Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Ramsalot

Midway is the worst performing T10 CV

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,197
Members
2,759 posts
10,723 battles

According to stats for everyone, top 50%, top 25%, top 10%, top 5%, Midway is the bottom of the list both in WR and damage done.  This holds true for poor, average, decent, and best players.  In light of this, was it really necessary to nerf the damage of it's torpedo bombers the way you did?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,288
[RKLES]
Members
10,254 posts
11,956 battles

The problem is CVs do Not belong in this game, they will always either have to be kept underpowered since other alternative is for them to be Overpowered. And if they were to be OP for very long the game would die as there would be little to no one left willing to be the other ships only to be hunted.

  • Cool 2
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 7
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
609
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,663 posts
11,649 battles

Way back in the day most of the high scores were Midways if I recall with her JETS

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78
[DJL]
[DJL]
Members
140 posts
4,945 battles
1 hour ago, Ramsalot said:

According to stats for everyone, top 50%, top 25%, top 10%, top 5%, Midway is the bottom of the list both in WR and damage done.  This holds true for poor, average, decent, and best players.  In light of this, was it really necessary to nerf the damage of it's torpedo bombers the way you did?

She does need some loving but going to be awhile if ever before they change anything cv wise less its overpowered like the t4 ijn cv they rather have it  Under performing Then over performing. And you have many people that like the comment below yours wants them removed like that's ever going to happen. Her rockets are about the only thing going for her.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
384
[POP]
Members
509 posts
5,955 battles
2 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

The problem is CVs do Not belong in this game, they will always either have to be kept underpowered since other alternative is for them to be Overpowered. And if they were to be OP for very long the game would die as there would be little to no one left willing to be the other ships only to be hunted.

The only glaring issue with CV's are clowns like this that just keep whining. 

  • Cool 9
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[KOGA]
Members
11 posts
23,503 battles

Ramsalot, I've been loading the update for 3 hours so I can't look up my Midway win rate.  Are you saying WOW has predetermined the battle outcome of the Midway?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
686
[CVA16]
Members
3,799 posts
12,325 battles
19 minutes ago, ArgoDog said:

Ramsalot, I've been loading the update for 3 hours so I can't look up my Midway win rate.  Are you saying WOW has predetermined the battle outcome of the Midway?

I think he is saying the Midway (on average for all players) performs worse than the other T10 CVs in multiple areas. Midway is on the losing side much more often than not.  Your results may vary but likely you would be doing better in a different CV.

The solution is obvious. Nerf the other T10  CVs to bring them in line with the Midway:Smile_trollface:

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
Members
2,759 posts
10,723 battles
12 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

I think he is saying the Midway (on average for all players) performs worse than the other T10 CVs in multiple areas. Midway is on the losing side much more often than not.  Your results may vary but likely you would be doing better in a different CV.

The solution is obvious. Nerf the other T10  CVs to bring them in line with the Midway:Smile_trollface:

Yes.  Well, my point was that of all different attack squadrons, TB squadrons are most anemic due to number of factors, specifically damage each torpedo does (which is less than torps on Saipan that uses identical bomber plane).  This nerf would make sense if Midway performed on the same level with the other two CVs, but it does not.  For example Audacious manages to perform on the same level as Hak, in one of the brackets Audacious does slightly more damage than Hak while having slightly lower win rate, in another bracket Audacious has slightly higher win rate but lower damage.  In other brackets Audacious and Hak have very close numbers.  Midway consistently has worse win rate and lower damage than the other two CVs.  I believe if they rolled TB nerf back, it would make Midway slightly more competitive, and bring it closer to the performance of the other two CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
Members
2,759 posts
10,723 battles
13 hours ago, ArgoDog said:

Ramsalot, I've been loading the update for 3 hours so I can't look up my Midway win rate.  Are you saying WOW has predetermined the battle outcome of the Midway?

In one of the patches after the rework, Midway received direct damage reduction to damage each torpedo does.  The damage for torpedoes other CVs were doing was not affected (but multiple other characteristics for torpedo attack performance were nerfed for Hak, to be fair).

if Midway performed similar to other CVs I would overlook this nerf, but it performs worse.  This bit was overturning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,288
[RKLES]
Members
10,254 posts
11,956 battles
6 hours ago, HallaSnackbar said:

The only glaring issue with CV's are clowns like this that just keep whining. 

How many other games have you played where aircraft combat is a major theme? They all either have aircraft either as the dominant force, or else weak annoying pests you kill easily enough.

And I was not whining, just stating a fact in answer to the OP who was claiming CVs are underperforming. Which fits exactly into the facts I stated that you either have CVs underpowered or Overpowered in games, or real life for that matter. So if the focus is in Warships in this game with CVs restricted to being up to 1/4 of a team in Randoms, or often far less, it stands to reason it’s in Wargaming’s best interest to focus on the Warships. Particularly since WOWP was a flop and trying to have WOWs be full of aircraft will only push WG into fiercely competitive game market that they obviously can’t compete in, therefore they will drown if they step into air combat market in games. And air combat not only has aircraft combat in that market, but also space star-fighter combat for those seeking that style of combat.

Honestly if I had wanted to whine I would have said “CVs were still OP and needed removing”. But the fact of the matter is CVs while currently only slightly annoying at times, but are not really much of a problem now. They are overall slightly in the underpowered status for much of my fleet of ships, possibly because I typically carry good AA. But then again the CVs can still be a threat in decent hands, so it’s a complicated matter to assess. And since majority of my fleet is equipped to fight off air attacks, really no reason for me to complain or as you mistakenly put it “whine”. After all the damage to planes and planes shot down give me extra XP and credits...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
Members
2,759 posts
10,723 battles
5 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

OP who was claiming CVs are underperforming.

I was not claiming the all CVs are underperforming.  I am not a CV player to begin with, and I am fine with where CVs are.  I am only stating that one of the CVs is performing worse than the others, in no small part due to WG tinkering around with one of the primary weapon systems for that particular ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[D-H-O]
Members
42 posts
1,195 battles

One thing to consider is there are about twice as many Midway games than Hak, and about five times as many as Audacious.

Entirely possible that there are more average players with Midways than the other two.  If you look at the top 5%, Audacious and Midway are pretty close to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
Members
2,759 posts
10,723 battles
7 minutes ago, KillerAvocado said:

One thing to consider is there are about twice as many Midway games than Hak, and about five times as many as Audacious.

Entirely possible that there are more average players with Midways than the other two.  If you look at the top 5%, Audacious and Midway are pretty close to each other.

What you are saying makes sense for general stats, but top 5% shows that even the best players can’t quite match the performance of the other two CVs.  Top 25% and top 10% show similar pattern, with increasing disparity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[D-H-O]
Members
42 posts
1,195 battles
On 10/17/2019 at 11:02 AM, Ramsalot said:

What you are saying makes sense for general stats, but top 5% shows that even the best players can’t quite match the performance of the other two CVs.  Top 25% and top 10% show similar pattern, with increasing disparity.

Yeah, but at the top 5%, Midway is only 3.5% shy from Audacious.  Both trail Hak by a significant margin in raw damage.

And Midway is actually earning more xp than Audacious, likely due to higher average plane frags.

Just saying the raw stats don't paint quite as bleak a picture as what the situation might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[TURDS]
Members
72 posts
1,635 battles

I hate CVs..all of them. None more or less than the others. I was thinking the other day was that the way to "historically nerf them" would be to decrease spotting range so that they'd have to basically fly over something before they could detect :fish_viking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[-SYN-]
[-SYN-]
Members
196 posts
8,796 battles
Quote

if Midway performed similar to other CVs I would overlook this nerf, but it performs worse.  This bit was overturning. 

ALL US CVs under perform compared to HMS and IJN CVs. This can only be a deliberate design choice by WOWs -- after all, which CVs won the Pacific War? Yes, the US learned many things early on from the UK, but then took carrier ops to a whole new level.

*US CVs had better on-deck plane ops than IJN and even HMS CVs. They should have  faster reload time for planes. They do not.

*US CVs carried more planes than IJN ad HMS CVs. This is not reflected in the game.

*US planes were dual use, the Air Boss would decide what load out a strike should have. That is, a US player should have a choice on each strike to load torps or bombs -- the IJN still used single purpose planes.

*The US migrated almost totally to dive bombing against enemy ships and perfected that type of attack with sophisticated AP bombs, tactics and tech in the planes. This is not reflected in game at all, US DBs almost always drop HE -- which they did not do in RL except against shore targets. And a US DB would kick over for a dive at 10,000 feet and plummet down at a steep angle, meaning small arms and many unsophisticated AA mounts could't be brought too bear easily, which should be reflected in game with some kind of HP buff. Nope.

US CVs are the worst in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[SWOLF]
Members
5 posts
6,644 battles

I think all CV need some type of buff to them in the current state, especially with AA becoming for powerful now. Its like every ship now has good AA. They should un do the nerf to the aiming they done to the planes. If not give me torps that actually hit like a torp from a DD. But overall i dont mine CVs, if they get me, they get me. Either i was out of position or my team was all f up.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[-TOG-]
Members
164 posts
1,572 battles

Yet again a clear and unambiguous problem that has been in place for a long time that goes unsolved. There's no way that it should be so blatantly underpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[N-W-T]
Members
50 posts
14,093 battles

Achieving a balance so that CVs are not underpowered or overpowered is difficult given that it's a unique ship but it is very obvious that, currently, the balance is lousy. A balanced game is one where the outcome is mostly in the players' hands (both for CV and regular ship players). When overpowered, CV players hardly need to think/adapt their gameplay at all. When underpowered, CV players can barely make an impact regardless of how well they adapt their gameplay. CVs being underpowered/overpowered is almost entirely dependent on the proportion of ships with great/good AA to ships with mediocre/bad AA (in other words, the focus should be less on the CVs and more on AA capability).

Tier 4 - CVs are overpowered since far too many ships either have either zero AA or terrible AA.

Tier 6 - CVs are balanced thanks to a good ratio of ships with good AA to ships with mediocre/poor AA.

Tier 8 - the balance shifts to underpowered since more and more ships have good AA... but t8 CVs can be extremely underpowered when uptiered (much more so than a regular t8 ship being uptiered). Being uptiered as a CV in a t9/t10 battle seems to happen all the time in a t8 CV (...or perhaps it just seems that way since it's so ridiculously underpowered/utterly impotent against t9/t10 ships' AA that these games are so noticeable...).

Tier 10, underpowered given the ridiculous amount of outstanding AA that t9/t10 ships have.

 

Tier 4 needs more ships with at least mediocre AA so CV play isn't a turkey shoot of the many utterly helpless ships that either have little/no AA and are too slow to move to teammates with better AA. Tier 6 is pretty well balanced and should be the model for how the other tiers can be adjusted. Tier 8 and especially Tier 10 needs fewer ships with amazing AA because CV gameplay at these tiers is often reduced to hunting DDs and/or hoping that there are some cruisers+BBs without incredible AA and then hoping that, after several minutes (when ships have had enough time to move from the relatively close proximity of each other when the battle starts), maybe one or two of the few heavy cruisers/BBs that don't have incredible AA are dumb enough to stray too far from their teammates.

 

Cliff notes:

*proper balance puts the outcome in the players' hands (for both CV and regular ships) rather than being too influenced by (1) the tier and (2) the luck of the draw.

*achieving proper balance for CVs is almost entirely down creating the proper balance of ships with great/good AA to mediocre/bad AA (the rework removed CV fighter squadrons so the issues are almost entirely down to CV vs AA rather than CV vs CV). Tier 6 is the best example of a reasonable balance of AA - not too much, not too little... which allows good CV players to succeed and lousy ones to fail.

*proper balance also encourages (sort of forces) better teamplay overall in random battles since ships with mediocre/bad AA need to stay closer to the great/good AA ships.

 

On 10/16/2019 at 3:17 PM, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

The problem is CVs do Not belong in this game, they will always either have to be kept underpowered since other alternative is for them to be Overpowered. And if they were to be OP for very long the game would die as there would be little to no one left willing to be the other ships only to be hunted. 

How can you argue CVs don't belong in the game? Everyone knows they played a huge role in naval warfare in WW2 and emerged as far more important than battleships (or any other ship for that matter). I can't think of a single naval battle in the Pacific where carriers didn't play at least some role. Even in the Atlantic they became important for searching for enemy subs (hopefully when subs are introduced, CVs are updated to be in an important part of search and destroy of subs). Of course WOWS isn't realism but they want to keep it somewhat realistic. And as for your theory of the CVs only being underpowered or overpowered..... how about.... balanced?

On 11/2/2019 at 2:36 AM, tomas209ca said:

I think all CV need some type of buff to them in the current state, especially with AA becoming for powerful now. Its like every ship now has good AA. They should un do the nerf to the aiming they done to the planes. If not give me torps that actually hit like a torp from a DD. But overall i dont mine CVs, if they get me, they get me. Either i was out of position or my team was all f up. 

Yes, AA is too powerful for too many ships at the higher tiers. I think the aiming is fine though. They need to restrict incredible AA to just a couple lines. It used to be that USN ships were the only ships with AA that you'd want to avoid... now it's practically all cruisers and most battleships. Russian BB AA obviously needs a nerf and most cruisers do as well excluding USN cruisers (since their primary role IRL and in game was to provide AA support).

Torpedo damage/flooding is probably the only issue I think that needs to be addressed specifically for CVs. The damage is laughable and so are the lack of floods (I've only reached t10 in USN CVs so perhaps it's just the USN line? I don't know).

Edited by HolyWaterCow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[TNG-2]
Members
31 posts
11,953 battles

You think US BBs have a problem now... wait until they release the Russian CV line!!!! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,288
[RKLES]
Members
10,254 posts
11,956 battles
18 hours ago, HolyWaterCow said:

How can you argue CVs don't belong in the game? Everyone knows they played a huge role in naval warfare in WW2 and emerged as far more important than battleships (or any other ship for that matter). I can't think of a single naval battle in the Pacific where carriers didn't play at least some role. Even in the Atlantic they became important for searching for enemy subs (hopefully when subs are introduced, CVs are updated to be in an important part of search and destroy of subs). Of course WOWS isn't realism but they want to keep it somewhat realistic. And as for your theory of the CVs only being underpowered or overpowered..... how about.... balanced?

Because this game has grown in popularity because CVs are not in many of the battles and people seem to prefer it that way. In real life yes the CVs became dominating, in some other games I can think of the CVs are dominating.  But often times in WOWs you get to experience sort of what it might have been like if the naval planners had been right / gotten their wishes for surface fleet vs surface fleet engagement. That is why you saw DDs designed with added torpedoes instead of better AA until later when they could be retrofitted with AA at the cost of torpedo armaments.

To put it another way as a good example is WOT, you don’t have Aircraft attacking your tanks and instead get to use tanks in combat areas that you would likely have been taken out from the air. Of course WOT PC does have Artillery which is part of the reason WOT Blitz is so popular thanks to no Arty ever, and instead just good tank combat with no unforeseeable threats coming down from above.

Players in Wargaming games for the most part seen to enjoy how historical fighting machines could have fought it out had air power not grown into such dominance.

Edited by Admiral_Thrawn_1
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,288
[RKLES]
Members
10,254 posts
11,956 battles
18 hours ago, Heed_04 said:

You think US BBs have a problem now... wait until they release the Russian CV line!!!! ;-)

Russian CVs can’t happen in this game since they did not have any CVs until recently which are having severe problems. Other nations that currently have CVs in the game have them because they were either built, designed, or under construction in WWI-WWII, Russia did not do this, not even in the Cold War.  Russia instead focused on armored land vehicles, aircraft, surface ships which were mainly CAs, DDs, or smaller vessels, submarines, and in the Cold War they added in Ballistic Missiles.

You could say it was in part thanks to their geographical position in the world as well as land area under their control that made CVs a lower priority for Soviet Union, and in many ways impractical. CVs would have had difficulties between seas salt corrosion, icy conditions in the north, as well as the harsh storms that can develop in the north. Meanwhile they can have land bases that can reach into areas where a nation likes United States would need to send CV task force to be in more practical operational range of. Plus when you add in the ability to simply send Soviet forces across Asia if need be to reach most of the targets they might need to reach. Except for islands, as well as North America and South America.) And add in Soviet land based aircraft, surface ships, and submarines, you get a lot of military control and CVs just seem like a waste of time and money for them. Not to mention you can’t be somewhat clumsy in the design and operations of a CV or else the consequences are disastrous.

Although they did manage to get submarines built and operational, but some could say that was thanks to being able to buy and capture some subs to learn how to design and operate them with, which you can’t usually just buy or capture a CV so easily. CVs not only require operational vessel with trained crews, but also aircraft that are capable of operating off a CV, trained aircrews for those, and then you need a flight deck crew as well. And on a CV pretty much everything has to work perfectly or else things grind to a halt, Russians have been known for technical issues with advanced military technology, which might in part be thanks to the climate. I mean can you imagine a CV trying to be in one of their northern naval bases!? ALL the ice would need removal off the flight deck, catapults,  likely would have icing issues on hangar decks too, every control surface on an aircraft needs to be removed, hydraulics must be kept warm, engines can’t be allowed Des it have ice in them, machine guns and cannon can’t be iced up, bomb bays and hard points need to be ice free, and the list goes on. Which is why Russian land based planes work better as you can often have them at least a little farther south which helps lessen how much of a threat ice is to operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
686
[CVA16]
Members
3,799 posts
12,325 battles
20 hours ago, HolyWaterCow said:

How can you argue CVs don't belong in the game? Everyone knows they played a huge role in naval warfare in WW2 and emerged as far more important than battleships (or any other ship for that matter).

Probably shouldn't rehash this. You are correct. CVs came of age, surface combat faded away to insignificance. Nobody built BBs anymore. This is primarily a first person shooter game with ships. CVs make it a totally different game. Especially if given anywhere near their historical abilities. Taffy 3 is the only instance I can think of where one side tried to engage in a surface battle while under air attack. It did not end well for them in spite of an overwhelming firepower superiority. This game reflects that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×