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

I refuse to play any further games with CVs (opinion piece)

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Weekend Tester
112 posts
685 battles

Changes to CVs are poorly thought out.

 

 

 

IJN CVs look laughable and the US CVs have received yet another nerf, that has in my opinoin, finally broken the Camels back.


 

CVs are just pointless now. I`ll stick to BBs until this is fixed.


 

I`d og into specifics, but People who `don`t play carriers anyway, have no Clue what i`m talking about and the CV players likely don`t need any explanations.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Sailing Hamster
777 posts
3,647 battles

I`ll stick to BBs until this is fixed.

 

Well, thanks for the info :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

USN CV useless (for randoms) - checked

IJN CV useless (for randoms) - checked ... no wait, are we playing the same game? They are actually much better then the USN CVs before the nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,084 battles

I'm glad.. that is one less 'clicker' I have to worry about :hiding:

 

:D

 

edit: ow crap, forgot to say I was being sarcastic :rolleyes:

Edited by mtm78
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
500 posts
1,578 battles

That is, of course, your opinion, and your choice...

 

I don't agree with your opinion, but am happy with your choice :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
332 posts
214 battles

I gotta say for all the winging you people do over others "whining" and throwing their toys out of the pram over percieved balance issues, it's not like you ever really offer any real counter argument. For fun I went into the archives for a bit looking through some old complaint threads and it's always the same people being snarky at the OP, who then meet in their little support group threads and empty their little bags of grief on how everyone is just whining and complaining :P

 

Ironically, you're all equally as incapable of a proper discussion on these topics as the people you claim are just whiners.  And I'm sure you'll bring forth the argument that once upon a time at the beginning of the alpha test you were totally open to debate and it just got sooooo tedious to which I say. well tough sh**. Not everyone has played since Alpha and not everyone has access to the Alpha forums and while this particular thread isn't really a well thought out discussion starter, to be sure, you're still not any better for just mocking the OP and being smartarses about it.

 

Just some food for thought.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
234 posts
341 battles

Its no fun for me either, probably not my class of ships, but the IJN carriers look so damn good ><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MASLO]
Beta Tester
663 posts
1,238 battles

3 supertersters and 1 alpha testers aleardy jumping all over this topic... didnt see that one coming at all... really... im serious!

 

Now please do some more [edited] claims how everything is fine, how BBs are actually weak, how CAs are strong and are great when they cover BBs and can dodge every shot and wont die first... how CVs and DDs counter BBs easy...

 

Its just ridiculous how supertesters act and what kind of [edited] they spew around

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
202 posts
3,343 battles

I gotta say for all the winging you people do over others "whining" and throwing their toys out of the pram over percieved balance issues, it's not like you ever really offer any real counter argument. For fun I went into the archives for a bit looking through some old complaint threads and it's always the same people being snarky at the OP, who then meet in their little support group threads and empty their little bags of grief on how everyone is just whining and complaining :P

 

Ironically, you're all equally as incapable of a proper discussion on these topics as the people you claim are just whiners.  And I'm sure you'll bring forth the argument that once upon a time at the beginning of the alpha test you were totally open to debate and it just got sooooo tedious to which I say. well tough sh**. Not everyone has played since Alpha and not everyone has access to the Alpha forums and while this particular thread isn't really a well thought out discussion starter, to be sure, you're still not any better for just mocking the OP and being smartarses about it.

 

Just some food for thought.

Thank you hall monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
102 posts
33 battles

I must admit that i am not that happy either with the current DB situation. Unless we get AP bombs they are still meh and underperform compared to torpedos.

 

20 direct hits with my DB's. That would have been a typical 100k+ game with the Essex if it was the same amount of torpedo hits. A no fighter deck is a no go for me so Essex is kind of meh atm.

SjVqFOY.jpg

U6Pv46E.jpg

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
46 posts
246 battles

I gotta say for all the winging you people do over others "whining" and throwing their toys out of the pram over percieved balance issues, it's not like you ever really offer any real counter argument.

 

Oh you mean like the several threads on the topic that actually DO have said requirements stated by yourself?

 

:child:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
332 posts
214 battles

Thank you hall monitor.

 

you are welcome random bystander.

 

 

Oh you mean like the several threads on the topic that actually DO have said requirements stated by yourself?

 

:child:

 

yes, except for the dozens that don't.

 

(x.x')G-(._.Q)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,427 posts
558 battles

 

 

Do you really think that the early alpha test was the last time that carrier balance was discussed?  Even after going through the archives?

 

He makes no response to the counterarguments he would have received from a ten second search.  He makes no attempt to open it up for discussion, in fact, he does exactly the opposite.  Given that he is stating his view and then saying that the matter simply cannot be discussed, isn't telling him what our views are, and that we don't care in return, pretty much exactly the appropriate response?

 

He didn't want a counter argument.  If he did, he would have found some in a few clicks with that search bar.  In fact, he makes it explicit that he is not interested in arguing the point.  Given that, no, we are not obliged to provide the same old counter arguments yet again when we respond to him.  Were he some poor newbie who comes asking about the issue because he's searched and can't work out how carriers are supposed to be balanced, then sure, we'd tell him.  This guy?  No.  Completely different situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
30 posts
1,967 battles

I gotta say for all the winging you people do over others "whining" and throwing their toys out of the pram over percieved balance issues, it's not like you ever really offer any real counter argument. For fun I went into the archives for a bit looking through some old complaint threads and it's always the same people being snarky at the OP, who then meet in their little support group threads and empty their little bags of grief on how everyone is just whining and complaining :P

 

Ironically, you're all equally as incapable of a proper discussion on these topics as the people you claim are just whiners.  And I'm sure you'll bring forth the argument that once upon a time at the beginning of the alpha test you were totally open to debate and it just got sooooo tedious to which I say. well tough sh**. Not everyone has played since Alpha and not everyone has access to the Alpha forums and while this particular thread isn't really a well thought out discussion starter, to be sure, you're still not any better for just mocking the OP and being smartarses about it.

 

Just some food for thought.

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/13186-usn-carrierswhy-am-i-even-trying/  More food for though.And dismissing somebody just because you don't like the interpretation (right,Vuk?) is as wrong as the wrong interpretation itself.

Changes to CVs are poorly thought out.

 

 

 

IJN CVs look laughable and the US CVs have received yet another nerf, that has in my opinoin, finally broken the Camels back.

 

 

CVs are just pointless now. I`ll stick to BBs until this is fixed.

 

 

I`d og into specifics, but People who `don`t play carriers anyway, have no Clue what i`m talking about and the CV players likely don`t need any explanations.

THANK YOU.

Edited by Silverwing373

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
59 posts
992 battles

I signed up to test a game in beta,  but I refuse to play part of that game because im sulking about a recent change even though the game is still in beta and not released yet.

 

Close the door on the way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
30 posts
1,967 battles

I signed up to test a game in beta,  but I refuse to play part of that game because im sulking about a recent change even though the game is still in beta and not released yet.

 

Close the door on the way out.

 

Boycotting is sometimes necessary.If he has come to the conclusion that a part of the game is hardly playable and generally massively underwhelming compared to others in terms of results,he is free to do it.

 

While at it,who gave YOU the right to decide who has the right to play and who doesn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
59 posts
992 battles

Looks to me like he decided for himself.

Unless im mistaken the game is still being tested, save the boycotting for the finished product  your not happyat the end of it.  In the meantime  playing the game and coming back with constructive feed back and not whining like a [edited] is the way forward in my humble opinion.

 

Edited by fletch67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Community Contributor
1,937 posts
8,324 battles

USN CV useless (for randoms) - checked

IJN CV useless (for randoms) - checked ... no wait, are we playing the same game? They are actually much better then the USN CVs before the nerf.

Care to explain?

 

Lets see: maximum number of torpedo bombers in the air: 12. Hmh, same as last patch.

Maximum torpedo damage: 8500. Wait, this is a reduction by 1300 dmg. This means your total damage output falls by more than 10% from pre patch.

Can you have fighters and torpedo bombers in decent quantity? Nope.

 

So how [edited]exactly are they BETTER? Seriously, explain it to me, because I cannot see it at all. The whole patch is a huge "[edited]you" to anything that already deals with torpedos and on top of that there was a nerf on CVs across the board. Nothing that is currently available in CVs comes even close to what we had before patch.

 

The only reason I'm doing decently is because I have 300+ CV games and I'm playing vs people who have no clue what the hell is going on and on top of that AA is essentially nonexistent at lower tiers.

Edited by Aerroon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,119 posts
4,874 battles

We've successfully implemented a food chain.

 

Battleships are bears. Apex predator. They eat everyone.

Cruisers are foxes or something. Happy until the bear shows up.

Destroyers are rabbits; helpless unless they bite in self-defense and the wound festers and tragically kills the bigger animal. But by then the rabbit is already dead.

 

And CVs are rabies. Slaying the retarded.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

Well let's look at old Lexington as probably the best layout - 2F and 2TB and Shokaku now. You have the same 2F and 2TB now + 2 DBs. Yes the torps are 8, but those 2 DBs compensate to the old damage level. But the planes are faster + fly faster after attack + reload and take off faster + you have more option with more squadrons in the air. That's why Shokaku is better then the old Lexington (one of the best CVs)

 

The old situation was - low tier OP, mid tier OK and high tier UP. Now we have consistent OK borderline to UP for low and mid tier CVs (IJN of course, USN is joke) and high tiers which the russian testers considered insanely OP and they are out for rebalance.

My point is - the current situation is much easier to work with and balance further then the old CVs. I really hope they will do it right, but as they believe only their server stats we have to provide them on the CBT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Community Contributor
1,937 posts
8,324 battles

Well let's look at old Lexington as probably the best layout - 2F and 2TB and Shokaku now. You have the same 2F and 2TB now + 2 DBs. Yes the torps are 8, but those 2 DBs compensate to the old damage level. But the planes are faster + fly faster after attack + reload and take off faster + you have more option with more squadrons in the air. That's why Shokaku is better then the old Lexington (one of the best CVs)

 

The old situation was - low tier OP, mid tier OK and high tier UP. Now we have consistent OK borderline to UP for low and mid tier CVs (IJN of course, USN is joke) and high tiers which the russian testers considered insanely OP and they are out for rebalance.

My point is - the current situation is much easier to work with and balance further then the old CVs. I really hope they will do it right, but as they believe only their server stats we have to provide them on the CBT...

 

I almost agreed with you and wanted to admit I was wrong! But then I remembered one thing you probably forgot: IJN CVs have 4 planes per squadron. (However, if this isn't the case then you're absolutely right - I don't have the Shoukaku yet - still working through Ryujou).

 

Old Lexington was 12 * 9867 = 118404 potential damage.

Shoukaku (with 2-2-2) is 8 * 8500 = 68000 potential damage. Add the two dive bombers and you're at 128000 potential damage, but dive bombers are much much less likely to hit for that kind of damage and can sometimes just give you bad luck and miss outright (so technically it'll be more like +15000).

 

Now remember that even old Lexington couldn't kill an Amagi even when all 12 torps hit. Shoukaku isn't even going to take half of that Amagi's health down.

Also, in terms of fighters: you have 2 squadrons of 4 fighters, old Lexington had 2 of 6. Although the increased DPS buff and speed is very nice and that can lead to some interesting play.

In the end I still don't see it. It just feels like the new IJN (and US) CVs are meant to be played vs ships of lower tiers - fight Myogis and Kongous when you're in a Ryujou, not Fusous and Nagatos.

 

However, you did make me notice something: the claim that IJN has less planes in reserve is also BS: Shoukaku and Lexington have the same hangar capacity.

 

EDIT: sorry, I'm a bit on edge: I had two games in a row in a Ryujo against Lexingtons solo and they were both air superiority.

Edited by Aerroon
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

The damage stats seems nerfed, but the damage distribution is changed. Now you can deal massive damage with 2 torps, while very low damage with 6 torps - it all depeneds where you hit the ships and second time on the same place is much more deadly. That's of course from observations (~50 battles) before the CBT now, so I have to see it now. It's hard to 1shot BB now, but the overall damage doesn't seem to be lower for the IJN now, compared to the old USN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,119 posts
4,874 battles

Sharana,

 

I would like to compare the other carriers as well, but I cannot remember most of the loadouts already. I remember that Saipan had 1/2/1 (F/T/D) and Langley had 1/2/0. I think Independence was 1/2/1 like Saipan. Please help me compare these.

 

Saipan at 1/2/1 had the same TB damage output as RJ with the suicide loadout (0/3/2). RJ has only two DB planes more here and no fighters at all.

 

Zuihou has 12 TB on suicide loadout just like Independence, but 2 DB less and no fighters at all.

 

Langley again had the same TB size as Houshou on suicide but had fighters to escort them.

 

Please correct any mistakes and fill in tier 7 (Ranger-Hiryu).

 

I think the pattern here is that you only get to keep your old damage output if you choose the kamikaze loadout which is completely empty of fighters and will mean that every attack costs you your planes. So you can attack twice and then the planes are all gone.

 

This objectively makes your total damage using carriers lower because you either have fewer attack planes in the air if you choose a balanced loadout or you have the same number of attack planes as before the patch but no escorts and everything quickly dies. Either way, damage is lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×