Jump to content
leggasiini

Carrier thread

Recommended Posts

I think CV's are possibly the hardest class to play in WOWS. (They are not arty by a long shot) I think high tier CA's are the 2nd hardest class to play well since they are food for almost all the other classes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't necessarily say it's the hardest, but I do think the class as whole have the highest skill ceiling with a relatively low skill floor. Of all the ships in the game the Hakuryu probably have the highest skill ceiling of any ship with a potential of 8 squadrons in the air at any one time. If you did well with Starcraft you'll probably do well here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally started playing carriers in random battles now after grinding through the tier four and five carriers of each branch in Co-op battles. Thought I would love the Independence but I find myself running out of planes far too fast since the hanger capacity isn't very large. Even though I don't have the five point skill on my Ryujo captain yet (I do have it on my Independence captain, however) I find myself outputting a fair amount more damage in it than compared to its U.S. counterpart. Haven't run into much resistance in the form of air supremacy load outs yet so I've been enjoying both so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I played USN CVs shortly after launch and unloicked the Ranger but did not buy it and sold the Indi too. I now "train" my Captain on the Langley (aka hardcore seal clubbing) that imho is the only worthwhile USN carrier before the Essex.

Hosho is the only IJN Carrier in the tech tree that is inferior to it's USN tech tree counterpart. Problem is only that all carriers from tier V up to tier VII have the same TBs... Jay WG balancing. So VI and VII is quite dry for IJN either with little progress felt by grinding up.

Especially at tier VII these things die like flies in a forest fire, ESPECIALLY vs p2w Saipan. Stock Shokaku finally is the epitome of brittle planes and sucks ultra hardcore till you finally get the upgraded TBs - then it's great. Still you meet tier X ships and can well loose 3 entire squads in mere seconds to an unspotted Des Moines.

However just as with arty, WG is keeping CV captains short to lengthen the grind and thus to dissuade the noobs from progressing - which doesn't help with the worst of the worst (recently had a Midway player that played Saipan fro 350+ games with 43% winrate and free exped all the way to lex, played 3 games, then free exped to Essex for 16 games and then to Midway... glorious autodropping at tier X).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm doing just fine with the 1-1-1 setup on the Ranger but I have no idea what I'm going to do once I get the Lexington. All three of those load outs are just bad compared to the Shokaku. Give the Lexington a 1-1-2 load out, then we'd be talking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to necro this thread!

For fun I was looking at the worst and best ships by all time win rate on Warshipstoday site.  The bottom 20 ships by win rate contain 13 American ships.  Those ships include EVERY US Carrier from tier 4-9, and not a SINGLE IJN Carrier.  The Langley (4) is the top of the litter @ #19 worst win rate of 48.11%.  The worst win rate ship in the game is the Essex (9) at 46.60% followed in second by the Ranger (7) at 47.00%.  The Lexington (8) is the fifth worst at 47.46%, and it really begs the question; does Wargaming not think this is a major balance issue?  I realize this isn't a historical simulation, that certain liberties need to be taken to make a fun game, but this is ridiculous.  The best performing American regular CV is the Midway (10 ) - and it's still only at 49.11% win rate.  The Saipan is considerably higher as a premium, boasting a healthy 54.31% w/r, but it's premium companion CV, the Kaga, is rocking a 56.22% w/r in it's first few weeks.

In fact, the LOWEST rated IJN CV is the Hiryu (7) at a paltry 52.37% w/r - a full 5.37% more likely to win than the Ranger.  The Taiho (9) tops the IJN "tech tree" CV's with a 54.60% win rate - giving it an 8% advantage over the in tier US carrier.  While the new Enterprise may have a great win rate like the Saipan or Kaga, it does not fix the problem of how underperforming the US CV's are.  It's fun to have more options, and the US line should be as likely to win when played as the IJN CV's.  While I don't believe that WoWs is a pay to win operation, they have released premium CV's that are so much better than the tier 7 tech tree American CV that they appear to be guilty of just that in this case.  There has to be a way to buff the whole US line while mildly nerfing IJN CV's to make a more level playing field between the two. I would also consider restricting sales of Saipan and Kaga to short windows once or at most twice a year.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this is just confirmation bias, but I have this feeling, that whenever I look up US tier 7-9 CV players stats on EU, that are virtually always 40-50 % winrate players. When I check the IJN players they are normally in the high 40 %s and upwards - no matter the amount of games in other ship types. My god I hate those sub 45 %s with a win rate below 40 % in their US carriers, which are running a full strike Ranger etc.

This is only a guess, but I have a sneaking feeling that the values of the ships are made even worse, by less decent/good players playing them, due to the better ålayers often having read up on the carrier lines, before making their pick.

That being said, by now I've read enough about US non-premium carriers to accept, that their loadouts are underwhelming compared to their counterparts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with any clue either avoids USN carriers or try hards them. The Midway may be good, the Essex may be decent but the IJN line is prolly good all the way through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the things that is bad about US CVs is, that people do not realize how much about their dive bombers they actually are, thus people tend to go for the stock loadout, which is usually along the lines of a 1-1-1. Thus they directly choose a loadout that is the antithesis of everything the US carriers are strong at. You hamper your ability for AS and you hamper your ability to bomb and torch the enemy.

On the other end of the spectrum, the lower to mid tier US carriers have a secondary problem regarding their focused loadouts. You either only have one dive bomber, thus pretty much directly, again, working against what the CV is good at or you have no fighters, thus undermining your ability to attack as you are not able to deter the enemy from your attack squads. The 2-0-1 loadouts do work, however, but they need a lot of effort to get good results with. An issue tied to that is, the innate inability to tell which ships you should be targeting. With an IJN carrier, you just send your torpedo bombers to whatever you deem an easy target. With the US carrier, you have to look for a ship that isn't already burning, but has already burned or flooded and used it's repair. It's practically impossible to keep track of that most of the time, thus lowering your chance of good damage by default, as you will most likely choose a target that is going to repair the fires you set to it instantly, leaving you only with the meager bomb damage (that is still good, but is nowhere near what a torpedo strike or a fire would have done).

The next problem is, that at a certain tier, IJN amount of CAGs just explode, while you are still stuck with 3 or 4 squads, the IJN throws 5 to 6 at you. Your ability to deal with fighters and spread-out bomber squads, just does not keep up with the ease the IJN can outmaneuver you.

The following things I would like to see implemented:

1) Add 1 squad to every US loadout starting at tier 5 (maybe 6 at latest). Reduce squad-size by one to balance out the additional amount of planes in the air, if the additional squad would be left at full strength. This also helps with balancing out the innate superiority of US fighter CAGs against IJN fighter CAGs

2) This additional squad should be either:

Stock loadout +1 dive bomber

AS loadout +1 dive bomber; if there are already 2 divers in the squad: +1 fighter; if there are already 3 fighters: + 1 torper

Strike loadout +1 fighter, if there are already 2 fighters: +1 diver; if there are already 3 divers: +1 torper (can't log in atm, not sure if any of the US strikes have two fighters by default)

3) Add an indicator for the top down UI, that makes it clearer which ships currently suffer from DoT-effects. Idealy, leave that indicator for a few seconds even after the DoT is repaired, maybe leave the indicator blinking or whatever, as long as the repair party is still running.

4) Lower singular ship AA-cabability. It is inherently more difficult to make successful staggered strikes, as are necessary with dive bombers. With torp squads, it's all about getting all your planes in and basically alpha the target, while with bomb strikes you generally only send one squad in at a time, making them far too vulnerable for the advanced AA that starts at tier 6.

5) Lower preparation-/rearming-time of US CAGs. The IJN is too drastically better at getting early recon and early damage, compared to the US. You often only launch your first group, while the IJN is already almost about to attack the first target. Conversely, it happened more than once that I erradicated an entire loadout of an IJN carrier, am about to reload my fighters and see the enemy CV attacking in full force already again. This inherently invalidates the entire point of the AS-loadouts and just should not happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sortie rate (combination of servicing time and airplane speed) difference is what bugs me the most, even more so than difference in strike potentials.

It's as if the devs put absolutely zero attempt at researching how air wars were fought and what factors influenced the outcomes. They tried to alleviate the situation somewhat by increasing USN fighter loiter times (ammo), which was not enough. Only thing it achieved was making Saipan even stronger because it already had good sortie rates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

with the ease the IJN can outmaneuver you

If he is a good player... A bad IJN player will just stack squads.

And here lies the true problem for balancing CVs against each other - the vast skill gaps of players that are pitted directly against each other.

I think WG envisions USN CVs as a possibility for bad players to perform at least somewhat. Auto bomb drops are MUCH better, relatively, than auto torp drops. Less squads or more rugged planes are also better for the baddie.

WG already said they are experimenting with solutions for a unified attack type, skill based but not too punishing for bad players. Lets see if they can come up with a solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RollerCoaster47 said:

If you're playing air supremacy load out in randoms, you're a faggot, no exceptions. Even with the 1-1-1 on the Lexington my average results are still much better than playing the cuck load out.

I know it's probably confirmation bias on my part, but whenever a friendly announces they're AS spec at the start of the match it seems like they struggle to actually achieve air superiority. It's the WoWS equivalent of the 'you had one job...' memes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because AS limits your strike power whilst relying on trying to catch the IJN planes, which are faster, and can cycle around the map if need be. AS just cucks the other CV, but a strike has the ability to affect the entire enemy team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...