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

AIRCRAFT Carriers

128 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

796
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,077 posts
9,431 battles
On 11/13/2019 at 6:10 PM, legionary2099 said:

Your points are moot. Because cruiser hard counter dd in the first place.

I disagree, he definitely has a point.  Cruisers are generally a counter to DD's of course, but SAP hits far harder than HE on a DD.  A Venezia can do 25k to a DD in a single salvo in a ship who's arcs are only better by Moskva/Stalingrad, the next best T10 cruiser is half that much.  Whether it's unbalanced or not I'm not sure, but it certainly seems like an issue to me.

On 11/14/2019 at 12:14 AM, Mechfori said:

Because while DD are very influential if play right and can contribute tactically , those do not reward

It depends what you mean by reward.  DD's get the biggest reward, which is a higher effect on the success of the battle.  They also get very good xp rewards, because they are the main capping ships, and caps give extremely good xp returns.  It's really only credits that they give less of, since this is tied to damage, and gives the same reward win or lose - but hopefully we don't play the game for credits, which are merely a tool.  Many of us never have to worry about credits again (I have 620m atm), but I do know they are an issue for quite a few players.  Overall I think DD's are not disadvantaged in terms of reward.

On 11/14/2019 at 12:14 AM, Mechfori said:

the whole DD class need some significant revamp , I've mentioned this many time ... if WG aim for DD to play by speed, maneuvering, stealth, and torp then the must be given the tools to do that and made it work at the current game state of play, there are many thing that can be done but of course WG will not do it no matter what its clearly their BIG guns only mind set at play

I don't know about a revamp of the entire class, but I'm definitely in agreement that DD intra-class balance is not good.  RU DD's are all over the place, and significantly power crept by MN DD's.  IJN torp boats don't have enough torp power to justify their being food for most ships in the game.  US and KM DD's have been power crept past mediocrity.  Then there are some of the individual ship balance issues - I don't even like to think about what they did to Yue Yang, which was a great ship with smoke in randoms, but was destroyed due to radar in CB's.  Khaba is awful - it doesn't have enough range, the torps have been nerfed into uselessness, it takes BB AP pens for some bizarre reason, and it's sheer awfulness is not only highlighted by it being straight up worse than it's T9 in Tashkent, but also by how good Kleber is at doing a similar job.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
796
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,077 posts
9,431 battles
13 hours ago, Paladinum said:

And then I realize the many thing that could be done to minimize RTS CV's power and influence.

  • No CV should have more than 6 squadrons (for balance)
  • Reducing the damage of all aircraft weapons (also for balance)
  • Fighters keep their strafe but Manual Drop for attack squadrons doesn't tighten the drop reticule. I think that it was a very silly thing. Unexperienced players can't use it, but skilled players will one-shot just about everyone because of this feature

 

RTS CVs are simple to play, but not easy. Those simple mechanics and gameplay elements provide a ship load of depth.

Reworked CVs are easy to play but awfully tedious. What are we playing, the ships or the aircrafts? RTS CVs make sense as the players are the captain of a warship, not aircraft pilots.

The 2 things that are successful that came out of the rework are more sensical AA mechanics and CV popularity, but this also gimped CVs significantly as a ship type.

The job of the captain of a CV is telling the pilots who's the next target. In this game it should stop right there. Not even Manual Drop.

I disagree with pretty much everything you say here.  RTS CV's didn't conform to the most important part of WoWS game play - being intuitive to play initially, while having a great depth of game play for advanced players.  They were absolutely horrific for new players to use.  Post rework CV's do conform to that design formula however, making them fit the game design philosophy infinitely better than RTS CV's.

11 hours ago, Mechfori said:

fundamentally its simply still a case of bad MM rather than anything specific to any ship or ship type , and a bit of player behavior and how they abuse the system ... would player of all skill level still complain if the game MM keep that 1 CV per game as a limit ... likely not even if they would be having only minimal amount of AA ; would DD complain yet still if MM still give the roster say 1 CV and 3 to 4 Radar a side but yet only 1 or 2 DD aside, surely yes .. in short no ship ir ship type should be singled out but current MM just made it so ... especially with regard to the CV over populating any low to mid tire game ... we all know its a bad thing to had, WG likely know about it too, but they would not enforce a simple 1 CV per game limit. Allowing and even fostering such in balance in game cause they care none about it all.

MM is not the issue.  You can't enforce the match maker to a limit that is well below the number of people queuing that ship class.  If enough T4 CV's are queuing to give 2-3 CV's per team on average, then enforcing a 1 CV per team limit will simply mean that two out of every three battles will be an MM dump, where the MM rules go out the window and the teams are much less balanced.  That is bad for everybody, and quite simply not something that WG could ever possibly entertain as an option.

The only way to get less CV's per team at T4 is to have less people queuing.  Luckily the reason why so many people are queuing T4 CV's are because they are poorly balanced, making this a simple issue to fix.  T4 planes were massively overbuffed in the 0.8.7 AA rework (70-80% health buffs on average), and this is why people feel like their AA now does nothing, which wasn't an issue post CV rework and pre AA rework.  Nerfing plane health to a point where the AA damage to plane health balance is much more like the higher tiers will give a better feel to surface ships who are fighting a CV at T4, while also making less people play T4 CV's and this fixing the problem of high numbers of CV's per team.

Unfortunately we're up to 0.8.10 and WG have not made any significant impact on T4 CV balancing.  Either they are happy with this (they shouldn't be), or they are doing the WG thing and waiting for more data, three patches later...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,853
[TLS]
Member
3,080 posts
18,492 battles
6 hours ago, blauflamme22 said:

I think strafe was actually the worst one of all, because a good player could completely deplane the other CV very quickly, if an average player still had access to fighters they would be a deterrent to DB and TB squadrons. Obviously though its all a moot point as they are never coming back. Overall though now I don't think they are too badly balanced, the biggest problem is the number per battle, I find with high tier DDs one CV per team is easily manageable though this can sometimes be skewed if there is only one DD per team and you happen to say be a french one in which case your team suffers a huge disadvantage with you not being able to cap. Without a CV in game you will find that even a French or Russian DD will find opportunities to cap if they are playing well and have good awareness. More and more it seems to be coming down to the MM distribution of ships, rather than just a single class or particular ship and that is another topic and problem altogether. 

Yes. For me, it was sometimes it worked well, other times was WTF. I think if I worked out the mechanics a little more, I'd get it right.

MM is the problem as I have repeatedly parroted thoughout my lifetime on the forums. Because it is the fundamental core mechanic for setting up a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×