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

[Myrmix]

I am actually seeing lot more CVs than before at every tier what magic is this?

 

GNB-missions, I would guess.

[Zenith]

 

Which means you agree that this recent AA patch (5.6) is bad right? Since it is mainly BBs that get their AA buffed, including the higher tier USN BBs.

 

Well I don't mind your suggestions, although I think all those potato BB drivers will just continue complaining about how CVs are OP when they get torped and ask for nerfs and we'll just go back to square one again.

 

Everyone says everyone else is OP, and demands nerfs on the ships they are not playing. That's why only the truly insane developers listen to the community, instead of looking at their data. Thankfully, I don't think WG are insane, not fully in any case. What we say and demand matters not one little jot. 

[BuccaneerBill]

CVs shouldnt be hard counters to BBs imo as DDs are pretty much that. Still take a same tier CV to a same tier USN BB and the CV should still wreck them quite easily. I think CVs should get spotting damage though. Also think CVs should t face alot of ships two tiers higher than them. Apart from that I don't see what the fuss is about, their still one of the strongest if not the strongest ship class imo. Plus they survive more often so less repairs?

[Xerkics]

 

GNB-missions, I would guess.

 

Well not the same boom as week 1 but lot more than before patch.

[robihr]

Forum logic:

 

1. Other class - L2P

2. Own class - Yeah, but, I got it so hard...I`m the exception, poor lil` me.

 

Now, who`s man enough to ask for a complete redo of CV`s, so they follow up in the game meta and general balance rules, rather than the exception? Only hypocrites chanting how UP CV`s are, eh?

 

complete redo for the CV is long overdue. WG doesnt know what to do, so it nerfs it since CBT. spotting needs to be rewarded so CV can actually scout. CV can be OP when enemy CV is total biscuit and enemy team is soloing all over the map. if there is some cohesion in enemy fleet and enemy CV isnt total r*tard, CV drops to role of a scout till it spots a ship that his bombers if not intercepted by fighters can attack.

 

 

That forum logic thing you pointed out can be applied to you just as well as to any other person. But if you look at my stats, I have more games in any other ship type than in CVs, yet I'm arguing for CVs.

 

same for me. CV-s are my least played class, but i still take them here and there. but what they are doing to them is a crime. they either need to remove them or completely rework them. nerfing just isnt a solution

[__Themistocles__]

Guys, lets settle on waiting. WG see their data, and I predict at least a token CV buff with the release of new interface, but not before ranked battles IMO.

 

As for balancing-nerf AA, make torpedo bombers torps faster, but increase arming time a lot so you have to drop further away from the ship and predict. 

 

As for USN vs IJN-give 1-2 DB's to Essex+Midway (balanced or strike) or buff their manual drop accuracy. .

[Omnichr0n]

Another way to balance CV's out would be to make AAs less effective, but also the bombs/torps of the planes much less effective as well and an increase in speed as well as less rearming time. This way the planes don't get automelted, but has to perform more well placed torp/bomb runs to do a lot of damage.

[22cm]

However,  before this patch,  Jap CVs were amongst the best performing ships on most tiers,  I followed their stats constantly. US CVs on the other hand needed a buff,  but not Jap.  What happens this patch we ll have to wait and see. 

[Jakerp]

 

I have played carriers as my main ship type since this game started. All I wanna say that only way that CV do not cause massive butt hurt amongst some players are to remove all torpedo bombers from game. Rapid kills from hidden cause always most of butt damage not just in this game but also in other pvp games. It is same with destoyers people will be always lobbying nerfing them and developers keep nerfing them. It is same other PVP FPS games with snipers than here it is with CV and destroyers people always lobby nerfing them because they can score kill out of thing air nobody cares that they are totally useless in close combat or fragile.

 

Only way to remove this type of butt damage is to remove all stealh and burst damage abilites from game then that butt damage is fixed. Super AA that cannot be countered does that perfectly when it is CV. Next they need to invent some super detection skill that makes destoyers always visible or slow up torpedoes so much that you dont hit anything with them.

 

[Jakerp]

Ok more seriously:

 

One way to balance CV could get away torpedo bombers and fill up CV with fighter and dive bombers and maybe add some consumable that allow to convert one dive bomber torpedo bomber 1-2 per match. Reduce AA more reasonable.

 

Also bomb and torpedo damage could be totally reworked more damage over time (DOT) based and remove direct damage making them only cause damage with fire and flooding. When people die slowly from DOT's insteady rapidly from direct damage it wont cause nearly as much butt pain than those BOOM now you are dead abilities. Guide here is slow damaging DOT's. That kills two bird at same time it stop the butt pain that might cause people to stop playing also CV are not completely useless. Also having a ship type that does only DOT damage add variation to game.

[Sake78]

Debuff class instead of damage class - has been done before and was a "better" idea than the original one. Could give different torps to CV`s than the ones the DDs use also.

[Msiiek]

Guys, lets settle on waiting. WG see their data, and I predict at least a token CV buff with the release of new interface, but not before ranked battles IMO.

 

As for balancing-nerf AA, make torpedo bombers torps faster, but increase arming time a lot so you have to drop further away from the ship and predict. 

 

As for USN vs IJN-give 1-2 DB's to Essex+Midway (balanced or strike) or buff their manual drop accuracy. .

 

Increasing accuarcy and adding 1-2 db squadrons is too much of a buff. Personally I would add 1 bomber squadron not more and nerfed auto drop accuarcy so you need some skill to hit those bombs not just click and forget. For now auto drop can remove half hp from destroyer with no skill involved (tier 10 example). Too good bombs. Manual accuarcy is good, otherwise it would be too strong against destroyers.

[Jakerp]

 

Increasing accuarcy and adding 1-2 db squadrons is too much of a buff. Personally I would add 1 bomber squadron not more and nerfed auto drop accuarcy so you need some skill to hit those bombs not just click and forget. For now auto drop can remove half hp from destroyer with no skill involved (tier 10 example). Too good bombs. Manual accuarcy is good, otherwise it would be too strong against destroyers.

 

DD are suppose to be fragile and lose half or more hp when hit by anything. On the good side they have best speed, agility, best torpedoes, lowest detection range. 

 

DD dont need any buffing i score 2-4 kills with dd every battle and win 1vs3 battles solo at sides of maps. It damn easy to score kills with dd if you are patentient, use guns only against other dd's and know detection ranges well and know how to manouver. With other ship classes it much harder win 1vs3 battles that with dd that torpedo from good angles staying hidden all of time.

[Aerroon]

Guys, lets settle on waiting. WG see their data, and I predict at least a token CV buff with the release of new interface, but not before ranked battles IMO.

 

As for balancing-nerf AA, make torpedo bombers torps faster, but increase arming time a lot so you have to drop further away from the ship and predict. 

 

As for USN vs IJN-give 1-2 DB's to Essex+Midway (balanced or strike) or buff their manual drop accuracy. .

 

Why would you think that? WG doesn't care about the data. WG balances by statistics, if only a tiny fraction of players play CVs then it's going as WG planned.

 

And dropping further or closer makes no difference. Potatoes who whine still get hit by the same amount and the better players just avoid all torpedoes then. We've already seen and tried it and it makes essentially no difference.

[Sake78]

 

Why would you think that? WG doesn't care about the data. WG balances by statistics, if only a tiny fraction of players play CVs then it's going as WG planned.

 

And dropping further or closer makes no difference. Potatoes who whine still get hit by the same amount and the better players just avoid all torpedoes then. We've already seen and tried it and it makes essentially no difference.

 

Then be smart about it, gather points of view from what CV players want their class to be (not jack-of-all-trades king of the hill, but down to earth regular class, similar in strengths and weaknesses with the existing BBs, CAs and DDs), formulate an articulate idea on how to redo carriers and be done with it.

[HaganeNoKaze]

Ok more seriously:

 

One way to balance CV could get away torpedo bombers and fill up CV with fighter and dive bombers and maybe add some consumable that allow to convert one dive bomber torpedo bomber 1-2 per match. Reduce AA more reasonable.

 

Also bomb and torpedo damage could be totally reworked more damage over time (DOT) based and remove direct damage making them only cause damage with fire and flooding. When people die slowly from DOT's insteady rapidly from direct damage it wont cause nearly as much butt pain than those BOOM now you are dead abilities. Guide here is slow damaging DOT's. That kills two bird at same time it stop the butt pain that might cause people to stop playing also CV are not completely useless. Also having a ship type that does only DOT damage add variation to game.

 

Well... No.

 

Remove TB and add DB would be the worst idea. Not about balance, but, please, US CV is already enough unskilled (or even totally) cause DB damage are insane, unskilled to aim (10k from autoshot click... yeah ! what stupidity), and even not punishing under CA barrage.

Actually, US CV DBs should be more similar to IJN one, DB accuracy should horrible under AA barrage, and automatic drop accuracy should be nerf  to reward manual aiming... Only in that case, full DB could be a good way to balance the class and let the fun and skill remain.

[Ictogan]

Ok more seriously:

 

One way to balance CV could get away torpedo bombers and fill up CV with fighter and dive bombers and maybe add some consumable that allow to convert one dive bomber torpedo bomber 1-2 per match. Reduce AA more reasonable.

 

Also bomb and torpedo damage could be totally reworked more damage over time (DOT) based and remove direct damage making them only cause damage with fire and flooding. When people die slowly from DOT's insteady rapidly from direct damage it wont cause nearly as much butt pain than those BOOM now you are dead abilities. Guide here is slow damaging DOT's. That kills two bird at same time it stop the butt pain that might cause people to stop playing also CV are not completely useless. Also having a ship type that does only DOT damage add variation to game.

 

That's a terrible idea. And I'm talking from the perspective of surface ships here, not CVs.

Against TBs you have three possibilities to defend yourself:

1. Shoot down planes with AA and sail near allied ships with strong AA to have this effect even stronger

2. Use defensive AA consumable or have someone near you use it

3. Maneuver so you will either dodge torps or at least force the CV player to readjust his drops and thus spend more time in your AA range and shooting down more planes before he drops

 

Against DBs, you have the third option of defense taken away from you. Which is also why I'm opposed to AP bombs being introduced which could potentially do 10k+ damage per squadron.

[Syrchalis]

 

Then be smart about it, gather points of view from what CV players want their class to be (not jack-of-all-trades king of the hill, but down to earth regular class, similar in strengths and weaknesses with the existing BBs, CAs and DDs), formulate an articulate idea on how to redo carriers and be done with it.

 

-> Insanely long CD attacks with high impact

-> Free to choose target, downside is attack can be negated by AA and consumables

-> Weak against groups, strong against solo ships

-> Safe from most attacks due to distance, downside longer CD on attacks and unable to cap points, also incredibly easy to kill, defenseless and fire disables all offense

 

Already the case. Just you're not free to choose targets anymore and you can't attack solo ships either. All cruisers are immune, most BBs are too, making you a DD hunting class. Which sucks [edited], because it's boring as hell and also pretty dumb if there are no or little DDs. Generally it's dumb some ships simply get a "you are immune to CVs if you aren't a complete idiot"-card.

[Sake78]

Nice story. Its not like ships dont lose AA from HE spam and the like. Also, would have liked realistic ideas, not the same whining about the change in status quo.

[Ictogan]

Nice story. Its not like ships dont lose AA from HE spam and the like.

 

So CVs should be reliant on the ships in their fleet spamming HE on the enemy? And even when they do that, unless they spam HE at both sides of the ship, a lot of AA guns on the other side of the ship will be impossible to hit.

 

Quite honestly I think that AA gun destruction could just as well be removed, as a CV I don't benefit from it a lot and can't use it when selecting targets because checking how many AA guns a ship has left by zooming in on it would take a stupid amount of time. And as a surface ship I never feel like it make any difference either.

[Sake78]

Why shouldn`t they be? Everyone else relies on some other ship to fulfill a role.. why not CV`s also?

[robihr]

Why shouldn`t they be? Everyone else relies on some other ship to fulfill a role.. why not CV`s also?

 

you dont see BB relying on any other class to score citadels... or CA to score fires..

[Ictogan]

Why shouldn`t they be? Everyone else relies on some other ship to fulfill a role.. why not CV`s also?

 

As a DD, I can attack enemies without having to rely on my allies.

As a CA, I can attack enemies without having to rely on my allies.

As a BB, I can attack enemies without having to rely on my allies.

Why should I have to rely on my allies to be able to attack enemies in CVs? And keep in mind that AA guns only realistically get destroyed to an extent where it has any impact at all when the first half of the battle is already over and at that point most matches are decided anyway, so if CVs should rely on AA guns being destroyed, they couldn't influence the outcome of a battle where the outcome of the battle has already been decided in the first half of the match. Some of my highest damage games in CVs were losses and even though I might have ended up on top of the team that was usually the battles where I have contributed least to my team due to only really doing damage in the second half of the battle.

[Panocek]

 

you dont see BB relying on any other class to score citadels... or CA to score fires..

 

Yet BB certainly can enjoy DD torps/CV planes forcing enemy ships to show broadside. CA won't mind DD/planes spotting enemy destroyers/cruisers either.

 

 

As a DD, I can attack enemies without having to rely on my allies.

As a CA, I can attack enemies without having to rely on my allies.

As a BB, I can attack enemies without having to rely on my allies.

Why should I have to rely on my allies to be able to attack enemies in CVs? And keep in mind that AA guns only realistically get destroyed to an extent where it has any impact at all when the first half of the battle is already over and at that point most matches are decided anyway, so if CVs should rely on AA guns being destroyed, they couldn't influence the outcome of a battle where the outcome of the battle has already been decided in the first half of the match. Some of my highest damage games in CVs were losses and even though I might have ended up on top of the team that was usually the battles where I have contributed least to my team due to only really doing damage in the second half of the battle.

 

You don't have to rely on teammates in CV, just don't expect it to be point and click adventure game.

[Aerroon]

 

Then be smart about it, gather points of view from what CV players want their class to be (not jack-of-all-trades king of the hill, but down to earth regular class, similar in strengths and weaknesses with the existing BBs, CAs and DDs), formulate an articulate idea on how to redo carriers and be done with it.

 

Do you honestly think that we haven't talked about this? Do you really believe that the CV players just sat around twiddling their thumbs from CBT to now? Of course not. But because WG keeps [edited]CVs people just stopped caring. WG doesn't want there to be a large playerbase of CVs and thus there isn't. As a result there's no point for CV players to say almost anything since their points of view aren't listened to.

 

Recently a patch changed the following: before you pressed "M" twice at the start of the battle to go into CV view. A recent patch (0.5.5) changed it and it doesn't work anymore. Every CV player I talked to said it's annoying. WG said that they had only heard it from one person. Why? Because CV players already know that it doesn't matter what they say. Just look at this thread and it's a good example already.