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

Does anyone like have 4 carriers per game?

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

792
[PT]
Members
826 posts
2,853 battles

the 4 CV per match anomaly seems to happen most between tier 4-6 when most boats have pretty subpar AA. Had 3 games in a row in my Giulio Cesare and every game was spent getting strafed, torped and bombed by CV's. Most games we were trying to get a small task force going of 2 BB's and a cruiser or 2 but the AA just didn't seem to do much. The last game I had lost 20k damage from bombs and torps by the 5m mark and that was without a single hit from another ship. For all my ducking and weaving I shot down 2 planes. The AA bubble we tried to get working seemed totally ineffective (a Bayern and a Omaha with me) as planes would just screech through it, drop torps then 1-2 might be shot down as they retreat.

A friend who has over 2000 battles in US CV's only plays mid tier now as he said 'so much more fun, so little danger'. Tier 8+ stuff in his opinion was too difficult with the AA cruisers and BB's. Also think he gets off on all the pubby tears he causes:(

Surely the number of CV's needs to be capped to 1 per side?

 Sorry for the ranty post, started playing again after 3 months and still getting frustrated at CV domination in the mid tiers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
992
[NSC]
Members
2,333 posts
1 minute ago, LunchCutter said:

the 4 CV per match anomaly seems to happen most between tier 4-6 when most boats have pretty subpar AA. Had 3 games in a row in my Giulio Cesare and every game was spent getting strafed, torped and bombed by CV's. Most games we were trying to get a small task force going of 2 BB's and a cruiser or 2 but the AA just didn't seem to do much. The last game I had lost 20k damage from bombs and torps by the 5m mark and that was without a single hit from another ship. For all my ducking and weaving I shot down 2 planes. The AA bubble we tried to get working seemed totally ineffective (a Bayern and a Omaha with me) as planes would just screech through it, drop torps then 1-2 might be shot down as they retreat.

A friend who has over 2000 battles in US CV's only plays mid tier now as he said 'so much more fun, so little danger'. Tier 8+ stuff in his opinion was too difficult with the AA cruisers and BB's. Also think he gets off on all the pubby tears he causes:(

Surely the number of CV's needs to be capped to 1 per side?

 Sorry for the ranty post, started playing again after 3 months and still getting frustrated at CV domination in the mid tiers. 

I agree that CVs are very prevalent at the low tiers (4-6, particularly 4).

There is an MM change in development that will hopefully alleviate some of these issues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,524
[SIM]
Members
5,078 posts
8,206 battles

I don't mind it if they're bottom tier, otherwise...it can be a bit much if you're in a ship with poor AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,420
[POP]
Members
2,856 posts
23,042 battles
37 minutes ago, LunchCutter said:

the 4 CV per match anomaly seems to happen most between tier 4-6 when most boats have pretty subpar AA. Had 3 games in a row in my Giulio Cesare and every game was spent getting strafed, torped and bombed by CV's. Most games we were trying to get a small task force going of 2 BB's and a cruiser or 2 but the AA just didn't seem to do much. The last game I had lost 20k damage from bombs and torps by the 5m mark and that was without a single hit from another ship. For all my ducking and weaving I shot down 2 planes. The AA bubble we tried to get working seemed totally ineffective (a Bayern and a Omaha with me) as planes would just screech through it, drop torps then 1-2 might be shot down as they retreat.

A friend who has over 2000 battles in US CV's only plays mid tier now as he said 'so much more fun, so little danger'. Tier 8+ stuff in his opinion was too difficult with the AA cruisers and BB's. Also think he gets off on all the pubby tears he causes:(

Surely the number of CV's needs to be capped to 1 per side?

 Sorry for the ranty post, started playing again after 3 months and still getting frustrated at CV domination in the mid tiers. 

Its a Midway reenactment, on a serious note I'm a casual CV player of the new model these days and i agree it needs to be looked at, I believe next or was it suppose to this patch that low to mid tier CV's would be restricted to a minimum number, read  something on the DEV BLOG.

AS for GC back in the day when RTS was going she had a formidable AA suite not God like but  tier 4 to 5  would steer clear of her and 6 had to be on there best game, nowadays she still throws out a challenge but now its much tougher. 

cheers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,292
[PIMPS]
Members
1,539 posts

Well look at the bright side its better than 6. Tier 5 is a magnet for that grouping.

 

Edited by Chain_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
992
[NSC]
Members
2,333 posts
36 minutes ago, tm63au said:

Its a Midway reenactment, on a serious note I'm a casual CV player of the new model these days and i agree it needs to be looked at, I believe next or was it suppose to this patch that low to mid tier CV's would be restricted to a minimum number, read  something on the DEV BLOG.

AS for GC back in the day when RTS was going she had a formidable AA suite not God like but  tier 4 to 5  would steer clear of her and 6 had to be on there best game, nowadays she still throws out a challenge but now its much tougher. 

cheers 

Yep, I linked the ST post. What do you think will result from this MM change? Anything significant?

1 hour ago, henrychenhenry said:

I agree that CVs are very prevalent at the low tiers (4-6, particularly 4).

There is an MM change in development that will hopefully alleviate some of these issues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
161 posts
2,079 battles
1 hour ago, LunchCutter said:

the 4 CV per match anomaly seems to happen most between tier 4-6 when most boats have pretty subpar AA. Had 3 games in a row in my Giulio Cesare and every game was spent getting strafed, torped and bombed by CV's. Most games we were trying to get a small task force going of 2 BB's and a cruiser or 2 but the AA just didn't seem to do much. The last game I had lost 20k damage from bombs and torps by the 5m mark and that was without a single hit from another ship. For all my ducking and weaving I shot down 2 planes. The AA bubble we tried to get working seemed totally ineffective (a Bayern and a Omaha with me) as planes would just screech through it, drop torps then 1-2 might be shot down as they retreat.

A friend who has over 2000 battles in US CV's only plays mid tier now as he said 'so much more fun, so little danger'. Tier 8+ stuff in his opinion was too difficult with the AA cruisers and BB's. Also think he gets off on all the pubby tears he causes:(

Surely the number of CV's needs to be capped to 1 per side?

 Sorry for the ranty post, started playing again after 3 months and still getting frustrated at CV domination in the mid tiers. 

Don't worry, there are plenty of pro cv players around here that are going to tell you that its all fine and balanced.  Everything you describe was clearly your fault, you should have gotten a better aa bubble and just dodged all of the planes.  The rework is done, you should just drop it, they won.  Save yourself the time and effort and quit now.  It's always your fault that you took damage from the planes you can't dodge and the ship you can't see, and when they can't find fault with your play they will resort to "replay or it didn't happen".  I think a lot of cv players have the same mentality as your friend, in it to troll because it's that or be trolled.

 

1 hour ago, henrychenhenry said:

I agree that CVs are very prevalent at the low tiers (4-6, particularly 4).

There is an MM change in development that will hopefully alleviate some of these issues.

 

This change only limits it to the very thing he is complaining about.  Also it says that it will be "early 2020" before this is in, so who knows when?  They thought they would have cv's balanced in a few months after the rework...  Now we're quickly approaching a year.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
161 posts
2,079 battles
33 minutes ago, Chain_shot said:

Well look at the bright side its better than 6. Tier 5 is a magnet for that grouping.

 

This is almost as good as "Be thankful they were focusing on you so you could spin in circles ineffectually dodging planes!  They weren't focusing on your team".

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
992
[NSC]
Members
2,333 posts
2 minutes ago, The_Abysss said:

Don't worry, there are plenty of pro cv players around here that are going to tell you that its all fine and balanced.  Everything you describe was clearly your fault, you should have gotten a better aa bubble and just dodged all of the planes.  The rework is done, you should just drop it, they won.  Save yourself the time and effort and quit now.  It's always your fault that you took damage from the planes you can't dodge and the ship you can't see, and when they can't find fault with your play they will resort to "replay or it didn't happen".  I think a lot of cv players have the same mentality as your friend, in it to troll because it's that or be trolled.

 

This change only limits it to the very thing he is complaining about.  Also it says that it will be "early 2020" before this is in, so who knows when?  They thought they would have cv's balanced in a few months after the rework...  Now we're quickly approaching a year.

The MM change probably won't decrease the number of CV players, or increase the number of non-CV players.

But, it will prevent T4 3 CV vs. 3 CV, which I think is one of my biggest complaints about new CVs. It might create queue dumps of T5 3 CV vs. 3 CV. At least T5s will handle it better than T4s, I guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
161 posts
2,079 battles
10 minutes ago, henrychenhenry said:

Yep, I linked the ST post. What do you think will result from this MM change? Anything significant?

 

Not really.

On 12/6/2019 at 6:30 AM, Umbaretz said:
  • For Tier V battles, a soft limit of two aircraft carriers per team will be set. A battle with three aircraft carriers in the team will be possible only after a long wait in the queue.
  • All other Tiers of battle, including IV, will have a hard limit of 2 aircraft carriers per team.

They go on to say that limiting it further would produce long wait times, which is why you get 3 cv matches to begin with.  So youre going to get 3 cv matches still and queue dumps with 2 cvs in an 8 ship side, or the same ratio as a 3 cv match.

Soft limits are just going to be hit repeatedly because of how many cv players there are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,420
[POP]
Members
2,856 posts
23,042 battles
6 minutes ago, henrychenhenry said:

Yep, I linked the ST post. What do you think will result from this MM change? Anything significant?

 

Well I'm Pro CV so we need them in Game ( my View others will disagree there right ) It should be 1 CV per match always ( this coming from as CV player I do play other ships ).

AA in low tiers needs some help but you buff ships that never had them its life that's how it is.

I agree spotting is a big issue with size of smaller maps, there  is just nowhere to hide.

CV V CV needs to be the forefront again, CV's need to get big  points for taking on the opposite number it would take pressure off other ships, however its catch 22 you also need to support your other surface ships too.

Dropping it back to 1 CV whatever tier is a start in the right direction lets get that working first.

People will just have to live with slower queuing times  

cheers      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
876
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,264 posts
5,871 battles
2 hours ago, LunchCutter said:

the 4 CV per match anomaly seems to happen most between tier 4-6 when most boats have pretty subpar AA. Had 3 games in a row in my Giulio Cesare and every game was spent getting strafed, torped and bombed by CV's. Most games we were trying to get a small task force going of 2 BB's and a cruiser or 2 but the AA just didn't seem to do much. The last game I had lost 20k damage from bombs and torps by the 5m mark and that was without a single hit from another ship. For all my ducking and weaving I shot down 2 planes. The AA bubble we tried to get working seemed totally ineffective (a Bayern and a Omaha with me) as planes would just screech through it, drop torps then 1-2 might be shot down as they retreat.

A friend who has over 2000 battles in US CV's only plays mid tier now as he said 'so much more fun, so little danger'. Tier 8+ stuff in his opinion was too difficult with the AA cruisers and BB's. Also think he gets off on all the pubby tears he causes:(

Surely the number of CV's needs to be capped to 1 per side?

 Sorry for the ranty post, started playing again after 3 months and still getting frustrated at CV domination in the mid tiers. 

2x2 CV are excellent games, all games should have 2x2 or 3x3 CVs, ev 4x4?Best is when CVs operate together target after target. Example, a pushing BB under TB and DB attack, enemy fire. Red BB driver has an extremely short time to decide, swallow bombs? torps? show broadside? Etc It's a very good multi-tasking test, I'm sure surface ship players actually love this kind of game when they can show their skills.

Edited by franz_von_goltz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
161 posts
2,079 battles
1 hour ago, franz_von_goltz said:

2x2 CV are excellent games, all games should have 2x2 or 3x3 CVs, ev 4x4?Best is when CVs operate together target after target. Example, a pushing BB under TB and DB attack, enemy fire. Red BB driver has an extremely short time to decide, swallow bombs? torps? show broadside? Etc It's a very good multi-tasking test, I'm sure surface ship players actually love this kind of game when they can show their skills.

Why stop there? I think all cv games should be 12x12.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[CAST]
[CAST]
Members
2,611 posts
10,459 battles

The Games should allow only 1 CV per team.  If there is a backlog of CVs, queue dump them all into the same game so its 12 CV vs 12 CV.  Problem solved.  It gets rid of the queue and nobody gets hurt.  CV players get a special mode for themselves when that happens.  It could be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
566 posts
255 battles

i don't mind lots of cv's at tier 10. it means there will be lots of spotting. as a bb player i need spotting until i get into point blank range to spot for myself. surface ships are too skrrd to spot lately. i did have AA build for ranked but there were so few cv's i changed it.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
103 posts
5,589 battles
On 12/12/2019 at 4:12 AM, tm63au said:

Well I'm Pro CV so we need them in Game ( my View others will disagree there right ) It should be 1 CV per match always ( this coming from as CV player I do play other ships ).

AA in low tiers needs some help but you buff ships that never had them its life that's how it is.

I agree spotting is a big issue with size of smaller maps, there  is just nowhere to hide.

CV V CV needs to be the forefront again, CV's need to get big  points for taking on the opposite number it would take pressure off other ships, however its catch 22 you also need to support your other surface ships too.

Dropping it back to 1 CV whatever tier is a start in the right direction lets get that working first.

People will just have to live with slower queuing times  

cheers      

All that has to be done and all that ever had to be done was to retain the RTS carriers with carriers at each tier. The big change would have been eliminating the fighters. Good players could quickly strip the enemy team of their planes and then they would steam roll the enemy fleet. If fighters are reduced to a consumable for defense on the carrier it can no longer do this and can no longer spot DDs. The torpedo and dive bombers go out and attack. Carriers would have their AA reduced back to these levels so CV vs CV attacks would be a reasonable choice. Then hard limit carriers at 4 to 6 to 1 per side and then 2 per side from 7 to 10. Carriers would not be in tier 3 and lower matches. 

Edited by _Stormcloud_
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
876
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,264 posts
5,871 battles
1 hour ago, The_Abysss said:

Why stop there? I think all cv games should be 12x12.

I have asked spécial battles 20x20, 100% CVs directly to Wargaming, received some strange answer... They suggested I play World of Warplanes! I tried but there are no ship bots there... I prefer the Co-ops with AI bots and Randoms with human bots.

Ranked waiting for CVs in Clan Battles.

CV rules, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,485
[NG-NL]
Members
6,182 posts
9,835 battles

CV vs. CV is pointless unless fires and flooding caused by CV attacks run their normal course instead of being very brief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,420
[POP]
Members
2,856 posts
23,042 battles
6 hours ago, _Stormcloud_ said:

All that has to be done and all that ever had to be done was to retain the RTS carriers with carriers at each tier. The big change would have been eliminating the fighters. Good players could quickly strip the enemy team of their planes and then they would steam roll the enemy fleet. If fighters are reduced to a consumable for defense on the carrier it can no longer do this and can no longer spot DDs. The torpedo and dive bombers go out and attack. Carriers would have their AA reduced back to these levels so CV vs CV attacks would be a reasonable choice. Then hard limit carriers at 4 to 6 and 2 per side from 7 to 10. Carriers would not be in tier 3 and lower matches. 

Yeah could not agree more on that idea It would have worked fine :Smile_great:

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.

×