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

Really Wargaming? (6.14 and CV's)

5 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

843
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,372 posts
7,951 battles

As much as I want CV's to be fixed, want them to be as easily accessible to any player to play as the other ship classes (I.E., a long time CV player doesn't just stomp you and near guarantee the other team wins), I'm honestly getting to a point I want you guys at Wargaming to just leave them alone, actually listen and then, maybe, fix them. Cause you keep missing the bloody points or making things worse, or out right stupid changes.

 

I'll start with the dead horse that is the USN CV changes for starters. 1 module? Look, I hate the current choices we have as USN CV from tier 7-9, 10 I think get a 2,1,2. We just needed a better strike option or a viable mix option because sometimes, I'd rather have the 2,0,2 on my Lex, but a 1,1,2 would have been a nice option. That and simply making the DB's have a little less dispersion, seeing as it's on par with IJN's currently but DB's has been USN's "thing" over Japan. That is all that needed to happen other than USN fighters need a nerf. But no, you leave IJN with options and USN you have to play it this way. Sure, Bogue needed a 1,1,1 that people would gravitate to anyway, partially because of USN fighters being OP. But Ranger where you have to deal with the damned Saipan you get ONE fighter group against it's 2-3 tier 9's, not to mention both it and Lex have to contend with 6 groups of IJN fighters. Even if they can still likely win 2 on 1 against IJN fighters, leaving the broke as hell strafe mechanic out of it, you get no option to trade some striking power to better cover your team. Essex at least gets 2,1,2 sure. And despite losing tier 9 fighters it still has an edge on Taiho's even without DFE (20% chance per second to down Taiho fighters vs 18% chance Taiho downs the Essex fighters, but the kick in the teeth is the TB's. Those TB's unless there's a buff you didn't announce against your basic Friedrich is 23% chance to be downed, 30% if they focus with just a secondary build. They can up it further with the flag or the rare AA build Friedrich. Let alone Iowa or any cruiser that is the only ship out of the pack or stray into it's AA bubble. And then you have the 2,2,2 at 10 where, it gets tier 10 fighters but those same tier 8 bombers that max out at 2065 hp. Might get past K's anemic AA unless the player buffs it with more than BFT, maybe even Yamato under the same conditions. Montana it comes down to build because of the 20 mm guns shorter range and just how buffed the 40 mm and long range guns are, though, just BFT and focusing is 35% chance per second and Conq gets closer to or over 40%. And these ships can all add another 25% to AA DPS with an upgrade, 10% with a flag and 100% to DP guns with a skill. But then you have Des that jumps from 25% with only BFT to 75% without even focusing fire, just under 100% if they do focus. Most of these cruisers with just BFT can get to 50-75% shoot down rates you stray into their fire, and TB's are always the first focused. And let's not forget the extra damage they can pile on and usually, by tier 9 and 10, people aren't dumb enough to get caught alone, other than destroyers that yes have to scout and all but over reach.

 

Wargaming want's us to go after bigger ships but there's a reason we tend not to, especially because every number I gave is only guns 25 mm and up that have a stock range of around 3 km or greater (average range TB's have to get into), not even 20 mm guns or accounting for extended range. Or the fact that these planes are 15 knots slower and have to spend more time in the AA to get to the target. Going back to a setup that was broken just giving it planes so likely to be shot down going in by just about anything that isn't a DD meaning were basically running potentially a 2,0,2, or we get back to "OP NERF", likely coming from tier 8's that have to face it. Sure, you give us the additional striking power we wanted, though not in the way some of us wanted it, and gives us things like the 1,1,2 set up we wanted. But you take away our ability to choose how we play the ship and what we do. Further proliferate the AP bombs that as it is are problematic. Basically give USN an IJN playstyle. Still fail to address the OP nature of USN fighters. Give us TB's at high tiers that can easily be paper tigers before a Hurricane. All we needed and wanted was an OPTION to run 1,1,2. All we really needed was the dispersion of our HE DB's reduced a bit so hits in general were more consistent against all targets, and leans us more toward defense against air and DD's though those heavier bombs still being good for heavier ships. Maybe 1 TB group make at high tiers, that was an appropriately tiered group. And generally, you people still need to address the imbalance on IJN and USN fighters.

 

And then we have fires. Sure, great, DCP lasts longer so we can get more planes off the deck to maybe hit that DD that got through the lines undetected. BUT YOUR MAKING IT THAT MUCH EASIER TO SET US ON FIRE. We are the ONLY class as it is that completely loses the ability to attack when set on fire in the first place and you make it easier? Oh what, you added Emergency Takeoff so we can launch planes while on fire? News flash that skill is absolutely worthless unless your planes had maybe 10 seconds before they could launch anyway. just like the 75% to HP on EM is typically cancelled out by the 30% loss in speed that keeps them in AA longer and makes them way more susceptible to being caught AND strafed by fighters. Especially at high tiers it isn't exactly hard to spot a CV, especially the US ones, and everything is going to spam all the HE at it to try and shut it down, and you make it easier? You make it easier for the damaged DD to just burn us down after launching 1 last strike to try and kill it. Yet again you take what could have been a positive buff, and make it a bloody nerf. Lets assume for a second that I have the skill points invested and flags mounted for the absolute best reduction in fire damage when I'm forced to let it burn. 3 fires, burning over 30 seconds, for 41% of my HP and unlike the BB, I can't repair it, I take more from the start, I lose the ability to attack at all and oh yeah, it just became easier to light those fires. And that assumes I have the 7 captain points to spare. Skip on AFT and BFT, and hurt my only defense when I can't launch cause I'm on fire and AA so DB's can get through and set me on fire. AS oh right, that's basically mandatory because of how fighters work, you need the DPS to stand a chance. But, lets say you pass on fire prevention, well, that's 59-60% of your HP gone. Don't have points in BoS yet either? Well that's 65% over 40 seconds. oh wait, I've run out of that flag, well, damn, now that maxes out at 80% over 50 seconds. Oh right, I couldn't buy that module at the time so that's 96% of my HP over 60 seconds. No, wait, at that point I'm likely dead from that and the rounds hitting. And where am I getting these numbers, Wargaming's own wiki. Making it easier to just obliterate the CV through burning it down with all the fires it can set that much easier now. Best case scenario once DCP is done, 34 seconds of fires raging that you can't launch under, worst case, 60 and potentially all your health gone. I've said it before, I'll say it again, make any other class deal with this nonsense, because they actually have numbers in people who play them, they'd flip their :etc_swear: if they couldn't attack while a fire burned and you made it even easier to set them on fire.

 

TL;DR - anytime Wargaming touches CV's it's like 1 step forward, 2 steps back at best. If they just want us to stop playing CV's they should just compensate us what were due and remove them and be done with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,349 battles

I think the majority of your complaints about the USN CV load out change would be fixed if the IJN had their AS load out removed. 

Regardless, as to the second part of your long post, yes, this is a nerf, and I hope they compensated for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,092 posts
8,068 battles

I will admit that I didn't actually read most of your post other than skimming through it, but IMO USN CVs can be balanced by fixing their over-specialized laodouts and then some nerfs to the IJN line. Maybe take away the IJN AS loadout. Or take away a TB or a DB or two from the strike loadouts to give both CVs an equal strike potential. ATM the IJN is better and more versatile then the USN in pretty much every way, shape, and form 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×