Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
db4100

Why We Need Aircraft Carriers, Espcially At The Higher Tiers

95 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

224
[NOOBS]
[NOOBS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
601 posts
13,096 battles

My only problem with CV's is the amount of damage they can direct to a single ship,   It is like using an Ultimate ability.   Hey when I fire a round or launch a torp from a NON-CV, its set and forget, I think that is the way CV firepower delivery should be, I also think that Fighters should be able to strafe DD's for small damage.  Torpedo drops should not be manual or if they are manual you have to set them and forget them at a much further distance.  If they did that then it would be much more fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
7 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Nope. I just don't think you're worth the time. It'd just be a waste of time and effort. Not because you'd debunk everything, but because you literally cannot be convinced of anything that was not already your idea.

 

I could say the same thing of literally everyone else I've had discussions with here*.

 

And yet, I, unlike you, am not afraid to keep putting my ideas out.

 

Could it perhaps be that I have confidence in the validity of my ideas, while you know, deep down inside, that your ideas are wrong?

 

But by all means, keep focusing on people, since you clearly can't argue on the basis of the actual game.

 

* And on that note, when people keep making the same arguments, time after time, it's funny how people like you will only ever accuse one side of the debate of being obstinate, stubborn, or unable to change their minds.

 

At least I have the self awareness to not accuse others of exhibiting behaviours that I would also be guilty of as a consequence.

Edited by issm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,829
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,097 posts
3,895 battles
11 minutes ago, issm said:

 

I could say the same thing of literally everyone else I've had discussions with here.

 

And yet, I, unlike you, am not afraid to keep putting my ideas out.

 

Could it perhaps be that I have confidence in the validity of my ideas, while you know, deep down inside, that your ideas are wrong?

 

But by all means, keep focusing on people, since you clearly can't argue on the basis of the actual game.

"He won't engage in an argument with me, so that must mean I'm right!"

 

Nice "Argumentum ex Silentio" fallacy. Since I refuse to engage you, obviously I'm wrong.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[SOUS]
Members
75 posts
5,608 battles

What Wargaming should do, is modify how XP is calculated and give more bonus to team play focused aspects of the game (ie.  BBs Tanking damage, fighting around caps, maybe bonus for focus firing enemies?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,091
[NGAGE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,931 posts
10,488 battles

I think cvs are absolutely cancerous for the game at higher tiers. They prevent dds from capping, spot cruisers trying to move into decent positions, and make bbs hide. I find it funny how people always complain about passive teams yet in my 7k battles I've rarely seen these hyper passive teams.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
11 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

"He won't engage in an argument with me, so that must mean I'm right!"

 

Nice "Arguement from Motives" fallacy. Claiming my motivation is that I know I'm wrong and don't want to be exposed, when really I just don't care to engage you on the subject anymore.

 

One little problem: That's not an argument from motive.

 

Argument from motive is the dismissal of someone's arguments on the basis that the argument they're making benefits them personally. Something along the lines of: "Battleship players argue in favour of CV nerfs because they personally benefit from those nerfs, therefore, the points those BB players make are wrong by default".

 

Oh, wait, isn't that what you just did earlier in this thread?

 

Here are some more fancy terms for you to throw around:

 

- Psychological projection: Accusing others of doing what you are personally doing

 

- Argumentum ad nauseum: "We've already discussed this so many times, I'm sick of discussing this"

 

 

Edited by issm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,829
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,097 posts
3,895 battles
12 minutes ago, issm said:

One little problem: That's not an argument from motive.

 

You're right. It was an Argument from Silence, which I already corrected my post to.

 

You're claiming that since I won't argue with you, you must be right.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
2 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

You're right. It was an Argument from Silence, which I already corrected my post to.

 

You're claiming that since I won't argue with you, you must be right.

 

Mm, see, thing is, an Argument from Silence is not always a fallacy.

 

In particular, it CAN be valid, for example, if the author neglects to discuss something that's directly relevant to the subject they're writing about.

 

Another problem at a more basic level, the argument from silence is an argument applied to the interpretation of historical documents, i.e., to infer the motivations of authors that are no longer available to answer that question themselves - typically because they've been dead for thousands of years.

 

This is not relevant to this current discussion, as I can directly ask you why you refuse to make your arguments, a question you've already answered: You're sick of having this discussion, aka, an argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.

 

So, why don't you quit obfuscating, and either trot out your arguments, or admit that you're wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[WAG]
Beta Testers
710 posts
5,888 battles
14 minutes ago, issm said:

 

 

 

i really could care less about your argument that occurring now, but i do care about the subject of this thread, and why i belive the title is correct, even if the arguments used to support said title is a little off.

my reason i think CV games help releave the slower hide behind meta we currently have.

1 - spotting DDs, without radar/sonar.

                     - DDs can see and evade planes, and ask for support to get rid of them, they cannot do this with radar. sonar is really only an issue on German BBs, and i think its actually a good thing on cruisers as its shorter range is helpful without being broken in my opinion. radar is simply broken in its current iteration and not taking it on anything but British CL that can take it is a waste of slot. i dont agree with this principle, as i believe there should be a trade off, and it shouldent be a 'spot all within 10 km button' no matter how short its duration

2 - lone wolf gameplay is punished

                    -  a lone BB with a CV in play is a dead BB, helping to keep things moving by forcing BBs to stay with a pack or risk dying. while this can also be accomplished with a competent DD, it doesn't have the same fear factor effect that having planes come at you does. and at the same time, seeing the planes coming means you can (to an extent) reduce incoming damage.

3 - team play is heavily rewarded.

                   - while a single ship may be able to shoot down a few planes if heavily specced into AA, a group of ships playing well together will be able to rack up many, many plane kills, helping your CV, hurting the enemy CV, and usually keeping the game going as the packs in general move around the map together (at least when not on tears of the f-n desert epicenter....) keeping the game with some momentum.

 

while CV's in there current iteration are broken (as in not the most fun to play, not op) with long reloads, minimum rewards for doing well, inconsistent punishments for bad plays (ex... over compensation for getting attacked, loosing all your planes from misplays, straife existing ect...) and a less than steller skill floor vs skill ceiling discrepancy causing heavily unbalanced games, i still believe the few games i get with them to be far better games at high teir (even when playing destroyers and getting spotted allot) then the many games without them.

 

im editing this it sent before done, give me a min before reply please sorry ! - Edit: other then a few grammar and spelling errors i know exist in this, i believe it presents my current argument for CVs as well as i can get it across. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,829
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,097 posts
3,895 battles
5 minutes ago, issm said:

So, why don't you quit obfuscating, and either trot out your arguments, or admit that you're wrong?

 

"You won't argue with me, so you must be wrong."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
29 minutes ago, Balaams_Donkey said:

What Wargaming should do, is modify how XP is calculated and give more bonus to team play focused aspects of the game (ie.  BBs Tanking damage, fighting around caps, maybe bonus for focus firing enemies?

 

Never oing to happen.

 

What is or is not "team play" is not something that can be clearly defined by a reasonably small set of rules. For example, if you smoke up an ally who no one is shooting at, instead of smoking the guy the enemy team is focusing, is that team play? After all, you're smoking up an ally. 

 

The only real way to properly reward team play is to shift rewards onto the thing team play is supposed to give you, wins.

 

Reward wins first, and personal performance second.

 

Good luck getting that change through, against the entire unicum community whining about their teams letting them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,821
[RLGN]
Members
9,640 posts
19,114 battles
39 minutes ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

I think cvs are absolutely cancerous for the game at higher tiers. They prevent dds from capping, spot cruisers trying to move into decent positions, and make bbs hide. I find it funny how people always complain about passive teams yet in my 7k battles I've rarely seen these hyper passive teams.

 

Same here... I don't have that many high-tier games, and about twice as many upper mid games; what I see more often than passive play are games where one side doesn't seem to know how to shoot; and all die like dogs with little or no damage done to the enemy, (in terms of ships sunk.)

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,634
[INTEL]
Members
9,553 posts
27,185 battles
2 hours ago, db4100 said:

Tier 8-10 matches turns more into a game of "Call of Duty" than a naval game when there aren't any aircraft carriers.  Without aircraft carriers the game of "World Of Warships" turns into a game of a first person shooter game where everyone is hiding behind islands, very little team work, and everyone is afraid to push.  With aircraft carriers in the match, you can't play hide and seek when aircraft will delete your static [edited].  We need more aircraft carriers at the higher tiers to stop the rampant camping behind islands with a play style that is equivalent of an infantryman.  Give a bonus, or some other incentive to play aircraft carriers.  Otherwise with all the static play, "World of Warships" turns to crap.

Yeah, yeah....here comes the dumb [edited] comments from the peanut gallery like "get gud" and "play aircraft carriers".  For one if "getting gud" means to play high level matches like it was "Halo", or "Rainbow Six", then I am out.  That is just not fun, and gets old very quickly.

 

OP fundamentally does not understand high tiers. It's not the "lack" of CVs that makes high tier matches campfests with everyone island hiding. It's that every ship is a glass cannon, easily deleted because by T10 offense has scaled faster than defense, meaning that any ship that pushes up is instantly dead. The only solution would be to either increase defense (particularly, reducing fire chance and the deck armor overmatch mechanics) or reduce offense (reduce ROF and fire chance for all ships). But WG won't do either.

More CVs would simply increase camping and clumping, especially since high tier CVs are unstoppable OP guided missile cruisers.

The hidden problem, seldom discussed, is the absolutely crapstupid maps in the high tiers. In the low tiers I look forward to Big Race and New Dawn, both fun maps that mix plenty of open space with plenty of islands. There are no fun maps in the high tiers. Shatter is the absolute nadir of WOWs playability, a map that signals immediately that the devs do not actually play the game, and the other maps are scarcely better. Maps such as Tears of the Desert, Warrior's Path, Loop, and Sea of Fortune are awful, offering players only two choices: plunge into the center of the map's islands and die quickly to focused fire, or remain at range. Only Okinawa with its open space in B and C provides the opportunity for fluid, enjoyable gameplay, and that map is dull because it has one solution: go B and C. Fire is a ghost of its former wonderful self since they randomly tossed in crappy islands, especially since the spawn is so stupid: everyone spawns at B and C, resulting again in predictable matches.

Moreover, on most of those maps, large areas of the map surface are never used. On a map like Big Race or New Dawn, ships use the entire map. 

Why?

Islands. New Dawn has islands everywhere. Moreover, those islands are perfect -- in most cases high enough to duck behind but low enough to shoot over if you are some distance away. If you want ships to push up and use the map, you need to sprinkle islands everywhere, not just in a band of crapchoked, crapchanneled garbage in the center of the maps, making every game exactly the same. With islands everywhere, ships will use them to push up in safety. Without them, they can only either die in the center, or live at range.

High tiers don't suffer from a lack of CVs (CVs ruin gameplay). They suffer from two totally fixable problems: WG's mapmaking philosophy, obviously implemented by people who don't play the game, and the absurd offensive power of high tier ships. 

Edited by Taichunger
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
1 minute ago, AraAragami said:

"You won't argue with me, so you must be wrong."

 

No, it's: "you won't even present your argument, therefore, you certainly aren't right."

 

You don't want to argue? Don't. But at least have the backbone to give arguments as to why you think you're right.

 

Here, I'll go first:

 

- CVs have insufficient counterplay

  - It is not reasonable to expect ships to outmaneuver planes 10x faster than they are, like you can against normal torpedoes.

  - For surface ships, other than (marginally effective) WASD, the only real counter to planes is AA, which is more a factor of statistics and build than any player skill.

  - The only real counter to CVs is another CV, which feeds into other issues.

 

- CVs combine excessive damage, survivability, and utility, each of which would have made a ship extremely strong on it's own, in a single package.

  - Damage and survivabiliy can be easily inferred from server average stats

  - Utility (vision) is such a problem WG cited it as their reason for excluding CVs from clan battles


This last point leads to 2 other problems:

 

- Any capabilities a ship has becomes a responsibility. This is true regardless of class (DD, why aren't you capping/smoking, CA, why aren't you radaring/giving me AA, BB, why aren't you tanking), but CVs have so many capabilities that this becomes a problem.

  - This results in an incredibly steep skill wall, overwhelming players interested in the class.

  - This is exacerbated by the way this game calculates rewards: The skills a player needs to learn to defend themselves, or fight at a disadvantage, are very poorly taught, in favour of emphasising raw damage dealing.

 

- Difference in skill between CV players results in a much different difference in in-game power.

  - Since CV are the only real counter to themselves, outplaying your opponent directly shuts them down in a way no other class is capable of. This magnifies small differences in skill to much larger differences in match performance.

  - Another reason WG cited as to why they removed CVs from clan battles.

 

Given that one of the reasons why CVs are broken is "they can do too many things", any rework that fixes CVs will inherently be a nerf, as it's removing capabilities.

 

That's why CVs are garbage, now let's hear your arguments as to why they're not.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,829
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,097 posts
3,895 battles

I keep telling him I won't argue with him and he keeps trying to get me to argue with him.

 

Starting to wonder if he's desperate for it or something.

 

Did you actually like our past interactions over carrier balance? Is that why you're pushing so hard for me to debate it with you again?

Edited by AraAragami
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[WAG]
Beta Testers
710 posts
5,888 battles
17 minutes ago, issm said:

 

 

 

post looks odd with full quoting.

 1 - agreed. there is inefficient counter-play to CVs in the game.

2 - i would disagree with survivability (at least from what i can say ive experianced recently -havent played IJN CV in a long time, recently been playing USN) unless you spec into stealth CV's are massive, easily spotted ships that rely upon hiding behind islands and a allied front-line to be able to do anything, and can rarely get more then 4-5 strikes out in a match due to flight times, unless they are on a really small map.

2 B - yeah they do have an issue with perma spotting things, which can really only be solved by asking your own CV for assistance - so yeah in agreement here.

3 A - i personally see this a positive effect, as it becomes closer to a team relying on each-others unique ability's rather then individual contributions -but again thats just my personal opinion, which i know is not a popular one.

3 B - yeah more tutorials, or a more intuitive interface is needed to help lower the difference between a skilled and unskilled CV player.

4 - im in agreement here.

my reasons for liking CVs are stated in my previous post, so i wont repost here as its in the same thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
1 minute ago, AraAragami said:

I keep telling him I won't argue with him and he keeps trying to get me to argue with him.

 

Starting to wonder if he's desperate for it or something.

 

Did you actually like our past interactions over carrier balance? Is that why you're pushing so hard for me to debate it with you again?

 

And we're back to ad hominems. It's clear you don't have any valid ideas, otherwise, why wouldn't you present them?

 

You can not argue on topic, therefore, you derail to personal attacks to stay in discussions you don't belong in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,829
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,097 posts
3,895 battles
7 minutes ago, issm said:

And we're back to ad hominems. It's clear you don't have any valid ideas, otherwise, why wouldn't you present them?

 

You can not argue on topic, therefore, you derail to personal attacks to stay in discussions you don't belong in.

It's actually not an ad hominem, it's an observation and a legitimate question.

 

If I wanted to construct a personal attack on you I'd just deconstruct your psyche and motivations so everyone can see exactly what kind of person you are. Again.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
15 minutes ago, GX9900A said:

2 - i would disagree with survivability (at least from what i can say ive experianced recently (havent played IJN CV in a long time, recently been playing USN) unless you spec into stealth CV's are massive, easily spotted ships that rely upon hiding behind islands and a allied front-line to be able to do anything

 

And here, I quote server statistics:


(Spoilered for length)

Spoiler

 

Using warships.today, 2 week stats, with a 25 battle minimum for teh lulz, to catch ships like Alabama ST and Black, the CVs with the lowest survival rate are Langley and Bogue. The slowest, most vulnerable CVs in the game, with horrendous concealment, played by the least experienced players, on the smallest maps with fewest places to run (if they could run, that is).

 

Those two ships are tied at 51% survival rate.

 

What other ships come close? 

 

Well, the only things at their tier are Nikolai (totally balanced), and Ark Beta (only owned by 2year+ veterans of the game, at 47% and 45% respectively.

 

Expanding that comparison to all tiers, the only ships that compete with CVs for survival are Alabama ST at 62% survival (over a whole 29 battles, so not only is it statistically insignificant, I very much doubt the skill of STs who've earned Alabama are comparable to the skill of the general population. Regular Alabama has a 40% survival rate), and Conqueror, which ties with Bogue and Langley at 51%.

 

Black and Lion are close (47% and 50% respectively), but are ultimately out-survived by the worst CVs.

 

 

 

So, to summarize: The 2 worst CVs in the game, played by the least experienced players, have survival rates equal or superior to some of the most OP ships in the game.

 

Apparently, all it takes to be competitive against a T4 CV that goes 16 kt in survival are T10 BBs with zombie heals and cruiser concealment, or T9 DDs exclusively played by people who've reached Rank 1 5 times.

 

Regardless what your personal experience is, CVs are insanely survivable. All of them.

Edited by issm
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[WAG]
Beta Testers
710 posts
5,888 battles
17 minutes ago, issm said:

 

And here, I quote server statistics:


(Spoilered for length)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Using warships.today, 2 week stats, with a 25 battle minimum for teh lulz, to catch ships like Alabama ST and Black, the CVs with the lowest survival rate are Langley and Bogue. The slowest, most vulnerable CVs in the game, with horrendous concealment, played by the least experienced players, on the smallest maps with fewest places to run (if they could run, that is).

 

Those two ships are tied at 51% survival rate.

 

What other ships come close? 

 

Well, the only things at their tier are Nikolai (totally balanced), and Ark Beta (only owned by 2year+ veterans of the game, at 47% and 45% respectively.

 

Expanding that comparison to all tiers, the only ships that compete with CVs for survival are Alabama ST at 62% survival (over a whole 29 battles, so not only is it statistically insignificant, I very much doubt the skill of STs who've earned Alabama are comparable to the skill of the general population. Regular Alabama has a 40% survival rate), and Conqueror, which ties with Bogue and Langley at 51%.

 

Black and Lion are close (47% and 50% respectively), but are ultimately out-survived by the worst CVs.

 

 

 

 

So, to summarize: The 2 worst CVs in the game, played by the least experienced players, have survival rates equal or superior to some of the most OP ships in the game.

 

Apparently, all it takes to be competitive against a T4 CV that goes 16 kt in survival are T10 BB with zombie heals and cruiser concealment, or T9 DDs exclusively played by people who've reached Rank 1 5 times.

 

Regardless what your personal experience is, CVs are insanely survivable. All of them.

 

all right, if your going off server stats then yes the ship itself does often survive. but how many of the planes are lost, how often do you see a CV attempting to ram because they are out of planes (relative to how much you see CVs at all at least) ?

 

a CV with 0 planes left might as well be dead in my opinion - perhaps i wouldn't consider ti this way before the economy change, but now with 0 decrease in operating cost from the ship living, but a massive loss in credits for the planes lost, to the player, they would be better off dyng at that point, as tanking damage is the only way they have left to earn credits.

         since this isnt recorded seemingly anywhere, plane shot downs are, but plane losses arent, its a difficult bit of survivability to measure, but is vital to how survivable a CV actually is in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,802
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,868 battles
3 hours ago, AraAragami said:

Funny, the ability to punish stationary battleships bow-camping or island-camping is the exact reason battleship mains whined carriers out of the game to begin with.

Much as we disagree on many things, I must bow and acknowledge we agree on this one.

 

kEhJgEs.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,672
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
18,155 posts
16,501 battles
2 hours ago, knice_destroyer said:

AP bombs causing multiple citadel hits, Tier 9 and 10 Japanese CV triple torp drops literally 1 kilometer from the ship ignoring 100 AA speccd battleships getting dev strikes, I hardly call that just scratching the paint.  I'm not saying some planes should make it through...however an experienced cv captain can straight wreck a bb moving or not.

 

Meanwhile, while you were sailing around in your BB delivering double, triple citadels to Cruisers, getting 1-shotted, it's all good.

 

When the DD eats a bunch of BB AP shells (lord help it if it's a penetrating hit) and gets whacked, or just randomly detonates from even Secondaries Gunfire, it's all good.

 

Now when a BB has to worry about something:

Whoa-Whoa.gif

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
73
[SSBN]
[SSBN]
Members
322 posts
5,832 battles

I'm very much an apprentice cv player, only hit independence and haven't tried the ijn cvs.  I do like what carriers add to games and wish there were cvs in every match. Solo players get punished, as they should and it emphasizes fluid game play and group play (if not team play)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
39 minutes ago, GX9900A said:

 

all right, if your going off server stats then yes the ship itself does often survive. but how many of the planes are lost, how often do you see a CV attempting to ram because they are out of planes (relative to how much you see CVs at all at least) ?

 

a CV with 0 planes left might as well be dead in my opinion - perhaps i wouldn't consider ti this way before the economy change, but now with 0 decrease in operating cost from the ship living, but a massive loss in credits for the planes lost, to the player, they would be better off dyng at that point, as tanking damage is the only way they have left to earn credits.

         since this isnt recorded seemingly anywhere, plane shot downs are, but plane losses arent, its a difficult bit of survivability to measure, but is vital to how survivable a CV actually is in my opinion.

 

I ran some calculations to make an educated guess about T7 CV plan losses.

 

1 additional caveat that I hadn't considered at the time: Since T7 AA is likely to run into T6 CVs, which have a lower capacity than T7+ CVs, the estimates are probably being underrepresented by perhaps 20-30%.

 

There are other factors which overpredict plane shoot downs though, so my estimation would be that the numbers underestimate plane losses by maybe 10-20% overall.
 

Spoiler

 

On 25/08/2017 at 1:29 PM, issm said:

There are some assumptions being made, of course, to make this less complicated, and to cover for unknown variables:

 

- Ignore catapult planes. this OVERestimates total CV plane losses.

- Assume all matches are 1 CV, and that the 2 CV matches will be "cancelled out" by 0 CV matches. Valid assumption as long as there are more matches without CVs than with, imo.

- Ignore tier differences. Assume that high losses when uptiered will cancel out lower losses when downtiered, and assume that lower shot down when uptiered is cancelled out by high shootdowns when downtiered.


Way too much math:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Step 1: Take weighted average of planes shot down per match:

 

Sum of [matches played]*[planes shot down] for all T7 ships (879459.2), divided by [total matches played] (477256)

= 1.843

 

Step 2: Find number of matches with CVs:

 

- CV MM is mirrored, so divide CV matches by 2 to obtain number of matches with CVs, multiply by 24 to find total number of individual matches played with a CV

 

26596 CV matches > 13298 battles with CVs > 319152 individual matches played with a CV

 

- Divide this number by total number of T7 matches to find proportion of matches with a CV. Invert to find "correction ratio" to apply to average shoot downs.

 

.6687 matches at T7 have a CV, therefore, correction ratio is 1.495

 

Step 3: Correct to average shoot down numbers to account for matches with no CV

 

Multiply average shoot downs with "correction ratio" from step 2 = 2.755

 

This number is multiplied by 24 to account for the 24 planes. = 66.13 planes are shot down in one average T7 match.

 

Step 4: Find average number of CV planes in the match: 

 

[Plane capacity]*[matches played] for all T7 CVs / total CV matches played = 69.73 planes are taken into a match by a single CV, on average.

 

Multiply this by 2 to represent 2 CVs per match. = 139.46 CV planes are in an average 2 CV match (1 per team)

 

Step 5: Find loss ratio:

 

Simple enough. Divide # planes shot down vs total # planes.

 

69.73/139.46 = .4742

 

 

 

i.e., in an average T7 match, a CV will lose 47.42% of it's planes.

 

So you can cut all of this "poor CVs face OP AA" garbage.

 

Some players might have trouble with plane losses, and some games will obviously be worse than others, but overall?

 

Those T7 CVs, IN REAL PVP GAMEPLAY, i.e., not some contrived 1v1 situation, are holding on to their planes just fine.

 

 

 

I had previously also run the numbers on T10 CVs, and came up with estimates of around 80% losses (sounds nasty until you consider Hakuryu carries 100 planes, Midway carries 130+ planes, and that it's typically fighters that get lost the fastest - the enemy CV is the biggest threat to your planes, not easily avoidable AA).

 

Conclusion? CVs might be running on partial squads at the end of a match, but they generally won't be empty.

 

This varies greatly based on individual CVs and players, certainly, but on average, CVs do quite well in surviving with planes.

 

The only tier where I might agree a problem exists is T6, which has to face up to T8 AA with insufficient reserves. T7 is fine, as demonstrated above, while T5 has semi protected MM, which should also leave it in a decent place.

Edited by issm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×