The Carrier Problem

[dc_79]

My tuppence as a noob. I could easily see CV been more annoying than arty in wot if it got any stronger. I play BB main and get hit by TB a bit and I'm fine with that as I can defend myself somewhat or manouve to a degree. I think they got CV about right for a indiret class.

[_DemonGuard_]

I'm with @dasCKD here: to fix CV gameplay you have to start fixing the AA system. His examples of the battleship AA values are scratching on the surface only. Look at something like the Fletcher, which is, with his guns and torps, one of the best DD at its tier. It has 3 AA aura:

5 km with 53.5 DPS

3.5 km with 56.5 DPS

2 km with 25.2 DPS

What happens if you add up everything you can do to boost it's AA performance? You get (while DFAA is active):

7.2 km with 918.06 DPS

5.1 km with 484.77 DPS

2.9 km with 54.054 DPS
So the long range aura gets 17.16 times the DPS when fully specialized for it.

Spoiler

1 (base value) x 1.2 (BFT) x 1.1 (November Echo Setteseven) x 2 (manual AA) x 1.25 (AA guns mod. 3) x 1.3 (focus on a single squadron) x 4 (DFAA)

There is no way to balance anything this way (your CSFP rating would be 267.5 stock and 6610.03 max. for the long range aura). As a CV you don't have any counterplay to this, because your planes will spot the Fletcher at 3.3 km (even closer until it actual renders the ship) deep inside his AA bubbles. Before, you never know if your planes are spotted or not.

 

The AA values need a complete overhaul and if you tune your ship for AA it might be ok, if you get a bonus of like 20% (just a rough number) total, not 1716%.

The next problem is the pure RNG of shooting down planes, which should be removed as well. Give the squadrons actual hitpoints, so the CV can see how the HP is drained and when to lose the next plane, instead of not losing a single plane for 15s and then, all of a sudden, you lose your whole squadron in the next 5 seconds.

Spoiler

I had a case where a single (!) torpedo bomber attacked my nearly full HP NC with 7.2 km AA range and i couldn't shoot down the plane and that single torpedo detonated my NC. Most funny and infuriating moment at the same time i had in this game so far.

These HPs would also make it a tradeoff if you spot an enemy DD with bad AA even if you don't lose a plane. You would trade some plane HP for the spotting and when the enemy fighters catch up on you, you would be at a disadvantage in the air duel. If WG still wants some RNG, they could at a small variation to the increments of damage dealt to planes, so the outcome isn't completely predictable.

[TomBombardil]

15 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

There is no "Carrier Problem".

Every little... disharmonic... will be solved in 2017 2018, the Year Of The CV (YOTCV)!

You mean: Year of the CONSOLE (cv ready).

NoZoupForYou interview with jingles

 

but  I'm straighing from the op topic, AA diversity by (capt) builds.

[Mr_Snoww]

All they would need to do to fix cvs is either remove the panic effect from def AA or remove/rework the damage multiier. Because right now for most cruisers and dds running def as it is essentially an 'I'm invincible to your attack button'. This change would make it more conformable for new cv players to learn what ships to drop and not to drop. It would also make it so that one ship can't delete your entire strike group before you can move it out the aa range, as some ships are spotted after you are in their aa range.

The second change they need to make is removing auto drops from every tier. This will force even cv player to learn how to drop and will remove the chance of having tier 10 cvs still auto dropping  because they are too lazy or don't know how to manual drop. Both these changes will in the long run make it a more healthy cv experience for new and old cv players. Granted that the removing auto drops adopts a 'get good or don't play' style but let's be honest, that's essentially what cvs are now. 

 

[invicta2012]

The whole idea of pre determining your build in a game with random MM is silly. It just introduces an unwelcome element of "bringing a knife to a gun fight" with all the frustration that brings. 

 

Personally I would... Allow CVs to have fighter bombers and in-game loadout changes to allow more fighters, bombers and torps as needed. 

 

I'd make AA a ship module whose effectiveness would be reduced by damage based on mechanics similar to main guns - 25/50/75 reductions in effectiveness which could be healed over time or with repair/heal. I would reduce the role of captain skills and let people have hydro and def AA consumables, but link the number of charges and cool down for each type: no need for pre-game choices, just a limit of the number of times you can use them.

[GhostRiderMax123]

51 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

All they would need to do to fix cvs is either remove the panic effect from def AA or remove/rework the damage multiier. Because right now for most cruisers and dds running def as it is essentially an 'I'm invincible to your attack button'. This change would make it more conformable for new cv players to learn what ships to drop and not to drop. It would also make it so that one ship can't delete your entire strike group before you can move it out the aa range, as some ships are spotted after you are in their aa range.

The second change they need to make is removing auto drops from every tier. This will force even cv player to learn how to drop and will remove the chance of having tier 10 cvs still auto dropping  because they are too lazy or don't know how to manual drop. Both these changes will in the long run make it a more healthy cv experience for new and old cv players. Granted that the removing auto drops adopts a 'get good or don't play' style but let's be honest, that's essentially what cvs are now. 

 

 

Removing auto drop will lead to low tier clubbing.......

 

CV's do not have a right to strike what they want when they want and get away with little or no loss. As I see it the main issue with CV's is the player themselves not understanding their role but I do believe that WG needs to look at CV economy ect and reward CV's better for protecting their team and scouting for their team. 

[Mr_Snoww]

29 minutes ago, GhostRider_24 said:

 

Removing auto drop will lead to low tier clubbing.......

 

CV's do not have a right to strike what they want when they want and get away with little or no loss. As I see it the main issue with CV's is the player themselves not understanding their role but I do believe that WG needs to look at CV economy ect and reward CV's better for protecting their team and scouting for their team. 

I'm not saying that they should be able to strike what they want but they shouldnt be punished as much as they are now for going into a ships aa that they don't spot before they are in the aa range and it pops deff aa then deletes about 10 to 15 planes before you have a chance to move out of the aa. I think we can all agree that AA has become quite ridiculous and power creeped over the past year or so. As for seal clubbing, that is done still just as tier 6 and 7. So won't make a difference. Cvs need to learn to manual drop from the get go. 

[TomBombardil]

@Infiriel

On 6-5-2018 at 12:09 PM, dasCKD said:

There should be no ships which are helpless against the carrier. There are no ships that should be no fly zones. Until this very concept is discarded, we can't expect a balanced carrier class.

The precetage of ship that are "Helpless", is low (talking about tier 6 and up), and even those have some AA and a team.

While the % of  "No flyzone" is High, and gettign higher by the new ships introduced (French BBs, USN cl split). Only need 1 "no fly zone" ship needed to diny a area!

 

With the fact that the even mediocer AA ships can SPEC to be no flyzones (hindenberg), and a "no fly zone" Ship can increas it readius and effectifness. (without sharing that info to the ones that need it, the CVs).

 

[B4zza]

While I agree something needs to be done for CV's and AA, I think it is symptomatic of the game getting balanced to the masses instead of the top players in the game.

 

The devs need to start balancing the game around the top players, the ones at the top of clan wars maybe??? I don't really know but the ones that have a clue how to play the different classes and understand what the different ships can do when playing in a team instead of balancing it for the poor randoms (not all but most) that haven't a clue when given said clue. It is suppose to be a team game after all. AA creep is directly related to bad players crying CV are OP because they camp or go alone when a CV is in the game. The feeling of defenceless while they were killed, unable to do anything solo about it in this team game because they can't see that being alone was the mistake not that the CV is OP.

 

So you have things like the Worchester coming into the game. I haven't played but watched many work in progress videos and it seems silly to me. Yes it isn't tanky but it has, hydro, def AA, radar, heal and HE shells. Why not give it smoke also and make it really jack of all. I remember the RN cruiser not getting HE because HE on the Minotaur would cause many fires and break many modules with its ROF. Roll on a bit of time and a cruiser with nearly the ROF of the Minotaur gets HE along with all the other tools which for periods of times within a game negate many other classes, hydro for torps, radar for dd's and smoke, Def AA for fleet protection to crazy distance and totally stopping a CV coming near it. He isn't the best player (love his videos) but even Jingles defeated 3 Tier X CV in a training room with it. Why has it got so many tools and why is the AA crazy powerful and so far-reaching? It is to pander and protect the worst players from feeling bad when they get spanked from the CV which they can't shoot back at because they refuse to understand the basics.

 

So back on point, The Carrier Problem with ships and crazy AA or the CV being OP is just part of the bigger problem of the game removing the need for thinking and skill by pandering to the worst in the game. I get it, the game needs money to carry on which comes from players, more players more money and to retain the masses you need to keep them happy so things like Worchester happens so they don't feel defenceless and frustrated at the game and leave. However, that keeps impacting on the gameplay because it has to be hard to balance all the ships and classes when you keep creeping with I can do all for ships because it is being balanced on solo yolo players and not the team orientated players in this team game.

[GhostRiderMax123]

3 hours ago, Mr_Snoww said:

I'm not saying that they should be able to strike what they want but they shouldnt be punished as much as they are now for going into a ships aa that they don't spot before they are in the aa range and it pops deff aa then deletes about 10 to 15 planes before you have a chance to move out of the aa. I think we can all agree that AA has become quite ridiculous and power creeped over the past year or so. As for seal clubbing, that is done still just as tier 6 and 7. So won't make a difference. Cvs need to learn to manual drop from the get go. 

 

Simple fix would be to let CV players know when their planes are detected?

 

2 hours ago, B4zza said:

So you have things like the Worchester coming into the game. I haven't played but watched many work in progress videos and it seems silly to me. Yes it isn't tanky but it has, hydro, def AA, radar, heal and HE shells. Why not give it smoke also and make it really jack of all. I remember the RN cruiser not getting HE because HE on the Minotaur would cause many fires and break many modules with its ROF. Roll on a bit of time and a cruiser with nearly the ROF of the Minotaur gets HE along with all the other tools which for periods of times within a game negate many other classes, hydro for torps, radar for dd's and smoke, Def AA for fleet protection to crazy distance and totally stopping a CV coming near it. He isn't the best player (love his videos) but even Jingles defeated 3 Tier X CV in a training room with it. Why has it got so many tools and why is the AA crazy powerful and so far-reaching? It is to pander and protect the worst players from feeling bad when they get spanked from the CV which they can't shoot back at because they refuse to understand the basics.

 

That ship is still in development.......a lot can and will likely change between now and its release.

 

[Infiriel]

3 godziny temu, TomBombardil napisał:

The precetage of ship that are "Helpless", is low (talking about tier 6 and up), and even those have some AA and a team.

While the % of  "No flyzone" is High, and gettign higher by the new ships introduced (French BBs, USN cl split). Only need 1 "no fly zone" ship needed to diny a area!

With the fact that the even mediocer AA ships can SPEC to be no flyzones (hindenberg), and a "no fly zone" Ship can increas it readius and effectifness. (without sharing that info to the ones that need it, the CVs).

 

Actually very few ships can avoid being striked by CV altogether, but i agree that even one ship set up for AA is usually enough to make CV completly useless. Especially now with buggy CV UI, which randomly stops warnings when your planes fly into deathtrap.

[TomBombardil]

 

1 hour ago, GhostRider_24 said:

Simple fix would be to let CV players know when their planes are detected?

 

Notice the date!

Quote

 

Even afther multipe question, WG doesnt even releas info about plane spotted mechnich.

Let alone balance with "spotted" range or give ingame info about these ranges

 

I do Agree that a Small "!' icon by planes would be VERRY usefull (boarderline OP for Unicorns in current meta).

but since these are UI and CV inprovmetns, i personally dont have my hopes up  (since 2015).

[Yedwy]

Somehow i got the impression (might be wrong though) the usual culprit for squad instadeletions is the “bloated” midrange aura both because it adds hellova lot of raw dpm on top of that already acting long range aura and Because most cruisers will wait untill planes are Within their range to punch DFAA

 

Hence remove all mid range auras spliting aa suite to 85+ mm (MCFAA influenced) for long range aa and all other guns should be short range aa with idk say some 3km max range (with all range buffs) and keep DFAA but with scatter effect and smaller (if any) damage buff (maybee like 50% or so) also there should be “tradeoffs” when speccing for aa Like +20% range but -30% damage from your aa bubble so u have to choose strong Defence for yourself or weaker for your team since IT doesn’t really make sence that your guns disperse much more (and hit at least half as much) with inreasing range when u fire main battery but  hit the same with aa guns at range of 5km and 7.2km

[El2aZeR]

"WG has truly tried to narrow down the skill gap."

 

Yeah, by making it bigger with almost every change.

And for god's sake, you don't need high APM to be good at playing CVs. It is in fact counterproductive to have high APM due to how bad the UI is.

 

Honestly the more I watch CCs comment on the CV rework the more they feel like a joke.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

9 hours ago, GhostRider_24 said:

Removing auto drop will lead to low tier clubbing.......

Uhm... nope?

Seals can be cluubed really, really good using autodrops. In fact, it's a much more relaxed clubbing, as you don't have to watch out for strafing fighters (unless when teamed up into strafing territory) and you don't have to micromanage your drops, but just set up the TBs and adjust the drop circle a little.

Hammer and Anvil with two TB squads works greatly with autodrop...

 

So that "autodrop stops sealclubbing" argument is utterly wrong.

[GhostRiderMax123]

2 hours ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

Uhm... nope?

Seals can be cluubed really, really good using autodrops. In fact, it's a much more relaxed clubbing, as you don't have to watch out for strafing fighters (unless when teamed up into strafing territory) and you don't have to micromanage your drops, but just set up the TBs and adjust the drop circle a little.

Hammer and Anvil with two TB squads works greatly with autodrop...

 

So that "autodrop stops sealclubbing" argument is utterly wrong.

 

yet simple wasd hacks render this tactic useless ;)

[El2aZeR]

3 minutes ago, GhostRider_24 said:

yet simple wasd hacks render this tactic useless ;)

 

Kinda a moot point considering 90% of the playerbase doesn't even know what WASD hax is.

[GhostRiderMax123]

33 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Kinda a moot point considering 90% of the playerbase doesn't even know what WASD hax is.

 

There is that :/

[Pricket]

I just borrows this table from a previous poster:

'

5 km with 53.5 DPS

3.5 km with 56.5 DPS

2 km with 25.2 DPS

 

In real life, as far as I understand, and something that was a problem for Yamato for example is that the long range AA is just that; Long Range. So maybe they could change it so that it was effective from something like 4-5 km, and MR from 2-3,5km and SR from 0-2 km or something like that. It would bring some tactical aspects to positioning to defensive AA. It would also lessen the AA significantly (for some ships) and increase the importance of SR AA. And they need to change the CV play so it's easier to deal damage, but harder to delete somebody.

 

Edit: And long range AA could be shown visualy as small smoke dots where the flak explodes.

[Sargento_YO]

7 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

And for god's sake, you don't need high APM to be good at playing CVs. It is in fact counterproductive to have high APM due to how bad the UI is.

 

 I really wonder whats the point of having a high APM. I have played starcraft and I have seen korean starcraft players clicking 200 times in 10 seconds in a single MCV on a single mineral patch, and then send a marine towards a location clicking 200 times in the same place, it's not like he will move faster! I only click if I need to issue an order.

 

When I play a CV (lets say, in my Zuiho) At the beggining of the battle I do only 6 - 7 clicks. One for take off of each squad (and telling them where to go) and the rest for the waypoints of the carrier. Then usually I set third person view from a plane and enjoy the landscape while closely watching the minimap, checking where each ship goes, which enemies appears first and where, where are the enemy planes, Assest threats, etc.

My apm must be around 20 per minute or so.

I plan ahead, see from where I can attack the target and issue the orders. Three more clicks: one for set into position, another for attacking the target (and adjusting the angle) and another one for returning to the carrier. Sometimes I need a little more apm when I do manual bomb attacks. And need to react quickly to do strafes (or avoid to be strafed) or ordering my planes to turn back if suddently there is a defensive aa fire consumable on action.
I really wonder if someone it's so dumb, or nervious, or whatever, to do that thing of clicking two million times in the same spot for issue an order to a plane.

[KarmaQU_EU]

I have a habit of double-clicking CV orders because there a one in five chance the order fails to acknowledge due to the laggy ui.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

20 hours ago, GhostRider_24 said:

 

yet simple wasd hacks render this tactic useless ;)

As the reason was supposed "sealclubbing" WASD hacks can be ignored.

And, as has been said, even many "non seals" don't know sh** about WASD hacks... that's the reason why I always state I'm doing sealclubbing, when I end up with my Kamikaze in a T7 battle...

[dasCKD]

On 5/7/2018 at 7:53 PM, El2aZeR said:

Which is why AA mounts can be destroyed.

Now, the current level at which AA mounts can be wiped out is way excessive and the system needs a lot of reworking. That just 2-3 shells from a Conqueror can strip any ship of their entire mid & short range AA suite is beyond ridiculous.

Well, I think that the whole issue with carriers is that as things stand is that the way that carriers, and I understand that this is a common criticism of the class, punishes players who put themselves on the front lines to exert power on enemy objective play. Ships like the Conqueror, at least, really just exposes the brunt of the problem. I think that AA destruction in general is a terrible mechanic that either has to be reworked from ground up or not at all. As it is now, the mechanic really only limits the power of a single surface ship under the command of a potentially excellent player. As the closer they are to the front lines the more damage they are liable to take, better players will have their AA degraded on top of being more attractive targets for carriers already thanks to their proximity to carriers. Players who use their ship to take fire, therefore, can't also use it to repel AA. Whilst on a game balance perspective this can be made to work in something like a strategy (e.g. Starcraft) or mostly zero sum team game (e.g. League) the problem with this mechanic in a game like World of Warships is that it disincentives players to do what their team may very well need them to do.

On 5/7/2018 at 7:53 PM, El2aZeR said:

However the very idea that AA mounts can be destroyed is what makes CVs capable of striking giant blobs. It's also one of the factors that makes CVs just as team dependent as any other class. It follows the counter-based balancing scheme this game is based upon. Every action has an appropriate reaction and since WoWs is a game with several fundamentally different classes, it means that playing one class simply makes you incapable of doing some of the things others can do.

Well, in that case the destruction of AA mechanics would be even more of a negative trait. One of the main defenses against carriers is to blob up, but as AA degrade carriers will simply be able to stomp on just about every ship late into the game. Worcetor and Minotaur are somewhat unique as they have a good brunt of their AA in their self-repairing main turrets that allows them to retain AA effectiveness for about as long as they can stay alive, but for most ships even blobbing up will not save them from carriers. With our current system being unable to strike blobs isn't a limiting factors for a carrier circumstantially, which means that carriers are in fact less team dependent as as long as their allies can get their shells on target, enemy ships will slowly lose AA. It isn't so much depending on teamwork as they are depending on a degradation mechanic so ubiquitous that it might as well be hard-coded into the game's script.

On 5/7/2018 at 7:53 PM, El2aZeR said:

If a CV cannot strike blobs but DDs can disperse them via a torp salvo or others can either focus down high AA ships or diminish AA as a whole, that's not inconsistency. That's teamplay. And it's a wonderful thing.

But CVs can indeed strike blobs, as previously noted, if the AA degrades or if the ships are simply not equipped to deal with the carrier through either the fault of the captain skills or matchmaking. I didn't really say much about the tier disparity issue, but the AA jump at around tier 6-7 is a massive problem to ships on both sides of the divide. The fact is that if the team has a bad lineup (i.e. all Nagatos VS a Taiho or even Hiryu VS all Gneisenaus withou AA upgrades or skills) no amount of team play will let them escape the carrier's wrath. Whilst the circumstances suggested are obviously contrived, the fact that it could happen at all. There are things that those ships could do about that obviously, but the fact is that a large part of the problem is that there IS something that could be done to arbitrarily increase the performance of AA.

On 5/7/2018 at 7:53 PM, El2aZeR said:

Besides, how else would you balance CVs? By averaging out AA performance across the board, reworking DFAA to be less powerful or completely removing it and giving AA mounts more survivability, perhaps even making them invulnerable to some degree, in return (which is still a great idea I fully support) you're making every surface ship even more dependent on their teammates to defeat air strikes.

Well, they are many options I thought of that could be used to fix this problem or at least improve the circumstances somewhat. I would probably either make it so that either the AA mounts are indestructible or are suppressible through the use of high explosives i.e. ships under fire will lose almost all of their AA firepower and become extremely vulnerable to carrier strikes but, after escaping fire for maybe a minute or three at the maximum, will regain all of their AA power. This has the fringe benefit of limiting the carrier's ability to simply wipe out entire flanks and will encourage carriers to work harder to synchronize their attacks with ally actions. Even without this mechanic, I will still likely demand more visiblity when it comes to the state of AA ships both allied and enemies as the stupid obfuscation of important information, especially in regards to carriers, that we see right now is quite frankly toxic to new carrier players and at the very least incredibly unpleasant to older players. I see myself moving further and further away from expecting cooperation in game mechanics in general the more I see of the game but assuming that teamwork is still something we really can't expect. Assuming we want to preserve teamwork however, the current additive AA bubbles we see in the current system works perfectly fine for me. The AA mechanics aren't inherently bad in their pure form, it's just everything that surrounds it including mandatory aircraft upgrade skills and modules and how AA destruction is used to hide the problem that really gets my go.

[dasCKD]

On 5/9/2018 at 2:35 AM, Sargento_YO said:

 I really wonder whats the point of having a high APM. I have played starcraft and I have seen korean starcraft players clicking 200 times in 10 seconds in a single MCV on a single mineral patch, and then send a marine towards a location clicking 200 times in the same place, it's not like he will move faster! I only click if I need to issue an order.

I can only speak for myself, but I personally find that I perform better in CVs if I try to maintain a high APM early game at least against good players. Strafe battles takes literally seconds to start, and I find that if I start out with a low APM I also find it difficult to step up to the necessary micromanaging I need when it really matters so even when idle I make my fighters trace doughnuts for that reason.

[El2aZeR]

23 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

One of the main defenses against carriers is to blob up, but as AA degrade carriers will simply be able to stomp on just about every ship late into the game.

 

True, but I don't believe it is the inherent concept that is the problem. If AA would just degrade at a far slower rate or alternatively be only temporarily disabled that should already fix the problem.

 

24 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

The fact is that if the team has a bad lineup (i.e. all Nagatos VS a Taiho or even Hiryu VS all Gneisenaus withou AA upgrades or skills) no amount of team play will let them escape the carrier's wrath.

 

Yes, which is why we've been saying for years that AA progression is nonsensical and that it'd be much easier to balance the game around +/- 1 MM.

*insert WG-has-truly-tried-everything meme here*

 

28 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

I see myself moving further and further away from expecting cooperation in game mechanics in general the more I see of the game but assuming that teamwork is still something we really can't expect.

 

Quite frankly I don't see that working out considering the game is fundamentally built upon expecting players to work together as no single class is capable of doing everything on their own (even if they're trying really hard to make that happen with BBs).