Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Th3KrimzonD3mon

USN CV Changes, Serious Concerns

72 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,976
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,742 posts
7,373 battles

First, I get that CV's need balancing, and I get even more than USN CV's need it the most. That said, I have the following concerns, and I mean no disrespect, nor am I attacking anyone at WG with these:

 

Ranger, at T7, now only has one fighter squadron. Ranger will generally be up against Hiryu, which most often will have 3, and Saipan, which will have, usually, 3. This is bad. Ranger was already rock bottom, and yet, somehow, you've dug a hole under it to allow it to fall even further. It matters not that Ranger also has those strike aircraft, because those 3 squads will be taken out by the 3 fighter squads they face, while its only fighter squad will do...what, exactly? Then, at T8, you did the same thing with Lexington, and further, the 9 and 10 only get 2 fighters. More, if you get two Rangers, or whatever USN CV it happens to be, in a round, you've pissed off pretty much everyone in the round, because now there's no fighter cover, just bombs and torpedoes everywhere. I'm personally not one of them, but a significant portion of the player base refers to CV's as "sky cancer", so, if you thought this was going to appease those players, I gotta ask: What, exactly, were you drinking when you thought that?(I'd like some, it's got to be awesome.)

 

You've taken an already horribly overmatched carrier line, and somehow thought  "balance" meant "make them even more worthless to play so that no-one plays anything but IJN CV's", I guess? At least with multiple modules, a player had choices, now, the choice is going to be to not play USN CV's, even more so than as it is right now.

 

Balance means the ship in question is viable for Random matches, that it's truly useful and playable. Please, allow me to assure you that this USN change, as it stands on the test server, does not, I repeat, not, make them viable. It further reduces the chance anyone, other than a die-hard USN CV fanatic, will play them, and those that do will take massive heat from their teams, because as it stands right now, having a USN CV on your team is going to be virtually an instant loss, unless, of course, both teams have the same thing. That happens far less than you seem to think it does. USN CV's frequently face IJN CV's, and they were already at a heavy disadvantage. Now, now it's more like that scrawny toothpick guy in the 8th grade(Whom I used to be, so I know what I speak of), facing that 11th grade offensive lineman. It will be Pancake City, with the only memory of the skinny guy(The USN CV), being a grease stain upon the water. WG, I hate to break it to you, but that's the literal opposite of "balance."

 

More, reducing the flight control module down to one takes choice away from the player, and I promise you, the vast majority of players, no matter the game, do not, I repeat, not, like that at all.

 

As it stands now on the test server, I'd much prefer that the USN CV's be removed from the game until they ARE balanced and viable. You're doing it with the GZ, you can do it with this line. Just disable them for the live server, and work on them behind the scenes. That's just my suggestion. I believe it to be a viable one, but that's just my thoughts.

 

Thanks for the time spent reading to anyone who did. Peace out.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[WOLF5]
Members
1,496 posts
2,061 battles

This isn't the balance change. Only part of it. More changes are still coming. This is not the final state of CVs.

 

However, not a CV player, but what I've seen seems to be good. USN CVs seem to be pretty good. Also, AA specs seem to have a use again. It's been glorious playing the Baltimore, finally using that AAA. Escort is a thing again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,976
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,742 posts
7,373 battles
7 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

This isn't the balance change. Only part of it. More changes are still coming. This is not the final state of CVs.

 

However, not a CV player, but what I've seen seems to be good. USN CVs seem to be pretty good. Also, AA specs seem to have a use again. It's been glorious playing the Baltimore, finally using that AAA. Escort is a thing again.

:Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[WOLF8]
Alpha Tester
1,038 posts
4,367 battles

I believe I read somewhere that they plan to reduce fighter squads on IJN CVs as well to make ship-borne AA (cruisers) more necessary.  It's another attempt at forcing teamwork among the disgruntled ranks and if it's true I approve.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[KENT]
Members
480 posts
3,037 battles

>Be Hiryu
>Believe that AS is the best loadout for IJN
>3 fighter squadrons but only 1 torp

>nani

>not taking 2-2-2

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
320
[ASHIP]
Members
583 posts
5,216 battles

Seems to me most of the complaints about the USN CV loadout changes consist of people arguing that without the AS loadout, USN CVs have no way of winning air superiority over IJN or premium CVs.

 

At the risk of sounding like a grouchy old man; I used the 1-1-1 loadout, which is strictly inferior to the updated loadouts, and I got through tiers 6-8 just fine! *grins, showing 33 missing teeth*

 

You see! Nothing to worry about!

 

In all seriousness, 1 USN fighter squadron is perfectly competitive with the Hiryu's and Saipan's fighters. If you meet a Hiryu captain who actually decided to sacrifice a torpedo squadron for an extra fighter squadron, he'll be so inexperienced I'd be surprised if he knows which end of the aiming reticle the torpedoes get dropped at. Saipan's 3-0-1 is a bit more common, but has so little striking power that you'll easily outperform him if you get more than one torpedo strike in over the course of the game (which is perfectly possible).

If you are still worried about having to defeat enemy planes without having 50% more fighters than them, then I'm sorry to say that the loadout of your CV is the least of your problems.

 

As for the "choice" argument, while I do generally prefer more content over less content, you must realize that your enjoyment is not the only thing WG must consider when making these decisions. How much fun the enemy CV, and either of your teams are having, is also on their priority list. You might be having the time of your life in your AS Lexington, but if it's no fun  for anyone else in the match, then WG must unfortunately deny you that experience. Sacrifice you for the group. Throw you out of the city walls as an offering. Cut open your belly and present your guts as a gift to the gods. Kill you so others may survive. Maximize social utility. Increase net player retention.

 

Also, bear in mind that most of our discussions about CVs (including the lack of options), will, can, may, could, might, has been promised to, could potentially maybe theoretically, become obsolete once the main CV changes are properly implemented. Eventually. Possibly.

 

EDIT: There are genuine problems with the new loadouts, even in the short term, but these have more to do with how the under-tiered massed torpedo bombers interact with current AA mechanics to make some ships immune while others can be deleted no matter how well they react.

Edited by senseNOTmade
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,312 posts
9,404 battles

I don't see it as a problem, WG is taking away 2 terrible choices, and 1 bad choice, and is giving you something that's better than the bad choice. I'll refrain from calling it a good choice until I get my hands on it, but I'm hopeful.

 

I don't see most of the IJN CV's keeping the AS load outs long after the USN CV changes, other than the 3-0-1 Saipan, there won't be a need for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,212 battles

 You lost me at "Most have 3 fighters." Any Saipan running 3/0/1 or any Hiryu running 3/1/2 in randoms is an imbecile and you can probably just ignore them or roflstomp them. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
553
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,790 posts
1 hour ago, AJTP89 said:

This isn't the balance change. Only part of it. More changes are still coming. This is not the final state of CVs..

Honestly, I don't care.  This will make US CVs unplayable. 

 

52 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

I don't see it as a problem, WG is taking away 2 terrible choices, and 1 bad choice, and is giving you something that's better than the bad choice. I'll refrain from calling it a good choice until I get my hands on it, but I'm hopeful.

If I'm bringing a CV into battle, I'm bringing it to knock down enemy aircraft.  I don't want, need, or use strike loadouts, and never will. 

 

1 hour ago, KingCakeBaby said:

I believe I read somewhere that they plan to reduce fighter squads on IJN CVs as well to make ship-borne AA (cruisers) more necessary.  It's another attempt at forcing teamwork among the disgruntled ranks and if it's true I approve.

"Forcing teamwork" in a WG product = making the average or better players even more at the mercy of the drooling potatoes. 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,976
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,742 posts
7,373 battles
1 hour ago, Captain_Dorja said:

 You lost me at "Most have 3 fighters." Any Saipan running 3/0/1 or any Hiryu running 3/1/2 in randoms is an imbecile and you can probably just ignore them or roflstomp them. 

I see them all the time, and they are far from being imbeciles. A 3/1/2 Hiryu is lethal a/f, and I personally only run Saip as 3/1, because it works for me, and that massive bomber squad gets a lot of damage. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a few thousand others feel the opposite. The only time I see strike Saip and Hiryu is in co-op, but unlike you, I freely admit that's what I'm seeing, I'm not forcing my thoughts as those of the community at large.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[TAW]
[TAW]
Alpha Tester
188 posts
4,135 battles

This is a terrible idea.  Wargaming needs to stop dropping the ball con carriers, This has been the case since alpha.  Please give us set squad types then let us choose the load-out from the fighter pool.  Makes squad selection dictate how you play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
320
[ASHIP]
Members
583 posts
5,216 battles
50 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

I see them all the time, and they are far from being imbeciles. A 3/1/2 Hiryu is lethal a/f, and I personally only run Saip as 3/1, because it works for me, and that massive bomber squad gets a lot of damage. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a few thousand others feel the opposite. The only time I see strike Saip and Hiryu is in co-op, but unlike you, I freely admit that's what I'm seeing, I'm not forcing my thoughts as those of the community at large.

I have about 170 random battle games in tier 7 CVs and 210 in tier 8 CVs, and I have seen a 3-1-2 Hiryu maybe... Once? That might have been a Shokaku though.

As I said earlier, I've seen 3-0-1 Saipans a bit more, but they are by no means common, and can absolutely be fought by a USN fighter squadron to the point that you can get your torpedo bombers through. Perhaps you will be unable to do a fire/flood, perhaps the remainders of his fighters will harass your bombers as they go in for a drop, but the difference in firepower will more than make up for any dive bombers which are lost along the way. While AS is the prefered choice in ranked battles, it simply does not have the striking power to carry in random battles, with the greater focus on damage and larger number of ships.

 

Listen guys; you can't always have complete fighter dominance. 1 USN fighter is perfectly competitive at tiers 7 and 8, and while there are real problems with the new loadouts, not having complete and utter air superiority no matter how you play, is not one of them.

 

 

EDIT: I just quickly wanted to mention why loadouts with 3 fighter squadrons are not usually chose in random battles; there is a big advantage to having a second fighter squadron because it allows you to use more advanced strafing techniques such as lock/strafing, cycling fighters or follow strafing. But a third squadron tends to largely be there to just cover more map area and act as a replacement in case you mess up with one of your other squadrons. The marginal benefit of the third fighter is far lower than that of the second.

However, this logic largely does not apply to USN fighters, because their larger squadron size gives them access to techniques not available to the smaller/lower tier squadrons of other nations, such as head on strafing. While USN fighters would still benefit from being able to perform two squadron techniques, this increase in firepower is generally not necessary in random battles if you understand the relative strengths of USN fighters, and is certainly not worth sacrificing your torpedo squadron for!

Edited by senseNOTmade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
553
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,790 posts

I really just don't care about the torpedo squadron, I'd rather cover more airspace and more quickly eliminate the enemy's aircraft. 

Zero interest in playing strike groups, if I'm playing a carrier, I'm doing it to shoot down enemy planes. I can attack ships with all the other ships in my harbor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
320
[ASHIP]
Members
583 posts
5,216 battles
4 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I really just don't care about the torpedo squadron, I'd rather cover more airspace and more quickly eliminate the enemy's aircraft. 

Zero interest in playing strike groups, if I'm playing a carrier, I'm doing it to shoot down enemy planes. I can attack ships with all the other ships in my harbor. 

:cap_wander_2:

 

Spoiler

 

.......

:cap_wander:

 

Spoiler

 

................!!!

:cap_wander_2:

 

Spoiler

I don't understand...:cap_fainting:

Spoiler

 

....... So....

So you're saying....

....You're saying you don't like sinking ships? :Smile_ohmy:

 

Spoiler

....Wait, are you sure you're playing the right game? You know there's Warthunder... World of Warplanes is supposed to be pretty decent again...

Spoiler

You're really just here to get air superiority? Really? :cap_hmm:

Welp, I guess you're just gonna have to play the IJN line. I really don't know how I can help you otherwise. In all my years I have never seen a case like this. You sure you're not an alien? You didn't happen to have arrive on earth in a golden pod-ship?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[D-G-F]
Members
8 posts
3,478 battles
18 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I really just don't care about the torpedo squadron, I'd rather cover more airspace and more quickly eliminate the enemy's aircraft. 

Zero interest in playing strike groups, if I'm playing a carrier, I'm doing it to shoot down enemy planes. I can attack ships with all the other ships in my harbor. 

that's nice for you, now what if the enemy is the same as you, and all you both do is shoot down each others planes. then what? you stare angerly at each other the rest of the game? or maybe, just maybe, lets introduce a bit more of a balanced load out, that's not overly specialized to either AS, and be useless for DMG, or a Strike load out, and have all of your planes massacred and not be able to shoot down enemy bombers to protect your team. or lets introduce option 3, a load out that has fighters, but not too many, and enough bombers to do some dmg. I do think Essex with tier 8 fighters is at a bit of a disadvantage. but, that's the only one I think is.

I agree with the load out changes for the most part, but, I think the AP bombers need some tweaks, as well as a nice ability to switch out the bomb type in battle.

 

also, the game does not cater to just what you want, there are hundreds, and maybe even thousands of people who play this game as a CV. This is the FIRST step WG has taken for a CV change in ages, I'm surprised in all honesty this one is hitting the public test server already. I do fully expect IJN CVs to have this same stopgap update applied to them as well, and see how the numbers balance out, then go for a full on overhaul, that is what I expect. If you don't like strike groups and have no interest in playing them, then you will only be playing your CV at 50%, like playing a Shimakaze without using torpedoes, because you hate them.

 

I'd like to ask: whats the point of gaining AIR SUPERIORITY, if you then choose to do nothing with it?

Edited by Onii_Chan_Ryuu
additional comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[TAW]
[TAW]
Alpha Tester
188 posts
4,135 battles

Actually if your running strike loadout on a US CV your playing it wrong

 

 

7 minutes ago, senseNOTmade said:

:cap_wander_2:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

.......

:cap_wander:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

................!!!

:cap_wander_2:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I don't understand...:cap_fainting:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

....... So....

So you're saying....

....You're saying you don't like sinking ships? :Smile_ohmy:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

....Wait, are you sure you're playing the right game? You know there's Warthunder... World of Warplanes is supposed to be pretty decent again...

  Reveal hidden contents

You're really just here to get air superiority? Really? :cap_hmm:

Welp, I guess you're just gonna have to play the IJN line. I really don't know how I can help you otherwise. In all my years I have never seen a case like this. You sure you're not an alien? You didn't happen to have arrive on earth in a golden pod-ship?

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[D-G-F]
Members
8 posts
3,478 battles
29 minutes ago, TheLucinator said:

Actually if your running strike loadout on a US CV your playing it wrong

If you are running any load out aside from the stock, most balanced one, you are playing USN CVs wrong, as they are way over specialized, and fail hard in the other categories, going full AS making them useless against ships, or go full strike and make them useless against planes. not being diverse is a death sentence for CVs. IJN CVs show that all the time, its why they are played more. I could as a strike Hakuryuu pull more wins than an AS Midway, because I still have 2 fighter plane squads to sacrifice to the Midway to buy time for my 3 torpedo bombers and 3 dive bomber squadrons to get in and kill off 2 or 3 ships on the Midways side, before they could kill all of my fighters then get enough bombers to negate my attack wave, then yeah, for a minute the Midway has Air Superiority, to do what with 2 dive bombers? maybe set a BB on fire, that's already cooking alive by CA HE? or be useful and spot enemy DDs while his fighters land and rearm to try and defend against my Hakuryuu next attack wave.

 

Midway always did better with the stock load out, that had both fighters and bombers. because then it could still with the fighter battle, and kill a few of the Hakuryuu bomber squadrons negating large amounts of dmg to the team, then have a couple of bomber squadrons of its own to deal damage. and that is what WG is doing here, is making USN CV load outs more balanced, so they become a bit more competitive in mainstream game play (randoms).

 

as for KillJoyCutter

I think some of the load outs need slight changes, like Essex should have tier 9 fighters vs tier 8, giving a real change value help, vs, saying: "I don't like it, because Its not how I want to play" which does not help... you could say: "hey WG, nice changes and all, I'm glad you are doing something now instead of leaving them sit, but, I would greatly appreciate having a second fighter squadron on my ranger, maybe sacrifice my strike power a bit to do so wither tier 6 torpedo bombers, like Enterprise did?"

 

Disclaimer: WG that last comment is not my opinion.

Edited by Onii_Chan_Ryuu
typo fix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[TAW]
[TAW]
Alpha Tester
188 posts
4,135 battles

which is why im hoping wargaming listens and tries a major change such as

Wargaming needs to stop dropping the ball con carriers, This has been the case since alpha.  Please give us set squad types then let us choose the load-out from the fighter pool.  Makes squad selection dictate how you play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,312 posts
9,404 battles
3 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

If I'm bringing a CV into battle, I'm bringing it to knock down enemy aircraft.  I don't want, need, or use strike loadouts, and never will. 

And enjoy getting basically nothing in rewards, (because aircraft kills aren't worth much)

 

30 minutes ago, TheLucinator said:

which is why im hoping wargaming listens and tries a major change such as

Wargaming needs to stop dropping the ball con carriers, This has been the case since alpha.  Please give us set squad types then let us choose the load-out from the fighter pool.  Makes squad selection dictate how you play.

.Doing so would make it impossible to balance, and eliminate anything resembling national flavor. It would also eliminate any variation in load outs, as someone would find the ideal load out, and anyone not using it would get stomped into the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
553
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,790 posts
1 hour ago, SgtBeltfed said:

And enjoy getting basically nothing in rewards, (because aircraft kills aren't worth much)

I've come in at or near the top of the XP list quite a bit with AS loadouts on US carriers.  If you actually gut the opposing air group, you get quite a bit of XP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
553
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,790 posts
13 hours ago, Onii_Chan_Ryuu said:

that's nice for you, now what if the enemy is the same as you, and all you both do is shoot down each others planes. then what? you stare angerly at each other the rest of the game? or maybe, just maybe, lets introduce a bit more of a balanced load out, that's not overly specialized to either AS, and be useless for DMG, or a Strike load out, and have all of your planes massacred and not be able to shoot down enemy bombers to protect your team. or lets introduce option 3, a load out that has fighters, but not too many, and enough bombers to do some dmg. I do think Essex with tier 8 fighters is at a bit of a disadvantage. but, that's the only one I think is.

I agree with the load out changes for the most part, but, I think the AP bombers need some tweaks, as well as a nice ability to switch out the bomb type in battle.

 

also, the game does not cater to just what you want, there are hundreds, and maybe even thousands of people who play this game as a CV. This is the FIRST step WG has taken for a CV change in ages, I'm surprised in all honesty this one is hitting the public test server already. I do fully expect IJN CVs to have this same stopgap update applied to them as well, and see how the numbers balance out, then go for a full on overhaul, that is what I expect. If you don't like strike groups and have no interest in playing them, then you will only be playing your CV at 50%, like playing a Shimakaze without using torpedoes, because you hate them.

 

I'd like to ask: whats the point of gaining AIR SUPERIORITY, if you then choose to do nothing with it?

1)  There are no pure 100% AS loadouts, they all have bombers as well. (Clarified.

2)  Knocking the enemy's air group out of the sky renders one of their ships useless.  (Of course, 50/50 on whether some idiot wastes the rest of the match chasing what's then effectively a cargo ship -- the enemy carrier with no planes -- instead of concentrating on something that still has teeth.) 

3)  Some of us enjoy interceptions a lot more than strikes. 

 

If WG wants to change up the strike package options on USN CVs to make them more attractive, fine.  There's ZERO reason to take away the OPTION of an AS package in favor of a one-size-fits none "compromise" package. 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
Fixed unclear wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
420 posts
5,617 battles
6 hours ago, KingCakeBaby said:

I believe I read somewhere that they plan to reduce fighter squads on IJN CVs as well to make ship-borne AA (cruisers) more necessary.  It's another attempt at forcing teamwork among the disgruntled ranks and if it's true I approve.

People like to complain about carriers but nothing forces a change in play style like them actually being around. WIth carriers around going alone is a huge risk at getting picked off by the enemy carrier and encourages staying together.

 

Something I always tell my team in matches when a CV is present is that Massed AA is the best defense against bombers after intercepting them ahead of time with fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[D-G-F]
Members
8 posts
3,478 battles
6 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

1)  There are pure AS loadouts, they all have bombers as well. 

2)  Knocking the enemy's air group out of the sky renders one of their ships useless.  (Of course, 50/50 on whether some idiot wastes the rest of the match chasing what's then effectively a cargo ship -- the enemy carrier with no planes -- instead of concentrating on something that still has teeth.) 

3)  Some of us enjoy interceptions a lot more than strikes. 

 

If WG wants to change up the strike package options on USN CVs to make them more attractive, fine.  There's ZERO reason to take away the OPTION of an AS package in favor of a one-size-fits none "compromise" package. 

I can agree with that to a point, however the issue goes back to the core game, USN CVs have fewer squadrons but more planes, and there for just changing one or two squadrons causes a massive change vs the IJN CVs which have more squadrons and fewer planes per squad, so making changes to redistribute the squads is less impactful and makes it more of a slight tweak vs a complete me gameplay change.

6 hours ago, Zaydin said:

People like to complain about carriers but nothing forces a change in play style like them actually being around. WIth carriers around going alone is a huge risk at getting picked off by the enemy carrier and encourages staying together.

 

Something I always tell my team in matches when a CV is present is that Massed AA is the best defense against bombers after intercepting them ahead of time with fighters.

Most complaints about CVs are because people don't preform teamwork any where near the degree they should in randoms, it's why I really was waiting for CWs, but, as a CV main I kinda got shafted there. But yeah, in the current broken AA mechanics two cruisers side by side could mow down any squadrons sent their way while CV fighters can take up to 10x longer to kill the same squadron. AA power creep is real, and I'm glad WG is targeting it in the CV rework. (I just wish all ships stopped acting like they had proximity fused AA rounds, and that stayed with just the American and high tier British cruisers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[IXM]
Members
179 posts
4,035 battles

I've already said that removing all of the loadout options completely for one CV line and leaving the other one untouched is a bad idea. Either IJN line needs to get the same treatment, or USN line needs to retain the optional loadouts as well. Just ffs how hard it is to update the balanced loadout and leave others as specializations? Who would be hurt by that?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×