Bl4ckh0g

But, Damn these things are crazy, like the Skyshark could out run some fighters

Can you imagine how well CVs will be able to spot with these things? And That if a lower tier carrier will get matched up against a Midway, the guy will cry himself and quit. Oh, hell in order to make this work the tier 9 carriers would need special MM to never see tier 10, same for the tier 8s as well Skyshark? That thing has better performance than the Bloody Skyraider

Well, at least not a Skyraider or Mauler. But damn, It will be interesting to see Jets in tier 10.

Hyay, that gif is amazing. Also I forget something.

The banshees will have no chance

Banshees look at the air intakes

Oh boyz dis gun b gud

Well, fighters would only have small HE bombs, like the Zeros had 50 kg bombs and such, so they would really only crit and do little damage, DBs are good as they are with HE bombs, but I would like to make them a better damage dealing option compared to TBs and maybe add some more tactical options to them, They wouldn't require as much skill as a TB to do damage. Well, What I'd like is to shift the main damage source from the TBs a little, Like currently nearly most I think around 80-85% damage comes from Torpedo bombers, I think that should be lowered to around 60-65%, so even a newbie could do at least mediocre damage with CVs. I think If a good dive bomb run could do around 5-7 k damage in tier 5, with manual drop against a Kongo with AP bombs for example that would be nice. but the numbers themselves are debatable of course, that's just an example

Wasn't that already feasible? Like, If you cannot have 2 DDs, or 2 CAs together in a division then that severely limits their usefulness, like why would I even want to play division when I cannot go with my buddy? BTW What do you guys think about this potential fix for CVs?

Well, there are already around ~3 CV topics circulating in the forums, and I really do not want to make a fourth Spellfire, you are right about the fighter setups, They are completely unnecessary, You get minimal XP for shooting down planes, you barely contribute to the team, and you only making the other guy more miserable and your only job is to click on his TBs, DBs. Pure Fighter oriented setups are not needed. (Assuming 5 flights) What we would need is setups that are either balanced with same amount of DBs, TBs(2 DB, 1 F, 2 TB), dive bomber oriented setups( 2 DB, 2 F, 1 TB), and torpedo bomber(1 Db,2 F,2 TB) oriented setups. Fighters should be equipped with small HE bombs, since nearly all naval fighters had the ability to carry ordnance, These bombs would do small scale damage, and make fighters useful when the enemy team either doesn't have a CV( MM can resolve this) Or the enemy team's CV is already sunk, run out of planes or for some other reason he is inactive towards you. Fighters would also receive increased XP rewards for planes shot down that carried ordnance. The other problem with CVs Is the focus on Torpedo bombers, they are virtually the only effective damage dealing source for a CV, and that should be resolved with buffing DBs to some degree and giving Fighters small HE bombs. I think TBs should be a high damage source for carriers, but not so much that If you suck in them you can throw out your ship. Giving them slightly worse angles on the manual drops, and reducing their maximum numbers to three, and overall preventing them to deal immense burst damage(>60% BB HP) would be desirable. Overall plane speed should be increased slightly so, you would not lose DPM with the torpedo bombers, You would strike more with reduced damage, instead of making few attack runs with immense damage. The really short ranged drops are also a nasty factor, they can be avoided, but Who are we kidding, not by average players, Average Joe neither has the situational awareness nor the reflexes to dodge a short ranged stacked torpedo run. Increasing the torpedo arm distance slightly together with the drop circle increase(which they implemented in 3.1.4. I think?) would do good for the CV PR department, Increasing torpedo damage would balance this thing out. So you would deal the good damage with fewer hits. The preferred role for torpedo bombers would be a high damage, harder to achieve attack run, which deals considerable damage, but not so much that It can destroy a full HP enemy ship outright and give average players some chance to avoid it. They would drop high damage torpedoes with slightly worse angles than now and from a slightly greater distance with faster flying speeds and slightly better rearm speeds so they can perform more attack runs. Dive bombers should have the option to equip AP bombs, which would have the ability to deal around 3,000-10,000 damage(3 k for tier 5, 10 k for tier 10). These bombs would slow them down and make them slightly more inaccurate, so they would not deal immense damage to targets, They would be effective against heavy cruisers, battleships and again enemy CVs. The HE bombs would be effective against destroyers and by increasing their splash radius, they can be tweaked to knock out the target's AA guns for a torpedo or AP bomb run. Overall carriers should have more instruments to deal damage, currently only the torpedo bombers can do reliable, and sufficient damage, but since making a torpedo run is not easy, new and average players suffer immensely, while good players have no problem, This means that most Cv players are good or very good players and this only distorts the statistical feedback gathered by WG. This essentially makes balancing them a nightmare since you only gather data from a selective, high skilled player base, which is only around 20-25% of the Total player base. Without making CVs a more newbie friendly class you cannot hope to balance them right. These changes that I listed would add more damage dealing source to CVs. Dive bombers and fighters equipped with bombs can do damage even when the player is new, They can be a reliable damage source which deals moderate damage, while torpedo bomber can be a skill dependent high damage source. But If the current CV meta isn't changed the game and player base will only suffer from it. That is certain. I think IJN carriers should have 5 plane squadrons instead of 4, but with slightly more powerful planes(still not as powerful as a 6 plane squadron from a USN CV) and have one more available squadron at their disposal. They should have more fragile planes, that can be serviced faster. but overall they shouldn't be that much different from the USN CVs, slight differences only which cannot affect damage dealing performance greatly.

Hmm, So Dev team probably looks like this: Just look at that smudge look on his face, He clearly enjoys it, the sick basterd

To some degree, Japanese ships received enormous buffs compared to their real life performance, but eh.. being biased is impossible to avoid, every one has a favorite, the developers are the same

Kuma likes

My motto is: Doesn't work for the first time? Scrap the whole thing! Make a new one! Better! Bigger! Faster!....Aaand we run out of funds, God job boys see you under the bridge

I like Furutaka as well, but I don't know, I like most cruisers none is especially that good or that bad. Like I had monster games in the Omaha and the Pensacola as well, So like They are all nice

The problem with my topics is usually that I am kinda a perfectionist and I usually make my topics in a way that covers most possible problems(unless I deliberately trying to provoke an argument and/or I am in a nasty mood) so people just do not really say anything, and the whole topic just disappears,

m4inbrain, on 11 June 2015 - 04:42 PM, said: I think there's a single big issue there. People in the internets are prone to not being able to admit if their thoughtprocess is wrong. I wouldn't mind having a decent discussion about balance, fixes and whatnot - but the problem is, as soon as you make that topic, one BB driver comes in and says "OP!". Not just limited to that, could be a CV driver saying "they're supposed to do that!", and your topic derails. I really would like to argue decently, but both sides get so defensive really quickly, trying to force "their vision" down the others throat without even knowing what is intended and what not, i don't see it working. Btw, i'm not excluding myself there. edit: understandable though, since "balance" comes with buffs, and more notably, nerfs. Nobody wants "his class" to be nerfed, even if it's like 300x stronger than other classes (learned that in other games, prime example being KV1S Drivers until "recently", IS4 drivers back when it was T9, T54 drivers always, etc). Yeah, I was hesitant to actually make one tbh, too much work and it would just slowly sink down the forum drain. Well, I hope that some devs read this discussion and realize a few things Seska1973, on 11 June 2015 - 04:49 PM, said: Oh nice, an WW2 History lesson We want balancing for a Game. Not replaying History That thing kind of ended a while back, around ~0,5 pages ago, little late (E.: okay 7 posts)

You know, I might make a topic about this whole CV issue with potential fixes and such, but I kind of think it wouldn't really be a "sticky" topic, well anyway maybe be tomorrow, certainly not today

It's mine Well, probably someone else said it too. It's like the warhammer saying Space Marines win battles, the Imperial guard win wars.

Carriers win battles, Cruisers, destroyers and submarines win wars and battleships win medals.( and beauty contests)

Well, I think 3.2 is still due in CBT and after that, well who knows really? Carriers are bad, that is an undeniable fact, and they cannot be fixed with soft stat balancing, they have to be seriously reworked. So yeah, the devs can decide whether they want to work on the game for a while or start a "[edited]" whine-fest similar to WoT artillery with releasing the game with the current CV mechanics.

yeah, I think that's part of the not knowing how to fix it part

We could make a dedicated topic for this with Poll and such. And, It's not entirely true that they do not listen, I think it's just the thing that we might have not made a certain "list" what is wrong with the carrier gameplay, like they know It"s wrong but they do not know what's exactly wrong and how to fix that, you know? Edit: I will not(or might be) make this topic, mostly because when I make a nice topic, people are like: "Yeah, this guy said everything right, I have nothing to say, and how smart and gorgeous he is, charming and nice and smart."

It's not just a WG thing

I might write a message or two to Tuccy and Ev1n, pester them a little bit You know, It would be like really nice If some EU community people would actually try to participate in these arguments in a way that they actually admit that the game has problems and they do not just try to like PR their way out.