Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
legozer

Another Way To Think About The Imbalances Post Rework

46 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,066
[DDMAF]
Members
2,897 posts
16,263 battles

Much griping has happened regarding nerfed AA, the imbalances of CV vs surface ships, and the over powered nature of upper tier CVs and good CV players. Much of it is justified, some of it is hyperbole, and more still is just venting over the lack of control that surface ships have over the damage inflicted upon them by the scourge of Sky Cancer. This griping has led to a stand-off, arguments-wise, between those who believe that the rework (and CVs in general) are hurting the game, and those who love it and think CVs are just fine and we all just need to adapt.

A recent thread about the post-rework weakness of poor old Yubari prompted me to jump into a former T4 fave and play a few really painful games. In my first, I used an AA focused captain build with SI to provide an extra DFAA charge. I faced the T4 RN carrier with a rather weak team around me. I shot down 22 planes and did somewhere in the neighbourhood of 44k damage. My planes killed total was greater than the rest of my team combined. The CV focused hard on my after the midpoint of the game, and, despite utilizing sector control and my 3 DFAA charges, despite killing entire squadrons....the CV killed me rather easily and my team lost.

This game (along with a Grozovoi game where I knocked 45 from the great blue yonder yet still got killed, rather easily, by the focused attention of a Midway, and a Lyon game where I slapped 34 gnats out of the air, but still suffered 6 consecutive torpedo hits from a Kaga) got me thinking of an analogous scenario that I believe puts the silliness of regenerative hangars into perspective.

So, imagine going into a game with a fully secondary specc'd Bismarck. You're brawling and capping, and doing all sorts of glorious Bismarck-y things. A Farragut, 13 kms off your port side starts closing in with little guns a-blazin'. You are engaged with another BB to your starboard. The Farragut is under half his HP, so you manual focus your secondaries on him, knowing that, if he wants to get into torpedo range, your ship will just tear him a new one.

Now imagine landing a hundred HE scondary hits, and each one only incapacitates a module. The Farragut either ignores the module damage and continues firing away while pushing into torpedo range, or he goes dark and allows his module to repair before getting back to work on you. Imagine this continues in perpetuity...until the Farragut wins the war of attrition with you and wears you down to the bottom of the sea.

That's not how it's supposed to work. You invested a LOT of time and effort into unlocking the Bis, upgrading it and speccing out the captain. You put together a build on a ship that should let you survive a spirited attack from a low health Farragut! BUT....it didn't work. No matter what build you brought into that battle, the Farragut was going to sink you, and there was nothing you could do about it.

The intended effect of the secondary build completely and utterly failed. All that time and effort was wasted. Repeat that game a hundred times over with a hundred different, low health, low tier DDs doing the same thing to you over and over and over again. The Bismarck and its (expensive) upgrades, its 19 point captain and all its secondary spec skills were a complete waste of time. The way your ship was intended to work does not work. You are reduced to frustration and defeatism. The game sucks.

 

This happened to me in my Yubari, and my Grozovoi and my Lyon. The exact same thing. No matter how many upgrades and AA skills I had, no matter how many times I killed or damaged planes, the CV JUST. KEPT. COMING....until I was dead. There wasn't a damn thing I could do about it. The intended effect of the upgrades, the ships in question, the skills on the captains meant nothing in the end. I was reduced to frustration and defeatism. The game sucks.

  • Cool 13
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
3,097 posts
12,258 battles
5 minutes ago, legozer said:

got me thinking of an analogous scenario that I believe puts the silliness of regenerative hangars into perspective.

That right there made me stop reading and check how many CV battles you had after the rework.  Yep, that's what I thought.

4gdtey6.jpg

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,066
[DDMAF]
Members
2,897 posts
16,263 battles
3 minutes ago, Ramsalot said:

That right there made me stop reading and check how many CV battles you had after the rework.  Yep, that's what I thought.

4gdtey6.jpg

I played co op and didn't enjoy to new play style.

I've played many, many games in a huge range of ships and ship types since the rework. I am a decent player with an enormous amount of experience and a dedication to improving. If you want to completely disregard my opinion based upon some narrow criteria that you arbitrily created, then I don't care what you think of my argument; you weren't receptive to another point of view to begin with.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,744
[KWF]
Members
4,358 posts
6,405 battles

While you can technically say CVs can replenish in perpetuity, the time limit puts a certain threshold on how many planes they can replenish in a 20 minute battle. For most it's similar to what they had pre rework, without taking into account fighters that are just a consumable nowadays.

As for the AA, word from above is they are looking into it and hopefully a reasonable compromise will be reached.

The problem with CVs  nowadays is that they are either too good players and can almost completely nullify the effects of AA by avoiding most flak, or they play like idiots and get their squads gutted. What has changed is that far more people prefer the new mode over the old one.

My personal experience confirms this. I must have about 80+ battles in the Kidd post rework using a hybrid AA/gunboat build. Some CVs I could utterly dominate by shutting them down, others were able to dance through my AA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
3,097 posts
12,258 battles
21 minutes ago, legozer said:

I am a decent player with an enormous amount of experience and a dedication to improving.

It seems you are not experienced enough to overcome the meta with new CVs in it.  I played hundreds of battles across different tiers and ALL classes after the rework, and my feeling is that the class balance is right where it should be.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,821
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,384 posts
14,152 battles
29 minutes ago, legozer said:

I played co op and didn't enjoy to new play style.

I've played many, many games in a huge range of ships and ship types since the rework. I am a decent player with an enormous amount of experience and a dedication to improving. If you want to completely disregard my opinion based upon some narrow criteria that you arbitrily created, then I don't care what you think of my argument; you weren't receptive to another point of view to begin with.

You also don't seem to understand that not having a hard hanger limit isn't unlimited planes because of the regen rate which gates CV to pretty much their hanger capacity, a bit over at tier 4 but considering how weak the planes are it works out and a bit under at tier 10. Speaking of hyperbole claiming that the CV killed you easily when you killed 22 of his planes is the definition of hyperbole. That CV would have done far more for his team by going after the rest of your team and ignored you. Your team didn't lose because the CV focused you, your team lost because they didn't capitalize on the enemy CV's tunnel vision on you.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,589
Members
6,621 posts
20,599 battles
4 minutes ago, Ramsalot said:

It seems you are not experienced enough to overcome the meta with new CVs in it.  I played hundreds of battles across different tiers and ALL classes after the rework, and my feeling is that the class balance is right where it should be.

lols. classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,589
Members
6,621 posts
20,599 battles
7 minutes ago, Ramsalot said:

It seems you are not experienced enough to overcome the meta with new CVs in it.  I played hundreds of battles across different tiers and ALL classes after the rework, and my feeling is that the class balance is right where it should be.

There isn't one purple that will say that. why do you think they are balanced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,744
[KWF]
Members
4,358 posts
6,405 battles
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

You also don't seem to understand that not having a hard hanger limit isn't unlimited planes because of the regen rate which gates CV to pretty much their hanger capacity, a bit over at tier 4 but considering how weak the planes are it works out and a bit under at tier 10. Speaking of hyperbole claiming that the CV killed you easily when you killed 22 of his planes is the definition of hyperbole. That CV would have done far more for his team by going after the rest of your team and ignored you. Your team didn't lose because the CV focused you, your team lost because they didn't capitalize on the enemy CV's tunnel vision on you.

I think one of people's issue, and rightfully so, is the way plane damage functions and is rewarded. 

When you face surface ships, in most cases you can fire back, damage them and see that damage done in the battle results as XP. 

Meanwhile when you shoot planes, you just have your AI system to interact with another player without any concrete knowledge of how your AA or your skills rewarded you. This is bound to change a bit if memory serves in a patch or two, with plane kills and damage being counted in battle reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
3,097 posts
12,258 battles
1 minute ago, Sweetsie said:

There isn't one purple that will say that. why do you think they are balanced?

Because I am the kind of player that will jump into OP ship and abuse the living guano out of it.  If CVs were as OP as people paint them to be, I would play them much more often than I do.  

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,589
Members
6,621 posts
20,599 battles
Just now, Ramsalot said:

Because I am the kind of player that will jump into OP ship and abuse the living guano out of it.  I 

Ah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,821
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,384 posts
14,152 battles
5 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

I think one of people's issue, and rightfully so, is the way plane damage functions and is rewarded. 

When you face surface ships, in most cases you can fire back, damage them and see that damage done in the battle results as XP. 

Meanwhile when you shoot planes, you just have your AI system to interact with another player without any concrete knowledge of how your AA or your skills rewarded you. This is bound to change a bit if memory serves in a patch or two, with plane kills and damage being counted in battle reports.

You can see the total plane damage you have done in game but there is no feedback on what you did to individual planes. Maybe including how many planes took light/yellow damage and how many took heavy/red damage will help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
462 posts
23,063 battles
1 hour ago, legozer said:

This happened to me in my Yubari, and my Grozovoi and my Lyon. The exact same thing. No matter how many upgrades and AA skills I had, no matter how many times I killed or damaged planes, the CV JUST. KEPT. COMING....until I was dead. There wasn't a damn thing I could do about it. The intended effect of the upgrades, the ships in question, the skills on the captains meant nothing in the end. I was reduced to frustration and defeatism. The game sucks.

Working as intended comrade!  I really do think WG should just change the game's name to: "World of Carriers and Target Ships" (WOCATS).  Been hoping for months now that WG would address the issue of the non-stop plane attacks.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen or heard of anything being discussed which address that fundamental, GAME BREAKING issue.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,888
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,070 posts
19,197 battles
1 hour ago, Ramsalot said:

 I played hundreds of battles across different tiers and ALL classes after the rework, and my feeling is that the class balance is right where it should be.

TRANSLATION: I've played a lot of CV games lately and if they get balanced any more they won't have any God-like qualities left to keep the DDs off my battleships and that is important for me to exploit.

1 hour ago, Ramsalot said:

Because I am the kind of player that will jump into OP ship and abuse the living guano out of it.  If CVs were as OP as people paint them to be, I would play them much more often than I do.

Let's get this straightened out right away; you're the kind of player who will jump into a high tier battleship and abuse the killer AA to keep planes away and count on your CV to get rid of those pesky DDs for you. You couldn't care less about the CV rework, except that it seems to be lowering the DD population and you're just all for that. You play more BBs than all other ships combined so getting rid of destroyers and their torps is just gravy for you. So just drop the "CVs are just fine" line and get real; you are just looking for a "NO DD" button.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
74 posts
11,686 battles

One of the big problems with balancing the CV and AA, is how variable the AA is from one nation to another. You have the great AA ships of the US and RN; then the poor AA in the RU and IJN ships. So WG has to try to make across the board changes that don't make the good AA nation and ship OP to get weak ones better; or ruin the weak ships to bring the OP AA ships under-control. The only real option would be to rework each nations and their ship type AA to get the average AA to where WG would want it. But I think this player community would lose its mind over having their favorite ships / nation getting an AA nerf, while another nation ships get an AA buff.

As for if the CV rework if good or bad will come down to how it affects sales of both premium time and ships. Right now I think the sales maybe down, since I have seen so few of the new Russian ships that went on sale with this new patch (Lenin and Lazo). Guess we will see how the Roma sales go now too.

Have fun in battle all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
3,097 posts
12,258 battles
20 minutes ago, Umikami said:

TRANSLATION: I've played a lot of CV games lately and if they get balanced any more they won't have any God-like qualities left for me to exploit.

Let's get this straightened out right away; you're the kind of player who will jump into a high tier battleship and abuse the killer AA to keep planes away and count on your CV to get rid of those pesky DDs for you. You couldn't care less about the CV rework, except that it seems to be lowering the DD population and you're just all for that. You play more BBs than all other ships combined so getting rid of destroyers and their torps is just gravy for you. So just drop the "CVs are just fine" line and get real; you are just looking for a "NO DD" button.

Why, thank you for looking up my record, I do prefer high tier battleships.  Along with high tier cruisers, destroyers, and carriers.  I took the liberty of looking up your record and...  Well, I don't have anything nice to say.  Let's just say you can keep your opinion to yourself, thank you.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,066
[DDMAF]
Members
2,897 posts
16,263 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

You also don't seem to understand that not having a hard hanger limit isn't unlimited planes because of the regen rate which gates CV to pretty much their hanger capacity, a bit over at tier 4 but considering how weak the planes are it works out and a bit under at tier 10. Speaking of hyperbole claiming that the CV killed you easily when you killed 22 of his planes is the definition of hyperbole. That CV would have done far more for his team by going after the rest of your team and ignored you. Your team didn't lose because the CV focused you, your team lost because they didn't capitalize on the enemy CV's tunnel vision on you.

I made it clear that my team sucked.

The point of my post wasn't about an individual game, rather it was about how, post rework, the mechanics previously implemented are no longer serving their intended purpose. The games listed are what made me think of an analogous situation between a secondary build BB and a ship that should be punished by that BB for making the mistakes it made, but the mechanic was broken and nothing worked the way it's supposed to. It was hard to miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,066
[DDMAF]
Members
2,897 posts
16,263 battles
2 hours ago, Ramsalot said:

It seems you are not experienced enough to overcome the meta with new CVs in it.

What makes you think that? Nothing I posted suggests this at all.

 

2 hours ago, Ramsalot said:

my feeling is that the class balance is right where it should be.

Show your work. I provided solid examples followed by an analogy to drive the point home. You have a feeling. Thanks for chiming in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,066
[DDMAF]
Members
2,897 posts
16,263 battles
1 hour ago, ObnoxiousPotato said:

Working as intended comrade!  I really do think WG should just change the game's name to: "World of Carriers and Target Ships" (WOCATS).  Been hoping for months now that WG would address the issue of the non-stop plane attacks.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen or heard of anything being discussed which address that fundamental, GAME BREAKING issue.

lol...."WOCATS" does have a certain ring to it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,066
[DDMAF]
Members
2,897 posts
16,263 battles
2 hours ago, Ramsalot said:

That right there made me stop reading and check how many CV battles you had after the rework.  Yep, that's what I thought.

The fact that you chose not to read the OP but still felt entitled to opine on its merits goes a long way to explaining the nonsense you've spammed all over the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,888
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,070 posts
19,197 battles
34 minutes ago, Ramsalot said:

Why, thank you for looking up my record, I do prefer high tier battleships.  Along with high tier cruisers, destroyers, and carriers.  I took the liberty of looking up your record and...  Well, I don't have anything nice to say.  Let's just say you can keep your opinion to yourself, thank you.

OMG! You think I care about my STATS!?!?!?! Please, POST my stats so everyone can see I'm a mediocre player; because they mean NOTHING! I don't get any discounts at the grocery store for good stats, don't pay less for my mortgage or car loans, don't get a discount for my utility bills, or get a discount on tuition for my kids kids college educations. I don't get to drive in the HOV lanes when traffic is heavy, don't get to go to the front of any lines, still have to pay taxes, and haven't been elected queen of the May. 

FYI, do you know what all those things I mentioned have in common? THEY HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE! Not in a game, which people play to enjoy, and not give a damn!

So, please, enjoy your great stats, rub them all over yourself until you shimmer like a bright and shiny star. Get together with your friends and have a stat party, and you can all tell each other how really cool you are. 

And then you can sign off and return to the real world. 

And if you see me in the game be sure to remind everyone how bad my stats are, as I will be the guy rolling on the ground, laughing until I puke, seriously not caring. God forbid I ever take something I do for fun that seriously, but if it makes you feel better, I wasn't a star at Pop Warner Football nor did I have the coolest car in my high school auto club. 

But, hey, you enjoy those stats. I'll enjoy my life.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,821
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,384 posts
14,152 battles
12 minutes ago, legozer said:

I made it clear that my team sucked.

The point of my post wasn't about an individual game, rather it was about how, post rework, the mechanics previously implemented are no longer serving their intended purpose. The games listed are what made me think of an analogous situation between a secondary build BB and a ship that should be punished by that BB for making the mistakes it made, but the mechanic was broken and nothing worked the way it's supposed to. It was hard to miss.

My point was the CV lost 22 planes to sink you which is 60% of his hanger space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,066
[DDMAF]
Members
2,897 posts
16,263 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

My point was the CV lost 22 planes to sink you which is 60% of his hanger space.

Yeah, but he still could sink me despite that. My AA was not a threat or a deterrent. The Farragut in the given example played poorly, but still was able to sink the Bismarck nonetheless. It's nonsense and it's broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,821
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,384 posts
14,152 battles
1 minute ago, legozer said:

Yeah, but he still could sink me despite that. My AA was not a threat or a deterrent. The Farragut in the given example played poorly, but still was able to sink the Bismarck nonetheless. It's nonsense and it's broken.

You are acting as if you should have been invulnerable. That he lost so many planes in taking you out says the system is working correctly.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×