Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
DevilD0g

Carriers need to be limited in higher tiers

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,246
[RAN]
[RAN]
Members
627 posts

Just as a disclaimer, I am a carrier player and a destroyer player, mostly and will always advocate having carriers in wow.

But I personally think that on tier 4 having 2 or three carriers a team is ok for training and people at that level can learn to evade.  They are noobs and have to learn somewhere.

But from tier 6-10 there should only be  only 1 carrier per team.

I think this will improve game play as people learn that having a carrier on their team is a good thing for them.  Its not always about how bad they are against  you. On your own team they give benefits and help you win.  Dont forget that for teams that win.

After the rework its a well recognized fact that Battleships do more damage than carriers do now.  So battleship weener faction voices,  be quiet you got your way.

But for good game play only one carrier at higher tiers needs to be included.  Even in Ranked battles one carrier .  In ranked you take your chances at good carrier players and bad just as you do for lame bb's that sit at the back and do Fook all.

When i play ranked im generally closer to the battle in a carrier than a lot of the battleships are.

Im not here to tell  you how to play the game with your ship genre types, you all know what your doing.

But this is a statement of improving matchmaking and game play and having only 1 carrier per team in higher tier matches,

Comments.

Edited by DevilD0g
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[USFF]
Members
36 posts
5,333 battles
14 minutes ago, ITZ_ACE_BABY said:

best game play is having no CV :)

Music to my ears! Hey hey, ho ho, CVs got to go!

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,333
[SIM]
Members
4,943 posts
8,026 battles

Two or three carriers per team at tier IV is ok? Thanks for eliminating your credibility early. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[_BDA_]
Members
311 posts
4,898 battles
2 hours ago, DevilD0g said:

Just as a disclaimer, I am a carrier player and a destroyer player, mostly and will always advocate having carriers in wow.

But I personally think that on tier 4 having 2 or three carriers a team is ok for training and people at that level can learn to evade.  They are noobs and have to learn somewhere.

But from tier 6-10 there should only be  only 1 carrier per team.

I think this will improve game play as people learn that having a carrier on their team is a good thing for them.  Its not always about how bad they are against  you. On your own team they give benefits and help you win.  Dont forget that for teams that win.

After the rework its a well recognized fact that Battleships do more damage than carriers do now.  So battleship weener faction voices,  be quiet you got your way.

But for good game play only one carrier at higher tiers needs to be included.  Even in Ranked battles one carrier .  In ranked you take your chances at good carrier players and bad just as you do for lame bb's that sit at the back and do Fook all.

When i play ranked im generally closer to the battle in a carrier than a lot of the battleships are.

Im not here to tell  you how to play the game with your ship genre types, you all know what your doing.

But this is a statement of improving matchmaking and game play and having only 1 carrier per team in higher tier matches,

Comments.

[sarcasm]  Let's take this a step further, shall we?  ALL battles should have a carrier.  Two at Tier 4 and 1 each at all tiers above that.  In Random battles, if no one volunteers to use a carrier then a bot should be included... the best possible ship in the fleet.  [/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
302 posts
20 battles
11 minutes ago, michael_zahnle said:

ALL battles should have a carrier.

Very good point.  Having a battle that is missing an entire class is like playing half the game, and the battle is that much less interesting for it.  The game is designed to work with all four classes - remove any of them and game function breaks down.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[_BDA_]
Members
311 posts
4,898 battles
1 minute ago, Moggytwo said:

Very good point.  Having a battle that is missing an entire class is like playing half the game, and the battle is that much less interesting for it.  The game is designed to work with all four classes - remove any of them and game function breaks down.

Did you miss the sarcasm, or did I forget to turn off Sarcasm Mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
302 posts
20 battles
1 minute ago, michael_zahnle said:

Did you miss the sarcasm, or did I forget to turn off Sarcasm Mode?

I conveniently ignored the sarcasm tags, because most of the comment made much more sense without them.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,498
[-K-]
Members
8,365 posts
14,175 battles
1 hour ago, SkaerKrow said:

Two or three carriers per team at tier IV is ok? Thanks for eliminating your credibility early. 

Agreed.  It would be different if low tier ships had any sort of functional AA for self-defense, or if T4 CVs had fighter consumable option to help protect their teammates. 

As it stands, T4 CV play and surface ship interaction is a complete joke.

40 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

Very good point.  Having a battle that is missing an entire class is like playing half the game, and the battle is that much less interesting for it.  The game is designed to work with all four classes - remove any of them and game function breaks down.

Ask any destroyer player, skilled or not, how he feels about that "function" after a CV nukes half of his health in one pass two minutes into a match, neutering his combat ability against other surface ships the rest of the match.   The original interaction scheme with destroyers/cruisers/battleships was based on rock/paper/scissors for balance.  A fourth (CVs) or fifth (subs) class only muddles that balance that much further.891877871_CVsare.png.fbbbc97b77ec8ab06123c73453cd9988.png.67461d877a520f926f1bbc1808794ac5.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
302 posts
20 battles
31 minutes ago, Ace_04 said:

Ask any destroyer player, skilled or not, how he feels about that "function" after a CV nukes half of his health in one pass two minutes into a match, neutering his combat ability against other surface ships the rest of the match.

I am a DD player, I have three times as many battles in DD's as my next played class.

I love having CV's in battles, and feel the game is much worse without them.  They make the game much more dynamic and interesting by their presence, and reduce static play considerably.

Also, although initially the game was intended to be rock/paper/scissors, it really hasn't been since beta.  Ship balance is done by setting up an overall theme for a ship, and then adjusting its parameters till its overall effect on the battle is within the desired balance parameters.  RPS has absolutely nothing to do with it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
775
[REVY]
Members
2,291 posts
12,313 battles

I'm trying to think of the last time I saw a high tier 4 CV game..........

I don't think I've seen one in the past year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,074
[ARGSY]
Members
20,204 posts
14,359 battles
2 hours ago, SkaerKrow said:

Two or three carriers per team at tier IV is ok? Thanks for eliminating your credibility early. 

LOL As a CV player, I'm all in favour of having no more than two at Tier 4. I'm hoping the recently-announced change to Tier 4-6 grind cost (reduced to 40,000 XP) will help the process by getting more of the existing T4 players out of the queue and into T6 a lot sooner. When that happens, even the two-CV battles might become less common.

WANTING three at Tier 4 all the time is something that even I, pro-CV to the eyeballs, won't defend. The only way I could ever defend that is if carriers were hard-coded only to see T4 and T5.

The biggest problem with carriers at Tier 4 is both the lack of surface-ship AA and the inability of Tier 4 carriers to drop fighter protection. I can well understand how much it must p*ss the surface-ship players off that the T4 CVs play their own game and can contribute no more to the rest of their fleet than spotting - but in order to do the spotting function, they have to take themselves out of the damage-dealing equation. 

As someone who was already in Tier 6 when the rework dropped but who still needed to finish a T4 ship off, it frustrated the hell out of me when playing the Hosho that I couldn't give my own team any protection from the enemy carriers at all (especially when I'd had her for a short time pre-rework and used the fighters to advantage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
482
[CLUMP]
Members
839 posts
1,174 battles

As carrier player, in my opinion, there should be one carrier per team or match :fish_cute_2: If maps where bigger and you had more players you could have two but that not case though :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[_REKT]
Members
5 posts
2,023 battles
5 hours ago, DevilD0g said:

Just as a disclaimer, I am a carrier player and a destroyer player, mostly and will always advocate having carriers in wow.

But I personally think that on tier 4 having 2 or three carriers a team is ok for training and people at that level can learn to evade.  They are noobs and have to learn somewhere.

But from tier 6-10 there should only be  only 1 carrier per team.

I think this will improve game play as people learn that having a carrier on their team is a good thing for them.  Its not always about how bad they are against  you. On your own team they give benefits and help you win.  Dont forget that for teams that win.

After the rework its a well recognized fact that Battleships do more damage than carriers do now.  So battleship weener faction voices,  be quiet you got your way.

But for good game play only one carrier at higher tiers needs to be included.  Even in Ranked battles one carrier .  In ranked you take your chances at good carrier players and bad just as you do for lame bb's that sit at the back and do Fook all.

When i play ranked im generally closer to the battle in a carrier than a lot of the battleships are.

Im not here to tell  you how to play the game with your ship genre types, you all know what your doing.

But this is a statement of improving matchmaking and game play and having only 1 carrier per team in higher tier matches,

Comments.

Personally I believe carriers should be and option for players to select if they want to be in a battle with them. The presence of a carrier n the game removes the enjoyment of playing destroyer completely and isn't fair for these players. Otherwise you are just gonna have a battle with carriers battleships and cruisers as people will stop playing destroyers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[_REKT]
Members
5 posts
2,023 battles

So basically a destroyers with 35 knots and a 6 to 8 km torpedo range have  limited options to impact a battle when planes are over his head all game. Great balance there huh. Then limit battleships range of fire to 8 km as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,498
[-K-]
Members
8,365 posts
14,175 battles
17 minutes ago, moondy94 said:

Personally I believe carriers should be and option for players to select if they want to be in a battle with them. The presence of a carrier n the game removes the enjoyment of playing destroyer completely and isn't fair for these players. Otherwise you are just gonna have a battle with carriers battleships and cruisers as people will stop playing destroyers. 

But then you open up the whole argument about class preferences.  

In that light, destroyer players would rather not have (radar) cruisers in a match, while battleships would rather not have destroyers in a match.  It just opens up way too much in the sake of complications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,192
[SYN]
Members
5,877 posts
13,296 battles
5 hours ago, ITZ_ACE_BABY said:

best game play is having no CV :)

You see the team lineups with no carrier, it feels like you just took a shower.  :dance_turtle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[_REKT]
Members
5 posts
2,023 battles
11 minutes ago, Ace_04 said:

But then you open up the whole argument about class preferences.  

In that light, destroyer players would rather not have (radar) cruisers in a match, while battleships would rather not have destroyers in a match.  It just opens up way too much in the sake of complications.

Not true.  You cant render one class of ship useless to a team in a battle and with carriers especially in the hands of a skilled player who targets the destroyers all game that's what you have. If you want them fine. Remove the spotting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[_REKT]
Members
5 posts
2,023 battles

Human nature dictates people will take paths of least resistance. They will get tired of constantly being limited. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,074
[ARGSY]
Members
20,204 posts
14,359 battles

Without carriers, the unicums in low visibility destroyers will run rampant.

This IMHO is the real, undeclared reason why so many "expert" players want carriers removed from the game or their spotting nerfed to oblivion. They want an end to the only thing which seriously keeps them in check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[_REKT]
Members
5 posts
2,023 battles

Just wow. Keep us in check??? Seriously?  Destroyers keep battleships and cruisers in check. How lazy can you be to just sit at 20km waiting for a spot to shoot your guns. You all want us destroyers to go and spot and cap for you go do it yourself.  Every match first ships sunk destroyers while u slow roll around the map taking pot shots half way around the world or hide behind some rock.lmbo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×