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

make Carriers Great Again!

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

146
[5D2]
Beta Testers
446 posts
3,776 battles

Carriers were the most powerful ships in WW2 but in this game its sooo neutered.  

used to be that only Cruisers have good AA and teams would have to play around that, now everybody and their grandma have gimick AAs which shred planes.  

absolutely ridiculous

Make Carriers Great Again like the way its meant to be!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
509
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,456 posts
5,816 battles
10 minutes ago, behindurback said:

Carriers were the most powerful ships in WW2 but in this game its sooo neutered.  

used to be that only Cruisers have good AA and teams would have to play around that, now everybody and their grandma have gimick AAs which shred planes.  

absolutely ridiculous

Make Carriers Great Again like the way its meant to be!!!

 

 

My chief has a phrase: "If you are going to come to me with a problem, you had best make sure you have a solution for me to consider"

 

You've identified a problem, but proposed zero solutions and only implied one (nerf AA).

 

You also don't want things to go "historical" at all or this game would turn into a really long, slow, sniper style of "over the horizon" shooting between BB's and you... and the USN would win 9/10 times over other ships.

 

SO lets salvage this thread and I'll post my proposed solution to CV play:

 

First thing I'd do is balance CV loadouts across all nations.  Preferably at current USN squad sizes and total number of squads.  This minimizes the micromanagement annoyance that most players have with CV's.  "National Flavor" IJN with good torpedoes, USN with good DB's.  Fighters should be made basically equal even though they weren't.  Why?  It forces CV's to use skill to take out enemy fighters.

 

Second thing is to scale HP of aircraft based upon average tier of ships in the game.  If you are currently a T6 CV in a predominantly T8 fight (or worse, entirely in a T8 fight) then you are nearly worthless.  If you are a T8 CV in a T6 fight (or worst case, the only T8 in a T6 fight) you absolutely wreck face and no ship aside from Cleveland stands a chance at fighting you off.  By scaling the HP you eliminate BOTH cases from the game.  T6 CV's now stand a decent chance when they are bottom tier and they aren't so insanely OP when top tier.

 

Third thing is to make AA more realistic by eliminating this "AA Aura" thing and give AA guns firing arcs.  It's going to be a massive pain for WG to implement on a per-gun basis but they can do auras based on "banks" of guns in a certain area.  This will do a few things:  One it will allow CV's to approach a ship and minimize the time they are in the "Murder you" AA, it makes DB more valuable, and rewards knowing ship configurations.  This also buffs the nations that focused on AA such as the USN, RN and late war IJN, French and Italians and minimizes the current "screw your CV" T4-T7 German BB AA that outpaces USN AA because it's all long range DPS.

 

Fourth and Finally, return manual drops to T4 and T5 but keep Strafe out.  It makes torpedo bombers on USN ships nearly useless and the DB's are simply too weak.  It overbuffs the low tier IJN CV's which have two TB's and can cross drop to guarantee torpedo hits with autodrops.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
723
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
8,868 battles
1 hour ago, behindurback said:

Carriers were the most powerful ships in WW2 but in this game its sooo neutered.  

used to be that only Cruisers have good AA and teams would have to play around that, now everybody and their grandma have gimick AAs which shred planes.  

absolutely ridiculous

Make Carriers Great Again like the way its meant to be!!!

 

CV's are already cancerously good in the current state of the game. WG themselves admit that they are too good and exclude them from clan wars. 

 

If anything, the sky cancers need a round of chemo to nerf them down a notch.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[ANKER]
Members
228 posts
6,353 battles
2 hours ago, behindurback said:

Carriers were the most powerful ships in WW2 but in this game its sooo neutered.  

used to be that only Cruisers have good AA and teams would have to play around that, now everybody and their grandma have gimick AAs which shred planes.  

absolutely ridiculous

Make Carriers Great Again like the way its meant to be!!!

 

JUST NO!!!

They tried that and it was not fun for any1 not in a carrier.

CVs are just extremely difficult to balance; better to just delete them from the game till WG can figure out a fun and engaging solution for everyone in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,136 posts
3,261 battles

Prove to me that carriers were the most powerful unit of WW2.

In the Atlantic they certainly werent. Your sample of the Pacific war is already bias against other ship types because carriers are all the US had to work with for half the war. It certainly helped mature CV doctrine, but the US didnt exactly have a choice in the matter. A war with a fully functional pacific fleet might have put carriers in a vastly different position.

Edited by Mulletproof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,853
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,168 posts
3,967 battles

Prove to you Carriers were the most powerful naval unit of WW2?

 

There were 0 other ships capable of sinking an enemy ship from anything close to the range of a CV.

 

The Pacific Fleet was fully operational by the time Guadalcanal was fought in 1943, with a very limited number of CVs, and the veterans of Pearl Harbor raised and ready to go.

 

The Washington and SoDak were regulated to CV escort duty while Cruisers fought Battleships in the slot until the closing weeks of the campaign.

 

The Standards never were sent, because the Navy reasoned they could send 2 CVs for every Battleship in terms of cost, and be able to project both offensive and defensive power in combat without much of the risk of losing the ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,604
[SALVO]
Members
23,947 posts
24,450 battles
3 hours ago, behindurback said:

Carriers were the most powerful ships in WW2 but in this game its sooo neutered.  

used to be that only Cruisers have good AA and teams would have to play around that, now everybody and their grandma have gimick AAs which shred planes.  

absolutely ridiculous

Make Carriers Great Again like the way its meant to be!!!

 

No, not ridiculous.  American BB's historically had exceptional AA, particularly after Pearl Harbor.  I will say that if one wanted to look at where AA in this game is ridiculous, it's the silly Defensive Fire consumable on cruisers and even some destroyers.  The very idea that DDs should be able to shred dozens of planes is laughable.  DD's had barely a fraction of the AA firepower of a modern BB. 

I wish that the devs would get rid of the DF consumable and force ships to use their own  base AA to defend themselves.  And if you wanted to further enhance your ship's AA abilities, you'd have to choose to mount the AA upgrade module and/or pick captain skills that did so.

As for making carriers great again, you're nuts.  What you'd end up with is a game where only 1 or 2 people per team got to have any fun, while the other 10-11 players spent the battle being miserable, constantly dodging carrier planes attacks.  That doesn't sound like fun to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
509
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,456 posts
5,816 battles
1 hour ago, Madwolf05 said:

The Standards never were sent, because the Navy reasoned they could send 2 CVs for every Battleship in terms of cost, and be able to project both offensive and defensive power in combat without much of the risk of losing the ships.

 

Considering only two standards were afloat under their own power in 1943, I doubt they would have sent them anyway.  They certainly did their part at Surigao Strait during the Leyte campaign though....

 

Also, if you think that the Fast Battleships existed for the sole reason to escort carriers you are insane.  The Iowa's 33 knot speed was chosen specifically to chase down Kongou's and turn them into scrap hulks and that was a large part of the reason why they WERE sent with the CV's... that and because no other ship in the fleet had that much AA throw weight.  A lot of people also forget that Iowa and New Jersey sank Katori in addition to nearly destroying Nowaki as she fled the scene.  Last salvo at 35,000 yards was a damaging near miss according to the logs of the Nowaki post war.

 

I doubt many of our Battleship Task Forces were under much risk during WWII post Pearl.  They, like the CV's, were too expensive to ever not protect 100% and it wasn't like the US was hurting for ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,013
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
12,972 posts
18,345 battles
4 hours ago, behindurback said:

Make Carriers Great Again

Carriers in this game were never that great.

4 hours ago, behindurback said:

the way its meant to be!!!

Says who, the DD's you park your fighters over?

4 hours ago, behindurback said:

Carriers were the most powerful ships in WW2 but in this game its sooo neutered. 

That is called balance, because this is called a game.

4 hours ago, behindurback said:

now everybody and their grandma have gimick AAs which shred planes.  

Every IJN DD I own, except for Akizuki, is laughing till they die.

4 hours ago, behindurback said:

absolutely ridiculous

I AGREE; NERF CARRIERS!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
5,214 battles

Funny thing as much as I don't want subs in game they did sink a lot of carriers during the war. 

 

Just throwing that that out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,212
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,910 posts
9,171 battles
4 hours ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

First thing I'd do is balance CV loadouts across all nations.  Preferably at current USN squad sizes and total number of squads.  This minimizes the micromanagement annoyance that most players have with CV's.  "National Flavor" IJN with good torpedoes, USN with good DB's.  Fighters should be made basically equal even though they weren't.  Why?  It forces CV's to use skill to take out enemy fighters.

What skill?

There are gameplay mechanics, but no player skills involved. If everything were equal, what would distinguish players is their ability to use map awareness more efficiently (which we might describe as a player originating skill). But we would all get quickly bored if that were the only way of gaining the upper hand in CV combat.

IJN and USN both have a 'national flavour' already, you must know this, IJN already favour torpedos, USN already favour divebombers, IJN already favour more nuermous but weaker squadrons, USN already favour few but stronger squadrons, already. You know this.

As for micro management "annoyances" the only time they might occur is during closeup strafe operations (which you might think of as a player skill, but in fact is anything but, being a gameplay mechanic with an element of ping rate 'twitch')

(edit : can't believe I am saying this to an ST, must be something I am missing/misunderstood, apologies if so!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,152
[VCRUZ]
Members
3,765 posts
8,965 battles
4 hours ago, behindurback said:

Carriers were the most powerful ships in WW2 but in this game its sooo neutered.  

CVs will never be strong as they were because this game is called World of Warships, not World of Warplanes. Back there in beta when CVs were OP the game was closet to World of Warplanes.

 

4 hours ago, behindurback said:

used to be that only Cruisers have good AA and teams would have to play around that, now everybody and their grandma have gimick AAs which shred planes.  

absolutely ridiculous

Nope, the ships that had the strongest AA were BBs, just because they could carry more AA guns. 

 

4 hours ago, behindurback said:

Make Carriers Great Again like the way its meant to be!!!

CVs are already strong, a good CV player had the best carry potential of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
509
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,456 posts
5,816 battles
28 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

What skill?

There are gameplay mechanics, but no player skills involved. If everything were equal, what would distinguish players is their ability to use map awareness more efficiently (which we might describe as a player originating skill). But we would all get quickly bored if that were the only way of gaining the upper hand in CV combat.

IJN and USN both have a 'national flavour' already, you must know this, IJN already favour torpedos, USN already favour divebombers, IJN already favour more nuermous but weaker squadrons, USN already favour few but stronger squadrons, already. You know this.

As for micro management "annoyances" the only time they might occur is during closeup strafe operations (which you might think of as a player skill, but in fact is anything but, being a gameplay mechanic with an element of ping rate 'twitch')

(edit : can't believe I am saying this to an ST, must be something I am missing/misunderstood, apologies if so!)

 

And you forget that those very in game mechanics currently cause the most grief in balancing because one nation's "numerous but weaker" squadrons outright destroyers the "few but stronger" air superiority loadouts by just flat out ignoring the fighters and striking on a whim.  It is one of the fundamental balancing problems in game when you have two nation's carriers with very different philosophies on how they should be played and different loadouts and only ONE nation succeeds in their nation's philosophy (hint, it's the IJN Strike Carriers).  The whole idea that WG pitched in CBT was that the USN were to have the slightly superior carriers for controlling the skies.  What I see in game is USN CV's being outpaced at every job except the 1vs1 fighter dogfight in which the USN wins (barring a strafe thrown in) because they have more ammo and additional aircraft with more hp.  

 

By balancing loadouts and squad sizes you can now let the player chose their role and the role is more likely to succeed because USN vs USN or IJN vs IJN CV battles are actually pretty evenly balanced... it's the USN vs IJN battle that sees all but Saipan just get run over by IJN CV's.  

 

Any skilled CV captain that puts aircraft in more than one quarter of the map knows what I'm talking about with micro management annoyances.  Aircraft fly straight back to the CV and make no attempts to avoid AA which means managing that if you want to retain any strike aircraft by the end of the match.  While you are lining up that you are struggling to keep your fighters alive because ohh, random strafe from enemy CV took half of them out because they will literally fly in a circle if not given commands to do things so you are managing that while trying to manage a strike on an enemy ship.  The more squads you have the more micromanagement you need to do unless you just stack your strike aircraft up to be wiped out in a single strafe (which I've seen).

 

I also think you drastically underestimate the RTS mentality of CV players... I think most prefer the idea of using their map awareness and finesse to handle situations like mentioned... Never mind that there is still a rough (albeit low level) skill for manual drops and a much higher skill in successful dogfighting, especially if the opening strafe is so dang important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,212
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,910 posts
9,171 battles
22 minutes ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

Any skilled CV captain that puts aircraft in more than one quarter of the map knows what I'm talking about with micro management annoyances

Like a person with 500+ battles in a CV or so?^^ Regular CV players might have trouble with the slight annoyance of those with fewer than a dozen CV battles telling others what a skilled/regular CV player is supposed to think.

it would be like me telling a regular (and very skilled) tier10 Montana driver, about the annoyances skilled BB players must face..

22 minutes ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

I also think you drastically underestimate the RTS mentality of CV players...

see above..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
485
[SW]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
9,452 battles

Wow there are a lot of responses here,

lets see about CV reality, hm-mm does your destroyer normally go 75MPH? cause it does in this game.

I though would like my own load outs, and I would like my mini map fixed so my carrier ALWAYS STARTS ON THE BOTTOM, otherwise I'm good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
509
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,456 posts
5,816 battles
22 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Like a person with 500+ battles in a CV or so?^^ Regular CV players might have trouble with the slight annoyance of those with fewer than a dozen CV battles telling others what a skilled/regular CV player is supposed to think.

it would be like me telling a regular (and very skilled) tier10 Montana driver, about the annoyances skilled BB players must face..

see above..

 

There are a lot of battles not shown because test ships don't have stats.  I'll be the first to admit that I am not a regular CV player, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the nuances of the gameplay and I sure as heck know the reasons why I find playing them extremely annoying.  It doesn't take a skilled, high battle count player to understand why CV play is on the decline and why CV's are not balanced in their current configuration, nor does it take a skilled observer to know how to balance them so that they are not only balanced to each other better (big problem right now) and more fun to play for the average player... because... well... that's me when it comes to CV's.

 

But hey, if you want to come up with a solution you think is viable, then feel free to post it... maintaining the status quo is obviously not a good idea and I doubt anyone is clamoring for it to stay that way.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,853
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,168 posts
3,967 battles

CVs cannot be fixed until the USN CV balance phase goes into affect and the IJN CVs are adjusted to have just as many or few options prorperly balanced against each other. Then the rework and rebalance has to go through.

 

The USN being many in few squads would work if they forced the IJN to use 2 for 1 in response but they don't.

 

In fact the IJN is stronger because it not only isn't forced into 2 vs 1s to make up the difference, but it's torpedo and dive bombers are more effective simply due to reliability.

 

The USN may have great bombs, but they still rely on RNG, even on perfect drops, to strike an enemy ship, and then must rely on RNG for fire.

 

The IJN on the other hand have pin point accuracy DBs that allow them to reliably hit with most of their released bombs. And this is true practically down to DDs, and they still have 2+ torpedo squad attacks to fall back on. Despite the worse bombs they more often cause fire per drop than the USN because they simply hit. This allows them to use 2 strike groups and bait out DCP for DoTs far more effectively.

 

I'd rather hit with 3 of 4 16in shells than miss with all 6 18in shells. That's one major issue with CV balance.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,554
[SBS]
Members
5,193 posts
2,408 battles
Just now, Madwolf05 said:

CVs cannot be fixed until the USN CV balance phase goes into affect and the IJN CVs are adjusted to have just as many or few options prorperly balanced against each other. Then the rework and rebalance has to go through.

This is only part of the problem.  It doesn't fix the other issue, massive skill discrepancy between players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,212
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,910 posts
9,171 battles

Misquoted Madwolf! apologies!

14 minutes ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

 

There are a lot of battles not shown because test ships don't have stats.  I'll be the first to admit that I am not a regular CV player, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the nuances of the gameplay and I sure as heck know the reasons why I find playing them extremely annoying.  It doesn't take a skilled, high battle count player to understand why CV play is on the decline and why CV's are not balanced in their current configuration, nor does it take a skilled observer to know how to balance them so that they are not only balanced to each other better (big problem right now) and more fun to play for the average player... because... well... that's me when it comes to CV's.

 

But hey, if you want to come up with a solution you think is viable, then feel free to post it... maintaining the status quo is obviously not a good idea and I doubt anyone is clamoring for it to stay that way.

CV play is on the decline at t9 and t10 because of a lack of diversity, there is nothing left to do once a player has explored the 2 tech trees. After 2 years of waiting for a third tech tree, this is normal. Only the most dedicated will keep on playing the same ships day after day for 2 years in a row.  T4 to t8 CV population is reasonably ok, a result of both the accessibility of t4 and 5 for new cv players, and the diversity of choice at t7 and 8.

Simple answers without the need to wrangle an opinion out of thin air mon ami.

The biggest and most important fix for CVs, is to give us more CVs, and correct the flagrant and disrespectful (I am pushing that one a bit far) absence of the RN CV tech tree, the country that devloped and invented most of the elements we recognize today as forming an aircraft carrier

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
509
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,456 posts
5,816 battles
3 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Misquoted Madwolf! apologies!

CV play is on the decline at t9 and t10 because of a lack of diversity, there is nothing left to do once a player has explored the 2 tech trees. After 2 years of waiting for a third tech tree, this is normal. Only the most dedicated will keep on playing the same ships day after day for 2 years in a row.  T4 to t8 CV population is reasonably ok, a result of both the accessibility of t4 and 5 for new cv players, and the diversity of choice at t7 and 8.

Simple answers without the need to wrangle an opinion out of thin air mon ami.

 

You and I have been playing this game for a long time, I doubt highly that lack of diversity there is what makes T9-T10 CV population less than others.  I suspect it has more to do with economy of playing those ships and the 9 minute long queue times because no one else is playing more than lack of diversity.  I know plenty of "generalist" players who play CV's often and not a single one has complained about the lack of diversity more than just the fact that unless they have a blow out game they are losing money, even with premium, on every battle and the discrepancy in the loadouts of the T9-T10 ships causing the biggest heartache.  In fact, if I had to summarize there (and my) opinion on the biggest reason they don't play CV's more it's more to due with what I mentioned above but I doubt I'll convince you otherwise.

 

Care to explain how you'd fix CV's?  At least we've managed to salvage this thread for an important topic! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,212
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,910 posts
9,171 battles
4 minutes ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

 

You and I have been playing this game for a long time, I doubt highly that lack of diversity there is what makes T9-T10 CV population less than others.  I suspect it has more to do with economy of playing those ships and the 9 minute long queue times because no one else is playing more than lack of diversity.  I know plenty of "generalist" players who play CV's often and not a single one has complained about the lack of diversity more than just the fact that unless they have a blow out game they are losing money, even with premium, on every battle and the discrepancy in the loadouts of the T9-T10 ships causing the biggest heartache.  In fact, if I had to summarize there (and my) opinion on the biggest reason they don't play CV's more it's more to due with what I mentioned above but I doubt I'll convince you otherwise.

 

Care to explain how you'd fix CV's?  At least we've managed to salvage this thread for an important topic! :P

long queue times at this time of say are normal at t9-10 (server total pop 2-3000). 

I have explained above how I would 'fix' the cvs, by giving us new tech trees and greater diversity. As an active CV player, I want more diversity rather than less. (Which is why I regard the upcoming changes negatively, as they side toward simplification rather than enrichment).

Lack of diversity = one less reason to play high tier CVs, (nothing left to grind) = fewer cvs at t9-10 = longer waiting times = another reason to not play cvs

for example. 

You would be more convincing if you actually spent some time playing CVs; instead of that Montana of yours ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[YAN]
Members
1,700 posts
8,085 battles
4 hours ago, NeutralState said:

CV's are already cancerously good in the current state of the game. WG themselves admit that they are too good and exclude them from clan wars. 

 

If anything, the sky cancers need a round of chemo to nerf them down a notch.

CVs were removed from clan wars because of the balancing mess they are right now.

 

CVs don't need nerfs but AA does, biggest powercreep ingame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
509
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,456 posts
5,816 battles
Just now, nuttybiscuit said:

long queue times at this time of say are normal at t9-10 (server total pop 2-3000). 

I have explained above how I would 'fix' the cvs, by giving us new tech trees and greater diversity. As an active CV player, I want more diversity rather than less. (Which is why I regard the upcoming changes negatively, as they side toward simplification rather than enrichment).

Lack of diversity = one less reason to play high tier CVs, (nothing left to grind) = fewer cvs at t9-10 = longer waiting times = another reason to not play cvs

for example. 

 

So you are one of the few CV players who wants to maintain the status quo then until WG decides to release the RN CV line rather than create a balanced CV gameplay that neutralizes the current meta of "IJN > ALL".  If you find it reasonable that IJN CV's walk all over USN CV's with exception to one premium ship, then you clearly don't understand the issues surrounding CV play.  When I get in a game with a USN CV, doesn't matter what tier, and the other team has an IJN CV, it changes a huge number of ways I play the game because I know there is no way our CV, even if air superiority, is going to do much to slow down that IJN CV unless there is a massive skill disparity.  THAT is a MASSIVE problem to overall game balance.  That's the status quo, and even WG recognizes it as a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,212
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,910 posts
9,171 battles
15 minutes ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

 

So you are one of the few CV players who wants to maintain the status quo then until WG decides to release the RN CV line rather than create a balanced CV gameplay that neutralizes the current meta of "IJN > ALL".  If you find it reasonable that IJN CV's walk all over USN CV's with exception to one premium ship, then you clearly don't understand the issues surrounding CV play.  When I get in a game with a USN CV, doesn't matter what tier, and the other team has an IJN CV, it changes a huge number of ways I play the game because I know there is no way our CV, even if air superiority, is going to do much to slow down that IJN CV unless there is a massive skill disparity.  THAT is a MASSIVE problem to overall game balance.  That's the status quo, and even WG recognizes it as a problem.

At least I am a CV player.

I don't need capital letters to make my argument clear, but your statement "then you clearly don't understand the issues surrounding CV play" when you only have a dozen CV battles to your name, is with all due respect, laughable.

Ask yourself, why so few regular CV players are on the forums complaining about CV balance issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×