CVs and backwardsness

[Unintentional_submarine]

*DISCLAIMER*

I'm sure that if you know my previous posts on CVs, you will also know that I'm generally in favour of carriers, and strike carriers in particular. I honestly feel like they are the only real way to become better in CV play, and the only way to help the team properly. With the present mechanics in place that is.

 

 

 

All right, with that out of the way, I have to address an issue I simply didn't know existed, and I'm sure most of us didn't, or at least didn't see it as an issue. That issue is the general backwards tendency in regards to carrier skill requirements as we progress up the line. "WHAT?" you might be inclined to say about now, but I intend to argue my point, so please stay a while and read the entire thing (yes it is long, sorry).

 

Now I didn't think about this until I saw a very particular battle by Papedipupi, a most skilled CV skipper (he plays nothing else).

http://www.twitch.tv/papedipupi/c/6793930

I suggest that if you haven't watched this before, that you watch it in it's entirety, if for nothing else than it's entertainment and the learning experience.

 

So, he had a most excellent battle. Arguably it was stacked in his favour. A: The enemy team had but three cruisers (who, aside from one didn't really stay close to the BBs) and no DDs. B: There was no enemy CV, not that it generally halts him (it does take him a while longer as he needs to find the enemy CV and kill it). C: The enemy BBs were not among the most powerful AA ships, aside from one Iowa (and a Baltimore that doesn't appear to do well, but it isn't a BB).

A Tier X CV should do well in such a battle, I don't argue that. It really should; this battle was a kid in a candystore and predictably he ran with most of the shop. That's ok to me. Some might argue that there was no fighter CV either, but that's a bad point, as the game shouldn't balance ONE spec in ONE line against ONE spec in ONE line. If that was done it would end in disaster as both would be battled up without the other frequently enough. Fighter CVs simply can't be used as a balancing stick against strike CVs. The strike CV (and the fighter CV) have to be balanced on their own.

 

So the game was stacked in his favour, this allowed him to play freely, as freely as he would like to. The enemy couldn't put pressure on him, so it was all just take off, strike, land, and it let him split his squadrons to strike several targets at a time, for devastating results.

Now comes my gripe. I noticed that his planes were terribly nimble and fast. They zoomed to and fro striking at a speed that can best be called blistering. Arguably they were so fast that several ships were caught off guard. You don't get to Tier X without having to dodge TBs along the way, but here it seemed liked more than a few targets didn't realise that they were the target of his attack until it was too late. Similarly, the TBs could change course like they didn't actually have any momentum, they just changed direction.

Papedipupi is much better than me at CV, but even I could have racked up crazy numbers in that game. And I think that says something.

 

These two factors mean that Tier X CVs (presumably Midway will have equally fast and nimble planes) are arguably easier to attack with than lower tier planes that are much slower and take seemingly forever to change course more than a few degrees.

Conversely, the BBs at Tier X and a few tiers below all become worse at turning than the ships before them. Thus, while the CV strike groups get easier to use (after a grace period where the player has to get used to the faster speed) BBs get harder to avoid planes. At the lower levels the CV skipper often have to spend a long time trying to get around a turning BB to get into a strike position, all the while the strike planes suffer losses to AA. Sometimes even getting wiped out. That means that a CV attack has a skill counter that takes more than a press of a button (fighters and cruisers), well technically it can be as little as TWO presses.  This is lacking against the Haku it seems. In the battle Papedipupi's enemies were surprised a few times, but one enemy actively taunted him to attack his Yamato, seemingly very confident in his avoidance skills. These skills failed badly, despite the fact that he clearly knew the attack was coming and started a turn (and slowdown) early enough. While Pape didn't kill him (he didn't need to) he could have had he committed more than the three TB squadrons he did, to the attack.

Even the mighty AA island, Iowa, failed miserably. It barely made a dent in his squadrons as they spent such a short time in the AA envelope. Having seen what an Iowa can do to lower tier planes, this was a bit of a shock. The Iowa stood no chance at all. And if the Iowa can't really employ it's AA, then no other ship can. And no, I don't mean the Iowa should knock attacks apart just like that, but the combination that it couldn't force Pape into a turning chase and that once committed to the strike, the planes got to the release in the matter of a couple seconds, the AA was functionally pointless. AA should function as a danger to stay in the envelope, but for that to work skillful play need to be able to force the planes to stay in the AA envelope for long enough to make it matter.

The Mogami did better, but only because it employed it's ability well and turned better than the BBs. But even his faster turns barely made a difference once Pape could attack without panic mode on.

 

I'm sure most of us agree that skillful play should be rewarded, and when you defeat a skillful enemy you feel good, and when you lose to a more skillful enemy you don't feel anger (at anyone but yourself at least). Some of my best CV battles were actually low tiers (0.3.0 time mostly) where I faced off against good enemies who pressured my planes and made me think about when and where to strike, rather than just rush in and strike on the fly.

 

What I think is going on is that planes, at least per type, have the same turning circle, regardless of model. That means with the faster planes they get a lot faster at turning too, while the reality was a bit more complex (slow bi-planes were, mostly, awesome turners for instance). See, while BBs get harder to control, CV planes get easier. That creates a bit of a disconnect at the highest levels. The BBs are effectively much worse off than their lower tier brothers.

 

So I think something is off. And that something is that WG continues to balance directly on firepower. That will never fix this problem. It will just make the CV class walk a fine line between OP and the abyss. And seeing how the balancing has been done so far, I fear it will never actually walk that line but continually fall into either extreme.

I don't think CVs need a nerf, it is annoying enough already. I don't think I need to list all the changes that haven't exactly made it less frustrating to play the class. However something needs to be done. And I think it has to be in mechanics. Planes need to have more realistic attacks and maneuvers. At least TBs (but preferably all planes). For instance, it doesn't strike anyone as strange that a TB can manage to line up with his buddies right out of a turn, drop to sea level, line up the target, spin up the torpedo engine (and likely arm the warhead) and drop the torpedo in a couple of seconds? I know that TBs didn't run for 10km to strike a target, nor did they drop far out (like some want them to), but they did spend more than a few seconds on a dangerous course. They do this at the lower tiers, but at the highest they barely spend any time doing it.

Shouldn't TBs have a minimum time spent on a setup? So that as they get faster, they need a bigger engagement circle (dotted line further out)? I know it would not always be pretty, with absolutely huge circle at Tier X, but like with the BBs, it would be the price to pay for being faster and better and greater and pretty much just awesome in comparison.

Similarly, if planes need to be unified per class, then make them spend the same time turning, rather than the same distance. That would make setting up a running attack along the flank of a turning target much more about predicting and less about just smacking the line down when the angle is good.

These two things need not be hard balanced against the lower tiers. A Tier X plane could perhaps be somewhat faster in it's setup, if the low tier planes so much time that it's tasks are finished well in time, for instance. But just making top tier a bit better is actually all right with me, as long as it is not so significant.

 

These things are arguably nerfs, but they are nerfs that a skilled player can overcome to some degree, and something skilled enemies can use to limit the effectiveness against his ship. The CV player needs to plan longer, and the target can use the extra time to turn more than now, leading to the CV skipper probably having to drop torps a little further out against skilled targets, as well as run a little further around to get time for the longer run in as well as the turn. Nothing major as I see it, we already do it all the time at the lower tiers. But it can buy the target enough time, should he be good enough, to limit the attack through either AA or a good angle on the spread.

It also doesn't nerf new CV players in the least. They have to become pretty experienced to get to Tier X, can't be called new there. Bad players... yeah they won't do too well with it, but if they fail badly at the low levels, then they won't carry on to Tier X. And if they do... well then they only have themselves to blame, and arguably the gameplay does get slightly easier.

However, these are nerfs, and as such I would expect some compensation elsewhere. Like stopping with the constant USN fighter buffs. They simply won't become a reliable counter, so let's stop trying to force them to be one. A somewhat smaller IJN torp spread would be nice. In order to fit that to the bad-friendly system, make it as it is now at low tiers, and make it a bit tighter from say the Ryujo and the final tightness at Shokaku? Most certainly the turning circles should be buffed as they are absurd at the high tiers, and invites CV sniping rather than the opposite (which I consider poor gameplay).

But the point is to make low and high tier CV gameplay be comparably hard, but high tier gameplay to have more multitasking (it already has that so no need to change that).

 

I hope I didn't ruffle too many feathers. Nor should anyone think that I'm some sort of 'traitor' to the CV line. This is not intended to be a nerf.

[Sharana]

CVs as class are broken or the unreleased tier IX and X that are simply not balanced since 0.3.1.0 early tests and the patches (.1 .2 .3) have nothing to do with them, because they are trying to balance the tier 4-8 CVs?

[Userext]

Sorry i cant read all what you said. But i will show my opinion. I think torpedo bomber damage should be reduced in order to keep the balance. You will eat 4 torps? no problem each does 3.5k-4k so 14-16k damage taken. Seems reasonable

[Unintentional_submarine]

Still didn't read to the end, just saw you mention the Papedipupi's battle and here comes my question.

 

CVs as class are broken or the unreleased tier IX and X that are simply not balanced since 0.3.1.0 early tests and the patches (.1 .2 .3) have nothing to do with them, because they are balancing the tier 4-8 CVs?

 

Maybe, I don't know. But I don't think you can balance the speed and turning capabilities of the higher tier planes with damage or spreads to be honest. As long as the time afforded targets gets lowered, and for the main targets, their own capability to turn gets reduced as the tiers advance, torps will hit regardless of skill on the target's part. I argue that the speed and turning ability makes attacks easier, while the targets gets harder to avoid said attacks. That's a disconnect.

 

If that's isn't worth a discussion, then lets consider the internal balance of the CV lines. The lower tier CVs are actually harder per squadron to use because you have to predict better and spend more time in AA compared to higher tiers. Talking about targets that actually try to avoid attacks before the attack has been locked in of course.

[Sharana]

 

Now I was able to read the whole post - you speak only about the unreleased CVs. Well I will just say you that we never had high tier CV gameplay to balance it. Essex on tier X was joke and there were and still are no tier 9-10 battles, it's 7-10. So the mechanics and gameplay are yet to be balanced, even the AA there is yet to be balanced. They promised changes to some mechanics, AP boms for DBs, reworking the manual drop mechanics in 0.3.2 and so on...

 

[Unintentional_submarine]

Now I was able to read the whole post - you speak only about the unreleased CVs. Well I will just say you that we never had high tier CV gameplay to balance it. Essex on tier X was joke on tier X and there were and still are no tier 9-10 battles, it's 7-10. So the mechanics and gameplay are yet to be balanced. They promised changes, AP boms for DBs, reworking the manual drop in 0.3.2 and so on...

 

Yes, but those things, based on previous changes, impact the entire line. I don't want the lower tiers to get hurt by balance changes made to curb the highest tiers. So I targeted one thing I think would be reasonable to change, so that the skill requirement remains the same per squadron all across the tiers. Nerf torp damage at Tier X and it won't change the fact that Haku can easily still plant a lot of torps on a target. Mega-buff Essex and Midway fighters? What about when they aren't around (we can't and shouldn't expect them to be present in every game, same for Haku of course). And that simply makes it frustrating to play, and encourages CV sniping. Do it too much and people might abandon CVs, at least temporarily.

 

Yes, I know the game in question involved lower tier ships. But the main targets were Tier IX-X. I think he sank a Mogami and a Nagato as tier VIII and the lowest. Even the other higher tier ships couldn't even begin to evade his attacks. Let's assume weaker torps, they would still get hit for massive amounts. It would require a massive damage nerf to stop this sort of game, but that would just make people like me stop playing CVs. I'm not as good as Pape, probably never will be.

[Bortasqu]

Nice read, and I agree with you all the way completely. Although I also made the same topic, but not the same issue, merely minutes more when you posted yours.

 

But, the fact that Sharana above is redirecting the balance issue elsewhere to the top tiers, where it is slightly worse than the lower tiers isn't really that much better to think about. That just means the whole CV class is pretty broken now, even moreso than artillery in WoT is, but that is a seperate matter for a (slightly) different game.

 

I hope the ST gets some changes in relatively soon, becouse right now, everyone and their mom will play CV's becouse the skill-cap is so low when they hear about manual torpedo drops & it's not really that far from the better players.

[Sharana]

I hope the ST gets some changes in relatively soon

Feel free to apply and explain to the devs how to make perfect game to your preferences.

 

Btw there were times where the CVs were much stronger then the current IJN strike CVs and devs were afraid that everyone will play CV so they put a limit. Now when they are not weak you see CV in 1/3 of the games and almost never 2 vs 2 as it's intended.

[Takeda92]

Now I was able to read the whole post - you speak only about the unreleased CVs. Well I will just say you that we never had high tier CV gameplay to balance it. Essex on tier X was joke and there were and still are no tier 9-10 battles, it's 7-10. So the mechanics and gameplay are yet to be balanced, even the AA there is yet to be balanced. They promised changes to some mechanics, AP boms for DBs, reworking the manual drop mechanics in 0.3.2 and so on...

Do we really need AP bombs for US carriers? Essex for example has 2 TB and 3 DB squads that are quite effective. Giving it AP bombs for even more damage seems rather extreme. USA already have the best fighters and DB, while still very decent TB so why do they need AP bombs?

Would make sense for the fighter set up on some tiers, but for each carrier on each setup?

 

Also over buffing the fighters seems a very bad idea when other nations' carriers come. If UJN can take it because they have so many squads and other USN carriers can take it because they have fighers too and more durable planes, what would other nations do?

[Ishiro32]

Now I was able to read the whole post - you speak only about the unreleased CVs. Well I will just say you that we never had high tier CV gameplay to balance it. Essex on tier X was joke and there were and still are no tier 9-10 battles, it's 7-10. So the mechanics and gameplay are yet to be balanced, even the AA there is yet to be balanced. They promised changes to some mechanics, AP boms for DBs, reworking the manual drop mechanics in 0.3.2 and so on...

 

Heh... Couldn't be more excited... What zany changes will they introduce in the next patch? How much they will cater to people who don't know how to play this class? (huge IJN spread + slow turning speed = almost no aiming and prediction skill needed) Will they go into OBT with fighter gameplay so primitive that you can play them with one hand while watching a tv show and eating cereals?

 

I expect the worst.

 

 

[Bortasqu]

Feel free to apply and explain to the devs how to make perfect game to your preferences.

 

Btw there were times where the CVs were much stronger then the current IJN strike CVs and devs were afraid that everyone will play CV so they put a limit. Now when they are not weak you see CV in 1/3 of the games and almost never 2 vs 2 as it's intended.

 

Well. I could write a maticulously long and easely comperhensible thread in the ST forum right now. But I'm not Russian, and neither can I speak Russian so my opinions and ideas are as valuable as chewing gum on the streets for them.

 

Also, I have been in a ST program for WoT, and I don't feel it's any different than now since it's still the same company: "You don't speak Russian? You can play with us, but we won't communicate or send any feedback to the Russian developers. Gtfo"

[ReynoldsXD2]

 

I find it more worrying that close drops are back.

 

TB dropping torps so close that a shoe thrown from the deck of the ship could hit the planes leaves ZERO chance for any sort of mitigation, no matter how early you started turning where ever.

 

I thought we had the whole arming distance thing to prevent such behavior.

 

[mtm78]

ReynoldsXD2, on 07 June 2015 - 01:56 AM, said:

I find it more worrying that close drops are back.

 

TB dropping torps so close that a shoe thrown from the deck of the ship could hit the planes leaves ZERO chance for any sort of mitigation, no matter how early you started turning where ever.

 

I thought we had the whole arming distance thing to prevent such behavior.

 

Replay or screenshot? Arming distance didn't change ( or if it did, it certainly would be bad if it where shorter now ). 
 

Sturmtiger_304, on 06 June 2015 - 11:53 PM, said:

 

Well. I could write a maticulously long and easely comperhensible thread in the ST forum right now. But I'm not Russian, and neither can I speak Russian so my opinions and ideas are as valuable as chewing gum on the streets for them.

 

Also, I have been in a ST program for WoT, and I don't feel it's any different than now since it's still the same company: "You don't speak Russian? You can play with us, but we won't communicate or send any feedback to the Russian developers. Gtfo"

 

As I understand, WG EU staff is responsible for correlating EU feedback to the dev's, their is no direct line of communication. Which does make one wonder, since I know they post on RU forums and I can't imagine a developer being unable to communicate in English.
 

[morpheuss]

I don't agree and yes I read the entire post.

[iChase]

Tier X IJN CV is OP, carriers as a whole are broken, needs to be completely reworked

[Drug_Kartman]

At least they shouldn't allow just one team to have a CV in a fight because then it just pwns

 

[Elderdaddy]

Tier X IJN CV is OP, carriers as a whole are broken, needs to be completely reworked

 

and u know it frome where? coz u have no battles at all on CV

[Ishiro32]

 

and u know it frome where? coz u has no battles at all on CV

 

He is playing on american server and from what I know he played more than enough games to have an informed opinion. I am not really savy with their forums but I think he also is one of the top CV players there... might be wrong here. 

[Sharana]

 

He is playing on american server and from what I know he played more than enough games to have an informed opinion. I am not really savy with their forums but I think he also is one of the top CV players there... might be wrong here. 

 

The forum says he stopped playing CVs after 0.3.1 ... because he doesn't like the changes and he wants the old setups back. He doesn't have the new CVs either.

And I have bad news for him - they won't bring the universal setups back. They won't allow you to choose your planes like ammo either. They know that the universal setups with fighters + TBs will have no alternative and 99% of the players will play with them and only with them. They somehow consider that bad and will stay with the roles we have now even if it's next to impossible to balance that without making them useless against their tier and some attempts of teamplay (escorted BBs).

[Ishiro32]

 

The forum says he stopped playing CVs after 0.3.1 ... because he doesn't like the changes and he wants the old setups back. He doesn't have the new CVs either.

And I have bad news for him - they won't bring the universal setups back. They won't allow you to choose your planes like ammo either. They know that the universal setups with fighters + TBs will have no alternative and 99% of the players will play with them and only with them. They somehow consider that bad and will stay with the roles we have now even if it's next to impossible to balance that without making them useless against their tier and some attempts of teamplay (escorted BBs).

 

And you think that CVs in 0.3.0 were fine? Everyone was using the same thing and fighters in 90% of games never did anything as they were mainly fighting with themselves until they were left out of ammo. Differences in CV power from tier to tier were even painful than they are right now. I agree that balance right now is completly skewed, but it has potential to work, situation we had before was as bad as it is now. 

[Sharana]

And you think that CVs in 0.3.0 were fine? Everyone was using the same thing and fighters in 90% of games never did anything as they were mainly fighting with themselves until they were left out of ammo. Differences in CV power from tier to tier were even painful than they are right now. I agree that balance right now is completly skewed, but it has potential to work, situation we had before was as bad as it is now. 

It was boring, no doubt about that. But now after playing the alternative I prefer to have it back. If the DBs were buffed like this back then, Essex was tier IX and Midway comes on tier X they were already almost balanced. The IJNs should have been copy of that with 3 squadrons of fighters to be as strong as 2 USN (12vs12), same with TBs, they should have 3 TBs (again 12) with more damage per torp, while USN with more damage like now on DBs. And there would be no problems at all. Now try to balance the strike setups. They will either leave it for the OBT, because it's impossible with this playerbase and MM in CBT, so we will pay to be tested upon, or they will nerf the tier 8-10 strike CVs to the ground so they can be useless in their tier once we start to have high tier battles in OBT/release.

[Vulgarny]

Im with Sharana. Right now its just sad how gameplay of CV turned up after IJN ideas entered the giame. To stay alive in CV in first 3-4 min you do have to be either escorted by 2 des moines all time, hug the border with 1 cruiser, hide all time in DD smoke, or have 3 fighters hovering 6-8 km away from your CV to intercept any TB. This is just stupid.

 

EDIT

 

Also changes to IJN carriers as I see( i play only t8-10) turned out that less and less people play IJN CV and USN are more and more common. But except Strike Essex USN dont have claws to do some serious dmg.

[Unintentional_submarine]

or they will nerf the tier 8-10 strike CVs to the ground so they can be useless in their tier once we start to have high tier battles in OBT/release.

 

That's my fear. That is why I want it make it less of a foregone conclusion that a TB strike will hit, without going full derp with spreads. And nerfing damage can't really secure this in my honest opinion. Many kills come from strikes where the target is hit by more torps than required when dropped by good players. Thus I fear a nerf in damage will only really nerf the good to average players, while the great players will still stomp around.

 

So that was why I wanted attacks to take more time at the critical moment. I don't like the idea of longer arming distance as it generally decreases the amount of damage done by lesser players a lot more than good players. We would have much the same situation as now I fear. Hopefully, with a longer (time) run in to the target the target would have a better chance to angle his ship in or out at the highest levels.

I just want targets at all tiers to have much the same chance of avoidance. Arguably the higher tier ships would still have it harder as firstly they face a lot more planes, secondly those plane are a lot faster and so get into a good attack position faster against a maneuvering target, and that's even if we assume my idea would be implemented. I think that's enough of an advantage over the lower tier CVs.

 

Re: carrier sniping. Yeah... I don't like it at all. Not that I don't think carriers should be valid targets, but I have found myself going into battles against fighter carriers and thinking "all right, I'll try to sneak in and take him out first." If I do, then I have pretty much managed to negate the entire idea that fighter CVs should counter strike CVs. If I don't... maybe I do in the next attack? Or maybe I make him paranoid enough to never leave his carrier too alone and so can strike at other targets, again negating my 'counter' to a degree. And against strike CVs, it is hardly better. The top CVs began this I believe and it slowly trickled down, so that now even relatively bad CVs try to do it. And let's be honest, trying to do a carrier snipe with a Zuiho is incredibly slow and risky. By people try it anyway.

 

[EDIT] Woot! iChase posted one of his few EU posts in my tread.

In case people don't know who he is. https://www.youtube.com/user/ichasegaming and http://www.twitch.tv/ichasegaming

[Ishiro32]

It was boring, no doubt about that. But now after playing the alternative I prefer to have it back. If the DBs were buffed like this back then, Essex was tier IX and Midway comes on tier X they were already almost balanced. The IJNs should have been copy of that with 3 squadrons of fighters to be as strong as 2 USN (12vs12), same with TBs, they should have 3 TBs (again 12) with more damage per torp, while USN with more damage like now on DBs. And there would be no problems at all. Now try to balance the strike setups. They will either leave it for the OBT, because it's impossible with this playerbase and MM in CBT, so we will pay to be tested upon, or they will nerf the tier 8-10 strike CVs to the ground so they can be useless in their tier once we start to have high tier battles in OBT/release.

 

They were balanced because everyone was using the same thing. Fighter were canceling each other out and with them and US huge AA there were almost no CV sniping, with those things out of the way you only needed to make sure that torp damage is not over the top and I will grant you it was playable.

Recent changes threw whole class into haywire, but old system  was extremly fragile and limiting in terms of balance. Think about it, 3 IJN fighters can not be as strong as 2 US fighters. 3 wings have clear advantage, 2 can engage and even loose (still will get rid off most ammunition) and the 3rd one will actually mess with TBs. 3 fighter squads also cover more map and would be better scouts. Also as you have said, it was boring, game needs to support in the future at least 5 CV lines and it needs to keep players intrested for a long time. Old system was not able to do that.

 

New system is not perfect... or even good. But at least we now clearly see issues that old system was hiding. Sooner or later they would crop out. I just wish they will not go into OBT with CVs completly broken as they are right now.

 

[tajj7]

Just have to say 500k damage is just stupid, I can't imagine any of those players on the enemy team had fun in that game. Sure the guy looked like he knew what he was doing but still I think that is just absurd, even top play I have seen from BBs and DDs doesn't get half that and for a class that stays out of the action most of the time that is too much potential.