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

Here’s how to balance carriers, dare I say, perfectly?

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
387 posts

Here’s how you balance carriers.

Carrier squads are supposed to get multiple attacks in.  If AA on ships would prevent you from doing so and only allowed two or even one attack otherwise you will start taking serious losses, then AA is already doing its job and reducing carriers down to only a third of how effective they could be. And those carriers who challenge the AA and go for more attacks than the AA would allow will now suffer serious consequences and lose too many planes which will slow down future attacks.

This is how the game can give balance with AA and carriers. Carriers can still be useful at least getting one attack when the strongest AA is present and AA can prove useful denying them multiple attacks or start suffering losses that will make it not worth it  

To instead make it so that you cannot even attack once without losing many planes and forcing you to not attack at all as you know you’ll just lose most of your planes is now taking it too far and gives AA too much power and starts to make carriers useless since now often they wouldn’t be able to attack at all. For a game that’s of course unacceptable  

Against the better AA,  0.8.0 allowed carriers to attack once and you were forced to not even consider attacking 2 or 3 times.  That’s a win for the defenders. But, the AA was so strong that even if you tried to manually fly away you’d still suffer too many losses so you were forced to use recall.  

To change recall to force you to lose your planes on the retreat makes it so AA can stop you from doing any attacks, which is where it breaks the game.

So the balance is: at best AA can only wipe 1 or 2 planes if you attack once and recall. It keeps CVs playable while rewarding those with the strongest AA levels by them forcing carriers to only attack once, recall, not stick around to scout  

Implement this however you wish, but the recall allowing planes to now fly evasively and now take very little if any damage was one way you pulled it off. 

If attacking only once (it’s critical carriers are allowed to attack once and recall without serious repercussions) is deemed an issue of “cvs are doing too much damage” then you can tweak damage numbers instead of turning AA into a “you can’t even attack us once without becoming useless this battle” solution  

Please consider this  I don’t mind being bottom 3rd of a team if I feel I’m not denied attacking once even though I’m supposed to be able to attack multiple times  

Personally it doesn’t seem unreasonable that carriers are on par with BBs on damage output, but maybe that only shows up when AA is not strong enough to reduce you to one attack per flight with immediate recall “or else”  

One last concern: when multiple ships sail very close together because of a carrier, their combined AA should at best only be able to reduce the carrier to “attack once and recall immediately or you will lose too many planes” (which again they’re being rewarded for combining AA to deny carriers the multiple attacks they’re supposed to get) instead of again making it so you can’t even attack at all.  if this means you have to implement an artificial damage cap one squad of planes will be able to receive per second: the maximum damage over time you will allow them to receive so that if they attack once and recall immediately or else, then they’ll lose at most 2 planes, again it’s a win-win for both gamers  

And finally a possible oversight: when my carrier was on other side of a tiny island, BB on other side, when I launched my planes every one of them would individually die before the next one took off  All planes were dead before I was even given control of the squad! I was unable to launch planes at all which felt like an oversight.  it should still instead do damage to the whole squad where I’d only lose a couple of planes when the whole squad takes off, not wipe each one individually before the next one even takes off and I never even get to control the squad  

Thank you for considering this.  For the record controlling the planes from the same visual perspective of how you control ships  the immersive factor is a blast!

 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[-BUI-]
Members
562 posts
2,537 battles

Thats one thing that people don't seem to understand about the previous "F-spam" they all complained about....if you didn't use it, you lost all your planes, and that was BEFORE the hot fix, it was MANDATORY to even get off 1 single strike against a small group of ships, and a single strike doesn't do that much, the CV player KNEW he couldn't handle that and ran away....isn't that a good thing?

I think the issue was people wanna shoot planes down, it makes them feel better about being attacked, and even though their AA did actually stop them from being attacked multiple times, the fact they got no plane kills makes them FEEL bad about the attack, they feel powerless, when it fact, they forced that CV to give up and run away and waste 66% of his attack power.

The post hot-fix F-key is completely pointless, it does nothing but insure you lose your planes, it MUST work how it did before and I'd be willing to nerf is slightly by making it work post-hotfix if there is a fighter or DFAA enabled, those are direct CV counters that should still work correctly, F-key dodging fighters and DFAA entirely was indeed a problem, but IMO, the ONLY problem with how it worked before.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
127
[HATE]
Members
106 posts
9,917 battles
3 hours ago, SeigeTank2010 said:

 

One last concern: when multiple ships sail very close together because of a carrier, their combined AA should at best only be able to reduce the carrier to “attack once and recall immediately or you will lose too many planes” (which again they’re being rewarded for combining AA to deny carriers the multiple attacks they’re supposed to get) instead of again making it so you can’t even attack at all.  if this means you have to implement an artificial damage cap one squad of planes will be able to receive per second: the maximum damage over time you will allow them to receive so that if they attack once and recall immediately or else, then they’ll lose at most 2 planes, again it’s a win-win for both gamers  

 

 

I will disagree with you here. if people will combine their aa, it should make an attack not possible. the converse is also true that if players group up for aa defense torping becomes the better attack. but to say that grouping should no prohibit and attack i think it would be unfair tot he cooperation of a team 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[LSGNA]
Members
96 posts
1,102 battles

I think WG, and the community are missing the bigger picture regarding CV play in a WWII setting. Realism, to some degree, should be considered. If a squadron is attacking a group of moderate to high powered AA, or attacking a single very high powered AA vessel, when the CV captain hits the F key, there should be a scattering of the squadron as the pilots go evasive to escape the DPS bubble and flak. Just as DDs have a considerable cool down following a torpedo attack, as do BBs relative to their potential attack power, the F key should, trigger a restrictive cool down while the squadron evades, regroups, and returns to the carrier. The cool down period should be roughly the same per tier, but higher tier carriers have access to better aircraft, and possibly more skilled pilots, that reduce the damage taken as the squadron retreats. 

This could open up a new mechanic where CV captains have secondary personnel, squadron captains and lieutenants with abilities of their own. 

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
463
[SOV]
Members
1,472 posts
1 hour ago, Commander_367 said:

You balance CVs by making them available on PTS … as a separate game 

Forever!

This guy put together a very balanced disscution and all you can do is hate. That is sad.

Edited by jags_domain
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
387 posts
6 hours ago, MEANN said:

if people will combine their aa, it should make an attack not possible. the converse is also true that if players group up for aa defense torping becomes the better attack. but to say that grouping should no prohibit and attack i think it would be unfair tot he cooperation of a team 

Cooperation nets you AA that all but guarantees the carrier can only do one attack run or wipe - that's your gain for cooperating. It shouldn't instead make you invulnerable to a certain ship. That would be unfair to carriers. 

If sailing closely together made CA and BB shots useless because they'd get "shot down" and hence only a dd or someone who had torpedoes had ANY chance, that would be just as silly.

Edited by SeigeTank2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[LSGNA]
Members
96 posts
1,102 battles
6 hours ago, SeigeTank2010 said:

Cooperation nets you AA that all but guarantees the carrier can only do one attack run or wipe - that's your gain for cooperating. It shouldn't instead make you invulnerable to a certain ship. That would be unfair to carriers. 

If sailing closely together made CA and BB shots useless because they'd get "shot down" and hence only a dd or someone who had torpedoes had ANY chance, that would be just as silly.

Why would that be unfair? Describe another engagement where a single attacker tries to go after multiple surface vessels and doesn't get pounded. Occasionally, a good DD skipper can successfully nail multiple ships but that's the exception, not the rule. Why should CVs be the only class of ship that enjoys being able to attack a superior force, land a blow that is either chip damage or greater, and not face a serious penalty for doing so? 

CVs should be discouraged from attempting attacks on vessels with good or better AA support. That's where teamwork comes into play with either baiting ships into one on one situations or destroying AA support so CVs can engage with more direct and lower risk attacks. 

Edited by Gum_wars
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
545
[WOLF2]
Members
2,380 posts
14,255 battles
On 2/8/2019 at 3:10 PM, jags_domain said:

This guy put together a very balanced disscution and all you can do is hate. That is sad.

What's sad is that his premise is wrong - you cannot balance carriers any more than you can balance submarines

If you don't care about balance, fine go ahead - I'm sure it will be entertaining for some …  just don't pretend that it's "balanced" 

 

How long do we all have to suffer before you and other defenders/apologists get that into your head?

Edited by Commander_367
  • Cool 2
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
387 posts
2 hours ago, Gum_wars said:

Describe another engagement where a single attacker tries to go after multiple surface vessels and doesn't get pounded.

Describe another engagement where a single ship type becomes permanently useless while the rest of the ship types do not when surface vessels stay near each other and become invulnerable to said ship type.  Other ships can also band together and fight you. Carriers STILL can't attack you at all without wiping all planes until all of you die but one.

Again: carriers are supposed to get 3 attacks per flight. If staying together reduces the effectiveness of carrier squads to be 33%, (only allowing one attack followed by a forced immediate recall, or else your whole squad will wipe), not even being able to stick around for scouting, there's your advantage.

To try making it "we're permanently invulnerable to your ship type by simply sailing together and it won't end unless we decide to stop sailing together or all of us but one is destroyed" is a game-breaking game-mechanic designed to get people to no longer play CVs.

Quote

Realism, to some degree, should be considered.

"To some degree" being the point.  Not at the point of making some ship types permanently invulnerable to others until all but one dies. If reality is what the driving factor is, then give carriers the ability to send 50-100 planes in one attack to attack a group of ships instead of only 9 planes. 

Edited by SeigeTank2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[LSGNA]
Members
96 posts
1,102 battles
10 hours ago, SeigeTank2010 said:

Describe another engagement where a single ship type becomes permanently useless while the rest of the ship types do not when surface vessels stay near each other and become invulnerable to said ship type.  Other ships can also band together and fight you. Carriers STILL can't attack you at all without wiping all planes until all of you die but one.

1

Well, you could argue that if any surface vessel attempted to engage a group of other surface vessels solo, they would become permanently useless, a.k.a, sent to the bottom.  The ships that they attacked would be relatively unharmed save for any chip damage received or lucky shots the solo warrior got in before getting nuked.  Teaming up is the whole point; you band together and attack using coordinated, deliberate tactics and strategy.  Don't be upset that random doesn't really give big incentives for teammates to be helpful or supportive.  To your point about CVs being unable to attack without being deplaned is hyperbole, and you know it.  I've been in plenty of matches post hotfix and if the other team is working together, with a CV captain that isn't blindly throwing their planes at AA monsters, they do quite well.

Quote

Again: carriers are supposed to get 3 attacks per flight. If staying together reduces the effectiveness of carrier squads to be 33%, (only allowing one attack followed by a forced immediate recall, or else your whole squad will wipe), not even being able to stick around for scouting, there's your advantage.

No, CVs should have the opportunity to attack three times, that should not be a guarantee.  It really makes no sense that a poor decision by a bad CV captain should be rewarded with being able to successfully attack three times per squadron.  The theme that seems to be repeating itself here is that you may be having difficulty adapting to the new meta, not that the new meta is critically flawed.

Quote

To try making it "we're permanently invulnerable to your ship type by simply sailing together and it won't end unless we decide to stop sailing together or all of us but one is destroyed" is a game-breaking game-mechanic designed to get people to no longer play CVs.

 

Dude, really?  Think about what you just said.  What happens if ships cluster together?  They become rich targets for long-range attacks, especially DDs with 7km+ torpedoes.  It's a case of rock-paper-scissors, you spot, maybe sacrifice a squadron to force a cluster, then your TEAMMATES drive attacks that leverage the decision for them to cluster.  Again, CVs can still be successful, but they can't do that ridiculous solo warrior crapthat we saw with the Hakuryu.  My Iowa can't single-handedly win a match while farming 300K+ in damage, unless I'm having a ridiculously good game; the point is that performances like that are an outlier.  You understand that before the hotfix, if you had a CV, this was normal.

Quote

"To some degree" being the point.  Not at the point of making some ship types permanently invulnerable to others until all but one dies. If reality is what the driving factor is, then give carriers the ability to send 50-100 planes in one attack to attack a group of ships instead of only 9 planes. 

1

At no time are ships that cluster "permanently invulnerable".  Any other surface ship can engage them.  Again, one ship should not be the constant supreme commander and winner of every match.  Your point about reality is a bit warped too.  The Midway had 100 onboard during WWII but she was top tier.  Most others had 40 to 70 at most.  To be realistic, it would be neat consumable that would let you launch everything in a big hail mary.  It would also be comical to see a CV get deplaned in the first 5 minutes of a match too.  WG could put something like this in and the strategy people would adopt would be to build out full spec AA ships, cluster a convoy, and watch the sky light up.  

Your problem is that the clearly broken mechanic that 0.8 brought to the table made being a CV player, even a bad one, easy to rack up coin with and now its gone.  You don't think its fair that historically powerful AA ships decimate poor decisions made when CVs attack ships grouped together.  Rather than explore what this means concerning your options and strategies, you blame the meta.  C'mon now man, was it fair the way it was before the hotfix?  Is it fair now?  No, I'll agree that the pendulum swung to far over in favor of surface vessels and now WG has more tweaks to do.  Are CVs completely neutered?  No, not even remotely.  I've still be sunk by carriers after the hotfix, and appreciated the methods used to make that happen.  

Bottom line is poor decisions should be rewarded with epic failure.  You shouldn't be guaranteed any attack if you do something dumb an end up overextended.  When I finally got my first fast BB, that was a mistake that I made constantly for the first 10 to 15 games I had.  I'd overextend not paying attention to how fast this big ship got out ahead of the pack and was nuked constantly for doing it.  I didn't complain that it wasn't fair I couldn't hit much when getting pummelled, I adjusted my play to avoid making that mistake and now I'm rewarded for making better tactical decisions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
387 posts
1 hour ago, Gum_wars said:

Well, you could argue that if any surface vessel attempted to engage a group of other surface vessels solo, they would become permanently useless, a.k.a, sent to the bottom. 

And that's assuming they're all targeting you.  And either way you can fire back, inflict damage and take one with you. Does engaging them cause your guns to no longer work, let alone every time it happens so you have no choice but to run away from them and die if they ever catch you? No.   

Quote

At no time are ships that cluster "permanently invulnerable".  Any other surface ship can engage them

I didn't say they're invulnerable to every ship in the game. I said they're invulnerable to carriers. 

Quote

What happens if ships cluster together?  They become rich targets for long-range attacks, especially DDs with 7km+ torpedoes

This after you just got done pointing out how powerful they are together, now you try to imply it's a weakness to stay together.  You're simply changing your claims to suit the point you're trying to make, which is not honest. 

And 7km is not a "long range attack".  And actual long range attacks aren't any 'richer' if there are 2 other ships with them.  They're not 0.5 km near each other where misses on your main target will now simply hit others ships in the group.  2-5 km distance between ships is enough and you won't be hitting another target if you can't aim at your main one, but meanwhile carriers are nullified.

Quote

You shouldn't be guaranteed any attack if you do something dumb an end up overextended. 

You don't overextend: you attack once along the edge, recall immediately, and entire squad wipes anyway. Trying to stick around instead of immediately recalling and go for another attack run in such situations would be overextending and yes would come with significant consequences.

When every ship is grouped up due to knowing it makes carriers useless, it would be silly to just fly around and not attack for 15 minutes just because there are no solo ships anywhere. So you're going to be forced to do one attack instead of 3 or 4, recall immediately, and forced to deal with the fact you'll get wiped. That's only slightly better than flying around for 15 minutes attacking no one but just taking screenshots.

And consider: In a carrier: If you normally can attack 3 or 4 times with one squad, against a group you should at least be able to attack once, be forced to recall immediately (a.k.a., not overextending yourself) and not provide further scouting, only losing 1-2 planes, or else anything more attempted with that attack squadron suffer serious consequences that you won't recover from.  That's still a 66% - 75% reduction in offense capability because of a group of ships and their combined AA, which is already a HUGE win for the ships grouping together.

To demand it be 100% reduction just because there's a ship or two nearby is just over the top and shows how some people don't want balance with CVs, they just want to nullify them so bad no one can play them as everyone just groups up and makes them useless until the last few minutes of a battle - that's what some want to call balance when it's anything but.

Edited by SeigeTank2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[LSGNA]
Members
96 posts
1,102 battles

Overextended for a CV is obviously not the same for a BB, CA, or DD. Your also deliberately taking my points out of context to suit your argument. The balance struck in the game is that no strategy is unanswerable. Clustered ships AA too powerful? A CV needs its team to be effective in breaking them up.  7k range torpedoes on a DD that can't be detected at 7k is long enough to get the job done. I've been on the receiving end of torpedo attacks where I never even see the ship that fired them. 

My point is that CVs at the start of the rework were, collectively, too powerful. Not one or two, all of them. At lower tiers surface ships don't have adequate AA to be effective even in groups. At higher tiers CVs became unstoppable due to a broken AA mechanic and absolutely horrendous functional oversights in play mechanics that gave CVs unlimited ability to attack without ever being answered. You understand this, right? Your persistent claim that the hot fix has crippled CV play does not align with play statistics or what I've personally experienced. Carriers are still relevant and dangerous if played intelligently. 

The bottem line is that this is a team game and no single vessel class should be able to dominate the others without challenge. That's what the rework started with and how games played out reflected that. Two CVs per side resulted in seeing which players knew how to effectively work the exploits first, and ever other player on both sides became targets for the CVs. If you were lucky, you ended up on the side whose CVs worked the exploits better and it was a steamroll. I can't tell you how many matches ended in under ten minutes with one side only losing two or three ships. I actually had CV players apologizing for how bad it was. Under tier 6 and they could attack you relentlessly with no way to fight back. Occasionally you'd catch one in range of a long shot but that was the exception. 

I stand firmly on the ground that CV play was broken after the rework and is far better balanced now than before. For you to defend that mechanic speaks volumes about what kind of player you are. If you want to just win win win regardless of how other people aren't enjoying the game then go to coop or find a single player game. The rework was broken and the hot fix is a step towards getting things back in line. Other patches will follow that move the needle closer to center. Right now, and I've stated this before, AA is too powerful, it does need to be tweaked. At the same time, bad tactics should never be rewarded. If a flotilla of five USN AA monsters are rolling together, a CV player should be looking for softer targets. To even suggest that you should be able to fire off one attack is absurd, let alone three. 

Your points about clustering shutting down CV play for entire matches is pure hyperbole too. The match constantly transforms as the clock winds down. Fewer ships can't cluster. Before the hot fix you did have clusters to the end because even being in groups of three ended badly due to the lack of balance issues. Again, if you've been playing a good match and lasted long enough to make it to the end game, your reward will be ships on their own. 

Anyway, your responses clearly point to where you on this issue; the rework was fine and you were okay with anyone not playing a CV being miserable. The hot fix sucks because you can't dominate the way you did before and rather than trying to figure out how to play under the new rules, its easier to say WG is unfair and the new meta is broken. Frankly, you're in a minority, game play that I've witnessed says CV players can still be determinate as players, and you'll likely be disappointed going forward. I don't imagine any tweaks to restore CVs to that one week of lopsided play. 

Balance means that the difference between winning and losing is the due to the skill of the players. The ships are woven into a web of checks where ships are outdone by one class but are equals or better to others. CV players enjoy unequaled speed and an ability to spot that is still super powerful. I had two BBs and one DD set up as stealth builds and with the nerf to CE, I spend most of the game spotted. Now, because of that change I've gone back and respecced several ships, I didn't complain that it was unfair. 

I don't want CV play to be kept in a box, I want it to be fair. I'm not convinced that superior AA should be irrelevant to a poorly decided attack. I definitely don't agree that CV play is botched. 

The hot fix has improved the game, period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,111
[BOSS]
Beta Testers
2,747 posts
10,891 battles

Honestly the easy way out of this is to lessen the AA somewhat, stop the exploding flak squads and the big one is this:

Instead of the remaining planes that did not join the attack run flying straight into the AA bubble they peel off and regroup outside the AA zone. That way, you may lose the planes that went in for the drop but you don't lose the other 8 as the camera zooms back to them flying straight over the AA zone.  You can then decide to attack a different ship or peel away from the group, saving those 8 planes for another time (or however many didn't attack). 

As it stands right now those idiot pilots just fly right over the damn fleet doing nothing but getting killed.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
387 posts
Quote

Overextended for a CV is obviously not the same for a BB, CA, or DD.

Attacking 2 or 3 ships that are 1-5km near each other is not 'over-extending', yet CVs are the only class that are prohibited from doing so as your entire squad would wipe and you may not even get the attack off to boot. And even if you did, you will soon not have any planes left and won't be able to attack for the remainder of the match anyway.

Quote

The balance struck in the game is that no strategy is unanswerable. 

It's not balance if a CV cannot do a thing about 2+ ships staying 1-5km near each other without wiping all their planes while everyone else can still attack them. It's not about a strategy not being answerable to the enemy team - it's about a "strategy" of making yourself invulnerable to one ship type in a game.

Quote

My point is that CVs at the start of the rework were, collectively, too powerful. 

I never said otherwise. But the only thing broken was tier X IJN which could get all their torpedoes off from a distance and flood the waters with torpedoes.  The Midway could only attack once and recall immediately and lose only 1 or 2 planes, staying around longer would cause a complete wipe. But now they're useless and some seem determined to keep them that way, liking the fact 2 + ships sailing near each other currently are invulnerable to CVs, which will wipe all their planes even if they manage to get one attack off.  And some try to call this balanced, which of course just shows their version of balanced is to help make sure CVs are not playable. We are currently back to not seeing carriers in hardly any games at tier 8 - 10. When I don't play a carrier, maybe 1 game out of 3 will I see one. Even the devs admitted it broke carriers and they're changing it more.  Yet those who do not like CVs claim "it's balanced". 

Quote

Your points about clustering shutting down CV play for entire matches is pure hyperbole too. The match constantly transforms as the clock winds down. 

If the group stays together for the whole match and is not dealt with then they DO remain invulnerable to a CV.  Of COURSE if you wait 15 minutes for solo ships to finally appear that will happen. But even at the end of the game if they regroup, they become invulnerable to a CV who will lose all its planes if it attacks.  That some think it's "balanced" for any ship to just do nothing but waiting 15 minutes for a chance to attack something that is no longer within 5-7km of anything else says it all. That's not balanced - that's called ruining a class in a game to become broken, while you watch everyone else play and hope you're given a chance to actually attack as well.

It says it all that those who do not like CVs don't want anyone else to play them and won't even accept the fact that when they can attack 3-4 times but can only attack once and recall immediately with no scouting or be wiped out is still not good enough - they want it so CVs cannot attack at all unless a ship has no allies within 5-7km. Hopefully the devs stop listening to such viewpoints.  It is clear the goal of some is to make it so CVs are about useless, which of course comes with the intended effect of hardly anyone playing them again.  

Edited by SeigeTank2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[AK-47]
Members
174 posts
3,374 battles

just wanna WG allow us to manually aim AA guns as well as secondaries, so there is more counter play and feels more fun

Edited by Tom_Lin
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
218
[RLGN]
Members
674 posts
5,278 battles
2 hours ago, Tom_Lin said:

just wanna WG allow us to manually aim AA guns as well as secondaries, so there is more counter play and feels more fun

I want this SO BAD but sadly I don't think they ever will, plus there will be a whole crowd of mostly CL players yelling about focusing on anything but their main battery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[LSGNA]
Members
96 posts
1,102 battles
7 hours ago, SeigeTank2010 said:

Attacking 2 or 3 ships that are 1-5km near each other is not 'over-extending', yet CVs are the only class that are prohibited from doing so as your entire squad would wipe and you may not even get the attack off to boot. And even if you did, you will soon not have any planes left and won't be able to attack for the remainder of the match anyway. 

1
1

Here's why what you're saying is just flat-out wrong.  Here's a fictional but plausible scenario; you have an engagement with four surface ships with the lineup being 3 on 1.  On team A, the numerically superior force, you've got a Republique, Minotaur, and Zao going against an Iowa.  All four players are relatively equal in terms of skill, and the engagement happens at the start of the match with all ships at full health.  How do you think this is going to turn out for the Iowa?  If you say anything other than the Iowa getting splattered and maybe one of those three opposing ships taking damage, then you'd need to carefully explain why that would be the case.

If a three on one is no good for a very capable surface ship, then why should it be any different for a CV?  

Quote

It's not balance if a CV cannot do a thing about 2+ ships staying 1-5km near each other without wiping all their planes while everyone else can still attack them. It's not about a strategy not being answerable to the enemy team - it's about a "strategy" of making yourself invulnerable to one ship type in a game.

1

There you go again with hyperbole.  I've never seen a CV attack go sideways against even two strong AA surface ships with all aircraft getting wiped before an attack goes off.  Again, what you're saying doesn't line up with reality.  I know I've personally experienced different, post hotfix, and you'd find the same asking other players as well.

Quote

I never said otherwise. But the only thing broken was tier X IJN which could get all their torpedoes off from a distance and flood the waters with torpedoes.  The Midway could only attack once and recall immediately and lose only 1 or 2 planes, staying around longer would cause a complete wipe. But now they're useless and some seem determined to keep them that way, liking the fact 2 + ships sailing near each other currently are invulnerable to CVs, which will wipe all their planes even if they manage to get one attack off.  And some try to call this balanced, which of course just shows their version of balanced is to help make sure CVs are not playable. We are currently back to not seeing carriers in hardly any games at tier 8 - 10. When I don't play a carrier, maybe 1 game out of 3 will I see one. Even the devs admitted it broke carriers and they're changing it more.  Yet those who do not like CVs claim "it's balanced". 

 
 

Yes, you did, and you're saying the same thing again right now.  CVs had the clear advantage at any tier pre-hotfix.  From tier 6 to 10, CVs had free reign to attack without consequence and could do so for the entire match.  Case in point, I recall a battle I had on a two CV per side conflict.  I was in a New Mexico and made it to the endgame with myself and a DD remaining against a lone IJN CV.  Post hotfix, the enemy CV would have likely be running with depleted squadrons.  Pre-hotfix and he had full strength attack capability because at tier 6, there aren't any vessels that have a significant AA presence, which is odd because before the rework, my NM did a fairly decent job.  With less than 5 on the clock, this CV basically torped the ever living hell out of me, with me racking up close to 15K in aircraft damage, but not a single plane shot down.  So, no, I'm afraid you are flat out wrong that the Hakuryu was the only problem.  I don't know what tier you play up to, but it only got worse in the higher tier matches.  It may be the case that you hadn't mastered all the exploits, but the F key was a defect that worked for all CVs, not just one.

Quote

If the group stays together for the whole match and is not dealt with then they DO remain invulnerable to a CV.  Of COURSE if you wait 15 minutes for solo ships to finally appear that will happen. But even at the end of the game if they regroup, they become invulnerable to a CV who will lose all its planes if it attacks.  That some think it's "balanced" for any ship to just do nothing but waiting 15 minutes for a chance to attack something that is no longer within 5-7km of anything else says it all. That's not balanced - that's called ruining a class in a game to become broken, while you watch everyone else play and hope you're given a chance to actually attack as well.

1
1

I don't know what to say here; its clear your play style seems to demand the ability to hammer people from the start.  I'm starting to suspect your individual play style is the problem here, not the meta.  I've watched dozens of matches post hotfix where the CV is a contributing member to the action, just not in the unlimited capacity they were right after the rework.  I'm still seeing CVs win matches, using teamwork rather than lone wolf crap, and place high on the board too.  The difference now is that CVs aren't always in the number 1 & 2 spot, like they were before the hotfix.

Quote

It says it all that those who do not like CVs don't want anyone else to play them and won't even accept the fact that when they can attack 3-4 times but can only attack once and recall immediately with no scouting or be wiped out is still not good enough - they want it so CVs cannot attack at all unless a ship has no allies within 5-7km. Hopefully the devs stop listening to such viewpoints.  It is clear the goal of some is to make it so CVs are about useless, which of course comes with the intended effect of hardly anyone playing them again. 

Absolute [edited].  All you've done here is whine about not being able to rule the battlefield.  As stated before, and you've yet responded with a valid answer, is that CV players should be punished for bad decisions just like every other ship class.  You go on and on about how unfair it is that you can't get one attack off when engaging multiple ships without ever thinking that maybe, just maybe the reason you are having a hard time is that you haven't adjusted to the rework.  It should be very evident to you that the reason these tactics fail now is because that was exactly the aim of the devs.  Those tactics, if you can call them that, broke the game for everyone other than one class of ship.  Let's say for the sake of this argument I agree with you (and to be clear, I don't) and say the hotfix has broken play for CVs; I'd much rather have the game broken for one ship class over the game being broken for all but one.  

I don't mind, at all, going up against CVs in random.  They create a dynamic environment that requires attention to respond to.  As a BB main, having to watch my angles against enemy fire while simultaneously needing to manage sectors and what side I'm facing to an incoming squadron makes the game very challenging in a good way.  Before, it didn't matter what sector was reinforced, the only tool at my disposal was trying to dodge, which was only moderately successful against bombs and rockets.  Torpedos were ridiculous pre-hotfix.

Edited by Gum_wars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
387 posts
Quote

How do you think this is going to turn out for the Iowa?

Do the Iowa's guns become disabled, unable to fire? Or if He fires, will all his guns wipe out?  That's what happens to carriers. Not the same thing. 

And no, the Iowa will be able to attack still (unlike a carrier) and won't lose if he has allies. If Carrier has allies and they're all firing at that group, it's only the carrier that cannot fire at that group. Again: the group becomes invulnerable to carriers, no one else. The point you dishonestly ignore.

Quote

I've never seen a CV attack go sideways against even two strong AA surface ships with all aircraft getting wiped before an attack goes off.

Which only shows you don't play CVs, and secondly: why would you "see" it when you're busy playing your non-CV?

Quote

CVs had the clear advantage at any tier pre-hotfix.  From tier 6 to 10, CVs had free reign to attack without consequence and could do so for the entire match. 

No, only IJN tier X torps, who could fire from 6km out instead of 4.

You deny this fact, which shows you're either ignorant or just flat out lying.

DDs can choose to have free reign to attack without consequences and can do so the entire match if they refuse to try capping. Unless another DD finds you. Same for carrier.  Except carriers are easily spottable by other carrier planes unless you run all the way to the edge of the map.  And carriers can't cap without guaranteed death unless there's only 1 or 2 ships left at end game. DDs can cap easily nearer to end game.  

Of course you cannot address this either, so no doubt will ignore it too.

Quote

its clear your play style seems to demand the ability to hammer people from the start.

So not being able to attack for 15 minutes, as I said and am trying to address, you respond with "oh you just demand the ability to hammer people from the start".  

No, carriers want to be able to attack ships for the duration of the match just like every other ship.  Even if it's at 75% reduced efficiency of only being able to get one attack in per squad instead of 4.  Be thankful 3/4th of your guns don't stop working until 10-15 minutes into the match. Or better yet, be thankful it's not the case that none of your guns will work for 10-15 minutes of the match. 

At the start of matches now, most every ship is grouped up with not just 2, but 3-4 ships. If you attack that in a CV you wipe. To counter it you'd have to lie and claim Carriers can attack a group of 3 or 4 ships and not wipe their planes, which of course would be a lie.  You ignore these facts and can only "counter" with "that's not true... " then run away, which proves my point.

Yet you want to make it so none of the CVs attacks work for first 15 minutes and those who want 25% of their attacks to work are "oh you just demand the ability to hammer people from the start". No, we want the ability to play the game like every other ship has: groups firing on groups at the start, but carriers cannot fire on groups without wiping every plane in the squad and soon becoming a ghost ship if you insist on repeating.  People like you of course have to ignore this and pretend it wasn't said. 

It's clear you demand the ability to hammer people and can't stand the fact that carriers challenge your ability to do that.

You've only played 41 matches with carriers, only as high as tier 6.  I've played over 600 with carriers alone, including tier 10 . You admitted you rage-sold all your carriers, yet now want to pontificate to everyone else with no experience playing carriers, let alone any carrier over tier 6, and even then only a dozen or so matches at tier 6.

Seems your only intent is to make sure carriers remain as useless as they were before the last patch.  Not to mention you have absolutely NO experience playing carriers at tier 8 or 10. 

Quote

All you've done here is whine about not being able to rule the battlefield.

Wanting to be able to use 25% of my firepower for 10-15 minutes of match instead of 0% for 10-15 minutes of match that you demand is trying to rule the battlefield? How so?

I leave you to your 40 matches playing tier 6 carrier to pontificate to the rest of us how carriers are supposedly fine.

 

 


 

Edited by SeigeTank2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
527
[CUTIE]
Members
1,533 posts
6,641 battles

The issue with the 0.8.0 variant was that the whole "squadrons get destroyed after their first drop" thing only applied when a CV was attacking a target inside the umbrella of one or more powerful AA ships...which is kind of how it should work, when you think about it.  Only in this case, the issue was exacerbated by the fact that everyone was playing only the best AA ships (or were playing carriers), because new much-hyped mechanic and of course people are going to react that way.  So the natural progression was that CV players adapted their tactics to take advantage of the game mechanics, and then you end up with no ship being able to effectively combat air strikes because WarGaming didn't take into account that people would use the F key preemptively.  That's not an acceptable result--strong AA ships, particularly when operating together, should be able to defend themselves from air attacks, and it should cost the carrier a lot of planes should they attempt to strike them anyway.

Then 0.8.0.1 came along and broke carriers in the opposite direction.  AA values were raised too high, and again since everyone was either playing a carrier or playing a ship specifically picked to combat carrier aircraft, and suddenly every CV player felt like that one poor sod in a Bismarck when he's the only tier 8 in a tier 10 battle.  Then since they coupled the AA adjustment with a nerf to the action of time of manual returns (F key), carriers trying to strike through even a moderate AA bubble were still only going to get 1 wave on target, but were also going to lose most of the other two waves because for some reason they just tool along merrily into the flak clouds while watching their comrades drop munitions.  This is also not an acceptable result--the whole point of the CV rework was to make carrier play more accessible to the player base and lower the dependence on RNG, except now even fewer people want to play carriers and nearly every strike is decided by RNG.

From the point of view of somebody who does not player carriers, but can accept them as being part of the game (me)...

  1. Eliminate the F key completely.  Allow carrier pilots to return their planes to the CV at any point they wish to, by manually increasing altitude until they are out of effective AA range and then manually flying them back to the ship.  Whenever they get with 3km or whatever of the flat-top, then you get a key to push so they can land via animation.  If a player wishes to pull up out of AA range and then initiate a new strike, they can do that (so long as loaded strike aircraft remain), but munitions cannot be dropped until a few seconds (2-3) after they have descended back to attack altitude, to cut down on the potential for abuse.  Aircraft which have successfully dropped their weapons will still return to the carrier automatically, as they do now.  In this way, manually recalling your strike squadrons can still save you aircraft, but it will be offset by a longer wait until the next strike can be launched.
  2. All squadrons get a time aloft limit of 2 minutes (for T10; scaled longer for lower-tier aircraft to account for airspeed differences).  If that seems short, time how long it takes for an attack squadron to fly across the map and make all 3 drops in a high tier CV; it ain't long.  I suggest 2 minutes because when a CV has been sunk, the last squadron aloft gets 3 minutes to fight on...assuming that those planes just crash into the sea after running out of fuel, a shorter time frame for planes which can actually fly back to their base makes sense.
  3. Attack planes no longer spot, period.  Instead, each carrier gets a limited number of charges, with a 1-second cooldown, for a spotter plane consumable.  The spotter plane can be manually targeted at a specific grid square on the map, at which point it will fly to that grid and provide continuous spotting for its 2-minute flight duration; the spotter plane will remain invulnerable to AA fire for the entire time it is on station--it can only be shot down by carrier-based fighters deployed to the same grid square.  The limitations on this consumable should go a long way toward alleviating the carrier spotting issue (particularly for DDs), but the nature of the consumable will still allow for carrier players to provide spotting both for their team and for their own strikes.  The limited number of charges will also allow for different strategies--a CV player could spam his spotters over objectives at the beginning of a match, looking to give his team a big early advantage, but that player would then be dependent upon his team to do the spotting for him later in the battle; alternately, the CV player could hold his spotters in reserve to use primarily (or only) for his own offensive purposes.  In the case of a ship dropping into concealment after an attack run has been initiated, that ship would continue to be visible to the strike aircraft so long as the aiming reticule stays on the screen (i.e., the planes are still at risk of AA fire).
  4. Tier 6 and high carriers should immediately be restricted to no more than 1 per team again.  Not just because of the spotting issues and/or sheer annoyance to certain non-CV players, but because the glut of carriers suddenly thrown into random battles during what is essentially an open test is corrupting whatever data WarGaming collects from it.  Again, when multiple carriers become the rule in every high tier battle and the entire player base knows this, people are obviously going to stack the deck with strong AA ships coupled with AA builds to both modules and captains.  This is not at all indicative of what can be expected when things settle back down and players will never be threatened by the presence of more than one enemy carrier.  As is, AA appears stronger than it would be in a more balanced meta, regardless of the precise AA values plugged in.  Getting the testing conditions to close to where they'd be in a more natural meta will provide much better data, and allow for more timely and accurate adjustments as needed.
  5. Given all of these changes, and what we've already seen in game, adjustments obviously need to be made as to raw damage inflicted by successful strikes, as well as DOT chances, to bring carriers in line to where they can effectively contribute to their team, at all tiers, but cannot single-handedly dominate a battle.  Ideally to bring average damage totals roughly in line with other ship types at their tiers, or perhaps slightly higher given the limitation of one CV per team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
398 posts

buff the restoration time on the planes to make up for the over buffed AA ? so that losing a whole  squadrons do not hurt as bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
387 posts
Quote

The issue with the 0.8.0 variant was that the whole "squadrons get destroyed after their first drop" thing only applied when a CV was attacking a target inside the umbrella of one or more powerful AA ships...which is kind of how it should work, when you think about it. 

In real life, perhaps. In a game, no. What was happening at Tier 8/10 is 2+ ships would stay near each other and you'd wipe all 9 planes after at best getting an attack off.  2 attack runs you have no planes left. 15 minutes later you get 9 planes back, effectively making 2 or more ships 1-5km apart invulnerable to carriers.

Quote

Eliminate the F key completely.  Allow carrier pilots to return their planes to the CV at any point they wish to, by manually increasing altitude until they are out of effective AA range and then manually flying them back to the ship.  Whenever they get with 3km or whatever of the flat-top, then you get a key to push so they can land via animation.

No, carriers should not have to wait 2-3X as long as BBs to get a shot off.  And we should be able to use recall the moment our attack run starts so that planes do not part of the attack do not mindlessly fly over enemy ships, which you would never allow, and then get wiped after recalls.

Quote

All squadrons get a time aloft limit of 2 minutes (for T10; scaled longer for lower-tier aircraft to account for airspeed differences).  If that seems short, time how long it takes for an attack squadron to fly across the map and make all 3 drops in a high tier CV; it ain't long.  

As the patch stands you can't get 3 attacks in. And secondly, since you're forced to pick better targets, you'd many times need more than 2 minutes to do so.

Quote

Attack planes no longer spot, period.  Instead, each carrier gets a limited number of charges, with a 1-second cooldown, for a spotter plane consumable. 

Sure, as soon as DD's no longer stealth and CA's no longer get AA, although you can make DD stealth and CA AA only a consumable.

Quote

Given all of these changes, and what we've already seen in game, adjustments obviously need to be made as to raw damage inflicted by successful strikes, as well as DOT chances, to bring carriers in line to where they can effectively contribute to their team, at all tiers, but cannot single-handedly dominate a battle.

Before the patch, BBs and DDs could single-handedly dominate a battle. Carriers should sometimes be able to do likewise. The only reason people don't like that is because they want to sometimes be able to single-handedly dominate a battle in their BB or DD while not allowing CV players to challenge this

I just played a 7 on 7 tier X battle after 2nd hotfix and had to spend whole match fending off 4 DDs which were coming for me and coming to cap.  I got 15k damage which suggests they've nerfed attack plane damage as I didn't kill a single one of them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,566 posts
4,264 battles
On 2/8/2019 at 1:53 PM, MEANN said:

I will disagree with you here. if people will combine their aa, it should make an attack not possible. the converse is also true that if players group up for aa defense torping becomes the better attack. but to say that grouping should no prohibit and attack i think it would be unfair tot he cooperation of a team 

Only if CVs got their long drops back.

Obviously not hak style multi drops but the old school long drop that CVs used to engage AA level nope ships or clusters with. That were never complained about.

Instead of the point blank drop that was constantly complained about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
387 posts

So are devs going to put out another iteration of the fix?  At the start of the match and sometimes for 10-15 minutes, all ships are in groups of at least 2, sometimes up to 4 or 5 - all other ships can fight those ships in groups, but only carrier cannot "fire" at all without your entire squad wiping.

Devs: Please fix the game so carriers can still be at least 25% effective by having ONE attack and recall and only lose out of the 9 planes 2 or 3, not ALL NINE and hence you're really not able to participate at all as long as the ships stay in groups and now you have to fly around and watch everyone else play OR make your carrier a ghost ship after your planes are all wiped trying to attack 2+ ships that are within 1-7k of each other.

Edited by SeigeTank2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[FATE]
Members
332 posts
8,607 battles
On 2/9/2019 at 4:12 AM, Gum_wars said:

Describe another engagement where a single attacker tries to go after multiple surface vessels and doesn't get pounded. Occasionally, a good DD skipper can successfully nail multiple ships but that's the exception, not the rule.

Occasionally is a stretch here.  Thats pretty much the premise of the Asashio, as well as the IJN torp boats in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×