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

I'm very frustrated with the US CV rework

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,401 posts
3,785 battles

My issues isn't how the rework was done. My issue is the fact it happened now.

 

Why? If there is a huge general CV rework coming, why try to fix the US CVs right now? They have been trash for ages (namely since early 2016 - that's nearly 2 full years!) and suddenly WG decides to give them a do-over while a general complete CV rework is scheduled for 2018? What does that mean?

 

It means WG will either gradually throw patches on all their CV issues, crappy half-solutions like this US CV rework

OR

worse yet, it means the general CV rework is so far in the future that they saw it necessary to fix the close-to-useless US CVs so they might exist in this game as anything but troll-ships.

 

One might consider the idea that WG just wants to do a quick and easy fix for the US CVs until the rework comes and it doesn't mean the rework is far in the future... my response to this is: Be real. WG has forsaken CVs for years. They barely fix bugs, they didn't improve the UI, they fucked up the gameplay and they overbuffed AA to the point of complete ridiculousness. Does anyone really think they suddenly do a small US CV rework to please the non-existent player-base for these ships for a few months until the big CV rework? Don't make me laugh.

 

Now the rework itself: I hate it, most of it at least. I... I will just make a list.

  • No more options, one loadout for all - yes kill all player choice before it even starts, also huge disadvantage if enemy CV knows exactly what you're playing before the battle starts.
  • Low tier planes (essex fighter/tb, midway TB) - I understand the need to balance the rather strong 2/2/2 loadout, but this isn't the way. Low tier planes should not exist, period. In fact, the whole plane tier system is rubbish and should be abolished right away anyway. It causes CVs to be nearly untouchable if high-tier and absolutely garbage if low-tier. It would be much better if the planes durability would scale directly with the battle tier and not some arbitrary stat depending on the ship. Getting a bigger ship with more reserves, faster planes (not more durable planes) and new loadouts was always the fun part about advancing in the CV tree. Durability NEVER got better from tier to tier because AA got better too. In fact, T4/5 have by far the best durability in relative terms and T8/9/10 suffer insanely under the overbuffed AA.
  • DB-focus - as long as DBs are this random and poorly designed I don't want to use them, they are unsatisfying to play with and very annoying to deal with as the bombed ship too. Torpedoes have great outplay potential on both sides but DBs are just "click and let RNG decide", just like the old fighter duels.
  • "Unsmart" design - you know what never bothered a midway player? Losing planes. The insane reserves of this ship even made players kill their planes on purpose before the "losing squad penalty" was introduced. So giving them T8 TBs is actually a pretty bad way to balance it.

 

Though, here is what I like:

  • AP bombs - yay at least one choice to make... though it's probably going to be one of those "A is strictly better than B" pseudo-choices
  • Focus on bombers instead of fighters - screw the idea of air superiority, bombers are what connects CVs to other ship classes. Fighter-heavy CV meta means CVs fight their own little battle while the rest of the game is pretty much unaffected. That's boring as hell. Might as well make a "World of Aircraft Carriers" without BBs/CAs/DDs if you focus on fighter setups. So uhm, good job on NOT doing that.

 

It's not really like I trust WG when it comes to game design anyway, but if this is a taste of what is to come for the CV rework in 2020, then ugh... please no.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,941 posts
10,642 battles

I think WG said there is no fix time period for the CV rework. So there is no huge single CV rework but rather they'll make changes here and there. So this USN CV change is actually part of the rework.

 

I think the benefit of the single loadout is at least it is more balanced for USN CVs in performing their role, especially at higher tier. Getting rid of that tier 9 and 10 USN AS CV loadout is great. I mean imagine coming across some guy with an AS loadout in a division with 2 minos or 2 dm or a combi. You'll be in for so much pain. That single loadout will probably benefit US CV players as a whole since they won't be forced into 2 extreme ends of a CV role. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,979 posts
15,694 battles

Regarding loadouts, technically speaking there is no choice when it comes to other CVs either. Starting T7/8 you either play strike or you go home. Taking away choices is actually a good thing, it prevents potatoes from choosing a loadout which is significantly inferior to others. Not to mention it is way easier to balance.

 

As for lower tier TBs, you have to understand Midway and Essex have a potential alpha strike of more than 140k with their AP DBs (assuming they're using the teased high tier AP bombs). Giving them corresponding tier TBs as well would make them extremely overpowered.

Low tier fighters give Taiho players ways to outplay an Essex while remaining inferior in terms of raw power. As such air superiority comes down mostly to player skill, so it's actually fairly balanced this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles

While I generally don't like the idea of the rework, I disagree on the point of low tier planes intrinsically being a problem or a bad design. Low tier planes give good gameplay variety as they offer the swarming solution to allow oversized carriers with large flight wings to function even into the middle tiers, while giving a carrier overtiered planes like the Saipan allows CVLs to function even into the higher tiers without the massive plane reserves.

 

However, I do see the point that the standard USN CVs shouldn't have undertiered planes. They aren't oversized carriers for their tiers with unreasonably large flight wings that would necessitate undertiered planes. Now, if they wanted to implement a 1920s large carrier design at T6 with a hangar capacity of 80ish, I could see the clear need to give it undertiered planes to compensate and make it the zerg rusher of carriers, but there's no USN carriers that are out of line currently. For the Midway in particular, it's the only CV that uses the top tier USN planes, so if they are simply too survivable then they can nerf them without hitting the Essex.

 

With the current minimalist approach, I can see the reasoning why a more strike focused design could be more interesting, but I'd rather see things go the other way and make the skies more important for all ships and not just carriers. Things like letting carriers assign spotters to allied ships to provide range increases, making seaplanes more impactful (which would also be a good indirect nerf to the Missouri due to her lack of seaplanes) and stuff like that to give more ships ways of interacting meaningfully with the skies.

 

I would like to see plane reserves become more relevant though, I dislike how carriers at high tiers have almost infinite planes. It makes gameplay very stale as foiling a strike improves survival but doesn't really impact the carriers plane reserves, I much prefer the limited reserves of T5-6 with carriers as every single squadron matters and it is not unreasonable for a carrier to run out of planes before achieving a great deal if the enemy team is competent.

 

Other things I agree with. WG should be trying to introduce real choice (and not an obvious A>B "choice") and depth into the game, rather than stripping it out. If the choices available aren't balanced, then the there's balance work to be done rather than choices to be removed - using that logic we might as well have just removed the USN carriers when they lost their 2nd TB squadrons to prevent players from falling into the "trap". The whole point of choice and balance should be that there are no bad options, simply bad decisions. DBs need some serious work doing to make them interesting, although hopefully the introduction of AP bombs will help with that - on that note is it confirmed that AP bombs are a choice made in port or are we still holding onto the hope that we might be able to switch bomb type mid-game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,785 battles
8 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Regarding loadouts, technically speaking there is no choice when it comes to other CVs either. Starting T7/8 you either play strike or you go home. Taking away choices is actually a good thing, it prevents potatoes from choosing a loadout which is significantly inferior to others. Not to mention it is way easier to balance.

 

As for lower tier TBs, you have to understand Midway and Essex have a potential alpha strike of more than 140k with their AP DBs (assuming they're using the teased high tier AP bombs). Giving them corresponding tier TBs as well would make them extremely overpowered.

Low tier fighters give Taiho players ways to outplay an Essex while remaining inferior in terms of raw power. As such air superiority comes down mostly to player skill, so it's actually fairly balanced this way.

I would really appreciate it if people on these forums would stop assuming things like that. If I ask for "no low tier planes" I'm not saying "give me high tier planes and don't nerf anything so it becomes OP" - im saying "no low tier planes, find another way to balance it, one that makes sense and actually improves gameplay".

 

The deal with low tier planes is that they are just more extreme. Against an undamaged AA ship they cannot do anything at all and against a burned out ship with already bad AA they will absolutely obliterate it.

 

Essentially what you fear will be reality if this goes live like that. Imagine you're in a 70.000/97.000 HP BB with serious damage to AA guns (~70% of mid tier is knocked out) and you find yourself at the edge of a group of ships for just a minute while you're turning and suddenly you get 14 AP bombers and 12 torpedo bombers your way. You're done.

 

At the same time the same planes will still evaporate the second a Des Moines so much as glances at them.

 

And this extreme difference is what makes CVs this broken mess - either played by an average player who gets punished insanely hard for his mistakes. Or played by a really good CV player who simply doesn't do a big mistake and simply obliterates everything.

 

The loadout thing is still this: No Choice < Bad Choice < Good Choice. The balance thing is true, but if WG seriously can't balance several loadouts for merely 2 CVs per tier... then why do they even bother? It proves their ability to design and implement CVs is not sufficient.

 

The Essex vs, Taiho thing is also more of a pathetic attempt of WG to just copy the ship. A 2/3/2 Taiho has extreme torpedo bomber potential, while the Essex will have high dive bomber potential. But since it's AP bombs it's essentially the same thing. 2x5 T9 fighters vs. 2x7 T8 fighters should balance out more or less. So they just made the ships really really similar. That is really boring.

 

There is a million ways to make CVs more interesting, more fun and maintain balance - not just that, but also provide a system that is easier to balance. Part of the issue with CVs right now is that balancing them is really hard - and that's because of the very inflexible way they are implemented. You have US with a fix 6 planes per squad, IJN with 4. You have pre-set loadouts. You have just 3 plane types. The plane types are very imbalanced to each other. It's a huge mess and that's why they struggle to balance it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
214 posts
10,656 battles

Fully agree with the disapproval of T9 / 10 CVs getting T8 planes. It's just ridiculous to even imagine that. Also. Why the hate against air superiority? I get that it is frustrating to play against an AS deck US CV but that's one of their core roles: to provide air cover for the fleet. Didn't WG increase the xp payout for killing planes in the recent past to encourage CV players to be more team-centric in playing and covering their surface fleet mates? This latest idea of a single loadout across the deck for all US CVs goes against this entire logic, to say nothing about how unfair it is for IJN CVs to still get the choice between going strike loadout or air superiority loadout. 

 

AA has been way overbuffed IMHO because players understandably don't want to feel the frustration of getting deleted by a super unicum or even decently good CV captain when they can't even spot or shoot back at the physical CVs in the first place. Perhaps a better idea would be to connect health points for a CV to its hangar size? That way a CV that has lost its whole hangar to enemy fighters or AA fighter wouldn't still stay alive in the game even though they're next to useless and deny the enemy team totally justifiable points to be gained from wiping out the enemy aircraft contingent. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
214 posts
10,656 battles
33 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Regarding loadouts, technically speaking there is no choice when it comes to other CVs either. Starting T7/8 you either play strike or you go home. Taking away choices is actually a good thing, it prevents potatoes from choosing a loadout which is significantly inferior to others. Not to mention it is way easier to balance.

 

As for lower tier TBs, you have to understand Midway and Essex have a potential alpha strike of more than 140k with their AP DBs (assuming they're using the teased high tier AP bombs). Giving them corresponding tier TBs as well would make them extremely overpowered.

Low tier fighters give Taiho players ways to outplay an Essex while remaining inferior in terms of raw power. As such air superiority comes down mostly to player skill, so it's actually fairly balanced this way.

This attitude is so wrong. Going full strike in a CV just shows you have zero teamwork mentality. You are just out to farm damage and xp for yourself and you think playing CVs is just a simple damage race game between yourself and the enemy CV. 

 

I can't begin to tell you how much more useful fighters are to the overall team than full waves of torp bombers and DBs. All capable of being shot down by massed AA fire. Not always landing all on target. Whilst leaving your own fleet exposed. Yes you may say that this is how you encourage teamwork by getting surface ships to stay together, but unless they are all within 5km of each other all the time all that massed AA is not going to matter as much as you think to the ships at the edge of the collective blob.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,713 posts
8,716 battles

The US CV rebalance was planned since far back. It was one of the only parts they actually had nailed down well enough to announce early.

No reason not to go through with it even if they end up going over everything again eventually.

It's going to take a long time to get a full rework. Too long to just leave everything as is in the meantime.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,785 battles

Okay here is the deal with Air Superiority and the AA debate:

 

Air Superiority

The gameplay sucks. If AS is the way to go (aka optimal playstyle) it means CVs just shoot each others fighters down. They have no interaction with the rest of the players. They might as well get their own game, as I said above. Secondly, it's not fun. It's an underdeveloped boring part of the game. Shooting ships, choosing HE or AP, considering their armor, their ship class, their angle, where to aim... that's very good gameplay, because you have many valid choices and there is a lot of ways to deal with a lot of situations.

Fighter engagements are either RNG rightclicking or strafe until someone screws up (or more realistically gets screwed by the laggy shitty interface). What gameplay is that please?

 

Bombers, especially torpedo bombers on the other hand are much better. You need to consider angle, turning circle, rudder shift, speed and predict these things for the ship, while the ship has to outsmart you. But that's just the drop. Before that you have to select targets smartly. Where are the enemy fighters (and this is the only valid reason there even is fighters), where are the cruisers, do the cruisers have good AA/consumable? Is the target within AA range of other ships?

 

AA debate

Basically WG said "yo, we want it so that AA actually shoots down planes before they drop torpedoes/bombs" - and that's it. There is actually no other reason AA is this strong right now other than that. People feel like AA is useless because it doesn't "reduce the amount of damage they take" if it's weaker. But this is false. CVs will just be balanced for the fact that they lose X planes when attacking. Whether I hit with all 14 dive bombers for 30.000 damage or if 7 get shot down but the other 7 also deal 30.000 damage because they got buffed to compensate for the AA doesn't matter. Only when AA starts getting destroyed this is relevant. And this sucks as a mechanic. Mainly because of the +100% durability module (alternatives are pretty meh) and the fact that you definitely do not want to target a damaged ship because of wasting your strike power.

 

Worse yet, making damaged ships especially juicy targets just frustrates the players further. Because who will hate CVs more? The 50% BB who is in the heat of battle and just gets "godfingered" out of the game or the 100% sniping BB who drops to 30% and can repair? Still worse - who SHOULD get targeted? The brawler or the sniper? Yeah guess what, the game promotes killing the brawler. (Part of the issue is also that CAs are so squishy so they have to hide with the snipers and inadvertently keep them safe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,785 battles
15 minutes ago, TheIdesOfMarch93 said:

This attitude is so wrong. Going full strike in a CV just shows you have zero teamwork mentality. You are just out to farm damage and xp for yourself and you think playing CVs is just a simple damage race game between yourself and the enemy CV. 

 

I can't begin to tell you how much more useful fighters are to the overall team than full waves of torp bombers and DBs. All capable of being shot down by massed AA fire. Not always landing all on target. Whilst leaving your own fleet exposed. Yes you may say that this is how you encourage teamwork by getting surface ships to stay together, but unless they are all within 5km of each other all the time all that massed AA is not going to matter as much as you think to the ships at the edge of the collective blob.  

While I applaud your will to be a teamplayer, you need to consider this: What wins games?

 

If you suck as a CV player you are better of with fighters, because they are easy to use and you put the power into your teammates by keeping them alive longer. However, if you are good at CVs you are much better off increasing your own power by having a lot of bombers.

 

That's the plain theory, but the math is also heavily in favor of strike setups. God I actually need to make this my signature because I'm getting really tired of explaining why air superiority LOSES games:

Extreme case: Pure fighters vs. pure bombers. If you do your job perfectly the enemy CV does 0 damage, you do 0 too. In this case you will probably spot more, improving your chance of winning SLIGHTLY over the enemy team. However, if the enemy CV just gets one strike off during the entirety of the game, he will have considerable damage contribution and due to the bursty-ness of CV attacks probably taken out a target, while all you provide is spotting.

 

I can't count the games I won by killing 1-2 DDs while the enemy CV prevented most of my other attacks afterwards and then merely spotted my DDs. Yeah... my DDs died... eventually, but his DDs were long dead by that point.

 

I'm not saying your mentality is wrong, I'm just saying it's a bad idea to play air superiority if you want to win. The only exceptions are clan battles with all unicums because you will never deal enough damage with strike against AS to justify the spotting you lose (since unicums use spotting 10x better than random players and they are also 10x better at avoiding damage from a CV).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,519 posts
6,992 battles

AS was a stupid setup in so many way and I'm very glad it will disappear. It happens way too late, but at least it will happens.

 

AS doesn't win games. You don't need 2 or 3 fighters to get the air superiority and cover your fleet. The main job of a CV was never to cover its fleet, it was to be one step ahead so that the bombers can't even initiate the attacks. And it was to SPOT. 

I just can't stress it enoughh, a CV job is above all else, to SPOT and to prevent the enemy CV from spotting. That goes beyond anything else. A good CV spots DDs, a good CV strikes DDs, a good CV will keep the whole enemy team under his watch. Destroying planes is secondary if you do that.

 

And yet so many AS CV never ever understood this, and only wasted their fighters on the enemy CV fighters, or just camped their planes over their team. Yeah, you protect your team against strike. But you won't protect your DD in the frontline that way.

 

This setup was one of the reason USN CV server stats were this screwed : most player wasted their time using the AS setup "because it's easy", and have the impression they're doing good while they destroyed 30 planes... 28 of which were fighters.

 

 

I don't know what to think about the "lower tiered planes" honestly. I think only testing will shows us this. Tier 9-10 CV have the module to increase attackers HP so that probably would helps a lot, like on Enterprise.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,979 posts
15,694 battles
1 hour ago, TheIdesOfMarch93 said:

This attitude is so wrong. Going full strike in a CV just shows you have zero teamwork mentality.

 

Whether you have fighters or not depends on the CV you are playing, not on the loadout. Which is why IJN CVs are currently far superior than USN ones, as they can fulfill ALL roles of CV play.

On the ones you have to choose you play the loadout that has the maximum strike potential as any other is utterly worthless. USN AS is by far the easiest loadout to outplay, balanced just slightly less so. Fighters are crucial, but on the other hand only having the ability to contest air superiority with no strike ability to back it up is utterly worthless unless the match itself is played out at a higher level.

Besides, all three USN loadouts only work if the enemy CV is stupid, so picking strike to maximize your game influence is only logical.

 

1 hour ago, Syrchalis said:

The loadout thing is still this: No Choice < Bad Choice < Good Choice.

 

I strongly disagree. Giving players only bad choices is far worse than having "only" one viable basis to work with.

Making CVs more diverse and giving them more choices would make them far too complex to play for an arcade game. The current fundamentals are mostly fine, all it needs is thorough refinement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,299 posts
1,085 battles

boo1AaJ.png?1

For me it is just cutting out most toxic elements as a quick fix. From the interviews and Q&A we can assume that WG simply put did not give any resources before to manage CVs properly. Right now they openly talk how CVs are broken and unplayable and that they have few prototypes running on their dev servers. Clearly only recently they started actually working on the class.

What I see here is what we should have seen about 2 years ago when IJN also lost all their strike/full fighter setups. It is a quick fix that was delayed for a ridiculous ammount time and as such I will not hold it to a huge "rework USN" standard. American CVs still need work, but considering they mentioned need to rework AAA and Spotting, doing much more with this nation right now would be wasting resources. This move has two big benefit in my eyes:

  • It says to CV playerbase that they started doing something.
  • It cleans the current balance so they can have a bit more reliable live server data for research.

I do agree it is a bit rougher in some tiers, but all things considered I think it is fine. They first have to deal with real problems before revitalizing USN completely, but this change here... they needed to clean that up, at least slightly. Does it also tell players that WG openly ignored CVs and treated them like thrash for almost two years? Yes. Does that change the fact that this fix is a good sign? No, this is small step in the right direction and let's appriciate it for just that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,401 posts
3,785 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

I strongly disagree. Giving players only bad choices is far worse than having "only" one viable basis to work with.

Making CVs more diverse and giving them more choices would make them far too complex to play for an arcade game. The current fundamentals are mostly fine, all it needs is thorough refinement.

I think you didn't understand what I said. A bad choice isn't a choice with only bad options. A bad choice is a choice with only one good option, meaning that it isn't actually a choice but a mere calculation with a definite correct answer. A good choice is one with many valid options.

 

I also extremely disagree with your sentiment that it would make it too complex. Captain perks are far more diverse and complex than 1-3 loadout options for CV. Not sure what game you're playing but if you consider that as "too complex" then the whole armor/penetration system of the other ships is about 100x more complex and shouldn't be in the game either.

 

And no the fundamentals are terrible. WG designed themselves into a corner with the 6 / 4 plane squads. It makes it disgustingly hard to balance loadouts and that's why US loadouts have sucked so badly for ... well since the game existed.

 

For example Langley and Bogue are horrible to balance because there is simply no options for their loadouts. 1/1/0 and 1/1/1 are the only options WG has BECAUSE of the 6-plane squads that US has. IJN is much easier to balance (that's why they have better CVs and have got a rather acceptable update long ago) - because 4 plane squads allows for a lot more fine-tuning. A loadout too strong? Replace 1 fighter with 1 DB, replace 1 TB with 1 fighter etc. If you try to do that on US CVs that will completely make or break them.

 

Okay example time:

Hiryu

There is a ton of options for it's loadouts. What would be other options than in the game? You could do a 1/2/3 loadout, a 3/2/1 (if Hiryu needed a buff), 2/1/3 etc.

 

Ranger

What possible loadouts can you do with it? 2/1/1 was even too strong on Lexington... no idea why though. 1/2/1 - nope, double TB banned by WG. 1/1/2? Yeah that's coming with the rework, because it's the only really valid option here.

 

What I'm saying is that the less squads you have and the bigger the squads the less options the developers have to design loadouts.

 

Worse yet, you can't even make squads smaller, because Hakuryu already has 8 squads which is annoying as hell (and exhausting too) to control. There is just no way to make this system work - at least not from a designing/tuning perspective. What would need to happen would be that all plane types are relatively balanced and the players can choose their loadout.

 

I mean, let's be real. Everyone would go with a fighter/tb heavy loadout right now - but that's just because DBs are so horrifyingly useless. Fighters would need to play a bigger role in spotting (aka spotting would need to be harder and rely more on CVs in general) and DBs would need to be MUCH more reliable and provide much more damage. Or TBs would need a massive nerf in effectiveness. Either way, you feel gimped because WG chooses your planes and on top of that they are making it hard for themselves to balance CVs with it. It's just a lose-lose mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,979 posts
15,694 battles
2 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

A good choice is one with many valid options.

 

Then we will quite possibly never have good choices in CV play, no matter how you change the loadouts or even if you were allowed to pick your own (which in itself is a horrible idea). The very nature of the requirements CV play and random battles impose on them prevent that. CVs have clearly defined roles and the ship you're captaining needs to be able to fulfill them without compromises, with an emphasis placed on strike ability. There will always be that one loadout most suited for it.

 

2 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

I also extremely disagree with your sentiment that it would make it too complex.

 

Captain skills are far from complex, there is a core build of skills for every ship that it needs to be effective at what it's doing while the remaining points can be spent as the player sees fit. Deviate from that and you automatically create what would be inferior to a counterpart with "the right skills". There are barely any choices to be made here.

Also captain skills technically speaking have no potential detriment, your ship will either get stronger or not change at all. Sure, it'll be inferior to contemporaries if you chose the "wrong" skills but the fundamental basis remains the same.

You'll never interact with armor penetration mechanics, these calculations can be as complex as you want to make them to be because the player will never consciously face them.

 

Having to choose a loadout on the other hand always has the potential of making you weaker if you pick the wrong one. Let's pick your example:

 

2 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

Hiryu

There is a ton of options for it's loadouts. What would be other options than in the game? You could do a 1/2/3 loadout, a 3/2/1 (if Hiryu needed a buff), 2/1/3 etc.

 

Why would you ever want to play these proposed loadouts? 3/2/1 is the only potentially viable of the three and even that pales in the face of the versatility 2/2/2 provides. You'll never need three fighters while the DoT your additional DB can potentially stack and scouting potential will be sorely missed. On paper a 2/2/2 Hiryu will outplay, outscout and/or outdamage you, a Saipan will toy with you and you will still crush a Ranger or a Kaga. Nothing has changed. There are no options here, 2/2/2 is the best one for randoms period and will remain so unless you create a straight up more powerful one (such as 2/3/2 for example).

As such the same thing you have said about the Ranger also applies to the Hiryu. There is only one loadout option that will be viable unless a straight up more powerful one comes along, therefore taking away any choice is more than fine.

 

Squad sizes are debatable and (imo) no longer count as fundamental design principles of CV play. The fundamental idea of USN being better at air control than IJN CVs in itself can be adjusted not only through squad sizes or plane characteristics, but also reserve allocation as Enterprise has proven. Having flights of 6/4 is not and should not be set in stone.

Haku would not be nearly as difficult to control if the UI worked right. Giving USN CVs smaller flights and more squads is well within acceptable limits once you fix and improve it.

Giving CV players the option to build their own loadouts can only end in disaster. If you impose limits on the other hand then why even bother with giving players the illusion of a choice that has only one viable answer anyway, with every other choice severely limiting the usefulness of your ship? It's a lot better to fix the very basis of their play into a place you know works and let player interaction, not potential mistakes made in port, define the outcome.

 

2 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

Fighters would need to play a bigger role in spotting

 

Fighters that spend their time spotting are wasted if you aren't covering your team at the same time, you haven't already secured airspace (at which point fighters become superfluous) or have more of them than you will ever need (and have probably sacrificed your strike potential to get them, aka made yourself worthless). This will never change. That's fine imo as it gives bombers a role outside of their damage potential, with a small historical precedent as a bonus.

 

2 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

DBs would need to be MUCH more reliable and provide much more damage

 

Bomb alpha on one side, fires on the other. Only thing that really needs to be done is to provide them with a skill based drop option that will guarantee hits when done right but also provide options to evade for the target (simple solution: the earlier you click, the more accurate the drop). The damage potential is already there as anyone who has gotten lucky at least once with the 1000lb bombs will tell you, not to mention that it will skyrocket with AP bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

I recently bought the Enterprise and I really enjoy her.

 

AS Decks that have low strike power are plain bad yeah but fighters are a pretty important part of CV play. I don't think it's a bad thing to prioritise defending your fleet over killing enemy boats PROVIDING you are able to sink the enemy whether that be by alpha or DoT. 

 

The USN changes are interesting, will have to see how 1 fighter does until Midway as you'll never dominate the sky but you should be able to bully your way into striking enemy ships. 

 

Also Enterprise AP bombs are accurate vs their intended targets. Hopefully the tech tree CVs will mirror that.

 

Can't help but think Kaga and Enterprise were paid for customer testing on plane tier variations. GZ seems so bad that WG should just refund everyone or make her a Shokaku clone 2/2/2 with AP bombs and DWT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,508 posts
11,466 battles
4 hours ago, Syrchalis said:

AA debate

Basically WG said "yo, we want it so that AA actually shoots down planes before they drop torpedoes/bombs" - and that's it. There is actually no other reason AA is this strong right now other than that. People feel like AA is useless because it doesn't "reduce the amount of damage they take" if it's weaker. But this is false. CVs will just be balanced for the fact that they lose X planes when attacking. Whether I hit with all 14 dive bombers for 30.000 damage or if 7 get shot down but the other 7 also deal 30.000 damage because they got buffed to compensate for the AA doesn't matter. Only when AA starts getting destroyed this is relevant. And this sucks as a mechanic. Mainly because of the +100% durability module (alternatives are pretty meh) and the fact that you definitely do not want to target a damaged ship because of wasting your strike power.

 

Worse yet, making damaged ships especially juicy targets just frustrates the players further. Because who will hate CVs more? The 50% BB who is in the heat of battle and just gets "godfingered" out of the game or the 100% sniping BB who drops to 30% and can repair? Still worse - who SHOULD get targeted? The brawler or the sniper? Yeah guess what, the game promotes killing the brawler. (Part of the issue is also that CAs are so squishy so they have to hide with the snipers and inadvertently keep them safe).

You touch here on what I consider the biggest problem with AA right now... or rather: PART of the biggest problem. The whole problem is: AA is too inconsistent. And it has several aspects:

1. It's purely RNG-based. This might not be that important when there's a lot of AA, but for DDs with decent AA - sometimes the enemy plane just evaporates instantly and sometimes a squadron circles you and circles, and circles... and your AA seems to be about as effective as Yamamoto's fireworks.

2. It gets destroyed. This became a problem especially with recent rise in high caliber HE spam that just obliterates AA. A ship whose strong point is the AA is down to almost nothing after 2 Conqueror salvoes that connected well.

3. It is EXTREMELY affected by your build. Minotaur is an AA monster - but unless built for AA, he's very vulnerable to a strike from a CV a tier lower due to lack of AA consumable. But built for AA? Planes evaporate instantly when he looks at them (well, clicks on them with his manual AA).

 

Most AA modules and skills should be thrown in the trash or take a huge nerfhammer blow - they should be there to give a slight boost, NOT to decide whether a ship has strong AA or not. Instead the AA of ships supposed to be strong in this department should be balanced around the idea that they should be very dangerous to things flying even with little to no investments - monster AA is monster AA even if you don't build everything you can to enchance it. Although in general AA should be weaker... BUT less vulnerable to damage - imagine if knocked out AA guns were actually put on CD after which (or immediately with DCP used) they would return to service with half their normal DPM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,519 posts
6,992 battles
7 hours ago, eliastion said:

3. It is EXTREMELY affected by your build. Minotaur is an AA monster - but unless built for AA, he's very vulnerable to a strike from a CV a tier lower due to lack of AA consumable. But built for AA? Planes evaporate instantly when he looks at them (well, clicks on them with his manual AA).

 

Most AA modules and skills should be thrown in the trash or take a huge nerfhammer blow - they should be there to give a slight boost, NOT to decide whether a ship has strong AA or not. Instead the AA of ships supposed to be strong in this department should be balanced around the idea that they should be very dangerous to things flying even with little to no investments - monster AA is monster AA even if you don't build everything you can to enchance it. Although in general AA should be weaker... BUT less vulnerable to damage - imagine if knocked out AA guns were actually put on CD after which (or immediately with DCP used) they would return to service with half their normal DPM.

I totally agree with this.

The investment in points and module at the cost of everything else makes AA too powerful while the ship was average or meh at best, and the shipsbecomes almost useless in everything else.

That's bad design. There should be some AA-monster ships, and the other should at best be able to get some plane down after or even a bit before the drop so that CVs can't attack without any risks but don't get their planes utterly destroyed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×