CV Rework Discussion

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

But you know - that guy dies at the end of the movie, no?

 

Which is precisely where the rework is headed. Everything checks out. 

[DFens_666]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

You understand that this would kill any online game do you? That can’t really be the target - there isn’t even an alternative out there 

 

Eh...

If you make proposals, that would make the game more enjoyable for everyone, but the noobs come in and bash you "you want only to make your own tool more OP / you want to kill everything without retaliation" then i dont really care for them. Experienced that in 2 different games already. End result is: Good players become stronger, while noobs are getting worse ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Then you have something like WG, which does what they want anyway to milk the customers at every corner. Perfect example with CVs. Call them almost balanced, release Premium CVs, then let the nerfs role in. I mean, im not suprised by that, im surprised by the people that didnt expect it. Time and time proven again.

 

I have no hope whatsover, that WG will make any change that the community proposed or wanted. We are half a year in after the Concealment "bug" got fixed, while 90+% of the community on ALL servers wanted it. Yet, WG says "its not one of our top priorities" ... After promising us at first within the next couple of patches, but latest 0.8.5 iirc. When will we get it? 2025 - year of the concealment change?

Guess they are just busy trying to get the next coup in to earn more

[KillStealBoss]

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Yeah, seen that too already.

One of the reasons why I tend to focus them if the situation allows it.

Like most of the players. 

[Procrastes]

My further fifty cents on the CV Rework

 

It's been a while since I took part in this lively discussion, and quite a lot has happened since  then that has largely passed me by. There's been a patch with much-debated tweaks on AA efficiency, for one thing. Rather than double-checking against all previous posts, I'm just going to jot down my own reflections.

 

First, although I have grown increasingly disillusioned about the whole CV class as a thing in World of Warships, I really don't want it to be removed. What I do want, is to have it work out properly so that all ship classes can be equally fun to play. And while I make no bones about being first and foremost a destroyer man myself, I have tried to look at things from an objective angle.

 

With that out of the way, on to the subject.

 

To fill its place in the game, a carrier must have capabilities that represent, to at least some basic level, its abilities in real life. If It didn't, the game experience and the sense of immersion would inevitably suffer. A problem with this, however, is that as carriers were developed in real life, they fairly quickly took over most of the roles of other ship classes, and made every other ship class largely redundant by comparison. How do we prevent this last part from happening in World of Warships?

 

As I see it, there are two main parts to carrier gameplay:

1. Damage dealing, and

2. Spotting (which in itself has two aspects, namely a) thwarting your enemy's tactical manoeuvres, and b) indirect damage dealing due to fire from allied ships).

 

The first part, direct damage dealing, should be comparatively easy to balance. It deals partly with raw numbers as applied to rockets, bombs, torpedoes and AA defence, and partly to attack and defence mechanics. How easy should it be to land a bomb, for instance, or how should AA defence be managed/countered by the players? Although these things can obviously be subject to extensive periods of evaluation and adjustment, I feel fairly confident that Wargaming will manage to balance this part out to a good solution.

 

The second part is far trickier. Spotting and stealth is a large part of this game, and any change to the overall spotting situation is certain to affect the gameplay in a big way. And carriers, with their swift-moving plane squadrons, can hardly help but to affect spotting. How should we proceed with this?

 

A. Let the planes spot where they will (and damn the destroyers!)

This is largely the situation we have now. Personally, I can't help but to find it less than ideal. In games with no more than one carrier on each team, I feel that things tend to work out pretty well - the lone carrier player can only be at one place at a time, and if that happens to be on top of you, then so be it - you can take that bullet for your team, and hope for better luck next time. In games with two or more carriers on each team, however, the carrier players can easily cover the entire map between them. It is possible for stealth-reliant ships to counter this to some extent by altering their gameplay, but this altered gameplay just isn't very fun.

 

B. Introduce a hard cap of max one carrier on each team

This would probably fix the spotting problem at a stroke. However, according to what I've gathered from WG communiqués on the matter, it would also play havoc with the matchmaking engine for carrier players. So it would seem doubtful if this is a practical way forward.

 

C. Let carrier planes spot only those ships that have their AA guns active

This solution, i.e. giving ships the ability to turn invisible to planes, would just be silly. Game-breakingly so, I'm afraid.

 

D. Let ships spotted by carrier planes be visible to allied players on the minimap only

This idea, which has been put forth in several posts so far, seems like it might be a good compromise. Carrier planes would retain their scouting role, but a ship that only they spot would not be subject to fire from allied ships immediately on the spotting. It would merely enable the team to coordinate resources against the spotted ship, which would be valuable enough. In this way, this "minimap solution" would also encourage and promote team work. As a destroyer man myself, I must say I would much rather have my allied carrier be an equal team member, than the Master Scout it is now.

 

And that's about the long and short of it, so far. I'm sure there are lots of other ideas out there that I haven't yet heard of,* but I'll put my pencil down for now. I also have some further thoughts concerning carriers being fire-proof and all, but I'll leave that be as well. As I'm certain to have missed out on at least a few of the various recent developments, I beg indulgence for any misapprehensions on my part that may be evident from my post.

 

Cheers!

 

* Edited: See @1MajorKoenigs post no. 6759 below, for one.

[Operation_Crossroads_1]

9 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

The first part, direct damage dealing, should be comparatively easy to balance

 

There are two sides to balance, you can't just say "CV should do x0,000 damage and that's balanced", you need to look at what the CV offer back to the surface ships in return for the damage they inflct.

 

What do CV give back to the surface ships?  Not very much IMO, but if that's the case then what do they deserve to get out of the game? 

[B051LjKo]

6 hours ago, Sunleader said:

Balance is when 1 Player is Worth 1 Player.

So every Class has to be Balanced so that 1 Player of Class A is Equal (or close to Equal) to 1 Player of Class B.

 

Currently however. 1 CV Player in the Match Equal 5-6 other Classes Players in terms of Influence on the Match Outcome.

And he also Equals 2-3 other Classes Players in terms of Combat Power.

 

I am Highlighting that.

As simple as that.

So do you suggest we should remove the soft / hard cap, and allow 5 CVs per game, provided that they are ballanced against BBs? This is not trolling, it is a serious question. Do you really think that is for the best of the game that a singe CV must be balanced against a single DD, and yet, only one CV is t obe in the match against 5 BBs?

6 hours ago, Sunleader said:

So much for your one last question.

 

A BB has Strong Armor and alot of HP.  It is Balanced to be the Bulk of the Army Class. Being Easily Spotted is part of this Balancing.

After all. If a BB had the same Concealment as a DD. Then its High HP and Armor as well as its High Range for Strong Attacks would be Unfair.

A DD has Weak Armor and very little HP. And his Strong Attack Abilities have much Shorter Range than that of the BBs. Thats why he gets the Concealment.

And here comes the Problem.

Currently the CV is messing up this Balance by completely Denying the DD this Advantage which is supposed to Balance out the Stronger Combat Power of the Larger Ships.

Causing the DD to Massively Lose Influence whenever a CV is Present.

DDs are small, difficult targets, and very good cammo rating. Some have excellent AA (just look at that new Dutch thing, it melts planes), some have heal. How come that is not balanced?

 

[MadnerKami]

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

I have no hope whatsover, that WG will make any change that the community proposed or wanted. We are half a year in after the Concealment "bug" got fixed, while 90+% of the community on ALL servers wanted it. Yet, WG says "its not one of our top priorities" ... After promising us at first within the next couple of patches, but latest 0.8.5 iirc. When will we get it? 2025 - year of the concealment change?

Guess they are just busy trying to get the next coup in to earn more

History repeating itself, sadly. We've had that in Tanks, we've had that in Total War Arena, we've had it in World of Warplanes. They trip over their own incompetence (e.g. showering us in goodies and thus undermining their own financial basis; failing to adress glaring balance issues or not being able to find a solution to problems being raised by the community for years or even recognizing the existence of a problem), then increase to nickel-and-dime with an increasing level of outlandish premium toys. This is the modus operandi of WarGaming and I can only recommend to not send them any money anymore, especially not for new products.

 

4 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

It's very simple, because they're still overperforming at the highest level. If the goal of the rework is to "bring CVs in line with other classes" as WG has stated multiple times then the rework is currently a failure. Just like it fails in everything else.

 

And ofc the most amusing thing about it is that it is an impossibility in the first place. The game is balanced asymmetrically, as such some classes will always be more powerful than others. I believe WG knows this as they have presented CVs still being the most influential class in the game as a success. However even if the goal is to make CVs weaker than before, well, that too was a failure up until 0.8.5. 0.8.5 is the first patch to have even remotely succeeded in reaching that goal.

All it took to achieve that was completely obliterate playability for the average playerbase.

 

And here the rework shows that it can never succeed because its popularity is directly tied with how much and how easily damage can be dealt. Make them too accessible and they become op for anyone not braindead. Make them more balanced and they become unpopular.

As such the only reasonable thing to do is to scrap the rework and start from scratch. WG is kinda doing that right now with all the new AA mechanics changes (as these clearly contradict with fundamental mechanics of the rework), their mistake however is to do it all on the live server.

So much for "learning from the rushed rework implementation" lol.

Question: I think it's fine to have a class overperform, as long as that overperformance is directly tied to the effort and skill you need to invest to make it overperform. Obviously, this is a problem when the class can counter-itself, like with the RTS-carriers, so taking out the one thing I loved doing in the RTS (fighter-gameplay) might actually have been a good idea. Personally I think, that a high difficulty in regards to "doing good" is a gateway to player-amounts and if we look back to the RTS-times, it clearly worked. Of course you still had plenty of tomatoes trying and dying their way up, but how is that any different to Unicums and Tomatoes in any other class in general? For example,if your DD-players are crap and the enemy team has good DD-players, then you have lost and there is very little you can do about it and I'd very much argue that the same is true for every other ship class as well. I mean, I had a 60% solo winrate in the Prinz Eugen before it got a heal and it's was an objectively crap ship at the time, commandered by a merely above average player, so clearly it is, for the most part, always a question of who has the better players. How are people so considerably less thick-skinned when the same is true in regards to carriers in the first place?

[Sunleader]

7 minutes ago, B051LjKo said:

So do you suggest we should remove the soft / hard cap, and allow 5 CVs per game, provided that they are ballanced against BBs? This is not trolling, it is a serious question. Do you really think that is for the best of the game that a singe CV must be balanced against a single DD, and yet, only one CV is t obe in the match against 5 BBs?

DDs are small, difficult targets, and very good cammo rating. Some have excellent AA (just look at that new Dutch thing, it melts planes), some have heal. How come that is not balanced?

 

 

1.

Told you that before I think.

But I think in General Each Ship should have a Soft Cap.

Simply due to their Role in the Game.

5 BBs for example is too much in my Eyes.

But thats a Different Story.

I am Navyfield Player. So having 3 CVs is pretty much Standard to me.

 

But in case you didnt know that.

The Rework was Supposed to get this Cap Removed.

The Cap only Exists BECAUSE CVs are so Ridiculously Powerful that even as much as adding 2 already makes all other more or less Irrelevant to the Outcome.

Currently when you Play Late Night and get 3 CVs per Side. Then some People Ragequit or Yolo out of Frustration because basicly they dont even change the Numbers anymore.

They dont even have Influence in the Game anymore to serve as a Meatshield.

 

2.

Not saying it isnt.

Saying it would not be Balanced if you Removed the Concealment.

And that is what CVs currently do effectively.

They Remove that Camo Rating from DDs.

[1MajorKoenig]

24 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

The first part, direct damage dealing, should be comparatively easy to balance. It deals partly with raw numbers as applied to rockets, bombs, torpedoes and AA defence, and partly to attack and defence mechanics. How easy should it be to land a bomb, for instance, or how should AA defence be managed/countered by the players? Although these things can obviously be subject to days or even weeks of evaluation and adjustment, I feel fairly confident that Wargaming will manage to balance this part out to a good solution.

 

While most here will agree with you it should be a matter of weeks as it is a very easy task, WG haven’t reached it and is constantly pushing the wrong buttons to move it forward making things rather worse than better. That really hurts knowing how easy it could be

 

 

26 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

C. Let carrier planes spot only those ships that have their AA guns active

This solution, i.e. giving ships the ability to turn invisible to planes, would just be silly. Game-breakingly, so, I'm afraid.

 

This is by far the dumbest idea WG EVER had and I am not exaggerating. Including NTC btw

 

 

I think I put down my preferred alteration in case the spotting really needs changing to make DDs more comfortable again: introduce a “transmit Recon” button with a Cooldown 

[B051LjKo]

3 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

2.

Not saying it isnt.

Saying it would not be Balanced if you Removed the Concealment.

And that is what CVs currently do effectively.

They Remove that Camo Rating from DDs.

They do not remove the camo rating, it always stays the same, 2.5 km for arial detection. To keep him spotted, CV needs to be over DD all the time. You are mixing apples and oranges.

[Procrastes]

14 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I think I put down my preferred alteration in case the spotting really needs changing to make DDs more comfortable again: introduce a “transmit Recon” button with a Cooldown 

Now, that's a very intriguing idea! Have you got any feedback on it, yet?

[KillStealBoss]

41 minutes ago, B051LjKo said:

So do you suggest we should remove the soft / hard cap, and allow 5 CVs per game, provided that they are ballanced against BBs? This is not trolling, it is a serious question. Do you really think that is for the best of the game that a singe CV must be balanced against a single DD, and yet, only one CV is t obe in the match against 5 BBs?

There's not a big number of CVs nowadays. They should reduce the number of BBs to max 4 as they made it for DDs. Too much kampa. 

[KillStealBoss]

48 minutes ago, B051LjKo said:

DDs are small, difficult targets, and very good cammo rating. Some have excellent AA (just look at that new Dutch thing, it melts planes), some have heal. How come that is not balanced?

Yep that's why it's not appealing target. Better to drop bombs on Musashi and get 18k dmg instead of 3.6k dmg dropping a DD. Same with TT rockets. 

[Operation_Crossroads_1]

2 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

Yep that's why it's not appealing target. Better to drop bombs on Musashi and get 18k dmg instead of 3.6k dmg dropping a DD. Same with TT rockets. 

 

You understand that XP is based on % of a ships health pool rather than absolute damage don't you?

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, Operation_Crossroads_1 said:

 

You understand that XP is based on % of a ships health pool rather than absolute damage don't you?

With new glorious bomb drop pattern and fact every scrub I'm about to bomb somehow mastered location of A and D keys, 10k+ on BB or 404 hit rate not found... I'd go with the former

[1MajorKoenig]

12 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

Now, that's a very intriguing idea! Have you got any feedback on it, yet?

 

It’s not even my idea - it’s been around since 0.8.0 but it is the one I would prefer in case any spotting nerf is really required. I am not aware of any feedback from WG

[gslick]

6 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

At first I didnt think so either, because im against different mechanics for different classes, but after some thinking, i realized it actually would be pretty good.

Spotting delay could also work, depending on the time.

But everyone who thinks, spotting is not important, doesnt understand this game very well.

 

5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

I didn’t say spotting isn’t important. I said I don’t see any problem with the way CVs spot.

 

But that aside - what is not smart about the idea is that you are essentially become a map border sniper. Not spotting for yourself is as dumb as it can ever get 

 

5 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Ofc CVs can spot for themselves - just not for the others (minimap only)

The spotting by aircraft is the feature which completely kills surface ship's interesting options and game fun even for cruisers.  Even minimap only spotting would cr--ps on the fun.  Loaded and played 1 game today and against an Enterprise.  Totally unfun game and I was not even targeted, just spotted by air and focused.  Close the game for today, 1 cv game per day is my limit.  Off to play anything else.

[1MajorKoenig]

5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Given that teamwork is made harder and harder I wouldn’t support this. 

 

If - again IF - WG should come the conclusion that CV spotting - even if already significantly reduced compared to RTS - is indeed still an issue that hinders overall fun and balance/balans? for everyone there are two very simple and very effective ways to solve it:

 

1) make a “transmit Recon” button that makes your team see what you (the planes) see for X sec. Button has a Cooldown of Y sec (so you need to pick your Recon reports wisely). It makes the whole story 100% configurable as you can play with Cooldown and Recon duration if needed.

 

2) if you don’t like reasonable suggestions (believe it or not there are companies out there who don’t) you can fall back to a less flexible and less elegant solution and implement a spotting transmission delay similar to radar. Meaning a DD has Z sec to get the hell outta there. A bit of a clumsy solution but bearable 

 

11 minutes ago, gslick said:

 

 

The spotting by aircraft is the feature which completely kills surface ship's interesting options and game fun even for cruisers.  Even minimap only spotting would cr--ps on the fun.  Loaded and played 1 game today and against an Enterprise.  Totally unfun game and I was not even targeted, just spotted by air and focused.  Close the game for today, 1 cv game per day is my limit.  Off to play anything else.

 

Again if that is WG’s conclusion my preference would be 1) as it looks most promising 

[COPlUM]

Imagine getting this game and being presented with 4 options

DD? Agile assassin

CA? Burn all the things.
BB? Broadside blap people.
CV? Park your ship in the corner of the map, play a minigame unrelated to the battle going on below, your job is select an enemy ship and prevent him from playing.

 

If that 4th option appeals most to you, you're probably not very fun at parties.

[KillStealBoss]

1 hour ago, Operation_Crossroads_1 said:

 

You understand that XP is based on % of a ships health pool rather than absolute damage don't you?

Those 18k on Musashi is more % than 3600 on Khaba or Gearing with SE. Calculate it. 

[Sunleader]

3 hours ago, B051LjKo said:

They do not remove the camo rating, it always stays the same, 2.5 km for arial detection. To keep him spotted, CV needs to be over DD all the time. You are mixing apples and oranges.

 

2.5km for the Best Concealed DDs.

For most its more around 3km and more.

 

But that aside. When your Planes make 150-200 knots then this is nothing. And since DDs Strong AA Comes from their Main Guns which are Counted as Medium or Long Range AA.

Even the Good AA DDs dont have much AA when your Sticking right above them.

 

Needless to say.

Most CVs dont need to stay over him.

They Fly over him once. Drop a Fighter and the DD will be Spotted for longer than any Radar could Offer you.

[KillStealBoss]

6 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Even the Good AA DDs dont have much AA when your Sticking right above them.

 

[B051LjKo]

17 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

2.5km for the Best Concealed DDs.

For most its more around 3km and more.

Yes, still not much.

17 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

But that aside. When your Planes make 150-200 knots then this is nothing. And since DDs Strong AA Comes from their Main Guns which are Counted as Medium or Long Range AA.

Even the Good AA DDs dont have much AA when your Sticking right above them.

it is not nothing, it is not easy nor fast to find a DD who is trying to hide. It takes time to reach his position, and it takes time to find him.

17 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Needless to say.

Most CVs dont need to stay over him.

They Fly over him once. Drop a Fighter and the DD will be Spotted for longer than any Radar could Offer you.

Yes, how long will that faster last against Grozovoi or Friesland (chek new Notser video).

 

It is a pain in the [edited]to kill a DD with a good AA and a heal. It takes a lot of time and effort. You present it as a ''he is finished n 30 seconds''. He is not. Jap stealth ones are in trouble, yes, if the CV focuses them, they cant do anything. That is the fact. Perhaps that is a good thing, as with no radar / CVs around, they can dance around other ships as much as they want to. Influence of a good DD on the game outcome in general is huge.

[KillStealBoss]

3 minutes ago, B051LjKo said:

Yes, still not much.

You want it to be more? Are you an evil person? 

 

[Eddy209]

3 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

You want it to be more? Are you an evil person? 

 

No amount off DDs suffering will ever quench the thirst for revenge for what they did to noob BBs on the lower tiers. ;)

To be honest though - it could be a little more air detection  on kamikaze and her sisters. And Asashio . No real justifacation for Asashio to be fair - just pure spite ;)