How to Fix Aircraft Carriers

[Malkuth]

Everyone knows how frustrating it is to play CV  in the early tiers and see your planes fall out of the sky and there is nothing you can do about it. This is the case because for some apparent reason. Carriers is the only class of ships with limited resources. All other classes have unlimited Torpedoes. Ammunition. Oh and we can instantly repair damage with the press of a button.

 

Wouldnt it be handy if Carriers had, say, an Aircraft respawn every 30 seconds or so

or

Give it a consumable. with a 4 minute cooldown. press it and you get 25% of lost planes back.

 

Now I do know and understand that we dont want to make Carriers overpowered. because they can be really really deadly. especially in the higher tiers.. but in the low 4-6. they are basicalle Credits and Experience pinãta

[Azalgor]

Delete them from the game would be the easyest way to satisfy the majority of WG kindergarden...

They were how they should be back in Alpha and Beta, where they dominated everything and they could only be countered by good teamplay, but when Open Beta kicked in, team play died, CV players of old started sealclubbing newborn noobs, kids didnt like it, and so today we see trash that are CVs where a single DD can negate an entire CV attack. 

[Pekoe_Darjeeling]

They were how they should be back in Alpha and Beta, where they dominated everything and they could only be countered by good teamplay

 

Nice balance m8. You should consider working in wot balance department.

[Azalgor]

Tell that to 300+ planes that were sinking Yamato that it was unfair, tell it Prince of Whales, Tirpitz and to all other ships that were destroyed by airstrikes... Like i sayd, its a game where history is just a word and has no meaning, since what was strong is sh it, and what was sh it is strong - BALANCE

[Hawg]

CV's should just be removed from the game... that's how to fix them.   Don't get me wrong, I like playing them, but its a game of baseball in the middle of our rugby game.   I have never once thought a battle was better because it had CV's in it, unless I was playing one of the CV's.   For the other classes, CV's are just this outside force that has nothing to do with the game you are playing other than to randomly screw it up.   World of Warships would be a much better game if CV''s were removed, end of story. 

 

If they want to keep CV's in, then make it a mini-game within WoWS.  An RTS where only two players play and where they not only control their CV and aircraft, but also the other ships on the battlefield (the other ships would be appropriately tiered ships that had auto fire and torps).   Let them play their game without screwing up everyone else's.

[pra3y]

When people play CV solely to deal damage then they're playing it wrong. That's why they feel that it's boring or they're playing a different game. Whenever I play CV I scout, provide air support, deal damage, weaken targets for teammates etc sometimes i feel i need an extra pair of arms and eyes. I never really feel that Im playing a different game. Also CV gameplay is totally different from rts.Lol if i were to give it a genre i feel that it fits more as a MOBAish playstyle. I mean come on its not even really point and click if you're playing it seriously doing manual drops. The angle of attack, estimating when to drop are all stuff you don't see in traditional RTS games. Its more like dota or Lol, when is the right time to use your character's ability.

 

@OP 

You'll always lose planes no matter what tier you're in, even at tier 10. Just adapt and pick the right targets. For example don't hit BBs that you know have good AA or is sailing with other ships at the start of the game. If you can't hit any ship right off the bat wait  awhile, go scout etc and wait for the chance to strike.

[Malkuth]

Yes I know you lose planes in every tier... its just that Tier 4.. has a total of 24 planes... Thats 4 squadrons for the US and 6 for the IJN.  at tier 10 you got 100+ planes.. so you can afford to lose a plane or 20

[Drunken_Jedi]

I've been fairly vocal in most of the CV threads, and since this is a fresh one I'll just lay all my ideas out for people to measure and discuss. This will be quite the wall of text so prepare yourselves.

 

 

I - Fixed loadouts, and their removal:

Often the biggest annoyance CV players face is the way in which you are stuck with a pre-determined loadout, before you've even seen the enemy team composition, what CV you will be facing against and most importantly his loadout choice. It's a type of Russian Roulette which can either bless you (2/2/2 Hiyru Vs 0/1/3 Ranger) or royally f**k you over... without lube (2/0/1 Bogue Vs 1/1/1 Zuiho).

 

Can you imagine if players were forced to make this decision for other classes? "Hmmm, should I pick HE or AP for this match...". Limiting player choice and gameplay options isn't good game design. The fixed loadouts are what makes the class so frustrating to play, especially when you're in a balanced or strike loadout against a full air superiority equipped CV. You will do more damage than him, but you won't enjoy the game since it's mostly just an exercise in frustration (especially if the enemy CV is a competant player) and even more annoying when you know what you could have done if given the opportunity. Due to these shortcomings I propose the following (again!):

 

 

II - Flexible loadouts, and why they're needed:

Let's have a quick history lesson before I delve any further into this idea. Recall the Battle of Midway? That pivotal confrontation between USN CV's and the IJN's main CV fleet consisting of Akagi, Kaga, Soyru and Hiryu. All three of the IJN's main attack CV's were sunk in the space of five minutes (nearly a kraken lol). Why such devastating losses? The IJN had initially sent their bomber formations to attack Midway island, doing significant damage and rendering it out of action for the most part. On return the aircraft were being rearmed with fuse contact bombs for a second attack, when Admiral Yagumo recieved a sighting report of US aircraft closing for an attack. Yagumo quickly ordered his aicraft in the hanger to have their bombs removed and torpedoes fitted for strikes against the US CV fleet. However, he couldn't get these aircraft in the air quick enough since they were recovering the Zero's who had been on combat air patrol (CAP) over the fleet and destroyed a hasty attack by Dauntless dive bombers. During this time, another squadron of Dauntless bombers arrived overhead from a different vector, bombs penetrated the decks on the Kaga and Akagi causing a chain reaction of explosions from ordanance littered around the hanger deck. Within minutes the entire taskforce was in flames, if I remember correctly on Hiyru escaped the initial assault and was able to launch a retalitory strike which hit the USS Yorktown however she too was also sunk later that day.

 

CV warfare is strategic, with each side needing to act and react to what the enemy CV's are planning or doing... whether that be countering their attempt to gain air superiority or intercepting incoming attacks by bombers.

 

How is this relelvant to World of Warships I hear you ask? Admiral Yagumo was caught by surprise, switching from one "loadout" if you will to another leaving his ships wide open to air attack. In WoWS you can either have AS/balanced or strike loadouts. This would be fine if the opposition had a mirrored loadout, you could pretty much ignore each other and just farm damage and kills without worrying about fighter interception. However, that's not fun... and it sure as hell isn't dynamic.

 

Introduce flexible loadouts. Keep the current modules if you will, but let's say you can switch from one to another mid-game? Think of the implications for strategy and planning this would have. Do you push to control the skies and "de-plane" the enemy CV as quickly as possible to minimise losses on your team, or do you take a balanced approach for limited fighter capability but retain a little bit of striking power. If you're feeling brave, would you go "all in" and launch all your strike aircraft with a view to either destroy the enemy CV or inflict heavy damage right off the bat? You could also respond to changes in the game, or to moves by your opposing CV. Is he fielding full fighter loadout and wiping out your planes? Tackle them with your own fighters before switching to bombers again to finish off the enemy fleet. Another scenario is you've been mainly focused in controling the skies with your fighters, the enemy CV has run out of planes or has been sunk by you spotting him from the air. Currently, at this point you have literally no contribution to make to the game other than keeping fighters overhead to spot the enemy ships - and are relying on "Joe Potato" in his BB to carry the game. With flexible loadouts you could recall your fighters and switch to a strike loadout to ensure you can continue to help, or sadly in many cases carry the team to victory.

 

So, here's the meat of the idea:

• Allow the switching of flight modules mid-game.
• Could be activated via a consumable option unique to CV's
• This would be permitted once ALL aircraft from your current module have returned to the ship and landed.
• By switching loadouts you are then locked into it for the next say four or five minutes (obviously would be subject to change)
• Aircraft would cycle as per their normal timers ater the switch.

 

An example game: You queue in your Ranger, having selected the 0/1/3 module as your starting module. Upon seeing the team compositions you note that your opponent is sailing a Hiyru, most likely using the 2/2/2 loadout, or in a worst case scenario a 3/1/2. You get your strike force airborne ASAP, spot a DD trying to cap a point and decide to commit your whole strike force and deal some damage (RNGesus wasn't kind on the bomb manual drops). You lose one squadron to the Hiyru's fighters, however... now it's time for some payback. You switch to the 2/0/2 module and now match him in fighter squadrons, however yours have more planes per squad than his. You incur a cooldown on your switch consumable, you're stuck with this selection for several minutes now. Your fighters intercept the Hiyru's bombers trying to sink your Scharnhorst, whos being a complete potato and doesn't seem to be aware of the enemy aircraft at all while he's tunnel visioned down in sniper view. You've now managed to control the skies for several minutes, the Hiyru lost all his bombers but still has planes to spare. Now however, your team is starting to lose it's ship advantage and you need to start having a direct impact. You return your fighters to the decks, your dive bombers on their way back already having set the enemy Colorado on fire (the fool used his damage control on one fire - so you set two more with the second squadron). This time you opt to take a more balanced laodout, so you select 1/1/1. This allows you to still field a fighter squadron to escort your bombers and intercept his, while allowing you to field a torpedo bomber squadron to set some floods. The game ends a few minutes later, you sank that pesky Mahan that was capping all your points on the other side of the map while your torpedo bombers managed to sink a woulded Fiji sitting in smoke. Your team wins, the enemy Hiyru sunk after you spot him with your fighters.

 

Doesn't that sound better than what you have now? The "player" in this case was able to adapt to the situation on the battlefield, except in this case his decision to switch loadouts paid off (unlike poor Admiral Yagumo). The ability to switch plane modules will allow you to avoid those utterly f**king madenning situations where you're against an air superiority set up and simply can't get anything done, especially at low tiers where you have next to no reserves as it is.

 

 

III - Air Superiority loadouts, and why they're a trap:

AS loadouts... *shudder*. They seem like a great idea, and when combined with a flexible loadout system like I detailed above is a good idea allowing you to counter a dedicated attempt by the enemy CV to wreck your team with torpedoes and bombs. However, it's a trap. You can de-plane the enemy CV, you can get him sunk but ultimately you have no direct impact on the flow of the game. You are unable to act by yourself, resolved to merely responding to air attacks and spotting ships. You are 100% reliant on your team to deal significant damage and sink ships and I think we all know how adept most casuals are at throwing away an easy victory. The other issue is your planes have to RTB at some point to rearm and even when they're in the air unless your team blobs together you will have a hard time of being everywhere at once. It's inevitable that at somepoint during the game the enemy CV will slip by a strike and deal damage. Even if it's just 30 or 40k, it's far more than you and thus he will have won the CV vs CV meta since your contribution to the team is less than his in damage and ships sunk.

 

At the very least, a flexible system will permit you to switch to a strike heavy formation once the threat from enemy aircraft has been dealt with. Currently, AS modules are just something to frustrate the enemy CV, often making the game not enjoyable... don't even get me started on a 3/0/1 Saipan against a Hiyru (or a Ranger for that matter).

 

 

IV - Economy

Now my experience with high tier CV's is extremely limited so I won't have too much to say here, only in the beta before they wiped our progress did I get to play the Lexington and Essex. They were beasts back then, and a nerf was justified... although Wargaming in their overzealousness managed to utterly gut the line and the entire class. Now it's possible to do some pretty amazing damage at high tier and hard carry the team, but barely make a profit or indeed lose credits (especially a problem for non-premium players). So many people are playing lower tier CV's because the high tiers offer a more challenging environment while offering absolutely terrible rewards. This was amplified with the servicing cost changes (impacted CV's the most since you often go games without taking any damage at all) and the increased costs of aircraft lost - which will be a LOT in tier X with Des Moines and Minotaurs sailing around creating no fly zones. Earning potential needs to be buffed to levels seen on other classes, don't penalise a player simply because he or she is good at the game!

 

 

V - AAA potency, balancing for both sides of the coin:

Hear that? That's the cry from the BBaby brigade complaining how powerful CV's are and that AAA needs to be buffed even more! (best get the Bingo card ready)

 

Indirect damage classes have always been met with disdain and hate from vocal parts of the community, look at Arty in WoT for example. CV's in WoWS have a much more challenging time of dealing damage compared to the point and click mechanics of WoT SPG's. There is skill involved, not just RNG. However, lt's humour them for a moment and discuss ways in which AAA could be used to counter air attacks.

 

Currently, AAA is too high in my opinion. In the Beta ships who sailed alone died, ships who sailed together under the protection of cruisers with defensive fire lived. This is how the game was designed, however the insessent crying lead Wargaming to push massive buffs to AAA values across the board, especially on BB's however. We now have cases where a lone BB can absolutely wreck an incoming attack, however it's a passive aura... there is no player control unless you're using manual AA. Even then, you have this protective power with no draw backs, no way for the CV to counter it. I believe this needs to change.

 

Think of RTS games (which is what CV gameplay is based off). I spent FAR TOO MANY HOURS playing Homeworld in 1998. Awesome game, if you haven't played it you haven't lived frankly . In that game you could alter your units behaviour according to three different modes:

• Passive mode would mean they wouldn't engage enemy ships even if they were under fire but at the same time gain extra speed in the case of fighters.
• Neutral (the default) would mean that they would react and engage enemy ships if they themselves were fired upon. They have balanced speed/firepower.
• Aggressive meant they would automatically attack any ship within detection range and suffered a speed penalty while having increased firepower.

 

This meant that you could increase your offensive power if you wanted, but it would come at the cost of speed and agility which was crucial for some of the smaller fighters or scouts.

 

In WoWS, I propose we rebalance global AA values. Bring them down to their pre-buffed states and have this as their base level of damage. However, if you switch into an "offensive" mode you would recieve a buff which would bring them to their current levels (or a little higher in the cases of ships which have comparitively weak AAA like Atago etc - so BB's aren't the only ones who can protect themselves).

 

• Passive - AAA and secondary batteries disabled, same functionality as pressing "P" currently does in game.
• Neutral - AAA and secondary batteries enabled, AAA guns posses their standard level of potency (although substantially reduced from their current values)
• Offensive - AAA guns get an increased DPS (although nowhere near that of the Defensive Fire consumable). However, they suffer a reduced RoF on their main battery guns and worsened accuracy (say a 15-20% RoF debut and a 10-15% accuracy debuff and a drastic concealment debuff)

 

With the above method, you will indeed have the ability to increase your AAA power mid-game to counter a specific threat but at the same time have to pay a price for it. I suggested CV's have the ability to change their load outs mid-game it also comes with the price of being completely open to air attack while you switch around your squads (can only switch once all aircraft have RTB). Being able to play with these dynamics to fit specific scenarios would only be a good thing for the game. However it goes without saying there would have to be another global rebalancing of AAA power on all ships to counter the fact they can ALL essentially become AA spec mid game. 

 

I would also like to think that Wargaming could introduce another tracer/flak effect for ships that have Def AA or full AA spec on them so that players can see whats going on before they lose all their planes in the blink of an eye. Information feedback is really crucial to players, currently CV's have nothing to go on until their planes all die before getting within 5km of the target by which time it's far too late.

 

TL;DR Version

• Allow module switching mid-game, for better strategic options and the ability to adjust to direct counters i.e. strike vs AS
• Alter CV economy so it doesn't punish good players
• Rebalance AAA to it's not instant death for aircraft, and requires input from the player to be effective in the forms of different AAA modes, the most powerful coming with substantial drawbacks - no "get out of jail for free" card like AAA is now.

 

I hope this wasn't too painful to read through, I know it took ages to type it out! Let me know what you think in terms of feedback.

[Spellfire40]

Yes I know you lose planes in every tier... its just that Tier 4.. has a total of 24 planes... Thats 4 squadrons for the US and 6 for the IJN.  at tier 10 you got 100+ planes.. so you can afford to lose a plane or 20

 

​

Since you have to Play agist the enemy CV on top of what you lose to ships doing as the enemy CV in this vid equas a DD charging a Radar CL/CA.. You cant throw away your planes like this in the 1st few min you run out fast even with 100+ planes

[rvfharrier]

Removing strike load outs would be a good way to fix carriers right off the bat. Carrier players complain about AS Carriers ruining their games, I personally adore having AS Carriers on my team because they generally tend to prevent strike carriers from ruining mine! An easy fix for - both - problems would be to make it mandatory for carriers to have fighters and to increase the XP gained for shooting down planes, especially in close proximity to allies to prevent carrier players reserving their fighters for solely protecting their own aircraft rather than their teammates.

 

At the moment carriers are, in general, too much like artillery in world of tanks, more often than not they fulfill nothing but a selfish role of simply racking up damage and contribute very little if anything at all to team play. There are good carrier players out there who are exceptions to this, but that's more down to individuals than the class itself and they often don't get sufficiently rewarded.

 

Remove strike load outs, increase XP and credit rewards for shooting down planes, with an extra bonus if planes are shot down in the vicinity of friendly ships, and perhaps give carriers increased rewards for spotting damage as well to incentivize using their planes to spot. That still wouldn't be perfect and I would still have moments where I wished carriers weren't in the game at all, but for me it would be a huge improvement over the status-quo.

[Spellfire40]

Remove strike load outs, increase XP and credit rewards for shooting down planes

 

For CV only or give me 3k base exp in a DD too for geting destroyed by the enemy ​, You autoshoot down planes if you are the Target of a CV strike.

[El2aZeR]

I personally adore having AS Carriers on my team because they generally tend to prevent strike carriers from ruining mine!

 

A great joke right there!

 

 

AS is by far the easiest loadout to outplay due to it's inherent limitations.

[GhostRiderMax123]

CV's should just be removed from the game... that's how to fix them.   Don't get me wrong, I like playing them, but its a game of baseball in the middle of our rugby game.   I have never once thought a battle was better because it had CV's in it, unless I was playing one of the CV's.   For the other classes, CV's are just this outside force that has nothing to do with the game you are playing other than to randomly screw it up.   World of Warships would be a much better game if CV''s were removed, end of story. 

 

If they want to keep CV's in, then make it a mini-game within WoWS.  An RTS where only two players play and where they not only control their CV and aircraft, but also the other ships on the battlefield (the other ships would be appropriately tiered ships that had auto fire and torps).   Let them play their game without screwing up everyone else's.

 

^^ This. CV's are dying plus WG cant seem to make them work.

 

I've said it before but I would not be supprised if they turned around one day and said that they are removing them.

[El2aZeR]

CV's should just be removed from the game... that's how to fix them.

 

Honestly, people are treating this too lightly. Removal of CVs would entail much more than just the removal of one class of ships. A good amount of core game mechanics would have to be redesigned, implemented, tested and balanced, which in turn can lead to other core game mechanics needing to be redesigned, etc.

That's basically scrapping the whole game and starting anew.

 

And that's not even considering what to do with people who've bought Saipan (and Kaga in the near future), or the effect a complete overhaul of the game may have on other premium ships people have spend money on.

[Guillotine]

1.Fix the UI and player input so planes do what they are told not something random.

2.Fix the loadouts so its balanced for both sides and make sense.

3.Make ship AA directional insteas of bubble, so players can exploit knocked out AA placements in 1 side of the ship.

4.Re-balance AA ratings of ships, so there is way to strike in your tier range ( without AA cruisers around ).

[bloomoon11]

CV's should just be removed from the game... that's how to fix them.   Don't get me wrong, I like playing them, but its a game of baseball in the middle of our rugby game.   I have never once thought a battle was better because it had CV's in it, unless I was playing one of the CV's.   For the other classes, CV's are just this outside force that has nothing to do with the game you are playing other than to randomly screw it up.   World of Warships would be a much better game if CV''s were removed, end of story. 

 

If they want to keep CV's in, then make it a mini-game within WoWS.  An RTS where only two players play and where they not only control their CV and aircraft, but also the other ships on the battlefield (the other ships would be appropriately tiered ships that had auto fire and torps).   Let them play their game without screwing up everyone else's.

 

^ This right here.  They bring nothing good to the game.

 

I doubt they'll ever actually remove them from the game but they could just give every ship 200 AA instead.

[AgarwaenME]

 

^ This right here.  They bring nothing good to the game.

 

I doubt they'll ever actually remove them from the game but they could just give every ship 200 AA instead.

 

[it3llig3nc3]

First of all this topic reminds me of the long forgotten predecessor of the subject;

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/43214-aircraft-carriers-need-an-overhaul/page__fromsearch__1

 

Since almost everything has been already said on the subject (except from WG's official opinion about the detailed suggestions) I keep it short:

 

1. CVs are (should be) important in the game as it was DESIGNED with this ship class as part of it. I consider the game now broken because of the badly implemented carrier class that practically screws up the "Rock-Paper-Scissor" concept of the ship class design

 

2. CV is a difficult ship class, because its VERY EXISTENCE is CONTROVERSIAL. Carrier class was the main disruptor (game changer) class during the real World War 2 as their evolution and presence changed naval strategy and thinking completely. Therefore it is "built into" the situation that the seamless integration of this class into this game is a huge problem. There is no easy way out of this. My problem here is that the way I understand WG's communication they not only misinterpret the problem but also they do not see any real (and good) solution. This happens despite the fact that community members have listed several different ideas more than a year ago!

 

3. My personal opinion is that WG must make a decision regarding the future of this class: they either make it more "epic" and "first person experience" (i.e. manually fly the planes and take actions simulator like) OR they make it more RTS style (more flexible unit management, action handling, etc...). The kind of middle ground they are now at is - in my opinion - is doomed to fail, and if we're not lucky it will take the entire game with it into failure.

 

   

 

 

[El2aZeR]

I consider the game now broken because of the badly implemented carrier class that practically screws up the "Rock-Paper-Scissor" concept of the ship class design

 

How exactly is the game broken because of "badly implemented CVs"? Imo the basic design and implementation is actually pretty good for the type of game we have (having CV on map, limited squads and plane reserves, flight and service times, etc.). It's when you get to the finer things such as controls, UI and IJN vs USN balance when things turn ugly, but that doesn't really affect other classes as much.

 

Also there is no "RPS concept" in the balance of this game. Even without CVs it doesn't even come close. Just look at cruisers, it's inherently impossible for them to counter DDs without the help of either CVs or DDs themselves, as they're not able to spot DDs on their own if the DD plays it correctly. Likewise some cruisers excel at taking down BBs in an open fight.

I could go on with this about every other class but you should get the point by now. RPS plays no value in the balance of this game and, quite frankly, it never really has.

[Flid_Merchant]

Swapping loadouts in game should definitely be an option. Maybe even changing squadron sizes, so say you can have 16 planes in the air at once, you could have 2 groups of 8 or 4 groups of 4.

[Hawg]

 

Honestly, people are treating this too lightly. Removal of CVs would entail much more than just the removal of one class of ships. A good amount of core game mechanics would have to be redesigned, implemented, tested and balanced, which in turn can lead to other core game mechanics needing to be redesigned, etc.

That's basically scrapping the whole game and starting anew.

 

And that's not even considering what to do with people who've bought Saipan (and Kaga in the near future), or the effect a complete overhaul of the game may have on other premium ships people have spend money on.

 

Ok refunding current CV's is a problem, I agree.   But otherwise, why would anything have to change.  All the fun games (those without CV's) do just fine without them and nothing has to be tuned differently.

 

Maybe get rid of useless modules and talents, but otherwise it would simplify things, not complicate them.... right?

[El2aZeR]

Maybe get rid of useless modules and talents, but otherwise it would simplify things, not complicate them.... right?

 

There are two core mechanics directly tied to CVs: Spotting and AA. Both of which play a huge role in overall gameplay and balancing.

 

Examples:

- AA is no longer needed, thus all ships would have to be rebalanced since good AA is no longer an excuse for other stats to be shafted. AA cruisers especially would need complete overhaul

- Spotting mechanics would require a complete overhaul since without CVs ships that rely more on "invisibility" will run far more rampant than we're already seeing. This was especially prevalent in the days when CVs were almost extinct, becoming such an issue that WG had to nerf "torpedo soup". This ties in with the recent removal of stealth fire, which was never a problem when CVs were around

- Consumables would have to be redesigned along with spotting mechanics

- Overhaul of spotting mechanics would entail another round of rebalance, possibly affecting literally every other major game mechanic such as damage, armor and so on

- Some new incentive to force teamplay would have to be designed, tested and implemented

- Camping would become even more prevalent, requiring addressing (it already does, but it would exacerbate the problem)

 

Need I go on?

 

[bloomoon11]

 

 

Genius.

[albinbino]

WG needs to remove manual fighters attack at all tiers. You see how low tier battles are full of CVs after WG removed manual attack for fighters. Much more relaxing game when no worries someone will kill all your planes with one manual attack .

[El2aZeR]

Much more relaxing game when no worries someone will kill all your planes with one manual attack .

 

Too bad, strafe was implemented to do exactly that. Besides, it's not like they can't be dodged.

And, like any other class, CVs are not meant to be relaxing.