Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Stugga

A few suggestions for balancing carriers

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
267 posts
8,269 battles

Hello, "normal" player here since closed beta.

 

Even though I don't play carriers much (only a few games to "know my enemy"), as a former chess player for me it's all about balance and gameplay. So since I've seen all the rise and decline of the carrier gameplay through the years, I make some suggestions here so that we start seeing carriers more often (like every game hopefully) but in the same time balance them so that their existence in a game does not become a frustrating experience for the rest players.

 

First of all, lets see what are a few "issues" about carriers: 

 

1) Every ship category except the CVs has some short of risk vs reward. The DDs must get relatively close to torp (and even closer if they want to torp more successfully) and they risk getting spotted (radars, planes, other DDs..). The cruisers, kinda the same as DDs, while being in danger of getting citadeled. The BBs can be seen further away than any other ship and so everybody wants  and can burn them. (Exception to this rule is Moskva (why does a CA have worse concealment than BBs? so f*cked up) and Conqueror (why such an OP concealment? again, so f*cked up). Anyway....

 

2) If one carrier player is better than the other, most of the times game is decided right then, from the get go. It's the only ship that skill difference makes such a big impact in the game. Furthermore (or at the same time...), in higher tiers, you see many "unskilled" carrier players, just "parking" their fighers idle at a spot or hovering above a ship, unable to multitask all their planes and just focusing on playing their torp planes and bombers, with result, the skillful player can spot better, can support AA better, can area deny better.. or rather far better than an unskilled one. - Furthermore, if you lose your carrier because he yolo-d or he was unskilled and didn't move when the enemy pushed his side and got spotted or the enemy CV killed him etc you now face a situation that you must rush all the way or every minute that passes the enemy CV will gradually kill everybody with nothing you can do, completely destroying the gameplay in the cases you lose your team's carrier. (and again, many players don't move because maybe they are too busy multitasking so many planes that they completely lose their map awareness?)...Anyways...

 

3) They are very leathal. Nothing you can do when there's 3 torp planes and 2 bombers coming at you. Carriers can so easily (if skilled) one-shot a ship. Nobody wants to be one-shotted (aka: deleted).

 

So, here are some suggestions of how we can improve all this, in my opinion:

 

1) Risk Vs reward: Every ship in the game... has range. Carriers in reality... have range (of how far the planes can operate) and all the more so, during WWII (limited range). So give carriers RANGE. Make them having to follow fleet to operate in their active range or hide behind some island (like US cruisers) to be within range. In this way you increase their risk but also indirectly force them to be very active in spotting their area (to spot DDs that can spot them), forcing unskillful players to use their fighters more efficiently...

 

2) How can an unskilled player cope up with above change? We already said that they can't multitask so well already. Well then.... ---> REDUCE NR of PLANES. 5-6 planes are too many for the average Joe to multitask and play successfully and that is what makes a skillful player make such a difference. Better have high tier CVs have less planes but the average players can play them all relativelly ok then so many planes with the unskilled players parking them idle. Better have CVs with (example) 1 fighter plane, 1 torp plane, 1 bomb plane each, but the average Joe can multitask and play them, than 5-6 planes where half of them sit idle. - Of course adjustments to dmg, survavability etc should be made in this case, while maintaining some difference in playstyle between various countries. So ok, make one country'splanes more survavible, the other's more leathal, give one CV more armor, the other better concealment etc. If you decide to go that way, you know what to do...

 

3) With the above change, we can also balance #3 issue -  the lethality - through the adjustments and the reduction of planes.

 

Furthermore, when all the above changes are done and balanced, we can have more than 1 carrier per team in each game because they will both have range issues and their lethality will be reduced and ofc at the same time you have to increase the credit making coefficient (past nerf) of the carriers to give players a bigger insentive to start playing their carriers again.

 

Again, nobody likes to be one-shoted. Nobody likes to be attacked again and again from a ship 40+km away with nothing he can do about it and nobody likes to have an unskilled CV player in his team while the enemy CV player is devistating. If you don't change that, better remove carriers from game altogether!

 

I could write more but that's all the time I want to afford from my Saturday afternoon in this essay :p

 

Hope I helped,

Stugga

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CU]
Players
312 posts
3,469 battles

I really wouldn't worry about anything to do with CV's at the moment as they are currently being redesigned.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
267 posts
8,269 battles
1 minute ago, Malfuss said:

I really wouldn't worry about anything to do with CV's at the moment as they are currently being redesigned.

 

So while devs redesigning them (which I know that), they could also take the above suggestions into consideration?   - After redesigning them, spending workhours etc to include further suggestions (we all know) is not good business practise and not usually done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
2,661 posts
Just now, Stugga said:

So while devs redesigning them (which I know that), they could also take the above suggestions into consideration?   - After redesigning them, spending workhours etc to include further suggestions (we all know) is not good business practise and not usually done.

We do not know how the rework will look like. As such any suggestions right now are based on pure speculation or the current (hopefully soon: old) system.

 

As they apparently already have a concept in mind, or else they couldn't have started working on it, it would be bad to interrupt the current development process each time someone from the community posts a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T_I_W]
Players
159 posts
9,847 battles

give all CV disgustingly stronk AA and secondaries

give all CV the big aoe ship healing thing you see in events/operations as a consumable

give all CV slightly better armor so they can take a bit of abuse from DD/CL guns

only get one squad of multirole planes which can either fight enemy planes or attack enemy ship

 

nerf AA on every other ship so hard that they have to gather around the CV

 

then we have.. a fleet game where you are forced to play as part of your team :cap_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
267 posts
8,269 battles

Mate, I don't interrupt anything. I offer some suggestions for them to consider. What is your problem?... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
263 posts
5,064 battles

Well, your suggestions basically amount to dumbing down and nerfing CVs... Sounds a bit sad to be honest.

You'll find plenty of other threads discussing the CV issues, you might find them informative.

Especially the opinions from people who actually play CV.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
267 posts
8,269 battles

I did say decrease their lethality but I also said, while reducing planes, then adjust their dmg to bring back some balance to where you want it. ALso, the range? is not a nerf. It's implementation of some risk Vs reward to CVs like in ALL other ships. etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,204 posts
14,454 battles
1 hour ago, Stugga said:

1) Every ship category except the CVs has some short of risk vs reward.

 

Risk of losing planes is apparently no risk at all.

 

1 hour ago, Stugga said:

2) If one carrier player is better than the other, most of the times game is decided right then, from the get go.

 

No it isn't. If one CV player is better and the enemy team is completely braindead, yeah, sure.

Not a problem with CVs however.

 

1 hour ago, Stugga said:

Nothing you can do when there's 3 torp planes and 2 bombers coming at you.

 

Press T button and watch the entire strike melt within seconds.

 

1 hour ago, Stugga said:

So give carriers RANGE.

 

Already the case. A CV's range is determined by their service times and therefore their damage potential. If you just stay at the edge of the map or in spawn it can easily take you up to 5 minutes (aka a quarter of the match duration) to attack again. Sticking with the fleet thus becomes paramount for both protection and damage potential.

 

1 hour ago, Stugga said:

5-6 planes are too many for the average Joe to multitask

 

The average Joe is also incapable of using WASD. I guess we need to remove citadels (OH WAIT, already done on most BBs) and torpedoes?

Balancing around the average player means you're not balancing at all. Yes, CVs are difficult for the average player to grasp, perhaps more so than other classes due to specific peculiarities that WG decided would help them but in reality just screws them over (*cough* auto drop *cough*), but so is everything else.

 

1 hour ago, Stugga said:

we can have more than 1 carrier per team in each game

 

No we can't. Unless you want to make single CVs capable of slaughtering 4 unskilled ones and therefore increase the impact of a skilled CV on a match.

 

56 minutes ago, Stugga said:

they could also take the above suggestions into consideration?

 

Not really, considering it's a complete overhaul. The current prototype makes you pilot squads manually, any changes that rely on the current RTS playstyle therefore become moot.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,313 posts
5,395 battles

How many of these threads do we need? Is there anything new compared to all the other threads? I don't see anything that has not been brought up at least half a dozen times and I have no idea why the OP saw the need to tell us what many others already stated before him and which has already been subject to lengthy debates. I guess someone thought their wisdom, gained after playing 17 battles in carriers that can actually manual drop, has not yet been discovered by the average player...

53 minutes ago, Stugga said:

1) Risk Vs reward: Every ship in the game... has range. Carriers in reality... have range (of how far the planes can operate) and all the more so, during WWII (limited range). So give carriers RANGE. Make them having to follow fleet to operate in their active range or hide behind some island (like US cruisers) to be within range. In this way you increase their risk but also indirectly force them to be very active in spotting their area (to spot DDs that can spot them), forcing unskillful players to use their fighters more efficiently...

You already get a reward for being closer to the action, which is plane cycle time. The further away you are, the further your planes have to fly, the longer you are basically doing nothing. The best carrier sticks near the fleet, but far enough away to not get spotted and murdered, while the crappy ones immediatly run off to some map corner for no reason, taking valuable extra minutes of flight time for no good reason.

55 minutes ago, Stugga said:

2) How can an unskilled player cope up with above change? We already said that they can't multitask so well already. Well then.... ---> REDUCE NR of PLANES. 5-6 planes are too many for the average Joe to multitask and play successfully and that is what makes a skillful player make such a difference. Better have high tier CVs have less planes but the average players can play them all relativelly ok then so many planes with the unskilled players parking them idle. Better have CVs with (example) 1 fighter plane, 1 torp plane, 1 bomb plane each, but the average Joe can multitask and play them, than 5-6 planes where half of them sit idle. - Of course adjustments to dmg, survavability etc should be made in this case, while maintaining some difference in playstyle between various countries. So ok, make one country'splanes more survavible, the other's more leathal, give one CV more armor, the other better concealment etc. If you decide to go that way, you know what to do...

The issue isn't just skill gap in handling a ton of squadrons, it is handling alt attacks. If one CV knows how to strafe and manual drop and the other doesn't, you know which CV will just straight up murder his counterpart on the enemy team and likely a good part of the rest of the enemy team too. And if you want to adress the skill gap in manual drop, you get CVs like Graf Zeppelin, where you got exactly the qualities of very few squadrons (which in return are large) and as long as no side every discovers the alt key, Graf Zeppelin wins every time, because it can left click delete planes and autodrop delete most ships that aren't DDs.

 

Is that what we wish for? Do we want ever more dumb gameplay?

1 hour ago, Stugga said:

3) With the above change, we can also balance #3 issue -  the lethality - through the adjustments and the reduction of planes.

Invest in AA and you actually will see their lethality drop. Obviously very few invest in AA, because CV players are a dying breed. But it is painfully easy to get some AA boosts on a ship with skills, to the point of being very hard to kill, while it is for example impossible to get any captain skill that makes your cruiser more survivable vs BB AP. The only three skills remotely good for that are cE (not being seen), PT (know you are being targetted) and IFA (know you are being fired at). But when the shells arrive, there's nothing. There is no skill to boost armour, no skill to increase enemy dispersion, no skill to improve your rudder shift, nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,204 posts
14,454 battles
5 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

The best carrier sticks near the fleet

 

Excuse me, but here

5 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

The best carrier goes for caps

 

let me fix that for you.

:Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
267 posts
8,269 battles
1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

Risk of losing planes is apparently no risk at all.

 

Not in high tiers where they have almost unlimited planes.

 

1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

No it isn't. If one CV player is better and the enemy team is completely braindead, yeah, sure.

Not a problem with CVs however.

 

Apparently we play different games, cuz in my games "Yes it is". If one player is more skillful than the other 9 out of 10 times is game over.

 

2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Press T button and watch the entire strike melt within seconds.

 

Apparently you haven't met good CV players who bait you to def AA by coming close and retreating, only to come back after 20 sec. Or who will first send bombers, so you either use def AA on them or take full dmg, then they send torp planes etc...

7 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

No we can't. Unless you want to make single CVs capable of slaughtering 4 unskilled ones and therefore increase the impact of a skilled CV on a match.

 

3 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Already the case. A CV's range is determined by their service times and therefore their damage potential. If you just stay at the edge of the map or in spawn it can easily take you up to 5 minutes (aka a quarter of the match duration) to attack again. Sticking with the fleet thus becomes paramount for both protection and damage potential.

 

No it's not the case cuz it's not mandatory. Meaning, the average Joe can and will sit back and "snipe" (like the average BB player) not caring about his reduced efficiency, while the skillful enemy CV player can be devestating. Again, that was multipurpose suggestion to "force" CV players to be more active, the way you force all the DD etc players to "close the distance" and also to reduce the imbalance between unskilled and skillful CV player

5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

The average Joe is also incapable of using WASD. I guess we need to remove citadels (OH WAIT, already done on most BBs) and torpedoes?

Balancing around the average player means you're not balancing at all. Yes, CVs are difficult for the average player to grasp, perhaps more so than other classes due to specific peculiarities that WG decided would help them but in reality just screws them over (*cough* auto drop *cough*), but so is everything else.

 

I agree with this, but if you don't see the problem between the difference of an unskilled and skillful carrier player in the game and how devestating this can be to the outcome then nothing I can say. Yeah, it's valid for BB players etc too, but they are lost in the herd, they provide meatshield indirectly etc. and you can do something about it. The carrier skill difference on the other way is detrimental.

 

7 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

No we can't. Unless you want to make single CVs capable of slaughtering 4 unskilled ones and therefore increase the impact of a skilled CV on a match.

 

Back in  closed beta and early days, you often met 2 carriers pet team and even though they were more leathal, players had to adapt. First seconds, all you did is communicate how you will short out your AA escort, who will support who, even defend carrier etc. Today's "new players" got spoiled. I'm just saying it cuz anyway, the above suggestion was optional for after and if a good balance could be achieved. No big deal.

 

10 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Not really, considering it's a complete overhaul. The current prototype makes you pilot squads manually, any changes that rely on the current RTS playstyle therefore become moot.

I am not familiar with the current changes, but first time in my life in any game I play, I see players discouraging other players from making SUGGESTIONS. What the heck is wrong with you people? I didn't say "implement them or I rage quit or w/e". There were merre suggestion to keep in mind, maybe in any 100 suggestions playerbase makes, there is ONE freakin useful......... what .... the... f*ck.... ??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
267 posts
8,269 battles
8 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Is there anything new compared to all the other threads?

The "range" issue, and how is combined wiith the rest suggestions (decrease nr of planes etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JR-IT]
Alpha Tester
840 posts
7,406 battles
1 hour ago, Stugga said:

 

3) They are very leathal. Nothing you can do when there's 3 torp planes and 2 bombers coming at you. Carriers can so easily (if skilled) one-shot a ship. Nobody wants to be one-shotted (aka: deleted).

 

To add something to what @El2aZeR said.

Because cv is the only ship that can do that...

Dd can't  do that to every other class...nope

Bb can't  do that to every other class ...nope

 

With a little difference:

- if you use the wasd hax you can negate or almost negate every torpedo a dd dropped against you and he need 1-2 min to reload

- if you use the wasd hax you can negate or almost negate all the damage of a cv, and he need 2-4 min to "reload"

- if you are in a cruiser, or in half of the dds, or a carrier, you press a button and denied his attack completely, even when you are inside the smoke ( minotaur anyone?)

Then we arrive to the Huber  elephant in the room: BBS

-if you manouvre in a dd, you risk to eat a full penetration salvo that can oneshot you ( tell that to the gearing that a week ago ate a 14k salvo against my montana at 9kms

-if you manouvre in a cruiser you will still eat a ton of damage tanks to the bb "stray shell" that overpen you everywhere and citadel you for 1/2 1/3 of your hp. Go and tell  that to a nose-out mogami at 19 kms away from my yamato that hate a 34k dev strike. ( or to my charles martel that ate a 27k salvo against a bimark 17 kms away, and i was showing only my stern to him)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,313 posts
5,395 battles
Just now, El2aZeR said:

 

Excuse me, but here

 

let me fix that for you.

:Smile_trollface:

Just in the last week I had two of my CVs that died within 5 minutes to enemy fire, because they steamed god knows where close to the action. One was top tier and died to an enemy Boise (you know, that short ranged premium cruiser). The other might or might not have suicided as T6 in T8, but given he didn't first rage in chat...

 

So, they might go for caps, but they should do so after some careful consideration first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
267 posts
8,269 battles
9 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Invest in AA and you actually will see their lethality drop

You guys don't get it. I am not a freakin noob who cries nerf carriers. I play since closed beta, almost 8k battles, with 55% win rate *solo quee*, no divisions or premium consumambles. I can perfectly def myself Vs planes. My problem, is when the rest freakin team dies, or my CV dies etc and all the imbalances that occur afterwards or how detrimental is the skill difference between carrier players, how the gameplay experience becomes frustrating and so forth. Hence I bothered with suggestions, to help improve the gameplay experience, but frankly, after all this "hate"(?), I should not bother again. You can have what you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,313 posts
5,395 battles
2 minutes ago, Stugga said:

The "range" issue, and how is combined wiith the rest suggestions (decrease nr of planes etc).

No, the range issue was brought up before. If you think you are the first to ever have thought about it, then you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
267 posts
8,269 battles
Just now, Flavio1997 said:

To add something to what @El2aZeR said.

Because cv is the only ship that can do that...

Dd can't  do that to every other class...nope

Bb can't  do that to every other class ...nope

I agree, but they take risks, they can be shot back etc. Anyways..

 

I'm off , hf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
267 posts
8,269 battles
Just now, Riselotte said:

No, the range issue was brought up before. If you think you are the first to ever have thought about it, then you are wrong.

I stand corrected then, I didn't read it before. Have a nice weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,251 battles
1 minute ago, Stugga said:

Apparently you haven't met good CV players who bait you to def AA by coming close and retreating, only to come back after 20 sec.

 

Yea seriously @El2aZeR... why dont you go and ask a good CV Player how that AA-baiting-thingy works... :cap_haloween:

 

3 minutes ago, Stugga said:

Apparently we play different games, cuz in my games "Yes it is". If one player is more skillful than the other 9 out of 10 times is game over.

 

Now serious: I hear what you are saying but its not really the truth. I just had a messed up game with 2vs2 CVs. I was in Division with Zuiho, and the Enemys had Zuiho/Independence. Our Indepence was useless, didnt use fighters, didnt knew what manual attacks  / strafe is. My Divisions CV educated him during the game - our CV had never heard of manual attacks, he admitted. Their CVs both were more then decent, the Independence could roam free since my divison Zuiho couldnt do anything against 2 CVs and one having the advantage of strafing. We won tho, and it wasnt even close. Enemy BBs never left spawn, their DDs rushed without any support and our DDs feast in the last minutes on the camping BBs. Geade and Fushun together hat 7 kills, Gaede a High caliber. So how come 2vs1 CV with the advantage of manual attacks vs no manual attack couldnt win? you can hardly have a bigger advantage, can you?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JR-IT]
Alpha Tester
840 posts
7,406 battles
2 minutes ago, Stugga said:

I agree, but they take risks, they can be shot back etc. Anyways..

 

I'm off , hf

What risk take a bb firing 18 kms from you when you have 16 kms of range? And the little detail that it can delete you every 30 secs, meanwhile you need 3-4 min of continuous  fire to kill him, and the fact that if he manage to disengage he can regain 70-80% of the healt lost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,204 posts
14,454 battles
17 minutes ago, Stugga said:

Not in high tiers where they have almost unlimited planes.

 

You mean "they lose their strike 2x and they're out of bombers"?

Yeah, sure seems unlimited to me.

 

17 minutes ago, Stugga said:

Apparently we play different games, cuz in my games "Yes it is". If one player is more skillful than the other 9 out of 10 times is game over.

 

Sure, but that has other reasons. Simple fact is that most people simply don't or straight up refuse to take countermeasures against CVs like they would for example against DDs. Having been in CBT you've surely noticed that few ask for air cover or are willing to provide it anymore, no?

Playing effectively against a CV is easy even in DDs. Having the intelligence to do so is apparently not.

 

17 minutes ago, Stugga said:

Apparently you haven't met good CV players who bait you to def AA by coming close and retreating, only to come back after 20 sec. Or who will first send bombers, so you either use def AA on them or take full dmg, then they send torp planes etc...

 

Oh, no.

Oh, oh, oh no.

Have you...

Think about this.

Have you ever thought about using DFAA when planes are close to you so you can get them all? And not get baited like a braindead potato?

Or have you thought about NOT using DFAA on DBs and using it for TBs?

 

Seriously, the term baiting in itself means that you're trying to make the enemy MISPLAY. If he falls for it, he misplays horribly and deserve to be punished. Use DFAA when planes are within 3km and not a moment sooner unless you want to save an ally.

 

17 minutes ago, Stugga said:

No it's not the case cuz it's not mandatory.

 

Same for every other class. No example you listed is different.

 

17 minutes ago, Stugga said:

I agree with this, but if you don't see the problem between the difference of an unskilled and skillful carrier player in the game and how devestating this can be to the outcome then nothing I can say.

 

It's a problem, but you don't address it by globally nerfing CVs. You address it by removing or adjusting the mechanics that are causing this disparity in the first place. Currently skilled and potato CVs basically play two entirely different games. Imagine for example if BBs could just set their main guns to fire automatically at reduced efficiency like secondaries. That's basically auto drop. Remove that and CV players will have to git gud or quit, reducing the skill gap.

 

17 minutes ago, Stugga said:

I am not familiar with the current changes, but first time in my life in any game I play, I see players discouraging other players from making SUGGESTIONS.

 

I am not discouraging you to make suggestions. It's just that your suggestions are tied to the current RTS gameplay of CVs, which makes them moot. I thought you'd like to be aware of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,468 posts
9,787 battles
1 hour ago, Stugga said:

*snipped down generic anti CV nonsense*

 

1) Simply wrong. CVs risk their planes when they attack, this would be like you having a chance for your guns blowing up when you fire them, so this very much is a case of risk vs reward as CVs have to adjust for the risk of losing the ability to attack vs the importance of attacking a given target.

 

2) Just wrong, Just repeating a meme people love to repeat.

 

3) 3 torp squads is limited to two carriers in the entire game (and they have lower numbers for each squad). And even then there's LOADS you can do, and even more you should have done from the start of the game.

 

Ie, your premises are entirely wrong, and unsurprisingly your suggestions are pointless. (even accounting for the massive overhaul that likely are entirely incompatible).

 

Though to make a point on your first suggestion. Since it's so obviously clear from it you really have no clue. CVs already should be played as close to the enemy as possible to shorten flight times and turnaround and thus getting to attack more, so this really is entirely a wasted suggestion. (and the ranges planes had outstrips anything you see in this game by 100x or more, so even looking for reality to find some excuse to nerf is just silly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,019 posts
7,776 battles

I suspect I'm in the minority in this, but I actually like the current CV implementation, APART from the effect CV skill imbalance has on games.

 

I like games with roughly equally skilled CV's. The CV's spot for your team, protect you from enemy planes, you need to think of your positioning relative to AA bubbles, move together.

 

In short they encourage team play. All of this is good sh*t and enrich this game, more so than some other gimmicks many ships rely on.

 

As noted above, the CV's are not invulnerable. The relevant " health pool" of a CV is the plane reserve, and if you play smart, you can deplete it quickly. This is a skill-based counter play, and again, good for the game. A planeless CV is a non-entity.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
1,808 posts
9,611 battles
41 minutes ago, Stugga said:

Apparently we play different games, cuz in my games "Yes it is". If one player is more skillful than the other 9 out of 10 times is game over.

 

54 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

No it isn't. If one CV player is better and the enemy team is completely braindead, yeah, sure.

 

does compute

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×