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

Please help me with Aircraft Carriers

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WTFNO]
Players
26 posts
6,090 battles

I'm hoping to have a civilized discussion about current high-tier CV gameplay. I'm not suggesting anything that would be yet-another-rework - I'm sick of those. I'd just like to see some consistency other than consistent losses and salt mine MM.

I'm on a ~20 battle Essex lose-streak right now. CV mechanics seems to have become very heavily RNG-based. I don't want to have ships that are there as a nice fantasy only to make you lose interest and incentivize grinding other branches.

I don't claim to be a good CV player, (going by overall stats, I guess I'm average - save me the "git gud kid" lecture, skills an practice will only get you so far on a less-than stellar PC with the current net-code and UI fluidity). However, I get thrown into matches where (1) my strafes are extremely ineffective, from every angle, while the enemy decimates me even on head-on strafes with few planes in their squadron; (2) my planes get chewed up by outer AA auras while the enemy seems to be able to loiter above multiple targets to line up good runs. I can't go spot because even destroyer AA wrecks my planes in a matter of seconds; I can't do much damage because even average T7 battleship AA widens my drops. If this was a flash in the pan, offset by meh games or ones where it's the other way around, I'd say "screw it, grind through, wait it out" - but loss after loss after loss it's the exact same symptoms from different people. I know that (1) people play strangely when they're focusing on weird achievements and that (2) the still new Steam users are making their way up to top tiers and they're offsetting baseline competence and may be throwing the meta off, but come one!

Most of the time it feels like a combination of insane RNG disparity and a good deal of de-sync: I get pings of 30-37 ms, but enemy planes often dodge my strafes at the last second and I lose 3 planes as soon as their strafe appears to start (and I try to be tricky, but it's like they have a sixth sense or they see things a fraction of a second sooner). Visuals are jerky, even on reduced graphics (medium / DX9 / small object animations OFF). FPS drops when side-scrolling or setting up manual attack runs. (For the record, I'm running an AMD FX 8350 with 8GB DDR3 and an AMD Radeon HD 7850 - I keep my software up to date, clean and light - no bloatware utilities, no snake-oil optimizations, etc).

I seem to be doing OK with mid-tier CVs like Hiryu or Saipan, it's higher tiers that seem to be a constant pain. On my Essex, I dropped from decent matches and a ~50% win-rate to constant utter sh*tshows and a 42% win-rate. I sold my Lexington, even though I bought her permanent camo, because of pretty much the same experience, constant up-tiered MM to T10, and not wanting to have my stats and memories with her tarnished (plus I needed the captain on the Essex).

I know there are probably plenty of things I'm doing wrong, but for the last few dozen high tier games I'm getting punished ridiculously, while the enemy teams seem to get a pass. I suspect WG gathering much richer player-performance-related data than stat-tracking sites do, to then use for match-making. It would make sense. I figure it's well within the realm of possibility that seemingly equal teams are pitted against each other in fact in a way that one team has a clear situational advantage: (1) more competent players who are likely to lane with decent AA cover everywhere (2) better spotting, better charging, better surviving DDs (3) more accurate, more aware, quick-to-click-planes, competent hydro- and radar-using cruisers (4) non-campy/non-potato/non-lemming BBs.

I started using Matchmaking Monitor to figure out what the hell is going on, but I don't mean to sound like a stat-whore. In fact if anything, MM seems to have tilted scales based on much more than the superficial stats gauged by tracking sites: below-average players charging better, benefiting from reduced damage, have better AA RNG while even our average or above average players do nothing but camp and disperse from the spawn and then are force to play defensive. Just to be clear, this would be par for the course if I'd see this randomly, every now and then, on any ship, but I get this almost constantly in CV, to the point where running in a division doesn't seem to balance anything either. It doesn't matter where I spot, it doesn't matter who I protect, it doesn't matter who I bomb, it's most often like an uphill battle while our team's just there for target practice.

Could we PLEASE have lesser RNG variance for CVs??? At least for those that have lost their different loadouts. It used to be the case that you were at the mercy of MM due to the choice of loadout you made before hitting "BATTLE", but now you're at the mercy of MM setting you up for an "R"NG roast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Moderator
1,444 posts
10,011 battles

You should have started facing this on t8 already. I mean most of cruisers do have DF + some dds take it on tiers IX;X. Losing streak of 20 means that you have to carry harder. Its hard to say what you could do, should do if I do not check some replay first or something like that.


If you want, send me replay and ill give ye discord to come. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,241 posts
15,368 battles

I agree that cv's can get hard , when fighting heavy AA, or a DIV of 3 with Minotaur/Des Moines , Midway ect. 

 

You don't have to go for high damage numbers .. just play objectively. Spotting  , Resetting.

 

Problem with essex is , its more a damage oriented CV, while not having good map control. Midway does both well atleast...

 

 IJN  should be defensive/opportunistic with their smaller layouts and Squads. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
26 posts
6,090 battles
5 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

You should have started facing this on t8 already.


Nowhere have I said that I didn't. But I played most T8 CV games before the "year of the carrier" :( I'll see what I can do about getting you those replays, but 2-3 of them show me just giving up or raging like a lunatic :( Appreciate the interest, though, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Moderator
1,444 posts
10,011 battles
Just now, Lt_Lazlow said:


Nowhere have I said that I didn't. But I played most T8 CV games before the "year of the carrier" :( I'll see what I can do about getting you those replays, but 2-3 of them show me just giving up or raging like a lunatic :( Appreciate the interest, though, thanks!

 

Its not important what you say, but it is important if that writing is interrupting you to move squadrons. Enemy can punish that.

I shitalk too, when I have time ( when squadrons restock etc. :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
26 posts
6,090 battles
12 minutes ago, Ysterpyp said:

I agree that cv's can get hard , when fighting heavy AA, or a DIV of 3 with Minotaur/Des Moines , Midway ect. 


Dude, I'm not even talking about those. I'm getting my birds chewed up by Colorados and any DD with Defensive Fire and while the enemy loses 3 torp planes out of 12 when striking high tier BBs with mostly intact AA suites. Often times even our top tier cruisers seem like they can't be arsed to click a squadron within their reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
758 posts
3,296 battles
36 minutes ago, Lt_Lazlow said:

I'm on a ~20 battle Essex lose-streak right now. CV mechanics seems to have become very heavily RNG-based.

Okay, let me get some things straight. I have a rather average carrier record, so how you take what I say is none of my concern.What I want to point out here is that you have started a CV grind with the first nation being the USN CVs. This isnt a bad thing as at Tiers 4-6 (Though Im a Japanese CV player) Japanese Carriers arent very "impressive" so to say, and USN CVs are much easier to play. But from Tier 8 Lexington onwards, USN CVs get the strongest bombs in the game may it be HE or AP, they are still 1000pnds, much heavier than that of Japanese Bombers. CV play as far as Im concerned, has on two points, where RNG is based, and that is the DoT effects and Damage. Dive Bombers are KNOWN to be VERY RNG dependant, and this is true for the USN CVs as once they make a transition (On Lexi as Ive noticed while playing) from 500 pnds to 1000 pnds, they feel VERY Inaccurate, now this is ofcourse compensated for by the INSANE Damage numbers once you hit. Provided IF you hit :Smile_trollface:. But the inaccuracy is just a downfall of the Strong Bombs. But The ONLY RNG Factor I can see with CVs is theyre Bombers (USN) And speaking from a Japanese CV players point of view, USN DBs are indeed WAY TOO Inaccurate (atleast for me) IJN DBs are a tad more accurate and this is most probably, due to the smaller squads and smaller Bombs. TBs arent RNG dependant as their Torp spread is fixed (Unless panicked), Fighters well, depends on Tier.

11 minutes ago, Lt_Lazlow said:

Dude, I'm not even talking about those. I'm getting my birds chewed up by Colorados and any DD with Defensive Fire and while the enemy loses 3 torp planes out of 12 when striking high tier BBs with mostly intact AA suites. Often times even our top tier cruisers seem like the can't be arsed to click a squadron within their reach.

Colorados who have a US Cruiser or heck even an IJN Cruiser with them, and DDs received a significant buff to their DFAA Making the damage 4x more on DD AA rather than 2x like the usual DFAA.

47 minutes ago, Lt_Lazlow said:

I seem to be doing OK with mid-tier CVs like Hiryu or Saipan, it's higher tiers that seem to be a constant pain. On my Essex, I dropped from decent matches and a ~50% win-rate to constant utter sh*tshows and a 42% win-rate. I sold my Lexington, even though I bought her permanent camo, because of pretty much the same experience, constant up-tiered MM to T10, and not wanting to have my stats and memories with her tarnished (plus I needed the captain on the Essex)

Sounds sad, but unfortunately very true, But once you get Shoukaku, Fully Upgraded, shes VERY versatile, even Hiryuu that 222 build....:cap_fainting: So much better (Atleast for me cause again, im an IJN CV main). And also, NO RNG DEPENDANT DBs!!! :cap_money:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
26 posts
6,090 battles
1 hour ago, aidenthedestroyer said:

But The ONLY RNG Factor I can see with CVs is theyre Bombers (USN)


May I suggest you watch this video: 

 



I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Your comments about the general meta along the tiers would be helpful for anyone reading this, who is just starting to play them. However I'm not exactly new to CVs.Ysterpyp's remark about Essex' play-style offers me more help, as I sometimes seem to be struggling with finer points about tactics, rather than general strategy.

To be clear: I'm trying to take into account any reply that suggests a shift in my overall play-style with the ship, because I'm aware it could be, (and until recently I thought it IS true) that any and all problems and failures are my fault. But that view is gradually coming into question, as my average damage, planes shot down and XP earned are steadily rising while my win-rate is constantly, dismally dipping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAM]
Alpha Tester
2,453 posts
7,292 battles

Honestly, the best you can do is post here your replays so we can point out what you may be doing wrong when playing Essex. After you do that we can start giving you some meaningful tips about how to play carriers at high tiers.

 

Go play some Essex matches, give your best shot and post here the ones you found problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
626 posts
2,055 battles

I don't think personally you will ever improve on your skill level now, this is the major issue with CVs at the moment and why so many threads end up on the forums about them, a very good CV player will have well over 70% WR due to the fact they have the knack or gift of playing CVs and also they can division up with very good players in some cases.

 

I give you Kudos for at least having a go at CVs but the skill gaps are huge between players and until WG fix this I fully expect to see more CV threads on the forums.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAM]
Alpha Tester
2,453 posts
7,292 battles
27 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

I don't think personally you will ever improve on your skill level now, this is the major issue with CVs at the moment and why so many threads end up on the forums about them, a very good CV player will have well over 70% WR due to the fact they have the knack or gift of playing CVs and also they can division up with very good players in some cases.

 

Meh, I sucked big time when I started playing CV, did it late (4 months after the start of OBT) and my first choice was USN out of spite toward the bunch of CV sealclubbers that were rampant back then.

 

I'm now an unicum CV player despite playing solo most times. The key is simply knowing all the stuff that WG refuses to make evident about AA and having patience to learn from your mistakes while identifying why they happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
626 posts
2,055 battles
1 minute ago, OVanBruce said:

 

Meh, I sucked big time when I started playing CV, did it late (4 months after the start of OBT) and my first choice was USN out of spite toward the bunch of CV sealclubbers that were rampant back then.

 

I'm now an unicum CV player despite playing solo most times.

 

Some people can I'm glad you did but judging by the low percentage of CV players that isn't always the case a lot of the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAM]
Alpha Tester
2,453 posts
7,292 battles
Just now, MacFergus said:

 

Some people can I'm glad you did but judging by the low percentage of CV players that isn't always the case a lot of the times.

WG has done nothing to teach players about how CVs work, the gameplay at first glance is boring and uninteresting, and people usually give up after they have their planes repeatedly wiped out by AA (because no one taught then about AA barrage and which ships to avoid) or an enemy CV (nobody taught then about strafing, fighter positioning or fighter duels).

 

It's all just a gigantic mess of missinformation and lazyness from WG. The thought of WG dumbing down to oblivion CV gameplay with their "carrier rework" instead of adressing their [edited]up makes me shiver...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
758 posts
3,296 battles
3 hours ago, Lt_Lazlow said:


May I suggest you watch this video: 

 



I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Your comments about the general meta along the tiers would be helpful for anyone reading this, who is just starting to play them. However I'm not exactly new to CVs.Ysterpyp's remark about Essex' play-style offers me more help, as I sometimes seem to be struggling with finer points about tactics, rather than general strategy.

To be clear: I'm trying to take into account any reply that suggests a shift in my overall play-style with the ship, because I'm aware it could be, (and until recently I thought it IS true) that any and all problems and failures are my fault. But that view is gradually coming into question, as my average damage, planes shot down and XP earned are steadily rising while my win-rate is constantly, dismally dipping.

NEVER, post an IChase video related to CVs.... NEVER!! He isnt youre go to guy for anything CV related.... And I know well that Fighters DO NOT depend on RNG, as it is youre always srafing and each squad has a fixed HP Pool and damage output, WoWs unlike WoT, doesnt put RNG Everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
26 posts
6,090 battles

ಠ_ಠ Well that just sounds like all kinds of wrong.

First of all, just 'cause he's not THE best (or even what you'd call a "great") CV player doesn't mean he can't test and illustrate a point. Which he did. But feel free to list people you consider the go-to guys for CV related stuff.

Secondly, you can see it in the video, I've experienced it, other people have experienced and (a google search will show you that) it's been talked about: fighters are absolutely subject to RNG, no question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,869 posts
14,215 battles
5 hours ago, Lt_Lazlow said:

May I suggest you watch this video

 

Nothing in that video is particularly surprising and demonstrates perfectly that iChase has literally no idea what he's talking about when it comes to CV play.

To understand why you need to understand how AA works on a fundamental basis.

Contrary to popular belief AA isn't completely reliant on RNG. AA is a rising chance over time, derived from the average lifetime one of your planes has in an AA bubble (which in turn is fighter health calculated against AA dps in some way). The chance rises per tick (every 140ms), so every 140ms you have a chance of shooting down a plane, which again rises every tick that passes but tops out at 90%. Depending on whether you lose a plane early or late you squad also receives a survivability buff or nerf respectively.

And ofc the same applies to fighter combat.

 

Then there appear to be hidden mechanics in fighter combat as well. Keep in mind that there is nothing official that proves what I'm saying in this section. Everything is derived from my own experience in CV play.

There seems to be some kind of interception bonus when you catch an enemy fighter on the move or during a strafe. If both of the fighters engage head on, the outcome is subject to RNG. However if you get caught moving, from behind or from the side, in my experience you're almost guaranteed to lose that fight unless your fighters had enough time to complete their turn when told to engage. Likewise strafing will cause your squad to lose all dps for quite some time immediately after, getting caught while strafing is usually a death sentence for your fighters unless they've shot down enough enemy fighters to diminish their dps.

 

As for general CV play, first of all it'd be helpful if you give us the captain skills and upgrades you've taken just so we can confirm you haven't gone wrong anywhere in this aspect.

Then comes the choice between AP and HE bombs. To cut things short, with Essex you should take HE bombs as they do pretty much the same damage as AP bombs to most BBs in your MM spread while offering far more utility. As you only have a single T8 TB squad you need your DBs to pick up the slack.

 

Next is target selection. To make things simple, always go for DDs first. Keep in mind though which DDs can or cannot mount DFAA and either bait their DFAA first or ignore them until later. Unless RNG really hates you you should be able to kill a DD with a single combined TB + DB attack. Even crippling a DD however does wonders for you in the long run as you've diminished his capability to fight your own DDs, thus diminished the capability of the entire enemy team to contest caps.

(Not to mention it earns you the most income as the reward for damage is percentage based, as in you get far more credits and exp dealing 5k damage to a DD than you'd get dealing 10k damage to a high tier BB)

 

As for air control, your fighters are NOT an offensive tool. Your fighters are there to defend your team, not to escort your bombers in. If you really need your fighters to keep the enemy busy to strike a target, forget about that target. Attack only targets which present themselves to you on a silver platter, but also prioritize which targets to take out based on the benefit to your team. If your potential target is a BB with high AA, see if he hasn't been HE spammed into oblivion already. AA mounts are easily destroyed by HE shells, especially RN BB ones which can strip an entire ship clean of mid & short range AA in only a few hits. NEVER attack anything escorted by an AA cruiser unless you're absolutely sure he doesn't run DFAA. Even then it's a hazardous endeavor at best.

 

In fighter combat, avoid strafing unless you're absolutely sure you're gonna score. Take your time to observe your enemy. See if he actually knows how to strafe or not (many don't) then act accordingly. Keep in mind the things I've written above, there is no need to strafe when you can win an engagement with simple clicking. Strafing presents a risk, one you should be wary of taking unless your enemy is a complete potato.

 

I'm gonna cut things off here but as @Boris_MNE has already said, it's best if you give us some replays so we can directly address things you're potentially doing wrong.

 

3 hours ago, MacFergus said:

a very good CV player will have well over 70% WR due to the fact they have the knack or gift of playing CVs and also they can division up with very good players in some cases

 

Because clearly we were this good from the get go. We haven't totally spent time and effort to get to where we are now. What you're writing is nothing short of an insult.

But as someone who doesn't want to put in any time nor effort to get good at something it's hardly surprising to see something as pathetic as this coming from you. It's always easier to say "oh, he has natural talent" rather than "he has worked hard" to justify your own laziness and incompetence, isn't it?

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
26 posts
6,090 battles

The point of the video wasn't what he says or what he speculates on, per se. Rather what it shows, to demonstrate how fighters are indeed subject to RNG - because @aidenthedestroyer flat out denied it completely in the previous reply.

I've known about a lot of things you said, and ...

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

...observe your enemy. See if he actually knows how to strafe or not (many don't)...

... I'd like to remind you that I was talking about T9, so I just assume they do.

Please don't turn this into a flame war. The "knack or gift" remark might not've been the most inspired description on their part, but I'd like to keep the discussion on point and off personal sensibilities.

Thanks for your thoughts and advice, you've very been helpful.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,869 posts
14,215 battles
3 minutes ago, Lt_Lazlow said:

... I'd like to remind you that I was talking about T9, so I just assume they do.

 

Nah, even in high tiers many don't even know how to manual drop, let alone strafe.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,869 posts
14,215 battles
17 minutes ago, Lt_Lazlow said:

Oh and...

 

Hm, looks fine. I'd forgo both HA and ERG and instead take AFT as your own AA can be quite useful sometimes but tbh as long as you have

- Aircraft Servicing Expert

- Dogfighting Expert

- Torpedo Acceleration

- Torpedo Armament Expertise

- Air Supremacy

the rest can be up to personal preference.

(Although on Essex the argument can be made to replace TAE with e.g. BFT as you only have a single TB squad and not many in reserve either. I'd still recommend it however as USN service times are godawful.)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
26 posts
6,090 battles

I know what you mean, however:
- AFT only helps against aircraft, HA helps against the odd fire set by enemy guns too. I mitigate a snipe attempt with DFAA and maneuvering.
- True about TAE for all basic USN carriers except I also use this captain on the Saipan and the benefit it offers there, I figure, outweigh the benefits of BFT in the current CV meta.

P.S.
> sets out to get some "cursed RNG" replays
> first battle is a 4-kill win

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[O-P-C]
Players
392 posts
8,579 battles

you have allot of  HE DBs ,go with demolition expert ,and adv. firing training. you dont need high alert and expert rear gunner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,869 posts
14,215 battles
48 minutes ago, repsrb said:

demolition expert

 

Tbh with the USN 1000lb HE bombs I've never experienced a strike in which I haven't gotten a fire (unless ofc the target was already on fire). Demolition Expert seems like a waste of points imo.

  • 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.

×