Give US carriers fighters 100% of time or bring back 2 carriers a team

[NCC1701PS]

Hi all,

Don't know how everyone else feels about this, but since the update that took away 2 carriers per team, at higher tiers ive only found Japanese carriers while playing strike, carriers which then slaughter my planes. Before this update, it was nice to have the 2 carriers work together against the other 2, but now with only one, the US is at a disadvantage with the Japanese always having fighters. Please bring back the 2 carriers, OR in order to not make BB players complain, get rid of Japanese fighters in "strike" loadout/give US fighters in strike loadout

[Dahdrael]

yeah... get rid of the 2 carriers per team right across the board and force all cv's to go to a balanced spec of fighters and bombers...

 

i'm honestly sick of seeing CV's altogether... but it is bringing back cruisers and AA specs.

 

and your argument seems like you want to always be strike spec without having to deal with other planes. (thats the job of the other cv driver on your team... right?)

[Taichunger]

CVs suck -- so many CV players have moved down. The lower tiers are now infested with unicums driving Hoshos and Zuihos, taking zero risk and simply harvesting ships at zero cost to themselves. They ruin every game they appear in. 

 

Rather than making the upper tiers 2 CV hell again -- at that point they are unplayable -- the lower tiers should also have a 1 CV restriction. 

[Stratego89]

US carriers get wiped at high tier. IJN carriers get wiped at low tiers. Exceptions apply.

 

They need to remake CVs. It is literally impossible to balance them with the current form of their combat. One side will ALWAYS be OP without exception because the gameplay is to overly simplified and even a minor difference in stats just tilts the favor to one side without fail.

[WanderingGhost]

US carriers get wiped at high tier. IJN carriers get wiped at low tiers. Exceptions apply.

 

They need to remake CVs. It is literally impossible to balance them with the current form of their combat. One side will ALWAYS be OP without exception because the gameplay is to overly simplified and even a minor difference in stats just tilts the favor to one side without fail.

 

This, however I won't say that it's overly simplified. Really, USN brings the AS tier 8 and below it mops the floor with IJN fighters most of the time, and Independence doesn't even need that it can run mix with no issues. At tier 4 and 5 IJN fighters actually out tier USN fighters (not wholly inaccurate) which gives them a better fighting chance but still, no usually enough to beat USN fighters, why when you look at ship stats typically USN has a decent lead on aircraft shot down till 7 and 8, where the community splits between AS and Strike, and 9-10 you see more damage from USN carriers but on paper anyway it looks like IJN finally in some way catches up and starts downing more fighters (I haven't played tier 9-10 since alpha/beta and last I played USN fighters still thoroughly stomped IJN fighters).

 

The problem comes from Wargaming's current concept at the moment of "National Flavour" regarding CV's. National flavour in theory is a great idea, and still yet is in practice when done right. However as it currently stands for CV's the concept is good, but the execution is at best, terrible. They went too extreme on things and instead of nuance gave absolutes. USN was given basically all or nothing set ups through most tiers, partially corrected below tier 9, with super durable aircraft and fighters that just stomp IJN tier for tier in most cases. IJN was given numbers, at reduced squad sizes, paper planes, and the ability to attack from multiple angles or better engage multiple targets, with generally a mix option that allows flexibility.

 

Now, plane durability is fairly accurate, I say this because IJN traded protection for mobility, which while not truly factored into the game at least for fighters means that fights should be a bit more fair then they are even point and click. It can simply be the addition of hitpoints for simplicities sake but overall, IJN's fighters are basically throw aways while USN's are juggernauts. It should be tweaked, with corresponding changes to squadron loadouts if needed, that the fighters should be equal but different. My example usually with the two we have is to make USN low damage, high sustain (ability to stay aloft with ammo), high survivability with IJN being Higher damage, lower sustain, lower survivability. Now, it works better if Wargaming makes it so fighters that are low on ammo can disengage and try to return to the carrier much like bombers do despite being engaged, but the idea would be IJN comes in hitting hard while USN just kinda takes the punishment and dishes what it can back out. The idea being that the lower damage is still significant vs IJN's lower health pool and higher damage of IJN counters the high HP. With the other trade off that IJN is more likely to burn through it's ammo and have to possibly trade off with another squadron as it tries to retreat while USN's can still fight and loiter. Which would also emulate reality in which the US stuck with the .50 for so long because it was good enough and could carry more rounds than say a 20 mm cannon, where as the A6M had, depending on version, 2 synced 7.7 mm MG's and a pair of 20 mm cannons, a 7.7 and 13.2 and the cannons or two 13.2 mm guns and 20 mm cannons, but cannons had less ammo. Combined with the fact US planes were highly durable, and IJN, not usually as much. Still leaving also two distinct play styles as one is constantly rearming and has to plan engagements more while the other can loiter and not having to worry about rearming nearly as much, on top of the existing part that does work in the game of having differences in squad numbers and tactics they can employ. 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Rather than making the upper tiers 2 CV hell again -- at that point they are unplayable -- the lower tiers should also have a 1 CV restriction. 

 

AS a CV driver I wouldn't mind that too much... The  'it's no fun' for a CV driver is when you get a 2 vs 2 CV battle and the ';other' CVs are 1 or 2 tiers higher...

 

'Oh, but you have a evenly matched CV to fight!'All fine and dandy to say, until your Grumman F3Fs run into A6Ms... (as an example)

[pewpewpew42]

The thing I don't like is that Bogue gets stomped with strike every time when alone. Its practically unplayable, since literally every other loadout in the tier has fighters where you have none.

[Sub_Octavian]

Hi!

Our nearest plan is to balance CV economy (and make they earn more for air superiority and less for damaging ships). At the same time, overall game economy will change, as tanking and recon will be rewarded. If all goes well, it should come in 0.5.12.
Next things to consider is probably CV role and efficiency at low tiers and at the same time lack ov CVs on high tiers (which is actually bad for the game - as it also means lack of recon and less value for AA ships).

 

 

 

[MATip09]

Hi!

 

Our nearest plan is to balance CV economy (and make they earn more for air superiority and less for damaging ships). At the same time, overall game economy will change, as tanking and recon will be rewarded. If all goes well, it should come in 0.5.12.

Next things to consider is probably CV role and efficiency at low tiers and at the same time lack ov CVs on high tiers (which is actually bad for the game - as it also means lack of recon and less value for AA ships).

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Sub_Octavian

I have some ideas to improve CV game play.

1. Give fighters the ability to strafe ships giving them a chance to temporarily take out AA guns.

2. The ability to use the primary guns when all are planes are gone.

 

Thanks.

[KermitTheGamer]

Hi!

 

Our nearest plan is to balance CV economy (and make they earn more for air superiority and less for damaging ships). At the same time, overall game economy will change, as tanking and recon will be rewarded. If all goes well, it should come in 0.5.12.

Next things to consider is probably CV role and efficiency at low tiers and at the same time lack ov CVs on high tiers (which is actually bad for the game - as it also means lack of recon and less value for AA ships).

 

 

 

 

 

Recon is being rewarded? Awesome, so tired of getting over 100,000 spotting damage in a DD but only do like 30,000 of my own damage and as a result end up on the low-end of the team

[Sub_Octavian]

Recon is being rewarded? Awesome, so tired of getting over 100,000 spotting damage in a DD but only do like 30,000 of my own damage and as a result end up on the low-end of the team

Yep, recon damage, too, this is planned for 0.5.12.

[godzilla5549]

Hi!

 

Our nearest plan is to balance CV economy (and make they earn more for air superiority and less for damaging ships). At the same time, overall game economy will change, as tanking and recon will be rewarded. If all goes well, it should come in 0.5.12.

Next things to consider is probably CV role and efficiency at low tiers and at the same time lack ov CVs on high tiers (which is actually bad for the game - as it also means lack of recon and less value for AA ships).

 

 

 

 

 

 less for damaging ships

 

Well that seals the deal for me.

 

I'm quitting CVs. I see no reason to keep playing if CVs will be made into a point and click adventure instead of a strike force.

 

It was fun while it lasted. I now await the changes in game so that I can have it all confirmed to be real and then I will sell Ranger.

[Caffynated]

They should just let US dive bombers dogfight once they've dropped their bombs (no strafing). The Dauntless was successful against many IJN fighters (including the A6M) and according to some sources had a positive kill rate in dogfights.

 

High tier US strike loadouts should have 1 squadron of fighter bombers replace 1 of their dive bombers.

 

[Rouxi]

Hi!

 

Our nearest plan is to balance CV economy (and make they earn more for air superiority and less for damaging ships). At the same time, overall game economy will change, as tanking and recon will be rewarded. If all goes well, it should come in 0.5.12.

Next things to consider is probably CV role and efficiency at low tiers and at the same time lack ov CVs on high tiers (which is actually bad for the game - as it also means lack of recon and less value for AA ships).

 

 

 

 

 

But if everyone goes for AS loadout there will be no bombers to shoot down and CV players will just get bored and perma spot DD to troll them.

[X15]

 

But if everyone goes for AS loadout there will be no bombers to shoot down and CV players will just get bored and perma spot DD to troll them.

 

That sounds like the plan.

*snip*  less for damaging ships

 

WHAT? Its already near impossible to get top team in CVs as is, you can deal double the damage and kills of your teammates and still be stuck 4-6th down simply because you can't cap. If anything it needs to be increased.

But as I say this I realize your plan involves the spotting damage you'd accumulate simply for showing up with your strike force, I really hope it balances out. As it is CVs are painful to grind.

[Sub_Octavian]

Well that seals the deal for me.

 

I'm quitting CVs. I see no reason to keep playing if CVs will be made into a point and click adventure instead of a strike force.

 

It was fun while it lasted. I now await the changes in game so that I can have it all confirmed to be real and then I will sell Ranger.

[Sub_Octavian]

WHAT? Its already near impossible to get top team in CVs as is, you can deal double the damage and kills of your teammates and still be stuck 4-6th down simply because you can't cap. If anything it needs to be increased.

But as I say this I realize your plan involves the spotting damage you'd accumulate simply for showing up with your strike force, I really hope it balances out. As it is CVs are painful to grind.

There is no plan to make CV earn less, it is the matter of balancing rewards for different achievements.

[Edgecase]

There is no plan to make CV earn less, it is the matter of balancing rewards for different achievements.

 

Won't CVs basically suck up all the recon points, though? As far as I can tell, the system only counts initial spotting and not respotting after a target goes dark. Planes get there way faster than even the fastest destroyers (which is why I agree they're needed for high tier balance, but that's a different issue).

[WhimsicalPacifist]

There's a distinction between balancing rewards and buffing the rewards for the Lowest Common Denominator gameplay.  Air Superiority is shallow gameplay wise and will merely become the default in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

Every time that the CV player clicks "Play", the gameplay is largely predetermined by how the 2-4 CV's picked in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

Is rewarding spotting damage good?  Yes. 

 

Does it mesh with buffing Air Superiority, a BB-driven meta, and drastic changes to IJN DD's?  No.

[Zero__Karma]

If you want more cvs above tier 7. Then either provide a counter to aa, or make aa suck without manual aiming. It's no fun at all to have your plans insta killed while approaching any enemy ship, getting one torp off, and running out of planes half way through the match.

[Trippyee]

Hi!

 

Our nearest plan is to balance CV economy (and make they earn more for air superiority and less for damaging ships). At the same time, overall game economy will change, as tanking and recon will be rewarded. If all goes well, it should come in 0.5.12.

Next things to consider is probably CV role and efficiency at low tiers and at the same time lack ov CVs on high tiers (which is actually bad for the game - as it also means lack of recon and less value for AA ships).

 

 

 

 

It sounds like AS is the make or break captain skill. 

It's hard to balance 25% of the playable ship types when such a strong skill (and mandatory it seems) is tucked away so deep in the captain skill list.

Rather than remove the skill outright, how about a captain skills tree that is specific to the ship type played.

So under the CV tree, you can still have general goodies but also have a gradual progression of other specialized skills.

So AS would become its own branch of the tree, spend one point gets say 1%, rank 2 gives an additional 2% or whatever value you like  and so on down the end of the branch at 10% total.

The values above aren't binding, just giving examples of how it 'could' work

Going this way removes the outright ROFL stomp you see with those who have AS and those who have not. The power curve is more of a actual curve instead of a rocket launch.

 

Where I'm going with this is captain skills that are oriented to the ship type as opposed to a general here and there spread.

 

Yes, it would require more work.

Yes, it would need testing and refinement.

Yes, it would require Patience from both users and providers.

 

The end result, however, would allow each ship type more flexibility in the way their ships played, deepending on individual taste.

 

Feel free to disagree, but I'm suggesting a way to give everyone what they want.

 

Don't like my idea? 

By all means, suggest your own plan.

~T

[Zero__Karma]

No amount of increased rewards will make flying in circles not shooting at anything fun.

[Zero__Karma]

@Trippyee while I like soecialized skill tree's I dislike dumping AS. I don't have it yet but I'm working towards it. If it didn't I would not have bought a single dabloon lol. I think getting a 15 point Captain should give a significant reward.

[marcmad]

There is no plan to make CV earn less, it is the matter of balancing rewards for different achievements.

 

 

 

Probably won't change my score much. I'm ready for it.

 

[Flashtirade]

I wouldn't mind these changes if fighter mechanics weren't reduced down to point-and-click (sometimes while holding down Alt) adventures. Striking ships effectively has a skill element to it (whether or not it is over- or under-rewarding is besides the point). Fighter battles are mainly decided by strafes (the only major skill component), who has more planes (or specifically squads), and the occasional presence of AA.

 

Also fix the disparity in loadouts between IJN and USN loadouts. The former still retain some striking power in their AS configurations while also being able to outfight the latter's AS setups with strafes (purely due to higher numbers of squads).