Carriers are broken and need to be fixed.

[Ramadawn]

I agree with ichase carriers are broken.

 

 

Why don't they just let players choose their squadron loadout inside the match. That would actually fix alot of problems. Also dogfights need to last longer. If they took longer then players could actually use bomber heavy loadout vs fighter carriers. Even at teir 4 jap fighters can't hold off American fighters long enough to get bombers past. The program gets worse as the teirs get higher.

[Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Chokai]

Don't use "Jap" use IJN or Japanese. I agree with you, or something needs to be done. I refuse to take out Zuiho, except in Co-Op. Her fighters are weak and I am Bogue bait. Very very frustrating. I had three or four good games- got her the night before strike deck change. Since then damage had sunk like a rock. My last game before switching off the Bogue circled me all game so I grounded all my planes. He got no plane kills, I got no damage, but I capped a circle so meh.

[Montana_Prussian]

Don't use "Jap" use IJN or Japanese. I agree with you, or something needs to be done. I refuse to take out Zuiho, except in Co-Op. Her fighters are weak and I am Bogue bait. Very very frustrating. I had three or four good games- got her the night before strike deck change. Since then damage had sunk like a rock. My last game before switching off the Bogue circled me all game so I grounded all my planes. He got no plane kills, I got no damage, but I capped a circle so meh.

 

I have not taken Indy out in some time due to CV's being broken,not just IJN ones.

[ryuukei8569]

What and allow CV's to take nothing but TB squadrons, not without a massive TB nerf. Sorry but Zuiho having Hakuryu TB firepower at T5 was ridiculous and that was a needed change. What they need to do is just make Dive bombers viable, the fact that those things are nearly useless is a major issue.

[Maitey]

I rarely play my Hiryu just because the time invested vs. XP/Reward is just not there. Why play a 20 min engagement and get paltry credits and experience when I can roll out a bb/dd and double it easy in most games. Carriers are needed in this game, they add alot but I personally would like to see them not so much dominate the seas like they used to, but rather players feel rewarded for playing them. Just my experience anyway. 

[1Sherman]

I agree with ichase carriers are broken.

 

 

Why don't they just let players choose their squadron loadout inside the match. That would actually fix alot of problems. Also dogfights need to last longer. If they took longer then players could actually use bomber heavy loadout vs fighter carriers. Even at teir 4 jap fighters can't hold off American fighters long enough to get bombers past. The program gets worse as the teirs get higher.

 

The video you reference is old. Besides, all that matters is that CVs can still sink BBs.

[CaptHyatt]

What and allow CV's to take nothing but TB squadrons, not without a massive TB nerf. Sorry but Zuiho having Hakuryu TB firepower at T5 was ridiculous and that was a needed change. What they need to do is just make Dive bombers viable, the fact that those things are nearly useless is a major issue.

 

My Val's seemingly put up a good punch. Get more kills with them than my TB's, who are usually dead before getting to the damn ships.

[Montana_Prussian]

What and allow CV's to take nothing but TB squadrons, not without a massive TB nerf. Sorry but Zuiho having Hakuryu TB firepower at T5 was ridiculous and that was a needed change. What they need to do is just make Dive bombers viable, the fact that those things are nearly useless is a major issue.

 

If DB's were a viable thing I'd play CV more.

[tortelloni]

I agree with ichase carriers are broken.

 

 

Why don't they just let players choose their squadron loadout inside the match. That would actually fix alot of problems. Also dogfights need to last longer. If they took longer then players could actually use bomber heavy loadout vs fighter carriers. Even at teir 4 jap fighters can't hold off American fighters long enough to get bombers past. The program gets worse as the teirs get higher.

 

If CV's get to pick and choose loadouts once inside matches then all other ships need to be able to pick and choose inside matches too!

 

Forget speed boost for my DD, gimme the anti-aircraft booster! Then go ahead and park that spotter plane over my DD LOL.

 

Forget hydrophone, gimme the anti-aircraft booster on cruisers! And burn those CV's down with HE when they try to Torp Bomb the cruisers that spotted and got in gun range of you CV's.

 

But wait, no CV's this match? Gimme back my speed boost, and, since multiple enemy DD, give my teams cruisers back the hydrophones.

 

Choosing loadouts inside matches would and should have consequences. Want ez mode play a single player game. Too many CV'ers already make like a rock and play airplanes while the rest play ships in this ship game.

 

 

[IronWolfV]

The mechanics themselves are just crap. Add in DBs are garbage. Yeah all sorts of issues.

[StingRayOne]

Please let the players choose the loadout

[Drakausa]

After Coral Sea and Guadalcanal the carrier became the 'capitol' ship most desired and used by IJN and US. (Kicked off by the IJN attack on Pearl Harbor. By missing the 3 US carriers the war was on despite BBs in either fleet). Furthermore, carriers mostly fought out of sight of the opposing fleet, surface ships were little more than AA floaters. In WOWS the basic game design is for SURFACE warfare. WOWS carriers are point blank within a few kilometers of opposing ships allowing fast out and back, re-launch and effective anti-ship operations on a fast turnaround. They could easily dominate total control of the game play if given their actual effective attack power. This might please carrier captains but soon they would find no players bothering to run ships, the player base for surface combat would evaporate to a few diehards. Carriers HAVE to be nerfed to some equivalent to surface warfare ships because they are directly on the map with a combat reach over the whole area. They have to be vulnerable, RNG MUST have some serious effect and so on. TBs and DBs have close in weapons with the highest damage rating in the game except BB main guns and have a full map range attack. Flight loads, AA fire, RNG, maneuvering etc...all are directed toward allowing carriers in game but not allowing them to be what they actually were, OP in WW2. This might preserve at least a semblance of the basic game, surface warfare, ship to ship. This is just my opinion on why WG has nerfed carriers.

[IronWolfV]

Please let the players choose the loadout

 

Nope. No ship should be able to change equipment or loadouts before a match starts. You pick a loadout, and for better or worse that is what you have.

[RAF_Recovery]

I havent ownd a carrier since the beta when my progress was wiped out and I have no plans on buying one until they are restored to their former glory. Basically a dead line for me and many more. I guess next we will have subs lol.

[QuicksilverJPR]

I agree with ichase carriers are broken.

 

 

Why don't they just let players choose their squadron loadout inside the match. That would actually fix alot of problems. Also dogfights need to last longer. If they took longer then players could actually use bomber heavy loadout vs fighter carriers. Even at teir 4 jap fighters can't hold off American fighters long enough to get bombers past. The program gets worse as the teirs get higher.

 

What carriers?

[Lmaonade]

I don't think WG can really fix carriers by tweaking some numbers or putting bandaids on the problem.  The core issue is that carrier gameplay is rather dull at a fundamental level.  It feels like a half-baked mini-game that they slapped on top of the real, actual WoWs game.  This is basically what ichase was getting at with a lot of his observations, and it's also what the devs have noted by saying that they are happy with carrier balance but not carrier gameplay.

 

In my perfect, ideal world, I would like to see a new system where instead of doing the RTS-style manual drop, the player would actually switch to manual control of their bombers and control them in first person perspective while making their bombing run.  At the same time, I would add some kind of "Secondaries/Anti-Air Control Mode" for surface ships so they could engage in a fun sort of counter play and actually interact with all those cool guns on their ships that players never get to use currently.  This would give surface ship players a feeling that they have some shred of control over their destiny when a CV targets them and would probably go a long way to reducing saltiness over carrier balance issues.  People would be less likely to complain if they really felt like they had a chance to fight back through skilled use of AA gunnery.  The new system would also inject some life into the CV player's game and make them feel like they're a part of the same interesting and deep WoWs game that everyone else is playing, instead of whatever garbage-tier RTS the current system plays like for carrier players.

 

I realize this would all probably be ridiculously hard (if not impossible) for WG to code, implement, and balance, but a man can dream.  In my humble opinion, WG should have done something like this at the very start of the development process for CV's.  Unfortunately, it seems we're all stuck with this extremely mediocre gameplay system for carriers for the foreseeable future.

[Signum_06]

The loadout idea doesnt solve the core problem. Every AA mechanic is frustrating to deal with, cause they are automatic you cant outplay someone when all it takes to counter you is pressing Y or right click with a fighter. And Its worse when you play IJN CVs vs an US CV, cause he has Air superiority without doing anything and even if your fighters squads are 2 vs 1 you suffer considerable loses so its not worthy.

[Chesters_Goat]

 

Nope. No ship should be able to change equipment or loadouts before a match starts. You pick a loadout, and for better or worse that is what you have.

Yes, all ships should be able to change equipment or loadouts during a match. We change a loadouts, and for better or worse is up to us.

[Saber192]

I agree with ichase carriers are broken.

 

 

Why don't they just let players choose their squadron loadout inside the match. That would actually fix alot of problems. Also dogfights need to last longer. If they took longer then players could actually use bomber heavy loadout vs fighter carriers. Even at teir 4 jap fighters can't hold off American fighters long enough to get bombers past. The program gets worse as the teirs get higher.

 

I agree that CV are broken, but let CV to choose loadout in match would not help with the problem. they will all pick torps and try to get as much dmg as they can.

 

My problem with CVs right now are:

1.CV vs CV balance, low tier ijn CV rekt usn CV and high tier usn CV rekt ijn

2.CV MM is bad, putting T6 cv in a T8 match is a stupid idea. 

3.CV mechanic are not fun or effective at all, most low tier CV will lose all their planes in the match and sit there do nothing.

4.Low number of CV player, which make MM stupid and let DDs freely hunt BBs.

 

WG tried hard at balance all types of ships, but for CV is really hard to find the point that make the game fun for both CV player and other players.

I feel like they should re-balance AA in each tier so CV dont lose their planes so easily and increase effectiveness of planes spotting. 

Things that not make CV op but needed as eyes on the battlefield. 

[Ramadawn]

After Coral Sea and Guadalcanal the carrier became the 'capitol' ship most desired and used by IJN and US. (Kicked off by the IJN attack on Pearl Harbor. By missing the 3 US carriers the war was on despite BBs in either fleet). Furthermore, carriers mostly fought out of sight of the opposing fleet, surface ships were little more than AA floaters. In WOWS the basic game design is for SURFACE warfare. WOWS carriers are point blank within a few kilometers of opposing ships allowing fast out and back, re-launch and effective anti-ship operations on a fast turnaround. They could easily dominate total control of the game play if given their actual effective attack power. This might please carrier captains but soon they would find no players bothering to run ships, the player base for surface combat would evaporate to a few diehards. Carriers HAVE to be nerfed to some equivalent to surface warfare ships because they are directly on the map with a combat reach over the whole area. They have to be vulnerable, RNG MUST have some serious effect and so on. TBs and DBs have close in weapons with the highest damage rating in the game except BB main guns and have a full map range attack. Flight loads, AA fire, RNG, maneuvering etc...all are directed toward allowing carriers in game but not allowing them to be what they actually were, OP in WW2. This might preserve at least a semblance of the basic game, surface warfare, ship to ship. This is just my opinion on why WG has nerfed carriers.

 

That still leaves the problem with CVs being unbalanced in terms of each other.

 

Problem one = US carriers being able to shut down IJN carriers while contributing very little themselves. Maybe if carriers were awarded spotting damage and US and IJN fighters were better balanced?

 

[Ramadawn]

I don't think WG can really fix carriers by tweaking some numbers or putting bandaids on the problem.  The core issue is that carrier gameplay is rather dull at a fundamental level.  It feels like a half-baked mini-game that they slapped on top of the real, actual WoWs game.  This is basically what ichase was getting at with a lot of his observations, and it's also what the devs have noted by saying that they are happy with carrier balance but not carrier gameplay.

 

In my perfect, ideal world, I would like to see a new system where instead of doing the RTS-style manual drop, the player would actually switch to manual control of their bombers and control them in first person perspective while making their bombing run.  At the same time, I would add some kind of "Secondaries/Anti-Air Control Mode" for surface ships so they could engage in a fun sort of counter play and actually interact with all those cool guns on their ships that players never get to use currently.  This would give surface ship players a feeling that they have some shred of control over their destiny when a CV targets them and would probably go a long way to reducing saltiness over carrier balance issues.  People would be less likely to complain if they really felt like they had a chance to fight back through skilled use of AA gunnery.  The new system would also inject some life into the CV player's game and make them feel like they're a part of the same interesting and deep WoWs game that everyone else is playing, instead of whatever garbage-tier RTS the current system plays like for carrier players.

 

I realize this would all probably be ridiculously hard (if not impossible) for WG to code, implement, and balance, but a man can dream.  In my humble opinion, WG should have done something like this at the very start of the development process for CV's.  Unfortunately, it seems we're all stuck with this extremely mediocre gameplay system for carriers for the foreseeable future.

Actually ,as I noted earlier, simply giving players experience for damage done to ships they spot and making IJN fighters competitive with US fighters would add alot to carrier game play.

[hipcanuck]

Roll back CV's to 4.1 and include mirror matchmaking. Reduce torp HE damage by 50%, increase DB damage by 25%. Move the Cleveland to tier 7 and get rid of fighter floatplanes.

 

Let it roll for a month and see what happens.

 

CV's were only OP when unopposed and because of the massive amount of damage they could do with torps. Reduce that damage and the BB players will be happy and the CV drivers can still have fun.

[CaptHyatt]

Roll back CV's to 4.1 and include mirror matchmaking. Reduce torp HE damage by 50%, increase DB damage by 25%. Move the Cleveland to tier 7 and get rid of fighter floatplanes.

 

Let it roll for a month and see what happens.

 

CV's were only OP when unopposed and because of the massive amount of damage they could do with torps. Reduce that damage and the BB players will be happy and the CV drivers can still have fun.

 

HE damage is already crap. Reduce it by 50% and there's no point to even use DB's. 

[1nc0mp3t3nt_1]

 Besides, all that matters is that CVs can still sink BBs.

No what matters is well co-ordinated CVs will strike and dominate unescorted BBs and the BBs can do nothing in their own defense. In high tier matches, high tier CVs can run 2-3 Tb squadrons to pin an undefended BB and decimate it without giving that BB  a real chance to fight back. Every other class the BB can defend itself. 

[hipcanuck]

 

HE damage is already crap. Reduce it by 50% and there's no point to even use DB's. 

 

reduce TORP HE damage..... read much? lol