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

U.S. CV Line

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

17
[HI-C]
Members
98 posts
7,783 battles

I'm sure this has been started already somewhere but I can't find it so I'll do it here ... 

WoWs determination to thoroughly screw up the U.S. CV line is not tolerable.  Currently matchups are the worst competitive situation in WoW's history (or at least since I've been around).  If there are 2 Independences in the queue and 2 Bogues, you seem to find it funny to deliberately (yes, deliberately because it has happened to me now four times -- not a coincidence) match up an Air Superiority Independence and an Air Superiority Bogue against an Independence Strike and a Bogue fighter/Torp.  That forces 1 fighter group against 4.  Moreover, why even put Independence and Bogue together at all considering Bogue's lack of ability to strafe or manually target.  There is NO common sense in this; even if you think that a Bogue/Independnce vs a Bogue/Independence sounds fair, or that the "higher damage ability" should be offset by "better fighter cover".  Those fighters annihilate the CV strike packages.  If this is a determination to deliberately force your point to change the flight controls on U.S. CVs you are going about it in the wrong way, and it is SCREWING over the CV players big time, as well as at least one team.  The flight controls on CVs are NOT broken.  What is broken is the dummy who made the non-common sense decision to do this without considering how it will merely shift the balance to IJN supremacy or without considering how broken the matchmaker is.  FIX THE MATCHMAKER .. HELLLLLOOO????  DO NOT SCREW WITH FLIGHT CONTROLS.  The bull crap I experienced in the current test puts a Ranger with the only option of 1 FIGHTHER squadron against the possibility of 3 IJN fighter squadrons (six vs 12) - that's a brain fart if I ever saw or heard one.  If a CV player wants to play strike, that is the player's prerogative and it should be allowed (and for those whiners about this, that player IS helping the team by striking and killing other ships (the CV fighters aren't there to merely protect you, they are there to protect the bombers too); if the only possibility is to put an AS CV against it so be it, but don't FORCE it to happen merely because you want to prove your point by putting two AS CVs against two non-AS CVs.  MIX them as close as possible, not completely to the opposite spectrum. :etc_swear:!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[TF16]
Members
825 posts
4,768 battles

While I righteously agree that T5 CV's should not see T6 CV's; I do believe that the adjustment of the USN CV's is only the first step in many.  I do believe that it'd be best to just wait and see what they come up with.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[EASY]
[EASY]
Members
80 posts
12,442 battles
On 11/22/2017 at 11:41 AM, Jonas_Brent said:

I'm sure this has been started already somewhere but I can't find it so I'll do it here ... 

WoWs determination to thoroughly screw up the U.S. CV line is not tolerable.  Currently matchups are the worst competitive situation in WoW's history (or at least since I've been around).  If there are 2 Independences in the queue and 2 Bogues, you seem to find it funny to deliberately (yes, deliberately because it has happened to me now four times -- not a coincidence) match up an Air Superiority Independence and an Air Superiority Bogue against an Independence Strike and a Bogue fighter/Torp.  That forces 1 fighter group against 4.  Moreover, why even put Independence and Bogue together at all considering Bogue's lack of ability to strafe or manually target.  There is NO common sense in this; even if you think that a Bogue/Independnce vs a Bogue/Independence sounds fair, or that the "higher damage ability" should be offset by "better fighter cover".  Those fighters annihilate the CV strike packages.  If this is a determination to deliberately force your point to change the flight controls on U.S. CVs you are going about it in the wrong way, and it is SCREWING over the CV players big time, as well as at least one team.  The flight controls on CVs are NOT broken.  What is broken is the dummy who made the non-common sense decision to do this without considering how it will merely shift the balance to IJN supremacy or without considering how broken the matchmaker is.  FIX THE MATCHMAKER .. HELLLLLOOO????  DO NOT SCREW WITH FLIGHT CONTROLS.  The bull crap I experienced in the current test puts a Ranger with the only option of 1 FIGHTHER squadron against the possibility of 3 IJN fighter squadrons (six vs 12) - that's a brain fart if I ever saw or heard one.  If a CV player wants to play strike, that is the player's prerogative and it should be allowed (and for those whiners about this, that player IS helping the team by striking and killing other ships (the CV fighters aren't there to merely protect you, they are there to protect the bombers too); if the only possibility is to put an AS CV against it so be it, but don't FORCE it to happen merely because you want to prove your point by putting two AS CVs against two non-AS CVs.  MIX them as close as possible, not completely to the opposite spectrum. :etc_swear:!

You make the choice to be a strike carrier and go without fighters -- so why penalize the player who decides to protect his team and go with the fighter package -- he likes idiots that cant protect his fleet or planes.  Why anybody ever came up with strafing as a skill - its a gimic - that is what gives the multi-squadron carriers the advantage.  I have the GZ Test ships - 10 planes in 1 fighter squadron (9+1 for commander skill) and you would think i could wipe the board of planes -- but NO -- due to strafing - one fighter squadron pins you - the other comes in to strafe as the player clicks out of the dogfight and BOOM - 10 dead fighters and you cant do crap to stop it except avoid combat.  And that 1 fighter squadron is coming to American CV's so get ready to really have your rear handed to you by IJN carriers.  Plus you can play Ranger with 2 fighter squadrons and 2 dive bombers - just got to get rid of the torp planes -- but you are all about damage farming and not countering the other CV by your comments.  By the way -- I play where it is MY job as a CV to protect my fleet -striking the other ships is just a bonus so I ALWAYS play 2 fighter squadrons on my American CV's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[HDR]
[HDR]
Members
1,174 posts
2,197 battles
On 11/22/2017 at 11:08 PM, Sock5 said:

While I righteously agree that T5 CV's should not see T6 CV's; I do believe that the adjustment of the USN CV's is only the first step in many.  I do believe that it'd be best to just wait and see what they come up with.

This. :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[EASY]
[EASY]
Members
80 posts
12,442 battles
On 11/22/2017 at 0:38 PM, Sock5 said:

While I righteously agree that T5 CV's should not see T6 CV's; I do believe that the adjustment of the USN CV's is only the first step in many.  I do believe that it'd be best to just wait and see what they come up with.

I am not worried my T5 will see a T6 - how about your T8 carrier always seeing T10 ships - nobody wants to play CV's at the higher levels due to the OP AA most of those big boys have where they will kill you planes by the squadrons. That's why you have 2 carriers on both sides at lower levels -- other than a Cleveland or Atlanta - your planes might actually land a few hits and come home - my squadrons attacking a T10 BB -- most if any dont come back and a Des Moines -- forget it. The is not balanced for a CV player - History and reality are not part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[TF16]
Members
825 posts
4,768 battles
On 11/25/2017 at 8:10 AM, BlackOP6 said:

I am not worried my T5 will see a T6 - how about your T8 carrier always seeing T10 ships - nobody wants to play CV's at the higher levels due to the OP AA most of those big boys have where they will kill you planes by the squadrons. That's why you have 2 carriers on both sides at lower levels -- other than a Cleveland or Atlanta - your planes might actually land a few hits and come home - my squadrons attacking a T10 BB -- most if any dont come back and a Des Moines -- forget it. The is not balanced for a CV player - History and reality are not part of the game.

 

I'm 100% comfortable playing my T8 CV with T10s.  You just have to adapt how you play.  

 

1.  Forget punching through to your targets.
2.  Your primary focus should be on torp and ship spotting.

3.  If you have an isolated target...there you go.
4.  Save your planes till the late game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[1IF]
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
8,226 battles

You do realize, OP, that this is WG MM you're referring to, don't you?

 The MM that can divide the CVs the way you say.

Do not expect the MM to ever be repaired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[HI-C]
Members
98 posts
7,783 battles

Well, apparently WoWs intends to go ahead with this U.S. carrier FUBAR, or so it sounds.  World of Warships developers are very obviously not listening to CV players who present logical facts about how it will effect CV play.  Instead, they are listening to the whiners that cry about unbalance rather than WoWs fixing the matchmaker.  Screwing up the CV line this way will only overbalance the Japanese line.  It also will take the fun out of CV play by removing the choices that CV players make and the uniqueness of each CV.  Perhaps ADD a 1-1-1 module for Bogue and Independence?  The lower tiers will be just stupid to play; and the higher tiers are ridiculous.  Fun is the reason for playing ... but fun is removed.  How stupid is that.  How about World of Warships developers stop catering to the wrong people and being so self-centered, and actually fix what is broken -- NOT the CV line (or not completely, anyway).  Fix the modules without deleting them, but DEFINITELY fix the matchmaker.

 

Edited by Jonas_Brent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[1IF]
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
8,226 battles

The MM is 'fixed'. It is 'fixed' exactly the way WG wants it to be 'fixed'. The MM is 'fixed' for (imho) 1) to foster money spending & 2) to make sure premium account players get their 'fix' too.

"Fixing' the MM for 'balanced play', for 'balanced teams'? ROFL. That's not what WG means by a 'fix' because it already is 'fixed' just the way WG likes it to be 'fixed'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,782 posts
14,856 battles
On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:38 AM, Sock5 said:

I do believe that the adjustment of the USN CV's is only the first step in many.

You are, in my opinion, an overly optimistic person.

(However, if you dispute that, perhaps you should take a second look at the history of USN V's in this game.)

CV's have been the red-headed step-children of WoW's since inception; being introduced late, being rushed into release, and then being nerf-hammered into near-oblivion shortly after that rushed release. (Battleship complaints.)

Since then it has taken WoW 2 YEARS to even consider revamping CV's, and they're doing it by implementing suggestions they received when CV's were first introduced (read all the old CV Forum posts), disregarding everything they've done in the meantime to screw them up even worse.

But, yeah; THIS adjustment will fix everything, and so will the next hundred and three which are currently in the works.

QUACK!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[EASY]
[EASY]
Members
80 posts
12,442 battles
On 11/27/2017 at 8:52 AM, Sock5 said:

 

I'm 100% comfortable playing my T8 CV with T10s.  You just have to adapt how you play.  

 

1.  Forget punching through to your targets.
2.  Your primary focus should be on torp and ship spotting.

3.  If you have an isolated target...there you go.
4.  Save your planes till the late game.

But you feel that a T5 shouldn't see a T6????? wth Man !!!!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[EASY]
[EASY]
Members
80 posts
12,442 battles
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

You are, in my opinion, an overly optimistic person.

(However, if you dispute that, perhaps you should take a second look at the history of USN V's in this game.)

CV's have been the red-headed step-children of WoW's since inception; being introduced late, being rushed into release, and then being nerf-hammered into near-oblivion shortly after that rushed release. (Battleship complaints.)

Since then it has taken WoW 2 YEARS to even consider revamping CV's, and they're doing it by implementing suggestions they received when CV's were first introduced (read all the old CV Forum posts), disregarding everything they've done in the meantime to screw them up even worse.

But, yeah; THIS adjustment will fix everything, and so will the next hundred and three which are currently in the works.

QUACK!!

CV's don't make enough money for them is all i can figure - the big boys have OP AA that wipe out planes by the squadrons - now they give it out to premium DD's -- guess the goal is to screw up the CV's to the point nobody wants to play them and then they can delete them from the game. By thy way - the Battleship players complain about the OP DD's at higher tiers so guess who gets it after the CV's are dead.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,782 posts
14,856 battles
4 minutes ago, BlackOP6 said:

By thy way - the Battleship players complain about the OP DD's at higher tiers so guess who gets it after the CV's are dead.

AFTER the CV's are dead, please, DD's have had as many or more nerfs than CV's have "enjoyed". WoW is (still) catering to the players who spend the most money (go figure!?!?!), and those players are either high end cruiser players or BB players. (Which is not surprising either as the majority of premiums are CA's, followed by BB's.)

I'm pretty sure that WoW isn't waiting to wreck DD's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[TF16]
Members
825 posts
4,768 battles
1 hour ago, BlackOP6 said:

But you feel that a T5 shouldn't see a T6????? wth Man !!!!  


That's because one CV has the strafing/manual drop mechanics and the other doesn't.  Forcing a complete imbalance.

I'm fine with T8 CV's facing T10 AA because that's all normal parameters of the game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
55 posts
6,071 battles

At least with the loadout changes it made the USN CVs playable and also an option to play if you haven't realized in their history people would take a IJN CV instead because of how versatile they were and nobody liked the USN ones because they have horrible loadouts, horrible balanced loadout, go fighters and sacrifice damage, or sacrifice fighters for all out damage, so I also believe that what WG did was the first step in making them right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
55 posts
6,071 battles
On 11/29/2017 at 6:53 AM, BlackOP6 said:

But you feel that a T5 shouldn't see a T6????? wth Man !!!!  

T5 CVs shouldn't be seeing T6 CVs because that is a completely unbalanced fight because T4 and T5 CVs don't get the option for strafing while T6s do so who do you think is going to win that fight? the T6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[EASY]
[EASY]
Members
80 posts
12,442 battles
On 12/31/2017 at 3:57 PM, littleroadhouse said:

T5 CVs shouldn't be seeing T6 CVs because that is a completely unbalanced fight because T4 and T5 CVs don't get the option for strafing while T6s do so who do you think is going to win that fight? the T6

well in fairness -- my T5 Bogue fighters against a Langley or Hosho fighters - they don't have much of a chance either but okay. Personally more upset they don't have manual release of torps or bombs but okay --- take away straffing from T6 and they will still kick your butt.

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.

×