Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Gojuadorai

CV's ... a radical proposal to resolve the mess

59 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2,813 posts
16,229 battles

Ill try to keep this short 

the main points without claiming completeness:

-  old cv system is flawed
-  new cv system is a mess
-  CVs more specifically planes need to be a part of the game  if alone for historic reasons
-  the other classes make for a  rather nice eco system balance wise
 

the possible solution?

REMOVE CVs as a playable class for PVP 
(this is not my idea but im now at a point where i would support it)

A N D

Make planes a mapbound weather like effect!


in more detail:
to keep AA and planes in the game  for diversity skill and historical reasons.
make planes and "cvs outside the map" appear in map fixed patterns 
so players can infulence the battle by strategicaly positioniung to help/defend the incoming airstrikes.
(similar to using the weather on maps)
this would need to be symetrical and known patterns so players know how to engange with the mapbound aircraft patterns!

this would:
- keep planes and aa as a meaningfull aspect in the game
- would  alow for more map diversity

- may even make for some good gamemode variations
- remove any CV balancing mess
- Keep Ship AA as a balancing factor

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,695 posts
14,617 battles

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.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,813 posts
16,229 battles
6 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Nothing would change except the majority of the playerbase is gonna get killed by a bot instead of an actual player.

 

ofc damage would need to be tuned down 
(i have not talked about the balancing process intentionally in the idea pitch)

 

Quote

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.

 

that would significantly be dependant on when and where the planes appear.
why do you assume the come from the back of the map?
or on the other hand if they  come from the back that would encourage not to camp ....
this can be designed differently for each map and is felxible depending on how when and maybe even why squads spawn

(this could be even dynamic triggered spawns)
 

Quote

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.

 

im not really following  what you want to get at?
every cv player is behaving differently and every player is also displayingg different skill in reacting to that...
so if i understand you correctly i would answer yes  but this is fundamentaly different  to the situation that would appear if 

say on map x on both sides 3 torp squads would apear in  two symetrical aquares and heading for opposing directions and everyone knows that

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
6,064 posts
5,285 battles

That is a terrible suggestion or a dangerous troll attempt (in case WG reads this).

 

I fail to see how random AI planes would make the game any better (think of the glorious AI forts). It is already hard work to deal with weekend players on your team. Now add AI to the mess? Better not 

 

 

Btw. We want to play CVs - so rather work hard to improve this rework thingy. It doesn’t look like it is anywhere near completion yet (which won’t stop it from being released though)

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,813 posts
16,229 battles
5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I fail to see how random AI planes would make the game any better (think of the glorious AI forts). It is already hard work to deal with weekend players on your team. Now add AI to the mess? Better not 

 

and theres the missunderstanding.

youre just assuming Bot CVs which would be terrible!

 

i propose a elaborate system of designed events and spawndynamics on maps players can work with/against
if you design the paths spawnlocations and eventually dynamics right there is little AI involved.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,695 posts
14,617 battles
23 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

ofc damage would need to be tuned down

 

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.

 

23 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

that would significantly be dependant on when and where the planes appear.

 

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.

 

23 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

every cv player is behaving differently and every player is also displayingg different skill in reacting to that...

 

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.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,737 posts
7,935 battles
8 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

That is a terrible suggestion or a dangerous troll attempt (in case WG reads this).

WG doesn't read forums and certainly not EU one so we're safe, I guess:cap_tea:

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
6,064 posts
5,285 battles
4 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

 

and theres the missunderstanding.

youre just assuming Bot CVs which would be terrible!

 

i propose a elaborate system of designed events and spawndynamics on maps players can work with/against
if you design the paths spawnlocations and eventually dynamics right there is little AI involved.

 

 

Hm ok. I simply dislike the addition of additional “random” factors in normal PvP as it weakens your own possible impact. I would like to see PvP being a mode of players competing with players. 

 

I am not against any AI units in operations and such 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,813 posts
16,229 battles
32 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I would like to see PvP being a mode of players competing with players. 

 

i dont see why reacting better or worse to a mapfactor is not competing in skill against each other.
(e.g. if one player uses an island to his advanatge hes outplaing the opp0onent that can be thze same with using planespawn to push with etc...)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,576 posts
5,698 battles

Ah, bot planes... Just wait till they get their first kills and I guess we'll be back at where we were when people wished for Bastion to get abolished, because noone wants to just get murdered by bots.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,813 posts
16,229 battles
15 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Ah, bot planes... Just wait till they get their first kills and I guess we'll be back at where we were when people wished for Bastion to get abolished, because noone wants to just get murdered by bots.

 

same as above
dmg would needed to be tuned down so they do not really kill anyone but just apply tactical damage .
(also plane HP could be tuned)

also opposing to forts they would be not always present  and not static and in the best of cases not detering from the objective but encourage pursuing them
e.g. the could eb coded to not  strike any one in proximity to a cap....posibilities are manifold

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,695 posts
14,617 battles
38 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

i dont see why reacting better or worse to a mapfactor is not competing in skill against each other.

 

Same with the matchup factor, aka current CVs.

As such this is a moot point.

 

19 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

dmg would needed to be tuned down so they do not really kill anyone but just apply tactical damage .

 

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.

 

19 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

also opposing to forts they would be not always present  and not static and in the best of cases not detering from the objective but encourage pursuing them

 

Again that :etc_swear: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.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
1,254 posts
3,473 battles

Basically, you're proposing "League of Warships"? Or maybe "Warships of the Storm"?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,813 posts
16,229 battles
16 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Same with the matchup factor, aka current CVs.

As such this is a moot point.

 

youre twisting things here knowing what you say is wrong.
ofcourse theres a difference

i propose trictly symetrical things to which you would need to react and therby display skill.
that is not compareable to an inherently biased/unfair setup which is current cvs.
in the analogy this would be one team has a map advantage which ofcourse isnt fair by definition....

 

 

16 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

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.

 

there is a difference of doing not much dmag and beeing irelevant.
thats why i compared them to the current weather mechanic cause i feel thats about the right magnitude of influence they should have on a battle.
they should give an advantage if handled well but not decide preemptively decide the battle obased on how they are handled....

 

 

16 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

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.

see aboove little does not need mean irrelevant
 

 

16 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Again that :etc_swear: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 tend to paint things balck or white dont you?
 

an open map does not need to be ocean
as well as encouraging doesnt mean the same thing as prohibitive

 

16 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

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.

 

no cause my idea is founded on things that can work and dont need to rebalance fundamental things
it can be balanced by
- plane hp/dmg
- routes/conditions and spawn frequency
- it can work wioth the  current AA system

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,813 posts
16,229 battles
10 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Basically, you're proposing "League of Warships"? Or maybe "Warships of the Storm"?

 

in a way yes

but a bit more elaborate and not the same on every map and not on every map (like weather more a flavor than a standard)

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,695 posts
14,617 battles
30 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

i propose trictly symetrical things to which you would need to react and therby display skill.

 

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.

 

30 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

there is a difference of doing not much dmag and beeing irelevant.

 

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 :etc_swear: 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.

 

30 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

they should give an advantage if handled well but not decide preemptively decide the battle obased on how they are handled....

 

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.

 

30 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

an open map does not need to be ocean
as well as encouraging doesnt mean the same thing as prohibitive

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware aircraft give a :etc_swear: 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 :etc_swear: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.

 

30 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

it can be balanced by
- plane hp/dmg
- routes/conditions and spawn frequency
- it can work wioth the  current AA system

 

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.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,813 posts
16,229 battles
30 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Current CVs are mirrored.

There is literally no way you can get any more fair.

if you are only interested in the CVs players WR yes 
but the largely agreed upon premise is that every player should have equal impact given equal skill difference towards his mirror
this is not true for CVs a unicum BB cant balance a unicum CV and thats the problem

30 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

It's literally the same thing in your concept except now no player is behind the controls.

its not  cause its  an attempt to get rid of the problem that you cant lower the intraclass skill gap and bring down the impact of the ship towards a normal ship at the same time in new and old systems.
the PVE system would ensure you can achive all 3 goals
- balance planes vs eachother
- balance the impact level
- maintainrelevant counterplay against plaines 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,695 posts
14,617 battles
14 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

but the largely agreed upon premise is that every player should have equal impact given equal skill difference towards his mirror

 

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.

 

14 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

the PVE system would ensure you can achive all 3 goals

 

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 :etc_swear:ton of new issues by letting people get killed and dictated around by bots in a PvP environment.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,458 battles
2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

a dangerous troll attempt (in case WG reads this).

 

as if! And even if - as if it would change anything. You know that aswell as I do. And overall, thats sad.

 

I cant help it but at the current point, I´d rather see CVs removed then implemented in the rework-way. And I always argued strongly against removing them, just for the record...

 

I mean, I wonder. I cant tell since I clearly dont qualify to judge this, but @El2aZeR you do, so i´ll ask you: Since you obviously enjoyed RTS-CVs - is this still the same thing for you? Will you keep on playing CVs with the intensity that you did? To me, it looks like a completly new thing. I cant see why old CV-Players would automatically be new CV-Players. I personally am even less attracted to the rework than to the RTS-CVs. I actually like them, since I love RTS, but I never found the time to get into them. So I focused on the other ships, since thats why I started wows.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
2,537 posts
6,883 battles

I would like the idea, if we wouldn't have CVs. Something that I never liked about WoT (beside this even more arcade game style) is that it has only tanks vs tanks and not planes or infantry. But since we have CV and planes, I dislike it ;)

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,813 posts
16,229 battles
6 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I would like the idea, if we wouldn't have CVs. Something that I never liked about WoT (beside this even more arcade game style) is that it has only tanks vs tanks and not planes or infantry. But since we have CV and planes, I dislike it ;)

 

well the idea was born to get rid of CVs (cause they cant be "propperly balanced" in both incarnations)

and still have planes stay a part of the game 
 

im with you cause i think havin no planes would be bad cause of many reasons.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
818 posts
562 battles
5 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

since we have CV and planes, I dislike it

true sentiment finally in full view for all to see.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,695 posts
14,617 battles
8 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

Will you keep on playing CVs with the intensity that you did?

 

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.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
818 posts
562 battles
Just now, Gojuadorai said:

the idea was boren to get rid of CVs

oh look, another anti-CV WoWS player coming out of the wood work (at least, you are finally being honest)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×