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

CV Gameplay/AA Ranges

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

12
[RBW]
[RBW]
Members
34 posts
8,744 battles

I think the new cv gameplay is garbage but thats not why im writing this. Please put the AA Ranges back to the way they were. All the changes made it so that there is a smaller window to shoot At Airplanes and now a lot of AA is use just useless. Even a fully spec AA Montana cant shoot down 1 midway plane. There is not enough time for the AA guns to even fire long enough to do anything. Everyone is telling me that CV are op right now. I think they are garbage with a free pass to do dmg. Revert the AA so that the AA stats can actually be viable in game.  

 

Now if you made these changes for group play.... Then let us play in groups bigger then 3 people in random. Otherwise these changes are for competition, if thats the case, take the Cvs out of random. 

 

A lot of people will disagree with me, thats fine but if Gaming developers cant learn to build proper Metas for games you minds as well quit. BAD METAS ARE THE DEATH OF ALL GAMES. <--- this means if the opponent does 1 thing, i should be able to do something to counter it, right now I have to lean on others for the counter.... Do i need to remind you of the community we play with..... tier10 broadside battles, People w/o aa at all,  DDs who rush in, Cruisers that present themselves to BBs, ................................................................................................................................................................

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,638
[TARK]
Members
3,319 posts
1,435 battles
Just now, Harry_McFly said:

I think the new cv gameplay is garbage but thats not why im writing this. Please put the AA Ranges back to the way they were. All the changes made it so that there is a smaller window to shoot At Airplanes and now a lot of AA is use just useless. Even a fully spec AA Montana cant shoot down 1 midway plane. There is not enough time for the AA guns to even fire long enough to do anything. Everyone is telling me that CV are op right now. I think they are garbage with a free pass to do dmg. Revert the AA so that the AA stats can actually be viable in game.  

 

Now if you made these changes for group play.... Then let us play in groups bigger then 3 people in random. Otherwise these changes are for competition, if thats the case, take the Cvs out of random. 

 

A lot of people will disagree with me, thats fine but if Gaming developers cant learn to build proper Metas for games you minds as well quit. BAD METAS ARE THE DEATH OF ALL GAMES. <--- this means if the opponent does 1 thing, i should be able to do something to counter it, right now I have to lean on others for the counter.... Do i need to remind you of the community we play with..... tier10 broadside battles, People w/o aa at all,  DDs who rush in, Cruisers that present themselves to BBs, ................................................................................................................................................................

AA alone will always be insufficient to protect you from air attack.

Much better to give us a way to actively call or vector fighters to any location, not just where the strike squadron is physically located.

Active fighter defense restores some initiative to the defending ships.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,422
[CAFE]
Beta Testers
4,495 posts

Go play CV's then get back to us on AA and "how to fix them"

 

All these Do this and that to CV's from people who don't even play the class to know how it works.

 

If ships can defend themselves from Planes, then CV's would be broken and unplayable.    BB's still do the same Average Dmg as CV's.    Once again.. there are 10x  T10 Ships that average more damage than the Midway.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[RBW]
[RBW]
Members
34 posts
8,744 battles
20 minutes ago, Spyde said:

Go play CV's then get back to us on AA and "how to fix them"

 

All these Do this and that to CV's from people who don't even play the class to know how it works.

 

If ships can defend themselves from Planes, then CV's would be broken and unplayable.    BB's still do the same Average Dmg as CV's.    Once again.. there are 10x  T10 Ships that average more damage than the Midway.

I have 3 tier 8 cvs.... You wanna try that again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,422
[CAFE]
Beta Testers
4,495 posts
10 minutes ago, Harry_McFly said:

I have 3 tier 8 cvs.... You wanna try that again?

Yep i looked you up. 5 games in randoms with CV's.. rest can look up how you did in them if they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[RBW]
[RBW]
Members
34 posts
8,744 battles
31 minutes ago, Spyde said:

Yep i looked you up. 5 games in randoms with CV's.. rest can look up how you did in them if they want.

All it took. I figured out how to abuse it. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,422
[CAFE]
Beta Testers
4,495 posts
1 minute ago, Harry_McFly said:

All it took. I figured out how to abuse it. 

:Smile_teethhappy:       Probly the most amusing thing i've read today.     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[RBW]
[RBW]
Members
34 posts
8,744 battles

You seem to understand, why don't you explain how balanced it is. I hope there's not a cat in the room.

Edited by Harry_McFly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,211
[H_]
Members
2,432 posts

OK, as a never, ever going to play CV's player, if this is a discussion on AA, what are the conclusions? 

On a side note, Carriers should be able to directly fight carriers !  The carrier CAP was one of the most important tools and roles CV's had in WW2 !!!    I am astounded that Carriers can't actively plan for, engage in and fight with directly,  incoming attack aircraft; and, have enough "value" in doing so to make it worth their while to defend SAG's and to seek out and destroy the enemy carrier(s)....  This make no sense to me.  A game within a game is where we will find balance !  And, a great carrier driver would be the carrier that has CAP where and when it is needed and then, can find and destroy the enemy's carrier(s) hiding out of LOS and behind Islands........   This endless meta where damage against ship that do not have a CAP is just a meta gimmick to sell Carriers.....and, does nothing for the quality of the game nor, and is especially, a bad idea for the retention of players.....  Talk about stupid is as stupid does............for a few more pennies???

Back to AA..........what's the conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,737
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
4,894 posts
15,569 battles
11 minutes ago, Harry_McFly said:

You seem to understand why dont you explain how balanced it is. 

He already did,.  In his first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[RBW]
[RBW]
Members
34 posts
8,744 battles
12 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

He already did,.  In his first post.

He did not, hes not taking into account that AA can be dmg, So a powerful CV becomes OP by the end of the game. A CV should think twice about attacking a BB at the beginning of the game, but he does not. 

Edited by Harry_McFly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,737
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
4,894 posts
15,569 battles
3 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

On a side note, Carriers should be able to directly fight carriers !  The carrier CAP was one of the most important tools and roles CV's had in WW2 !!!    I am astounded that Carriers can't actively plan for, engage in and fight with directly,  incoming attack aircraft; and, have enough "value" in doing so to make it worth their while to defend SAG's and to seek out and destroy the enemy carrier(s)....  This make no sense to me.  A game within a game is where we will find balance !  And, a great carrier driver would be the carrier that has CAP where and when it is needed and then, can find and destroy the enemy's carrier(s) hiding out of LOS and behind Islands........   This endless meta where damage against ship that do not have a CAP is just a meta gimmick to sell Carriers.....and, does nothing for the quality of the game nor, and is especially, a bad idea for the retention of players.....  Talk about stupid is as stupid does............for a few more pennies???

Back to AA..........what's the conclusion?

First off, a CV player can strike the opposing carrier...just like a he can strike any other ship.  No single ship is immune to a same tier CV squadron.  There are some ships immune to lower tier squadrons...shredding every one before they can get a drop.  The big change is there is no longer the alpha strike kill capability on CVs.  But CVs are not immune to strikes.  

There are CV tactics and CV strategy. CV STRATEGY wins games.  And one of the critical strategy pieces is DPM.  A CV captain who can deliver a superior DPM, will go a long way to helping a team win the game.  Running a long range strike against the opposing carrier, even if successful, can be a losing strategy because of time...and lost DPM elsewhere.  In a similar vein, CVs who hide way in the back...again...longer flights to a target...less DPM.  CVs need to push too.  Depends on MM...and the map...and many other factors.... buy CV movement and location is a critical part of strategy.  An equal attribute of strategy is spotting.  Spotting with squadrons, and even fighter drops.

As for the AA conclusion.  I play all ships types.  I love to play CVs...and I love to play CA/CL vs CVs.  I also play BBs and DDs, and believe I've grasped the ability to do well whether CVs are present or not.  No matter what ship I play, I feel like I've got the equipment to do the job.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[RBW]
[RBW]
Members
34 posts
8,744 battles

After reading all of this thread, I still think AA ranges should be put back to the way they were. Taking out AA on a ship makes the CV rely on teammates, just as we rely on CVs. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,211
[H_]
Members
2,432 posts

I'm in your camp.  One ship to rule them all is a pure FPS arcade paradigm...  Yes, it sells a lot of carriers but harms the player base.  It seems we keep getting caught between we are a "team" game versus a pure "First Person Shooter" arcade game.  Of course, the meta's, all of them over the years exploit the nuances of those choices....

I play less, spend nothing and await our hosts conclusions and future choices....  Sadly, we have lost a great many of our long acquainted, in-game friends to this latest silliness; and, if we are not careful, all will be gone and off to other games......  It's just the normal, mature game cycle to do so and I am baffled our host would take this path???

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
387 posts
7,567 battles
4 hours ago, Harry_McFly said:

I think the new cv gameplay is garbage but thats not why im writing this. Please put the AA Ranges back to the way they were. All the changes made it so that there is a smaller window to shoot At Airplanes and now a lot of AA is use just useless. Even a fully spec AA Montana cant shoot down 1 midway plane. There is not enough time for the AA guns to even fire long enough to do anything. Everyone is telling me that CV are op right now. I think they are garbage with a free pass to do dmg. Revert the AA so that the AA stats can actually be viable in game.  

 

Now if you made these changes for group play.... Then let us play in groups bigger then 3 people in random. Otherwise these changes are for competition, if thats the case, take the Cvs out of random. 

 

A lot of people will disagree with me, thats fine but if Gaming developers cant learn to build proper Metas for games you minds as well quit. BAD METAS ARE THE DEATH OF ALL GAMES. <--- this means if the opponent does 1 thing, i should be able to do something to counter it, right now I have to lean on others for the counter.... Do i need to remind you of the community we play with..... tier10 broadside battles, People w/o aa at all,  DDs who rush in, Cruisers that present themselves to BBs, ................................................................................................................................................................

Another Anti CV rant by a player that has played less than 10 Matches in post rework CVs.

Look, i don't know how you truly feel about CVs as you do have 400 games played in pre rework CVs. Why don't you go and play 50 to 100 matches in CVs now that the rework is done and experience for yourself what AA is like from a CVs POV. 

Do that then come back to the forums and state your case for or against CV play, until you do that you will not be taken seriously and only come across as another player crying about mechanics they don't understand. I say this with respect, but really the AA game has changed much in the cv rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,187 posts
4,322 battles
3 hours ago, Asym_KS said:

OK, as a never, ever going to play CV's player, if this is a discussion on AA, what are the conclusions? 

On a side note, Carriers should be able to directly fight carriers !  The carrier CAP was one of the most important tools and roles CV's had in WW2 !!!    I am astounded that Carriers can't actively plan for, engage in and fight with directly,  incoming attack aircraft; and, have enough "value" in doing so to make it worth their while to defend SAG's and to seek out and destroy the enemy carrier(s)....  This make no sense to me.  A game within a game is where we will find balance !  And, a great carrier driver would be the carrier that has CAP where and when it is needed and then, can find and destroy the enemy's carrier(s) hiding out of LOS and behind Islands........   This endless meta where damage against ship that do not have a CAP is just a meta gimmick to sell Carriers.....and, does nothing for the quality of the game nor, and is especially, a bad idea for the retention of players.....  Talk about stupid is as stupid does............for a few more pennies???

Back to AA..........what's the conclusion?

Find a mirror and look at yourself in it. Imagine the mirror you represent the entire player base that was vocal on how they thought CVs should be "Fixed" prior to the rework.

Now imagine You're WG and address the following items and how you balance them.

1. Strafe is op vs without strafe fighters are useless.

2. CVs should protect the fleet vs the skilled CV player just shuts down the less skilled player

3. Skilled CVs gain map control and perma spot everything vs less skilled CVs lump all their squadrons together and do not spot anything

4. AA should kill planes vs less skilled CVs just get their planes wiped and are useless.

Now look back at the mirror you and say "This rework is exactly what you asked for".  Then walk away and shake your head.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,211
[H_]
Members
2,432 posts
45 minutes ago, StoneRhino said:

Find a mirror and look at yourself in it. Imagine the mirror you represent the entire player base that was vocal on how they thought CVs should be "Fixed" prior to the rework.

Now imagine You're WG and address the following items and how you balance them.

1. Strafe is op vs without strafe fighters are useless.

2. CVs should protect the fleet vs the skilled CV player just shuts down the less skilled player

3. Skilled CVs gain map control and perma spot everything vs less skilled CVs lump all their squadrons together and do not spot anything

4. AA should kill planes vs less skilled CVs just get their planes wiped and are useless.

Now look back at the mirror you and say "This rework is exactly what you asked for".  Then walk away and shake your head.

 

Thanks.    I didn't ask for Carriers nor ever complained about carriers before the cruiser line split?!  I think, that is part of the problem:  I didn't ask, nor was even consulted, advised or even sent a poll asking what I thought...... 

Carriers as deployed are a mess and create a mess.  They are ambiguous and are not exactly what anybody really wants; and, that, is the crux of the issue !  They are by their very creation, strategic weapons........they changed naval warfare and that, on a small map, in a tactical, LOS First-Person-Shooter, immediately rubs against what was for years: rarely used CV's that had a lot of power but just weren't valuable enough to see more players play them....  A new market for WG.

Unfortunately, unless the value comes from fighting against the enemy carriers directly, Carriers compete for value against ships and that, is a real problem....  Because, they are strategic weapons on a very small map and they can and will influence what the enemy must react to !  Within the first three minutes, because aircraft are 5 times as fast as ships.....  Now, if the maps were 5 times as large and CV's spawned 150 miles away...........this would be a much better game where we are now.  In the real world, carriers had to establish air superiority before they took the first shot at an enemy ship !  Now, they start with Air Superiority.....  Carriers should fight carriers.....first.  After all, that's what we have radar for !

Thanks.  There isn'g going to be a clean solution because a lot of people are spending real money for those Premium Carriers and if WG tries to put the Carrier Genie back in the bottle, there will be even more screaming and discontent....  But, they have to balance this out or they will continue to lose players whom out right hate what carriers are doing to the game.....  I avoid carrier play by playing only COOP and Scenarios.........and that, is only for a short time till the game figures this out !  If they don't, as I said, a great many players will leave.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,187 posts
4,322 battles
5 hours ago, Asym_KS said:

Thanks.    I didn't ask for Carriers nor ever complained about carriers before the cruiser line split?!  I think, that is part of the problem:  I didn't ask, nor was even consulted, advised or even sent a poll asking what I thought...... 

Carriers as deployed are a mess and create a mess.  They are ambiguous and are not exactly what anybody really wants; and, that, is the crux of the issue !  They are by their very creation, strategic weapons........they changed naval warfare and that, on a small map, in a tactical, LOS First-Person-Shooter, immediately rubs against what was for years: rarely used CV's that had a lot of power but just weren't valuable enough to see more players play them....  A new market for WG.

Unfortunately, unless the value comes from fighting against the enemy carriers directly, Carriers compete for value against ships and that, is a real problem....  Because, they are strategic weapons on a very small map and they can and will influence what the enemy must react to !  Within the first three minutes, because aircraft are 5 times as fast as ships.....  Now, if the maps were 5 times as large and CV's spawned 150 miles away...........this would be a much better game where we are now.  In the real world, carriers had to establish air superiority before they took the first shot at an enemy ship !  Now, they start with Air Superiority.....  Carriers should fight carriers.....first.  After all, that's what we have radar for !

Thanks.  There isn'g going to be a clean solution because a lot of people are spending real money for those Premium Carriers and if WG tries to put the Carrier Genie back in the bottle, there will be even more screaming and discontent....  But, they have to balance this out or they will continue to lose players whom out right hate what carriers are doing to the game.....  I avoid carrier play by playing only COOP and Scenarios.........and that, is only for a short time till the game figures this out !  If they don't, as I said, a great many players will leave.......

What you're asking for is a return to how it was. Which is not going to happen.

I have found it funny since seeing the PTS version of the rework. In nearly aspect of the rework I see the fruitation of the pre rework complaints. 

When you have players giving their opinions with zero understanding of what they are talking about. This is what happens.

Now in many cases the very same players (figuratively speaking) are making the very same complaints with the very same lack of understanding.  

The problem being that you have the anti CV crowd that believe CVs should not do any damage. They are the same ones spreading the idea that you need 27.5 surface ships to counter one CV. And if the CV happens to do any damage to anything besides the other CV than the surface ship is just a target flailing about helplessly being farmed.

I can't think of a single player that plays CVs that is actually advocating for the opposite to be true.

In a second I'll edit in some of why the CV vs CV first is a problem and why surface ships hated it in the RTS system.

Edit:

This is old but the three steps to sniping.

First defend the fleet:

Spoiler

In0AY8Y.jpg

Second strike the CV and hopefully dot them.

Spoiler

5kp56wS.jpg

Third hold your some bomber back to set perma dots.

Spoiler

V72AEiW.jpg

If you want CV vs CV action you need multiple squadron and the ability to actually do it. If you give CVs the aircraft needed to survive striking an enemy CV those planes will shrug off the AA of all but the most outrageous AA ships. Then with those multiple squadrons the team that lost their CV now is basically helpless against the surviving CV. Perma spotting the whole map becomes a thing again as does early strikes against DDs. But instead of how it is now you have CVs with the actual alpha to delete ships.

No, CV vs CV is asking for a return of the real CV skill gap problems to return. The main issue as to why many player were affriad to even give CVs a try.

Edited by StoneRhino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[RBW]
[RBW]
Members
34 posts
8,744 battles
16 hours ago, CaptChico said:

Another Anti CV rant by a player that has played less than 10 Matches in post rework CVs.

Look, i don't know how you truly feel about CVs as you do have 400 games played in pre rework CVs. Why don't you go and play 50 to 100 matches in CVs now that the rework is done and experience for yourself what AA is like from a CVs POV. 

Do that then come back to the forums and state your case for or against CV play, until you do that you will not be taken seriously and only come across as another player crying about mechanics they don't understand. I say this with respect, but really the AA game has changed much in the cv rework.

It doesnt take 50 - 100 games, to see That an already powerful ship becomes op by the end of the match. It just takes someone with an IQ higher then their shoe size. Your entire post sounds like an entitled brat. AA Range needs to be put back. If you cant figure out why, Im done trying to explain it to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,014
[PVE]
Members
15,717 posts
10,424 battles
21 hours ago, Harry_McFly said:

I think the new cv gameplay is garbage but thats not why im writing this. Please put the AA Ranges back to the way they were. All the changes made it so that there is a smaller window to shoot At Airplanes and now a lot of AA is use just useless. Even a fully spec AA Montana cant shoot down 1 midway plane. There is not enough time for the AA guns to even fire long enough to do anything. Everyone is telling me that CV are op right now. I think they are garbage with a free pass to do dmg. Revert the AA so that the AA stats can actually be viable in game.  

 

Now if you made these changes for group play.... Then let us play in groups bigger then 3 people in random. Otherwise these changes are for competition, if thats the case, take the Cvs out of random. 

 

A lot of people will disagree with me, thats fine but if Gaming developers cant learn to build proper Metas for games you minds as well quit. BAD METAS ARE THE DEATH OF ALL GAMES. <--- this means if the opponent does 1 thing, i should be able to do something to counter it, right now I have to lean on others for the counter.... Do i need to remind you of the community we play with..... tier10 broadside battles, People w/o aa at all,  DDs who rush in, Cruisers that present themselves to BBs, ................................................................................................................................................................

Play Worcester and Seattle as they have 6.9km AA ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[RBW]
[RBW]
Members
34 posts
8,744 battles
4 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Play Worcester and Seattle as they have 6.9km AA ranges.

Those two do alright but honestly when i play a cruiser i find my self following bb as AA support. I prefer the Des Moines or Salem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,014
[PVE]
Members
15,717 posts
10,424 battles
4 minutes ago, Harry_McFly said:

Those two do alright but honestly when i play a cruiser i find my self following bb as AA support. I prefer the Des Moines or Salem. 

Salem is good to make as the full AA cruiser, so you can have Des Moines as the more balanced cruiser. Salem has better AA than DM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[U571]
Members
1,923 posts
13,162 battles

This has potential for a CV to be good.  1.  You can determine which flank has the most need, where you should consider setting your Autopilot.   2. Gives yoloers a chance to get away from their groups, giving you a better target to assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,211
[H_]
Members
2,432 posts
12 hours ago, StoneRhino said:

No, CV vs CV is asking for a return of the real CV skill gap problems to return. The main issue as to why many player were affriad to even give CVs a try.

What you said is the reality of the game right now....  In multiple Carrier matches, the game is won by the better Carrier driver....   Last night, two matches with two Carriers on each side.  One win, one loss........not because of the surface ships !  Both games ended with the only surviving ships being the better carrier drivers....  Both side had about 4 ships a piece at the end and the carriers ate them one-at-a-time till there was nothing left but carriers...! 

The surface ship CPT's did everything they could to survive...........and, with endless aircraft, even with outstanding AA values, they just died.  That left the carriers all by themselves and that death match took several minutes: one win and one loss.  BUT, the consensus of those left watching the game was that this isn't WoWs anymore.......  No matter what the surface ship's did, it wasn't enough.  In 5 games last night, CV's were the last alive and what they did or did not do were the contributing factors that meant win or lose for the other 10 or 11 players....  That can not remain.......even, in a F2P the game can't hinge on just 2 or 4 or 6 players...   Thank God we don't have a leader board in this game because those players obsessed with "standings and W/L" would be foaming at the mouth at this point.......   I want to value my participation by what "I" do every match.......I don't want "someone else's skill or lack of skill" to decide wins or losses, match after match after match.....  That is "value" I am losing every night and that time, those one or two hours are all many have !  Why ruin them for a few gimmick dollars....????

Stone !  This sentence is spot on......  And, it's time for Carriers to step up; because, they are controlling the game for 22, or 20, or 18 other players based on "their skills......."

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.

×