Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Sparcie

Independance a waste of time

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
459 posts
8,260 battles

Has any one else wondered why there are so few CV players above T5? I don't wonder anymore.

 

The independance just plain sucks and blows. Fighters are weak, bombers are weak. I can't shoot planes down with fighters cause I'm losing them 6-2 or worse (even against IJN), and there isn't a single ship that won't destroy an entire squad of any bombers on it's own. This thing is only good for one thing... ramming someone when you run outa planes.

 

I actually quite enjoyed running air superiority with the bogue, on a good day I could shoot down 40-50 planes in a battle. But the independence is lucky if it can manage 2. no .... no wonder people just don't play cv over T5 they are full of suck and fail.

 

oh and don't bother teaming your fighters with your teammates (if you have one) they'll just drag them over every AA gun on the map. stupid [not included]

 

people complaining about the CV's being over-powered clearly haven't played one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,825 posts
5,155 battles

people complaining about the CV's being over-powered clearly haven't played one.

Yeah. and clearly that you haven't played enough. Like giving a noob a Yamato and tell him to fight an experienced player in a Minekaze... I'm pretty sure the Minekaze will win for sure. The ship is a sword and you are just a 8 y-o kid learning how to use a kitchen knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

people complaining about the CV's being over-powered clearly haven't played one.

 

No, maybe they are simply able to look at statistics and wonder why it is that 4 of the top 5 ships rated by average damage per battle are CVs.

 

Yes, ONE other ship from all the tier 9-10 available (2 x BB, 3 x CA and 3 x DD) makes it into the top 5, and that's Yamato. The other 4 are all CVs. Seems legit.

 

Now, looking at that, does it matter I've decided not to play CVs (having done so in Alpha and a tiny bit in Beta until I decided I simply didn't enjoy it)? If I've played the hell out of CVs does that in any way alter those numbers?

 

No, it doesn't.

 

If you want a useful reply, you might consider starting with "I'm playing [whatever ship] and am struggling. I find [explain issue] happens a lot. Is it just me, or does this ship suck? Can anyone give feedback/suggestions, please?". If you were to do that, I'm sure a lot of experienced players (Retia, Deicide, Haku, and others) could give you useful tips and also let you know if it does indeed suck until some aspect of it is upgraded.

 

Otherwise you'll simply be regarded as another person complaining something can't kill everything easily, in this case a CV (like they're terribly underpowered in the game, LOL).

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,043 posts
4,300 battles

Adapt my friend. If some managed to thrive aboard the Indy, you can. Although I have to admit, CV gameplay has considerably dumbed down for several reasons while balance issues unsolved, add in the severely nerfed credit and exp rewards for CVs then here's the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
982 posts

53 planes shot down by my Indy's fighters in a single battle during the x2 weekend just past.  :medal:

 

If you are gonna play with two fighters groups you have to use them as a single unit and gang up on smaller units wherever possible. Also, NEVER get caught running out of ammo during a fight.

When you get frustrated a few PvE will always make you feel better about the Indy. :child:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
459 posts
8,260 battles

Sure you can run air superiority like the bogue, but you have to get to the upgrade first. The ship is downright unplayable stock, and even after a few upgrades it still blows. I've managed plenty of decent battles in the bogue to those who claim inexperience, although I almost always use AS for the flight control because it's too easy to dodge the single torpedo squads fish. I have a bunch of clear sky medals all earned on the bogue using tactics some have mentioned. I don't mind having to work for kills/planes shot down, but when a carrier performs this badly it's ridiculous. The bogue (and other lower tier cvs) at least perform ok at stock.

 

The independance has to fight in a harsher environment with tougher AA and more fighters on the enemy cv, but is barely an upgrade from the bogue.

 

@steeltrap It may be true that CVs top the damage list, but you'll note only the T9 and T10 ones do, and they probably deserve it. Seriously someone has to be at the top of that list, and the most powerful ship of the time was the carrier, get over it. It wouldn't be anymore balanced if the top was dominated by BBs or something else. The carriers at 6-8 all seem to suck, is that balanced? It's a long grind to T10, if the ships along the way suck people will just give up and not play. It's sad cause at the T6 level I rarely see carriers at all, but at T5 and T4 they still seem to be around in healthy numbers, there's a reason for this.

 

incidently carriers never have a easy time making kills unless the enemies are extrememly stupid, if you are killed easily by a CV at T4-5 then you're doing something wrong. If you think it's easy then you've not played them. Even the T4 hosho which many say is over powered can be easily countered, and nowadays the server population is better at countering it. So it's more of a challenge sinking ships at that level than you might think, but at least you will be rewarded for extra effort, it is still do-able. The T6 independance doesn't reward you for much, you certainly have no hope of using torpedoes or bombs to do much, and the IJN carrier outnumbers you fighter squad wise even on the AS flight control. so unless there is another independance (which almost never happens cause few are playing it) or a lower tier carrier as well you're down-right useless. The only task I can think of that it might be usable for is fighter cover when you get the flight control module.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

On the data I saw, both tier 10, both tier 9 and the IJN tier 8 CVs all have higher av dam/battle than the Des Moines.

 

Seriously, why on earth would a competitive on-line game want to be so poorly balanced that one class of tier 9s in BOTH nations that have them ought to outperform every other tier 9 AND even all the tier 10s bar 1 (excluding tier 10 of same class, which of course top the list)?

 

If it's a long slog to the high tier CVs, how is it longer than other ships? If the slogs are roughly equal, why should the tier 9 CV be favoured over even tier 10s? Didn't those tier 10s go through and even LONGER slog to get to tier 10?

 

You say the tier 6-8 CVs all suck. Funny, because the tier 7 IJN CV tops every other tier 7 ship, and the tier 8 tops every other tier 8. What's more, they beat other ships of HIGHER tiers, too. Yes, they must really suck; if so, however, what does EVERY OTHER SHIP OF THEIR TIER do? Suck even more?

 

How about the tier 6? Wow, guess what? It tops every other tier 6. It also tops Mogami, Lexington and Roon to name a few. I assume that's 'deserved' somehow.

 

So surely the tier 5 can't be that good. Well, no, that would be wrong. It tops every tier 5, all but 2 tier 6 (those 2 being the CV and the Fuso), and a bunch of tiers 7, 8 AND 9.  A tier 5, remember.

 

The tier 4? Ahead of the Cleveland and Baltimore FFS, and others. Yes, that's a higher av dam/battle than a notorious ship (Cleveland) and a TIER 9 CA. Really? Balanced? Deserved? LMAO

 

It would seem if you want to do damage to the enemy, and oddly enough the rewards system seems massively skewed to doing just that, the inescapable conclusion is one should play IJN CVs. Until you reach tier 9 or 10, in which case the USN CVs will do just fine, too. I'm sure that's coincidence, right?

 

You call it 'reasonable' and 'deserved', I call it crap balance and poor mechanics. I wonder what the game might look like were there not a limit of 2 CVs per battle.

 

Perhaps the devs know the answer, and hence the cap.

 

p.s. interestingly enough, in general we should play IJN as they tend to outperform every other nation's equivalent tier for tier. Given you were funny enough to mention 'reality', I'd love an explanation of this given real world performance was somewhat different as I recall.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
358 posts
7,415 battles

With my Indy running a 56% WR & average 1700xp per game I'd say it is not as bad as you claim. Most of the battles I've played have been using stock configuration so to say it's unplayable with stock configuration is just wrong. To be perfectly frank you are underperforming in all your carriers which would indicate a trend that says that either all CVs suck or you have room for improvement.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,196 posts
2,883 battles

On the data I saw, both tier 10, both tier 9 and the IJN tier 8 CVs all have higher av dam/battle than the Des Moines.

 

Seriously, why on earth would a competitive on-line game want to be so poorly balanced that one class of tier 9s in BOTH nations that have them ought to outperform every other tier 9 AND even all the tier 10s bar 1 (excluding tier 10 of same class, which of course top the list)?

 

If it's a long slog to the high tier CVs, how is it longer than other ships? If the slogs are roughly equal, why should the tier 9 CV be favoured over even tier 10s? Didn't those tier 10s go through and even LONGER slog to get to tier 10?

 

You say the tier 6-8 CVs all suck. Funny, because the tier 7 IJN CV tops every other tier 7 ship, and the tier 8 tops every other tier 8. What's more, they beat other ships of HIGHER tiers, too. Yes, they must really suck; if so, however, what does EVERY OTHER SHIP OF THEIR TIER do? Suck even more?

 

How about the tier 6? Wow, guess what? It tops every other tier 6. It also tops Mogami, Lexington and Roon to name a few. I assume that's 'deserved' somehow.

 

So surely the tier 5 can't be that good. Well, no, that would be wrong. It tops every tier 5, all but 2 tier 6 (those 2 being the CV and the Fuso), and a bunch of tiers 7, 8 AND 9.  A tier 5, remember.

 

The tier 4? Ahead of the Cleveland and Baltimore FFS, and others. Yes, that's a higher av dam/battle than a notorious ship (Cleveland) and a TIER 9 CA. Really? Balanced? Deserved? LMAO

 

It would seem if you want to do damage to the enemy, and oddly enough the rewards system seems massively skewed to doing just that, the inescapable conclusion is one should play IJN CVs. Until you reach tier 9 or 10, in which case the USN CVs will do just fine, too. I'm sure that's coincidence, right?

 

You call it 'reasonable' and 'deserved', I call it crap balance and poor mechanics. I wonder what the game might look like were there not a limit of 2 CVs per battle.

 

Perhaps the devs know the answer, and hence the cap.

 

p.s. interestingly enough, in general we should play IJN as they tend to outperform every other nation's equivalent tier for tier. Given you were funny enough to mention 'reality', I'd love an explanation of this given real world performance was somewhat different as I recall.

For god sake we don't need any more of "CV is OP NERF NERF NERF" Yes we know that they have the best performance in the game but there's no point nerfing then down to the point where their damage output is the same of a battleship. When that happen good luck finding any fighter squadron in the game defending you from an enemy attack or a friendly dive bombers and torpedoes bombers rescuing you by killing off an enemy battleship chasing you. Why are you the complaing about a tier 6 CV torping a tier 8 ship? How many planes would survive to make the drop and if the ship is taking evasive manouvers how many planes would the CV lose when lining up for an attack run? Tier 4-8 CVs are infective against BBs if they travel in a group which they generally do. Tier 9 and 10 CVs are OP and I can't deny that but even people like tank Stryker will not attack a group of ship travelling in a formation. Because he will lose too many planes before starting his attack run. CVs are counter able if you work together. Why are you whining about CVs when they did most of the fighting in world war 2 ? That's like War Gaming saying :Because arty deal much more damage than light, heavy and medium tanks/ battle we will NERF arty's ammo so they can only have the same damage output as a heavy tank. CV is much harder to play when compared to other class Imo. By nerfing them you will reduce the CV population from 15% to maybe only 1-5%. The funny thing is that you don't even have played aircraft carriers for A SINGLE SECOND. How about you play them and come back to tell us if they DESERVE to be "OP"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

For god sake we don't need any more of "CV is OP NERF NERF NERF" Yes we know that they have the best performance in the game but there's no point nerfing then down to the point where their damage output is the same of a battleship. When that happen good luck finding any fighter squadron in the game defending you from an enemy attack or a friendly dive bombers and torpedoes bombers rescuing you by killing off an enemy battleship chasing you. Why are you the complaing about a tier 6 CV torping a tier 8 ship? How many planes would survive to make the drop and if the ship is taking evasive manouvers how many planes would the CV lose when lining up for an attack run? Tier 4-8 CVs are infective against BBs if they travel in a group which they generally do. Tier 9 and 10 CVs are OP and I can't deny that but even people like tank Stryker will not attack a group of ship travelling in a formation. Because he will lose too many planes before starting his attack run. CVs are counter able if you work together. Why are you whining about CVs when they did most of the fighting in world war 2 ? That's like War Gaming saying :Because arty deal much more damage than light, heavy and medium tanks/ battle we will NERF arty's ammo so they can only have the same damage output as a heavy tank. CV is much harder to play when compared to other class Imo. By nerfing them you will reduce the CV population from 15% to maybe only 1-5%. The funny thing is that you don't even have played aircraft carriers for A SINGLE SECOND. How about you play them and come back to tell us if they DESERVE to be "OP"

 

Well done for entirely missing the point.

 

You might have not noticed, given how often you write them yourself, but the OP is complaining about a CV and saying they need a BUFF. Just as you have a few hundred times.

 

My perfectly reasonable point is that IJN CVs show performance levels that are ridiculously above the norm at nearly every tier.

 

So it's fine for you and the OP to say "BUFF MY USN CV NOW" but I can't ask "Excuse me, but I'd like to suggest IJN CVs are OVER performing, so maybe your USN CV doesn't need a buff?".

 

As I said before, the beauty of numbers is that anyone with any analytical skill can look at them and NOT need to play whatever they represent to draw conclusions, with the exception of the "Is it fun?" question. I also pointed out that I played them in Alpha and beta, and stopped because I didn't find them fun, but I guess it's easier to ignore what I actually write if it doesn't suit your rant.

(here's an amusing aside: how many CVs games do the devs need to play in order to balance them? How many do you THINK they play? Surely they can't balance the game based on numbers, can they?)

 

SO you complain that I'm saying "nerf all CVs" which I'm not, and completely overlook the stats I quote about how CVs, in particular IJN ones, are performing. And you conclude I am the one with the problem.

 

OK, so let me ask you a simple question: which OTHER ships would you be happy to see the tier 5 outperform other tier 7s and 8s?

 

Now, once you've answered that, how should those tier 7s and 8s feel? How long before THEY start saying "My [whatever] ship sucks terribly, buff it" and on what basis would you say "NO"?

 

Because right now you're saying "Buff my CV so it performs as well as IJN ones, which is to say better than every other ship of its tier and frequently better than most of at least one tier higher".

 

That 'reasoning' is so absurdly biased and so sure to end up with completely retarded balance that, for all I criticise them, I will hope WG isn't stupid enough to listen to.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
459 posts
8,260 battles

just shows how much you looked at the stats steeltrap... both fuso and new mexico out damage the independance by about 2k-5k damage on our server. And the Ryojo does on average 10k more.

At T5 the bogue is lower than all the bbs some destroyers and most crusiers, heck even the Nickolai, ark beta, and Langley at T4 has higher damage.

At T7 the Ranger is about equal with the Nagato

At T8 the lexington is about 7-8K damage less than Amagi, but also less than tirpitz and others.

at T9 the essex is the first US CV to outperform the BBs in any meaningful way

and the T10 is a monstrous beast in the Midway out performing everyone. Watch iChases videos on it to see how it does and how to defend against it.

 

note with the exception of the T10 midway the IJN carriers do a minimum of 10-15k more damage.

 

Think again steeltrap.
You're not the only one who can check the stats. You're a bit full of BS, with exception of course the T9-10 CVs out performing BBs. But don't even pretend cruisers (a counter to CVs) and destroyers should do as much damage as either the BBs or CVs (with obvious situational exceptions of course). your suggestion that the hosho doing better than the cleveland is irrelevant, if the two ever met in battle the cleveland would win hands down, they fight different ships with different weapons, it's just plain silly to compare them.

 

The IJN CVs were "nerfed" (deservedly so) in one of the last few patches, the stats haven't had time to adjust or change. mostly as few people are playing the carriers at the top. only 87 people are on warship stats who play the midway for example whilst the Yamato has about 3 times as many players.

 

Also it's a bit unfair (or stupid) to expect balance in the form of every ship doing roughly equal damage per tier. If I played my BB and couldn't do more damage than a cruiser because of your balancing I'd be a bit miffed, and would probably just not play BBs. Luckily they are powerful as they should be. The ships need to be balanced against their counterparts in class, you statements about the des moines and other cruisers are a bit silly and sound like sour grapes that you can't do the same in your beloved ships.

 

As for what others have said maybe I do need to develop other strategies, but I am capable as roughly an average player... I have better than average damage on the hosho for instance (not by much mind you). I do little damage in the bogue as killing planes isn't counted in damage stats, and that's what I do with it mostly. I have 15 clear skies badges from playing the bogue. I played the langley when only learning the CV trade so have poor stats there. Haven't moved up the IJN tree as I've only just started. You get the picture, this isn't just about ability, and the ship stats show that the independance underperforms. It's plane kill rate is nearly as bad as the langleys in addition to the poor damage performance. FFS the Nikolai T4 bb (which is admitedly OP) does better.

 

All the ships need to be playable for the average joe to some degree, and stock ships shouldn't suck so badly to make people rage quit. Unicums can't be the only people to succeed in some small way otherwise no-one would play, and lets be honest few people are playing CV's beyond T5.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,043 posts
4,300 battles

On the data I saw, both tier 10, both tier 9 and the IJN tier 8 CVs all have higher av dam/battle than the Des Moines.

 

Have you considered the required skill level for the ship, the average skill of the possible users and the fact that CVs are the most survivable ships hence are dealing damage longer and continuously compared to other ships?
Edited by Deicide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,043 posts
4,300 battles

just shows how much you looked at the stats steeltrap... both fuso and new mexico out damage the independance by about 2k-5k damage on our server. And the Ryojo does on average 10k more.

At T5 the bogue is lower than all the bbs some destroyers and most crusiers, heck even the Nickolai, ark beta, and Langley at T4 has higher damage.

At T7 the Ranger is about equal with the Nagato

At T8 the lexington is about 7-8K damage less than Amagi, but also less than tirpitz and others.

at T9 the essex is the first US CV to outperform the BBs in any meaningful way

and the T10 is a monstrous beast in the Midway out performing everyone. Watch iChases videos on it to see how it does and how to defend against it.

 

note with the exception of the T10 midway the IJN carriers do a minimum of 10-15k more damage.

 

Think again steeltrap.

You're not the only one who can check the stats. You're a bit full of BS, with exception of course the T9-10 CVs out performing BBs. But don't even pretend cruisers (a counter to CVs) and destroyers should do as much damage as either the BBs or CVs (with obvious situational exceptions of course). your suggestion that the hosho doing better than the cleveland is irrelevant, if the two ever met in battle the cleveland would win hands down, they fight different ships with different weapons, it's just plain silly to compare them.

 

The IJN CVs were "nerfed" (deservedly so) in one of the last few patches, the stats haven't had time to adjust or change. mostly as few people are playing the carriers at the top. only 87 people are on warship stats who play the midway for example whilst the Yamato has about 3 times as many players.

 

Also it's a bit unfair (or stupid) to expect balance in the form of every ship doing roughly equal damage per tier. If I played my BB and couldn't do more damage than a cruiser because of your balancing I'd be a bit miffed, and would probably just not play BBs. Luckily they are powerful as they should be. The ships need to be balanced against their counterparts in class, you statements about the des moines and other cruisers are a bit silly and sound like sour grapes that you can't do the same in your beloved ships.

 

As for what others have said maybe I do need to develop other strategies, but I am capable as roughly an average player... I have better than average damage on the hosho for instance (not by much mind you). I do little damage in the bogue as killing planes isn't counted in damage stats, and that's what I do with it mostly. I have 15 clear skies badges from playing the bogue. I played the langley when only learning the CV trade so have poor stats there. Haven't moved up the IJN tree as I've only just started. You get the picture, this isn't just about ability, and the ship stats show that the independance underperforms. It's plane kill rate is nearly as bad as the langleys in addition to the poor damage performance. FFS the Nikolai T4 bb (which is admitedly OP) does better.

 

All the ships need to be playable for the average joe to some degree, and stock ships shouldn't suck so badly to make people rage quit. Unicums can't be the only people to succeed in some small way otherwise no-one would play, and lets be honest few people are playing CV's beyond T5.

 

 

 

Well said and good point. I also agree on the stock part, this is specially crippling to CVs since they are going to fight to a higher tier and they'll probably get matched up against a fully upgraded CV and they have no chance of winning. However, that's simply how the game is. Maybe, indy requires a whole different approach and gamestyle compared to bogue right? Or maybe, you still lacked some important skill for a CV captain, and I think you might not do very well too if you're given midway for example. Or finally, CV is simply not your cup of tea.

 

Also, I believe the drop in CV usage is due to the severe nerf of their creds and exp reward and not due to the non-playability of the mid and upper tier CVs as you say.

Edited by Deicide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

I have consistently said that I think "stock" syndrome as a means of 'encouraging' people to spend money is one of the most negative game design choices I've ever seen. It's just one reason why I barely play this game these days, having unlocked the New Mexico and being rewarded for my expenditure of exp and cr with a completely ridiculous whale that is mind-numbingly AWFUL to play. Not sure I can be bothered, and I'm sure as hell not going to reward WG for such an atrocious design by paying them real money.

 

I was saying the same thing around Sept 2010 about WoT.

 

As for the rest, the point has generally been "USN CVs suck compared with IJN ones, buff them". Correct?

So my point is that before one expects USN CVs to perform at the same levels as IJN CVs, should we not also consider how THOSE perform? And don't they generally perform ABSURDLY well, to the point of being blatantly out of balance in many cases?

 

If balance isn't to be 'generally' the same around each tier, how is it balanced? What's a CV player's idea of balance?

 

Mine is that if one plays a ship to its potential, accentuating its strengths and mitigating its weaknesses across as many battles as possible, then the performances should be roughly equivalent. If an entire class on one nation outperforms pretty much everything of up to a few tiers above it, there's something seriously wrong.

 

Of course that might otherwise translate to exp earned, and not raw damage. If everyone performs just as well as each other relative to the potential of their ship then they should earn roughly the same exp, right?

 

So how does that look?

 

Again, 4 CVs in top 5, 6 CVs in top 10. The IJN CVs of tiers 7-10 are ALL in the top 10 ships sorted by exp.

 

How exactly are you going to cut it such that the IJN CVs don't look like they are ridiculous statistical outliers, and thus that it's reasonable for USN CVs to perform the same? Cap points? LOL

 

Regardless, what performance are you proposing the mid-tier CVs should have? And what about the IJN ones?

 

Because right now CV balance remains a dog's breakfast, which doesn't surprise me one bit, but I'm interested to hear what you would all consider 'balance' to look like.

 

p.s. as for losing any chance of fighter cover over my BB or other ship, that happens so rarely I'd not notice. What's more, if there aren't 2 CVs per battle I won't need fighter cover, will I? If nobody is playing higher tier CVs, the lack of fighters is entirely moot.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
248 posts

the cv's vary so much.

some diddle around and do nothing ti seems except try and kill the other cv.

 

some can take out an entire team in the first two minutes.

but here's my problem with them generally,

they seem to be playing an entirely separate game.

as if the other ships aren't there,

and they're just chasing score.

they very rarely watch the chat,

and they have absolutely no reason to protect the ships but we all feel compelled to protect the cv.

 

and they ARE ALWAYS the last ship on the ocean.

it's a great deal for them.

 

i really wiah their was incentive for them to respond to ships needs and protect them

at the moment there is zero need and they're just playing an RTs against the other cv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,043 posts
4,300 battles

I have consistently said that I think "stock" syndrome as a means of 'encouraging' people to spend money is one of the most negative game design choices I've ever seen. It's just one reason why I barely play this game these days, having unlocked the New Mexico and being rewarded for my expenditure of exp and cr with a completely ridiculous whale that is mind-numbingly AWFUL to play. Not sure I can be bothered, and I'm sure as hell not going to reward WG for such an atrocious design by paying them real money.

 

I was saying the same thing around Sept 2010 about WoT.

 

As for the rest, the point has generally been "USN CVs suck compared with IJN ones, buff them". Correct?

So my point is that before one expects USN CVs to perform at the same levels as IJN CVs, should we not also consider how THOSE perform? And don't they generally perform ABSURDLY well, to the point of being blatantly out of balance in many cases?

 

If balance isn't to be 'generally' the same around each tier, how is it balanced? What's a CV player's idea of balance?

 

Mine is that if one plays a ship to its potential, accentuating its strengths and mitigating its weaknesses across as many battles as possible, then the performances should be roughly equivalent. If an entire class on one nation outperforms pretty much everything of up to a few tiers above it, there's something seriously wrong.

 

Of course that might otherwise translate to exp earned, and not raw damage. If everyone performs just as well as each other relative to the potential of their ship then they should earn roughly the same exp, right?

 

So how does that look?

 

Again, 4 CVs in top 5, 6 CVs in top 10. The IJN CVs of tiers 7-10 are ALL in the top 10 ships sorted by exp.

 

How exactly are you going to cut it such that the IJN CVs don't look like they are ridiculous statistical outliers, and thus that it's reasonable for USN CVs to perform the same? Cap points? LOL

 

Regardless, what performance are you proposing the mid-tier CVs should have? And what about the IJN ones?

 

Because right now CV balance remains a dog's breakfast, which doesn't surprise me one bit, but I'm interested to hear what you would all consider 'balance' to look like.

 

p.s. as for losing any chance of fighter cover over my BB or other ship, that happens so rarely I'd not notice. What's more, if there aren't 2 CVs per battle I won't need fighter cover, will I? If nobody is playing higher tier CVs, the lack of fighters is entirely moot.

 

I think your problem is how you sort your "top performing" ships. Why are you basing it on exp? It is the most useless parameter in a player's stats. Haven't you read sparcie's comment above about the stats?

 

Then, I think you missed the OP's complaint. He was complaining about CVs in mid tier in general, not the "IJN OP USN WEAK" stuff and you drifted off topic to the old IJN CV vs USN CV. Again, you are basing everything on unreliable stat specially since IJN CVs used to have super UBER OP layouts and early IJN captains have padded their stats so thickly and messed up all future judgement using statistics.

 

You also complain about the "mind-numbingly" new mexico which is one of the better battleships in her line and it seemed like you just like to find anything to complain about. And, if you hated the WG techtree and stock syndrome and etc, i'm surprised you remain playing WG titles for 5 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,043 posts
4,300 battles

the cv's vary so much.

some diddle around and do nothing ti seems except try and kill the other cv.

 

some can take out an entire team in the first two minutes.

but here's my problem with them generally,

they seem to be playing an entirely separate game.

as if the other ships aren't there,

and they're just chasing score.

they very rarely watch the chat,

and they have absolutely no reason to protect the ships but we all feel compelled to protect the cv.

 

and they ARE ALWAYS the last ship on the ocean.

it's a great deal for them.

 

i really wiah their was incentive for them to respond to ships needs and protect them

at the moment there is zero need and they're just playing an RTs against the other cv

 

There is a need to protect CVs because they give massive massive advantage to the team thus for your own self interest too. Specially at tier 10s, if your CV dies you have very very low chance of ever winning. God, I hate people with such a very low strategical grasp, so so dumb and I hope you're not one of them.

 

And oh, you don't feel any advantage when your CV kills the enemy CV? Without enemy CV, your team won't get torpedo bombed and your CV can freely kill other ship without worrying about enemy fighters. That "does nothing" action gave your team more fighting chance than probably 5 of yourself can do.

 

Let's turn off the facade. I   hope I don't team up with 1d1*ts like u. . (sorry just had a low IQ team and I feel nothing but irritation thanks to my stup1d person allergy).

Edited by Deicide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

I think your problem is how you sort your "top performing" ships. Why are you basing it on exp? It is the most useless parameter in a player's stats. Haven't you read sparcie's comment above about the stats?

 

Then, I think you missed the OP's complaint. He was complaining about CVs in mid tier in general, not the "IJN OP USN WEAK" stuff and you drifted off topic to the old IJN CV vs USN CV. Again, you are basing everything on unreliable stat specially since IJN CVs used to have super UBER OP layouts and early IJN captains have padded their stats so thickly and messed up all future judgement using statistics.

 

You also complain about the "mind-numbingly" new mexico which is one of the better battleships in her line and it seemed like you just like to find anything to complain about. And, if you hated the WG techtree and stock syndrome and etc, i'm surprised you remain playing WG titles for 5 years.

 

 

 

There is a need to protect CVs because they give massive massive advantage to the team thus for your own self interest too. Specially at tier 10s, if your CV dies you have very very low chance of ever winning. God, I hate people with such a very low strategical grasp, so so dumb and I hope you're not one of them.

 

And oh, you don't feel any advantage when your CV kills the enemy CV? Without enemy CV, your team won't get torpedo bombed and your CV can freely kill other ship without worrying about enemy fighters. That "does nothing" action gave your team more fighting chance than probably 5 of yourself can do.

 

Let's turn off the facade. I   hope I don't team up with 1d1*ts like u. . (sorry just had a low IQ team and I feel nothing but irritation thanks to my stup1d person allergy).

 

Yes we need new data. I used exp simply as an alternative to av damage as I was told av damage wasn't valid. The logic was that I was asked to consider if I thought a CA/DD would do as much damage per battle as a BB, If I were to accept the principle that each class played to its potential should perform approximately the same in some way as an attempt to adjudge balance, then if av damage wasn't valid maybe exp would be. Of course the experience system has been simplistically 'damage and kills', too, so that doesn't work. Indeed it just reinforces how some classes have had it absurdly good in nearly every measure.

 

Incidentally, I raised New Mexico as an example of just how bad 'stock syndrome' can be. I played New Mex in beta and kept it, so am well aware of its potential, yet even the hope of that potential isn't competing with the "holy **** how many battles where I feel useless am I going to have to suffer?" feeling. I just don't see it as necessary. It seems a cynical, lazy way to go with development, as though they weren't able to think of how to make the game so awesome people would want to spend money from sheer enjoyment as opposed to escaping the nut vice each higher tier unlock proves to be.

 

Maybe some of us are happy not to play World of Air Pollution (which is sure as hell what it used to feel like with 2 IJN CVs per side nearly every battle) where the master race that sits behind an island determines the fate of a team such that everyone should bow to their inevitable and deserved superiority, and that seems to stick in the craw of some people.

 

I will, however, once more repeat the questions nobody has answered:

 

If balance isn't to be 'generally' the same around each tier, how is it balanced? What's a CV player's idea of balance?

 

Regardless, what performance are you proposing the mid-tier CVs should have? And what about the IJN ones?

 

Because right now CV balance remains a dog's breakfast, which doesn't surprise me one bit, but I'm interested to hear what you would all consider 'balance' to look like.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
406 posts
6,274 battles

 

 

Yes we need new data. I used exp simply as an alternative to av damage as I was told av damage wasn't valid. The logic was that I was asked to consider if I thought a CA/DD would do as much damage per battle as a BB, If I were to accept the principle that each class played to its potential should perform approximately the same in some way as an attempt to adjudge balance, then if av damage wasn't valid maybe exp would be. Of course the experience system has been simplistically 'damage and kills', too, so that doesn't work. Indeed it just reinforces how some classes have had it absurdly good in nearly every measure.

 

Incidentally, I raised New Mexico as an example of just how bad 'stock syndrome' can be. I played New Mex in beta and kept it, so am well aware of its potential, yet even the hope of that potential isn't competing with the "holy **** how many battles where I feel useless am I going to have to suffer?" feeling. I just don't see it as necessary. It seems a cynical, lazy way to go with development, as though they weren't able to think of how to make the game so awesome people would want to spend money from sheer enjoyment as opposed to escaping the nut vice each higher tier unlock proves to be.

 

Maybe some of us are happy not to play World of Air Pollution (which is sure as hell what it used to feel like with 2 IJN CVs per side nearly every battle) where the master race that sits behind an island determines the fate of a team such that everyone should bow to their inevitable and deserved superiority, and that seems to stick in the craw of some people.

 

I will, however, once more repeat the questions nobody has answered:

 

If balance isn't to be 'generally' the same around each tier, how is it balanced? What's a CV player's idea of balance?

 

Regardless, what performance are you proposing the mid-tier CVs should have? And what about the IJN ones?

 

Because right now CV balance remains a dog's breakfast, which doesn't surprise me one bit, but I'm interested to hear what you would all consider 'balance' to look like.

 

Just as an aside - once I got used to the New Mexico - I found it to be the most enjoyable ship so far in the USN BB line, From Memory it was the C hull that was the difference - Guns just felt better, once I got that sorted - it was wrecking time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SB]
Member
116 posts
12,417 battles

Regardless, what performance are you proposing the mid-tier CVs should have? And what about the IJN ones?

 

Because right now CV balance remains a dog's breakfast, which doesn't surprise me one bit, but I'm interested to hear what you would all consider 'balance' to look like.

For me:

  • Make Ryuujou's aircraft less durable to compensate for the fact she has a hangar size of 48 vs 37 for the Independence. Do the same for Essex (90 vs 83) and Midway (136 vs 100).
  • Swap the TB for DB in IJN Air Superiority loadouts where the equivalent US Air Superiority loadouts lack them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

Just as an aside - once I got used to the New Mexico - I found it to be the most enjoyable ship so far in the USN BB line, From Memory it was the C hull that was the difference - Guns just felt better, once I got that sorted - it was wrecking time.

 

Definitely the high point of the USN BBs until North Carolina. As I said, I played through them in beta, having got Yamato in Alpha.

 

I suspect I'll stop at New Mex; no way on earth I am doing the Colobado again without a ton of free exp/premium, and that means paying, and I'm not doing that (game doesn't deserve it as yet IMO and, sadly, I suspect for me it never will).

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
51 posts
2,124 battles

to be honest i've enjoyed the independence and i've been using the standard config 1 of everything,it is harder against higher tier CV's but you will find its the same in any class of ship.you just have to be more aware of what is going on and try to trick the other CV captain :playing: and use your fleet.

the only issue i have is having to play in mode everytime i want to play a CV :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
406 posts
6,274 battles

 

Definitely the high point of the USN BBs until North Carolina. As I said, I played through them in beta, having got Yamato in Alpha.

 

I suspect I'll stop at New Mex; no way on earth I am doing the Colobado again without a ton of free exp/premium, and that means paying, and I'm not doing that (game doesn't deserve it as yet IMO and, sadly, I suspect for me it never will).

 

Fair enough - so far, with all the Colorado upgrades - It's not that bad - the only bad experiance I have had in it was in a Tier 9 Match, Everyone went off at 30 Knots, and I was like 'Gais - I can only do 20'.

 

Then I got citadel'd by an Iowa, who was outside of my Gun range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,043 posts
4,300 battles

 

If balance isn't to be 'generally' the same around each tier, how is it balanced? What's a CV player's idea of balance?

 

Regardless, what performance are you proposing the mid-tier CVs should have? And what about the IJN ones?

 

Because right now CV balance remains a dog's breakfast, which doesn't surprise me one bit, but I'm interested to hear what you would all consider 'balance' to look like.

 

I've played both nation's CV and played all class of ships to tier 9 and 10. I say, as I've said before again and again, we need more loadout option for USN CV but I understand that coming up with better options without causing unnecessary, unintended overpowering buff is a monumental task. Right now, CVs have been continually and probably will continue to be nerfed every other or so patch. I've also played battleships, DDs and cruisers across the tiers and never felt CVs to be very OP since I know how to deal with them.

 

So why I didn't answer your question? because I think there is no need to rebalance and/or/maybe I couldn't think of a better way to deal with it.

 

For me:

  • Make Ryuujou's aircraft less durable to compensate for the fact she has a hangar size of 48 vs 37 for the Independence. Do the same for Essex (90 vs 83) and Midway (136 vs 100).
  • Swap the TB for DB in IJN Air Superiority loadouts where the equivalent US Air Superiority loadouts lack them.

 

Those are some of the unique traits setting the CVs apart from each other. Ryuujo's planes are soft enough as it is. Essex's and Midway's big advantage is actually their huge hangar size, that's what keeps them somewhat even with their counterpart's lightning rearming speed as they can purposefully let their planes die so they can rearm faster on the first crucial moments of the game.

 

For your second suggestion, it's good but isn't it better just to give USN CV 1 torpedo bomber squadron for their air superiority setup starting at essex?

Edited by Deicide

Share this post


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

×