Jump to content


'Sky Cancer Hell Weekend' really shines a light on why CVs are so broken.


  • Please log in to reply
461 replies to this topic

Sventex #41 Posted 12 March 2017 - 06:18 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,689
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postcrzyhawk, on 12 March 2017 - 10:15 AM, said:

 

It's not an empty statement.  The majority of players, as evidenced by the number of sky cancer hate threads...do not like CVs.  WG has admitted this, they have come right out and said their players do not want Midway, they want Jutland.

 

Yes, give me Jutland!  I rewatch those Jutland documentaries all the time!

"The world is not beautiful; and that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty."
 


hofmannsc #42 Posted 12 March 2017 - 06:31 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 198
  • Member since:
    01-04-2016

View PostTaichunger, on 12 March 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:


Total nonsense. You can't move in groups, not with ships dying and caps spread out. CVs are cancerous and need to be removed from the game.

 

WG only keeps CVs in to reduce its costs. They have no positive game function, and game after game without them works perfectly well. Interactions with other players, especially when they are good, are enjoyable and stimulating. No interaction with a CV is enjoyable, except burning them.

 

No one ever writes posts in the forum complaining that they played five games that day without a CV and how terrible that was. Instead the forum is filled with complaints about CVs, and rightly so, since they degrade gameplay and inflict pointless cancerous damage on ships for no reason at all. 

 

CV play is unethical, unethical to put them in the game, unethical to play them. 


 

CVs need to be more common not less to counter BBs running roughshod over everything else. I mostly run cruisers with full AA specs and skills and they do not concern me at all when they show up in MM. Those that do get wrecked by CVs almost invariably outrun their support- that's on them- at least in my experiences.



Admiral_Thrawn_1 #43 Posted 12 March 2017 - 06:41 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,659
  • Member since:
    02-27-2017

View PostIJN_Hyuga, on 12 March 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

Holy crap am I tired of seeing carriers. Admittedly, you run into them a lot more at lower tiers, but playing my Yamato, bumping into a tier IX or X carrier is... pretty rare. Like, maybe 1 in 7 or 8 games, if I'm lucky. But this weekend? This weekend I am lucky to see a game without. And it has been... illuminating.

 

Getting torpedoed and shot at is a way of life for a Yamato captain. Your ship turns about as well as a freight train with a steering wheel, you're slow, your AA blows... so not only are you being primaried by everything under the sun, but it's just a flat-out bad ship for carrier warfare. If there's a carrier in a match I'm in, I expect he's going to hurt me - especially if our CV isn't very good. So I don't really have a problem with getting nailed by carriers per se; encounters with these venomous pit vipers are rare, and chances are pretty good they suck.

 

Basically, this post isn't specifically a battleship whine.

 

Rather, I'm tired of being a carrier teammate who is consistently let down by such an important roleplayer in our fleet. As an example, a couple of games ago, we had a match with a pair of tier IX CVs. Their CV had fighters, and was doing his best to stay fairly close to the action (keeping his squadron cyclic rate high), while nuking priority targets. Our CV, on the other hand, sailed in the opposite direction, had no fighters, and spent almost a full third of the match time sending his four squadrons on an exhaustive pan-global jaunt in an enormous circle route to the north, all to commit a single strike on their carrier that didn't even take half his health. The squadrons were decimated on their return trip. So, while the enemy carrier racked up 3 kills and something like 180k damage, our's spent the rest of the map ineffectually performing attacks on an Iowa.

 

Bravo.

 

And this is the problem with carriers. Because their presence in a game represents such an enormous potential to influence outcome, having a dud CV is faaaaaar worse than say, a crap cruiser, or a pitiful destroyer. Potato teammates are just a thing in WoWs - I get that; I know. They are, mercifully, a thing on both sides. But it's very, very difficult for me to reconcile the unicum vs. tater debate when you're talking about carriers. And that's what's wrong. That's what's broken. These units have too high a skill cap, too low a basement, and too much influence on the ebb and flow of gameplay.

 

So I'm completely fine with eating a full spread of torpedoes because I got tunnel vision - poop happens. But I am really, really exhausted with being let down by the poor play of a single teammate who can't carry his own immense weight.

 

 

Is Yamato AA really that bad? It looks like it is so loaded with AA??? Granted some of the guns are probably dual purpose so they need manual aim for AA?



Admiral_Thrawn_1 #44 Posted 12 March 2017 - 06:43 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,659
  • Member since:
    02-27-2017

View Posthofmannsc, on 12 March 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

CVs need to be more common not less to counter BBs running roughshod over everything else. I mostly run cruisers with full AA specs and skills and they do not concern me at all when they show up in MM. Those that do get wrecked by CVs almost invariably outrun their support- that's on them- at least in my experiences.

 

Occasionally a ship will get taken out very early if the CVs rush everything to enemy soawn early and manage to avoid the worst of the AA fire.

Battlecruiser_Tiger #45 Posted 12 March 2017 - 06:46 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,357
  • Member since:
    08-10-2016

View PostAdmiral_Thrawn_1, on 12 March 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

 

Is Yamato AA really that bad? It looks like it is so loaded with AA??? Granted some of the guns are probably dual purpose so they need manual aim for AA?

Yamato AA is poor to begin with, and made worse by being laughably short ranged. This wasn't a thread to moan about it, however.


[KNMSU] is seeking new members. Please PM me before applying! Thank you!

"Semi-notorious forum twit"


Anumati #46 Posted 12 March 2017 - 06:47 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,314
  • Member since:
    02-22-2013

Ehl oh ehl.

Players like OP are the reason things get nerfed into uselessness. Its not enough that his mountain of a ship cant out turn planes 1/1000 of its size while lolpenning anything in range. Oh while having the best torpedo belt in game too. He has to have no weaknesses come 6.3. 


I have world records. Ask me about them. Gold League SL winner twice in a row.


Admiral_Thrawn_1 #47 Posted 12 March 2017 - 06:51 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,659
  • Member since:
    02-27-2017

View PostIJN_Hyuga, on 12 March 2017 - 06:46 PM, said:

Yamato AA is poor to begin with, and made worse by being laughably short ranged. This wasn't a thread to moan about it, however.

 

lol guess the solution is to have a cruiser or 2 provide AA screening. :)

HazeGrayUnderway #48 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:01 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Members

  • 7,108
  • Member since:
    03-13-2015

View Postgiovybez, on 12 March 2017 - 05:25 AM, said:

Last night a Taiho hunted down my DD with 3 full torp squadrons then crossed dropped all 3, it would take an act of God to survive that attack. At the end of the match he had 6kills. It was frustrating yet impressive to see how a skilled cv player can solo carry and wreck havoc all across the map with ease.

 

Anyone that posts up a performance with Kraken or more kills, team carries, nobody bats an eye.  The moment a CV does that, everybody loses their friggin' minds.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway, 12 March 2017 - 07:04 PM.


crzyhawk #49 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:02 PM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,866
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostAnumati, on 12 March 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

70% WR carrier player doesn't want his clubbers touched.

 

FTFY


Jerych #50 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:05 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 19
  • Member since:
    05-29-2016

View PostIJN_Hyuga, on 12 March 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

Getting torpedoed and shot at is a way of life for a Yamato captain. Your ship turns about as well as a freight train with a steering wheel, you're slow, your AA blows... so not only are you being primaried by everything under the sun, but it's just a flat-out bad ship for carrier warfare. If there's a carrier in a match I'm in, I expect he's going to hurt me - especially if our CV isn't very good. So I don't really have a problem with getting nailed by carriers per se; encounters with these venomous pit vipers are rare, and chances are pretty good they suck...

 

...Our CV, on the other hand, sailed in the opposite direction, had no fighters... So, while the enemy carrier racked up 3 kills and something like 180k damage, our's spent the rest of the map ineffectually performing attacks on an Iowa.

 

...So I'm completely fine with eating a full spread of torpedoes because I got tunnel vision - poop happens. But I am really, really exhausted with being let down by the poor play of a single teammate who can't carry his own immense weight.

 

I think these criticisms reveal far more about BB play than they do about CV play.

 

Yes, a CV can mitigate - and sometimes eliminate - an incoming attack on the team, but that only occurs if the enemy CV is completely incompetent.  No CV can eliminate an incoming attack in the higher tiers - in short, what you are unknowingly demonstrating is not incompetence on the part of the CV, but incompetence on the part of the entire team (of which you are part of that failing).

 

You're not demonstrating any real insight as to how CV play can really turn a game.

 

If a CV is killing ships left and right with 200k damage, it's either an end-game scenario in which the CV is just cleaning up, or (more likely) it's because the team refused to move together in formation and overlap their AAs, going in different directions heedless of any strategy to counter the CV threat.  Competitive play constrasts Random play in this regard more than any other.

 

Invalid criticism: "CV not doing enough damage and letting enemy CV kill us."

 

Valid criticism: "CV failing to spot."

 

The first demonstrates the inability to comprehend how CVs work - and with it, the inability to adjust your play to counter the enemy CV, while helping your own. 

 

The second demonstrates at least some understanding of what a CV's most important skillset is; not manual drops and killing planes, but map awareness and reconnaissance.   Yes, farming damage and killing planes have a role, but any CV captain learns this.  The truly advanced Captains (of any ship) know that a CV can "do nothing", jockey with the enemy CV planes without killing any planes or ships, hover around the team's formation, spot, send an empty DB as an area-denial for flanking DDs, etc. and win convincingly.  Manual drops are rather prosaic to high-tier CVs - it's the other parts and the ability to manage all those objectives and resources at once that's hard. 

 

If a T10 CV is killing ships left and right with 200k damage, that says more about the opponent than the CV.  Your team refused to get in formation and overlap their AAs, going in different directions heedless of any strategy to counter the CV threat.  That may be typical in Random play, but bad play is still bad play.  AA has already been been buffed to the point where isolated ships can eliminate entire strike waves.  This (and the lack of team play envisioned by WG) has led to a dearth of CV players which has also led inadvertently to lower USN win rates (they'd probably still be low, but not as low).  The USN line is roundly considered the weakest line of ships; a look at their win rates amassed at the bottom of the Win% charts makes this indisputable.  However, the USN Win% might have been better if there were more CVs and teams that knew how to make use of the USN AA (which has become a diluted strong suit with recent AA buffs).

 

The best way to counter a CV attack is to sail in tight formation with other units.  In fact, just sailing with a single cruiser is enough to blunt any air attack.  If you can't do that, you're clearly not skilled enough at this game.  If you choose to disregard it because it just doesn't fit your style, you deserve any damage you get.  If you're complaining that one of the most OP units in the game has one weakness (and not much of one because teh Yamato AA is still daunting; unlike a DD, a CV can't delete you when you make a boneheaded mistake), and doesn't have every advantage over a Montana (which Yamatos happily farm damage from every game), well...

 

...you're blaming someone or something else by complaining about not being protected by CV fighters, which is not really a CV's job.  That's the job of the team.   Get into formations of overlapping AA when you know the enemy planes are closing.  It's really a simple mechanic. 

 

View Posttwitch133, on 12 March 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

https://wowreplays.com/Replay/31940

 

This game from last night is exactly why I do not like CV's. Our CV is no slouch, in most other ships. Checking out his page, he is a very good player in most ships, but faced off against the very, very good enemy Shokaku, there was just no hope for this round. Even though we had players in all of our other ships that were theoretically stronger....

 

There were a few mistakes early on that helped out. One of our strongest cruiser players was deleted early. We let a Benson have free reign to harass myself and our FDG for the whole game, just to name a few. But, based on the skill levels of the other players, we should have easily had this round, the CV changed all of that.

 

I really believe that 66% of your chance of winning or losing is solely on the back of your CV. And that is where they aggravate me. I feel like nothing more than fodder on the playing field while the two CV drivers play their own game against each other, while farming token damage off the other 11 players.

 

No.

 

It is clear to me that your team lost for one reason: you attempted to take all 3 caps and divided your forces across all 3. 

 

In truth you never gave your CV any real opportunity to play a role, charging in so fast and being so spread out.  His planes weren't even in the air to be able to recon the enemy strength.  Common theme in Randoms, but still a huge mistake.  At no time whatsoever did you attempt to sail in formation.  At no time did you ask for spotting, let alone actually wait for it.  At no time did your DDs seem at all concerned with enemy planes spotting them - they charged the caps heedless of any support (typical).  You basically had a 3-pronged yolo attack on each of the caps; naturally, the prong that met the enemy main force at A disintegrated.  Your opponent sent their main force to A, and even their minor skirmishing force at B was in position to support A.

 

Again, this is a case of blaming the CV for what is a failure of strategy and teamwork - actually it's a failure of having no strategy or teamwork.

 

Nevertheless, if I had to put blame on this loss:

 

1) DDs, because they ultimately forced their strategy on the team (like always), being the cappers and the first to make contact; if they sail in one direction, every other ship is almost forced to follow and support them, including the CV.

 

2) BBs, because they are the center of gravity (like always).  They may be forced to support the DDs, but as your replay demonstrates, you had multiple opportunities to peel off C and head west to support your A elements which were obviously going to be overrun, or at least help your B element to survive and possibly win their yolo attempt.  Heck, a little communication might have been worth it; telling them to withdraw from A immediately after you saw the mass of ships south of A (and the lack of ships south of C).  Instead, you sailed right through C that had long since been capped and was empty of enemy ships in the vicinity (why?), blocking yourselves off from supporting A and B because you obstructed your own guns with big islands. Thus, two BBs took their big guns out of play, while the enemy team's big guns wailed away at the rest of your team.  Even when your DD and cruiser sailed to B, you decided not to support them, and sailed south putting another big island between you and the team (as opposed to sailing through a corridor which would have given you perfect shots right into B and indirect fire into A).  5 criitical minutes in the game passed and the 2 BBs at C had neutralized themselves, having no effect on the enemy strategy because they sailed themselves right into a "mission-kill".  By the time you sailed around C and to B, it was over, and the enemy, sensibly had bunkered itself behind islands to avoid your (obvious) BB flanking maneuver, a maneuver that is slow, can be seen from across the map, especially when an enemy CV can spot you easily - and he did along with a DD - which, again, you apparently disregarded. 

 

This is the biggest criticism with BBs: Position.

 

BTW, the only reason the enemy CV didn't focus on you was because of your T9 US AA, although I'm sure the Shokaku was more than happy that you took that critical AA bubble out of the fight, away from your teammates.

 

In short, damage farming aside, you screwed up.

 

3) Cruisers.  OK, they didn't use cover effectively, but if I'm those cruiser captains, I'm screaming at the DDs for pushing deep into the caps, forcing me to come out of cover to cover them with an AA bubble, while they put themselves out of range of my fire support and closer to the enemy's fire support.  Those DDs going right into the middle of the cap, rather than at the edges of the cap near cover, really put their cruisers on the spot.

 

4) CV.  He is a strike USN CV.  The opposing team's knowledge of this is probably the biggest effect your CV had on the game.  Their play-style trades attrition-rate and recon for a damage race and deterrence.  Other than that, he never had a chance to effect the game to a great degree because the damage race or jockeying stand-off never had a chance to come into play; your team's decision to argue about strategy at the beginning of the game and go their separate ways to charge the caps, then get flat-out annihilated, ensured that.  Is there any spotting he could have done that would have allowed you to hit more targets?  No. The enemy lit themselves up firing at your DDs who exposed themselves recklessly, even before his planes could get in the air and on station.  Could he have covered the DDs?  No, he's a strike CV, which means you need to bunch up in formation providing an AA bubble not just for your own ships but for the CV bomber planes.  Could he have blunted the enemy at A where your team got wiped out and saved the game?  No, the enemy ships were all bunched up (unlike your team).

 

Yes, a strike USN CV trades attrition rate and flexibility for the ability to deter and do damage.  It will never out-perform an IJN CV unless the disparity in skill (either CV or Team play) is sizeable.  And it will always be at a disadvantage no matter what configuration it has in the current meta because the greatest strength of USN squadrons (and the weakness of IJN), their survivability, rarely comes into play because 

 

A) Teams in random don't overlap their AAs to make IJN lives hard.

 

B) AA has been buffed to the point that it doesn't matter if it's IJN or USN planes, both will be annihilated.

 

C) Competitive play demonstrates that the flexibility of IJN is more important than the survivability of USN.

 

I played one match in my Ranger and knew from the get-go it was hopeless to compete with an enemy Hiryu, and I agree with the analysis that competing against an enemy Saipan is an exercise in futility).  However, that does not apply to your match because even had the CV types been equal, this match would have turned out the same.

 

In closing, your team disregarded the presence of the enemy CV.  Indeed, it disregarded the presence of its own CV - apparently, right up until the time you needed someone to blame.

 

In truth, the CVs - both enemy and friendly - were the least of your problems.  The CVs in your replay had far less to do with the outcome than the play of the DDs and BBs, and possibly the cruisers.


Edited by Jerych, 12 March 2017 - 07:25 PM.


Battlecruiser_Tiger #51 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:05 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,357
  • Member since:
    08-10-2016

View PostHazeGrayUnderway, on 12 March 2017 - 07:01 PM, said:

 

Anyone that posts up a performance with Kraken or more kills, team carries, nobody bats an eye.  The moment a CV does that, everybody loses their friggin' minds.

 

Maybe it's because the majority of us know that those kraken games for non-CVs require a rather high amount of RNG luck to get citadels, etc., whereas the CV makes their own luck.

[KNMSU] is seeking new members. Please PM me before applying! Thank you!

"Semi-notorious forum twit"


hofmannsc #52 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:06 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 198
  • Member since:
    01-04-2016

View PostAdmiral_Thrawn_1, on 12 March 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

 

Occasionally a ship will get taken out very early if the CVs rush everything to enemy soawn early and manage to avoid the worst of the AA fire.

Exactly- know who has AA and stay within or close to the halo. I can't recall an instance where a ship friendly ship was eliminated when in range of my Cleve, Atl, Baltimore or Kutz.



Skyfaller #53 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:11 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 806
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

The issue with CV's has always been the point drop torpedo idiocy. WG only needs to fix that to bring cv's back to balance.


 

If they simply made the torpedo planes torpedoes have:

- An 8km swimming range

- A manual drop minimum range of 4km, max of 8km.

- Change manual drop/auto drop to being two modes of manual drop (aka no auto drop) which would be a firing pattern the torp planes use.

--- Wide Spread: Basically how torps are manually dropped now. Side by side.

--- Narrow Spread: Torp planes go into diamond formation and drop all torps in a spread half as wide as that of wide spread.


 

Similarly, the Dive bomber would have changes applied to it.


 

- Dive bombers have a longer range 'point of no return' circle (8km point of no return).

 

- Dive bombers lose manual drop. Have two modes of autodrop.

--- High Altitude Drop (default): When the bombers enter the point of no return distance they climb to high altitude where AA damage upon them is significantly reduced (50% less?). Accuracy upon dropping from this altitude is reduced (current auto-drop wide dispersion).

--- Low Altitude Drop (alt): When bombers enter point of no return distance (8km) they speed up as they lower their altitude (+30% speed). They drop with increased accuracy (equivalent to Saipan's). This attack altitude has no AA damage reduction but the higher speed does reduce the time they are in the AA umbrella.


 

This system has major benefits for both CV's and non-CV's:


 

1- The CV has the option to drop torpedoes from beyond most AA range /or/ significantly reduce the time his planes are inside AA umbrella ... thus saving his aircraft strength and still delivering ordnance.... or dropping them much closer for increased chance to hit but risking losses to his squadrons. Dive bombers can be used conservatively against AA strong ships with high altitude to preserve aircraft or aggressively if the cv wants it.


 

2- Non-CVs no longer have to suffer point blank, unavoidable massive torpedo damage attacks and have the SAME chance to evade those torpedoes than if a DD had been spotted at close range.


 

3- CV's literally become a ship that can quickly deploy the torpedo planes like if they were single-launcher destroyer to any point in the map. The long swimming range of the torpedoes allows many more options for the CV player... can even 'stealth torp' by dropping the torps at max distance at ships sailing towards the area.


 

4- AA umbrella ships no longer have to operate at close proximity to ships they protect given they'd be better deployed a few km's distance so they can catch the planes before they drop from max range or climb to high altitude (db's).


-=Team Water=-


hipcanuck #54 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:11 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 971
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postcrzyhawk, on 12 March 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

 

It's not an empty statement.  The majority of players, as evidenced by the number of sky cancer hate threads...do not like CVs.  WG has admitted this, they have come right out and said their players do not want Midway, they want Jutland.

 

The number of sky cancer threads are mostly from low to mid tier players in ships with minimal AA....and the usual half dozen or so that constantly show up in 'omg I got owned by a CV qq' threads and rally around their fallen comrade to fan the flames of hating players who play CV's.

 

Potatoes potato...its what they do. A stupid CV player in a non US carrier who thinks he can take out the enemy CV is wasting his time, he may as well be afk, if he's on your team you will likely loose. If your top tier BB is afk...you will likely loose, if its a CAP match and the other team has more DD's..you will likely loose.

 

If your CV ends up being the top XP earner (not easy to do these days thanks to the xp nerf) and/or damage dealer, you can still loose. He could shoot down 50 planes and you can still loose.

 

Dont like CV's.....max out your AA capabilities and stop sailing solo.

 

Dont have your AA capabilities maxed out.....stop whining about CV's....unless you are a BB facing a CV 2 tiers up, then blame WG for a stupid tier design mechanic.



GuntherPrein #55 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:12 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 92
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

View Postissm, on 11 March 2017 - 11:35 PM, said:

 

And this is why every unicum CV player will come out and whine about how every suggested rework, or way to fix CVs is a nerf.

 

Because for them, it is.

 

Any solution to CVs has to cut down the skill ceiling, and for those at that ceiling, it'll be a huge nerf, regardless what it does for people at the floor.

 

Removing manual drops will absolutely acheive the goal of narrowing the floor vs ceiling.

 

Unicms will oppose it because it'll prevent them from roflstomping as hard as they do now, and singlehandedly carrying games.

 

Of course, they can't admit that that's the reason, they'd look like elitist d-bags.

 

So what do they say instead? "This will take all the skill out of playing CVs". Ignoring the fact that positioning, target selection, and attack timings make up a far greater piece of the overall puzzle than "dropping well".

 

Can we get rid of  BB or any ships ability to Citadel any other ship too if we get rid of Manual drops cause I watch Unicums delete other ships with ease quite a bit like way more often then I ever see CV in games

SgtSullyC3 #56 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:18 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,038
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016
CVs are a mess right now. IJN CVs have vastly superior loadouts than USN CVs. IJN can go with powerful strike and good fighters, or powerful fighters and good strike. USN can go with good fighters and useless strike, or no fighters and good strike. What disgusts me the most and made me give up with the grind through Lex is the fact that US CVs are always gonna be outmatched by the IJN loadout. A strike Shokaku or Hiryu will swamp the Lex or Ranger's stock loadouts, annihilate their strike. AS USN vs Strike IJN - US has slightly better fighters, but if IJN strafes or they dogfight over the IJN's friendly AA, USN loses its tiny advantage. And IJN can still field a huge strike force. 

T1-3: Erie, Smith, Derski, G-101, Katori, St. Louis, Bogatyr, Friant, South Carolina

T4-6: Izyaslav, Clemson, Danae, Yūbari, Kaiser, Kamikaze, Königsberg, Omaha, Kongo, Bogue, Duca D'Aosta, Cleveland, Aoba, Perth, Ryujo, Dunkerque

T7-9: Shiratsuyu, Sims, Mahan, Atlanta, Belfast (gift from YureiKuma), Ranger, Saipan, New Orleans, Bismarck, North Carolina, Alabama, Lexington, Iowa, Missouri

 

GoalsIJN: Hiryu, Mogami - USN: Benson, Baltimore, Essex - HMS: Leander, Fiji - VMF: Podvoisky, Budyonny - MN: Emile Bertin, La Galissonnière


GuntherPrein #57 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:28 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 92
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

View PostMrDeaf, on 12 March 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

 

bad DD player will make you lose early

bad BB player will make you lose late

bad CV player is instant loss.

 

Bad players = Loss I don't know how many games Ive wasted other CV and team fades to nothing man. Last night killed Ranger First blood was Hiryu as low tier against Iowas , fletchers and Baltimores  So I was irrelevant rest of match I thought ends up kill 4 do 200 200 damage kill 38 planes other CV did nothing killed all 28 planes from his first sortie the other planes where all spotters so are DD could torp and such but team folds hard and only ships killed are by me and I get to eat a loss oh well.

So sometimes its not really up to CV players who wins the match when this is what I see quite often

 



1nc0mp3t3nt_1 #58 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:57 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 5,915
  • Member since:
    01-29-2015

View Postm373x, on 12 March 2017 - 05:49 PM, said:

 

I used to think the same about my AA spec Cleveland until an unicum CV player violated me so hard I couldn't even stay and watch the rest of the game. 

on topic: OP, you had a bad game with bad CV ally against a good CV enemy, it happens, it is not the end of the world. Skill ceiling for all classes should stay as high as possible.

 

Sorry, but wrestling with clunky and dated controls is not something that I call skill. 

 

These proposed controls changes to CVs is a nice step, but it's still not a step forward. WG used to have RTS development talent they could have consulted, but they squandered it and now it's gone. 

 

However, accidentally deselecting my planes when I slip into a decade old habit of right click to attack will be no more, and I will happily attempt carriers once more. 

 

It would be nice if something was addressed to the power difference in the sheer numbers of planes the IJN put out compared to the "sturdier" squadrons of USN. If WG can't properly balance asymmetrical units, then make them symmetrical until they find a balance that works



NeutralState #59 Posted 12 March 2017 - 07:58 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 842
  • Member since:
    10-25-2014

View PostIJN_Hyuga, on 12 March 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

Holy crap am I tired of seeing carriers. Admittedly, you run into them a lot more at lower tiers, but playing my Yamato, bumping into a tier IX or X carrier is... pretty rare. Like, maybe 1 in 7 or 8 games, if I'm lucky. But this weekend? This weekend I am lucky to see a game without. And it has been... illuminating.

 

Getting torpedoed and shot at is a way of life for a Yamato captain. Your ship turns about as well as a freight train with a steering wheel, you're slow, your AA blows... so not only are you being primaried by everything under the sun, but it's just a flat-out bad ship for carrier warfare. If there's a carrier in a match I'm in, I expect he's going to hurt me - especially if our CV isn't very good. So I don't really have a problem with getting nailed by carriers per se; encounters with these venomous pit vipers are rare, and chances are pretty good they suck.

 

Basically, this post isn't specifically a battleship whine.

 

Rather, I'm tired of being a carrier teammate who is consistently let down by such an important roleplayer in our fleet. As an example, a couple of games ago, we had a match with a pair of tier IX CVs. Their CV had fighters, and was doing his best to stay fairly close to the action (keeping his squadron cyclic rate high), while nuking priority targets. Our CV, on the other hand, sailed in the opposite direction, had no fighters, and spent almost a full third of the match time sending his four squadrons on an exhaustive pan-global jaunt in an enormous circle route to the north, all to commit a single strike on their carrier that didn't even take half his health. The squadrons were decimated on their return trip. So, while the enemy carrier racked up 3 kills and something like 180k damage, our's spent the rest of the map ineffectually performing attacks on an Iowa.

 

Bravo.

 

And this is the problem with carriers. Because their presence in a game represents such an enormous potential to influence outcome, having a dud CV is faaaaaar worse than say, a crap cruiser, or a pitiful destroyer. Potato teammates are just a thing in WoWs - I get that; I know. They are, mercifully, a thing on both sides. But it's very, very difficult for me to reconcile the unicum vs. tater debate when you're talking about carriers. And that's what's wrong. That's what's broken. These units have too high a skill cap, too low a basement, and too much influence on the ebb and flow of gameplay.

 

So I'm completely fine with eating a full spread of torpedoes because I got tunnel vision - poop happens. But I am really, really exhausted with being let down by the poor play of a single teammate who can't carry his own immense weight.

 

 

Glad the term Sky Cancer is catching on.

 

The most obvious problem with CVs and people are not willing to admit is that in order to counter a CV, the players have to play as a team.

 

However, this game, even though is team vs team based, has incentives that strongly if not exclusively favors single player performances (3rd party rating doesn't help either). 

 

There's no reason for a CV to run AA build because they don't offer the same match influencing power as strike. Changing CV reward scheme favoring downing planes don't help either because not be able to kill off ships and most importantly team not taking advantage of air superiority and vision advantage - both are detrimental to the CV player. (3rd party rating favors damage done, so CV's running AA needs twice the win rate as strike to gain the same rating). 

 

In Clan wars we see that CVs are not that OP and it plays an integral role in the fleet - vision control, denying areas, supporting forward elements, rear guard actions etc. But that's ONLY due to the team's playing to win as a team, not playing to maximize self performance. 

 

CV's only OP and will continue to be OP due to no effective counter to them. As long as the phenomenon "well just sail with your team" remains as the only effective way for ships to defend against CVs then CVs will continue to remain as an outlier.

 

There are some reward changes that can immediately change CV from OP to "integral part of the fleet". Reward players solely based on win/loss, none of this % dmg done to enemy ship business. Player performances can be awarded by other mechanics and the mechanics can only be triggered if the team wins. Changing the reward scheme along would immediately fix pretty much all the problems, stemmed from player behavior, in this game so far.


Edited by NeutralState, 12 March 2017 - 08:07 PM.

夕雲型一番艦、夕雲、着任しました。

 Mutsuki Overview, Kagero Overview, Yugumo Overview


Battlecruiser_Tiger #60 Posted 12 March 2017 - 08:01 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,357
  • Member since:
    08-10-2016

View Post1nc0mp3t3nt_1, on 12 March 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

 

Sorry, but wrestling with clunky and dated controls is not something that I call skill. 

 

These proposed controls changes to CVs is a nice step, but it's still not a step forward. WG used to have RTS development talent they could have consulted, but they squandered it and now it's gone. 

 

However, accidentally deselecting my planes when I slip into a decade old habit of right click to attack will be no more, and I will happily attempt carriers once more. 

 

It would be nice if something was addressed to the power difference in the sheer numbers of planes the IJN put out compared to the "sturdier" squadrons of USN. If WG can't properly balance asymmetrical units, then make them symmetrical until they find a balance that works

 

I wish there was a way to put the CV game into the third person arena the rest of us fight in. With this design group, it's a pipe dream, but I feel like that would go a long way towards increasing the number of CVs overall. Most of us find the concept of top-down gameplay largely focused on driving little icons around a grid to be wholly unsatisfying.

[KNMSU] is seeking new members. Please PM me before applying! Thank you!

"Semi-notorious forum twit"





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users