T10 CVs, for or against?

[RamirezKurita]

43 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Exactly. I agree, you dont need to pull magic or need rocketsciene to counter even a good CV - yet on public it doesnt happen.

 

However, the fact that it doesn't happen on public yet is commonplace in ranked and TBs shows that it isn't the actual in-game mechanics that are at fault. It's a combination of L2P and the XP system rewarding selfish play rather than actual gameplay being the issue.

[Namolis]

13 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Says the guy who has the idiotic belief that every well balanced game has its classes have equal potential influence lol.

I do not understand this attitude.

 

So you don't mind a class being OP in general, because according to you so many games are fine with player A, C, D, and E to be pawns and only player B to matter?!?!?

 

a) OBVIOUSLY every game wants all players to have more or less equal influence on the outcome. Not in the same way (again, obvious), but you want about the same amount of carry potential for all classes. Why on earth wouldn't you?

b) even if you think it would be hard or even impossible to get perfect balance, that still does not mean they shouldn't try. Zero imbalance may be impossible, but less imbalance is not.

c) even if no other game did it this way, it still would be a very good idea. Again, why on earth wouldn't you?

 

I genuinely do not understand how you could not only think striving for equality to not only be a flawed idea, but "idiotic" and "laughable".

 

DDs have superior potential match influence? Well, not compared to CVs, obviously,

[Namolis]

To adress the OP, I don't find carriers (T10 ones especially) fun to play against. No matter the ship, but in particular when I play DD - in fact, that is the reason I don't play DDs more... and also cruisers. Yes; cruisers. They may be better at shooting down the planes, but not being able to control your own spotting takes your fate out of your own hands and places it in the hands of the enemy CV, since the planes are so fast.

 

A further problem is that you can't show any initiative. The amount of space on the map where you can be without being counted "out of position" is reduced from maybe 40% wihtout CV to maybe 5% with CV. It's not fun.

 

I'm surprised to see that about 2/3rds of players prefer T10 carriers in their games. I guess I'm a minority, but that is how I feel.

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, Namolis said:

OBVIOUSLY every game wants all players to have more or less equal influence on the outcome. Not in the same way (again, obvious), but you want about the same amount of carry potential for all classes.

 

Last time you asked me for proof in terms of CBT changes in armor penetration, this time I'll do the same. Since having all classes be equal is apparently the pinnacle of balance then it should be substantially easier for you to name just a single successful AAA PvP game which employs a class-based system, in which the different classes are not only fundamentally different in terms of roles and playstyle but also have close to the same potential influence on a match.

Do keep in mind the games we've already dismissed, though.

 

1 hour ago, Namolis said:

I genuinely do not understand how you could not only think striving for equality to not only be a flawed idea, but "idiotic" and "laughable".

 

It is when you do not understand how this game is balanced (along with the great majority of other games, really). There is an inherent overarching system and role distribution, which makes it fundamentally impossible to give every class EVEN CLOSE to the same amount of potential influence, but as a whole can be perfectly balanced. That doesn't even go into the fundamental design choices that went into this game. Trying to implement such a flawed idea of "equality" is not only impossible on several grounds, but actually destroys the balancing system.

I mean really, if you still want to try to equalize the different classes, look no further than the new BB lines which represent your ideals perfectly. After all, having BBs close the gap in potential match influence between them and the other classes is, according to you and others, highly desirable. Yet for some reason I do not see you or anyone else advocating for such idiocy singing praises to WG for their decisions. Really weird considering they're fulfilling your dream of balance.

Equality always comes at the cost of diversity. That is natural law not only in game design but in real life as well. Make up your mind as to which you prefer. You cannot have both because they're different ends of a spectrum.

[159Hunter]

4 hours ago, Namolis said:

To adress the OP, I don't find carriers (T10 ones especially) fun to play against. No matter the ship, but in particular when I play DD - in fact, that is the reason I don't play DDs more... and also cruisers. Yes; cruisers. They may be better at shooting down the planes, but not being able to control your own spotting takes your fate out of your own hands and places it in the hands of the enemy CV, since the planes are so fast.

 

A further problem is that you can't show any initiative. The amount of space on the map where you can be without being counted "out of position" is reduced from maybe 40% wihtout CV to maybe 5% with CV. It's not fun.

 

I'm surprised to see that about 2/3rds of players prefer T10 carriers in their games. I guess I'm a minority, but that is how I feel.

lol what? You don't play DDs anymore because on some rare occasions you'll end up meeting one ( keep in mind topic is about T10 carriers )? So you dislike the challenge and like the easy cruising mode more?

Cruisers??? Are you only playing IJN cruisers or what? Zao has troll armor anyways, so what's the problem with getting shot at from time to time? Aim is not to be hidden the entire time...

 

You can't show initiative when a CV is in game? Yes a CV will limit freedom of movement, however this is not a constant factor ( planes need to rearm / they get shot down ) and it's not the entire map. If you get permaspotted, yell at your own CV or sail back to friendlies for AA. ( note: if your own CV refuses to help and is a potato, well, that's another discussion alltogether ).

[VMX]

Hi,

 

This thread is moved to:'Game Guides-Ships-Aircraft Carriers'.

 

Thank you,

VMX

[Kattin]

If both cvs are equally good, um all for, but if one is crap and the other is good its almost always a loss. 

[Namolis]

On 16.9.2017 at 6:19 PM, El2aZeR said:

If all classes had the same potential influence then they should be replaceable by each other, yet that is obviously not the case.

I was going to list a whole host of Blizzard games, from Overwatch to StarCraft to, but I think this sentence of yours might be why we misunderstand each other. Blizzard is very good at this kind of balance, btw, that is partly why gamers flock to their games even when the finished product is not (superficially at least) superior to competing titles. Hearthstone is a good example of this: the game itself is just a dumbed down version of tabletop card games like MagicTG, but the fact that people trust Blizzard to make the experience enjoyable means people keep coming back enough times that they get invested in the game.

 

When I say (and I can only speak for myself) that a class should have equal total influence, that is not to say that every class should be able to replace any other class with no loss to the team. Quite the opposite, in fact. When working together as a team, the classes will interact with each other and create something greater then the sum of its parts. This can be thought of as similar to multiplication: when multiplying two numbers with the same sum to get the highest amount, you want the numbers to be as simliar as possible. 3*3 > 2*4.

 

This means that in a balanced game with equal total influence, a balanced lineup will be the most advantageous. The classes can cover each others weaknesses and exploit each others strengths. If the last member of class A is replaced with a second member of class B with no loss of effectiveness to the team (I am always assuming equal skill on the players here ofc), then class B is OP, class A is UP or both. Notice here that in a well balanced game, a competetive meta will really not require any rules as to the pick; it will be self-regulatory. Going with an "all class C" pick will almost surely be defeated by a balanced pick. I'm not terribly strcit about all of this; it can even be OK that certain maps favor certain-class-heavy builds, but maps that nullify a certain class totally are generally considered very bad.

 

(The only reason one might still want such rules is for the benefit of fun - certain combos may be power wise not too strong, but they beget a passive, boring and/or predictable meta.)

 

So how is this in WoWS? It's the opposite of this! Competetive gameplay tends to be extremely heavy in rules for what class can be picked. CV tends to be limited to only 1. With no limit, I have a feeling that a full CV pick, maybe with the odd AAA CA thrown in for the luls, would be fairly universal.

[El2aZeR]

2 hours ago, Namolis said:

With no limit, I have a feeling that a full CV pick, maybe with the odd AAA CA thrown in for the luls, would be fairly universal.

 

Please, go ahead and try how a full CV pick works out against a balanced one. It isn't like there are several dozen videos out there which demonstrate that a single cruiser is perfectly capable of shredding and surviving massed air attacks from multiple same tier CVs, the fact that they're captained by bots made up for with additional numbers. Not to mention their other fundamental limitations and weaknesses. Heck, even just one extra CV in tournament play is bound to be more of a liability than anything else, because their inherent role (scouting) can be fulfilled perfectly by just one with their damage capabilities becoming moot due to their enemies not being whiny scrubs, while you lose out on valuable firepower or utility by replacing a BB/Cruiser/DD with it.

You can apply this to any kind of composition, really. The balanced one in WoWs will, assuming a higher level of play, always win. All CV/DD/Cruiser/BB compositions do not work because they either have inherent weaknesses that can be exploited or are incapable of countering some strategies due to a lack of utility that other classes have. Tournament rules are there to spare teams the effort of coming up with what composition works best via trial and error, not to restrict the numbers of "op classes". Heck, if you wanna use tournament rules as a guideline there were afaik talks to replace T8 CVs with T9 ones because AA in tournament play is too effective. Should we take from that that CVs are actually underpowered and need severe buffs? Obviously not.

 

The reason why Blizzard games, and StarCraft in particular, are well balanced is not because everything is "equal", but because every strategy has a viable counter in every situation as long as you are capable of identifying the play in a timely manner (or just blind counter it, but that's another thing entirely). Cheeses in SC perhaps represent this best, a cheese is pretty much impossible to shut down when it is already tearing down your front door, but if you have scouted and identified it at the start of the game (as you should) then it is possible to adjust your play and counter it. Whether or not the player will scout (or refuses to do it because "it is not fun") doesn't matter at all, since all that is actually relevant is that a viable way of counterplay exists.

 

With CVs identifying the play is easy, just look at the scoreboard or the minimap. The counter is also viable, widely available and easy to do. Anything else is no longer a concern regarding CVs.

What you're talking about is not equality, it is in fact the very opposite of it because with a clear role distribution, and with them inherent strengths and weaknesses, someone is going to end up with the short stick in terms of game influence, yet because that class covers the weaknesses of others or provides utility that no other class has it becomes important to have it in a line-up. For example it is perfectly viable to complete a dungeon with only healers and tanks, DDs are technically speaking not needed at all, but because you don't need a mass of healers/tanks and DDs speed up the process significantly DDs become viable despite their non-importance.

So yeah, CVs do conform to your dream of "equality" (which, again, is not equality at all) according to the games you've named as guidelines, whether you like/acknowledge it or not.

[Namolis]

10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Please, go ahead and try how a full CV pick works out against a balanced one. It isn't like there are several dozen videos out there which demonstrate that a single cruiser is perfectly capable of shredding and surviving massed air attacks from multiple same tier CVs, the fact that they're captained by bots made up for with additional numbers.

...bots that are sometimes stock, often lacking upgrades or commander skills and always send their planes one squad at a time to be engaged by the AAA one by one. Fun, but worthless.

 

AA in this game doesn't do splash damage. If a ship can shred 22 out of 27 planes before they drop, it will be considered mosly immune to air attacks. What if 189 planes come for it? It will not kill 154 out of 189 (which would probably still have left it sunk btw), it will kill 22 out of 189.

10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Tournament rules are there to spare teams the effort of coming up with what composition works best via trial and error, not to restrict the numbers of "op classes". Heck, if you wanna use tournament rules as a guideline there were afaik talks to replace T8 CVs with T9 ones because AA in tournament play is too effective. Should we take from that that CVs are actually underpowered and need severe buffs? Obviously not.

So you are seriously suggesting that poor old clans would be overwhelmed by the choices if they could go for more than one cv (if nothing else than to own the skies)? That does seem like what you are saying here, no?

 

I...

 

...disagree. Let me just say it that way. I disagree.

 

Also, I haven't seen any talk of uptiering CVs, but maybe there was. Talk is cheap anyway; there was also talk about removing carriers altogether (I can link the thread if you've forgotten). Oh, and it seems CW will be T10.

 

10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

The reason why Blizzard games, and StarCraft in particular, are well balanced is not because everything is "equal", but because every strategy has a viable counter in every situation as long as you are capable of identifying the play in a timely manner (or just blind counter it, but that's another thing entirely). Cheeses in SC perhaps represent this best, a cheese is pretty much impossible to shut down when it is already tearing down your front door, but if you have scouted and identified it at the start of the game (as you should) then it is possible to adjust your play and counter it. Whether or not the player will scout (or refuses to do it because "it is not fun") doesn't matter at all, since all that is actually relevant is that a viable way of counterplay exists.

 

With CVs identifying the play is easy, just look at the scoreboard or the minimap. The counter is also viable, widely available and easy to do.

If the counter to cheese was unfun (sending the 6th probe to scout isn't so bad, but let's assume it was), then it would be a huge problem. Not for balance, but for the game in general: Players would leave the game.

 

I know that, because I have played such a game: Ferion. It was a brilliant idea of a game - a tick based, Master of Orion inspired PvP game - but the combat mechanics in a large empire were so bad that the game couldn't be played properly. Your entire combat fleet could be killed in a single tick, so you absolutely needed scouting. This was achieved by enormous hordes of cheap, expendable picket ships, and the scouting / counter-scouting / counter-counter-scouting / counter-counter-counter-scouting / etc. was an endless and unfun grind fest. It was certainly "realistic" (a large empire needed hundreds of tiny scouts, slightly larger ships to protect the scouts and hunt enemy scouts ("DDs"), yet larger ships ("CAs")/small fleets to engage the protectors... all the way up to your main line of massive "battleships"), but that aspect of it was not fun. I will even give it that this aspect of the game contained the possibilities of some very deep strategy, but even that didn't rescue it when it was just too tiresome to play properly.

 

Fun is your end product. Balance is but one of the tools of achieving fun.

 

I joined a good clan to play in tournaments in WoWS, but having a look at how tournies are played, I lost interest. It was Ranked on stereoids: Static smoke play. Not my idea of fun.

10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

What you're talking about is not equality, it is in fact the very opposite of it because with a clear role distribution, and with them inherent strengths and weaknesses, someone is going to end up with the short stick in terms of game influence, yet because that class covers the weaknesses of others or provides utility that no other class has it becomes important to have it in a line-up. For example it is perfectly viable to complete a dungeon with only healers and tanks, DDs are technically speaking not needed at all, but because you don't need a mass of healers/tanks and DDs speed up the process significantly DDs become viable despite their non-importance.

So yeah, CVs do conform to your dream of "equality" (which, again, is not equality at all) according to the games you've named as guidelines, whether you like/acknowledge it or not.

I have explained what I mean by "equal influence" - if you don't think I'm using terminology properly that's fine, but you know what I mean now. Don't keep attacking a straw man.

 

Imagine a PvP team game with two classes: scouts and gunners. Scouts have no guns, but gunners are blind unless scouts give them vision. A lineup of 100% scouts vs 100% gunners, the gunners could theoretically win by just shooting randomly, but it would take more or less forever - you need both classes for the team to work. In a normal game, it would be GG when one of the classes are wiped out from one side.

 

This fits my idea of "equal influence", provided one more thing: that skill can be applied to be more successful in your job; and that this increase in skill is equal between the classes for a similar amount of experience. If it turns out that scouts would just drift aimlessly around and scout passively with little room for improvement while being a good gunner was very hard, it would not be equal influence. If gunnery was a simple "point and click" while scouting required very difficult timing, positioning etc. it would also not be equal influence. I want both sides to require a similar amount of training to go from 50% WR to 60% WR.

 

Now; this game may still not necessarily be fun to play. So, perhaps, the devs would give the scouts some kind of weak gun while the gunners were given some limited vision. Now it's no longer automatic GG if one side loses all units of one type, but it becomes harder to win for that side. To me, that sounds like more fun - but it is also doesn't compromize class balance. You still would like both classes available, and the player distribution of WR would be approximately equal between the classes. If on the other hand the devs made some kind of gunner build that almost matched the scouts in scouting ability, then you'd have a situation where good gunner players could fill both roles as required, while good scout players couldn't. It would no longer be "equal influence", and you would expect the best gunner players to have a higher WR. If MM forced equal numbers of scouts and gunners on each side, you'd expect the OP class to have more very high WR players and more very low WR players (who's sin is not to play poorly, but to drag a better opponent into the game).

[gekkehenkie50]

17 minutes ago, Namolis said:

Now; this game may still not necessarily be fun to play. So, perhaps, the devs would give the scouts some kind of weak gun while the gunners were given some limited vision. Now it's no longer automatic GG if one side loses all units of one type, but it becomes harder to win for that side.

I see your point, yet I am confused as to this bit.

In WoWS, any team that does not have all the classes that the enemy team does, is at a disadvantage. If you have no BBs, the enemy team can just roffle yolo charge into cap after cap, maybe taking torpedoes, but that isnt going to stop them. If you have no DDs, but the enemy team does, you also have a problem, and mostlikely a cap disadvantage. No cruisers? Not that much AA or defensive AA, nor radar (Dont use Missery as an example, or black!).

The problem with CVs is that one of their main roles is neutralization of the enemy CV. And as you only have 1 CV, that is even more important (which is where the skill gap comes in hardest). BBs specialize at destroying everything, not just other BBs, the same goes for DDs and CA/Ls.

CVs are the only 'canibalistic' class as it were.

The only way I could see WG changing this is allowing more CVs per match, which would, theoretically, reduce the skill gap, as 1 Pro CV player vs 2 meh CV players would be quite equal (The pro CV player would have to double his multitasking to take on 2 CVs at the same time, something I have experienced at tier VII quite alot, with mixed results).

 

The problem with this is of course that once one side achieved AS, the other team might as well be screwed unless they are all des memes.

[El2aZeR]

3 minutes ago, Namolis said:

...bots

 

10 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

the fact that they're captained by bots made up for with additional numbers

 

Are you perhaps incapable of reading?

 

3 minutes ago, Namolis said:

AA in this game doesn't do splash damage. If a ship can shred 22 out of 27 planes before they drop, it will be considered mosly immune to air attacks. What if 189 planes come for it? It will not kill 154 out of 189 (which would probably still have left it sunk btw), it will kill 22 out of 189.

 

Except it will kill all 27 before they drop in the first scenario, while murdering about half of the opposing strike force in the second one, most of them before they drop. And hey, that's just one ship. Imagine what a group can do.

 

5 minutes ago, Namolis said:

So you are seriously suggesting that poor old clans would be overwhelmed by the choices if they could go for more than one cv (if nothing else than to own the skies)? That does seem like what you are saying here, no?

 

Tournaments had a starting point. I know it is hard to imagine, but back then these rules were invented to equalize the line-ups of clans and spare them the effort of trial and error.

 

7 minutes ago, Namolis said:

If the counter to cheese was unfun (sending the 6th probe to scout isn't so bad, but let's assume it was), then it would be a huge problem. Not for balance, but for the game in general: Players would leave the game.

 

Except no, they would not, because people go into SC with an entirely different mindset. Winning is all there is, there are no exp bars or credits income, so you will do whatever it takes to win. It is a competitive game in which the only inherent fun aspect is to win, with everything else being completely subjective. This is a game that is not meant to be easily accessible nor attract a big playerbase. People love it for its unforgiving and competitive nature, not because it is "so much fun to play".

That also means the higher you are in skill level, the more you can say about balance. No one cares about the scrublords who always get killed by cheeses because they either do not scout or are incapable of identifying a cheese if they do. If someone goes onto the SC forums with whines like "cheeses are op" and "it is not fun", skilled people will gladly tell you to l2p and won't miss you if you decide to leave the game.

It is the same for any other competitive game, if you are incapable or refuse to adapt to a higher playstyle, then it is your own fault, the game does not need to conform to you nor your ideas about "fun".

 

14 minutes ago, Namolis said:

I want both sides to require a similar amount of training to go from 50% WR to 60% WR.

 

As previously said, impossible to achieve since different roles have different skill floors/ceilings and require entirely different skillsets. It is perhaps somewhat, though not completely, possible with two inherently different classes, as that allows a fairly equal distribution of important roles. It is thoroughly impossible with three or more if you want each class to have its own distinctive roles, so you don't even try and instead build a balancing system in which every class is needed, regardless of their game influence. This is also usually balanced by giving roles with higher game influence a higher skill floor and skill ceiling, so giving all classes equal effort actually works AGAINST balance.

Remember, equality vs diversity, natural law and such. There is no way around it.

 

2 minutes ago, gekkehenkie50 said:

1 Pro CV player vs 2 meh CV players would be quite equal

 

Trust me when I say that this isn't true. I've had a far easier time shutting down two average AS players (with my teammate being afk) than trying to shut down a single skilled strike player.

[gekkehenkie50]

2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Trust me when I say that this isn't true. I've had a far easier time shutting down two average AS players (with my teammate being afk) than trying to shut down a single skilled strike player.

Hmm, I knew this was gonna happen

My idea of a Meh CV player is this: one who is good enough to cost you about 1/3 of your hangar capacity, but not good enough to shut you down. You know, the guy who only does head on strafes, then strafes out and runs, then comes back and tries another head on. Sure you wont lose to him, but he will cost you planes no matter what.

Now, if 2 of those guys were playing against a good CV player, who is practically alone as his teammate single squad attacks des memes the entire match with fighters, I would say it would be a rather close match. Especially if the 2 CVs had some form of communication going.

[El2aZeR]

12 minutes ago, gekkehenkie50 said:

Hmm, I knew this was gonna happen

 

The thing is that CVs do not synergize nearly as well as most people would think. You can always force parity by playing passive and denying enemy strikes, while you can scout almost equally as well as two CVs combined (you don't need to keep track of the entire enemy fleet, just on the immediate threats to your teammates). The only true advantage that is obtained is the ability to attempt a brute force strike against groups or AA ships, even that will usually fail when you add fighter cover to it.

The enemy will inevitably have to make a move if they want to gain anything over you, parity is not something they want when they're up 2vs1, yet any move they make will cost them either their ability to prosecute targets or air superiority. It's no different dealing with a single USN AS player. In fact, it is almost just as easy.

[Clawgr]

CV is like a minified RTS game 1vs1.. Not only the nations and setups are not mm balanced.. But the player skill differ so much that it usually influences the flow of the battle. The other thing is that players from cruiser/dd/bb perspective cant tell which cv is winning (and which is better) and what things they do actually help them..

Its super random and they have the potential to snowball the most of all classes. (and also countered completely out of the battle)

 

But now with those [edited] conquerors I want them every single game..

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, Clawgr said:

But now with those [edited] conquerors I want them every single game.

 

Ironically the addition of RN BBs was a significant buff to CVs, as they tend to strip any ship clean of medium/small caliber AA guns in just a few hits.

[Thracen]

Yep I still hate them and think they are totally unbalanced in most matches. I parked my freddy with a 19pt cap right on top of our baltimore, best AA ship we had. Sure the Midway lost 2/3rd of his planes, but I sank in trade. CV skill is way to diverse to be balanced in an mm that has no accounting for skil. Can we at least have a t10 AA ship in a game with t10 CVs? Honestly there was nowhere on the map where I was even remotely safe, we had 1 kutuzov and a baltimore and their AA was not enough to protect me. I can't remember ever enjoying a t10 cv game.

 

[El2aZeR]

50 minutes ago, Thracen said:

Can we at least have a t10 AA ship in a game with t10 CVs?

 

Sure, but that would entail nerfing BBs. After all CVs being this powerful is only one of the logical consequences of BB overpopulation.

[Thracen]

Powerful CVs hit dds and CCs harder than bbs. 3 CCs have the power to fend off t10 planes with AA builds, probably about 3 dds can do it too. Both the lesser classes play in front of BBs what good CV flies around cruisers and dds when they can get more important damage and closer targets for a higher strike rate. This damage is also more rewarding due to % health rewards and heal mechanics. In fact a lot of these ships would die to simply being spotted or are at least completely suppressed when spotted.

 

When I play a dd, nearly every ship is a threat, when I play a cruiser nearly every ship is a threat when someone plays a t10 CV maybe 1 ship is a threat, 1 that is easily avoided. Since cvs have the huge power in a positional game to pick engagements their needs to be at least some individual threats for real area denial. Often there is not. The other way round is no good either, 3 Des Moines and 2 minos with a few AA grozovoy and gearings thrown in would certainly not be a balanced game for a CV. We both know which scenario is more rare however.

 

The idea of balancing CVs without representing AA in the matchmaking is a joke. not even a funny one.

CV skill is too big of a factor and individual surface ships not specced and divisioned up for the specific purpose of dealing with CVs cannot tilt the scales enough to bridge a modest skill gap between cv captains. This needs to change.

[pra3y]

4 hours ago, Thracen said:

Powerful CVs hit dds and CCs harder than bbs. 3 CCs have the power to fend off t10 planes with AA builds, probably about 3 dds can do it too. Both the lesser classes play in front of BBs what good CV flies around cruisers and dds when they can get more important damage and closer targets for a higher strike rate. This damage is also more rewarding due to % health rewards and heal mechanics. In fact a lot of these ships would die to simply being spotted or are at least completely suppressed when spotted.

 

When I play a dd, nearly every ship is a threat, when I play a cruiser nearly every ship is a threat when someone plays a t10 CV maybe 1 ship is a threat, 1 that is easily avoided. Since cvs have the huge power in a positional game to pick engagements their needs to be at least some individual threats for real area denial. Often there is not. The other way round is no good either, 3 Des Moines and 2 minos with a few AA grozovoy and gearings thrown in would certainly not be a balanced game for a CV. We both know which scenario is more rare however.

 

The idea of balancing CVs without representing AA in the matchmaking is a joke. not even a funny one.

CV skill is too big of a factor and individual surface ships not specced and divisioned up for the specific purpose of dealing with CVs cannot tilt the scales enough to bridge a modest skill gap between cv captains. This needs to change.

 

I think it is a misconception that a huge amount of AA is needed to fend off tier 10 CV attacks or that tier 10 planes are invulnerable to most AA. Was watching Flamu's stream and he and teacupyuri seem to think that the new Midway is OP or something just because of the 2 TBs. But when you stop and think about it, those 2 TB squad are not tier 10 TBs but tier 8 ones and are thus more vulnerable to AA fire. Try to attack any tier 10 ship without proper planning and those planes will just get shredded. I think most CV players will not have issues with buffing the AA of CAs but it has to be balanced out with debuffing the AA of BBs instead.

 

Btw just to correct your misconception on how AA is ineffective here is me in a Fletcher against Midway planes:

Spoiler

 

If I can already shoot down 27 tier 10 planes in a tier 9 DD with defensive AA but without manual AA, how much more would an AA CA need? 

I only use AA guns mod 2 to increase my AA range and bft plus the defensive AA consumable. That's literally it. No AA guns mod 3 to buff the AA even further, no AFT, no manual AA no November Echo Setteseven flag. You only need to play smart to make use of your AA. Yesterday a single DM wiped out over 30+ of my Essex planes even though I tried to avoid it. It's because in your mind you let this fear of CV overcome you, that's why you think CVs are OP and unstoppable. For CV players who play other classes as well, its easy for us because we know that those CV planes aren't as strong as what people think and there are ways to deal with it.

 

[El2aZeR]

10 hours ago, Thracen said:

The idea of balancing CVs without representing AA in the matchmaking is a joke. not even a funny one.

 

So, get rid of BB overpopulation and all is fine in that regard, no? After all, BB overpopulation = less cruisers. Normal BB population = more cruisers.

[veslingr]

There is no t10 ship except couple of dds that is not threat to CV if speced correctly. 

 

And with just tiny bit of a team play shuting down cv is easy job. 

 

Cv kill noobs. 

[Thracen]

14 hours ago, pra3y said:

Btw just to correct your misconception on how AA is ineffective here is me in a Fletcher against Midway planes:

 

I would consider a fletcher one of the dds I mentioned as able to deal with such attacks. A very powerful AA suit, more powerful that a lot of cruisers, with defensive fire with a 4 times moderator. Throw in smoke and the small size of the ship and it's agility and it's easily one of the best AA dds in the game, 1 of the 3 or so I mentioned in my post of being able to hold their own. Of Course without smoke a cv can keep a plane out of range, spotting the fletcher and watch it get torn to shreds while the fletcher can do nothing but run for cover.

 

Anywho the misconception here was yours.

[pra3y]

9 hours ago, Thracen said:

Anywho the misconception here was yours.

 

My bad then, but it was because of this statement:

On 12/5/2017 at 8:39 AM, Thracen said:

Powerful CVs hit dds and CCs harder than bbs. 3 CCs have the power to fend off t10 planes with AA builds, probably about 3 dds can do it too.

 

I still think it demonstrates the fact that you don't need a full AA built or overwhelming AA to be sufficient in dealing with CV planes. Playing smart with a decent amount of AA is sufficient to fend off CV planes, with added bonus if you're in range of friendly AA.