• You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.

196 posts in this topic

Air Craft Carriers are the seriously ignored class of Ships in the game.
These are the reasons Why

1- In lower tiers its playable, but as one advances , the insane AA makes it impossible for CV players to maintain interest in the game.
2- Every now and then Buffs are coming for different ships except for CVs
3- New ships/lines being introduced are having such insane AA. Others have Defensive AA.
4- Every Player has the ability to increase his captain skills to Be able to increase his AA DPM by basic , advance and Manual skills, yet CV doesnt get any Captain skills for improvement of Squaderent health and endurance.
5- BBs and cruisers who are AA specked are already untouchable, add to that new DDs like KIDD and Grozovoi and US DDs Defensive AA, so CV can actually have no impact in the start of the game.
6- CV does spotting, Defends allies and also at times harldy manages to strike on enemy despite all defensive AA and enemy CV AA planes and at the end the Reward for CV is the worst in all the ship types.

7- New changes to DDs AA is further Humiliation to CVs.

Either CVs need to be buffed or AA needs to be nerfed with good rewards at the end
If wargaming keeps the same trend , one day people will say, remember when there used to be CVs in the game??


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If CVs are so weak and totaly useless - how do you explain you do way better in them then in your other classes?

 

Now, on your points. A lot of what you say is about AA. Many people dont spec for AA, especially in the recent days. Also, you imply, that everyone in the enemy team knows how to handle the threat from CVs, focusing planes, grouping up etc. This is never the case. In addition, we live in a HE-spam-Meta. This disables AA-modules at HUGE numbers. If anything, AA-modules need to be way more resistant to beeing disabled and not nerfed even more. One thing I do agree on: Making DDs and BBs AA-monsters is wrong. We need ti give Cruisers more abilities to do their job. In my perfect world, Cruisers would have even longer range AA, but weaker on the long range. Short range AA that makes them untouchable for a CV (shot in that sense ~4km, longrange talking ~8km here. This would reward: the need of good positioning from Cruisers, BBs and DDs. Cruiser could cover BBs and DDs but not with insane DPS. Only 2 or 3 cruisers, positioned right, could create no-fly-zones. This would be the job on the surfaceships to break into that defense.


2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Player skill and +-2 MM and the 1v1 aspects of CVs make them TERRIBLE to balance. 2 cv players can determine the outcome for 22 others, this is rough for those 22. Top tier CVs are kings, bottom tier they are paupers, paupers that can still delete ships under the right circumstances. A skilled player can have 80% win rates in a CV an unskilled player can get below 30%. There need to be large changes made to CVs. A huge power buff is not the answer.


2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What aircraft carriers? I thought they are already extinct.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HMCite said:

1- In lower tiers its playable, but as one advances , the insane AA makes it impossible for CV players to maintain interest in the game.

 

That only includes mediocre CV players. Good CV players are doing fine. Bad players also play Hightier CV they just dont seem to give a f***.

 

12 minutes ago, HMCite said:

3- New ships/lines being introduced are having such insane AA. Others have Defensive AA.

 

Because of the high skill ceiling with CVs u cant count or your own CV to help u with AA...

 

12 minutes ago, HMCite said:

4- Every Player has the ability to increase his captain skills to Be able to increase his AA DPM by basic , advance and Manual skills, yet CV doesnt get any Captain skills for improvement of Squaderent health and endurance.

 

Well, if by your logic there CVs arent played that much, why would everyone spec 100% for AA? :cap_hmm: Its not like i have 100 cptn points and can skill everything. Certain skills are MANDATORY for each ship, if i want to increase my AA, i need to lose something else. Also look at the modules from CVs compared to other ships. CV Modules benefit u 100% of the time, AA modules doesnt.

 

12 minutes ago, HMCite said:

5- BBs and cruisers who are AA specked are already untouchable, add to that new DDs like KIDD and Grozovoi and US DDs Defensive AA, so CV can actually have no impact in the start of the game.

 

The impact is too high already, I mean do u see your own stats??? 145 (66 hightier) Solo CV games last 90 days and 80% WR :Smile_popcorn:

 

12 minutes ago, HMCite said:

6- CV does spotting, Defends allies and also at times harldy manages to strike on enemy despite all defensive AA and enemy CV AA planes and at the end the Reward for CV is the worst in all the ship types.

 

They are outdamaging and killing any other ships on most tiers, especially hightiers. Only thing which comes close damage wise are RN BBs, and they arent right either imo.

 

12 minutes ago, HMCite said:

Either CVs need to be buffed or AA needs to be nerfed with good rewards at the end
If wargaming keeps the same trend , one day people will say, remember when there used to be CVs in the game??

 

CVs dont need buffs, they need to have less skill ceiling. Good RTS players have a field day with them. Also MM needs to go to +/-1 especially for CVs, but i would like to see it in general.

Good CVs have a too high impact as it is. If u buff them more then we soon see 100% WR CV players...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd like to see the end of CV's entirely, they are simply too dominant.

It's a total lottery if you get a decent CV or an utter potato, with a potato the game is decided before it even starts if the enemy CV is any good.

As mentioned with many people now spamming HE losing much if not all of a ships AA power is a serious chance and that leaves you defenseless.

I like playing DD's and cruisers, but even an incompetent CV player makes the games miserable.

 

It's been pointed out you have an 80% win rate in CV's and you're calling for your opposition to be even more vulnerable for you to pwn them with no opposition, frankly that looks like sour grapes that you can't get to 90%+.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Thracen said:

A skilled player can have 80% win rates in a CV an unskilled player can get below 30%. 

 

So like other ships?
Because newflash, the people who have 80% WR in CVs tend to have 70-80% WR with their other ships as well.


All you're proving by saying that is that unicums win more than players less good than they are.


4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Exocet6951 said:

 

So like other ships?
Because newflash, the people who have 80% WR in CVs tend to have 70-80% WR with their other ships as well.

 

But well he doesnt? Last 90 days for him solo:

52/62/65% with the 3 classes but 80% with CVs...

 

Or u wanna deny that CVs have a much higher Influence on the game than the other classes can ever have? That arguement is utter [edited], because ive looked at so many Good CV players profiles, and they all have 10-20% better WR than the other ships. Even the best Players in other ships cant compete with the WR of best CV players. Look the stats yourself.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got deleted by Enterprise AP bombs 5 mins into a game from about full HP in Bismarck after a Lion shot away my AA in 2 salvo's.

In fun and engaging terms CV's ruin games, they have no counter if their driver knows how to play at all well.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

In fun and engaging terms CV's ruin games, they have no counter if their driver knows how to play at all well.

 

Correction: CVs ruin you if YOU don't know how to play. Well, or your team doesn't. Either way you deserve to lose a large chunk of your HP or outright die.

In basic terms there is only one thing that need asking in terms of CV vs surface ship balance: Can a small group of capital ships OR a single dedicated AA platform deny air strikes 100% of the time?

That is obviously the case in the current form of the game. It also means that whenever a CV is able to strike you with good effect you're out of position, thus it is your own fault.

 

Not that I agree with OP (in fact, there are plenty of things that are outright wrong in his opening post), but the entire notion that "I SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE A CHANCE AGAINST AN AIRSTRIKE NO MATTER HOW OUT OF POSITION I AM!!!!" is nothing short of utterly idiotic.

Also "fun and engaging" doesn't necessarily mean that YOU should always have fun. In PvP games fun inevitably comes at the expense of someone else's game experience. In your case, I bet the CV was having a great fun and engaging experience deleting you.


6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

Just got deleted by Enterprise AP bombs 5 mins into a game from about full HP in Bismarck after a Lion shot away my AA in 2 salvo's.

In fun and engaging terms CV's ruin games, they have no counter if their driver knows how to play at all well.

Carriers don't really bother me - there's loada of things that buff your own AA, float fighters, your own CV, simply turning to avoid/mitigate torps, staying near allies with decent AA, and having allies nearby that have defensive fire.

 

The only time this becomes a problem is if you are horribly out of position.

 

Conversely losing 2/3 of your health to a double citadel even when actively dodging because RNG says FU (try the Ibuki if you would like to experience this for yourself) is far more game ruining


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a colossal newbie, so don't have much experience of facing CVs (there aren't many of them at the tiers I usually play); however, when I have been scragged by aircraft, it's usually been a flashing warning light that I messed up my positioning (yet again).

Would I be correct that the way to deal with CVs is to fight as a team, such that the things with good AA cover those without, and those ships not bristling with AA have the task of shooting at anything that might shred the AA ships? If that is the case, shouldn't we approve of something that 'encourages' team play, rather than everyone dashing off and doing their own thing (that's what PvE is for?)?

 

I'm probably missing something though...?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

I'm a colossal newbie, so don't have much experience of facing CVs (there aren't many of them at the tiers I usually play); however, when I have been scragged by aircraft, it's usually been a flashing warning light that I messed up my positioning (yet again).

Would I be correct that the way to deal with CVs is to fight as a team, such that the things with good AA cover those without, and those ships not bristling with AA have the task of shooting at anything that might shred the AA ships? If that is the case, shouldn't we approve of something that 'encourages' team play, rather than everyone dashing off and doing their own thing (that's what PvE is for?)?

 

I'm probably missing something though...?

 

Yes, as long as 2-3 ships overlap their AA bubbles it becomes nigh impossible for a CV player to nuke you.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Exocet6951 said:

the people who have 80% WR in CVs tend to have 70-80% WR with their other ships as well.

 

But then those players tend to division with very good CV players when they aren't playing CV themselves.

 

If you look at their solo stats they can still do 70% - 80% in a CV, but in their other ships the drop down to 60% give or take.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

"I SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE A CHANCE AGAINST AN AIRSTRIKE NO MATTER HOW OUT OF POSITION I AM!!!!"

 

Many ppl think rather like

"I SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE A CHANCE WIN AGAINST AN AIRSTRIKE NO MATTER HOW OUT OF POSITION I AM!!!!"

which is, ofc, as silly as the view of some CV Players

"I SHOULD ALWAYS BE ABLE TO STRIKE ANY SHIP ON THE MAP NO MATTER WHAT!!!!"

 

Antiair could really be the one thing to make Teamplay a must, forcing it down the guts of the players and in contrast punsihing the players not participating. In other Games you got this also. I always like to refer to MMORPGs. Imagine a cleric only healing himself, not the tank - whole party dead soon. Goes for any class not doing their job. And when some ppl argue "wows-players are too stupid" - then how does it work in other games? When you constantly get deleted first in the round, not beeing able to do anything, you WILL ultimatly learn and adapt - or just stop playing. Both is fine by me. Unfortunatly, WG seems to have different ideas. BB must be Jack-of-all-Trades, Cruisers are second in everything to them and since DDs really cant rely on support from their teammates, they have to have awesome AA now too.


5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fairly obvious that CVs have more match influence than other ships otherwise there would be the same soft limit of 5 not a hard limit of 1 or 2, they would also be in clan wars.

 

I think at the moment it's silly to ask people to sit in other ships defensive AA bubbles when you have no idea how much AA range they have or what AA output they have or if they even have defensive fire up or not. Also most matches I have been in tend to have a very limited number of AA ships, if any. These ships are not balanced across teams either. They also tend to be cruisers, the most fragile ships and most targeted ships.

 

Furthermore I don't understand how I am meant to sit in the same place as a Yamato in my Des moines? The yamato has massively more effective range, and much more survivability but any ship would shoot the Des moines first over the Yamato, so here I am trying to protect my BB from air attack and I am tanking fire from every other ship for my BB? This scenario would not last long, Hahaha.

As for vise versa, I don't see  yamy doing well shooting over islands like I need to in my DM. 

 

Can someone explain to me how this would work?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

CVs dont need buffs, they need to have less skill ceiling. Good RTS players have a field day with them. Also MM needs to go to +/-1 especially for CVs, but i would like to see it in general.

Good CVs have a too high impact as it is. If u buff them more then we soon see 100% WR CV players...

 

I'd argue the problem isn't the skill ceiling, it's the skill floor. Having a very high skill ceiling is a good thing in terms of design, it's about separating great players from the good ones rather than every remotely competent player from performing the same. The problem with carriers is the skill floor, namely the incredible amount of stuff carriers have to do, check, monitor and calculate to even perform at the bare minimum level. In effect, carriers are currently incredibly hard to learn how to play, but there's effectively no difference between mastering them and learning them, while ideally they want to reverse that into "easy to learn, hard to master".

 

To be honest, half of the current issues with CVs' stratospheric skill floor is down to the terrible interface that is both inflexible and uninformative. A decent interface goes a long way to improving that learning curve without actually affecting the performance of those that have mastered the gameplay.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expecting every player to know the possible ranges and values of allied AA ships is a little much considering the variation caused by modules, skills, upgrades and of course the damage reducing those values. Not to mention if they have defensive fire or if they will even pop it for your benefit and not their own if they do.

Until there is maybe a mini map or display option that shows you where you are safe from CVs and where you are not this sort of defensive tactic is not practical for random matches. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thracen said:

Expecting every player to know the possible ranges and values of allied AA ships is a little much

 

Are you for real?

Even if you don't, you do realize you can just ask in chat? If your teammate fails to respond then that's a disadvantage in team communication you just have to live with.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeauNidl3 said:

Just got deleted by Enterprise AP bombs 5 mins into a game from about full HP in Bismarck after a Lion shot away my AA in 2 salvo's.

In fun and engaging terms CV's ruin games, they have no counter if their driver knows how to play at all well.

 

Isn't part of the problem the broken HE of the RN BBs?

No other ship strips away so many AA mounts or secondary guns as RN BBs. :cap_old: stupid ******* ships

 

OT: I agree with point 7 though, buffing the Def AA multiplicator on DDs is just stupid. Panicking the planes (and maybe small dps buff like 1.5x or 2x) is sufficient in my opinion.

 

Also love how they buffed the DDs' Def AA multiplicator just when the Kidd was released :cap_hmm::cap_old:


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

 

I'd argue the problem isn't the skill ceiling, it's the skill floor. Having a very high skill ceiling is a good thing in terms of design, it's about separating great players from the good ones rather than every remotely competent player from performing the same. The problem with carriers is the skill floor, namely the incredible amount of stuff carriers have to do, check, monitor and calculate to even perform at the bare minimum level. In effect, carriers are currently incredibly hard to learn how to play, but there's effectively no difference between mastering them and learning them, while ideally they want to reverse that into "easy to learn, hard to master".

 

To be honest, half of the current issues with CVs' stratospheric skill floor is down to the terrible interface that is both inflexible and uninformative. A decent interface goes a long way to improving that learning curve without actually affecting the performance of those that have mastered the gameplay.

 

The problem is both. Put simply great CV players have far too much influence on the game result and incompetent CV players have far too detrimental an effect. Add in the extent to which a CV's effectiveness is dependent on MM and you have a class with far too variable a level of performance. The best thing WG could do for carriers would be to decrease the gap between the skill floor and skill ceiling, lower the carrying potential and to work out a way to balance CVs around a +1/-1 MM.

 

I have no problem with CVs being the objectively strongest class in the game, the reality of history kind of requires it, but for the class to have such a huge range of effectiveness, ranging from hold my beer solo carrying to worse than useless, depending on the MM and the player is frankly bad for everyone.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Thracen said:

Expecting every player to know the possible ranges and values of allied AA ships is a little much considering the variation caused by modules, skills, upgrades and of course the damage reducing those values. Not to mention if they have defensive fire or if they will even pop it for your benefit and not their own if they do.

 

Players of other classes have to remember many more different ranges - torpedo, secondary, own and enemy surface detection (especially crucial for DD-Players) and now also smokedetection. What other range do CV-Players need to remember then AA?

 

About the defensiv-AA : If the CV player could see, if its active or not - that would take away a cruical part of that consumable.

 

10 minutes ago, lup3s said:

Also love how they buffed the DDs' Def AA multiplicator just when the Kidd was released :cap_hmm::cap_old:

 

 

65ce7b03301046d4098fb74c5a526e491a020ef7020f204b1f6e8222a6e4efb6.jpg


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dare you to meet me in Saipan, Kaga, Enterprise .. Or actualyl pretty much any CV ingame. Ill make you cry so much you not gonna know the difference between UP and OP anymore.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rvfharrier said:

 

The problem is both. Put simply great CV players have far too much influence on the game result and incompetent CV players have far too detrimental an effect. Add in the extent to which a CV's effectiveness is dependent on MM and you have a class with far too variable a level of performance. The best thing WG could do for carriers would be to decrease the gap between the skill floor and skill ceiling, lower the carrying potential and to work out a way to balance CVs around a +1/-1 MM.

 

I have no problem with CVs being the objectively strongest class in the game, the reality of history kind of requires it, but for the class to have such a huge range of effectiveness, ranging from hold my beer solo carrying to worse than useless, depending on the MM and the player is frankly bad for everyone.

 

The way I see it, there isn't a gap between the skill floor and the skill ceiling currently, they are basically one and the same. The gap you see is between those that are currently scrabbling around in the basement under the skill floor and those walking upon it. Lowering the skill floor through an improved interface would make games far closer as it would mean that more carrier players would be above said skill floor, so all but the most extreme potatoes can function somewhat with carriers rather than simply crashing and burning. Don't cut down the top ranked carriers, but use interface improvements to make them more accessible. Currently, carrier gameplay is basically all about fighting the interface and sometimes having a bit of indirect interaction with other players, rather than the interface facilitating good interaction with the other players.

 

In terms of CV balance as to how powerful they should be, WG have really shot themselves in the foot with the poor optimisations that force the hard caps on carriers. Due to the hard caps, in order for the class to matter at all they have to be incredibly strong, as otherwise they have zero effect on gameplay. This obviously causes some players to fly into a frothing rage how a single ship (or pair of ships in lower tiers) can have so much power and influence, rather than looking at the overall class instead of the precise numbers of ships (I can guarantee that in an average high tier game, those 6 BBs per side have more influence than the carriers). In a dream world, WG would fix the net code, nerf carriers a bit if necessary while removing the hard cap and let carriers become as numerous as the other classes, nobody would complain about a trio of carriers having as much influence as a 3-4 battleships unless they are just braindead CV haters; half of the current issues with carriers, balance and matchmaking is because of their rarity and limits as far as I can see.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, rvfharrier said:

Put simply great CV players have far too much influence on the game result and incompetent CV players have far too detrimental an effect. Add in the extent to which a CV's effectiveness is dependent on MM and you have a class with far too variable a level of performance. The best thing WG could do for carriers would be to decrease the gap between the skill floor and skill ceiling, lower the carrying potential and to work out a way to balance CVs around a +1/-1 MM.

 

The man is right. Also, there have been many nice ideas from different people here in the forum, how to rebalance CV-Class and make it more fun for everyone. And, in before ppl from both sides will jump down my throat: Rebalance doesnt mean buff and it doenst mean nerf. It simply what the word is - rebalance. make it different.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.