Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Turbotush

CV's need to be fixed how?

82 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

939
[TWFT]
Members
1,121 posts
32,676 battles

So this is an honest question.  Im not trying to troll in any way!  I am not a good CV player, I do try to do the missions and play a CV on occasion so as to learn how to defeat them when im in a match with one.  I really hate CV's, and don't particularly like it when they are in a match with me.  With that, why do people call for them to be fixed and what type of fix do they want?

I started thinking about this because of what is being said about the CV ban in  clan wars.  It seems that in banning CV's WG has in a way admitted that CV's are "broken".  Now for some reason I cant see them as being broken when I get my [edited]torped by them and I never see them.  Do they need some type of buff?  I'm I now going to just automatically get torped and bombed every time I'm in a match with a CV?

Again, not trying to troll or start some back and forth spam crap, I just was wondering.

:Smile_honoring:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
570 posts
1,461 battles

There are a few ways to look into the issues of CV where if i am not mistaken, the majority falls on these reasons:-

1. A ship type having too many roles in a match - Spotting, assault, aerial superiority, etc.

2. Aircraft carriers hold the highest influence among the ship types. - high skill ceiling, etc.

3. Unintuitive UI - A common feedback from what i remember(it doesn't bother me much since i play RTS games often and got used to the layout.)

4. Imbalance between nations - E.g. Japanese CVs have more balanced loadouts as opposed to US CVs that focus on specialized loadouts since their balanced loadouts are underwhelming. 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,095
[SYN]
Members
8,034 posts
12,542 battles

5. Overly tier dependent - dominant as top tier, weak as bottom tier

6. Disproportionately impacted by captain skills and modules selected before the battle

7. Infrequent enough that people don't AA spec

8. Incredibly limited interaction and counter play from surface ships (turn towards, ctrl+click)

Edited by mofton
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[BAKED]
Members
918 posts
  1. Much shorter flight range, more concealment, more armor HP.
    • Major issue with CVs is their ability to be everywhere at once.
    • If you limit flight range to 25-30km or so around the CV then the CV cannot cover an entire map while hiding in the back. They have to move around and have to make decisions on what to spot/strike. If they screw up they can't just move their planes across the map. However if you make CVs move up and around more survivability and conceal is required.
  2. Limited but flexible loadouts.
    • Load outs are an issue as well. WIth predetermined loadouts being a big issue (especially strike USN CVs with no fighters)
    • Limit squadrons to only 3 in the air at once, but allow the CV to carry squads of 2 each. This way, loadouts can be changed on the fly, like with ships who switch between Torps AP and HE. If you want fighters you have to give up a squadron of Torp or DBs
  3. Equalise squads/planes between nations
    • Flavor is nice, Balance more important
  4. more plane hp, faster reload, faster planes, but less damage per strike.
    • Huge unavoidable alpha is unfun to many players, so lower the alpha, but make planes faster and reload/launch faster to make DPS constant but less alpha.
  5. AA will have to be rebalanced as well. GIve fighters a lot more DPS, but planes more HP against AA. Less squads in the air means you don't want CVs to get entire squads deleted by ship AA. But more HP means fighters need more dps to be effective
Edited by Dodgy_Cookies
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,920
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
22,192 posts
12,403 battles
13 minutes ago, Fuyukaze said:

There are a few ways to look into the issues of CV where if i am not mistaken, the majority falls on these reasons:-

1. A ship type having too many roles in a match - Spotting, assault, aerial superiority, etc.

2. Aircraft carriers hold the highest influence among the ship types. - high skill ceiling, etc.

3. Unintuitive UI - A common feedback from what i remember(it doesn't bother me much since i play RTS games often and got used to the layout.)

4. Imbalance between nations - E.g. Japanese CVs have more balanced loadouts as opposed to US CVs that focus on specialized loadouts since their balanced loadouts are underwhelming. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, mofton said:

5. Overly tier dependent - dominant as top tier, weak as bottom tier

6. Disproportionately impacted by captain skills and modules selected before the battle

7. Infrequent enough that people don't AA spec

8. Incredibly limited interaction and counter play from surface ships (turn towards, ctrl+click)

9. Too micromanaging. This is really the biggest issue with the class forcing the player to handle details far below what they should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,658
[GWG]
Members
6,367 posts

I see the primary reason for not having a CV in any type of team battle setup is that -- not every team has one.

-- or if they do have one, it's someone filling in who is just putzing around, barely having a grasp of the controls.

Most good CV operators I have talked to are mentally exhausted after a tough match.  And the CV is usually the last ship killed off.  The operators need a few minutes to shake it off. 

Other types of ships are ready for the next match immediately...  maybe a run to the fridge or quick bathroom break between battles...

About everybody has Battleships and Cruisers.  Many also have Destroyers too.

--  My conclusion:   LET'S GIVE IT A TRY.  After all, it can be changed later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,755
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,063 posts

10. Manual drops, manual strafes - arguably could be eliminated completely by simply finding a Happy Spot between current manual and current auto. Micro-management would then be down to controlling the aircraft and ship. Air to air combat, scouting and ship attacks would take precedence, not manually controlling a drop. 

 

11. The term "strafe" should apply to a carrier's fighters actually "strafing" a target ship prior to a DB/TB attack thereby reducing the target ship's AA(A) potential, for a limited time. Say fifteen to twenty seconds as the gunners who ran for cover regain their senses and get back on-station with their weapons. 

 

12. Ship AA(A) need reviewed... some are far too powerful some too anemic. 

 

(Having listed these things I assure there are folks with a much better list than mine!) 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,920
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
22,192 posts
12,403 battles
25 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

10. Manual drops, manual strafes - arguably could be eliminated completely by simply finding a Happy Spot between current manual and current auto. Micro-management would then be down to controlling the aircraft and ship. Air to air combat, scouting and ship attacks would take precedence, not manually controlling a drop. 

 

11. The term "strafe" should apply to a carrier's fighters actually "strafing" a target ship prior to a DB/TB attack thereby reducing the target ship's AA(A) potential, for a limited time. Say fifteen to twenty seconds as the gunners who ran for cover regain their senses and get back on-station with their weapons. 

 

12. Ship AA(A) need reviewed... some are far too powerful some too anemic. 

 

(Having listed these things I assure there are folks with a much better list than mine!) 

Ten and eleven are covered under nine. The player shouldn't be controlling the planes beyond getting them to their target area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
932 posts
7,984 battles
34 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

10. Manual drops, manual strafes - arguably could be eliminated completely by simply finding a Happy Spot between current manual and current auto. Micro-management would then be down to controlling the aircraft and ship. Air to air combat, scouting and ship attacks would take precedence, not manually controlling a drop. 

 

11. The term "strafe" should apply to a carrier's fighters actually "strafing" a target ship prior to a DB/TB attack thereby reducing the target ship's AA(A) potential, for a limited time. Say fifteen to twenty seconds as the gunners who ran for cover regain their senses and get back on-station with their weapons. 

 

12. Ship AA(A) need reviewed... some are far too powerful some too anemic. 

 

(Having listed these things I assure there are folks with a much better list than mine!) 

10. In regards to your "Happy spot", what would it look like? Currently, manual drops are mandatory due to how easy it can be for experienced player to dodge auto-drops due to how they are much wider and spread out than the manual drops. With your happy spot, we'd have to make it such that if a CV did his job right, then he will be rewarded with a solid strike, but if he flubbed the drop/ the enemy managed to dodge in time, then the enemy ship will come out lightly damaged if not completely unscathed.

11. I agree with this point, strafe is retarded when it can be used to slaughter squadrons or as an escape from a dogfight.

12. Agreed, the AA creep is real. ( amateur CV player here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

There are 3 problems related to CVs.

1) players have so few tools to use to defend themselves from planes.

2) strafes.

3) vision.

Fix #1 and manual drops are not an issue anymore. They got rid of manual drops for t4 and t5 and the clubbing is still going on, because manual drops were never the problem.

To fix #2 you invert the affects of dog fighting and strafing. Dog fighting takes more ammo, and kills a single squadron quickly. Strafe takes less ammo, kills fewer planes, but causes a panic.

To fix #3, CVs can only spot ships for other ships within x km of the CV.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
723
[BWC]
Beta Testers
1,488 posts
6,424 battles

Speaking as a casual CV player (my least played ship type), I think the main areas where CV play needs work is in the interface (no intermediate zoom level, poor overall command functions without keybind options) and the disparity in capabilities between the two national lines (USN CVs forced into specialization while being given only the penalties for specialization, undefendable stats on the carriers like Lexington, and generally an imbalance in the abilities to sustain their missions between the two lines due to unequal hangar capabilities between supposedly comparable ships).

 

The biggest issue is that WG has refused to adjust CVs that were clearly underperforming or overperforming while tripping over themselves to fix any non-CV with a similar or lesser degree of the same problem. This has led to the Carrier lines being largely static in terms of viability, with none of the updates other ship types have received to remain functional. In particular, USN CV players who are trying to progress hit the Lexington and face end-game progression with perhaps the worst CV for its tier in the game. That encourages many players who put the effort to get to this point to go to other parts of the game.

 

This doesn't even speak to the opinions of players who either think CVs should be only recon assets or those who want them to obsolete any other ship type in the game. Every player wants the game to be more enjoyable for their way of playing, and any advice on how to 'fix' CVs is going to come with that baggage.

 

I'm sure others who play CVs more will have good feedback as well, but this was my own take on the main issues. In truth, CVs have been left so long unfixed that the number of issues could fill an entire forum page.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[NG-NL]
Members
5,971 posts
9,620 battles

DF for T8-10 CVs should not be available after battle's halfway over. If nothing else, at least T8 CVs will have a chance to take each other out.

 

Removing the strafe-to-exit would go a long way towards helping. Right now it just adds more work for the CV to get air control and as a Haku owner, it's exhausting!

 

 IJN CVs seem to be in a good spot as is. Only needed changes, arguably, is letting Hiryu get tougher TB since she has good odds of being uptiered, and to make TB their national flavor, change AS to add a bomber each TB squadron or give IJN CV torps a better chance of causing flooding.

 

US CVs need more versatile loadouts, IMO. AS is too gimped to be effective. Something like a 2/1/2 beginning with Ranger would be capable enough, from fighting them in Hiryu, and all US aircraft need a lower flight prep time.

 

Heck, give both CV lines shorter take-off and landing animations too. I've noticed the landing animations are about 50% longer if the CV's moving forward--gets annoying when you have to keep moving during the battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
142
[-ZF-]
Members
661 posts
8,630 battles

I dont think they know how to fix CV or balance them without one side complaining, even now some people are complaining about AP bombs. I think maybe changing the loadouts since ive lost many a game due to CVs being all strike.

Edited by awildpervert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
Just now, awildpervert said:

I dont think they know how to fix CV or balance them without one side complaining, even now some people are complaining about AP bombs.

They probably need to do some UI improvements for surface ships. A lot of people don't even notice the planes are there until the bombs have dropped or the torpedoes activated.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,185
[DAM-U]
Members
11,026 posts
11 minutes ago, Reymu said:

DF for T8-10 CVs should not be available after battle's halfway over. If nothing else, at least T8 CVs will have a chance to take each other out.

 

The whole reason WG gave them DF was to prevent early deaths and snipes.

 

13 minutes ago, Reymu said:

letting Hiryu get tougher TB since

 

CVs should have new planes every tier, honestly.

 

You don't help the whole tier sensitivity issue by forcing CVs to use the same bomber 3 tiers in a row while everyone else upgrades AA.

 

17 minutes ago, Reymu said:

US CVs need more versatile loadouts, IMO. AS is too gimped to be effective. Something like a 2/1/2 beginning with Ranger would be capable enough, from fighting them in Hiryu, and all US aircraft need a lower flight prep time.

 

One of the problems with CVs is that they have too many capabilities, which leads to too many responsibilities.

 

I don't see how giving ALL Cvs more capabilities helps anything.

 

If anything, the balance point should be closer to USN CVs, just slightly more versatile, like 1 extra fighter in all loadouts, and, idk, 5 plane squads across the board.

 

20 minutes ago, Reymu said:

Heck, give both CV lines shorter take-off and landing animations too. I've noticed the landing animations are about 50% longer if the CV's moving forward--gets annoying when you have to keep moving during the battle.

 

This seems to be a general issue where sometimes, it seems that the mechanics are being modified to fit the animations rather than what it should be, the animations changing to match the mechanics.

 

In particular, you can get some really funky strafes if the planes don't approach the right way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[NG-NL]
Members
5,971 posts
9,620 battles
2 hours ago, cometguy said:

They probably need to do some UI improvements for surface ships. A lot of people don't even notice the planes are there until the bombs have dropped or the torpedoes activated.

Newbies and distracted players yes, but to my knowledge, they're the exception after T7.

 

2 hours ago, issm said:

 

The whole reason WG gave them DF was to prevent early deaths and snipes.

 

 

CVs should have new planes every tier, honestly.

 

You don't help the whole tier sensitivity issue by forcing CVs to use the same bomber 3 tiers in a row while everyone else upgrades AA.

 

 

One of the problems with CVs is that they have too many capabilities, which leads to too many responsibilities.

 

I don't see how giving ALL Cvs more capabilities helps anything.

 

If anything, the balance point should be closer to USN CVs, just slightly more versatile, like 1 extra fighter in all loadouts, and, idk, 5 plane squads across the board.

 

 

This seems to be a general issue where sometimes, it seems that the mechanics are being modified to fit the animations rather than what it should be, the animations changing to match the mechanics.

 

In particular, you can get some really funky strafes if the planes don't approach the right way.

Early deaths I understand, since it got very crazy if one side lost the CV(s) quickly, but snipes take a great deal of investment and time. From seeing them, they tend to take around 5 or so minutes, assuming never detected, and any surviving planes have a long flight time unless get destroyed. Meanwhile, if the team is paying attention, they see the snipe coming and react, though since 11 random players, no guarantee they'll grow balls and push while the CV is still reloading.

 

Could get behind that, just copy and paste the plane, add another 50-200 HP, and slap on the XP/cost amounts. 

 

I wonder about that. Running high-tier CVs lately seems a mentally draining activity, particularly since Haku seems to face T10 AA much more frequently. Bounced the idea of combining all squads into one massive group each of ftr, DB, and TB. That would simplify the damage part, and of course spotting's nerfed, but for someone like me that enjoyed Taiho's workout, would rather have the 2/3/2 option.

 

Suspect that's where the "CV go full reverse" tip came from. But it's a little trickier at high tiers since get the ridiculous rudder shift to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
95
[_AFW_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
551 posts
8,166 battles

I'm a CV main.

 

I have a few ideas regarding CV rework, chief of which is to make the player more of a commander of a carrier rather than an air operations officer or fleet admiral.

You would be responsible for landing, rearming, and launching planes while moving your ship into the wind as necessary. You would also oversee shipwide damage control (doing away with the magic button we have right now, but only for carriers). Your ship will launch your entire air wing, targeting only the enemy carrier, and only attacking the next largest capital ship once the carrier sinks or detonates.

 

What I want is for the decision making to be like the IJN commanders at Midway: Do we refuel and rearm our CAP, or rearm our bombers and change out the HE bombs for AP bombs to use against enemy carriers? If you are too slow or make the wrong decisions, American dive bombers will break through the clouds and drop AP bombs in the middle of  your hangar, which is filled with fuel, bombs, torpedoes, and planes, ready to  detonate. Since much of the attacks and defense would be AI controlled, you could really add national flavor in how the bomber pilots, fighter pilots, and AA gunners behave (USN dive bombers fly high and it hard and accurately, but IJN torp bombers are more disciplined, etc.)

 

Determining where, when, and how to attack enemy capital ships with planes was more the decision making of an admiral, which you could probably make a perk of being the clan commander in clan wars. Your team doesn't have to help protect you, as loss of direct control of planes means they don't get spotted or bombed until late game, but a sunk carrier would be worth a lot of cap points, and the next capital ship will almost certainly sink from the next wave of air attacks.

 

Additionally, incentivizing teams to protect the team from air waves (which would take upwards of 5 minutes to prepare and give 2 minutes of warning with radar pickets) with cruisers and BBs would free DDs to act as screening forces, radar air pickets, and cap takers.

 

Sorry for the lack of details, I am pressed for time. Imay expound on this later after I finish my l next block of med school exams.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
939
[TWFT]
Members
1,121 posts
32,676 battles

Daaaam!  This renews my faith in the forum!  Thank you all, you really brought up some awesome points.  Much respect.    :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,755
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,063 posts

I agree with refit/reload on TB/DB... if in-game you felt you wanted more TB than DB, fine you can refit the DB to TB. Maybe they are only 75% of an originally equipped TB (in comparison) but that would be a sweet option for carriers. Add maybe an extra 10-20 sec's for R&R. 

 

As to my "Happy Spot", I read somewhere on the forum it would become halfway between the manual and automatic. They can always fine tune the RNG for every drop, maybe include duds as an offset. I like to point out - cause it a way it's funny - but early torps sometimes bounced up into the air, striking the aircraft. Some exploded as soon as they hit the water. 

 

There really is a lot that could be done to fine-tune air-dropped torps and bombs. IF, that is, they want to do so. Thing is - whatever they do - folks will be happy, folks will be sad and both of those camps will be vitriolic about their position. The rest probably won't care either way. :-) 

 

@Turbotushit's been a great thread. Thanks for that OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,920
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
22,192 posts
12,403 battles
48 minutes ago, csp0811 said:

I'm a CV main.

 

I have a few ideas regarding CV rework, chief of which is to make the player more of a commander of a carrier rather than an air operations officer or fleet admiral.

You would be responsible for landing, rearming, and launching planes while moving your ship into the wind as necessary. You would also oversee shipwide damage control (doing away with the magic button we have right now, but only for carriers). Your ship will launch your entire air wing, targeting only the enemy carrier, and only attacking the next largest capital ship once the carrier sinks or detonates.

 

What I want is for the decision making to be like the IJN commanders at Midway: Do we refuel and rearm our CAP, or rearm our bombers and change out the HE bombs for AP bombs to use against enemy carriers? If you are too slow or make the wrong decisions, American dive bombers will break through the clouds and drop AP bombs in the middle of  your hangar, which is filled with fuel, bombs, torpedoes, and planes, ready to  detonate. Since much of the attacks and defense would be AI controlled, you could really add national flavor in how the bomber pilots, fighter pilots, and AA gunners behave (USN dive bombers fly high and it hard and accurately, but IJN torp bombers are more disciplined, etc.)

 

Determining where, when, and how to attack enemy capital ships with planes was more the decision making of an admiral, which you could probably make a perk of being the clan commander in clan wars. Your team doesn't have to help protect you, as loss of direct control of planes means they don't get spotted or bombed until late game, but a sunk carrier would be worth a lot of cap points, and the next capital ship will almost certainly sink from the next wave of air attacks.

 

Additionally, incentivizing teams to protect the team from air waves (which would take upwards of 5 minutes to prepare and give 2 minutes of warning with radar pickets) with cruisers and BBs would free DDs to act as screening forces, radar air pickets, and cap takers.

 

Sorry for the lack of details, I am pressed for time. Imay expound on this later after I finish my l next block of med school exams.

Other than turning into the wind and attacking the enemy CV first and foremost I like where you are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,583 battles

I am a huge cynic when it comes to CV's. I believe that they cannot be balanced in a way that will satisfy both CV drivers, and the drivers of surface ships. It just can't be done with the way that CV's are currently implemented. Not when they are playing a game within a game.

 

It all comes down to interaction between the ships. Where, a skilled CV driver, using manual drops can almost guarantee large amounts of damage in each strike. A surface ship has three options to counterplay, none of which are very appealing.

 

1) Huddle up like sheep waiting the slaughter, and hope you are not the one on the edge of the group to get picked off.

 

2) CTL+Click and pray.

 

3) Maneuver a little bit, against planes that are vastly faster and more maneuverable than you, hoping to shoot down one or two more.

 

None of these sound very appealing? Do they? Well... That is because they are not. The only way to fix this is to rework BOTH CV's and AA from the ground up. So that CV's approach the ships they are attacking on equal ground. So that the ships they are attacking have more options that are not so heavily RNG dependent to defend themselves. Something that brings the skill of both players into effect.

 

I think that a fully player controlled AA suite would be a good place to start. Along with tracking every AA shell fired, tracking the health of each individual plane, and tracking plane hits by each shell type vs how much damage that shell was worth. When the plane's health reaches 0, it is shot down. This would also bring in an interesting new player vs CV dynamic, one where the easy target to pick on is the distracted one.

Edited by twitch133
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,860
[-TXT-]
Beta Testers
4,520 posts
13,368 battles

1. Better UI

2. Balanced loadouts (for USN)

3. +1/-1 MM (+2 cv is too week, -2 cv is too strong)

4. Balance some AA's [ex: Better AA for some dds (less permaspot but still can spot for a time / less AA in BBs (main cv targer)]

5. Less rng dependend in bombers.

6. Re-work AA system to be less RNG and more dmg, give planes a real 'life' system so you know what damage you recive/give the planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×