Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'cv op'.
Found 2 results
Stop the ridiculous 3 cv matches. there is absolutely no way to defend against them other than to not move from spawn. it is ridiculous, especially in a tier where no ship can defend itself from 1 cv that it should have to face 3! you wonder why people dont play/dont stay playing your game? look at what new players face! the unlimited planes from these cvs never stop and any random plane shot down has no effect on their damage output.
WanderingGhost posted a topic in General Game DiscussionOkay, now that I've slept and someone has of course actually failed to read and given their own TL;DR - here's the shortest, most basic version I can give, without completely losing the point. CV player, that plays all the other types just as much, does over 200k damage, says that CV's needs a nerf in alpha damage, says that some AA in general needs a nerf as one ship was nearly immune accounting for 50% of plane losses (and couldn't simply ignore it as it ran me down) while conversely the other 5 ships, had almost completely inept AA, because of ability to dodge most of the damage from flak, and therefore suggest dial down the importance of flak and the amount, as some of the guns using it historically didn't anyway, and further shift AA damage focus to the continuous damage so that AA is far more reliable and we don't have the same Jekyll & Hyde AA as RTS where planes are slaughtered or blow through AA like it's non existent, while returning the ability to increase range of AA instead of just damage to make overlapping AA easier so even as AA is drawn down a bit in high tiers and likely still raised in lower a couple ships can be close enough to deter attacks but far enough to have maneuver room, and points out the pointlessness of changes like those made to Hak because players adjust and resume to the same or close to it accuracy therefore negating the point of the nerf to lower damage dealt, and that the direct nerf to alpha could open up the avenue of increasing planes per attack flight, that could indirectly buff CV accuracy further, but due to a sufficient reduction in damage per ordnance hit, have less alpha strike ability than CV's currently have in the rework, and can return the DoT ability some CV's have lost. And it happens that I covered AA first, feeling the Jekyll and Hyde nature is far more an issue than the alpha damage. The only thing that I can do as a TL;DR for even that is that carriers and AA both need to be buffed and nerf at the same time. Which then makes no real sense and requires further explanation. I've been waiting since the rework happened for a match like this. A match where I load in at match start, that goes the distance, that doesn't have random nonsense lag, and isn't 20 minutes of 12 ships in the tightest ball you can get without team damage and where no plane can survive more than 10 seconds, etc. But, despite what this seems like - this isn't a brag post, not a "look at my awesome skills" post, or "give me congrats/attention - I've been waiting for a game like this really more to dissect and show why I say AA needs to shift away from flak, why AA generally needs a nerf, and why we need to stop screwing around with things like drop range, aim time, etc, and just nerf the alpha on CV's directly. But I honestly never expected that the game I'd get these things would have THIS high damage. And I'm leaving names in cause they actually did well, they did nothing wrong, no shame, they just kinda got screwed by the state of CV's. Plus paint doesn't want to cooperate today. So - let's start with AA. So, while you can't see the Kitakaze I attacked here, basically, between how this played out, and the team composition - these are the ships I ended up attacking. Not exactly the worst AA ships, maybe Atago if he had no DFAA (if he popped it I couldn't tell as I can differentiate the red from orange they say exists in the FAQ thread on AA). Which is where we get into a tale of two AA's. So, to get to "Why AA needs to shift" we have to discuss the losses first. Now, 70 planes in the old system, I'd have been WAY more screwed than I was here. But, here's where we get into "AA needs a nerf and further work" - That Iowa I didn't sink, even though I didn't target him till late match after ships shot at him - is responsible for 50% of my plane losses. This is where we get into in particular higher tier ships needing an AA nerf, and if I had to take a guess, he had slot 6 AA upgrade and why I say it needs to be removed. About half that damage is from a couple fires I got lucky were started after I managed a torp hit that knocked out his propulsion and he didn't, understandably, want to be immobile if I had more TB's to send. Though obviously the cost was high, pretty much none of the planes I sent to attack him returned. Maybe a couple odd ones, that's it. When you consider BB's are something they want us to go after a bit more, seeing as they want CV's to stop picking on DD's, and cruisers are literally supposed to be our predator with AA, little bit of an issue when one that is just 1 tier higher can be nearly immune to attacks or even if you can get attacks, extracts that high a cost by itself. That said, why I say we need to shift away from Flak to a focus on the autocannons, without flak, is the other 5 ships I targeted. Basically, they each averaged 7 planes out of what was launched against them - because I dodged the majority of flak rounds. Yeah, there should be some reward and accomplishment but combined with the above, you see the 2 sided nature of it that's EXACTLY the same as RTS's RNG system. The other 5 ships when I dodged most of the AA, I basically could attack at will with no issues, most of their kills ended up being planes heading back or locked in an attack animation that they couldn't dodge in, some of the worst damage, especially with DB's, happens during these. I can assure you one of them REALLY did not have fun with that fact. And really, on the opposite side, neither would I. What we have now is really the same RNG mess that frustrated both sides in RTS - a ship obliterates planes, or is useless against them, there isn't much middle ground. The constant DPS should be where the bulk of the work is, with flak an extra punishment for carelessness that will cost you planes faster. Though it should also be at a point that encourages team work and sticking together to cover one another with AA overlapped. Why I also say the damage changes on AFT and AAGM 2 should be reverted to increases in range - aside from lowering the damage directly (but increasing exposure time) it makes it easier for teammates to cover one another and work together, without having to get so close that maneuvering is an issue and all. And then we have the damage I dealt. 39390 from 106/240 rockets, 53951 from 12/18 torpedoes, 28718 from 10/32 bombs. That's 44% accuracy with HVAR's. 66% with torpedoes, and 31% with DB's. That's 371 damage per rocket, despite several no pens and any 0 damage hits, more troubling is the average against the Kitakaze - 2970 off 5 hits (only took 1 real pass at it) - nearly 600 per hit. Pretty sure some of that is actually misses close enough that the blast hits (HVAR damage is I think 1200 so there's no way it should average that) but still. 4496 per torpedo hit, that's with an average reduction of 30% per hit dealing those numbers - 3-4 plane run is about 13500-18000 damage and I have 3-4 runs - and these are weaker than IJN's in raw damage. 1 group can remove half of the Iowa's HP if it's not melted. Then you have the only one really remotely in line, DB's, at 2872 basically, and even then, that's a bit more about the fact they are pretty damn inaccurate and RNG - smallest circle along the ship, somehow miss, drop just as they are about to pull out, with the ship at the far edge of the outer circle, score a hit. And looking at the results - that's BEFORE you factor in the fire and flood damage. How fair is it for a DD with 15k HP to deal with 1 group that makes 3-4 passes that can wipe out about 20% of it's HP with about 20% accuracy? And maybe be set on fire to boot. Cruisers and BB's to have 30k HP ripped away and start floods or setup for a bunch of fires to be set? IJN you changed the way the torps work, you changed the flood chance, I adapted pretty quick cause I have Saipan and they are similar now so it was pretty quick for me, and others have started to adapt as well to the change. And so we will go back likely to putting up the same accuracy levels. Say you change Lexington the same way after I've posted this, what happens when a day, a week, a month from now me and everyone else adjusts, and I can go back to nailing 60% of torps? What you nerf the ability to aim them more? Lower the flood chance more? Buff AA? Any other number of other changes that really are either a temporary fix or simply create play-ability issues just like RTS at worst, or keep the see-saw going like the last couple weeks? Let us keep volume, let us keep accuracy, let us keep RoF basically - but lower the damage. Because if I can consistently adapt to changes like accuracy, and hit 2/3 of my torps, well, then my Hak will always deal 74664 damage minus reductions. Let's take USN with it's 5" HVAR's and FFAR's (though we might as well just have them all be HVAR's tier 5+ and remove rockets from tier 4) - set the damage to a max of 304. USN not really a TB based line - cap it at say 1000-1200 per torpedo. Depending on bomb size and type, only really have HE on USN at the moment, change the damage there too a bit. fairly low accuracy 2000 lb bombs meant for BB's, maybe they should average closer to 2500, 1000 lb cruiser killers, lets say 1500, and 500 lb HE for DD's with best accuracy of the bunch at about 1000 so the "Max" damages would be 7576, 4546, and 3031 respectively. For the purposes of this exercise, lets say I'm right about the 2x 1000 pound bombs, that'd be 4546 per bomb, 1500 on a pen. So, lets say I duplicate this performance at the new numbers. 10634 from the 106 rockets, 1200 damage torps with a 30% reduction is just over 11000 from 12 hits, and 15000 from 10 bomb hits. Basically counting that bit extra I rounded down, 36700 damage, with another 112300 from fires and floods. Still 149000 damage. And at that point, instead of consistent 2,3,4 planes per flight - you could basically go back to the old USN and IJN setups, so lets say 6 attack planes in a single strike, 6 TB's 1 strike, 12 DB's 6 per strike even if accuracy is increased a bit, due to increased volume, impact won't be nearly as bad. IJN goes back to it's setups but somewhat lower damage bombs but higher damage torps as that's more it's focus. I personally wouldn't really use the old numbers directly (beyond top/near top tier having old flight sizes) but you get the idea, we can kinda bring those differences back to the lines, have nations have different numbers of planes, different numbers of flights per squadron, etc. Now do we have to crash damage levels as low as I go here, of course not - Easy example and I err on the side of caution - too low it's easier to buff back up. You want to fix how much damage we CV's can do Wargaming? Then nerf the alpha, not the accuracy and other things trying to make it harder for us to hit, because we can adapt and make that change pointless. You want to balance AA - you need to make ships not be able to be near immune when alone, you need to dial down the amount of flak (nothing below 75-70 mm using it) and it's importance as it creates the old "all or nothing" shoot downs of RTS, while making it more about mid-range constant DPS, you need to in some ways generally dial it down while allowing us to once again increase range so that we can work as a team easier, and encourage teamwork. Because otherwise - the system becomes just like RTS AA, and what point then was there in changing it? The illusion of making it about skill and not the RNG of where flak spawns in the box? I'll take my snooze and thumbs down emotes now for writing a wall, and essentially suggesting we nerf AA, Buff AA, Nerf CV's, and Buff CV's.