Jump to content


CV Rework-- What do YOU want?

poll

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Poll: What do YOU want in the CV Rework? (77 members have cast votes)

AA adjustment

  1. Yes- readjust it (33 votes [42.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

  2. Yes- give it a flat nerf (21 votes [27.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

  3. No- leave it the way it is (23 votes [29.87%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.87%

Configuration Reworks

  1. Yes- The USN can't compete (31 votes [40.26%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 40.26%

  2. Yes- The USN AS is way to powerful (6 votes [7.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.79%

  3. Yes- USN Strike needs fighters (22 votes [28.57%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 28.57%

  4. Yes- AS in-general is too non-competitive (13 votes [16.88%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.88%

  5. No- No change (5 votes [6.49%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.49%

Defensive Fire Rework

  1. Remove Defensive Fire from ALL CVs (3 votes [3.90%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.90%

  2. Remove Defensive Fire from all CVs and DDs (7 votes [9.09%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.09%

  3. Remove Defensive Fire from ALL DDs (17 votes [22.08%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.08%

  4. Remove Defensive Fire from IJN CVs but keep it on USN Strike and Balanced to compensate for their less fighters/squads (11 votes [14.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  5. No- Keep Defensive Fire on ALL CVs (39 votes [50.65%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.65%

Manual Drops

  1. Keep all manual drops (43 votes [55.84%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 55.84%

  2. Keep all manual drops, BUT rework them so that it isn't so polarized (Manual Drop = all hits, Auto-drop = all misses) (21 votes [27.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

  3. Remove all manual drops but make auto-drops more accurate (13 votes [16.88%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.88%

Re-armament time

  1. Make Re-armament time flat for all nations (20 votes [25.97%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.97%

  2. Allow the IJN a faster re-armament time, but reduce the gap between USN and IJN re-armament times (33 votes [42.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

  3. No change (24 votes [31.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.17%

Squadron size

  1. Give all nations the same squadron sizes and re-balance planes that way (36 votes [46.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 46.75%

  2. Keep the asymmetric squadron sizes (41 votes [53.25%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 53.25%

Dive Bombers

  1. Keep Dive Bombers the same (11 votes [14.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  2. Reduce Dive Bomber dispersion (32 votes [41.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 41.56%

  3. Buff the alpha damage of Dive Bombers to compensate for their inaccuracy (15 votes [19.48%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.48%

  4. Change the way Dive Bombers bomb from one large circle to a cluster of smaller circles (19 votes [24.68%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 24.68%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

Taylor3006 #41 Posted 23 March 2017 - 03:02 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,145
  • Member since:
    07-10-2016

View PostChrisWally, on 22 March 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

If this has been said already, I apologize, for I missed it.

 

PLEASE allow some sort of escape/disengagement for fighters who either need to evade strafing runs or that run out of ammo while engaged in a dogfight.  When one fighter squadron goes skosh ammo, they just fly around dodging and hope beyond hope that the opposing squadron will also run out of ammo.  Having to sit there without any sort of possibility to disengage and make a run for it is ridiculous and leaves the squadron with no ammo simply doomed to die with no escape hatch possible.  Can we get either a Captain skill for fighters the same as the bombers (like an evasive disengagement once ammo is depleted) or a default of the same?  This would at least allow a few fighters to get back to the ship to rearm instead of being sitting ducks to eventually be shot down with no hope of escape.

 

Thank you!

 

They are addressing this in the play test server now. It allows your planes to disengage at the cost of one of them. Haven't seen it in action, kinda like the idea. 

Dominator13 #42 Posted 23 March 2017 - 04:06 PM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 7
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

What do i want

 

I want to REMOVE the stupid Air superiority configuration, and make 2 setups, strike loadout and balanced loadout.

 

Also, i want planes upgrades in each tier, its awful to go in my Hiryu with tier 6 torpedo bombers.

I want air superiority to affect torpedo bombers, because there is not justification to not affect them.

 

I want a smaller manual droping circle and also i want it to WORK when trying to target a ship in the borders of the map.

 

I want to give orders to my planes using right click, but key configuration is so messed up that dont let me play a carrier like a RTS game.



Taylor3006 #43 Posted 24 March 2017 - 01:03 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,145
  • Member since:
    07-10-2016
Some things I would like to see is spotter planes attached to carriers. Attack aircraft too valuable at low tiers to hang around as spotters. I would like the Superintendent skill to add 1 of each type of plane to reserves, again would be nice for low tier CVs. The big thing I would like to see is the ability to fly more than 4 flags, you know like EVERY OTHER SHIP IN GAME! If WG feels a need to nerf signals for CVs, make it 6 flags. Would be nice to be able to get a few extra xp and do a bit of damage instead of choosing one over the other. Not sure why CVs don't benefit from being damaged like other ships using Adrenalin Rush. Seems they should be able to service/launch planes faster when damaged. Never understood why the rules that apply to all other ships don't apply to carriers. Guessing there is a reason besides "reasons".

Edited by Taylor3006, 24 March 2017 - 05:03 AM.






Also tagged with poll

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users