implies that, but it's better for you to just tell me directly instead of making me try to infer/read between the lines?

-

I'm always interested in understanding disconnects. I'm quite upfront in my not being excellent at reading between the lines in a conversation so please feel free to just be direct. It's the easiest way to hold a conversation and get results.

There is no "false data" in saying why Ranked and Clan Battles are treated differently.

CVs are in Ranked because we have CV mains that play the class and want to participate in the Ranked experience. Ranked is more casual than Clan Battles, so allowing people to bring their ship of choice is an easier decision than dictating rules in a Clan Battle season.

As for Clan Battles, we made a conscious decision to not include CVs in Clan Battles because CVs alter the game experience by adding the additional dynamics that CV bring (spotting and off-angle attacks). Our decision was to allow there to be non-CV seasons so that surface ship players could have non-CV deployment/ship options. CVs will return to later Clan Battle seasons, so we'll have that dynamic available during those seasons.

CVs are not expected to be in every season due to the change in how matches play.

There is certainly an argument where CV players want to be included in KotS and Clan Battles. I'm quite aware of that argument as I both play CVs and have several CV Mains which reach out to me with frustration over being excluded. However, the points I wrote above are our reasoning.

We balance our game for Random Battles because it's the primary mode of play for us. Ships can work in Brawls and Ranked and Clan Battles and other modes, but they aren't specifically balanced for them. I say this as a means of describing why we don't feel mandated to include them in every other mode.

Some Ranked seasons will have CVs, some won't (such as odd-tier Seasons).


Some Clan Battle Seasons will have CVs, but some won't (odd-tier and ship restricted seasons).


KotS doesn't have CVs by player request and the organizers honor that request. I was told by Painezor earlier today that the Organizers are monitoring player sentiment with post-season feedback surveys in regards to CVs and other topics.

-

As for pre-rework CVs, I do not have the ability to return RTS. We made a conscious decision to redesign CVs and put an enormous amount of effort into doing so. There were several metrics and reasons behind our decision which we stand behind.

As a side note, I know several players that were extremely sad to see RTS CVs go because there is no other game which provides a similar experience. My heart goes out to them, but that past version is not something that we are looking to return to.

One of my biggest problems in this area is that I come from running a Teaching Stream. I answered questions and taught players tips and tricks for a few hours every day for over 6 months. Then further, I taught in other facets after burning my voice out on the constant educational content. So, to an extent, this is my go-to when people have questions/concerns. I go into teacher mode.

I can see that this is likely a problem when players are giving problems/situations as their examples. The situations are examples of issues, not requests for "How do I deal with this?"

I went back and re-read the earlier thread you alluded to regarding Priority Sector. I went into Teacher-mode because the was a request for information/clarification on Priority Sector damage output being shown, whether the "weak side" was a problem or not, and about multiplication values/mechanics. Instead, the OP (you in this case) was requesting something like this:

That picture gives a clear indication of AA Output amounts. Adding a red color gives a clear understanding that while one Sector is Prioritized, the other is Weakened because of it. You wanted some indication in game to help players intuit the mechanic more easily.

You also requested the the Commander Skill reference the Positive/Negative nature of the interaction, though I'm not sure how that would be done in a space-efficient manner as of yet.

-

I do answer a lot of questions on this forum, and some of them ARE mechanics questions that I've answered in video format. However, I will actively try to be more aware of if something is more of a example for suggestion purposes as opposed to a player requesting tips/tricks to overcome the situation/example they are describing.

To the topic of swinging your camera around during a knife fight, I think this is an active part of where my being a Community Manager does have to step in. I am tasked with representing our Company, as well as the current state of our game.

The Priority Sector mechanic was added into the game during the time where "Manual AA" was being heavily requested. In effect, it's IS a form of Manual AA, though it is only a single button press. You might not be manning a Machine Gun Nest, but you taking the time to look at the incoming planes and press a single key can have a direct impact as Instantaneous Damage is applied (if the planes are currently in range) and then additional Continuous Damage is fired due to the ramp in effectiveness. To an extent, the "Manual" part of this is by design even though there are players that don't feel any investment in just pushing a button and downing an additional plane or two.

I say that because my giving information about Free Look being the answer is the only answer I have to give. If you don't have the time to be able to do it, then just stay focused on the most pressing concern.

That being said, I can see if we'd be open to adding Keybinds for "Priority Sector to Port" and "Priority Sector to Starboard". If so, this could be a way for a player to choose a hotkey to use instead of looking at the planes and pressing "O" or "~". It could also be useful for CV Players who are not able to use Priority Sector while flying planes. I don't know if this idea would be moved forward on, but I can certainly suggest it during a meeting I have planned in the future.

-

As for the:

"no...I can't let them make it easier to shoot down my planes...my toys...my toys!!!"

Please don't ever think that I would hold the power of CVs over the health of the game. That is not who I am as a person or employee. My interest is in understanding the interactions and advocating for player concerns, which are often anti-CV.

As a result, I have advocated for the changes to CVs that came along:

the Broadside Reticle change that lessened pressure on Destroyers.


the Machinegun Change that lessened pressure on Destroyers.


German AP Bomb Drop Changes


Damage Reductions to AP Weapons


Lesser Plane Speed


Reworking Fighters via Commander Skills to allow them to work better.


Reworking Fighter Speeds to allow them to stay relevant against fast planes


Reworking Flak to make it more accurate.

Yes, this is still a pain-point in regards to high-end play.

Addressing the cooldown of Tactical Squadrons on SuperCVs

I will continue to advocate for changes to the game that help players be less frustrated. Nobody is more aware than I am of how much frustration CV Players face simply for playing their preferred Ship Type and I would Love to help CVs find a place where they are accepted by all other players. That can very well mean advocating for QoL buffs in favor of Surface Ships to lessen the pressure that they feel.

Just a little bit about me as a person. Some background on my style/intentions:

My first job was at a Movie Theater. I joined because I thought Concessions were slow and I could help. I didn't work for the money. I worked because I wanted to help.


I worked unpaid in the Concession Stand at my High School after school to raise money for Band. Same deal, just wanted to help.


My first LARP I was a Blacksmith/Merchant. Didn't care about money, I just wanted to help get people what they were looking for.


My first Alliance in EVE, I took on leadership roles when we were under siege so I could help corpmates that didn't know what to do.


In World of Warships, I created a channel to teach CV and showed up every day for 6 months.

I made nearly 200 Lessons Videos


I recorded hundreds of hours of instruction through gameplay

For 10 years I repaired equipment because it was a good feeling to fix something that was broken and didn't work.

I also enjoyed being honest with people and telling them when they shouldn't fix something.

The trend here is, I like helping people. No clue why it's such a big thing to me, but it IS what I like to do. A big part of why I became a CM was because I felt I could help get information out to players to be helpful.

-

All that being said, I don't agree with your implied point. I don't agree that I'm only trying to help because it benefits CVs. I'm trying to help because it's the right thing to do. I'm trying to help because if everyone enjoys the game more then it's a win for everyone involved. This is a great game but there are several points that really infuriate people and I'm in a position to try and help get those dealt with/addressed somehow.

The removal of RTS CV wasn't done because of Submarines. It was done because of a variety of issues which were all explained during the 2019 CC Summit's CV Presentation. I can provide a screenshot of the opening slide and a link to the presentation (if you'd like to watch it).

These were addressed by the Rework. There is disagreement amongst players about how successful it was, but these points WERE addressed. There is no intention to going back to RTS because we've moved on to the current design which is working (though it still has several pain points of its own).

Note: "We" is my speaking on behalf of the company. Later in your message you do mention that the "We" sounds strange, but it's just to represent WarGaming in an official capacity.

When I engage with people, I am mostly trying to do two things:

Represent the Current Situation

This means talking about/teaching the current version of the game

You may have seen some Anti-CV or Anti-Sub Tactics videos which are done in this style.

Note: CVs and Subs are not perfect, but I do try to be helpful

This means talking about our (WarGaming's) current intentions

This is to help people understand what/why we're doing something

I can't always give all the information, but I do try to be helpful.

Understand the Issue

If understanding our Intentions or Current Situation doesn't help...

...then I need to start asking what's needed and why.

There are players that get frustrated with me probing for additional information as opposed to saying, "I'll get on that!". However, this is how I can learn what people are thinking, why they are thinking it, and how I can relay that to the powers that be so they can make informed decisions.

-

As for myself, I may not have played 10,000 games in Battleships, but I have played around 4,000 across Cruisers, Destroyers, and Battleships with a WinRate in each which at least implies understanding of their play.

I have a strong enough knowledgebase to understand concepts people are trying to relay. If I don't understand, I ask for clarification. I'm always happy to have long conversations to learn more in-depth descriptions of problems.

-

There have been times where I've had to explain that there isn't enough to go on in terms of relaying-the-issue or attempting to change something. This will primarily be for two reasons:

The issue is niche enough that I don't think I can rally support to make a change.

We are a business and resources are tight. Even small changes require concepting, development time, and testing.

The issue is large enough that I don't think I can rally support to make a change.

We are a business and resources are tight. Large changes require a massive commitment which would entail derailing potentially months of work (if not more).

Ultimately, it's not up to me what issues are prioritized and acted upon. However, I am expected to use good judgement in triaging when it comes to the hundreds/thousands of ideas that are presented each week/month. The ideas with the most engagement and agreement will certainly stand out more than others, but it still comes down to an evaluation of "Is this even possible before I suggest it?"

Remember that we are one server cluster. There is also EU and Asia which also have hundreds of thousands of players with ideas and concerns. It's a massive amount of information to sift through and the Dev Team needs a filtration system to be able to have time to work without spending all day simply reading ideas.

"Ranked" is more Casual in the sense that a player can choose to play Ranked at any time the mode is available. It is simply a button click to participate, but that's not to say that it's going to be an easy win.

Ranked mode tends to have fewer players than Randoms, so that is more weight on the shoulders of each player on the team. This is helpful because it allows an individual's performance to matter more and assist with their rise or fall through the ranks over many battles.

-

Clan Battles require:

A Dedicate Group which will show up during a window only 16 hours long per week


Depending on your competitive level, you may also need:

Pre-planned Ships


Pre-planned Strategies

For each map in the Clan Battle season

Communications

Discord, TeamSpeak, or possibly the in-game option for some

There is a LOT of work that goes into high-end clan battles:

Before they begin.


During the battles.


After the battles

Replay analysis


Research into rival clan ship choices/deployments.

Theorycrafting

For what the next line-ups will be in a week or two.


What the possible shipbans might be from WarGaming in the middle of a Season.

What the lineups will be as a result of possible shipbans...

... and probable shipbans.

All of the above is much more than clicking the Ranked button a few times on a night where you feel like playing Tryhard for a few hours. It's a very different situation.

As stated above, use of "We" is a way to "speak for WarGaming" in an official capacity. As for me, I do use "I" a lot because I do often speak as myself when interacting with people on the forums or in general.

There are times when people are looking for an official statement/position which would require me to use "We" to imply that the words being spoken are on behalf of the larger whole and not just my feelings on a topic.

This is true... and Random Battles are 12 vs 12... and that is what CVs are balanced for.

It's a moot point that CVs only interact with 2 or 3 ships at a time in any battle mode. CVs are OP AF against small teams of players and you know it. Ain't gonna see any 2/3 plane squads at the end of the battle in a 7 vs 7 format that's for sure. They're balanced for that to occur in Random Battles if the CV lasts until the end game (at least to the preferred plane type the ship is most effective with due to using them most often and getting them slowly shot down. Unless the other less effective types were used throughout the battle just to save the effective ones for the end thus balancing the effectiveness of the CV over the course of the battle by making them have to use the less effective planes to save the effective ones).

Ranked/CBs/KOTS/Brawls and toting the company line of why the elites get pampered and it's OK for the (as you just classified Ranked players as) casual players to be trolled by them in small formats is just disingenuous.

You will note that we do allow 2x CV in Random Battles, although that is only done during Soft caps. In general a CV does have a lot of influence on a match through Spotting and Damage Threat, but the game does function with a 1-to-5 CV-to-Surface Ship ratio. I'm not going to go into the discussion of Double CV battles because I'm well aware that there are players that despise them, however it is worth noting that we do have the understanding that Double CV is possible and factor that as part of our balancing process.

Further,

CVs interact with 1-3 ships in general. Single ships may be attacked twice per sortie whereas 2-3 ships would likely be a single attack (or no attack depending on the situation). As such, a CV does not often interact with 12 enemies. They tend to have something like 12-18 interactions with 1-3 enemy ship encounters over the course of a match. That happens all the same in a Ranked/Clan Battle setting where ships are split across flanks/situations. There can and will absolutely be situations where CVs are run down on resources because of their team being behind and taking bad resource trades (attacking grouped ships that cause consistent plane loss).

I specifically mentioned how having less Surface Ships can hinder a CV's ability to accurately land damage as their targets are less restrained in their movement. When there are few/no Battleships, Cruisers may have the full range of their motion to kill planes while taking little/no damage. This is not comforting to hear as a person that doesn't want to be attacked by a CV, but it IS something which effects the CV's ability to influence a situation. Oddly enough, the lesser number of teammates on the CV's team does hinder the CV's ability to operate (compared to having more teammates to play off of).

-

I assume by "The Elites get pampered" you are referring to removing CVs from the last few Clan Battle Seasons? They will be returned in later Seasons. I've already explained that a match with a CV plays differently in terms of deployment/ship selection, so we have Clan Battle Seasons with CVs and without CVs.

There are Ranked Seasons that also do not have CVs when odd-tier only ships are chosen (though I do believe that pre-dates the current Ranked Format we are using). I've Ranked Out with a Colorado during the first Tier 7 only season I played through, and the next time a Tier 7 only season I Ranked Out with a German DD and an Ash*taka. As for if we can expect a Ranked Season without CVs anytime soon, I'm not sure. As another player pointed out, Ranked is fairly accessible in the current iteration so it's worth expecting that CV Mains will be able to participate as well.

This is where the "Current Situation" vs "Understand the Issue" part of my job comes up.

"Current Situation" would dictate that I elaborate on why Priority Sector requires Manual input (looking at the planes then pressing a key).

I agree that this could be made easier with the Keybinds, but the concept is a "representation of Manual AA" which would be akin to swapping to AA Mounts and shooting at planes (which you would NOT do in a knife-fight)

"Understand the Issue" is the follow-up of hearing, "No, learning about the Manual Nature of Priority Sector doesn't matter to me. I want a keybind so I don't have to do the Manual stuff during a knife-fight"

That is where the process moves to "What would resolve the problem?"

Keybinds would resolve the problem.

I understand that it can be frustrating to be told "How to Freelook to use Priority Sector during a Knife-Fight", but giving that basic information is part of my function. I represent the company and the current product, so it's on me to give information about how the current product works.

That being said, you made a good point earlier that I likely go into "Teacher-mode" too quickly and I should try to be more receptive to if it's more a design issue/frustration. I need to be better at identifying which is present.

I realize that you're looking for something like this:

However, there is a fair amount of planning that goes into UI (User-Interface) Elements. The question jumps out as to if a player would have enough information to understand what the Green meant and what the Red meant. Would the Red scare them away from trying a skill simply by virtue of having a Red color/"disadvantage" being displayed? Still, I agree with you that it's more upfront and informative with all the information being listed.

-

Note: The entire conversation that was had about needing Priority Sector to be more transparent was out of concern for a player lacking intuitive understanding. So, alternative wording could be used instead like:

"AA Power Shifted to Priority Sector: +35%"

The wording in that implies already that the AA is being taken from somewhere, so that might be a better choice. However, phrasing like that would have to be tested to see how clear/understandable it is. Focus groups are used for basic things like that which might be overkill for a small wording change, but that would be something to consider as part of the process for a small change like this being proposed.

-

Sidenote: You cannot have a DD which reaches "185%" on a single side. Destroyers do not have access to the +25% Priority Sector talent, and DDs only Reinforce up to 35% (so the total would be 60%/70% with an Enhanced version of the skill if they could choose it.)

You are likely remembering a Dutch Cruiser as they:

Reinforce up to 50%


Can take the +25% Reinforcement Commander Skill


Have access to the Seasoned Commanders with the Improved +25% (+35% when Improved) Commander Skill

A Dutch Cruiser can reach 185% on a Reinforced Side which would leave only 15% AA on the Non-Reinforced Side.

I agree. It would be good to help a player understand intuitively that using the skill should depend on being able to keep the planes in the Reinforced Area.

Other ways to help a player understand the "Reinforced is Good, Non-Reinforced is Bad" would be through use of on-screen particle effects (looks like lots of gunfire on the strong side, little gunfire on the weak side) or through use of in-game volume/sound effects. Feedback helps drives players to understanding.

The "sound and visual feedback" is already used when a CV is attacking with Rockets. The Audio Cue helps alert a DD that planes are attacking and the Visual Cue helps a DD to understand where the attack will be. This helps players quickly intuit the situation the first time they experience it and be more prepared the next time it happens.

Please do me a favor and find an old screenshot or picture of the Icon you are requesting. I don't know off-hand the image you're describing, so it would be helpful to have a reference picture.

You've mentioned this "icon" a lot, so it'd be valuable to give me more than a description.

I'm assuming you're referring to "Being more transparent" which is a reference to our Important Message for the Community. We were meaning that we would try to be more open with our thought processes. Please understand that that's not necessarily in reference to trying to overhaul our UI to make game mechanics more clear.

There have been requests for more information to be added like "Overmatch Thresholds", "Shell Flightpathing", "Sigma Values", and more. While these are great things to learn about the game, we are constantly interacting with new players. This would absolutely help new players, but it would also intimidate them... The more information we include into our UI the more likely we overwhelm a player before they have a chance to absorb the basics. That being said, we are looking at ways to get necessary information to players to help them along the path of learning at a faster and more consistent rate... but I don't have information to share on that as it's still a work in progress.

-

I believe some of the past responses I gave you weren't adequate because I was responding to what I felt was the over-arching points you were referring to as opposed to the specific things you were mentioning. In order to make sure I'm replying correctly to your thoughts and points, I quoted and formatted all the wording in your post through the quote boxes included in this post. If you feel something was incorrectly interpreted, please let me know.

I spent about 4 hours on this reply to you. I hope it was helpful as I put in a lot of effort into it.

APM is an issue for some as the average person pulls around 50 Actions per Minute. That is near your ask of 60-70.

The larger issue is the Multi-Tasking. This involves mentally remembering where multiple things are and keeping up with that. If a player has their Hull, a grouped set of Torp Planes, a grouped set of Bombers, and 2 Fighters then they need to "track" 5 things which are under their control. This is outside of also tracking the enemy planes, friendly ships, and enemy ships.

As for Multitasking:

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/science-clear-multitasking-doesnt-work/

It's not that people can't Multi-Task, but it not something that a large percentage of the population is actively good at. There are ways to make it work, but it's not a native talent to most.

-

This would be evident in someone spending time to do something with their Torp Squadron and losing other planes elsewhere because they were busy/forgot about them. There's a processing limit as things are put on hold and not all situations are juggled quickly. Situations can change rapidly.