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

Members
1,866 posts

It's not World War II without carriers. You can certainly play your BBs with air defense in mind. You know, I haven't played them much, but I've watched them play, so I know what works. Tonight I risked humiliation and took Enterprise out. I did 76k damage and sunk Shokaku. Not too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,814
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles

I think if every carrier had the same number of squadrons in the air, and the same number of planes per squadron, just in different arrangements, they would be significantly easier for the incompetents at WG to properly balance.

 

The current setup has far, far, far too many variables for anyone at WG to even understand how to approach balancing them. It's too complicated for the devs to handle. They need to simplify it for the betterment of the game.

 

Once the lines are balanced to each other, we can fixate on how to lower how much impact a unicum carrier captain has without castrating the average-skilled players.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
691 posts
1,165 battles
4 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

I think if every carrier had the same number of squadrons in the air, and the same number of planes per squadron, just in different arrangements, they would be significantly easier for the incompetents at WG to properly balance.

 

The current setup has far, far, far too many variables for anyone at WG to even understand how to approach balancing them. It's too complicated for the devs to handle. They need to simplify it for the betterment of the game.

 

Once the lines are balanced to each other, we can fixate on how to lower how much impact a unicum carrier captain has without castrating the average-skilled players.

 

That's why we make them all Langley. Langley is the golden standard as far as my scrub inexperienced opinion is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,866 posts
2 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

I think if every carrier had the same number of squadrons in the air, and the same number of planes per squadron, just in different arrangements, they would be significantly easier for the incompetents at WG to properly balance.

 

The current setup has far, far, far too many variables for anyone at WG to even understand how to approach balancing them. It's too complicated for the devs to handle. They need to simplify it for the betterment of the game.

 

Once the lines are balanced to each other, we can fixate on how to lower how much impact a unicum carrier captain has without castrating the average-skilled players.

Top-tier US carriers have awful WRs, and they were the most advanced carriers with better planes than Japan. Unicum carrier drivers will just wreck your team, but they are few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,814
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles
8 minutes ago, Seadog_Supreme said:

Top-tier US carriers have awful WRs, and they were the most advanced carriers with better planes than Japan. Unicum carrier drivers will just wreck your team, but they are few.

They have awful winrates because while their planes are statistically superior, they don't have enough of them in the air to complete and get overwhelmed, both defensively and offensively.

 

This has been my experience in Independence and Ranger, and it's not unreasonable to extrapolate from the stats going up that this trend both continues and worsens up to Midway.

Share this post


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

It's not World War II without carriers

 

Sure it is.

 

CVs had little part in actual gunnery engagements.

 

Carrier combat was mostly it's own separate thing, like how DDs hunting subs hunting convoys was it's own separate kind of thing.

 

Sure, sometimes CV combat overlapped with "normal" naval combat, but that was the exception, not the rule.

 

Like, there was that one time French horse cavalry defeated a Dutch fleet, but you wouldn't call horse cavalry part of naval warfare.

 

(Fun fact, CVs were active combatants in an actual naval battle the same number of times horse cavalry won a naval battle: Once.)

 

13 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Once the lines are balanced to each other, we can fixate on how to lower how much impact a unicum carrier captain has without castrating the average-skilled players.

 

This approach is the equivalent of putting a bandaid on a haemorrhaging artery.

 

You want to find how to nerf unicums without crippling average players?

 

Easy.

 

Find the mechanics unicums abuse, that newbies don't, and nerf those.

 

The list is short and simple: Spotting and vision, and manual attacks, in particular, fighter strafes.

 

As it so happens, I have a short list of fixes that does just that:

 

Spoiler

 

- Remove fighter strafes

- Rebalance all squads to USN baseline

  - For all IJN loadouts, copy the respective USN loadout, and swap all TBs and DBs

     - In any loadout with 3 TBs (i.e. USN 0/1/3> IJN 0/3/1), replace the 3 TB with 2 TB/1 DB (i.e. that IJN 0/3/1 > 0/2/2)

     - In any fighter or balanced loadout with 2 TB (i.e. USN 3/0/2 > IJN 3/2/0), replace the 2 TB with 1 TB/1 DB (i.e. IJN 3/2/0 > 3/1/1)

     - T4-7 CVs all have 1/1/1 as a stock loadout, with, 2/1/0 (IJN)/ 2/0/1 (USN) and 0/2/1 (IJN) / 0/1/2 (USN) as fighter/strike loadouts

  - Nerf torpedo damage on all low tier IJN CVs with 2 squads (up to, and including T8) down to ~6k per torp to compensate for more torp bombers in the air.

 

Vision changes:

 

- Nerf vision on all TB and DB to 4 km acquisition range. Fighters maintain current acquisition range.

- Planes are unable to spot torpedoes.

- Ships spotted by CVs do not render for allied ships - i.e., you can't lock on to them

  - Ships spotted by CVs only show up on the minimap as a hollow triangle.


 

This addresses most of the issues with existing CVs.

 

- CV air dominance is reduced, preventing unicums from pushing less skilled players out of the match.

 

- Vision changes cuts absolute power from CVs, while at the same time taking it away from the unicums that actively spot, leaving average/unskilled players alone.

 

- Loadout mirroring, with national flavour based on TB/DB gives better inter line balance.

 

You'd need to fix AA to get a true solution, but what I've laid out is a good start.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,814
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles
4 minutes ago, issm said:

Easy.

 

Find the mechanics unicums abuse, that newbies don't, and nerf those.

 

Manual drop.

 

The other things are stuff like positioning and target selection, which are player behaviors and can't really be nerfed effectively.

 

You took the squadron parity idea from me, as well.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
813
[SALTY]
Members
1,291 posts
4,139 battles

I have an idea, it's quite revolutionary so I warn you in advance. 

 

How about WarGaming creates a series of tutorials for players to use to better grasp the mechanics of said ships.

 

How to strafe. 

How to angle. 

How to shoot. 

How to provide spotting. 

How to choose correct ammunition. 

How to effectively use consumables. 

 

Actually nevermind, let's just remove all "unicum mechanics" from the game to please those who do not take time to learn how to play the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,814
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles
4 minutes ago, aAkula said:

How about WarGaming creates a series of tutorials for players to use to better grasp the mechanics of said ships.

 

Gonna level with you: it's not a bad idea.

 

The problem is it won't help when the mechanics of the class, and the balance between the lines, are all completely hosed.

 

When you have a class that less than 5% of your playerbase can even use, it's not a "skill-dependent" class, it's a "badly designed" class.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
813
[SALTY]
Members
1,291 posts
4,139 battles
Just now, AraAragami said:

 

Gonna level with you: it's not a bad idea.

 

The problem is it won't help when the mechanics of the class, and the balance between the lines, are all completely hosed.

 

Hard to gauge what is balanced in this game when the skill gap is so vast. 

 

How about WG make an effort to improve the overall skill gap/quality of play and then focus on individual ships that require balancing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,866 posts
49 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

They have awful winrates because while their planes are statistically superior, they don't have enough of them in the air to complete and get overwhelmed, both defensively and offensively.

 

This has been my experience in Independence and Ranger, and it's not unreasonable to extrapolate from the stats going up that this trend both continues and worsens up to Midway.

Warships today NA:

Essex (9) 46.37%

Midway (10) 48.91%

Taiho (9) 54.88%

Hakuryu (10) 54.15%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
8 hours ago, aAkula said:

I have an idea, it's quite revolutionary so I warn you in advance. 

 

How about WarGaming creates a series of tutorials for players to use to better grasp the mechanics of said ships.

 

How to strafe. 

How to angle. 

How to shoot. 

How to provide spotting. 

How to choose correct ammunition. 

How to effectively use consumables. 

 

Actually nevermind, let's just remove all "unicum mechanics" from the game to please those who do not take time to learn how to play the game. 

 

One little problem with this idea, some player are just better than others.

 

What CV mechanics do is take a small difference in input skill and convert that into a large difference in actual in game power.

 

"Better tutorials" won't fix that.

 

"Better tutorials" will also never fix the fact that CVs just aren't fun to play against.

 

You want to teach people how to spot? That just makes the game incredibly disengaging for the people getting spotted, since there's very little a DD or CA being spotted can do to shake planes, unlike if they were spotted by another ship.

 

Like it or not, CVs have far too much power available for top players to take advantage of, and some of that must be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
Beta Testers
1,234 posts
5,597 battles
13 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.

 

I can only give you one "+1" but you deserve so many more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,304
[SYN]
Members
14,995 posts
11,481 battles

I feel that CVs cause more camping.
Well okay, that's only partially true.

A [edited]horribad CV will cause the team to camp
A [edited]awesome CV will cause the team to gain confidence at go out on the attack, but with the caveat that the match will be a steamroll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2 posts
12 battles

idiot cv's choke the life out of the game.  get rid of them.   WG even knows this by not allowing them into cw.  It would just be a pile of camping hot garbage like most randoms are due to cv's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,802
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,862 battles
14 hours ago, AraAragami said:

They have awful winrates because while their planes are statistically superior, they don't have enough of them in the air to complete and get overwhelmed, both defensively and offensively.

 

This has been my experience in Independence and Ranger, and it's not unreasonable to extrapolate from the stats going up that this trend both continues and worsens up to Midway.

No it is this way. When I was a ST only my tiny bit of free time I did check every carrier. The reason why USN loses they have to pick either air cover or damage and don't have a good balance between the two while main line IJN does. The only exceptions to the rule are Saipan and Enterprise.

 

But if WG would give AP bombs to Ranger and up for the 2(3 for higher tiers)/0/2 now at least USN DBs actually become a threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,814
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles
1 hour ago, IronWolfV said:

No it is this way. When I was a ST only my tiny bit of free time I did check every carrier. The reason why USN loses they have to pick either air cover or damage and don't have a good balance between the two while main line IJN does. The only exceptions to the rule are Saipan and Enterprise.

 

But if WG would give AP bombs to Ranger and up for the 2(3 for higher tiers)/0/2 now at least USN DBs actually become a threat.

Yes, the fact that USN is forced to specialize with no general flight loadout, while every IJN is just a different flavor of generalist, is part of the problem. Slapping even more specialized AP bombs on them is going to help their damage totals, but won't really solve the problem.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
925
[NG-NL]
Members
5,425 posts
9,182 battles
17 hours ago, issm said:

 

Sure it is.

 

CVs had little part in actual gunnery engagements.

 

Carrier combat was mostly it's own separate thing, like how DDs hunting subs hunting convoys was it's own separate kind of thing.

 

Sure, sometimes CV combat overlapped with "normal" naval combat, but that was the exception, not the rule.

 

Like, there was that one time French horse cavalry defeated a Dutch fleet, but you wouldn't call horse cavalry part of naval warfare.

 

(Fun fact, CVs were active combatants in an actual naval battle the same number of times horse cavalry won a naval battle: Once.)

 

 

This approach is the equivalent of putting a bandaid on a haemorrhaging artery.

 

You want to find how to nerf unicums without crippling average players?

 

Easy.

 

Find the mechanics unicums abuse, that newbies don't, and nerf those.

 

The list is short and simple: Spotting and vision, and manual attacks, in particular, fighter strafes.

 

As it so happens, I have a short list of fixes that does just that:

 

  Hide contents

 

- Remove fighter strafes

- Rebalance all squads to USN baseline

  - For all IJN loadouts, copy the respective USN loadout, and swap all TBs and DBs

     - In any loadout with 3 TBs (i.e. USN 0/1/3> IJN 0/3/1), replace the 3 TB with 2 TB/1 DB (i.e. that IJN 0/3/1 > 0/2/2)

     - In any fighter or balanced loadout with 2 TB (i.e. USN 3/0/2 > IJN 3/2/0), replace the 2 TB with 1 TB/1 DB (i.e. IJN 3/2/0 > 3/1/1)

     - T4-7 CVs all have 1/1/1 as a stock loadout, with, 2/1/0 (IJN)/ 2/0/1 (USN) and 0/2/1 (IJN) / 0/1/2 (USN) as fighter/strike loadouts

  - Nerf torpedo damage on all low tier IJN CVs with 2 squads (up to, and including T8) down to ~6k per torp to compensate for more torp bombers in the air.

 

Vision changes:

 

- Nerf vision on all TB and DB to 4 km acquisition range. Fighters maintain current acquisition range.

- Planes are unable to spot torpedoes.

- Ships spotted by CVs do not render for allied ships - i.e., you can't lock on to them

  - Ships spotted by CVs only show up on the minimap as a hollow triangle.

 

 

 

 

This addresses most of the issues with existing CVs.

 

- CV air dominance is reduced, preventing unicums from pushing less skilled players out of the match.

 

- Vision changes cuts absolute power from CVs, while at the same time taking it away from the unicums that actively spot, leaving average/unskilled players alone.

 

- Loadout mirroring, with national flavour based on TB/DB gives better inter line balance.

 

You'd need to fix AA to get a true solution, but what I've laid out is a good start.

Can see a legit reason to nerf AA.

 

However, you seem to left out whether to balance around base/stock hull AA, semi-upgraded (1-3 AA boosting), or complete (4+ AA boosting) AA builds. Just about every DM I check in high tiers has at least 94 AA rating, and that's just (I think, don't own the ship) with AA range module and AFT. Balancing problem for WG is what level of AA build to do it around.

 

Thing is, not everyone judges AA boosts necessary. If having only 1-2 means you can barely do anything vs. same tier planes, whereas 3+ makes for a good AA defense (depending which AA is the ship's strong suite, like GK's long range and US BB's Bofors), it seems a reasonable compromise. Full AA build on Colorado, as I recall, means even Lexington planes take significant losses; faced Atlanta captains in Taiho a few times, and they need DF's boost just to compensate for the TB/DB increased HP.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
881
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,887 posts
4,227 battles

@issm To quote you from the last time we argued about CVs and Server Statistics:
   "W/R is the only stat that matters."

 

Now, in terms of W/R, the USN CV line is dead last out of all ships, including Shimakaze. Now, tell me again how that makes this ship OP?

 

You argue in terms of survival, but I will tell you that one can survive a battle and still lose and not contribute. Survival itself is not a measure of how good the ship is. It just measures how much it survives.

 

Meanwhile, what stat tells you how much overall match contribution a ship has? W/R, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
881
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,887 posts
4,227 battles
18 hours ago, AraAragami said:

 

Manual drop.

No. Or, if we're going to remove manual drop, how about we remove binocular vision from all ships, and the torpedo lead indicator from Destroyers. That would also help reduce skill-gaps.

 

What you are suggesting would take all the fun out of CV playing. It would literally become a point-and-click idle game.

 

We already saw what removing Manual Drops does: It makes AS Bogue the only viable option, and AS Bogue has almost 0 match contribution in terms of ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,814
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles
3 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

No. Or, if we're going to remove manual drop, how about we remove binocular vision from all ships, and the torpedo lead indicator from Destroyers. That would also help reduce skill-gaps.

 

What you are suggesting would take all the fun out of CV playing. It would literally become a point-and-click idle game.

 

We already saw what removing Manual Drops does: It makes AS Bogue the only viable option, and AS Bogue has almost 0 match contribution in terms of ships.

Idiotic hyperbole aside, what would you do to reduce the impact of expert/unicum carrier players without completely castrating the blue-quality average players in the process?

 

Positioning and target selection are the only other differences between these two classes of players, and these are player behaviors that cannot be easily changed by making adjustments to the ship or ship type. Manual drop is the only actual mechanic that unicum carrier captains have a clear, measurable advantage over average carrier captains in, which can itself be manipulated by the developers.

 

And the only way to do this in a way that doesn't render average players impotent just to hit the unicums...is to remove it and make autodrop better/more interactive.

 

You complain that it'd make the class boring, but honestly reducing the kind of insane micromanagement requirements of the ship type by 50% is more appealing than unappealing.

 

There's also WG's own statements that they dislike there being two completely different attack mechanics for carriers. So dropping manuals seems even more likely. Unless you think they should remove autos and give manuals back to tiers 4/5. I'm sure the tier 4-5 battleship mains and sealclubbers who whined for that nerf would love that.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


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

@issm To quote you from the last time we argued about CVs and Server Statistics:
   "W/R is the only stat that matters."

 

Now, in terms of W/R, the USN CV line is dead last out of all ships, including Shimakaze. Now, tell me again how that makes this ship OP?

 

You argue in terms of survival, but I will tell you that one can survive a battle and still lose and not contribute. Survival itself is not a measure of how good the ship is. It just measures how much it survives.

 

Meanwhile, what stat tells you how much overall match contribution a ship has? W/R, of course.

 

You left out the other half of that line: The rest of the stats and context tell you why.

 

Yes, USN CVs are way behind on W/R. That is clearly a problem. What's the rest of the context?

 

USN CVs still have strong damage and average kills. They're also forced into mirror MM with the most OP ships in the game.

 

Yes, the pathetic W/R USN ships have shows that there's a problem.

 

The rest of the context indicates that the problem is the even more OP IJN CVs, not that USN CVs are underpowered in general.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
881
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,887 posts
4,227 battles
Just now, AraAragami said:

Positioning and target selection are the only other differences between these two classes of players, and these are player behaviors that cannot be easily changed by making adjustments to the ship or ship type. Manual drop is the only actual mechanic that unicum carrier captains have a clear, measurable advantage over average carrier captains in, which can itself be manipulated by the developers.

 

And the only way to do this in a way that doesn't render average players impotent just to hit the unicums...is to remove it and make autodrop better/more interactive.

 

You complain that it'd make the class boring, but honestly reducing the kind of insane micromanagement requirements of the ship type by 50% is more appealing than unappealing.

I will ignore your comment about idiotic hyperbole and simply refer you back to AS Bogue.

Now that that's settled, shouldn't it be the case that, regardless of class, a unicum captain of any ship should have a "clear, measurable advantage" over the average captain, simply from player skill?

 

No, I do not support this, "narrowing of the skill gap." That's just another phrase for "removing skill requirement." I don't really care about "hitting the unicums" at all: they have proven that they are capable of manipulating the game outcome in their favor using tools which are available to everyone, which should be just as rewarded as it would be for any other class.

 

Nerfing something based on unicums is, in essence, nerfing something based on the minority of players. For the vast majority of games in any sample, you will see an average player fighting an average player; no need to gimp them even more by locking their tools away.

 

Perhaps we should "narrow the skill gap" in cruisers by giving them citadel immunity, so you can't ever play skillfully against one and get rewarded?

 

And, no. I disagree with your argument that "reducing micromanagement" would make the ship type more appealing. For me, that micromanagement is what makes the game interesting. It's not just about the macro, that's strategy. A carrier is supposed to be an RTT Lite, as many have put it, and Tactics is about the Micro combined with the macro.

 

May I ask you: what makes a good DD player better than any other DD player? They understand how to exploit kiting and detection to effectively OWSF while not technically OWSF-ing. They understand how and when to fire their guns, how to aim, and how and when to execute a torpedo ambush. But there is a skill-gap in DD play! The Horror! Here, let me save the day by doing to DD play what you are trying to to to CV play.

   DDs now cannot aim their shells, they merely set a target and hope that their shells hit, just like how Dive Bombers work when you remove manual drops.

   Torpedoes are locked-into a wide arc and only fire when you reach a certain arbitrary range with your enemy: they cannot be manually fired. Just like removing manual drops from Torpedo Bombers.

   Smokescreens cannot be manually-activated, instead, they activate automatically when you are detected and running at a certain speed.

   You cannot manually activate your hydro, that only activates when you get within a certain range of an enemy smokescreen.

 

May I ask you, does that sound fun? I didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,814
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles
3 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

I will ignore your comment about idiotic hyperbole and simply refer you back to AS Bogue.

Now that that's settled, shouldn't it be the case that, regardless of class, a unicum captain of any ship should have a "clear, measurable advantage" over the average captain, simply from player skill?

 

No, I do not support this, "narrowing of the skill gap." That's just another phrase for "removing skill requirement." I don't really care about "hitting the unicums" at all: they have proven that they are capable of manipulating the game outcome in their favor using tools which are available to everyone, which should be just as rewarded as it would be for any other class.

 

Nerfing something based on unicums is, in essence, nerfing something based on the minority of players. For the vast majority of games in any sample, you will see an average player fighting an average player; no need to gimp them even more by locking their tools away.

 

Perhaps we should "narrow the skill gap" in cruisers by giving them citadel immunity, so you can't ever play skillfully against one and get rewarded?

 

And, no. I disagree with your argument that "reducing micromanagement" would make the ship type more appealing. For me, that micromanagement is what makes the game interesting. It's not just about the macro, that's strategy. A carrier is supposed to be an RTT Lite, as many have put it, and Tactics is about the Micro combined with the macro.

 

 

Then you will not be happy with anything WG does to carriers and I bid you good day.

 

If you cannot understand how bad it is to levy the success or failure of a match on the performance of one player, and that being the reason why narrowing the skill gap is such a big thing that people want to accomplish with carriers, then we have nothing further to discuss. This debate will go nowhere.

 

Also your comparisons to removing zoom in/torpedo wedges are pretty irrelevant. The reason is: The skill gaps are not nearly as wide in destroyer players due to the nature of the ships, and also the fact that there is more than one destroyer in most matches. A destroyer is also significantly at higher risk and can be vastly more easily countered. A unicum destroyer captain can still lose rather easily. A unicum carrier captain singlehandedly wins the match unless the opposing carrier is also a unicum.

 

If you don't see how this is a problem, then our conversation is over.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×