Patch 0.4.0.1 Carrier gameplay issues

[Ishiro32]

 

Hello all, since we are having official OBT very soon, let’s have another wall of text of mine, shall we? There are couple of things that I believe should be addressed by devs regarding CVs in this patch and sorting it in one place might be beneficial for discussion. So let’s start.

 

Obvious one is MM but I don’t really want to talk about it too much.

 

1. ) Strike setups were not balanced in CBT so they should no be present in the OBT.

This is main thing I would like to talk about. When we had CBT I was often defending full strike and full fighter setups as I believed that WG might be able to balance them against each other and against surface ships. Concept is great and I will still defend the idea itself. Problem is that  WG simply did not have enough time to do it, because of their state both setups are creating multiple balance problems. Let’s look at it closer.

 

Biggest problem of fighter setups was that on their own they do not give any significant advantage to their team. Please go see my topic about fighters for more detailed opinion about fighters. Shoft version: no skill involved and their role is not to benefit team, but to hinder enemy which you cannot stop fully and you can’t ensure it will be there in the first place.

 

Strike setups on the other hand give the player extreme firepower. Players who are able to use them will change the tides of battles. By sacrificing defence they get biggest carry potential in the game. Because of the random nature of MM this setup became most optimal and obvious pick for anyone who knows this class inside out. Because of this dominant strategy recently we have seen increased number of CV snipe tactic in which you crawl around map edge and get rid off most powerful enemy unit before it can help his team. This tactic started being popular after introduction of tier IX and X. Both of those ships had significantly higher firepower while also being even more prone to airstrikes than CV in lower tiers. It was the best choice to simply pick off this easy and very dangerous target. Because those ships were so fragile, people started sacrificing CA presence on the frontline just so they can defend heart of their fleet. While there is nothing wrong with that in itself, other selfdefence tactic was to use map edge to make enemy approach more difficult.  You can not send planes behind the edge so doing manual drop against enemy who is sailing near it is much more difficult.  Highest tier games became CV snipe games with people doing anything to give them edge. If you don’t use map edge you are just too easy target and could be picked off by anyone. Game of "Snipe a CV" was and sin't fun.

WG tried to balance the power of those strike CVs, but it was pointless. Finally they droped the idea and introduced all balanced setups. All top carriers can defend themselves against strike on open water if played right.

WG also acknowledged this problem on low tiers and how powerful first CVs were and forced Lagley and Hosho to go with balanced setups creating much more interesting games on that tier if those two ships are thrown against each other.

Problem is that other tiers were untouched and with some other changes CV sniping is actually dominant tactic on middle tiers. What changes you say? Why it was not popular before? Rudder shift, turning circle nerf to whole CV line and fact that low tiers do not have access right now to the turning upgrade. In earlier CBT patches all light CVs (from tier IV to VI) were turning more like crusiers or destroyers. If the CV skipper was good, he was able to maneuver between torp waves and was very hard to get. Right now they are turning like higher tier BBs and whole class has worst turning characteristics in game. While I do think that big CVs (tier VII-X) should act like that, but light class was overnerfed.

So what we have as result? Even at tier V I have seen people using map edge to their advantage simply because their ships are not able to defend themselves. At the same time full strike setup is still most optimal one, especially with very lacking MM.

 

To put it simply. Specialised decks are great idea, but in the situation where they were not polished (not even close) in the closed beta, they should be scrapped and they should not show up in the open version. Force balanced setups on everyone and adjust numbers accordingly. Sniping enemy CV should not be dominant strategy but opportunistic. Most CVs with the mobility nerfs simply do not have tools to survive snipes and while I think mobility should be buffed on tiers IV-VI, it in itself is not the issue. Issue is that the best choice of deck is strike deck and balancing them is a difficult task. Don’t do that in OBT, we need heathy gameplay here.

 

2. ) Map edge issues

While I am thankful that WG said they will address this issue in the future, fact is that this form of CV defence is breaking the game. Just because people are forced to use it doesn’t mean it is something good. It needs to be addressed with small quick fix. Which is:

 

Create another edge only for planes which would be few km beyond normal map edge.

 

Biggest benefit of using map edge is that it significantly hinders control of enemy TB approach. You don’t have to grind the map, just being close will create enough problems for the enemy CV. If CV skippers were able to fully control their planes even beyond map edge it would completely solve this problem. Ofc there needs to be a limit, so creating new map edge that would work only or aircraft would stop anything silly like going beyond the map.

This is very simple fix, but it is needed. You can address whole map edge in the far future, but this would lessen current impact of this problem.

 

Last words:

Those in my opinion are 2 biggest issues with CVs right now. Damage balance is less important. Torp damage progression is also something that can be added later. Earlier in CBT one of the biggest problems in CVs was that with each tier all of their statistics were being upgraded. Planes were faster, more though, dealt more damage, you had more of them and you had more spares. It is difficult to balnce something when each stat goes up, so I kinda understand why they have decided for the moment for all IJN torps to deal the same damage. We need balanced setups for everyone, then see how they perform and then devs can think about giving more progression from tier to tier. Those two on the other hand need to be addressed ASAP as they do impact how healthy and by extension “fun” gameplay is.

 

I hope most of you agree with me on that and If not, feel free to present some counterarguments.

 

Cheers

 

[Anu_ClearSky]

Very very good opinion. Compared to other people who just complaining, I feel you do think about this game seriously.

I started to use balanced load out yesterday. I think it's more interesting to play the game with some fighters in hand, and it also complicates the task of CV players, which should be a good thing.

Right now, shokaku has a 2-2-2 load out, which is enough to defend herself towards another shokaku, and higher tier IJN CV has 3-2-2 & 4-2-2 load out. With more fighters, high tier IJN CV will be able to protect herself while provide enough AA cover to her fleet. And it will be quite hard to sink a CV with more than 3 fighters in one wave. I think WG did think seriously about how the balanced load out should be like, and I'm quite satisfied with the load out right now.

I think the strike load out is also acceptable. It's because if there are enough high tier CV choose balanced load out, CV with strike load out will have to face the problem that they neither can protect themselves nor their planes, which will dramatically increase the risk of using this load out. 

[Abraa]

Nice summary.

[aboch]

I totally agree with the edge map issue. This must be fixed ASAP as it is indeed game breaking. But i doubt they will after i saw even Supertesters using this exploit of game mechanics and being fine with it .....

[Admiral_Yamamoto__]

Just remove CV's completly from game. Every good Cv Player can kill everyship with one Torp attack!

[Ishiro32]

I totally agree with the edge map issue. This must be fixed ASAP as it is indeed game breaking. But i doubt they will after i saw even Supertesters using this exploit of game mechanics and being fine with it .....

 

Supertester =/= devs

 

Also one of the reason why I wrote so much about tier IX and X and when this whole thing started was to show people that top CVs were pretty much forced to use this trick. There was no other way to survive as attack power of those ships vastly was superpassing their thoughness. You had to either have organised team or use tricks. Right now lower tiers because of turning nerf are in the same situation where their attack power is just too big compared to their abillity to survive those type of attacks.

You can not simply remove this trick without adressing full strike setup issues and CV abilities to defend themselves. 

[II_Nemesis_II]

I have to add though, that balance of Tier 9-10 is now in favor of USN. Why? Cause of the torpedo squad number changes to IJN CVs, right now they have 3 squadrons at best, which means 12TB in the air. Same goes for USN ones, but USN do not have that horrible torp spread and on top of that they deal more dmg with torps. Add to it that they have way stronger fighter group. In the middle tiers until Lexingtont, the USN are quite lackluster compared to IJNs. I would introduce 1-1-2 deck for USN CVs and not that 0-1-3 deck (or maybe switch it with the fighter deck as it's really seriously underwhelming right now).

[OpCentar]

A minimal 1:1 MM for carriers is needed so that there can't be a battle with only 1 carrier.

 

This will contribute to the usefulness of carrier fighters as there won't be a situation where they can't do anything. Adding higher XP and credits for shooting down entire flights of planes should improve it further. They can even make it a carrier/cruiser specific bonus.

 

Map border can be fixed in 1 patch if there's the will to do it. Adding a fly zone around the border does nothing for other classes except carriers which could attack from all directions while the rest can't. Give the wall strong disincentives for any ship.

[Ishiro32]

A minimal 1:1 MM for carriers is needed so that there can't be a battle with only 1 carrier.

 

This will contribute to the usefulness of carrier fighters as there won't be a situation where they can't do anything. Adding higher XP and credits for shooting down entire flights of planes should improve it further. They can even make it a carrier/cruiser specific bonus.

 

Map border can be fixed in 1 patch if there's the will to do it. Adding a fly zone around the border does nothing for other classes except carriers which could attack from all directions while the rest can't. Give the wall strong disincentives for any ship.

 

1:1 would not solve "Snipe the CV" the game and would only benefit full fighter decks which have horrible design philosophy behind them.

 

Shooting down planes gives right now decent ammount of xp. We need spoting though, it is in plans so there is no reason to talk about that before 0.4.1.

 

I have created a topic not about other classes, but specifically about CVs. As a result I am not adressing map edge issue of other classes. As mentioned, devs know about this and will solve it in the future. Also I would argue that map edge issue is significantly more "hot" in case of CVs as it pretty much regressed whole class. At the start of the CBT we had newbie CVs who were as far away from battle as possible, then good players started playing more agresive and benefited from that. This "feature" and fact that game is forcing it is setting back whole thing, as most optimal place is where those newbie CVs back in the day were.

 

Not to mention that hindering player control is really big problem in itself. Air zone would solve it efficiently and it is simple fix. 

 

Other ships should want CVs to be closer to the battlefield. CV should move behind their team frontline. Imagine, that you are breaking it and CV is clear to destroy. Sweet price for the team that did good job and got through front line.

[Sharana]

I have to add though, that balance of Tier 9-10 is now in favor of USN. Why? Cause of the torpedo squad number changes to IJN CVs, right now they have 3 squadrons at best, which means 12TB in the air. Same goes for USN ones, but USN do not have that horrible torp spread and on top of that they deal more dmg with torps. Add to it that they have way stronger fighter group. In the middle tiers until Lexingtont, the USN are quite lackluster compared to IJNs. I would introduce 1-1-2 deck for USN CVs and not that 0-1-3 deck (or maybe switch it with the fighter deck as it's really seriously underwhelming right now).

 

They swtiched side, USN will have better strike setup on tier 9-10, while the IJN will get more fighters which is great (for me). You probably haven't met Lexington yet and I wish you not to see it anytime soon. It's the most frustrating thing when you are strike CV, I had lot more fun being matched vs 6 Atlanta 5 Sims team. Strike USN CVs will feel the same way and will eventually switch to their balanced setups if they want to have some fun.

[II_Nemesis_II]

 

They swtiched side, USN will have better strike setup on tier 9-10, while the IJN will get more fighters which is great (for me). You probably haven't met Lexington yet and I wish you not to see it anytime soon. It's the most frustrating thing when you are strike CV, I had lot more fun being matched vs 6 Atlanta 5 Sims team. Strike USN CVs will feel the same way and will eventually switch to their balanced setups if they want to have some fun.

 

You tell me . Just yesterday had 4 games (almost in a row) in my Ryujo against Lexington. Not only it chewed any of my squadron in 4 seconds (literally) with its fighters, but the amount of Atlantas, Clevelands, Atagos, etc. made completely impossible to do anything in those fights, as some of them were even protecting him.

The IJN CVs from tier 5-8 I would say are quite hindered cause of the last patches. Mainly it is because the introduction of catapult fighters as the strike setups lack any fighter squadron, you can't do anything about them. USN CVs do not have in those tiers that kind of firepower, but on the other hand they are not that frustrating to play I would say.

[Ishiro32]

 

They swtiched side, USN will have better strike setup on tier 9-10, while the IJN will get more fighters which is great (for me). You probably haven't met Lexington yet and I wish you not to see it anytime soon. It's the most frustrating thing when you are strike CV, I had lot more fun being matched vs 6 Atlanta 5 Sims team. Strike USN CVs will feel the same way and will eventually switch to their balanced setups if they want to have some fun.

 

Recent change in the top tier actually impacted my CV Line of choice. Before that change I wanted to go with balanced midway, but since Airport has amazing fighter presence and will really put pressure on my multitasking skills, I ended up going with IJN.

I wonder what would happen if they have switched concepts on all tiers. 

[tajj7]

All or nothing set ups should be removed.

 

Makes sense from a gameplay perspective and a realism perspective fleet carriers were not taking to seas in WW2 without any fighters at all or without any bombers at all.

 

To be honest 'whole strike' set ups are not only broken but they are completely anti-teamwork, CVs should be providing air cover to their fleet, protecting their BBs from enemy strike planes and helping poor DDs being followed all day by fighters.

 

Plane physics needs a dose of realism too, it should take much much longer for torp bombers to set up a new attack run.

 

The set up/launch distance of manual drops also needs an increase. In conjunction of the above this should give aware players more chance as it is currently CV players are just doing fake runs, getting the BB player to run then they can quickly re-do the run and launch from near  unavoidable distances. 

 

I will also maintain that low risk classes should not in balance terms be the highest potential damage dealers, this means that CVs need a nerf to scale down their damage dealing ability to be more proportional to their risk. 

 

 

[Sharana]

Fighters will get rebalanced in 0.4.1 and i hope they will do the same as in tier X where 1 squadron is killing 1 bomber and going to rearm. Because the current 7-8 tier fighters are ridiculous after all the buffs they made to them earlier. 2 Shokakus (12 bomber squadrons, so 48 planes) rushed Lexington yesterday. The 12 fighters (2 squadrons) intercepted them ~10km away + the Lexingtons incredible AA itself ... none of the 48 bombers survived, nothing more to say about it...

[Ishiro32]

Sharana, as you are that infamous supertester that was talking about map edge "feature". What do you think about my proposition of forced balanced setups + free air zones near map edge?

 

Edit.
Just to be clear, people were asking for forced balanced for a looooooong time. What I said about it was anything but new.

[Sharana]

Well it will be hard to find someone, who wouldn't like to see the balanced setups back. At the same time WG said they will stick with the specialized setups ... while rebalancing the high tiers for balanced setups. if the stats and feedback show it was good idea I really hope they will do the same for tiers 5-8 too.

As for the border, if everyone has fighters to stop sniping it won't be needed. In the meanwhile I have no problems with flying outside the border and launching the attacks from there 

[Ozurson]

Had a few games without CVs yesterday. Was the most entertaining games os the day, people actually fought ship battles, and not avoid torpedo bomber battles.

 

Just remove the CVs completely

[Ishiro32]

Well it will be hard to find someone, who wouldn't like to see the balanced setups back. At the same time WG said they will stick with the specialized setups ... while rebalancing the high tiers for balanced setups. if the stats and feedback show it was good idea I really hope they will do the same for tiers 5-8 too.

As for the border, if everyone has fighters to stop sniping it won't be needed. In the meanwhile I have no problems with flying outside the border and launching the attacks from there 

 

I know that it is possible to attack from outside, but it is wonky . Also even with that you are not able to put torps near the broadside like we usually do If BB is close to the map edge. Center of attack is restricted to the edge of the map, you would have to attack him from the outside to get your usuall thing. This air zone would be to solve also that. Don't you think it might be convinient? 

 

As for specilised setups. Well, If they did not rush the game and let us test whole thing for at least 3 months maybe it would actually work. Also with current fighter implementation... good luck.

[Jexter]

Not going to comment on the CV particulars as I do not play the class, and have no intention of playing it.

However, I do agree that something needs to be done about the map borders. Its current implementation breaks immersion (no pun intended) and is notoriously abused, by all ship classes. I think the best way to deal with it would be to add a buffer area on the edges (instead of the current 'hard' border) with a warning to turn around and re-enter the operational area within n seconds or be 'lost at sea' (ship sunk). The soft buffer would likely then just have to be large enough to allow for standard plane control (planes themselves would not be subjected to the warning/timer, only ships would).

[Sharana]

I know that it is possible to attack from outside, but it is wonky . Also even with that you are not able to put torps near the broadside like we usually do If BB is close to the map edge. Center of attack is restricted to the edge of the map, you would have to attack him from the outside to get your usuall thing. This air zone would be to solve also that. Don't you think it might be convinient? 

As for specilised setups. Well, If they did not rush the game and let us test whole thing for at least 3 months maybe it would actually work. Also with current fighter implementation... good luck.

The hard manual drop near the border is confirmed as intended feature that won't change, so I don't see them making another border to neutralise the first feature they made ... for unknown reasons

 

Anyway it's not so hard if get used to it, the manual DB drops were difficult in the beginning too. Yes I'm cheater, hacker, exploiter ... but the reality is you counter nasty "feature" of border hugging with other nasty "features" .

 

Step 1: Engage the minimap cloaking device and leave the map with the planes, so you approach the target from outside avoiding the close range AA and take him by surprise, so he doesn't start maneuvering to dodge outside drop right away.

 

Step 2:

Order manual attack near the enemy CV and change the angles (like by auto attack) to cross him with torpedoes.

 

Step 3: Dodge that .

 

Step 4: Let them choose how to die - flood to the death or repair and die to multiple fires 

Step 5: enjoy the chat and suggest them not to hug the border next time

 

Bonus step: enjoy forum topic about it like when pape killed gorgutzer this way 2 days ago.

[II_Nemesis_II]

Had a few games without CVs yesterday. Was the most entertaining games os the day, people actually fought ship battles, and not avoid torpedo bomber battles.

 

Just remove the CVs completely

 

Had a few games, without BBs in CBT. Were the most entertaining games of the day, as I actually did not had to die by single salvo fired from +20km away.

 

Just remove the BBs completely.

[Ishiro32]

CVs are here to stay, there is no sense in complaining about them like that. Healthy CV gameplay will benefit game as a whole. 

 

Sharana as for yout trick. Well I do think those features are stupid ^^ . So much work for such a simple thing. CV interface is mysterious enough without the need of those features. I still can't belive how you cancel the takeoffs and how any normal player is supposed to know that.

You know, it should be more elegant.

[II_Nemesis_II]

CVs are here to stay, there is no sense in complaining about them like that. Healthy CV gameplay will benefit game as a whole. 

 

Sharana as for yout trick. Well I do think those features are stupid ^^ . So much work for such a simple thing. CV interface is mysterious enough without the need of those features. I still can't belive how you cancel the takeoffs and how any normal player is supposed to know that.

You know, it should be more elegant.

 

Canceling of takeoffs? You mean when you changed your mind and that you want cancel the takeoff order? Well I thought I already had it yesterday, when I canceled it by simply right clicking on the squadron icon, but then after another game it did not work....

[Ishiro32]

 

Canceling of takeoffs? You mean when you changed your mind and that you want cancel the takeoff order? Well I thought I already had it yesterday, when I canceled it by simply right clicking on the squadron icon, but then after another game it did not work....

 

Right click on the plane icon at the buttom of the screen. If the wing is already during the take off process it will not work, but if it's waiting in queue it will work and cancel it. A lot of CV players are setting up take off queues to not think about it, but not all know that you can change the order if for example suddenly you need to sortie a fighter wing instead of bomber.

[II_Nemesis_II]

 

Right click on the plane icon at the buttom of the screen. If the wing is already during the take off process it will not work, but if it's waiting in queue it will work and cancel it. A lot of CV players are setting up take off queues to not think about it, but not all know that you can change the order if for example suddenly you need to sortie a fighter wing instead of bomber.

 

Yeah yeah I figured that yesterday but as I was saying I could not cancel it in the next game, dunno why (and no they weren't in the takeoff process already). Maybe some kind of glitch. But agree that it is quite unintuitive.