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

And This is Why Carriers Need a Rework

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

383
[KSC]
Members
1,047 posts
4,576 battles

I'm not normally one to complain, but this is just painful.  Carriers have far, far too much influence on the outcome of a game.  

Spoiler

5b2307dd1cd9d_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2018_06.14-20_23_17_05.thumb.png.270017085fbdd5a0c6af55a358aada85.png

5b2307e4653b0_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2018_06.14-20_23_09_80.thumb.png.394b973e98a8ebd99e4d0fbfec7c1eba.png

5b2307ec2ff4b_WorldofWarshipsScreenshot2018_06.14-20_23_24_10.thumb.png.10d5c90926962a68b6ffc3403c90a4e9.png

Our carrier died in the first 3 minutes of the battle, and from then on it was literally over.  We stood 0 chance of winning.  The fact that a carrier has that much influence is just insane.  The alpha damage, with having basically 0 repercussions needs to change imo.  

My $.02 would be to buff base AA values to be semi-competent, while nerfing all of the AA skills.  That way, all ships at least stand some sort of a chance of defending themselves, regardless of being AA spec'd or not, while having ships that are AA spec'd not turn into plane insta-gibbing machines.  A Montana, albeit, not AA spec'd, should stand a chance against planes a full 2 tiers lower than it.  But that's not what happened.  He flew planes inside my AA aura for a decent portion of the game, and I wasn't able to kill anything.  

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,837
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

CV's are Broken This is old news. Until  WG fixes this they will still be Game Changers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,110
[STW-M]
Members
3,285 posts
7,698 battles

Might I ask how did your carrier die 3 minutes into the match?

Was it a snipe, or did he sail too far forward and got focused?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,951
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,818 posts
12,021 battles

Well, this is a bad sign for a carrier rework.

GZ was designed to have a no skill floor autodrop (tight, doesn't care about attack angle, low DFAA susceptibility). If 2 GZ's can still imbalance the game that much then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
4,121 posts
12,970 battles

The score not means the carrier is broken, means your team was terrible. The enemy carrier was not even on first place of his team...

And you cant "defend" yourself vs everthing in the game. Dont like be hit by carriers? Make full AA build (but you still going be hit), or just play with minotaur.

 

Also, if people hit you they going broken you AA, so not matters make full AA build if the carrier only atack you in the end game when people alread break you AA.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
4,121 posts
12,970 battles

Also, you make 4 kills and 200k+ dmg in a "no chance of win" game, so montana is broken too? :cap_hmm:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
2 minutes ago, HyenaHiena said:

The score not means the carrier is broken, means your team was terrible. The enemy carrier was not even on first place of his team...

And you cant "defend" yourself vs everthing in the game. Dont like be hit by carriers? Make full AA build (but you still going be hit), or just play with minotaur.

 

Also, if people hit you they going broken you AA, so not matters make full AA build if the carrier only atack you in the end game when people alread break you AA.

And the CV that was sunk early also finished ahead of two players.

Edited by cometguy
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,199 posts
3,935 battles

And the top player on the enemy team was in a Yamato...so we need to nerf the Yamato too,  right?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,480
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
2,910 posts
1 hour ago, Palladia said:

And the top player on the enemy team was in a Yamato...so we need to nerf the Yamato too,  right?

Yes of course the current thinking seems to be any ship that isn't weak as Hell  is OP:Smile_great::Smile_facepalm:  If it isn't  Mine

Edited by shadowsrmine
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,951
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,818 posts
12,021 battles
5 minutes ago, HyenaHiena said:

The score not means the carrier is broken, means your team was terrible. The enemy carrier was not even on first place of his team...

Yes, though the T8 carrier was second in a T10 game with 5 kills - and with the carrier economy providing lower BXP thus masking the true impact...

 

4 minutes ago, cometguy said:

And the CV that was sunk early also finished ahead of two players.

What do you expect from T8/T9 cruisers in a T10 game? The GZ seemingly had the opportunity to defend himself with some plane kills, undoubtedly tanked as he died (which is subject to the vagaries of fate).

You're dependent for a great chunk of your team's collective AA on your carrier, if he dies early on you're left with a T8 carrier getting a Kraken in a T10 match like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,480
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
2,910 posts
3 minutes ago, Palladia said:

And the top player on the enemy team was in a Yamato...so we need to nerf the Yamato too,  right?

 

Just now, shadowsrmine said:

Yes of course the current thinking seems to be any ship that isn't weak as Hell  is OP:Smile_great::Smile_facepalm:

Almost everyone seems to have the strange thought that Only They  Should a Strong everyone else should be weaker than a day old kitten:Smile_smile::Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
4,121 posts
12,970 battles
4 minutes ago, mofton said:

Yes, though the T8 carrier was second in a T10 game with 5 kills - and with the carrier economy providing lower BXP thus masking the true impact...

His XP not was high. 5 kills in that case only means he finish 5 ships. The xp reward is from % of hp, not from kill number... the yamato make more xp with 2 kills.

 

The OP get 4 kills, also more XP than the enemy team, thats means montana need be nerfed/rework too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,207
[OO7]
Members
5,061 posts
11,827 battles
15 minutes ago, HyenaHiena said:

The score not means the carrier is broken, means your team was terrible. The enemy carrier was not even on first place of his team...

And you cant "defend" yourself vs everthing in the game. Dont like be hit by carriers? Make full AA build (but you still going be hit), or just play with minotaur.

 

Also, if people hit you they going broken you AA, so not matters make full AA build if the carrier only atack you in the end game when people alread break you AA.

So how does one contend with CV players who sync drop 2 accounts to rig games?

Edited by Ducky_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,199 posts
3,935 battles
6 minutes ago, mofton said:

Yes, though the T8 carrier was second in a T10 game with 5 kills - and with the carrier economy providing lower BXP thus masking the true impact...

 

What do you expect from T8/T9 cruisers in a T10 game? The GZ seemingly had the opportunity to defend himself with some plane kills, undoubtedly tanked as he died (which is subject to the vagaries of fate).

You're dependent for a great chunk of your team's collective AA on your carrier, if he dies early on you're left with a T8 carrier getting a Kraken in a T10 match like this.

Except you get higher experience gains for attacking higher tier ships.  Sooo your point is still moot.  We also don't see details like how much actual damage he did,  how much spotting he did, so on and so fourth/

BUT I WILL SAY,  again,  that the Graf Zeppelin is broken and I have been saying that since they decided to go with this last iteration.   But nerfing all carriers across the board based on a broken carrier is bad design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
12 minutes ago, mofton said:

What do you expect from T8/T9 cruisers in a T10 game? The GZ seemingly had the opportunity to defend himself with some plane kills, undoubtedly tanked as he died (which is subject to the vagaries of fate).

You're dependent for a great chunk of your team's collective AA on your carrier, if he dies early on you're left with a T8 carrier getting a Kraken in a T10 match like this.

I'm not expecting much.  Just to do more than a CV that did so bad it motivated the OP to come to the forum to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,951
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,818 posts
12,021 battles
7 minutes ago, HyenaHiena said:

His XP not was high. 5 kills in that case only means he finish 5 ships. The xp reward is from % of hp, not from kill number... the yamato make more xp with 2 kills.

 

The OP get 4 kills, also more XP than the enemy team, thats means montana need be nerfed/rework too?

OP being a good player in a top tier ship does well is different from a T8 being given free reign to run rampant against another team that's lost a big chunk of it's AA.

2 minutes ago, Palladia said:

Except you get higher experience gains for attacking higher tier ships.  Sooo your point is still moot.  We also don't see details like how much actual damage he did,  how much spotting he did, so on and so fourth/

BUT I WILL SAY,  again,  that the Graf Zeppelin is broken and I have been saying that since they decided to go with this last iteration.   But nerfing all carriers across the board based on a broken carrier is bad design.

Is it? Calculating XP is complex, spotting is hugely impactful yet poorly rewarded, securing ships is still critical. Carriers still suffer from a poor economy.

I don't think I said anything about nerfing carriers or GZ. I think they need a rework, WG agrees.

1 minute ago, cometguy said:

I'm not expecting much.  Just to do more than a CV that did so bad it motivated the OP to come to the forum to complain.

There's a big difference between 'oh a Hipper's got himself dev struck early so now I'm down 1/4 of my cruiser support but didn't expect much from him' and 'enjoy another 17 minutes without air cover suckers'.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

 

3 minutes ago, mofton said:

There's a big difference between 'oh a Hipper's got himself dev struck early so now I'm down 1/4 of my cruiser support but didn't expect much from him' and 'enjoy another 17 minutes without air cover suckers'.

Sure, and then there's the tier 9 AA heavy cruiser that also did virtually nothing, including failing to shoot down a single plane, in a game where AA cover was apparently in demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
4,121 posts
12,970 battles
6 minutes ago, mofton said:

OP being a good player in a top tier ship does well is different from a T8 being given free reign to run rampant against another team that's lost a big chunk of it's AA.

So, a bb can be a "good player" and make the TOP xp in a match in a losing tean but a cv player cant play well and be on second in winning team?

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,898
[SALVO]
Members
21,335 posts
21,550 battles
19 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

So how does one contend with CV players who sync drop 2 accounts to rig games?

Ducky, I think that the only thing you can do is that whenever you think that there's a chance that this has happened in a battle you're in, take screen shots.  And try to keep a record of any time you see either of the 2 CVs, and see how often the end up against each other.  Given how few CVs are in the queue at the same time these days, it wouldn't be all that hard at all, I'd think, for an unscrupulous CV player to drop a pair of same tier, tier 8+ CVs and end up with then against each other in tier 8+ battles.  And if you start seeing this a lot, submit a support ticket with all your screen shots.  Will it do any good?  probably not.  But you never know if you never try.

Anyways, just a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,199 posts
3,935 battles

Not to mention there were what, three Montana's?  Against T8 planes.  I can think of a few things happening there,  mostly revolving around AA getting shot off,  but I also think most of you guys weren't designating targets and weren't working on mitigating incoming strikes.  

The Graf Zeppelin needs a big ol' nerf bat upside the head ,  don't get me wrong,  but this game is not proof of that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
364
[VFW]
Members
1,207 posts
24,024 battles
1 hour ago, XpliCT_PaiiN said:

I'm not normally one to complain, but this is just painful.  Carriers have far, far too much influence on the outcome of a game.  

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Our carrier died in the first 3 minutes of the battle, and from then on it was literally over.  We stood 0 chance of winning.  The fact that a carrier has that much influence is just insane.  The alpha damage, with having basically 0 repercussions needs to change imo.  

My $.02 would be to buff base AA values to be semi-competent, while nerfing all of the AA skills.  That way, all ships at least stand some sort of a chance of defending themselves, regardless of being AA spec'd or not, while having ships that are AA spec'd not turn into plane insta-gibbing machines.  A Montana, albeit, not AA spec'd, should stand a chance against planes a full 2 tiers lower than it.  But that's not what happened.  He flew planes inside my AA aura for a decent portion of the game, and I wasn't able to kill anything.  

OK...this post is a bit mix message.   In one hand CVs are OP, but your CV dies quick...what.   The top player is a Yamo...but that ship is not OP.   Your Montana gets 4 kills...but it's not OP.   The enemy CV is not 1st, but it's OP.   Your logic is strange.

 

vr,

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[POP]
Members
1,711 posts
18,057 battles

Here we go again CV bashing, I stopped reading after he said our CV died  in the first  3 minutes .

Improvise adapt and overcome, so as soon as your carrier dies its " End Of Days " time .

gee what happens when all your DD's die  do you run to the edge of the map hope they don't find you. 

Edited by tm63au

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,951
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,818 posts
12,021 battles
11 minutes ago, cometguy said:

 

Sure, and then there's the tier 9 AA heavy cruiser that also did virtually nothing, including failing to shoot down a single plane, in a game where AA cover was apparently in demand.

Cruisers are of course renowned for durability and not getting adversely penalized by large numbers of citadels for the slightest misplay?

Whereas carriers boast 70% survival rates. That carrier messed up significantly more badly than the cruiser to get that little XP, especially as you get XP for just sailing around in most cases.

7 minutes ago, HyenaHiena said:

So, a bb can be a "good player" and make the TOP xp in a match in a losing tean but a cv player cant play well and be on second in winning team?

T10 comes top ok.

T8 carrier handed the keys of the kingdom thanks to CV incompetence, not opposed by enemy carrier, gets Kraken, comes second despite being 2 tiers down and CV economy - problem.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,299
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
20,827 posts
11,574 battles
1 hour ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

CV's are Broken This is old news. Until  WG fixes this they will still be Game Changers.

Your team was terrible too but how does a CV die that quickly? It should take longer than that for the enemy CV to get his planes to your CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×