Jump to content
Christopher_Dilworth

US CV is impractical, any suggestions for improvement?

101 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
22 posts
5,344 battles

 

Intro:

US CV is impractical because carriers are always against each other for a start. Which means that they are put up against IJN carriers. When looking at the player statistics, IJN carriers perform significantly better throughout the tiers regarding win rates and damage (look at screenshots attached).

 

Main Problem:

I reckon the difference is due to IJN's above average performing fighters. Now why I say above average is because they're small squads that can challenge a US air superiority set up, but most cases get destroyed after engaging for a while(wait for it). However, IJN have a really good strike set up. So after US cv has killed the fighters, the IJN bombers have already accomplished their run with their torp bombers causing a fair amount of damage and the IJN cv rinses and repeats against an air superiority US cv. The air superiority US CV's bombers are not nearly as effective and simply cannot compete. Against a strike US cv (which in some cases have no fighters), the IJN fighters attack the multiple bomber squadrons, disrupting the US CV run, whilst the IJN CV is carrying out a strike with their torp bombers that once again causes massive amounts of damage.

 

Solution:

So, with the IJN having great torp bombers that deal a large amount of damage, and above average fighters (cause some US CV don't have fighters at all with strike set up) My suggestion is to nerf the IJN Fighter's HP to oblivion! As an example I will use the Taiho ship characteristics, nerf the IJN fighter HP from 1,860 to somewhere down to 1,400 or even 1,300! IJN cv captains will be forced to utilize the strafe ability(I use that all the time anyway and is very effective!). So that 2 squadrons of IJN fighters can still take on a US fighter squadron, but the IJN fighters will suffer significant loses if not all, so that the US fighter squadron when strike set up (Essex) can continue to try and harass the 3 torp bombers the taiho receives whilst the US cv can do its damage with its "buffed(lol)" dive bombers and the one torp bomber squad (stupidly inaccurate anyway x'D). I thought about nerfing the IJN fighters loadout, but they'll still be a bit too strong, they'll kill most of US CV fighters and still carry out the bombing run. The IJN CV bias, is just too extreme! So with that, I welcome ideas... (you must have independence to have valuable input, as this is when the trend really becomes apparent) This occurs throughout the tiers, particularly tier 5 to now 10(midway actually looks decent, but not worth the grind...).

I am also attaching a respectably ship, the Tirpitz showing how badly the IJN CVs needs nerfing!

(all this excludes Saipan which is a great CV!)

 

The screenshots are from:

USA CV Stats, EU.png

IJN CV Stats, EU.png

OP Tirpitz.png

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,342 posts
2,957 battles

But those stats cant be trusted because it says 1.4M games on langley. I made this mistake too when i was comparing other ships. So if you cant come up with a stat graph that shows the last 1 or 2 month no point talking here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,820 battles

The issue is a bit different. US CVs suck because:

  • Air Superiority Setups don't have enough damage to compete
  • Strike Setups have no fighters, while all IJN CVs are forced to take fighters (also way too focused on divebombers)
  • Balanced loadouts have severe disadvantage in "planes in the air"

 

The solution would be to either make DBs more reliable and stronger, while providing US with better loadouts. There is a million things WG could do to balance it, but since CV players are only 3% in high tier and 7% in low tier, they give zero [edited]about improving their gameplay. WG generally gives nearly no damn about gameplay improvements, but CVs with their low player counts especially are irrelevant to them. They desire a low CV count too, and they are fine leaving them a boring, unbalanced and partially UP mess, as long as not more than 7% play them.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAIFU]
Players
84 posts
4,881 battles

I said this in an other thread, but they could make it possible to arm dive bombers with torpedoes instead but giving them a speed nerf.

Not sure how much slower a convertet dive bomber squad should be but not fast enough for torpedoes to always be better, and not so slow that it is never worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
22 posts
5,344 battles

The issue is a bit different. US CVs suck because:

  • Air Superiority Setups don't have enough damage to compete
  • Strike Setups have no fighters, while all IJN CVs are forced to take fighters (also way too focused on divebombers)
  • Balanced loadouts have severe disadvantage in "planes in the air"

 

The solution would be to either make DBs more reliable and stronger, while providing US with better loadouts. There is a million things WG could do to balance it, but since CV players are only 3% in high tier and 7% in low tier, they give zero [edited]about improving their gameplay. WG generally gives nearly no damn about gameplay improvements, but CVs with their low player counts especially are irrelevant to them. They desire a low CV count too, and they are fine leaving them a boring, unbalanced and partially UP mess, as long as not more than 7% play them.

 

This was simply a beautiful response highlighting the problems with USA CVs.

Only thing for me is that make IJN fighters HP is nerfed, so that its just a bonus and not something to fear, they have 3 torp bomber squadrons for that. Eh down to personal opinion really, but really fantastic input!

 

 

But those stats cant be trusted because it says 1.4M games on langley. I made this mistake too when i was comparing other ships. So if you cant come up with a stat graph that shows the last 1 or 2 month no point talking here

 

 Now as for you, Mr. One month or nothing. The best I can come up with is results from 2 weeks ago. It still shows a trend where the  Sychralus is a USA CV captain and knows the problem with USA CVs, by playing with the CVs. He has outlined perfectly the problems with US CVs. Langley, 1.4million, yeah not really something to include in this debate, this debate really applies for tier 6 and up.... Anyway I am putting up the 2 week results and the trend continues of USA CVs being inferior by about on average 4% to the IJN CVs... (get your calculator out if you must prove me wrong...).

 

I said this in an other thread, but they could make it possible to arm dive bombers with torpedoes instead but giving them a speed nerf.

Not sure how much slower a convertet dive bomber squad should be but not fast enough for torpedoes to always be better, and not so slow that it is never worth it.

 

 

I don't think coding specific planes to do that would be that easy... So my opinion would to nerf IJN HP as it may be about a couple lines of code to change instead of changing loads of lines of code... Like a hybrid bomber? Sounds like something possible, but I reckon it sounds like its pretty complicated to do.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAIFU]
Players
84 posts
4,881 battles

I meant that you can choose if you want to turn your dive bombers into torpedo bombers. The difference between these torpedo bombers and normal ones, would just be a difference in speed. Basically, if you want to have only torpedo bombers, they will get a speed nerf.

 

Oh and.. IJN planes already dies faster than USN

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
22 posts
5,344 battles

I meant that you can choose if you want to turn your dive bombers into torpedo bombers. The difference between these torpedo bombers and normal ones, would just be a difference in speed. Basically, if you want to have only torpedo bombers, they will get a speed nerf.

 

Oh and.. IJN planes already dies faster than USN

 

 

They do, if you are running Air Superiority set up. But me and Sycharlys were being polite. To put things into more real terms, the IJN planes are ok against an Air Superiority set up, but DESTROY your team as your fighters are preoccupied with the IJN fighters....(I found with AS US CV that at least you control the engagements and setting full fires/ shooting their torp bombers is your only hope to win, works quite a lot! But easily countered, if I was ijn yeah........ I would feel sorry for that USA CV) Your dive bombers then do their fixed amount of damage. Now, different situation you're running a strike CV, the threat of the IJN fighters is always there and always presents a fear factor for your planes (you have no fighters). So you can deal damage, but the IJN CV will shoot some of the USA planes down and deal more damage with their torp bombers... (Not to mention that there are 2 of them so they cover more area....) Now, with the last situation you are balanced, basically 1/1/1 for Lexington x'D. What is that? 7 planes each (captain skill, shokaku and lexington), IJN get 10 for each, plus they can have 1 fighter squad engage your fighters and then the other one strafe run your fighters, cross torp an enemy and even carry out a full burn on an enemy with only 2 squadrons if they wish..... All the while,......... You get it. Balanced set up is just no.

 

It's not about IJN planes already dying quickly. Its just that, the IJN have really good set ups. Their fighters are good enough to distract an AS USA CV whilst dealing crippling damage to your team... (Because cross torps guarantee hits!) So if an AS US CV could obliterate the IJN fighters, then the US CV could then chase down some torp bombers and do some damage with its dive bombers. The IJN CV can strike from random directions and do opportune cross torps from an unexpected direction which will cripple a ship as always, then set it on fire, to kill it (US strike set up does this and it does not even have fighters!).... Not to mention, IJN planes are usually faster.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
22 posts
5,344 battles

But those stats cant be trusted because it says 1.4M games on langley. I made this mistake too when i was comparing other ships. So if you cant come up with a stat graph that shows the last 1 or 2 month no point talking here

 

I couldn't find out how to attach a thumbnail to a quote reply. the link is: https://warships.today/vehicles/eu

find the 2 week result yourself. If this is not good enough, tough. The trend shows that US CVs are suffering throughout the tiers by about 4%. And in practice, you can tell that there is a massive unbalance of the CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAIFU]
Players
84 posts
4,881 battles

 

I think i should give some more details about my whole experience with carriers and why i think the problem isn't about the IJN planes being too strong, but because their loadouts are just better.

 

So we have the USN loadout with many fighters and some dive bombers. This is very annoying for the japanese CV captain to play against since he will lose most of his planes. His fighters are only useful as sacrifices since they will always lose against american fighters. But the japanese still have more squads, which means there will always be at least one squad not being attacked by american fighters. In the end, the IJN CV ends up dealing more damage, sinking more ships, and winning more games than the USN CV.

 

Then we have the USN strike loadout with mainly dive bombers but also some torpedo bombers. While this loadout is theoretically able to compete against the IJN counterpart in dealing damage to enemy ships, it is completely defenseless since it has no fighters. The IJN fighters have some trouble killing the USN strike planes, and may even end up losing all his fighters due to rear gunners. But if strafe is used, no planes can (normally) survive. In the end, the IJN CV ends up dealing more damage, sinking more ships, and winning more games than the USN CV.

 

In my experience, the IJN fighters are already very weak and do not need a nerf. Instead, the problem seems to be the stupid USN squad loadouts. If the USN strike loadout had a fighter squad, it would be OK. If the air superiority loadout had torpedo bombers instead of dive bombers, i think it would be OK.

And that's why i thought it would be nice if, instead of just 3 differnt loadouts, you could have an other one. One that you decide yourself what kind of planes you want to put in it before the game starts. But if you use this, there will be some kind of nerf, like a speed nerf.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
6,036 posts
34,128 battles

The issue is a bit different. US CVs suck because:

  • Air Superiority Setups don't have enough damage to compete
  • Strike Setups have no fighters, while all IJN CVs are forced to take fighters (also way too focused on divebombers)
  • Balanced loadouts have severe disadvantage in "planes in the air"

 

What he said.  Langley is the only US CV with balanced loadout,  and yet it still performs worse than Hosho,  even if it has more planes in the air… 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,870 posts
9,892 battles

The way it is right now, the IJN CVs try to do CV things while the USN CVs try to grief the IJN CVs.

A horrible experience for both really. The IJN CV gets very little done and the USN CV gets even less done aside from camping another CV with his fighters.

The air superiority mini-game has always been the weakest part of CV gameplay because for one it's just between CVs and secondly it's a numbers game, the carrier with the best fighter setup wins automatically unless someone makes a huge mistake.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,928 posts
6,315 battles

Does this actually affect all tiers equally though? Langley has a balanced deck, Bogue is small and it makes thematic sense for her to not carry each plane type, Independence balanced deck is very viable without losing planes in the air, and Essex and Midway gain a fighter squadron in their strike deck.

 

So basically it's just Ranger and Lexington that have a really harsh choice. Give them both 1/1/2 instead of 0/1/3 and everything's fine. Or make their AS deck 2/1/1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,820 battles

 

This was simply a beautiful response highlighting the problems with USA CVs.

Only thing for me is that make IJN fighters HP is nerfed, so that its just a bonus and not something to fear, they have 3 torp bomber squadrons for that. Eh down to personal opinion really, but really fantastic input!

 

IJN Fighters need to be that way or you don't have much of a chance. The problem is what changed in the past months.

 

Before the nerfs, Essex and Midway had 1/2/2 setups. Yes, they had two torpedo bomber squads. And that's exactly why they got nerfed and what got nerfed.

 

Lexington had 2/1/1 setup, so two fighter squads in the air, but still a torpedo and dive bomber squad for damage, making it an incredibly solid layout. In fact, T8 was the best in terms of CV balance. What did WG do? Remove the 2/1/1 layout for unknown reasons and replace it with 1/1/1 (which is already WAY below average even on Ranger!). The useless 0/1/3 and 2/0/2 setups have been left the same of course.

 

So yes, Taiho/Hakuryu have 3 torpedo bombers. But before the IJN CV nerf (which was before the US CV nerf) they had that from T5 onward. Yes, every IJN CV starting with Zuiho had 3 torpedo bombers. Those setups had no fighters.

 

Either way, WG fucked up CVs hard, nerfed them every patch, gave nothing to improve gameplay. Interface is still crap. After a whole year they made it so you don't screw your camera up anymore when pressing shift (but still can be enabled in options). Yay, I finally can select multiple squadrons without having to fear my camera going somewhere where I don't want. ONE FREAKING YEAR. And that was one from maybe 20 mistakes. Errors if you will. Those aren't "matters of opinion" - plain bad interface and gameplay design.

 

As I said, WG as a company has no interest in making compelling and fun gameplay. They only care about:

  • Statistical balance (even if the stats are just on the surface right and when interpreted correctly show that everything is broken still)
  • New players (= money)
  • Historic "feel" of the game (not historic accuracy)

What they don't care about:

  • Diverse fun gameplay (only if it takes no work/smart choices)
  • Actual balance (they take action against outliers in balance, but nothing else)
  • Catering to players other than casuals (which I don't hold against them, still I want to mention it here)
  • Iterating things until they are good
  • CVs in particular

 

In one 8 hour work day I could probably come up with 10 different concrete solutions to balance all US and IJN CVs in one go, half of those possibilities requiring nothing but number changes. The other half being actual work for programmers but fixing the CV gameplay in the process.

 

I'm not employed at WG tho, so w/e.

 

 

Edit:

So basically it's just Ranger and Lexington that have a really harsh choice. Give them both 1/2/1 instead of 0/3/1 and everything's fine. Or make their AS deck 2/1/1.

 

Please, the correct order is fighters/torpedo bombers/dive bombers. If we don't all use the same system, misunderstandings will happen. I didn't make it the correct order, it's just what everyone uses that I ever talked to.
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
6,753 posts
7,907 battles

Thing is, suggestions on the EU forums to imrove this / that are not read by any devs who could change something.

 

This is just another waste of time thread where players just discuss among themselves.

 

WoWS EU staff = just a few guys who also have to care for WoT / WoWP / WoT Blitz / MoO forums.....they do NOT translate suggestions for the devs.

 

Writing your ideas / suggestions on a piece of paper and then flushing it down the toilet would have the exact same effect on the development of this game  =  ZERO.

 

Edited by Trigger_Happy_Dad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,928 posts
6,315 battles

 

Please, the correct order is fighters/torpedo bombers/dive bombers. If we don't all use the same system, misunderstandings will happen. I didn't make it the correct order, it's just what everyone uses that I ever talked to.

 

Fixed it.

 

Edit: and yes I realise making suggestions is mostly useless but one can dream. You mentioned realism, apart from some of the small escort carriers where it makes thematic sense, a loadout completely missing one plane type is a bit of unrealistic BS. They're trying too hard to make US CVs "unique" and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EXNOM]
Players
557 posts
6,203 battles

Aircraft fuel should exist. I don't see why you can leave your planes out for an entire game without having to refuel.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
2,471 posts
24,027 battles

Make US CV's great again!

 

Jokes aside I was always wondering why the IJN CV's do always have fighters whereas the US CV's do not. In my understanding and loosely based on history air superiority should be the prime objective for the USN and bombing ships the prime objective for the IJN. At the moment it is more or less exactly the other way round, because all IJN load-outs have fighters and many US CV's are only valid with a strike setup.

 

However to make AS load-out competitive a complete air war revamp is needed. At the moment all you can do with AS setup is to shut down one enemy ship (and maybe spot some DD) and even if you do this 100% fine you just managed to neutralize ONE enemy ship.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,820 battles

Thing is, suggestions on the EU forums to imrove this / that are not read by any devs who could change something.

 

This is just another waste of time thread where players just discuss among themselves.

 

WoWS EU staff = just a few guys who also have to care for WoT / WoWP / WoT Blitz / MoO forums.....they do NOT translate suggestions for the devs.

 

Writing your ideas / suggestions on a piece of paper and then flushing it down the toilet would have the exact same effect on the development of this game  =  ZERO.

 

 

That's exactly what I just wrote...
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,795 posts
12,260 battles

The problem with US CVs is that they're so reliant on dive bombers. And dive bombers aren't exactly the most exciting planes. With torp bombers you, generally speaking, have a lot of control over where the torps are going to land. There's not that much luck factor to it - you put your fish in the water and the enemy can make it harder or easier by properly maneuvering (or not). A good DD captain can usually avoid getting hit at all. A good BB captain can limit the damage to 1-2 torps per spread. There are ways to maximize the chances of hitting thing/number of torp hits by coordinating your torp bombers. AND there is synergy between torp bombers and other ships - a BB or CA forced to turn to avoid being torped may be forced to expose broadside to allied BBs and CAs.

Compare dive bombers. Very little synergy with everything, much more limited effects of maneuvering well as counterplay, limited possibility to increase your chances by using manual drops to their potential... I don't say there's no skill involved (both on sending and receiving side) but the luck factor is much more prominent than with T-bombers. Making this frustrating and not too reliable - at least a failed torpedo attack is "damn, I failed". A failed DB attack is sometimes that too, but very often "damn that lucker".

The same when I'm getting attacked, really. When I get torped by planes I mostly feel that I got outplayed by a skilled player. When plane torps miss me I have a bit of a feeling of accomplishment - it's me who outplayed the CV. I don't get this when facing dive bombers, then it's "damn, such a lucky drop" or "luckyyy, it would've hurt if I got hit by that".

 

 

Japanese carriers with their focus on torp bombers, smaller squads (making torps more dodgeable unless in perfect cross-drop) seem to be significantly more fun to both play and face. USN CVs... I don't like seeing them in my team. But I don't really like seeing them in enemy team either. AND I absolutely hate facing them when in an IJN CV. Oh, and I couldn't force myself to really play them outside of tests.

This line of CVs is just... wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,612 battles

Having not really played US carriers, all I can say is dependent on my view from IJN carriers. However, from that point of view, there are a couple of things that could help them, firstly they lack utility compared to IJN carriers because they have far fewer squadrons, making it much harder for them to scout and keep tabs on enemy forces; my suggestion for this is to simply add in some single plane bomber squadrons (that would be unaffected by the AS captain skill) for them which would let them scout far more effectively while adding very little brute power to them, with the added historical bonus that the USN typically used DBs as scout aircraft. Secondly there is the fact that DBs are generally terrible compared to TBs, a fact that affects the USN ships far more due to their increased reliance on them but also causes balance problems in general.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,820 battles

WG doesn't like balancing at all. They just slap enough RNG on something until it's so random that skill doesn't matter anymore and the power level is always too high or low, depending on luck.

 

That's what they did with US CVs - give them stronger DBs, that are useless against BBs, deal ridic damage to DDs sometimes and remove any bonus for manually aiming, instead make it completely random if 21 DBs miss a DD or oneshot 3 different DDs in one run.

 

The reason why they do this is partly because hurr durr casual game and RNG = better for casuals (... that means, less frustrating for them). And casuals are the biggest target group. The other reasons why they do this I can only guess. Greed? Game Designers doing balancing need to be paid. Wrong priorities? Hurr durr new cruisers, new russian paper ships, new $$$ ships, graphics graphics graphics - making the game fun? Nah... .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,017 posts
11,390 battles

I think the play style of USN CVs is vastly different from that of IJN's. They're more hard hitting and have greater survivability compared to the IJN, which is more flexible and able to play a more all rounded role, especially with the 2/2/2 load out. Having experienced both lines, I find that I tend to do better in terms of damage with the USN line compared to IJN, either because I'm more familiar with CV gameplay now (started off with IJN) or because the USN TBs are just that powerful. 1 well place drop can either cripple or outright sink a full health target and with the Langley or Inde, you can follow them up with DBs (1/1/1 setup). Sure you might miss/misdrop or the target is just that good at dodging but that TB squadron is "all or nothing". You get rewarded for a good drop that apart from a DD is very hard to dodge at close range and punished for a bad one (cause balance). Probably that's why Midway had its 2nd TB squadron removed:hiding:

 

I agree with VC381. The real problem with the USN line is the Ranger and Lexington. The Lexington's 2/1/1 load out should not have been changed and the Ranger and Lexi should have a 1/1/2 and 2/1/2 balanced load out at the very least to compete with same tier IJN CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAIFU]
Players
84 posts
4,881 battles

So are we discussing how to balance CVs or whether WG will actually do something about it? 

We can already see the Royal Navy on the horizon, so at some point british CVs will come into play. How long we have to wait for this remains to be seen, but when it happens, WG will have to think about CV balance.

 

But how should the USN and IJN CVs be balanced now?

Most people seems to agree that the IJN line is better than the USN. But if we look at the Japanese planes they aren't that much better than their USN counterpart. In fact one could argue that they are weaker. This suggests that the reason IJN CVs come out on top most of the time, is not because of the strenght of their planes, but instead i think there is a more fundamental problem and that problem is the loadouts.

 

While nerfing the Japanese planes in any way (like reducing their HP, for example) would certainly balance the two CV lines, i feel like this change would be like a band aid as it doesn't address the main issue.

Instead, something should be done with the loadouts (like custom loadouts, for example). With this, it would not only be possible to balance the CVs, but it would also change the core of CV gameplay, making it more diverse and fun.

 

While waiting for the RN CVs, we can only hope WG decides to balance the already existing CV lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,820 battles

I tell you what will happen. At some point next year, probably in 20 months, the RN CVs will maybe come out. They will be the last line of the RN. Before that we will see German BBs, British DDs, Cruisers and BBs. CV balance will be total crap with british CVs either being horrendously UP or OP. Instead of fixing the miserable state of CVs WG will just make them all suck to counteract the increase in CV play with the release of the CV line. Eventually they will buff them a little, but just numbers, so not just 2% of players touch CVs.

 

I mean - let's just recap what they did since open beta.

  • Forced all IJN CVs without exception to take fighters on every loadout

This was done to balance the IJN CVs. However, they could have just nerfed the CV damage all across the board. They removed fun layouts in favor of shitty unfun ones. Bombers are fun for everyone involved, because there is a small game to it. Avoid, dodge, hit, aim etc.. Fighters? Point and click at that point. Strafe didn't exist. And instead of leaving bomber only setups, they make everyone take boring point and click planes.

  • Buffed AA beyond overpowered

T9 planes can't touch a T5 Texas. Downsides for having the most broken AA of all ships in the game? None. Maybe 1 kts less speed? Cruisers went from "insanely hard to attack" to "untouchable". BBs went from "being countered by CVs, since DDs don't do that job too well" to "CV? Nice extra XP as my 150 AA rating ship automatically rapes any plane in sight".

If that wasn't bad enough, AA is fun for noone. Not the ships defending, not the CV attacking. It's automatic, it's boring. Ships simply have a huge radius immolation aura against planes that stacks... and is permanent. How fun. How interactive.

  • Used the most annoying mechanic to nerf torpedo bombers

Higher speed = bigger cockblock circle that makes planes do circles and makes CV players ragequit. Instead of nerfing damage and making them easier to control (hey there casuals) they make it harder and more tedious instead. (Sidenote - no you need no skill to play around the bigger circle, it's just tedious, not "hard").

  • Screwed over US CVs

Essex and Midway went from one patch to the other - after having received a huge nerf already - from "fearsome BB counters and forces to be reckoned with" to a "punching bag for Taiho and Hakuryu". Lexington went from the best balanced CV to a freaking joke that Shokaku eats for breakfast. Ranger went from sub-par to barely playable.

If CV damage had been nerfed (seeing a pattern already?) before the IJN nerf, this change would have been unnecessary. But no, better f**k up nearly all ships with useless loadouts instead of taking a 4-digit number and putting a smaller 4-digit number there.

 

So help me god, but I can't imagine WG undoing this mess and I can't imagine them acting any more smart in the future. Progressive game design or - god forbid - iterative game design is apparently too 21st century for them. The amount of times I heard "was crap on the test servers - but got implemented anyway" - I could buy every overpriced ship in the game if I got 1€ for each time I read that in the threads or supertesters told me that themselves.

 

This is how WG works:

Ur9EOC3.jpg?1

Yeah you somehow have a game there, but every 2-year old could see things that could be done better without much effort.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,795 posts
12,260 battles

Ok, since you put in all these changes, you're a bit dishonest here by not mentioning Strafe that made fighters much more interesting to play AND much scarier. Before putting my planes in vicinity of friendly AA pretty much meant that they were safe, no fighter would dare come for them. Now, despite more powerful AA, unattended squadrons can be easily wiped out by a daring suicide attack of enemy fighters even in "protected space". It made managing my squadrons harder but it most definitely made the game more interesting and introduced a significant aspect of skill into air superiority battle - where previously it took some major blunder to get a result different from one decided by CVs and their set-ups on each side.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×