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

a Carrier rework/rebalance idea

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

94
[PLPTR]
Beta Testers
519 posts
1,776 battles

Hi guys. I want to some ideas I have about the carrier rework and how to make them competitive against themselves and the surface ships. 
First of all, we need to understand what is happening right now with carriers and why is that they are so loved/hated.
Carriers have 1 problem. You depend on the ship you're on, on your teammates and on the enemy carrier to defend yourself against the enemy carrier, this makes it frustrating for a lot of players, and I agree with them. But at the same time, carriers have a very high chance of not deal any dmg, or to get their airwings destroyed, if the enemy happen to have an idea about how to counter them. It's like extreme sides, you can get an 8 torpedo drop on the broadside of a bb or you can basically lose all your planes before even reaching it. So, we need to adress this. 
And on carrier vs. carrier encounters, there is something Wargaming themselves are not understanding, and it's the concept of hard vs. soft stats. They use those terms on their other ships but not on the carriers. For example, you can make a bb great or bad by adjusting soft stats like dispersion, sigma, penetration, turret trasverse, but you can't just make a bb and give it cruiser armor because it will just not be good at anything. Even if you give it 50" guns. 
My point here is, wargaming is trying to make differences between the nations by giving them different hardstats, those you can't deal with on the ship. For example, USN ultra-low versatility and IJN's weak air control. The idea of differentiating carriers should be like German vs. USN BB. Their soft stats and some added things made them very different but in the end, they are basically the same.

My idea is simple. We should make carriers to have 1 air wing configuration. Why? Because the style of the player is what is going to make the difference between them. 
For example, T4 should have 1-1-1 planes. T5, should have 2-1-1 planes. T6? 2-1-2. T7/8 should have the beloved 2-2-2 configuration. T9/10 3-2-2. 
Those are hard stats. Those can't be changed as you please because that can make or break a ship. giving 1 torp bomber more or 1 dive bomber more to a carrier will make it stand against the other just by the sake of existing, we don't want that. Think of the squadrons as gun caliber. You can't give 1 carrier 410mm and expect to face another carrier with 352mm. The one who wins should be the one who's better player, not the one who happen to select the stronger air control configuration. 
So, how we differentiate them? It's easy, theres LOTS of stats that can be changed. Let's say, for example. USN are known for their speed and durability. We should give the USN quick planes but with weaker DPS. So they can select when to engage, and catch enemy bombers easly, but they can't just go and dogfight because they lose. They also would be great to use against players who use bombers to scout, since they will be able to reach them.
the IJN should have the slower, fragile but great DPS fighters. 
IJN should have high-range but slow torpedo bombers. "Skillshot" bombers with quick torpedoes but long arming distance. This way we make the IJN strong against capital ships themselves, and harder against DD/Cruiser. 
USN should have the fast, but fragile torpedo bombers, with a paralel drop to pick DDs and with low arming distance. This should make them great at scouting and the USN should be great at zone control, while the IJN should be great against furballs and multiple ship smokescreens. 

Now, I'd like to add a new stat into the planes. Plane detection and altitude. 

Altitude would affect how your planes drop, their lock-on time on torpedo/bomb time. Their scouting size (we should also add circles for this, same with ship AA bubbles)
For example, a high altitude fighter will have a 30% penalty on detection, means that if a ship is planedetected at 10km, that plane will not be able to detect it until 7km. 
But at the same time, those fighters will be quicker and at the same time, the enemy fighters/ships will have lower detection range for them, and the AA will be less effective. 
Torpedo/dive bombers are the same. If we have low altitude torpedo bombers, the lock-on time and space is lower, but they suffer a heavy AA-penalty and they're far easier to see them coming. 
Dive bombers should have their reticle lowered if used on low altitude, but since they're the most affected by AA plane that would be a practically suicidal mission on a high AA target. 

This is more or less what I tought about a carrier rework, to make all the lines work and to make it more skill-based and not loadingscreen-based gameplay for carriers. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,062
[OPG]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,897 posts
10,479 battles

We already have these "long arm range, fast torps" on kaga. No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[PLPTR]
Beta Testers
519 posts
1,776 battles
17 minutes ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

We already have these "long arm range, fast torps" on kaga. No

No what? you want everyone to have the same torps? care talking about the other 50 topics of the text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[5D]
Members
1,246 posts
7,273 battles

There really isn't much wrong with carrier other than two issues. 

 

1) Imbalance between the two CV lines. We should give squadron flexibility to the American line.

 

2) The UI tends to be glitchy and unresponsive. It doesn't need to be redesigned, it needs to be cleaned up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,232
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,420 posts
9,614 battles

Sticky subject -- I'd like to see some indication on the HUD when a squad is detected.  Maybe make the HUD icon turn a different color, or make a circle around the squad on the map....  anything would be nice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[TARFU]
[TARFU]
Members
938 posts
5,985 battles

Doesn't matter what you suggest, some guy will always respond with "No." Heh.... Then, a snobby jerk off will write a snide critique explaining why it's no good... so predictable it's funny now. Then, they'll look up your stats and previous posts and use it against you.

 

 

 

EJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[PLPTR]
Beta Testers
519 posts
1,776 battles
2 hours ago, Spartias said:

There really isn't much wrong with carrier other than two issues. 

 

1) Imbalance between the two CV lines. We should give squadron flexibility to the American line.

 

2) The UI tends to be glitchy and unresponsive. It doesn't need to be redesigned, it needs to be cleaned up.

Nah, there is. For example the AA powercreep is insane the more you go into the line. Dropping a TX on a T8 CV its IMPOSSIBLE. No hard, no skill, its impossible. I was playing my Shoukaku today and I tried dropping a montana, lost all the planes and got 2 torpedoes on the water.. for 6k dmg. I think we need to re-think the carrier balance on carrier-carrier engagements and on carrier-surface ship aswell. I don't want to 50k hit everytime, but I'd like to be able to punish someone when it's isolated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[5D]
Members
1,246 posts
7,273 battles
11 minutes ago, Apokita said:

Nah, there is. For example the AA powercreep is insane the more you go into the line. Dropping a TX on a T8 CV its IMPOSSIBLE. No hard, no skill, its impossible. I was playing my Shoukaku today and I tried dropping a montana, lost all the planes and got 2 torpedoes on the water.. for 6k dmg. I think we need to re-think the carrier balance on carrier-carrier engagements and on carrier-surface ship aswell. I don't want to 50k hit everytime, but I'd like to be able to punish someone when it's isolated. 

 

 

It it is entirely possible to be successful as bottom tier in a T10 match. It's hard, and just like other classes you can in fact get shutdown. AA power creep is real, that's true. But you can still be quite a threat. It is not impossible. 

 

50k is a very very low goal. Even in some of the most brutal AA matches I've been in... 50k wasn't unreasonable.

 

A lot of it is watching and waiting. Patience. Wait for someone to get pummeled with he, so they lose AA. Then come in and punish them. Stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[PLPTR]
Beta Testers
519 posts
1,776 battles
1 hour ago, Spartias said:

 

 

It it is entirely possible to be successful as bottom tier in a T10 match. It's hard, and just like other classes you can in fact get shutdown. AA power creep is real, that's true. But you can still be quite a threat. It is not impossible. 

 

50k is a very very low goal. Even in some of the most brutal AA matches I've been in... 50k wasn't unreasonable.

 

A lot of it is watching and waiting. Patience. Wait for someone to get pummeled with he, so they lose AA. Then come in and punish them. Stuff like that.

I meant 50k per strike
tough dealing 50k dmg on a TX match is not that bad either
I actually always play for the lategame because its were I know CVs are more decisive but even then. 
I do want changes more on the carrier vs carrier tho. I wanna win because I'm better than the other CV, not because I clicked over his planes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[5D]
Members
1,246 posts
7,273 battles
30 minutes ago, Apokita said:

I meant 50k per strike
tough dealing 50k dmg on a TX match is not that bad either
I actually always play for the lategame because its were I know CVs are more decisive but even then. 
I do want changes more on the carrier vs carrier tho. I wanna win because I'm better than the other CV, not because I clicked over his planes

 

May you elaborate on what specifically defines one as better, that doesn't involve clicking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[PLPTR]
Beta Testers
519 posts
1,776 battles
31 minutes ago, Spartias said:

 

May you elaborate on what specifically defines one as better, that doesn't involve clicking?

Being able to lock on friendly AA, getting better strafe flanks, baiting them with exit strafe+strafe in, being able to exit-strafe their reinforcements, etc
I hate when I'm playing jap and the USN just clicks on me, and even if I strafe the fighters he loses 6 but I lose the entire air wing. Im not saying they're op, its just bad design (because obviously jap are better but for other reasons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[5D]
Members
1,246 posts
7,273 battles
25 minutes ago, Apokita said:

Being able to lock on friendly AA, getting better strafe flanks, baiting them with exit strafe+strafe in, being able to exit-strafe their reinforcements, etc
I hate when I'm playing jap and the USN just clicks on me, and even if I strafe the fighters he loses 6 but I lose the entire air wing. Im not saying they're op, its just bad design (because obviously jap are better but for other reasons)

 

Gotcha.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×