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

Stop fiddling with CV's and AA..

49 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

81
[PNP]
Beta Testers
250 posts
16,375 battles

Instead of constantly Nerfing and Buffing AA and CV's how about making MM more sophisticated.  I was in a match with T9 CV's and no T9 air defenses, it was pathetic, and was just 2 CV's farming damage and ships sailing in circles NOT shooting down planes.  Surely in all of the matches with CV's in them there are some American and Russian cruisers sitting in queue at the same tier.  While you are at it how about give cruisers and CV's extra points for shooting down planes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
964 posts
2,130 battles

Compensation for playing a dedicated support cruiser has been required for a long time now. That's the reason no one plays. However, since the CV nerfs only the good players are left, making it seem like they're even better than before. So the problems remains. If people were given compensation for AA and if CVs were actually balanced for a change instead of just "wahh I got nuked by a CV" NERF "wahh I couldn't shoot down planes in my BB" NERF.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
81
[PNP]
Beta Testers
250 posts
16,375 battles

Compensation for playing a dedicated support cruiser has been required for a long time now. That's the reason no one plays. However, since the CV nerfs only the good players are left, making it seem like they're even better than before. So the problems remains. If people were given compensation for AA and if CVs were actually balanced for a change instead of just "wahh I got nuked by a CV" NERF "wahh I couldn't shoot down planes in my BB" NERF.

 

I remember in CB playing America CA's and sticking like glue to BB's and CV's to shoot down planes... Good ole days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

If both CVs were strike I do not see the problem.

 

If you get 2 CVs that want to simply rack up damage, it becomes a damage race to see who can out strike the other.

 

I hate it when CV players use the AS loadout. You might as well not even be in the match.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

If both CVs were strike I do not see the problem.

 

If you get 2 CVs that want to simply rack up damage, it becomes a damage race to see who can out strike the other.

 

I hate it when CV players use the AS loadout. You might as well not even be in the match.

 

Yeah, no, see, that's the problem.

 

They're just "racking up damage".

 

They're not fighting the ships on the enemy team to earn that damage.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

 

Yeah, no, see, that's the problem.

 

They're just "racking up damage".

 

They're not fighting the ships on the enemy team to earn that damage.

 

Yes, they are fighting the enemy team to earn that damage. Ships can do a lot to render a CV attack useless. Positioning is key against a CV attack.

 

You want to stop a CV attack? Put something like a USN BB in there and it becomes hard to strike. Put a Pensacola/Indianapolis or a Baltimore, and it becomes hard to strike. Basically impossible with any Defensive Fire active.

 

Unfortunately for many players, you have to think a bit more to counter a CV strike. It just seems that many players do not think too far ahead to plan for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,242
[NDA]
Beta Testers
5,251 posts
8,893 battles

Hope your Iowa's are AA specc and support them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

 

Yes, they are fighting the enemy team to earn that damage. Ships can do a lot to render a CV attack useless. Positioning is key against a CV attack.

 

You want to stop a CV attack? Put something like a USN BB in there and it becomes hard to strike. Put a Pensacola/Indianapolis or a Baltimore, and it becomes hard to strike. Basically impossible with any Defensive Fire active.

 

Unfortunately for many players, you have to think a bit more to counter a CV strike. It just seems that many players do not think too far ahead to plan for it.

 

Really? I play a CV. In the situation OP was describing, I certainly wouldn't be earning anything. I'd just be flying in, dropping a spread, then going afk while my squadrons reload.

 

There's zero skill at all in being a top tier CV in a game with little AA opposition.

 

Even a Yamato curbstomping NCs has to be careful lest an NC pull out a nasty surprise.

 

Hakuryu curbstomping NOs? Oh, you popped DF. How cute. Lemme pull back and delete you in 40 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,622
[-KIA-]
Senior Volunteer Moderator, Beta Testers, Supertester, Privateers, Senior Volunteer Moderator
6,550 posts
8,491 battles

I agree. Stop fiddling with CVs.

 

Either rework them from the ground up or just remove them.

 

Removal is not an option at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

 

Removal is not an option at this point.

 

Nerfing them into the ground is.

 

If all the hype around RN CLs and them being AA monsters is anywhere close to being accurate, that's a huge nerf to CVs right there

Edited by issm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[P_P]
Beta Testers
631 posts
7,704 battles

 

Really? I play a CV. In the situation OP was describing, I certainly wouldn't be earning anything. I'd just be flying in, dropping a spread, then going afk while my squadrons reload.

 

There's zero skill at all in being a top tier CV in a game with little AA opposition.

 

Even a Yamato curbstomping NCs has to be careful lest an NC pull out a nasty surprise.

 

Hakuryu curbstomping NOs? Oh, you popped DF. How cute. Lemme pull back and delete you in 40 seconds.

What? cv can't really afford to wait around in the sky for long even if u don't have DF on especially jap plane die really fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[PISD]
Beta Testers
594 posts
35,228 battles

 

Nerfing them into the ground is.

 

If all the hype around RN CLs and them being AA monsters is anywhere close to being accurate, that's a huge nerf to CVs right there

 

I have a bigger issue with them being fire starters. Fire is more of a cancer to this game than CVs are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29
[JSRF]
Members
169 posts
6,472 battles

 

Nerfing them into the ground is.

 

If all the hype around RN CLs and them being AA monsters is anywhere close to being accurate, that's a huge nerf to CVs right there

 

regardless to HMS ships being added they will just make the planes stronger, as a CV player myself and owning both Lexington and Shokaku is that even with a AA heavy cruiser they can still be defeated by planes, I have sunken Kutuzovs before, doesn't happen all the time but I have done it, same with Atlantas and other high AA ships its going to cost a few planes but they aren't hard to kill, the only draw back with high AA is low armor so whether or not planes are killing you 1 torp or aerial torp is going to do significant damage, so saying that they have high AA means they have weak armor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

What? cv can't really afford to wait around in the sky for long even if u don't have DF on especially jap plane die really fast.

 

So....don't wait around in enemy AA?

 

For anyone beginning to read this thread, disregard anything issm has to say about CVs. issm only wants them removed from the game, or effectively removed from the game by nerfing them into the ground.

 

issm has repeatedly been found to "give AA support" to any CV in any match issm has been in. This involves issm parking his ship next to the CV and calling it a day. issm can be in any ship and will still do this. Yamato? Sure. Shimakaze? Why not.

 

issm is truly a bottom feeding player who stoops to the lowest of levels in terms of attitude towards CVs.

 

This is funny because I have more CV experience than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,046 posts
2,264 battles

 

Removal is not an option at this point.

 

I would have thought that much was obvious to everyone. There's really only one option, is what I'm getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[BONKZ]
Members
887 posts
11,695 battles

 

Nerfing them into the ground is.

 

If all the hype around RN CLs and them being AA monsters is anywhere close to being accurate, that's a huge nerf to CVs right there

 

UK being the US's closest alley in WW2 should pretty much guarantee that their CL's AA is gonna be god tier :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

I have a bigger issue with them being fire starters. Fire is more of a cancer to this game than CVs are.

 

I doubt they'll be super successful in the NA meta. Depends on how they're implemented, whether they go the VMF route and give them long range or if they're more Cleveland-y

 

If they go the Cleveland/Des Moine route with high arcs, well, it won't be worse than a Zao or a Khab.

 

regardless to HMS ships being added they will just make the planes stronger, as a CV player myself and owning both Lexington and Shokaku is that even with a AA heavy cruiser they can still be defeated by planes, I have sunken Kutuzovs before, doesn't happen all the time but I have done it, same with Atlantas and other high AA ships its going to cost a few planes but they aren't hard to kill, the only draw back with high AA is low armor so whether or not planes are killing you 1 torp or aerial torp is going to do significant damage, so saying that they have high AA means they have weak armor. 

 

Not that simple. You can't just flat out buff the planes; what if there's a match without an RN CL?

 

If they do anything they'll just make the AA ahistorically weak.

 

In any case, I'm not particularly concerned about the AA per se. Cruisers don't have strong AA, defensive fire does.

 

Atlantas are trivially easy to kill if they don't have DF up, even with T6 bombers..

 

The only thing I might be concerned about is if they're agile, might force you to stay in their AA bubble longer while you get a good angle in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,437
[-K-]
WoWS Community Contributors, WoWS Community Contributors
2,783 posts
15,287 battles

I remember in CB playing America CA's and sticking like glue to BB's and CV's to shoot down planes... Good ole days.

 

And people would do that... if they were rewarded for it.

 

Since they aren't, there's no point.  You get no credits and no XP for performing your "intended" role, so what incentive is there to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
493
[KVLT]
[KVLT]
Members
2,307 posts
9,146 battles

For anyone beginning to read this thread, disregard anything issm has to say about CVs. issm only wants them removed from the game, or effectively removed from the game by nerfing them into the ground.

 

issm has repeatedly been found to "give AA support" to any CV in any match issm has been in. This involves issm parking his ship next to the CV and calling it a day. issm can be in any ship and will still do this. Yamato? Sure. Shimakaze? Why not.

 

issm is truly a bottom feeding player who stoops to the lowest of levels in terms of attitude towards CVs.

 

seen it with my own eyes ^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

 

seen it with my own eyes ^^^

 

And as usual, no counterarguments for my opinions, Hell, you can't even be bothered to properly represent my opinions as they are.

 

Not the escorting CVs bit, I've never denied it. But it's funny how the other half of "remove CVs or nerf them into the ground" always gets left out. You know, the "until they can be properly reworked".

 

But sure, keep going with the usual lies and name calling. I always enjoy knowing I've won the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[SOUP]
[SOUP]
Members
1,680 posts
7,380 battles

 

Removal is not an option at this point.

 

Honestly "Add Subs to WOWS" and "Remove Carriers from WOWS" seem to go Hand In Hand....
Edited by Cruiser_SanJuan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98
[-NAF-]
Beta Testers
1,870 posts
6,600 battles

 

 

 

So....don't wait around in enemy AA?

 

Yes but in the time you take to pull out and wait outside the AA bubble, the enemy CV can just send his fighters over and wipe your planes ... it really only works if you've recently taken out his fighters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

 

Honestly "Add Subs to WOWS" and "Remove Carriers from WOWS" go Hand In Hand....

 

Rather have subs than CVs.

 

Making the switch might even allay some torpedo soup complaints, if DDs are properly rewarded for hunting subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×