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

The balance in the skies

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IL]
Beta Tester
13 posts
5,545 battles

I know most of our eyes are in the waves but there is some air fighting going up in the skies, sometimes :) 

My issue is the fighters balance, before the patch you had only US carriers.

And if by a chance you logged in against higher tier carrier, well you just lose all your planes in the first 5 minutes of the game, doing almost nothing.

You can't run away from them, they are faster and in squadron on squadron fight, if you are lucky maybe you can take down 2 planes, maybe..

So now the Japanese came along and supposedly they should have weaker squadrons (4 vs 6) and yet same dumb story happen here as well.

One tier higher squadron of fighters against my american one with BB support, 30 seconds later, all my fighters are dead, the BB took out one fighter and now I can't launch any proper attack.

And then it's just him hunting down the rest of my planes.
Took down 36 planes when I was the higher tier carrier, my one tier 5 carrier vs 2 tier 4.. it's so easy  :trollface:

So there are few ways to fix it,

One, is never put carriers of different tiers in same the match, and yes not even 2 vs 1 since even here the higher tier fighters will rip you apart.
And yes you feel dumb when 2 squadrons die like bugs against one, all the time! 

Two, Balance the fighters stats, for now it's simply idiotic. 

Edited by Chillaxe
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
560 posts
999 battles

One, is never put carriers of different tiers in same the match, and yes not even 2 vs 1 since even here the higher tier fighters will rip you apart.

And yes you feel dumb when 2 squadrons die like bugs against one, all the time! 

Two, Balance the fighters stats, for now it's simply idiotic. 

 

While i agree in terms of giving CVs a special MM, with no tier range (only same CV tiers in battle), i have to say that, even if you are outnumbered and playing smart, you can outplay even 2 CVs when alone. But it looks different, when the CVs are a tier higher, there you stand (almost, not saying it is imposibru, seen it by very good Captains) to ouplay them.

 

The bigger problem i see there atm with the Jap CVs introduced is the disbalance coming up with the nations. If you have for example 2 US CVs staying against 2 Jap CVs, the US will in 90% dominate so it should be that MM Balance it to 1 of each nation per side (oh well, never will happen though), given, the CV Captains know what they are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles

This is an intrinsic problem with WoWS that CVs will be unbalanced due to wastly different properties in fighter capabilities and goes to show how difficult if not impossible it is to transform a real life 'survival of the fittest' which CV warfare is to a game enviroment where game balance is a major point in making a MMO game. IRL there is no such thing as balance; it is all about completely destroying and dominating the enemy and the only way to do that is to have better airplanes and aircrew training and as the war in the Pacific showed the vast differences in material quality, quantity of combat aircraft and crews in favour of the USN meant a one way war with the USA as the most powerful and dominant part in that conflict.

Aerial combat is the most unforgiving kind of warfare as the better trained and with best aircraft will win the battles and the airwar - those with inferior aircraft and training just dies, there is no middleground.

 

There really is no way to balance that which is intrinsicly unbalanced and it is my opinon that the CVs in WoWS can not be balanced to a point where 1 or 2 lower tier CV can defeat a higher tier one simply because of the vast differences in fighter properties, the higher tier fighters are simply too effective for the lower tier ones to handle.

 

 

The only viable way to balance CVs as I see it is to remove fighters alltogether and only have the torpede and divebombers left, unrealistic yes but as a lot of people tells us all the time this is an arcade game thus balance beats realism.

Edited by atomskytten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

khrm

I made a topic about this a few days back

 

all they'd have to do is remove the biplanes and remake the whole fighter tree

 

The reason we get this 150-300% increased damage upgraded planes is because you go from 2 7.7 mm machineguns to 2 7.7 mm plus 2 20 mm on the Hiryu for example

A5M->A6M try to balance that thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Weekend Tester
397 posts
5,148 battles

Limiting CV MM to same tier will never happen because there will always be the really smart guys like the ones I saw yesterday in divisions with a Langley and a Cleveland or a Hosho and a Myoko lol.  People like this will just ruin the game for the rest of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
560 posts
999 battles

Limiting CV MM to same tier will never happen because there will always be the really smart guys like the ones I saw yesterday in divisions with a Langley and a Cleveland or a Hosho and a Myoko lol.  People like this will just ruin the game for the rest of the team.

 

IF this would happen with divisions only, well, thats that, crap happens. But, it happens a lot of the times. Playing a Ranger vs an Essex + a Lady Lex is frustrating, even when not in a division. And such stuff has to be changed. Also, if those "troll" divisions :hiding: form up, well, counter them with the same "troll" division, where there is one, there are also more :teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Weekend Tester
397 posts
5,148 battles

 

IF this would happen with divisions only, well, thats that, crap happens. But, it happens a lot of the times. Playing a Ranger vs an Essex + a Lady Lex is frustrating, even when not in a division. And such stuff has to be changed. Also, if those "troll" divisions :hiding: form up, well, counter them with the same "troll" division, where there is one, there are also more :teethhappy:

 

Yeah I agree, about 50% of my carrier games I've been ridiculously out tiered.  Funniest one was my first game in Ranger, I was only carrier on our team - enemy had two Essex class, I ended up sailing into a cap and getting torped just to end it lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Community Contributor
1,828 posts
7,163 battles

I know most of our eyes are in the waves but there is some air fighting going up in the skies, sometimes :) 

My issue is the fighters balance, before the patch you had only US carriers.

And if by a chance you logged in against higher tier carrier, well you just lose all your planes in the first 5 minutes of the game, doing almost nothing.

You can't run away from them, they are faster and in squadron on squadron fight, if you are lucky maybe you can take down 2 planes, maybe..

So now the Japanese came along and supposedly they should have weaker squadrons (4 vs 6) and yet same dumb story happen here as well.

One tier higher squadron of fighters against my american one with BB support, 30 seconds later, all my fighters are dead, the BB took out one fighter and now I can't launch any proper attack.

And then it's just him hunting down the rest of my planes.

Took down 36 planes when I was the higher tier carrier, my one tier 5 carrier vs 2 tier 4.. it's so easy  :trollface:

So there are few ways to fix it,

One, is never put carriers of different tiers in same the match, and yes not even 2 vs 1 since even here the higher tier fighters will rip you apart.

And yes you feel dumb when 2 squadrons die like bugs against one, all the time! 

Two, Balance the fighters stats, for now it's simply idiotic. 

 

Look at the stats - a Shoukaku's 2 fighter squadron (even with +1 fighter upgrade!!) will lose to a Ranger's 2 squadrons. That's tier 8 vs tier 7. A Lexington and Essex will completely wipe the floor with Shoukaku's squadrons. It depends on which tiers are against which tiers specifically as well, not just +1 tier or not because Shoukaku vs Hiryuu fighters gain almost nothing while Ryujou vs Hiryuu is a huge upgrade.

Share this post


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

I've won air supremacy against bad CV players with IJN vs. USN.

 

Choose pure TB/DB and send a DB somewhere to lure off the enemy fighters, then nuke the carrier and have the rest of the game to yourself.

 

Rarely works but meh. It's either that or going AFK.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Community Contributor
1,828 posts
7,163 battles

I've won air supremacy against bad CV players with IJN vs. USN.

 

Choose pure TB/DB and send a DB somewhere to lure off the enemy fighters, then nuke the carrier and have the rest of the game to yourself.

 

Rarely works but meh. It's either that or going AFK.

 

You can usually still get hits in even when they have fighters and you have none even if you don't kill their carrier. And that's the reason why going fighters is a poor choice - at best it will equalize their spot vs yours. At worst they do nothing but have their 2 dive bombers.

Share this post


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

 

You can usually still get hits in even when they have fighters and you have none even if you don't kill their carrier. And that's the reason why going fighters is a poor choice - at best it will equalize their spot vs yours. At worst they do nothing but have their 2 dive bombers.

 

On some maps like Hotspot, yeah. That map is so chaotic there's no way he can protect all his allies.

 

On other maps, especially the small ones... hm... idk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,160 posts
377 battles

Carrier CV is totally broken now...

Ranger, 10 games played. Only 1 ( !!!! ) game was balanced in terms of carriers, meaning it was same tier carrier vs same tier carrier. Usually it is T7+T6 v T6, T7 v T8, T7+T5 v T5, or only one side has a carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
177 posts
1,543 battles

I just stopped playing carriers since they probably wont have same mm for carriers and you have to use what ever layouts the modules have so therefore  you have limited choice , to sort out the problem I think same mm for carries  and maybe more choices on more modules  so you can have more options but don't think this will happen as well they have already said these are the choices this is how game was made to play .

 

so same mm is  the best way to go unless they have a total rethink

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,160 posts
377 battles

 

You can usually still get hits in even when they have fighters and you have none even if you don't kill their carrier. And that's the reason why going fighters is a poor choice - at best it will equalize their spot vs yours. At worst they do nothing but have their 2 dive bombers.

 

Unfurtunately, I have to agree. I am keeping statistics with my ranger playing the fighter deck...

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/13117-031-update-first-impressions/page__st__120__pid__242167#entry242167

 

It is sad that WG is trying to push USN CVs into playing air dominance role, but doesn't really do anything about the CVs broken MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
101 posts
2,001 battles

My voice might not be the most experienced as I am a new admiral, but I logged around 200-250 battle as CV and here is my insight and you might take it as you will:

 

At first obvously I started out with fighters and made good use of them, but after roughly 20 matches I was wondering what their point really way. The only thing I would do with them was send my fighters against the opposing CV fighters. If I was a Tier higher, then I would also get to hunt other planes afterwards with a bit of ammunition left, if we were the same tier, then the outcome was determined by the naval AA in the area - if ther ewas none it was pretty much a draw with the victor being decided by pressing rightclick first for most cases and finally if my planes were a tier lower, then they vaporized in seconds but hopefully living long enough to allow my torpedo strike. We don't even need to talk about how useful those fighters were if I was fighting 2 CVs or  none. Meanwhile I only had little other squads, since the fighter(s) blocked anything and the fighter gameplay itself was dull and meaningless. I could literally smoke a cigarette inbetween torpedo strikes as there was absolutely 0 going on between those. I am not sure if everyone is aware, but inbetween torpedo strikes (without hugging the map end) there are 3-4 minutes depending on where your last target was before your next one is ready. Yes their damage potential is high, but that doesn't change the fact that people want to do something. If you can do 2-3 strikes PER MATCH, then obviously people won't find that very attractive.

 

Being fed up with all of it I switched to BB Warspite, but my aiming was too terrible so I went back to CV and simply cut out what was bothering me all along and it was the fighters. I am trying to spread the word about CVs being better off without fighters (especially true if no CV would bring them) but even if a CV brings them I am happy right now. I can't be out-tiered anymore as I drive the Essex since they took the 2x torpedo loadout from the lexington. So even if the enemy cvs have fighters I will be somewhat allright as long as I use my ship centrally as AA platform (if the map even allows, gg ocean)

 

Now without fighters I am having a blast. Yes divebombers aren't that great, but the burn damage can accumulate massively and it is 5 squads that can shape the battle instead of 2. So ultimately I see two improvement possibilities:

 

1) Remove fighters from the game, which is unlikely to happen as it requires bold developers unlikely to be found here as they would have to throw away the work they already put into them

2) Massively reduce the HP of fighters and AA capabilities of non-fighters. This would lead to the effect that fighters can effectively be driven off by naval forces, which they cannot at the moment. It would help the outiered cvs to hide their planes above a cruiser, because if you do that right now and the cruiser doesn't happen to be a des moines, then the fighters will simply destroy the opposing planes and mostly live to tell the tale. This might be a problem for non-essex ships as they don't have that many squads.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
468 posts
4,875 battles

So I just faced off 2 Ryujo's (Tier VI) in my Hiryu (Tier VII, only carrier on my team) and granted while they did not put up a lot of fighters (accounted 15 kills) I ended up getting 51 aircraft kills in one game. Tiering in fighters becomes really harsh really fast, for anyone wondering just look at the difference between the A5M Claude and the A6M zero where the DPS is TRIPLED.

 

The main gripe I have against air wars and in specifically flak is just how RNG it all seems to be. Against higher tier carriers I've had 1 squadron face off another squadron over my own carrier or some friendly BB and my squadron would STILL lose out and only 1 or 2 fighters of the enemy group would be shot down. Simultaniously sometimes I lose like 4/8 torpedo bombers from 2 groups before even getting close to an enemy battleship for no apparent reason other than RNG. But that is another issue for another day. With fighters it's more difficult, one big problem being the inability to disengage and try to turn tail and flee. This means when your fighters are committed, they are committed and you can't run for friendly AA or something like that. This means if higher tier fighters engage lower tier fighters in equal numbers they will ALWAYS come out on top and 99% of the time destroy the entire group.

 

I believe the main solution is to just scale it less harshly so that one can with 2 groups catch out 1 enemy group and come out on top reasonably efficiently instead of merely trading equally. Take the difference between the F4F-3 and the F4U, an increase of +42 DPS, +50% from one tier, the japanese as previously mentioned have one point where the DPS literally triples and while the DPS is increased the survivability is increased AS WELL. The net result is that lower tier fighters don't stand a chance against higher tier fighters, now for some planes this makes historical sense (who in his right mind would give the A5M a chance versus a group of angry F4F's) but from a gameplay perspective it can be frustrating. Even when I am on top, leisurely shooting down all planes that come to within my range and, depending on the AA capabilities of the carrier I'm facing, hunting them down all the way to home base, this doesn't give me that much satisfaction. I don't think anyone can deny that higher tier planes should have a significant advantage over lower tier planes but I feel this could be done in a lot less harsh manner (probably by balancing Loadout (ammo capacity) with DPS a little more in the lower tier fighters as we can see more or less after Tier 7 in the carrier department with the upgrades being far less harsh then they are lower down).

 

TLDR;

- Make fighter stats scale less harshly over tiers

- Allow fighters to disengage from other fighters to allow lower tier fighters a chance to reach friendly AA

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
240 posts
425 battles

Remove the fighters - as soon as I read that a light went on over my head, a real 'of course, why didn't I think of that' moment.

A possible alternative - limit the radius of action of fighters, either by preventing them going outside a 'CAP area' centred on the CV, or by greatly reducing their endurance so they have to cycles through the deck frequently... you could reduce the reload/rearm/refuel time so they're not spending all the battle in the landing pattern. My main concern with being out tiered in fighters currently stems from the fact that they roam the map at will for extended periods, intercepting everything - if we could limit their radius of action somewhat then they could play a defensive role still, rather than the rather offensive role they have now.

 

Whilst it's rarely a good idea to invoke real life, the CV fighter role in WW2 was to provde CAP - defensive patrol over the carrier - and to provide bomber escort. They did not have the endurance to travel all over the map engaging in mutliple dogfights, so why should they in WoWS? Let's have them circling the carrier (kinda like spotter planes do over other ships) ready to intercept raids heading into a fairly small circle around the CV, or flying in company with a TB or DB strike as escorts to handle enemy CAP.

 

Clearly the current balance with fighters is way, way out of whack and needs fixing - if they fix the fighter issue then the problem of multi tier and nation battles should greatly diminish.

Dave

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,160 posts
377 battles

Why to remove fighters? The microwars are fun to play sometimes... MM and DPS per tier are the issues.

 

-MM has to be balanced in terms of carriers no matter what happens. There can be no discrepancy in terms of carrier tiers right now. My one squadron of fighters from Ranger can take down 2 squadrons of Independence without losing a single plane. Playing T6 carrier vs T7 carrier is like playing T32 vs E100 in WoT, but no matter where you go, you will allways meet that E100.

-Also, allow 2 CVs per platoon (division) again, ignore russian crying bobs...

-IJN vs USN has to be balanced, it is nonsense for one team to have 2 USN carriers, while the other team has 2 IJN carriers (happened to me several times). This is BS... why can't you make it 1+1 v 1+1?

-Double the amount of exp for planes shot down and therefore making fighter oriented USN decks exp-worthwhile.

-Remove battles with only one team having a carrier

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,072 posts
9,812 battles

Well if the suporting BB that shot down your fighter was american.Im not suprised. Lost a whole flight of dive bombers agist one of those they have higher aa power than an american CA with active anti air skill. only thing you can do when you have a lower level fighter fling is trying to lure his over one of your cruisers but you will lose planes either way.


 


 

cu


 

Spellfire40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SPUDS]
Beta Tester
4,045 posts
7,552 battles

Why to remove fighters? The microwars are fun to play sometimes... MM and DPS per tier are the issues.

 

-MM has to be balanced in terms of carriers no matter what happens. There can be no discrepancy in terms of carrier tiers right now. My one squadron of fighters from Ranger can take down 2 squadrons of Independence without losing a single plane. Playing T6 carrier vs T7 carrier is like playing T32 vs E100 in WoT, but no matter where you go, you will allways meet that E100.

It will remain wonky pretty much whatever is done. The problem of course is that the fighters jump so much in power. Some of the single steps are insane. Let's fix that first.

-Also, allow 2 CVs per platoon (division) again, ignore russian crying bobs...

Yes. With the reduction of CV power, two carriers working together shouldn't be a huge problem. And even if they are, it can be reduced again later. However this lack of 'divisioning' is partly why carriers remain less than popular.

-IJN vs USN has to be balanced, it is nonsense for one team to have 2 USN carriers, while the other team has 2 IJN carriers (happened to me several times). This is BS... why can't you make it 1+1 v 1+1?

Agreed. 1+1 rather than pure setups. The USN carriers are encouraged to go 'strike' mods in this way, effectively ruining the entire idea of the USN carriers. Not that I think it is a good idea to begin with.

-Double the amount of exp for planes shot down and therefore making fighter oriented USN decks exp-worthwhile.

Would probably do more for BBs and CAs. Regardless, fiddling with plane XP can produce problems of it's own. Buff it too much and we lose the IJN carriers (you don't want to play them with too many USN fighter carriers around), and we can even end up with USN carriers on both sides playing their own little game, having practically no impact on the game because they are too busy trying to knock down each other's fighters. In that case might as well remove carriers. And that is the problem of USN carriers, they are focused on making the game as unfun for 0-2 opponents. All it achieves is to make the opponents less interested in playing, which then results in awesome fighter carriers in solo battles, where they are like a fish out of water. It is a flawed idea from the beginning with the current setup.

-Remove battles with only one team having a carrier

No thank you. You want to remove the MM mess of tiers, and then also remove single carrier battles? Welcome to maxed out wait times for carriers, and the loss of even more CV players. Instead of removing that possibility, carriers should be made more inviting to more people. Don't punish the few that are left.

 

Blue is mine.

 

Essentially I think the 'flavour' for the two nations carriers is a problem in it's own right. The different sized squadrons and number of squadrons should be plenty to differentiate them. Set the planes free.

Edited by Unintentional_submarine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4 posts
5,425 battles

CV are moore fun to play now, in my essex i go with 2 Torpedo and 3 dive bombers. The divebombers are perfect after your torpedoes, a lot of fire damage. Latest game (draw) i made 572 974 money, 2829 exp.

 

Total damage: 306 451 dmg

  • Set on fire 16 times 53959 damage
  • Flooding 17 times 25066 damage
  • Bomb hits 20 times 36870 damage
  • Torpedo hits 29 times 190556 damage  

Essex%20150517%2001_zps4dreedtm.jpg

Essex%20150517%2002_zpsgfrein8l.jpg

 

Edited by Ka11a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,160 posts
377 battles

 

Why to remove fighters? The microwars are fun to play sometimes... MM and DPS per tier are the issues.

 

-MM has to be balanced in terms of carriers no matter what happens. There can be no discrepancy in terms of carrier tiers right now. My one squadron of fighters from Ranger can take down 2 squadrons of Independence without losing a single plane. Playing T6 carrier vs T7 carrier is like playing T32 vs E100 in WoT, but no matter where you go, you will allways meet that E100.

It will remain wonky pretty much whatever is done. The problem of course is that the fighters jump so much in power. Some of the single steps are insane. Let's fix that first.

I agree, steps between tiers are totally bonkers and the best solution would be to fix it. But if you limit CVs to play against same tiered CVs, you will effectively remove this problem, that is the "I am lazy option".

 

-Also, allow 2 CVs per platoon (division) again, ignore russian crying bobs...

Yes. With the reduction of CV power, two carriers working together shouldn't be a huge problem. And even if they are, it can be reduced again later. However this lack of 'divisioning' is partly why carriers remain less than popular.

Also it would introduce the option of IJN+USN carrier platoons, USN CV doing its air superiority while IJN CV bombing crap out of everyone.

 

-IJN vs USN has to be balanced, it is nonsense for one team to have 2 USN carriers, while the other team has 2 IJN carriers (happened to me several times). This is BS... why can't you make it 1+1 v 1+1?

Agreed. 1+1 rather than pure setups. The USN carriers are encouraged to go 'strike' mods in this way, effectively ruining the entire idea of the USN carriers. Not that I think it is a good idea to begin with.

 

-Double the amount of exp for planes shot down and therefore making fighter oriented USN decks exp-worthwhile.

Would probably do more for BBs and CAs. Regardless, fiddling with plane XP can produce problems of it's own. Buff it too much and we lose the IJN carriers (you don't want to play them with too many USN fighter carriers around), and we can even end up with USN carriers on both sides playing their own little game, having practically no impact on the game because they are too busy trying to knock down each other's fighters. In that case might as well remove carriers. And that is the problem of USN carriers, they are focused on making the game as unfun for 0-2 opponents. All it achieves is to make the opponents less interested in playing, which then results in awesome fighter carriers in solo battles, where they are like a fish out of water. It is a flawed idea from the beginning with the current setup.

Played yesterday my ranger with fighters vs enemy Lexington with pure dmg setup. Got 59 plane kills and 30k dmg, result? 1k exp... hahaha, what a reward for completely locking down one tier higher capital ship. Btw the second highest number of plane kills had some Nagato - 11.. if there is air superiority oriented CV, it will allways amass more plane kills than cruisers/BBs. I agree, removing balanced loadouts is weird idea, but remember that if you match IJN CV vs USN CV, that damage oriented CV will allways sneak some attacks in and it can do massive dmg in just 1 or 2 attacks and therefore it will have higher impact on the game result that fighter oriented CV... all odds are now stacked against fighter loadouts.

 

-Remove battles with only one team having a carrier

No thank you. You want to remove the MM mess of tiers, and then also remove single carrier battles? Welcome to maxed out wait times for carriers, and the loss of even more CV players. Instead of removing that possibility, carriers should be made more inviting to more people. Don't punish the few that are left.

I don't mind waiting in line for 1 more minute... WG is trying to force USN CVs into the air superioty role. Alright, I think it can be fun ruining someone elses day :)  So I took Ranger for a spin with fighter loadout... 3 out of 5 battles were w/o enemy carrier. If you don't want to remove 1 CV battles completely, at least don't allow CVs with fighter deck to be the only CV in battle. Not to mention that you get no exp for shooting down planes.

 

red here
Edited by BigBadVuk
This post has been edited by a member of the Moderation Team, due to inappropriate content.

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.

×