Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cvs'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 83 results

  1. I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless to do specing at all for AA. CVs show up maybe once in 30 times (1/30) If a CVs does show up, it is likely that the CV will target one of my 11 teammates - not me (1/12) If I have a ship known to be "good" against aircraft - I don't actually need to make the captain, modules or upgrades actually AA - the CV driver will assume I have and leave me alone (1/5) If the CV driver is good (1/4)...and decides to decides to target me, they will succeed, AA or not. Assuming I don't die before the CV driver decides to target me. (1/3) (1/30) * (1/12) * (1/5) * (1/4) * (1/3) = 0.00462962% chance that an AA spec will be meaningful. Therefore from a min-maxing perspective, AA is utterly stupid. Your thoughts?
  2. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  3. REWORK

    If you are going to rework the entire carrier gameplay and make it basically CV PLAY FOR DUMMIES and make it like some auto drop thing. Already it takes tons of skill to even kill something. Sure a cv player can look at something and if he or she wants it dead can delete it, but that requires skill. It's also the victim fault for dying in the first place. A cv cannot just go into a middle of a formation and drop a payload they get wiped out instantly. I see a lot of topics on these and they seem nice, but if that is what people want then DEFENSIVE AA needs to be removed. and all of these ships need AA reworked. if you do a normal auto drop with what we have now the planes get blasted out of the sky within seconds at higher tiers and not get a single TORP in. Okay do cross torps with two squads? THATS two squads you sacrifice when one squad gets the job done. You lose more plane reserves which is unfair and unfun. The average player in higher tiers can easily dodge all the torps that are AUTO dropped. I could have worded this better and put more, but yeah... CV can be reworked but I don't understand why the need to make it easier to play. You guys don't make battleships and cruisers and dds easier to play. You still have to lead your bullets the same way you have to lead your plane drops. Anyways this is coming from someone who is only good at cvs and is bad at cruisers, bbs, dds... My rant. All my cvs are well over 50 percent win rates while anything that shoots a bullet with a mounted cannon is below 45% win rate.
  4. (Place tongue firmly in cheek before proceeding. And remember: Irony is Truth) Invisible ships that whine about radar and battleship AP Big fat clumsy ships that whine about invisible ships, fires and walls of torps Floating citadels that win by hiding behind cover and lobbing lameness onto hapless targets that can’t fire back at them Smoke, smoke, smoke and some more smoke Fire-spitting smoke clouds featured prominently in the naval battles of the early to mid-20th Century Overpenetrations: 16” shells go right through a canoe, you know, for only 10% damage The Dispersion Slot Machine---feeling lucky? Well, are you, punk? Hair-pulling and rage incumbent upon the attempt to get a few digital stars next to one’s name through “competitive play” (mark you: there is no monetary compensation for this) Wailing, frustration and rage about the matchmaker Wailing, frustration and rage about “having a bad team” Wailing, frustration and rage about “losing 10 games in a row and it’s not my fault” Cyclones: “Well, Yuri Ivanovich, you have to encourage people to close the distance somehow.” “Great idea, Igor Semyonovich, let’s implement it!” (leaked conversation from WG St. Petersburg office, circa 2016). Angling: Because 2700 lb shells aren’t that dangerous if they hit you at 65 degrees. To borrow a phrase from WoT: "Bounced off!" Overmatch: The number 14.3 is extremely important in naval combat (who knew? I’ll tell you: The designers of 460mm Japanese naval guns. Smart!) One of the greatest innovations in naval strategy in this period involved pointing the bow of the ship toward the enemy and slowly reversing. Don’t you dare cross the T, noob. What do you think this is, a historical game? British battleships: Because to heck with your angling Great Naval Battles in bodies of water full of large masses of strangely-shaped land An aircraft carrier? Never seen one of those. Deep Water torps: Because battleship players are stupid and there are too many of them Radar: Because if your own DDs die, how will you ever see the little buggers? Egos and Tempers the size of the USS Midway Who knew the Soviet Navy boasted such a formidable surface fleet with artillery more accurate than anything any capitalist pig-navy could ever devise? “Destroyers in World War II primarily performed fleet and convoy escort, as well as antisubmarine warfare duties” Oh wait…. Detonations: “We at Wargaming.net believe in fun and engaging gameplay!” Detonations: “Buy this piece of striped cloth and hoist it up the mainmast. It will prevent the unlimited supply of torpedoes in your hull from going off when hit.” Fires: Because how else can a 127mm gun sink a 60,000 ton ship? 33% Skill, 67% Luck. Want to change that? Carry harder and git gud, scrub. “I play World of Warships because it helps me relax.” “I play World of Warships because of the friendly, welcoming and helpful community.” Losing credits? “May I interest you in a premium account, dear sir?” Armor penetration mechanics more Byzantine than organic chemistry Soviet Battleships: The End of the World is Coming
  5. I've been playing my Taiho a lot lately, (I always play Taiho a lot) and I've noticed that she is netting me a substantial sum of money. (on the order of 100-140k a game in profits, this is without Zulu, but with premium camo) I've noticed that credit earning seems not as much dependant upon damage dealt, although it does have a large effect, as it seems to be plane kills and spotting ribbons. (Which to me seems wrong, since those have a very low amount of gains associated with them.) For example, on a game that would have normally netted me a large loss, I got an abnormally large number of spotting and plane kill ribbons, and I did turn up a good profit. (about 60k) Has anyone else noticed the same thing, or am I just crazy?
  6. Short term suggestion wrt CVs

    To WG: Please consider handling CVs like Clan battles are handled. People can play CVs only during a certain period of every day. CV players would know that if they want to play CVs they have to play them during that time window. This would allow CV players to have much shorter queue times. Many more CV players available for the MM should allow the CV match ups to be more diverse.
  7. To WG Devs: Given: (according to Jingles), CV players skill determines the outcome of the battle more than any other single player IJN v USN CVs have horrible balance (Midways are never used in clan battles) 2017 was supposed to be the year of the carrier .... and it wasn't 2018 is almost halfway through (without a CV change that WG feels comfortable talking about) Any CV rework still needs significant play testing / bug testing / etc. Any CV rework has to be rebalanced against all other classes It is unlikely that the first attempt to go to the super testers or PTS will be workable the first time out Number of CVs players are dropping Skill discrepancy is growing It is poor experience for new players to invest time in CVs when that skill will be of no use in the planned for future. Therefore: it seems safe to assume that an final CV rework is at least 4-6 months from now. It is possible that WG will not find a workable CV solution (18+ months of effort with nothing coming out) I would ask that WG consider: some sort of Plan B and share the Plan B thinking with the community. sharing timeline when to go to Plan B
  8. The Ether Conflict

    Scenario: You are a warship that uses an outfit like in KanColle. You start off with a chosen ship class (WW2 Era). You can only change your class once after you have chosen your class to start with. Starting ships: Carrier: Ranger, can be upgraded to Saratoga, Enterprise, Essex, and Midway Battleship: Arizona, can be upgraded to Colorado, Washington, Missouri, and Montana Cruiser: Pensacola, can be upgraded to Cleveland, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Des Moines Destroyer: Sims, can be upgraded to Benson, Kidd, Black, Fletcher, and Laffey Escort Carrier/Light Carrier: Langley, option to upgrade to Bogue, Casablanca, and Independence Auxillary/Support: Your choice between Oiler or Supply ship, no upgrades available Note: You cannot go to the max immediately, you must improve your technology and level up your ship before you can move on to the next tier. Players can choose to Operate independently or work together and operate from a single naval base. Enemies will either be other players who want to fight other players, or AI enemies that are historic enemies (IJN and KMS). The choice is yours as where to start!
  9. Although CVs get a lot of hate, the carrier mechanics are actually perfectly fine. The real problem is that players too lazy to actually change their play style when a carrier is around. This is combined with the fact that Wargaming does not give carrier captains any real instructions and permits overpowered CVs to bully around low tier CV captains. Not only that, but the significance of captain skills significantly turns off new CV captains. This is compounded by the ridiculous power of AA builds, and the high power that AA can achieve at high tiers. The only thing stops Carriers from being being ridiculously underpowered is that the average player base is completely retarded and cannot manage to play in a co-ordinated manner at all. Which means that CVs essentially are un-opposed. The only reasons why CVs are "OP" at all is that the average player makes themselves an exceedingly easy target for CVs. Most of the issues in CV play could be solved with these measures; A: Increase rewards for CV play, CV play has ridiculously low rewards, with extremely good play rewarding low gains. B: Add a full tutorial for new CV players. C: Give manual drops to low tier CVs, but nerf them heavily, I.E 3.5k damage torps, and a nerf on the strafe multiplier. D: Remove AA spec, but increase stock AA values to be an average between fully spec'ed and stock. I hope you enjoy, and hope that this provokes discussion.
  10. Fun and engaging!!!!!

    Been off for a few monhs due to burn out and WG not selling me my year member ship without a bunch of [edited] flags at Christmas, so I thought what the hey and loaded up the game again. I had a few good fights then got into a scrap with an Enterprise on the other side. My KGV faces a lone DB squad with hard turn fighter up. No other fighters or Tbs in the area to distract my AA. And several crits and 2/3 of my hp later (unrepairable of course) they sail away. I finish the game GG every one and uninstall.......maybe I'll check back in another 6 months.
  11. https://hushkit.net/2018/04/17/spitfire-versus-messerschmitt-bf-109-a-comparison-of-the-spitfire-and-the-bf-109-in-the-early-years-of-world-war-ii/ “…the Me 109F has a slightly superior performance to the Spitfire V” – Air Vice Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory, September 1941. “I also thought the Bf 109F was slightly superior to the Spitfire V”, – Squadron Leader Douglas Bader, circa 1941. extracts : "The Spitfire’s advantages were its tighter turning circle and faster turn rate, which allowed it to outmanoeuvre the Bf 109 in the horizontal plane. But the Bf 109, owing to its higher climb rate, could sustain climbing turns that the Spitfire was unable to keep up with. This gave German pilots more freedom to engage and disengage from dogfights with British fighters. Two quotes illustrate this advantage rather well:" "Armament-wise, neither aircraft ever had a clear advantage over the other. But it is still useful to study how the initial designs started off, and how the rapidly changing requirements of a modern air war forced changes to the weapon fit." "In terms of ease of operation, there were advantages and shortcomings to both designs. The Spitfire’s bubble canopy and large mirrors offered excellent views and better situational awareness to the pilot. The Bf 109s angular canopy with its thick frame fell short. On the other hand, the Bf 109’s Revi gunsight was far ahead of the early Spitfire’s ring-and-bead type sight. It eliminated parallax errors and made deflection shots more accurate. The aircraft’s engine and propeller controls were also more automated, which reduced pilot workload." of course, neither of the aircraft discussed in this excellent article (published by a respected source) are the navalized variants of either Spitfire or Bf109, but I think we have some expert opinion on the forums to fill in for this! But it would seem unavoidable, if not scandalous, if the World of Warships Zeppelin bf109s were not confronted with their nemesis, the Spitfire. "In the final analysis, it is difficult to declare an overall victor without going into the details of each variant. For the most part, the Bf 109 and Spitfire were both well-matched, with own unique strengths and shortcomings." discuss.
  12. WE will try this on this coming FRIDAY and Sunday on APRIL 20th and 22nd 4/20/18 and 4/20/18 8:30-11:30PM US Eastern standard time , 7:30-10:30 PM US CENTRAL TIME, 6:30-9:30 PM US MOUNTAIN TIME, 5:30-7:30 PM US PACIFIC TIME , 10:30AM -1:30 PM in Sydney Australia 8:30 AM - 11:30 AM in Perth Australia. this will be in the training room labeled chapter 5 battle of Santa Cruz islands. search for training rooms by Outwardpanicjoe (CHAPTER 5) Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands,– The U.S. naval forces were deployed as two separate carrier groups, Task Force 16 under carrier Enterprise, and Task Force 17 under carrier Hornet and were separated from each other by about 17 km . The carriers were supported by one battleship (USS South Dakota), three heavy cruisers (Portland, Northampton, Pensacola), three light anti-aircraft cruisers (San Juan, San Diego, Juneau), and 14 destroyers. FOR THIS SCENARIO the USN will have the USS Smith (MAHAN CLASS) escorting the USS enterprise with defensive fire and another DD will escort Hornet closely. In Hornets group will have Northampton there and Juneau and 2 USN destroyers at tier 6 or 7. With enterprise, the BB SD (we will use the Alabama), Portland (Indianapolis), Pensacola, San Juan (Atlanta) and 2 DDs one mahan class and the other can be any tier 6-7 USN dd. OBJECTIVE – main objective burn and take out carrier Zuiho and have enterprise survive Secondary save hornet. The Japanese naval forces were divided into three groups: the "Main Body" consisted of Shōkaku, Zuikaku, and Zuihō plus one heavy cruiser and eight destroyers, and the "Vanguard" force contained a battleships, three heavy cruisers, one light cruiser, and seven destroyers, and battleship Hiei.. FOR THIS SCENARIO and limitations of the training room. We will go mainly with the main body group we will have 2 shokakus and 1 zuiho , shokaku, Zuikaku, and Zuiho., battleship Hiei and kirishima (both kongo classes) Atago and another any Japanese light cruiser kuma and 4 tier 7 Japanese DDs some where known to be shiratsuyus guarding and escorting the cvs. Objective: main destroy hornet and her flotilla (optional). Secondary damage or sink enterprise and damage Uss smith. IJN Zuiho and USS HORNET CVS cannot put out single fires on the first attack but can put out anything more then that and Zuiho can only be taken out by dive bombers. ships of both fleets must stay in a defensive AA formation for CVs protection. once IJN spots USN planes they can launch planes. USN cvs can have there dive bombers scouting only till the Japanese feet is discovered. if anyone is interested in helping to make new events or suggestions feel free to join the workshop discord https://discord.gg/ygjyP2G
  13. Simple CV MM fix? Simple?

    Hey all, First I will admit, I do not play Cvs... But I'm throwing this out just to see what people think. First, does WG have the ability to incorporate player skill into match making? I'm thinking that in general the idea of skill-based MM should be considered but at the very least CVs should be matched up based on their skill. This is because the ability for a "great-super unicum" Cv driver to completely decimate a less experienced Cv player and full on carry his or her's respective team. This isn't any fun for anyone else playing that match... the other CV player leaves frustrated, the other team is helpless and leaves frustrated, and the CV player's own team also experiences diminished game play (We've all had those games where the enemy team sinks so fast you end up chasing around the battle and doing diddly-squat). Now there are a couple issues with this that I've thought of: First, match making might take EVEN longer for CVs. The fix for this would be the same is as being introduced in 7.4.0, where they're strictly going to mirror ship types and tiers until a player has waited for 3 minutes. So, for the first 3 minutes CVs players will be matched based on skill and after, will simply be matched up with the first available CV player in their range. Second, if CV players don't get matched up with players that are better than you, you won't learn and improve. Yes, I think this is true. However, this can be solved by increasing the range of ability that players can be paired up with. Ie. Rather than a player with a WTR of 1200 in their Lexington just being paired up with another player that has a WTR of 1200, that player has the potential to be paired up with a player with a WTR between 1000 and 1400. This range will move up and down according to that players ability. Anyways, folks, this is just an idea and I've received mostly positive feedback from people who I've mentioned it to. Please let me know what you think and if there are any issues with this. Cheers :)
  14. Played 12 games in Randoms yesterday, no CVs. Most of those were enjoyable and a couple were close. I go to Coop to mess around with Bretagne and every game has a bot CV, except when they have a human CV. Do the bot CVs need XP? Are they grinding ships out of stock? Short of coin? What benefit to any human is there from having a bot CV every game? At least put a No Bot CV button for PvE.
  15. Since I have an obsession with CV threads, I thought it would be better to put all of my thoughts here, then to have all of my thoughts fragmented across multiple threads. First off, I am not claiming that CVs are not broken, or that they do not need fixing, but rather, that they are less broken than they many seem to believe that they are. I am also not claiming that countering CVs is feasible with the current way that players act on the NA server. Very rarely, maybe once every 50 games, will my CV run into a coordinated team, often since Cvs require team play to counter them, players stand little chance of fighting off a CV attack. On to the first part that I wish to speak on; skill gaps. Secondly, the balance between CVs. CVs effect on DDs, as well as other surface ships. Manual attacks, and CV damage. Now, onto the bane of al CV players, AA. Lastly potential fixes. I will add more suggestions later, but this is it for now. I would appreciate it if the comments were kept respectful, constructive, and if you downvote explain the rationale, thank you.
  16. Hi All As a Ranger driver I have a message to all Saipan drivers. Your CV can instant delete a Ranger so screwing around and just DO IT! Your fighters are better and faster, a Ranger cant catch your dive bombers and can barely keep up with your torpedo bombers. Do your job and insta delete any Ranger you see and stop wasting time. Ranger AA is NOT going to hurt you and they are usually hiding very very far away. A Saipan versus Ranger is as close as you can get to being guaranteed a win by MM. As for all the other CV's...you have a obligation to insta delete the opposite carrier..NOT even trying to do so is basically a act of negligence, down right criminal behavior and you need to immediately sell your CV. This idiotic nonsense of CV's not attacking CV's needs to be added to the complaint system. When you are reported for NOT PLAYING YOUR ROLE, your CV will be locked for 20 minutes until your attitude improves. Multiple offenses should result in your account being shut for 24 hours until u see the wisdom and light of attacking the enemy CV.
  17. My idea on fixing CVs.

    There's a lot of threads on fixing CVs, so I've decided to try my hand at it. The first issue with CVs is that they are heavily reliant on skill. Unfortunately, I don't believe that this can be fixed altogether. However, I think there can be a few things that could mitigate this. Lower tiers. A: Reduce strafe damage by about half on lower tiers (4-6) so that strafes can still be used to learn how the mechanic works, but not abused by clubbers. B: give lower tiers alt attacks, but reduce the damage of their ordinance. C: have a pop-up that has a tutorial attached when a player first purchases a CV. (This doesn't really help bad players, but reduces the learning curve) On to higher tiers now. A: Clearly mark AA auras of all visible ships, one of the best marks of a good CV player is how well they read the limits of AA. B: remove air supremacy (the skill) it's essentially redundant, as all CVs must have it. There is no point having a skill in game that you cannot play well without. Make it like CE and be an automatic skill. C: tighten the radius of the USN DB drops, make it equivalent to the IJN spread. There are a couple of general mechanic changes as well. A: remove all AA upgrades and skills, and remove the AA functions of secondary upgrades. Instead add AA to all ships in the game, making it an average between a full AA spec and no skills at all. This is because without skills many ships are utterly defenseless, and fully spec'ed many ships are utterly invulnerable. AA skills are also very expensive. This way all ships have a chance. B: reduce strafe damage, as well as the drain it puts on ammo. C: give CVs a spotter squadron, which is faster then all other squads but cannot fight. D: to reduce multitasking load, make DB auto drops equivalent to manual. E: reduce US squad size to 6 (with skill) but give the tier 7 and 8 CV an extra fighter, the tier 6 CV an extra bomber, and the tiers 9-10 CV an extra DB. F: tighten auto drop spreads, and make them slightly closer, so they can be an alternative to manuals and ease multitasking. G: lower DDs air detect from 2.something to 1.something. this should reduce permanent spotting severely. H: large ships should be able to be spotted by planes in smoke, with a reduced detection radius. Which should correspond with their AA range. This only takes effect when their AA guns fire. And whatever else I think of later.
  18. Fixing CV's - give and take

    Well, it's been a popular theme the last few days, and I've been wanting to throw this up the last few days and now is as good a time as any to just throw it in a thread of it's own where I can tweak as I need to as I recall anything I missed. But all these ideas, some good, some bad, some down right insane, they've been mostly one sided. "Buff this thing I use", "Nerf this thing I don't use" "Nerf this for them and buff this for me". And that is all it has really been the last 2-3 years with CV's. At any given time, only one side is being listened to by Wargaming, if at all. AA buff after AA buff from non-CV players complaint's, Changes to USN fighters when IJN really was dominating the game for a time, etc. But aside from Wargaming usually fixing the wrong thing (USN needed strike power, so they buff fighters, AS OP o they just remove it and leave us with one set up that has issues that give other CV's the same advantage they complained about, Manual drop they just keep buffing AA), it's seemingly only looked at from one side, and it hasn't worked. The problem is that we need sweeping changes in both directions, to both CV lines, to the other ships because of AA, to fix this issue. And this is not something you can really just "phase in", this needs to be handled like Arty was in tanks, one patch, change it all, tweaks thereafter. The current list I have, copied from a different post I posted it in - Strafing needs to be reworked so it's not all about micromanaging and close the gap between the super skilled/experienced players and the not so much and newer ones. A debuff to DPS that gives you some control over the aerial fight with fighters and a temporary debuff to bomber accuracy but without being as brutally punishing as it is now for players. Manual drop needs to be removed from TB's or reworked that it's arming range is more similar to autodrops because we should not be dropping torps 1km or less from a ship. USN needs HP buffs to fighters and bombers while taking a DPS nerf, while IJN maybe gains a little DPS but loses some ammo to try and equal out fighters while keeping them different. USN needs, after fixing it's fighters, the return of it's AS set ups, IJN needs in most cases (where it would have more fighters) it's AS setup's removed and replaced with it's own "strike" set ups that match USN's in fighters and maintains it's group numbers just in additional strike groups. USN HE DB's need an accuracy buff plain and simple. CV's may need to have their damaged nerfed slightly on torps and HE DB's, and definitely on the AP. AA on all ships (with manual drop TB's removed from the equation or fixed that they have to drop at range) save maybe DD's other than for weapon consistency, needs a pretty hefty nerf. Re-integrate AA mod 2 and Secondary mod 2 into 1 mod again that buffs both AA and secondary range. Especially with fighters no longer stomping and deleting one another or groups of attack planes, consideration of giving all BB's their own DF AA that has a 1.x or 1.1x multiplier that really just causes the bombers to be less accurate and easier to try and dodge some of the incoming attack. Cruisers or ships like DoY will still have the one that not only debuffs but is far more threatening to CV's planes. Make "Emergency Takeoff" a built in mechanic, not a skill, and change the skill to maybe lessen the penalty we get from it. As it currently stands the skill is effectively useless and do just as well, arguably better, just investing in DCP II, maybe the flags/skills that cost less to hasten it's cooldown. Overall fighter DPS rework to lessen the power gap between tiers One of the big issues is in simpler terms "good vs bad" CV players, and a big factor in that is strafing. And I get there should be some skill and player influence in it, but the current auto delete, no matter how you dice it, is a problem and "git gud", the usual answer, is not the solution. It needs a rework and if for fighters caught in it it becomes a DPS debuff that's reasonable, it can give the player using strafe an edge, and makes it worth using, while still leaving the other player, should luck be on their side, a chance, while also meaning if it isn't, they can still maybe hold up the fighters for a time. And make it debuff bombers like DF AA does but maybe sticks for a few seconds after and/or slowly recovers as the groups "get back in formation". Manual drops by TB's are a big reason AA has been buffed so much, and why at one or two points ship agility was buffed (though agility was also partially torps in general). And look, I get for as things work now, drops on targets in smoke and taking longer range shots, rare as that last one seems, are a thing it's used for. But as it currently stands, the ability to drop torps under 1km where they can't really dodge is a problem. And let's be honest for a second, those o us that have played long enough and/or are good at it already know how to compensate for the only way to counter it - turn into them before they arm, so that even though they turn in, they still arm. The mechanic does more harm than good and despite what some people say about "auto drop being useless", it's not and if for some reason CV's are that hampered without it, I doubt they will be unless they fully remove it so we can't torp ships in smoke, they can make changes to auto like they did at tier 4 and 5 to compensate. USN vs IJN needs a ton of work as does tier vs tier. USN fighters need to be brought down to a level that IJN is actually competitive in a one on one fight. Which also means we can also balance other nations fighters better. And IJN fighters need some slight tweaks as well. The backbone of USN striking power has been DB's since day one, and the HE DB's need to be a bit more accurate to actually be truly effective. And where as IJN has numbers, USN needs a bit more raw survivablity than IJN's attack planes. With fighters balanced we need the fighter group count of set ups to match, so, as an example, Lex get's 2,0, 2 back for AS and keeps the 1,1,2 for strike while Shokaku AS is the 2,2,2 and it's strike is 2,3,2. All lines should have an AS option and strike option, not one way to play. And a lower tier CV needs to be able to stand a chance against a higher tier one unless the plan is CV's only see CV's of the same tier. It's needs to be a flavour where IJN fighter planes hit a little harder, but run out of ammo faster and don't do as well in AA with faster DPS drop off as they lose planes, where as USN fighters don't hit quite as hard, but DPS doesn't drop off as fast, they better withstand AA and have ammo to spare. Not terribly different from now, but evened up a bit. On the attack side, IJN has sheer numbers to overwhelm defense and get planes through AA, but is a little more likely to be taking losses where USN has those fewer groups, but higher HP means they aren't losing as much with less to be shot at. IJN basically having that good feeling alpha punch people like, where as USN is really more for DoT and smaller ships, or people that just want to watch the world burn. With manual drop properly tweaked or gone, AA needs to change. It needs to be lowered so that ships that run off on there own, even if they build AA, are not completely immune to air attack. CV's should lose some planes attacking lone ships, but not necessarily entire groups, and definitely not whole strike forces. Unless of course they attack a huge group that is a couple BB's and cruisers popping DF AA, then heavy/total losses should almost be expected. But they should be able to attach 1-2 ships without catastrophic loss of aircraft on the way in. Go back to needing some actual teamwork when a CV is present in case it's bombers get past your CV's fighters. But, while the actual damage is nerfed, Secondary and AA mod 2 should be recombined into a single mod that buffs the range of both once again so those that take it aren't just upping AA or secondary range. Also, perhaps consideration that as said above, BB's get a DF AA consumable, other than ships like DoY and Hood that would have unique versions, that offers little or no buff to AA damage, but scatters the incoming planes to lower their accuracy to try and make it some more of the damage can be dodged. Especially if for IJN strike, as the IJN line has always had torps as it's thing, expands on TB groups at lower tiers than it used to. To hell with realism, as that was some's argument for it to be this way in the first place, but CV's, that have the longest time between strikes (30 second rearm for IJN, 40 for USN, 10 seconds for 1 group to take off, travel time, variable time to land planes based on ship speed, angle to planes, etc, wash, rinse, repeat), need to not be totally shut down by fires. Yes, in an ideal scenario they should never be on fire, but happens. What we currently pay 3 points for, "Emergency Takeoff", should just be a built in mechanic and the skill takes time off the penalty. Because as it stands it is better time wise to actually have DCP II, and if you want to make it even better, equip flags and skills to lower it's cooldown, that cost less than Emergency Takeoff. And if, after we've lowered AA to a reasonable level, maybe given BB's a way to debuff attack plane accuracy if they have no cover once or twice, maybe upped some ships AA ranges with the modification change, and moving torp attacks far enough back there is in fact time to maneuver, CV's have somehow come out over-performing and doing too much like the days of old, well, maybe at that point we need to eat a bit of a damage nerf to ordnance to even things out a bit. Maybe there are other changes in general CV's are going to need that, as of this moment, I haven't recalled or thought of. But we need tweaks that lower the gap between "pro and Joe" CV players, we need to fix the performance gaps between IJN and USN, we need to balance out AA while not allowing CV's to come in with point blank alpha strikes that can deal 40k+ damage. Maybe I have the right ideas, maybe my ideas are off, but there is one thing that isn't going to change - CV balance can not be dictated by just 1 group or community of players, or by any 1 group/community at any given time. The Pro's at 60%, the Joe's around 50%, the IJN players, the USN players, The CV, BB, CA/L and DD players, we all need to hash it out and be willing to compromise on changes that may not fully satisfy all parties because it's not exactly the thing they want, but at the same time is acceptable to all parties as a decent enough middle ground of what everyone want's. It can't just be the BB/CA/CL/DD players shouting "Nerf CV's", the CV players saying "Nerf AA" or "Buff CV's", the Pro player's saying "Git Gud" and the Joe players going "remove X that the Pro's abuse on us", The IJN CV players saying "Nerf USN or "Buff our CV's" and USN CV players the same thing about IJN CV's and theirs. This hasn't worked for basically 3 years now, 1 of Alpha/Beta and 2 of release, we all need to compromise if we want this issue finally fixed, and fixed right. Or at least right enough for everyone to be content.
  19. This is a thread designed to explain why CVs are performing so well, why they have powerful "point and click torps," and why they should stay that way. I will draw on what I say in other threads, so don't be surprised if you see something that looks like I've said it before. Starting this off, I first want to state a point, CVs do not counter any ship, ship type, or build, instead, they specifically counter bad team play. Therefore, a CV's success should be dictated by how well the enemy team performs, not how the team is composed. Currently, the NA meta is very sloppy, with no consistent team play, ships do not cover each other and often spread all over the map. This is the kind of meta CVs are designed to counter, and they do so well. The reason that matches currently come down to the better CV so often is that each team does not try to actively group up and counter the enemy CV, meaning CVs often have the optimal situation for a game. There are often complaints about CVs that refuse to cover for their team, and that is justified, however, CVs cannot, and do not, provide cover to everyone. Often a ship is isolated from friendly warships and quickly meets its demise, what is to be done about this? Nothing, this is what CVs are designed for, CVs punish warships that do not play as a fleet, and reward good play. How about permanently spotting DDs? Often DDs should stay with their fleets even if there is not an enemy CV, so the friendly ships can provide help against other DDs and radar ships. However, none of these actions are often done as of the current meta, and CVs strike with near impunity. Now, as to the ability for a CV to win games, there are three limiting factors that, when working together, can reduce the enemy (or friendly) CV to a non-factor: Team cohesiveness and teamwork. Skill of CVs Tier. I'll explain on each of these and how they relate to each other. As you can see, Cvs heavily rely on teamwork in order to win and do badly when their team does not work well as a team. By now, some of you are probably thinking, a ship that is designed to impact the gameplay of the entire enemy team! That sounds OP!!! And you're about half right. You see, the CV is a tool to encourage good team play, and as such, it must be able to severely punish bad team play. This is why CVs can one shot basically any ship in the game, however, as previously stated, the really suffer against a cohesive team. Now, a lot of times this is brought up, people say, "Well, we can't stay in groups, it reduces flexibility." No. No it doesn't, when DDs are close to the fleet, screening torpedoes, CA,s are helping defend the DDs and BBs, and BBs are staying with the team and taking damage, all the while impenetrable to AA attack. Then you have an incredibly powerful fighting force, not what we have now. (individual ships scattered around the map, incoherently firing at random targets, and ditching teammates for fear of damage) Now, often this is also looked down on, but I'm not talking about a single lemming train, instead, large groups of ships, possibly up to three, that stay together and provide each other with defense. Now, obviously, CVs aren't working. Teams are still flopping, and they're still OP. How can we stop this? First of all, most teams don't try to co-ordinate AA defense at the beginning, a big help would be placing the next to the CVs name a tag telling players that this is a threat, and to stay near other ships to avoid air attack. Next, put a tip in the little tips tab of the loading menu advising players on how to avoid air attack. Nerf AA, now this is fairly controversial, and it is, however, currently an AA build can make you a no-fly zone for planes, something that should be accomplished by two or three ships working in concert. However, to balance this, increase arm times of TBs. Edited to remove the sensationalist title, bad suggestions added an argument defending a point and added suggestions done by another player.
  20. Lets talk about a few things

    Hello everyone. I'd like to see some debate on some topics that I feel are in need of discussion, hence this thread. The questions are. 1. Will Pan-Asian dds phase out Japanese dds in terms of torpedo effectiveness? (The exception being the Akizuki) 2. Should radar/hydro go through islands or not? (I feel this is a big no but i've seen lots of debate over this one elsewhere) 3. Are the smoke changes that were implemented really that debilitating to cruisers? 4. Should the US's CV loadouts really be reduced to one single loadout? (This is huge no for me and I don't even play American CV) 5. Should the HE pen on the British bb's be lowered to 1/6 pen? What do you guys think of these?
  21. So in the new patch video it is mentioned that Free XP will be given out for researched US CVs. However does this mean that they also have to be purchased and sitting in port slots to be counted? I have both the Langley and Bogue fully researched, however I sold both some months back because the grind fest to get to the Independence felt too much like me hitting my head against a wall. However like I said both have fully been researched, but aren't currently active/available in my port (not using port slots). So will this cause WGing to not give me the Free XP that they mentioned? They did not specify this point, so if anyone does know then I'd appreciate some clarification on this. Thanks!
  22. USN CV Changes, Serious Concerns

    First, I get that CV's need balancing, and I get even more than USN CV's need it the most. That said, I have the following concerns, and I mean no disrespect, nor am I attacking anyone at WG with these: Ranger, at T7, now only has one fighter squadron. Ranger will generally be up against Hiryu, which most often will have 3, and Saipan, which will have, usually, 3. This is bad. Ranger was already rock bottom, and yet, somehow, you've dug a hole under it to allow it to fall even further. It matters not that Ranger also has those strike aircraft, because those 3 squads will be taken out by the 3 fighter squads they face, while its only fighter squad will do...what, exactly? Then, at T8, you did the same thing with Lexington, and further, the 9 and 10 only get 2 fighters. More, if you get two Rangers, or whatever USN CV it happens to be, in a round, you've pissed off pretty much everyone in the round, because now there's no fighter cover, just bombs and torpedoes everywhere. I'm personally not one of them, but a significant portion of the player base refers to CV's as "sky cancer", so, if you thought this was going to appease those players, I gotta ask: What, exactly, were you drinking when you thought that?(I'd like some, it's got to be awesome.) You've taken an already horribly overmatched carrier line, and somehow thought "balance" meant "make them even more worthless to play so that no-one plays anything but IJN CV's", I guess? At least with multiple modules, a player had choices, now, the choice is going to be to not play USN CV's, even more so than as it is right now. Balance means the ship in question is viable for Random matches, that it's truly useful and playable. Please, allow me to assure you that this USN change, as it stands on the test server, does not, I repeat, not, make them viable. It further reduces the chance anyone, other than a die-hard USN CV fanatic, will play them, and those that do will take massive heat from their teams, because as it stands right now, having a USN CV on your team is going to be virtually an instant loss, unless, of course, both teams have the same thing. That happens far less than you seem to think it does. USN CV's frequently face IJN CV's, and they were already at a heavy disadvantage. Now, now it's more like that scrawny toothpick guy in the 8th grade(Whom I used to be, so I know what I speak of), facing that 11th grade offensive lineman. It will be Pancake City, with the only memory of the skinny guy(The USN CV), being a grease stain upon the water. WG, I hate to break it to you, but that's the literal opposite of "balance." More, reducing the flight control module down to one takes choice away from the player, and I promise you, the vast majority of players, no matter the game, do not, I repeat, not, like that at all. As it stands now on the test server, I'd much prefer that the USN CV's be removed from the game until they ARE balanced and viable. You're doing it with the GZ, you can do it with this line. Just disable them for the live server, and work on them behind the scenes. That's just my suggestion. I believe it to be a viable one, but that's just my thoughts. Thanks for the time spent reading to anyone who did. Peace out.
  23. As much as I want CV's to be fixed, want them to be as easily accessible to any player to play as the other ship classes (I.E., a long time CV player doesn't just stomp you and near guarantee the other team wins), I'm honestly getting to a point I want you guys at Wargaming to just leave them alone, actually listen and then, maybe, fix them. Cause you keep missing the bloody points or making things worse, or out right stupid changes. I'll start with the dead horse that is the USN CV changes for starters. 1 module? Look, I hate the current choices we have as USN CV from tier 7-9, 10 I think get a 2,1,2. We just needed a better strike option or a viable mix option because sometimes, I'd rather have the 2,0,2 on my Lex, but a 1,1,2 would have been a nice option. That and simply making the DB's have a little less dispersion, seeing as it's on par with IJN's currently but DB's has been USN's "thing" over Japan. That is all that needed to happen other than USN fighters need a nerf. But no, you leave IJN with options and USN you have to play it this way. Sure, Bogue needed a 1,1,1 that people would gravitate to anyway, partially because of USN fighters being OP. But Ranger where you have to deal with the damned Saipan you get ONE fighter group against it's 2-3 tier 9's, not to mention both it and Lex have to contend with 6 groups of IJN fighters. Even if they can still likely win 2 on 1 against IJN fighters, leaving the broke as hell strafe mechanic out of it, you get no option to trade some striking power to better cover your team. Essex at least gets 2,1,2 sure. And despite losing tier 9 fighters it still has an edge on Taiho's even without DFE (20% chance per second to down Taiho fighters vs 18% chance Taiho downs the Essex fighters, but the kick in the teeth is the TB's. Those TB's unless there's a buff you didn't announce against your basic Friedrich is 23% chance to be downed, 30% if they focus with just a secondary build. They can up it further with the flag or the rare AA build Friedrich. Let alone Iowa or any cruiser that is the only ship out of the pack or stray into it's AA bubble. And then you have the 2,2,2 at 10 where, it gets tier 10 fighters but those same tier 8 bombers that max out at 2065 hp. Might get past K's anemic AA unless the player buffs it with more than BFT, maybe even Yamato under the same conditions. Montana it comes down to build because of the 20 mm guns shorter range and just how buffed the 40 mm and long range guns are, though, just BFT and focusing is 35% chance per second and Conq gets closer to or over 40%. And these ships can all add another 25% to AA DPS with an upgrade, 10% with a flag and 100% to DP guns with a skill. But then you have Des that jumps from 25% with only BFT to 75% without even focusing fire, just under 100% if they do focus. Most of these cruisers with just BFT can get to 50-75% shoot down rates you stray into their fire, and TB's are always the first focused. And let's not forget the extra damage they can pile on and usually, by tier 9 and 10, people aren't dumb enough to get caught alone, other than destroyers that yes have to scout and all but over reach. Wargaming want's us to go after bigger ships but there's a reason we tend not to, especially because every number I gave is only guns 25 mm and up that have a stock range of around 3 km or greater (average range TB's have to get into), not even 20 mm guns or accounting for extended range. Or the fact that these planes are 15 knots slower and have to spend more time in the AA to get to the target. Going back to a setup that was broken just giving it planes so likely to be shot down going in by just about anything that isn't a DD meaning were basically running potentially a 2,0,2, or we get back to "OP NERF", likely coming from tier 8's that have to face it. Sure, you give us the additional striking power we wanted, though not in the way some of us wanted it, and gives us things like the 1,1,2 set up we wanted. But you take away our ability to choose how we play the ship and what we do. Further proliferate the AP bombs that as it is are problematic. Basically give USN an IJN playstyle. Still fail to address the OP nature of USN fighters. Give us TB's at high tiers that can easily be paper tigers before a Hurricane. All we needed and wanted was an OPTION to run 1,1,2. All we really needed was the dispersion of our HE DB's reduced a bit so hits in general were more consistent against all targets, and leans us more toward defense against air and DD's though those heavier bombs still being good for heavier ships. Maybe 1 TB group make at high tiers, that was an appropriately tiered group. And generally, you people still need to address the imbalance on IJN and USN fighters. And then we have fires. Sure, great, DCP lasts longer so we can get more planes off the deck to maybe hit that DD that got through the lines undetected. BUT YOUR MAKING IT THAT MUCH EASIER TO SET US ON FIRE. We are the ONLY class as it is that completely loses the ability to attack when set on fire in the first place and you make it easier? Oh what, you added Emergency Takeoff so we can launch planes while on fire? News flash that skill is absolutely worthless unless your planes had maybe 10 seconds before they could launch anyway. just like the 75% to HP on EM is typically cancelled out by the 30% loss in speed that keeps them in AA longer and makes them way more susceptible to being caught AND strafed by fighters. Especially at high tiers it isn't exactly hard to spot a CV, especially the US ones, and everything is going to spam all the HE at it to try and shut it down, and you make it easier? You make it easier for the damaged DD to just burn us down after launching 1 last strike to try and kill it. Yet again you take what could have been a positive buff, and make it a bloody nerf. Lets assume for a second that I have the skill points invested and flags mounted for the absolute best reduction in fire damage when I'm forced to let it burn. 3 fires, burning over 30 seconds, for 41% of my HP and unlike the BB, I can't repair it, I take more from the start, I lose the ability to attack at all and oh yeah, it just became easier to light those fires. And that assumes I have the 7 captain points to spare. Skip on AFT and BFT, and hurt my only defense when I can't launch cause I'm on fire and AA so DB's can get through and set me on fire. AS oh right, that's basically mandatory because of how fighters work, you need the DPS to stand a chance. But, lets say you pass on fire prevention, well, that's 59-60% of your HP gone. Don't have points in BoS yet either? Well that's 65% over 40 seconds. oh wait, I've run out of that flag, well, damn, now that maxes out at 80% over 50 seconds. Oh right, I couldn't buy that module at the time so that's 96% of my HP over 60 seconds. No, wait, at that point I'm likely dead from that and the rounds hitting. And where am I getting these numbers, Wargaming's own wiki. Making it easier to just obliterate the CV through burning it down with all the fires it can set that much easier now. Best case scenario once DCP is done, 34 seconds of fires raging that you can't launch under, worst case, 60 and potentially all your health gone. I've said it before, I'll say it again, make any other class deal with this nonsense, because they actually have numbers in people who play them, they'd flip their if they couldn't attack while a fire burned and you made it even easier to set them on fire. TL;DR - anytime Wargaming touches CV's it's like 1 step forward, 2 steps back at best. If they just want us to stop playing CV's they should just compensate us what were due and remove them and be done with it.
  24. Kaga or saipan?

    As someone who often plays premiums in waves, that is say I enjoy grinding out all my normal ships before playing a massive amount of premiums in order to make credits back, I often find myself wishing I had a premium carrier so I've decided to get one. The problem? I'm terribly indecisive and there's things I like about both so I can't decide which one to get. So I'm coming here for help (since the only guy in my clan who knows anything about CVs was last sighted at the canadian border fighting gnomes) which do you think I should get? the Kaga or the saipan? in case you want to know how I play CVs just click the spoiler I'm aware that both saipan and kaga have advantages to them, the saipan having VASTLY better fighters and large dive bomber squadrons, it's also very fast which would be nice if I have to run. But it's torpedo bombers aren't very good and it lacks a balanced loadout (it's lack of secondaries also concern me, I know secondaries on CVs don't really do much but I just feel less safe without them). The kaga on other hand has very good torpedo bombers as well as a balanced setup and massive hangar capacity. But it's fighters seem pretty meh and it's pretty big and a fat target for whoever happens to decide to shoot at me(it's secondaries also look pretty interesting, might actually buff those if I get it).
  25. I just back out and let them get flushed down the toilet. Rejoin when there are none present. Only times I will stay if I’m doing CV tasks.
×