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

A very detailed and precise way to fix the Hak and Midway

59 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

20
[PNG]
Members
94 posts
6,433 battles

Hello all I hope you're having a good day today. I am going to be blunt. I am tired of seeing posts about this topic that are just so stupid and biased. The communities collective goal should be to have all balanced ships and none OP and none awful and lame.

So here is the real fix to the balance issue on a CV to CV bases. This doesn't cover CV vs surface ships in detail, but should reduce strike power of each CV to make surface ships happy while being good for CV players.

With out further ado, The real fix to Midway vs Hak

Theoretically with perfect damage numbers and just with Air Supremely, Aircraft Servicing Expert, and Torpedo Armament Expertise no upgrades. Also using the Haks air control group 1

Current Hak: 29 Fighters, 43 TB, 28 DB

Current Midway: 45 Fighters, 45 TB, 46 DB

As you can see the Midway definitely has a huge upper hand over the Hak due to the hanger. I seek to fix this issue while making sure both CVs are unique and balanced.

To begin both carriers have to have a hanger size of 100 and only 1 Flight control if the Midway gets 1

Aircraft Planes and Hangar Composition

Fighters

  • Midway should have 35 tier 9ish fighters total. (5 groups total of 7 planes: 13,370 HP per squadron, 490 DPS per squadron. 66,850 HP Total, 2450 DPS Total) A placebo should be put in place. A new WG special fighter should be put in. The F4F-U should be given a rename, and given the tier 10 label to stop [edited] about lower tier planes.

  • Hak should have 35 tier 10 fighters (7 groups total of 5 planes per squadron: 10,150 HP per squad, 435 DPS per squad. 71,020 HP total, 3045 DPS total) Hak would get a whole 2 groups more than Midway. In the long run the Hak has higher overall damage and HP, and with the extra 2 squads this should balance well.

Torpedo Bombers

  • Midway should have 30 Tier 8 Torp bombers total (5 groups with 6 planes: 59,202 DMG per squad, 11,970 HP per squad, 296,010 total DMG, 59,850 HP total)
  • Hak should have about 36 Torp bombers (9 groups with 4 planes: 34,268 DMG per squad, 8440 HP per squad, 308,412 DMG total, 75,960 HP Total)

Dive Bombers

Midway 35 DB (5 groups total 7 planes each squadron) AP Dive Bombers should be reworked. RNG is stupid and should only be there for nice surprises, not big FUs. AP dive bombers should be reworked to provide reliable consistent AP pens, and rarely give citadels as nice surprises. The AP Bombs should only pen BBs and CVs and always overpen Cruisers and DDs.

Hak 29 DB (5.8 groups total 5 planes each squadron)

Re Arm Times

With Air Supremely, Aircraft Servicing Expert, and Torpedo Armament Expertise no upgrades.

The Midway has stupidly long reload times. This is to counter what Midway players used to do. They used to make strikes and then let their planes get shot down for faster rearm so the planes wouldn't have to fly back. This was possible with the large hanger the Midway has, however with my proposed new 65 strike planes vs the old 91 I think a change can be made.

In patch 0.5.2 a penalty for losing a full squadron was implemented. IJN CVs get a x3 penalty for rearm times, while USN gets x2. Well the x2 for USN CVs might be glitched, they currently get an average of x2.5 penalty for each plane type (x2.55 for fighters, x2.45 for TB and x2.5 for DB). The proposed x2 penalty would be way too low, I personally propose a reduced reload by about 5-6s across the board with the current x2.5 penalty except unified, this would make the ship much more fun and the player wouldn't be sitting and not playing for so long.

The Hak currently has replane and rearm times of

  • Fighters: 5 Planes at roughly 67s for losing a full squadron; roughly 22s for a rearm
  • Torp Bombers: 4 Planes at roughly 53s for losing a full squadron; roughly 17s for a rearm
  • Dive Bombers: 5 Planes at roughly 80s for losing a full squadron; roughly 26s for a rearm

The Midway currently has full replane and rearm times of

  • Fighters: 7 Planes at roughly 98s for losing a full squadron; roughly 38s for a rearm
  • Torp Bombers: 6 planes at roughly 78s for losing a full squadron; roughly 32s for a rearm
  • Dive Bombers: 7 planes at roughly 108s for losing a full squadron; roughly 43s for a rearm

The Hak has fine rearm times currently. However the Midways are too long.

Proposed change for the Midway

  • Fighters: 7 Fighter Planes at 83s for losing a full squadron; 33s for a rearm. This would still give the Hak with its faster fighters an advantage to balance its weaker fighters. The Hak would have a roughly 11 second advantage over the Midway still for a rearm. This 16s and 11s difference respectively is much more comfortable than the current 31s and 16s difference between the two. This means it takes 4.65s for the Midway to rearm each plane, while the Hak does each plane in 4.46s. This also allows fighters to get in the fight faster and help the surface ships
  • Torpedo bombers: 6 Planes at 68s for losing a full squadron; 27s for a rearm. This would give the Hak a rearm advantage of 10s. This means it takes 4.5s for the Midway to rearm a plane, while the Hak does it in 4.25s.
  • Dive Bombers: 7 Planes at 93 for losing a full squadron; 37s for a rearm. Hak would have an advantage of 11s. This means it takes 5.2857s for the Midway to rearm a plane, while the Hak does it in 5.2s.

**Tl;dr Midway: 100 planes of 35 T9ish Fighters, 30 T8 TB, 35 T10DB and slightly reduced rearm time of about 5-6 seconds and squadron loss penalty of x2.5.

Hak: 100 planes of 35 T10 Fighters, 35 T10 TB, 30 T10 DB. Only 1 flight control group.**

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[PNG]
Members
94 posts
6,433 battles

Guys please try and push this up. I really don't want any more silly changes done to the USN Cv line, but I know there's and imbalance so I made a very fair and good way to streamline the T10 CV balance

 

I spent hours on this lol

Edited by MattttChris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
854
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,805 posts
4,224 battles
2 minutes ago, MattttChris said:

I spent hours on this lol

To be fair, you also posted at midnight EST, and I'm about to go to sleep, so I really don't have the brainpower to process this right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles

WTH?! This wasn't the typical nerf/remove such and such CV into the ground thread that has proven disturbingly popular to shytpost of late.

2 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

To be fair, you also posted at midnight EST, and I'm about to go to sleep, so I really don't have the brainpower to process this right now.

I too am very tired, seems logical to me right now, thou I will reread it the morning, when I too have the brain power to comprehend.

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[-TAB-]
Members
1,317 posts
6,885 battles

Easiest and probably only way to balance CVs...

Homogenization.

Make USN and Japan CVs have Same hangar sizes, Planes have same speed, same HP, same fighters per squadron, same DPS, same torp spread, same DB damage etc.
If they are adamant on having some differing flavor. Simple. USN gets access to AP Bombs.. Japan gets access to DWT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[KSC]
Members
201 posts
7,792 battles

I can agree with some of this but still It is just stupid for Midway to have the same hangar size as Hak.

Remember, Midway is a Bigger ship, Her detection is 18.7KM or so while Hak's is around 15.7KM, another thing is Hak has better secondary and Over all AA,

Maybe if they Buffed Midways detection etc but as is it would be Very Hak Biased

 

Now i will Also say that having AP bombs ALWAYS Get overpens on Cruisers and DDs would be a Mistake, as Moskva and Stalin for example have more Deck armor then Most BBs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[PNG]
Members
94 posts
6,433 battles
32 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

WTH?! This wasn't the typical nerf/remove such and such CV into the ground thread that has proven disturbingly popular to shytpost of late.

I too am very tired, seems logical to me right now, thou I will reread it the morning, when I too have the brain power to comprehend.

Yes yes I spent a long time on this because I'm tired of the stupid crap people think of and I want good fun balance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[PNG]
Members
94 posts
6,433 battles
29 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

Easiest and probably only way to balance CVs...

Homogenization.

Make USN and Japan CVs have Same hangar sizes, Planes have same speed, same HP, same fighters per squadron, same DPS, same torp spread, same DB damage etc.
If they are adamant on having some differing flavor. Simple. USN gets access to AP Bombs.. Japan gets access to DWT

True but with attributes that make each line unique, little qwirks here and there. 

 

I have said before there's no way to balance a 1v1 if the two variables are different. The equation that is CVs requires more variables, I.E. Brit CV line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[PNG]
Members
94 posts
6,433 battles
37 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

To be fair, you also posted at midnight EST, and I'm about to go to sleep, so I really don't have the brainpower to process this right now.

Yes I posted this a few hours ago on the subreddit, little traction. Let's hope I can get the ball rolling here.

 

I just want good balance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,294 battles

Meh.

Here's my very detailed way to deal with carriers.  Not that it will happen, mind you.

Spoiler

Remove them from the game entirely.

 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,037 posts
12,522 battles

Why do your proposed numbers leave Midway with a shallower fighter pool than Strike Hakuryu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
885
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,223 posts
8,406 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Meh.

Here's my very detailed way to deal with carriers.  Not that it will happen, mind you.

  Reveal hidden contents

Remove them from the game entirely.

 

 

+1

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,226
[RKLES]
Members
7,101 posts
8,757 battles

Can we solve the problem by adding Shinano CV intier Tier IX or X? I like that carrier lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[PNG]
Members
94 posts
6,433 battles
6 hours ago, Edgecase said:

Why do your proposed numbers leave Midway with a shallower fighter pool than Strike Hakuryu?

Well they're equal in fighter number. If the Midway player plays smart than they should win. The Hak has extra squads because that 2 less fighters adds up over time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,908
[-K-]
Supertester
3,086 posts
6,827 battles

Your changes are completely Hak biased.  They get the same number of planes, but Hak's are all higher tiered.  CV play isn't just about carrier versus carrier.  It's also about survivability of planes as they traverse through an enemy fleet.  Part of what Makes Midway's tier 8 planes in tier 10 games viable is her ability to replenish destroyed planes.  Take that away and this is just another tier where Japanese CV's dominate.

The only way to balance carriers is to remove them.  Carriers broke ship combat IRL.  Is it any surprise that they break it in a game?

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,352
[SYN]
Members
4,525 posts
11,433 battles

Carriers simply don't belong in this game.  Period.

WG's implementation of carriers have broken this game since day one.  Clearly, they have no idea what to do with carriers but they are so obstinate on including a clicker mode, whether their design for it properly "fits" or not.

Just get rid of them, ffs.  Once and for all.  Well, at least until WG thinks of a more sensible way of including them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[SF-3]
Members
1,442 posts
7,901 battles
1 hour ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

Your changes are completely Hak biased.  They get the same number of planes, but Hak's are all higher tiered.  CV play isn't just about carrier versus carrier.  It's also about survivability of planes as they traverse through an enemy fleet.  Part of what Makes Midway's tier 8 planes in tier 10 games viable is her ability to replenish destroyed planes.  Take that away and this is just another tier where Japanese CV's dominate.

The only way to balance carriers is to remove them.  Carriers broke ship combat IRL.  Is it any surprise that they break it in a game?

Been saying this for a long time. People complain about them being OP, they were / are, just by the vary nature in which they operate, no different in the game.

53 minutes ago, Kuckoo said:

Carriers simply don't belong in this game.  Period.

WG's implementation of carriers have broken this game since day one.  Clearly, they have no idea what to do with carriers but they are so obstinate on including a clicker mode, whether their design for it properly "fits" or not.

Just get rid of them, ffs.  Once and for all.  Well, at least until WG thinks of a more sensible way of including them.

I kind of disagree, but then I kind of agree. I play CV's and they are fun, but, as you said, WG seems to have no idea how to properly include CVs in the game. The back and forth is frustrating. They need to own up to their mistakes and focus on fixing them, rather than this wishy washy back and forth [edited].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9,434 posts
11,601 battles
11 hours ago, MattttChris said:

True but with attributes that make each line unique, little qwirks here and there. 

 

I have said before there's no way to balance a 1v1 if the two variables are different. The equation that is CVs requires more variables, I.E. Brit CV line

as long as they are limited 1 bote per match at higher tier, you can only balance them    by having same size  squadron and similar total number.      why I've been asking for  separate CV mode with upto 4 or 5 cv per side  and AA escort  to simulate more realistic mode.

 

only other way is to  balance them so that they are equal to every other bote in the game in terms of utility.         

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
433
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
1,905 posts
3,292 battles

1. Midway carried 130 aircraft upon her inclusion in the final stages of WWII... Reducing her hanger capacity below that is stupid (in my opinion). Instead of nerfing a ship that 100% existed, how about buffing the ship that 0% existed (seriously, I can't find anything about Hakuryu except from WG. This is pure WG's doing as a result).

As such - increase Hakuryu's hanger capacity, rather than reduce Midway's to such an extreme... except Midway should be reduced by 6, to 130, thereby keeping her to her real life counterpart. Hakuryu should be boosted to 120, 10 less than Midway.

2. Your placebo idea, is also stupid (in my opinion). Having it indicate that it is a tier 10 aircraft, is nuts, because that would reduce the strength of Dogfighting Expert. Masking a tier 9 aircraft as a tier 10 aircraft, would not provide the 10% combat performance increase, when they deal with Tier 10 aircraft. So masking tier 9 as tier 10, would therefore forever have tier 10 aircraft with tier 9 stats. Placebo it is not, because player will most certainly notice their aircraft dying so easily in a click fight.


And this is one thing I have noticed... so many players focus on nerfs nerfs and more nerfs. But rarely do they ever want to buff a ship.

Midway should not have a hanger capacity of less than 130. Hakuryu being a ship that literally doesn't exist, not even on paper, is the perfect opportunity to BUFF, because hey, there is no real world counter-part to live up to.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
120
[WOSV]
Members
324 posts
2,075 battles

I'm not 100% sure on this...

It seems like you're nullifying the main stregnth of American CV's: Fighters. USN CV's never have better strike capabilities as IJN CV's. The fighters were the one balancing factor for the Americans.

And I have to agree with Counter_Gambit on this. Leave Midway in her historical loadout and form. Seeing as she was a very real ship, there are exact numbers and specs to work from. Hakuryu, on the other hand, is about as real as the Type 5 Heavy. All on paper, never brought to fruition. As such, they can almost literally make it whatever they want it to be. Specs can be altered and bent to better balance. 

I guess the main point I'm trying to make is to not alter the real ship to match the fake one, but alter the fake one to compete with the real.

If you ask me, balancing Midway with a fake ship is an insult to her designers, her builders, and her legacy. She deserves better. USS Midway was THE ULTIMATE WWII Carrier. A physical manifestation of America's mastery of Carrier Warfare. The Queen of the Pacific. She set the standard for quite a few American Carriers. So, she should also be the standard for Tier X CV in WoWS, and Hakuryu and any other future Tier X CV should be brought up to that standard, not have it lowered to their level.

 

Edited 4/3/18 for the sake of Crucis to ease his mind for small typo and use of Ctrl-I, Ctrl-U, and Ctrl-B in same word. Error ammended.

Edited by Halonut24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[PNG]
Members
94 posts
6,433 battles
53 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

1. Midway carried 130 aircraft upon her inclusion in the final stages of WWII... Reducing her hanger capacity below that is stupid (in my opinion). Instead of nerfing a ship that 100% existed, how about buffing the ship that 0% existed (seriously, I can't find anything about Hakuryu except from WG. This is pure WG's doing as a result).

As such - increase Hakuryu's hanger capacity, rather than reduce Midway's to such an extreme... except Midway should be reduced by 6, to 130, thereby keeping her to her real life counterpart. Hakuryu should be boosted to 120, 10 less than Midway.

2. Your placebo idea, is also stupid (in my opinion). Having it indicate that it is a tier 10 aircraft, is nuts, because that would reduce the strength of Dogfighting Expert. Masking a tier 9 aircraft as a tier 10 aircraft, would not provide the 10% combat performance increase, when they deal with Tier 10 aircraft. So masking tier 9 as tier 10, would therefore forever have tier 10 aircraft with tier 9 stats. Placebo it is not, because player will most certainly notice their aircraft dying so easily in a click fight.


And this is one thing I have noticed... so many players focus on nerfs nerfs and more nerfs. But rarely do they ever want to buff a ship.

Midway should not have a hanger capacity of less than 130. Hakuryu being a ship that literally doesn't exist, not even on paper, is the perfect opportunity to BUFF, because hey, there is no real world counter-part to live up to.
 

Holy crap man thank you for the feedback! 

 

I never thought of dogfighter! Dang you right. Yeah I threw that in there because people [edited] about lower tier fighters so much. 

While yes I don't think nerfing the Midway below its historical hangar amount is a good idea, its really the only idea. If you buff the Hak (with its much better rearm times) to more planes it would be a mess and the surface ships would be very mad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[PNG]
Members
94 posts
6,433 battles

 

1 minute ago, Halonut24 said:

I'm not 100% sure on this...

It seems like you're nullifying the main stregnth of American CV's: Fighters. USN CV's never have better strike capabilities as IJN CV's. The fighters were the one balancing factor for the Americans.

And I have to agree with Counter_Gambit on this. Leave Midway in her historical loadout and form. Seeing as she was a very real ship, there are exact numbers and specs to work from. Hakuryu, on the other hand, is about as real as the Type 5 Heavy. All on paper, never brought to fruition. As such, they can almost literally make it whatever they want it to be. Specs can be altered and bent to better balance. 

I guess the main point I'm trying to make is to not alter the real ship to match the fake one, but alter the fake one to compete with the real.

If you ask me, balancing Midway with a fake ship is an insult to her designers, her builders, and her legacy. She deserves better. USS Midway was THE ULITMATE WWII Carrier. A physical manifestation of America's mastery of Carrier Warfare. The Queen of the Pacific. She set the standard for quite a few American Carriers. So, she should also be the standard for Tier X CV in WoWS, and Hakuryu and any other future Tier X CV should be brought up to that bar, not lowered to their level.

First off I want you to know I'm a huge fan of the Midway. I have been on her and she is awesome! 

 

But I'm removing my biases from this to make the game better by getting the Midway buffs, while nerfing her slightly. 

 

I know it sucks to have a lower hangar capacity but the thing is with how AA and carriers work ATM having the Hak and the Midway with 100+ planes would casue a lot of strife. 

 

Only the legendary CV rework is done I want her back to 130+ but for the way things are now its just not fair 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,022 posts
11,126 battles
13 minutes ago, Halonut24 said:

If you ask me, balancing Midway with a fake ship is an insult to her designers, her builders, and her legacy. She deserves better. USS Midway was THE ULITMATE WWII Carrier. A physical manifestation of America's mastery of Carrier Warfare. The Queen of the Pacific. She set the standard for quite a few American Carriers. So, she should also be the standard for Tier X CV in WoWS, and Hakuryu and any other future Tier X CV should be brought up to that standard, not have it lowered to their level.

i read that with that sound

lol

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,022 posts
11,126 battles

ts one interessing propose... but ... meh.

The best balance is buff hak fighters and incrise his hangar a bit for more fighters. Maybe incrise the strafe 'penality' for use (consume more ammo) to not let one carrier totaly dominate the game with 1 fighter group using strafe ever second for auto-win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
14 hours ago, Crucis said:

Meh.

Here's my very detailed way to deal with carriers.  Not that it will happen, mind you.

  Reveal hidden contents

Remove them from the game entirely.

 

Sure, lets remove everything that has problems from the game instead of fixing it...  or we could figure out a way to fix shyt without causing 30 other issues because we let our emotions get the best of us and took a sledgehammer to it.

BTW here's my detailed way to deal with carriers...

Spoiler

 

I'm truly puzzled at how every time someone makes an attempt to fix CV related issues, you attempt to shut down the discussion with your whines for removal. Its almost as bad as M8i's attempt to get  "steamboats" removed from the game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×