General CV related discussions.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

2 hours ago, Europizza said:

It's weird that you suggest the player base can mess up the game without access to it's code mate, it's nonsense. My sarcasm isn't about denying this community complaining about the tier IV carriers back then and currently, because they were and are complaining with good reason. Those carriers were in a bad place then and are in a bad place now. Both the work and responsibility of WG, not players complaining.

But then how is WG supposed to react to the community. They "listened" in the cases of T4 CVs and gave a buff = bad guys (the community certainly didn't think that making T4 CVs more powerful would end up this badly) 

And if WG doesn't "listen" they are also the bad guys. 

 

So how are they supposed to handle community suggestions and feedback in the future? 

I would say ignore it completely because the community also managed to completely mess up the Graf Zeppelin in the past, just another example. 

 

So now who decides which of the communities or playerbases suggestions is actually a good one? 

Certainly back then a majority of the complaining playerbase towards T4 CVs thought it would be a good idea to buff them. Now that was bad after all but you are giving WG the blame because they implemented it. How does WG need to avoid such issues to happen in the future now in your opinion? 

[Figment]

21 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Doesn't work unless the carrier is bad. 

Good job. Now do that consistently on a Hakuryu with a Hindenburg. 

No. Your entire point is completely flawed if you think a ship can shoot a carrier to retaliate. In reality that almost never happens and when it happens, the game has almost certainly been decided a long time ago. Until that point, carriers do whatever they want wherever they want and it's of little use to a ship that was bombed into oblivion without a chance for counter if one of his teammates gets a consolation kill at the end of the game. That is not counterplay at all. Of the 225 Midway games I've played I've survived 182 - and there are quite a few fatal cases of death by greed & stupidity in there.

 

Also, aircraft delivery is easily the most consistent way of doing damage in the game. The first flight starts at 0 seconds and they keep coming and coming and coming, the carrier sits safely far away without having to risk anything whereas you have nowhere to hide and nowhere to run and every time the planes come anywhere near you are spotted and shot at by everything on the red team that can point its guns at you. Carriers also have very decent DPM and are among the best damage dealers in the entire game as a whole.

(Paper as in counter to rock, which was CV in a previous example). Multiple ships is usually a very ineffective formation against anything else than a carrier and since carrier is just one of 12 red ships, that is usually a bad idea. Furthermore, a blob can not completely stop a determined carrier attack, the engagement is completely in the hands of the CV player - he can ignore you and go for an easier (or more important target since blobs tend to not be that) target if he thinks he can get better investment on his planes elsewhere. Also his planes are a somewhat renewable resource he will use to deal damage and get kills and at best you can hope to shoot down some of his planes when the carrier takes away your ship's hitpoints. It's also incredibly unlikely that your blob will ever get to take a shot at the carrier.

 

So no, AA is not paper. In fact the effect of AA in the game is relatively minor.

 

If you really want to know an effective strategy against carriers, it's actually quite simple. Just go into the most useless location on the map. A decent carrier knows where he doesn't want red ships to go and strikes there. Usually that's in the front lines where ships get hit and lose their AA and if they try to maneuver to avoid planes, they'll get smacked by all the greens who also went to the front.

 

This wasn't aimed at me, but it's an interesting and perhaps important point. I find it kind of funny when you talk about DK, when your own comments are a clear indication that you have no experience in high tier gameplay and your own stats prove it. At least Blub and Red have had their WR take a hit in such high tier ships that you have never even played one. Your own experience of about 2k battles is just not very much, which is perfectly fine, but you don't seem to take it into account while going a bit dunning-kruger on a few other people.

 

Now I have to commend you on taking your time to reach higher tiers, I'm not accusing you of seal clubbing or anything. This game would be a better place (or at least the high tiers) if people didn't rush or buy their way to high tiers. So well done, good job you're doind things right. Just keep in mind that almost all of your experience is from tiers where the gameplay is basically a chaotic melee and where you can actually get your hands on a carrier more often than almost-never.

 

Statistics don't counter valid arguments, but you have a very good point about people telling others in vague terms how to for example play against carriers - at which point it's useful to go and see how their tactics actually materialize into measurable results. Because I'm such a decent person, I decided to reveal my own stats for a few hours just for you to enjoy, now you can tell me as well how much better you know carriers and their counter tactics.

 

 

A little better stats than mine prior to returning and getting used to playing again. Excellent and I appreciate your disclosure. As for high tier play. I played in beta for 1077 matches up to tier IX on the few lines available then (iirc US and IJN cruisers, US DDs and IJN BBs. Unlocked the Yamato a week or so before beta closed and didn't have the silver then to get it) and retired about a year later because I really couldn't be bothered with the same grind again. Mostly played WoT and PlanetSide instead.

 

I don't need that long to figure out good from bad, but I know my limitations: primarily reflexes and taking on just a few too many at once through focusing too hard on my own ships angles while trying to hold and deter just too long before realising my backup ran off way too early or went suicidal, while I enjoy a good challenge and push my ships to the limits (close range BBs vs DDs is a hobby as it makes it more interesting). Particularly in beta I tried to see what I could pull off with ships, still do that at times with new ships, but I'm more conservative now and that reflects in my statistics if you compare the beta and post beta stats (+8% to +10% WR). Could I aim better and more consistent? Yes. Could I play more divisions and up my ratio? Yes. Am I the best at everything? No. But if you're playing serious and still linger around or below 50% that means you don't know what your ships can do, IMO.

 

High tier games aren't that fundamentally different (though some of the long range DD torp spam was insane in beta), it's just that alpha damage is a bit higher, ships have a lot more stamina and thus I need to work harder to kill a Yamato with Amagi, meh, so be it. As a tier 8, CVs are the least of my problems there since anything else is far more likely to kill you in two good salvos on a broadside. Not that Tier X players whine about that capability. ;) The ships just cost too much silver without premium and as such I don't think it's worth it if I can have more variety and similar gameplay experience at tier 6-9 and invest in some more ships. As I don't have an interest to play ranked or clan battles there's no reason for me to get them (unlocked Izumo for instance, but got 11 mil to spend and it costs 15mil with tons of cruiser and DD lines not played yet, I mean why would I even bother to find equally dumb players at tier X as you do in tier IV?). I've seen the torp spreads. I've done 30-48 air kills with Amagi and Cleveland both against tier X CVs. At tier 8 you meet plenty tier X CVs and you face it with worse AA than a tier X. If anything, my experience should be worse when playing high tiers. I know what it's like, it's just I don't think it's a big deal as I can cope and adapt my play to the needs of each match. And regardless of all the whining, people in general thought CVs were worse back in beta with proper laid 2x5 torp traps and all... Honestly they wern't a big deal to me..

 

 

However, you are approaching it from a FPS pov (more or less picturing a duel) whereas I'm approaching it from a RTS pov (teamplay - note how the examples I gave earlier involved teamplay to get an edge over other players (!)). Defensive action and mitigation in that sense is equally important as is killing (as a team) to win matches, since you don't always need to get a kill yourself to win the battle. Killing that CV is not my priority, reducing its effectiveness is. And mitigation is possible. Mitigation is a counter. AA reduces the threat over time and used appropriately, on the short term as well. If you get caught out maneouvring to avoid in a situation where other enemy ships can target you as well, then you're still, in my view, doing something wrong (like not disengaging fats enough when you noticed air coming your way). Having to dodge in front of enemy ships means you foregoed any proximity of cover and playing room. If it occurs in close combat then fine, you were caught out while taking a risk. Fair enough, good on the enemy team, boo on your team.

 

 

 

You think a carrier cannot be shot at by another ship? Puzzling claim. I guess no CV was ever sunk then? Is it always going to happen? No. Are you always going to kill every DD or cruiser in every match? No. Is it more likely for a CV? Sure. because they can choose to be less reachable in exchange for more flight time. But what I said is you can ultimately travel to and shoot a CV. Only that it takes time and survival skills to get in that position to kill it. So yes, you can shoot it, you just need to work for it and likely give the CV some time to take chunks of your health down more slowly and with you able to dodge or mitigate the damage taken. It's something that CV can not do once discovered since it likely can't outrun you. At most it can hope to stay undetected or place some objects in between to win time (and hope the AI captain doesn't mess up and hit an island), but that's very little guarantee of anything. But it can also be too far away to make a dent, for instance in case of base defense. At which point you don't have to engage, just avoid as much damage as possible and force other types of air to be used.

 

Yes, the CV is often one of the last to go, but that depends on if it was supporting on a flank that imploded or not and could get away in time or not. In my experience if you work a flank well and cut in time through the middle (instead of waiting till all of that flank is gone like a lot of players do after which they increase their travel time as they approach the edge of the map for too long), you can often catch or even trap a CV (depends on the map, mode and enemy team positions ofc.). A cut-off CV is a dead CV. Can a DD break through early on if the enemy team leaves somewhere open? Sure, turn AA off, find a hole, it's possible, though not extremely likely and it likely reduces the team's DPS in the meantime, so may not even be worthwhile (which means damaging the rest of the enemy team is more important than that CV). Is the damage output consistent? Depends highly on travel time, losses and replenishment rate on top of player skills on both ends.

 

The problem here is your perspective continues to be a measurement of short term retaliation capacity against a CV, which makes sense from a duel point of view, but is an unfair comparison from a RTS pov, since damage output of a regular ship over a short term engagement is much higher per second and the duration of the fight with a CV is stretched over a lot longer period, where both of you likely have multiple engagements going before there's a face-off. If they have to take a ship down on their own, it'll take minutes at least in which time they might have lost multiple squadrons of aircraft if the targets aren't completely silly. For each engagement, if a CV isn't somewhat close, a CV takes a lot more time, where players in estimating the effect of CVs ignore the part where the CV sometimes takes a minute to fly over, then miss or deal a few hundred damage or just module damage if they're unlucky. They just remember the short time they noticed the aircraft and the damage dealt and got in first place for damage dealt against a usualy shitty team. That's selective bias.

 

I think for a lot of players the attacks are also largely from behind them, off-screen while they try to keep their guns locked on an enemy target to avoid them rotating the wrong way. Situational awareness is tricky when aircraft circle you. This probably adds to the frustration but seems to me to be an interface limitation, rather than a balance issue. I fully understand the experience to many is less than optimal, but it's not really my problem, ever. So I just can't relate.

 

 

 

 

Still. People underestimate the use of secondaries in combination with those of others ships and that includes AA. You say AA influence hardly matters, but it does. If you work together right maybe a squadron can get one salvo off, which you can likely dodge. If you face a matchmaking with a group of cruisers as a CV it's quite hard to deal consistent damage, worse if they're higher tier, you sometimes can't even get a squadron close enough to fire. Hence consistent damage may be possible, but really depends on the positioning of the enemy team and matchmaking. And yes, obviously the tier X CV has it easiest of all CVs in game since they never face higher tiers. Goes for the other Tier X units as well though.

 

Of course most random teams fail at coordination and you can exploit that, but even individual ships can dodge torps provided they try (and a lot don't which can remove enough players to gain a huge local advantage with surface ships). Of course, most matches are too BB rich (up to 5-6 BBs per side) and fleets therefore often contain fewer cruisers than BBs, making proper AA coverage harder. On top of that, a lot of cruisers venture out on their own. This reduces the effectiveness of AA overlap even more and without screening and overlap individual targets may become quite yummy. But that's the fault of players and matchmaking, rather than ship balance. You say you have nowhere to hide or run, but that's just not true. Groups of two or three cruisers can be very effective at reducing the squadrons you face. So running towards a few cruisers when you see an aircraft coming for you is in fact a way to run and deflect or deter an airstrike.

 

Do the aircraft go elsewhere? Yes, but in that same time frame, you likely fired multiple salvo's with more damage potential during this part of the match. The relative DPS of CV's increases as the number of enemy ships drops though as there's more focus, less AA and likely weaker targets to attack. This is probably also when players most start to notice CV impacts, because there's a good chance there's a lull for them in battle outside of CVs harassing them. Does that mean it's unfair though?

 

 

 

 

Mind, I do feel balance for CVs is off and with the way it is handled it will remain off. But the existence of CVs will always be up for discussion for players who want this game to be about duels between surface ships with turrets, regardless how you balance CVs.

[Palachinka]

Arty encourages more thoughtfull gameplay and so do CVs. CVs also encourage greater teamwork, as a DD with poor AA, should I rush cap or stay close to a cruiser with good AA and spot. In most games we will have 3 DDs, can one CV effectively stop their rush. Should I check if my team has some great AA ships and work within their range or should i risk it and hope the CV is engaged elsewhere. These and other decisions come into play.

 

With no CVs I pretty much can play each map on autopilot, how far where, where to smoke, when and where enemies are likely to be spotted. CVs throw a spanner into all of that. People dont like CVs because they take things too individually and not as a team. So what if CV focused and killed me in one out of 50 games, the other times my Clevelend, or Hawkings at lower level killed 50 planes - that was fun and I feel i directly swung the battle in my teams favour. I still think at level 8+ CVs are a bit too ineffectual.

 

Also lets not talk about sniping matches across the map, thats when i pray for CVs. 

 

I think radar is worse, hide behind an island where you cover the cap within 10km range. Wait for someone to start capping press y and up pops the DD, everyone can now have a go and DD can do nothing. But still that can be worked around to but to me is worse than CVs planes spotting me or bombing me. 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

@Figment

 

You lack prolonged experience in high tiers and experience in encountering actually threatening CV players. 

Those are rare but I can tell you for certain that most of your suggestions to avoid or mitigate CV attacks will lead to you and your team losing the battle outright. 

We know how to deal with DDs that hide between their cruisers, know how to single out targets and know how to direct a match into an outcome that favors us. 

Everything in a match is mostly under control and the moves you do as a single player don't matter as we can deal with you as we see fit. 

There is to much power behind CVs and the opportunities they can create. If you think you can retaliate against a CV like me for example who takes every opportunity availible to push towards the front lines and even caps then you are up for a rough time. 

 

And then comes your faith in team play that will be a roadblock for a whole until you understand how bad it is to even assume there is any of that to be found on random battles. If you state teammates as a means or form of mitigation against CV players (very inconsistent variable) then when said teammates are uncooperative or dead your mitigation options disappear leaving you with none. 

 

The Screenshots provide ranking data for shoukaku on the EU server. This ranking is around 2 weeks old 

On the second screenshot you can find a value called "Base capture"

Mine is through the roof compared to the other players. This means that I'm capping in my CV and I do it a lot. With Noone on the enemy team most of the time having the ability to punish me for it. CVs in the right hands are powerful enough to not only kill anyone but also secure objectives with the hull just fine while they control the planes. 

 

There is no counterplay 

[Palachinka]

Balancing things is always good but wows without CVs is a game not worth playing. Teamplay should be encouraged, random zerging isnt good gameplay. 

 

I wonder what the reaction will be when people get torped by subs, there will be so much crying. 

 

 

 

 

 

[AndyHill]

I hope you don't mind but I had to try to keep these posts somewhat shortish and cut out a lot, so let me know if you feel I missed something important.

39 minutes ago, Figment said:

High tier games aren't that fundamentally different

They are. The ships are deadlier and the players generally have the skills to put that lethality to good use. I can actually see who the others are in the matches I play and although it's true that there are terrible players in high tier battles, the average skill is through the roof compared to for example the T4 you mentioned. Not saying that the battles would be more fun, in fact high tier games are slower and more methodical than low tiers, because people are afraid of making mistakes.

43 minutes ago, Figment said:

However, you are approaching it from a FPS pov (more or less picturing a duel) whereas I'm approaching it from a RTS pov (teamplay - note how the examples I gave earlier involved teamplay to get an edge over other players (!)). 

Well this game is more of an FPS than RTS, but you're wrong about the diel view. I'm most definitely focused on a team vs team setting, where I want to maximize my usefulness by positioning myself so that I do more stuff to reds than they do to me. The thing is, there are usually 11 ships per team doing basically the same thing, risking their hitpoints in order to get good positions - and one that doesn't have to care about any limitations or take any risks to do whatever it wants.

51 minutes ago, Figment said:

Mitigation is a counter.

Well, technically (and in practise) it kind of isn't. This is a somewhat common definition for counterplay: 1. a positive or aggressive action by the defending side, esp in chess. verb (intransitive) 2. to make an opposing or positive action from a position of defence.

53 minutes ago, Figment said:

If you get caught out maneouvring to avoid in a situation where other enemy ships can target you as well, then you're still, in my view, doing something wrong (like not disengaging fats enough when you noticed air coming your way). Having to dodge in front of enemy ships means you foregoed any proximity of cover and playing room.

This happens when people are playing for objectives and being aggressive, also known as playing the game properly. What you are suggesting is ultra passive play where being within about 20km or so of the enemy can already be considered a mistake. And no, you can't disengage fast enough when you see planes coming your way, that just doesn't happen. You go typicall 30+ knots, planes do 200 and their advantage in maneuvering and accelerating is proportionally much greater. Note that this is me as a carrier player with reasonable skill and experience talking.

 

The people most vulnerable to carrier attacks are the ones playing the game properly. They are also the most important ones to take out so that my team wins. As I mentioned before (from a carrier player's perspective), if you want to live longer in a carrier match, be as useless as possible and I will kill you last. Go forward, try to win the game and you are on the menu. That is one of the worst things about carriers as a game element: they punish you for playing properly. Also note that my view on insignificance of AA comes from the perspective of a carrier player.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

You think a carrier cannot be shot at by another ship? Puzzling claim. I guess no CV was ever sunk then?

Like I said, from somewhat significant personal experience (182 matches survived out of 225 Midway games) and from statistics (carrier survivability is vastly higher than all other classes) I know for a fact that carriers that don't screw up are almost impossible to kill - especially during the phase when the game is still being decided.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

So yes, you can shoot it, you just need to work for it

Going after the carrier is usually counterproductive, since it can run so far away from the objectives if it needs to and still be very effective.

 

1 hour ago, Figment said:

It's something that CV can not do once discovered since it likely can't outrun you. At most it can hope to stay undetected or place some objects in between to win time (and hope the AI captain doesn't mess up and hit an island), but that's very little guarantee of anything. But it can also be too far away to make a dent, for instance in case of base defense.

Carriers have average to good speed, so you won't be catching up to it either - and as the supreme recon unit it will know you are coming and will prepare early. Being behind an island is a factual guarantee of safety until ships come very close (which they shouldn't try to while the game is still going on and if they do, you can just smack them with monstrous dpm. Carriers won't ever be too far to make a dent, they can hit anywhere on the map. That is one of their main points.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Depends highly on travel time, losses and replenishment rate on top of player skills on both ends.

(damage consistency) The skill of the player in the receiving end matters little to me when I'm attacking them with my planes. That's another major flaw in the design.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

The problem here is your perspective continues to be a measurement of short term retaliation capacity against a CV,

No, I'm looking holistically at ship-to-ship -interactions, which, in the case of carrier to ship is basically purely one-dimensional. The only retaliation capacity your team has is to hope that your carrier is better than theirs at farming ships. Which, again, is horrible design.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

I think for a lot of players the attacks are also largely from behind them, off-screen while they try to keep their guns locked on an enemy target to avoid them rotating the wrong way. Situational awareness is tricky when aircraft circle you.

The direction doesn't matter even slightly, since the map is omnidirectional and any reasonably good player will be looking at the map most of the time. The outside view is for aiming and spotting long range torps, since you can't see those on the map.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

You say you have nowhere to hide or run, but that's just not true. Groups of two or three cruisers can be very effective at reducing the squadrons you face. So running towards a few cruisers when you see an aircraft coming for you is in fact a way to run and deflect or deter an airstrike.

You won't outrun planes and a few cruisers isn't enough to stop a carrier if he really wants you. Also battleships actually tend to hav ethe really good AA, at least until they've been HE farmed to nothingness. Again, this is not me as a cruiser or BB looking for some kind of safety. This is me as a carrier looking for targets - and you won't run from me. As I said before, the only way to make you an unattractive target is to be as useless as possible (which running to a group of cruisers will likely make you considering usual positioning of groups of cruisers).

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Mind, I do feel balance for CVs is off and with the way it is handled it will remain off. But the existence of CVs will always be up for discussion for players who want this game to be about duels between surface ships with turrets, regardless how you balance CVs.

But why do we need to have planes at all? Why does there need to be a class that doesn't play by any rules and limitations ships are facing? What is the positive thing that planes in a ship game bring to the table to justify their existence?

[Figment]

@Yoshanai Like I said, CV balancing is off, was off (recall 90%+ WRs of some people in tier X carriers) and the balancing gets worse as you go up the tiers. It will remain awful if they keep dealing with AA modelling and aircraft hp in this fashion. They overhauled it, but logistically the issues remain and in some ways got worse for some squadrons. The fact that balancing is off doesn't mean CVs should be removed however. That's an entirely different argument that I'm not getting into right now. My point was that regardless of how you work out CV's, you'll always have players complain about it due to the fact they're fighting off an enemy they can't fire back at all the time, immediately. The concept and balancing they had in beta I found better than the first live one, as well as better than the current one. That didn't mean that beta was perfect at all. It was ridiculously poorly balanced with hole extra squadrons going around attacking multiple targets at once. The multitasking allowed and consequential damage output particularly against poorer players was insane and likely will remain insane in any form of balancing to the poorest of players. Given that CV players have more of a battle overview and a means to support any side at will, gives them unique abilities. The impact and frequency of strikes however depends on the execution and game mechanics.

 

 

 

@AndyHill Don't mind cutting out some bits, I appreciate your effort to address the points, regardless of whether we agree. Likewise, I'll be cutting out bits where I think we won't find agreement, but mostly because it's late and probably pointless to try and come to an understanding right now I'll get back to you in the morning. 

 

 

 

 

[Kriger3n]

On 4/30/2020 at 7:36 PM, FerrowTheFox said:

On 4/30/2020 at 6:53 PM, Kriger3n said:

With the amount of threads about CV gameplay being opened every day on this forum (i can only imagine how many there is on the other language speaking forums) and the fact that many of the other threads boil down to CV gameplay being bad, what are the moderators and admins here doing about it?? Have any WG employees comented on this fact? Or is this thread just for CV fanbois and CV haters to go at eachother so it can be buried and forgotten?

 

The thing is that everything that is wrong with the current CVs and how they or the former RTS iteration could be improved has already been said time and time again, first and foremost by the original RTS unicums (who have a really good understanding about their interactions and mechanics) during PTS. And every time that feedback has been ignored and many possible tweaks (like minimap only spotting) discarded with "we tried it and it didn't work". The steaming pile of sh*t we have now was just rushed out and implemented anyway.

But worse than that, the problem is now that WG have pretty much driven themselves into a dead end. As for example El2aZeR has said numerous times: the fundamental mechanics of reworked CVs are so shallow and focussed on raw dmg that they are either useless or overpowered. So any change now would have to be so radical it would amoun to admitting defeat and doing a second rework. You can imagine how likely that is.

 

Apart from that according to WG they're pretty much balans in their eyes. They only go by their glorious spreadsheet and averages and the goal seems to be to keep the CV population at a certain percentage even if it means crippling class interaction.

So in light of all the feedback being there and them saying they're balans, I wouldn't hold my breath for any reaction to these threads.

 

Cynics would say this thread has only been stickied again to collect the "player feedback" in one place to be ignored and forgotten while having an excuse to close any other CV related thread.

This.

[HonkiTonki2018]

5 hours ago, Palachinka said:

Balancing things is always good but wows without CVs is a game not worth playing. Teamplay should be encouraged, random zerging isnt good gameplay. 

 

I wonder what the reaction will be when people get torped by subs, there will be so much crying. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, for sure...Rubbing hands :)

The games soon begin !

Hopefully 30-60 days till Subs are in Random - CV vs Sub and Sub vs CV will be awesome.

Cant wait. Wishing you all lots of fun !!!

 

[ca12nag3]

5 hours ago, Figment said:

@Yoshanai Like I said, CV balancing is off, was off (recall 90%+ WRs of some people in tier X carriers) and the balancing gets worse as you go up the tiers. It will remain awful if they keep dealing with AA modelling and aircraft hp in this fashion. They overhauled it, but logistically the issues remain and in some ways got worse for some squadrons. The fact that balancing is off doesn't mean CVs should be removed however. That's an entirely different argument that I'm not getting into right now. My point was that regardless of how you work out CV's, you'll always have players complain about it due to the fact they're fighting off an enemy they can't fire back at all the time, immediately. The concept and balancing they had in beta I found better than the first live one, as well as better than the current one. That didn't mean that beta was perfect at all. It was ridiculously poorly balanced with hole extra squadrons going around attacking multiple targets at once. The multitasking allowed and consequential damage output particularly against poorer players was insane and likely will remain insane in any form of balancing to the poorest of players. Given that CV players have more of a battle overview and a means to support any side at will, gives them unique abilities. The impact and frequency of strikes however depends on the execution and game mechanics.

 

 

 

@AndyHill Don't mind cutting out some bits, I appreciate your effort to address the points, regardless of whether we agree. Likewise, I'll be cutting out bits where I think we won't find agreement, but mostly because it's late and probably pointless to try and come to an understanding right now I'll get back to you in the morning. 

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of the main problem is also this in random order, and it is not an attack on players at all.

 

- Most CV players are dedicated CV players, and as for now there are 2 hard types with Jap vs Allied. (ignore the zeppelin for now) Making it also easier to get familiar with your CV when in turn there are a ton of different BB Cruiser and DD types. And many players are not familiar with what their ship can do or not do.

- CV is the 1 and only lone class ship, you do not necessarily care for what your team does, you can adapt, your team leaves a flank open you move away from that flank, and still capable of doing what you can do all the time. With a surface vessel, this is a problem, you get shorthanded on your flank you have a hard time. You need to help on the other side of the map, well with a short-range and slow ship that is impossible. Meaning the CV will be there slowpokes won't.

- Lone targets, the joy of being in a CV, being able to take out that lone ship. Novice and stubborn players will get punished for their mistakes by CVs much easier than anyone else can deliver the punishment, in your CV you seek for them.

- Use your AA wisely, if in a DD keep it turned off, your spottable range will drop dramatically, some ships less than 2.1km meaning A CV will have to turn around and circle again to attack you, giving you time to pop smoke or get close to your friendly Cruiser and evade those nasty rockets. I see many DD players having their AA turned on, why? In particular with your anti air DD you can lure the CV in and annihilate those pesky planes like melting snow with a flamethrower. 

-related to the previous point. Using P and O key please people turn off AA with P and turn it on when planes get closer, and use the O key with your cursor to target the area, and stay at least together with 1 other ship to arc AA together. And that CV will have a hell of a time to take your out and if he loses too many planes he won't come back to your position at all. Remember whiping planes means he has 1 full flight in reserve of that type and a half. Meaning that after 2 whipes his planes will be done for that type.

-a -Another vital point. NOT ALL CVs torp you to do damage! They love to make you turn to their will. In particular if they teamed up with other ships. You just dodged 1 torp by the CV and then give your broadside to the enemy fleet. Instant death assumes.

This is 1 of the tricks CVs use to win the match. Most CV players are strategical oriented players. They can get their kills and damage at the end of the game, they don't need to kill everything right away. I laughed my [edited]off when I see a BB dodge my torps and my clanmate shaves off half your health with Citadel hits. Sometimes it is better to eat that torp.

b- Know your ship. You got an armor belt if you are in a Yamato for instance. It is the midsection of your ship, you can absorb those torps with ease and they will barely do a thing. But you decided to turn and take 1 at the nose or rear, and you just took heavy dmg + flooding. Bad move. Look at your armor layout and read the wiki page if your ship is a dedicated ship you will play with. Know its strengths and hammer in your head the weaknesses.

[ca12nag3]

12 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Immersion is a very difficult to quantify measure, unless you're talking about the purely technological definition used in virtual reality research - in which case it would be defined by the size and resolution of your display , framerate and sound quality. What makes it hard to define as an experience based measure is that for example for me carriers detract massively from immersion, because for me immersion in this game comes from careful planning, positioning and outplaying the reds or at least competing with them, none of which is possible with carriers. They simply do whatever they want regardless of everything, they're an absolutely horrific element for a competitive multiplayer game.

 

Do you think it would detract from your immersion if carriers were an off-map unit visible in the distance, flying massive air fleets at each other with AAA blazing away, huge explosions and the likes (think Michael Bay on steroids), but they would only go after each other and not player units? 

 

Other than that I can only read "carriers have always been there", which is unfortunately a well-known argumentation fallacy known as "no ought from is" - especially not applicable in this case, since WG themselves not much more than a year ago already made a gigantic rework removing the RTS carriers and replacing them with something completely different. Unfortunately they failed to fix the actual issues, so the only logical choice left is another massive rework or removal of carriers.

Remove, not happening. New Carriers are being added as we speak. Also I looked into the stats, they are not unusually sticking out. It is some BBs who stick out in terms of DMG,average xp and win rate. So unless you got some cold hard numbers I think that you have no idea how to deal with CVs. I have died by CVs I destroyed plenty of them. I played every ship type in the game. It helps you see what they can do and what their weakness is. 

 

Also hiding your stats isn't becoming. I bet you lurk through others plenty.

[ca12nag3]

1 hour ago, HonkiTonki2018 said:

Yeah, for sure...Rubbing hands :)

The games soon begin !

Hopefully 30-60 days till Subs are in Random - CV vs Sub and Sub vs CV will be awesome.

Cant wait. Wishing you all lots of fun !!!

 

I did plenty of testing for Subs. I hope they are more balanced when they get into the game. CVs annihilate them with ease.

[ca12nag3]

7 hours ago, Yoshanai said:

@Figment

 

You lack prolonged experience in high tiers and experience in encountering actually threatening CV players. 

Those are rare but I can tell you for certain that most of your suggestions to avoid or mitigate CV attacks will lead to you and your team losing the battle outright. 

We know how to deal with DDs that hide between their cruisers, know how to single out targets and know how to direct a match into an outcome that favors us. 

Everything in a match is mostly under control and the moves you do as a single player don't matter as we can deal with you as we see fit. 

There is to much power behind CVs and the opportunities they can create. If you think you can retaliate against a CV like me for example who takes every opportunity availible to push towards the front lines and even caps then you are up for a rough time. 

 

And then comes your faith in team play that will be a roadblock for a whole until you understand how bad it is to even assume there is any of that to be found on random battles. If you state teammates as a means or form of mitigation against CV players (very inconsistent variable) then when said teammates are uncooperative or dead your mitigation options disappear leaving you with none. 

 

The Screenshots provide ranking data for shoukaku on the EU server. This ranking is around 2 weeks old 

On the second screenshot you can find a value called "Base capture"

Mine is through the roof compared to the other players. This means that I'm capping in my CV and I do it a lot. With Noone on the enemy team most of the time having the ability to punish me for it. CVs in the right hands are powerful enough to not only kill anyone but also secure objectives with the hull just fine while they control the planes. 

 

There is no counterplay 

 

You are a uniqum CV player. You most likely don't make any mistakes. But you also got a fair amount of battles on ships you most likely don't like that much. But know their behaviour and can anticipate that. And that is commendable. You are dealing with players here that do not know CVs. At all. And think that because they die vs CVs all the time a CV must be overpowered. I haven't had that problem at all. In any game I played. And im not a great player neither do I have the time to play as much working about 6 days a week. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

8 hours ago, Yoshanai said:

But then how is WG supposed to react to the community. They "listened" in the cases of T4 CVs and gave a buff = bad guys (the community certainly didn't think that making T4 CVs more powerful would end up this badly) 

And if WG doesn't "listen" they are also the bad guys. 

 

So how are they supposed to handle community suggestions and feedback in the future? 

I would say ignore it completely because the community also managed to completely mess up the Graf Zeppelin in the past, just another example. 

 

So now who decides which of the communities or playerbases suggestions is actually a good one? 

Certainly back then a majority of the complaining playerbase towards T4 CVs thought it would be a good idea to buff them. Now that was bad after all but you are giving WG the blame because they implemented it. How does WG need to avoid such issues to happen in the future now in your opinion? 

By not messing up when (re)balancing ships? You know the stuff they are supposed to be professionals in? Look mate, me, you and the community didn't redesign the carriers into this bloody mess, even worse, WG has been warned about them during the public testing phase. And the rebalancing phase has been equally disastrous. WG should listen to it's community because they are in the business of providing an entertainment service. It's in their best interest to analyze feedback from their customer base. They need to dissect that feedback and find the actual problems that are lurking behind that feedback (which is what they already probably do) and come up with proper functioning solutions (which they tried but failed). You know, like professionals.

 

In this case tier IV carriers weren't fun to play. and unless you think they were and all other carriers should be made in their image, a change was a good idea. What exact change is the responsibility of WG, not the community. Also creating an environment where changing said carrier gameplay is extremely hard and sensitive is by WGs own making. They created the turd they are trying to sculpt.

 

WG hardly ever directly implements community ideas, and with good reason. Your suggestion they did in this case is just silly. And if they did, they deserve every blame thrown at them. Their game, their responsibility.

[ca12nag3]

4 minutes ago, Europizza said:

By not messing up when (re)balancing ships? You know the stuff they are supposed to be professionals in? Look mate, me, you and the community didn't redesign the carriers into this bloody mess, even worse, WG has been warned about them during the public testing phase. And the rebalancing phase has been equally disastrous. WG should listen to it's community because they are in the business of providing an entertainment service. It's in their best interest to analyze feedback from their customer base. They need to dissect that feedback and find the actual problems that are lurking behind that feedback (which is what they already probably do) and come up with proper functioning solutions (which they tried but failed). You know, like professionals.

 

In this case tier IV carriers weren't fun to play. and unless you think they were and all other carriers should be made in their image, a change was a good idea. What exact change is the responsibility of WG, not the community. Also creating an environment where changing said carrier gameplay is extremely hard and sensitive is by WGs own making. They created the turd they are trying to sculpt.

 

WG hardly ever directly implements community ideas, and with good reason. Your suggestion they did in this case is just silly. And if they did, they deserve every blame thrown at them. Their game, their responsibility.

Honestly CVs are not the biggest issue in the game at the moment. You faced Russian ships lately? 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

48 minutes ago, ca12nag3 said:

Honestly CVs are not the biggest issue in the game at the moment. You faced Russian ships lately? 

I haven't much as the game is losing my interest rapidly due to the pile of biggest issues WG is creating. I play 1 game, win or lose it by roflstomp, am instantly bored, close the game and fire up BattleTech, watch a great movie, create art or make some music instead.

I want to be entertained, but WG seems to think they are in the 'substance' industry. Guess WG and me disagree on what entertainment is supposed to be.

[redraven]

13 hours ago, Figment said:

Okay, sorry if I sound a bit defense, but let me please point this out:

Redraven:  51% WR

Blub_Blub: 49% WR

Cpt_Barney: 54% WR

 

I'm beating you all by at least 3.5% to 8% WR. Used to have 60.4% WR, but I'm rusty after just getting back from 3 years of absence and aged a bit so slower reflexes I guess, down a bit with aiming. Game is just as simple to play, just tweaked and need to get used to some new ships. Bad teams are on both sides, so it can NEVER be an argument to why you lose. Why you win is a more interesting question.

 

 

 

If you all know the game so much better than me, then why aren't you doing better? If you're so good at analysing the game, you should have no issue exploiting its mechanics. This is a serious question, not a dig at you. I'm not an incredible player aiming wise, but I know how to exploit game mechanics to my advantage and how to teamplay and that's putting my WR way up. Please don't tell me you know better, because it just says Dunning-Kruger to me if you assume so.

 

I mean, if you start of by saying there's no coordination in randoms, then you must be a part of that problem. Please allow me to explain, because this is an attitude issue: as you assume you can't coordinate by experiencing less than stellar cooperation in the past, you've come to not expect it, so you don't look for it, so you don't do it. That's the gist of it. The first thing I do when I start a match is set an us vs them mentality and try to bond with the remainder. Once you got a bit of a chat going and people like you, they will cooperate.

 

ALL OF YOU ARE IN CLANS. ALL OF YOU SHOULD HAVE NO ISSUE FINDING DIVISIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO KNOW YOU INTRINSICALLY. I AM NOT IN A CLAN. I WORK ALONE. I PERFORM BETTER THAN YOU.

 

This is not me telling you're less worthy, it's me telling you you can do better. Please don't tell me there's no coop in randoms, because your stats should beat mine simply for being in a clan as I should not be able to find teamwork to aid me, yet I do virtually every match. I don't care if it's from a 43% or a 65% WR player, I just ask people to target ships and they do it. I warn people of incoming air and they react to it. I ask people to go on dual torp runs and they join in seeing the benefit of teamwork. There is teamwork to be found, you're just not looking for it.

 

I play solo virtually always. I just look at this game from a RTS pov whereas the majority of players look at it from a FPS pov. I know teamwork is valuable so it's the first thing I stimulate.

 

This is also why I ensure there's at least one person scouting in WoT (usualy me) even if I'm in a heavy tank and it ups my winrate there over 54% as well (used to be 58%, but my aim and reflexes are getting worse with age I think since my hitrate is down a bit).

 

 

 

You ask me to sail up to a CV and kill it... I have killed at least twelve since coming back last month, so I don't really understand the question. You talk about 75% of the situations... but I only had issues when two CVs came for me at once (as it should when two players target you). Otherwise it's ensure you point towards torp and rocket bombers and show side to other bombers to dodge at least half damage. I mean all you need is sufficient starting HP and otherwise, why SHOULD you expect to win if you're at a huge HP disadvantage? They are entitled to winning an engagement just as much as you are. Most the time by the end of the match they ought to be largely out of aircraft so the squadrons should be smaller. If anything you should have the advantage.

 

 

As for wanting any ship dead... That's not true in all situations, particularly near the end of a match. But if a CV player does that, and spends all his air on it, he'll be useless for the rest of the match. So how's that different from a suicide run on a hydro-cruiser with a DD? If you WANT him dead it's very possible (you'll have to think about it), but he'll be dead even if it costs you your life. Is it worth it? Depends. But this is no argument. You're saying that if a CV wants to take himself out of the game by obsessing over one unit, he can. So what? That just leaves everyone else free. Sounds like a sacrifice worth making for that AA cruiser. I regularly do that in my Cleveland and its got a 60%ish WR because of me defending my team and deliberately baiting CVs. Does my Cleveland die at times? Sure? And? Should I be impervious? Should DDs not die to BBs? Should BBs not die to cruisers?

In fact, if that CV could NOT kill that cruiser, regardless of resources spent, then balance is off. Like when a lower tier CV faces two tier higher AA ships. That's a much bigger balancing issue.

Okay lets get some thing clear. WR means nothing. Specially since as it has been pointed out you have never played  high tier games. I read that you reached them in CBT but the game has changed significantly since CBT. Your assumed experience in high tiers games are irrelevant at this point. If i wanted high WR i would just play a lot of tier games where i absolutely stomp everyone. There i have good WR. So dont ever again bring this up because its a pointless stat.

The "why am i not exploiting it" part really infuriates me. You know i have empathy. I hate when cheesy crap is being done and i dont like doing it. Beacuse doing said things is the trademark or weak useless players who when facing realy challenege just fold like paper. 2nd: i hate those ships in general that rely on said exploints and i personally find the extremly boring to play.

Random games means you get random teammates. You might get lucky and get  players who understand the concept of teamwork and can work with you. BUT assuming they will do so is dangerous.  Because it can lead to a fast way back to the port. You are generally better off assuming they wont even move a blade of grass to win the game. Whats worse is that more likely they are going to actively hinder you in winning the game. By doing exatly the wrong things.

Me being in a clan does not mean i play 3-man divs all the time. My clan for instance is more like a loose Group of players who are together to get clan benefits. Of course we play in divs but we are not  "game is serious buisness" about it. If you actually gave a [edited]you could have seen that im playing mainly solo.

Dont even try to compare this game to traditional FPS games. Its way too different from them in too many aspects. Reflexes here are not a key factor. Strategic senses are mutch well suited for this game.

Im not gonna entertain your examples of gameplay because as presviously sad you have no idea how high tier games work. Its easy to exploit the mistakes the enemies make in lower tiers because A: they make them a lot B: they themselves dont realize it as mutch as people do in high tier. As Andy said: go on and try to constantly sail up to the CV in a hindenburg. Ill wait.

As for who wants what ship dead is highly situational but here is the main thing: I can actively do something against that. 
What can a player do against a CV? dodge is not an option because planes move a great many times faster than even the fastest ship. AA is at best absolutely unrelyable if not outright ignored by the CV. AT worst i literally have no AA because they have been HE-d to nonexistance. The best i can hope for is that the cv player sucks really bad. And this is a terrible game design. PLAY AGENCY MATTERS. Lord knows how many times i have to say this. When you are attacked by a CV you have no agency what so ever in the outcome.

Thats quite problem. A cv can kill anything and anyone regardless of circumstances. 

[Figment]

7 hours ago, AndyHill said:

They are. The ships are deadlier and the players generally have the skills to put that lethality to good use. I can actually see who the others are in the matches I play and although it's true that there are terrible players in high tier battles, the average skill is through the roof compared to for example the T4 you mentioned. Not saying that the battles would be more fun, in fact high tier games are slower and more methodical than low tiers, because people are afraid of making mistakes.

I think you mistake fear with skill in many of these players though you're correct to mention fear: they take more precautions out of fear of dieing quickly. That's not per se skill, it just keeps them alive longer though honestly, makes them less useful. I prefer to hunt even though it's a risky strategy in a lower tier Amagi, but I have to get closer than their range anyway. Their fear though is not punished by range disadvantages as it is in lower tiers where they lose control over zones. But in general they leave themselves open to attack just as much, just that lower tiers have a range disadvantage giving them the power to strike first upon spotting (which is where CVs in particular come in). Since at range leading is harder, they are missed more, that makes them look betterand living a bit longer means they'll have a higher damage output, but that doesn't mean they're actually better players for it. Does it force them to think more about strategy and teamwork, I'd hope so, but that really depends on who you face.

 

It does allow a RTS type unit like the CV to hunt for smaller prey that is forced to get closer and is more quickly weaked due to the tier differences in HP and alpha damage, but that's IMO largely a balance issue with BBs and cruisers getting too much HP, subsequently damage increases to compensate and then more range, over just the top two tiers. This balancing issue with hp and damage inflation is exactly the same issue aircraft face vs AA, which makes higher tier CV air squadrons relatively too powerful against lower tiers. I can still deal with it, but it's not well balanced.

 

That said, obviously players at this level should have more experience, but I honesly can't see it whenever I kill the tier IXs and Xs with my Amagi or they allow a mere Cleveland to kite them with more hits than they have on me (without even resorting to island cover). I men if you let your Yamato get burned by a Cleveland you're just a bad player. Obviously they need just two good hits to take me out of commission, so why do you think higher tiers get more cautious? On a local, tactical level in melee range though, they make exactly the same moves and mistakes as tier IVs would. This is where you can really tell skill differences without damage output at range obscuring their lack of it.

 

7 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Well this game is more of an FPS than RTS, but you're wrong about the diel view. I'm most definitely focused on a team vs team setting, where I want to maximize my usefulness by positioning myself so that I do more stuff to reds than they do to me. The thing is, there are usually 11 ships per team doing basically the same thing, risking their hitpoints in order to get good positions - and one that doesn't have to care about any limitations or take any risks to do whatever it wants.

You're saying you don't look at it as a dueling thing, but then immediately state you're looking at your own positioning and damage dealing, rather than how you can manipulate the moves of their team and force strategic errors (RTS). I'll gladly sacrifice some health or even my ship if it means i put enemy ships into a bad position strategically. That's not about my damage output, that's about my team's superior positioning and damage output. That's a large part of what the role of the CV should be IMO: flock herding. Currently it's far more.

8 hours ago, AndyHill said:

This happens when people are playing for objectives and being aggressive, also known as playing the game properly. What you are suggesting is ultra passive play where being within about 20km or so of the enemy can already be considered a mistake. And no, you can't disengage fast enough when you see planes coming your way, that just doesn't happen. You go typicall 30+ knots, planes do 200 and their advantage in maneuvering and accelerating is proportionally much greater. Note that this is me as a carrier player with reasonable skill and experience talking.

 

The people most vulnerable to carrier attacks are the ones playing the game properly. They are also the most important ones to take out so that my team wins. As I mentioned before (from a carrier player's perspective), if you want to live longer in a carrier match, be as useless as possible and I will kill you last. Go forward, try to win the game and you are on the menu. That is one of the worst things about carriers as a game element: they punish you for playing properly.

Not at all what I'm saying.

 

And I don't understand why you think I'm talking about disengaging from the aircraft. I'm talking about disengaging from any surface ship fights in a controlled manner so you can deal with the aircraft in a controlled manner. The amount of distance between ships is hardly of relevance here, what matters is your positioning with respect to those ships (how open are you to their attacks) when those aircraft engage. It is a mistake if you leave yourself (fully) open to both attacks at the same time.

 

You can be aggressive and still get yourself into a proper position to dodge or at least make it less likely you'll get full damage from one or more enemy ships while dealing with this strike. For instance, timing your disengage turn away from enemy ships after they just fired a salvo and then putting some distance between yourself and enemy ships to make their leading harder and shell travel time longer while you engage with those aircraft, rather than reacting to the aircraft while the enemy is reloaded or you're in the middle of a melee fight.

 

Is that possible in every circumstance? No. But it's possible in most engagements if you try to stay in control of the engagement with your positioning.

 

As for the vulnerability argument, you're also playing properly by going after the important targets. If balancing is off that's not your fault, nor is it the players. But that's a balancing argument, not a gameplay/class argument. CVs using their strengths in a proper way is not the problem, but this is what you're suggesting with this argument. Being too effective by balancing issues is.

 

8 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Also note that my view on insignificance of AA comes from the perspective of a carrier player.

Like I said, from somewhat significant personal experience (182 matches survived out of 225 Midway games) and from statistics (carrier survivability is vastly higher than all other classes) I know for a fact that carriers that don't screw up are almost impossible to kill - especially during the phase when the game is still being decided.

Going after the carrier is usually counterproductive, since it can run so far away from the objectives if it needs to and still be very effective.

 

Carriers have average to good speed, so you won't be catching up to it either - and as the supreme recon unit it will know you are coming and will prepare early. Being behind an island is a factual guarantee of safety until ships come very close (which they shouldn't try to while the game is still going on and if they do, you can just smack them with monstrous dpm. Carriers won't ever be too far to make a dent, they can hit anywhere on the map. That is one of their main points.

(damage consistency) The skill of the player in the receiving end matters little to me when I'm attacking them with my planes. That's another major flaw in the design.

No, I'm looking holistically at ship-to-ship -interactions, which, in the case of carrier to ship is basically purely one-dimensional. The only retaliation capacity your team has is to hope that your carrier is better than theirs at farming ships. Which, again, is horrible design.

 

The direction doesn't matter even slightly, since the map is omnidirectional and any reasonably good player will be looking at the map most of the time. The outside view is for aiming and spotting long range torps, since you can't see those on the map.

You won't outrun planes and a few cruisers isn't enough to stop a carrier if he really wants you. Also battleships actually tend to hav ethe really good AA, at least until they've been HE farmed to nothingness. Again, this is not me as a cruiser or BB looking for some kind of safety. This is me as a carrier looking for targets - and you won't run from me. As I said before, the only way to make you an unattractive target is to be as useless as possible (which running to a group of cruisers will likely make you considering usual positioning of groups of cruisers).

But why do we need to have planes at all? Why does there need to be a class that doesn't play by any rules and limitations ships are facing? What is the positive thing that planes in a ship game bring to the table to justify their existence?

There are absolutely issues with the design of the CVs, but your conclusion that removing them is required is silly since it is based on assumptions about what any design would be like.

 

The positive thing is carriers can support ships that have little to no defense against other ships in their current engagement. The main issue IMO is range, attack rate and striking power.

 

 

 

Let's look at some ways to mitigate CV strengths that have never been implemented in WoWs:

 

Aircraft range limitations
Too much range could be solved by aircraft getting range limitations (fuel limitation on sorties where aircraft could even be lost on the return flight (!))

This ought to stimulate CVs to be close to the action and thus a DD or submarine in the future could hunt it more easily.

 

Radio distance limitations
Where aircraft too far away can't locate the CV on their own and are lost if they don't get within distance of friendly ships in time, meanwhile losing fuel of course

This should create more logistical micromanagement to keep CV players busy and thus less focused and aware of the rest, while risking aircraft that go too far away in more than one way.

 

Damage balancing

This can be done both in terms of weapon damage, weapon damage mitigation, but I'm thinking more in terms of launch frequency. See below.

 

Launch frequency, amount of aircraft and planning of sortie type

Aircraft don't really have that anymore in my experience with the CV rework. Aside from losing aircraft combined with slow replacement rates in the end stages of an attrition fight by which time aircraft just isn't effective anymore. The result of the current CV rework where you can only have one squadron airborne, they decided to free up a CV's choice in that if you need torps, you launch torp aircraft. If you need dive bombers or it's just the one with most aircraft on deck you grab that type and deal with it. But if you compare to other ships they need to actively reload and plan the next type of aircraft sortie.

 

I would say launch frequency matters in the sense that a CV should setup an order of which aircraft types it will launch and loading the proper aircraft much like AP and HE reloads / replenishing squadrons. This should prevent CVs from picking the right type of aircraft for the job regardless of which aircraft are on deck, the order in which they'd be placed on deck should matter.

 

Ultimately you should have a limited amount of aircraft available and it should be a resource not worth wasting. Atrittion currently does occur, but virtually only when facing higher tier ships as a CV and it starts to be noticeable too late in the game. With pre-selection of aircraft and planning your sorties, you might end up with the wrong aircraft for the current job or too few of the correct type sooner. This would slow the maximization of damage output of carriers.

 

Reworking AA vs aircraft

Not using HP as a measurement of shooting down aircraft, instead working with hitboxes, giving lower tier AA more of a chance against higher tier aircraft and lower tier CVs a higher chance against higher tier AA. Higher tier AA could have slightly higher chance of hitting and more range, but the type of aircraft used would be less important in terms of getting hit. Of course aircraft speed would remain an important element since the longer you're in an AA bubble the higher the chance you get hit and the same goes for the amount of aircraft in a squadron.

 

Matchmaking could also be adressed, but I'm less inclined to say this should be done.

[poopooo]

Possibly another solution would be to restrict the number of ship models per game, for example:
1 carrier
3 battleship
3 destroyers
5 cruisers

Thus the attack of several carriers would not receive a single ship, and in addition there would be no saturation of destroyers or battleships.

Because much is said about the carriers, but the destroyers with torpedoes of 20,000 damage or the battleships with the shots in the citadel of the cruise ships are not far behind when it comes to something unbalanced.

 

 

 

[CptBarney]

@Figment Actually this is my forum account, i play on this account instead. https://wows-numbers.com/player/552657871,BrigadierRosen/

My winrate isn't too far off from yours plus im not in a clan either, your only around 1.5% higher than i am.

 

You also don't have a 60% winrate in your cleveland either and your PR is below avg in her too and you barely kill anyone, Also judging from your other stats your not great at CV's too.

Explains your stance on CV's then really and why you think arty is a good mechanic.

 

Eitherway this isn't going to solve anything, CV's will stay regardless of whether i want them too or not (and i like CV's mainly due to yorktown but thats another reason entirely). However to suggest that CV's need buffs is hilarious (yes please i want 50k damage drops in my midway with pre-nerf dispersion patterns and pre-nerf rocket planes as well).

 

There isn't any counterplay its either hope hes bad or hope he doesn't focus you, i've been focused by cv's before in AA ships like jean bart and still got trashed (hell there was another jean bart  and some cruiser near me so our combined AA should stop any attacks but they did sod all and i ended up dying to the enemy Haku after sometime regardless).

 

Weegee considers CV's in a good spot so you will see minimal balance changes and actual changes unless the community complains loudly and brightly enough as well as consistently.

[Figment]

18 minutes ago, redraven said:

Okay lets get some thing clear. WR means nothing. Specially since as it has been pointed out you have never played  high tier games. I read that you reached them in CBT but the game has changed significantly since CBT. Your assumed experience in high tiers games are irrelevant at this point. If i wanted high WR i would just play a lot of tier games where i absolutely stomp everyone. There i have good WR. So dont ever again bring this up because its a pointless stat.

Bull, I got back in a month ago and everything is exactly the same outside of CVs.

[Figment]

1 minute ago, CptBarney said:

@Figment Actually this is my forum account, i play on this account instead. https://wows-numbers.com/player/552657871,BrigadierRosen/

My winrate isn't too far off from yours plus im not in a clan either, your only around 1.5% higher than i am.

 

You also don't have a 60% winrate in your cleveland either and your PR is below avg in her too and you barely kill anyone, Also judging from your other stats your not great at CV's too.

Explains your stance on CV's then really and why you think arty is a good mechanic.

 

Eitherway this isn't going to solve anything, CV's will stay regardless of whether i want them too or not (and i like CV's mainly due to yorktown but thats another reason entirely). However to suggest that CV's need buffs is hilarious (yes please i want 50k damage drops in my midway with pre-nerf dispersion patterns and pre-nerf rocket planes as well).

 

There isn't any counterplay its either hope hes bad or hope he doesn't focus you, i've been focused by cv's before in AA ships like jean bart and still got trashed (hell there was another jean bart  and some cruiser near me so our combined AA should stop any attacks but they did sod all and i ended up dying to the enemy Haku after sometime regardless).

 

Weegee considers CV's in a good spot so you will see minimal balance changes and actual changes unless the community complains loudly and brightly enough as well as consistently.

 

New Cleveland took some getting used to, particularly against other cruisers. Doing a lot better in it recently. First matches in it started at 40% WR, so i'll get there.

 

CV rework was getting used to as well, particularly in how to use the speeding up and timing assaults. Dealing a lot more damage since a week or two. I don't think you should see either of those stats as representative of anything but the learning curve of getting back in the game after several years of absence facing a playerbase already familiar with these ships.

 

 

 

Who though is asking for buffs? I'm argueing agains the removal and favour a rework.

 

Your attitude towards counterplay is defeatist, that's not a good starting point tbh. You died after some time, by a ship concentrating attacks on you, so what? You asking to be impervious to sustained attacks over time? Sorry, do you have entitlement issues?

 

 

WG says a lot. But they look at winrates and average performance of below average players too much in all their games. Their data analysis isn't that great.

[CptBarney]

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

New Cleveland took some getting used to, particularly against other cruisers. Doing a lot better in it recently. First matches in it started at 40% WR, so i'll get there.

 

CV rework was getting used to as well, particularly in how to use the speeding up and timing assaults. Dealing a lot more damage since a week or two. I don't think you should see either of those stats as representative of anything but the learning curve of getting back in the game after several years of absence facing a playerbase already familiar with these ships.

 

Fair enough, but trying to use your old stats and trying to shoehorn them into a arguement to make out CV's are fine is dishonest.

 

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

Who though is asking for buffs? I'm argueing agains the removal and favour a rework.

Then if you want a rework you may as well start with RTS and work your way up from there. Other far better CV players than me have suggested this and come up with some good suggestions, but they were ignored sadly

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

Your attitude towards counterplay is defeatist, that's not a good starting point tbh.

 

No, im just not completely blind to reality like you are. I play with and against CV's so i know what its like to attack players and be attacked in both regards and with CV's unless you mess up or fail to dodge flak properly, there is little to no counterplay at all.

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

You died after some time, by a ship concentrating attacks on you, so what?

By a ship i couldn't see, spot, target, shoot at or kill. While he gets free reign over how much damage he does to me based on how good he is. Yes great fun, just like the weegee employee i was able to slap about in his kremlin while i was in my midway.

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

You asking to be impervious to sustained attacks over time?

No, but i would like ships with good AA or actual AA ships to perform their role without the need of 3+ players to do so. DFAA actually used to scatter drops while also providing a boost meaning you had to engage brain more than usual, unless you can no choice (lack of time for example).

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

Sorry, do you have entitlement issues?

 

No, but you don't seem to understand why they are broken and why the vast majority of decent players and even players who aren't so good despise them, they can interact with surface ships in a way no other ship in the game can.

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

WG says a lot. But they look at winrates and average performance of below average players too much in all their games. Their data analysis isn't that great.

Well we agree with something i guess.

 

I dont mind CV's (i wouldn't play them nor would my fav ship be one either not in this game btw), but to say they are fine is wrong in everyway, subs most likely won't be any different as well, unless weegee makes some major changes to them. But like CV's will most likely be another class that will be impossible to balance at all or properly.

[Figment]

34 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Fair enough, but trying to use your old stats and trying to shoehorn them into a arguement to make out CV's are fine is dishonest.

If you look at the discussion I never said they were fine (in fact I've frequently pointed out their balancing was off), just that they can be dealt with.

What I said is that the concept of them existing is fine, the way they're implemented is now worse than it was in Beta and that in Beta it was far from perfect as well.

 

What I agitate against is the hyperboling that they couldn't be dealt with or their effect mitigated/reduced.



Please don't misrepresent my argument like this.

[Alfa_Tau]

On 5/11/2020 at 10:56 AM, BLUB__BLUB said:

If CV wants you dead, you are dead, and there is no way you can kill him back.

the only thing you can do/hope is "clip/damage/disable his turrets", sort of. 

hello 

for sure you are a good player but this sentence is very generic and only applies in specific conditions.

There are no way a CV can kill a ship IF the "target" is clustered with other friendly. Yes CV can be able to push through the AA Bubble but at what cost and to achieve what?? 

 

As I said there are some circustances in which the above is true. 

1. Isolated ship is Always a good target; no AA bubble allow more than 1 strike and the damage can be really significant. 

2 low HP ships: The trade can be very advantageous : few planes to murder a DD for example. This is one of the few cases where I consider losing even a full squadron (depending on enemy ship, situatiion in game etc)

3. a ship that is camping behind a island and can only partially use AA. 

 

The above are some cases, and there are Others. But we should stop feeding false legends and exagerating facts. 

Thanks