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

ST Midway huge hangar capacity nerf criticised

196 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[UNICS]
Beta Tester
11 posts
4,590 battles

WoWS Dev Blog, today:

Quote

American aircraft carrier Midway had her hangar limited to 96 planes instead of 136. The ship performed about equally to Hakuryu in shorter battles, but in longer ones the Japanese rival often had issues because of Midway's larger hangar.

 

I am going to argue here that this nerf is absolutely going in the wrong direction.

 

So firstly, let's take a look at the current situation of Tier X CVs, and how Midway fits in. Currently we have a meta where AA strength at Tier X is still considerable because base AA values are high, but it still can be seen as a "low AA meta" - almost no one builds full AA for random battles because CVs are quite rare, "Def AA suffices". Also, AA ranges are comparatively high, so there is no ability of a CV to strike into a blob of ships without losing most of the plane waves.

The current Midway has a large enough hangar that it can regularly force drops through on ships, not being worried too much that it will be losing too many, and is therefore able to play very aggressively on the back of its hangar. Still, I would say that this and the resulting damage numbers (the 130k average for the top CV emblem is a very realistic ballpark figure for a good CV player (look at wows-numbers)) are very acceptable in the current version of the ship. There is no real need to nerf the Midway's strike capability in the current state.

 

On top of this, another effect becomes prominent for balancing: How would the current Midway fare in a "high AA meta", e.g. multiple AA build ships on the enemy team? "Luckily", sometimes one comes across unicum divisions of 3 with 2 AA ships (AA Minotaur, Desmo, Montana, Gearing, ...) + 1 Midway in randoms, so one can get a glimpse of that. With full AA builds, AA strength at tier X is locally more than double that of the current meta. This means that the smoked up AA cruiser practically shoots down both the Midway's torpedo squads before they can even reach a ship to drop. I would call this balanced because it shows that people can build against CVs if they want to, but also creates the necessity that the CV is balanced in a convenience-of-use fashion such that it can survive the battle even in such cases without being deplaned halfway through. So the large hangar is absolutely necessary in these games.

 

Summarizing the preceding point: If WG wants more carriers in the game, they have to balance them to be able to cope also with a "high AA meta", as will evolve with more carriers in the game - therefore this change is the wrong way. Current Midway is overall one of the most balanced CVs in the game, and you are trying to take one of its main strengths away. What would the change lead to? Me thinking twice about dropping the Montana, but rather going even more for DDs and stomping Tier VIII BBs. This is totally not what you want.

 

On to the comparison with Hakuryu. Right now, Hak has all Tier X planes, while Midway has the Tier VIII TBs and the Tier IX fighters, while having comparable numbers of strike planes in the air. This of course implies that the Midway should have slightly more strike plane reserves because the planes are lower tier and get lost more quickly. On the other hand, Hak only has 100 planes total, which is really too few in the current meta, especially against AA (sic!). Additionally, the fighter strength of the prevalent 233 Hak against the Midway is too low in terms of squadrons.

 

So what becomes clear is that the ship needing rebalancing (buffing) is the Hakuryu (and the whole Japanese CV line). I propose buffing the Hakuryu's plane capacity to about 130 instead. This will, as mentioned by WG itself, not impact the early game much at all. However, it will make the Hakuryu more forgiving in the long run, and able to waste planes like the Midway can, so it stays competitive. Next thing a good CV player wants is competitive fighter control with the opponent. So the flight controls must be rebalanced. Current Midway has 2x7=14 fighters in the air. Considering conservation of squadron size, a competitive Hakuryu setup will need to have 3x5=15 planes up. The one more plane will be counterbalanced by the weaker strafes (optionally one may give Midway the tier X fighters back when Hakuryu is rebalanced that way). A change in strike plane number might not be necessary for Hakuryu, although one might think about taking away one dive bomber squad to nerf spotting power a bit. So the proposed setup for a Hakuryu that is balanced in the current meta would be 332 with 130 planes total (maybe add AP bombs, maybe not), and maybe removal of the 422 and 232 setups.

 

TL;DR: WG, don't destroy the good work you've done with the US CV rebalance. The capacity change is horrible. Rebalance Japanese CVs already.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
758 posts
4,290 battles

The problem is Mideay fields more planes on the field at once.

 

This means when it loses whole squads to AA wipes or “fight till the death” scenarios, it loses its reserves faster than Haku who despite having a smaller reserve, will not push it to its limits as much, and wipes will eat away piecemeal instead of whole chunks of the reserve.

 

Thus if the Mideay suffers a “wipe” or two with the new reserve size, it will quickly run dry. While the same can be said about Haku with its smaller reserve, it has faster T10 planes, and more squads reducing chance of “critical failure”, which in a 1-1 reserve size is more preferable to Midway anyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEROZ]
Players
581 posts
5,834 battles
2 minutes ago, ThisIsAReroll said:

No Carriers in games? Better nerf Carriers! - WG

 

 

Balance. Not nerf. Read the statement, midway was too good in long games. You think it was too good against ships, or hakuryu? Because I can clearly read Hakuryu.  Also if you think that having one ship OP will fix problem then You clearly dont know how good gameplay works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,637 posts
13,063 battles
5 minutes ago, Oderisson said:

Because I can clearly read Hakuryu.

 

Please read what Karma stated above. Hakuryu actually has better sustain unless you're incompetent.

Anyone who actually plays both Midway and Haku should know this.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEROZ]
Players
581 posts
5,834 battles
14 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Please read what Karma stated above. Hakuryu actually has better sustain unless you're incompetent.

Anyone who actually plays both Midway and Haku should know this.

I can read. I just disagree.

 

Midway had +40% overall planes despite ONLY torp bombers having -15% health. So much for sustain.

Midway torp damage is better +10%.

Midway has AP bombs (over 10k), also He bombs are much better. Midway HE is 8000, Haku He is 4800. Midway can delete ships.

 

This is balancing. I dont need to play both, if I can do basic math.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FDUSH]
Players
1,043 posts
6,154 battles

I use AS Hakuryu as it's the only way I can find to have a minimal chance against Midways (and even worse, in tier X everybody are unicums). Sometimes I deplete the 50 fighters despite being very careful about not sending them in straight line, avoiding enemy strafes, strafing myself, fighting away from enemy AA, etc.

Even if I manage to win the fighter matches I find facing endlessly waves of enemy fighters, up to the point that the only reason to shoot them down it's to have a 1 min break between wave and wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,637 posts
13,063 battles
3 minutes ago, Oderisson said:

This is balancing. I dont need to play both, if I can do basic math.

 

- Hakuryu TBs service thrice as fast

- Hakuryu TBs are much faster thanks to being T10

- Hakuryu DBs are much more accurate, guaranteeing 3-4 fires with some minor micro

- Hakuryu DBs can be used as expendable scouts if necessary

- Hakuryu has much more flexibility thanks to having more squadrons in the air

- Hakuryu can strike exposed targets without taking horrendous losses as her strike aircraft are T10

 

Thank you for demonstrating your blatant inexperience.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEROZ]
Players
581 posts
5,834 battles
3 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

- Hakuryu TBs service thrice as fast

- Hakuryu TBs are much faster thanks to being T10

- Hakuryu DBs are much more accurate, guaranteeing 3-4 fires with some minor micro

- Hakuryu DBs can be used as expendable scouts if necessary

- Hakuryu has much more flexibility thanks to having more squadrons in the air

- Hakuryu can strike exposed targets without taking horrendous losses as her strike aircraft are T10

 

Thank you for demonstrating your blatant inexperience.

You have Your opinion i have mine.

 

None of them matters.

 

What matters are stats. And stats are saying Midway is getting its hangar reduced because it is op compared to Haku. If You think that You are specialist because You had 300 battles in tier X carriers and can rebalance them then good luck. Fortunately WG devs are smarter than You and apparently have acces to more data.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,637 posts
13,063 battles
1 minute ago, Oderisson said:

You have Your opinion i have mine.

 

Facts are now opinion.

Okay then.

 

Just now, Oderisson said:

Fortunately WG devs are smarter than You and apparently have acces to more data.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Any halfway decent CV player will tell you that WG has demonstrated nothing but incompetence when it comes to CVs. Heck, even the non-CV players will tell you that.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEROZ]
Players
581 posts
5,834 battles
2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Facts are now opinion.

Okay then.

 

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Any halfway decent CV player will tell you that WG has demonstrated nothing but incompetence when it comes to CVs. Heck, even the non-CV players will tell you that.

We both stated facts. Problem is that both of us picked ones that suited them and that makes them opinions. Either way it doesnt matter.

 

Also nobody should care what CV players think about CVs. Personally I think that players should have no saying about the ships they play. Its called conflict of interests, or being a judge in your own case. Developer has acces to stats serverwide and its their job to react.

 

Granted they may not be doing it in best way, but You clearly have no idea how tiresome proces it is. And it is getting harder. Its easy to say: We have 4 classes, balance them. We have a lot more classes with +/- 2 matchmaker and 6 nations. And being a [edited] about it is not going to help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-FF-]
Players
609 posts
5,414 battles

I'm actually happy with this nerf, seeing midway players going through a massive AA to strike (and succeed) because they didn't care about losing their planes was really annoying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,637 posts
13,063 battles
8 minutes ago, Oderisson said:

We both stated facts. Problem is that both of us picked ones that suited them and that makes them opinions.

 

Ohohohoho, one thing you forget though is that I don't need to repeat the things that you already stated. Coupled with the fact that I actually play both CVs at a high level I can accurately assess the capabilities of both, while you are extremely limited in your viewpoint. And since you are the only one who chose to only display the fact that suit your point of view, you're inherently biased.

 

11 minutes ago, Oderisson said:

Also nobody should care what CV players think about CVs.

 

Funny, considering this is precisely what got skilled CV players to their state of dominance in the first place: WG blatantly ignoring the opinions of skilled CV players. If WG had actually listened to us even once then we wouldn't be anywhere near.

 

Here's a little known fact: Next to no dev actually plays CVs and the few that do are terrible at it (if you do not believe me the stats are publicly available, go look them up yourself). Statistics do not trump experience, no game dev balances around statistics alone because it is a stupid [edited] thing to do. Statistics can easily be skewed, experience allows you to tell if they are and what it is caused by.

 

16 minutes ago, Oderisson said:

Granted they may not be doing it in best way, but You clearly have no idea how tiresome proces it is.

 

I have a pretty good overview of what game development and balancing entails (if I didn't I wouldn't hold my current occupation), thank you very much. And you know who has the last say in regards to balancing changes in any decent development team? The QA department, the people that test changes and have actual gameplay experience. The entity that seems to be completely absent from WG's development staff regarding CVs. If QA says that what you're doing is terrible and you should reconsider, ignore them at your own peril.

 

And to say that CV balance would be much better with just a few tweaks is an understatement, tweaks that CV players have been calling for for ages. To just two of them that have recently made it into the game:

USN loadout rework? Suggested first two years ago.

Making torps less visible from air? Also suggested first two years ago.

 

If anything you have demonstrated that YOU know nothing about game development. Balancing purely around statistics is a joke, making people do balance work when they know nothing about what they're balancing is beyond a joke.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EGM-B]
Beta Tester
1,153 posts
7,488 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

..........

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Any halfway decent CV apologist will tell you that WG has demonstrated nothing but incompetence when it comes to making our fav class the CVs even more OP. ............

FTFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,544 posts
9,060 battles
22 minutes ago, avenger121 said:
Quote

..........

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Any halfway decent CV apologist will tell you that WG has demonstrated nothing but incompetence when it comes to making our fav class the CVs even more OP. ............

 

FTFY.

 

As evidenced by everyone saying how moronic and overpowered triple DBs with tiny circular auto drop pattern AP bombs on previous GZ tests were, right?

Or everyone stating how ridiculously OP the Saipan is, and how the Kaga can be when tiered properly? 

 

How about instead of having a hate boner for anything with a plane, you stop and read/think about opinions other than your own?
You might notice quite a few pro-CV folk agreeing that some CVs are way too powerful, and the current system/plans does nothing but help foster a massive rift between player skill and ship builds which leads to unfair and simply unfun matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[0RCA]
Players
335 posts
7,554 battles

i play both carriers and i have to say midway nerf  is waaaay too much . -15% would have been enough.-115-120 planes.

i often run out of planes on hakuriy  and never on midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,637 posts
13,063 battles
1 hour ago, avenger121 said:

FTFY.

 

Because stating that high level CV players can recognize that the changes WG made has done nothing but increase their influence on a match despite their protests equals CV players demanding WG to make CVs more powerful.

 

Thanks for helping me win those couple of games I met you in, though. Your inability to spread out the tremendous AA defenses of your cruiser divs over two flanks was instrumental in helping me and my respective teams achieve victory. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TWA-]
Players
302 posts
9,153 battles

@El2aZeR You are correct.Just one thing.Why you wasting time and energy for discussion with CV nubs? :Smile-_tongue:

 

Cheers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster
2,866 posts
7,897 battles
14 minutes ago, MaciejoVietnam said:

@El2aZeR You are correct.Just one thing.Why you wasting time and energy for discussion with CV nubs? :Smile-_tongue:

 

Cheers 

 

So that CV newbies like me, can learn something from it! :Smile_great:

 

Greetings

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OSC]
Players
2,728 posts
10,052 battles

Another day, another WG balance change that is done by a sledgehammer instead of a screwdriver...

I could understand 10, 15, 20 planes, but 40?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
923 posts
13,965 battles

I partially agree with the sentiment of the OP.

 

WG could have increased the Hakuruy plane reserve instead of nerfing Midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,387 posts
9,577 battles

How this is going to affect gameplay?


Let me tell you, because I already know. Ill put my seal later.

 

Pro folks - will play little more careful and nothing will change much  (Ok overall less dmg but still potential to hard carry is there)

Typical CV player - gonna be without planes within 3 minutes 25 seconds.

 

That is how you are going to adress problem between good and bad people, just give CV less planes... :Smile_facepalm:

No by any means, do not return old tier X (2-1-2)  torps with 136 hangar.



WG at peak of stormbraining.... and smartness...

 

 

Now, I approve this stupidity from wargaming, because stats required balance!

 

seal.png.463210ab226131dfaf42a9e09d2f91c6.png

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LOBUZ]
[LOBUZ]
Players
4,212 posts
15,423 battles

Good. Players are waiting two years for CV rework. Now it's complete.

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,387 posts
9,577 battles
Just now, 44smok said:

Good. Players are waiting two years for CV rework. Now it's complete.



Its part of new UI.

No planes (empty hangar) to be seen much more often  :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×