Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
SeigeTank2010

Tier 5 carrier vs tier 6 carrier: they strafe you to death you cannot do likewise LOL

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
488 posts

Yes, we know carriers are broken.   

But it's a mystery why they leave it broken for MONTHS instead of even giving a rather easy fix to buff the plane's hit points.  Meanwhile I laughed when they showcased the latest high tier cruisers and their buffed AA abilities.   

But my favorite while now wasting my time leveling up a IJN since they ruined USN is when squaring off in your tier 5 carrier (no strafing allowed) vs tier 6 carrier: (they can strafe).  Talk about IMBA!

I sense a lack of common sense from the ones in charge of figuring it out when they leave it broken for months instead of buffing planes with hit points as a temp adjustment, let alone not address such a ridiculous "i can strafe you can't" matchup issue.  Hint: remove tier 6 strafe ability when facing tier 5, or give tier 5 strafing that match to compensate.  It's not rocket science.

And the "well American carriers have stronger fighters" is a joke because IJN get more squads and they still wipe you out.   And more opportunity to strafe (my tier 9 USN vs IJN) makes it easier to land strafes on enemy planes.

Seems their 'fix' is to leave it broken for months while they think about it and release other material instead of at least putting a bit of a buff to counter its broken state and not release more ships with even stronger AA abilities.

I originally looked forward to the higher number of fighter groups in USN carrier that you could choose to research, only to have them say "sorry, now IJN gets even more fighters than you, can choose to get even MORE as they can choose different loadouts while we're now removing your ability to change your loadout at all".   As I said: i detect a certain lack of common sense in those who seem to have no idea how to fix it but instead have no problem making it worse.

Since some of us are paying customers, yes we have the right to post these things and demand it get addressed.  It's called running a business and paying customers bringing their grievances to fix what is broken, let alone what is LEFT broken for MONTHS with only hints of them wondering how they're going to fix it.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
824
[FML]
Members
2,479 posts
11,921 battles

You are incorrect; it definitely has not been broken for months. 

CVs have been broken for years. 

 

Alas.

Edited by UltimateNewbie
  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,810
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,217 posts
7,785 battles

Every time someone says "months" in relation to some broken CV mechanic, the forum filter should automatically change it to "years". The CV mechanics Warships after three damn years makes pre-nerf Tanks artillery at release look like the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

The entire class is a god damn disaster.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,225
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,013 posts
4,848 battles

Carriers were broken the second the game was created. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
691
[WOLF4]
Members
1,425 posts
3,224 battles

The moment they added a ship that played so incredibly different from the rest of the ships they should have scrapped it or changed the implementation. The fact that they are too scared to show us what the "new CV" game play will be like speaks volumes about their faith in it. While most of us might have found the video of the guy playing the changed CV game play funny, but it was also very telling.

Edited by xalmgrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,225
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,013 posts
4,848 battles

It's a class they know they cannot balance at all, they know it, and we know it. It is a class that is totally reliant upon player skill, and with nothing to balance the players in queue out based upon stats, ontop of the rest of the issues with the class, and the AA conundrum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,176
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,631 posts
15,896 battles
1 hour ago, SeigeTank2010 said:

Hint: remove tier 6 strafe ability when facing tier 5, or give tier 5 strafing that match to compensate. 

Or limit tier 4 and 5 CVs to see no battles with higher tier carriers; limit them to tier 5. It would be easy enough to do, just give them the same MM as tier 4 ships; that they never see tier 6 or above. Although in my opinion just removing the strafe mechanic would do it. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[KNTI2]
Members
884 posts
5,928 battles
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

Or limit tier 4 and 5 CVs to see no battles with higher tier carriers; limit them to tier 5. It would be easy enough to do, just give them the same MM as tier 4 ships; that they never see tier 6 or above. Although in my opinion just removing the strafe mechanic would do it. 

It would eliminate that aspect of player skill, but at the same time it would add complexity because then team AA comp and fighter attributes would be a bigger factor. Since CVs are mirrored with tier and double CV matches don't exist past VI, it wouldn't be a issue there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,176
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,631 posts
15,896 battles
4 hours ago, NATOMarksman said:

It would eliminate that aspect of player skill

Please tell me exactly how much skill it takes to strafe planes which cannot strafe back. Like my vegetarian friends who wonder why I tell them eating meat was essential for humans to develop intelligence; because it doesn't take much brain power to sneak up on a carrot. Allowing one CV in a match the ability to strafe and not allowing another one to do the same is inherently unbalanced, and should be corrected as soon as possible. As many Forum posts as I have read where CV players complain about strafing, I can only say that an across the boards removal could not possibly be a bad thing, as it would then be equal for everyone. And since fighters cannot strike against surface combatants, it will ONLY affect CVs.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[KNTI2]
Members
884 posts
5,928 battles
58 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Please tell me exactly how much skill it takes to strafe planes which cannot strafe back. Like my vegetarian friends who wonder why I tell them eating meat was essential for humans to develop intelligence; because it doesn't take much brain power to sneak up on a carrot. Allowing one CV in a match the ability to strafe and not allowing another one to do the same is inherently unbalanced, and should be corrected as soon as possible. As many Forum posts as I have read where CV players complain about strafing, I can only say that an across the boards removal could not possibly be a bad thing, as it would then be equal for everyone. And since fighters cannot strike against surface combatants, it will ONLY affect CVs.

The main thing is that at upper level play, it would mean there would be no way to overcome inherent stats with strafe.

So Saipan would become brutally OP, CVs with undertier planes like Kaga's would die 2/3 times even with DE (and would be outnumbered even if they manage to survive the first squad), and there would be an inherent imbalance between IJN and USN. Part of the balancing of the two is that they can eliminate each other with strafe even if the planes are multiple tiers apart or with +/- 2 planes per group, which lets them put in flavor like more hangar capacity or different tiered planes without it breaking CV play entirely (at least, for skilled players; which is the main premise of the problem in the first place).

I think these issues could be dealt with by relying more on team play (i.e you would have to force a higher tier fighter group to engage over an AA ally through positioning of your planes, and have AA ships move in formation with those with weaker AA), but it would be an issue that would come up pretty much as soon as you rolled out the change.

Edited by NATOMarksman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,176
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,631 posts
15,896 battles
1 hour ago, NATOMarksman said:

The main thing is that at upper level play, it would mean there would be no way to overcome inherent stats with strafe.

So are you saying that CVs need a rework? Because I think I've heard that somewhere before. Saipan is OP because she is unbalanced with tier 9 planes on a tier 7 CV. Kaga is just as unbalanced because her planes also do not match the tier of the CV they fly off of. 

1 hour ago, NATOMarksman said:

I think these issues could be dealt with by relying more on team play

And I think that these issues could be dealt with by eliminating strafe, making all planes on EVERY CV the same tier as their carrier, and by making squadron loadouts on every CV standardized so there are no more complaints about IJN CVs getting 2 fighter squadrons and players complaining about getting no support from their CVs because all their planes got strafed into oblivion. In truth, fighters could be eliminated all together, as they have no capacity to damage surface combatants and CVs rarely engage each other, that being some type of unspoken rule between CV Captains.

1 hour ago, NATOMarksman said:

you would have to force a higher tier fighter group to engage over an AA ally through positioning of your planes, and have AA ships move in formation with those with weaker AA

You would change the way everyone plays to fit CVs; I would just change CVs to fit how everyone else plays. Now honestly, which one of these would be easier? I, and almost anyone else who ever played a carrier, could have balanced them better the minute they left CBT, or OBT, or the game went online for real. Yet 3 years later, CVs are still the biggest bug-a-boos in the game, and so screwed up that no one but a small minority of CV mains wants them in the game at all. And for the perfect example of everything I've been talking about all you need do is look at Graf Zeppelin. Messed up so very, very bad at it's release it had to be pulled back, and now re-introduced in a totally OP form so the 300 players who bought it don't scream for their money back. CV premiums have more gimmicks than any other type of ship in the game, and every new CV release, which thank God there have been none of in recent months, requires a new gimmick to make them viable, and the entire group of them had to be pulled because even WoW understands they are well and truly twisted beyond all hope. 

Fact is, if CVs were just removed from the game, 90 % of the player base would either be happier, or not miss them at all. WoW just needs to bite the bullet and implement THAT fix.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[TF03]
Members
741 posts
2,806 battles
5 hours ago, Umikami said:

And I think that these issues could be dealt with by eliminating strafe, making all planes on EVERY CV the same tier as their carrier, and by making squadron loadouts on every CV standardized so there are no more complaints about IJN CVs getting 2 fighter squadrons and players complaining about getting no support from their CVs because all their planes got strafed into oblivion. In truth, fighters could be eliminated all together, as they have no capacity to damage surface combatants and CVs rarely engage each other, that being some type of unspoken rule between CV Captains.

Your right about that if they made every CV have the same tier and loadout when it comes to fighters they could get rid of strafe US CV will get a nerf dropping down to 5 planes but also get a buff by getting a 2nd squad IJN CV will get a buff up to 5 planes but a nerf with only having 2 fighter squads and not being able to pick a loadout which gives them 3 fighter squads. The only other thing i would change and bring more balance but WG won't would be make CV +/- 1 in MM so tier 6 ships don't see a tier 8 CV and not have the AA to counter a strike and have a CV 1 shot them and the +1 would keep tier 7 CV from facing tier 9 ships and the AA that comes with that tier.

If they did both of those it would bring a bit more balance to CV and for the rest of the players to and deal with a lot of problems people have with CV be it CV players or non CV players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229
[STW]
Members
696 posts
4,983 battles

The issue of T5 having to face T6 carriers was an issue that was brought up when they were initially mulling over removing manual attacks from T4 and T5, but Wargaming decided not to listen.  I thought that the simplest solution would have just been to eliminate 4x CV matches altogether so you don't run into such a scenario in the first place.

Edited by Deviathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[O_S_D]
[O_S_D]
Members
146 posts
15,830 battles

No CV player wants to bring a T5 CV to a T6 Random battle.  There are so many T5 CVs in Co-op that the MM must fill the team with green bots.  

Suggestion:  Players' low-tier CVs should be allowed to manual attack the bots in Co-op so they can master the technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
298
[CAST]
Members
1,556 posts
8,005 battles

Two CVs per side in low tier matches is fine as long as they are the same tier.  That way there is no mismatch in plane abilities based on tier.  A game is actually more balanced if there are more CVs per team.  They occupy each other, and the chance of having 1 good CV captain against 1 bad CV captain is reduced.  CVs are unbalanced at higher tiers, because of the chance of captain mismatch more than the actual ship/planes mismatch.  Having more CVs in game would stop a lot of this.  Then, when more CVs start showing up, the ships will start showing up with more AA builds, so the play will adjust accordingly.    Now, ships aren't built with AA strength because you rarely see CVs.  Then, when they do show up, you aren't properly prepared for it.  And, most players don't properly support their teammates to increase AA strength.  An increase in CV numbers would necessitate it.  And, it would stop the island campers.  They make great torp targets for the planes, since they are nice and stationary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×