The CV make-over: Coming with British Carriers?

[Madwolf05]

While War Gaming has voiced their desire to some-what rework Carriers in this game, very little has actually be done about it. Furthermore, while Captain Tech Trees, and Upgrades have been heavily adjusted in recent patches for the artillery firing brothers of the fleet, the Carrier has gone completely and utterly untouched during this time. Furthermore, nerfs to the CVs themselves, the USN CVs in particular, and the buffing of AA on nearly all ships has lead to an all out exodus of the CV captains. Outside of the initial wave at Tiers 4 and 5, the Carrier basically is a unicorn in most matches.

 

And the drop off doesn't only have to do with the diminishing effect of carriers, but the downright clunky, and buggy UI, as well as the incredibly frustrating slog between ships. Not only is there a wide imbalance between the nations, but it's compounded by the imbalance between squad packages and make up. That goes without even mentioning the reward disparity between which package you put into the game. A good AS Captain at earlier Tiers might carry the game, yet be completely unrewarded. On the other end, the enemy captain he shut down is left frustrated and unrewarded as well. More over, even the captain who won the match-up between CVs might be unable to tip the scales in his teams favor since he has next to no damage output.

 

So what is being done to fix this? I will tell you that in all likely hood, absolutely nothing. With British cruisers coming this Fall and the Battleships scheduled for the coming Winter, the likely makeover of the Carrier class won't likely come until the British CVs are introduced. This might be Spring at the earliest. 

[DokturProfesur]

A CV makeover would take a lot of time and testing, and I think at the moment Wargaming is more focused on fleshing out the trees and getting more nations into the game.

 

More content means a boost to longevity, after all. People will keep coming to see what's up when something new comes. A rework of existing content usually isn't as exciting to the average consumer.

[Wo_9]

for now they could do the common courtesy and remove fighters from all bomber loadouts and torpedo bombers from fighter loadouts in all nations.  

 

IJN CV dominates USN CV to hard atm, and the vanilla loadout is underpowered in terms of damage output. so your only real option is going bomber in Lexington/Essex/Midway.   the introduction of strafe has been abysmal as well, it only adds to the disparity and frustration of playing CV.  

[Gavroche_]

Give jets back. Give 1/2/2 back. Life is gud.

[Personator]

Give the Lexington 1/1/2 >_> If you gave it access to 1kg bombs, at least give it that loadout in return for nerfing the stock from 1/2/1 to 1/1/1

[Wo_9]

YES PLEASE give 1/2/2 back omg please yes 

[DokturProfesur]

I think a cool flavor thing would be american planes, being heavier built, would be much more durable against AA in comparison to the IJN, who have more planes of the lightly armored variety.

 

Just a thought. 

 

 

 

[Personator]

I think a cool flavor thing would be american planes, being heavier built, would be much more durable against AA in comparison to the IJN, who have more planes of the lightly armored variety.

 

Just a thought. 

Well, that wouldn't work out too well because downing planes is determined by plane HP. How would you go about the IJN just simply being faster but really easy to shoot down then, since speed doesn't matter much?

[DokturProfesur]

Well, that wouldn't work out too well because downing planes is determined by plane HP. How would you go about the IJN just simply being faster but really easy to shoot down then, since speed doesn't matter much?

 

Well IJN planes are more numerous yeah? Follow a kind of saipan principle. More durable planes (bigger health pools), but less numerous.

[Personator]

 

Well IJN planes are more numerous yeah? Follow a kind of saipan principle. More durable planes (bigger health pools), but less numerous.

 

Well the USN already have quite a lot per squadron, just not a lot at a time in the air. And if you say the IJN should get faster but lower HP planes, then they should also be able to fling more up into the air faster, which I don't think anyone would really like. I'd be throwing a lot of crap at the wall and hoping some of it sticks, in a sense.

[DokturProfesur]

 

Well the USN already have quite a lot per squadron, just not a lot a time in the air. And if you say the IJN should get faster but lower HP planes, then they should also be able to fling more up into the air faster, which I don't think anyone would really like. I'd be throwing a lot of crap at the wall and hoping some of it sticks, in a sense.

 

Not faster planes, just more at once to make up for the fact that their planes are less durable and easy to shoot down.

 

Meanwhile, the more heavily armored USN planes have smaller squadrons, but are much more durable and able to take moderate AA fire and come out with only a few scratches.

[Personator]

 

Not faster planes, just more at once to make up for the fact that their planes are less durable and easy to shoot down.

 

Meanwhile, the more heavily armored USN planes have smaller squadrons, but are much more durable and able to take moderate AA fire and come out with only a few scratches.

 

Well, I guess that'd work. It'd be pretty more chaotic than how the IJN CVs are now

[DokturProfesur]

 

Well, I guess that'd work. It'd be pretty more chaotic than how the IJN CVs are now

 

Well IJN CV would have the same numbers as they do now.

 

I'm just thinking a way to make American CVs unique is to pull from lessons learned from Saipan. We've seen that such powerful planes can work in low tier environments. Neuter the speed a bit, keep the health, and we can really have a total revamp of the USN.

 

Just a thought.

[crzyhawk]

A CV makeover would take a lot of time and testing, and I think at the moment Wargaming is more focused on fleshing out the trees and getting more nations into the game.

 

More content means a boost to longevity, after all. People will keep coming to see what's up when something new comes. A rework of existing content usually isn't as exciting to the average consumer.

 

This.  Carriers break things unlike any other ship class.  Right now, if a carrier doesn't show up to a battle, the game works fine.  Until they know how they want to adjust carriers, it's better that they don't add more.  As far as the adjustment, they also said they want to reward things like support.  My guess is, that their tweaks are going to make carriers fit more 1930's doctrine, where the carriers support the surface fleet rather than WW2 where everyone supported queen carriers.  I know that's not the answer that strike captains want to hear, but that's what I feel is likely to happen.

[Wo_9]

 

This.  Carriers break things unlike any other ship class.  Right now, if a carrier doesn't show up to a battle, the game works fine.  Until they know how they want to adjust carriers, it's better that they don't add more.  As far as the adjustment, they also said they want to reward things like support.  My guess is, that their tweaks are going to make carriers fit more 1930's doctrine, where the carriers support the surface fleet rather than WW2 where everyone supported queen carriers.  I know that's not the answer that strike captains want to hear, but that's what I feel is likely to happen.

 

hypocrisy 

[DokturProfesur]

 

hypocrisy 

 

And here's why they don't want to touch carriers as well.

 

The subject is more flammable than a high tier battleship.

[crzyhawk]

 

hypocrisy 

 

why is it hyprocisy?  This is a case of the needs of the many (non-CVs) outweigh the needs of the one (CVs)

[fish_Jones]

I usually like reading these because it gives me a better understanding of how the community feels, and what they think the problems are.

I think that there are two main problems facing CV's right now

1. American Carriers can be shut down way too easily. Strike load-outs have no fighters (until high tier), which makes a lot of them choose Air Superiority to at least protect their team as best they can

2. The recent AA buffs making it extremely difficult to attack anything other than a solo battleship or a cluster of destroyers

 

I don't claim to be able to solve these perfectly, but here's my ideas

1. For American Strike packages, give them the ability to "relocate" one type of squadron to fighters (or even any other type of squadron)

ex: Ranger Strike of 0:1:3, give the captain the ability to move a torp squadron so that it is 1:0:3 or a DB squadron to 1:1:2

This would give American Strike some defensive capabilities against enemy fighters while not giving up too much in the way of damage, and let them choose if they want to give up the token TB squadron or an RNG DB squadron

2. I'd change how AA Defensive Fire works slightly. Have that using it increases your total DPS for planes, BUT you can no longer focus your fire on a single squadron at a time. You get more damage over-all, but it is distributed among all squadrons in your area of effect so you can't focus down TB over DB, but you still disrupt their aim.

[Wo_9]

 

why is it hyprocisy?  This is a case of the needs of the many (non-CVs) outweigh the needs of the one (CVs)

 

letting everyone else be OP ,but letting carriers be in the state there in. how is that not hypocrisy? 

[Goodwood_Alpha]

Higher rewards for shooting down airplanes with airplanes, the ability to earn credits/XP for spotting the enemy as well as giving a "spotting damage" mechanic (already exists in WoT IIRC, and definitely exists in AW), and equalizing the number of planes in a squadron while mixing up how each nations' aircraft work, are but three things that WG could do relatively quickly (one would think/hope) to make CVs relevant again.

[crzyhawk]

 

letting everyone else be OP ,but letting carriers be in the state there in. how is that not hypocrisy? 

 

Nobody else is OP; in fact stats show that carriers are performing adequately. 

 

Now, that's not to say they are fun and rewarding.  This is kind of the opposite of the Atlanta question.  While most people find the Atlanta fun, it's not very effective in most hands.  Carriers are performing adequately, but are not fun at all.

[Personator]

 

Nobody else is OP; in fact stats show that carriers are performing adequately. 

 

Those stats are from the time when CVs were still very viable. That overlaps with the now, which hides how poorly CVs are doing.

[crzyhawk]

hakuryu is #1 in WR, damage, and kills per game over the last two weeks.  At 9, is Taiho in the #1 spot.  At 8, Shokaku. at 7, Saipan.  At 6 is Arizona (wooohooo a surface ship!) 5 is Gremyaschy, a ship they said is so OP they will never sell it again.  4 is Imperator Nikolai, another ship so OP they said they will never sell again.

 

So, the top spot in all tiers past 6 is held by a CV.  Doesn't sound like they are hurting too badly.

[fish_Jones]

So, the top spot in all tiers past 6 is held by a CV.  Doesn't sound like they are hurting too badly.

I don't think the win-rate of a single ship (or even four) can accurately reflect the entire line for two countries.

[crzyhawk]

Hosho is the first tree ship (non premium) at t4, Zuiho is the first tree ship in t5, and Ryujo is second only to Budyonny in treeships at T6.

 

the IJN cvs are performing as well or better than anyone, in fact it can be argued they need more nerfing.  USN CVs are struggling admittedly.

 

the BALANCE issue comes down to the airgroups.  They need to be completely re-worked.  Rewards and game play need to be reworked.  CVs in general need a LOT of work.  the 4 and 6 plane squadrons in particular need to go.  Until they figure out the CV role and come up with a workable plan though, CVs are playable, at least IJN Cvs are.  The stats show that any issues a player has at least with the IJN line is PEBCAK.