El2aZeR

Nah, Karma at least had his ideas based on actual game design principles, which would've taken this game into a drastically different direction it was never going to be on. This is just straight up nonsense.

Did you really need to jump to an alt account to literally recreate the very same thread while deleting the other one? Seriously, what was the point?! Also naming and shaming is not allowed.

Aha, so when I move to cover someone in a shooter that is "just managing resources" but when I verbally tell him that I'm covering him while doing so that's "teamplay". Such levels of stupidity haven't been seen here in a while. Hint: Most teamplay doesn't require communication and planning. Just common sense.

Yes. I play CVs.

So when I smoke up a teammate under fire, that isn't teamplay? When I spot a DD for my team, that isn't teamplay? When I surgically strike that charging BB giving my team trouble, that isn't teamplay? When I eliminate that radar cruiser so my teammates can contest the objective, that isn't teamplay? You are just getting more and more hilarious. As for being a failure, well I guess in some eyes winning almost 70% matches of all games I play solo can be seen as a failure, but at least it's a lot better than your pathetic self.

Have you ever considered that unicums are unicums precisely because they teamplay? Have you ever considered that average players fail at this game precisely because they do not? Nah, that'd go against your narrative, doesn't it? Good players carry because they do things that benefit the team. Failures like yourself do not and believe they have to play as egoistically as possible to succeed. As for QuickyBaby, I have no idea who he is, but to say that a game that is currently about as popular as PuBG, one of the most popular games on the market today, is dying is hilarious at best. I wouldn't trust jack that person says when he blatantly spouts bull like this.

Fify. Your idea of game design having to be based on real life is hilariously flawed and a naval warfare simulator would be even less popular than WoWs is currently. Also WG themselves routinely makes fun of people like you.

Guy who performs like absolute garbage in the game wants people to line up in formations that will inevitably lose them the match and make them easy pickings while construing it as "improving the game" and "encouraging teamplay". Hm....

So I guess planes can't be used by players nowadays. You are just getting more and more hilarious. There is one distinct difference between your proposal and weather conditions. Weather doesn't directly attack players. And again, weather can easily be one of the most decisive factors in a match, which is why they aren't particularly seen in a positive light by many.

As if you deserve any respect after writing up all that garbage lol

Indeed. *edited* will say that the current system is perfect, but at least it allows for counterplay.

That was never going to happen as AA is supposed to prevent CVs from striking, but if reworked CVs are prevented from striking they have no other role to play. And considering the goal of the rework was to make CVs more popular there was really only one way this could ever end up. The issue with the garbage AA/aircraft interaction in the rework lies in its very fundamentals, as such it will always remain garbage one way or another.

Well, I could also accuse you of trying to misrepresent your proposal by implying that your idea of CVs aren't bots. Because quite frankly that is one of the major fundamental issues. Again, just because you tack on a few more mechanics doesn't mean they're not bots.

Not that it matters ofc considering all AA is now worthless unless stacked by at least half the team.

1. Meh. Not a priority. 2. Unneeded and as such a waste of time. 3. Lol no. Regardless of what circumstances you have, being afk is being afk. Being pink is the one warning you get, do it more often and you rightfully get punished for it. 4 & 5. Typical BBaby doesn't want to git gud, wants HE and fires nerfed instead and complains about BBs becoming unplayable. Go l2p. If you can't deal with fires you deserve to get burned down.

So, nothing else left to pick on, huh? I guess we can write off your proposal as complete garbage then. Big surprise. Also moving current coop bot CVs into PvP would ironically be a more reasonable suggestion than what you came up with. At least then the devs won't have to waste substantial time and manpower on something completely stupid.

That's like saying the forts in Bastion weren't bots. Regardless of how much you nitpick, it remains largely the same thing. Just because you're slapping on a few more mechanics doesn't mean they're not bots. And again the difference between a skilled and potato DD has much more impact on the outcome of a match than the one found on BBs. I don't see you demanding to turn DDs into bots however. This is an inevitability when designing several fundamentally different classes with an asymmetric role distribution. Your entire idea of balance is not only wrong, it is laughable.

Well, , I guess we need every class to be played by bots then.

And what exactly, pray tell, is wrong with the current iteration?

Nah, it gets boring very fast. The novelty of being able to kill anything on the map at any time (well, except the enemy CV that is), and as such being able to win every match regardless of the situation UNLESS the enemy CVs are equal or superior in skill, wears off quickly and, as a player who plays all 4 classes, leaves behind a very bitter taste in my mouth. I'll exploit reworked CVs for a few days while playing no other class, then if WG reacts the way I think they will do I'll probably just quit. A shame really. This game had so much potential, but then WG needed to cater to the lowest common denominator at every turn.

This is hilarious because the agreed and implemented game design principle is the exact opposite of what you're saying. This is a game with an asymmetric role distribution across four different classes. To even attempt equalizing them is stupid beyond belief. Literally no similar game attempts to do so because it isn't even remotely possible in the first place. I dare you to name a single game in which there are several fundamentally different classes which all have the same impact. Implementing bots only gets rid of the CV skill gap. Literally every other problem, including how the average player is too stupid to deal with CVs, remains. And you've just created a ton of new issues by letting people get killed and dictated around by bots in a PvP environment.

Current CVs are mirrored. There is literally no way you can get any more fair. It's literally the same thing in your concept except now no player is behind the controls. Except no, there really isn't. What you've created is an all or nothing system. The moment aircraft deal sufficient damage to be a threat to counterplay against is the moment that potatoes will start dying left and right. If they aren't a threat then there is no need to counterplay. You've literally changed not a single thing about the interaction with planes in the current iteration except that they're now controlled by a bot. E.g. a Bismarck doesn't give a about T6 planes, therefore there is no need to actively counterplay in such a situation. Meanwhile T8 planes provide a serious threat to her, so she needs to actively play around it. Thus you either make everything "T8 planes vs T8 ship", and thus enable all the skillful interaction you so desire, or you make everything "T8 ship vs T6 planes" which the surface vessels will never care about. A middle ground literally doesn't exist. You do realize weather effects are easily some of the most game deciding factors currently in the game? I've seen so many matches decided by a cyclone or thunderstorm front appearing it's not even funny. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware aircraft give a about terrain beyond a possible drop angle for TBs. What was even your point with that? Encouraging someone to do something by slapping him every time he doesn't isn't prohibitive? If you want ships to play closer to the objective then that inevitably means you are ing over ships that cannot in some way. And if you don't slap them but just give them a slight tap on the wrist then no one will care about it. Plane HP and damage can be tweaked in the current iteration as well. Routes and conditions are moot because once again this is an objective driven game, as such these routes and conditions will inevitably have to revolve around those objectives. If you don't do so then there is no need for this mechanic to exist. There are no choices here. Besides, that's hardly any different to current CVs beyond them being rare. The viable routes a CV can take to their potential target is obvious, the condition is about every 3-4 minutes for strike aircraft. All you're doing is introducing even more RNG into it. Current CVs also work with the current AA system so that's a moot point.

Same with the matchup factor, aka current CVs. As such this is a moot point. And again, what is the point of aircraft then? After all if they don't deal much damage then you can just safely ignore them and go about as always. Positioning and banding together to deny aircraft in the current iteration is needed precisely because aircraft present a credible threat. If they don't then you do not need to take countermeasures. Imagine if you could sail broadside and take the same amount of damage as when angling. Why would you ever want to angle then? That's pretty much the same thing. Again that s over so many ships it's not even funny. Some ships are made to be second line supports, not front line brawlers. If you set the distance to the cap too generous to make it possible for second line supports to do their job then aircraft are once again pointless. You're just piling on more and more ideas without addressing any of the fundamental issues this concept entails. You know, like the current rework.

Which then begs the question: Why have this mechanic in the first place? If it doesn't present a serious threat then it fails to serve as a deterrent and makes any other interaction you've just written up pointless. Lets face it, there is no choice on where planes will appear, they will inevitably have to be moved towards the objectives because they are the focal points of combat. Otherwise this mechanic is once again pointless. Inevitably that means players are going to avoid playing the objective even harder than now. Unless ofc you want aircraft to act as a means of forcing people into close combat like the forcefield in a Battle Royale game, which would screw over pretty much everything that is not a BB. Or you want it to be a giant RNG fest where you can be suddenly under attack by planes because they spawned right on top of you. Wrong. CVs have fundamental limitations which can be exploited. If a CV player chooses to ignore those they can then they will suffer horrendous consequences and as such present no real threat anyway. How a player reacts to a CV is a matter of skill and thus completely irrelevant. The point is that these things you listed as counterplay options are already in the present iteration of CVs. As such they will inevitably be ignored by the majority of the playerbase.

Nothing would change except the majority of the playerbase is gonna get killed by a bot instead of an actual player. Alternatively players will simply camp even harder to avoid getting targeted by aircraft. I fail to see how this is going to be an improvement. You can already defend strategic positions against CVs. There is also a pretty obvious pattern to how CV players choose their targets. Is this knowledge being applied though? I'll leave you to answer that question.