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

Why The Hotfix Won’t Do a Thing-8.1

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

155
Members
188 posts
4,077 battles

I am beginning to think WG doesn't understand the problem

 

Increased the height which returning aircraft need to reach in order to become invulnerable to AA fire. This will allow ships to fire longer on returning aircraft and will help to counter the tactic in which the player gives the order to the squadron to return immediately after the first attack group’s run (“F” key by default).

This fixes nothing because planes will reach a magical NO DAMAGE HEIGHT and F key spam WILL CONTINUE

WG fundamentally DOES NOT understand what the problem is? Squadron cool down is TOO SHORT!

 

Why FOR GODSAKE DONT U JUST DO THIS!! 

Player attacks with Torpedo bombers

 

Player can choose to manually fly bombers out of harm’s way and then hit F-KEY

  • Torpedo Bombers fly Back to CV at REGULAR HEIGHT!

  • Player returns to CV to launch the next squadron either Dive bombers or Rockets

  • Torpedo Squadron Lands and goes into cool down mode.

  • Minimum 90 seconds and 5 seconds extra for every aircraft lost!

 

Player can choose to not manually fly the bombers out of harm’s way and hits the F-KEY:

  • Torpedo Bombers fly Back to CV at REGULAR HEIGHT!

  • Player returns to CV to launch the next squadron either Dive bombers or Rockets

  • Torpedo Squadron Lands and goes into cool down mode.

  • Minimum 90 seconds and 5 seconds extra for every aircraft lost!

 

Reduced the chance of flooding by approximately a third for the Japanese aerial torpedoes in tiers IV-VIII, and by half for German (tier VIII) and Japanese (tier X) aerial torpedoes.

This is a terrible decision. Your nerfing the torpedo bombers so hard they are no longer viable and it makes the CV more useless. They had to make this dumb decision because they want unlimited planes to attract players and then they made a bad decision even worse by eliminating fighters. Take those 2 decisions out and then YOU DON’T HAVE THIS PROBLEM!  Why the hell should I want to play CVs WG if I can’t be effective!!! My 30 knot Montana was barely taken over by torpedoes sailing parallel to them!!

 

WHERES THE FIX FOR THIS??? -->And Fix the bloody Ghost Salvo!!

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
545
[WOLF5]
Members
1,789 posts
2,486 battles

Even easier fixes. Make planes vulnerable all the time. That way you screw up and fly into a wooster, RIP planes.

As for the stealth torps, that's just dumb. DDs are one thing. Every minute and a half, from a predictable direction. But every 20sec from who knows what direction with zero warning? Seriously?

Also, AA is a joke. Just had a game in my Cleveland. Full AA spec (AFT and modules). focused sector, DF up. Torp bombers (T8 mind you) come in and drop me like I was a Nikolai. I get that planes need survivability. But really WG? If I invest skill points in AA captain skill I want some reward. I might as well have had no captain for all the good those skills did me. USN CLs AA spec should be a no fly zone, not a firework show.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,949
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
6,518 posts
19,344 battles
8 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

USN CLs AA spec should be a no fly zone, not a firework show.

I suspect they will eventually get the balance fixed as well as the invulnerable exploit removed. Planes should be forced to fly back on their own, not transported by magic, and be susceptible to enemy flak. This is a no brainer, not sure what the designers where thinking when they put this in the game. Such a easy thing to exploit as we have seen.

The whole "fireworks" comment kind of made me laugh. If you read all the positive comments about the rework, one thing always mentioned was how "cool" flak looked. I think this was intended to appeal to the people more concerned with visuals than actual game play. For those of us who have dumped carrier play, I just find all the AA crap going off distracting and adds nothing to my experience. Need a way to turn it off because doing so does not affect anyone but carrier players. I am glad they took the time to design something others find pretty, now let me opt out of it. I find it as silly and stupid as the Halloween skins and ARP content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
10,261 posts
4,594 battles
3 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Planes should be forced to fly back on their own, not transported by magic, and be susceptible to enemy flak. This is a no brainer, not sure what the designers where thinking when they put this in the game. Such a easy thing to exploit as we have seen.

You're going to need to seriously start increasing the reload/refresh rate of planes then, especially when you factor in the snowball/partial squadron size effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
559
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,107 posts
4,337 battles
1 minute ago, Taylor3006 said:

I suspect they will eventually get the balance fixed as well as the invulnerable exploit removed. Planes should be forced to fly back on their own, not transported by magic, and be susceptible to enemy flak. This is a no brainer, not sure what the designers where thinking when they put this in the game. Such a easy thing to exploit as we have seen.

Probably something like "players shouldn't have their strike capability limited just because the stupid AI that they have no control over thought that the best way to get home was over two Worcesters." Now I'll agree that right now F-spam is an exploit that needs fixing, but making planes vulnerable all the way back to the carrier isn't the way to do it. Lengthen the squadron cooldown based on plane damage, keep them more vulnerable as they exit an attack run; that's all good because players can still counter and recover from it. Having planes fly all the way back and be vulnerable the whole time? You may as well go back to limited planes then, because once a squadron does an attack run you'll have to wait 70-90 seconds times the number of planes you lose to AI stupidity to get back up to launch strength. Do you really think that in a 20 minute match players should spend 12 minutes waiting after their initial damage run just to be able to attack again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,120 posts
95 battles
47 minutes ago, Anij said:

WG fundamentally DOES NOT understand what the problem is? Squadron cool down is TOO SHORT!

Do you understand? Squadron cooldown is short because (thanks to F-spam) CVs don't lose aircraft and don't need to bring new ones from hangar. As soon as CV starts losing planes, which hopefully will happen after hotfix, squadron turnaround time will increase.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
559
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,107 posts
4,337 battles
Just now, geser98 said:

Do you understand? Squadron cooldown is short because (thanks to F-spam) CVs don't lose aircraft and don't need to bring new ones from hangar. As soon as CV starts losing planes, which hopefully will happen after hotfix, squadron turnaround time will increase.

^This^. Right now when I play carriers there are some matches where I don't touch my dive bombers at all after the first wave, because they all got wiped out in that attack and honestly it's easier to just spam torps and rackets than to wait for the squadron to regenerate. Hopefully with this fix that waiting time will be more balanced across all squadrons and you'll actually see carrier players that do stupid moves actually get de-planed every once in a while. I mean, I doubt Kagas ever will because spam is their gimmick, but I could stand to have to wait on-deck with the Tairyu or my Lexington every now and then while my planes get back up to full strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
135 posts
14 battles

Jesus christ, when wargaming starts finally using a chisel we get stupid people demanding they use the sledgehammer anyways, CHISEL OVER SLEDGEHAMMER!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[CHMC]
[CHMC]
Members
334 posts
8,378 battles

Any word on getting rewarded for damage to planes? I'd be fine with not shooting every plane in sight down if I still got something from the annoyance.
Also why aren't torps spotted when they're dropped?

Im in full support of planes always being in harms way during their return, I would also support faster plane replenishment as compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,627
[_-_]
Members
1,571 posts
6 hours ago, Anij said:

I am beginning to think WG doesn't understand the problem

Remember the goal. Keep your eyes on the prize.

For Wargaming, the whole point of this effort is to make CV more appealing. It's all about recruiting new CV players and making them happy.

They will only balance CV to the bare minimum extent required to prevent everyone else from getting fed up and chucking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
994 posts
5,884 battles

Planes should never have been made invulnerable under any circumstance to begin with. I don't understand that logic at all. Like "Oh I flew into a mino/wooster, that's fine I'll just press F, no problem".

This has the effect of carriers now having more spotting power than they did even before; everyone's almost always spotted - stealth builds on anything but a few DD are moot. This is especially punishing for CA who rely on stealth to get into position without being deleted.

Edited by reaper_swpz

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.

×