Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Zenthon02

CV Rework Suggestions made by 12 players

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[FOF]
[FOF]
WoWs Wiki Team, WoWs Wiki Team
1,168 posts
9,101 battles

This is just a translated version of the German Thread. I'll apologize in advance if there are any mistakes.

 

Heyho, Captains!

Since there are many discussions about CVs and the announced rework, we sat together to bring up some ideas.

 

General

Players should be able, to unite squadrons. (for example: 2 squads with 2 TBs -> 1 squad with 4 TBs)

The alert for "incoming AA fire" should be displayed more noticeably.

 

No! to sealclubbing

CV is not the only class used for clubbing seals. Therefore we made a more general suggestion.

Two separated matchmakings. There's the normal and the new one. How does the new MM work?

Until a player had either reached T5 or 500 Games he will be in the "safe matchmaking" and separated from the more experienced players.

The 500 games don't have to be with one class of ship, because it is only meant to protect new players.

 

USN vs IJN

Same number of squadrons or at least aircraft in the air.

A possible "national flavor" could be that the US have better armored Planes; the IJN the faster ones.

Maybe give the US 2x3 Fighters instead of 1x6. US TB squads only have 4 aircraft but they can launch 2 torps each.

Since loadouts without any fighters are not able to defend themselves they should be removed from the game.

Small concealment Buff for US (like 5-7%)

 

AA (all ships)

 

+/- 1 MM for every CV in the game. In this way it is easier to balance the AA guns.

Transfer the main damage from long range to mid range AA

Firing arcs for the AA guns (like for the secondaries)

Nerf the Catapult fighter from 100% caused spread to only 75%. Thereby Defensive-AA will get more value.

Separate secondary and AA skills for you Captain.

 

Skills

Evasive Maneuver, Expert Rear Gunner and Emergency Takeoff are not used by many players because they don't add a real advantage.

Therefore some suggestions. (Suggestions! We would take 4 Points. Maybe only one of them can be chosen at a time to prevent OP builds.)

 

Low altitude flying

Allows the TBs to get spottet harder. But they also can't spott as well as without this skill. The planes are slower than normally. AA-Damage is reduced by 5-10%

AP Bombs

Armor piercing Bombs for dive bombers (Damage is not set yet)

Experienced Pilot

The spread caused by Defensive AA is reduced to about 70-80%

Heavy Armament

Torps deal slightly more damage but have a lower speed. (you can evade them easier)

 

 

Ideas by:

Amarandh, Alipheese_XV, Chimanski, cyri_96, eXzession, Jorgensen2070, Jules_Papillon, Mcboernester, Vitsche, Zenthon02, Calador, Zenturio52

Edited by Zenthon02
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
748 posts
11,447 battles

Since loadouts without any fighters are not able to defend themselves they should be removed from the game.

 

You dont simply touch my Lexi.

 

Almost all the rest is fine imo, well, double torps sounds weird and AA working like secondaries would need a lot of work to implement (and even more to explain)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FOF]
[FOF]
WoWs Wiki Team, WoWs Wiki Team
1,168 posts
9,101 battles

 

Almost all the rest is fine imo, well, double torps sounds weird and AA working like secondaries would need a lot of work to implement (and even more to explain)

 

The BTD Destroyer torpedo bomber was able to carry to two torpedoes.

So the US CVs get 8 Torpedoes but will loose 2 by every shot down aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,067 posts
8,834 battles

 

You dont simply touch my Lexi.

 

Almost all the rest is fine imo, well, double torps sounds weird and AA working like secondaries would need a lot of work to implement (and even more to explain)

 

Why do u want to keep the 0/1/3 loadout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,418 posts
13,838 battles

Why do u want to keep the 0/1/3 loadout?

 

A better question would be why you would keep the AS loadouts considering they are completely and utterly worthless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FOF]
[FOF]
WoWs Wiki Team, WoWs Wiki Team
1,168 posts
9,101 battles

What exactly are these changes supposed to address ?

 

We tried to give some advice to WG  how they could balance CVs.

Frankly, removing the manual drop for T4 and 5 Carriers is not a good solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
748 posts
11,447 battles

 

Why do u want to keep the 0/1/3 loadout?

 

Well :) (Sorry, not sorry for bragging, but it wasnt me who posted the video)

And as said, AS is useless.

 

 

The BTD Destroyer torpedo bomber was able to carry to two torpedoes.

So the US CVs get 8 Torpedoes but will loose 2 by every shot down aircraft.

 

Yeah but I dont see the point of it, its the same fire power but less vesatility (No cross drops)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,088 posts
14,054 battles

What is the purpose of AP bombs? Is it to give carriers a better alpha vector? USN bombs are more than powerful enough, overpowered in fact. Alpha damage was never the issue with carrier dropped bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FOF]
[FOF]
WoWs Wiki Team, WoWs Wiki Team
1,168 posts
9,101 battles

Yeah but I dont see the point of it, its the same fire power but less vesatility (No cross drops)

 

it doesnt matter if you have 6 TBs with 6 Torps or 4 TBs with 8 Torps.

You cant cross drop with 1 squad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,067 posts
8,834 battles

 

Well :) (Sorry, not sorry for bragging, but it wasnt me who posted the video)

And as said, AS is useless.

 

 

Yeah but I dont see the point of it, its the same fire power but less vesatility (No cross drops)

So what do u think of a 1/1/2 loadout fot Lexi?

 

Äh u can't crossdrop with usn CVs u know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,067 posts
8,834 battles

What is the purpose of AP bombs? Is it to give carriers a better alpha vector? USN bombs are more than powerful enough, overpowered in fact. Alpha damage was never the issue with carrier dropped bombs.

 

Maybe AP Bombs could just overpen DDs but be very efectiv against BBs? Its just an Idea. In my opinion ijn DBs are better because I can hit with them. usn have DBs too much RNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
748 posts
11,447 battles

it doesnt matter if you have 6 TBs with 6 Torps or 4 TBs with 8 Torps.

 

You cant cross drop with 1 squad

 

Thats why the problem is the amount of squads, not the amount of torps. More squads will always be better, with 2 squads you can cross drop and you can go for DoT.

So what do u think of a 1/1/2 loadout fot Lexi?

We dont have it at the moment but will take it over 013. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,236 posts
14,317 battles

...CV Rework Suggestions made by 12 players...

 

I don't want to hit this too hard, but none of those suggestions address 'The Problem' with CVs; and that is they have no purpose in the game right now.  They could but they don't.  

 

If there are no DDs in a game then things can stagnate because there is no one to screen or scout, without CA/CL Destroyers can run wild, and with out BBs CA/CL can quickly crush DDs (in general).  There is a dynamic here that while not perfect works... sort of.  Most game I am in, don't have CVs and they are not missed, because their purpose doesn't exist.

 

CVs should be redesigned so that they are an integral part of the dynamic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

CV's were part of the dynamic, they FORCE people into teamplay, they prevented BB's bowcamping and they punished rambo's who went on a flank alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,236 posts
14,317 battles

CV's were part of the dynamic, they FORCE people into teamplay, they prevented BB's bowcamping and they punished rambo's who went on a flank alone. 

 

Were... agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

Yeah and they are not anymore because WG has so much issues with balancing them. A lot of their points make sense to me, especially the +-1 MM since AAA scaling is exactly what makes CV's hard to balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,236 posts
14,317 battles

.A lot of their points make sense to me...

 

I couldn't say, as I lack the experience in CVs to judge wither these suggest changes or good or bad, but enough experience in game to say they don't change... the main problem with CVs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,418 posts
13,838 battles

Were... agreed.

 

Honestly, they still do, or rather should. It's just that the average playerbase now is so bad that even the most basic of teamwork is far beyond their reach, which is why you get so many complaints about them.

The dynamic is still there, the meta and playerbase, however, have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,236 posts
14,317 battles

 

Honestly, they still do, or rather should. It's just that the average playerbase now is so bad that even the most basic of teamwork is far beyond their reach, which is why you get so many complaints about them.

The dynamic is still there, the meta and playerbase, however, have changed.

 

I am not so sure.  When I first started playing, Clevelands were beloved by their teams and calls of who needs AA were in chat alot, but now?  I believe CVs received a buff so that they rarely call for it; and BBs can have some strong AA.  I can't recall the last time a BB called for AA support.  (I am not saying buffs in this area were good or bad, but that they changed the dynamic).  BBs seem to be able to hang at the back alone with little problem against the average CV player.

 

I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,772 posts
12,699 battles

Thanks to the OP for translating this from the German speaking forum. :honoring:

I think that Wargaming should seriously consider all of them. (I don't say "automatically adopt them" - but they are good ideas to provoke thought)

Well done to the original team! :honoring:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,418 posts
13,838 battles

I believe CVs received a buff so that they rarely call for it; and BBs can have some strong AA.

 

It's more like CVs were equalized in MM so that they don't have to fear snipes as much anymore. That and people have learned that snipe attempts are rather unrewarding most of the time along with the addition of Def AA for high tier CVs.

 

Even with BBs receiving AA buffs (that, for the most part, they did not deserve), it's also that experienced CV players learned to play their role more effectively. Why should I strike a camping BB at the edge of the map when I can kill the DD capping instead? Target selection changed, with CVs now picking on DDs far more often than on BBs due to various reasons, but the dynamic is technically speaking still there.

 

Just an add on, I believe the problem with CVs is the root of many issues in the game today.

 

*sigh* Ain't that the truth.

Edited by El2aZeR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,236 posts
14,317 battles

...Target selection changed, with CVs now picking on DDs far more often than on BBs due to various reasons, but the dynamic is technically speaking still there...

I am not sure if it is my bias, as I mostly play DDs, but I don't think this is a good change.  BBs camping, for what ever reason, doesn't seem like a healthy situation.  CVs able to punish this might be the answer.

 

I could just be my bias.:sceptic:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×