Carriers...in real life they are effective....

[Sgt_Bones]

So why is everybody going wiggy about carriers being OP??? They really were OP, they still are OP, so honestly, I ask myself why all the freak out about it?

 

What sunk the Yamato???

I don't even play carriers, and never will, they just are not my style, but I have a lot of respect for CV Players that use them effectively, and frankly, I admit hunting the things is one of my favorite things to do. But, when I read all these "OP" here, "OP" there, anything is OP depending on the matchmaker.....

Destroyers are op....CV are OP, the St. Louis is OP, etc. etc. etc.

 

IMO, a good player is OP, no matter what ship they use. I respect that. I enjoy getting sunk if the person doing it used their ship to its best abilities.

 

Respect.  Not OP ships, just skilled players.

 

I tip my hat to all of you out there making ships of all types be called OP!

[Sensaia]

this is still an arcade game and u dont have to drag real life or historic facts into this only when its suits u, it took em 2 hours and 46 minutes to sink the Yamato, so translated into this game which is sped up by a factor of 3 this would mean that a CV can kill a Yamato in 55 minutes. (historic accuracy, something WG is very good at)

 

and with an arcade game there needs to be balancing but i dont really care anymore, there is not 1 single dev that is looking at these forums and didnt hear one single official statement on these forums

so the STATS will tell stuff lol

[ReynoldsXD2]

Carriers have been effective because they divorce fire power from the ship.

 

The Ability to send its firepower off to do its thing  and stay away from being shot at. If you look at the Combat data, you will notice that air attacks by themselves were something ships could weather. But not wave after wave with no chance to strike at the cause of the hell. One side suffered attrition in manpower, defense guns, ships. The other lost one/two man planes - the cost difference is staggering and only tipped more in favor to the Carrier over time as weapons and planes developed.

 

Its a horribly lopsided engagement.

 

And that is what makes it totally unsuitable for a GAME.

 

WG first and foremost needs to make combating carrier air wings a REWARDING occupation within the game.

Then, when players have an incentive to care for others enough to maneuver AA into position can we talk about looseni6ng the chain on CV's.

 

[Kevbar]

Stop whining about OP carriers, there are so many threa..

 

Oh, hang on. You're not in fact whining, you're just saying what I think.

 

Damn you and your mind reading spooky shenannigans!!

[Luckyio]

If you're that desperate for realism, do note that it took a few hours to rearm the aircraft, not about 10 seconds. Carriers also lost more aircraft to landing accidents than air combat.

Finally there were a whole lot less carriers than destroyers and cruisers for obvious reasons.

[Sharana]

so translated into this game which is sped up by a factor of 3

WG says that the game is speeded up ~10 times (scale+speed).

[Ryuuteimaru]

I'll make a prediction now, this game will never be popular due to carriers IE WOWP part 2.

[Andreevson]

Carriers are not OP if you play Cruisers :3

[Lin3]

Islands are UP in this game. In real life they wreck ships that run into them at full speed. In this game they never even knock off 1 hitpoint.
 

 

 

[TheJezna]

Yes they where very OP in reality. Interesting discussion. Totally irrelevant for this game though.

[Tinbawx]

Well carriers continue the long standing tradition of arty in WoT. Not that they work the same, nope. Both are classes that play radically different than the other classes in the game, which represent the main flavor and the reason why most people got into the game. Ships with guns, or tanks in case of WoT. And the presence of just one or two of them is forcing everyone else to play in a decidedly different way than they´d normally do.

 

I might be wrong, but I think that´s what´s getting people riled up the most. How does a single vehicle of a single class deserve it to have that much signifance in a match just by being present?

[Spellfire40]

Well play a level 8 CV in a game with lev 10 CA and you see that they dont do nothing anyome.  1Torpedo hit in the whole game with a balanced shokaku. escorting fighters coundt prevent CA Fighters from screwing up spreads. And that without an oposing CV.  Mayhaps CV are strong at low level but at high level tehy face more than enogh oposition.. I probably would have done more damage in an St. Louis if i keept alive for 20 sek and came up behind an island before dieing ,-))

 

cya

 

Spellfire40

[Vanhal]

WG says that the game is speeded up ~10 times (scale+speed).

 

So that's why my battleship is reloading it's guns in 3 seconds. Except it's somehow not happening.

Compared to indeed 10 times faster torps reload on high tier DD's, or way way faster than 10 times refueling and rearming of plane squadrons...

 

In other words, not only realism but also just any even remote contact with realism is not relevant for balancing.

[chaplainDMK]

So why is everybody going wiggy about carriers being OP??? They really were OP, they still are OP, so honestly, I ask myself why all the freak out about it?

 

What sunk the Yamato???

I don't even play carriers, and never will, they just are not my style, but I have a lot of respect for CV Players that use them effectively, and frankly, I admit hunting the things is one of my favorite things to do. But, when I read all these "OP" here, "OP" there, anything is OP depending on the matchmaker.....

Destroyers are op....CV are OP, the St. Louis is OP, etc. etc. etc.

 

 

IMO, a good player is OP, no matter what ship they use. I respect that. I enjoy getting sunk if the person doing it used their ship to its best abilities.

 

 

Respect.  Not OP ships, just skilled players.

 

 

I tip my hat to all of you out there making ships of all types be called OP!

 

Well apart from the whole Nuclear Submarine thing, going around unnoticed, wiping countries off the planet, nuking carrier groups. 

[Sgt_Bones]

I am not promoting more realism in the game.....

Nor am I complaining about a lack of realism in this game....

I am 50 years old, I have been gaming as long as games exist in an electronic format, and I love the way technology is making gaming more vivid and fun...

 

What I am complaining about is: A: All ship classes are OP...at least when you read the forums or in game chat....

My DD is OP for killing a CV....the CV is op for killing the BB, the CA is op for killing everything.....

 

THAT is my complaint. I chose CV's because they seem to be getting the most heat. And well, there is obviously a historical basis for them being effective. More so than BB's. The DD's and CA's seem IMO perfect even in a semi historical aspect.

 

So, TLR.....All the ships have a place, a tactic, and an aspect that can make them seem OP, but that is a part of a paper/Scissors/Rock type of game. Only skill makes a difference in the end.

[McCracken666]

good gameplay > realism.

 

Lets just go into all games that has some weapon that is so effective it hurts gameplay, cause IN REAL LIFE it was very effective, :X

 

Im sorry, but that logic dosnt make any sense in computer game sgt.bones.

[Dominico]

Well said op. Yes carriers are annoying if you get 1 shot. But if your team works as a team. Covering and hunting. Then they are not game changers but only a part. Look at the scores and sinking for carriers at the end of the game and try to ignore that time they wiped you out. They do not dominate. 

 

The problem is they are a frustrating enemy for some people because they leave you feeling powerless if you are in a be.  You have to rely on team mates. Just think for the game to be rich and exciting you need those heart stopping moments.   Not bbs that sail around dominating.  I love the fear when I spot top bombers or hear the torpedo noise!!!  Adapt and win like the British in ww2.  (Who incidentally invented carriers)

[gbgroger]

Excellent retort from Sensaia!

 

This is arcady gameplay, historical references cant be brought up when it is needed to defend a common irritation among players. And carriers need to stop whining about "just use better team tactics" when confronted about that class beeing OP, it wont happen in a random pool of 30k players (without a tutorial or mechanics to support team play).

 

The way I see it forward: give substantial rewards for downing planes and reward teamplay - to encourage teamplay among random folks!

[Vanhal]

good gameplay > realism.

 

That. If we had realistic gameplay on current maps, BB would be absolutely owning everything. If we had realism on realistic maps (like 1000x1000km), CV would own anything (more than now that is), but the battle would took 10 hours.

[VonVolks]

Why is everyone Always going on about realism?

 

Realism and facts depends on era. Here we have pre ww1 ships AND Ww2 ships. In ww1 there were no aircraft carriers. By the end of ww2 the BB dead because of the carrier. So all this "rl" discussion is pretty pointless, especially as it's a game which is clearly designed to be quite arcadey in nature, not realistic.

[DaWyrm]

good gameplay > realism.

 

Sorry, but that is a highly subjective statement. Some people prefer more realism than others.

Me, I've always liked realistic games. Unfortunatley there are very few of them available and I have to make due with what I can find that is not way too off the mark. That does not stop me from wishing for more realism in games.

 

What can be done in a way to please the masses is a form of percieved realism or relative realism. This game has good potential for it but has a long way to go to be optimal for me as a player. It will probably never reach that point due to other players with other preferences being more numerous. That still does not make one players' view invalid.

[VonVolks]

The funny thing is about naval warfare is the ECONOMY would affect the game most. If you made BBs cost around 100 times more than a dd to buy (and repair and refit) and yet a dd could still sink it with a couple of torps, then imagine what would happen!

[Interdiction]

Carriers have been effective because they divorce fire power from the ship.

 

The Ability to send its firepower off to do its thing  and stay away from being shot at. If you look at the Combat data, you will notice that air attacks by themselves were something ships could weather. But not wave after wave with no chance to strike at the cause of the hell. One side suffered attrition in manpower, defense guns, ships. The other lost one/two man planes - the cost difference is staggering and only tipped more in favor to the Carrier over time as weapons and planes developed.

 

Its a horribly lopsided engagement.

 

And that is what makes it totally unsuitable for a GAME.

 

WG first and foremost needs to make combating carrier air wings a REWARDING occupation within the game.

Then, when players have an incentive to care for others enough to maneuver AA into position can we talk about looseni6ng the chain on CV's.

 

 

Now that is a good idea and one that I can see WG taking onboard ...I have killed 25 planes in one game and got only a pittance for doing so but in a real war I would have saved the day ....

 

 

[infoteam]

So why is everybody going wiggy about carriers being OP??? They really were OP, they still are OP, so honestly, I ask myself why all the freak out about it?

 

What sunk the Yamato???

I don't even play carriers, and never will, they just are not my style, but I have a lot of respect for CV Players that use them effectively, and frankly, I admit hunting the things is one of my favorite things to do. But, when I read all these "OP" here, "OP" there, anything is OP depending on the matchmaker.....

Destroyers are op....CV are OP, the St. Louis is OP, etc. etc. etc.

 

 

IMO, a good player is OP, no matter what ship they use. I respect that. I enjoy getting sunk if the person doing it used their ship to its best abilities.

 

 

Respect.  Not OP ships, just skilled players.

 

 

I tip my hat to all of you out there making ships of all types be called OP!

 

? so you are talking about rl right ?

 

Show me just one battle (WWII) were cv were involved.. on a battlefield smaller than 200sm x 200sm.

Yes at the beginning of WWII cv were the superior species at sea.. but wows is still a arcade style game.

 

Guess the night battle of the Surigao_Sea (25.Okt 1944) was the last "real" artillery battle between ships.

[TheJezna]

Well said op. Yes carriers are annoying if you get 1 shot. But if your team works as a team. Covering and hunting. Then they are not game changers but only a part. Look at the scores and sinking for carriers at the end of the game and try to ignore that time they wiped you out. They do not dominate. 

 

The problem is they are a frustrating enemy for some people because they leave you feeling powerless if you are in a be.  You have to rely on team mates. Just think for the game to be rich and exciting you need those heart stopping moments.   Not bbs that sail around dominating.  I love the fear when I spot top bombers or hear the torpedo noise!!!  Adapt and win like the British in ww2.  (Who incidentally invented carriers)

 

Well it is a problem when gameplay balance only works when everyone is working as a team when the team selection is random. You get a tean where 20% don't want to play as a team, 20% (on EU servers at least) don't understand the language used, some who just don't care and just YOLOs away for some quick brawling not caring about the team winning or losing. And within the group that wants to win, can and do communicate and who are willing to play as a team everyone has a different idea of the best tactics, usually ending up in the team splitting anyways. The times you get a team that is able and willing to teamplay on the level required to for example handle an enemy T8 IJN CV without a CV on the team are few indeed. In such an environment, gameplay design that forces teamplay and quickly punishes team slip-ups is really bad and will likely deprive this game of players over time.