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

If there are enough CVs for everyone...

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,981
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,197 posts

I propose a change everyone will simply love! I propose Carriers be tier matched down. 

T10 is of course always top tier. I don't play T10 cause of some outrageous (in my book) costs. But T10 could  include 10/9 carriers

Not too much then to expect T8 carriers to cover 8/7, T6 carriers 6/5 and T4 takes the leftovers.

You know how many times I see a T8 battle in a T8 carrier? About as often as I see chickens flying over my city with chipmunk pilots on board. 

I realized the other day - often takes me a while to realize things - it wasn't the current state of AA so much that was bugging me, it was the constant up-tier actions which put T8 carriers flying T6 planes against full blown T10 AA. 

We have plenty of carriers, so everyone tells me. If we can't do it this way, then maybe a the tier spread for T8/6/4 carriers? Battle tiers would be (starting with T8 carriers) 9/8/7, 7/6/5, 5/4/whatever. 

My initial purpose in doing this would be to reduce the AA effect against up-tiered carriers. 

 

ALTERNATIVELY (and something I could easily get on board with) would be to boost up-tiered ship damage rewards!! We'd look forward to up-tiered matches then, if all up-tiered ships did more damage or were less affected by enemy weapons. Just load up a different table of damage/performance stats as the game loaded then let it rip. 

Can we try either of them, WoWS? tia fyc 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,180
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,332 battles
19 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Are you suggesting preferential MM for CVs?

It would look like that, but at the same time it would be easier to balance: you would have to make CV only ''good'' against their tier and lower, so AA power and plan HP would be easier to balance than in a system where you can face Mass in a ranger one game, and the next game a Wyoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
59 posts
760 battles
2 hours ago, Y_Nagato said:

It would look like that, but at the same time it would be easier to balance: you would have to make CV only ''good'' against their tier and lower, so AA power and plan HP would be easier to balance than in a system where you can face Mass in a ranger one game, and the next game a Wyoming.

Yea, my first game in ryujo, was in co op and i faced a mostly t8 team. Not fun, not at all, this would indeed make more sense so that you could tailor the power of cvs independent of up tiers. Better for everyone. I like this alot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,423
[META_]
Members
2,282 posts
7,823 battles
7 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

"... I see chickens flying over my city with chipmunk pilots on board. 

I realized the other day - often takes me a while to realize things... "

ALTERNATIVELY (and something I could easily get on board with) would be to boost up-tiered ship damage rewards!! 

Can we try either of them, WoWS? tia fyc 

This has to be one of the best posts ever!!  :o)

EVERY time i read a suggestion to boost rewards for up-tiered ship damage, somebody says they are already in place. I've experienced ZERO that would support this claim, in fact, when in a T10 battle with a T8 ship (feels like it happens every time, it's at least WAY too often) is about the only time i lose credits in the game.

spot on Herr_Reitz. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,981
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,197 posts
26 minutes ago, Blackychann said:

They should add t3/t5/t7/t9 cvs   

You know actually... they probably should... as I saw someone post the other day, you have half the ships to grind to get to the top tier... waaaay up there on the MvR... the odd tier carriers could be focused on something different... like an AA barge, or healing platform... or something that contributed in a new way. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,981
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,197 posts
7 hours ago, Y_Nagato said:

It would look like that, but at the same time it would be easier to balance: you would have to make CV only ''good'' against their tier and lower, so AA power and plan HP would be easier to balance than in a system where you can face Mass in a ranger one game, and the next game a Wyoming.

 

7 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

Are you suggesting preferential MM for CVs?

I'm not going to say its preferrential per say... but I believe @Y_Nagato explained myself better than I could. It would simplify balancing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,433
[SGSS]
Members
6,222 posts
On 8/14/2020 at 7:56 AM, warheart1992 said:

Are you suggesting preferential MM for CVs?

CV need it.  Without t9 CV almost every game is up t.  If odd t ship were back it would probably be 50/50

Unlike ships a T8 cv is impossible to play up t.  T8 in a T10 is impossible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,131
[GRETA]
Members
1,432 posts
10,883 battles

Ultimately they need to reintroduce the odd tier carriers as the jump from protected T4 play to T6 who quite often see T8 then T8 who often see T10 are big reasons we see so many CV seal clubbers at T4.

Until then I would suggest the following; 

+1 -1 mm for CV.  This way CV never need to see AA designed for ships 2 tier above them and surface ships never see planes designed for AA 2 tiers above them.

Also, skill based MM for CV.  CV can't be too influential if they are evenly matched against each other.  First 50 games it is neutral, after 50 games it can be based off a formula including PR/average damage/WR

Yes this will lead to longer wait times fir the super unicum and super potato CV captains but so what, we need it for the sake of balance.

Once WG figures out the best formula for this they can then also apply it to divisions as a unicum div and a potato div is more influential than most CV.

These are the things that will bring us closer to balance and harmony IMO.

Flame on. .....

Edited by HallaSnackbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×