The Carrier Buff Thread 2: Electric Boogaloo

[CatOnKeyboard]

Change 1: Dive Bombers can now load heavy AP bombs. AP bombs work like AP shells, but just weigh a lot more. This will increase Dive Bomber damage across the board.

Change 2: Torpedo Bombers more resilient, un-escorted Battleships should fear Carrier Airstrikes, not laugh at them.

Change 3: Activating Autopilot now moves you at Flank Speed, rather than 1/2 by default.

Change 4: Aircraft no longer need to perform a loop to get up to altitude, instead they fly right off the end of the deck and begin climbing, reducing time when the planes are unable to act.

Change 5 (QOL): Start of Battle animation, planes brought up onto the flight deck.

 

pls wg? ;-;

 

[Cosseria]

You mean, in other words, that you wanna hurt BBabies more? Do you really wanna make the kids cry when you blow up their favourite toy, the big ship with the big guns that make big booms? How can you be so nasty? I'm about to cry myself just by thinking about their tears.

Seriously, it's unlikely that WG will ever buff anything that could harm BBs, let alone CVs. In fact, they don't really know what to do with them and my impression is that they're gently and constantly nerfing them in order to scare players away and allow the class to starve and get extinct.

[Jethro_Grey]

Change 1: Dive Bombers can now load heavy AP bombs. AP bombs work like AP shells, but just weigh a lot more. This will increase Dive Bomber damage across the board.

Change 2: Torpedo Bombers more resilient, un-escorted Battleships should fear Carrier Airstrikes, not laugh at them.

Change 3: Activating Autopilot now moves you at Flank Speed, rather than 1/2 by default.

Change 4: Aircraft no longer need to perform a loop to get up to altitude, instead they fly right off the end of the deck and begin climbing, reducing time when the planes are unable to act.

Change 5 (QOL): Start of Battle animation, planes brought up onto the flight deck.

 

pls wg? ;-;

 

 

At first i thought i stumbled upon a troll post, but somehow i have the feeling that this ain't one.

 

So, let me quickly adress your proposed changes:

 

Change 1: No.

Change 2: lol, No.

Change 3: that's actually not bad at all

Change 4: seems reasonable, but not really a game breaker, so WG could think about that once patch 2.5.0 goes live

Change 5: while nice to watch, would get boring pretty quickly

[AkosJaccik]

1.) I read somewhere that AP bombs were in consideration, but I totally forgot if it was actually the case or "just" a fan-theory. The idea was that AP bombs overpen destroyers, but deal more damage against heavily armoured targets. Actually selecting loadouts besides deck compositions in a limited way might be interesting and I am signed up for that, although it would be probably problematic to balance. Then again, everything is "problematic to balance".

3.) Low-priority comfort-issue

4.) I think it's actually just the animation. They are unable to act because of the "takeoff-timer", not the animation itself. As such, it's a non-issue.

5.) I am all up for more animations, although I understand why it is not at all the most pressing issue. I love to watch my carriers at work in Battlestations too. On the other side, with the whole process it takes awhile until I can send up the CAP.

 

 

 

[Exocet6951]

On a purely historical point of view, torpedo bombers should be dropping like flies.

 

On a purely gameplay point of view, AA shouldn't work based on RNG and weird overinflated AA values. That being said, a straight buff to planes might not be advisable.

The CV issue needs a profound rethinking rather than buffing and nerfing, hoping it will work.

[Spellfire40]

Weren't AP in alpha? Anyway to inflexible who would trade 1000 lb he for something that only work agist one type of ship and overpens anything else? Plus the basically were modified 16 inch AP shells. And on the balance side?  How you balance 21 setups vs 7? 

[El2aZeR]

Change 1: No.

 

I think I've got some bad news for you...

 

1. Developers don't like the disbalance between IJN and USN CVs - one of the possible solutions is to rebalance all setups and add AP bombs an an alternative for USN, which will ravage straight-sailing BBs and overpenetrate anything without an armored deck.

 

Possibly being tested on Big E right now.

[Zenturio52]

Change 1: Dive Bombers can now load heavy AP bombs. AP bombs work like AP shells, but just weigh a lot more. This will increase Dive Bomber damage across the board.

Change 2: Torpedo Bombers more resilient, un-escorted Battleships should fear Carrier Airstrikes, not laugh at them.

Change 3: Activating Autopilot now moves you at Flank Speed, rather than 1/2 by default.

Change 4: Aircraft no longer need to perform a loop to get up to altitude, instead they fly right off the end of the deck and begin climbing, reducing time when the planes are unable to act.

Change 5 (QOL): Start of Battle animation, planes brought up onto the flight deck.

 

pls wg? ;-;

 

1. AP Boms are hard to balance.

2. That would need a full AA rework

3. Just press 2 times w and she will move full speed

4. Not important, maybe later

5. Why not? But also later.

1.) I read somewhere that AP bombs were in consideration, but I totally forgot if it was actually the case or "just" a fan-theory. The idea was that AP bombs overpen destroyers, but deal more damage against heavily armoured targets. Actually selecting loadouts besides deck compositions in a limited way might be interesting and I am signed up for that, although it would be probably problematic to balance. Then again, everything is "problematic to balance".

If I remember correctly they think about AP bombs since the beta or even alpha? But they are hard to balance so who knows if they will ever enter the game.

On a purely historical point of view, torpedo bombers should be dropping like flies.

 

On a purely gameplay point of view, AA shouldn't work based on RNG and weird overinflated AA values. That being said, a straight buff to planes might not be advisable.

The CV issue needs a profound rethinking rather than buffing and nerfing, hoping it will work.

1. No? On a historical point of view planes didn't drop like flies. More like 10 out of a few hundred while killing the Yama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go

 

2. Yeah they have to rework the AA mechanic. Maybe even a +-1 MM for CVs to balance them (so that they are always mid tier)

High tier CVs are often OP and low tier they can be UP.

[Spellfire40]

overpenetrate anything without an armored deck

 

​didnt they just buffed cruiser armor and are thinking about DD deck armor?

Another Buff like the range buff for dds wich was a nerf together with the no more open water stealth fire? 

[eliastion]

Change 1: Dive Bombers can now load heavy AP bombs. AP bombs work like AP shells, but just weigh a lot more. This will increase Dive Bomber damage across the board.

Change 2: Torpedo Bombers more resilient, un-escorted Battleships should fear Carrier Airstrikes, not laugh at them.

Change 3: Activating Autopilot now moves you at Flank Speed, rather than 1/2 by default.

Change 4: Aircraft no longer need to perform a loop to get up to altitude, instead they fly right off the end of the deck and begin climbing, reducing time when the planes are unable to act.

Change 5 (QOL): Start of Battle animation, planes brought up onto the flight deck.

 

pls wg? ;-;

 

 

1. Would be interesting as a way to both help US carriers and emphasize the anti-BB role of CVs

2. Actually, if a BB is truly alone, a concentrated airstrike is still a threat. The problem is how ridiculously the AA goes up when you have 2-3 ships close by. Basically, WG buffed AA so that unescorted ships aren't completely helpless, but the mechanics led to a situation where escorts are straight-up overpowered. You can't try and limit damage by performing long-range drops because AA ranges are big and torps very slow. And if you try to drop closer, your losses are terrible. This leads to CVs hunting DDs... which is not right. CVs will also be DDs worst nightmare by spotting them - they shouldn't really be good at actually killing them. So, to sum this up: there are problems with plane vulnerability and AA strength but I don't think they can be resolved by simply buffing or nerfing them. Some new mechanics (diminishing returns for AA auras stacking or something?) would be needed.

3. Is this really important? I mean, sure, you can tweak some things here but since you can just hit W twice and go your auto-pilot cruise at full speed, I don't think this really is something worth talking about in the context of balance...

4. Isn't that basically the issue of "reduce takeoff time"? I don't think the time needed is the result of the loop - afaik you have a set time needed for takeoff and there is an animation going in the meantime. Also - if I were to change something, it would probably be about loading rather than takeoff. I still have no idea why sometimes my planes manage to land simultaneously and sometimes they need to circle and wait for the previous squadron to finish loading. Perhaps giving up realism and just letting them land at the same time would be a good idea (and save some precious time in the process, while also not removing the advance warning a close-by DD gets when enemy planes start taking off).

5. Eye candy is nice but hardly relevant to balance.

[Namolis]

Change 1: Dive Bombers can now load heavy AP bombs. AP bombs work like AP shells, but just weigh a lot more. This will increase Dive Bomber damage across the board.

Change 2: Torpedo Bombers more resilient, un-escorted Battleships should fear Carrier Airstrikes, not laugh at them.

Change 3: Activating Autopilot now moves you at Flank Speed, rather than 1/2 by default.

Change 4: Aircraft no longer need to perform a loop to get up to altitude, instead they fly right off the end of the deck and begin climbing, reducing time when the planes are unable to act.

Change 5 (QOL): Start of Battle animation, planes brought up onto the flight deck.

 

pls wg? ;-;

 

 

1 No

2 No

3 Sure

4 Yes

5 Yes

[Exocet6951]

 

1. No? On a historical point of view planes didn't drop like flies. More like 10 out of a few hundred while killing the Yama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go

 

 

Hmm, yes?

At Midway, a whole squadron of Devastators and Avengers were shot down by AAA simply because they had no cover.

In fact, every most instances of torpedo bombers attacking without AA mounts being strafed or previously bombed showed large loses.

 

You can bring up a single example of very little loses if you want, but there's very little doubt that torpedo bomber crewman were the single most dangerous job in naval aviation, which is logical when you think about it, as a torpedo bomber has to fly in a straight line right towards the enemy ship at low altitudes and low speeds for quite a while before dropping their payload. 

[avenger121]

Change 6: Half torpedo and bomb dmg

 

Change 7: Increase DPS for all AA guns by 40%

 

Change 8: double the width of torpedo drops

[ASharpPencil]

As CV player, Yes to all

[Zenturio52]

 

Hmm, yes?

At Midway, a whole squadron of Devastators and Avengers were shot down by AAA simply because they had no cover.

In fact, every most instances of torpedo bombers attacking without AA mounts being strafed or previously bombed showed large loses.

 

You can bring up a single example of very little loses if you want, but there's very little doubt that torpedo bomber crewman were the single most dangerous job in naval aviation, which is logical when you think about it, as a torpedo bomber has to fly in a straight line right towards the enemy ship at low altitudes and low speeds for quite a while before dropping their payload. 

Well why not write it like that in your first post? Your first comment sounded more like planes couldn't do anything ... well or I read it like that.

A few TBs on their own (like in game 6) will have a big problem against ships like the NC (in one battle NC shot down 7-14 planes in just 8 min). But against combined fighters, DBs and TBs a fleet gets a problem, without air support.

[Zenturio52]

Change 6: Half torpedo and bomb dmg

 

Change 7: Increase DPS for all AA guns by 40%

 

Change 8: double the width of torpedo drops

 

 

 

[El2aZeR]

Change 6: Half torpedo and bomb dmg

 

Change 7: Increase DPS for all AA guns by 40%

 

Change 8: double the width of torpedo drops

 

[Exocet6951]

Change 6: Half torpedo and bomb dmg

 

Change 7: Increase DPS for all AA guns by 40%

 

Change 8: double the width of torpedo drops

 

Also called the "I want CVs to deal less than 10k damage per game on average" changes.

Also called the "I want DD AA to counter CVs" changes.

 

 

0/10 try harder

[BillydSquid]

Change 1: Dive Bombers can now load heavy AP bombs. AP bombs work like AP shells, but just weigh a lot more. This will increase Dive Bomber damage across the board.

Change 2: Torpedo Bombers more resilient, un-escorted Battleships should fear Carrier Airstrikes, not laugh at them.

Change 3: Activating Autopilot now moves you at Flank Speed, rather than 1/2 by default.

Change 4: Aircraft no longer need to perform a loop to get up to altitude, instead they fly right off the end of the deck and begin climbing, reducing time when the planes are unable to act.

Change 5 (QOL): Start of Battle animation, planes brought up onto the flight deck.

 

pls wg? ;-;

 

 

No, this addresses few of the underlying issues of CVs, I mean honestly, is anyone suggesting T10 CVs are weak? They might not be as powerful in as they were before the CV nerfs direct and indirect ones, but they're not exactly weak. 

 

no tutorials

interface problems

poor economy

useless fighter load outs

bad captain skills

lower tier CVs getting up tiered, their strike wings looking like they've run into a blender vs high tier BBS,

disabling manual torpedo drop in low tiers so players never learn how to use the tactic. (completely stupid IMO)

 

^ CVs as a class have some deep underlying problems that buffing damage won't fix, or they'd already be played more than they are. 

[hgbn_dk]

stumbled over this yesterday

[Dee_82]

I quite like the idea of AP and HE bombs, but as to the other stuff. why not just reduce AA on BBs, pass the ownership of AA duties to CAs and CLs, then give higher rewards to those ships for doing AA duties. that should help CVs, CLs and DDs, BBs will have to fight with escorts or face getting mugged.  perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't that tick most of the boxes of things that ware wrong with the game?

[dasCKD]

Quite frankly, AP bombs will not fix USN carriers. Dive bombers are a fundamentally unbalanced mechanic except in the case of the IJN dive bombers where they are restricted mostly to DoT. Further buffs to the damage of AP bombs will not fix the game. USN carriers (Lexy, Essex, Midway) are already more than capable of ripping battleships to pieces when the bombs land. The problem is far deeper than that.

[eliastion]

 

Also called the "I want CVs to deal less than 10k damage per game on average" changes.

Also called the "I want DD AA to counter CVs" changes.

 

 

0/10 try harder

 

Well, we're talking avenger121 here, he'd say "yes" to both your "propositions" and add that even then CVs would be OP - he's a dedicated crusader for the noble case of skies free of CV menace  

Gets entertaining from time to time, though.

[avenger121]

Well, we're talking avenger121 here, he'd say "yes" to both your "propositions" and add that even then CVs would be OP - he's a dedicated crusader for the noble case of skies free of CV menace  

Gets entertaining from time to time, though.

 

That´s the interpretation of someone heavily biased, with only one thing in mind, make my already OP favourite class even more OP.

 

Just nerf CVs so they cant carry better than the other classes and only skill decides the outcome and not the fact if you sit in a CV or not.

[El2aZeR]

That´s the interpretation of someone heavily biased

 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.