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

881
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,887 posts
4,227 battles
2 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

A unicum carrier captain singlehandedly wins the match unless the opposing carrier is also a unicum.

Not against a Unicum Des Moines player, or a few average Minotaur players who can anticipate where the CV will go. Sorry, but most people overestimate the power of the Unicum CV player.

 

  A good CV player can win a game, but so can a good Des Moines captain, or a good BB captain, or a good DD captain. The key is minimizing risk, a skill which a Unicum will instinctively know how to perform at that point.

  I have played plenty of games where our CV was killed outright and I still carried the team in Montana. I have seen plenty of games where, though our CV was a unicum, their stats were not enough to counter against the enemy team.

 

  Hell, I've had games where I've carried in a CV. I will tell you that it is not because the enemy CV player was a scrub. Most of the time, it is because the enemy surface ships couldn't position themselves in a method to counter me. One team I saw, the Des Moines division pretty-much went the opposite way from the rest of the team, and they were the only two Tier X ships, besides the enemy Midway, which I saw. At that point, they were just as much to blame for their team losing as their CV captain was, and their CV captain was arguably better than I was in that game, he/she just happened to be running Strike against my Balanced, and my team had better AA coverage, so fewer of his strikes got through. Because the Des Moines division chose to go farm damage on one side of the map, and the rest of the ships didn't stay together, the enemy team lost.

 

So, if you lose a game against a CV player, it doesn't mean that player is good. It just means that your team couldn't adapt. So, again, I see no reason why the entire class should suffer just to equalize unicums vs noobs when that is done in exactly no other ship types.

 

6 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

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

If you don't see how removing skill requirement from a CV ruins its gameplay, then I concur: this conversation is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
702
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
3,005 posts
4,375 battles
On 10/9/2017 at 6:06 PM, 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.

pack it up, were done here close the rest of the thread.

Share this post


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

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.

It would be a step in the right direction and WG isn't noted for big sweeping changes.

 

Would I like your changes? Yes. Do I think WG will do it? Sadly no. Hence why I suggested what I did.

 

Or if WG is so dead set on keeping the plane format least give the following for Ranger/Lex.

1/1/2 and 2/1/1

 

For Essex and Midway 2/1/2 and 1/1/3. 

Share this post


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

It would be a step in the right direction and WG isn't noted for big sweeping changes.

 

The other day you insisted that big sweeping changes was all WG did. Which is it?

Share this post


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

 

The other day you insisted that big sweeping changes was all WG did. Which is it?

You got me confused with someone else.

Share this post


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

You got me confused with someone else.

It was when you insisted they'd have to gut Pensacola to change its tier and couldn't possibly do minor changes.

 

I'm not an idiot. I know who I talked to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[P2W]
[P2W]
Members
1,240 posts
On 10/9/2017 at 6:31 PM, SkaerKrow said:

Currently, aircraft carriers can delete ships whether they're mobile or static; the only real counter is your ship's AA rating. Ergo, the addition of more carriers doesn't make the game more interesting, it just punishes lines with bad AA. 

 

If static play is a problem, then there are far better solutions than ramping up the participation of the game's most dysfunctional class.

If this class is so broken OP why are BBs the most played by a wide margin?

Share this post


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

It was when you insisted they'd have to gut Pensacola to change its tier and couldn't possibly do minor changes.

 

I'm not an idiot. I know who I talked to.

That is a minor change to 1 ship. We're talking about fundamentally changing an entire line.

 

Big goddamn difference and you know it. Stop trying to throw an old argument in my face. You lost it. Get over it.

Share this post


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

That is a minor change to 1 ship. We're talking about fundamentally changing an entire line.

 

Big goddamn difference and you know it. Stop trying to throw an old argument in my face. You lost it. Get over it.

And carriers need their mechanics overhauled.

 

Minor tweaks are not going to fix the massive, fundamental problems with these ships.

Share this post


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

And carriers need their mechanics overhauled.

 

Minor tweaks are not going to fix the massive, fundamental problems with these ships.

Yes I know this. However we know WGs track record, so don't hold your breath. Aspyxiation is a horrible way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[RE]
Members
109 posts
9,219 battles
On 10/9/2017 at 4:57 PM, 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.

 

Ironically, I wouldn't say git gud to you. Now some CC's I can name might, but you specifically pointed out the requirement for CVs, for people to finally pay attention to that class, rather than blaming "casuals", or blaming Battleships fot the experience in game. I cannot tell you enough how much I appreciate this post. Looking at your numbers, if I thrashed you on my team; hey, I"m sorry, but thankfully you've dealt with the worst of it and still can put out something like this. Thank goodness for you. I look forward to more content from you.

Share this post


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

Yes I know this. However we know WGs track record, so don't hold your breath. Aspyxiation is a horrible way to go.

It would certainly help if any of the people in their office actually played them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[RE]
Members
109 posts
9,219 battles
On 10/9/2017 at 5:06 PM, 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.

 

The Clan Wars thing wasn't BBs doing, if it were, then you'd expect more Ranked S7 MM with freedom to have as many BBs as you'd want (Not just one). CVs were killed as collateral damage to getting rid of BBs, because if you *must* limit BBs because they're "All" ,quote-unquote, too strong, then you can't have CVs either since they'd exert too much influence (allegedly).

 

It's more so the slinging of blame between categories of players rather than bad game design or policy decisions that may have driven it, but alas we'll take turns bashing each other.

Share this post


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

It would certainly help if any of the people in their office actually played them.

Some of the ST people who are actual WG staff do. But some I am sure don't.

 

Why I said we'd have a better chance getting better balanced loadouts. I'm going for the smaller victories first, worry about the war later.

Share this post


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

 

The Clan Wars thing wasn't BBs doing, if it were, then you'd expect more Ranked S7 MM with freedom to have as many BBs as you'd want (Not just one). CVs were killed as collateral damage to getting rid of BBs, because if you *must* limit BBs because they're "All" ,quote-unquote, too strong, then you can't have CVs either since they'd exert too much influence (allegedly).

 

It's more so the slinging of blame between categories of players rather than bad game design or policy decisions that may have driven it, but alas we'll take turns bashing each other.

Clan wars isn't even what I'm talking about.

 

Less than 5% of the playerbase even touches carriers. And why do you think that is? Could it be the 18 months of constant nerfs in response to battleship main whining, and the constant empty promises by WG of carrier reworks and "the year of the carrier" or "a year that will be exciting for carriers" which literally were just more nerfs?

 

This predates Clan Wars. By a huge margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[RE]
Members
109 posts
9,219 battles
Just now, AraAragami said:

Clan wars isn't even what I'm talking about.

 

Less than 5% of the playerbase even touches carriers. And why do you think that is? Could it be the 18 months of constant nerfs in response to battleship main whining, and the constant empty promises by WG of carrier reworks and "the year of the carrier" or "a year that will be exciting for carriers" which literally were just more nerfs?

 

This predates Clan Wars. By a huge margin.

 

I agree that the diminished CV population contributes to poor game-play experience; however, we disagree on the reason that happened. After all, potatoes complain loudest (allegedly) yet WG makes changes that actively hurt *everyone* not just "skilled" CV or whatever category you may choose of players. I mean if the issue is the diminished role of CVs, then spending your time blaming Battleships exacerbates the problem since we'll just take turns patching each other out of existence (as it has been the case already).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[RE]
Members
109 posts
9,219 battles
On 10/9/2017 at 6:52 PM, 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.

 

Not entirely sure how to react to that, I partially agree with the latter statement that I've never run into hyper-passive teams, but disagree with the dismissal or "Cancerous" label slung upon CVs, It's aggravating as [edited] to be alpha'ed into oblivion; however, if just to shut the anti-BB/anti-casual crusaders up, I will concede CVs needed more attention to account for their diminished presence in the playing population and would help resolve the myth of all battleships being too powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[RE]
Members
109 posts
9,219 battles
22 hours ago, issm said:

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Why did I like this section so much Issm >_<. I could afford to see more of your stuff sometime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,090
[NGAGE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,930 posts
10,485 battles
10 hours ago, Beneej_Spoor said:

 

Not entirely sure how to react to that, I partially agree with the latter statement that I've never run into hyper-passive teams, but disagree with the dismissal or "Cancerous" label slung upon CVs, It's aggravating as [edited] to be alpha'ed into oblivion; however, if just to shut the anti-BB/anti-casual crusaders up, I will concede CVs needed more attention to account for their diminished presence in the playing population and would help resolve the myth of all battleships being too powerful.

 

I personally think bbs at t10 with the exception of conq are completely underpowered, but people who don't know how to use cruisers or dds will complain that BBs are the most op things in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
12 hours ago, w4spl3g said:

If this class is so broken OP why are BBs the most played by a wide margin?

 

- CVs have an extremely high skill ceiling, as well as a high skill floor. The ceiling is insanely OP, while the high skill floor deters new players

 

- CVs are only fun to play under a narrow set of conditions, and the less skilled you are, the less likely you are to match those conditions.

 

CVs aren't broken just because they're OP, they're also just broken.

 

The CV players complaining about OP AA are complaining about the same thing as people who complain that CVs ignore AA. The same bad mechanics design, AA, causes both problems depending on the AA and plane stats of the ships in question.

 

CV mechanics are just bad.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×