Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Battleship_DukeofYork

Carriers add nothing to the game and should be removed until they are reworked

246 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,650 posts
1,608 battles

I take extremist positions because I'm not a big believer in middle ground. There are definitely shades of grey in this world, but I think when you take a stance on something, you shouldn't waffle. Therefore, I say with conviction: I believe the current state of carriers to be a detriment to the overall game, and it is a letdown every time I queue up into a match with them. They should be removed until they can be fixed.

 

Why do I think this?

 

  • They are the ultimate loners. 90% (or more) of high tier carriers are strike loaded these days, and while they occasionally do spend the first half of the game trying to eliminate the opposing number, smart strike CVs focus isolated, lead units and rack up kills. Having said that, they operate - out of necessity - from the rear, cannot effectively assist pushes, and the very nature of flooding their decks with bombers means that they accept that their team will suffer losses. This isn't a build that's attempting to win, but rather accrue red ribbons.
  • They are punished for playing any other way. Those carriers who do play defensively don't see significant point rewards to make such a playstyle worthwhile. Moreover, because the entire air supremacy game is based around putting more fighter aircraft in one grid point than the other guy, CVs who load up on fighters can't effectively spread them thinly enough to make a difference in protecting their team (the concept of a CAP in WoWs is nonexistent) - attempting to do so and then encountering superior fighter forces could cost the defender multiple squadrons. Thus, even when there are fighters aplenty in the air, they are always together, and often out of position to stop real damage from being done.
  • They serve as 'plum' targets that draw players away from objectives. I do so despise "bait" in FPS-type games, and that is precisely what a carrier in visual contact is: "OOOO! A SHINY! SHOOT IT! HUNT IT! FOLLOW IT AROUND THAT ISLAND!" Too often I lose games because teammates go on these wild goose chases trying to sink the flattop, while a single destroyer caps off hard points one by one. You most frequently see this idiocy late game, and no one ship type generates tunnel vision like a CV.
  • They're the mightiest top tier foes out there. Are you a tier 6 battleship matched up against a strike loaded Lexington? Good luck. Are you a tier VII carrier lined up against a fighter-heavy Shokaku? Also good luck. Higher tier planes are extremely robust when facing lower-level AA, and nigh-on invincible when opposed by lower tier fighters.
  • The carrier game itself not only blows, but encourages disengagement from the actual battlefield. DDs, BBs and cruisers all fight their game in the SAME three-dimensional world, dodging torpedoes, watching the horizon for aircraft, spotting turrets as they rotate to fix on their ship, and so on. Carriers don't view a match in this context - instead spending the entire game shoving icons around on a grid. They're like Geordi La Forge in Star Trek: TNG - they can "see," but their reality isn't at all identical to that which exists at sea level. This leads to many carriers completely losing track of what is going on "at home base" until it is too late, failing to follow the "flow" of the battlefield by executing properly timed maneuvers, failing to recognize opportunities when they present themselves, and failing to become fully immersed in the match. Obviously, many carrier captains overcome these shortfalls, but it's difficult not to view CVs as babbling in binary while the rest of us are speaking the King's English - it's a whole other world.
  • No one other ship type can either dominate or ruin a game for their team. And this is my biggest problem with carriers as a whole - the skill cap is high, but those who master it are rarely countered. Potatoes - all too common even in carriers (who the hell gets to tier 9 and hasn't figured out how to manual drop? The answer? Most of you) - dominate their ranks, frequently contributing nothing to matches (or losing all their planes in the first five minutes) while their opposing number on the red team strip mines kills.
  • They're bad for gameplay; bad for sim play; bad for history. Yes, carriers were exceedingly powerful in real life, but WG has completely missed the mark on WHY they were so powerful: because they altered the face of naval warfare. The battleship and the carrier weren't on an even playing field because one obsolesced the other almost overnight (at least following Pearl Harbor); having the two in the same game and expecting balance is stupid. However, WoWs IS a game, and, as a result, some level of parity must be achieved. Wargaming's solution to this conundrum has resulted in a half victory: make carriers ridiculously difficult to play well, but godly in the right hands. That, folks, is dumb.

 

Overall, I see the carrier almost as a lightsaber - Han Solo could barely slice open the gut of a Tauntaun with it (and I thought they smelled bad on the outside!); Luke Skywalker can take down an entire sail barge full of seasoned mercenaries when wielding the same damned thing. And that's dumb - no other weapon in the game is playing by those rules; every other ship type faces a bumpy ride of unexpected potholes in the road: random detonations, torps fired from stealth, multi-fire savloes, repairs used at the wrong time, multi-torp hits that cause no flooding, unfriendly RNG, bad dispersion, etc. Where are those same hiccups for the skilled carrier? They do not exist.

 

Pull the boats. No, it won't happen, but I'm saying that it should anyway. 

  • Cool 25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,880
[WTFS]
Members
9,331 posts
13,756 battles

Let's go ahead and remove the KM and IJN DD's as well, and USN BB's under T8, RN cruisers under T6, etc, etc, etc. 

 

No. Not happening.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
182
[WHS]
Beta Testers
1,073 posts
14,272 battles

Strongly disagree! While I don't generally play them, they do add something to the game. Aircraft that you have to shoot down or get torped/bombed by. It makes a reason so all BB's won't go secondary builds and cruisers have a reason they might want the extra AA fire of... (forget what it's called - that buff they can get). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
26 posts
468 battles

it is being reworked and i can agree with you on some points, but removing isn't going to help

 

but unlike arty in WoT, which literally has no productive purpose in world of tanks since 1. you can't defend yourself from it (unless you hide like a [edited]) 2. weren't primarily used for and in tank to tank combat 3. is literally a rng based class, either missing or one shooting tanks (honestly, its like gambling, you get jack crap99% of the time, but its hype when you hit gold, free of charge) , a very lazy and unneeded addition to the game

 

CV's on the other hand have none of the above mentioned issues and make sense in warship combat and if they were removed, would kill half the purpose of cruisers as AA firepower, the game itself has been built with air combat in mind (albeit hasty) and simply taking it away would erode more issues in the long run (AA consumables, AA guns, etc. would have no purpose)

Edited by lordawesome7
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

Well, issm will be all over this thread like a rabbit at a carrot convention.

 

Most of your problems can be tied to the skill floor/skill ceiling disparity and there are several fixes being tossed around on the forum to address this.

 

The reliance of RNG for anti-air was also nicely addressed by InvaderZim's proposal, which puts more skill in on both sides of the AA<->Aircraft interaction.

 

The balance problem between the lines is addressed by my own proposal for squadron parity.

Edited by Destroyer_Kiyoshimo
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[SCCC]
Members
715 posts
22,098 battles

First of all, the problem of Air Supremacy not giving the same rewards as strike have already been fixed with the buff of shot down plane exp and the nerf of strike exp. However I do agree WG should remove CVs because they have proven themselves ignorant of fixing anything related to them even when they said last year they would fix the issues.

Edited by AkiraKurai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,136 posts
4,017 battles

It really is a poor, barely thought-out class whose players defend the "skill" it takes to place a green carpet at a ship's doorstep.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,094
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
3,004 posts
13,225 battles

Damn! You just mentioned Luke Skywalker! And that was my old profile name! (mumbles in angered tone).

 

But your logic was the same that was thrown around the WoT forums about arty. "It's broken, so remove it until fixed". Regardless, I do agree it must be fixed.

 

However, did you care to think about the people who already own the carriers? How would you like it if your line of ships you like the most was removed and then added back. Now you have to start from scratch, no progress saved.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
[CWGC]
Members
848 posts
2,977 battles

strongly disagree, games with CV's are far more fun then without imho. way back when when you specced out a AA cruiser it was fun to play that role now its a complete waste. 

 

WG needs to figure out the CV thing ASAP as there is far to many games without cv's

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,650 posts
1,608 battles

It really is a poor, barely thought-out class whose players defend the "skill" it takes to place a green carpet at a ship's doorstep.

 

I'll be the first to admit that in my very limited attempts to try, I was terrible at it. I do think I would have eventually gotten the hand of manual drop, but my heart wasn't in it. Why? Because the interface is such a mess - it doesn't even feel like I'm playing the same game anymore.

 

Whatever fix comes for carriers, it needs to make them more interactive in the gritty, tangible, FPS sense... and less in the "I push buttons while staring at a grid and magic happens" way.

Edited by Battleship_DukeofYork
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
729
Alpha Tester
2,162 posts
6,770 battles

How about how IJN CVs are just plane better (ha ha) than USN CVs? Aside from Saipan and Bogue anyway.

If anything CVs could use a +/- 1 MM or just never be top or bottom tier for AA purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
457
[GOAT]
Beta Testers
1,523 posts
7,150 battles

Do you really think AS loadouts are better at winning than strike? :amazed:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,436 posts
9,473 battles

 

I'll be the first to admit that in my very limited attempts to try, I was terrible at it. I do think I would have eventually gotten the hand of manual drop, but my heart wasn't in it. Why? Because the interface is such a mess - it doesn't even feel like I'm playing the same game anymore.

 

Whatever fix comes for carriers, it needs to make them more interactive in the gritty, tangible, FPS sense... and less in the "I push buttons while staring at a grid and magic happens" way.

 

​How would they do that ?  pretty easy to say it needs to be a certain way yet not give any ideas other than they need to play like the other ships, how could a Carrier play like other ships with the "it needs to make them more interactive in the gritty, tangible, FPS sense"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

 

​How would they do that ?  pretty easy to say it needs to be a certain way yet not give any ideas other than they need to play like the other ships, how could a Carrier play like other ships with the "it needs to make them more interactive in the gritty, tangible, FPS sense"

 

First-person mode when controlling a squadron?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,298 posts
6,909 battles

Reworking the carriers is definitely a priority of WG (especially if they want to sell more carriers), but scrapping them completely isn't going to improve it.  Heck!  It might create more work for WG to remove carriers indefinitely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,298 posts
6,909 battles

 

First-person mode when controlling a squadron?

 

Reminds me of a little game called Battlestations Pacific :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,256 posts
4,322 battles

Lol lex vs t6 bb, try a t6 CV vs t8 AA.

 

CVs are needed t7/8+ because of the camping meta. The problem however the aa has reached such crazy lvls that those campers just swat planes from the sky.

 

Just spec AA and bow tank all day in USN bb nc+ orbe s km bb t5+ and learn a little wasd skills.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,436 posts
9,473 battles

 

First-person mode when controlling a squadron?

 

​wouldn't that just make them even more broken ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,094
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
3,004 posts
13,225 battles

Yea this not happing, then we would demand refunds for all the time we spent on great cv line then...

 

Exactly what I said. You can't remove a ship line just because YOU don't like it and not expect those with the ships to not be pissed off.

 

The OP is too caught up in rage to see the bigger picture.

Edited by Fog_Cruiser_Maine
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

 

​wouldn't that just make them even more broken ?

 

There's just no pleasing you people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×