Jump to content

CHANGES TO TEST SHIPS - CLOSED TEST 12.9


Clodenjoy

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

And Essex still has her 25mm deck…

Yeah that's good, CVs should be punished if positioned wrong. They shouldn't be able to sit out in the open with no worries. This'll only affect the lower spectrum of CV players anyway so it'll force them to actually try if they want to do good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

Yeah that's good, CVs should be punished if positioned wrong. They shouldn't be able to sit out in the open with no worries. This'll only affect the lower spectrum of CV players anyway so it'll force them to actually try if they want to do good.

During concealed maneuvers Essex was incredibly easy to punish, being overmatched everywhere by just about every BB on the enemy team. Regardless of one’s personal feelings regarding CVs, being the only CV at the tier with this huge weakness is absolutely terrible for game balance. I can’t count the number of times I asked the friendly CV to spot near the beginning of the match and then dunked on her within the first few minutes. And this wasn’t against players sitting still either: a moving aircraft carrier at tier X is not exactly a difficult target to hit.

There is a reason United States had her 25mm deck buffed during development, after all. As long as some sort of armored flight deck is standard among tier X carriers, Essex should have one as well.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

During concealed maneuvers Essex was incredibly easy to punish, being overmatched everywhere by just about every BB on the enemy team. Regardless of one’s personal feelings regarding CVs, being the only CV at the tier with this huge weakness is absolutely terrible for game balance. I can’t count the number of times I asked the friendly CV to spot near the beginning of the match and then dunked on her within the first few minutes. And this wasn’t against players sitting still either: a moving aircraft carrier at tier X is not exactly a difficult target to hit.

There is a reason United States had her 25mm deck buffed during development, after all. As long as some sort of armored flight deck is standard among tier X carriers, Essex should have one as well.

Well a CV getting up to speed takes a while but some CV are quite fast and I've even dodged some salvos in my tier 8 CVs against some 899 divs. It's genuinely not really much of an issue as long as the CV player is aware of the shots that take +20s to come in. If you're getting hit by those long ranges shots in any other class it's classified as a skill issue, same should be said for getting hit at that ranges while playing CVs.

  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

If you're getting hit by those long ranges shots in any other class it's classified as a skill issue, same should be said for getting hit at that ranges while playing CVs.

It’s a big problem when one CV has such compromised survivability compared to all it’s contemporaries. As I already pointed out, US had this same issue during testing, and she head her 25mm deck buffed as result.

Regardless of your opinion on others players’ skill (or lack thereof), when one ship in such a limited group (tier X CVs) has such a crippling weakness that has such an adverse effect on its survivability vs. it’s contemporaries, it’s a serious issue and needs to be fixed. As it stood during the testing, the players taking Essex into the match were putting their teams at a significant disadvantage if even half the red players were competent.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking ahead about the new USN CV line. The increase in patrol fighter numbers was needed and a good change...

I was theory crafting today and noticed that you only get three patrol fighter consumables per squadron...which at most means only 9 through the match...assuming rotate equally, which is an unrealistic expectation... especially considering two thirds or your squadrons are consumables themselves.

So six of your nine patrol fighter consumables are consumables of a consumable.

Compare this to Bearn, where you get EIGHT consumable patrol fighter squadrons PER SQUADRON. That gives Bearn 16 patrol fighter squadrons and the best flexibility of use possible.

I am becoming less and less interested in this line as I get more info. WG seems determined not to allow a proper air defense carrier into the game except for Bearn.

It's disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.