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

WIP USN CV flight control changes

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
738 posts
6,483 battles

 

Note that the video states it has been posted as "WIP", so everything is subject to change. 

Your thoughts?

Personally, I have not visited these forums on many months, but this change drew me back to share my thoughts. 

 

I'll keep it simple:

1/1//2 from Bogue to Lex means:

a) IJN Stock or AS setups will lock n strafe and generally probably crush in air to air. Imagine Essex 1/1/3 vs Taiho 2/3/2. Taiho always wins. This is going to be now applicable to all tiers except Tier 9 and 10, where Essex and Midway will get 2 fighters, and Tier 5, where Zuiho only has 1 fighter, and will just get crushed by more balanced Bogue. So this will put Indy, Ranger and Lex at disadvantage as IJN will have more fighters in the "balanced" loadout. 

b) We are back to Midway 2/2/2. Those double TBs is what caused Midway to have highest damage average in the game and the resulting complaining and nerfing of carriers in the first place. So hows this 2/2/2 going to be any different? In fact this is even more powerful, as the old setup was 1/2/2, and now it will get a 2/2/2! Unless they nerf the TBs somehow. 

In general, I'm happy with the change, as it's a step forward in CV balance, due to removal of the Air Superiority USN "make life miserable for enemy CV and lose every single game for your team" mechanics. But to balance it out, IJN fighters need to be compensated to give USN fighters a chance. If WG insists on imbalanced numbers of squads, they need to make sure USN fighters are tougher, faster, more ammo to a degree that taking on 2 IJN fighters is feasible and not an instant win for the IJN. Same for 2 USN fighters vs 3 or 4 IJN. 

See my thoughts on CV state in my signature, which has been unchanged for a very long time. Seems WG may have read it ;)

My idea has always been, remove "extreme" loadouts from the game, such as full AS and full strike. Full AS makes air to air battles completely unfair between the 2 CV players, so it breaks the game. Extreme strike loadouts, make life miserable for surface fleet and encourages CV captains to just go for damage rather than protecting fellow teammates and scouting duties. 

Balanced loadouts, in my mind, have always been what is required to balance the mechanics, between team protection/air-to-air, scouting and striking. 

Now, I'm not against having loadouts that are slightly (and the key word here is slightly) biased towards either more fighters, or more bombers, and that would be the choice of the CV captain to make, giving up slight air power (thus risking losing air superiority) in exchange for slightly more strike power, and vice versa. 

But what broke the game for most tiers has always been the "extreme" imbalance in the flight controls. Looks like a step in the right direction, but still more tweaking required. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Carrier_Junyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
134 posts
11,747 battles

What that video doesn't show you is that some of the planes are having their tiers changed as well.  For instance, some of the Midway planes are only tier 8.  Watch this video from Fara for a much more detailed breakdown/analysis.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clan Supertest Coordinator
1,817 posts
8,577 battles
43 minutes ago, Carrier_Junyo said:

 

b) We are back to Midway 2/2/2. Those double TBs is what caused Midway to have highest damage average in the game and the resulting complaining and nerfing of carriers in the first place. So hows this 2/2/2 going to be any different? In fact this is even more powerful, as the old setup was 1/2/2, and now it will get a 2/2/2! Unless they nerf the TBs somehow. 

 

USN CV' TB won't get any upgrade t8+. Essex and Midway will have the same TB as Lexington.

The actual problem is not only TB but Fighters. Midway's fighters are currently capable of obliterating Hak's Fighters very easily assuming both CV players have the same skill. That is actually keeping current Midway from being completely useless compared to Hak. With Midway getting 222, she will be capable of strike power equivalent or actually even better (cuz AP bomb lulz) ,with blessings of RNG, than Hak. This means Midway's fighters should be nerfed in order to able Hak to have a chance against Midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
698 posts
913 battles
10 minutes ago, Treediagram said:

 

USN CV' TB won't get any upgrade t8+. Essex and Midway will have the same TB as Lexington.

The actual problem is not only TB but Fighters. Midway's fighters are currently capable of obliterating Hak's Fighters very easily assuming both CV players have the same skill. That is actually keeping current Midway from being completely useless compared to Hak. With Midway getting 222, she will be capable of strike power equivalent or actually even better (cuz AP bomb lulz) ,with blessings of RNG, than Hak. This means Midway's fighters should be nerfed in order to able Hak to have a chance against Midway.

I disagree, the Midway will be the only truly good CV in the USN line, the new loadouts changes mean USN will lose in both AS and Strike Power at all the other tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clan Supertest Coordinator
1,817 posts
8,577 battles
Just now, RealNewDeal said:

I disagree, the Midway will be the only truly good CV in the USN line, the new loadouts changes mean USN will lose in both AS and Strike Power at all the other tiers.

 

a) If Midway goes alive with current planes except for TB which will become tier 8, Midway gets the most burst firepower and the best fighters capability in the game. Current 212 is already quite capable of gaining air control even against 422 Hak. Midway's fighters are no joke. That's straight out unbalanced. Midway's fighters need a nerf with 222 load out.

 

b) Mid tier USN CV's don't loose strike power at all because 013 load out for Lexington and Ranger isn't viable option to begin with for any CV player with sane mind. Any CV player with average fighter skill will be able to shut you down completely and farm clear sky. 112 option will give you better chance against most load outs. Midtier USN CV will have less theoretical damage output but gain better practical damage output which is far better. Bogue will get improved strike power with 111, Indy doesn't get any changes in her firepower but will gain access to tier 7 DB. Essex with 212 will be able to compete with Taihou equally without having to be very sneaky and defensive with fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
698 posts
913 battles
Just now, Treediagram said:

 

a) If Midway goes alive with current planes except for TB which will become tier 8, Midway gets the most burst firepower and the best fighters capability in the game. Current 212 is already quite capable of gaining air control even against 422 Hak. Midway's fighters are no joke. That's straight out unbalanced. Midway's fighters need a nerf with 222 load out.

 

b) Mid tier USN CV's don't loose strike power at all because 013 load out for Lexington and Ranger isn't viable option to begin with for any CV player with sane mind. Any CV player with average fighter skill will be able to shut you down completely and farm clear sky. 112 option will give you better chance against most load outs. Midtier USN CV will have less theoretical damage output but gain better practical damage output which is far better. Bogue will get improved strike power with 111, Indy doesn't get any changes in her firepower but will gain access to tier 7 DB. Essex with 212 will be able to compete with Taihou equally without having to be very sneaky and defensive with fighters.

My issue is despite the improved the improved strike power it might not be enough to balance the disaparity between the lines. The Lex and Ranger loudouts are still garbage and the loss of AS loadouts remove the one thing USN CVs could beat IJN at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
320
[KOOKS]
Alpha Tester
2,854 posts
4,861 battles

How would the 1600lb AP bombs (will those even exist?) hold up against light targets...that's the question whether to stay with the classic HE bomb or switch to AP from Lex onwards...

...or whether the AP bombs in tree will differ from the Big E at all...

 

What would the loss of F4U-4 on Essex imply? The mystery of plane tier changing around lingers. Will Essex have to endure the grind with inferior fighters?

Will the US flat pattern torpedo drop be retained?

 

Just changing the loadouts won't be enough...but still too little detail to think on.

Spoiler

Reminds me of WoWP's LaGG-3's myriad of options taken away and left with a linear path...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clan Supertest Coordinator
1,817 posts
8,577 battles
12 minutes ago, RealNewDeal said:

My issue is despite the improved the improved strike power it might not be enough to balance the disaparity between the lines. The Lex and Ranger loudouts are still garbage and the loss of AS loadouts remove the one thing USN CVs could beat IJN at.

 

AS load out shouldn't be there to begin with nor does Strike. Why do you think good players will take stock load out for Ranger despite of it having 1 less squadron. AS and Strike are both straight out broken for multiple reasons. For Lex they take AS not because it's good but because 111 isn't simply usable anymore at tier 8 and besides Lex get's 1000 lbs HE which makes the AS somewhat capable in terms of damage. Again 202 and 013 load outs for Ranger and Lex shouldn't be there to begin with. 112 is fine against anything but Saipan but then Saipan beats anything. You just have to play defensive and passive with your planes and become opportunistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,720
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,525 posts
12,810 battles

For a short term bandaid, the changes seem reasonable on the surface.  It's not the CV reword that is sorely needed, it will not make USN CV desirable for competitive matches, but I think it should be a good change in general, for random play.  It will likely end the helplessness and despair I feel when I see a Strike Ranger on my team.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,655
[INTEL]
Members
11,723 posts
32,786 battles
15 hours ago, RealNewDeal said:

My issue is despite the improved the improved strike power it might not be enough to balance the disaparity between the lines. The Lex and Ranger loudouts are still garbage and the loss of AS loadouts remove the one thing USN CVs could beat IJN at.

 

Yup. The disparity isn't a bug. It's a feature. If CVs are balanced, they will cancel each other out, and not do their job of shortening games by inflicting extra cancer damage like artillery in WoT. 

 

Looks like they are keeping that, and the current plan is to offer a more powerful Midway as an incentive to finish the grind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,513
[SALVO]
Members
23,817 posts
24,406 battles

1.  If something doesn't cause the game to crash or something similar, IT'S NOT BROKEN!!!  It may be flawed, but flawed is NOT "broken".

2. I haven't read every single line above, but I think that it's a huge mistake to assume that the IJN carriers won't get a similar treatment to its carriers' loadouts.  So making comparisons of the new USN CV loadouts to existing IJN CV loadouts is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,513
[SALVO]
Members
23,817 posts
24,406 battles
12 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

 

Yup. The disparity isn't a bug. It's a feature. If CVs are balanced, they will cancel each other out, and not do their job of shortening games by inflicting extra cancer damage like artillery in WoT. 

 

Looks like they are keeping that, and the current plan is to offer a more powerful Midway as an incentive to finish the grind. 

They'll only cancel each other out if the players are of equal skill and play each individual game at an equal level.  And that's a pretty big assumption.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
621 posts
7,334 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

They'll only cancel each other out if the players are of equal skill and play each individual game at an equal level.  And that's a pretty big assumption.

 

 

 

Forgive him, he is still working off the bump to his head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
738 posts
6,483 battles

I was not aware that the planes themselves were changing. I thought only flight controls. 
Either way, true balance cannot be achieved without actually testing and getting a feel for the new setups. I'm not sure how 2 x Tier 8 TBs would fair striking a Montana or Iowa. In my Shokaku, Montanas and Iowas generally laugh at my 8 TBs, which melt before they get into strike range. 

CV balance is a fine art. But the basic results should be:

a) You should be able to have a chance at gaining air superiority with the proper strafing and positioning skills. 
b) You should be able to perform near devastating strikes (taking out up to 80% HP) on pretty much any lone ship in the game except dedicated, AA cruisers with DF. 
c) You should be able to perform a decent attack against a ship, even in an AA bubble
d) You should not be able to get close to strong AA bubbles, made up of ships that are dedicated to AA (DM, Minotour, etc.)

If you can do the above, then i'd consider CV gameplay balanced. Currently you cant because:

a) Half the flight control setups straight out dominate over other setups regardless of player skill
b) You cannot perform massive damage on any single ship. In particular, Iowas, Montanas and AA build battleships, which one should be able to strike if they are on their own, even with some losses. 
c) Right now, most AA bubbles rip planes to shreds, no matter who is in the AA bubble. 
d) This is already in the game. You generally cant get into just about most AA bubbles, especially if there is a DM or Mino around, in which case they don't need a bubble, they can rip planes to shreds by themselves, which is of questionable balance to give so much AA power to a single ship. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,294
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
11,024 posts
5 hours ago, RealNewDeal said:

I disagree, the Midway will be the only truly good CV in the USN line, the new loadouts changes mean USN will lose in both AS and Strike Power at all the other tiers.

I sort of thought that myself when looking at the proposed changes. How can replacing a fighter squadron from the Lexington with a torpedo bomber squadron help anything when it is facing a Shokaku with a 2-2-2 loadout?

 

After playing the USN carrier line through the Lexington, I'm amazed at how powerful the tier IV IJN carrier is. Having two torpedo bombers makes all the difference in the world. I presume that they are not changing the premium Saipan's 2-2-0 loadout either, which will make it even more OP when facing a Ranger. 

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,631
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,488 posts
9,187 battles
32 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I sort of thought that myself when looking at the proposed changes. How can replacing a fighter squadron from the Lexington with a torpedo bomber squadron help anything when it is facing a Shokaku with a 2-2-2 loadout?

 

After playing the USN carrier line through the Lexington, I'm amazed at how powerful the tier IV IJN carrier is. Having two torpedo bombers makes all the difference in the world. I presume that they are not changing the premium Saipan's 2-2-0 loadout either, which will make it even more OP when facing a Ranger. 

It's rare when WG ever directly nerfs premiums that are considered overpowered simply because people spent real money for the ships and would get (rightfully) upset if the ships they paid for were nerfed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,848
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,165 posts
3,959 battles

The new load outs are bad because they lack versatility and removed the ability of the USN to make up for it with any sort of defensive play through fighters.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,649
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,818 posts
4,361 battles

Just to repost for convenience:

 

From the Fb Dev Blog:

Quote

Changes in flight control for the USN aircraft carriers.

 

All the USN aircraft carriers will switch to a single flight control. This will increase the line's versatility, while keeping each ship's unique traits. Moreover, there is now a choice of AP bombs for Lexington (tier VIII), Essex (tier IX) and Midway (tier X), allowing for even more tactical variation.

 

Here are the full images:

NrFmC7n.jpg

VcBRFSw.jpg

eqYnnyx.jpg

0dybEo6.jpg

q4xg0tT.jpg

yWdhddN.jpg

 

Pretty much guaranteed that it'll be various versions of Enterprise's style of play and setup.  Full Album if/when it works:

https://imgur.com/a/3HHwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,294
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
11,024 posts

Does anyone but me think that this is "dumbing down" the US CV line? I like the choice between setting my ship up for attacking ships or attacking planes. Perhaps this is because so many people complain when the CV on their team isn't loaded out like they think it should be? I say to those people that if you don't like how your CV driver has his ship loaded out then go play a damn CV yourself. 

 

Reducing the USN fighter loadouts to one squadron until the Essex is going to severely hamper good CV players at lower tiers. As I said before too, the Saipan is going to now rule the roost even more than it currently does. Of course, this could be part of the reason for the change. I used to own and direct a moderately-sized company and if I were a WG company director I'd probably suggest this change as it's almost certain to increase sales of the Saipan.

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
779
[BWC]
Beta Testers
1,558 posts
6,861 battles
17 hours ago, Crucis said:

1.  If something doesn't cause the game to crash or something similar, IT'S NOT BROKEN!!!  It may be flawed, but flawed is NOT "broken".

2. I haven't read every single line above, but I think that it's a huge mistake to assume that the IJN carriers won't get a similar treatment to its carriers' loadouts.  So making comparisons of the new USN CV loadouts to existing IJN CV loadouts is pointless.

 

Actually, it would be a huge mistake to assume any changes will be made to the IJN CV line when the Devs stated a few days ago that they were going to remain as they were.  Thus, comparing the new USN CV loadouts to the variable IJN loadouts that they will face is very much a valid point, as this is exactly the game WG is setting up with the new configurations.

 

Anyone doing any kind of analysis of the new plane loadouts must do so with the understanding that they will be facing the same IJN CV loadout options for the foreseeable future, or at least until WG completely redoes CV play entirely (which will reset all the loadouts again).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,513
[SALVO]
Members
23,817 posts
24,406 battles
4 hours ago, Jakob_Knight said:

 

Actually, it would be a huge mistake to assume any changes will be made to the IJN CV line when the Devs stated a few days ago that they were going to remain as they were.  Thus, comparing the new USN CV loadouts to the variable IJN loadouts that they will face is very much a valid point, as this is exactly the game WG is setting up with the new configurations.

 

Anyone doing any kind of analysis of the new plane loadouts must do so with the understanding that they will be facing the same IJN CV loadout options for the foreseeable future, or at least until WG completely redoes CV play entirely (which will reset all the loadouts again).

I had not heard that the devs said that.  Seems kinda dumb to me.  I think that the "CV game" is much better when the battle isn't decided on the dumb luck of who picked what loadout.  The "CV game" should be about the skill of the CV players, not dumb luck of the loadout lotto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,064 posts
1,923 battles
4 hours ago, Jakob_Knight said:

 

Actually, it would be a huge mistake to assume any changes will be made to the IJN CV line when the Devs stated a few days ago that they were going to remain as they were.  Thus, comparing the new USN CV loadouts to the variable IJN loadouts that they will face is very much a valid point, as this is exactly the game WG is setting up with the new configurations.

 

Anyone doing any kind of analysis of the new plane loadouts must do so with the understanding that they will be facing the same IJN CV loadout options for the foreseeable future, or at least until WG completely redoes CV play entirely (which will reset all the loadouts again).

These new changes are troubling for sure. Yes I have been waiting for a change to  the USN CVs crappy loadouts practically forever, but this is a stop-gap measure. It's better than buffing the already high USN Fighter ammo capacity, which they did  6 or 7 months ago, but I'm afraid it's far from enough.

 

There's still too many carrier line imbalances, and the premiums wreck balance like there's no tomorrow. Sure, this makes 2 of the USN regular line OP, but they already were OP(Bogue anyway) and Midway was darn close to OP status already and didn't need much of a buff, if indeed she actually needed one at all.(which is debatable) She certainly didn't need a buff on this scale though, THAT I think we can ALL agree on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,649
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,818 posts
4,361 battles
58 minutes ago, Crucis said:

The "CV game" should be about the skill of the CV players, not dumb luck of the loadout lotto.

 

That goes against what WG is aiming for with their planned CV overhaul (the total overhaul; not the USN CV changes). Which is to improve auto-drops some to be generally decent for casual/newbie players, and render manual drops only mildly better for the seasoned players (tighter drops or reverse pattern drops etc; exemplified by Enterprise's DB drops as well as IJN reverse spread drops), and leaving strafe as the main balancebreaker.

 

Of course, within that, to balance the 2 (eventually 3) CV lines, they plan for differences in loadout availability, drop patterns (exemplified by Enterprise's TB drops as well as Kaga's TB drops), plane tiering (see Enterprise/Kaga/Incoming USN CV rebalance), reserve setups (Enterprpise being Fighter/DB oriented and fewer TBs), and focus (USN = DBs, IJN = TBs, RN = ???).

 

It just so happens that the USN CV line will have to choose between APDBs or HEDBs for choice, while TBs are relegated to a lethal distraction role (lethal if ignored, lethal if overly prioritized when those APDBs come bombing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
567
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,113 posts
6,412 battles
6 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

Does anyone but me think that this is "dumbing down" the US CV line? I like the choice between setting my ship up for attacking ships or attacking planes. Perhaps this is because so many people complain when the CV on their team isn't loaded out like they think it should be? I say to those people that if you don't like how your CV driver has his ship loaded out then go play a damn CV yourself. 

 

Reducing the USN fighter loadouts to one squadron until the Essex is going to severely hamper good CV players at lower tiers. As I said before too, the Saipan is going to now rule the roost even more than it currently does. Of course, this could be part of the reason for the change. I used to own and direct a moderately-sized company and if I were a WG company director I'd probably suggest this change as it's almost certain to increase sales of the Saipan.

 

WG has been dumbing down this game from CBT and their reply to us during CBT was that they (WG) wanted to make this game as simple as possible because simple means easy for people to play, easy to learn and hard for the really good players to dominate a match (RNG!).

 

I believe its a 'hang over' from the devs playing a significantly more complicated naval combat MMO called NavyField, (which I also played for many years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,294
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
11,024 posts
1 hour ago, hipcanuck said:

 

WG has been dumbing down this game from CBT and their reply to us during CBT was that they (WG) wanted to make this game as simple as possible because simple means easy for people to play, easy to learn and hard for the really good players to dominate a match (RNG!). I believe its a 'hang over' from the devs playing a significantly more complicated naval combat MMO called NavyField, (which I also played for many years).

There is a major RTS historical game franchise that attempted a server-based game a few years ago. It failed miserably because they took a complex and interesting historical game and turned it into a simple, cartoony kids game. By doing this they alienated the majority of their player-base while not drawing any new kids to the game either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×