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

Explain the CV changes for non-CV players

143 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,862
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
3,768 posts
12,866 battles

Can an experienced CV captain explain the CV changes coming up in the next patch tomorrow? 

 

I guess start with the problem statement (what is current wrong).  And then explain how the proposed changes are designed to fix that problem.

 

Explain it assuming your audience (e.g., folks like me)  doesn't really know the intricacies of the CV meta.

Edited by Soshi_Sone
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,018
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,704 posts
4,493 battles

You and me both...CV's are kinda like the dark corner of the land where Mufasa tells Simba to NOT go.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[TAFY3]
Beta Testers
429 posts
5,908 battles

It doesn't fix anything.  The IJN always had the advantage against USN CVs that didn't take fighter aircraft.  WG thought that by forcing USN CV players to take a Fighter squadron that the "problem" would be fixed.  They also gave TBs AP ammo to make up having less bomber groups and, now, lower tier aircraft at tier 9 and 10.

Overall I am disappointed in this change, and probably won't play my Lexington until IJN CVs are nerfed also.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[TBOW]
Members
1,173 posts
10,408 battles

Yeah, I am disappointed as it doesn't fix balance at all.  If anything the IJN line is now even more overpowering to the USN line than before.  They only exacerbated the whole mess.  A Midway with T8 TBs is basically neutered.  WG does not know what they are doing with it.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,306
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,440 posts
6,631 battles
21 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

Can an experienced CV captain explain the CV changes coming up in the next patch tomorrow? 

 

I guess start with the problem statement (what is current wrong).  And then explain how the proposed changes are designed to fix that problem.

 

Explain it assuming your audience (e.g., folks like me)  doesn't really know the intricacies of the CV meta.

I'll try.

Different people have different opinions about what is wrong, WG have their own opinion too. The official solution will be : 

USN tech tree cvs will no longer be able to contest air superiority (that means shoot down all enemy planes) effectively

USN tech tree cvs will no longer be effective scouts (If you ask a USN cv to scout a dd, they will, legitimately, be able to reply, "sorry I only have one fighter squadron, cannot waste on scouting")

USN tech tree cvs will always have one (but only one) fighter squadron

USN tech tree ships will still be inferior to premium shop CVs

USN tech tree ships tiers 7-10 will have access to new AP bombs that will do increased damage to battleships, if they hit.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[TBOW]
Members
1,173 posts
10,408 battles
1 minute ago, nuttybiscuit said:

I'll try.

USN tech tree cvs will no longer be able to contest air superiority (that means shoot down all enemy planes) effectively

USN tech tree cvs will no longer be effective scouts (If you ask a USN cv to scout a dd, they will, legitimately, be able to reply, "sorry I only have one fighter squadron, cannot waste on scouting")

USN tech tree cvs will always have one (but only one) fighter squadron

USN tech tree ships will still be inferior to premium shop CVs

USN tech tree ships tiers 7-10 will have access to new AP bombs that will do increased damage to battleships, if they hit.

If these are the same Enterprise AP Bombs, they deal good to great damage on German BBs and RN BBs, while USN and IJN will not get hit no where near as hard.  Plus going after DDs with AP Bombs is useless.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,131 posts
3,867 battles

It changes nothing. USN carriers above Independence are still incapable of competing with their IJN counterparts.

 

WG proves yet again that they have no idea how their own game works. The utter incompetence displayed when handling carrier balance is nothing short of appalling.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,306
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,440 posts
6,631 battles
Just now, gcangel82 said:

If these are the same Enterprise AP Bombs, they deal good to great damage on German BBs and RN BBs, while USN and IJN will not get hit no where near as hard.  Plus going after DDs with AP Bombs is useless.

this is why i mention, if they hit, but you are right, I should have also said, and what they hit. Have a look at discussions about the GZ ap bombs, which have similar drawbacks/disadvantages, great versus German and Japanese, meh vs US and British, zero dot dmg, useless vs dds, very limited versus cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,605
[INTEL]
Members
8,402 posts
25,221 battles
16 hours ago, AraAragami said:

It changes nothing. USN carriers above Independence are still incapable of competing with their IJN counterparts.

 

WG proves yet again that they have no idea how their own game works. The utter incompetence displayed when handling carrier balance is nothing short of appalling.

 

It isn't incompetence. It is deliberate. CVs exist only to reduce game length. If they are balanced, then they offset one another and cancel out that crucial function. 

 

I've been saying the "rebalance" would not balance CVs for two years now. Looks like I was right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,228 posts
20,563 battles

     Really good question, as I'm also ignorant of the in's and out's of CVs.

     I just don't understand why the players can't choose their own mix of F, DB, TB etc.  Some will choose poorly, others wisely.

But in a couple weeks or so I'd guess that an equilibrium would be reached.  Sometimes one CV would dominate another, but you take your chances, right? 

     I just would trust the players to decide what would help them win, that's all.  That's the greatest incentive for prudent and informed game play that I can think of.  

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,131 posts
3,867 battles
3 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

It isn't incompetence. It is deliberate. CVs exist only to reduce game length. If they are balanced, then they offset one another and cancel out that crucial function. 

 

I've been saying the "rebalance" would not balance CVs for two years now. Looks like I was right. 

 

Your own study into this proved your whole "game length" conspiracy wrong and you still insist on it.

 

It's almost cute.

 

caution-tin-foil-hat-area-19232277.png

It's not some grand conspiracy to manipulate players through some misguided assumption that shorter games makes more money (especially through methods that frustrate players, make players quit, and result in less revenue via fewer players willing to pay for things-- As you can see through simple logic this premise is inherently flawed)

 

 

No, the problem is a simple combination of incompetence and arrogance.

Edited by AraAragami
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[1IF]
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
8,203 battles
35 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

Can an experienced CV captain explain the CV changes coming up in the next patch tomorrow? 

That US CV's get one choice of plane loadout now? Keep it simple for the stupids.

That all  US CVs get the same fire rating - like they all had exactly the same hull - like there's no inducement to grind to the higher tiers now.

What needs to be explained? WoWS has ruined US CVs even more than they already were (which wasn't that bad to start with anyway).

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
216 posts
2,016 battles

I feel like this change is good for every US CV below T9(downtiered planes is going to be hell, especially Essex's T8 fighters. Seriously, what the hell WG). However:

IJN and the 2 USN premium CVs need to be nerfed. IJN needs their AS loadouts taken away and stock loadouts tweaked while USN premiums just need a general nerf. Especially Saipan. A nice way to solve this would be to buff US fighters so that they can shoot down at least 2 IJN fighter squads with just their 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,131 posts
3,867 battles
1 minute ago, 457th_FighterGroup said:

A nice way to solve this would be to buff US fighters so that they can shoot down at least 2 IJN fighter squads with just their 1.

 

They already can if the IJN captain just lets it happen.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[PLPTV]
Members
1,457 posts
9,077 battles
27 minutes ago, gcangel82 said:

Yeah, I am disappointed as it doesn't fix balance at all.  If anything the IJN line is now even more overpowering to the USN line than before.  They only exacerbated the whole mess.  A Midway with T8 TBs is basically neutered.  WG does not know what they are doing with it.

 

WG having no idea w.t.f they are doing is petty much a widely accepted fact at this point.

 

What pisses me off more is that they keep ignoring all the great ideas that float around on the forum. Twin engine aircraft, rockets, improved sigma + dispersion on manual drop, multiple bombs per aircraft, high altitude flight, ship strafing ... all these great ideas - completely f*cking ignored. As if we should have expected something more. 

 

But hey, they sure as hell wont miss a chance to throw another half finished premium ship into the game. They wouldnt want to miss their monthly paycheck from us, would they? Thats their corporate moto nowadays, collect the most amount of money in exchange for the least amount of effort.

Edited by Ulthwey
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,468
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,034 posts
12,511 battles

Problem 1: IJN and USN CVs are dramatically out of balance relative to each other from T6 onward.

Problem 2: CVs are out of balance relative to surface ship classes.

Patch 0.6.14 tries to address Problem 1 by changing USN plane loadouts and giving them an AP bomb option. Economic compensation is given to players with modules that are being changed/removed. NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO ADDRESS PROBLEM 2 IN THIS PATCH. That's waiting on a larger-scale "rework".

Edited by Edgecase
missing word
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,605
[INTEL]
Members
8,402 posts
25,221 battles
16 hours ago, AraAragami said:

 

Your own study into this proved your whole "game length" conspiracy wrong and you still insist on it.

 

It's almost cute.

 

 

It's not some grand conspiracy to manipulate players through some misguided assumption that shorter games makes more money (especially through methods that frustrate players, make players quit, and result in less revenue via fewer players willing to pay for things-- As you can see through simple logic this premise is inherently flawed)

 

 

No, the problem is a simple combination of incompetence and arrogance.

 

It's cute the way you simply ignore what the data says: if both CVs survive, then the game is much shorter. That is why WG takes steps to ensure CV survival, like making it impossible to detonate them, and now changing the DC mechanic to 30 seconds, and giving high tier CVs DFAA. Unfortunately for WG, its mechanics for shortening the game also kill CVs. It hasn't found  a way to resolve those contradictions, but you can be sure more buffs to CV survivability are coming...

 

Nobody said it was a conspiracy. It's just the way WG has organized the game to get  ships back in queue as quickly as possible, to the detriment of enjoyability and playability.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,475
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,408 posts
3,407 battles
15 minutes ago, gcangel82 said:

If these are the same Enterprise AP Bombs, they deal good to great damage on German BBs and RN BBs, while USN and IJN will not get hit no where near as hard.  Plus going after DDs with AP Bombs is useless.

 

They ARE the same as Enterprise's APDBs. They have the exact same auto-drop spread, with Manual making it 10% smaller. So the APDBs will be reasonably accurate even for less-experienced players.

 

Which conveniently leads into the other things the USN CVs change:

It's within WG's plan to reduce skill variations between players using the same USN CVs, with skilled players only having Strafing and Manual Drops as balance breakers.

It's within WG's plan to fully specialize the USN CV line as the main Dive Bomber line. This is what they've wanted ever since they stopped mirroring CV loadouts between USN and IJN.

It's within WG's plan to make at least one CV line newbie-friendly. This was another long-term goal WG had for CVs; they just narrowed it down from "All CV lines" being newbie-friendly to "one line".

 

And missing from other people's statements:

It's also within WG's plan to actively monitor the changes and further refine them as they deem necessary. This is basically a live Beta for a new USN CV line, with the full release to follow after their CV Overhaul.

It's also within WG's slowly progressing CV overhaul, so some of the changes are in line with their overarching CV overhaul plans. Unfortunately, they haven't quite refined what exactly they want to do with CVs aside from their nebulous "make it easier to play, less-skill dependent, and not gamebreaking as they were in CBT" statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,308 posts
9,382 battles
36 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

Can an experienced CV captain explain the CV changes coming up in the next patch tomorrow? 

 

I guess start with the problem statement (what is current wrong).  And then explain how the proposed changes are designed to fix that problem.

 

Explain it assuming your audience (e.g., folks like me)  doesn't really know the intricacies of the CV meta.

The Problem.

 

In general terms, IJN CV's have 2 loadouts, 1 Air Superiority and 1 Balanced or Strike loadout with 4 plane squadrons. All IJN loadouts are capable of all tasks a CV can preform (Scouting, Air Superiority, and Damage Dealing) to some level or another. They're pretty much perfectly balanced weapons capable of dealing with anything while having no real weaknesses. They also, don't really have any competition.

 

At the moment most US Navy CV's have 3 loadouts, 1 Air Superiority, 1 Strike and 1 Balanced (Stock) with 6 plane squadrons. The Balanced loadout is under powered, but capable of all the CV tasks, the other loadouts can either do Air Superiority, or do Damage. An Air Superiority US Navy CV can shut down any other CV, and basically render both CV's nearly useless to the game. The Strike loadout is nearly useless against any CV that carries fighters, if both CV's are US Navy strike loaded, the other 22 ships in the game are gonna have a bad day.

 

The fix?

 

In simple terms, the US Navy CV's are losing the Air Superiority and Strike loadouts, and getting an in theory improved version of the balanced loadout (It'll be slightly harder hitting). I'll reserve judgement until I actually use the new loadouts. This is only step one in the fix.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[KENT]
Members
480 posts
3,023 battles
11 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

 

It's cute the way you simply ignore what the data says: if both CVs survive, then the game is much shorter. That is why WG takes steps to ensure CV survival, like making it impossible to detonate them, and now changing the DC mechanic to 30 seconds, and giving high tier CVs DFAA. Unfortunately for WG, its mechanics for shortening the game also kill CVs. It hasn't found  a way to resolve those contradictions, but you can be sure more buffs to CV survivability are coming...

 

Nobody said it was a conspiracy. It's just the way WG has organized the game to get  ships back in queue as quickly as possible, to the detriment of enjoyability and playability.

 

 

 

 

 

There's a problem with that logic, and it's that a CV on a losing side can hold out for a very long time, especially if they manage to remain hidden.  If it remains hidden, the enemies have to spend time hunting for that CV.  If you buff the survivability, it means that CVs can hold out for EVEN LONGER, which means that the game will go even longer.  Gonna call [edited] on your grand conspiracy (which it is by definition: the action of plotting or conspiring.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[TURDS]
Members
552 posts
3,604 battles
59 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

You and me both...CV's are kinda like the dark corner of the land where Mufasa tells Simba to NOT go.

When I first started this game, I thought: "I'm going to play BB's, CA's, & DD's until I get a feel for the game then try CV's." Now: "CV's are the weapon of the Enemy." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
841
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,364 posts
7,938 battles

Best way I can try and explain it simply -

 

USN fighters absolutely thrash IJN planes, unless he USN player is an absolute noob. So AS just wipes the skies clean, but, inconsistent HE DB's don't deal damage. Strike can deal damage, but has no air cover. So, they added the new loadouts and AP bombs. But they are removing the choice for some insane reason as opposed to actually fixing fighter balance like it should have been in alpha, especially because now at most tiers USN is guaranteed to be out numbered in fighters, which can lead to an abuse of lock, exit strafe, strafe in while enemy fighters defenseless. Meaning in that regard, USN may now lose ability to contest the skies properly. However, if the USN strafes and avoids the lock, or it's a simple point and click battle, USN's fighters are still far superior and likely to win, except at tier 9, more on that later. While all set up's now have TB's because some people say they are mandatory to actually do damage (they aren't if DB's were done right), at the top tiers, they are only tier 8. These planes are slower, meaning more time in AA both ways, and less HP, which given the calculation is Total DPS of aura the plane is in/ total plane HP for chance per second to down a plane, becomes a very big thing. It does not take much for some of the higher tier ships to see 60% or higher, some can even exceed 100%, namely the USN cruisers if they have DF AA. And the AP bombs some people think they are OP, I actually tend to agree, other's are fine with them, but these things can delete a BB almost like a BB delete's a cruiser and both scenario's just aren't right. Which can lead to calls to buff AA yet again. When all they really needed to do was give HE bombers the same drop circle they gave the AP ones to actually make it, y'know, easier and more reliable to hit a target.

 

Essex, other than if the Captain has the DFE skill, having only tier 8 fighters actually is a more fair fight than people think, as a matter of fact,if I recall the math I did a few weeks back basically, they still have a 1-2% higher chance/second to down IJN planes, and because their DPS is spread across more planes, they still have a lower drop off.

 

The change to the DCP is just enough time to get 2-3 groups of planes off the deck. The 5 seconds we got could at times mean only 1 got off before our deck got lit up again. As we are the only class that loses the ability to attack when lit on fire. And the skill they added in in the rework "Emergency Takeoff" really only means anything if the planes are already rearmed as you get lit on fire. Otherwise, your better off just getting premium DCP and using the 3 skill points you'd maybe use on EmTa on something to lower DCP's cooldown further or naturally put the fires out faster.

 

But increasing the fire chance on everything that is an upgraded tier 6 and above? no idea what the :etc_swear: that's about, that is a nerf we DO NOT NEED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,306
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,440 posts
6,631 battles
25 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

(Scouting, Air Superiority, and Damage Dealing)

the problem is, where do scouting and air sup fit into these balancing changes?

I have reserved judgment too, but you don't need to spell out what this means to have doubts about these changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
412
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,022 posts
11,121 battles

More balanced loadouts for USN cvs and a buff to midway with +1 TB.

Just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
415
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,765 posts
5,805 battles

The problem is WG created CV's in such a was as to make them nearly impossible to fix. They've taken a simple equation and added many functions and fractions to it in an effort to come to the same solution one could arrive at by simply adding 2 +2.

 

Make all squadrons the same size, regardless of nationality. CV players squawked about this in CBT (as well as CV's not being ready for release!), stating it would make further balancing SIGNIFICANTLY easier....but no, WG continues to cling to their flawed concept of keeping each CV nation distinct rather than making the planes and their abilities the national flavour.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×