AA & CV's..This has gotta stop WG

[Redcap375]

If a CV player decides to torp a Cleavland for no reason or fly near it to hit another target, both of which is a mistake then yes I agree they should lost that entire squad, fair deal. But if every ships has strong AA which cannot be avoided unless they have been knocked out (and also because it is aura base you can't avoid "less AA" by approaching from the front or back where less AA guns are facing) then who should a CV target?CAs are a planes natural counter, lone USN BBs are now totally no fly zone, lone IJN BBs have better AA and DDs have the speed and manuvorability to mess up even the cross drop if they're good enough and USN DDs have pretty good AA as well. Any decent CV player should have no problem avoiding getting sniped although it is very irritating. So tell me which target should a CV hit first then assuming it is the start of a match and enemy ships are bunched up. 

 

 Oh and this, i agree. Yesterday I attempted a torpedo run on a Tier 7 BB (Nagato) in my Tier 7 (Ranger) CV.  I have always played IJN Carriers more but my mind is changing to Full strike US, as the planes are more durable and they have to be now-a-days.  I have always been an advocater of the 2-2-2 set up but 2x4 groups of paper thin IJN torp planes just doesn't do the job like it used to.  Bombers are used only on DDs as we know the damage isnt the same as the US ones. 4 planes on man aim trying to hit even a BB, 2 hits? Please. 

 

I have 6 topr planes in my only torp group right? I made a manual drop as ANYONE can avoid most torps with auto.  He swatted 3 out the sky straight the way and popped the fighter deck plane panic button. Which engaged my torps and THEY COULDN'T HIT A BARN DOOR with the laughable spread. All Planes lost, time lost and nothing gained. Oh i could have also thrown in my bombers in too, but like you all know the Rangers bombers arnt as good.  Just fix the repair and more planes lost. Thats not including the time spent getting back to the CV which hopefully doesn't have a cruiser or another BB in the way else it fly around the map time, wasting more time. Imagine if that was an IJN plane strike instead? My god.

 

The Nagato (tier7) is ticked off my list as possible targets and that in my own tier group??That's a IJN BB isnt it? Arnt they suppose to be the weak link regarding AA? Because US BBs  are already on the don't go near list.

 

Well i'm sure the Amagi (tier 8) isnt going to be as bad AA wise is it? Oh wait....

[Vulgarny]

 

It's the other way around. If you're bad, you will suck in CV, but be okay in other ships. If you're average you will still suck in CVs, and perform pretty good in all other ships. And if you're good you will perform really well in CVs and good in other ships.

 

Azell dont. neither Pape^^

[Vulgarny]

I believe they are interpreting the data in a way that fits their vision for the game.

 

Their vision of game went sideways in late alpha, while in mid beta they started to go against the current. Game is in sorry state of failed mechanics and poor patchworks over them

[robihr]

I believe they are interpreting the data in a way that fits their vision for the game.

 

vision of the game.. lots of low-mid tier carriers, no high tier carriers.

 

like i said having lower TB and DB damage and less AA would make CV more playable. cause nothing is worse when you are preparing you attack for 3-5 minutes just to get your planes wiped and do some funny damage. worse players are quitting from higher tiers cause they are useless there and better players just dont play as much cause it isnt fun.

 

 

[Omnichr0n]

It would be easy to jump on the "CV nerfed too much" or "AA buffed too much" wagon after some of the CV games I've had lately... but I think the CVs are fine as they are (mostly at least). You just have to know what you send your planes into, and consider whether you can engage against some ships or not.

 

I personally find CVs to sometimes be frustrating to play as it can be a lot of RNG based whether your planes live or not. Sometimes they melt so quickly that you don't even know what hit them (of course, if it is due to strafing it is easy to know), whilst other times you manage to drop full loads of torps and bombs as the AA crews totally fails.

 

I mostly gave up the CVs after some rather frustrating games with them, and only play my Langley now to get the event missions done (one more kill and I'll sell my Langley).

 

I would also add that you can't really compare WoT Arty with WoWS Carrier. The first doesn't require any skill at all, whilst the CV player has to really work hard for every hit he gets (unless the player he strikes doesn't avoid for some reason).

[robihr]

It would be easy to jump on the "CV nerfed too much" or "AA buffed too much" wagon after some of the CV games I've had lately... but I think the CVs are fine as they are (mostly at least). You just have to know what you send your planes into, and consider whether you can engage against some ships or not.

 

I personally find CVs to sometimes be frustrating to play as it can be a lot of RNG based whether your planes live or not. Sometimes they melt so quickly that you don't even know what hit them (of course, if it is due to strafing it is easy to know), whilst other times you manage to drop full loads of torps and bombs as the AA crews totally fails.

 

I mostly gave up the CVs after some rather frustrating games with them, and only play my Langley now to get the event missions done (one more kill and I'll sell my Langley).

 

I would also add that you can't really compare WoT Arty with WoWS Carrier. The first doesn't require any skill at all, whilst the CV player has to really work hard for every hit he gets (unless the player he strikes doesn't avoid for some reason).

 

considering your highest tier CV is t6, and you only have few games in it, you dont know what you are talking about. we are mostly talking about t8+ cv, while t4-t7 cv are mostly ok (if they are not in t8+ battle)

[Syrchalis]

Just increase the number of CV per team so they can co-ordinate strikes with stacked squadrons from multiple directions. 

 

They could do that, no problem. You wouldn't ever get a match with 3 CVs per side above T4/5 anyway, so barely anyone would notice.

It would be easy to jump on the "CV nerfed too much" or "AA buffed too much" wagon after some of the CV games I've had lately... but I think the CVs are fine as they are (mostly at least). You just have to know what you send your planes into, and consider whether you can engage against some ships or not.

 

I personally find CVs to sometimes be frustrating to play as it can be a lot of RNG based whether your planes live or not. Sometimes they melt so quickly that you don't even know what hit them (of course, if it is due to strafing it is easy to know), whilst other times you manage to drop full loads of torps and bombs as the AA crews totally fails.

 

I mostly gave up the CVs after some rather frustrating games with them, and only play my Langley now to get the event missions done (one more kill and I'll sell my Langley).

 

Wait, so you're saying balance is fine, but you're giving up CVs because it's so frustrating to play? Mhm, maybe it's related?

[Anjin_sama]

Want to know WG's vision of the game? Nothing easier - sell as many doublons and prem ships as possible - and in order to do that they surgically change things here and there with patches. Untill WG starts making this game out of love for it and not from a place of greed, trying to stuff their hands in our pockets every chance possible, things will feel the same - broken.

Im ranting over things in general, but CV play doesnt feel like its a top priority for balancing since there are hardly any premium CV;s to sell, skills are pretty much straight forward and there is no much experimenting (retraining) to be done.

Vision of the game - oh brother - if by game you understand bank account.

[Joergensen]

Totally agree with the posted.  Yes CVs at tier 4 and 5 are very powerful, but have very limited planes. But when u gets to tier 6/7 the CV VS other ships are very good ballanced at the current state. there are ships with poor AA and ships with good AA. But after last "fix" of the AA it has been increasingly harder at tier 8 to get some damage compared to say battle ships, you just loses to many planes to fast.

It is very very rarly at tier 8 pluss that your squadrons dont get panic (bigger spread).

But time will show that CVs are needed as a functioning weapon against ship, because we will get some really heavy corner and border camping after this patch, because battle ships will know that there isnt some CV out there thats gonna come punish them for it.

 

PS: i have no problem getting a plane squad with my fletcher at the current state, imagine what a CA/CL with half a brainb can do after the patch ;)

[T_H_0_R]

 

Let me quote that again; "you carry to the victory easiest with a CV."

 

Please explain again why the majority of the playerbase should accept this?

 

You see, your quote explains exactly why the balance needs to be changed.

 

Fair question. The answer is simple really. I played other 3 classes for a long time before mustering enough courage to play CVs as I know how much demanding they are.

 

The key is pushing the right buttons and helping your team where needs be the most. That is my general approach to the game with all classes. Exception being that with a CV I can be there in a short time since my weapon are planes.

 

There are matches when there isn't a thing you can do. I recal one Taiho game where there were no BBs, only CAs in both teams with 2 CVs per side (yes, you read that correctly). Other team had USN CVs, we had IJN. They covered their DDs and with every other ship sporting a DF consumable I was useless the whole match waiting for individual DF to run out. Hard to do when the team sails in a group. USN CVs had less problems since their DBs are less effected with DF and we lost.

[Atris2nd]

Looking at the patch notes, the CVs are getting buried even harder. I recently sold my Hiryuu as she was just not fun to play, with her planes getting swatted out the air like flies. I'd lose 2 whole air groups when engaging certain BBs, nevermind cruisers. But well... That's gonna become an even bigger hell now. Good going, I guess...

[Redcap375]

Not looking good is it WG 

 

But you have something up your sleeve with CVs haven't you?

[Elenortirion]

 

Then be ready to have losses, if you insist on NOT selecting your targets and not flying anywhere at will, without proper scouting - yes, it takes time and yes, I don`t care. Launch from a bigger distance, have a straighter approach, kinda like L2P everyone is tossing around for BBs sailign straight, CAs broadsiding and DDs whining.

 

If I miss my turn by 1 second in a CA I lose most of my HP which relegates me to walking dead for the rest of the round, if I screw up by 50 meters in a BB I get instagibbed by a DD torp volley, if I get spotted in a DD at close range I get blown from the water by everyone.. why should your planes be any different? Make ONE little mistake, lose squad - fair deal. Or would you like 18km concealment, perhaps?

 

except all of you say would apply only to a player who just launch the planes on auto-drops - this is learn to play issue

not flying over big groups of ships - also ok l2p issue

 

when a single lone BB sailing in perfect line can delete foll striek force without even fully realising it was there - it is no longer l2p issue,

when a single cruiser even lonely can delete the strike by pressing 1 button and there is no counterplay for that no matter how skillfull CV player is - it is no longer l2p issue

 

over buffing AA when it is already really strong does not make anything good and actually - again hits already niche and small CV community - some ships in game are already immune to CV attacks by default without player behind the ship even doing anything

 

and now again I ask - if there is any ship immune to destroyers without any input of user, if there is any ship immune to cruisers without any input, is there any ship immune to a battleship without any user input....

 

the current plane situations would be similar to a situation where all BBs would have ultra-perfectly accurate secondaries that can delete any cruiser or destroyer in few seconds without even spotting the ship they fired upon - would you still be claiming it "l2p issue" at that point?

[Anjin_sama]

Not looking good is it WG 

 

But you have something up your sleeve with CVs haven't you?

 

A few more premium CVs 

[BuccaneerBill]

I don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest. I still see Carriers wreck most same tier BBs with impunity, scout DDs and kill them too if their good enough. Only proper defense is the defensive AA consumable. I'd like to see how people get on in a Montana against a decent Hakyruyu player. Yes it's really hard on CVs.

 

I guess some people just expect to be Kings in their CVs and delete ships at will, without any worry of return fire, not as the support class they should be. 

 

 

[rafparis]

I don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest. I still see Carriers wreck most same tier BBs with impunity, scout DDs and kill them too if their good enough. Only proper defense is the defensive AA consumable. I'd like to see how people get on in a Montana against a decent Hakyruyu player. Yes it's really hard on CVs.

 

I guess some people just expect to be Kings in their CVs and delete ships at will, without any worry of return fire, not as the support class they should be. 

 

 

 

The problem is not a ship of the same tier. That is ok, AA is fine, even from an cleveland. The problem is that at higher tiers, AA go up so much, that going against a ship higher in tiers is simply not possible: your planes will melt even just approaching it. So it is a very unfair advantage in tiers. For other ships (maybye a little BBs) the tier difference is not such a problem, you can always fight the higher tier ships, it is just more difficult. In CV, you can't (except DDs, because they have low AA anyway)

[Vulgarny]

I don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest. I still see Carriers wreck most same tier BBs with impunity, scout DDs and kill them too if their good enough. Only proper defense is the defensive AA consumable. I'd like to see how people get on in a Montana against a decent Hakyruyu player. Yes it's really hard on CVs.

 

I guess some people just expect to be Kings in their CVs and delete ships at will, without any worry of return fire, not as the support class they should be. 

 

 

 

Maybe its time to leave t5 bathtub?

[robihr]

I don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest. I still see Carriers wreck most same tier BBs with impunity, scout DDs and kill them too if their good enough. Only proper defense is the defensive AA consumable. I'd like to see how people get on in a Montana against a decent Hakyruyu player. Yes it's really hard on CVs.

 

I guess some people just expect to be Kings in their CVs and delete ships at will, without any worry of return fire, not as the support class they should be. 

 

 

 

you are telling me that with your large CV experience? cause you are driving mostly BB you have selective memory about CV deleting montanas.

 

what is BB counter? it is CV. what is CV counter? it is CA. so if you sail with CA somewhere close to you wont get deleted. DF is already large deterrent to CV, without added monstrous AA on every ship starting with DD(usn).

[Ishiro32]

I love quoting myself from over half year ago

 

What he tried to say is that AAA is a mechanic that will always have net negative feeling regardless of it’s power. Why?
Super strong AAA = very bad and unfair feeling for CV player who simply has no way of going around it since it’s just flat RNG bubble without any openings or mechanics to play around. At the same time killing a lot planes does not generate a lot of feeling of greatness for the player on the defence since he pretty much did nothing. There was no clutch plays which usually generate most of the positive feedback. So huge minus and small plus
Super weak AAA = very bad and unfair feeling for a defending player who simply has no way of defending himself against competent CV. Planes are fast and if they have a lot of the time to setup attack it wil ALWAYS connect. At the same time since planes are never in any danger then carrier gameplay starts being very boring and repetitive. Other counter for drop is dodge and it did work more or less in the patch where BBs were turning like DDs (beta). With super weak AAA only DDs would be able to dodge.
Avg AAA = pretty much what we have now. Dominated by RNG and depending on the tier difference it can become either strong AAA or weak AAA option. Very unstable balance and something that in the end is net negative for the game.

 

AAA changed a bit since then, but the principle stayed the same.
There is no way to make AAA and CV interaction Fun for all. No matter the situation it will always be bad and the tier to tier progression just additionally mess whole thing up. 

 

I will also add this simple fact to my argument. Since AAA is not skill based and attacking is skillbased, you additionally will get issues with balance by skill of the player. If AAA is balanced around weaker players then top are overperforming no matter what defending player will do.
If AAA is balanced around middle then weaker players are on the bad position no matter how bad defending players is and top players are in a great spot no matter how good defending player is.
If AAA is balanced around top players, then weaker players are wasted no matter against how bad teams they are.

Flat number counterplay against skill is IMPOSSIBLE to balance. 

Earlier I mentioned that CVs and are more or less balanced in random. In Team Battles where anyone can pick most optimal ship and people play in a team as a team… Strike is the most pointless thing ever. It always was and you can not make it not so without throwing Random mode under a bus. 

 

So yeah, once again. I really stopped carrying about AAA changes, because no matter the number change, it will be bad. Thing about it, against it work 3 types of discrepancies:

• Tier to Tier
• CV skill level
•  Mode

You really can think you can find FIXED number that will take into account all that so it will be fair for everyone? 

 

[Syrchalis]

Was that from my thread Ishiro?

 

Oh yeah, found it: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/37037-aa-is-unfixable-right-now/#topmost

 

For those too lazy to open a new tab:

 

So the current implementation of AA is IMO not fixable. It's crap.

 

Why?

 

There is three scenarios:

Weak AA

• If alone - you shoot down no plane as they approach and take all damage, CV loses 1-2 planes on the way back
• If in a group - half the planes get through, CV loses all planes on the way back

 

Strong AA

• If alone - you shoot down half of the planes as they approach and take half damage, CV loses all planes on the way back
• If in a group - all planes get shot down before they can do any damage

 

Medium AA

Seems logical that there is a value inbetween that is fair for both sides, right?

WRONG.

• If alone - you shoot down 1-2 planes as they approach and still take most of the damage, CV loses all but a few planes on the way back
• If in a group - 1-2 planes get through at best, all die on the way back

 

You see in all cases there is more losers than winners. AA makes everyone feel bad, either because it's not strong enough or too strong. Since this whole concept is hard to grasp a graphic:

This is no dumb statistic, this is merely so you get were the problem is. You cannot balance AA in a satisfying way. Because either it's utterly useless when alone and fair if in group or it's fair if alone and utterly overpowered if in a group.

 

What needs to change is the whole mechanic.

 

Suggestions:

• Make AA damage of ships not stack, only the strongest AA gets counted - this way you could balance for lone ships (of course not a very good suggestion to encourage teamplay)
• Balance for people teamplaying and screw those who drive solo
• Make bombers take 2-4x damage while carrying a bomb - nerf AA so the damage remains the same - this way if you shoot planes down it will mostly be WHILE IT IS STILL USEFUL to you and the CV doesn't have to lose all their planes in the process, because people want their AA to matter
• Make AA weak in terms of damage, but allow all AA to panic planes - the strength depends on the amount of AA, meaning it would have little effect if alone, but in groups it would be strong, this way a CV could still attack a group but only with a very bad spread of bombs (plus this would make more sense than the current "oh im a tiny us dd with no aa but I have this button to make 200 planes in a 5km radius panic like crazy around me" crap).
• Best way - make AA goddamn non-automatic and skill-based instead of RNG based. Oh wait, it's WG, RNG is their way to balance everything.

 

The current implementation is not satisfying for CVs, nor for all the other ships.

 

So yeah, we were at "medium AA" back then, making everyone a bit upset. Now we are at strong AA or beyond it. I hope that makes people understand why we CVs are upset that AA is getting buffed EVEN FURTHER into the idiotic zone.

[Dzony_Milelony]

 

A few more premium CVs

 

More premium CVs will avoid new AA after patch?  hhmm....

[BlueMoon51]

Hardly play carriers myself unless its part of a mission type thing, but it seems to me that as more often than not games are played without any at all another AA buff isn't going to help the carrier player numbers and..... the knock on is that it nerfs US ships because they are of less value in the game even with the buff!

[Ishiro32]

Yeah it was from that topic. I also dug out my AAA change from that topic even though I also posted it way before somewhere else, but trying to find original post would be a nightmare since I did not post it in my own topic.


Also we are not in strong AAA. Current balance idea is that there is no unified AAA power, but more or less you are in Weak AAA or Strong AAA depending on ship. Low tiers have Low AAA overall, but the higher you go the higher % of strong AAA ships show up. This is an idea for balance as without uniform status you have random games where you have good and bad targets, you balance imbalance with imbalance which is pretty good stuff… Still it doesn’t work for the organized play. And it does break completely if CV is not middle tier in MM.


Either way, it should be changed. I don’t care about AAA nerfs nor do I care about AAA buffs, this is where I stand.

[N00b32]

Well, let me make a real strange suggestion. We already have mirror matchmaking for carriers. Why not take it a step further and make a fixed carrier tier ? So if you play T V carrier you will always be in a T V game. Then you balance the AA and the game around the fixed carrier. From what we already have it will not really change much. Playing together with a T +1/+2 carrier is a pain because of MM. 

 

From a normal ship perspective nothing chances, North Carolina will still see T X and T VI ships. But Hiryu will never see a North Carolina or Iowa. And then you can actually balance Hiryu for meeting Kongos and Colorados instead of meeting Kongos to Iowas.

[Vulgarny]

Dude you know that t8-10 CV will stay in que for hours with your idea of MM?