Jump to content


Notser on lower tier manual drop 0.6.3


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

Wulfgarn #1 Posted 26 March 2017 - 04:23 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,812
  • Member since:
    09-15-2015

Highest. CV USN Independence BB USN Colorado CA USN New Orleans GER Yorck  RN Leander DD USN Gearing IJN Shimakaze VMF Khab

Premium. Kamikaze R. Blyskawica. Leningrad. Belfast. Graf Spee, Konig Albert. Ishizuchi. Marblehead. Texas. Arizona. Sims. Atlanta. Indianapolis. Kutuzov. Tirpitz. Gremyashchy. Murmansk. Molotov. Prinz Eugen. Scharnhorst. Warspite. Anshan. Lo Yang
Intel I5-3570K @ 3.4GHz . GTX 750 Ti (Max settings). 16 GB Ram . Win 7 Pro 64-bit . SSD 120GB (OS only) . SSD 250GB (Gaming) . Mechanical 2TB (Storage)

 


DerKrampus #2 Posted 26 March 2017 - 04:41 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 952
  • Member since:
    07-01-2015
The more WG faps around, trying to fix CVs, the more I realize that the game would just be better if they were removed entirely.

 


BrushWolf #3 Posted 26 March 2017 - 05:17 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester

  • 7,677
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
The real CV seal clubbing problem is strafe and this happens in every tier. When executed properly it is an I win button completely destroying everything in its path.

  

 

Ich lasse mir doch nicht mein Schiff unter dem Arsch wegschießen. Feuererlaubnis! (I'm not letting my ship get shot out from under my arse. Open fire!) Ernst Lindemann Captain KMS Bismarck

 


HazeGrayUnderway #4 Posted 26 March 2017 - 06:48 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Members

  • 7,086
  • Member since:
    03-13-2015

When people jump into their favorite BB at these tiers, Seal Clubbing is fine.

When people jump into their favorite low tier Cruiser, Seal Clubbing is fine.

When people jump into their favorite low tier Destroyer, Seal Clubbing is fine.

When people jump into their favorite low tier Carrier, Seal Clubbing is suddenly not fine...

 



KingJacko #5 Posted 27 March 2017 - 03:52 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 105
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostHazeGrayUnderway, on 26 March 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

When people jump into their favorite BB at these tiers, Seal Clubbing is fine.

When people jump into their favorite low tier Cruiser, Seal Clubbing is fine.

When people jump into their favorite low tier Destroyer, Seal Clubbing is fine.

When people jump into their favorite low tier Carrier, Seal Clubbing is suddenly not fine...

 

To be fair, A Hosho/Zuiho is way more capable than a Nikolai.  And way more frustrating to newer players.



Cpt_Cupcake #6 Posted 27 March 2017 - 08:55 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 76
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View PostDerKrampus, on 26 March 2017 - 04:41 PM, said:

The more WG faps around, trying to fix CVs, the more I realize that the game would just be better if they were removed entirely.

 

​Then they might as well remove USN crusiers and even USN battleships. Every problem currently in the game and one of the main reasons for the DD stealth nerfs is the low CV population as both Mighty Jingles and Noster have stated.


Edited by Cpt_Cupcake, 27 March 2017 - 08:56 PM.


cometguy #7 Posted 27 March 2017 - 11:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 766
  • Member since:
    07-29-2016

View PostCpt_Cupcake, on 27 March 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

 

​Then they might as well remove USN crusiers and even USN battleships. Every problem currently in the game and one of the main reasons for the DD stealth nerfs is the low CV population as both Mighty Jingles and Noster have stated.

And destroyers. First had to nerf their torpedoes, now having to nerf stealth fire. Apparently they're unplayable, and should just be removed. Then there's no real point for cruisers to exist, so we might as well remove them. Then there's no reason for battleships to have a rudder, might as well remove that.



Cpt_Cupcake #8 Posted 28 March 2017 - 06:38 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 76
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View Postcometguy, on 27 March 2017 - 11:59 PM, said:

And destroyers. First had to nerf their torpedoes, now having to nerf stealth fire. Apparently they're unplayable, and should just be removed. Then there's no real point for cruisers to exist, so we might as well remove them. Then there's no reason for battleships to have a rudder, might as well remove that.

 

That's what it feels like its coming too lol. Everyone thinks every class is OP but their favorite, it is ridiculous. Individual ships may be underpowered / overpowered to their same tier contemporaries, I have yet to see one class that can completely dominates the other​. There might be scenarios that favor another class over another, but on most maps (Ocean exempt) that can nullified by using the terrain to create advantages.

 

Removing cvs is not the answer, as they would cause more issues. Both the videos I linked go in depth as why.



Sweetsie #9 Posted 28 March 2017 - 09:45 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 170
  • Member since:
    10-08-2016

The cv isn't the problem, it's the talent or experience level of the captain driving it. Because the ship in the right hands is so OP, if the opposing captain is less skilled, the game is already over. Any other line of ships can have an afk and effect the outcome less. In my past two z-23 games (within the hour so my blood is still hot) the combined score of our teams cv totals vs enemy were, Greens 1 ship sunk, 13 planes shot down. Reds, 4 sunk, 33 planes shot down. 400% & 253% increased performance. In games like this, it solely depends on if your cv driver is good or not, the remaining 11 don't matter. I had two awesome games, sinking 7 total ships. Because our cv drivers were worthless it cost me personally at least 4-6k xp, close to 400k in credits, and 16 flags were used.

 

An afk BB can still spot, use secondary's, shoot down planes, absorb damage and occupy the enemy for a period of time. A bad cv is an auto loss.



crzyhawk #10 Posted 28 March 2017 - 09:53 PM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,858
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostHazeGrayUnderway, on 26 March 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

When people jump into their favorite BB at these tiers, Seal Clubbing is fine.

When people jump into their favorite low tier Cruiser, Seal Clubbing is fine.

When people jump into their favorite low tier Destroyer, Seal Clubbing is fine.

When people jump into their favorite low tier Carrier, Seal Clubbing is suddenly not fine...

 

 

CVers earned the hate they get


Carrier_Lexington #11 Posted 29 March 2017 - 01:22 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,145
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View Postcrzyhawk, on 28 March 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

 

CVers earned the hate they get

 

Ummm... Really? How? By playing well? By having to have skill? Oh, wait, that's what other classes are supposed to have.


You're just salty. Salty seaman. Salty Battleship.


"Heresy!"


Cpt_Cupcake #12 Posted 29 March 2017 - 06:02 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 76
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View PostSweetsie, on 28 March 2017 - 09:45 PM, said:

The cv isn't the problem, it's the talent or experience level of the captain driving it. Because the ship in the right hands is so OP, if the opposing captain is less skilled, the game is already over. Any other line of ships can have an afk and effect the outcome less. In my past two z-23 games (within the hour so my blood is still hot) the combined score of our teams cv totals vs enemy were, Greens 1 ship sunk, 13 planes shot down. Reds, 4 sunk, 33 planes shot down. 400% & 253% increased performance. In games like this, it solely depends on if your cv driver is good or not, the remaining 11 don't matter. I had two awesome games, sinking 7 total ships. Because our cv drivers were worthless it cost me personally at least 4-6k xp, close to 400k in credits, and 16 flags were used.

 

An afk BB can still spot, use secondary's, shoot down planes, absorb damage and occupy the enemy for a period of time. A bad cv is an auto loss.

 

​While I agree a good cv driver facing a bad cv driver dose increase your team's chance for success, It doesn't guarantee it. I have been shut down by decent crusiers, while their cv was AFK.

The issue is most teams don't play as a team, I usually see some team work early on from the enemy teams, with those potatos that isolate themselves. After killing those ships, I often see the enemy team relax and start spreading themselves out so I can pick routes between their AA auroras. That's what usually happens.

 

On the flip side, a crap top tier bb is almost worse then a crap cv, for as soon as hes dead, their goes like 20% of your teams HP pool.



Rafinesque #13 Posted 29 March 2017 - 08:32 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 31
  • Member since:
    06-04-2014

Played two quick games with my seal-clubbing Hosho (16 point captain) after the update. Both games had two carriers per side, mixtures of Hoshos and Langleys.  First game my partner Langley and I wiped the enemy from the skies early and our team was still crushed.  Don't think I even landed 4 torpedo hits, and certainly had zero sunken ships.   Second game was a victory with more torpedo hits, but still only one kill.  Normally on such a victory I would expect 2-3 sinkings from my Hosho.

Observations: 1)the limiting to auto-drop only is a huge nerf to the effectiveness of the attack aircraft.  You get fewer torpedo hits because the drops are far enough away that they are easier to dodge, and at least for the Japanese planes, the torps no longer converge at range (for max damage against stationary targets).  I didn't fly any dive bombers, but the larger aiming circle has to cut their effectiveness, too.  The ability to use TWO TB squadrons to produce cross-drop patterns will probably mean the Japanese carriers will suffer less than the American CVs.  And that cross-dropping pattern is something the low tier Japanese CV driver will need to learn/relearn and get good at.



2)I think they eliminated the fighter strafe, too (It would not work when I sent the command, showing a little error symbol (?) near the cursor).  I'm quite OK with that, as I think the strafe is very unrealistic against aerial targets and can completely unbalance an aerial matchup with one skilled/lucky strafe.  Since I had a max-upgraded Hosho fighter squadron (5 planes and all the bonuses I could stack on them) I had no trouble wiping out <5 plane enemy fighter squadrons in dogfights.  Likewise, no enemy attack aircraft squadron lasted long against attack (and I was getting more attacks per sortie since I wasn't burning ammo by trying to pull off strafes).  So it appears from this limited data that while the nerfing of the attack aircraft is real, it has relatively buffed the lethality of well trained and equipped fighter squadrons. 

3) Wondering how this is going to work when there are 4 carrier games with Tiers 6 and 5 carriers involved.     
 


Edited by Rafinesque, 29 March 2017 - 08:35 PM.


old_radagast #14 Posted 29 March 2017 - 11:08 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 61
  • Member since:
    07-03-2015

So, let me get this straight: Wargaming buffs AAA over the months until carriers at Tier 6 and above regularly have most of their planes eaten for lunch if the player isn't both lucky and skilled. Naturally, this results in far fewer carrier players, and those who remain stick to tiers 4 and 5, where their planes have some chance of surviving and they might be able to contribute to a battle. Oh no - players wanting to play at lower tiers where they can be effective. The horror. Everyone should be forced to play at maximum tier all the time until they reach a point where they stink at the game so they can then quit. Great business model... right...

 

To "balance" this - carriers being useful at some tier and enjoyed - Wargaming removes manual drops and strafes from the low tier carriers. This not only ensures that they are also useless and no fun to play, it removes the needed training players would normally get making manual drops and strafing. By the time they gain access to those skills at a higher tier, they will suddenly also have to contend with far strong AAA, making it much harder to learn these critical skills.

 

Total failure, Wargaming. You managed to - again - kill CV play, but do it in a unique way that also hinders the development of CV skills. Nice double-whammy. May as well remove them from the game and rename this "World of Battleships."



Palladia #15 Posted 01 April 2017 - 01:06 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 727
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View Postold_radagast, on 29 March 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

So, let me get this straight: Wargaming buffs AAA over the months until carriers at Tier 6 and above regularly have most of their planes eaten for lunch if the player isn't both lucky and skilled. Naturally, this results in far fewer carrier players, and those who remain stick to tiers 4 and 5, where their planes have some chance of surviving and they might be able to contribute to a battle. Oh no - players wanting to play at lower tiers where they can be effective. The horror. Everyone should be forced to play at maximum tier all the time until they reach a point where they stink at the game so they can then quit. Great business model... right...

 

To "balance" this - carriers being useful at some tier and enjoyed - Wargaming removes manual drops and strafes from the low tier carriers. This not only ensures that they are also useless and no fun to play, it removes the needed training players would normally get making manual drops and strafing. By the time they gain access to those skills at a higher tier, they will suddenly also have to contend with far strong AAA, making it much harder to learn these critical skills.

 

Total failure, Wargaming. You managed to - again - kill CV play, but do it in a unique way that also hinders the development of CV skills. Nice double-whammy. May as well remove them from the game and rename this "World of Battleships."

 

I can't readily recall which Youtuber said it,  but one of them mentioned that they thought WG was trying to kill off the CV population until they could properly balance them.  The more I see from WG the more sense this makes to me.

Cpt_Cupcake #16 Posted 01 April 2017 - 08:48 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 76
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View PostPalladia, on 01 April 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

 

I can't readily recall which Youtuber said it,  but one of them mentioned that they thought WG was trying to kill off the CV population until they could properly balance them.  The more I see from WG the more sense this makes to me.

 

​like all good conspiracy theories.... it sounds logical. *adjusts tinfoil hat.*



Palladia #17 Posted 01 April 2017 - 09:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 727
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View PostCpt_Cupcake, on 01 April 2017 - 08:48 PM, said:

 

​like all good conspiracy theories.... it sounds logical. *adjusts tinfoil hat.*

 

No that's the thing.  You and I both know that it doesn't SOUND logical at all.  But with nerf after nerf and no clear timeline on the actual adjustments it just makes you wonder.  No other class has its advanced mechanics removed because of seal clubbing.  No other class has an automatic defense mechanism constantly buffed to counter them.  No other class is so heavily dependent on both stats and personal skills.

Yes,  I realize that they aren't trying to kill the class.  Its just a little frustrating.

Cpt_Cupcake #18 Posted 02 April 2017 - 05:02 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 76
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

It is logical to me, cause as long as cvs need fixing, people will slowly stop playing them till WG actually dose something to fix it. (removing manual drops was not the way to do it.)


Edited by Cpt_Cupcake, 02 April 2017 - 05:04 AM.


BrushWolf #19 Posted 02 April 2017 - 03:55 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester

  • 7,677
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPalladia, on 01 April 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

 

I can't readily recall which Youtuber said it,  but one of them mentioned that they thought WG was trying to kill off the CV population until they could properly balance them.  The more I see from WG the more sense this makes to me.

 

View PostCpt_Cupcake, on 01 April 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

 

​like all good conspiracy theories.... it sounds logical. *adjusts tinfoil hat.*

 

It isn't so much that they are trying to kill the class but with every change they make the class becomes less and less accessible to average players. So taking manual drop from 4 & 5 actually opens the class to new players but it also removes the best learning tiers for manual drop creating an EVE like learning cliff at tier 6.

  

 

Ich lasse mir doch nicht mein Schiff unter dem Arsch wegschießen. Feuererlaubnis! (I'm not letting my ship get shot out from under my arse. Open fire!) Ernst Lindemann Captain KMS Bismarck

 


Cpt_Cupcake #20 Posted 03 April 2017 - 02:16 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 76
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View PostBrushWolf, on 02 April 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

 

 

It isn't so much that they are trying to kill the class but with every change they make the class becomes less and less accessible to average players. So taking manual drop from 4 & 5 actually opens the class to new players but it also removes the best learning tiers for manual drop creating an EVE like learning cliff at tier 6.

 

agree with your assessment.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users