Removal of the Saipain

[Michaellaneous]

This was definitely a step in the right direction, at least in some ways. It caused some issues, either completely outtiere or the opposite.

However, with the US now seemingly becoming the fighter nation, there are some...issues, with the current tier 6/7 gap.

 

The independence gets these fighters:

Through and through capable little biplanes that - in a squad of two, can take down a lot of bombers.

 

But, lets look a tier up:

Okay hm...

They are faster, understandable. They are also more durable. Well, they are not biplanes anymore, those are proper wildcats.

The issue here is: When I send two squads of fighters against one of those, they get wiped out, and maybe shoot down two. With no enemy AA cover.

And I have both fighter mods and most of the skills for them.

 

While I can understand when someones says "You got downtiered, live with it"...we are talking only about a tier difference here. It's pretty hardcore.

 

Now, as for a suggestion how to improve this...I understand that a completle reshuffle of all the damages is a problem. Maybe give two squads of fighters that attack one a small advantage, something like that.

 

ps: This doesn't go into suggestions because appearently not having posted 10 times makes me less knowledgeable of the game.

Thanks.

[Scotty_SE]

Fighters in this game are seriously broken on many levels. The tier gaps are too big, and theres too many of them that can kill tbs and dbs too easily.

 

Carrier operations are turning into Starcraft. I actually think the game would be better off without fighters at all.

[Michaellaneous]

The tier-gap seems to flatten a bit with 7 to 8, since the damage improvement isn't straight up 100%, only around 50%.

 

I tend to agree and disagree with fighters. If fighters should be removed, players need a way to deal with planes other than...well, do nothing.

[spen966]

Do the words beta work in progress register for anyone? 

[Michaellaneous]

Uhm...yes. Do the word "suggestion" register for you? That is what we are doing here. Beta testing. Currently fighters are a bit broken, I pointed out why, and we are discussing what could be done.

That is literally the definition of testing. Sorry if you consider any kind of criticism somehow...bad?

[riff_]

 

 

 

ps: This doesn't go into suggestions because appearently not having posted 10 times makes me less knowledgeable of the game.

Thanks.

 

Maybe it suggests you only post when you know what you are talking about or have something good to say.

GL FH

 

[Michaellaneous]

Okay so..."knowing what I am talking about" == "posted enough times"

Because good sir, I have you know, that the rest of the internet is evidence that prooves you are wrong.

[Numbah18]

This was definitely a step in the right direction, at least in some ways.

 

I have to disagree with this. Sure the Saipan was only a little better then the Indy but it was a nice ship. I can only see removing it as a bad idea because now you go Langley which is a cruddy ship to Bogue another cruddy ship. If they had kept Indy to Saipan at least when you tiered up from the Langley you got a nice ship then another nice ship.

[Tk3997]

How about just not talking away the T6 fighter from the new T6 US carrier? I mean what the HELL was the logic behind this decision? The older Buffalo on the Saipan had about 60 attack power, it was still worse, but it could do some damage.

 

Why the hell they felt the need to nerf the US carrier line by forcing the slow as crap bouge into T5 and then destroying the T6 carriers fighter capability by giving it a massive inferior 'upgrade' fighter in the same patch they kept hyping how fighters would be a US "strength" is beyond me. It makes zero sense it completely unbalances the T6 ship verses the T7 US ship AND the T6 and T7 Japanese ship which have fighters that are flat out objectively better on a 1 for 1 basis. This was a terrible, terrible choice this patch has pretty much ruined US carriers under T7 and made them objectively worse in every single way.

 

As a sometimes carrier player I have no a single good thing to say about these changes every single one was ill convinced and bad for the players, pretty much exactly as I expected based on previews.

[Numbah18]

As a sometimes carrier player I have no a single good thing to say about these changes every single one was ill convinced and bad for the players, pretty much exactly as I expected based on previews.

 

Join the club it's free drinks day  Join now and you also get this free travel bag. Serious time, every CV I have talked to has been saying 3.1 is a huge nerf to CV and a huge buff to everything else. What I have read on the subject feels me with rage and sadness. They are going to remove any desire to play CV at this rate.

[MaverickBlue]

I hate what they've done with my Ranger. That is all....

[Freeker]

Planes just need to be their own separate tech tree. As the tier improves the CV gets more of the same. Pretty basic upgrade path that a lot of games use.

[Soci0path]

As a sometimes carrier player I have no a single good thing to say about these changes every single one was ill convinced and bad for the players, pretty much exactly as I expected based on previews.

 

You are absolutely right. The cv's are unplayable now. Hence my time on AW and WoT. Even Beta testing is no fun with them the way they are. 

[Numbah18]

 

You are absolutely right. The cv's are unplayable now. Hence my time on AW and WoT. Even Beta testing is no fun with them the way they are. 

 

It's gotten to the point where even hardcore CV players are ditching CV. Some of them are even ditching WoWs because of this.